Republican-led Senate passes spending bill larger than requested by Obama
Feeding the anger: A bill passed today by the Republican-led Senate included more funding that originally requested by the Obama administration.
Moving legislation and avoiding fights has been a top election year priority for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican wants the GOP Senate to prove that Republicans can govern by avoiding a one-and-done omnibus spending package at the end of the year. But the energy and water bill received little fanfare from Senate conservatives. They complain that the measure, which funds the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior, spends $261 million more than even Obama requested.
Sen. Mike Lee described the legislation as “simply unacceptable in a time of rising debt and slower economic growth.” The Utah Republican told The Daily Signal that “we’re never going to get our nation’s rising deficits under control until we can stick to our previous agreements on spending levels,” referring to the limits set in the 2011 Budget Control Act.
Though Congress has not passed a budget resolution, the Senate started advancing spending bills at levels established in the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act, which increased government discretionary spending by $30 billion above the 2011 caps.
Still Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told The Daily Signal he’s glad the appropriations process has gotten off the ground finally. “This is the first time this appropriation bill has passed the Senate since 2009,” Lankford, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, explained. “To avoid last-minute continuing resolutions, backroom deals and omnibus bills, we must move bills through a regular order appropriations process.”
These guys just don’t get it. There is a reason that Trump and Cruz dominated their party’s presidential campaign, and it wasn’t because they were calling for Congress to advance big spending bills in Congress quickly.
Posted from El Paso, Texas.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Feeding the anger: A bill passed today by the Republican-led Senate included more funding that originally requested by the Obama administration.
Moving legislation and avoiding fights has been a top election year priority for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican wants the GOP Senate to prove that Republicans can govern by avoiding a one-and-done omnibus spending package at the end of the year. But the energy and water bill received little fanfare from Senate conservatives. They complain that the measure, which funds the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior, spends $261 million more than even Obama requested.
Sen. Mike Lee described the legislation as “simply unacceptable in a time of rising debt and slower economic growth.” The Utah Republican told The Daily Signal that “we’re never going to get our nation’s rising deficits under control until we can stick to our previous agreements on spending levels,” referring to the limits set in the 2011 Budget Control Act.
Though Congress has not passed a budget resolution, the Senate started advancing spending bills at levels established in the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act, which increased government discretionary spending by $30 billion above the 2011 caps.
Still Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told The Daily Signal he’s glad the appropriations process has gotten off the ground finally. “This is the first time this appropriation bill has passed the Senate since 2009,” Lankford, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, explained. “To avoid last-minute continuing resolutions, backroom deals and omnibus bills, we must move bills through a regular order appropriations process.”
These guys just don’t get it. There is a reason that Trump and Cruz dominated their party’s presidential campaign, and it wasn’t because they were calling for Congress to advance big spending bills in Congress quickly.
Posted from El Paso, Texas.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Robert,
The Republican and Democrat parties have become Siamese twins. They now do everything together, and except for their names, it is impossible, now, to tell the two apart. It is the opposite of meiosis; instead of splitting, they are combining and becoming one organization.
If it were not for the different leaderships, there would no longer be any difference between the two parties. The Democrat leadership Grubered its members in order to get Obamacare, and now the Republican leadership is Grubering its members in order to get votes.
The Republicans are 100% inline with the socialist policies pushed by the Democrats. The political elite have embraced socialism and the ‘New World Order’ completely and the Republicans role is to pretend to fight against it as it becomes a reality. Since most of us believed the Republicans were fighting for us, we never felt the need to oppose it using other mechanisms. That’s why the establishment is apoplectic about Trump, he’s an outsider that’s not a part of the plan and they feel that he might destroy all their hard work.
Ed, If the Republicans and Democrats are the same…
Al, if the Republicans are 100%…
Why are the 8 senators that voted against the bill ALL Republicans?
You guys, like Libertarians. seem to have some delusional understanding of how our system works. You all seem to think if you elect your “strong man” everything will be fixed. Its just so ignorant.
If Congress was 100% against the President, he/she could do NOTHING. For starts, they could impeach and remove him. But in the more normal case, Congress would pass a bill, strong man would veto, Congress would override veto and strong man would have to do exactly what Congress wanted.
Lets see, if we passed a bill requiring Presidents with names that begin with T to wear a little pink party hat, what would you do???
All your anger and ranting just displays how powerless you are. The only way to change the system is to understand how it works and change it using the tools its makes available.
Related:
Senator Jeff Sessions makes the simple argument about what the 2016 election is all about, and I fully agree with him.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/12/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-jeff-sessions-editorials-debates/84298310/
PS: I think another thing to understand about Trump is the things that he says IMO seem to be more about manufacturing bargaining chips or creating leverage in order to create in the mind of his adversaries preconceived notions and assumptions which he will turn against them in his own time and in his own way.
He has trained himself in this technique and it is how he thinks, never fully reveal your strategy, strengths or weaknesses to your adversaries, always keep them off balance.
So ask yourself this question :
Am I a Globalist and I support either Hillary or Bernie and want America to be further diminished and a part of a larger U.N. run world government where the American Constitution does and will not not matter?
OR
Am I a Nationalist who believes in the sovereignty of America, private property, the power of the individual, the validity of the Bill of Rights and want the Constitution to be reconnected to?
That is how simple this election is going to be, do not waste your time and confuse yourself any further. Choose one, know the difference, and live with the result of your vote, while you still have it.
And then prepare to forcefully provide your opinion and give feed back to Trump to keep him moving in the correct direction if and when he needs it.
Cotour,
Trump’s positions show that he is not the latter. His position on eminent domain, alone, shows that he does not believe in private property, the power of the individual, or the validity of the Bill of Rights. If you think otherwise, you will be sorely disappointed in a President Trump.
Nobody left in the running for the Republican or Democratic parties’ nominee is on the side of We the People.
NormD,
The parties are the same, the elected representatives sometimes do not conform. Indeed, the non-conformist Republicans are receiving grief from the Republican Party leadership.
You wrote: “You all seem to think if you elect your “strong man” everything will be fixed.”
No. What we think is that if we elect tyrants, then we will get tyranny. Electing one conservative will fix nothing, as you noted with your 8 Republican senators comment. Eight is *not* enough, despite the TV show’s title. However, if we elect zero conservatives, we will most definitely not get our individual liberty back.
Since you “seem to have some delusional understanding of how” we think, it is not *we* who are ignorant.
You wrote: “If Congress was 100% against the President, he/she could do NOTHING.”
Well, that is where you need to wake up and smell the tyranny. Obama has been ignoring the Constitution and ignoring Congress — and even ignoring the Supreme Court as much as possible. He rules not by constitutional law or by signing Congressional bills but by the fiat of the executive order. He gets what he wants without the support of Congress. He changes laws, such as Obamacare, at his whim. He enforces non-laws as though Congress passed them. He even tells schools — without any law to back him up — to let boys into the girls’ locker rooms — blatantly against schools’ policies and local laws.
Why you think the bully Trump, the corrupt Clinton, or the socialist Sanders would rule differently is a mystery to me.
You wrote: “For starts, they could impeach and remove him. ”
We are lacking a single example of removing a president. The current dictatorial president has no such fear, either, especially since there is no opposition party and no apparent prospects for one in the foreseeable future. Indeed, you have deemed as “delusional” the closest thing that we have to an opposition party — and it has no where near the strength to be an opposition party. Without an opposition party, who would vote for impeachment, much less removal? (Answer: 8 Senators, for removal, but the impeachment would never pass in order to vote for removal.)
You wrote: “Congress would pass a bill, strong man would veto, Congress would override veto and strong man would have to do exactly what Congress wanted.”
Only if there is an opposition party would Congress possibly override a veto. We don’t have one of those. And who would make the strong-man obey Congress? No one is making Obama obey the ACA — or any other law, for that matter.
You wrote: “The only way to change the system is to understand how it works and change it using the tools its makes available.”
Really? Tell that to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, et al. They saw a different method of changing King George’s tyrannical system, because working within the tyranny didn’t work.
In the past two decades, we worked within the system, only do discover that our own party — the ones who we thought were working within the system — has turned on us.
