View Full Version : GOP elites plot to purge Trump
Common
08-14-2015, 03:58 AM
In the Cleveland debate, Donald Trump refused to commit to support whomever the Republican Party nominates in 2016.
Trump would be wise to maintain his freedom of action.
For there is a plot afoot in the Washington Post Conservative Club to purge Trump from the Republican Party before the primaries begin.
“A political party has a right to … secure its borders,” asserts the Post’s George Will, “a duty to exclude interlopers.” Will wants The Donald “excommunicated” and locked out of all GOP debates until he kneels and takes a loyalty oath to the nominee.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/gop-elites-plot-to-purge-trump/#TUmKFdWmChgfa04v.99
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 04:12 AM
Not sure why Trump would support some of the GOP front runners. They are Establishment stooges.
Common
08-14-2015, 04:39 AM
He wont so far thats what has them hating on him
Redrose
08-14-2015, 04:45 AM
I really don't trust him anymore. Something just doesn't gel. He is saying all the things many on the right want to hear, but he is decimating the rest of the field, basically doing the job for the Dems. If he pulls out down the road, he's destroyed the GOP field. Either he is very unconventional, or he is working to split the GOP and get Hillary in.
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 04:47 AM
He is anti-Establishment.
Period.
The Establishment is made up of the elite of both (D) and (R). They have fooled Americans into believing we actually have a two party system. We don't.
whatukno
08-14-2015, 05:30 AM
He is anti-Establishment.
Period.
The Establishment is made up of the elite of both (D) and (R). They have fooled Americans into believing we actually have a two party system. We don't.
I love this statement, it basically says that no one has political leanings of their own and we all think the same. That no one elected actually leans left, or right. Sure, you do have a point that government by in large is a bought and paid for institution, and corporations hold far more sway than the voting public, this is evidenced here:
http://maplight.org/
But, those corporations themselves have political leanings, a gun lobby group by in large won't try and waste their money on politicians who support gun control legislation, alternatively, stem cell lobby groups probably aren't going to waste money on candidates that are pro life.
donttread
08-14-2015, 05:44 AM
In the Cleveland debate, Donald Trump refused to commit to support whomever the Republican Party nominates in 2016.
Trump would be wise to maintain his freedom of action.
For there is a plot afoot in the Washington Post Conservative Club to purge Trump from the Republican Party before the primaries begin.
“A political party has a right to … secure its borders,” asserts the Post’s George Will, “a duty to exclude interlopers.” Will wants The Donald “excommunicated” and locked out of all GOP debates until he kneels and takes a loyalty oath to the nominee.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/gop-elites-plot-to-purge-trump/#TUmKFdWmChgfa04v.99
All part of the show
JDubya
08-14-2015, 05:56 AM
If the GOP kicks him out, he'll then feel free to run as an Independent, which would be their worst nightmare.
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 06:31 AM
Not sure why Trump would support some of the GOP front runners. They are Establishment stooges.
Compare to who?
No democrat in captivity us worth voting for.
Even a Jeb the Teletubby republican is better than Hillary.
Common
08-14-2015, 07:55 AM
I really don't trust him anymore. Something just doesn't gel. He is saying all the things many on the right want to hear, but he is decimating the rest of the field, basically doing the job for the Dems. If he pulls out down the road, he's destroyed the GOP field. Either he is very unconventional, or he is working to split the GOP and get Hillary in.
hes trying to get elected
Chris
08-14-2015, 07:59 AM
I really don't trust him anymore. Something just doesn't gel. He is saying all the things many on the right want to hear, but he is decimating the rest of the field, basically doing the job for the Dems. If he pulls out down the road, he's destroyed the GOP field. Either he is very unconventional, or he is working to split the GOP and get Hillary in.
What you're detecting is he's a populist, an anti-establishment populist, but a populist just the same.
Green Arrow
08-14-2015, 08:08 AM
He is anti-Establishment.
Period.
The Establishment is made up of the elite of both (D) and (R). They have fooled Americans into believing we actually have a two party system. We don't.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that he's part of the problem, and I agree with those that have stated he is trying to help Hillary.
PolWatch
08-14-2015, 08:35 AM
Look up Trump's record of donations....5 years ago he switched parties (?) Anyone think that was too soon for Hillary to start spinning her web?
