Crazy, Dishonorable Donald Trump Doubles Down on his Crazy

[Brad Austin]

Never said the attacks were valid, just retaliation for disgracing the wife he loves. Trump didn't create the lies, he used flimsy accusations made by other outlets.

Not saying it's fair, but Cruz deserved every bit of it after the low blow on Melania. Any real man would've been hell bent on bashing the jack*ss who did that.

Same as Cruz's lies about Carson and Rubio about to drop out just before Iowa and Hawaii votes. Or Cruz's campaign saying Rubio slammed the bible when video showed him praising it. Or the fake pic they posted of Rubio shaking Obama's hand.

Sorry, but Lying Ted owns the title for lies in this campaign. The difference is his blatant lies against Carson and Rubio were unprovoked.

Oh no Trump called him Lying Ted after his team lied about Carson dropping out during the Iowa caucus? What a shame, calling someone a liar who just floated a damaging lie.

My argument is centered around Trump and Cruz's nasty accusations, not the perfectly applicable nickname used after his team lied like a dog to sabotage an opponent.

 

[Brad Austin]

I can see this gets us nowhere and Cruz loyalists will stay that way no matter what.

Glad I've seen firsthand that many have left that ship and stuck with their party.

For the record my first choice was Rubio, but it takes little sense to understand Hillary's America is a FAR worse fate for our country than Trump's America.

I'd even vote for Cruz with a terrible dislike for the man, as I know his policies would be far more beneficial to our future than Hillary.

The election is not as much a choice of who as it is what. A radical Lib run supreme court, less income after taxes, more freebies at my expense, higher cost of living, amnesty for illegals, increase in refugees from terrorist countries, etc, etc. etc.

No thanks. Any Rep who threw their name in the ring is better than the coming destruction from the new radical Lib agenda.

If Hillary ever gets full control with a congressional majority and a Lib supreme court behind her, abstaining Reps will curse the day they helped America commit suicide.

 

[nashhorn]

Brad you forgot National drive-through abortion clinics.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, do you really think conservatism at the level you'd like will ever come back? We have been moved so far left that the younger generation thinks it's normal.

It can come back, and it probably will. However, it's not going to come back until the Right changes its focus. For the last 15 or 20 years, the Right has focused so heavily on motivating its base that it has forgotten the art of persuasion. For an ideology to stay alive, its adherents have to engage a constant struggle to win over each generation. The Right has gotten lazy and incompetent in this area, so it is getting overwhelmed by the Left, which is at a big advantage by having the media and education (at all levels), where they essentially have a captive audience.

Can young people be brought around? Sure, but you have to make an effort. You need an army rhetorically disciplined advocates who will argue the merits of conservative policy and the demerits of liberal policy in an intelligent manner that is tailored to the audience you're trying to reach. That's why I say our movement needs to be a lot more William F. Buckley and lot less Sarah Palin (or worse, Donald Trump). A bunch of incoherent old guys (or even young guys and women) yelling isn't going to cut it.

Also, you can't treat young people like **** by dismissing their concerns. For example, when young people complain about the skyrocketing cost of tuition, what do most conservatives do? They self-righteously tell them to **** off and deal with it. That's not going to cut it. Young people are getting ripped off, and they know it. You're not going to convince them that they aren't. The good news is that there is a very strong conservative case for tuition reform, but nobody makes it.

And hell, look at Social Security. It's a HORRIBLE deal for young people, but how often do they hear the argument? Virtually never. And of course Trump is doubling down in the opposite direction. He's probably on Hillary's left on the issue.

Move away from the political realm for a moment. If went into a car dealership looking for a new sedan, asked the salesman a question, and his answer was, "stop complaining, buy the car, and shut the **** up," would you buy the car? Well, don't expect young voters to vote Republican when that's the message they typically get.

Our current conservatives in congress now allowed this to happen by letting Obama have his way at every turn.

And this is another problem. I'm not sure if this is in the talk radio talking points, but this is mostly mythology. They've actually done pretty well at keeping Obama at bay. If you don't think so, then tell me what they should have done. And don't just say, "be tough." Be specific.

Not supporting Trump and allowing Hillary to become President will make it even worse. I just don't understand your logic. We can't take our ball and go home. It's either going to be Trump or Hillary.

If Trump wins this election, then not only will conservatism have lost the country, but it will have lost the Republican party. There won't be a conservative party in the United States anymore. That's not just making things worse. It's catastrophic and on a long term basis. There's a big cost to Hillary winning, but she can mostly be kept at bay if we hold onto Congress. Furthermore, we can regroup and live to fight another day in 2020. If Trump wins, the conservative movement will be over, and it will be replaced with a big government nationalism. That's not a net victory.

