Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party?

[Chris]

I think so, but don't really see any GOP candidate as very conservative.

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party? (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party)


If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.

...Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to twelve years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this the GOP’s third epochal intra-party struggle in 104 years.

...In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in American politics. It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this: One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

[MisterVeritis]

I think so, but don't really see any GOP candidate as very conservative.

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party? (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party)
America does not have a conservative party. Establishment Republicans are a mix of liberals, Progressives, and socialists.

The article is based upon a lie.

[Chris]

I think people like Taft, Buckley, Goldwater, and now Will have tried to advance conservatism, but since the New Conservatives of the 1950s they have always been ex-liberals, ex-communists, and ex-Progressives, and that has been the dominant force

[Mac-7]

I think so, but don't really see any GOP candidate as very conservative.

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party? (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party)

The first thing to do is find out whose opinion chris is regurgitating.

Which turns out to be George Will, someone I used to like and respect.

But before Will initiated a personal fued with Trump and the Donald responded I had already come to the conclusion that George Will is quite useless politically since he has been writing his high minded conservative political commentary for decades while the nation steadily sinks into the liberal mud along the Potomac River.

Will sounds very scholarly and I genuinely admire his mastery of words but unfortunately he has never accomplished anything of substance in his entire life.

Donald Trump has.

Its true that Trump is not conservative on every issue but I think its clear that he will not give in to the foreign invasion of America by illegal aliens the way Will intends to do.

And since Trump is running for an office where he can actually change policy for the better while Will isnt what Donald Trump thinks is much more important than what George Will thinks.

Its sad that conservatism has come to this parting of the ways but its time to actually do something instead of merely talking sbout it.

[Chris]

The first thing to do is find out whose opinion chris is regurgitating.

Which turns out to be George Will, someone I used to like and respect.

But before Will initiated a personal fued with Trump and the Donald responded I had already come to the conclusion that George Will is quite useless politically since he has been writing his high minded conservative political commentary for decades while the nation steadily sinks into the liberal mud along the Potomac River.

Will sounds very scholarly and I genuinely admire his mastery of words but unfortunately he has never accomplished anything of substance in his entire life.

Donald Trump has.

Its true that Trump is not conservative on every issue but I think its clear that he will not give in to the foreign invasion of America by illegal aliens the way Will intends to do.

And since Trump is running for an office where he can actually change policy for the better while Will isnt what Donald Trump thinks is much more important than what George Will thinks.

Its sad that conservatism has come to this parting of the ways but its time to actually do something instead of merely talking sbout it.



And when you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger. What a waste of words.


Trump is simply not conservative.

[Mac-7]

And when you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger. What a waste of words.


Trump is simply not conservative.
if you spent more time writing ypur own arguments instead of cutting and pasting the words of others you might reconize a real counter point when it appears under your very nose.

I agreed that Trump is not 100% conservative.

But Trump is a doer not a person like Will who talks much but does nothing.

I think Trump will move the illegal immigration issue in the direction I want it to go

and thats more important to me than your or george will's approval.

[Safety]

And when you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger. What a waste of words.


Trump is simply not conservative.

Today, it seems that all a person has to do is say what many like to hear in order to be conservative.

[Chris]

if you spent more time writing ypur own arguments instead of cutting and pasting the words of others you might reconize a real counter point when it appears under your very nose.

I agreed that Trump is not 100% conservative.

But Trump is a doer not a person like Will who talks much but does nothing.

I think Trump will move the illegal immigration issue in the direction I want it to go

and thats more important to me than your or george will's approval.



Trump is not conservative at all.


The rest of the ad hom again ignored as fallacious if not frivolous.

[Chris]

Today, it seems that all a person has to do is say what many like to hear in order to be conservative.

I think you mean those who like to call themselves conservative when all they are is Republican.

But you're right, conservatism used to mean something.

[Chris]

Another conservative voice on Trump and other Reps...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBHjuaZ0oyo

[Mac-7]

Trump is not conservative at all.


The rest of the ad hom again ignored as fallacious if not frivolous.

How would you know?

Youre an anarchist.

but you seem incapable of accepting yes for an answer.

so ill try it one more time.

Trump is not a 100% classic conservative.

But he's not a far lefty like hillary or bernie.

And he's not a loser like mccain, romney and george will.

Trump has already moved the national needle to the right on amnesty, border security and muslim terrorism and he's not even sworn into office.

[Safety]

How would you know?

Youre an anarchist.

but you seem incapable of accepting yes for an answer.

so ill try it one more time.

Trump is not a 100% classic conservative.

But he's not a far lefty like hillary or bernie.

And he's not a loser like mccain, romney and george will.

Trump has already moved the national needle to the right on amnesty, border security and muslim terrorism and he's not even sworn into office.

So, that means he should be a shoo-in for POTUS, right?

[Mac-7]

So, that means he should be a shoo-in for POTUS, right?

There is no sure thing in politics

but as long as trump continues to prove libs wrong he has a chance.

[Truth Detector]

I think so, but don't really see any GOP candidate as very conservative.

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party? (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party)

Another Donald Trump is the end of the world thread; color me shocked. The answer is obviously a resounding NO; the Don will not be the end of the GOP or Conservatism.

What amazes me is how the media, right or left leaning, do not see a Sanders or Hillary candidacy as being the end of Liberalism or as dangerous for America.

[Truth Detector]

America does not have a conservative party. Establishment Republicans are a mix of liberals, Progressives, and socialists.

The article is based upon a lie.

What is a CONSERVATIVE Party? Be specific.

[Truth Detector]

The first thing to do is find out whose opinion chris is regurgitating.

Which turns out to be George Will, someone I used to like and respect.

But before Will initiated a personal fued with Trump and the Donald responded I had already come to the conclusion that George Will is quite useless politically since he has been writing his high minded conservative political commentary for decades while the nation steadily sinks into the liberal mud along the Potomac River.

Will sounds very scholarly and I genuinely admire his mastery of words but unfortunately he has never accomplished anything of substance in his entire life.

Donald Trump has.

Its true that Trump is not conservative on every issue but I think its clear that he will not give in to the foreign invasion of America by illegal aliens the way Will intends to do.

And since Trump is running for an office where he can actually change policy for the better while Will isnt what Donald Trump thinks is much more important than what George Will thinks.

Its sad that conservatism has come to this parting of the ways but its time to actually do something instead of merely talking sbout it.


And when you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger. What a waste of words.

Another dumb and feckless claim; he didn't attack the messenger. Good lord, you have some serious comprehension issues to match the thin skinned insecurity that oozes from most of your posts.


Trump is simply not conservative.

Another OPINION lacking anything more than "because you say so." Of course, everyone must bend to your definition of "conservative", whatever that might be, because you imagine yourself the ultimate "decider" of what that might be.

[Truth Detector]

Today, it seems that all a person has to do is say what many like to hear in order to be conservative.

Isn't that what Liberals do; besides telling everyone what is good for them?

[Chris]

There is no sure thing in politics

but as long as trump continues to prove libs wrong he has a chance.

And that to you makes him what, conservative?

[Chris]

Another Donald Trump is the end of the world thread; color me shocked. The answer is obviously a resounding NO; the Don will not be the end of the GOP or Conservatism.

What amazes me is how the media, right or left leaning, do not see a Sanders or Hillary candidacy as being the end of Liberalism or as dangerous for America.

Because Hillary and bernie stand for liberalism perchance?

Trump doesn't stand for conservatism.

Get the message now?

[Truth Detector]

Trump is not conservative at all.

.....because you say so. There, I fixed this for you to make it remotely credible.


The rest of the ad hom again ignored as fallacious if not frivolous.

Translation; blah blah blah blah blah blah. Good lord this gets old very fast. Buy a new record.

[Chris]

What is a CONSERVATIVE Party? Be specific.

Sort of like confusing Libertarian and libertarian?

[Truth Detector]

Today, it seems that all a person has to do is say what many like to hear in order to be conservative.


I think you mean those who like to call themselves conservative when all they are is Republican.

But you're right, conservatism used to mean something.

LMAO; birds of a feather. Chris agreeing with a hyper partisan liberals opinion.

[Truth Detector]

Sort of like confusing Libertarian and libertarian?

I wish I could say your screed was compelling; but failure is the adjective that comes to mind.

[Chris]

Another dumb and feckless claim; he didn't attack the messenger. Good lord, you have some serious comprehension issues to match the thin skinned insecurity that oozes from most of your posts.



Another OPINION lacking anything more than "because you say so." Of course, everyone must bend to your definition of "conservative", whatever that might be, because you imagine yourself the ultimate "decider" of what that might be.



He attacked Will.

The rest is meaningless made up nonsense.



Do you think Trump is conservative? Even mac agreed he's not much conservative. Are you saying he is?

I'll go with Will's definition. Did you bother to read before your emotional outburst?

[Tahuyaman]

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party?
That is an excellent question. Traditionally, the Republican Party is supposed to be the home of conservatives. Gradually that has become less and less the case. There are still conservatives in the party, but they are becoming more rare.

I've said all along Trump is not a conservative and he's not receiving the support from the Republicans who consider themselves the conservative base of the party.

Trump may may force the party further to the left, or he may cause the conservative base to regain control. We will see.

[Tahuyaman]

America does not have a conservative party. Establishment Republicans are a mix of liberals, Progressives, and socialists.

The article is based upon a lie.

The Republican Party has shifted dramatically to the left in the last two decades.

[Truth Detector]

Because Hillary and bernie stand for liberalism perchance?

Who's liberalism? Your version? I call it Socialism. They certainly do not represent what Democrats used to stand for.

But I get it; you're fine with Socialists; it's those gosh darn fake Conservatives, as defined by you, that cause you to get all bent out of shape.


Trump doesn't stand for conservatism.

What version of it; yours????!!!!


Get the message now?

I get your message; you're right, everyone else is wrong and if they don't agree with your version, you will goose step over them with your predictable empty rhetoric.

It is fun to watch you agreeing with Safety's opinions; it speaks volumes to your bloviating.

[Chris]

A little more from the article, a little history to help define conservatism for those who struggle with it:


Taft finished third, carrying only Utah and Vermont. But because Taft hewed to conservatism, and was supported by some other leading Republicans (e.g., Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR’s closest friends, and Elihu Root, TR’s secretary of war and then secretary of state), the Republican Party survived as a counterbalance to a progressive Democratic Party. In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. Goldwater defeated New York’s Governor Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, just as Taft had defeated TR, a former New York governor. Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party’s continuity as the custodian of conservatism.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party

[gamewell45]

I think so, but don't really see any GOP candidate as very conservative.

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party? (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party)

I think a lot can happen over the next several months. This election cycle could be a game-changer; I've often wondered if this might spawn a new major party; either way we shall see.

[Tahuyaman]

It is clear. Trump is not a conservative. I doubt he even knows what a conservative is.

Those who support him only do so only as a means to keep Hillary or another liberal Democrat out. No one is supporting Trump based on his political ideology. I don't believe he has any political ideology.

[Safety]

LMAO; birds of a feather. Chris agreeing with a hyper partisan liberals opinion.

The meme is played out, time to retire it to a museum.

Back to the topic, what action has Trump displayed that shores up his "conservatism"?

[Chris]

Who's liberalism? Your version? I call it Socialism. They certainly do not represent what Democrats used to stand for.

But I get it; you're fine with Socialists; it's those gosh darn fake Conservatives, as defined by you, that cause you to get all bent out of shape.



What version of it; yours????!!!!



I get your message; you're right, everyone else is wrong and if they don't agree with your version, you will goose step over them with your predictable empty rhetoric.

It is fun to watch you agreeing with Safety's opinions; it speaks volumes to your bloviating.



Who's liberalism? Your version? I call it Socialism.

Got to love it when someone does what they accuse others of hypocritically. My liberalism you ask and then declare your socialism. --Suggest you look up the definition of socialism.

And again: "I get your message; you're right, everyone else is wrong and if they don't agree with your version, you will goose step over them with your predictable empty rhetoric." Goosestepping with your emotional outbursts declaring yourself right and others wrong but never demonstrating it with any substance.

Speaking of bloviating. You ought to apply the http://i.snag.gy/6v0rb.jpg to yourself and save the forum a lot of BS.

[Truth Detector]

He attacked Will.

OMG; call out the censors!!!!


The rest is meaningless made up nonsense.

Ironic in that you are describing your own screed. It's only made up nonsense in your head, to others like me, it was spot on. George Will has become a mouthpiece for establishment Republicans as evidenced by this piece; you just fai, to comprehend it, therefore, anyone who disagrees with Will is a shill!! Because you say so!!


Do you think Trump is conservative? Even mac agreed he's not much conservative. Are you saying he is?

First you need to define what is meant by Conservative. If you are taking about someone who argues for less Government and less spending, where is Trump different? If you are talking about protecting the border and stopping the massive increase of illegals entering the country, where is he different?

Give us a definition of what you, an anarchist and self declared Libertarian thinks Republicans, you don't support, should stand for.


I'll go with Will's definition. Did you bother to read before your emotional outburst?

What is Will's definition of Conservative and how is that the FINAL decision? Because YOU say so???

[Chris]

I think a lot can happen over the next several months. This election cycle could be a game-changer; I've often wondered if this might spawn a new major party; either way we shall see.

It could split the party, though Trump said in debate he wouldn't go third party.

You're right, there's time, and nows the time to argue it out.

[Truth Detector]

The meme is played out, time to retire it to a museum.

Back to the topic, what action has Trump displayed that shores up his "conservatism"?

A better question; what would you know about Conservatism and what it means?

Ever hear the term Blue Dog Democrat?

[Chris]

LMAO; birds of a feather. Chris agreeing with a hyper partisan liberals opinion.


Except safety is not a partisan liberal.

Besides, what LIBERAL party are you taking about? --Just to remind you your own bloviating, lol.


Question is, are you a conservative, or a liberal plant (the way you argued yesterday for PC with regard to racism sort of gives it away).

[Truth Detector]

Got to love it when someone does what they accuse others of hypocritically. My liberalism you ask and then declare your socialism. --Suggest you look up the definition of socialism.

And again: "I get your message; you're right, everyone else is wrong and if they don't agree with your version, you will goose step over them with your predictable empty rhetoric." Goosestepping with your emotional outbursts declaring yourself right and others wrong but never demonstrating it with any substance.

Speaking of bloviating. You ought to apply the to yourself and save the forum a lot of BS.

I think you need a much bigger box of tissue before you bloviate.

[Common]

No I do not think trump will end the GOP as the conservative party but if he wins he will forever change the definition of conservatism.

If and its a big "IF" Trump wins and champions the middle class he will be one of the most popular presidents in modern history and create a HUGE republican following until the next guy screws it up.

The same goes for any party and candidate if they champion the middle class which has been ignored and attacked relentlessly by corporate and rich america. They will be extraoridinarily strong and popular. They will have the backing of the majority of americans

[Chris]

OMG; call out the censors!!!!



Ironic in that you are describing your own screed. It's only made up nonsense in your head, to others like me, it was spot on. George Will has become a mouthpiece for establishment Republicans as evidenced by this piece; you just fai, to comprehend it, therefore, anyone who disagrees with Will is a shill!! Because you say so!!

[QUOTE=Chris;1377508]Do you think Trump is conservative? Even mac agreed he's not much conservative. Are you saying he is?

First you need to define what is meant by Conservative. If you are taking about someone who argues for less Government and less spending, where is Trump different? If you are talking about protecting the border and stopping the massive increase of illegals entering the country, where is he different?

