[jetpilot]

I certainly am. The U.S. never lost a battle in Vietnam. The liberal media, led by Cronkite, and liberal vermin on college campuses undermined support for the war effort. Cronkite and company were much smoother propagandists than the sources you cited, but I don't see how anybody could argue, armed with hindsight, that the liberals of the 60s were any less effective than their counterparts of today.

IMO, persuasive propaganda does not consist of preaching to the choir the way that CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, and many other liberal media outlets do. Effective propaganda is seen by its target audience as fair reporting to change hearts and minds. People in my parents' generation trusted news anchors and most of them had no idea what a flaming liberal Cronkite was.

The Vietnam War might have turned out much differently had the media reported objectively. At the very least, Nixon and Kissinger would have negotiated a more honorable end to the war and our POWs and troops would have been welcomed home and not spat upon and jeered as baby killers.

Sorry, but I stopped reading after the bolded.

[TheRealThing]

Your reaction to criticism of Trump has consisted of one lame excuse after another. And, if you review my post, you will find that I did mention JFK and that I was not referring to John F. Kerry, who fortunately never served as POTUS. I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you did not read my post carefully before accusing me of injecting Kennedy into the discussion to win a debate point.

I will concede that the media has become more blatantly biased against Republicans in recent years, but in the days of three national TV and radio networks, the liberal bias was there and the conservative media to refute their propaganda was almost non-existent.

Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, Reasoner, Smith - where were the conservative anchors during the Vietnam War? Liberal media helped the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies win the war with their very biased and very selective reporting. Liberals have controlled the media for a very long time. Donald Trump is not the first Republican who has faced a very hostile media but he has been very ineffective in dealing with them.

My reaction? LOL :please: You changed your wind-up but your delivery is exactly the same, #NeverTrump.

And excuse me, but you'd have a hard time convincing most people that the context in which you mentioned JFK was the same as Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. So you might want to review your own post.

Cronkite, Huntley et-al, had about as much to do with an organized existential resistance as Pee Wee Herman. In any case I stipulated to the early days of media bias as well as identifying the era. If one scraped together every snide aside they made collectively, it would not measure up to a single weedend of today's fake news fare. Much less the recent Buzzfeed bombshell that proved to be another of the ongoing dozens of treasonous fake news duds.

[Hoot Gibson]

Sorry, but I stopped reading after the bolded.

No reason to be sorry. I don't expect everybody to hang on my every word. If I did, then I would post shorter paragraphs, shorter sentences, and smaller words to avoid being disappointed.

[TheRealThing]

Sorry, but I stopped reading after the bolded.

:thatsfunn I have no idea how old you are Jet, but if you bailed out, you can imagine how somebody's jaw might drop who actually used to listen to those guys.

[Hoot Gibson]

My reaction? LOL :please: You changed your wind-up but your delivery is exactly the same, #NeverTrump.

And excuse me, but you'd have a hard time convincing most people that the context in which you mentioned JFK was the same as Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. So you might want to review your own post.

Cronkite, Huntley et-al, had about as much to do with an organized existential resistance as Pee Wee Herman. In any case I stipulated to the early days of media bias as well as identifying the era. If one scraped together every snide aside they made collectively, it would not measure up to a single weedend of today's fake news fare. Much less the recent Buzzfeed bombshell that proved to be another of the ongoing dozens of treasonous fake news duds.

I must be the world's worst NeverTrumper since I voted for the man and have generally supported nearly every policy that he has pursued.

First, you said that I never mentioned JFK - you did. When I pointed out that you were mistaken, you claim that I used his name out of context. Intellectual dishonesty is an ugly thing to watch. As I have often said, it takes two honest people to engage in an honest debate and we seem to be one short of a quorum.

[TheRealThing]

I must be the world's worst NeverTrumper since I voted for the man and have generally supported nearly every policy that he has pursued.

First, you said that I never mentioned JFK - you did. When I pointed out that you were mistaken, you claim that I used his name out of context. Intellectual dishonesty is an ugly thing to watch. As I have often said, it takes two honest people to engage in an honest debate and we seem to be one short of a quorum.