 

[Htown77]

Also, you can't treat young people like **** by dismissing their concerns. For example, when young people complain about the skyrocketing cost of tuition, what do most conservatives do? They self-righteously tell them to **** off and deal with it. That's not going to cut it. Young people are getting ripped off, and they know it. You're not going to convince them that they aren't. The good news is that there is a very strong conservative case for tuition reform, but nobody makes it.

This. I do not agree with the solutions of Bernie Sanders, but even I felt good listening to him address student debt and overpriced tuition. Everyone else ignored the issue.

There is a lost of waste in universities. Universities are not make work programs. A lot of usless offices and admins need to be cut loose so college and law school will be affordable again. (I have talked about on Bill Powers threads how many useless admins there are. This is a universal problem that persists from elementary to grad schools.)

Also, if the government is going to socialize grad school student loans, they need to charge a fair rate. The government is charging the rates banks would charge (more in some cases) and just making $ on the whole thing. If the government is not going to charge a fair rate, the loans should not be socialized.

There is a lot of room to work with for conservatives. The problem is Deez is right and conservatives say "f*** you students and recent grads." It leave young people with only "make everything free" to turn to for help. A terrible solution sounds a lot better than being told to get f*****.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This. I do not agree with the solutions of Bernie Sanders, but even I felt good listening to him address student debt and overpriced tuition. Everyone else ignored the issue.

There is a lost of waste in universities. Universities are not make work programs. A lot of usless offices and admins need to be cut loose so college and law school will be affordable again. (I have talked about on Bill Powers threads how many useless admins there are. This is a universal problem that persists from elementary to grad schools.)

Also, if the government is going to socialize grad school student loans, they need to charge a fair rate. The government is charging the rates banks would charge (more in some cases) and just making $ on the whole thing. If the government is not going to charge a fair rate, the loans should not be socialized.

There is a lot of room to work with for conservatives. The problem is Deez is right and conservatives say "f*** you students and recent grads." It leave young people with only "make everything free" to turn to for help. A terrible solution sounds a lot better than being told to get f*****.

Good points. They also need to do something about the student loan program. It enables universities to charge much more than the market would otherwise permit. Not sure what the answer is, but it can't continue as it is.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

We need to stop assuming college is for everybody. Lower the demand for college and that will also put downward pressure on tuition rates.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We need to stop assuming college is for everybody. Lower the demand for college and that will also put downward pressure on tuition rates.

I agree, but that isn't the fault of the students. It's the fault of the public school system, which puts very little priority on teaching marketable skills and poorly counsels students. The choice for a student shouldn't be college or Micky-D's, and when a student tells a counselor that he wants to get a degree in Chicano studies, the counselor shouldn't necessarily crap on his idea, but she should make him think it through. Right now, her answer would be, "follow your dreams, man."

Here's how the conversation should go.

Counselor: So where do you plan to attend college, and what do you plan to major in?

Student: I'm going to attend Private University A and major in Chicano studies.

Counselor: And what occupation do you plan to pursue?

Student: I want to be a political activist and social justice warrior.

Counselor: That's fine, but my job is to make sure you make informed decisions. According to BLS, the average SJW makes $24K per year, and if you attend that school you'll likely have $150K in debt. So you'll likely be bringing home about $1800 per month after taxes, and you'll have a student loan payment of $900 per month for the next 30 years.

Student: Oh **** . . . (And thinking to himself, "that doesn't leave much to buy condoms, porn, and weed.")

Counselor: Yeah, it would be tough for you, but I see that your math scores aren't bad. Have you considered studying accounting, attending junior college for your first two years, and then transferring to this public school? On average, you'd graduate with $60K in debt, and your average accountant makes $90k per year. That means you'd bring home about $6500 per month, and have a $350 student loan payment. How about going this way and leaving the SJW work to someone else or doing it in your spare time?

 

[iatrogenic]

It can come back, and it probably will. However, it's not going to come back until the Right changes its focus. For the last 15 or 20 years, the Right has focused so heavily on motivating its base that it has forgotten the art of persuasion. For an ideology to stay alive, its adherents have to engage a constant struggle to win over each generation. The Right has gotten lazy and incompetent in this area, so it is getting overwhelmed by the Left, which is at a big advantage by having the media and education (at all levels), where they essentially have a captive audience.

Can young people be brought around? Sure, but you have to make an effort. You need an army rhetorically disciplined advocates who will argue the merits of conservative policy and the demerits of liberal policy in an intelligent manner that is tailored to the audience you're trying to reach. That's why I say our movement needs to be a lot more William F. Buckley and lot less Sarah Palin (or worse, Donald Trump). A bunch of incoherent old guys (or even young guys and women) yelling isn't going to cut it.