Give us a definition of what you, an anarchist and self declared Libertarian thinks Republicans, you don't support, should stand for.



What is Will's definition of Conservative and how is that the FINAL decision? Because YOU say so???



You really don't get arguing, do you. His attacking the messenger is not personal, that's not the point, his attacking the messenger is logically fallacious.

Ignoring the echo trolling.


"Conservative"?

To quote you: "What is a CONSERVATIVE Party? Be specific."

Your hypocrisy is getting deep.



Read the article.

Basically conservative means you stand for limited government. Not big government like Bush, or Trump. For more, read the article.



The fact you need to ask what conservatism is adds to doubts you're actually conservative.

[Chris]

I think you need a much bigger box of tissue before you bloviate.

You seem to have used up all the tissues with your whining emotional outbursts.

[Truth Detector]

Except safety is not a partisan liberal.

THAT has to be the funniest thing I have ever seen posted in this forum.


Besides, what LIBERAL party are you taking about?

What Conservative Party are you talking about?


--Just to remind you your own bloviating, lol.

No reminder required; its patently obvious.


Question is, are you a conservative, or a liberal plant (the way you argued yesterday for PC with regard to racism sort of gives it away).

LMAO; yep, arguing that racism is defined by ignorance is a LIBERAL idea.

I don't define myself as a Republican or Conservative because the terms are very SUBJECTIVE these days; as evidenced by your rhetoric.

I think of myself as a limited Government Constitutionalist Capitalist. I believe in the founding principles of this nations founders and the belief that Liberty is only attained when Government is divided and limited and individuals are given the maximum freedom to engage in commerce between and among themselves with limited regulation.

[Chris]

THAT has to be the funniest thing I have ever seen posted in this forum.



What Conservative Party are you talking about?



No reminder required; its patently obvious.



LMAO; yep, arguing that racism is defined by ignorance is a LIBERAL idea.

I don't define myself as a Republican or Conservative because the terms are very SUBJECTIVE these days; as evidenced by your rhetoric.

I think of myself as a limited Government Constitutionalist Capitalist. I believe in the founding principles of this nations founders and the belief that Liberty is only attained when Government is divided and limited and individuals are given the maximum freedom to engage in commerce between and among themselves with limited regulation.



You keep typing Conservative as if there's a Conservative Party. Public school capitalisation.


"What Conservative Party"

"I don't define myself as a Republican or Conservative"

LOL.


So now we agree on a definition of conservative.

How is Trump conservative?

That's the topic.

[Common]

What american desperately needs right now is what Reagan gave a divided depressed america, HOPE and a sense of patriotism. Im not being Partisan here any democrat that does it will have the same popularity, Its not a party thing a

[Safety]

A better question; what would you know about Conservatism and what it means?

Ever hear the term Blue Dog Democrat?

Considering the company I keep outside this forum, I would say I know quite a bit about fiscal conservatism, because social conservatism requires big government.

Here's a hint, take a look at some of the forum libertarians to see what real conservatism looks like.

[Common]

Considering the company I keep outside this forum, I would say I know quite a bit about fiscal conservatism, because social conservatism requires big government.

Here's a hint, take a look at some of the forum libertarians to see what real conservatism looks like.

Fiscal conservatism is what im mostly against. Fiscal Conservatism screws everyone but the rich imho

[Green Arrow]

America does not have a conservative party. Establishment Republicans are a mix of liberals, Progressives, and socialists.

The article is based upon a lie.

There are no liberals or socialists in any GOP-held seat or office and there are barely any progressives.

Understanding here that I know what those words actually mean.

[Truth Detector]

America does not have a conservative party. Establishment Republicans are a mix of liberals, Progressives, and socialists.

The article is based upon a lie.

I have never heard of this "Conservative Party" or seen it on a ballot.

[Truth Detector]

Considering the company I keep outside this forum, I would say I know quite a bit about fiscal conservatism, because social conservatism requires big government.

Here's a hint, take a look at some of the forum libertarians to see what real conservatism looks like.

Translation; you cannot define what "real conservatism" is. Thank you.

[Truth Detector]

Fiscal conservatism is what im mostly against. Fiscal Conservatism screws everyone but the rich imho

How does fiscal conservatism screw everyone? Be specific.

[Chris]

Considering the company I keep outside this forum, I would say I know quite a bit about fiscal conservatism, because social conservatism requires big government.

Here's a hint, take a look at some of the forum libertarians to see what real conservatism looks like.


That's exactly true. Fiscal conservatism says keep government fiscally small and limited, leave fiscal matters to the people. Social conservatism seeks to use government to promote an agenda.


A difference between fiscal conservatives and Republicans: The former is pro-market, the latter pro-business.

[Chris]

America does not have a conservative party. Establishment Republicans are a mix of liberals, Progressives, and socialists.

The article is based upon a lie.


I have never heard of this "Conservative Party" or seen it on a ballot.



Do you not understand that lower-case there is an adjective, while your upper-case Conservative is nominative.

You also confuse libertarian and Libertarian the same way.

MisterVeritis is correct, there is no party that is conservative. Republicans are not conservative.


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. ~P. J. O'Rourke

[TrueBlue]

I think a lot can happen over the next several months. This election cycle could be a game-changer; I've often wondered if this might spawn a new major party; either way we shall see.
BREAKING! This is making the NEWS Now! Even America's favorite food is aware of it!

Breaking News: Donald Trump is Quitting the Presidential Race! Here's His Full Interview With CNN

http://cheezburger.com/76963585/video-donald-trump-quitting-race

[Chris]

Trump could bring back the days of Herbert Hoover.

Meet Donald Trump’s Predecessors (http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/24/meet-donald-trumps-predecessors/)


What’s a historian to make of Trump? Well, what’s anyone to make of Trump? Economic pundits Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow not too long ago scratched their heads (don’t we all?) and concluded the Donald’s nationalistic trade policies reminded them that “The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover.”

“Does Trump aspire,” they asked, “to be a 21st century Hoover with a modernized platform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the U.S. and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?”

Not a flattering comparison at all. Hoover’s Hawley-Smoot Tariff remains uniformly derided as a key ingredient in worsening the Great Depression. Visions of a U.S.-Chinese trade war now haunt free-trading economists and multinational corporations. Add to the mix Hoover’s much lesser-known executive order to ban all immigration, and the brushstrokes begin to hit the canvas, painting the unbecoming portrait of the Donald as the Herbert.

...But wait—as they say on television—there’s more. Prior to reaching the White House, Herbert Hoover (like Trump) held not one elective office, competed not even for a single elective office. Some suspected him (horrors!) of once even being a Democrat! And if that were not the case (it wasn’t), Hoover’s conservative credentials certainly needed work. Hadn’t he bolted the Grand Old Party in 1912 to support the progressive, Theodore Roosevelt?

[Mac-7]

It could split the party, though Trump said in debate he wouldn't go third party.

You're right, there's time, and nows the time to argue it out.

The republican establishment could split the party if Trump wins the nomination and the rinos get mad and stay home.

[MisterVeritis]

What is a CONSERVATIVE Party? Be specific.
In this nation, a conservative party is one that supports, defends and lives the limited government detailed in the US Constitution. Anything else is authoritarian statist.

[Mac-7]

Considering the company I keep outside this forum, I would say I know quite a bit about fiscal conservatism, because social conservatism requires big government.

Here's a hint, take a look at some of the forum libertarians to see what real conservatism looks like.

I have an idea.

lets capture one of the libertarians and dissect them to find out what a true conservative in lib la land is made of.

Because I'm not one of the locals here but rather a real conservative from the real world.

[Chris]

I have an idea.

lets capture one of the libertarians and dissect them to find out what a true conservative in lib la land is made of.

Because I'm not one of the locals here but rather a real conservative from the real world.



http://i.snag.gy/9uqzU.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

There are no liberals or socialists in any GOP-held seat or office and there are barely any progressives.

Understanding here that I know what those words actually mean.
Who cares?

There may be fewer than ten conservatives sin the Senate. Everyone else is an authoritarian statist of one variety or another.

[Mac-7]

http://i.snag.gy/9uqzU.jpg

It was Safety's idea to examine the libertarians.

[Truth Detector]

In this nation, a conservative party is one that supports, defends and lives the limited government detailed in the US Constitution. Anything else is authoritarian statist.

Do you have a link to this Conservative Party's platform?

[Chris]

It was Safety's idea to examine the libertarians.

You spoke of true conservative.

There is no true libertarian. They can be from left to right, from minarcist to anarchist.

[Chris]

Do you have a link to this Conservative Party's platform?

^^Persists in misunderstanding.

[Truth Detector]

^^Persists in misunderstanding.

^^Persists in trolling.

[Mac-7]

You spoke of true conservative.

There is no true libertarian. They can be from left to right, from minarcist to anarchist.

Safety called libertatians "real" conservatives and I was following up on his idea to study them.

But dont worry.

we'll put them back together when we finish.

[Chris]

Safety called libertatians "real" conservatives and I was following up on his idea to study them.

But dont worry.

we'll put them back together when we finish.


I think he meant libertarians tend to be more conservative, fiscally conservative than Republicans.

Not sure what the rest of your babble is about.

[Chris]

^^Persists in trolling.

I doubt you know what trolling is any more than you know what a strawman is so such comments only comes across as more emotional outburst: Sound and fury signifying nothing.

No one in this thread has spoken of a Conservative Party but you.

[Truth Detector]

I doubt you know what trolling is any more than you know what a strawman is so such comments only comes across as more emotional outburst: Sound and fury signifying nothing.

I absolutely do; I read a lot of your posts which defines the terms..I've bolded them for you.


No one in this thread has spoken of a Conservative Party but you.

Seriously??? I guess you forgot to read the title of the thread then:

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party?

Here’s a few more in case you’re still wallowing in blissful denial:


No I do not think trump will end the GOP as the conservative party but if he wins he will forever change the definition of conservatism.


In this nation, a conservative party is one that supports, defends and lives the limited government detailed in the US Constitution. Anything else is authoritarian statist.

Carry on. :rollseyes:

[Chris]

I absolutely do...

No doubt.


Do you not still know the difference between Conservative Party and conservative party? It's been explained grammatically. Hopeless.

[Truth Detector]

Do you not still know the difference between Conservative Party and conservative party? It's been explained grammatically. Hopeless.

Insulting arrogance and trolling aside; no comment to this?


I doubt you know what trolling is any more than you know what a strawman is so such comments only comes across as more emotional outburst: Sound and fury signifying nothing.

I absolutely do; I read a lot of your posts which defines the terms..I've bolded them for you.


No one in this thread has spoken of a Conservative Party but you.

Seriously??? I guess you forgot to read the title of the thread then:

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party?

[Chris]

Insulting arrogance and trolling aside; no comment to this?



I absolutely do; I read a lot of your posts which defines the terms..I've bolded them for you.



Seriously??? I guess you forgot to read the title of the thread then:

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party?

All caps for titles.

[Truth Detector]

All caps for titles.

:biglaugh:

[Chris]

:biglaugh:

I'd be embarrassed too. Not to know English capitalization rules. Here, might help: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

[Matty]

:biglaugh:




You need to pick people you can discuss things with.

[Chris]

You need to pick people you can discuss things with.

I suggest: http://www.kidzworld.com/forums/

[MisterVeritis]

^^Persists in misunderstanding.
I choose to ignore him.

[Green Arrow]

I absolutely do; I read a lot of your posts which defines the terms..I've bolded them for you.



Seriously??? I guess you forgot to read the title of the thread then:

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party?

Here’s a few more in case you’re still wallowing in blissful denial:





Carry on. :rollseyes:

The whooshing sounds you hear all the time are not airplanes flying over your head. It's the point.

[Subdermal]

I think people like Taft, Buckley, Goldwater, and now Will have tried to advance conservatism, but since the New Conservatives of the 1950s they have always been ex-liberals, ex-communists, and ex-Progressives, and that has been the dominant force

I have to ask just how exactly you think you know a solitary thing about this topic, being unable to recognize someone like Ted Cruz as a Conservative, and being wholly unable to contest a core premise of the op-Ed, which is that - somehow - what we have in the GOP at the moment bears even a fleeting resemblance to Conservatism, or the ideologies of any of the historical men you cite.

[Subdermal]

And when you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger. What a waste of words.

Trump is simply not conservative.

Perhaps; perhaps not. But that isn't the point. The point is to reject the silly notion proffered by George Will, which is that a non-Conservative could possibly ruin a party which has already been pushed so far left as to be left of a JFK Democrat, with members that are suspiciously much farther to the left than that.

I'll leave the debate regarding what Trump is - or is not - for another thread. I'll say one thing at the moment: enough of what Trump believes is Conservative - Reaganesque, particularly in tax and business policy - for me.

When I combine that with the strident ass-kicking brash personality that I see in him - completely necessary in combating this consortium Establishment - I see a much better option than anything on the Left, and perhaps second only to Cruz.

[Subdermal]

And that to you makes him what, conservative?

It's funny the dichotomy that Trump is creating in people of different political stripes.

The left is afraid of him - but he's supposed to be heavily leftist. The Establishment is petrified of him, but if he's not Conservative, he should fit in just fine with their ideology.

If what they are seeking is someone of a common ideology.

The Right is afraid of him, because he is not Conservative enough - but note that not ALL of the Right is afraid of him (many, like me; like Rush Limbaugh, like Ted Cruz, etc).

Those Conservatives which are smart and politically expedient are not afraid of Trump.

So what tentative conclusions can we draw from observing which feathers are ruffled? I have a couple:

1) To the Establishment, the ideology of candidates is not nearly as important to them as determining if candidates can be controlled. What one believes at the moment is no guarantee of future compliance. These powers that be don't give really two shits what they think Trump is, or what everyone claims that Trump is, they simply know that he cannot be controlled. He is likely the most uncontrollable candidate to run for high office in decades: at least the first one with a real shot of winning.

2) Because Trump cannot be controlled, the liberal aspects of his ideology are truly feared by those on the Right who are not part of the Establishment but also demand (irrationally) ideological purity - and those types have remained largely ineffective in their zeal to implement their ideologies into practice. Those - people like George Will, (to me, the jury is out whether he is Establishment or not, regardless of what he has said: he is simply a talking head wonk/geek), many other conservative pundits such as some of my local talk show hosts and many posters here and elsewhere - have often allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good, often rejecting support of a candidate with conservative economic views simply because their social views weren't (or vice versa).

This tone-deafness is - naturally - aided by a media bent upon creating desired outcomes. These purists are very easily distracted by stupid social issues which aren't the perview of a POTUS regardless. Character assassinations are regularly scheduled, to herd the voting cattle in their desired direction.

That long-standing strategy has gotten us where we find ourselves at present: a steady stream of candidates seeking offices of all levels who were not and have not been what they portrayed themselves to be: all with the ulterior motive of shifting this country in a direction which serves Globalists and Tyrants.

The OP - interestingly - condemns Trump as "not Conservative", parroting George Will...when everyone reading knows that the OP isn't Conservative either, even though he has some Conservative ideas. I'm not sure of the OP's purpose in posting the article, but I'll ask the question: what is the purpose you are trying to advance? Do you simply enjoy aspects of both sides tearing themselves apart?

3) Regardless the argument that Trump isn't truly "conservative", The Establishment fears those aspects of Trump's ideology which are unquestionably Conservative: lower taxes; less regulation; Patriotism, and no illegal immigration and immigrants from questionable regions with radical Muslim influence.

