Conservatives Against Trump

National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

I subscribed to National Review decades ago.....ain't what it was. Much like liberal republicans, conservative democrats, conservative liberal evangelical libertarian marxists etc... Donald is allowed to change his opinion on topics depending on his perspective and our quickly changing society and information gathering technology. The biggest problem "old school" republican conservatives have with Trump is his absolute ability to ignore money from interest groups. Actually, that's the biggest problem most of the above mentioned, though not an exhaustive list, of political type group members have with him. Any politician has detractors....his just seem to be unable to give him much of a fight he can't win. Bob Dole jumped on Trump's wagon. That was a surprise.

Writlarge wrote:

I subscribed to National Review decades ago.....ain't what it was.  Much like liberal republicans, conservative democrats, conservative liberal evangelical libertarian marxists etc... Donald is allowed to change his opinion on topics depending on his perspective and our quickly changing society and information gathering technology.  The biggest problem "old school" republican conservatives have with Trump is his absolute ability to ignore money from interest groups.  Actually, that's the biggest problem most of the above mentioned, though not an exhaustive list, of political type group members have with him.  Any politician has detractors....his just seem to be unable to give him much of a fight he can't win.  Bob Dole jumped on Trump's wagon.  That was a surprise.

Think it's time that the blue blood...establishment of the republican party receives a kick in the shorts...Many if no all of their candidates ran on specific issues and then once elected having control of the House and Senate they turned into Democrat/Liberal Lite....The new speaker of the house talked a good game and then sold out and gave the cowh everything that he wanted...the speaker talks a good game about out of control spending and the debt but when it came time for action be tucked tail and offered no leadership...The Bob Dole statement is no surprise because the republican establishment hates Sen Cruz more than Trump...They are not only attempting to derail his presidential bid but they want him out of the Senate....

The same thing is happening on the democrat side....there's a reason that a shoo-in....passing of the crown to hrc has run into bumps this campaign season.... No matter the political philosophies it seems that some voters [both sides] are sick and tired of the career...polished...double speaking politicians....That's why Trump is leading and Sanders is now showing that team hrc shouldn't have overlooked him so quickly....Don't know just how it will shake out politically but sometimes it's nice to see the taken for granted voters raise a little hell with the process...

mediawatcher wrote:

Writlarge wrote:

I subscribed to National Review decades ago.....ain't what it was.  Much like liberal republicans, conservative democrats, conservative liberal evangelical libertarian marxists etc... Donald is allowed to change his opinion on topics depending on his perspective and our quickly changing society and information gathering technology.  The biggest problem "old school" republican conservatives have with Trump is his absolute ability to ignore money from interest groups.  Actually, that's the biggest problem most of the above mentioned, though not an exhaustive list, of political type group members have with him.  Any politician has detractors....his just seem to be unable to give him much of a fight he can't win.  Bob Dole jumped on Trump's wagon.  That was a surprise.

    Think it's time that the blue blood...establishment of the republican party receives a kick in the shorts...Many if no all of their candidates ran on specific issues and then once elected having control of the House and Senate they turned into Democrat/Liberal Lite....The new speaker of the house talked a good game and then sold out and gave the cowh everything that he wanted...the speaker  talks a good game about out of control spending and the debt but when it came time for  action be tucked tail and offered no leadership...The Bob Dole statement is no surprise because the republican establishment hates Sen Cruz more than Trump...They are not only attempting to derail his presidential bid but they want him out of the Senate....

    The same thing is happening on the democrat side....there's a reason that a shoo-in....passing of the crown to hrc has run into bumps this campaign season.... No matter the political philosophies it seems that some voters [both sides] are sick and tired of the career...polished...double speaking politicians....That's why Trump is leading and Sanders is now showing that team hrc shouldn't have overlooked him so quickly....Don't know just how it will shake out politically but sometimes it's nice to see the taken for granted voters raise a little hell with the process...

I've been thinking this would happen for a long time, and it just never materialized.  I'm trying to think of one....just one....politician I could say that I trust.  If and when I come up with a name, I'll post it.

Let me know too, writ. I still can't take trump seriously... until I'm forced to. But then I didn't believe that obama would be elected... twice. So I'm probably woefully selling short the stupidity of mankind.