Also, you can't treat young people like **** by dismissing their concerns. For example, when young people complain about the skyrocketing cost of tuition, what do most conservatives do? They self-righteously tell them to **** off and deal with it. That's not going to cut it. Young people are getting ripped off, and they know it. You're not going to convince them that they aren't. The good news is that there is a very strong conservative case for tuition reform, but nobody makes it.

And hell, look at Social Security. It's a HORRIBLE deal for young people, but how often do they hear the argument? Virtually never. And of course Trump is doubling down in the opposite direction. He's probably on Hillary's left on the issue.

Move away from the political realm for a moment. If went into a car dealership looking for a new sedan, asked the salesman a question, and his answer was, "stop complaining, buy the car, and shut the **** up," would you buy the car? Well, don't expect young voters to vote Republican when that's the message they typically get.



And this is another problem. I'm not sure if this is in the talk radio talking points, but this is mostly mythology. They've actually done pretty well at keeping Obama at bay. If you don't think so, then tell me what they should have done. And don't just say, "be tough." Be specific.



If Trump wins this election, then not only will conservatism have lost the country, but it will have lost the Republican party. There won't be a conservative party in the United States anymore. That's not just making things worse. It's catastrophic and on a long term basis. There's a big cost to Hillary winning, but she can mostly be kept at bay if we hold onto Congress. Furthermore, we can regroup and live to fight another day in 2020. If Trump wins, the conservative movement will be over, and it will be replaced with a big government nationalism. That's not a net victory.

You assume Conservatives in Congress will bend over backwards for Trump. Based on Congressional leadership's comments, it would be a stretch to confirm this would be true.

 

[NJlonghorn]

We need to stop assuming college is for everybody. Lower the demand for college and that will also put downward pressure on tuition rates.

This is the biggest part of the problem. Half or more of the colleges and universities in the United States shouldn't exist.

Of course , if you say this out loud, people accuse you of being an academic snob.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You assume Conservatives in Congress will bend over backwards for Trump. Based on Congressional leadership's comments, it would be a stretch to confirm this would be true.

If he actually won the election, I think they'd roll over for him on some things and not on others. Partisan loyalty goes a long way.

 

[I35]

And this is another problem. I'm not sure if this is in the talk radio talking points, but this is mostly mythology. They've actually done pretty well at keeping Obama at bay. If you don't think so, then tell me what they should have done. And don't just say, "be tough." Be specific.

Obamacare is just one. They had several options and did nothing. That is the worst legislation ever. I know because I lived it. It was a nightmare for me and I'd be dead right now because of it if my problem wasn't benign. It's a long story. Let's just say I though I had throat cancer and I completely lost my voice for 6 months. I ended up paying 100% of it out of pocket and still paying extremely high premiums each month for something that's useless. But we had the power of the purse and should have shut that program down. All it did was help a very select few and hurt the majority. The sad thing is nobody cared when I was trying to use my insurance and only money out of my pocket did the talking for me. Our congress should have put their foot down. It's a big time drag on our economy and its not helping regular Americans. Oh my premiums went up big time for less care.

I had to edit because I wanted to add something. I was given a network of doctors that I could use under obamacare. About 17 in my area. Several were no such Drs, several told me they don't know what I'm talking about that they aren't in the network and some had the same phone numbers and all doctors listed but like only one could serve me. I went to one and he did look down my throat. He stated that I do have something growing on my vocal cords. He scheduled me an appt for surgery. The day before it was scheduled he canceled. The nurse said that he's never done that procedure before and didn't feel comfortable doing it. I about lost it. I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I had the exact same thing Joan Rivers had but my surgery was two weeks after hers when she died. I could tell you so much more about this story but it would take forever. Stuff like insurance giving me a waiver and how all the doctors responded to that. It was crazy.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Obamacare is just one. They had several options and did nothing. That is the worst legislation ever. I know because I lived it. It was a nightmare for me and I'd be dead right now because of it if my problem wasn't benign. It's a long story. Let's just say I though I had throat cancer and I completely lost my voice for 6 months. I ended up paying 100% of it out of pocket and still paying extremely high premiums each month for something that's useless. But we had the power of the purse and should have shut that program down. All it did was help a very select few and hurt the majority. The sad thing is nobody cared when I was trying to use my insurance and only money out of my pocket did the talking for me. Our congress should have put their foot down. It's a big time drag on our economy and its not helping regular Americans. Oh my premiums went up big time for less care.

