text:
The GOP: Stuck On Stupid
Aug9 by BrianR
In the week or so that's passed since Trump secured the official GOP nomination as their candidate for President, I've watched that party tear itself to shreds.
As I noted in my last column, "The GOP is in reality the PSP — the Perpetually Stupid Party".
For years they've ignored their inherent base supporters, traditional conservatives, instead treating them like redheaded step-children. The unrest of that base has long been obvious, as evidenced by the failures of McCain and Romney in their own presidential bids, not to mention how tight Bush's two contests were against incredibly inept opponents, Gore and Kerry.
Did the PSP learn anything from all those years of declining support? No, they did not. And the result is the success of the populist uprising led by Trump.
Like it or not, he is the official candidate of the Republican Party.
So, what's been the response of the usual suspects, the Establishment GOP hacks that have led that party ever-leftward? To throw an extreme hissy-fit, like a passel of spoiled brats. Is Trump a great candidate? Heck no! I spent a year pointing out some of his obvious flaws. But he IS their candidate, won fairly and squarely.
His opponent is Her Royal Arrogance Clinton, probably the single most beatable Dem/socialist in a couple of decades; a woman with more baggage than a cruise liner.
But instead of rallying around their official nominee, the PSP is indulging in a nihilistic paroxysm of pique and self-destruction. Many of the former candidates are refusing to honor their pledge to support the eventual victor of the primary, a pledge that Trump finally and begrudgingly did sign. Where's their honor now? At least one prominent member of the PSP – Meg Whitman – has gone so far (as of this writing) as to actually endorse Clinton. Amazing!
The end result is that the PSP has set Trump as the target of their circular firing squad.
The possible upside to all this turmoil is that we could hopefully see the GOP, like a phoenix arising from the ashes of its own destruction, change its errant ways and rededicate itself to actually acting like it believes in the principles it claims to support.
The downside is that it's taking place at the worst possible time, when the Dem/socialist candidate is a person so unfit for office, and whose policies are so destructive, that the country might never recover if she wins the election.
How will this all play out? I guess we'll soon see…
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged 2016 election, Clinton, Democrats, election, elections, GOP, gop candidates for president, hypocrisy, politics, presidential race, Trump.
← Gary Johnson Will Not Be President!
California's Death Penalty Repeal: Is Justice Served? →
178 comments on "The GOP: Stuck On Stupid"
Nee says:
Sigh. It's pretty disgusting to see the behavior of the PS, FKAGOPe!! 🙂 I cannot believe how badly they are treating Trump. And I will never understand why people will pick HRC with nothing to run on. "At least" Trump has had a real job and has successes under his belt. What does she have other than the coat tails of others? Oy.
Yeah, that pretty well sums it up, Nee.
What I find particularly hypocritical is this: you remember all the fuss about those "loyalty pledges" last year, and how Trump balked at signing one?
NOW who's not honoring their pledges?
Kasich (so far), Jebbie, Cruz… how many others?
Liars all.
Bill Taylor says:
Trump was not my first choice either however from somewhere in his ivory Trump Tower he had people out among the working class public and they were apparently listening, unlike the PSP elected bums. That even made us that weren't necessarily for him notice. The PSP's have just been doing the usual blowhard "can't do anything because the democrats stop us" Damn they have the majority why can't they get anything done?
During the debates what stood out most was NONE of the candidates talked substance for any length of time. They mostly just attacked the other candidates like little school kids with limited raising. Now they seem to fear the public only because if Trump is elected they might have to do some work for a change.
There are two Republican Senators from Mississippi. One has never answered e-mails nor phone calls. He is a senile on puff of gas that only won re-election this last cycle because of a Republican PAC that was buying democrat votes as they didn't have a horse in the race. This was pointed out time and time again and yet no charges. A very fine State Senator, Senator Chris McDaniel was defeated for his bid for the US Senate because of this corruption.
Now all the 3rd party candidates are coming out of the woodwork. The PSP, from my view is voting for Hillary and the total destruction of our republic.
I keep getting post from Roger Wicker on my FB page asking dumbass questions to support him. I don't click on the post but I do read the comments and they are 100% in agreement with me. Why hasn't he been voting on what used to be the Republican Platform and why hasn't he been supporting the US Constitution all along? He only has a 51% conservative voting record. Shameful.
I think I'd like to see public stocks on the Capitol grounds and when they vote against the US Constitution or add pork for bills they do submit they would spend some time in the stocks for first offense. Then maybe a French Guillotine for their second offense. Harsh? You bet but I'm sick of their constant lying just to get elected.
Well, Bill, there you have it.
The PSP is, IMO, definitely going the way of the Whigs. This is a complete mess, and could very well end up with Piano Legs ending up as POTUS.
The mind shudders!
jevica says:
Bill seems like all they care about is their power and office, not the Constitution, and what they said during the election. Yes they always cry "we can't do anything" what a PSP.
Brian, I know this was a hard essay for you to write. Well done.
Like you I wasn't a Trump supporter but when it became clear he would be the nominee I jumped on his train because I have always been in the Never-Hillary column.
Realistically, barring massive voter fraud and ballot box stuffing, this election is Trump's to lose. The polls are bullshit, especially when the pollsters over sample democrats to get the results they want. Look at his rallies. Look at Hillary's rallies. Her's are a joke. Look how many Twitter, FaceBook followers Trump has. They dwarf Hillary's even though many of her followers are fake IDs.
I submit that there are a great many more Trump voters out there than the experts can fathom or will admit to. The anger in the electorate is palpable like I haven't seen since the Carter days.
Let's face it, the main objection to Trump is being orchestrated by the UniParty who feed at the government teat and are threatened by Trump. The rest are just lemmings along for the ride.
Trump has warts and a lot of unknowns but a Clinton presidency is unthinkable.
Thanks, Nox.
Actually, not as hard as the last one. Once I committed to Trump, everything else falls into place.
BTW, I fully agree with everything you wrote in your comment. Kudos.
Yes, also look at the voter ID laws being struck down by judges, sure to help HRC. I agree with you, support the nominee
BETTY ARENSON says:
I LIKE HARDNOX!!!!
Great guy. Known him for years on the net.
Virginia Patriot says:
It's all about keeping the Cheap Labor Express running.
There has been a 30 year bipartisan policy of non-enforcement of our immigration laws and borders.
They are not about to let the citizens reverse that.
The citizens have had enough and want it stopped.
That's what has the Uniparty scared.
"Uniparty" is pretty much where we are. The real Dems, and the Dem-Lites.
That's exactly why Cruz and Trump are sooooo reviled by the PSP.
slowcowboy says:
Ah, Brian, I have to admit, I find the arguments listed here tired and tedious. I am as conservative as they come, but I am a conservative. Trump is no conservative. He's a blowhard without a clue. I cannot blame people for avoiding him and not rallying behind him. At best, I am voting against Hillary not for Trump. He's an asshole of the first degree, and has been all his life. He's not going to change. He's had ample opportunity to act presidential and he hasn't. He's had ample time to get into specifics of his policies and he hasn't. He is who he is, and when he gets in office and pisses everyone off and alienates the rest of the world, we should not be surprised. Much like Obama, he is showing who he is now.
The question is why can't people see these things before they happen, before it is too late?
The answer, I propose, is that Obama and Trump represent something other than who they are. People want things out of them that are not there, yet these two men say things that people want to hear even though they do things that reveal their true persons.
But as frustrated as I have gotten with the GOP, I think they have done a much better job of protecting conservative interests than they get credit for in these last 8 years. Perfect? Nope, but the reality is that with Obama in office, nothing they wanted to do would get done. That's just a truth. As to their support of Trump, why would they support a man who offends virtually anyone who dares stand in his way? A man who makes fun of disabled reporters is a small, immature man, and we are on the cusp of putting him in the White House? I don't want him representing my party, my country.
We can argue all day and night about how he is the nominee, and he is, and what that means (a binary choice against Clinton or otherwise). But that does not mean we accept him and his behavior. If he cannot change, and he's shown difficulty in that regard, I don't think honest, principled Republicans should get in line behind him. A political party is not everything, nor should it ever be.
I tend to think that if people had stood up to Trump earlier and more often and in more unison, he would not be the nominee. Yet, that did not happen, now here we are, about ready to lose to the weakest possible candidate imaginable. (I can't help but sympathize with those conspiracy theorists who believe Trump got in precisely to make that happen.)
Pray, tell, Brian, how any of this is a good thing, and also why the Republican Party is to blame? They are not the asshole wannabe president now, and are in a bind because somehow this man DID become the nominee. Are they supposed to "get in line" when the candidate himself won without 50% of the votes in the primary and is despicable on so many levels?
If so, then it seems that our ability to think independently and with our own conscious is destroyed. And at that point, our nation is lost. So, again, how is that a good thing?
Cowboy, first let me say, as you did, that "At best, I am voting against Hillary not for Trump."
I think that's pretty much true across the board for conservatives voting for Trump. You haven't commented for a while, so I don't know how much of my stuff of the last year you've read, but in NO WAY have I been a Trump supporter, until Comey's "we won't prosecute" circus show.