I think even Trump is amazed that he is gaining so much support. He seems to be trying to antagonize as many voters as possible. I think its funny except for one thing: we could see another president Clinton.....nuttin funny about that thought.
Green Arrow
08-14-2015, 08:42 AM
Look up Trump's record of donations....5 years ago he switched parties (?) Anyone think that was too soon for Hillary to start spinning her web?
I think even Trump is amazed that he is gaining so much support. He seems to be trying to antagonize as many voters as possible. I think its funny except for one thing: we could see another president Clinton.....nuttin funny about that thought.
It's worth noting, too, that he switched parties during the GOP wave of 2010 and just two years prior to planning a run in 2012. If the election climate was like 2008, he'd still be a Democrat.
exotix
08-14-2015, 08:46 AM
Compare to who?
No democrat in captivity us worth voting for.
Even a Jeb the Teletubby republican is better than Hillary.Jeb *Lurch* Bush who just called for another invasion of Iraq ?
Let's face it dude ... in fact, how do you face this thing called another GOP Clown Show ?
Billary could be convicted of Benghazi Emails and will still be elected.
Presenting GOP clowns from hell is no way to go through life son ... LOL
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 08:48 AM
Jeb *Lurch* Bush who just called for another invasion of Iraq ?
So did 4-star general odierno.
Obumer lost the peace in Iraq and someone has to fix it with boots on the ground if necessary.
exotix
08-14-2015, 08:52 AM
So did 4-star general odernero.
Obumer lost the peace in Iraq and someone has to fix it with boots on the ground if necessary.You sound confident America is looking forward to World War *Lurch* Duhbya .
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 08:56 AM
You sound confident America is looking forward to World War *Lurch* Duhbya .
He's running 5th in Iowa and I have him 17th on my list of preferences.
Hopefully he will not be the republican nominee.
But even Jeb is better than any democrat.
Adelaide
08-14-2015, 09:02 AM
I really don't trust him anymore. Something just doesn't gel. He is saying all the things many on the right want to hear, but he is decimating the rest of the field, basically doing the job for the Dems. If he pulls out down the road, he's destroyed the GOP field. Either he is very unconventional, or he is working to split the GOP and get Hillary in.
His brand appeals more to conservatives because he's a successful businessman who in theory should be able to make sound decisions on the economy and with things like budget proposals. He probably knew he had no shot running as a Democrat, both because of his background but also because of Clinton. I think he's conveniently gone with the GOP and has tapped his core audience within that group of primary voters. I don't think it's a malicious, well-thought out attempt to divide the GOP and ultimately make Clinton the president. I think Donald Trump merely assessed his ideals and his background and decided it appealed more to the conservatives in the country.
exotix
08-14-2015, 09:07 AM
He's running 5th in Iowa and I have him 17th on my list of preferences.
Hopefully he will not be the republican nominee.
But even Jeb is better than any democrat.Be a lot easier on you if Trump ran as a Dem ... LOL
Adelaide
08-14-2015, 09:08 AM
So did 4-star general odierno.
Obumer lost the peace in Iraq and someone has to fix it with boots on the ground if necessary.
It took two presidents to fuck up Iraq. Don't be so partisan you can't see that. Bush and Obama both made serious errors in how they approached Iraq. Also, some of the blame has to go to al-Maliki for not keeping the US trained troops and police in action. What's the point of training a shitload of people if the prime minister then basically dismisses them all?
Also, I believe that Obama will put boots on the ground before he leaves office. I think he's trying to wait so that it won't effect the nominations or election. He's not opposed to military intervention, we know that.
exotix
08-14-2015, 09:11 AM
It took two presidents to $#@! up Iraq.
Don't be so partisan you can't see that.
Bush and Obama both made serious errors in how they approached Iraq.
Also, some of the blame has to go to al-Maliki for not keeping the US trained troops and police in action. What's the point of training a $#@!load of people if the prime minister then basically dismisses them all?
Also, I believe that Obama will put boots on the ground before he leaves office. I think he's trying to wait so that it won't effect the nominations or election. He's not opposed to military intervention, we know that.It never ceases to amaze me how people can use Bush and Obama in the same sentence.