You may like the tyranny we live in, but many of us long for the days when we were allowed to spend our own money as *we* saw fit.
Welcome to Obama’s America, land of the formerly free.
Edward:
Great post!
I agree totally on the eminent domain issue, that’s why he is going to need very strong feedback so he understands things like that properly and not only from the developer perspective. He will “evolve”.
Vote for Hillary. (Definite establishment globalist happily willing to further diminish Americas sovereignty and Constitution)
Vote for Trump. (Presents as a nationalist concerned about the diminishing of Americas sovereignty and appears to want to reverse the trend. It is however unknown if / how / or when the globalists will come to influence or control him)
Choose not to vote. (not an option)
Hold your nose Edward (and whom ever else needs to) and get over it, there may be the unknown aspect associated with Trump but given the logic parameters as they are at this moment in time it is what it is. The other eventuality is wholly unacceptable.)
The vice presidential candidate will be crucial and he has to get it precisely right (Im sure with input from the party), lets hope its not Sarah Palin.
“The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy”
http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv3.html
Wayne, all of those nice, neat and logical rules (for me anyway) are literally “Trumped” by the specter of Hillary being rewarded with the presidency. And that in the end is what this will all boil down to. Keeping in mind that if Trump was not on the scene Hillary would have wrapped it all up already and would just be in waiting for her coronation.
Besides the email situation she will also have more and more information emerging about the Clinton Foundation, her husband and the misuse of funds. If there was no Trump with the real potential to win would all of these story’s be pouring from the media?
http://nypost.com/2016/05/13/clinton-charity-arranged-2m-pledge-to-company-owned-by-bills-friend/
As long as you call any monies that are appropriated an “initiative” that must mean that you can do what ever you want?
I will predict that at least the necessary majority or people (if not you and Edward) will get to the mind set needed to elect Trump (and keep in mind I have real and concrete problems with him) to deny her her self proclaimed banner of “being the first woman president” . To allow that alone is unacceptable, let alone the rest of her horrid baggage.
Cotour:
Personally, I’ve pretty much made up my mind on Trump & there is literally nothing he could say/do, to sway me over to his side at this point.
–I don’t hate the guy, but I just can acquiesce to his progressive-crony ways.
I don’t need a Trump, he however needs people like me –Conservatives– and he just “ain’t one.”
I’ll just worry about the down ballot going forward, and targeting people like McCain & Ryan in Primary’s.
as an aside–
https://www.levintv.com/videos/who-gives-a-flip
that should be “can *not* acquiesce to his progressive-crony ways.”
PS: Revolution, if indeed as I suspect that that is what is going on here, is not a function of logic and nice neat rules. Revolution is a function of force of vision and applying it as needed when and where necessary, some chaos and “different think”. After the revolution you may apply the nice neat rules, but first you have to gain the power to change the rules.
The American revolution is not the result of “nice neat rules”.
Cotour– there is no “revolution,” or “force of vision,” going on with Trump. Same old half-baked idea’s we got from Wilson, Hoover, and the usual gang of mastermind’s..
I will go with my read and you will go with yours and if we meet somewhere to the right of the middle I think it will turn out to be a net gain. We will see who is more right than wrong in the coming months and years, but I know in the end given a choice you will do what ever you need to to deny Hillary her place in history.
Unless you think that she in the end will be the better choice?
Cotour:
We of course, have had this discussion before, so we are both being repetitive.
For me, at this point, I’m being forced into a no-choice situation & I’m just not going to play that game anymore.
On the total upside—this election cycle has been very enlightening up to this point, in revealing & exposing the actual Rino’s & Progressive’s hidden (& not so hidden) within the GOP.
Cotour,
Considering that no matter who I vote for, we get tyranny, I see no reason to vote for any tyrant. If we all found an alternate, single conservative to vote for, then the split between the two tyrants could allow for the conservative to win.
However, since too many people will give in to the Republican plea to vote Republican, I expect that no matter who I vote for, in your eyes it is the equivalent of voting for one of the two tyrants. Because too many conservatives will wimp out and vote for a tyrant, a tyrant will be our next president.
You have forgotten to trust those gut feelings of yours: “(and keep in mind I have real and concrete problems with him).” Of course you have problems with him. You already know what is wrong with him.
Trump is a lame ‘liberal’ who espouses and advocates single-payer health care, eminent domain abuse, crony capitalism, higher taxes, reduced freedoms — especially of any speech that is critical of him or his administration — more governmental control over everything and everyone, and bullying of just about everybody in sight. He would turn the US from a benevolent country into a malevolent one, complete with tyrannical control over the populace.
There is no way in all of hell that I will hold my nose and vote tyrant. I will go down fighting tyranny, kicking and screaming the whole way. Voting for any of these tyrants is an acceptance of tyranny. You may wish to accept it, but I refuse to.
At least *I* will have the pleasure of having not voted for tyranny.
I hear and respect your choice, it is yours to make. I do not completely understand it in regards to the contest that we are discussing.
Lets keep in mind that pretty much everything that you say about Trump was also said about Reagan. From my perspective first you establish who can win, help him or her win, and then strongly influence them when they need “guidance”. Trump IMO will respond to such influences if he is hit over the head enough with them.
Your need for the ideal is admirable, it really has nothing to do with the political reality presented to you though. We will have what we have and we are going to have to make the best of it. Even the Zman will in the end by his own words do what must be done.
You will be waiting a long, long time before the ideal candidate appears. A long, long time. This is not about logic, but it is about first winning.
Cotour:
We’ve gone over a lot of this ground– nobody who supports Cruz said he was an ideal candidate.
He was however, a clear chose for Conservatives, among a handful running –which turned out to be a smaller number, than some of us thought, but by & large were also clear alternatives to the democrat-opposition.
For me, this isn’t a situation where I’m making the adequate the enemy of the perfect. I’m being manipulated to choose between two bad options & I for one, am tired of making a distinction that is not a difference. I’m being forced fed ever increasingly outright Liberal GOP Presidential Candidates every 4 years, and I am just not playing on that team anymore. They can find someone else to knock on doors & make phone-calls, I’m sick of it.
Trump lost me forever when he went all Alex Jones/National Enquirer-esque on Cruz. Totally crystalized my thinking.
Personally– don’t care who the Democrat-Party nominates, I consider them all Statists and deplorable in their own unique overlapping ways.
Reagan was neither an “agrarian, populist, or nationalist.”
Trump is not a Marquess of Queensberry rules kind of guy, that’s why he is where he is. Reagan was touted as the “most dangerous” and most likely to start a nuclear war. He turned out to be the president who dismantled the Soviet Union and the nuclear threat because he was a man of force of vision.
I totally hear you on voting for the least offensive candidate, but if you plan on voting this cycle that is the basis of your vote once again. Politics is a messy and disgusting process.
But this one thing, this one fact, is at the heart of this election: Hillary Clinton or any Liberal / “progressive” / leftist must not become the president of the United States. Let that be the one and only metric that you or anyone else needing help base your vote or your political activities on in this political cycle.
lets not worry about what someone is not rather than what someone else is.
“Reagan was touted as the “most dangerous” and most likely to start a nuclear war.”
The only people who said that stuff– the Media, Rino’s, and the progressive-left.
We’ll have a 4 page ballot in November for Michigan, plenty of voting for me… just not supporting Trump.
“The only people who said that stuff– the Media, Rino’s, and the progressive-left.”
Those are the same people who are saying it now.
Q: Did you believe them then or do you believe them now?
Cotour wrote: “Lets keep in mind that pretty much everything that you say about Trump was also said about Reagan.”
Except that Reagan had years worth of recorded speeches demonstrating that he not only was a conservative pro-American constitutionalist, but explaining the concept to liberals, progressives, Democrats, racists, and tyrant-wanna-be-s (many people did and still do fall into more than one of these groups).
Trump, on the other hand, takes days to figure out/learn what a *real* conservative would say in response to questions — if he does at all. Sometimes he stops changing his answers when he says what his liberal friends told him what conservatives think about a topic.
Indeed, to suspect that Trump will change his spots once elected is wishful thinking. He is much more like a chameleon — changing his colors only to protect himself, not to protect the group.