As to the PSP, we'll have to disagree on that. They've been a sad joke as a party for a long time, actually spending more time castigating and fighting core conservatives than the Dem/socialists they claim to oppose. That's really just a fact. They're a collective empty suit.
As to whether or not this is a "good thing", I'll again refer you back to my earlier essays of the past year. I think I've been pretty clear about where I stand on these issues.
Examples of the GOP fighting "core conservatives"? Also, what is a core conservative?
I submit that there is a reality that members of Congress face that is easy for us to dismiss. Part of this reality at present is that we have a president who would be a worse obstructionist than he blames the GOP as being. How many times can a party vote to dismantle a law when they do not have the votes to override his veto? Other issues, like immigration, are hardly the simple issues we make them out to be. It seems most everyone on the right at least agrees we need to enforce the laws we have, but the question of what to do with the immigrants here is harder. And there is stiff opposition on the left, again, not enough votes to make real productive immigration change. I could go on, but there are two examples of how it can be more difficult.
Its quite easy to lob names and accusations and something entirely different to actually do.
I have read most of them, not posting, but I have read them. (It has been quite the year, as I opened my own law firm here.) I know what you think, but you seem to be changing course now. Trump is the nominee, but we ought not be content with it. I think he does more damage to conservative causes than anything the GOP may have done. When we look the other way about him, what are we telling those on the fence?
"Also, what is a core conservative?"
Traditional American and/or constitutional conservatives. Definitely NOT the self-branded "conservative" represented by the standard-issue Establishment GOP hack, who in reality is simply Dem-Lite.
"How many times can a party vote to dismantle a law when they do not have the votes to override his veto?"
I have no idea. Why don't we try it out, for once, and see?
That goes to the very heart of the problem. The PSP doesn't represent any FIGHT. They have no GUTS. So what in the world is any reason at all to vote for them?
MAKE him veto those laws. GIVE the people what they want: a party that will actually fight back, a record of actual effort to which they can point when election time comes around, instead of the same old tired lame excuses.
"Trump is the nominee, but we ought not be content with it."
I don't know of ANYONE who's "content" with it.
"I think he does more damage to conservative causes than anything the GOP may have done."
Exactly WHAT has to PSP done FOR conservative causes? Pretty much zip. So it's pretty damned impossible for Trump to have been MORE damaging.
See, "let's try it and see." You know as well as I do that Obama WOULD NOT EVER vote to dismantle his signature law. Us on the right would love for the GOP to pound it and pound it, but there are many other people who just want to move on. Do we suppose that we can simply ignore the very existence of all these other people? And does not rehashing the issue mean that the GOP wants to keep the law?
What reason is there to vote for them? Well, to start, what other options are there? If people run who are good conservatives then sure, but that's not always possible. It happened with Cantor, though, so we know that it can happen.
And a pet peeve of mine is the idea that there is some 'establishment' conspiracy, as if there is a group of politicians on the right (both sides, really) that control the nation. First of all, what must one do to be part of the establishment? Is it a thing about time, or merely acquiescing to the ideas? Is it about position, or can little people be a part of it, too? Do all people within the establishment think alike? On we can go about what defines the 'establishment', including the reality that there will always be a group of elites, and the current 'establishment' will be replaced by a new one.
See, I think the 'establishment' has become one of those names that's easy to lob out there that ultimately means a group of people that others don't like. Its no different than calling someone a bigot– its used to label a person and shut down discussion. Its not helpful.
Conservatives need not be angry or repressive, and that's exactly how Trump looks. If conservatism becomes too associated with Trump, the folks who think conservatives are angry and repressive will be right. Conservatism is always going to be fighting a defensive battle, but it is also a positive and uplifting model that actually makes people better and stronger. But Trump is not offering that at all– by belittling his enemies (even those on his side) and mocking those who dare cross him, he does more damage to conservatism than all the McConnell's and Boehner's out there.
Oh, and I do think there are many people who are content with Trump. Do you disagree?
(Final thought, I don't mean to be a pain here, and respect what you've said, I just have a hard time with Trump and don't think he does anyone any favors. And we ought not sweep that under the rug.)
"See, 'let's try it and see.' You know as well as I do that Obama WOULD NOT EVER vote to dismantle his signature law."
That doesn't matter. So what? He's not going to sign onto law ANYTHING he doesn't like, so under your thesis, the GOP should just ask him what he wants, and go along with everything, right? Which is actually pretty much what they've been doing anyway.
So why should anyone EVER vote for them? You're advocating a rubber stamp approach. Make a President a Caesar, throw a wreath on his head, and disband Congress. Why waste time?
"And a pet peeve of mine is the idea that there is some 'establishment' conspiracy, as if there is a group of politicians on the right (both sides, really) that control the nation."
I've never said that, but are you seriously saying there ISN'T an "establishment" in the GOP — and the Dem/socialists, for that matter — that controls the way the party functions? Seriously?
The party hacks determine the allocation of resources, if nothing else, and how they're utilized and directed. They can make or break any aspirant's efforts simply by refusing to allocate money and manpower to anyone's campaign efforts, and bolster whomever they favor by throwing those resources in their direction. THAT is indisputable fact, and we saw it played out very publicly in the Dem campaign by Dingy Debbie and her minions. And don't kid yourself that the PSP doesn't use the same slimy tactics all the time.
Oh, another thought: a core conservative is one who seeks to protect the things that been demonstrated to be true. That is to say that they protect useful and productive institutions and ideas that have demonstrated themselves to be positive. Conservatives recognize that change is necessary sometimes, though do not support change for change sake.
In this nation, conservatives should seek to protect liberty above all else, a liberty which includes government at the local level and a distant and weak federal government. Conservatives need not like certain things, and should protect social values, but just the same they need to tolerate that which is different, as that is a part of liberty. Conservatives should seek an environment wherein everyone benefits, but not everyone is protected by law. Strength of character should be seen as stronger than labels.
A government that intrudes and favors is no government at all, and should be rejected. Yes, we are going that direction, and Trump will continue in that direction. He is no conservative. Trump will favor his lackies and punish his enemies. He will expand the reach of the federal government as he will seek revenge against those in Congress who object.
Core conservatives, I argue, should be scared of Trump.
The trouble is, his opposition is Hillary Clinton.
"Yes, we are going that direction, and Trump will continue in that direction. He is no conservative."
I addressed that in my last column, so won't repeat myself here. Bottom line: we don't know WHAT we'll get with Trump, because it's all speculation. We know EXACTLY what we'll get with the Hildebeest, and it's a disaster for this country. And ONE of them is going to be Prez.
I'm willing to roll the dice.
Are you sure about that? Would you like to do a search on "what the gop has done to block Obama"? They've made life difficult for Obama many a time, and kudos to them for it. This comes back to the reality I talked about earlier: the GOP actually has done quite a bit to stifle Obama's efforts. This is one reason Obama has reverted to executive action on so many important issues.
I am saying that calling someone a part of the establishment is easy and not helpful. Anyone you (generally, not you personally) don't like can be called 'establishment' as if it is an insult.
Oh, please. I mean, c'mon.
All Obozo has to do is mutter the words "government shutdown", and they scurry back into their holes like scared cockroaches.
And don't misunderstand me. When I call them "Establishment", I MEAN it as an insult. So I'm glad I'm being clear on that.
The Crawfish says:
Establishment:
The entire Bush clan
Basically anyone who has opposed Cruz, Lee, and Gowdy
Let's add Issa to the lost of good guys.
I bet you did not do any research on what the GOP actually has blocked. I'll just say it would be a lot worse if they did not do what they did.
So, you use 'establishment' just like the left uses 'bigot'. I see.
Now, you say you don't know what Trump will do. Would you have said you would have predicted what Obama would do when he ran? I tend to remember you weren't so optimistic about Obama, that maybe, just maybe, he'll be OK. Trump is foreshadowing the exact same way, and it seems we agree that we don't like that.
You say you are willing to roll the dice. That's fine. I'm not convinced, though.
And Brian, I do enjoy what you write but here I have to admit I disagree. When the nominee for the GOP does not support its party leaders (and most of its platforms), and caves to supporting them, I am not sure the problem is the party.
As far as McIdiot went, I said he was a just slightly less leftist than Obozo, and I haven't changed my mind one little bit. When Romney was running, I said I thought he'd make a pretty good Prez, though he was running a lame campaign. So… which Obozo election are you talking about?
And BTW, I NEVER EVER said that I thought Obozo might just be OK. Where in holy hell did you come up with THAT?
As far as "research" goes, what "research"? I'm all over the news just like white on rice every single day. I also have a good memory. I also write about this stuff all the time.
As far as "it would be a lot worse if they did not do what they did", well, I guess drowning is better than being burned at the stake, but probably not by much. And frankly, I'd rather avoid both.
You're perfectly free to disagree with me. I actually like it! It gives me practice. I always WELCOME disagreement, as long as people stay civil. And, of course, if they can't be civil, their comments never see the light of day, since I'm also the moderator. It's good to be the king!
As to your last sentence, "the party" has been the problem for a lo-o-o-o-o-ng long time. The Reagan years were the respite in the leftward drift of the PSP that began with the Rockefeller "country club" Repubs. That's the genesis of the original schism. It's the reason I left the PSP in sheer disgust in 2008.