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 09:14 AM
It took two presidents to $#@! up Iraq. Don't be so partisan you can't see that. Bush and Obama both made serious errors in how they approached Iraq. Also, some of the blame has to go to al-Maliki for not keeping the US trained troops and police in action. What's the point of training a $#@!load of people if the prime minister then basically dismisses them all?
Also, I believe that Obama will put boots on the ground before he leaves office. I think he's trying to wait so that it won't effect the nominations or election. He's not opposed to military intervention, we know that.
George Bush is not the subject here.
Its Jeb Bush and obumer.
But before you make an issue out of old history I supported the war and have since conceded it was a mistake.
So I don't think I walk on water or that I am always right.
He is anti-Establishment.
Period.
The Establishment is made up of the elite of both (D) and (R). They have fooled Americans into believing we actually have a two party system. We don't.
Demoblican
Demoblican, Republocrat,
So which is what, and what is that?
Grab my wallet, surveil my d1ck,
With smiles so fixed and hands so quick!
---- (c) 2014, OGIS
---- Permission is granted to copy freely with attribution.
Adelaide
08-14-2015, 09:25 AM
George Bush is not the subject here.
Its Jeb Bush and obumer.
But before you make an issue out of old history I supported the war and have since conceded it was a mistake.
So I don't think I walk on water or that I am always right.
You blamed Iraq on Obama. It took two to create the mess that was ultimately made. Obama isn't the subject here, either, but you sure tried to get the dig in.
Jeb Bush won't be the nominee. He's fairly irrelevant compared to his fellow candidates.
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Peter1469 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1216707#post1216707)
The Establishment is made up of the elite of both (D) and (R). They have fooled Americans into believing we actually have a two party system. We don't.
...it basically says that no one has political leanings of their own and we all think the same. That no one elected actually leans left, or right.
That is not what he is saying. The governing elite tolerates quite a bit of ideological "play" in the system. It allows them to maintain the illusion that we have a viable choice. The reality is that the true power always resides with the people behind the people who posture in front of the microphones.
May I suggest this book? It is an eye-opener.
12362
whatukno
08-14-2015, 11:57 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Peter1469 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1216707#post1216707)
The Establishment is made up of the elite of both (D) and (R). They have fooled Americans into believing we actually have a two party system. We don't.
That is not what he is saying. The governing elite tolerates quite a bit of ideological "play" in the system. It allows them to maintain the illusion that we have a viable choice. The reality is that the true power always resides with the people behind the people who posture in front of the microphones.
May I suggest this book? It is an eye-opener.
12362
I'll have to look into it. I am fully aware that corporations pull the strings on our government. It's no secret. My argument is that even those corporations tend to be left or right. It may be more subtle, but the lean is there.
JDubya
08-14-2015, 11:58 AM
So did 4-star general odierno.
Obumer lost the peace in Iraq and someone has to fix it with boots on the ground if necessary.
Peace in Iraq.... :biglaugh:
Yeah, right. What there was of that was lost the day Bush launched his idiotic invasion.
Funny how some still don't get that.
Or refuse to admit it, anyway.
What you're detecting is he's a populist, an anti-establishment populist, but a populist just the same.
You know who else was an anti-establishment populist?
Look up Trump's record of donations....5 years ago he switched parties (?) Anyone think that was too soon for Hillary to start spinning her web?
Conspiracy-Theory-like typing detected.
I think even Trump is amazed that he is gaining so much support. He seems to be trying to antagonize as many voters as possible. I think its funny except for one thing: we could see another president Clinton.....nuttin funny about that thought.
Here's a thought: what if he is a Hillary stooge... but what if he then won?
There's food for many thriller novels right there.
His brand appeals more to conservatives because he's a successful businessman who in theory should be able to make sound decisions on the economy and with things like budget proposals. He probably knew he had no shot running as a Democrat, both because of his background but also because of Clinton. I think he's conveniently gone with the GOP and has tapped his core audience within that group of primary voters. I don't think it's a malicious, well-thought out attempt to divide the GOP and ultimately make Clinton the president. I think Donald Trump merely assessed his ideals and his background and decided it appealed more to the conservatives in the country.
An intelligent, thoughtful and well-balanced comment. What are you doing on this forum? :wink:
Seriously now.
What you are saying is that he is doing exactly what Saint Ronald the Reagan did when he left the SAG, and with the same type of personal, inner motivations. Trump has a private agenda that he thinks can only be accomplished by being President.