This fear, they share with liberals (but I repeat myself). Take note, however: if the Establishment is as I've portrayed it to be, their enemy is anything which secures a prosperous and strong America. What we are seeing in Washingon isn't evidence of Democrats going JFK and colluding with traditional Goldwater Conservative members of the GOP: that would be a hard move to the Right. We see an Establishment which has moved leadership of both parties to the Left.

Hence, those things with the Establishment fears are nearly exclusively Conservative principles - so says the evidence regarding what, exactly, turns out the most vitriol in these Establishment and Leftist types.

We used to call them - generally - American principles: which is why so many Republicans look back upon JFK and see a Dem President with whom they had more in common than many members of the GOP today.

4) The left hates Trump unconditionally. The component of the Left which are political and partisan hate him because he doesn't have a (D) behind his name, and he is going to challenge their (D) candidates. I'm quite sure these hacks would be quite the fan if he had chosen to run as a Democrat.

Would the conversations be the same? Would they say that he's "one of them"? Likely not - but it wouldn't matter.

The other component of the Left - the Establishment Machine portion (insiders) hate him because he is upsetting the apple cart of the collusion with GOP leadership to enact their leftist agenda.

5) My final musing. Do I consider Trump a Conservative?

I consider Trump effective. I consider Trump unfiltered. I have studied Trump's slow move to the Right in his personal views over a period of over 15 years. He has - unquestionably - demonstrated increasingly Conservative views over this time; they have demonstrably shifted right over that period of time.

In addition to that observation, I also note that in order to succeed to the level that Trump has, he has had to learn to be adept at greasing the skids, and that often entailed cozying up to members of both parties - which is why it has never bothered me that he has donated to both parties: so do most large Corporations. Like most Corporations, however, one can spot trends and tendencies: Trump didn't donate to Obama. At all.

That speaks volumes. I believe that Trump has always been more to the Right than his public proclamations, and suppressing these views likely was necessary in order to go along to get along in New York.

Beyond that, the following is key to me: I've already stated that I consider Trump effective.

That means that I do not have to require of Trump a level of Conservativism that ineffective purist losers like George Will, et al, require. All I require is to have him be Conservative on issues that really, really matter to me...and there are three:

1) I want a hard-ass on immigration. Trump is without question such a man.

2) I want someone who knows how to free business to bring prosperity back to our country, and do it without Cronyism. Trump knows his way around the boardroom AND Washington DC.

3) I want a POTUS who isn't afraid to call a Radical Islamist Terrorist what they are.

Trump checks every one of those boxes. He may not be Conservative on other issues - or he may be (I happen to think he is more than most realize) - but it doesn't matter to me. He is Conservative where it counts.

And that frightens every single threat to America - foreign and domestic - to death.

[Subdermal]

And - to reinforce my assertion about Establishment RINOs - we have this story from USA Today:

Talk from RINOs to run a GOPer as an INDEPENDENT if Trump wins GOP Nomination! (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/21/jon-huntsman-risks-gop-courting/77493886/)

There you have it. These Establishment RINOs would rather have a Hillary Clinton Presidency than tolerate a Trump (R) Presidency!

:angry4: :angry4: :angry4:

[Mac-7]

The whooshing sounds you hear all the time are not airplanes flying over your head. It's the point.

Arent you taking a big risk to venture out of your protected Cigar and Mac Free safe room where you can summarily ban posters like Truth Detecter from your threads?

[Chris]

I have to ask just how exactly you think you know a solitary thing about this topic, being unable to recognize someone like Ted Cruz as a Conservative, and being wholly unable to contest a core premise of the op-Ed, which is that - somehow - what we have in the GOP at the moment bears even a fleeting resemblance to Conservatism, or the ideologies of any of the historical men you cite.

It's conservatism, with a small c.

Why, because the conservatism I adhere to is defined by the likes of Taft, Buckley, Goldwater, and Will, among others. What you have in the Republican Party bears no resemblance to that. That's the point of the OP I posted, why would I contest it when I agree with it?

Crus is a sociocon.

[Chris]

Arent you taking a big risk to venture out of your protected Cigar and Mac Free safe room where you can summarily ban posters like Truth Detecter from your threads?

Stop the baiting. Discuss the topic or find one you can.

[Peter1469]

Arent you taking a big risk to venture out of your protected Cigar and Mac Free safe room where you can summarily ban posters like Truth Detecter from your threads?

The tPF Discussion forum is an experiment that gives members the option of TBing members who detract from the topic. Trolling, off topic, nonsense, etc. It is not meant to TB people who disagree or who you don't like. Argue the topic and you are golden.

It seems to be liked by many members. Expect the tPF option to move to other areas of the Forum. Some members who can't argue without the bolded above may end up only being able to survive in Rants or the Hole.

[Peter1469]

It's conservatism, with a small c.

Why, because the conservatism I adhere to is defined by the likes of Taft, Buckley, Goldwater, and Will, among others. What you have in the Republican Party bears no resemblance to that. That's the point of the OP I posted, why would I contest it when I agree with it?

Crus is a sociocon.

Cruz is also a neocon (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-ted-cruz-carpet-bomb-20151215-htmlstory.html).

Two big government indicators. Social con and neocon.

[Peter1469]

As far as the OP goes, the GOP stopped representing conservatives a long time ago. They are dem-lite.

[Chris]

Double demerits!



Don't get me wrong, when I denigrate sociocons I don't mean to denigrate the religious. Buckley, for example, was religious. Difference is as a conservative he sought to promote virtue by example, not by law.

[PolWatch]

If someone has to TELL everyone how religious they are, they have missed the entire point of religion.

[Subdermal]

It's conservatism, with a small c.

Why, because the conservatism I adhere to is defined by the likes of Taft, Buckley, Goldwater, and Will, among others. What you have in the Republican Party bears no resemblance to that. That's the point of the OP I posted, why would I contest it when I agree with it?

Crus is a sociocon.

Cruz is socially conservative, but to even point it out is a red herring, because he is solely focused on Federal Government policy which is enumerated in the Constitution.

Cruz has no effect on what social policy in each State is; he's directly said so on multiple occasions.

So what is wrong with Cruz' fiscal Conservativism?

[Subdermal]

If someone has to TELL everyone how religious they are, they have missed the entire point of religion.

But would they have missed one of the points of being a smart campaigning candidate?

[Subdermal]

Double demerits!



Don't get me wrong, when I denigrate sociocons I don't mean to denigrate the religious. Buckley, for example, was religious. Difference is as a conservative he sought to promote virtue by example, not by law.

Red herring.

What laws are the leading GOP candidates looking to pass that legislate virtue?

[Subdermal]

Cruz is also a neocon (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-ted-cruz-carpet-bomb-20151215-htmlstory.html).

Two big government indicators. Social con and neocon.

Cruz is a neocon?

I submit that that tent has been cast far too wide. Wanting to defend the US against Islamist terrorism by also extending our military might to the 'nest' doesn't mean that someone is a neocon.

In order to be a neocon - by my definition - you have to be part of the conscious mechanism to overthrow the autonomy of our country via global initiative and strategies like overthrowing every secular dictator in the ME. That is not part of Cruz' platform.

In addition, there is nothing about Cruz' social Conservativism which is anything other than his own personal ideology. He just got done explaining, in a hilarious attempt by the Left to create a 'gotcha' Secret Tape, that he has little interest in reversing the decree about gay marriage.

He explained that such things are up to each state.

How does that fit your sociocon 'big government' claim?

[Chris]

Cruz is socially conservative, but to even point it out is a red herring, because he is solely focused on Federal Government policy which is enumerated in the Constitution.

Cruz has no effect on what social policy in each State is; he's directly said so on multiple occasions.

So what is wrong with Cruz' fiscal Conservativism?


About a year ago, Cruz, Lee introduce ‘State Marriage Defense Act’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/02/13/cruz-lee-introduce-state-marriage-defense-act/): "Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah introduced the "State Marriage Defense Act" on Wednesday. Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.) introduced similar legislation in the House in early January. If passed, the bill would cede marriage definition to states for federal purposes, which would effectively reverse the gains same-sex couples made after the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in the summer."

Neocon policies are costly.

[Mac-7]

About a year ago, Cruz, Lee introduce ‘State Marriage Defense Act’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/02/13/cruz-lee-introduce-state-marriage-defense-act/): "Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah introduced the "State Marriage Defense Act" on Wednesday. Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.) introduced similar legislation in the House in early January. If passed, the bill would cede marriage definition to states for federal purposes, which would effectively reverse the gains same-sex couples made after the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in the summer."

Neocon policies are costly.

How would that be costly except to libs who support homosexual perversion?

[suds00]

no one says that we have to have political parties i.e. constitution.start over.

[Chris]

How would that be costly except to libs who support homosexual perversion?

Enforcement of laws costs money. What' you think people would follow it on their own?

[Peter1469]

Carpet bombing won't solve anything in the ME, that is why I labeled him a neocon. But I am willing to look deeper.

If Cruz keeps the social issues at the State level, then I agree with him. Something else for me to look into.


Cruz is a neocon?

I submit that that tent has been cast far too wide. Wanting to defend the US against Islamist terrorism by also extending our military might to the 'nest' doesn't mean that someone is a neocon.

In order to be a neocon - by my definition - you have to be part of the conscious mechanism to overthrow the autonomy of our country via global initiative and strategies like overthrowing every secular dictator in the ME. That is not part of Cruz' platform.

In addition, there is nothing about Cruz' social Conservativism which is anything other than his own personal ideology. He just got done explaining, in a hilarious attempt by the Left to create a 'gotcha' Secret Tape, that he has little interest in reversing the decree about gay marriage.

He explained that such things are up to each state.

How does that fit your sociocon 'big government' claim?

[Subdermal]

About a year ago, Cruz, Lee introduce ‘State Marriage Defense Act’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/02/13/cruz-lee-introduce-state-marriage-defense-act/): "Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah introduced the "State Marriage Defense Act" on Wednesday. Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.) introduced similar legislation in the House in early January. If passed, the bill would cede marriage definition to states for federal purposes, which would effectively reverse the gains same-sex couples made after the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in the summer."

Neocon policies are costly.

That's a stupid conclusion.

We have an anti-Constitutional activist SCOTUS - save a couple of members, whose dissent very clearly explained just how the SCOTUS was abusing their privilege in creating new laws for the Fed to enforce.

Defending the Constitution can be costly, and you're welcome to explain to me just how doing so is a 'neocon' thing - and you're also welcome to explain to me just how reversing a stupid rule would cost anything more than the cost behind any other bill which cedes power to the States.

:biglaugh:

[Subdermal]

Carpet bombing won't solve anything in the ME, that is why I labeled him a neocon. But I am willing to look deeper.

If Cruz keeps the social issues at the State level, then I agree with him. Something else for me to look into.

He did say what you mention: carpet bombing ISIS strongholds. I actually do believe that it would have a considerable effect, but let's not kid around: the comment was generalistic and hyperbolic, but intended to capture the spirit of Cruz' intent: a toughness against terrorism that we do not currently manifest. The comment was both electioneering and not at all deceptive, but what Cruz actually intends to do wrt ISIS, etc, is far more complex, and will involve the proper military minds.

More than any other candidate, I believe Cruz is capable of controlling the rudder correctly.

[Chris]

That's a stupid conclusion.

We have an anti-Constitutional activist SCOTUS - save a couple of members, whose dissent very clearly explained just how the SCOTUS was abusing their privilege in creating new laws for the Fed to enforce.

Defending the Constitution can be costly, and you're welcome to explain to me just how doing so is a 'neocon' thing - and you're also welcome to explain to me just how reversing a stupid rule would cost anything more than the cost behind any other bill which cedes power to the States.

:biglaugh:



Rather meaningless to call something stupid without backing it up.

Actually we have in such a law as that or DOMA an anti-Constitutional activist Congress. Where exactly is Congress empowered to pass such laws? And impose them on the states? The example was is direct contradistinction to your claim Cruz did not seek such powers over states.

Enforcement costs.

Neocon policies like carpet bombing ISIS are not defensive--provide for the common defense--but instead offensive, interventionist.

[Mac-7]

Enforcement of laws costs money. What' you think people would follow it on their own?

You mean homosexuals would just find back alley ministers to marry them and create a blackmarket for illegal Ken and Ben wedding cakes?

I have to admit you got me on that one.

[Chris]

You mean homosexuals would just find back alley ministers to marry them and create a blackmarket for illegal Ken and Ben wedding cakes?

I have to admit you got me on that one.


No, they would do it freely and openly. No one would stop them.

[Subdermal]

Rather meaningless to call something stupid without backing it up.

One could only stupidly conclude such a thing if one read only the first 4 words. The rest was support of the assertion.


Actually we have in such a law as that or DOMA an anti-Constitutional activist Congress. Where exactly is Congress empowered to pass such laws? And impose them on the states? The example was is direct contradistinction to your claim Cruz did not seek such powers over states.

Wait a moment. A second ago, you were content to make this about Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and cited their particular bill addressing the topic of gay marriage.

That bill was not DOMA. Are you now inadvertently - or intentionally - attempting to conflate the two? Because one is not Constitutional - nor is its converse (what we now have: a FORCED COMPLIANCE in all States of Gay Marriage) - and one is.

The shame of it is that Cruz' and Lee's bill should never have been necessary. It was made necessary when they recognized an attack on the Constitution, and it is their obligation to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So no, Chris: what Cruz and Lee did was NOT imposing anything on States. It was the opposite: it was an attempt to remove FedGov influence over States, just as you claim you wish.

Or do you wish it?


Enforcement costs.

Yes, I've said that. Lots of enumerated Federal Government responsibilities involve costs. You appear to be interested in marginalizing legitimate costs by conflating Constitutional actions with anti-Constitutional actions.


Neocon policies like carpet bombing ISIS are not defensive--provide for the common defense--but instead offensive, interventionist.

There is nothing in the Constitution which says that WWII was unConstitutional. Your ideology is weird.

[Chris]

One could only stupidly conclude such a thing if one read only the first 4 words. The rest was support of the assertion.



Wait a moment. A second ago, you were content to make this about Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and cited their particular bill addressing the topic of gay marriage.

That bill was not DOMA. Are you now inadvertently - or intentionally - attempting to conflate the two? Because one is not Constitutional - nor is its converse (what we now have: a FORCED COMPLIANCE in all States of Gay Marriage) - and one is.

The shame of it is that Cruz' and Lee's bill should never have been necessary. It was made necessary when they recognized an attack on the Constitution, and it is their obligation to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So no, Chris: what Cruz and Lee did was NOT imposing anything on States. It was the opposite: it was an attempt to remove FedGov influence over States, just as you claim you wish.

Or do you wish it?



Yes, I've said that. Lots of enumerated Federal Government responsibilities involve costs. You appear to be interested in marginalizing legitimate costs by conflating Constitutional actions with anti-Constitutional actions.



There is nothing in the Constitution which says that WWII was unConstitutional. Your ideology is weird.




One could only stupidly conclude...

OK.


...That bill was not DOMA....

What I posted: "Actually we have in such a law as that or DOMA...."


...an attack on the Constitution....

There was no attack. DOMA and their proposed law were unconstitutional. They impose religious agenda on the states--remember, that's the point, Cruz is a sociocon. I'm not here to argue the merits of the law they proposed, only that is demonstrates Cruz is a sociocon.


You appear to be interested in marginalizing legitimate costs by conflating Constitutional actions with anti-Constitutional actions.

Fiscal conservatism, yes.