I had to edit because I wanted to add something. I was given a network of doctors that I could use under obamacare. About 17 in my area. Several were no such Drs, several told me they don't know what I'm talking about that they aren't in the network and some had the same phone numbers and all doctors listed but like only one could serve me. I went to one and he did look down my throat. He stated that I do have something growing on my vocal cords. He scheduled me an appt for surgery. The day before it was scheduled he canceled. The nurse said that he's never done that procedure before and didn't feel comfortable doing it. I about lost it. I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I had the exact same thing Joan Rivers had but my surgery was two weeks after hers when she died. I could tell you so much more about this story but it would take forever. Stuff like insurance giving me a waiver and how all the doctors responded to that. It was crazy.

I sympathize with you for what happened, but you're making the case for how badly you got jerked around by an insurer and some shabby doctors. What exactly did you expect the GOP to do? When Obamacare passed, the GOP had just gotten curb-stomped in the 2008 election. Democrats had big majorities in both houses of Congress and the votes to pass Obamacare. There was nothing the GOP could do to stop it.

Once Obamacare was law, what options did they really have? Once they took full control of Congress after the 2014 elections, they passed repeal legislation, but presidents don't usually sign repeals of their signature legislative achievement. Accordingly, he very predictably vetoed the bill. They tried to override, and predictably, that failed.

You mentioned the power of the purse, so how would that work? They'd attach an Obamacare repeal to some "must-pass" piece of legislation like the budget or debt ceiling legislation. Do you really think Obama would have signed that? **** no. So there'd be a government shutdown. When was the last time the GOP won a government shutdown battle? Never, but let's suppose they pull off a miracle and actually frame the issue in an advantageous manner and get he public on their side. Why would Obama fold? He was a lame duck, and there were enough safe Democrats in both houses to sustain his veto. He would have absolutely nothing to gain by caving and nothing to lose by digging in, because public support wouldn't matter to him.

It's a *****, and it's frustrating, but there wasn't a damn thing they could do. The chance to get rid of Obamacare was in the 2012 election. If they had won that and taken the Senate, they would have been able to get rid of it. Once that didn't happen, there was no realistic way to get rid of it.

 

[Musburger1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ay-trump-asks-why-cant-we-use-nuclear-weapons

There is a 2-minute video clip at the link where the NSNBC host makes the claim Trump asked a foreign policy expert three times within an hour why we don't use nuclear weapons. It's possible the host is putting out disinformation to damage Trump. It's also possible that Trump is in the early stages of mental illness.

The other major candidate is a sociopathic, congenital liar. So who will it be? The lying treasonous ***** or the narcissistic billionaire with early onset dementia?

 

[I35]

It's a *****, and it's frustrating, but there wasn't a damn thing they could do. The chance to get rid of Obamacare was in the 2012 election. If they had won that and taken the Senate, they would have been able to get rid of it. Once that didn't happen, there was no realistic way to get rid of it.

Maybe I'm wrong but the Congress sets the budget. All Congress had to do is not make the money available for that particular legislation when they won the mid-term election.

 

[theiioftx]

Why do some people hide their pro Hillary support behind their pro Johnson support?

I never hear why Johnson is better than Hillary....

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why do some people hide their pro Hillary support behind their pro Johnson support?

I never hear why Johnson is better than Hillary....

As someone considering voting for Johnson, I'll say that his demonstrated fiscal conservatism without the social conservatism baggage has significant appeal. Johnson is the only fiscal conservative still standing in this election.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Maybe I'm wrong but the Congress sets the budget. All Congress had to do is not make the money available for that particular legislation when they won the mid-term election.

It's not that simple. Spending bills still require the President's signature.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why do some people hide their pro Hillary support behind their pro Johnson support?

I never hear why Johnson is better than Hillary....

Honestly, the more I hear from him, the less impressed I am. He's sounding more like a social liberal and less like a social libertarian. Nevertheless, his fiscal policy is strongly conservative, which makes him significantly better than Hillary.

And FWIW, he's not a crook.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Honestly, the more I hear from him, the less impressed I am. He's sounding more like a social liberal and less like a social libertarian. Nevertheless, his fiscal policy is strongly conservative, which makes him significantly better than Hillary.

And FWIW, he's not a crook.

Social liberal vs. Social libertarian? Can you offer more detail?

 

[theiioftx]

Is an open border fiscally conservative? I do think he is more fiscally conservative than HRC, but she is for open borders too.

I like some of his positions, but I too see him as too socially liberal. The fact he openly flaunts his violation of law (bad law or not) also makes me cringe.

And in most states, a vote either way does not matter. I think few here really believe Johnson has any chance, but rarely state why he is better than both real candidates.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Social liberal vs. Social libertarian? Can you offer more detail?