Something happened during Reagan's tenure at the SAG. No one is sure what. My own opinion is that it may have involved some ideologically-based power plays from the CPUSA, which was said to have "agents" in SAG. But whatever that something was, it pi55ed him off so much that his entire public persona changed from liberal Democrat to hardline conservative, and he set his sights on "the Evil Empire." For Reagan, for some reason, it was "personal."
I wonder what Trump's vision is?
PolWatch
08-14-2015, 02:01 PM
Conspiracy-Theory-like typing detected.
Here's a thought: what if he is a Hillary stooge... but what if he then won?
There's food for many thriller novels right there.
Of course....conspiracy theory is required for trying to find logic in Trump's candidacy. What other reason could there be? A billionaire decides to change from being the big guy in charge of everything he sees in favor of trying to get Congressional support and asking the masses to support his ideas? Of course the man who is famous for screaming YOU'RE FIRED at people wants to apply for a job where he is required (by law) to obey the decisions of others...
uh-huh....
Of course....conspiracy theory is required for trying to find logic in Trump's candidacy. What other reason could there be? A billionaire decides to change from being the big guy in charge of everything he sees in favor of trying to get Congressional support and asking the masses to support his ideas? Of course the man who is famous for screaming YOU'RE FIRED at people wants to apply for a job where he is required (by law) to obey the decisions of others...
uh-huh....
Adelaide had a perfectly logical non-conspiracy-theory explanation. I do think, however, that there might be some private agenda of his own there.
It would be interesting to speculate how many world leaders fought for and assumed leadership because they had an inner vision of some sort, rather than simply a lust for power for its own sake. Off the top of my head, but perhaps: Genghis Khan? Alexander the Great? Lincoln (certainly). FDR? Hitler? Churchill, (certainly). Reagan, (certainly).
Men with visions lead to... interesting history.
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 03:14 PM
Compare to who?
No democrat in captivity us worth voting for.
Even a Jeb the Teletubby republican is better than Hillary.
Not really.
Recall the train going over the cliff analogy. The (D)s are going 100 mph. The (R) are going 60 mph. The end result is the same.
That is the choice between (D)s and (R)s.
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 03:27 PM
Peace in Iraq.... :biglaugh:
Yeah, right. What there was of that was lost the day Bush launched his idiotic invasion.
Funny how some still don't get that.
Or refuse to admit it, anyway.
The invasion was a success. The occupation was a failure.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTh7kS-6x08ajZkUTdUTMSqzH1Qodqc5TBT8tQSGqLKA3ZIe124
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 03:57 PM
Not really.
Recall the train going over the cliff analogy. The (D)s are going 100 mph. The (R) are going 60 mph. The end result is the same.
Thats not how I see it.
The democrat base voters are a collection of losers.
The poor, the lazy, the street thugs, homosexuals, illegal aliens, liberal 20 something's with green hair and rings in their noses.
Government workers like the IRS babe.
Hillary or whoever the dems nominate will service that base at the expense of the rest of America.
If a republican wins he will be limited to a certain extent by his hardworking, conservative Christian base.
Not as much as I might wish.
But far, far better than Obama.
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 03:59 PM
Thats not how I see it.
The democrat base voters are a collection of losers.
The poor, the lazy, the street thugs, homosexuals, illegal aliens, liberal 20 something's with green hair and rings in their noses.
Government workers like the IRS babe.
Hillary or whoever the dems nominate will service that base at the expense of the rest of America.
If a republican wins he will be limited to a certain extent by his hardworking, conservative Christian base.
Not as much as I might wish.
But far, far better than Obama.
I disagree for the economic reasons. Both parties are destroying the economy. One faster than the other.
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 04:04 PM
I disagree for the economic reasons. Both parties are destroying the economy. One faster than the other.
I don't disagree with that.
But slower is still better.
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 04:12 PM
I don't disagree with that.
But slower is still better.
A crashed economy is a crashed economy....
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 04:15 PM
A crashed economy is a crashed economy....
No it isn't.
Slower means there is still time for recovery.
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 04:17 PM
No it isn't.
Slower means there is still time for recovery.
They have no intention of enacting policies that could create the conditions for a recovery. That is why they can't get my vote.
