The Democratic National convention is about to start!

[Opti]

You should crave brutal honesty, not smooth words. You should concern yourself with whether a speech conveys the status quo honestly, and whether it provides a realistic, actionable way out, not how it makes you feel as a citizen. Be rational, in other words.

You are unlikely to get brutal honesty from anyone in power whether they are in the management team of your company, a politician or a marketer. Beware craving the appearance of brutal honesty over actual honesty itself. Yes it would be nice if speeches were designed to say what the issues are and then how we are going to get past them, but how likely is that?

Rational? What this election cycle has shown me is how irrational and led by emotion most voters are.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 11:13:51 GMT -5 dondub said:

Reagan delivered alright: weapons to Radical Islamic Terrorists...check. Tripled the national debt...check. Largest tax increase in history on the backs of the middle class and working poor....check. Most criminal indictments and convictions of any presidential administration...check. Illegal funding of anti-democratic terrorist groups...check.

 Is it any wonder that conservatives that have issues with the truth still worship the B actor.

Hate to say it, but Reagan's tax increase is coming again-- because it has to.  Everyone is gonna have to have some skin in the game. (I presume you're talking about the Tax Reform Act of 1986).

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2016 13:19:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

You should crave brutal honesty, not smooth words. You should concern yourself with whether a speech conveys the status quo honestly, and whether it provides a realistic, actionable way out, not how it makes you feel as a citizen. Be rational, in other words.

You are unlikely to get brutal honesty from anyone in power whether they are in the management team of your company, a politician or a marketer. Beware craving the appearance of brutal honesty over actual honesty itself. Yes it would be nice if speeches were designed to say what the issues are and then how we are going to get past them, but how likely is that?

Rational? What this election cycle has shown me is how irrational and led by emotion most voters are.

You didn't already know this ?  You need to work for the upper management of a major media outlet for a couple of years.  They're all about leading people around by their emotions.     Edit; Of course calling Trump a "pathological idiot" (sic) doesn't refute your point on emotionalism.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 7:57:57 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 27, 2016 8:11:24 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  Trump is a lightweight?  Oh ok, lol.  Obama is the King of Lightweights.  

Trump is a pathological idiot. At least Obama is not stupid enough to invite the most dominant world power besides us to rifle through federal computer systems.

Trump set a trap, and the left walked right into it.

Federal computer systems?  Private emails about yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding on a personal server have become "federal computer systems". You lefties just cannot help yourselves can you? It's been wildly entertaining watching the Democratic party make fun of themselves this week.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 13:19:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

You should crave brutal honesty, not smooth words. You should concern yourself with whether a speech conveys the status quo honestly, and whether it provides a realistic, actionable way out, not how it makes you feel as a citizen. Be rational, in other words.

You are unlikely to get brutal honesty from anyone in power whether they are in the management team of your company, a politician or a marketer. Beware craving the appearance of brutal honesty over actual honesty itself. Yes it would be nice if speeches were designed to say what the issues are and then how we are going to get past them, but how likely is that?

Rational? What this election cycle has shown me is how irrational and led by emotion most voters are. 

Did you just get dropped off here from Mars? Hope & Change, anyone?

(Nevermind the fact that ALL people make ALL decisions entirely on emotion. There's simply no other reason to decide anything other than how one feels. But that's an advanced lesson.)

[billisonboard]

Jul 28, 2016 13:41:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...

(Nevermind the fact that ALL people make ALL decisions entirely on emotion. There's simply no other reason to decide anything other than how one feels. But that's an advanced lesson.)

What emotion lead you to the decision that this was the correct view of what happens?

[Opti]

Jul 28, 2016 13:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 28, 2016 13:41:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...

(Nevermind the fact that ALL people make ALL decisions entirely on emotion. There's simply no other reason to decide anything other than how one feels. But that's an advanced lesson.)

What emotion lead you to the decision that this was the correct view of what happens?

Ooh, I am loving SCP flip flop posts. When was it, where he posted how he only makes rational decisions not emotional ones?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 13:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 28, 2016 13:41:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...

(Nevermind the fact that ALL people make ALL decisions entirely on emotion. There's simply no other reason to decide anything other than how one feels. But that's an advanced lesson.)

What emotion lead you to the decision that this was the correct view of what happens?

Do you "need" a new car?

Realistically, what would happen if you stayed home, didn't vote, or just ignored this shit altogether? 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 13:59:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 28, 2016 13:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What emotion lead you to the decision that this was the correct view of what happens?

