The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on March 03, 2016, 09:05:43 AM
-
Want to know how Republicans are going to lose in November against a criminal and a socialist?
Doing shit like this:
Zorro (6,014 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141367071
Romney calling Trump 'phony,' urging Republicans to shun him
Source: AP
Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is charging into the increasingly divisive White House race with a verbal lashing of Donald Trump and a plea for fellow Republicans to shun the front-runner for the good of country and party.
Romney is branding the billionaire businessman as "a phony, a fraud" whose "promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University," according to a speech Romney planned to give at the University of Utah on Thursday morning. The Associated Press obtained excerpts of his remarks in advance.
Trump, in turn, dismissed Romney as "a stiff" who "didn't know what he was doing" as the party's candidate in 2012 and blew a chance to beat President Barack Obama. "People are energized by what I'm saying" in the campaign and turning out in remarkable numbers to vote, Trump told NBC's "Today."
In ratcheting up the rhetoric, Romney cast his lot with a growing chorus of anxious Republican leaders — people many Trump supporters view as establishment figures — in trying to slow the New York real estate mogul's momentum.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-sees-options-stopping-trump-not-good-ones-082019626--election.html
The slapfest continues!
I've watched the Establishment Republican Party nominate the most wet noodles for the last three elections and scratch their pointy little heads at why they lost. McCain and Romney? Jesus ****ing Christ, folks! Then Jeb!? Now Rubio?
Talk is that the establishment would rather see Hillary in the White House than Trump and will burn it all down before they let him be the nominee. You think the American Public is pissed off at the establishment now? What til the [R]s pull that brokered shit at the convention and slap the nomination on Rubio.
Javaman (45,729 posts)
6. this is the "big" speach by mittens?
you know the [establishment] repubs are in deep shit when they have to trot him out to act as the voice of reason.
Mr. 47%
Madmiddle (418 posts)
14. No one more phony than Romney.
If a phony calls a phony a phony, is the phony a phony? Or is the phony calling a phony a phony, a phony?
-
Want to know how Republicans are going to lose in November against a criminal and a socialist?
Doing shit like this:
Oh, absolutely.
-
Boy, if only the GOP would go after Obama with such gusto.
-
Boy, if only the GOP would go after Obama with such gusto.
That's what I've been saying for ages now.
And I said it yesterday for the umpteenth time, in the link on my signature line.
How the Hell are we going to get anywhere, chewing each other up?
-
That's what I've been saying for ages now.
And I said it yesterday for the umpteenth time, in the link on my signature line.
How the Hell are we going to get anywhere, chewing each other up?
It's simple. We aren't. The sad fact is the establishment has chosen the Democrats over their own voters. Maybe it's time for the GOP as it is to die. They certainly seem hell bent on suicide.
-
Want to know how Republicans are going to lose in November against a criminal and a socialist?
I've watched the Establishment Republican Party nominate the most wet noodles for the last three elections and scratch their pointy little heads at why they lost. McCain and Romney? Jesus ****ing Christ, folks! Then Jeb!? Now Rubio?
Talk is that the establishment would rather see Hillary in the White House than Trump and will burn it all down before they let him be the nominee. You think the American Public is pissed off at the establishment now? What til the [R]s pull that brokered shit at the convention and slap the nomination on Rubio.
That is the establishment red-blue axis for you.
CMD
-
I recall taking a lot of heat here including being called a "skin head" for saying that I would not vote for Romney and following though on that promise. I do not regret that decision one bit. Romney is a dirt bag. :mad:
-
Time for an American Conservative Party.
.
-
Voted for Johnson over romney, still seeing no downside to that decision
-
Time for an American Conservative Party.
If only there was a party dedicated to personal freedom, personal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government...
:whistling:
(http://www.lp.org/files/images/LP_Eagleflame.jpg)
-
If only there was a party dedicated to personal freedom, personal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government...
:whistling:
(http://www.lp.org/files/images/LP_Eagleflame.jpg)
Last I knew they were a little left leaning on drugs.
-
If only there was a party dedicated to personal freedom, personal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government...
Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, not outlaw abortion, and permit homosexual marriage and the like. As a Christian, I can't support these types of things.
.
-
Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, not outlaw abortion, and permit homosexual marriage and the like. As a Christian, I can't support these types of things.
.
Yep.
-
I have absolutely no use for whatever Romney had to say. I did hear little soundbites. Four years ago, he thought Trump was quite an accomplished businessman, had everything good to say about him. Talk about a phony hypocrite.
The callers to Rush were LIVID. It was so condescending.