What's the saying about iron on iron? Anyway, I never accused you thinking that Obama was OK. That is precisely my point: you saw him for who he was, yet you are giving Trump a pass on a hope that he will change. Trump is just like Obama in that regard, but far too many people on the right have put their blinders on, just like people did with Obama.
The GOP is not perfect by any means, but the problem now in objection the Trump is not the party. Sorry, it is a private organization designed to pull together like minded people politically to advance its preferred agenda. If a member shows itself to be outside of that agenda in behavior and platform, the party should not be bound to worship the ground the person walks on, no matter the position of the person. Yet, that seems to be exactly the position people expect to put on its support for Trump, a candidate who did not win a majority to begin with (meaning more people did not want him than wanted him).
As I mentioned in your last post, I am very confused as to what to think moving forward. I can't stand the thought of a Trump presidency almost as much as I can't stand Hillary in that position. Either way, we lose.
But what alarms me more is that any doubt or discussion on Trump in some circles seems tantamount to treason. And I think some of that comes from the top, the candidate himself. But more so, it comes from the bottom, where people seem to not care about liberty but would prefer a strong man in office who will bypass the designed congressional gridlock. This is directly infer that despite talk about preserving our Constitution, they want a different type of government than what the Constitution outlines.
I fear that our Constitutional nation is nearing its demise. You once used a quote about voting the treasury… I fear there is no hope out of that now, but maybe I am wrong…
No, you're again missing the point.
I didn't, and still don't, see one thin dime's worth of difference between Obozo and McIdiot. There's a WORLD of difference between Trump and Piano Legs. HE'S not a criminal for one thing, and she is. Go back to my last column and you'll see that THAT is the point that made me decide to switch to backing him.
This is REAL simple. ONE of them's going to be Prez. He's a loud-mouthed pig in a poke. She's an unindicted federal felon, pathological liar, and career corruptocrat. My vote on that is an easy call.
You haven't raised one single issue about Trump that I haven't myself. I spent a year criticizing him. But as has been said before, you fight with the army you have, not the one you WISH you had.
You: "But what alarms me more is that any doubt or discussion on Trump in some circles seems tantamount to treason."
Well that's never been me. I got that same BS back in 2008 when I refused to vote for McBonehead. I'm not responsible for what other people say. You need to take that up with them.
You: "Sorry, it is a private organization designed to pull together like minded people politically to advance its preferred agenda."
Indeed it is, which is why — once again — I quit that party. Because their idea of "like-minded" is a bunch of Establishment hacks sitting around and caving in and turning yellow at the very first opportunity. Their idea of an "agenda" is a lot of Dem-Lite horses*** while sitting around doing everything they can to marginalize conservatives and conservatism.
I feel the same loyalty to them as I do to the Viet Cong.
I hope this whole Trump event ends up burning the current GOP right down to the ground, Jebbie and all, and starting all over again.
Maybe this time they can throw a little spine and balls into the mix.
Pardon me for seeing you wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. The GOP is not perfect, as I have said, but you criticize them when they criticize Trump, someone you don't like yourself.
I'm not a member of their club, remember?
I don't like THEM, either.
Then why do you care about what they say about Trump so much?
Let them dig their own grave and start something new.
But this is another key problem in American politics: a third party is very difficult to raise. We have a clear two party system, and like it or not, that is where we are.
Sure, independents are out there, and there is a Green Party a Libertarian Part, a Constitution Party, etc. but these are not likely to grow much in the 90 days before the election, which is why you say its going to be Trump or Hillary.
But nonetheless, since you don't like the GOP, and are not a member (I actually remember you announcing your leaving the party), you have a very different view than I do (still a member). I have a hard time allowing someone who does not represent me or my values as my candidate. Am I to shut up and not state my displeasure?
I don't care, other than as a symptom of why the GOP IS the PSP, and a failed system. This isn't anything new in my writings. I've been writing this stuff for many years, even before I started blogging and was just writing columns and letters to the editor.
I'm pointing out the continuing abject stupidity, and willful ignorance and blindness, of that party in the (apparently) vain hope that someone somewhere will pay attention, take notice, and start doing something to change things.
I often feel like Cassandra in Homer's Odyssey.
"I have a hard time allowing someone who does not represent me or my values as my candidate."
Well, then, I have to say that judging by the "values" that party's been actually representing, I have to wonder what YOU actually believe in, if you think Boehner and McConnell and McCain and people like them represent your views.
I believe the Republican Party is the best current venue through which to pursue conservative, traditional, and small government values. It is not perfect, but I don't see the Constitution Part making much headway, either.
Boehner and McConnell were not perfect (McConnell still in his position) but as I have said earlier, I think they did a better job than they get credit for. I agree with Harsanyi, but also have seen first hand how Congress works. As I said earlier, its easy to play armchair quarterback.
We on the right need to be diligent in pushing our preferred policies, but we ought not lose sight of reality. We live in a world with many other ideas and we will always be playing defense because much of those ideas are, let's be honest, attractive to many people looking for an easy way out.
But conservatism needs a political in roads, and just as you call the GOP the Perpetually Stupid Party, I see this counter movement against the GOP as risking the very thing the GOP provides: a venue to push conservative policies.
Change is needed, but without ensuring what is coming on the other side and risking everything for the sake of change sounds to me quite stupid.
"I believe the Republican Party is the best current venue through which to pursue conservative, traditional, and small government values."
Based on what????
It's the Dem-Lite party, and not even so "Lite" anymore.
BOTH major parties are intent on driving the car of this country over the edge of the cliff. The PSP just wants to do it a little slower.
The reality that there is no other viable option.
How do you propose to fix it?
Well, its a discussion that I do not think needs to result in a division within the ranks of conservatives. We share the same policy goals and have the same vision for the nation.
And on that, we should work together, within and without of the GOP.
That goes almost without saying.
Agreed. Now. a moment of positive thought about Trump: he does bring up some important and refreshing points. For example, it is good to see people take an interest in what's going on, and Trump's (though I am not sure it is honest as people think) direct talk is refreshing. He is not afraid to speak openly and harshly. I also think some kind of 'revolution' was needed. Jefferson advocated periodic revolutions to keep government fresh and on their toes. The government needs to know it has limits, and I think this Trump phenomenon is hopefully making government see that. Also, and this is yet to be seen, but I hope on the other side rationality will return and people won't be so quick to react as strongly as they do now.
We shall see what happens, but I do see some positives in Trump, I just wish all this was not happening through such a class A jerk.
Well, all great points.
I just got off the phone with my daughter, and we were talking about this stuff. To me, one of the biggest issues in this election is SCOTUS.
If the Beest gets in, we are SCREWED. She's made it perfectly clear that restricting First and Second Amendment rights are high on her list, and SCOTUS is her route to success.
At least Trump's named a list of pretty good potential Justices.
The other thing we were discussing is his big mouth. He's his own worst enemy. He's got diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. He can't get out of his own way. He needs to start filtering what he's saying, and shut his big goddamn yap. Stop trying to stick both size 12 feet in his size 20 mouth.
Well, Brian, we DID work together to put forth the basis of a new party. Maybe we need to dust this off and revamp it for 2020…..
https://crawfishsclaw.wordpress.com/american-tradition-party-platform-2008-old-townhall-blog/
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh… the good old days!
Yeah, the "Constitution Party" name is false advertising.
Sadly.
Yup. Its not bad, certainly conservative, but off on its "Constitution" part.
As I think about it, I'm going to expand on this PSP as a "club" idea you just raised, and with which I agree.
For years, they had a genuinely conservative guy in the Senate they could have supported, and who was a "legitimate" candidate in this election: Ted Cruz.
And exactly WHAT has been their record on him?
Taking every opportunity to crap all over him, for years, both as a sitting Senator and as a candidate.
That's their SOP, and exactly WHY I call them the PSP. They absolutely REFUSE to learn the Reagan lesson: that real conservatism sells. The biggest wins they've had in the last decades — and not just wins, but landslides — have been Reagan's two wins and Pere Bush's when he ran as Reagan 2.
Did they learn ANYTHING from that?
Hell no. They've brought this destruction upon themselves. I feel absolutely zero sympathy for them.
Remember that Trump officially dropped out of the pledge on March.
Trump threatens to upset their apple cart. The GOP establishment cares not about the Constitution or conservatism. They only care about having SOME power, having the perks of office, getting media time, money from lobbyists and campaign contributors (which they funnel to their families as campaign "employees"), and getting invites to DC social scene events.
I don't recall him actually revoking his pledge. I remember him talking about it, but I don't think he ever actually did it. Maybe I'm wrong.
As to the idea that they're just political hacks: ya think????
Here it is, Trump renouncing the pledge.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/29/wisconsin-gop-town-hall-donald-trump-rnc-pledge-07.cnn
Well, then I guess that let's the rest of the former candidates off the hook, in a sense. I qualify that because if they didn't revoke their own pledges, I'd say they're still obligated. Revoking AFTER they've already lost strikes me as dishonorable.