Mac-7
08-14-2015, 04:37 PM
They have no intention of enacting policies that could create the conditions for a recovery. That is why they can't get my vote.
I get it.
You're gonna just keep digging the fallout shelter and stockpiling food.
JDubya
08-14-2015, 07:13 PM
The invasion was a success. The occupation was a failure.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTh7kS-6x08ajZkUTdUTMSqzH1Qodqc5TBT8tQSGqLKA3ZIe124
Well yeah.
The invasion was the easy part. Too bad Bushco didn't understand that it would be the aftermath that would cause all the problems.
But it's still pretty disingenuous to speak of Obama losing the peace in Iraq when from the day we launched the invasion, the country never saw peace again.
Dr. Who
08-14-2015, 07:49 PM
I really don't trust him anymore. Something just doesn't gel. He is saying all the things many on the right want to hear, but he is decimating the rest of the field, basically doing the job for the Dems. If he pulls out down the road, he's destroyed the GOP field. Either he is very unconventional, or he is working to split the GOP and get Hillary in.
I have repeatedly insinuated that he's a ringer for the Dems. He's like the forum troll that pretends he's a conservative by saying the most outrageously right wing things, when he's really a lib, and yet there will be cons who agree with him. I think that's the Donald. If he got elected, you would have a Dem in GOP clothing. That would be, at the very least, an interesting state of affairs. It would probably blow up the two party system for good.
PolWatch
08-14-2015, 07:53 PM
I don't think he has any intention of going the full route. He is having fun, creating havoc and getting lots of publicity. The more outrageous he gets, the more some cheer him. How can he lose? His ego was large enough to have its own zip code when this farce began. He may end up needing his own country code.
He will laugh all the way to the bank no matter what happens. Just more money to buy influence from whoever wins.
Mini Me
08-14-2015, 11:02 PM
An intelligent, thoughtful and well-balanced comment. What are you doing on this forum? :wink:
Seriously now.
What happened was J.Edgar Hoover threatened to investigate Reagan during the Commie Witch Hunts, and it scared Reagan so much, he decided to go Rethuglican and be a snitch for Hoover!
Then Reagan followed the coatails of Barry Goldwater,s far right John Bircher mania to become a RW firebrand. Commie Witch Hunts were all the rage back then. It helped propel Nixon back into office as well.
What you are saying is that he is doing exactly what Saint Ronald the Reagan did when he left the SAG, and with the same type of personal, inner motivations. Trump has a private agenda that he thinks can only be accomplished by being President.
Something happened during Reagan's tenure at the SAG. No one is sure what. My own opinion is that it may have involved some ideologically-based power plays from the CPUSA, which was said to have "agents" in SAG. But whatever that something was, it pi55ed him off so much that his entire public persona changed from liberal Democrat to hardline conservative, and he set his sights on "the Evil Empire." For Reagan, for some reason, it was "personal."
I wonder what Trump's vision is?
Mini Me
08-14-2015, 11:07 PM
Of course....conspiracy theory is required for trying to find logic in Trump's candidacy. What other reason could there be? A billionaire decides to change from being the big guy in charge of everything he sees in favor of trying to get Congressional support and asking the masses to support his ideas? Of course the man who is famous for screaming YOU'RE FIRED at people wants to apply for a job where he is required (by law) to obey the decisions of others...
uh-huh....
You're right! Something about this is very FISHEY!
T.Rump could be a plant for the corporate fascists, who want a complete takeover with an in house coup!
Or what would he do if elected, and he never wanted to be Prez? That's scary to even think about it!
Mini Me
08-14-2015, 11:11 PM
What if T.Rump became Prez, and both houses ruled with Rethuglicans. They could legislate the Democratic Party out of existence! And no one could stop it! Hitler did that and got away with it!
We would become a Rethuglican dictatorship ruled by a crazy idiot!!!
Don't try to tell me it can't happen!
Mini Me
08-14-2015, 11:14 PM
Not really.
Recall the train going over the cliff analogy. The (D)s are going 100 mph. The (R) are going 60 mph. The end result is the same.
I would surmise the trains have already gone over the cliff, just like the lemmings have!
That is the choice between (D)s and (R)s.