PkrBum wrote:

Let me know too, writ. I still can't take trump seriously... until I'm forced to. But then I didn't believe that obama would be elected... twice. So I'm probably woefully selling short the stupidity of mankind.

I don't think Obama thought Obama would be elected. PkrBum, take a look at the front page of the PNJ.

Reading and Math. I think too much was spent on this study and analysis, both time and money.

Does any of this really matter? Can't they just be taught to mark an "x" on a ballot next to any democrat's name? (additional time may be required in the memory phase of this plan)



http://www.pnj.com/story/news/2016/01/26/cap-math-reading-urban-trial-districts/79346372/

Someone drew a swastika on Trump's star on the Walk of Fame & there's no way to know if it was done by someone who hates him or supports him. - Maura Quint

Bob Dole can't stand Ted Cruz. Cruz has been around for more years than I realized evidently. What I read is that pretty much no one who has ever been around Cruz likes him at all. I'm not too sure his daughter likes him. He was trying to give her a kiss in front of the cameras the other day and even she shoved him away.

I subscribed to the National Review when I was in High School. William F Buckley was the editor then and I don't think he would much like any of the people running for POTUS this year.
I thought taking the magazine to school with me would impress people with my reading a magazine with such a high level of elocution (with the fact that I even knew what that word meant in HS) but I know it was a dismal failure. I just looked more nerdy than I even really was.

I also knew what "iconic" meant back then when no one ever used it. Now it's the word of the year but nobody that uses it knows what it means. That's got to be the most overused and incorrectly used word in the English Language.

Funny about Cruz. After the latest debate, y'know, when they greet each other and appear to engage in small talk. Well, he walked up to Bush and tapped him on the back, probably figuring that Bush was a nice guy and would surely talk to him. Bush ignored him.

Nobody else on stage would have anything to do with him either, according to the article I read.

Not a good sign.

Eric wrote:

Funny about Cruz.  After the latest debate, y'know, when they greet each other and appear to engage in small talk.  Well, he walked up to Bush and tapped him on the back, probably figuring that Bush was a nice guy and would surely talk to him.  Bush ignored him.

Nobody else on stage would have anything to do with him either, according to the article I read.

Not a good sign.  

That's been the criticism of Cruz from others...now either that's a good sign that he stands on his principles/ideals etc., or as pointed out he's alienated himself from others and therefore would not be capable of being able to work together....

Plus, after Iowa...Cruz representatives telling Carson supporters that Carson had dropped out in order to get their votes...Now if you can piss off Carson that's another telling sign....

This whole election cycle is pitiful, I'm not "for" anyone but am most definitely AGAINST the Farm Animal aka Billary. She is a dried up old Washington insider who would rather lie and cover up everything she does - we've already endured 7 years of a prez who refuses to take responsibility for anything bad and don't need more of it.

What presidents did you have in mind that took responsibility for anything? It couldn't be Ronald Reagan because he never took responsibility for Iran Contra. That was all dumped onto Oliver North's lap. George W Bush never took responsibility for lying us into wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people, military and civilian. I think right now that Jeb is bearing the brunt of George's mistakes. As a matter of fact, the one time George was asked if he'd ever made any mistakes he couldn't think of any.

Now old Ted has upset Ben Carson's chances in the primary a couple of days ago by telling people Carson was ending his campaign even before the voting began in Iowa.  Ted apologized but he still got the aid of all those folks that might have voted for Carson otherwise. I don't actually see him returning any of the votes to Carson though or abandoning his win because he knows he's a damn liar. It's not all about the Clintons or the Democrats, whatever conservatives may think.

BTW, every time you call Hillary Clinton a farm animal it just makes it obvious that you cannot be fair in your thinking about her.

Eddard wrote:

What presidents did you have in mind that took responsibility for anything? It couldn't be Ronald Reagan because he never took responsibility for Iran Contra. That was all dumped onto Oliver North's lap. George W Bush never took responsibility for lying us into wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people, military and civilian. I think right now that Jeb is bearing the brunt of George's mistakes. As a matter of fact, the one time George was asked if he'd ever made any mistakes he couldn't think of any.

Now old Ted has upset Ben Carson's chances in the primary a couple of days ago by telling people Carson was ending his campaign even before the voting began in Iowa.  Ted apologized but he still got the aid of all those folks that might have voted for Carson otherwise. I don't actually see him returning any of the votes to Carson though or abandoning his win because he knows he's a damn liar. It's not all about the Clintons or the Democrats, whatever conservatives may think.