But it SURE doesn't let any GOPer off the hook for endorsing the Hildebeest. That's completely unacceptable under any circumstances.
captbogus2 says:
Just as Captain Smith learned, as he and the RMS Titanic slid beneath the waves, his reckless guidance had led himself and the great ship to an early grave it seems the GOP is in much the same situation as was the Titanic. Only difference is the number of self important 'captains' that are going to go down with it.
NO ONE with an ounce of brains or a modicum of rationality will ever again support any of the sleazy political hacks who (1) have broken their word about supporting the chosen GOP nominee; or (2) signed no pledge but have actively campaigned against the chosen GOP nominee while still claiming GOP membership.
Yeah, Buck!
Maybe they don't want to endorse Trump, but to endorse the Hildebeest?
You frikkin' kidding me???????
Addendum: I stand corrected. The big money will still support them…
Again read, "None Dare Call It Treason" by John Stormer
Brian I can't agree more. I have commented on Social media, written to the GOP, mention this to anyone, but these FOOLS it seems would rather see HRC elected and then cry about it because they would not support Trump. Trump was nominated fair and square now support him. You see all this B.S. about removing him as candidate and replace him with who someone who could not win in the primaries? Or one of the past losers? Come on crybabies get with it and support the candidate. As for Trump lets attack HRC
Agreed, Jev.
I think those clowns have lost any and all credibility they may have had, which definitely wasn't much to begin with.
AMEN Brian. Seems like they want Trump to lose, then cry, and try to work with HRC.
garnet92 says:
Shakespeare's phrase, "hoist with his (their) own petard" comes to mind.
The PSP, as we've come to expect, had plotted, planned, and schemed to force yet another one of their compliant, malleable candidates to be the party's nominee. And, as we've come to expect, they screwed it up royally.
With BroomHillary representing the worst presidential candidate fielded by the dems in eons, the PSP's machinations have resulted in our success being represented by a bleached hairpiece. This election should have been a "gimme," a walk-off. But noooo, they can't even get their act together enough to coordinate a win against an empty pantsuit.
The party's "brain trust" (boasting barely two active synapses to rub together), is about to succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Pathetic doesn't do it justice.
Jeez, that was some pretty good stuff, Garnet!
"The PSP, as we've come to expect, had plotted, planned, and schemed to force yet another one of their compliant, malleable candidates to be the party's nominee."
Yep. A dose of Jebbie was on order.
"BroomHillary… an empty pantsuit".
That's the usual about snatching defeat for the PSP.
Good one. I don't have to rehash anything, as we Crispies were trying to point out the problems with the establishment hacks 3 cycles ago. As I see it, Trump is taking as much flak from the GOPe as did Ronaldus Magnus. Trump would be wise to study and learn how HE went over the hostile media and straight to the voters.
Thanks, pard.
Yes! Exactly! The exact same BS as Reagan got!
Who branded his economic plan as "voodoo economics? Bush, that's who.
7 years… Wow. Hard to believe, and mine turn 10 and 11 this year…
I was posting of their birth back at the Townhall days…
Yeah, I remember. I think that was about the time you packed up and moved west, to Montana or Wyoming or someplace out there, right?
I used to make jokes about you wearing a cowboy hat.
Laramie, WY. The boys were 3 and 1 at the time… And still not gallon Stetson hat. Just have a hard time buying one…
But clyde, Trump has had ample opportunity to mature and he has not. Reagan did not offend everyone who disagrees with him. Trump can't help himself do exactly that.
Which, BTW, is his Achilles Heel, which no one denies.
Yeah, they do. They make excuses for him left and right.
(((((((((((((((( sigh )))))))))))))))))))))))))
Who does? Who's "they"?
Trump supporters. Do you really not see them making excuses for him? As Trump himself said, he could kill someone and they would keep supporting him.
Yes, Trump gets a pass from much of his base, who, like him, never seem to prescribe blame on Trump himself but on anyone and everyone else.
Do we really see this that differently? I find it clear as day…
That's meaningless to me. "Cheerleaders" of every candidate in history do the same thing.
I'm only interested in what "serious" people think and do.
Are you admitting Trump won with the vote of non-serious people?
You know what I'm talking about. I'm not interested in playing word games. That's a waste of time, and intellectually boring.
No, no games here, Brian. I am accusing people of excusing Trump, and you say you are only concerned with serious people who do not excuse Trump. Trump won the nomination with the votes of lots people excusing him, and will continue to hold lots of support with lots of people. Are they not serious? Or are you conceding the point that lots of people excuse him?
Dude! How many times do I have to say that I'm not responsible for what "other people" do or say?
I speak for me, and me alone. Period.
Fair enough, Brian.
If by "non-serious", you mean Hillary supporters…..YES!
LOL. What's sad is that most Hillary 'supporters' are voting against Trump I would imagine, just as most Trump supporters are voting against Hillary.
Yup. True that.
Yes, they will be against Trump in November, but they wanted him to be the GOP candidate because he is the easiest to defeat.
Yep. It's the same game they played successfully against McLamebrain, too.
Oh, and Brian, to a large degree, you make another couple points of mine for me: we can't ignore the reality that there are all sorts of people out there, and also one wonders what the "serious" people (whoever they are) had treated the Trump candidacy differently earlier on, what might have happened. But, they seemed scared to take him on and did not act cohesively together.
Here we are.
Another irrelevancy, as this is a systemic failure of long duration, AS I'VE ALREADY STATED.
If there's one thing I hate, it's repeating myself.
You seem to be excusing Trump as a result of things that happened years ago.
There IS a problem in the GOP, but I disagree that this is entirely on the GOP. As I am now also repeating myself, its easy to blame others and play armchair quarterback.
I'm not excusing Trump of anything. He's an ass. He's almost irrelevant. He's merely a symptom of a vastly larger problem: the ethical and ideological collapse and surrender of the PSP.
Not just the GOP, but education, moral values, an ability to critically think. Its also a reaction to the leftist policies and a society that has grown such that certain people are preferred. Not all of that is on the GOP. Look at what happened as Mizzou a couple years ago…
I don't blame the PSP for all the problems in the country. That would be beyond foolish.
I blame them for deserting their post. They went AWOL. Desertion in the face of the enemy.
A capital offense in the military.
Well, here we are… Desertion or not, we have a populist movement bringing two very unfortunate candidates…
Well, yeah. Kinda the point of my last two essays, pard.
I know, but I just can't come around to supporting Trump. I won't campaign for him or support him in anyway, apart from maybe (I'm still on the fence) voting against Hillary by voting Trump.
Which EXACTLY sums up my own position. I couldn't agree more. Believe it or not, we're on the same page, pard.
For the most part, yes. I seem to be a little less tolerant of Trump. You mention your daughter, and I have had similar conversations with my dad, who takes a more binary view of it like yourself. Just an interesting tidbit.
How's your granddaughter, by the way? As I recall, you had become a proud granddad a few years back…
My little princess/munchkin turns SEVEN in a bit less than two months. How time flies!
If you hit my Facebook page, there are pics and videos, if you're interested. They're on "private" setting, since they're pics of a little kid, and we all know about internet dangers, but I can "friend" you and you can regale yourself with a bunch of visuals.
I'm sure you can hardly wait…
Thanks for asking, pard.
This is my Facebook page:
Oh, the good old days at TownHall.
St. Crispin's Day Society
I was warning in 2006 that the GOP was rigging the primaries to give us amnesty candidates.
McAmnesty was followed by Romneycare.
This time they got Trumped and they are very unhappy about it.
Jeb! was supposed to be the Designated Loser this time.
If Hillary falls behind in the polls, look for Jeb! and W. to endorse her.
Whatever it takes to prevent the citizens from electing anyone President who would uphold the laws.
The Cheap Labor Express must be kept running.
They are not about to let us reverse 30 years of bipartisan policy of flooding the country with fraudulently documented foreigners.
AfterShock says:
The national GOP has been anti-conservative and progressing towards leftism during all our lifetimes, at least as far back as Herbert Hoover. The establishment sees the party as a platform for re-election and not much else… to them, the party platform is just words they invoke publicly whenever they need it to appear that they stand for something noble — about every four to six years. Window dressing.
As far as the "pledge" to support the nominee goes… any pledge made on the honor system assumes that its' adherents are honorable and will behave honorably one to another. That isn't to say a contest can't be rough, that tough truths can't be spoken, but there's rough in battle then there's a line that good people ought not cross. Once Donald Trump began lying, demagogue-ing smearing and viciously slandering fellow candidates, all via the Clinton playbook, then attacking adversaries personally to destroy them politically, and of course in the case of Ted Cruz where that included attacking his wife then his father, that in my book negates any pledge dependent on the mutual honor of its' adherents.
The eventual nominee did win as you say, fair and square, so far as the technical/procedural acquisition of delegates was concerned, but he got there in a particularly despicable, disgraceful and dishonorable way fitting of the vile left and which should not be rewarded or tolerated by the civil society. And through all of this, the GOP just couldn't and still can't get out of its' own way. That's what happens when a party rigs their own system in an ongoing attempt to nominate establishment Republicans for POTUS and reelect the usual gaggle of incumbent miscreants. It has the potential to backfire in spectacular fashion. As it has.