Mini Me
08-14-2015, 11:19 PM
I disagree for the economic reasons. Both parties are destroying the economy. One faster than the other.
Peter, you should read veteranstoday.org They claim the Khazarian Rothschild Bankers are behind all this, and document a lot of evidence as such!
Mini Me
08-14-2015, 11:24 PM
I don't think he has any intention of going the full route. He is having fun, creating havoc and getting lots of publicity. The more outrageous he gets, the more some cheer him. How can he lose? His ego was large enough to have its own zip code when this farce began. He may end up needing his own country code.
This could be full blown MEGALOMANIA! A very dangerous thing. I think our country is in great peril now!
He will laugh all the way to the bank no matter what happens. Just more money to buy influence from whoever wins.
Mini Me
08-14-2015, 11:28 PM
They have no intention of enacting policies that could create the conditions for a recovery. That is why they can't get my vote.
This was also evident during Obama's " recovery".It was all for Wall Street, and NOTHING for Main Street!
None of these bastards have done one thing to earn anyones vote!
Peter1469
08-14-2015, 11:58 PM
This was also evident during Obama's " recovery".It was all for Wall Street, and NOTHING for Main Street!
None of these bastards have done one thing to earn anyones vote!
Right. Both parties have their pet issues. But it is all for show. In reality the two main parties are only two sides of the same coin.
https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth% 3Fid%3DJN.gsABjvS%252fiKuI%252bstF5lEZkQ%26pid%3D1 5.1%26f%3D1&sp=628333ffe21331ae6bb2c7ec66f6de79
Mac-7
08-15-2015, 05:07 AM
Right. Both parties have their pet issues. But it is all for show. In reality the two main parties are only two sides of the same coin.
https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth% 3Fid%3DJN.gsABjvS%2fiKuI%2bstF5lEZkQ%26pid%3D15.1% 26f%3D1&sp=628333ffe21331ae6bb2c7ec66f6de79
Thats how fence sitting libs avoid responsibility.
It will be a repub or a democrat who wins the election.
but either way they don't want to be blamed.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 05:14 AM
Thats how fence sitting libs avoid responsibility.
It will be a repub or a democrat who wins the election.
but either way they don't want to be blamed.
And nothing major will change when either a (D) or an (R) is elected. The economy will still be heading over the cliff....
Because the sheep are still asleep.
Mac-7
08-15-2015, 05:36 AM
And nothing major will change when either a (D) or an (R) is elected. The economy will still be heading over the cliff....
Because the sheep are still asleep.
Then your vote is meaningless no matter who you support.
But I don't believe that.
For instance, why do illegal aliens not gave their amnesty yet after 9 years of extreme effort to get it?
AeonPax
08-15-2015, 05:43 AM
`
`
As the GOP represents the standard of all things righteously Christian in the U.S., this should be a no-brainer. Just get a bunch of priests, minister, preachers and other pious folk and exorcise Trump out of the Republican party. Problem solved.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 05:44 AM
Then your vote is meaningless no matter who you support.
But I don't believe that.
For instance, why do illegal aliens not gave their amnesty yet after 9 years of extreme effort to get it?
The vote is not meaningless. If the sheep woke up and voted for people who would fix our economy so it won't crash and burn the (D) and (R) parties would die off.
Immigration policy is one of those side wedge issues used to make people think there is substantive difference between the major parties.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 05:48 AM
`
`
As the GOP represents the standard of all things righteously Christian in the U.S., this should be a no-brainer. Just get a bunch of priests, minister, preachers and other pious folk and exorcise Trump out of the Republican party. Problem solved.
A lot of the protestant religions in the US have turned to the hard left politically over the last couple of decades.
Mac-7
08-15-2015, 05:55 AM
Immigration policy is one of those side wedge issues used to make people think there is substantive difference between the major parties.
you mean obumer is just pulling our leg when he grants amnesty to illegals through executive order because he can't do it through congress?
You cynicism knows no bounds.
Republican base voters are against amnesty and that is why the senate amnesty bill failed to reach obumers desk.
The 1% fence sitters didn't stop it.
REPUBLICAN base voters did.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 06:08 AM
you mean obumer is just pulling our leg when he grants amnesty to illegals through executive order because he can't do it through congress?
You cynicism knows no bounds.