Sure. He's taking sides in the gay wedding cake lawsuits. A social libertarian shouldn't take a position, because it's not within the federal government's authority (at least if you accept a narrow view of congressional power as libertarians usually do). Of course, he shouldn't oppose them either.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Sure. He's taking sides in the gay wedding cake lawsuits. A social libertarian shouldn't take a position, because it's not within the federal government's authority (at least if you accept a narrow view of congressional power as libertarians usually do). Of course, he shouldn't oppose them either.

That's fair. It appears his social liberal tendencies are couched in states rights if that matters.

 

[I35]

It's not that simple. Spending bills still require the President's signature.

They are suppose to do the budget yearly. If congress doesn't put the money for that specific legislation, what is there to sign for the President? Am I wrong on that?

 

[Mr. Deez]

They are suppose to do the budget yearly. If congress doesn't put the money for that specific legislation, what is there to sign for the President? Am I wrong on that?

The appropriations bills actually spend the money. If they don't include funding for Obamacare, he'll veto the bills, which would lead to a government shutdown. Unless you have the votes to override, there is no way to completely freeze the President out of the process.

Here's another thing. Suppose you had the votes to override the veto. You'd be able to defund the program, which would kick a lot of people off of Medicaid and enrage a bunch of states that have expanded Medicaid on the condition of receiving federal funding. However, that wouldn't eliminate the Obamacare rules and regulations on health insurers. In other words, to the extent that your problem was caused by Obamacare, defunding the program wouldn't solve it.

 

[theiioftx]

Johnson came out in support of BLM yesterday. I guess the "J" in SJW stands for Johnson?

 

[I35]

The appropriations bills actually spend the money. If they don't include funding for Obamacare, he'll veto the bills, which would lead to a government shutdown. Unless you have the votes to override, there is no way to completely freeze the President out of the process.

Here's another thing. Suppose you had the votes to override the veto. You'd be able to defund the program, which would kick a lot of people off of Medicaid and enrage a bunch of states that have expanded Medicaid on the condition of receiving federal funding. However, that wouldn't eliminate the Obamacare rules and regulations on health insurers. In other words, to the extent that your problem was caused by Obamacare, defunding the program wouldn't solve it.

If what you say is true, then this is just another reason to vote for Trump. He's said he wants to change it. I don't know how good he can help to fix it, but I do know Hillary would not change it. It's the worst legislation we've ever had. It's killing the economy just to help a few. It's hurting the majority.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If what you say is true, then this is just another reason to vote for Trump. He's said he wants to change it. I don't know how good he can help to fix it, but I do know Hillary would not change it. It's the worst legislation we've ever had. It's killing the economy just to help a few. It's hurting the majority.

First, if your'e talking about changing the budget process of spending bills passing through Congress and being signed or vetoed by the President, that's constitutional. Trump's not changing it, nor would I want him to.

Second, if you're talking about changing Obamacare, I wouldn't assume that Trump will change it to something you'd like. Keep in mind that he thinks single payer healthcare is great.

Furthermore, I would not necessarily assume Hillary wouldn't change it. Obama won't change it, because it's his legacy. He's staking his entire reputation for eternity on it. Hillary doesn't like Obama and doesn't give a crap about his legacy. If rates are spiking and complaints about the program are high, she'll throw Obama under the bus to save her own ***, especially if Democrats are in trouble in 2018, and the Senate map they have looks bad - worse than the 2016 map is for Republicans.

 

[4th_floor]

Johnson came out in support of BLM yesterday. I guess the "J" in SJW stands for Johnson?

Here's what Johnson said:
"Libertarians have led the charge with regard to drug legalization and I really believe that at the heart of the militarization of police has been the War on Drugs. A person of color has a much greater likelihood of going to jail for drugs than a white person. As governor of New Mexico, I supported the legalization of marijuana and was threatened with impeachment. Libertarians aren't coming up to speed on this, they've been at the tip of this from the beginning. I've maintained that the root of police abuse is the war on drugs. Drugs are a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. I watched a recruitment video for police in southern New Mexico that depicted young men in body armor with assault rifles and tanks knocking down doors. I just couldn't believe it."

I agree with this. Maybe if we started to end the crazy, ineffective, expensive war on drugs, BLM would have no justification for the war on cops.

 

[4th_floor]

Sure. He's taking sides in the gay wedding cake lawsuits. A social libertarian shouldn't take a position, because it's not within the federal government's authority (at least if you accept a narrow view of congressional power as libertarians usually do). Of course, he shouldn't oppose them either.

I disagree with Johnson on this too.