BTW, every time you call Hillary Clinton a farm animal it just makes it obvious that you cannot be fair in your thinking about her.

"fair"!!!!!!!...... Some should read their own posts before casting labels about others.....

nochain wrote:

This whole election cycle is pitiful, I'm not "for" anyone but am most definitely AGAINST the Farm Animal aka Billary. She is a dried up old Washington insider who would rather lie and cover up everything she does - we've already endured 7 years of a prez who refuses to take responsibility for anything bad and don't need more of it.

Today: hrc defends Goldman Sachs speaking fee of $675,000.00...

In same speech....hrc blasts those that have profited from 'corrupt' Wall Street.....

To be 'fair' unlike 'nochain'...if someone wants to pay hrc that kind of money for a speech that's their business...

The problem just might be that hrc appears to be speaking out of both sides of her mouth and seems to be blasting herself for profiting from corrupt Wall Street.....

"Fair" - now that's a funny word in politics. It's "fair" to call Bush a liar when he was being fed bad intelligence information and believed it - just like a host of other country's leaders and also a whole bunch of Democrats who agreed with the assessments, not just the rhetoric.

20-20 hindsight is a grand thing......being an armchair quarterback ain't so bad either for liberals. It's easier than facing reality that's for sure.

But I'm not "fair" when I call a lying hypocrite like Billary "Farm Animal"

I can't stop laughing......

nochain wrote:

"Fair" - now that's a funny word in politics. It's "fair" to call Bush a liar when he was being fed bad intelligence information and believed it - just like a host of other country's leaders and also a whole bunch of Democrats who agreed with the assessments, not just the rhetoric.

20-20 hindsight is a grand thing......being an armchair quarterback ain't so bad either for liberals. It's easier than facing reality that's for sure.

But I'm not "fair" when I call a lying hypocrite like Billary "Farm Animal"

I can't stop laughing......

It was funny.... being fair towards hrc....just exactly what is she being treated 'unfairly' about?.....Well...except the name of being a "farm animal" which is TRULY offensive to farm animals they at least serve a productive purpose....

A few more reasons to not support the F/A:

Now the Farm Animal (apologies to the 4 legged ones) is whining again about a "Right Wing Conspiracy"... "Hillary Clinton says right-wing conspiracy still exists"

She wails that they want to control the country!!!! Really??? What does she think libertards like her want to do? Just another example of her astounding hypocrisy and paranoia.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268176-hillary-clinton-says-right-wing-conspiracy-still-exists

Also she was apparently too ignorant to know how to use a computer for email when she became SecSate, now that's a comforting thought. And there are some who think she is capable of understanding all of the technological issues facing this country?

nochain wrote:

A few more reasons to not support the F/A:

Now the Farm Animal (apologies to the 4 legged ones) is whining again about a "Right Wing Conspiracy"... "Hillary Clinton says right-wing conspiracy still exists"

She wails that they want to control the country!!!! Really??? What does she think libertards like her want to do? Just another example of her astounding hypocrisy and paranoia.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268176-hillary-clinton-says-right-wing-conspiracy-still-exists

Also she was apparently too ignorant to know how to use a computer for email when she became SecSate, now that's a comforting thought. And there are some who think she is capable of understanding all of the technological issues facing this country?

There you go again with the F/A!....How unfair!

Not too ignorant...her own admission was it was for "convenience" and that she's done nothing wrong...it's arrogance...elitism...and narcissistic ....Laws are not for the Clinton's therefore they should not be held accountable ---it's been that way since the evil republicans...stained that blue dress and made the former president lie under oath....Both jumped on the conspiracy theory rather than the actual problem....Now possibly the same evil republicans made her use the private server for her state department business when it was really only "yoga lessons and wedding planning"....the republicans are also controlling an inspector general---a democrat appointed by the cowh leaking false information....It is shameful that there are still some that feel that no one should be above the law....the sheep [farm animal reference] supporting her seem to know the difference...