Nope. Didn't say that. And I don't have any problem with admitting that I overlooked your mention of JFK along side of Reagan. But in that paragraph you were up to your usual of diminishing Trump's record. In that occasion regarding our steadily improving economy, though your premise was just a bit ill taken in my view. I don't buy for one second that Jeb Bush, or John Kasich or certain others would have changed much at all. The context you used and I mentioned was in your representation that previous US Presidents have faced much tougher obstacles than Trump did. Not how easy it is to turn US fortunes around after a liberal leaves office.

[Hoot Gibson]

Nope. Didn't say that. And I don't have any problem with admitting that I overlooked your mention of JFK along side of Reagan. But in that paragraph you were up to your usual of diminishing Trump's record. In that occasion regarding our steadily improving economy, though your premise was just a bit ill taken in my view. I don't buy for one second that Jeb Bush, or John Kasich or certain others would have changed much at all. The context you used and I mentioned was in your representation that previous US Presidents have faced much tougher obstacles than Trump did. Not how easy it is to turn US fortunes around after a liberal leaves office.

If enough voters believe that Trump's political misfortunes are all somebody else's fault, then he should coast to a second term without breaking a sweat.

It's just not worth my time discussing politics with somebody who takes any criticism of Donald Trump's tactics as a personal insult.

[TheRealThing]

If enough voters believe that Trump's political misfortunes are all somebody else's fault, then he should coast to a second term without breaking a sweat.

It's just not worth my time discussing politics with somebody who takes any criticism of Donald Trump's tactics as a personal insult.

:biglmao: If you say so.

[jetpilot]

Josh Hammer
‏
Verified account

@josh_hammer
Follow Follow @josh_hammer
More
Has the GOP given a single coherent reason yet as to why the border shutdown fight was not waged in the two years that it controlled the House?

5:54 PM - 27 Jan 2019



Sean Davis
‏
Verified account

@seanmdav
Follow Follow @seanmdav
More Sean Davis Retweeted Josh Hammer
For the same reason Obamacare wasn't repealed: because a sizable number of Senate Republicans don't want to. They tell their constituents one thing when they want to get re-elected, then do the exact opposite of what they promised once they're safe.

[TheRealThing]

^^ They're (RINOs) not kidding me anymore, and that would be the case for most Republican supporters I would say. The voter have been played for suckers now for decades. No more.

[Hoot Gibson]

I get it now. RINOs are the reason that President Trump made empty threats to veto spending bills that did not contain money earmarked for his "beautiful wall." I am still struggling to understand why RINOs are the reason Trump made empty threats when Republicans held majorities in the House an Senate for two years, but a partial shutdown of the government was a good idea after Republicans lost control of the House and Trump had almost zero chance of getting a bill to his desk that included money for a border wall.

Are there really people who voted for Trump who see logical consistency in those decisions?

The Gang of Eight, which included RINOs Lindsey Graham(nesty) and (Little) Marco Rubio, were awaiting Donald Trump when he was elected. We were assured that only Donald Trump was tough enough to get the wall built. In fact, both "Little Marco" and Donald Trump agreed that Ted Cruz's Senate position on illegal immigration was identical to Little Marco's and the other three RINOs of the Gang of Eight who attempted to pass off amnesty for illegal aliens for "comprehensive immigration reform." Does any of this ring a bell?

I never expected Trump to make good on his promise to build a southern wall and make Mexico pay for it. That pledge was pure showmanship. I did expect him to make a good faith effort to build a border wall and to make it his top priority.

RINOs and Democrats are a perfectly valid explanation of why Trump did not secure border wall funding during his first two years in office. Their existence, which predated Trump's border wall promise, does not explain why he made empty threats for two years before (partially) shutting down the government over the absence of border funding before later caving on the issue.

The truth is that nothing stopped Trump from forcing RINOs to vote for or against a border wall ahead of the 2018 elections. That was the time when he had the maximum leverage with Senate Republicans and he chose not to use it.

If, in three weeks, Trump decides to build the wall over the objections of Congress using Defense funding, I will support him - even though the federal courts are very likely to block the action. But let's be honest here - President Trump's performance on securing our southern border has been a disappointment thus far and neither Democrats nor RINOs are responsible for his poor timing in dealing with this very important issue.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^ They're (RINOs) not kidding me anymore, and that would be the case for most Republican supporters I would say. The voter have been played for suckers now for decades. No more.

