Questions for Republicans, Conservatives, RINOs, Tea Partiers, et al:

[JakeStarkey]

View attachment 64410 ]

Apparently YOU'RE the one who isn't a big fan of the Constitution. At least not as originally written. Well, some of us are, and believe the only legitimate way to "reinterpret" the document is through the Amendment Process laid out in it.

I agree with the Amendment process as well as Article III's statement that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on matters Constitutional.

 

[Toro]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

If Trump is nominated, I will lose all hope the GOP will ever return to sanity. Not kidding.

As I have said before, if Trump is nominated I am going to leave the top of my ballot blank. I'm not going to vote for a single federal office.

I have supported Kasich since before he announced. The batshit crazy fuckheads can label him "Establishment" if they wish, and try to use that as a smear, but that just goes to prove they are idiots who don't recognize a person who is the best man for the job.

"Someone who has balanced the federal budget before? Someone with experience? We don't want anyone like THAT!"

I have said from the get-go that Kasich's biggest handicap is that he isn't batshit crazy. That's a real drawback when it comes to getting the votes of the retards, psychopaths, hypocrites, and bigots who are what's left of the GOP "base".

I'd support Kasich first if I thought he had a chance. I think he's the best candidate. But I don't think he has a chance.

Not supporting someone because you don't think they have a chance demonstrates very weak integrity.

That's how we get Clintons and Bushes and Obamas.

And exactly how we got Trump.

Like the lady said, "Stand by your man."

I'm considering voting for him, not marrying him.

Rubio isn't my first choice but he is good enough for me. It's more important that someone who is acceptable to me has a chance of getting in than being pure.

 

[candycorn]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

If Trump is nominated, I will lose all hope the GOP will ever return to sanity. Not kidding.

As I have said before, if Trump is nominated I am going to leave the top of my ballot blank. I'm not going to vote for a single federal office.

I have supported Kasich since before he announced. The batshit crazy fuckheads can label him "Establishment" if they wish, and try to use that as a smear, but that just goes to prove they are idiots who don't recognize a person who is the best man for the job.

"Someone who has balanced the federal budget before? Someone with experience? We don't want anyone like THAT!"

I have said from the get-go that Kasich's biggest handicap is that he isn't batshit crazy. That's a real drawback when it comes to getting the votes of the retards, psychopaths, hypocrites, and bigots who are what's left of the GOP "base".

W killed the brand name and not just for the House of Bush.

But we'll have to see if the Donald is as crazy as he seems. One thing I have to hand him is that I don't recall another goper talk about lifting EVERYONE up since Reagan. His brushes with racism are unfortunate. He should have hammered the notion of registering muslims right off. I can barely get past his calling illegal immigrants violent criminals. There is a connection to the gangs, and drugs, with illegal immigration, but it's so small as to the entire picture.

To support Trump, the rubes will have to reject everything they have professed to believe for the past 7 years.

I honestly don't know why they aren't all paralyzed with cognitive dissonance.

Orwell was so right.

To be fair, Trump's tapping into extreme frustration with a substantial slice of the electorate. Even though he says stupid things, people view him as honest compared to the blow-dried, focus-group tested plastic politicians. People hunger for honesty more than ideology right now. And he's speaking to people who have been the losers of capitalism - and I don't say that as a prejorative - over the past few decades.

I think he's tapping into the extremely unsophisticated NASCAR losers who think the Congress goes up there and does nothing, the President does nothing and the country is circling the drain and has been for the last 7 decades....

So you offer simplistic solutions and state that you'll succeed where all others have failed based on your experience in the Private Sector which is totally different, disparage others who actually have done the job before, and when you are asked "how" any of this will happen, the answer is anecdotal and small scale if it comes at all.

One thing I will state is that if you are part of the permanently pissed off electorate, trying something new for the sake of trying something new may make sense; in the same way that if you hate your house and have hated your house for your entire life, setting it ablaze would definitely change where you'll sleep tomorrow.

 

[Anathema]

I agree with the Amendment process as well as Article III's statement that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on matters Constitutional.

I don't believe ANYONE, inclodin SCOTUS has tbe Right or Privilege of changing the understood meaning of a single word in that document other than through the Amendment Process.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A majority of Americans do not want a hard core rightwing extremist, ideologue, and social conservative such as Cruz to be president, including a significant number of Republicans.