The way the GOP establishment handled the process at their Convention, had marks of the pathetic Mitch McConnell and Boehner-proxy Paul Ryan written all over it. Unfortunately, though the party platform was strengthened by delegates, the power of the RNC to piss on us and call it rain was increased two-fold. What we have — hopefully — learned from this election cycle, is that there really isn't and hasn't been for a very long time, any credible conservative movement. The so-called Reagan [conservative] Revolution died with the election of George HW Bush and hasn't been seen since.. only remembered.
We're living among the very generation Ronald Reagan feared most, that generation of voters so unmoored from the principles of liberty and the Constitution that protects it, that the entire Country could be lost to the tyranny and despotism of the hard left. That, is STUPID beyond mere ignorance, it's the stupid that comes from a morally bankrupt society and will not go away with the election of any one man or woman. We have a systemic problem among the electorate that must be addressed and changed. There's lots of work ahead.
The bottom line here, which you noted, is that this revolt — and "revolt" it is — has been a long time coming, and the PSP has brought it upon themselves.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Which is exactly why I coined the acronym "PSP". Because they ARE perpetually stupid.
Ever see the movie Idiocracy?
Never heard of it.
Look it up and watch it. Hilarious. And telling…
I looked it up on Wikipedia.
Not my kind of movie. Sounds dumb.
Oh, it is dumb, but the premise is that the stupid people take over the world.
The best part is at the beginning, but looking at what is going on in contemporary America, the movie is very interesting indeed.
"Interesting" is a matter of taste.
Judging by its box office, I guess not many people found it "interesting".
Fair enough. But not every movie that gets box office bucks is interesting, either.
I would encourage you to watch it nonetheless as a social commentary, albeit in ridiculous fashion.
Nah. I'd rather watch my grass grow.
LOL. Different tastes make the world go round, huh?
The idea that the world is being taken over by dumb people is closer than we think, though… 🙂
"BEING taken over"?
You mean the battle's still going on?
Hell, you coulda fooled me…
I'll keep fighting until the death…
Just read that CBS found about 260 dead people voting in LA must be Democrat.
. The supervisors voted to investigate. Hello the courts keep invalidating ID laws.
But Jev! Voter fraud is a MYTH!
Didn't you get the talking points memo?
If I had a dollar for every time someone said that…my own state is now being told by the courts that our voter iD is discrimnatory…but hey, Planned Parenthood can register people to vote and probably have some, er, influence? HFS, you cannot make this stuff up!!!
Yeah… Basically, the American Marxists and the courts that decide these cases against Voter ID are the ones who are the real "racists". What they're basically saying is that "minorities" are too stupid to do something as basic as getting an ID card.
You need an ID card to cash a check, get on an airplane, get a library book, drive a car, buy a gun, a whole host of everyday activities. So "minorities" are too stupid to do any of those things? Sounds racist to me!
And if having an ID to vote is "discriminatory", isn't requiring one to buy a gun just as discriminatory?
Brian I watching how the media is going on about the Trump 2nd Amendment statement and HRC appointing judges, there is no way I hear any threat of violence.
No, Jev, it's just the same old American Marxist bulls***.
I've written the same basic thing on several occasions: that the Dem/socialists are making a HUGE strategic error every time they make gun control a major election issue. Because it drives GUN OWNERS to the polls. Which is exactly what Trump said.
But as usual, the despicable Marxists try to twist that into threats of "violence".
Hell the PSP is a private club, I'm surprised they let me join. People of like mind, hell they dump all over conservatives when ever they want.
As they say, I don't know if I want to be a member of a club that will let me in
Groucho!
We non-democrats are a fractured mess. Like Cowboy I feel it's unfair to lay all of the blame for the mess on the GOP as a whole. They've made mistakes, not the least of which is their penchant for enlarging "the tent" by stretching it too thin to reach people who only embrace part of its ideals. Better to convince them to move under the tent and maintain its integrity, but too many have given up on that idea. Trump fans, however, deserve an equal share of the blame for forcing the GOP to accept a non-conservative nominee and for treating the elective process like a sport. Let's not let them off the hook.
It matters a lot to me what someone's reasons are for rejecting their own nominee. As I said the other day, I see this as a choice between Hillary, who I concede is worse than Trump, and the election of a man who may, as the Republican/"conservative" in this contest, significantly damage that brand by his actions and behavior if elected. Naturally I think it's reasonable, given that choice, to choose none of the above or another alternative if that's what I decide to do. In defense of myself and others who hold that view, we gave fellow republican voters very clear and repeated warnings of our reasoned objections to Trump long ago, but they insisted on pushing him to the nomination anyway, both in spite of our objections and in spite of his obvious flaws. I will also concede that there's no guarantee that my preferred candidate, Ted Cruz, would not have had his own problems, but he would have been worth the risk while Trump, with his liberal history and absence of conservative convictions, was not.
As far as these republicans who are now making a show of rejecting Trump on the basis of 'national security concerns,' I see that differently from my own situation. Given Trump's penchant for speaking impulsively and for personalizing every word and act, it's not unreasonable to be concerned over the thought of Trump as POTUS and Commander-In-Chief; however, If that's your issue Hillary Clinton is clearly a worse option as she, like Obama, is solely motivated by whatever serves her own personal and/or political interests. Furthermore she promises to continue to weaken us economically. That's the worst kind of leader you can have. I cynically suspect these defectors are the dreaded moderates acting at least partly out of loyalty to Bush, so I denounce them for it.
With respect to the pledge, I agree with AfterShock. Some years ago I finally learned that it's foolish to be loose with the word "never," and the GOP pledge amounts to the same thing. The candidates were dumb to go along with it but Trump has no basis to complain because, as Crawfish rightly pointed out, he reneged on the pledge himself before the contest was even over (big surprise). I find the notion of swearing semi-blind support to an individual, rather than to a set of ideals, to be antithetical to what the party of liberty is supposed to be about. I know the GOP was trying to herd cats but it sets a very bad precedent IMO.
All in all great discussion here.
Yeah, it's a damned fun discussion. Y'know, I have a lot of discussions on various threads, and I'm ALWAYS struck how civil they are when it's a bunch of non-leftists disagreeing, as opposed to the norm, which is when leftists show up. They simply can't seem to keep themselves from setting their hair on fire.
Great comment there, CW. A couple of points.
You: "Like Cowboy I feel it's unfair to lay all of the blame for the mess on the GOP as a whole."
Gotta disagree. This isn't a sudden phenomenon that just inexplicably happened out of thin air. It's taken a LONG time for things to reach the point where a Trump didn't just get laughed out of the room as soon as he made his announcement. If the PSP hadn't spent literally decades ignoring their alleged "base" and ticking off everybody in sight, things would have never reached a stage that resulted in what is a de facto open revolt.
You: "Trump fans, however, deserve an equal share of the blame for forcing the GOP to accept a non-conservative nominee and for treating the elective process like a sport. Let's not let them off the hook."
To which I give the same answer. If not for things having reached the stage of rebellion, they wouldn't have felt they had to.
Think about it. The Tea Party's been around for about a decade now. And exactly WHAT has been the response of the Establishment GOP hacks to that constituency? To mock them, belittle them, scorn them, and ignore their policy proposals. To marginalize the ones elected to office. Call them "loony birds" and "radical fringe", and the like.
Well, what, exactly, did they think was going to be the ultimate reaction to that? A tip of the hat, and a "thank you, sir"?
Again, Perpetually Stupid.
Like you, I'm a Cruz fan. He was my guy. How's the Establishment treated Cruz, both as a candidate and a sitting Senator? Scorn, contempt, mockery, ridicule.
Those idiots apparently never even take the time to ask themselves if there's something to pay attention to in the fact that a Cruz could actually win office. Perpetually Stupid.
This is the exact same kind of behavior that led to the GOP replacing the Whigs in the first place.
Brian, you're right that it was a long time coming and I will certainly agree that the years of bad behavior by establishment types within the Party, including rejection of the Tea Party and many other failures, ignited the rebellion that's going on now, but that is only half the problem. The fact that voters are justified in being unhappy with their Party doesn't excuse them from being sensible in the way they rebel, particularly if they are going to drag the rest of us along. It remains a mystery to me why fed-up "conservatives" would rally behind someone like Donald Trump when there was a viable Tea Party candidate on the ticket. If my husband treated me badly and I dreamt for years of leaving him for a man with certain qualities, I'd like to think I wouldn't abandon my standards for the first guy who promised me excitement. If I do that I have to take responsibility for my choice. I can't keep blaming my ex.
You asked, "How's the Establishment treated Cruz…?" I am not here to defend "the Establishment." As you said, this has been a long time coming, and as such "the Establishment" has made little secret of where it stands with respect to the Tea Party and true conservatives. Their treatment of Cruz, though disgraceful, was not all that surprising. But what was surprising, actually shocking, was the treatment of Cruz at the hands of those who for years now have professed to stand for conservatism. "Scorn, contempt, mockery, ridicule…" Yep, I've seen it all.
I certainly can't disagree.