I totally agree, TRT - voters have been played for suckers. Others have simply settled for the lesser among two or more evils.

[jetpilot]

I get it now. RINOs are the reason that President Trump made empty threats to veto spending bills that did not contain money earmarked for his "beautiful wall." I am still struggling to understand why RINOs are the reason Trump made empty threats when Republicans held majorities in the House an Senate for two years, but a partial shutdown of the government was a good idea after Republicans lost control of the House and Trump had almost zero chance of getting a bill to his desk that included money for a border wall.

Are there really people who voted for Trump who see logical consistency in those decisions?

The Gang of Eight, which included RINOs Lindsey Graham(nesty) and (Little) Marco Rubio, were awaiting Donald Trump when he was elected. We were assured that only Donald Trump was tough enough to get the wall built. In fact, both "Little Marco" and Donald Trump agreed that Ted Cruz's Senate position on illegal immigration was identical to Little Marco's and the other three RINOs of the Gang of Eight who attempted to pass off amnesty for illegal aliens for "comprehensive immigration reform." Does any of this ring a bell?

I never expected Trump to make good on his promise to build a southern wall and make Mexico pay for it. That pledge was pure showmanship. I did expect him to make a good faith effort to build a border wall and to make it his top priority.

RINOs and Democrats are a perfectly valid explanation of why Trump did not secure border wall funding during his first two years in office. Their existence, which predated Trump's border wall promise, does not explain why he made empty threats for two years before (partially) shutting down the government over the absence of border funding before later caving on the issue.

The truth is that nothing stopped Trump from forcing RINOs to vote for or against a border wall ahead of the 2018 elections. That was the time when he had the maximum leverage with Senate Republicans and he chose not to use it.

If, in three weeks, Trump decides to build the wall over the objections of Congress using Defense funding, I will support him - even though the federal courts are very likely to block the action. But let's be honest here - President Trump's performance on securing our southern border has been a disappointment thus far and neither Democrats nor RINOs are responsible for his poor timing in dealing with this very important issue.

Wow I didn't know Trump could bring a bill to the House and Senate floor and have it voted on. Thanks for the civics lesson. Pure TSD as usual. You constantly blast the President without having a viable Republican who can win the presidency in 2020. That makes you a great friend of the Democrats.

[TheRealThing]

I get it now. RINOs are the reason that President Trump made empty threats to veto spending bills that did not contain money earmarked for his "beautiful wall." I am still struggling to understand why RINOs are the reason Trump made empty threats when Republicans held majorities in the House an Senate for two years, but a partial shutdown of the government was a good idea after Republicans lost control of the House and Trump had almost zero chance of getting a bill to his desk that included money for a border wall.

Are there really people who voted for Trump who see logical consistency in those decisions?

The Gang of Eight, which included RINOs Lindsey Graham(nesty) and (Little) Marco Rubio, were awaiting Donald Trump when he was elected. We were assured that only Donald Trump was tough enough to get the wall built. In fact, both "Little Marco" and Donald Trump agreed that Ted Cruz's Senate position on illegal immigration was identical to Little Marco's and the other three RINOs of the Gang of Eight who attempted to pass off amnesty for illegal aliens for "comprehensive immigration reform." Does any of this ring a bell?

I never expected Trump to make good on his promise to build a southern wall and make Mexico pay for it. That pledge was pure showmanship. I did expect him to make a good faith effort to build a border wall and to make it his top priority.

RINOs and Democrats are a perfectly valid explanation of why Trump did not secure border wall funding during his first two years in office. Their existence, which predated Trump's border wall promise, does not explain why he made empty threats for two years before (partially) shutting down the government over the absence of border funding before later caving on the issue.

The truth is that nothing stopped Trump from forcing RINOs to vote for or against a border wall ahead of the 2018 elections. That was the time when he had the maximum leverage with Senate Republicans and he chose not to use it.