 

[Toro]

I think he's tapping into the extremely unsophisticated NASCAR losers who think the Congress goes up there and does nothing, the President does nothing and the country is circling the drain and has been for the last 7 decades....

I don't think you can call 35% of the Republican party "unsophisticated NASCAR losers." He is winning big amongst blue collar Republicans with less than a college education, but that doesn't mean they're all loser hicks. He is also winning 20%-25% of Republicans with a college degree.

There are a lot of people sick and tired of Washington, with politicos and insiders getting rich while the average working class person struggles. Trump is crude, but he is offering solutions to those people - well-paying jobs by restricting immigration and slapping taxes on imports.

I don't necessarily agree with either, but they are solutions to people who are hurting.

He also eats into Hillary's blue collar support, though he may lose as many or more educated suburbanites and minorities.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with the Amendment process as well as Article III's statement that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on matters Constitutional.

I don't believe ANYONE, inclodin SCOTUS has tbe Right or Privilege of changing the understood meaning of a single word in that document other than through the Amendment Process.

OK, that's how you believe. I think that textual criticism or "orginalism" of how the Founders thought is hardly binding at all.

 

[Correll]

Japan's period of high growth coincided with Trade Surpluses too...

It's period of low growth, too.

You stated that low growth and trade surpluses going together was a truism.

I just gave you two huge examples that contradict that.

 

[Correll]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

If Trump is nominated, I will lose all hope the GOP will ever return to sanity. Not kidding.

As I have said before, if Trump is nominated I am going to leave the top of my ballot blank. I'm not going to vote for a single federal office.

I have supported Kasich since before he announced. The batshit crazy fuckheads can label him "Establishment" if they wish, and try to use that as a smear, but that just goes to prove they are idiots who don't recognize a person who is the best man for the job.

"Someone who has balanced the federal budget before? Someone with experience? We don't want anyone like THAT!"

I have said from the get-go that Kasich's biggest handicap is that he isn't batshit crazy. That's a real drawback when it comes to getting the votes of the retards, psychopaths, hypocrites, and bigots who are what's left of the GOP "base".

I'd support Kasich first if I thought he had a chance. I think he's the best candidate. But I don't think he has a chance.

Not supporting someone because you don't think they have a chance demonstrates very weak integrity.

That's how we get Clintons and Bushes and Obamas.

And exactly how we got Trump.

Like the lady said, "Stand by your man."

I'm supporting Trump based on his issues.

Not because I think he has the best shot at winning.

 

[Correll]

I made my point and your denial isn't fooling anyone that doesn't want to be fooled. Only a fool insults people for decades and then "whines" when they don't want to work with him. My "fringe" candidate is getting over 40% of the national vote in General Election polls. THat is not fringe.

Those polls are right now, and they show HRC and BS handily beating your fringe candidate. Your actual point is that Trump insults people and then "whines" when he is called out.

The below is a good representation of what would happen if he were in charge of our armed forces.

]

As I said, 40 plus % is not fringe. It might not be a winner, but it is not fringe.

YOU insult people and then "whine" that they don't want to work with you.

You are the whinger, my friend. We don't want to work with you, never have. We just want your votes, nothing more.

If we don't have any input, you won't get them, not this time. Especially if you sideline Trump with some rules lawyer bullshit.

You have input, almost 40% of supposed GOP. I don't think that is enough for the nomination. If does get the nomination and is elected, he will blow you guys off. He is using the far right, Correll, nothing more.

Having 40% of the GOP does not equal input.

If Trump gets the nomination, he might betray us.

The others, like Rubio, already have a proven track record of betraying us. WIth them, it's not a "might" it is a certainty.

 

[bendog]

Most conservatives really just want another borrow and spend neocon who will cut their taxes, borrow more money for an even bigger military,

and start another war in the Middle East.

AHAHHHHHHHH!

 

[candycorn]

I think he's tapping into the extremely unsophisticated NASCAR losers who think the Congress goes up there and does nothing, the President does nothing and the country is circling the drain and has been for the last 7 decades....

I don't think you can call 35% of the Republican party "unsophisticated NASCAR losers." He is winning big amongst blue collar Republicans with less than a college education, but that doesn't mean they're all loser hicks. He is also winning 20%-25% of Republicans with a college degree.