I think I made it pretty clear over the last year of my intense criticism of Trump, and the last column I wrote explaining why I'd changed my position, that we're in extraordinary times. Hell, this is the year I actually voted for a Dem/socialist, the first time ever in my life, and he was a real, actual Socialist!
I felt "The Bern"!
https://theviewfromtheisland.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/are-unicorns-real/
It seems to be a year of firsts. What can I say?
CW,
remember that a large number of those who voted for Trump in the primaries were Hillary voters who wanted Trump to be her opponent in November. It is the fault of the various state GOP leaders who allowed open primaries.
remember that a large portion of the Trump vote in the primaries was Hillary voters who wanted him to be the opponent in November.
The fault therefore lies with the STATE Republican parties who allowed their primaries to be open.
I wholeheartedly agree that open primaries are profoundly stupid, Crawfish, and yes, another example of failure at the leadership level. I'm not sure as to the extent of their impact in this instance. Does anyone know if they were the deciding factor that tipped the scales for Trump?
Last I saw, it was an estimated 4 million votes spread across open primary states.
Could have made the difference. Sigh….
One more element of the stupidity of the PSP, by Sowell:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/08/10/new-critics-of-trump-n2203475
The always brilliant, Thomas Sowell, asks:
"How did we get into the predicament where our choices for President are narrowed to a candidate who inspires distrust versus a candidate who inspires disgust — and where both are dangerous?"
Well for one thing, not enough people read or remembered the years of wise advice from Dr. Sowell when it came time to choose a nominee, even though his articles and quotes were regularly posted or re-posted on conservative blogs with cheers and applause. Sowell's wise teachings were quickly forgotten, like a dieter's pledge when the dessert trolley rolls by.
Yes, Brian, Sowell's point about the format of the debates is VERY well taken. At the risk of sounding self-serving I complained ad nauseam about the same thing to my poor husband. We're talking about electing a leader for our nation for four years, with serious long-term implications. Why not expand the debates to several hours or break it into a series of 2, 3 or 4 parts on consecutive nights? The bumbling and missed opportunities have been mind boggling. That said, voters are still not off the hook. In the end they have to accept their share of the blame.
Yep, CW, right on.
Yet again, the PSP being the PSP.
That "circular firing" squad I mentioned.
Pardon my extremely late arrival, but as the saying goes, I've been up to my butt in alligators for the past few months and my time for politics was limited.
It's true the establishment republicans are the PSP. For decades, they've been slipping more & more to the left, to the point where there is barely any difference at all. Nothing proves that more than the agreement they signed in the 80s with the democrats not to ever challenge voter fraud.
During O's excruciatingly long reign, Congress put the remote on fast forward by agreeing to almost every demand he made. John Boehner handed him money so fast it made your head spin, only to be outdone by Paul Ryan who's all but handed him the purse. Mitch McConnell put up so little struggle he could have passed for Harry Reid's twin.
At the beginning of this election cycle, they were so confident they could shove Jeb Bush at us, that they put all their eggs in his basket, never giving a thought to having a Plan B if the voters rejected him. When the voters said no more Bushes, there they stood with those eggs on their faces, an empty basket and a lot less money in their pockets.
The RNC was completely unable to regroup and support one of the other umpteen candidates in the race, and the idea of supporting Cruz was never an option. He'd bucked the system and refused to be one of those go-along-to-get-along players.
While they were busy washing the egg off their shocked faces, enter one blustery Donald Trump into the race, who really threw a monkey wrench in the works. Instead of forming that Plan B, the RNC sat there watching the angry sideshow that he was, and while they were dithering, all the little Trumpbots were being fired up by the anger he brought along. The bots were seeing a non-politician candidate who's mad about the same things and promises to fix it, and heck, with his money, why not? He's loud, rude and has lots of money, so it was easy to jump on his bandwagon. It never mattered that he wasn't a conservative; all that mattered was he was angry. And loud.
It wasn't long after Trump entered the race that many of the Cruz supporters began turning on him in favor of Trump. All of a sudden Cruz' warts were bigger and much worse than Donald's were. How quickly they forgot that Cruz, along with a handful of other conservatives, had been the one doing battle on our behalf with the establishment leeches. Never mind the fact that Cruz was basically saying the same things Trump said and he had a much better idea of how to make it happen than Trump will ever have. Never mind their claims that Cruz was the only one who could best Hillary in the debates and beat her in the race to the White House.
All these months later we're hearing the Trumpbots bludgeon the non-bots with that worn out phrase that if Hillary wins it will be their fault for not throwing their support behind Trump. Now the non-bots are accused of sulking on the sidelines, being un-American and not caring about their country. Really??
Well, let me tell you what. While there are some conservatives who have come around to the thinking of supporting the lesser of the evils since Trump got the nomination, I understand but I'm not one of them.
Yes, I'm a non-bot and I have a message for the Trumpbots. Do not attempt to wipe your boots on me. I'm not the one who early on so willingly sacrificed my principles for the louder and angrier bandwagon you all jumped on. You are the ones who chose to support a weaker candidate – the one who will likely lose to Hillary. The one who is now whining and waffling about the debates. The one who, after all these months, is still switching back and forth between 'being himself' one minute and being 'presidential' the next. Why? Because he doesn't know how to play the game.
Should your golden boy lose in November, then it's not on me, it's on you. You chose the lesser candidate, and you are the ones who decided to grab the bigger and shinier ring and compromise your principles.
Though there's stuff in there with which I don't agree — and I certainly don't consider myself a Trump-bot — I think that's a great comment, Kathy.
Thanks for posting it, and for all the time and thought you obviously put into it.
You can comment on Kathy's comment here: https://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2016/08/14/thoughts-on-the-gop-trump-and-principles/
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest Brian, and no, you and the others who just lately said you'd vote for Trump are not Trumpbots. Those guys bloomed in early spring.
I don't expect many (any) will agree with me – certainly not on all points, and that's ok.
Hey, my pleasure, Kathy. I thought it was a damned good essay.
BTW, I just commented on your posting of it over at N&F.
In many ways, with 2008 in mind, this election is like deja vu all over again.
If HRC does win in Nov. it will be on those that don't/wouldn't support Trump for whatever reason. I don't say that Trump I perfect candidate but he's the one we have, don't support and vote for him you get Hillary plain and simple. Should have had Cruz, or someone else but we don't. If you think all this Black Lives carp, anti Second Amendment action and the rest of the Bernie Sanders progressive carp HRC is spouting wait until she becomes President, because of all our non support of Trump
So where is the accountability for those who betrayed conservatives and who, when we had the chance to finally take the Party back in a conservative direction, sold out instead to a man whose greatest selling point now is that he's not Hillary??? It must be nice to be off the hook for being a fool and a sell-out while those of us who wrestle with the choice of sacrificing our country or our future as a party are being set up as scapegoats.
>>"… wait until she becomes President, because of all our non support of Trump…"
The child who doesn't get to go to the party because he misbehaved blames the parent for attaching consequences to his behavior. When his friends ask why he wasn't there he says, "Because my stupid parents wouldn't let me," not "Because I screwed up and got what I deserved." That shows that he learned nothing, or at least won't admit it to his friend. If Hillary becomes President it will be because "we" chose the wrong nominee – period.
A bit of humility and honest reckoning from Trump fans about the situation they've put us in might have gone a long way towards convincing me that there is hope for the future of conservatism if I go along with this folly. Sadly, I've seen none of that.
Certainly understandable, CW.
But here's my take on those issues.
Sometimes we have to prioritize. Pick which battles to fight, and when to do it. The immediate problem right now is that there are TWO lousy candidates available, one of which WILL be sworn in come January. That issue needs to be decided before anything else.
Let me draw an analogy. A general is facing the enemy on the field of battle. If he loses this battle his country goes down in defeat. He launches his attack, and immediately sees that one of his battalion commanders has attacked in the wrong direction, endangering his entire strategy. Does he take time away from the battle to go find that battalion commander and relieve him, or does he take immediate action to redirect the tactics of the rest of his force to keep his attack in motion, and hopefully win the war?
Clearly, his top priority is the battle already in motion, and upon the outcome of which everything hangs. If he wins, then he'll have time to deal with that errant battalion commander. But if he loses, it won't matter anyway, because the war will be over, and there's nothing left to address.
That's pretty much where we are right now.
Brian:
I understand that when faced with two bad options one has to prioritize, and we could get further into the analogy by talking about the repercussions of winning a battle when this will mean handing control to your misguided battalion commander and his followers but the point is about who's to blame for the terrible choice we're faced with. If there is no accountability for betraying the principles that conservatives profess to stand for then in all likelihood the war is already lost.
Jevica:
If Hillary supporters switched parties to make her the nominee of the GOP, would you "get with the program" and go all in for her? Why not, as long as she won? After all, what you're telling us is that winning the nomination is the ONLY requirement you have for pledging your support.
As I told Brian, I don't take issue with anyone who opts to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils, but why you would point the finger without discernment at those who won't do so while giving a pass to those responsible for our predicament is beyond me.
My point is that "blame" is a luxury to address AFTER winning the battle. It's pointless addressing it now, when the larger issue is keeping the Hildebeest out of the White House.