There is nothing in the Constitution which says that WWII was unConstitutional.

Like Detector, you impose a liberal reading on the Constitution. To you if it's not in the Constitution it's OK for the federal government to do when the inverse is true, only what is enumerated and not prohibited is allowed--on a conservative reading.

[Peter1469]

If you are correct about his social position, so far as federal government goes, I could lean his way.
He did say what you mention: carpet bombing ISIS strongholds. I actually do believe that it would have a considerable effect, but let's not kid around: the comment was generalistic and hyperbolic, but intended to capture the spirit of Cruz' intent: a toughness against terrorism that we do not currently manifest. The comment was both electioneering and not at all deceptive, but what Cruz actually intends to do wrt ISIS, etc, is far more complex, and will involve the proper military minds.

More than any other candidate, I believe Cruz is capable of controlling the rudder correctly.

[Subdermal]

OK.



What I posted: "Actually we have in such a law as that or DOMA...."

Mentioning DOMA was an attempt to move the goal posts. The topic was about Cruz, and the claim of him being a neocon. Why bring DOMA up at all, particularly in light of the fact that Cruz and Lee authored their own bill, which corrects any (justified) apprehension you have wrt DOMA.

Cruz is not a neocon, and he is not looking to impose his social Conservativism on anyone else - and has amply demonstrated a consistency in his ideology through the bill co-sponsored by Lee. Further evidence of the correctness of my stance is found even in your attempt to characterize him as such: it required a movement of goalposts to insinuate a bill such as DOMA has or had anything to do with Cruz.

Cruz is not 'Big Government'. Cruz is the anti-thesis of Big Government, though - obviously - it would be easy to pick on anyone attempting to reverse prior unConstitutional action taken by Congress as "increasing costs".


There was no attack. DOMA and their proposed law were unconstitutional.

No one in this discussion argued otherwise, particularly Cruz. The question, then, is why bring it up?


They impose religious agenda on the states--remember, that's the point, Cruz is a sociocon.

Sigh. No one has contested that Cruz is socially conservative. That has absolutely zero to do with whether or not his policy institutes his socially conservative views on the rest of society.

How, exactly, does Cruz' or Lee's stance on gay marriage through their bill attempting to make Constitutional the unConstitutionality of DOMA - and the SCOTUS striking of DOMA - impose any particular religious belief on the people of this country?

Their Bill specifically and exactly allows the PEOPLE THEMSELVES to dictate the law under which they decide to live, in exactly the way the Constitution intended: State by State.


I'm not here to argue the merits of the law they proposed, only that is demonstrates Cruz is a sociocon.

Then one must ask why you engaged in the effort, since no one argued otherwise. See, I believe you have another purpose: to insinuate that Cruz' social Conservativism is somehow a disqualifier for POTUS, when - if you're tolerant - you agree that proper administration of Constitutional principle automatically makes a President's social stances utterly moot, except - perhaps - as a role model for other people.


Fiscal conservatism, yes.

That isn't an answer to my challenge, so I'll reiterate. You appear to be interested in marginalizing social conservatives merely because they're social conservatives, without demonstrating the communal tolerance and appreciating the Constitutional restrictions placed upon our politicians hampering any closeted desire to impose their own personal beliefs on the rest of society.

The Constitution provides legal channels to express - and then impose - religious belief on citizens, but only on a State by State basis.

That explains exactly why and how Thomas Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists, who wrote to Jefferson to express their exasperation regarding the Congregationalists of Connecticut, who passed a tax on the people of Danbury expressly for the purpose of assisting the Congregationalist Church.

Not that he did not say that what the Congregationalists were doing was against Federal law. What he said was entirely different, and that nuance is both critical and willfully missed by those with an agenda. Jefferson was left only with imploring that there should be a 'wall of Separation' between Church and State. Should be - and only to the extent of ensuring that one religion alone is not forced upon others as the sole entity to be obeyed/worshipped.


Like Detector, you impose a liberal reading on the Constitution. To you if it's not in the Constitution it's OK for the federal government to do when the inverse is true, only what is enumerated and not prohibited is allowed--on a conservative reading.

:shocked:

If you conclude this from what I've written I am forced to conclude that you are nowhere near as intelligent as I presumed you to be, and you cannot comprehend what you read - and I am very clearly conveying. Every word I've written has been an attempt to express the exact opposite. If it is not in the Constitution, then it is NOT A FEDERAL RIGHT TO IMPOSE, and it is TO BE LEFT TO THE STATES.

Just WTF is Cruz suggesting that stands in opposition to this same ideology? Cruz is likely the foremost Constitutionist in Congress, and definitely the #1 Constitutionalist candidate running.

Additionally, I have seen absolutely nothing in TruthDetector's posts which says that his position disagrees AT ALL from mine, and you are now left to demonstrate where exactly you think your assertion has any merit whatsoever.

[Chris]

Mentioning DOMA was an attempt to move the goal posts. The topic was about Cruz, and the claim of him being a neocon. Why bring DOMA up at all, particularly in light of the fact that Cruz and Lee authored their own bill, which corrects any (justified) apprehension you have wrt DOMA.

Cruz is not a neocon, and he is not looking to impose his social Conservativism on anyone else - and has amply demonstrated a consistency in his ideology through the bill co-sponsored by Lee. Further evidence of the correctness of my stance is found even in your attempt to characterize him as such: it required a movement of goalposts to insinuate a bill such as DOMA has or had anything to do with Cruz.

Cruz is not 'Big Government'. Cruz is the anti-thesis of Big Government, though - obviously - it would be easy to pick on anyone attempting to reverse prior unConstitutional action taken by Congress as "increasing costs".



No one in this discussion argued otherwise, particularly Cruz. The question, then, is why bring it up?



Sigh. No one has contested that Cruz is socially conservative. That has absolutely zero to do with whether or not his policy institutes his socially conservative views on the rest of society.

How, exactly, does Cruz' or Lee's stance on gay marriage through their bill attempting to make Constitutional the unConstitutionality of DOMA - and the SCOTUS striking of DOMA - impose any particular religious belief on the people of this country?

Their Bill specifically and exactly allows the PEOPLE THEMSELVES to dictate the law under which they decide to live, in exactly the way the Constitution intended: State by State.



Then one must ask why you engaged in the effort, since no one argued otherwise. See, I believe you have another purpose: to insinuate that Cruz' social Conservativism is somehow a disqualifier for POTUS, when - if you're tolerant - you agree that proper administration of Constitutional principle automatically makes a President's social stances utterly moot, except - perhaps - as a role model for other people.



That isn't an answer to my challenge, so I'll reiterate. You appear to be interested in marginalizing social conservatives merely because they're social conservatives, without demonstrating the communal tolerance and appreciating the Constitutional restrictions placed upon our politicians hampering any closeted desire to impose their own personal beliefs on the rest of society.

The Constitution provides legal channels to express - and then impose - religious belief on citizens, but only on a State by State basis.

That explains exactly why and how Thomas Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists, who wrote to Jefferson to express their exasperation regarding the Congregationalists of Connecticut, who passed a tax on the people of Danbury expressly for the purpose of assisting the Congregationalist Church.

Not that he did not say that what the Congregationalists were doing was against Federal law. What he said was entirely different, and that nuance is both critical and willfully missed by those with an agenda. Jefferson was left only with imploring that there should be a 'wall of Separation' between Church and State. Should be - and only to the extent of ensuring that one religion alone is not forced upon others as the sole entity to be obeyed/worshipped.



:shocking:

If you conclude this from what I've written I am forced to conclude that you are nowhere near as intelligent as I presumed you to be, and you cannot comprehend what you read - and I am very clearly conveying. Every word I've written has been an attempt to express the exact opposite. If it is not in the Constitution, then it is NOT A FEDERAL RIGHT TO IMPOSE, and it is TO BE LEFT TO THE STATES.

Just WTF is Cruz suggesting that stands in opposition to this same ideology? Cruz is likely the foremost Constitutionist in Congress, and definitely the #1 Constitutionalist candidate running.

Additionally, I have seen absolutely nothing in TruthDetector's posts which says that his position disagrees AT ALL from mine, and you are now left to demonstrate where exactly you think your assertion has any merit whatsoever.


Mentioning DOMA was to mention another example of sociocon legislature.

Neocon ≠> sociocon and, conversely, sociocon ≠> neocon. Two different things. Other than both imply big government. As already demonstrated.

Sigh.

Yes, I am against sociocons like Cruz. Nothing in the Constitution grants them the power to push their agendas.

The COnstitution protects free personal exercise of religion.

Jefferson borrow the wall of separation from Roger Williams. The purpose is to keep government out of religion.

Nice ad hom, dismissed.

You seem angry.

Detector said the same thing as you, if it's not in the Constitution it's OK for the federal government to do.

[Subdermal]

If you are correct about his social position, so far as federal government goes, I could lean his way.

I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty that his personal social/moral beliefs are not something which are going to be legislated at the Federal Level, nor will he push for any such attempt.

In fact, the discussion I'm having with Chris illustrates it. The topic of DOMA is a strawman: both those who pushed its legislation, and a SCOTUS which heard a challenge to it, and denied the challenge - Federalizing what each State is supposed to obey wrt to 'Gay Marriage' -were acting in an UnConstitutional manner.

What SCOTUS should have done is struck down the legitimacy of the law entirely, and declared that the Constitution grants no leeway to the Fed to make such determinations, that such things should be left to the States.

But they did not do that.

The issue is supposed to be whether or not the term 'Marriage' should carry a legally enforceable definition at the Federal level. DOMA, however, was an attempt to Federalize something that should not ever have been Federalized. The challenge to DOMA brought before SCOTUS simply gave Big Governmentalists the chance to cement such into Federal Law - which they did.

Cruz and Mike Lee both offered a bill which attacks what the original authors attempted to do with DOMA - give the FED an illicit power to affirmatively define marriage as between one man and one woman - and what SCOTUS attempted to do with DOMA, which is give the FED the illicit power to declare marriage as MORE than a legal Union of man and a woman.

Both Cruz and Lee with their bill are trying to give that power back to the States, where it should have been the entire time.

[Chris]

Right, because they do not like it that the right of free association has been incorporated.

[Subdermal]

Mentioning DOMA was to mention another example of sociocon legislature.

Yes, thanks. :rolleyes:

No one needs to hear that there are sociocons who try to legislate their morality. That is not what is being argued. What is being argued is whether or not Cruz is a kindred spirit, and you've done nothing to build that case other than the intellectually bankrupt attempt to do so through association.

There is no association here. Cruz is a Constitutionalist first, and a social conservative second. That means that he writes bills like the one co-sponsored with Lee, which expressly OPPOSES DOMA. DOMA was an attempt to define Marriage as a FEDERAL proclamation, and Cruz' bill - and his core ideology - is to leave such things to individual STATES.

Get it?


Neocon ≠> sociocon and, conversely, sociocon ≠> neocon. Two different things. Other than both imply big government. As already demonstrated.

Everyone knows that they are different things, and by continually repeating the claim, you are both arguing below my level and refusing to understand what I'm saying. Where you are very anxious to declare 100% commonality, I am very determined to declare a hard line, and illustrate a CLEAR and IMPORTANT distinction:

Cruz is - as I have always been - VERY COMMITTED to ensure that one's own personal beliefs are not imposed unConstitutionally. Cruz is not the uneducated sociocon with whom you are anxious to declare an association. Either through ignorance, or intent.


Sigh.

Yes, I am against sociocons like Cruz. Nothing in the Constitution grants them the power to push their agendas.

I'm going to repeat myself until you retract. You name for me where Cruz has pushed his social beliefs through legislation.


The COnstitution protects free personal exercise of religion.

Why did you feel the need to include the word 'personal' in there? Did the Constitution include that word? Why could the word not be 'community' instead of 'personal'? Why did the Constitution not declare one illicit, and one legal?

And why did you use the word 'exercise' instead of the word EXPRESSION? Do you realize that your characterization challenges the premise of EXPRESSION, which involves community, sharing and exposure?


Jefferson borrow the wall of separation from Roger Williams. The purpose is to keep government out of religion.

Again you attempt to replace Constitutionally written meaning with words you use to describe something different. "Keeping Out" is NOT what is written into the Constitution. "Make No Law" doesn't prohibit Governmental bodies from PARTICIPATING in expressions of religious belief, which is why - and I'm going to blow this up and bold it for you, because you'll have no counter to it -

Jefferson not only condoned, but arranged Christian Prayer in Congress!

You are attempting to mischaracterize Constitutional Intent - Jefferson's intent - because people like YOU wish to impose your beliefs on the rest of society by using Government as a sledgehammer!


Nice ad hom, dismissed.

Where? Respond to particular points if you want me to know what you're talking about.


You seem angry.

Don't confuse anger with the cold and committed determination I have to defeat ignorance and unChristian and unConstitutional agendas.


Detector said the same thing as you, if it's not in the Constitution it's OK for the federal government to do.

Ok, you've now done it twice. The first time I granted leeway that you didn't comprehend what I wrote, so I patiently explained my position. Now, you're insisting. Now I'm calling you a liar. You are hereby commanded to post for me where I have ever suggested such a thing. Do it now.

[Subdermal]

Right, because they do not like it that the right of free association has been incorporated.

Ok, here you post a random thought that you did not specifically attach to anything anyone has said - so we're left to wonder what in specific you're trying to say, and about whom.

I can presume that you're directing this at Cruz and Lee. Is that correct, and - if so - exactly what do you mean?

[Chris]

I am arguing against sociocons because I don't think they belong in government.

Cruz's marriage bill was nothing other than a way to open the door to restrictions on marriage. Same as the intent of DOMA. The government, federal, state or local, has no business involved.

The Constitution grants no such power. Again, to argue that because it doesn't enumerate a power or protect a right that it therefore allows it is a living document interpretation that inverts the intention of the Constitution.

No one cares that prayer is invoked before Congress convenes. It imposes nothing, it is not law.

More ad hom, dismissed.

Commanded, lol, I cited your posting it.

[Chris]

Ok, here you post a random thought that you did not specifically attach to anything anyone has said - so we're left to wonder what in specific you're trying to say, and about whom.

I can presume that you're directing this at Cruz and Lee. Is that correct, and - if so - exactly what do you mean?


Do you not understand the concept of incorporation? Some of the protection of the BoR are incorporated, meaning, not even the states can infringe on them.

[Subdermal]

Do you not understand the concept of incorporation?

Haha - you're cute when you attempt to insinuate some level of inferior intelligence in your debate opponent.

Why use the word 'incorporation' when we've already expressed the concept with the word 'enumeration'?


Some of the protection of the BoR are incorporated, meaning, not even the states can infringe on them.

Uh...that's true of the entire Constitution. It's why the concept of ENUMERATION is so critical.

So please be so kind as to explain where marriage is even mentioned in the Constitution, much less 'incorporated' into it. Free association has nothing to do with marriage, btw: that's a contract.

All contracts are associations. Not all associations are contracts.

[Chris]

Haha - you're cute when you attempt to insinuate some level of inferior intelligence in your debate opponent.

Why use the word 'incorporation' when we've already expressed the concept with the word 'enumeration'?



Uh...that's true of the entire Constitution. It's why the concept of ENUMERATION is so critical.

So please be so kind as to explain where marriage is even mentioned in the Constitution, much less 'incorporated' into it. Free association has nothing to do with marriage, btw: that's a contract.

All contracts are associations. Not all associations are contracts.


Why do you need to invent motives?