Cotour wrote: “Your need for the ideal is admirable”
Cotour, you have no idea what I am talking about. There were plenty of non-ideal non-tyrants running of the Republican ticket — except for Trump, they all were. You, however, seem to be willing to accept a tyrant merely to be a “winner” than vote for a more benevolent candidate who would do well for the country.
It is people like you, proudly willing to trade our liberty for a tyrant who *seems* more electable than the candidate who favors liberty, that is the reason that we are stuck in the current tyranny.
Oh, and intentionally misinterpreting my words into “Your need for the ideal” does not sound as respectful as you are trying to suggest you are, nor does it seem that you have “heard” my choice.
There has never, ever been an “ideal candidate.” Ever. I don’t expect that there ever will be. I’ve said this before, over the past few months, but apparently you didn’t “hear” me those times, either.
Cotour wrote: “Even the Zman will in the end by his own words do what must be done.”
There is nothing that “must be done.” Electing a tyrant is not a “must do” action item. To suggest so is to continue to show acceptance of an America as a tyranny. It even suggests you think that America *must* be a tyranny.
Cotour wrote: “This is not about logic, but it is about first winning.”
Cotour, you have confused the losing of our country by electing a liberal Democrat tyrant as “winning.” It is people like you, who have accepted the Republican Party as a branch of the Democrat Party, that is why I am looking for a new party to join. You have given up liberty and are accepting tyranny without so much as blinking an eye, and you find rationalizations along the way for why you are right in helping America to become a decades-long or centuries-long tyranny. Indeed, you even go so far as to say that it “must be done,” and that doing so is “winning.”
How do you propose that we “win” with a tyrant and avoid the decades/centuries-long tyranny? What is your recovery plan with Trump? What has he said that makes you think that electing him is a win for the country?
Yes, these are rhetorical questions, because you have already admitted that we have to hope that he changes in order to be a good president who favors liberty. You do not think that he has what it takes, because in your own words (posted above on May 13, 2016 at 9:12 am), we each have to “prepare to forcefully provide your opinion and give feed back to Trump to keep him moving in the correct direction.”
Just as we had to count upon Obama changing his spots in order to save our liberty, you insist that we now count upon the same failed policy with Trump.
Cotour wrote: “Trump is not a Marquess of Queensberry rules kind of guy”
That is correct. Trump is a bully who will sucker punch someone in order to take his lunch money or his house for his, Trump’s, own use. This is not the type of person we want representing our nation, and he will not make us great again. Once Trump starts to bully other countries, it will only prove to the world that America really is the bully that they have accused us of being, even as we sent aid and comfort to those suffering from natural disasters and wars.
Trump, as a representative of the Republican Party, has already “proved” to Democrats that Republicans are the evil people that they always said — even though those evil things he said were liberal and Democrat concepts.
Cotour wrote: “Hillary Clinton or any Liberal / “progressive” / leftist must not become the president of the United States.”
So why are you willing to vote for Trump? He is a liberal progressive leftist who already is dismantling the party that he declares is his party. He does nothing to show that he will change once he is president, and he does nothing to try to repair the rift he has created. As with any liberal progressive leftist, he is a selfish $4!7 who wants to take advantage of the system for his own gain. This is what he is. This is what I and others are worried about, and it is what you, Cotour, should also be worried about.
Cotour asked: “Q: Did you believe them then or do you believe them now?”
It is clear that Trump is a bullying tyrant and it was clear that Reagan was a conservative. Reagan did *not* say, “tear down that wall, or else,” but Trump *did* say, “pay for my wall, or else.” We did not need to believe those who said that Reagan was dangerous, as those who said so were only projecting their limited view of the world onto him, yet Trump proudly bullies and he loudly and forcefully advocates tyrannical policies.
Wayne wrote: “I for one, am tired of making a distinction that is not a difference.”
Wayne, you have summed it up succinctly and beautifully.
1st. I totally agree with you about Reagan, he was well schooled and developed in the philosophy that he was able to so brilliantly communicate in his letters and speeches. Anyone who believes that he was some dopey puppet has not the faintest clue about the man. I do not hear anything similar from Trump, that concerns me.
As for the on going Trump issue, your either going to vote for him, or for someone else, or not vote at all. I will respect any of your choices.
As for Trump being a “tyrant”, maybe that is what is needed in American politics today. If he is in deed a tyrant like you so confidently assert. Anyone that I know, and I have two friends who worked for him, one was very close and personal. They both only had the highest praise for him. None of them have ever used the word “tyrant” to describe him in how he conducts himself.
“Wayne wrote: “I for one, am tired of making a distinction that is not a difference.””
This may actually be the one point in time when we all may need to think differently about such things. We have all been tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, but in this instance the other evil just can not be chosen and empowered, period. And that is the controlling logic here.
The change that needs to occur will not happen through the normal proforma dogmatic political representatives that have created this mess over the past 30 plus years. This is going to require an outside of the box person IMO and Trump happens to be it. This is going to be very uncomfortable for you and many others, lets be optimistic and hopeful it all works out for the best.
Edward:
Most excellent thoughts!
If this news story actually ends up as being fulfilled then this entire on going discussion is moot.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/05/15/sarah-palin-on-trump-vp-shortlist-n2163492
I do not think Trump would put his efforts in jeopardy by making this choice, but you never know. If he does then we will all know that he has indeed not been serious. On the other hand if he chooses well, which I have to believe that he will, then he has the real potential to win.
Cotour:
…interesting.
The only reason I voted for McCain, was because of Palin. Same with Ryan for the Romney run. (or I should say more precisely, “voted against Obama,” and “only did so while holding my nose, because of the respective VP picks.”)
Am I understanding you correctly– if Trump were to choose Palin, all this talk of Trump “evolving” & masterfully playing a strategic “vision thing” suddenly evaporates?
(and the corollary, “by not choosing Palin, he demonstrates his brilliant mastery of non-establishment, non-billionaire, non-political stuff via his establishment, billionaire, political machinations.” or vice-versa, it’s hard to keep track of all this illogical surmising & inference.)
Palin is your deal-breaker on Trump? You would bail on Trump, if he chose Palin? (and none of the other “poor decisions” he has made?)
I thought it was “strategy over morality,” and even over principle?? And Trump was THE only person who WILL beat Hillary?
–I am being sincere in my question and not covertly trying to slam you. (It does seem illogical to me.)
For me, Palin turned out to be a big disappointment, as did Carson, Newt, Coulter, and any number of people who claimed to be Conservative, but revealed their true stripes when they went for Trump.
As for anything relating Trump with Reagan, Paul Kengor piece in Conservative Review today (16th) pretty much sums up how I feel.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/trump-is-the-anti-reagan
Palin is essentially the female Ted Nugent, if Trump would choose her he will not be able to win IMO. Its a low and uninformed choice, she is an emotional / political lightning rod and can deliver no state in an election. That’s what I am saying.
You are misunderstanding Strategy Over Morality, it really only applies to the highest levels of empowered leadership (Kings, dictators, presidents, Chiefs, governing bodies etc.) and applies to the everyday citizen in an everyday context only if they were to be classified as psychopaths or sociopaths.
The general rule is that the citizens perspective is for the most part based in morality, its a necessity for civility and general social tranquility. Empowered politicians can make decisions or may be required to make decisions that are not first based in morality but first in strategy. And then what ever actions are taken are either not generally known or are kept secret and / or they are blatantly lied about.
Examples: “You can keep your doctor”, “we are not encouraging people to invade our borders”, Any detail about the Iranian deal, The truth about Bengazi, We do not use the IRS as a political weapon, The truth about the Iranian’s capturing of our sailors, The Warren commission, The 9-11 commission, etc, etc, etc.
Hopefully this clarifies my position and thinking.
Cotour wrote: “None of them have ever used the word “tyrant” to describe him in how he conducts himself.”
Al Capone’s moll also explained how gentle and kind Capone was. Nice to have such character witnesses. Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric is that of a tyrant. That Republicans are willing to blatantly ignore this is disturbing.
