Posted on 03/05/2016 8:18:40 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Only one candidate has successfully defended the Constitution before the Supreme Court and that candidate is Ted Cruz. We know Trump by words and deeds that he will violate the Constitution whemever he sees fit.
I am so sick and tired of this tired statement. Cruz had 1 person to convince Kennedy. You know when you walk into a test and you have 4 votes guaranteed, it is not that difficult to get that A when you start off with a B. Stop this nonsense. Cruz hardly did anything that difficult in front of the Supreme Court. Probably the easiest time in History to fight in front of the Supreme Court especially during the Bush Administration.
I just think that in order of what has to get done to save this country (saving the country from its current course has to happen anyone including Trump can make it great again) ... that can not be a disqualifier on it's own - that he's insufficiently examined what abortion actually is, enough to come to the obvious conclusion that it's murder.
We are in a country where your ability to even voice your opinion on abortion in anything but a polite intellectual paper may soon be considered hate speech - because abortion in this country is a religion. Basic free speech has to be restored first, and that will come not from legislation but from a general culture where people are saying 'I disagree but defend x's right to say it' -> that has entirely disappeared - UNTIL Trump broke down that wall with the Mexican wall and banning Muslims positions, which had even more to do with speaking your mind and not being punished for it that the positions themselves.
That said, I agree with you. The question is, what path restores the country's people's thinking habits (that happens before laws follow) to the point where 'duh, she can protest however she wants so long as she's not using force or fraud'?
This is an example where I believe Cruz to be more correct, obviously more correct, but where he is not necessarily the one who is capable of moving the country in that direction. If you could put Cruz's positions inside Trump's persuasiveness, that's who I'd pick. I can't, so I take Trump for now in a (very) imperfect world.
nicely stated
You forgot Biff Tannen from “Back to the Future”, on your list.
Understand. Must have been something like this before Noah built the arc.
You just don't understand the rough and tumble free-for-all that is the Supreme Court!
They say Ginsberg plays a brutal game of "mercy" with any lawyer arguing a point she doesn't like. And Breyer, he's got a thing for knives.
Everybody thinks Sotomayor's crack about "wise Latina" was just that, but she meant like "wise guys."
Um hm, now you get it....
and Burr’s political career ended abruptly, just saying
yeah, but now God might use nukes as his choice instead of a flood.
I guess that sadly means he would have to do nothing but wait and watch as we do it to ourselves.
they didn’t have that capability in Noah’s time.
Still, God gave us the genius to harvest incredible power. and though i’m VERY thankful for the American lives it saved, I fear its use in the future wont be for a noble cause again.
What you guess Trump will do and what Trump does are not necessarily the same. Opposition to Trump seems to be based completely on emotional reactions to hysterical perceptions.
Nice list, but William Wallace was never a ‘Sir’. He was a potty-mouthed rebel who had human skin on the pommel of his sword.
In 1796, Adams was called "His Rotundity" and "sesquipedality of belly" in opposition newspapers, and accused of wanting a hereditary monarchy for his son John Quincy.
In response, Jefferson was called a coward for fleeing Monticello from the British in 1791.
In 1800, Jefferson supporters called Adams a "hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibilities of a woman," and "a wretch whose soul came blasted from the hand of nature, a wretch that has neither the science of a magistrate, the politeness of a courtier, more the courage of a man."
Jefferson was called a weakling, more a Frenchman than an American, a spendthrift and a libertine. He was accused of cheating clients as a young lawyer. As President, Jefferson would flood the country with French and Irish "refuse of Europe." But mostly, Jefferson was said to be an atheist, a godless man who mocked Christianity. Family Bibles would have to be hidden from a Jefferson government.
A whisper campaign spread rumors that Jefferson slept with his slave women.
Adams was called too old, toothless, easily confused, insane. Adams was accused of ordering the minister of France to bring back young girls for him.
Jefferson, a Virginia aristocrat, slave owner, who lived luxuriously at Monticello, was called a "man of the people."
Adams, a farmer's son who despised slavery, lived frugally in common style and means, was called an aristocrat who would enslave ordinary people.
Then the endorsement battle began.
Adams' Secretary of Treasury supported Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton, as Commanding General of the Army, traveled amongst the troops endorsing Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Longtime Adams friend Francis Dana (chief Justice of Massachusetts Supreme Court) declined to support him. Newspapers were split.
Finally, late in the campaign, Hamilton published a 54-page pamphlet called "A Letter from Alexander Hamilton on the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams," essentially a "Bush's Fault" treatise against Adams.