-
I am not a Trump supporter but Romney's comments are just plain hypocritical and show the base character of someone who has no loyalties to those who supported him. He was pretty happy to get Trump's endorsement in 2012 and you'd think for loyalty's sake he'd keep his mouth shut if he had nothing nice to say. Instead Romney opts to establish himself as just another establishment republican who kowtows to the party elite and could careless for the party base. I've been up in the air about voting for Trump if he is the nominee but now I think I will if for no other reason that the establishment republicans don't want me to.
-
Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, not outlaw abortion, and permit homosexual marriage and the like. As a Christian, I can't support these types of things.
As much as I dislike disagreeing with my good friend Big Dog, :clap: :clap: :clap:
<<<always been social conservative, traditionalist.
-
I am not a Trump supporter but Romney's comments are just plain hypocritical and show the base character of someone who has no loyalties to those who supported him. He was pretty happy to get Trump's endorsement in 2012 and you'd think for loyalty's sake he'd keep his mouth shut if he had nothing nice to say. Instead Romney opts to establish himself as just another establishment republican who kowtows to the party elite and could careless for the party base. I've been up in the air about voting for Trump if he is the nominee but now I think I will if for no other reason that the establishment republicans don't want me to.
Yeah, he should've just kept quiet.
Sometimes people--especially those in politics--don't seem to understand that "saying nothing" is always an option, and sometimes it's the best option.
I really like Romney, but once I heard about this, I thought, "Oh, shit....."
I really wish he hadn't said a thing.
-
I am not a Trump supporter but Romney's comments are just plain hypocritical and show the base character of someone who has no loyalties to those who supported him. He was pretty happy to get Trump's endorsement in 2012 and you'd think for loyalty's sake he'd keep his mouth shut if he had nothing nice to say. Instead Romney opts to establish himself as just another establishment republican who kowtows to the party elite and could careless for the party base. I've been up in the air about voting for Trump if he is the nominee but now I think I will if for no other reason that the establishment republicans don't want me to.
At this point, the R leadership have to be purposely trying to run social conservatives and a lot of economic conservatives out of the party. To what end, I don't know other than they just don't like them.
.
-
I don't see Romney coming out against Trump as hypocritical. In my mind there's a difference in welcoming a private citizen's endorsement and support vs. believing that same citizen would make a good President and face of the party.
-
At this point Trump's hostile takeover of the GOP is just about complete. Romney's poison pill will end up doing nothing to Trump and everything to the establishment. Losers whine. Sorry that's what they do. McLame and Romney are losers and whiners. Go find Lindsay and Bob Dole and get up a game of Jacks or something.
BTW:
I thought the official emblem of the RonPaul brigade (Libertarians) was a bong. We have 'em around here in spades and let me tell you they are a pretty loose crew. They intend to take over NH the way the NewJerkers took over VT (giving the world Barney the big purple Socialist). They are basically following the same game plan. I have no idea what it will lead to eventually as we are also being infiltrated by Massholes on our southern border bringing with them their big spending ways.
I suspect this whole kerfuffle may actually increase Trumps support among his base in the Republican party. The establishment GOP has foisted so many wet handshake candidates all up and down the ticket over the years that it makes conservatives like Cruz seem out of the main stream.
I see Trump as more a Rockefeller Republican than a rock ribbed Reagan conservative. I will say this: When the flak increases substantially you are over the target. I suspect the GOP is currently assessing the damage done by Mitt's friendly fire.
-
"Oh hay guys, I didn't know you had seats on this plane too."
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/DUmmies/whiners%20and%20losers_zpsfc6rjwqv.jpg)
-
"Oh hay guys, I didn't know you had seats on this plane too."
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/DUmmies/whiners%20and%20losers_zpsfc6rjwqv.jpg)
Great picture. :lol:
-
Libertarians and conservatives disagree on the proper role of government. For us, government's legitimate role is to safeguard individual liberty, not to enforce morality, try to control culture and society, or redistribute wealth.
As much as I dislike disagreeing with my good friend Big Dog, :clap: :clap: :clap:
<<<always been social conservative, traditionalist.
It's ok that we disagree, my friends. If we agreed all the time, we'd be as dull as DUmmies!
-
Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, not outlaw abortion, and permit homosexual marriage and the like. As a Christian, I can't support these types of things.
Do you see the difference between not supporting consensual behavior that does not directly harm another, and expecting the State to enforce my opposition to consensual behavior that does not directly harm another?
-
I don't see Romney coming out against Trump as hypocritical. In my mind there's a difference in welcoming a private citizen's endorsement and support vs. believing that same citizen would make a good President and face of the party.
It is hypocritical when in both instances he was speaking to Trump's character. He can't be both and great guy and outstanding business man while also being a scam artist and a charlatan.
-
It is hypocritical when in both instances he was speaking to Trump's character. He can't be both and great guy and outstanding business man while also being a scam artist and a charlatan.