If, in three weeks, Trump decides to build the wall over the objections of Congress using Defense funding, I will support him - even though the federal courts are very likely to block the action. But let's be honest here - President Trump's performance on securing our southern border has been a disappointment thus far and neither Democrats nor RINOs are responsible for his poor timing in dealing with this very important issue.

Again, with the benefit of hindsight one can seem omniscient. Did a RINO walk into the Senate Chambers on his last earthy legs and kill the repeal of ObamaCare in a spectacularly personal way? Was the very same guy once again pivotal in then killing Graham-Cassidy? The horns sprouted and the long knives came out in earnest after that.

Whether we speak of issues which deal with Mexico... or with Russia, or North Korea, or the EU, or China, or the Taliban for that matter. The fact that America may border a land, or whether that land is on the other side of the globe, the leaders and people of any land can get the daily US news in the same real time as Americans. There's no filter on electronic media, and there's no time lag. Would Mexico have been more forthcoming with America had they not sensed political blood in the water? Likely yes. But where knowledge of current US affairs go, the people of other countries might as well live here. They hear the contempt and rabid threats of the leftist wing of the federal government. They hear the thinly veiled chides of the Speaker and the Senate Leader. And just like us, they can see the vote on any bill of interest. But worst of all they hear the daily atrocities emanating from the this nation's treasonous left wing media. Not the least of which would be a constant diet of the nastiest White House Press briefings of all time.

The media began ramping up the American divide 10 years ago when they believed they saw the life blood of the Republican Party dripping on the floor. And they've really had their foot on the gas for the last two. The result is a reluctance by foreign powers to deal with the US in good faith. And the people are at each other in unprecedented foment. Now that's what I see, and there are enough complicit RINO's embedded in both houses so as to make governance extremely difficult. There has NEVER been anything near to all this ever happening in the history of this country. And I haven't even touched on the Mueller Probe and all the covert machinations attached to the before-and-after on that.

IF the Republican Party had any foresight or integrity they would have seized their moment in history to rise up in unity and support the President. Even if they thought he might have needed guidance. After all, it was the people who elected Trump irrespective of the establishment's approval. Those Congressional Republicans who opposed him on personal grounds are just as guilty as Maxine Waters. And it's not that he would not have cooperated with them either. That's how he got talked into taking on ObamaCare if you will recall, in the first place. Then, again on Congressional urging the focus went to tax relief. But I know you already knew that. RINO's did, very likely cause the failure with the wall. If not then they were monumentally instrumental. And even then had McCain not killed the ObamaCare repeal, success would still have triumphed.

Now in finally facing the steely missiles of an opposition going nowhere, and with every hope of negotiation exhausted, it seems he will have to declare a national emergency in order to build a wall. I will support him to that end as well.

[TheRealThing]

I totally agree, TRT - voters have been played for suckers. Others have simply settled for the lesser among two or more evils.

We have a two party system here in this country. Hence, two candidates to choose from in any given presidential election not sidelined with an Independent candidate. On the lesser of two evils part I'm with you, that is if by two evils you meant Bill and Hill.

I do not refer to you in what I am about to say. Trump has done nothing wrong and regardless of the juvenile spitballing, his personal character in God's sight is not one iota worse than any one of his detractors.
James 2:10 (KJV)
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

[Hoot Gibson]

Wow I didn't know Trump could bring a bill to the House and Senate floor and have it voted on. Thanks for the civics lesson. Pure TSD as usual. You constantly blast the President without having a viable Republican who can win the presidency in 2020. That makes you a great friend of the Democrats.

You are welcome, but Trump didn't need to bring a bill up for a vote. All he had to do was make good on his threat to veto any bill that reached his desk without border wall funding.

If McConnell couldn't deliver a signable bill and was unwilling to use the nuclear option, then he could have used McConnell as a very deserving scapegoat. Without a cloture vote, everybody would have known every Republican's position on national security.

Trump flinched...repeatedly.

[Hoot Gibson]

We have a two party system here in this country. Hence, two candidates to choose from in any given presidential election not sidelined with an Independent candidate. On the lesser of two evils part I'm with you, that is if by two evils you meant Bill and Hill.