Ooh, I am loving SCP flip flop posts. When was it, where he posted how he only makes rational decisions not emotional ones?

There may be rational reasons you can come up with to explain your decisions. But we all ultimately choose the things that make us feel good.

[Opti]

Jul 28, 2016 13:41:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 28, 2016 13:19:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

You are unlikely to get brutal honesty from anyone in power whether they are in the management team of your company, a politician or a marketer. Beware craving the appearance of brutal honesty over actual honesty itself. Yes it would be nice if speeches were designed to say what the issues are and then how we are going to get past them, but how likely is that?

Rational? What this election cycle has shown me is how irrational and led by emotion most voters are. 

Did you just get dropped off here from Mars? Hope & Change, anyone?

(Nevermind the fact that ALL people make ALL decisions entirely on emotion. There's simply no other reason to decide anything other than how one feels. But that's an advanced lesson.)

I've said this before, but I told some people in my church back then that hope was all good but there was going to be a lot less change then they expected and probably not all in the direction they wanted. But they were pikers, mere amateurs compared to Trump faithful.

I could at least get them to listen to reason. Trumpsters are way past that. Heck, apparently some think handing the keys of the US over to Russia is a fine and dandy idea. And I disagree, decisions are made for rational reasons, emotional reasons, and a mix of the two. People don't buy Hondas because they emotionally feel they are reliable, they buy them because they have been proven to be reliable.

[steff]

Jul 28, 2016 6:02:36 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Jul 28, 2016 0:42:11 GMT -5 steff said:

Or maybe some of us took Michelle Obama's words to heart..."when they go low, we go high".   and CHOOSE to not take the obvious bait, but instead to rise above it.  

to have a better world, we have to be better people.  Step 1 is to rise above the gutter tactics & ignore the ones that we know have nothing to contribute to a discussion except insults, memes, lies, and hateful words. 

We're better than this. 

You mean like 'they bring a knife, we bring a gun".  Or, the "police acted stupidly" or the 'bitter clingers" or all the so called positive messages of the Obama Administration America bashing.  Sure, it suits them now as their approach to pretend this adminstration hasn't been a total disaster for the country and pretend that there are jobs for Americans while they spin the numbers.  Sure, uh huh, yeah right.  

I know following a conversation here is really hard for you, but I was speaking about POSTERS HERE, nothing more.   Posters here can decide to not entertain the bullshit crap that certain others post & can rise above it by ignoring it.  

Again, posters here, you want it to be more than that, but *I* know what *I* meant. 

[billisonboard]

Jul 28, 2016 14:01:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 28, 2016 13:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What emotion lead you to the decision that this was the correct view of what happens?

Do you "need" a new car?

...

Based on the size of my garage, my spacial ability, and occasion need for a vehicle that can haul larger items a small pick-up truck is the best fit as my vehicle (coupled with my wife's sedan). There is no such vehicle currently made for sale in the US. My vehicle was getting up in miles and would at some point need to be replaced to prevent prohibitive repair costs. Without any certainty that a replacement vehicle would be manufactured in the foreseeable future and the fact that those currently existing have increasing mileage as time passes, I recently purchased a small pick-up with considerable lower mileage than what my former vehicle had. Based on my current age, I anticipate that my planned use of this vehicle will allow it to last without prohibitive repair costs for the rest of my driving life. I do feel good about making this decision based on the factors listed.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 14:03:44 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 28, 2016 13:41:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Did you just get dropped off here from Mars? Hope & Change, anyone?

(Nevermind the fact that ALL people make ALL decisions entirely on emotion. There's simply no other reason to decide anything other than how one feels. But that's an advanced lesson.)

I've said this before, but I told some people in my church back then that hope was all good but there was going to be a lot less change then they expected and probably not all in the direction they wanted. But they were pikers, mere amateurs compared to Trump faithful.

I could at least get them to listen to reason. Trumpsters are way past that. Heck, apparently some think handing the keys of the US over to Russia is a fine and dandy idea. And I disagree, decisions are made for rational reasons, emotional reasons, and a mix of the two. People don't buy Hondas because they emotionally feel they are reliable, they buy them because they have been proven to be reliable.

I would agree that Trumpsters cannot be reasoned with.  I am "in" with them now having converted to someone who will at least vote for Trump even though he says some crazy ass shit.  The reason is simple: Trump is not their candidate. He is the weapon of their indignation.