Trump’s idea of a great America is one in which the government can bully another country into doing America’s bidding, such as paying for a wall against its will; or can bully companies into returning to the expensive America and competing with companies with lower expenses; or can bully people into selling their homes so that businesses can profit from the property; or can impose tariffs in order to punish those that Trump does not like.
None of these things made America great, and it was the attitude represented by them that have weakened America.
Cotour wrote: “We have all been tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, but in this instance …”
… There is no lesser evil. Both (all three, really) are equally bad, they just have different paths that they want to follow to get to their tyranny.
Meanwhile, Cotour, you still have no plan to regain our freedoms after you elect Trump. Every time we allow the tyranny to get worse, just so that people will see its evil and revolt, no one revolts — not even the politicians, such as Trump, who we sent to rescue us. Indeed, you now enable that very same tyranny by recommending that people vote in favor of it and accept it as inevitable — it is only logical, you tell us.
All this support for the tyranny and the lack of pushback is why the tyranny feels empowered to get worse and worse faster and faster — now to the point that without any public discussion, we now have a dictate declaring that horny boys with no experience at controlling their raging hormones be allowed to shower with girls, in an educational system that, for the past seven years, has encouraged sexual curiosity, sexual education, and sexual activity from kindergarten age.
Eight years ago, that would have been unthinkable. Four years ago, the tyrant would not have been reelected. But this year, Trump thinks the loss of our ultimate privacy in public areas should be up to the states rather than be outright rejected as the terrible idea that it so obviously is. There is barely a distinction between the three liberal Democrats, one of whom is most likely to be elected president.
One is a bully, using force to get his way; one is a socialist, using the promise of free stuff stolen from the workers to get his way; and the third is corrupt, rewarding her friends and punishing her enemies to get her way. Big government that only pretends to care for the citizenry is the goal of each of them.
Trump is hardly an outsider; he has been using and abusing the system along with the politicians, and he *wants* the country to be a nation of people, where political friends are rewarded and foes punished, not a nation of laws, where he would be as equal as the common folk.
In a nation of laws, how does Trump wrest property from the little guy for his own personal gain? A nation of laws is the last thing he wants, and he continually expresses this in his speeches: forcing countries, companies, and citizens to do his will.
Yet rather than seek a candidate who would return liberty and rule of law to the nation, you would rather elect a selfish, malevolent tyrant and *hope* that he suddenly turns against his friends, who have made his life so good, in order to favor people who have hampered his ability to rob We the People for his own profit.
Just how logical is your argument for your hoped-for change?
What happened to us eight years ago when we also were told to hope for change?
If you didn’t believe Obama when he said “hope and change” back then, why do you believe Trump when he doesn’t even *say* that we have any hope at all? You, Cotour, are the one telling us to be hopeful, against all possibility of hope, not Trump.
Lay out another viable scenario where what you want to happen can happen. I am using what I have, not what I do not have.
And I have proposed that after he is empowered that the people who have empowered him would become a very strong force to give him guidance when needed. But there is an element of risk to electing anyone into office, you just can not tell if they are big enough to rise above their own weaknesses or whether they will be owned.
Whom ever it is going to be we are about to again roll the dice.
Edward:
Great stuff!
Cotour,
You wrote: “I am using what I have, not what I do not have.”
So, you want us to vote for Trump, but you have no thought or plan for us to regain our liberty. Proposing that the people who could not or would not become strong enough to overcome Obama’s tyranny are suddenly going to overcome Trump’s tyranny has no basis in logic or reality.
Frankly, your arguments are the weakest gobbledygook I have ever come across. You want me to vote for Trump rather than someone conservative — or at least not tyrannical — because you think all presidents are always crap-shoots? What compels you to vote for one candidate over another? Why do you not flip a coin or throw a dart?
On what criteria, pray tell, do you use when choosing who gets your vote?
You wrote: “Lay out another viable scenario where what you want to happen can happen.”
So what do you think happens in your scenario? You hope for the best, but what do you actually think happens?
I already laid out the scenario of what *I* want to happen, but you did not comprehend.
Alternate viable scenario: I do not vote for a tyrant.
And thus, what I want to happen happens.
“You want me to vote for Trump rather than someone conservative ”
Please provide me with the name of the conservative that has the ability in this presidential race to win that you will be voting for.
“gobbledygook” ?
That is a pretty harsh word. If you remember back through this on going primary, my read of this entire thing has been the most accurate. So please provide me with the information that would have me reconsider my calculations.
If you can not, I will be going, like I said, with what I have got, not with what I have not got.
Cotour wrote: “Please provide me with the name of the conservative that has the ability in this presidential race to win that you will be voting for.”
You are obsessed with being the one who votes for a winner. If we were going to only vote for winners, then we would have had to have voted for Obama. Or did you vote for Obama?
Cotour wrote: “please provide me with the information that would have me reconsider my calculations.”
Your entire argument that Trump may miraculously do something that even you may like. It ain’t gonna happen, and you are going to be very sorely disappointed in him, if he is elected. Unless you want a liberal Democrat as president, in which case your argument is not gobbledygook but deceitful.
Cotour wrote: “If you can not, I will be going, like I said, with what I have got, not with what I have not got.”
What you have got is a candidate who says that he will rule like a tyrant:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tyrant
“2. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.”
Forcing people to do as he wishes is exercising power oppressively. Perhaps this entire time you did not know the definition of tyrant. Perhaps that will have you reconsider your calculations, otherwise you will have to admit that I am right that you are willing to accept tyranny.
I, like many, many other people, both Democrat, Republican and even Conservative will be faced with a hard choice in November, vote for Donald J. Trump or vote against Hillary Clinton. Even the Zman as does Mark Levine understands this paradoxical choice, but its a choice that must be made and executed. That is the cold hard reality that must be dealt with.
Your focused on the wrong issue here, Trump is not it.
Your logic is out of sequence on this issue.
Edward:
>great stuff, again.
Cotour:
Trump is your Guy & he’s always been your choice. You’re 100% in on Trump, except if he were to choose Palin as VP, apparently. (sorry if I missed something.) You get to own it all going forward. Congratulations.
As I’ve said previously, –just can’t support him myself. Don’t actively hate the guy, but can not support him. Cruz was my Guy, and your Guy did nothing & is doing nothing, to endear himself to my vote and from what I see right now, he’s actively driving people like me away.
That’s not my problem, there is nothing wrong with my political views, it’s Trumps problem. And I for one, am no longer persuadable in his favor.
–I don’t need Trump. I’m far more concerned now, with the down-ballot & selectively supporting individual candidates who believe what I do, at all levels.
McCain & Ryan, for examples, can be taken out in Primaries & I intend to help in what little way I can.
Cotour, You wrote: “That is the cold hard reality that must be dealt with.”
Once again, you think that there is a different outcome if you vote for a different tyrant.
You wrote: “Your focused on the wrong issue here, Trump is not it.”
You are the one focused on Trump and voting for him. I am focused on liberty and voting against any Tyrant, Trump or other.
You wrote: “Your logic is out of sequence on this issue.”
You need to explain your logic that tyranny can be avoided by voting for tyranny. My logic is that I will *not* vote for a tyrnat, and there is no out-of-sequenceness in that logic. Your misguided logic seems to believe that if you vote for him, then he will miraculously do what you want, not what he wants. How has that logic worked for you, in the past few years? Obama certainly didn’t do what the people who voted for him wanted. Unless they wanted their daughters living in fear of molestation by oversexed boys in the locker room, and our enemies significantly stronger than they were before he was in office, and healthcare that is too expensive to pay for, and businesses struggling to survive, and a stagnant economy, and …
Since you want to vote for a winner, no matter that he is a tyrant, I continue to conclude that you favor living in a tyranny.
That you — and tens of millions of conservatives — will not vote for an alternate, conservative candidate is the reason that conservativism is not going to win this year. This is all on you and your fellow Trumpists, not on me and my fellow anti-tyranists.
Enjoy your deserved tyranny. You will be one of the few who does. Unlike you, my choice in November will be easy, and unlike you, I will have no regrets.
Unlike you, I will not have voted for tyranny.