I understand that. To be honest, I haven't read his entire statement...so I was making an incorrect assumption on what Romney said.
-
"Oh hay guys, I didn't know you had seats on this plane too."
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/DUmmies/whiners%20and%20losers_zpsfc6rjwqv.jpg)
That's such a great find..I need to save it and post to my FB page... :lol:
-
Do you see the difference between not supporting consensual behavior that does not directly harm another, and expecting the State to enforce my opposition to consensual behavior that does not directly harm another?
Who decides what is and isn't "consensual behavior that doesn't directly harm another"? Maybe the behavior harms society as a whole but the participants aren't willing to admit it.
Yes, I understand their position. But my religious convictions require more.
This is likely one of those agree to disagree topics.
.
-
Who decides what is and isn't "consensual behavior that doesn't directly harm another"? Maybe the behavior harms society as a whole but the participants aren't willing to admit it.
Yes, I understand their position. But my religious convictions require more.
This is likely one of those agree to disagree topics.
.
Probably so, my friend.
There is one thing I'd like to point out. There is no such critter as "society as a whole". It is an imaginary construct.
And your religion may require more from the government, but my liberty is not subordinate to your religion. That way lies sharia.
-
And your religion may require more from the government, but my liberty is not subordinate to your religion. That way lies sharia.
I agree
-
There is one thing I'd like to point out. There is no such critter as "society as a whole". It is an imaginary construct.
I would mean that in the religious sense, that is, all the world. For instance, Jesus commanded his apostles to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations." If someone were to say "all the nations" and "society as a whole" when having a religious conversation, I would think of them as the same.
.
-
Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, not outlaw abortion, and permit homosexual marriage and the like. As a Christian, I can't support these types of things.
.
^5
Totally agree.
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRB8Jor8tPs[/youtube]
-
I would mean that in the religious sense, that is, all the world. For instance, Jesus commanded his apostles to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations." If someone were to say "all the nations" and "society as a whole" when having a religious conversation, I would think of them as the same.
Thanks! I understand your position better.
-
Thanks! I understand your position better.
And thanks to you and your understanding.
As far as Libertarians and their viewpoint, I generally understand what they're saying. But what happens is it butts up against the idea of "Can I belong an entity that would ask me to permit something of which I find to be morally wrong?" And I can't get past that.
That's one reason I could never be a Dem. Even if I agreed with them economically and was a socialist/communist, if I held the same religious convictions I do now and they continued to hold to "abortion is ok" and "homosexual marriage is ok" (just to name two prominent examples), for me to join them would be for me to indirectly approve.
It's also one reason I'm a registered Independent now, besides the fact that the GOP is trying to be a somewhat less liberal Dem party.
.
-
And thanks to you and your understanding.
As far as Libertarians and their viewpoint, I generally understand what they're saying. But what happens is it butts up against the idea of "Can I belong an entity that would ask me to permit something of which I find to be morally wrong?" And I can't get past that.
That's one reason I could never be a Dem. Even if I agreed with them economically and was a socialist/communist, if I held the same religious convictions I do now and they continued to hold to "abortion is ok" and "homosexual marriage is ok" (just to name two prominent examples), for me to join them would be for me to indirectly approve.
It's also one reason I'm a registered Independent now, besides the fact that the GOP is trying to be a somewhat less liberal Dem party.
:cheersmate:
-
Libertarians and conservatives disagree on the proper role of government. For us, government's legitimate role is to safeguard individual liberty, not to enforce morality, try to control culture and society, or redistribute wealth.
It's ok that we disagree, my friends. If we agreed all the time, we'd be as dull as DUmmies!
Well said Big Dog.
CMD
-
As far as Libertarians and their viewpoint, I generally understand what they're saying. But what happens is it butts up against the idea of "Can I belong an entity that would ask me to permit something of which I find to be morally wrong?" And I can't get past that.
That speaks a bit to your view of where and how the onus lies, and what the 'default' of things is. The default state for everything is "not prohibited", and there really isn't a more precise way to put it. Government can not "allow" anything. It can only prohibit. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is far from one.
So the proper question is, can you belong to an entity which does not prohibit everything you think should be prohibited? And that question should be carefully considered against the fact that while you like the morality government might be enforcing today, you may not like it next term when someone elses morality if being enforced on you. And also, considered against a background of sharia, like Big Dog said. Why is your want of certain prohibitions based on your morals, different than someone elses wants for a different set based on their morals rather than yours?