Incorporation is unrelated to enumeration, it is related to protections. "The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." @https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

I said free association, of which marriage is but an instance.

[Green Arrow]

Ok, you've now done it twice. The first time I granted leeway that you didn't comprehend what I wrote, so I patiently explained my position. Now, you're insisting. Now I'm calling you a liar. You are hereby commanded to post for me where I have ever suggested such a thing. Do it now.

LOL...who do you think you are, God? You are hilarious!

[Subdermal]

I am arguing against sociocons because I don't think they belong in government.

:roflmao:

If social conservatives do not belong in Government, you should probably explain the validity of the Constitution - written with the participation by - if not the overwhelming brainchild of - social conservatives.

We historians call them Founding Fathers.

13788

Your position is the antithesis of the inclusionary platform of a Ted Cruz. You just intellectually threw anyone with a different belief system than yourself into a political gulag, where they are not allowed to contribute to the guidance of this country merely because they have different beliefs than do you.

How, exactly, can you possibly have a Government Of The People, By The People, and For The People...

...if you want to disqualify such a huge segment of the People?

And you're far too blind and unfamiliar with Original Intent to see it - which is why you have been unable to explain away the actions of people like Thomas Jefferson and expressions of prayer in Government (you didn't even try, and I know exactly why: there is no defense).

It's like you think that leaving out people of religious belief automatically means that there will no longer be an illegitimate imposition of personal belief on the rest of us!

Ironic, as you just demonstrated that you're MORE THAN WILLING to limit personal belief: you want a specific type eliminated from Government!

Here's the correct position, so read this carefully. It's going to be hard to built a complete case against your positions without a foray into some fairly deep concepts.

People have different belief systems. The degree to which these beliefs will manifest themselves - and which particular beliefs will be emphasized - will vary from State to State; from region to region.

The Federal Government is more than anxious to restrict belief; to implement their view of morality. You seem more than happy to allow such a heinous act.

The Constitution says that all issues not enumerated for the FEDGOV are to be left to the States. What part of that do you not understand?

It is through the States that unique differences - and ultimately - tolerance for various beliefs is manifest. Some States can decide - through the majority voice of that State's citizenry - to differ how they live and what they believe from the rest of the States, and in so doing weave a tapestry of diversity that allows people of all different belief systems to co-exist.

And - perhaps, some of the most tolerant - to even live right next door to someone of a wholly different belief, if they want.

And for some of the less tolerant to leave that State in a huff, and find people who they can stand.

Your ideology is an attempt to codify homogenous belief. To make everything the same. To "Soviet-ize" expression. To leave no recourse for those different than you, unless in private.

The very definition of intolerance.

Soviet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_(council)): to council. Literal meaning: to determine for the Union.

One State.

You - naturally - will deny this, relying upon your magnanimous nature and utterly wise disposition to claim that you will never allow such things to ever happen. You'll pardon me if I scoff and point out that all dictatorships claim to be benevolent.

It requires intelligence, wisdom and insight to understand how that cannot be.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers - their intelligence, wisdom and insight; harnessed with their understanding of Human Nature - allowed the construction of a Constitution, which ensured that only those few and SPECIFIC core values would remain universally common to all citizens of all States.

And it isn't as though the Founders didn't fight amongst themselves over these concepts - including whether or not there should even BE a 'Bill of Rights'.


Cruz's marriage bill was nothing other than a way to open the door to restrictions on marriage.

Of course there are restrictions on marriage. We've always had restrictions on marriage, even with the new definition with which you are apparently enamored. So what is this argument against restriction? When - and only when - it violates your own personal sensibilities.

So where, exactly, should such a line be drawn - and don't say "where it does physical harm to another", because there is more than physical harm involved. There is psychological harm: to kids; to the American conscience.

That's why this topic isn't nearly as simplistic as anarchists attempt to make it. A plurality of people have the right - a right won by conquest and core values - to live in a society which describes their ideology.

The uniqueness of America is in its original ability to discern that there are, indeed, levels of importance to be assigned to these unique moralities, and in understanding a way to build a Government Structure - enumerated within the Constitution - that grants as wide a berth as feasibly possible for the differences between them and still allow a Pursuit of Happiness.

Such is the beauty of allowing things like whether to permit bestiality - or not - to people within States, and not universally decree such things at the Federal Level.

Because it's not about whether or not you think it's sick (it is) or not: it's about trusting that in order to nurture freedom, one must also combat evil, as it takes different forms and is inexhaustible.

As such, life in a functional society requires nearly endless restrictions. Without them, evil tears down the construct of society completely. Like it or not, written and enforced law manifests an awareness of this evil, and a recognition of a necessary mechanism to protect society from it - as recognized by society itself.

BUT.

The Constitution - its authors - still understood the nuance necessary to codify a minimum of control over freedom, and thus the very few and specific rules to be enforced by the Federal Government, and the rest to be left to States.

Cruz' bill is not an open door to restrict marriage any more than he was conscripted to do: his Constitutional responsibility is to ensure that the FEDGOV has NO SAY in it.

His is not the role to restrict it at the State Level; that is why State Constitutions exist.


Same as the intent of DOMA. The government, federal, state or local, has no business involved.

I'm going to directly challenge this assertion of yours in just a moment.

I wrote this response to this point to segway to your next point. Only the US Constitution exists to limit what State Constitutions can and cannot say. People like you - unhappy with the recognition that most people wish to construct a society with codified limits on behaviour - have thus played with the Original Intent of the Constitution, and claim endless liberties with meanings of words within it, and claim entire concepts exist which do not.

The objection isn't about a worry of the protection of 'rights'; it is a conscious attempt - by you, and others like you - to circumvent the core mistrust that any quorum of common belief will ever be reached with which you agree, at any level (Federal, State OR Local).


The Constitution grants no such power. Again, to argue that because it doesn't enumerate a power or protect a right that it therefore allows it is a living document interpretation that inverts the intention of the Constitution.

Now, for that challenge to your claim that I promised. You said that Federal, State and Local Governments should have no say in it. I can absolutely demonstrate your statement as false. Interpret for me the following clause, pulled directly from the Constitution:




The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-4)



You claim that no level of Government is a legitimate arbiter of non-enumerated concepts, yet the Constitution itself uses words that expressly contradicts your claim.

How do you reconcile your assertion with the words I just cited?

You refutation demands an introduction of the concept of Negative Rights (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights). Cruz' and Lee's Bill doesn't command the States to do anything. It simply enforces the Constitutional restriction on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing anything.

Not a word more appears in the Bill. I defy you to prove otherwise.


No one cares that prayer is invoked before Congress convenes. It imposes nothing, it is not law.

Interesting. Then how does a Nativity Scene displayed in a town hall do that - when we all know town after town is claiming some sort of Constitutional violation as excuse to ban them?


More ad hom, dismissed.

You clearly choose to lob an accusation and remain utterly unable to demonstrate its veracity. I asked you to post for me any example of what you claimed, and you simply wish to reserve the right to claim it, but not the responsibility to support it.

How very anarchist of you. Heavy on rights; light on responsibility.


Commanded, lol, I cited your posting it.

Um...Wut?

[Subdermal]

LOL...who do you think you are, God? You are hilarious!

Nah. I used a strong word - strong enough for you to notice it as well - to compel Chris to back his rather scurrilous accusation. He accused both me and TruthDetector of being willing to circumvent the Constitution, and I'm verbally slapping his face with a glove.

I am more than happy to allow you to assist Chris in supporting his BS claim though. Jump in.

[Subdermal]

Why do you need to invent motives?

Incorporation is unrelated to enumeration, it is related to protections. "The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." @https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

I said free association, of which marriage is but an instance.

It seems to me that you and others interested in tearing down the plain concept of enumeration seek to dilute its effect with a new definition: incorporation - and you're willing to co-opt the definitions imposed by other legal wonks, whose initial motivations you aren't interested in questioning, as it gets you where you wish to go.

These attempts are as old as the Constitution itself.

I see a distinction with no difference. You see a way to introduce a claim which does not exist; to invent meaning which does not exist.

It is exactly why you have been more than willing to play fast and loose with the specific words chosen by the Founding Fathers to express these enumerated powers: to grant a wider application than was intended.

One can freely associate with whomever they want - and I happen to also agree that even the concept of Marriage should not be codified into any law: federal, state or local.

But you miss where we disagree: my position is to allow people in other States and Localities to decide that for themselves.

Your position is to prohibit such a right.

[Green Arrow]

Nah. I used a strong word - strong enough for you to notice it as well - to compel Chris to back his rather scurrilous accusation. He accused both me and TruthDetector of being willing to circumvent the Constitution, and I'm verbally slapping his face with a glove.

I am more than happy to allow you to assist Chris in supporting his BS claim though. Jump in.

I have absolutely zero interest in getting between two hissing cats, thank you. I've been following this thread and just found the concept of "commanding" someone to obey you on the internet to be completely ridiculous and laughable.

[Chris]

Half your argument is based on anarchronism. Sociocons arose in reaction to social progressives, and this is all recent. None were around at the founding.


I disqualify them from my vote.

Just as I do neocons.

Because I'm libertarian and for limited to no government.


Your argument drifts off into an extended strawman that you made up to attack. Unimpressive.


"Cruz' bill is not an open door to restrict marriage" is not what I said. Pay attention, please, it opens the door to allowing states to restrict marriage.

"your next point. Only the US Constitution exists to limit what State Constitutions can and cannot say" is also not a point I made. Certainly the people exist to limit the government, federal, state and local. See the Declaration and Constitution.


The Constitution does not contradict anything I said. It contradicts the straw men you made up.



Negative rights have to do with the right to be left alone from the intrusions of positive law.


Nativity scenes do not impose anything on anyone.


I made my point. Argument from incredulity is no argument. Nor is mere difference of opinion.

[Chris]

Nah. I used a strong word - strong enough for you to notice it as well - to compel Chris to back his rather scurrilous accusation. He accused both me and TruthDetector of being willing to circumvent the Constitution, and I'm verbally slapping his face with a glove.

I am more than happy to allow you to assist Chris in supporting his BS claim though. Jump in.



Except you're doing no such thing.

[Chris]

It seems to me that you and others interested in tearing down the plain concept of enumeration seek to dilute its effect with a new definition: incorporation - and you're willing to co-opt the definitions imposed by other legal wonks, whose initial motivations you aren't interested in questioning, as it gets you where you wish to go.

These attempts are as old as the Constitution itself.

I see a distinction with no difference. You see a way to introduce a claim which does not exist; to invent meaning which does not exist.

It is exactly why you have been more than willing to play fast and loose with the specific words chosen by the Founding Fathers to express these enumerated powers: to grant a wider application than was intended.

One can freely associate with whomever they want - and I happen to also agree that even the concept of Marriage should not be codified into any law: federal, state or local.

But you miss where we disagree: my position is to allow people in other States and Localities to decide that for themselves.

Your position is to prohibit such a right.



Incorporation has nothing to do with enumeration, it has to do with protections in the BoR.

All I see is made up straw men. You seem to have trouble reading my plain words and understanding them. You seem too emotional.

[Peter1469]

The enumerated powers refer to the powers the States ceded to the federal government and are found at Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const.

Incorporation refers to the 14th Amendment and which of the protections listed in the BoRs apply to the States in their dealings with their citizens.

The incoporated rights have evolved since the 14th Amendment. Some are still argued over before SCOTUS to this day.

[Subdermal]

I have absolutely zero interest in getting between two hissing cats, thank you. I've been following this thread and just found the concept of "commanding" someone to obey you on the internet to be completely ridiculous and laughable.

Ok. Use the word demand. Probably a poor choice of words - but so is claiming that I believe the opposite of what I believe.

Either way, it's incumbent upon Chris to provide support for his claim that I support Constitutional circumvention, when I have simply expressed what the Constitution plainly says: to leave those issues not clearly enumerated within the Constitution to the States, and the People.

If you do not want to jump here, I'll see you in a less demanding subject I'm sure.

[Subdermal]

Except you're doing no such thing.

Sure I am. I responded, and you have given us no evidence of your claim whatsoever.

[Chris]

The enumerated powers refer to the powers the States ceded to the federal government and are found at Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const.

Incorporation refers to the 14th Amendment and which of the protections listed in the BoRs apply to the States in their dealings with their citizens.

The incoporated rights have evolved since the 14th Amendment. Some are still argued over before SCOTUS to this day.

Yes, exactly.

Otherwise, without incorporation, the states would be able deny religious, speech, and other rights.

[Chris]

Sure I am. I responded, and you have given us no evidence of your claim whatsoever.

You're compelling no one but yourself.

[Chris]

...There is nothing in the Constitution which says that WWII was unConstitutional.....


...Like Detector, you impose a liberal reading on the Constitution. To you if it's not in the Constitution it's OK for the federal government to do when the inverse is true, only what is enumerated and not prohibited is allowed--on a conservative reading.

There we go.

[Peter1469]

Yes, exactly.

Otherwise, without incorporation, the states would be able deny religious, speech, and other rights.

Until the 14th Amendment, none of the BoR applied to the States.

[Subdermal]

Half your argument is based on anarchronism. Sociocons arose in reaction to social progressives, and this is all recent. None were around at the founding.

This topic arose from your zeal to call Cruz a 'sociocon'. Your intent revolved around the claim that 'sociocons' arose as a reflexive movement that wasn't previously necessary: in response to social progressives, who have massively changed law in this country. I have never contested the claim that there is such a thing as a 'sociocon', but - in point of fact - I solely restrained my argument to defense of Cruz as the characterization of sociocon I knew you intended: one who would by - force of law - institute social conservatism.

And I laid out my case, and patiently explained to you just exactly how Cruz' personal social views will never become Federal Law; how Cruz' bill (with Lee) attempts to shift such power out of Washington, and leave it to States.

Not FORCE States to make such law, just get it out of the Federal Government.

And you're still calling him - somehow - dangerous, and anathema to your notion of a Constitution. I openly defied you to show us where Cruz was making any law that restricts Gay Rights whatsoever, and you have been unable to do so: you flippantly fear-mongered something about 'opening the door', blah blah blah - when all Cruz did was try to leave the issue for the States, as the Constitution (and I quoted it) plainly states.

Specifically enumerates. That means "directly address in detail, and by topic". Obviously that is not something the Founders ever did wrt marriage, no matter how you attempt to insinuate another concept - freedom of association - as a defense of it (when it as a concept didn't exist until about 55 years ago).

It is Cruz' obligation to ensure that the Federal Government does not overstep its Constitutional boundaries, and that is all his Bill with Mike Lee has done: counter what DOMA's effect, which was to give to the Federal Government the power to determine the legally enforceable definition of marriage, and impose such on every State in the Union.

And you're willing to throw Cruz in with every prior sociocon with whom you have had experience - including those many who authored and supported DOMA - because you are wholly unaware of the critical difference between Cruz and them: Cruz is a CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR FIRST, and a social conservative SECOND.

The sociocon 'movement' that you identify is and was largely ignorant regarding Separation of Powers, and/or simply another prong on the attack on our Constitution: useful idiots. They didn't think that they were doing anything wrong in going to Congress to make Federal Law that which should likewise be left to States.

They were, however, correct in attempting to reverse much of the damage done by liberals wrt social policy, as their efforts were guilty of the exact same Constitutional abuse.

I'll reiterate. I'm not here to argue points I didn't make. I'm here to correct this ignorance you seem to possess regarding Cruz.

