Posted on 01/22/2016 4:35:50 PM PST by detective
He is the stupid relative who got a review the media.
I agree with about 98% of your comment. I don’t think trump is the man to weed it and I certainly don’t think he’s the man to move us back towards constitutional law. Other than that, I think you’re spot on.
Fair enough, FRiend.
Who’s the right person? Why?
Ummm no.
I have never jumped into bed with a bunch of ruthless killers called the New York mafia. Trump has....for DECADES. Makes me a much better man than Trump will ever be.
How many would you say are conservative leaders?
I am not an expert but I would say Brent Bozell, Steven Hayward, Dana Loesch, Andrew McCarthy, Thomas Sowell and Cal Thomas are sincere conservatives.
Mark Helprin, Willaim Kristol, Michael Medved, Katie Pavlich and John Podhoretz are not. They are moderate establishment Republicans.
Ed Meese is a tough one. He was good during the Reagan years but he is now very old and hard to evaluate. I just don't know about the others.
And they were paid to do what they did. Follow the money. This is business.
I’m not clear on what you are talking about.
If it’s this so called “purist” nonsense then you are way off base.
Conservatism is not a dogma like the liberals. Conservatism is neither republican, libertarian, or purist anything. It’s a understanding.
To break it down, you can have people with some conservative beliefs as in the case of a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, or a constitutional conservative, but THE Conservative is all three.
It’s not easy to teach, but it is possible to guide someone to do their own study and reflection to come to a Conservative understanding. Conservatism is not locked in place so there is no dogma. There is either the liberal position, the centrist position or the conservative position, if that makes sense to you.
People who are a mix of political beliefs are not rejected by conservatives. But we would prefer to vote for what you have heard said, a true conservative.
Conservatism, unlike libertarianism and liberalism is a philosophy that uses the history of what has worked in the past combined with the needs of the present. There is no mantra’s. Just principles passed done and tested over time.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump does not think in political terms. He’s a do’er. A technician, if you will, as to how to navigate society to achieve a planned result. he has no philosophy about it, except for the way he does it works and he can teach that.
But government does not function that way. In fact some of the votes used against ted Cruz were part of a political charade that politicians engage in. What they do is not linear or straight up or down, it’s maze of political gamesmanship.
This environment will chew up and spit out a non-political thinker.
The very things you like about Trump are the actual weaknesses that he naturally has. The world he comes from, is not a political training ground. It’s a world of checkers, not chess.
Without a political philosophy to guide him, and the voter, every day will be a new day. We can’t predict what he will do, what new policy he may decide is necessary or how he will deal with foreign policy issues.
So I cannot vote or support him.
I don't think I'm aware enough to say (I haven't really followed some of them.)
I've probably read half of Thomas Sowell's books and articles and greatly admire the man. However, I'm an entrepreneur and can see that he does not have that perspective (he's still an academic after all).
I got excited about some of Halperin's articles during the Clinton years, but have seen him advocate some socialist/communist positions that surprised me. I don't believe he is a conservative at all.
I'll hold out on classifying the rest based on pure naivete.
We must stop thinking for ourselves and go back to the status quo. Resistance is futile.
FUSJ
I wouldn't give the rag 5c. I'll wait for the list to pop up unannounced.
My educated guess is that they are no more 'conservative' or less in tune with the mood of conservatism than Chelsea whatshername.
Perfect!
The only people who have not seen that are the perpetrators themselves.
I understand it, Cruz understands it, everyone understands it.
This election is not about getting even or payback or warfare. It's about picking the next president of the US and he will likely be in office for 8 years.
Sowell certainly understands the anger and resentment, but to marry the first man or woman that impresses you on the rebound is never good policy. There is a lot more to it. A lot more to consider. And once done, you can't just change your mind again.
I don't think that will work.
Doesn't it have to be ingested?
Thanks for your reply. I’ll try to clarify.