If you're like me and a conservative and you point out that what Trump said the other day about raising the minimum wage is complete economic illiteracy worthy of Bernie Sanders-- they don't care. This isn't about issues, plural, with them. It's about 1 issue: it's about defeating the uni-party establishment. It's not about fixing what's wrong with the country- it's about blowing up what's wrong with the country. Disclaimer: I don't believe all this stuff- I'm explaining it the best I can-- AND, I might be wrong. But this is my perception of it. 

When I point out that Trump is not conservative on this or that issue, I'm met with some variation of the following: 

The GOP controls the House and Senate. Did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.


Why not? If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.


We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.


Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.


We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.


We are, and should be, questioning the principles of Mitch McConnell, and Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.


Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?


Did any republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand an affirmation of principle within the Republican party? No, because they are without principle themselves lest we forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?


Then came the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads, paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. What principle is being upheld considering the “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.


Virginia 2012, 2013 – When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.


What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli? They actively spited him, and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson in GOP principle? We learned that lesson. Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered.


Who cut the tax rates on lower margin incomes by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs? That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)


The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.


But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.


The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.


This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.


Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?


As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? How nice of Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a principle?


Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who facilitated the Iranian Nuclear deal? The GOP

• Who facilitated the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (Mitch McConnell)… and who else said recently the Tea Party needs to be eliminated/destroyed? Tom Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." 

As Republicans- and yes, even as conservatives "we" on the right are DONE. 

And now that "we" have nominated Trump, clipping the right wing of the UniParty bird-- we watch with glee as the left wing flails about trying to regain steady flight, and we are going to make sure it never does. We're going to blow the whole thing up. The bullshit is going to stop. Our enemies are going to die, our country is going to make things again, our streets are going to be safe, and America is going to be first and foremost for Americans- and those who wish to BECOME Americans. Not those who wish to fundamentally transform it be they from Hawaii or Kenya. Doesn't matter.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 14:20:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 28, 2016 14:01:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Do you "need" a new car?

...

Based on the size of my garage, my spacial ability, and occasion need for a vehicle that can haul larger items a small pick-up truck is the best fit as my vehicle (coupled with my wife's sedan). There is no such vehicle currently made for sale in the US. My vehicle was getting up in miles and would at some point need to be replaced to prevent prohibitive repair costs. Without any certainty that a replacement vehicle would be manufactured in the foreseeable future and the fact that those currently existing have increasing mileage as time passes, I recently purchased a small pick-up with considerable lower mileage than what my former vehicle had. Based on my current age, I anticipate that my planned use of this vehicle will allow it to last without prohibitive repair costs for the rest of my driving life. I do feel good about making this decision based on the factors listed.

Sure. But when will you MAKE the decision? And are there alternatives to the decision you made that for your "own reasons" you will not make? for example, is there a brand or model of car you will not buy? Is there a color or style you prefer? And btw- "Prohibitive repair costs" is one of the biggest emotional canards there is in car buying. Let's say you had a $5,000 repair, and a $1,000 repair every year thereafter-- not a likely scenario, but it would be over 28 years, on average before you reached the price of the average new car

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2016 14:20:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 28, 2016 14:03:44 GMT -5 Opti said:

I've said this before, but I told some people in my church back then that hope was all good but there was going to be a lot less change then they expected and probably not all in the direction they wanted. But they were pikers, mere amateurs compared to Trump faithful.

I could at least get them to listen to reason. Trumpsters are way past that. Heck, apparently some think handing the keys of the US over to Russia is a fine and dandy idea. And I disagree, decisions are made for rational reasons, emotional reasons, and a mix of the two. People don't buy Hondas because they emotionally feel they are reliable, they buy them because they have been proven to be reliable.

I would agree that Trumpsters cannot be reasoned with.  I am "in" with them now having converted to someone who will at least vote for Trump even though he says some crazy ass shit.  The reason is simple: Trump is not their candidate. He is the weapon of their indignation.

If you're like me and a conservative and you point out that what Trump said the other day about raising the minimum wage ...................................................

jesus, man.  what is it with you and the Riot Act?

[billisonboard]

Jul 28, 2016 14:27:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 28, 2016 14:20:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Based on the size of my garage, my spacial ability, and occasion need for a vehicle that can haul larger items a small pick-up truck is the best fit as my vehicle (coupled with my wife's sedan). There is no such vehicle currently made for sale in the US. My vehicle was getting up in miles and would at some point need to be replaced to prevent prohibitive repair costs. Without any certainty that a replacement vehicle would be manufactured in the foreseeable future and the fact that those currently existing have increasing mileage as time passes, I recently purchased a small pick-up with considerable lower mileage than what my former vehicle had. Based on my current age, I anticipate that my planned use of this vehicle will allow it to last without prohibitive repair costs for the rest of my driving life. I do feel good about making this decision based on the factors listed.