What I said was “if Trump would choose her he will not be able to win IMO”, I have no problem owning that, nor most of anything that I have written on the subject. It would show very poor judgement in choosing his vice president.
I respect your reasonable choices and strategy. Edward however may need some calming medication to be prescribed if Trump were to prevail. I don’t think he can take a Trump administration on top of two terms of Obama. I however may need to begin to drink a lot more wine if Hillary prevails after two terms of Obama, no prescription drugs or hard liquor for me.
Modification : I respect your “reasonable” choices and strategy.
Your entire premise and extreme dislike is based totally on something that you are assuming, that he will be or is a “tyrant”.
He certainly is different but your assumption IMO that he is a tyrant is just that, an assumption. He from what I know does not run his businesses in a tyrannical way, why do you assume that he would be tyrannical as the president? He runs a very balanced and focused business with very happy employees from what I can see.
Much of what he says is to keep his opponents off balance, both current and future opponents. Please provide your evidence that he is in fact a “tyrant”. Evidence, not your assumption based on rhetoric found in the media, actual evidence that he acts in such a way.
What do you know that I do not, besides what opinions that you have developed as a function of his media antics?
No doubt whatsoever Trump would attempt to Rule, in the worst sense of the word. He’s a Mastermind ala Wilson & Hoover, with a huge dose of FDR & LBJ.
Doubt he knows what the legal duties/responsibilities of the Presidency actually are & would take his cue from Obama.
We could quibble over the degree, but it’s tyrannical. Make no mistake.
Edward is correct.
It’s a soft-tyranny, but morphing harder at an increasing rate. We’re on that slippery-slope to Serfdom & have been so the past 100 years. It’s that last 10% where things get really weird & the Strong Man steps up, promising to save us all, if we just give him more Kontrol.
OOOOOOR:
Trump is just the asymmetrical political leadership medicine that the country desperately needs in order to drag it back to where it needs to be dragged to break this continuing un American, un Constitutional anti American sovereignty internationalist trajectory we are documented to be on.
Trump may be theee one candidate that is most like……………………..get ready………………..this is going to be a disturbing thought……………………many of the founders themselves! If you have big problems to solve you need a big unique personality to deal with them. And I again point out that I have some serious problems with Trump myself, but something has to be done and Trump at this moment in time is applying for the job and he may in the end get it.
Chew on that for a while, that thought alone may put Edward in a home on oxygen.
PS: Just like Edward being in love with the word “tyrant” and throwing it around to me it is just about drama and effect when you are unable to present evidence that that indeed is how Trump comports himself. Controversial fine, he is asymmetrical, but tyrannical?
Absolute power breeds contempt, and that is what the Congress and Supreme Court functions to counter balance. Any way you look at it, Hillary Clinton must not become the president of the United States. I think everything being equal you would regret that much more than a Donald Trump presidency.
Cotour:
(This thread is totally off the rails. When it takes 30 seconds to load, it’s grown too long.)
Talk about “drama and effect,” you are the Poster Child for such! (not a slam, just an observation)
Can’t speak on Edwards behalf, but agree with his sentiment to an extraordinarily high confidence level. (I’d put Edward in-charge of number any of things & sleep soundly at night.)
As I mentioned– we could quibble over the degree, but Trump is a Statist. (Or tyrannical,” I don’t care what adjective we use.)
New York gave us Senator Clinton– thanks a lot. Don’t tell ME it’s my responsibility to stop her, you people let that ship sail a long time ago.
Your “disturbing thought” isn’t disturbing— it’s ridiculous. And I would suspect– to bait any of us who think differently. (The fascination with Billionaires & Communists in New York City is amazing– they appear to be interchangeable.)
((NYC had a Mayor, that lived in the Bahama’s, need I say more?))
Just to confirm— if Trump picks Palin, that’s a deal-breaker (?) If Trumps picks someone else, “he’s brilliant.”
(You didn’t vote for McCain, did you?)
30 seconds to load? You either need a new computer or a better internet connection.
“(I’d put Edward in-charge of number any of things & sleep soundly at night.)”
Absolutely (no sarcasm intended at all in this comment), Edward is the first on the job and the last to leave, knows every element of his responsibilities and everyone else’s, he is smart and reasonable and uncompromising. He is the high IQ nerd that you need to actually get things done and operational. Want to put someone on the moon and make sure they come home? Find Edward and other people like him and get the job done.
Trump finds, hires and pays Edwards all day long.
“Don’t tell ME it’s my responsibility to stop her” Sorry to inform you, but it is your responsibility.
“Just to confirm— if Trump picks Palin, that’s a deal-breaker (?)”
What is your fascination with this issue? I will go over it once again.
If Trump were to choose Palin as his vice presidential pick it would show very poor judgement and he would loose. That is my statement. I also was interested in Palin when I voted for McCain and that he chose her but it turns out that she is a gaff machine and politically a repellent IMO, reasonable people will not vote for her, she is a deal breaker. McCain turned out to be the RINO that he is and refused to tear up or confront Obama in order to win the White House, I no longer like either of them. Trump needs to keep her at an arms length plus distance or she will contaminate his potential.
Does that put your curiosity to bed on the subject? Or do you need more?
And you can believe me when I tell you living in NYC for me is an interesting experience politically, to say the least. Those more Conservative, non leftist, non liberal among us who can take it take it, those who can no longer take it, move to Arizona. I totally understand the move, a lady friend of mine who worked for 20 years for the Visiting Nurse Service evaluating all of the truly needy and all of the scammers right here in the belly of the beast just retired and immediately moved to Arizona because she could not take it any more.
For someone who allegedly agrees with me 98% of the time, I would think that you have a lot to think about and reconcile on this subject at hand.
Cotour: It’s not 98% over-all, it’s on a subject-by-subject basis. And on Trump, we just fundamentally disagree.
I’d put Edward in charge of any number of things, not exclusively “science-related,” School Board, City Council, anything. It’s not any techie/engineering skills per-se, it’s the clear thinking & grasp of Good Old Fashioned Americanism. Citizen Legislator— do his bit & return to the private-sector.
If Palin is so toxic, why doesn’t Trump disavow her?? He could have rejected her endorsement (or active current campaigning,) but then again he doesn’t mind being endorsed by a convicted rapist or an Alex Jones type. (I have no clue what she has morphed into, but I now know what she is not.)
Sarah Palin, “will contaminate [Trump’s] his potential.”
Everything else he does, makes no difference? Hiring all the Crony’s & usual-suspects he can find & changing his opinions by the day— an ex-Governor & failed VP candidate, will “contaminate his potential?”
(Don’t worry, he won’t pick her. And he would never appoint a Cruz or a Lee, to the Judiciary, much less expend any political-capital.
Not my responsibility to stop Clinton— that’s all on Trump now.
Trump is your Guy. It’s your responsibility to expand his base and drag him over the finish line.
Just for your information to keep you up to date the term “convicted rapist” is no longer to be used. The new term is “justice involved individuals” so as not to stereo type and make feel uncomfortable anyone with any kind of record, who may or may not tend to rape or kill any ones loved ones.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/14/owellian-administration-brands-criminals-justice-involved-individuals/
(this is the kind of liberal / leftist brain washing that will be allowed to continue if Hillary is allowed to appoint the next Supreme Court Justices)
And this sentiment of yours:
“Not my responsibility to stop Clinton— that’s all on Trump now.
Trump is your Guy. It’s your responsibility to expand his base and drag him over the finish line.”
Its like your a hurt child who is taking his marbles and going home because you lost or someone stole your bubbles. If YOU are willing to allow Hillary Clinton to inhabit the White House and allow her to appoint the next Supreme Court Justices among the many, many other reasons that she should not be the president is very stunted and narrow IMO. I now better understand why you do not quite get the implications and applications of the principles of S.O.M.
Your Conscious choice to allow such threats to America borders IMO on unpatriotic. Who cares if you did not get exactly what you wanted and may have to settle for someone who is not your ideal? No one, we have to take care of business.
“It’s your responsibility to expand his base and drag him over the finish line.”
Hopefully anyone who reads these interactions will better understand what the bigger picture is and perhaps will help them to do what some believe must be done. So you see, it very much is YOUR responsibility, not just mine.