No, that is not what I mean. I mean that the immigration issue is not on the same level as our economy and its crushing levels of debt. Immigration is a mole hill. Our debt and deficit spending is a mountain.
Republican base voters are against amnesty and that is why the senate amnesty bill failed to reach obumers desk.
The 1% fence sitters didn't stop it.
REPUBLICAN base voters did.
Fence sitters? Are those people who are not democrats and who do not vote republican?
How did they become obligated to vote republican again?
Mac-7
08-15-2015, 06:15 AM
No, that is not what I mean. I mean that the immigration issue is not on the same level as our economy and its crushing levels of debt. Immigration is a mole hill. Our debt and deficit spending is a mountain.
Fence sitters? Are those people who are not democrats and who do not vote republican?
How did they become obligated to vote republican again?
It it was those of us who vote republican that prevented the republicans from giving Obama the amnesty he wanted.
The 1% fence sitters didn't do it.
They were no help still all.
I understand that's just one small victory.
and by itself it won't save the country.
but its a start.
You don't win anything by sitting on the fence.
You win by stepping up and fighting for what you believe.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 06:19 AM
It it was those of us who vote republican that prevented the republicans from giving Obama the amnesty he wanted.
The 1% fence sitters didn't do it.
They were no help still all.
I understand that's just one small victory.
and by itself it won't save the country.
but its a start.
You don't win anything by sitting on the fence.
You win by stepping up and fighting for what you believe.
What fence is this that people are sitting on?
If a person is not a republican (and also not democrat), why do you insist that they vote (R)? How does that work?
I believe we need to stop spending money we don't have. Both the democrats and republicans believe in deficient spending. So why would I vote for either- I demand that we end deficit spending- not demand that we deficit spend at $.5T rather than $1T.
How is this fence sitting?
Mac-7
08-15-2015, 06:27 AM
What fence is this that people are sitting on?
If a person is not a republican (and also not democrat), why do you insist that they vote (R)? How does that work?
I believe we need to stop spending money we don't have.
Both the democrats and republicans believe in deficient spending.
So why would I vote for either- I demand that we end deficit spending- not demand that we deficit spend at $.5T rather than $1T.
How is this fence sitting?
That isn't quite true.
Republican career politicians who have been in Washington for 6 to 12 years have gone over to the darker side almost without exception.
And democrats support big government programs they can't pay for since they were babes in the cradle.
But not the republican base.
They are the last fiscally sane group in America other than the fence sitters.
But fence sitters have no influence over republican politicians.
Only the republican base can do that.
And the bigger the base the more influence it has.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 07:17 AM
That isn't quite true.
Republican career politicians who have been in Washington for 6 to 12 years have gone over to the darker side almost without exception.
And democrats support big government programs they can't pay for since they were babes in the cradle.
But not the republican base.
They are the last fiscally sane group in America other than the fence sitters.
But fence sitters have no influence over republican politicians.
Only the republican base can do that.
And the bigger the base the more influence it has.
When the Republican base nominates a candidate that will end deficit spending I will vote (R). When a nominee will not do that, I will not vote (R). That is not "fence sitting."
You still have not explained why a person neither a democrat nor a republican is obligated to vote republican.
PolWatch
08-15-2015, 07:44 AM
Its amazing that some ignore 1986 when REAGAN granted amnesty to 3 million illegals....of course, the repubs called it legalization....that made it different. If Romney were proposing the same policies instead of Obama, repubs would be cheering. There is no difference in R & D politics.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 07:50 AM
Its amazing that some ignore 1986 when REAGAN granted amnesty to 3 million illegals....of course, the repubs called it legalization....that made it different. If Romney were proposing the same policies instead of Obama, repubs would be cheering. There is no difference in R & D politics.
Most Reagan supporters say that the amnesty was a mistake. It also was supposed to be a package deal. Amnesty for reform. Guess what- the (D) congress never got around to the reform part. :wink:
PolWatch
08-15-2015, 08:00 AM
Hmmm...I guess from 1995 to 2007 & 2011 until today, the repub majority decided that immigration was not a problem?
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 08:06 AM
Hmmm...I guess from 1995 to 2007 & 2011 until today, the repub majority decided that immigration was not a problem?
The Establishment (both sides of the same coin) has always been for illegal immigration. The (D) side of the coin does it for votes. The (R) side of the coin does it for cheap labor.
