|
|
I don't necessarily think we do disagree. What we have is a logic problem. I do disagree that Trump is our Obama. Obama presented incredibly well. He was full of venom and was the ultimate partisan, but in front of the camera, he put forth a positive vision of America. Trump couldn't do that if his life depended on it.Originally Posted by T1
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I think I agree with this post. I would say it like this. We keep electing Republicans who promise us less taxes, less regulations, an end to abortion, and such. All the things we want to hear. We elect them and none of it gets done. I think the Republican Party is in on the fix. I'm not alone, obviously.
Trump capitalized on that belief. The problem is, he is doing the same thing. He is saying what he needs to say to get elected. His history makes it clear he doesn't believe what he is selling. The debate last night made it clear he can't articulate conservative principles. The reason is, he isn't conservative. The Republican voters have been duped once again.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
When I was younger, I actually believed there were candidates that cared about the things they ran on. As I've gotten older I've realized that there wasn't a dimes worth of difference in any of them. 2000-2006 should prove that. Last night was like watching a "Rasslin" match. You know they really don't dislike each other, they're just trying to convince you they do.
Yeah, but even in fake rasslin the participants can suffer true injuries. Neither of them will emerge from this injured no matter who wins. The country however..........
There are candidates like that out there. But we're collectively conditioned to hate those people.
Trump will turn out fine either way. If he wins, Pence will do everything. If he loses, he still a billionaire with an open contract with NBC that will likely end up being in a bidding war on who gets him among ABC, CBS, Fox, and others. The one thing he is great at is being entertaining, good and bad.
As expected KKK got a bounce from winning Debate I. And Trump made it worse with his stupid tweets about the fat Latina murderer bitch.
Let's go back to the fundamentals here...
The deck is stacked against any Republican candidate in the Electoral College. That means any Repub has to be a strong candidate, and two, run a STRONG campaign. Trump is not a strong candidate, quite the contrary actually. BUT! he drew a very weak 'crap opponent. The weakest since Carter's reelection bid. Well, she is weaker than Carter was in 1980. Thus! Trump actually had, and still has (albeit fading rapidly), a chance to win this thing. But, he needed a STRONG campaign from day one, and he couldn't afford any gaffes or mess-ups.
Mess-ups?
Good luck with that. Trump won't even take advice from his campaign staff.
Just saw an ad on KKK. In it she says she is the candidate for the children. She wants to help every child achieve success and happiness. Oh....how sweet.
Yeah....those children who avoided being murdered by KKK and her ilk.
There should be an ad showing some little kid, enjoying life, at school, playing soccer (of course!) but then rerun events, and that child actually not exist because the savage murdering 'craps killed that child before birth. Like, ooops! we're sorry, the great story you just saw never happened because that child was slaughtered by Hitlary and the democrapic party who not only support abortion, but openly advocate for it!!!
And include graphic footage of a late term abortion where the child is alive, feeling pain, and is systematically butchered piece by piece. What, too disgusting for you? Why? that is what happens, in this country in 2016. This is not some historic event from centuries ago. This happens TODAY in the USA!
God said: suffer not my children. He has a special place in Hell for all those of you who have made abortion a reality.
Anyway, back to the ad. Show Hitlary standing over a butchered child, and use her own words: I want to help every child achieve success and happiness. Then flash a graphic: Except this one, we guess.
I really wish the Libertarian party could take over from the failings of the Republican party. Just like you've said, I can't remember recently any prominent Republicans doing anything significant in downsizing the government (less taxes, less regulations, an end to abortion, etc.) I've heard a lot of talk, but no walk. Republicans haven't been able to show anything they can do and now they've lost their identity. I fear it's gone now and the only way for american conservatism to survive is for another brand to take it over. Republican is becoming the moderate party and Democrat is the left. I hope a true Libertarian party can rise up to take over american conservatism.
Unless they find a candidate that is pro-life it will not happen.
If you look at the stats, RR was the last one to deregulate in an measure of significance, and it is the single largest difference by an overwhelming margin between his economic recovery and Obama's. Bush has plenty of fault here also.
The party is probably kicking itself in the butt letting Gary Johnson be the candidate this election cycle. They could have chosen a candidate that's pro-life and swayed many republican voters into the Libertarian ranks. Every party seems to have missed a prime opportunity this election.
Gary Johnson misses on more than just being pro-murder, he's a blathering idiot across the board!
Maybe if the Libertarian Party drafted John Stossel as their candidate, they might stand a chance of garnering serious consideration. At least he is well-spoken and has a clear vision of domestic policy. But the problem for the Lib. Party is its platform on foreign policy. Burying your head in the sand and pretending all is well in the world fails as a foreign policy for the US. That might work for a Scandinavian country, Switzerland, or some such, because they all have the luxury of hiding behind the US when it comes to dealing with evil.
And it's that isolationist foreign policy (What is Aleppo?) that will FOREVER render the Lib. Party a mere non-factor 3rd party. Never, and I mean never, to be a contender for national office. Heck! you don't even see Lib. Party candidates winning congressional seats, governerships....(Johnson was a Repub when he was elected Guvnar). This is not 200 years ago when a powerful nation could afford to be isolationist. But, even then, super powers were NOT isolationist.
Nope! while I agree with a LOT of the domestic policy of the Lib. Party I cannot support any of its candidates for national office(s). The US MUST, absolutely MUST, be a leader in the world. Our very own peace and prosperity depends on it. Our very survival depends on it!
Johnson isn't an isolationist. Many libertarians are, and that's fine. Johnson (despite his huge failures in other areas to actually, yknow, be libertarian) is better described as having a restrained foreign policy.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/30...licy-platform/http://www.realclearworld.com/articl...el_112056.htmlJohnson, it turns out, is generally correct in his approach to Syria: U.S. intervention to alleviate suffering, in Aleppo or elsewhere, is unlikely to work and may well make the situation worse. It’s the same approach the White House is taking today. But without knowledge of detail, he struggles to explain why.I know that the view of the US as World Police is a core of modern Republicanism, but it's one of the major reasons I don't align with that party. Isolationism isn't the answer either.JOHNSON CAMPAIGN: In policy terms, it means that the U.S. must stop engaging in regime change efforts with no clear U.S. interest and uncertain outcomes. Our policy must be to protect the U.S., its citizens, and its property. Injecting ourselves into conflicts on the other side of the globe, that have persisted for literally hundreds of years in some cases, in the hope that we can somehow resolve them has failed miserably to make us safer or the Middle East more stable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