Despite all this, the election was fairly close. Adams won New England, Jefferson won the South. 70 electoral notes were needed to win, but this was before the 12th amendment so electors voted for two names for President. Jefferson got 73 to Adams' 65, but Aaron Burr of New York also got 73, tying Jefferson and throwing the election into the House of Representatives.
So far, 2016 isn't all that different from 1800.
-PJ
It is completely reasonable that if I find something distasteful or that a person is continually crude for me to question their worth, morally or otherwise. Can I be wrong? You bet but my experience has been that people who often behave in a nasty manner are in fact nasty people.
It is interesting how people are so fearful of being judgmental when that is exactly what they are with others. It is an election. Of course we are supposed to judgmental. To vote without judging would be senseless or to be a Democrat, maybe. He has placed himself before us for us to decide or to use a synonym, judge his worth for the position he seeks.
Well, I guess I would be an idiot to state something that I did not believe, or a liar. I think I am neither, but I am certain you will be the judge of that. I do not think my words are those of God or a god. To believe what you say is true or true as you understand it is not to be a narcissist. I know I can be wrong. I have no idea what goes on with Trump in his private moments. IN his public moments he portrays himself as a monomaniacal bully. Is that the real Trump? Who cares. He is unfitting for the position he seeks as are all the others who via for the post.
Thank you for being a touch kinder this time. I was only called narcissistic, self righteous, and judgmental (though I do not consider to have judgement an insult). Two fewer insults than your last post. I can see why you like Trump.
Trump has made a much larger personal investment than any other candidate on the stage.
“Opposition to Trump seems to be based completely on emotional reactions to hysterical perceptions.”
Okay. Let’s look at a couple of facts. He has no political experience. We have just had a Secretary of State and a President with limited political experience and that did not go well. He made a statement about knowing how to manipulate politicians to his ends (I of course paraphrase). This does not sound like an admirable quality or the way the executive branch should conduct business and certainly was not the intention upon which the nation was founded. He made a statement about how the military will do exactly as he tells them. He has no experience in this area. Isn’t that why you have a command staff? It is not wrong to question why a multi billionaire is spending millions to get a $400,000 a year job which he says he will take a dollar for. It is not wrong to question how every politician ends up with a net worth in the millions for “public service.” To my knowledge has he ever done anything of significance for anyone other than himself nor has any other presidential candidate. They are all self serving.
This is just the nature of man, true of you, me, and Trump. I don't consider it an insult, but a matter of fact. If a barn appears red, and at that moment its color is relevant, I will note that it is red.
When narcissism, self righteousness and judgment (not the rational discriminating kind - the moral reflexive kind) interfere with the process of selecting the best path, they become a problem, not a trait.
You are a barn, and you are red, and that is a problem for this country right now. Unless you consider a barn or redness bad, I hope to have reduced to zero the count of that which you consider insult.
Now that I've convinced you to vote for Trump, in fact to embrace him, my job here is done, and I, the clear thought process fairy, will flit away to rescue others, and the country that depends upon them, from themselves.
That's way too much of a generalization. Maybe you want to rethink it. I'd have assumed that an actual Marxist approach to politics would make campaigns a lot more bitter, passionate and bloody. If "cultural Marxism" actually makes politicians behave better towards each other, people are going to take another look at it.
Political passions go through cycles. Hamilton and Jefferson savaged each other. A few years later, the Federalists had almost died out and we had the "Era of Good Feeling." JQ Adams and Andrew Jackson fought bitterly, then passions died down a bit until slavery heated them up again. As bad as that 1884 Cleveland-Blaine campaign was, it wasn't as vicious as what came earlier in the Civil War or later during the fights between Bryan and McKinley, when more was at stake.
For some people, the postwar Eisenhower-Kennedy consensus years are still the norm and what's going on now is truly abominable by comparison. You're right that past political fights could be bitter, and that there have been much more divisive campaigns in the past. All wasn't sweetness and light. But polarization and viciousness in politics rises and falls over the years.
Dear Fairy:
You have not convinced me to vote for Trump let alone embrace him. In fact, you have not convinced me to vote at all as they are all reprehensible and consider voting for a lesser evil to be voting for evil and therefore a sinful act.
I am completely lost on the “red barn” comment. I consider myself more of an A-10 or at least an AH-1Z Viper; maneuverable, and deadly.
It has at least been entertaining. Thanks
True. But Jackson and Adams didn’t say it themselves to the public. They stayed quiet and above the fray. It was surrogates and supporters who made all the attacks. The candidates may have talked that way in private and attacked their opponents in private letters to friends, but they weren’t going public themselves with the smears, so you couldn’t say that the attacks made were a reflection of Adams’s or Jackson’s personal character.
One of my favorite books.
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.