Now, if you DON'T agree that that's the larger issue, then that's something else entirely. In that case, we don't agree on priorities.
After the larger battle conservatives will have no leverage whatsoever, Brian. Right now Trump supporters want my help to push him over the finish line. What I would like to see in exchange for that is some honest soul searching by Trump supporters of what went wrong. I would like for them to stop the phony, straw-man arguments that Cruz supporters are acting out of hurt feelings rather than principled objections to their candidate which we've made known all along. I would like for Trump and his supporters to at least make an effort to persuade me rather than threatening, marginalizing and scapegoating me. That would give someone like me a ray of hope for the future of conservatism. Without that we will have sold our souls for nothing, and the election will end only in gloating or finger-pointing. That's why it matters to me that it be addressed now.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Priorities, CW. If the Hildebeest gets into the White House, none of that is going to matter.
Amen, Kathy.
Right on Brian, if when HRC is elected because we chose the wrong candidate she's still POTUS, all anti-Trump people have their own idea of who the right candidate should have been, but we have to work with who we have. After four years of Hillary you will all cry about what could have been if whoever had been nominated, but they weren't, support the nominee to keep Hillary out of the White House
To interject myself into this, in the Cali primaries I voted for Sanders. Now, if he'd won their primaries, do you think there's actually any chance at all that I'd actually ever vote for him in the general election?
Again illustrating that my primary priority is no Hildebeests in the White House.
I never doubted that your primary objective is to keep Hillary out of the WH, but my comment relates to this notion that somehow we are obligated to support the non-democrat nominee regardless of who they are. I am reminded of Crawfish's point about Hillary supporters voting in open primaries to help make Trump the nominee. Are we such slaves to this dysfunctional process that we just throw up our hands and say, "Oh, well. He's the nominee!"
I fully understand what's at stake here. That's why I've held my nose and been a sport in every election for the past 20 years or more, supporting the nominee. But my deep appreciation for what's at stake is also why I must consider whether the careless abandonment of a viable, conservative candidate for Donald Trump means that it's time to finally say, "No more."
That's your decision to make, of course. It's an issue every single one of us has had to address.
Once again, and to endlessly repeat myself, you fight with the army you have, not the one you WISH you had. If you think that a discussion is more important than Clinton winning the election, then we don't agree on priorities. And that's fine. As you know, I've never been one to question another's motives for their actions.
I consider her a true enemy of this country, and defeating her is my #1 priority. Right now I'd probably vote for the devil himself to keep her out of there.
There is no viable conservative candidate. You either vote Trump or you support Hillary at this point
I'm well aware that there's no longer a viable conservative candidate in the running, Crawfish. I'm also very clear-eyed about the dilemma we're facing, and if people want to make the case for Trump that's fine by me but I reject the propagandist language that not voting for Trump equals "supporting" Hillary, and I don't understand why conservatives would get on that bandwagon rather than talk about the need to rescue this election from an epidemic of foolishness.
AGAIN, CW, that's a conversation that can wait until the immediate crisis is past, one way or the other.
When you're busy with the fire hoses putting out a three alarm blaze is NOT the time to talk about installing fire alarms.
Also, how this election turns out will definitely influence the direction and tenor of that discussion.
Too late to rescue this election. The candidates have been nominated. It is a binary decision.
AGAIN, Brian, that opportunity will be GONE once the fire has been put out or the building has burned down. The fact that the building is burning certainly hasn't stopped Trump supporters from doing the very thing that you seem to be scolding me for. In any event I was responding to Crawfish's comment that I assumed was directed at me. You've made your position clear but If it's alright with you I will decide for myself when I should talk about fire alarms.
Of course it's alright with me. And if it's alright with you, as long as you're posting here I'll continue to respond as I see fit.
Sound about right to you?
As to your opening sentence, you couldn't be more wrong. Once this election's over, that will be just the start of that dialogue, one that's going to reverberate for a long time.
You evidently think that having some major policy discussion NOW is going to have some meaning or impact on the outcome of this election. What, exactly, would that be? It's certainly NOT going to change the FACT that one of two people will win the election in November: Clinton or Trump.
So what's the point of having it NOW instead of later, when more facts — including the actual outcome — are available?
Are you just interested in doing a bunch of finger-pointing?
I'm not trying to "scold" you. That's not my way. But you wrote about how you think that Trump supporters are scolding you, and I know that in some forums that's probably true. I've said the same kind of thing there to them, and in fact have been in that same position myself, particularly back on '08 when I refused to back McMoron.
But my point is that it's a waste of time — either way — during an election, other than as a personal attack, unless someone can point to SOME gain that can be made that can actually affect an election outcome.
"…my point is that it's a waste of time…"
Forgive me the comparison but I think that was also Hillary's point when she said, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Nothing was going to change what happened in Benghazi, but Republicans understood that accountability still matters because it might prevent mistakes in the future. Likewise, betrayals ought to have consequences; otherwise they simply guarantee future betrayals. I went along with Bush and what did I get? McCain. I went along with McCain and what did I get? Romney. I went along with Romney and what did I get? Donald Trump. Now I'm being asked to go along with Donald Trump and we'll have a dialog later. I wish I shared your optimism about having a productive dialog after this election but given the forgotten principles and spate of rationalizations I've witnessed leading to the nomination of Trump I have no reason to believe that will happen. If Trump loses it's already clear that the plan is to place all of the blame on Republicans who didn't "get with the program," and if Trump wins there will be victory laps and no incentive for dialog. I'd prefer to be wrong but I don't think I am. Time will tell.
Back to your fire alarm analogy: How many times do we have to put out fires or watch our town burn down before we consider it reasonable to bring up the alarm issue at a time when we're most likely to have people's attention, rather than wait until the fire is out and the urgency becomes a distant memory? It's just a rhetorical question. You asked what my point was and there it is.
Well, let's really EXAMINE that fire analogy, then.
You wrote: "How many times do we have to put out fires or watch our town burn down before we consider it reasonable to bring up the alarm issue at a time when we're most likely to have people's attention, rather than wait until the fire is out and the urgency becomes a distant memory?"
And so, there's a fire raging, everyone there's intent on putting it out, laying hoses, fighting embers, evacuating people, saving dogs, and you wander over and start talking about fire alarms.
How many people do you think are going to pay any attention to you at that point?
For the analogy to be apt let's consider that we've been debating the need for fire alarms for quite some time now, and let's also consider that I'm not the only one who was in favor of installing them. In order to put the fire out the anti-alarm people need the assistance of the pro-alarm people. Of course when the fire is blazing is not an opportune time for negotiating over the fire alarm, but what choice have we been given? If it's the first fire I can be excused for assuming that reasonable people will agree on installing alarms when everything's calmed down. If it's the second fire I might think surely this will do it. But if we're on the fourth fire, shame on me, as the saying goes. If I can't persuade people to install alarms between fires and I'm not allowed to bring it up during the fire, a reasonable person in this analogy might decide it's just time to move (i.e. change parties, of course).
And there you go.
Which is exactly what I did in 2008 when I quit my lifelong membership in the PSP and became an Independent.
Great! Who's the Independent candidate?
There is no "Independent candidate".
An Independent isn't affiliated with ANY party. He's "independent". Meaning no affiliation.
So… Brian, what you basically did is disassociate yourself from all parties, even though it didn't change the issue. You are still forced to vote against Hillary, no matter the opposing candidate, in order to help put out the fire.
CW's right – there will be no productive dialog after this, regardless of who held onto to principles and who didn't. If Trump wins it will be I told you so. If he loses it will be our fault.
The Trumpsters will never see that they are the ones who sold out because now they're all about putting out the fire. They've forced the rest of us into the same situation, when there's a good chance there wouldn't have been a fire if they'd stuck to their choice of the better fire chief in the first place. Lord knows we had plenty to choose from, and they chose the loudmouth democrat in disguise, yet they dare to berate us for disagreeing.
Well, Kathy, to repeat myself, I don't berate anyone who's not a leftist or a career political hack. That's not my thing, and if that's what you and CW mean when you talk about a "dialogue", I think you're probably going to be wasting your breath and time anyway.
Your side can call the people voting for Trump "sellouts" as you just did. That side can call your side stubborn fools who refuse to accept that Trump won the GOP nomination fair and square, which he did. Great. Now what?
Both sides got to call the other side a couple of names, and can now feel all justified and smug, and nothing at all has changed, because come November it's going to be either Trump or Clinton.
So again: now what?
As I've said now a dozen times, the problem is far more fundamental than that. It's not going to be "solved" by holding that kind of "dialogue" at all, neither now NOR in the future. The problem is the GOP itself, and the fact that it no longer actually represents what it claims to represent, which is traditional American conservative values, i.e. Reaganism; and it refuses to acknowledge and correct that flaw. If that weren't the case, Trump's efforts would have been laughed out of the house from Day One.
BUT, again, as I've said, that problem will NOT be resolved now, in the final days of THIS election.
Which leaves us where we actually are, because we can't shove the toothpaste back into the tube. In November, either Trump or Clinton WILL be elected. So, what are you going to do about THAT?