You say that Conservatism is not a dogma, but then you say that THE conservative MUST be socially, fiscally and constitutionally conservative. Then you say that someone is either a liberal, centrist, or a conservative. Then you say that conservatives don’t reject people with mixed views, BUT that conservatives would PREFER to vote for people who think like they do.
Then, you accuse Trump of being a “do-er” rather than a politician, as if that’s a bad thing. You’re concerned that his vision of what the government should be is not your vision of what the government should be. That “government does not work that way” and that Trump will fail because he uses a different approach to governance.
Am I correct in my analysis?
Politics, like marriage, can never be certain, and like marriage, political choices at some point are leaps of faith.
I have no problem with that.
I choose Trump.
At least three of these individuals are prominent as lawyers of note. It would be interesting to see the analysis of the question of Cruz’ eligibility and what the results of any such research are.
Trump is a Delta, The NR crew are Omegas, led by Rich Lowry (aka Greg Marmalard) and Jeb Bush is Dean Wormer.
You know who has more fun & wins........
I wish I had the time....to....extrapolate.
You see, I am not a very good teacher. I too am a do'er. I am a former construction contractor. I know what Trump does. He's a financier, a strategist and planner, he can make coffee.
I did not develop principles to the degree I have them today, over night. It took years and most of the progress occurred only after I retired from the business. Without those distractions I had more time to self analyze and contemplate the future and learn about the past.
Trump has spoken about numerous good things and some good ideas since he announced. But why are they good ideas, why is a pro life position, for example, a important principle to have and to practice?
Have you ever heard trump go into detail as to why he has come to any of his positions or ideas? Has he explained why the 2nd amendment is important to him and thus should be to you. Has he explained the damage that the pro-choice position has done to society.?
We in the US have usually picked our presidents from a list of what we think are grade A governors, and sometimes Congressmen or Senators. On Occasion, because the public is fed up with government, we choose a outsider. When we have done this, it has never worked out very well.
Sure, there is no guarantee with a politician either, but what you do have, is a track record and from that you can determine how this person may act and what sort of decisions he might make in the future.
What we have on trump is very mixed bag. The record is thin and he has changed positions numerous times on a rather limited number of subjects..so we don't have much and what we do had is not reliable or worth much.
This was the same thing the country faced when they (republicans)elected Teddy Roosevelt, and later on , Herbert Hoover, a couple similar successful businessmen and impressive men in their own right.
Roosevelt, led the conservative republican party into the progressive era. He damaged the Constitution, further degrading federalism.
Hoover was a disaster...he acted from emotion and not knowledge, as if he had no principles, he damaged the economy and extended the depression all the way to WWII.
So these outsider guys may be a delight to vote for so that you show the establishment that you mean business, but is it the right thing to do?
As to principled conservative voting, it often is a wasted vote because the Conservative movement is not very broad. It never has been. It's always been a minority group. But we try to influence elections without much success. Ted Cruz is as close as we have ever come to getting our guy in office since Reagan!. This is why we are not going to give him up for Donald Trump. However, we generally end up holding our noses and voting for the nominee.
Of the other conservative candidates, one is out of the race, one has a real problem with his immigration stances, one is only a social conservative (Huckabee) and the other, a good conservative, just can't seem to catch any wind in his sails and probably should drop out, (Santorum). The others like Huckabee are conservative in one or two aspects but not the other or are unable to explain their principles as is the issue with Trump. Two or three are moderates at best.
If you cannot explain it in a heartfelt way, I cannot believe you.
So there ya go....it's way more that espousing a principle, or position. I see politicians do this every election. Some of them outright lied, and some had no idea what they were talking about and never once brought up that position again. Yet we sent them to DC...and they have failed us. Trump plays into this anger like Yankee Doodle. He is a very good salesman, a skill he has honed well over the years. But be careful what you buy. You need to kick the tires. Read the warranty. Look at the complaints. I could vote for Santorum, if Cruz was not there. But that's all that I see now in that race that I could vote for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.