The libertarian position (if I understand it correctly) is that we expect government to 'allow' nothing, since 'allowing' isn't governments place. We expect government to 'forbid' almost never, as governments proper role is to protect the rights of the individual rather than interfere with them. When those rights become endangered or interfered with, only then is it governments proper place to step in. Either way, that is my own personal opinion. A right jackboot in your ass has no greater appeal than a left jackboot in your ass. I have no claim against any ones life or liberty, and I reject any claims made against mine, openly or furtively. I resent both with equal measure.
“To secure these rights, governments are instituted among menâ€, with one of those rights being 'liberty'.
(I took no offense by your post, and intend none by this one, but I do think liberty in America need to be discussed far more than it is)
CMD
-
So the proper question is, can you belong to an entity which does not prohibit everything you think should be prohibited?
Once again, I'm speaking of my specific religious beliefs. And I explained why I view things the way I do to BD and he accepted. I don't expect him to agree nor does he expect me to agree with him. So I can only answer your question according to my own personal religious beliefs.
Let's say, for example, Sam's Club sold the morning after pill and I was opposed to that, would that mean I can't be a Sam's Club member? I would say I could, because when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with their moral viewpoint on the morning after pill.
For me to sign on with a political party that supported the morning after pill would mean that I have signed on with their moral viewpoint. That's the distinction to me. I don't hold anyone else to that standard.
That's why I'm an Independent; now I can just look at candidates individually and decide.
Why is your want of certain prohibitions based on your morals, different than someone elses wants for a different set based on their morals rather than yours?
They aren't.
.
-
Let's say, for example, Sam's Club sold the morning after pill and I was opposed to that, would that mean I can't be a Sam's Club member? I would say I could, because when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with their moral viewpoint on the morning after pill.
If Sam's Club sells morning-after pills, is that a moral decision or a business decision? And if it is a moral decision, then whose moral decision is it?
-
If Sam's Club sells morning-after pills, is that a moral decision or a business decision?
I suppose to clarify what you're saying, I could have said "when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with all their business decisions, one of which would be to sell a product of which I believe is morally wrong."
OK everyone, before this gets too far, I'm not going to change my mind over any of this. I simply explained why I couldn't be a Libertarian.
.
-
I am a small "l" libertarian,some of the official party stuff is too far around the bend for me and what practicality is.
-
I am a small "l" libertarian,some of the official party stuff is too far around the bend for me and what practicality is.
I am libertarian and registered to vote LP. I don't agree with some Party positions. The Kansas state LP doesn't agree with some positions of the national party.
-
OK everyone, before this gets too far, I'm not going to change my mind over any of this. I simply explained why I couldn't be a Libertarian.
.
I wasn't looking to change your mind, no worries there, and no offense taken.
CMD
-
I suppose to clarify what you're saying, I could have said "when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with all their business decisions, one of which would be to sell a product of which I believe is morally wrong."
OK everyone, before this gets too far, I'm not going to change my mind over any of this. I simply explained why I couldn't be a Libertarian.
I'm not trying to change your mind or convert you. I already won the toaster oven for this month.
:cheersmate:
(Anybody want a toaster oven, cheap? I have a garage full of 'em.)
-
That speaks a bit to your view of where and how the onus lies, and what the 'default' of things is. The default state for everything is "not prohibited", and there really isn't a more precise way to put it. Government can not "allow" anything. It can only prohibit. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is far from one.
So the proper question is, can you belong to an entity which does not prohibit everything you think should be prohibited? And that question should be carefully considered against the fact that while you like the morality government might be enforcing today, you may not like it next term when someone elses morality if being enforced on you. And also, considered against a background of sharia, like Big Dog said. Why is your want of certain prohibitions based on your morals, different than someone elses wants for a different set based on their morals rather than yours?
The libertarian position (if I understand it correctly) is that we expect government to 'allow' nothing, since 'allowing' isn't governments place. We expect government to 'forbid' almost never, as governments proper role is to protect the rights of the individual rather than interfere with them. When those rights become endangered or interfered with, only then is it governments proper place to step in. Either way, that is my own personal opinion. A right jackboot in your ass has no greater appeal than a left jackboot in your ass. I have no claim against any ones life or liberty, and I reject any claims made against mine, openly or furtively. I resent both with equal measure.
“To secure these rights, governments are instituted among menâ€, with one of those rights being 'liberty'.
(I took no offense by your post, and intend none by this one, but I do think liberty in America need to be discussed far more than it is)
CMD
Couldn't have said it better myself. High five.
-
If Sam's Club sells morning-after pills, is that a moral decision or a business decision? And if it is a moral decision, then whose moral decision is it?
I have no problem with the morning after pill, it's not like an abortion in a box.
It prevents conception, like several other forms of contraceptives. If plan A does not work out, there is always plan B. Heck pulling out could be a considered a form of contraception. So could quickly switching to oral sex.