And the best you could come out up with is this pedantic claim that his bill "opens the door" to Government being able to define marriage. Newsflash: they already have.

If that was Cruz' intent to 'open a door' - unwittingly or otherwise - why write a bill and fight the powers with which to begin? That horse has left the barn!

If Cruz is who you claim he is, why not support his attempt to allow the People of each State to make their own determinations? Are you afraid of the will of the People?

I have addressed every single word you've written. You've blithely skipped over entire sections of what I've written, including the part where I quoted the Constitution's demand to leave to States and their People issues like this.

Because you know you cannot win this debate taking on those key points.

You claim that there were no 'sociocons' at the time of the Founding. I'm going to win another debate point here with the words of one of the Founders: John Adams.




Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”




Those are the words of a Social Conservative, Chris. You can try to kick and scream and whine - or likely ignore, just as you have other winning points in my argument - but it doesn't change the fact. John Adams took a very specific stand with these words, because he was forward thinking, as were most Founders. He was pitting his Social Conservativism against what would come: Progressivism, declaring that said brand of morality would not be ruled by the Constitution.

The Founders could imagine atheists and horse fockers; drug users and streakers; they understood the undergirding of the Law of the Land as branded by a specific morality - a morality that you do not share.

In fact, Chris - and quite the opposite of your attempted claim - in the time of the Founders, they were nearly all sociocons. Most of the Founding Fathers were considered so; most of them considered themselves as such, and displayed it in word and deed.

The difference at the time was there was no need for a sociocon uprising, as they were the norm.

Would you agree that social progressives have succeeded in changing many laws in this country? Did they do it via the will of the people, or by judicial activism?


I disqualify them from my vote.

Uh huh. I would advise that you stop lumping people together simply because one believes in God and Family. Cruz is the foremost Constitutional Scholar in this race; I'm quite sure he knows how to defend it, and not impose personal believe on others.


Just as I do neocons.

Because I'm libertarian and for limited to no government.

'to no'? How does no Government work? And for whom are you voting that best represents such goals?


Your argument drifts off into an extended strawman that you made up to attack. Unimpressive.

Claiming it without using demonstrating it is what is unimpressive here.


"Cruz' bill is not an open door to restrict marriage" is not what I said. Pay attention, please, it opens the door to allowing states to restrict marriage.

As they have for over 200 years. The States have had open doors to restrict myriad things - and have - for over 200 years.


"your next point. Only the US Constitution exists to limit what State Constitutions can and cannot say" is also not a point I made.

No, it is a point you contested. You claimed that no government body should have the right to determine if whatever union is presented should be defined as 'marriage' for societal purposes. I said that it is not for you to determine what people of another State have the right to do in this regard; it is only your right to vote your conscience, and/or move to a State which best reflects your ideals - if you wish to do so.

The Constitution plainly States that all things not specifically addressed in the Constitution are to be let to the States, and the People.

That belief is not what you are espousing.


Certainly the people exist to limit the government, federal, state and local. See the Declaration and Constitution.

Yeah? So?


The Constitution does not contradict anything I said. It contradicts the straw men you made up.

Absolutely untrue - and I quoted the Constitution for you to prove it. I posted where the Constitution declares that respective States and People have the right to determine for themselves all other rules of law which aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and I did so in response to you utterly false claim that NO Government has the right to do so.

They DO have the right, Chris: at the State level. Why? Because the Constitution wasn't written to codify the freedom that you so desperately wanted codified. The Founders DIDN'T hop on the train to Chrisville and say "and another thing: NO STATE has the right to declare it legal - or illegal - for two people to marry whoever and whatever they wish".

No, they didn't. They left it to the people of the States.


Negative rights have to do with the right to be left alone from the intrusions of positive law.

Yes, I know. So when you tacitly claim gay marriage is - somehow - a right, you call it a negative right, and there are very few rights, and they're enumerated. If it were a right, no State or Locality should have any say whatsoever regarding Marriage, but that isn't the case, because...

...that one does not appear in the Constitution.


Nativity scenes do not impose anything on anyone.

Except that useful idiot liberals claim that it does, and they've succeeded in banning such displays, using supposed 'Constitutional Law'.


I made my point. Argument from incredulity is no argument. Nor is mere difference of opinion.

You still have utterly failed to demonstrate how Cruz' social conservatism could possibly do to damage you, considering that every action he has taken in the Senate is to ensure that as much freedom to choose lands with the People as possible.

[Subdermal]

There we go.

There we go?

:biglaugh:

My statement that nothing in the Constitution prohibited fighting in WWII is interpreted by you as "liberal reading of the Constitution"?

How?

:biglaugh:

[Chris]

Until the 14th Amendment, none of the BoR applied to the States.

Yes, the 14th is the basis of incorporation.

[Mac-7]

Carpet bombing won't solve anything in the ME, that is why I labeled him a neocon. But I am willing to look deeper.

If Cruz keeps the social issues at the State level, then I agree with him. Something else for me to look into.

We already have federal intervention in the social issues which will require federal action to correct.

[Peter1469]

We already have federal intervention in the social issues which will require federal action to correct.

By ending federal involvement in social issues. Void all current such laws as unconstitutional.

[Chris]

There we go?

:biglaugh:

My statement that nothing in the Constitution prohibited fighting in WWII is interpreted by you as "liberal reading of the Constitution"?

How?

:biglaugh:



Yes. It inverts the intent of the Constitution. It grants the government certain limited powers: No more. It's not a document that says if something isn't address in it, then the government has to power to do what it wants.

[Chris]

This topic arose from your zeal to call Cruz a 'sociocon'. Your intent revolved around the claim that 'sociocons' arose as a reflexive movement that wasn't previously necessary: in response to social progressives, who have massively changed law in this country. I have never contested the claim that there is such a thing as a 'sociocon', but - in point of fact - I solely restrained my argument to defense of Cruz as the characterization of sociocon I knew you intended: one who would by - force of law - institute social conservatism.

And I laid out my case, and patiently explained to you just exactly how Cruz' personal social views will never become Federal Law; how Cruz' bill (with Lee) attempts to shift such power out of Washington, and leave it to States.

Not FORCE States to make such law, just get it out of the Federal Government.

And you're still calling him - somehow - dangerous, and anathema to your notion of a Constitution. I openly defied you to show us where Cruz was making any law that restricts Gay Rights whatsoever, and you have been unable to do so: you flippantly fear-mongered something about 'opening the door', blah blah blah - when all Cruz did was try to leave the issue for the States, as the Constitution (and I quoted it) plainly states.

Specifically enumerates. That means "directly address in detail, and by topic". Obviously that is not something the Founders ever did wrt marriage, no matter how you attempt to insinuate another concept - freedom of association - as a defense of it (when it as a concept didn't exist until about 55 years ago).

It is Cruz' obligation to ensure that the Federal Government does not overstep its Constitutional boundaries, and that is all his Bill with Mike Lee has done: counter what DOMA's effect, which was to give to the Federal Government the power to determine the legally enforceable definition of marriage, and impose such on every State in the Union.

And you're willing to throw Cruz in with every prior sociocon with whom you have had experience - including those many who authored and supported DOMA - because you are wholly unaware of the critical difference between Cruz and them: Cruz is a CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR FIRST, and a social conservative SECOND.

The sociocon 'movement' that you identify is and was largely ignorant regarding Separation of Powers, and/or simply another prong on the attack on our Constitution: useful idiots. They didn't think that they were doing anything wrong in going to Congress to make Federal Law that which should likewise be left to States.

They were, however, correct in attempting to reverse much of the damage done by liberals wrt social policy, as their efforts were guilty of the exact same Constitutional abuse.

I'll reiterate. I'm not here to argue points I didn't make. I'm here to correct this ignorance you seem to possess regarding Cruz.

And the best you could come out up with is this pedantic claim that his bill "opens the door" to Government being able to define marriage. Newsflash: they already have.

If that was Cruz' intent to 'open a door' - unwittingly or otherwise - why write a bill and fight the powers with which to begin? That horse has left the barn!

If Cruz is who you claim he is, why not support his attempt to allow the People of each State to make their own determinations? Are you afraid of the will of the People?

I have addressed every single word you've written. You've blithely skipped over entire sections of what I've written, including the part where I quoted the Constitution's demand to leave to States and their People issues like this.

Because you know you cannot win this debate taking on those key points.

You claim that there were no 'sociocons' at the time of the Founding. I'm going to win another debate point here with the words of one of the Founders: John Adams.



Those are the words of a Social Conservative, Chris. You can try to kick and scream and whine - or likely ignore, just as you have other winning points in my argument - but it doesn't change the fact. John Adams took a very specific stand with these words, because he was forward thinking, as were most Founders. He was pitting his Social Conservativism against what would come: Progressivism, declaring that said brand of morality would not be ruled by the Constitution.

The Founders could imagine atheists and horse fockers; drug users and streakers; they understood the undergirding of the Law of the Land as branded by a specific morality - a morality that you do not share.

In fact, Chris - and quite the opposite of your attempted claim - in the time of the Founders, they were nearly all sociocons. Most of the Founding Fathers were considered so; most of them considered themselves as such, and displayed it in word and deed.

The difference at the time was there was no need for a sociocon uprising, as they were the norm.

Would you agree that social progressives have succeeded in changing many laws in this country? Did they do it via the will of the people, or by judicial activism?



Uh huh. I would advise that you stop lumping people together simply because one believes in God and Family. Cruz is the foremost Constitutional Scholar in this race; I'm quite sure he knows how to defend it, and not impose personal believe on others.



'to no'? How does no Government work? And for whom are you voting that best represents such goals?



Claiming it without using demonstrating it is what is unimpressive here.



As they have for over 200 years. The States have had open doors to restrict myriad things - and have - for over 200 years.



No, it is a point you contested. You claimed that no government body should have the right to determine if whatever union is presented should be defined as 'marriage' for societal purposes. I said that it is not for you to determine what people of another State have the right to do in this regard; it is only your right to vote your conscience, and/or move to a State which best reflects your ideals - if you wish to do so.

The Constitution plainly States that all things not specifically addressed in the Constitution are to be let to the States, and the People.

That belief is not what you are espousing.



Yeah? So?



Absolutely untrue - and I quoted the Constitution for you to prove it. I posted where the Constitution declares that respective States and People have the right to determine for themselves all other rules of law which aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and I did so in response to you utterly false claim that NO Government has the right to do so.

They DO have the right, Chris: at the State level. Why? Because the Constitution wasn't written to codify the freedom that you so desperately wanted codified. The Founders DIDN'T hop on the train to Chrisville and say "and another thing: NO STATE has the right to declare it legal - or illegal - for two people to marry whoever and whatever they wish".

No, they didn't. They left it to the people of the States.



Yes, I know. So when you tacitly claim gay marriage is - somehow - a right, you call it a negative right, and there are very few rights, and they're enumerated. If it were a right, no State or Locality should have any say whatsoever regarding Marriage, but that isn't the case, because...

...that one does not appear in the Constitution.



Except that useful idiot liberals claim that it does, and they've succeeded in banning such displays, using supposed 'Constitutional Law'.



You still have utterly failed to demonstrate how Cruz' social conservatism could possibly do to damage you, considering that every action he has taken in the Senate is to ensure that as much freedom to choose lands with the People as possible.



Zeal? --You're still inventing thoughts, feelings, motives just to knock them down. I won't defend your straw men, just point them out. For example, "FORCE": No one argued Cruz's bill would force anything. This comes from your imagination. Or "dangerous": No one argued Cruz was dangerous. You're just making that up. And then that I "tacitly claim gay marriage is - somehow - a right" when I never did. You're just making all this stuff up.


And then you repeat your anachronism that "in the time of the Founders, they were nearly all sociocons" which is patently false as already demonstrated. You're reading into founder's words meaning never intended just as you do my words.

[Mac-7]

By ending federal involvement in social issues. Void all current such laws as unconstitutional.

Good luck getting the unelected dictators on the supreme court to butt out.

This whole mess is their fault going back to Roe v Wade.

[Truth Detector]

Nah. I used a strong word - strong enough for you to notice it as well - to compel Chris to back his rather scurrilous accusation. He accused both me and TruthDetector of being willing to circumvent the Constitution, and I'm verbally slapping his face with a glove.

I am more than happy to allow you to assist Chris in supporting his BS claim though. Jump in.

Didn't you get the memo? Chris has devined himself as the sole "decider" of what is Constitutional while emotionally erupting with meaningless dumb words like "sociocon" and "neocon" to avoid intelligent debate and instead, to demagogue anyone daring to disagree with his phoney point of view.

[Peter1469]

:shocked:

Maybe Chris should make his argument, then draw a line.
________________________________

Simplified argument under the line for the slow group.

[Chris]

Didn't you get the memo? Chris has devined himself as the sole "decider" of what is Constitutional while emotionally erupting with meaningless dumb words like "sociocon" and "neocon" to avoid intelligent debate and instead, to demagogue anyone daring to disagree with his phoney point of view.

I see you're back to making things up to argue with. Straw man.

[Chris]

:shocked:

Maybe Chris should make his argument, then draw a line.
________________________________

Simplified argument under the line for the slow group.

Some would still just make up strawmen to argue with.

[Truth Detector]

I see you're back to making things up to argue with. Straw man.

I see you're still calling people names.

[Green Arrow]

:shocked:

Maybe Chris should make his argument, then draw a line.
________________________________

Simplified argument under the line for the slow group.

And instead of typing under the line, draw in crayons.

[Chris]

I see you're still calling people names.

Yet another made up straw man.

[domer76]

Didn't you get the memo? Chris has devined himself as the sole "decider" of what is Constitutional while emotionally erupting with meaningless dumb words like "sociocon" and "neocon" to avoid intelligent debate and instead, to demagogue anyone daring to disagree with his phoney point of view.

You forgot a couple of others in his book of mantras:

"straw man" and possibly his favorite: "ad hom".

Not to mention his propensity to cut and paste others' words, rather than provide any argument of his own.

[Chris]

You forgot a couple of others in his book of mantras:

"straw man" and possibly his favorite: "ad hom".

Not to mention his propensity to cut and paste others' words, rather than provide any argument of his own.

I once was accused of using words.

[Green Arrow]

You forgot a couple of others in his book of mantras:

"straw man" and possibly his favorite: "ad hom".

Not to mention his propensity to cut and paste others' words, rather than provide any argument of his own.

I'd personally rather someone make an argument using someone else's words than not try to make an argument at all, ever.

[ThaiBoxer]

I think so, but don't really see any GOP candidate as very conservative.


LOL Are you serious? You don't see any of them as conservative enough?? :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

I'd personally rather someone make an argument using someone else's words than not try to make an argument at all, ever.

Irony.

[Green Arrow]

Irony.

You clearly don't know what that word means.

[domer76]

I'd personally rather someone make an argument using someone else's words than not try to make an argument at all, ever.

^Another using absolutes he can't back up.

That's why there is rarely anything of substance to argue on these threads. Just amusement.

[Truth Detector]

You clearly don't know what that word means.

Clearly you don't. LMAO

[zelmo1234]

LOL Are you serious? You don't see any of them as conservative enough?? :rofl:

What do you think Conservative means. In your mind what do conservatives believe?

[Green Arrow]

^Another using absolutes he can't back up.

That's why there is rarely anything of substance to argue on these threads. Just amusement.

You wouldn't argue it even if you were presented substantive material.

[Truth Detector]

You wouldn't argue it even if you were presented substantive material.

Substance is not one of your fortes; why do you always demand it of others?