PolWatch
08-15-2015, 08:10 AM
The Establishment (both sides of the same coin) has always been for illegal immigration. The (D) side of the coin does it for votes. The (R) side of the coin does it for cheap labor.
Both sides LOVE issues that get the general public riled up.....it keeps everyone too busy to look behind Oz's curtain.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 08:14 AM
Both sides LOVE issues that get the general public riled up.....it keeps everyone too busy to look behind Oz's curtain.
Right. It is red meat to occupy the base while they consolidate control and continue to increase the debt well past sustainable levels.
Green Arrow
08-15-2015, 08:56 AM
Most Reagan supporters say that the amnesty was a mistake. It also was supposed to be a package deal. Amnesty for reform. Guess what- the (D) congress never got around to the reform part. :wink:
Or Reagan was just like every other establishment politician and he was just fine with amnesty without reform.
Mac-7
08-15-2015, 09:01 AM
When the Republican base nominates a candidate that will end deficit spending I will vote (R). When a nominee will not do that, I will not vote (R). That is not "fence sitting."
You still have not explained why a person neither a democrat nor a republican is obligated to vote republican.
Did the candidate you voted for end deficit spending?
I'll answer that for you.
No because he didn't win.
Peter1469
08-15-2015, 09:16 AM
Did the candidate you voted for end deficit spending?
I'll answer that for you.
No because he didn't win.
LoL
The answer isn't to vote for someone who will add to the debt.... :shocked:
You better prepare for an economic collapse. You are unable to vote against it. :wink:
JDubya
08-15-2015, 10:20 AM
The Establishment (both sides of the same coin) has always been for illegal immigration. The (D) side of the coin does it for votes. The (R) side of the coin does it for cheap labor.
Both sides allow it to continue because they know that abruptly ending it would severely damage the economy.
If the average American's grocery bill were to skyrocket & food shortages were to occur because farmers couldn't get their crops harvested, it would be disastrous. There would be rioting in the streets & people would be fighting each other over food.
I don't see why that is so hard for people to understand.
JDubya
08-15-2015, 10:23 AM
LoLThe answer isn't to vote for someone who will add to the debt.... :shocked:You better prepare for an economic collapse. You are unable to vote against it. :wink:
There is not going to be any economic collapse.
Not in our lifetime, anyway.No matter how badly folks like you & Mac-7 are hoping & praying there will be. :grin:
Thats how fence sitting libs avoid responsibility.
It will be a repub or a democrat who wins the election.
but either way they don't want to be blamed.
It will be a Republocrat or a Demoblican who will win. Unless, of course, it is either Trump or Sanders.
Both sides allow it to continue because they know that abruptly ending it would severely damage the economy.
If the average American's grocery bill were to skyrocket & food shortages were to occur because farmers couldn't get their crops harvested, it would be disastrous. There would be rioting in the streets & people would be fighting each other over food.
I don't see why that is so hard for people to understand.
Again, you surprise me.
There is not going to be any economic collapse.
Not in our lifetime, anyway.No matter how badly folks like you & Mac-7 are hoping & praying there will be. :grin:
Depends. If the rate of automation becomes too fast and systemic unemployment rises faster than either:
(1) the government's ability to support people who would otherwise starve,
(2) the government's ability to kill off people who would otherwise starve,
...then there will be a collapse, and it will entail lots of blood in the streets and the destruction of infrastructure.
JDubya
08-15-2015, 01:58 PM
Depends. If the rate of automation becomes too fast and systemic unemployment rises faster than either:
(1) the government's ability to support people who would otherwise starve,
(2) the government's ability to kill off people who would otherwise starve,
...then there will be a collapse, and it will entail lots of blood in the streets and the destruction of infrastructure.
You might find these articles of some interest...
Why Doomsters Who Predict The Collapse Of Money Are Wrong (http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/04/29/why-doomsters-who-predict-the-collpase-of-money-are-wrong/)
U.S. Isn’t Broke, Dollar Won’t Fail, Capital Economics Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-09/u-s-isn-t-broke-dollar-won-t-collapse-capital-economics-says)
Six Major Reasons Why the Dollar Won't (http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/gary-shilling/six-reasons-why-dollar-will-not-collapse)Collapse
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.