There are a lot of people sick and tired of Washington, with politicos and insiders getting rich while the average working class person struggles. Trump is crude, but he is offering solutions to those people - well-paying jobs by restricting immigration and slapping taxes on imports.

I don't necessarily agree with either, but they are solutions to people who are hurting.

He also eats into Hillary's blue collar support, though he may lose as many or more educated suburbanites and minorities.

Solutions? Exports will be devastated and the price of imports we rely on will be going up like gangbusters

 

[easyt65]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

I consider myself to be a conservative AMERICAN...American 1st, not Democrat, Republican, or any other party 1st. An American 1st. I try to avoid all the party bullcr@p that has driven most Americans insane to the point where loyalty to the party and party leaders outweighs loyalty to the country.

That being said, I am weighing all candidates based on what is best for the country.

THAT being said, I can not think of a WORSE candidate for this nation than one who would - for any reason - leave an American citizen / Ambassador in harm's way to die when every other nation pulled their people out to avoid the threats of violence EVERYONE had heard and knew of. Furthermore, to deny security to a man begging for his life as the threat grew over 600 times, to strip him of security team members after 2 previous terrorist attacks on his compound. Anyone who would lie to cover their own ass after that, who would call the grieving family members 'Liars' for calling them out on a lie, is unconscionable. Anyone who would jeopardize this nation's national security to save their own political future is not even worthy of consideration.

As far as the GOP candidates go, again, I would have to weigh them against the eventual DNC candidate. If that candidate is Hillary then by all means I would vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. The last time I checked no GOP candidate had hired Al Qaeida to protect a US Ambassador, abandoned one to die, or jeopardized our national security.

In the past the GOP Establishment has demanded conservatives hold their noses and vote for the POS they held out for their party to support, but this time conservatives might be having to do that with the best 'Non-Establishment' GOP candidate. Such an option reminds Conservatives to be careful what you wish for, that you have to be more specific than just 'anyone but a Washington Establishment candidate'.

Bottom line for me, though, is best candidate (available) for the country.

 

[jillian]

Wow! Great, thanks.
.

And thus we see that it is the moderates who are throwing the conservatives and the GOP under the bus.

From what I can tell, the moderates and the conservatives are wrestling on the street and the bus is rolling over both of them.
.

Conservatives voted for McCain. Conservatives voted for Romney.

The GOP Establishment has been more vicious and aggressive campaigning against Conservatives than against Democrats, several times purposefully LOSING or endorsing the democrat in question.

mccain lost because a) there was an economic meltdown and he looked like a fool and b) he picked the ignorant twit as his running mate.

romney lost because a) he had all of bush's advisors (including cheney) and insulted everyone who wasn't white, male and christian.

but we can pretend it was because he didn't carry "water" for the base. he even came out in favor of insane "personhood" laws.

You really are a mouth breathing idiot. You prove every day how intolerant lefties are against anything not carrying their water and you think you're doing your side a favor?

How did Romney insult anyone not white, male or Christian? Do you even know he's a Mormon? There's nothing insane about a law that upholds the Constitution, it would be illegal to prevent people from pooling their money and supporting a cause or candidate. Unions taking dues and funneling it into a political party should be illegal.

You simply cannot think, all you have is a visceral reaction to all things not progressive. Like a moth on a light bulb.

if you don't understand what Romney did, I'd say that's your problem. you can start with personhood laws and not supporting the lucy ledbetter law and supporing a piece of garbage who said there was something called "legitimate rape" that keeps women who are raped from getting pregnant, and pretending that 48% of this country is a bunch of lazy asses who don't work.

how's that for a start, you braindead loon?

 

[jillian]

Not a problem. At the rate the right wing is eating their own, there won't be many of you left before long. Sanity will always prevail eventually.

Republicans are having a fierce primary for political control of the party. Unlike the Democrats who are debating whether to be Trotskyites or Marxists.

Yeah, I do think it's going to be a problem for you. We already see how intolerant you are and it's only a matter of time before the frustration of your intolerance causes you to do something really stupid. I'm just hoping America saves you from yourself.

republicans are embarrassing themselves.

democrats are having actual policy discussions.

you, of course, wouldn't know or care about policy if it bit you.

and before you embarrass yourself further, you should probably understand the basics of economic theory because democrat does not equal socialist and certainly does not equal communist. the fact that sanders is a single socialist in congress should clue you in to that.

but thanks for playing.