[Chris]

LOL Are you serious? You don't see any of them as conservative enough?? :rofl:

As conservative, no, I don't.

[Mac-7]

You wouldn't argue it even if you were presented substantive material.

He couldnt argue it if this were your thread and you banned him from particating.

[Chris]

Substance is not one of your fortes; why do you always demand it of others?

Stop distracting discussion, contribute or find topic where you can.

[domer76]

You wouldn't argue it even if you were presented substantive material.

^There's another bullshit technique that makes substantive conversation impossible. One that I've pointed out many times, yet it continues to rear its useless head - "if".

[Truth Detector]

As conservative, no, I don't.

Stop distracting discussion, contribute or find topic where you can

TBed and infracted for ignoring warnings and violating rule 9.

[Chris]

^There's another bullshit technique that makes substantive conversation impossible. One that I've pointed out many times, yet it continues to rear its useless head - "if".

Stop distracting discussion, contribute or find topic where you can.

[Chris]

So back to the, uh, OP topic, Trump....

The Right's Post-Constitutional Moment (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/26/the_rights_post-constitutional_moment_129135.html)


No one will ever mistake Donald Trump for a student of James Madison.

The real-estate mogul has demonstrated about as much familiarity with the U.S. Constitution as he has with the Bible, which is to say, none. Trump has captivated a share of the Tea Party with a style of politics utterly alien to the Constitution. In the year of Trump, the Right is experiencing a post-constitutional moment.

This wouldn’t have seemed possible a few years ago. In 2010, the newly arrived Tea Party produced a class of constitutional obsessives, such as Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who were focused not just on what government shouldn’t do, but on what it couldn’t do, and why.

After the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush and the earmark-happy excesses of congressional Republicans in the Bush years, the Tea Party rebaptized the GOP in the faith of limited government and constitutional constraints. It was a time of first principles.

...Donald Trump exists in a plane where there isn’t a Congress or a Constitution. There are no trade-offs or limits. There is only his will and his team of experts who will figure out how to do whatever he wants to do, no matter how seemingly impossible.

...A pure, Trump-style populism is inherently in tension with constitutional conservatism. The Constitution is a device for frustrating popular enthusiasms, as are federalism, checks and balances, and the rule of law. It’s why impassioned factions usually have very little patience for these things, and why they are so central to checking government and protecting individual rights....

[Mac-7]

So back to the, uh, OP topic, Trump....

The Right's Post-Constitutional Moment (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/26/the_rights_post-constitutional_moment_129135.html)

Chris,

What is it about Real Clear Politics that qualifies them to do your thinking for you?

[Chris]

Chris,

What is it about Real Clear Politics that qualifies them to do your thinking for you?

I like what the piece argued, that Trump was far from a constitutional conservative. I didn't pay attention to who said, why do you attack the messenger? Can't argue with the message?

[Mac-7]

I like what the piece argued, that Trump was far from a constitutional conservative. I didn't pay attention to who said, why do you attack the messenger? Can't argue with the message?

Since your brain is functioning as a sponge the political bias of the messenger matters.

By letting them do your thinking you could become a partisan democrat without even realizing it.

and you know how much you hate partisans

[Green Arrow]

He couldnt argue it if this were your thread and you banned him from particating.

I would have banned him, you, and TD from participating because you are all idiots that couldn't offer something substantive if I paid you. I don't suffer fools.

[Chris]

Since your brain is functioning as a sponge the political bias of the messenger matters.

By letting them do your thinking you could become a partisan democrat without even realizing it.

and you know how much you hate partisans


Can you explain to me why you make all that up? First address the source, then me, but never one do you address the message. Why do you do that? Are you offended by its exposure of the the myth of Republicans being constitutional conservatives?

[Mac-7]

but never one do you address the message. Why do you do that?

In America liberal pundits of dubious distinction are entitled to their opinion and sponges are entitled to cut and paste them here.

meaning there is little for me to say to media blowhards that are not here and will never know what we think.

TBed for ignoring warnings to contribute or get TBed. Suggest if one has nothing to say say nothing.

[domer76]

Stop distracting discussion, contribute or find topic where you can.

"If" someone can't contribute anything substantive "then" they make up "if/then" bullshit to argue a point that was concocted and presented as reality. THAT'S the distraction you fail to acknowledge

TBed for violation rule 9 and further distraction from topic.

[zelmo1234]

Since your brain is functioning as a sponge the political bias of the messenger matters.

By letting them do your thinking you could become a partisan democrat without even realizing it.

and you know how much you hate partisans

Trump is a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG! way from a Constitutional Conservative

[zelmo1234]

The people might be having fun blaming Trump for dividing the GOP, but he really has nothing to do with that/

The establishment Republicans have just lied too many times and the people want nothing to do with them anymore.

Trump just happens to be the alternative to the same Old Crap in DC

[Chris]

The people might be having fun blaming Trump for dividing the GOP, but he really has nothing to do with that/

The establishment Republicans have just lied too many times and the people want nothing to do with them anymore.

Trump just happens to be the alternative to the same Old Crap in DC

Trump is certainly not establishment… but neither is he Tea Party.

[Subdermal]

Yes. It inverts the intent of the Constitution. It grants the government certain limited powers: No more. It's not a document that says if something isn't address in it, then the government has to power to do what it wants.

Fighting in WWII "inverts the intent" of the Constitution? How?

And my claiming that "nothing in the Constitution prohibits fighting in WWII" is a 'liberal reading of the Constitution'? How?

Your last sentence needs to be edited. You either meant "then the government has no power..." Or "then the government has the power" - and those are opposite things.

The Constitution says that it specifically enumerates the powers it relegates to FEDGOV, and - further - states that if a particular topic in question does not appear in the Constitution, then it is not for the FEDGOV to address, but the States, and the People.

[Captain Obvious]

Trump is certainly not establishment… but neither is he Tea Party.

Trump is as anti-establishment as they get.

He's also phonier than a tree fiddy dollar bill.

[Chris]

Fighting in WWII "inverts the intent" of the Constitution? How?

And my claiming that "nothing in the Constitution prohibits fighting in WWII" is a 'liberal reading of the Constitution'? How?

Your last sentence needs to be edited. You either meant "then the government has no power..." Or "then the government has the power" - and those are opposite things.

The Constitution says that it specifically enumerates the powers it relegates to FEDGOV, and - further - states that if a particular topic in question does not appear in the Constitution, then it is not for the FEDGOV to address, but the States, and the People.


Fighting in WWII "inverts the intent" of the Constitution?

It has become obvious by this point you have serious reading comprehension problems.


It's not a document that says if something isn't address[ed] in it, then the government has t[he] power to do what it wants.

Those are very simple words.

[Subdermal]

I suggest: http://www.kidzworld.com/forums/

tsk. Don't troll.

[Subdermal]

Zeal? --You're still inventing thoughts, feelings, motives just to knock them down. I won't defend your straw men, just point them out. For example, "FORCE": No one argued Cruz's bill would force anything. This comes from your imagination. Or "dangerous": No one argued Cruz was dangerous. You're just making that up. And then that I "tacitly claim gay marriage is - somehow - a right" when I never did. You're just making all this stuff up.


And then you repeat your anachronism that "in the time of the Founders, they were nearly all sociocons" which is patently false as already demonstrated. You're reading into founder's words meaning never intended just as you do my words.


It's conservatism, with a small c.

Why, because the conservatism I adhere to is defined by the likes of Taft, Buckley, Goldwater, and Will, among others. What you have in the Republican Party bears no resemblance to that. That's the point of the OP I posted, why would I contest it when I agree with it?

Crus is a sociocon.

I think you like to play fast and loose with these terms, and ignore that much of the public - even the media - doesn't really adhere to your cap 'C'/small 'c' terms.

Fact is that Cruz is conservative; Cruz is a Conservative. You - earlier - attempted to define for us what a 'sociocon' is (and you put in there a 'small c', saying that 'sociocons' attempt to use the Government to institute (READ: FORCE) their social agenda) - and you tried to claim Cruz is one.

I objected, and have patiently explained to you throughout that Cruz is likely the foremost Constitutional scholar in Government at the moment, and his knowledge of the Constitution automatically disqualifies him as the 'sociocon' that you attempt to make him.

You tried to counter, and tried to associate Cruz with other genuine sociocons by introducing DOMA as a complaint, and I pointed out to you that the critical difference between DOMA - which Cruz did not vote for - and the Cruz/Lee Bill - is that the latter PULLS the power to dictate marriage terms from Washington.

You - weakly - essentially complained that Cruz was still a sociocon, but your only evidence of such is that you claimed that the Cruz/Lee Bill "opens the door" to government still controlling marriage.

:biglaugh:

You should really acknowledge that - as far as your fingernail biting is concerned - Cruz sucks as a sociocon. The guy simply isn't. His record proves it.

Additionally: there is nothing whatsoever in the Federal Constitution that prohibits States from passing law for themselves that addresses social and moral outcomes. There are myriad examples of such laws, notably lewd and lascivious behavior, etc.

There are ALSO to be left to the States, and there is both nothing wrong with giving the People of each State the right to determine how all-encompassing they want their own rules to be, and you should stay out of it, and only worry about your OWN State. Worry about other States only if what they do violates the US Constitution, for the poor precedent. Other than that: stay out of it.

Be tolerant.

Back to Cruz: you have absolutely done nothing to support your assertion that Cruz is a sociocon, and - if you call yourself Conservative, or a conservative - you should positively be thrilled that Cruz is on the ballot, as we haven't had someone that knowledgeable about the Constitution - and how things are supposed to work - in our lifetimes.

[Captain Obvious]

I think you like to play fast and loose with these terms, and ignore that much of the public - even the media - doesn't really adhere to your cap 'C'/small 'c' terms.

Fact is that Cruz is conservative; Cruz is a Conservative. You - earlier - attempted to define for us what a 'sociocon' is (and you put in there a 'small c', saying that 'sociocons' attempt to use the Government to institute (READ: FORCE) their social agenda) - and you tried to claim Cruz is one.

I objected, and have patiently explained to you throughout that Cruz is likely the foremost Constitutional scholar in Government at the moment, and his knowledge of the Constitution automatically disqualifies him as the 'sociocon' that you attempt to make him.

You tried to counter, and tried to associate Cruz with other genuine sociocons by introducing DOMA as a complaint, and I pointed out to you that the critical difference between DOMA - which Cruz did not vote for - and the Cruz/Lee Bill - is that the latter PULLS the power to dictate marriage terms from Washington.

You - weakly - essentially complained that Cruz was still a sociocon, but your only evidence of such is that you claimed that the Cruz/Lee Bill "opens the door" to government still controlling marriage.

:biglaugh:

You should really acknowledge that - as far as your fingernail biting is concerned - Cruz sucks as a sociocon. The guy simply isn't. His record proves it.

Additionally: there is nothing whatsoever in the Federal Constitution that prohibits States from passing law for themselves that addresses social and moral outcomes. There are myriad examples of such laws, notably lewd and lascivious behavior, etc.

There are ALSO to be left to the States, and there is both nothing wrong with giving the People of each State the right to determine how all-encompassing they want their own rules to be, and you should stay out of it, and only worry about your OWN State. Worry about other States only if what they do violates the US Constitution, for the poor precedent. Other than that: stay out of it.

Be tolerant.

Back to Cruz: you have absolutely done nothing to support your assertion that Cruz is a sociocon, and - if you call yourself Conservative, or a conservative - you should positively be thrilled that Cruz is on the ballot, as we haven't had someone that knowledgeable about the Constitution - and how things are supposed to work - in our lifetimes.

The same guy who championed a mutt government clerk for standing up for her religious values.

Had this clerk been Muslim and refused Christians marriage licenses because Allah forbade it, you think Cruz would be jamming on Eye of the Tiger?

Yeah, sure...

What a crock of fucking shit, Cruz is a partisan whore just like the rest of them.

[Subdermal]

It has become obvious by this point you have serious reading comprehension problems.

:biglaugh:

Ad hom. For thee, and not me, eh?

I can absolutely guarantee you that I do not have reading comprehension problems, and find your moderation skills questionable at best: you CAN NOT sit and insult and troll and then chide others for doing so, particularly those who you have Thread Banned for doing exactly the same thing.

And you certainly have no right to claim that I do not understand what you are writing when you earlier attempted to claim my statement that "nothing in the Constitution prohibited the US fighting in WWII" as a "liberal reading of the Constitution", and somehow "inverts the intent of the Constitution" - and then give no suitable explanation; only a repeat of the claim without support.


Those are very simple words.

It contained a typo - a critical one - and whether the reader chooses to correct the typo with the word 'no' or the word 'the' completely juxtaposed the meaning.

So to claim the words were simple isn't the point. I told you to rewrite the sentence - and then you did, and seemed to act butthurt over the need to do so.

Fact is: the Constitution commands the FEDGOV to protect the people from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore: your claim taking issue with my WWII is rejected, as OBVIOUSLY the FEDGOV has the OBLIGATION to engage in an enemy which is proving to be a threat to the US.

[Subdermal]

The same guy who championed a mutt government clerk for standing up for her religious values.

Yes, that's correct: she was hired by constituents for her overall persona, and part of that is what she believes. Cruz supported Davis for refusing to engage in activities which were not part of the duties for which she was elected. In addition, she appears to be 100% consistent with your concern that FEDGOV should have no legal right to foist upon any State - particularly a State and Locality that wished, through a majority vote of its own people - do not codify Gay Marriage.

Beyond that, however, Cruz stands against Totalitarianism, and that includes circumventing the Constitution in the manner that SCOTUS did. There is only one entity which should have had the power to remove Davis, as she was an elected representative: and that is the People of Kentucky - the district which voted for her.

NO. ONE. ELSE.


Had this clerk been Muslim and refused Christians marriage licenses because Allah forbade it, you think Cruz would be jamming on Eye of the Tiger?

No, and neither would he. She would have been elected to a position which demanded that she approve heterosexual Christian licenses, and if she took the position with these rules in place, she should fulfill the duties of her position. But that is not what happened in Kentucky. The rules went from prohibiting gay marriage, to - suddenly, by FEDGOV/SCOTUS fiat - demanding them. There was no Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown with your fictitious Muslim, Capt, sorry: your attempt at an analogy fails.


What a crock of $#@!ing $#@!, Cruz is a partisan $#@! just like the rest of them.

Cruz is principled, and truly wishes to defend everyone's right to live as free as possible, but he understands these Constitutional challenges better than you do.

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, that's correct: she was hired by constituents for her overall persona, and part of that is what she believes. Cruz supported Davis for refusing to engage in activities which were not part of the duties for which she was elected. In addition, she appears to be 100% consistent with your concern that FEDGOV should have no legal right to foist upon any State - particularly a State and Locality that wished, through a majority vote of its own people - do not codify Gay Marriage.

Beyond that, however, Cruz stands against Totalitarianism, and that includes circumventing the Constitution in the manner that SCOTUS did. There is only one entity which should have had the power to remove Davis, as she was an elected representative: and that is the People of Kentucky - the district which voted for her.

NO. ONE. ELSE.



No, and neither would he. She would have been elected to a position which demanded that she approve heterosexual Christian licenses, and if she took the position with these rules in place, she should fulfill the duties of her position. But that is not what happened in Kentucky. The rules went from prohibiting gay marriage, to - suddenly, by FEDGOV/SCOTUS fiat - demanding them. There was no Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown with your fictitious Muslim, Capt, sorry: your attempt at an analogy fails.