Sure. But when will you MAKE the decision? And are there alternatives to the decision you made that for your "own reasons" you will not make? for example, is there a brand or model of car you will not buy? Is there a color or style you prefer? And btw- "Prohibitive repair costs" is one of the biggest emotional canards there is in car buying. Let's say you had a $5,000 repair, and a $1,000 repair every year thereafter-- not a likely scenario, but it would be over 28 years, on average before you reached the price of the average new car

Those are a lot of good questions for me to think feel about.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 28, 2016 14:20:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 28, 2016 14:03:44 GMT -5 Opti said:

I've said this before, but I told some people in my church back then that hope was all good but there was going to be a lot less change then they expected and probably not all in the direction they wanted. But they were pikers, mere amateurs compared to Trump faithful.

I could at least get them to listen to reason. Trumpsters are way past that. Heck, apparently some think handing the keys of the US over to Russia is a fine and dandy idea. And I disagree, decisions are made for rational reasons, emotional reasons, and a mix of the two. People don't buy Hondas because they emotionally feel they are reliable, they buy them because they have been proven to be reliable.

I would agree that Trumpsters cannot be reasoned with.  I am "in" with them now having converted to someone who will at least vote for Trump even though he says some crazy ass shit.  The reason is simple: Trump is not their candidate. He is the weapon of their indignation.

If you're like me and a conservative and you point out that what Trump said the other day about raising the minimum wage is complete economic illiteracy worthy of Bernie Sanders-- they don't care. This isn't about issues, plural, with them. It's about 1 issue: it's about defeating the uni-party establishment. It's not about fixing what's wrong with the country- it's about blowing up what's wrong with the country. Disclaimer: I don't believe all this stuff- I'm explaining it the best I can-- AND, I might be wrong. But this is my perception of it. 

When I point out that Trump is not conservative on this or that issue, I'm met with some variation of the following: 

The GOP controls the House and Senate. Did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.


Why not? If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.


We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.


Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.


We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.


We are, and should be, questioning the principles of Mitch McConnell, and Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.


Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?


Did any republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand an affirmation of principle within the Republican party? No, because they are without principle themselves lest we forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?


Then came the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads, paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. What principle is being upheld considering the “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.


Virginia 2012, 2013 – When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.


What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli? They actively spited him, and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson in GOP principle? We learned that lesson. Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered.


Who cut the tax rates on lower margin incomes by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs? That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)


The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.


But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.


The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.


This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.


Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?


As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? How nice of Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a principle?


Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who facilitated the Iranian Nuclear deal? The GOP

• Who facilitated the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (Mitch McConnell)… and who else said recently the Tea Party needs to be eliminated/destroyed? Tom Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." 

As Republicans- and yes, even as conservatives "we" on the right are DONE. 

And now that "we" have nominated Trump, clipping the right wing of the UniParty bird-- we watch with glee as the left wing flails about trying to regain steady flight, and we are going to make sure it never does. We're going to blow the whole thing up. The bullshit is going to stop. Our enemies are going to die, our country is going to make things again, our streets are going to be safe, and America is going to be first and foremost for Americans- and those who wish to BECOME Americans. Not those who wish to fundamentally transform it be they from Hawaii or Kenya. Doesn't matter.

Did the author of the quoted post plagiarize the Conservative Tree House or did the Conservative Tree House plagiarize the author of this quoted post?

An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

[happyhoix]

And now that "we" have nominated Trump, clipping the right wing of the UniParty bird-- we watch with glee as the left wing flails about trying to regain steady flight, and we are going to make sure it never does. We're going to blow the whole thing up. The bullshit is going to stop. Our enemies are going to die, our country is going to make things again, our streets are going to be safe, and America is going to be first and foremost for Americans- and those who wish to BECOME Americans. Not those who wish to fundamentally transform it be they from Hawaii or Kenya. Doesn't matter.

I agree with the unbolded part of your statement Paul, but where you're wrong is the bolded part.

If Trump gets into office, he will NOT make things right again. The streets will NOT be safe, our country will NOT make things again.

Hell, Trump doesn't even have his own clothing line made in this country. Foreigners make it for him because it's cheaper. He will NEVER do anything that impacts his business model.