It's time to put the emotional garbage aside and think rationally about what the outcome of this election is going to mean over the next four years, and the ramifications that will last even longer.
When the media make all their comments about how bad Trump is etc., I think back to what things they said about Ron Reagan. They made him out to be an amiable dunce and fool who would ruin our country. Now we know how the country went under Reagan.
Well, that's certainly true, though I sure don't think Trump's any Reagan.
Reagan had a well-established record as a true conservative. Trump's record leans toward the opposite.
But your basic point is well taken.
That's exactly right. Yes Trump is not a conservative in his record or most actions.
At least Reagan was amiable.
Indeed he was.
I don't know anyone who disputes that Trump's a jackass.
Reagan was a very good President. The "amiable" dunce comments about him were all a bunch of B. S. buy those that did not like him. BTW I voted for Reagan twice. All this non-support of Trump by so-called Republicans, etc. Will cause HRC o be elected.
Yep, I voted for him both times, too.
That's "to" be elected.
Little off subject but interesting.
I got a couple of emails from Paul Ryan asking for money because the GOP was in trouble.
I didn't send money but did tack on a note saying You stupid turncoat sonofabitch I wouldn't donate a dime for you an iron lung.
Kinda held back a tad, huh?
Yes Trump is a jackass. ANY successful businessman has to be somewhat of a jackass or he will go broke. He may be an asshole, too.
But I think we need an asshole in the Oval Office to run all the perfumed princes out of DC. Remember, we will be his boss and in 4 years we can say, "You're fired!" if we don't like him. But I think we will like him much better than what the screaming witch can offer.
Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think Trump's in the least qualified to be Prez. The only reason I'm voting for him is because it's going to be either him or Clinton, and I think she's even worse.
Well we'll wait and see. Three scenarios: 1. Hillary gets it which renders the discussion moot; 2. Trump gets it and after seeing him as POTUS you agree with me; or 3. Trump gets it and after seeing him as POTUS I agree with you.
Disregarding #1 I offer you a friendly wager.
If it is #2 you will send me a bottle of your best California wine;
If it is #3 I will send you a bottle of out best Texas wine.
(and don't turn up your nose Texas makes some killer wines….some even have a corked seal)
You've got a bet, Buck, and frankly, it's a bet I sincerely hope to lose. I'd be tickled pink to have to send you a bottle of wine.
BTW, I'd never turn up my nose at a Texas wine. I rarely drink wine, and don't know dilch about it. All I know is that I've had some wines I liked, a lot I didn't, and have no idea what kind they were or where they came from as I didn't look at the labels. I'm about as far from being a California snob as one can get.
Leave a Reply to slowcowboy Cancel reply


text:
Open Menu Close Cart Search Google+ Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest YouTube
$14.95 FLAT FEE SHIPPING - OR FREE WITH $125 PURCHASE! (USA ONLY) GREAT NEWS! YOU NOW QUALIFY FOR FREE SHIPPING (US ONLY)
Shop by health interest
Root Cause Protocol
Dental Diet
Antibiotic Recovery
Skin, Nails, Hair
Autoimmune/Paleo
Starter kits Kits
Storage/Dosage
Organic Hazelnuts
Whole, dry roasted and sprinkled with sea salt
Tierra Farm in sunny California has dry roasted these beautiful, Certified Organic whole hazelnuts and sprinkled them with sea salt.
Most people think about the chocolaty Nutella before hazelnuts come to mind. But hazelnuts are the core of the ever-popular dessert spread. And they can be even more spectacular when you use them in your own homemade brownies and cookies, savory sauces and even drinks. Imagine rich chocolate hazelnut milk… it's actually an approachable recipe!
Health benefits of hazelnuts
Hazelnuts have lovely, slightly sweet taste. But they aren't just about desserts. They have valuable vitamins and minerals that make them a star even when standing on their own.*
Hazelnuts are high in potassium, dietary fiber, magnesium, vitamin B-6 and iron; and a good source of calcium and vitamin C, according to the USDA nutrition facts for a one-cup serving.*
Hazelnut history
Hazelnuts, also known as filberts or cobnuts, are one of the oldest agricultural crops. The famous Roman historian, Pliny, recorded that "hazels" were frequently gathered by the Romans as food; originating in Damascus, Syria, where they grew naturally in forests.* However, archeological records have shown some fossilized remains of hazelnuts that were 5,000 years old in prehistoric excavations from China.
Hazelnuts have been harvested from the Black Sea region of Turkey for more than 2,000 years. Turkey is still the world's primary hazelnut exporter. Today, they're also grown in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and many other parts of the world.
OFTEN PURCHASED WITH
Sage Honey
Organic whole hazelnuts, sea salt.
This product is shelf stable, does not require refrigeration and will be sent to you via UPS or FedEx Ground shipping that includes tracking.
We take pride in making sure your orders are handled with the utmost care, and arrive to you in a timely manner.
Store in a cool, dry area - away from light and in a sealed container.
Where do your products come from?
With over fourteen years of experience in the organic nuts & dried fruits industry, we have developed strong relationships with some of the best organic farmers in the world. Where a choice exists, we source domestically or from as close to home as possible. We strive to get our products directly from farmers and take every opportunity to visit the farms we buy from. This allows us to preserve our organic integrity and ensure fair business practices throughout the supply chain.
What is the shelf life?
Roasted nuts & seeds are good for eight months to a year if properly stored.
Are your products peanut-free?
We are a peanut free facility. We do not store, carry, or process any peanuts of any kind.
What is dry roasting?
Our nuts and seeds are slow-roasted to perfection in ovens without any added oils. This makes the nuts healthier and truer to flavor.
Alisa W.
I have been enjoying them. No one seems to carry these dry roasted.
Share | Facebook • Twitter • Google
Corganic
Hi Alisa, Thanks for your feedback. We're really happy to hear that you're enjoying your hazelnuts. We think they're yummy, too! Glad we have the dry roasted option for you : ) Thanks again!
Sign up for our newsletter to receive the latest, greatest gut health news and specials!
ANY QUESTIONS? 1-800-524-8802 SUPPORT@CORGANIC.COM
© 2020 CORGANIC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Life and work of the great Visionary, Homi J. Bhabha
Homi Jehangir Bhabha was born in Bombay on October 30, 1909 to Jehangir and Meherbai Bhabha. Jehangir Bhabha had grown up in Bangalore and was educated at Oxford. After receiving his training as a lawyer in England, Jehangir started working in Mysore where he joined the judicial service of the state. He married Meherbai, daughter of Bhikaji Framji Pandey and granddaughter of the renowned philanthropist, Dinshaw Petit of Bombay. After marriage, the couple moved to Bombay, the first commercial city of British India where young Bhabha spent his childhood.
Homi's paternal aunt, also Meherbai, was married to Dorab Tata, the elder son of the pioneer of Indian industry, Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata. Here, at the Tatas' ancestral home, the commercial world of his industrialist uncle revealed itself to the young Homi. But he also observed the deep bonds that the Tatas had forged with institutions of learning notably the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, of which, Sir Dorab had taken charge of, following the death of Jamsetji Tata.
Homi had his schooling at the Cathedral and John Connon School, Bombay, which, he would observe years later, did much to foster his love for science.
Read more artsandcultu...
How George Saunders Is Making Sense of the World Right Now
Inside the Imaginarium of a Solarpunk Architect
Nick Burns, The Politics of Fernando Pessoa, NLR 129, May–June 2021
Anne Hegerty of The Chase says, "When I was a kid, I used to think that one day I'd be famous and everyone would be sorry."
'I Don't Want to Be Like a Family With My Co-Workers'
NYC Brain Computer Startup Announces FDA Trial Before Elon Musk
Why Writers Are the Loneliest Artists
Good vs. great interview answers
Eric Carle, Creator Of 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' Has Died
How to Pick Your Life Partner - Part 1 — Wait But Why
Bitrex - Keeping children safe
Interview with Qasim Asad Salam and Talha Masood, Founders of Remotebase
30 Journaling Ideas to Try in 2023
Critical Edge Splitting
The race of the AI labs heats up
Lowe's combats organized retail crime with blockchain, RFID
Indian Sauerkraut
AWS Copilot v1.25: Environment addons and static content delivery.
Does Firefox share my location with websites?
Scaling DynamoDB: How partitions, hot keys, and split for heat impact performance (Part 1: Loading)


In a Venice landscape oil painting you can expect a lot of tradition and flair to pop out of the canvas. Italy has long been known for many things, and as a tourist attraction Venice nets them millions per year. There very makeup of Venice makes it easy to create, with a group of small Islands surrounded by water and connected with linked bridges. The possibilities are endless for the creative painter, and a classic landscape painting of Venice will often draw many compliments in a room full of people.
Totally 167 Classic Venice Landscape Paintings for Sale. Satisfaction Guaranteed 100%!


HP Enterprise recently hosted its Discover Conference in London, marking the company's first international conference since it made its official debut a few weeks ago. Regional and global representatives used the opportunity to learn about the new company and its technologies over the four days and also heard about some of the latest trends to impact the industry. Here are some pictures from the event.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise has given a prototype of its new memory-centric computer architecture, dubbed 'The Machine' its first public airing.