Cruz is principled, and truly wishes to defend everyone's right to live as free as possible, but he understands these Constitutional challenges better than you do.

:biglaugh:

Most of that is asswipe material but I find it kind of funny considering clerk-mutt cited religious objections moreso than constitutional objections.

The other thing you're wrong on, btw, is - I've never claimed to support the constitution to any significant degree. Nor have I claimed to oppose it also.

Try to work through all that indoctrination.

[Subdermal]

Now, Captain, if I may be permitted:

If I was to massage your hypothetical Muslim analogy to make it accurate: you'd have to first claim the hypothetical that a Muslim would have been elected to this position, which I find unlikely.

However: if - prior to the Muslim's election - the rules were such that no Christians could be legally married, and this Muslim felt comfortable with the role as clerk in part due to that non-Islam confronting rule, and then that rule was suddenly sent down from on high due to a SCOTUS ruling - I would absolutely support that Muslim's right to claim that forcing her/him to approve these licenses would be against her religion.

But the question would still remain, and remain consistent: what is the will of the local people, and why is the FEDGOV suddenly telling people what is moral and enforcing that on the people of a particular State?

If the people of her/his district wished to recall the Muslim for her stance, they - and only they - should have the power to do so.

If you do not support that, you support encroaching Federal Government over State's Rights, and that is not how it should be.

[Captain Obvious]

Now, Captain, if I may be permitted:

If I was to massage your hypothetical Muslim analogy to make it accurate: you'd have to first claim the hypothetical that a Muslim would have been elected to this position, which I find unlikely.

However: if - prior to the Muslim's election - the rules were such that no Christians could be legally married, and this Muslim felt comfortable with the role as clerk in part due to that non-Islam confronting rule, and then that rule was suddenly sent down from on high due to a SCOTUS ruling - I would absolutely support that Muslim's right to claim that forcing her/him to approve these licenses would be against her religion.

But the question would still remain, and remain consistent: what is the will of the local people, and why is the FEDGOV suddenly telling people what is moral and enforcing that on the people of a particular State?

If the people of her/his district wished to recall the Muslim for her stance, they - and only they - should have the power to do so.

If you do not support that, you support encroaching Federal Government over State's Rights, and that is not how it should be.

Irrelevant.

Did she go to jail?

Dismissed

[Subdermal]

:biglaugh:

Most of that is asswipe material but I find it kind of funny considering clerk-mutt cited religious objections moreso than constitutional objections.

What is the difference? A simple person may not be fully aware of what protections they are given, but that does not change the presence of the protections.


The other thing you're wrong on, btw, is - I've never claimed to support the constitution to any significant degree. Nor have I claimed to oppose it also.

Where did I claim that you support the Constitution? BTW: you are bound to support the Constitution as a condition of your citizenship.

Right?


Try to work through all that indoctrination.

You should work through your inability to debate with someone who clearly knows more than you on this topic.

[Subdermal]

Irrelevant.

The rule of law is not irrelevant.


Did she go to jail?

Did she get out?

Your standard of right and wrong is whether or not someone went to jail? Innocent people are put in jail all the time, for fock's sake.

:biglaugh:


Dismissed

Yes, I'm sure you're anxious to dismiss, Capt. I would be too if I felt as underwater and out of your depth as you must feel at the moment.

[Captain Obvious]

What is the difference? A simple person may not be fully aware of what protections they are given, but that does not change the presence of the protections.



Where did I claim that you support the Constitution? BTW: you are bound to support the Constitution as a condition of your citizenship.

Right?



You should work through your inability to debate with someone who clearly knows more than you on this topic.

You edited it out before I could reply.

You know that, I know that.

Now you're truly dismissed for being dishonest.

Partisan hackery and stupidity, I have low tolerance for. Dishonesty I have zero tolerance for.

[Green Arrow]

Yes, that's correct: she was hired by constituents for her overall persona, and part of that is what she believes. Cruz supported Davis for refusing to engage in activities which were not part of the duties for which she was elected. In addition, she appears to be 100% consistent with your concern that FEDGOV should have no legal right to foist upon any State - particularly a State and Locality that wished, through a majority vote of its own people - do not codify Gay Marriage.

Beyond that, however, Cruz stands against Totalitarianism, and that includes circumventing the Constitution in the manner that SCOTUS did. There is only one entity which should have had the power to remove Davis, as she was an elected representative: and that is the People of Kentucky - the district which voted for her.

NO. ONE. ELSE.



No, and neither would he. She would have been elected to a position which demanded that she approve heterosexual Christian licenses, and if she took the position with these rules in place, she should fulfill the duties of her position. But that is not what happened in Kentucky. The rules went from prohibiting gay marriage, to - suddenly, by FEDGOV/SCOTUS fiat - demanding them. There was no Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown with your fictitious Muslim, Capt, sorry: your attempt at an analogy fails.



Cruz is principled, and truly wishes to defend everyone's right to live as free as possible, but he understands these Constitutional challenges better than you do.

Jesus H. Christ, if misuse of capitalization was a crime you would be guilty as sin.

Why do you do that?

[Subdermal]

You edited it out before I could reply.

You know that, I know that.

I edited out a paragraph, but that was after I realized that I was responding to Obvious, and not Chris.

Secondly, there is no reference to the paragraph IN YOUR OWN POST TO WHICH YOU WROTE YOUR RESPONSE.


Now you're truly dismissed for being dishonest.

I'm not dishonest, and your attempts at dismissal are laughable. You're already tied in knots and demonstrating how dumb and biased you are on this topic obviously due to your atheism.

You've already posted your veiled ambivalence over the Constitution - but we all know that those are weasel words; that you'll attempt to claim something else as soon as it becomes useful for you to do so.


Partisan hackery and stupidity, I have low tolerance for. Dishonesty I have zero tolerance for.

Oh, I'm sure. I would focking disembowel you in a debate.

[Subdermal]

Jesus H. Christ, if misuse of capitalization was a crime you would be guilty as sin.

Why do you do that?

It's easier than using italics or bold. And you aren't anywhere close to as smart as you think you are.

[Green Arrow]

It's easier than using italics or bold. And you aren't anywhere close to as smart as you think you are.

I'm not talking about using all caps, I do that myself for emphasis. It became a habit from my early years on forums before I knew how to use bold or italics.

I'm talking about capitalizing words like "state," "gay marriage," "government," "locality," "totalitarianism," "constitutional," etc.

*EDIT* Your personal attack is entirely unwarranted, but if you want to act like a child I will oblige.

[Subdermal]

I'm not talking about using all caps, I do that myself for emphasis. It became a habit from my early years on forums before I knew how to use bold or italics.

I'm talking about capitalizing words like "state," "gay marriage," "government," "locality," "totalitarianism," "constitutional," etc.

*EDIT* Your personal attack is entirely unwarranted, but if you want to act like a child I will oblige.

Oh, don't give me that crap, Arrow. You have chosen on the last several occasions to attempt to attack posting style and personality with me exclusively, and not topically. Complaining about the use of caps in things like my posts is the epitome of petty and ridiculous.

Don't try to pull that crap with me.

[Green Arrow]

Oh, don't give me that crap, Arrow. You have chosen on the last several occasions to attempt to attack posting style and personality with me exclusively, and not topically. Complaining about the use of caps in things like my posts is the epitome of petty and ridiculous.

Don't try to pull that crap with me.

Capitalization abuse is a pet peeve of mine, I find it highly irritating and distracting. Sue me.

[Subdermal]

Capitalization abuse is a pet peeve of mine, I find it highly irritating and distracting. Sue me.

And if you had solely mentioned this, it would be one thing - but you didn't. Instead I know where your bias lies. You have 'liked' Captain's posts in this recent exchange - even though his argument wasn't acceptable even for a teenager - and you also didn't like my argument against Chris' position wrt to Ted Cruz - and you (essentially) trolled not once, but twice.

Your emotional response is transparent. I don't have to sue. I already got the judgement.

[Green Arrow]

And if you had solely mentioned this, it would be one thing - but you didn't. Instead I know where your bias lies. You have 'liked' Captain's posts in this recent exchange - even though his argument wasn't acceptable even for a teenager - and you also didn't like my argument against Chris' position wrt to Ted Cruz - and you (essentially) trolled not once, but twice.

Your emotional response is transparent. I don't have to sue. I already got the judgement.

I'm sorry. Would you like me to thank some of your posts? Would that repair your hurt feelings?

Maybe it'll help if you command me to only like your posts.

[Subdermal]

I'm sorry. Would you like me to thank some of your posts? Would that repair your hurt feelings?

Maybe it'll help if you command me to only like your posts.

Aw. Petulant anti-Constitutionalist said what?

:biglaugh:

[Green Arrow]

Aw. Petulant anti-Constitutionalist said what?

:biglaugh:

What makes you think I'm anti-constitution, exactly?

[Chris]

I think you like to play fast and loose with these terms, and ignore that much of the public - even the media - doesn't really adhere to your cap 'C'/small 'c' terms.

Fact is that Cruz is conservative; Cruz is a Conservative. You - earlier - attempted to define for us what a 'sociocon' is (and you put in there a 'small c', saying that 'sociocons' attempt to use the Government to institute (READ: FORCE) their social agenda) - and you tried to claim Cruz is one.

I objected, and have patiently explained to you throughout that Cruz is likely the foremost Constitutional scholar in Government at the moment, and his knowledge of the Constitution automatically disqualifies him as the 'sociocon' that you attempt to make him.

You tried to counter, and tried to associate Cruz with other genuine sociocons by introducing DOMA as a complaint, and I pointed out to you that the critical difference between DOMA - which Cruz did not vote for - and the Cruz/Lee Bill - is that the latter PULLS the power to dictate marriage terms from Washington.

You - weakly - essentially complained that Cruz was still a sociocon, but your only evidence of such is that you claimed that the Cruz/Lee Bill "opens the door" to government still controlling marriage.

:biglaugh:

You should really acknowledge that - as far as your fingernail biting is concerned - Cruz sucks as a sociocon. The guy simply isn't. His record proves it.

Additionally: there is nothing whatsoever in the Federal Constitution that prohibits States from passing law for themselves that addresses social and moral outcomes. There are myriad examples of such laws, notably lewd and lascivious behavior, etc.

There are ALSO to be left to the States, and there is both nothing wrong with giving the People of each State the right to determine how all-encompassing they want their own rules to be, and you should stay out of it, and only worry about your OWN State. Worry about other States only if what they do violates the US Constitution, for the poor precedent. Other than that: stay out of it.

Be tolerant.

Back to Cruz: you have absolutely done nothing to support your assertion that Cruz is a sociocon, and - if you call yourself Conservative, or a conservative - you should positively be thrilled that Cruz is on the ballot, as we haven't had someone that knowledgeable about the Constitution - and how things are supposed to work - in our lifetimes.



I'm not the one taking simple words and stretching them like a rubberband to the breaking point of incredulity. You are. I have repeated demonstrated that in this thread. Like the canard that the founders were sociocons, lol.


Upper-case Conservative and lower-case conservative are not the same thing. Speaking of stretching language.



A sociocon is one who uses politics/the government to promote social agenda. Crus is one. Note, I did not use the word FORCE, that's you once again distorting what I said.

[Chris]

The same guy who championed a mutt government clerk for standing up for her religious values.

Had this clerk been Muslim and refused Christians marriage licenses because Allah forbade it, you think Cruz would be jamming on Eye of the Tiger?

Yeah, sure...

What a crock of fucking shit, Cruz is a partisan whore just like the rest of them.



I forgot about this, Cruz did support Kim Davis. My my.

[Chris]

Can the Religious Right Give Ted Cruz the Win? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/can-the-religious-right-give-ted-cruz-the-win/421563/)

Cruz consolidates support from key Christian conservatives (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-consolidates-support-from-key-christian-conservatives/2015/12/20/d7951a76-a5b6-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html)

Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal preach conservative principles (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruz-huckabee-jindal-preach-conservative-principles/)

Ted Cruz courts Christian conservatives in Christmas campaign tour (http://mashable.com/2015/12/20/ted-cruz-christian-conservatives/#0Ltqm8mrWsqj)

[Chris]

:biglaugh:

Ad hom. For thee, and not me, eh?

I can absolutely guarantee you that I do not have reading comprehension problems, and find your moderation skills questionable at best: you CAN NOT sit and insult and troll and then chide others for doing so, particularly those who you have Thread Banned for doing exactly the same thing.

And you certainly have no right to claim that I do not understand what you are writing when you earlier attempted to claim my statement that "nothing in the Constitution prohibited the US fighting in WWII" as a "liberal reading of the Constitution", and somehow "inverts the intent of the Constitution" - and then give no suitable explanation; only a repeat of the claim without support.



It contained a typo - a critical one - and whether the reader chooses to correct the typo with the word 'no' or the word 'the' completely juxtaposed the meaning.

So to claim the words were simple isn't the point. I told you to rewrite the sentence - and then you did, and seemed to act butthurt over the need to do so.

Fact is: the Constitution commands the FEDGOV to protect the people from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore: your claim taking issue with my WWII is rejected, as OBVIOUSLY the FEDGOV has the OBLIGATION to engage in an enemy which is proving to be a threat to the US.



Ad hom if you like but how do you account for your constant distorted straw men of what I post?


Careful with comments on moderation.


I have clearly demonstrated the numerous distorted straw men you've made up.



Excuse me for the typo's, the phone's virtual keyboard is tiny and my fingers fat. Try reading for comprehension by using context.

To claim they are simple speaks to my dismay over how blatantly you distort what I post.


You told me to--LOL.


I took issue with the way you phrased it. Again, you posted this:


There is nothing in the Constitution which says that WWII was unConstitutional.

That says the government can do whatever if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, WWII or anything else. That's an inverted reading when the Constitution clearly and simply grants certain enumerated powers and restricts others.

The Constitution grants the government the power of common defense.

You have to understand my claim before you argue against and reject it. So far you haven't.



Stop shouting.

[Chris]

Capitalization abuse is a pet peeve of mine, I find it highly irritating and distracting. Sue me.

It also distorts meaning.

For example, we have a republican form of government, not a Republican.

Or the early example in this thread that we do not have a conservative party (MisterVeritis) being attacked because we do not have a Conservative Party (Detector).

And, I'm libertarian but not a Libertarian.


Not a pet peeve of mine, but when it's defended....

[Chris]

So back to the topic, lol, this guy, despite his capitalization, gets it: George Will Fears the End of a Conservative Party – It’s Already Gone (https://tomliberman.liberty.me/george-will-fears-the-end-of-a-conservative-party-its-already-gone/)


The candidacy of Donald Trump has put to test a part of the Republican party that considers itself truly Conservative and George Will is of the opinion that a Trump nomination will mark the end of that faction of the GOP.

I’ve got news for you, Mr. Will. You and those of like minds might still be voting for Republicans, but the party is no longer Conservative and hasn’t been for a long time.

Part of the problem is that the term Conservative has come to mean two very different things to people who are members of the Republican party. The group to which Will largely belongs is Libertarian Conservativism. He does not believe the government should be telling individuals what to do and how to behave.

Meanwhile the majority of the Republican party has long since swayed to a combination of Cultural and Religious Conservatism. This group believes the government should interfere intimately in the lives of its citizens in cultural and religious matters. They believe preserving the state is integrally tied to preserving the culture. They believe in a very strong state with an untouchable police force that has the ability to enforce any and all draconian measures in order to keep us safe. They believe in a mighty military in order to keep us safe. They believe freedom is secondary to safety....