If he gets elected we get a few years of complete chaos at best, or some kind of international incident at worse, until Trump either quits because he can't control force the Congress to do his bidding or he gets ousted for failing to get a single damn thing done.

Then more chaos as someone steps in for Trump and tries to pick up the pieces.

It won't be good for business, or for government, or for safer streets. He won't kill ISIS and won't keep the immigrants out (hell, he uses immigrants for cheap labor at his resorts - he doesn't WANT them gone). The only thing that would be improved should he get elected is his ego, because then he can brag forever and ever that he's the very biggest winner.

The rest of us? Screwed. I don't understand why you think that's a good thing.

[Icelandic Woman]

If he gets elected we get a few years of complete chaos at best, or some kind of international incident at worse, until Trump either quits because he can't control force the Congress to do his bidding or he gets ousted for failing to get a single damn thing done.

He has already said that if he is elected he will step aside and let his (poorly selected) minions do the work running the country. Probably because he will be to busy spending his time trying to find ways to make money off the presidency.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2016 15:29:39 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

If he gets elected we get a few years of complete chaos at best, or some kind of international incident at worse, until Trump either quits because he can't control force the Congress to do his bidding or he gets ousted for failing to get a single damn thing done.

He has already said that if he is elected he will step aside and let his (poorly selected) minions do the work running the country. Probably because he will be to busy spending his time trying to find ways to make money off the presidency.

and dealing with the steady stream of affectionate interns. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2016 14:40:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 28, 2016 14:20:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I would agree that Trumpsters cannot be reasoned with.  I am "in" with them now having converted to someone who will at least vote for Trump even though he says some crazy ass shit.  The reason is simple: Trump is not their candidate. He is the weapon of their indignation.

If you're like me and a conservative and you point out that what Trump said the other day about raising the minimum wage is complete economic illiteracy worthy of Bernie Sanders-- they don't care. This isn't about issues, plural, with them. It's about 1 issue: it's about defeating the uni-party establishment. It's not about fixing what's wrong with the country- ...........................

Did the author of the quoted post plagiarize the Conservative Tree House or did the Conservative Tree House plagiarize the author of this quoted post?

An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

impossible to say, since the author is anonymous.  it is probably PR flack for some right wing think tank.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 28, 2016 15:34:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 28, 2016 14:40:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Did the author of the quoted post plagiarize the Conservative Tree House or did the Conservative Tree House plagiarize the author of this quoted post?

An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

impossible to say, since the author is anonymous.  it is probably PR flack for some right wing think tank.

Maybe the Republican Uncle wrote it. Or not.

UPDATE: It's a not.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 28, 2016 15:29:39 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

If he gets elected we get a few years of complete chaos at best, or some kind of international incident at worse, until Trump either quits because he can't control force the Congress to do his bidding or he gets ousted for failing to get a single damn thing done.

He has already said that if he is elected he will step aside and let his (poorly selected) minions do the work running the country. Probably because he will be to busy spending his time trying to find ways to make money off the presidency.

Like renting out the Lincoln/Trump Bedroom for $25,000 a night and cocktails in the Queen's Bedroom (Melania's room)?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 15:34:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 28, 2016 14:40:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Did the author of the quoted post plagiarize the Conservative Tree House or did the Conservative Tree House plagiarize the author of this quoted post?

An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

impossible to say, since the author is anonymous.  it is probably PR flack for some right wing think tank.

My apologies- I meant to post the link ahead of the text.  If I'm not mistaken- it may have been a monologue by Mark Levin.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 28, 2016 16:37:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 28, 2016 15:34:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

impossible to say, since the author is anonymous.  it is probably PR flack for some right wing think tank.

My apologies- I meant to post the link ahead of the text.  If I'm not mistaken- it may have been a monologue by Mark Levin.

Seems to be an ongoing habit of yours to forget to cite your sources.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 15:22:54 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

And now that "we" have nominated Trump, clipping the right wing of the UniParty bird-- we watch with glee as the left wing flails about trying to regain steady flight, and we are going to make sure it never does. We're going to blow the whole thing up. The bullshit is going to stop. Our enemies are going to die, our country is going to make things again, our streets are going to be safe, and America is going to be first and foremost for Americans- and those who wish to BECOME Americans. Not those who wish to fundamentally transform it be they from Hawaii or Kenya. Doesn't matter.

I agree with the unbolded part of your statement Paul, but where you're wrong is the bolded part.

If Trump gets into office, he will NOT make things right again. The streets will NOT be safe, our country will NOT make things again.