(How am I doing so far dragging him across the finish line? What say you now?)
Cotour,
You wrote: “Edward however may need some calming medication to be prescribed if Trump were to prevail. I don’t think he can take a Trump administration on top of two terms of Obama. I however may need to begin to drink a lot more wine if Hillary prevails after two terms of Obama, no prescription drugs or hard liquor for me.”
Nah. I am already resolved to the loss of liberty in America. It took a few days, after Cruz dropped out, but the panic attacks and hyperventilation come less often, now, without alcohol or medications.
Unless a miracle occurs, things will only get worse under any of the probable scenarios. However, you may end up drinking harder stuff than wine when Trump does not do as you hope. As President Snow in the movie “Hunger Games” said, “Hope. It is the only thing stronger than fear. I little hope is effective; a lot of hope is dangerous. A spark is fine, as long as it’s contained.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e3wADQ7IXw (41 seconds — Sorry, Robert, for including a video link while you don’t have a good internet service)
You wrote: “Your entire premise and extreme dislike is based totally on something that you are assuming, that he will be or is a “tyrant”.”
It is not as much assumption as you think. Once again, you are projecting your own reasoning onto me. I am going by the things that he has actually said that he would do. On the other hand, I do not know why you assume that he will do otherwise. Your reasoning seems to be the flawed reasoning, using assumptions and hope that he will do other than he says.
You wrote: “Evidence, not your assumption based on rhetoric found in the media, actual evidence that he acts in such a way.”
As I have said, my evidence is his own words. You are the one assuming from rhetoric you found in the media that “Much of what he says is to keep his opponents off balance.” I don’t know what he has said to make you think this. But if this *is* his strategy, then how do you know what is true and what is lie? How do you know what you can trust about him? Apparently he is giving you a spark of hope; a contained hope. Obama used this same tactic and disappointed many of his supporters.
You are also assuming that I have an extreme dislike of the man. I don’t know what I may have said to give you that impression. You seem to be applying the assumption that liberals make that a disagreement with someone is the same as a hatred of him.
You wrote: “What do you know that I do not”?
Apparently, a lot. The definition of tyrant, for one thing, and the words that he has used to inform us that he plans to be one, for a second thing.
You wrote: “Trump is just the asymmetrical political leadership medicine that the country desperately needs”
Once again, this is an assumption on your part. His words indicate that he favors bigger government, more central control, and less individual freedom. None of his words indicate that he is what the country needs, unless you think that it needs bigger government, more central control, and less individual freedom.
If he favored dragging America back to the Constitution, then he would: 1) know more about the Constitution, and 2) wouldn’t favor policies that go directly against it. Shutting down speech that he does not like and using government to confiscate property are just two of his well-known anti-constitutional goals.
You wrote: “Trump may be theee one candidate that is most like … many of the founders themselves!”
Maybe, but there is nothing to indicate this possibility. A quick look finds several other 2016 presidential candidates who could be much more like the founders than Trump. Trump thinks that the United States should bully countries, companies, and citizens into submitting to government’s desires, rather than the government existing to serve the citizens. Wikipedia has a list of 2016 third party and independent candidates. Several of the right-leaning Libertarian Party and the right-leaning American Independent Party candidates are more likely to be less tyrannical and more constitutional than Trump.
You wrote: “PS: Just like Edward being in love with the word “tyrant” and throwing it around to me it is just about drama and effect when you are unable to present evidence that that indeed is how Trump comports himself.”
It is not how Trump “comports himself.” I stated very clearly that it is what he has *said* that tells us that he intends to rule as a “person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.” You are the one who ignores his actual statements and goes on the hope (without evidence) that he is lying about who he is and how he intends to rule and hope that he is a latent constitutionalist who will rescue us from people who say things like he does.
You wrote: “Hillary Clinton must not become the president of the United States. I think everything being equal you would regret that much more than a Donald Trump presidency.”
Everything being equal, there is no difference between the two, no matter who Trump chooses for vice president, and you are merely hopeful that there is. It does not matter which one becomes president, the US is not going to go back to the country that you say you want it to be. Stopping Clinton only leaves us with Trump, who has stated no strategy to make it so and has stated that he will make it into the same country that Clinton would turn it into. That you favor Trump’s methods over Clinton’s methods does not interest me. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton currently receives the bribes and Trump currently pays the bribes. I have no illusions that after you are finished voting for tyranny, the US will be anything other than a tyranny.
I take no responsibility in stopping Clinton, because people like you eliminated the only viable alternative. Trump is not an alternative; he is the same tyrant in a different guise. The current situation is your own making and your own fault. That you feel the need to convince me to help you now is your own problem.
My help would have been to vote for a non-tyrant, but all of those in the Republican Party have been eliminated by your guy, so my vote (in November, I’m voting for Cruz in June, as he is still on the ballot) goes elsewhere. I will let you live with the consequences of your own choice, since you have left me with no choice – tyranny is the future, and it is your fault, not mine. No matter how much you complain, you made the choice for me before my state could weigh in on the issue. Don’t try to make me feel any responsibility for your poor decision-making capabilities; I will not take on that responsibility.
(BTW: thanks for the compliment about being the right person to put people back on the moon. And thank you, Wayne, for your similar compliment.)
My point is that I will not have taken part in supporting tyranny.
You wrote: “Hopefully anyone who reads these interactions will better understand what the bigger picture is and perhaps will help them to do what some believe must be done.”
Correct. The bigger picture and what must be done is to oppose, not support, tyranny.
“I take no responsibility in stopping Clinton, because people like you eliminated the only viable alternative. ”
Another pouter who got their bubbles taken?
We can now all give up and everything can now all really go to hell because you did not get your way and your man, who I would have happily supported if he had prevailed, was unable to overcome what in the competition he was unable to overcome.
Well that is really how things should always be determined isn’t it.
Congratulations, your now a De facto Hillary supporter, like it, or agree with it or not.
YOUR WITH HER >
Edward:
Well said, again! (Didn’t mean to recruit you to run for City Council while you were out of the room! (ha) )
It’s amazing isn’t it? People like you & I are now somehow responsible for Clinton.
If we don’t get on the Trump Party Bus, we’re the bad people. “It’s our fault.”
Cotour:
Your Guy beat Cruz. Be happy. It’s what you wanted. My Guy lost. (Now I support his Senate re-election. Until we repeal the 17th Amendment, Senate elections are basically National in nature.)
Neither you nor Trump however, appear to appreciate that in that Primary process, Trump alienated a large segment of the Conservative vote & he continues to demonstrate & expand his Crony Progressive ways, on a daily basis.
As I’ve said before; don’t hate the guy, but can not support him or his policies.
Telling me how foolish I am at every turn, doesn’t persuade me.
How vial the thought…………http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/hillarys-bill-will-fix-the-economy-plea-is-pathetic/
Let that picture seep into your brain. You remind me of the guy who got his arm stuck between a rock and could not get it out and he realized that he had two choices.
1. Cut my arm of and live. or 2. Not cut my arm off and die trapped here under this rock.
In time, when it came down to it he summoned up the courage and chose correctly and was able to cut his arm off and he lived. The politically disenfranchised people are at this moment getting closer to the time where they will have the opportunity to cut and live or not and die.
Keep that picture of the two of them in your mind as you get closer to the time and imagine what four or even eight years of them again in the White House would be like for the country. How vial the thought.
At least with one arm you have something to work with and move into the future. I will take one arm and living over consciously choosing to be just plain being dead.
Lets be hopeful that in the coming weeks and months that Trump (assuming that he remains the presumptive candidate) is able to somehow instill some level of confidence that he will be more than instead of the less then that some are rightfully with cause assuming to push over this hump of alienation.
I usually leave hope for little girls and boys, but I will go there if I absolutely have to.
Cotour wrote: “We can now all give up and everything can now all really go to hell because you did not get your way and your man”
Wiser people would take stock of the situation and figure out how to proceed. This is what I like about playing chess with computers. They don’t whine about their lost pieces or how they got into their sorry situation; they just figure out what to do now.