 

[jillian]

For Republicans and RINO's:
If an anti-establishment candidate (like Trump or Cruz) gets nominated, will you vote for him?

For Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
If an establishment candidate (Rubio or, uh, Kasich) gets nominated, will you vote for him?
.

I consider myself to be a conservative AMERICAN...American 1st, not Democrat, Republican, or any other party 1st. An American 1st. I try to avoid all the party bullcr@p that has driven most Americans insane to the point where loyalty to the party and party leaders outweighs loyalty to the country.

That being said, I am weighing all candidates based on what is best for the country.

THAT being said, I can not think of a WORSE candidate for this nation than one who would - for any reason - leave an American citizen / Ambassador in harm's way to die when every other nation pulled their people out to avoid the threats of violence EVERYONE had heard and knew of. Furthermore, to deny security to a man begging for his life as the threat grew over 600 times, to strip him of security team members after 2 previous terrorist attacks on his compound. Anyone who would lie to cover their own ass after that, who would call the grieving family members 'Liars' for calling them out on a lie, is unconscionable. Anyone who would jeopardize this nation's national security to save their own political future is not even worthy of consideration.

As far as the GOP candidates go, again, I would have to weigh them against the eventual DNC candidate. If that candidate is Hillary then by all means I would vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. The last time I checked no GOP candidate had hired Al Qaeida to protect a US Ambassador, abandoned one to die, or jeopardized our national security.

In the past the GOP Establishment has demanded conservatives hold their noses and vote for the POS they held out for their party to support, but this time conservatives might be having to do that with the best 'Non-Establishment' GOP candidate. Such an option reminds Conservatives to be careful what you wish for, that you have to be more specific than just 'anyone but a Washington Establishment candidate'.

Bottom line for me, though, is best candidate (available) for the country.

here's a clue... if liberals believed that rightwingnut policies were good for the country they wouldn't be liberal.

what you think is "best for the country" makes others gag.

 

[Toro]

I think he's tapping into the extremely unsophisticated NASCAR losers who think the Congress goes up there and does nothing, the President does nothing and the country is circling the drain and has been for the last 7 decades....

I don't think you can call 35% of the Republican party "unsophisticated NASCAR losers." He is winning big amongst blue collar Republicans with less than a college education, but that doesn't mean they're all loser hicks. He is also winning 20%-25% of Republicans with a college degree.

There are a lot of people sick and tired of Washington, with politicos and insiders getting rich while the average working class person struggles. Trump is crude, but he is offering solutions to those people - well-paying jobs by restricting immigration and slapping taxes on imports.

I don't necessarily agree with either, but they are solutions to people who are hurting.

He also eats into Hillary's blue collar support, though he may lose as many or more educated suburbanites and minorities.

Solutions? Exports will be devastated and the price of imports we rely on will be going up like gangbusters

I didn't say they were good solutions.

 

[easyt65]

here's a clue... if liberals believed that rightwingnut policies were good for the country they wouldn't be liberal. what you think is "best for the country" makes others gag.

Only Progressive Liberals.

As I said, only a Progressive Liberal could believe a scandal-plagued, lying candidate who needlessly allowed 4 Americans to die, who needlessly put the national security in jeopardy, whose on staff members describe as 'often confused' and 'technology challenged', and who has proven she could not control her own STAFF and AGENCY is capable of running an entire country and is what is best for this nation.

That CLEARLY is displaying party-1st loyalty far above what is best for the country...imo.

 

[Toro]

Japan's period of high growth coincided with Trade Surpluses too...

It's period of low growth, too.

You stated that low growth and trade surpluses going together was a truism.

I just gave you two huge examples that contradict that.

No, the example I gave was when the economies are exactly the same. Clearly, no economies are exactly the same. But the dynamics work like that.

Trade deficits are neither inherently good or bad.

 

[BULLDOG]

Bullshit. The anti establishment tea party started long before 2014.

The Tea Party members DO NOT QUALIFY as anti-establishment in my mind. Mr Cruz, Mr Rubio, etc.... have played by the Establishment's rules and therefore CANNOT be classified as anything other than Establishment members of Congress.

The right is divided into so many factions till they are hard to keep up with.