There you go, my point exactly. It's all about the Clinton's. The reason it is all about the Clintons, like I said on another thread, is that the Republicans had the White House for 24 years between 1968 and 1992 except for Jimmy Carters small intermission. The fact is that Republicans thought  it was theirs after all those years. It became a thing of "taking our country back" ever since a Democrat got back into the WH. That's when that saying started. No party owns the executive branch of our government. That's something every American should remember.
And since it's come back to the e-mails, it was revealed that Colin Powell and Condee Rice used their personal servers for correspondence that has now been labeled top secret too.  Are they arrogant, elitist and narcissistic? What kind of farm animals do you want to label them? I'm curious.
You'll see how much power us sheep have in November. No doubt about that.

Eddard wrote:

There you go, my point exactly. It's all about the Clinton's. The reason it is all about the Clintons, like I said on another thread, is that the Republicans had the White House for 24 years between 1968 and 1992 except for Jimmy Carters small intermission. The fact is that Republicans thought  it was theirs after all those years. It became a thing of "taking our country back" ever since a Democrat got back into the WH. That's when that saying started. No party owns the executive branch of our government. That's something every American should remember.
And since it's come back to the e-mails, it was revealed that Colin Powell and Condee Rice used their personal servers for correspondence that has now been labeled top secret too.  Are they arrogant, elitist and narcissistic? What kind of farm animals do you want to label them? I'm curious.
You'll see how much power us sheep have in November. No doubt about that.

Nope, Powell received TWO emails through his personal email and Rices staff received 10 - they didn't have personal servers. The emails were classified years after the fact. BTW, neither one of them is running for office. Big difference.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

nochain wrote:

Eddard wrote:

There you go, my point exactly. It's all about the Clinton's. The reason it is all about the Clintons, like I said on another thread, is that the Republicans had the White House for 24 years between 1968 and 1992 except for Jimmy Carters small intermission. The fact is that Republicans thought  it was theirs after all those years. It became a thing of "taking our country back" ever since a Democrat got back into the WH. That's when that saying started. No party owns the executive branch of our government. That's something every American should remember.
And since it's come back to the e-mails, it was revealed that Colin Powell and Condee Rice used their personal servers for correspondence that has now been labeled top secret too.  Are they arrogant, elitist and narcissistic? What kind of farm animals do you want to label them? I'm curious.
You'll see how much power us sheep have in November. No doubt about that.

Nope, Powell received TWO emails through his personal email and Rices staff received 10 - they didn't have personal servers. The emails were classified years after the fact. BTW, neither one of them is running for office. Big difference.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

Powell-2....Rice and staff 10. [and neither had private servers]....hrc--thousands. [private server]...yeah pretty much equal...in what world?....

Hillary had THOUSANDS of classified emails?  I didn't know it was that many.

Eric wrote:

Hillary had THOUSANDS of classified emails?  I didn't know it was that many.

It's a bunch, well over a thousand and a few dozen considered "too classified" to be released. She is either too ignorant to understand sensitive information or just dumber than dirt.

Eric wrote:

Hillary had THOUSANDS of classified emails?  I didn't know it was that many.

Yesterday a Federal Judge [Conteras] made a statement that the doj has put the court system "between a rock and a hard place" by not releasing 54,000 pages of e-mails from hrc...the judge is giving the doj until Feb 18th or sooner....Not saying that there are 54,000 classified/sensitive/top secret but when the doj blamed the snowstorm a couple of weeks ago for the delay there were many questioning that move....

Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah was interviewed and he's one that has seen and read the e-mails and said that the content is far more than a NY Times article about drones that hrc keeps putting out there....There is no excuse/defense for her actions in this matter and she should not be treated any differently than any other individual under the circumstances....but wouldn't bet on that happening.....

There are not "thousands" of e-mails that have been classified as secret. That's not so.
Back to the topic of the thread that nearly always turns into an anti-clinton rant, the Donald said today that his sister would make a great Supreme Court nominee. Apparently she's a top notch federal judge- didn't know that.
But she's a super liberal that conservatives would never accept. After Trumps attack on the Bush administration (he said they lied to get us into war last night-I agree) I think he may lose some of his luster with conservatives.

Here's a thought. It's Hillary v the Donald in the fall. The Senate has refused to confirm any of Obama's supreme court nominees. Hillary wins. She's already said Obama would be her type of pick for the Supreme court. Conservatives heads explode.
Second scenario: The Donald wins and decides to appoint his sister to the supreme court. He says she'd make a good one.

Doomed, doomed, doomed. I'd hate to be a conservative in America today