In case you think that I was whining with my previous post, re-read it. I was explaining to you why I am not responsible for your situation, the situation that I am now in, and what I have already decided to do about it: future moves, but not necessarily my next moves.
Cotour wrote: “Congratulations, your now a De facto Hillary supporter, like it, or agree with it or not.”
*Sigh* This statement sounds like it comes from a sore loser. It is similar to saying, “boo hoo; you won’t support my guy, so you must be a supporter of his adversary!”
But then, Trump himself is a sore loser, throwing a temper tantrum every time he does not win a state. With luck — maybe a lot of luck — he won’t win *my* state. I hope the majority of Republicans here are strong supporters of liberty and will not support tyranny.
It just is not sinking in to you, Cotour, but: _I will not support tyranny in any form that it takes_: Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Obama, or any other kind of form. I will *not* support one tyrant just to avoid being called a supporter of another tyrant, whom I also do not support. (Isn’t this similar to calling me a racist or a fascist; you are just trying to get me to conform or to shut up?)
Cotour wrote: “The politically disenfranchised people are at this moment getting closer to the time where they will have the opportunity to cut and live or not and die.”
Thank you, Cotour, for your recommendation that we find another political party, one that is closer to our values than the current Republican Party and much of its membership, but I already made this decision a couple of weeks ago. I still have not chosen a party to join, but I have plenty of time before I have to make that decision.
Cotour wrote: “Keep that picture of the two of them in your mind as you get closer to the time and imagine what four or even eight years of them again in the White House would be like for the country. How vial the thought.”
Yup. The picture is the same, no matter which of the two of them gets into the White House for the next term or two (or Sanders, for that matter). That has been my point all along. Glad you, Cotour, are starting to come around.
I am listening to “The Martian” on audio book, because I had borrowed my nephew’s book last fall. I also recently reviewed the movie. Among the lessons are to not give up, work through each problem, and communicate and coordinate with those who can help. The movie sums up some of this at the end, with the intro to the “stranded astronaut” class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYCLFE86Po (27 seconds — again, Robert, sorry for including a video link while you don’t have a good internet service)
Frankly, it is looking like everything has gone south on us, and we are just now getting over the part where we think to ourselves, “This is it. This is how liberty ends.” As I have been trying to say, I do not accept it as a permanent condition, and I will not support the tyranny in any way, shape, or form. I am looking for people to help begin, to do that math, and to help get to work. If we solve enough problems, we get to live in liberty, again, or maybe it is our descendants who do.
Something similar to this will have to be employed to recover from the tyranny.
An early step is for 37 states to call for a convention to propose some Constitutional Amendments that clarify the freedoms of the people and the states, and clarify the limits of the (currently malevolent) federal government.
I would recommend elimination of the 16th amendment, as it is the one most effectively used by the liberal progressives to usurp our freedoms and steal our property. Also, a reiteration that the federal government has only the powers explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution. It is appalling how many rights have been usurped by the government and that we have to restate them in order to overcome their misinterpretation by the malevolent Supreme Court. Maybe the Supremes need to be elected by We the People, and maybe We the People need the ability to recall recalcitrant representatives, presidents, and justices. I’m just “thinking out loud.” I haven’t pondered the ramifications of some of these thoughts.
But then again, this assumes a federal government that follows the US Constitution. I suspect, however, that just holding such a convention would put the fear of We the People into the federal government.
Wayne wrote: ” (Didn’t mean to recruit you to run for City Council while you were out of the room! (ha) )”
Sounds like Opus, when he gets nominated for VP while he is out buying the chips for their party’s convention. Nice “Bloom County” reference, and one of my favorite events from that comic, and I use it every time I nominate a person who is absent from a meeting.
In the context of this current election and the chess metaphor, you would have lost the game long ago and you would still be sitting at the board telling everyone “I had 17 more moves planned and ready to execute”. But everyone would have moved on long ago. Good for you, you stick to your high and immutable principles, inflexibility and refusal to see beyond them as you sit sipping you tea on the deck of the Titanic.
Your welcome for the work ethics, dedication and competence compliment I sincerely gave. If I am going to the moon I want an entire building filled with men and women just like you at the controls to ensure I receive a hearty welcome when I step off the capsule after I land back on earth.
I tend to test, weigh, evaluate and recognize the quality and value that individuals bring to the game of life, I have done it my entire life, it serves me well, I am very good at it, I am seldom wrong. Think about that.
Cotour,
You wrote: “In the context of this current election and the chess metaphor, you would have lost the game long ago”
Glad to know you give up so easily on your own liberty. It seems you resigned at the first move, abandoned your malleable principles, accepted Trump’s tyranny, went down with the ship, and moved on to your dystopia long ago. The game you are playing is short-term in nature, which explains why you had no plan to get Trump elected after he won the nomination; you did not look far enough ahead to see that Trump was not as electable as you thought.
You wrote: “I tend to test, weigh, evaluate and recognize the quality and value that individuals bring to the game of life, I have done it my entire life, it serves me well, I am very good at it, I am seldom wrong. Think about that.”
Thought about it. You will be disappointed about Trump, as this is one of those “seldom” times.
You say that you are very good at testing, weighing, evaluating, and recognizing the quality and value that individuals bring, but you already have missed the unelectability of Trump, which now has you worried.
What really pisses me off is that for months I was told that I should vote for Trump because he was the only electable candidate, but now it turns out that he isn’t electable without my vote. You make Trump’s campaign seem more and more like the ADA all the time.
Which brings up the question, why isn’t a vote for Trump in the primary likewise considered a vote for Clinton in the general election? You have insisted that not voting for Trump in the general election is the same as a vote for Clinton, but if Trump really wasn’t electable after all, then voting for him in the primary was clearly a vote to assure that the Democrat nominee is elected.
You don’t want Clinton’s type of tyranny, so you won’t vote for her. I don’t want Trump’s type, yet you insist that I vote for him anyway. Then you declare that it is *your* logic (this logic) that makes sense.
Edward:
Good stuff, yet again!
(totally unconscious Bloom County reference. -That was a well done cartoon!- Always enjoyed the antics of Bill-the-Cat.)
Yeah– you have everything about right. “… for months I was told that I should vote for Trump because he was the only electable candidate, but now it turns out that he isn’t electable without my vote.”
And the kicker is– when he loses, it’s the fault of the sabotage perpetrated by Conservatives.
If he wins, it was in spite of the sabotage perpetrated by Conservatives.
You are a Trump Denier!…. You fail to grasp his Brilliance, you are a bad American & love Clinton (all 3 of them).
On a slightly different tact– Some of Trumps alleged choices for future Judicial appointment’s, are rock-solid. I just don’t believe he would ever appointment any of them & would never expend any political capital supporting them. It’s all apparently “up for negotiation” & “deal-making.”
“You fail to grasp his Brilliance”
This is correct. He is famous for saying “you’re fired” instead of being a good leader. A good leader encourages and trains other leaders.
He is also famous for bankrupting four companies; even Obama bankrupted only two (however, that is 100% of the companies that he took over and ran). The brilliance of Trump that I grasp from his bankruptcies is his ability to screw over his creditors for his own gain.
I used to think that Continental Airlines was brilliant for spending so much time in bankruptcy, during which they could undercut the competition with lower ticket prices, since they were not paying interest on their debt — plus much of their debt went away at the end of both of their bankruptcies. (They have now merged with United Airlines — which also went through bankruptcy, leaving me with an option to get a bunch of useless magazine subscriptions in lieu of frequent flier miles.)
Your missing the over arching indicators, your stuck in the minutia that no one cares about in the context of this election.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
He certainly has his short comings but the thrust of the emotion of the election is turning to Trump for many reasons and he appears to be transcending the negative. And that is happening for several reasons, the primary one being he is perceived as not a politician like the ones that have been consistently lying to the people for the past 30 years and saying one thing and consistently doing the other, plan and simple.
Cotour wrote: “Your missing the over arching indicators, your stuck in the minutia that no one cares about in the context of this election.”
No longer talking about the election. Just talking about Trump’s “brilliance.”