Hell, Trump doesn't even have his own clothing line made in this country. Foreigners make it for him because it's cheaper. He will NEVER do anything that impacts his business model.

If he gets elected we get a few years of complete chaos at best, or some kind of international incident at worse, until Trump either quits because he can't control force the Congress to do his bidding or he gets ousted for failing to get a single damn thing done.

Then more chaos as someone steps in for Trump and tries to pick up the pieces.

It won't be good for business, or for government, or for safer streets. He won't kill ISIS and won't keep the immigrants out (hell, he uses immigrants for cheap labor at his resorts - he doesn't WANT them gone). The only thing that would be improved should he get elected is his ego, because then he can brag forever and ever that he's the very biggest winner.

The rest of us? Screwed. I don't understand why you think that's a good thing.

I'm not sure. I won't dismiss your assertions out of hand- I would be lying if I said I didn't have a Nixonian nightmare vision of Trump in the back of my head- complete with an "enemies list". But I also think that Trump is a negotiator-- he's explaining himself live right now:  -- this means he won't do EVERYTHING he's promised, but he'll start with the most popular items. I am convinced Trump will not permit himself to fail on:

1. The wall. There WILL be a wall.
2. Illegal alien criminals WILL be deported.
3. Welfare and all benefits under the banner of welfare will be stopped for illegal aliens.
4. Remittances to Mexico from welfare WILL stop- Americans don't pay taxes so that Welfare payments can amount to foreign aid to Mexico (Remittances to Mexico from ILLEGAL (not legal) aliens amount to more than Mexico's revenue from oil.
5. We WILL fuck up ISIS. There will be carpet bombing. There will be civilian casualties. There will be the usual hew and cry from the left and the "world community", but they will die in droves. Being ISIS will not be "cool", it will be clear to anyone-- you're not joining the winning team. Radicals will stream back to defend the caliphate-- and we'll have the fight there instead of Paris, Munich, and San Bernardino.
6. Taxes WILL be cut. Probably almost exactly as Trump has outlined.
7. The steady decline in crime that began in the 1970's will resume, cop killing will subside, and race relations will greatly improve.
but...government WILL get bigger. The debt will mount. Very little if anything will be done about trade-- mostly because it can't be.  We'll still foot most of the bill for NATO and the UN.

[Tennesseer]

Trump is running scared. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 28, 2016 8:10:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I thought Bloomberg was good, too. He had guts coming out in front of a whole arena full of democrats and outlining the ways that he disagreed with dems and Hillary in particular, but I agreed with everything he said about why he disagrees with the GOP about some things and with the Dems on some things - which is why I'm an independent like he is.

As a billionaire with way more money than Trump has, I liked his take on Trump as a businessman - doesn't treat his employees, his vendors or his customers right. Is not a man of his word. Pointed out that if Trump runs this country like he runs his business we're screwed. Coming from a business man with a much bigger empire than Trump has, this had to piss of Trump. Especially his comment that he (Bloomberg) wasn't given a million dollars to start a business by his father, like Trump was.

One thing one of the commentators mentioned after Bloomberg talked was how Bloomberg failed to say anything about his education, the size of his business or his personal wealth - which is typical, for very wealthy people. Unlike Trump, who constantly brags about his alma mater, his business empire and his personal wealth (which I suspect is much smaller than he claims, which is why he refuses to release his tax records).

I've actually never heard anything but admiration for Mr. Trump from his employees, vendors, and customers. The suggestion that he isn't a stand-up guy in business is, objectively, nothing but an election-year pile of bs.  He's had 550 businesses and 4 bankruptcies.  The companies that went bankrupt did so at the height of the financial crisis, and were companies in which he had no management control. He was basically a crabby by-stander and he knew how to fix it-- but didn't have the power.  Bloomberg is a typical Northeastern big lib elitist.  I mean congrats on putting himself through school and making partner at Solomon Brothers, but you can just smell the Medford on that ass-- and you can tell he believes his shit doesn't stink. It's actually WORSE than saying, "I'm very rich" because what Bloomberg conveys is, "I'm better than you. I know what's best for you." and "I don't trust you to manage your own life".

[billisonboard]

Jul 28, 2016 17:44:24 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Trump is running scared. 

"We want you to not watch the speech but call her out on her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."
"But how will we know what those lies and nasty attacks are if we don't watch?"
"Don't worry.  We will tell you what they are."

[dondub]

Sure.

money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/companies/donald-trump-bankruptcy/