But in terms of the election, I *still* will not support his tyranny in any way, shape, or form. Maybe the emotional voters are flocking to Trump, but just because everyone else is jumping off the bridge and into the tyranny does not mean that I will, too. If that means some people think that I am a bad American and a Clinton lover, then so be it. Many people think I am a global warming denier, too. And a Flat Earther.
A flat earther? NO.
(you know someone actually forwarded me information in regards to it and asked me to convince them otherwise. Oy. I seriously think it is part of a general attempt / internet phenomenon to further confuse the public. There actually are people who believe it. Believe it or not)
I actually respect your point of view. I just disagree with your long term strategy regarding it .
“If you are only bad-mouthed by people who
prefer your company over those of many others, only
critiqued by those who scrutinize your work, and only
insulted by persons who open your email as soon as
they see it, then you are doing the right thing.”
Nassim Taleb
Aphorism #152
I think that we should recognize that the agenda of the left is the world of the future imagined by the creators of Star Trek that we are being driven towards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-introduces-measure-to-impeach-obama_us_573f34a7e4b0613b512a12fb
No money, no property, no gender, no rights to protect ones self, no free speech, no definitions, no borders, just one big happy blended human family.
Cotour,
You wrote: “I actually respect your point of view. I just disagree with your long term strategy regarding it .”
You are reminding me of socialism.
Here you are, content to strategize a vote in favor of tyranny but desirous of liberty.
Meanwhile, you hamper those of us who actually do something about rejecting tyranny and work toward liberty. If our long-term strategy succeeds, you get the benefit of our work.
Socialism is similar: some people do the minimum possible yet enjoy the benefits that come from the hard workers. Eventually the hard workers realize they are tools, quit working hard, and let the socialist system collapse, as we have seen with most socialist societies and as will soon happen to the rest.
America has become more and more socialist, lately, and you are helping it along. You may disagree with my strategy, but yours helps socialism take over the country.
You use the word “tyranny” like your blowing your nose, you use it so much that it no longer has meaning. Trump, if he is to be the next president of the United States will I am sure be many, many, many degrees better than either Sanders or her highness Hillary in regards to “tyranny”.
Things change incrementally, and this (Trump) right now is what we have to work with. And so we will work with it. Can we dial down the inflexible and dogmatic nerd down to a 7 instead of an 11? Lets at least agree to get things going in the correct direction first and then we can worry about the next move. In the mean time Trump, if he indeed does become the president, will I am sure be much more receptive to the people who have put him there in case he needs a Constitutional reality check. I do not know if you have noticed but the people are getting very loud and forceful in how they communicate with their candidates, Trump is not Obama. And if Trump is not what is needed then we will recruit the next person, and then the next. That’s how it works, things do not change over night because your inflexible rules are followed.
I thank God that many more American people are going to agree with me than you in this instance.
I found this article a bit more illustrative of what Liberal thought actually is and how counter intuitive, contradictory and dangerous it is, this is actual, real time tyranny. (PS: I and my positions are not mentioned)
http://nypost.com/2016/05/20/liberals-love-science-unless-it-proves-them-wrong/
Cotour,
You wrote: “You use the word “tyranny” like your blowing your nose, you use it so much that it no longer has meaning.”
You just don’t like that it applies to your guy (you don’t say that “liberty” has lost its meaning, but I use it liberally, too). Just because you think that the other two candidates are worse does not mean that Trump isn’t bad. His own words tell the tale of his desire to rule as a tyrant.
You wrote: “this (Trump) right now is what we have to work with.”
Your fault, not mine; you support him and his tyranny — I don’t. This has been my point, which seems to elude you no matter how many times I say it explicitly. Because you support rather than oppose him, the rest of us have to work that much harder to bring liberty back to this country.
Are you too lazy to hunker down and do your part, or do you actually favor tyranny over liberty? Some of your comments in previous threads make me wonder about this. (e.g. one’s right to religion does not end at his front door, as you think it should.)
You wrote: “Lets at least agree to get things going in the correct direction first and then we can worry about the next move.”
Only if we agree that liberty is the right direction and that Trump will not put us in that direction. Otherwise we are at a philosophical impasse. If you think that Trump is in favor of liberty, then you have not listened to his words and his intentions; you have not paid attention to his past and who he supports. Indeed, that you think that Trump should not ask people who favor liberty to be his running mate shows that you are not willing to fight for liberty, but either want a tyranny or want the rest of us to do the hard work — to make all of the next moves.
You wrote: “In the mean time Trump, if he indeed does become the president, will I am sure be much more receptive to the people who have put him there in case he needs a Constitutional reality check.”
Once again, you are wishfully thinking that the people who would have put him in the presidency favor liberty. They, like you, do not. BTW: you are one of the ones who will have put him there, yet you still have no plan for getting him to be receptive to conservativism as his philosophy. It is merely wishful thinking on your part that other people will sway him away from his lifelong philosophies and behaviors.
You wrote: “I do not know if you have noticed but the people are getting very loud and forceful in how they communicate with their candidates”
Apparently you have failed to notice that those candidates are not doing as their voters wish. Otherwise Obamacare and Amnesty would not have been funded, and there would not be a Trump winning the Republican Party nomination.
You wrote: “And if Trump is not what is needed then we will recruit the next person, and then the next.”
More wishful thinking. We had 16 other chances to recruit the better person, this time, but that effort failed. What makes you think that with the rest of the Republican Party thinking like you do that you all will ever recruit a person who favors liberty?
What liberal thought *actually is* can be summed up more succinctly: From each according to his willingness to work, to each according to what the centralized leadership is willing to give him.
You actively vote for tyranny, vote against liberty, make it harder for me to rescue you from tyranny, then you complain when I refuse to help you turn this country into a tyranny.
Don’t complain when I work for your liberty. It makes you sound ungrateful. Kind of like the pro-socialist welfare-recipient who complains that his free stuff isn’t enough.
You wrote: “I thank God that many more American people are going to agree with me than you in this instance.”
More evidence that you actually prefer tyranny over liberty.
Edward:
Well put.
I will cherry pick your tripe here.
“Your fault, not mine; you support him and his tyranny”
(you have not even given him the opportunity to be tyrannical, the words of a yet to be empowered person attempting to become empowered is not tyranny. Tyranny is an action not a rumor. You keep blowing your nose.)
If your need to blame is so strong and important to you then lets not be shy, do not blame me, blame Cruz and every other person that failed to make the cut. I am but one person writing my opinions and read of the situation on a blog.
You will in time get over this and…………….move on.
Cotour,
You wrote two of your comments ago: “Trump is not Obama.”
It is amazing how few of Obama’s edicts Trump says he will overturn. For example, we will still be saddled with boys in girls’ locker rooms. Are you sure you are correct that they are not the same person?
You wrote: “(you have not even given him the opportunity to be tyrannical, the words of a yet to be empowered person attempting to become empowered is not tyranny. Tyranny is an action not a rumor. You keep blowing your nose.)”
Clinton has not ruled, either, yet you still believe that she will rule poorly. You believe not only that your guy will be benevolent but that *only* your guy will be. You have the same double standard as a Democrat.
You wrote: “do not blame me, blame Cruz and every other person that failed to make the cut.”
No. You are the one who voted for Trump, claiming that he was the only electable one — and now you claim that he is not electable after all. The blame does not go to Cruz but to those who fooled themselves into voting for Trump despite his despotic rhetoric. If Clinton wins, will you blame Trump? Of course not. You are already trying to blame me, not yourself or your guy. There’s that double standard, again.
If Trump hadn’t run, who would you have voted for? Instead of voting for *that* guy, you got yourself fooled by some smooth-talking liberal Democrat who is wearing Republican clothing.
Now that your mistake is clear to you, you are trying to pass the blame onto someone else, and that someone else *still* has yet to vote in the primaries. (What kind of person blames someone else for his own mistakes? Oh, that’s right.) That you chose to side with the unelectable candidate cannot be blamed on me; I never suggested that you vote for him and even suggested that you do not.
You wrote: “You will in time get over this and…………….move on.”
So says the guy who got the tyranny he desired.
Yes, you want me to move on, not work to save the country from tyranny.
Edward:
Well said!
:)