I do not refer to you in what I am about to say. Trump has done nothing wrong and regardless of the juvenile spitballing, his personal character in God's sight is not one iota worse than any one of his detractors.
James 2:10 (KJV)
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Holding elected officials accountable is what has preserved our system of government for more than two centuries. I am truly sorry that you and JP take any criticism of President Trump so personally. The prospect of Democrats seizing control of the entire federal government in two years has me very worried but pretending that Trump's efforts to secure the border have been rational will not improve Republican chances in 2020.

Put yourself in the shoes of the 800,000 federal employees who scrambled to pay bills during the recent shutdown, a number that does not include federal contractors who were idled. How do you think those among them who support a border wall are feeling - knowing that the shutdown had no chance of success? I would feel betrayed.

It's okay for a leader to ask for sacrifices from his supporters, but only if there is a reasonable chance that those sacrifices help achieve a shared goal. Trump is behaving in a way that will depress Republican turnout in 2020 and Republicans have no viable alternative to offer voters.

[TheRealThing]

Holding elected officials accountable is what has preserved our system of government for more than two centuries. I am truly sorry that you and JP take any criticism of President Trump so personally. The prospect of Democrats seizing control of the entire federal government in two years has me very worried but pretending that Trump's efforts to secure the border have been rational will not improve Republican chances in 2020.

Put yourself in the shoes of the 800,000 federal employees who scrambled to pay bills during the recent shutdown, a number that does not include federal contractors who were idled. How do you think those among them who support a border wall are feeling - knowing that the shutdown had no chance of success? I would feel betrayed.

It's okay for a leader to ask for sacrifices from his supporters, but only if there is a reasonable chance that those sacrifices help achieve a shared goal. Trump is behaving in a way that will depress Republican turnout in 2020 and Republicans have no viable alternative to offer voters.

Oh I wouldn't obsess about it Hoot. I have come to realize the pragmatic view is a gift not visited upon most people, and therefore any limitations with which you may be encumbered are completely excusable. But somehow in the interest of preserving our country past the two century mark, I come up rather empty when trying to think of an example where any Dem or deepstater of late, has been held to account on the first darn thing.

[jetpilot]

You are welcome, but Trump didn't need to bring a bill up for a vote. All he had to do was make good on his threat to veto any bill that reached his desk without border wall funding.

If McConnell couldn't deliver a signable bill and was unwilling to use the nuclear option, then he could have used McConnell as a very deserving scapegoat. Without a cloture vote, everybody would have known every Republican's position on national security.

Trump flinched...repeatedly.

Yes a Trump/McConnell war would be great....for Democrats.

[jetpilot]

More
NeverTrump's initial conservative arguments against Trump have been replaced by adoption of the left's tactics and policies. Reflections on that and other failures of extreme NeverTrumpism.


https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/01/28/a...g4.twitter

[jetpilot]

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Jan 26
More
Thank you to the Republican National Committee, (the RNC), who voted UNANIMOUSLY yesterday to support me in the upcoming 2020 Election. Considering that we have done more than any Administration in the first two years, this should be easy. More great things now in the works!

[TheRealThing]

More
NeverTrump's initial conservative arguments against Trump have been replaced by adoption of the left's tactics and policies. Reflections on that and other failures of extreme NeverTrumpism.


https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/01/28/a...g4.twitter

Wow, go Julie Kelly!! Jet I hope it's okay with you if I use your source to expound upon. But speaking just for myself, when confronted by the talents of such a truly gifted lady, it is inspiring. Laura Ingraham was likewise inspiring in her address at the RNC last election eve. But Julie has this exactly right...
ARTICLE EXCERPT---

Julie Kelly Writes--- Here is a direct quote from that (National Review) [ “Against Trump” issue: “[Trump’s] obsession is with ‘winning,’ regardless of the means—a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power.”

(Note: It's okay after reading the underlined text above to go barf.) :Thumbs:

Julie Continues---
Still Clueless After All These Years
If anti-Trump conservatives have proven anything over the past three years, it is that they still have no clue how to prevail over the Left. With few exceptions, most notably the Brett Kavanaugh debacle (but with caveats even there), NeverTrumpers have sided with the Left. Many have fully abandoned their alleged fidelity to principles—limited government in particular—in order to cripple a president who conservatives voters elected in spite of their lofty commands to drop him.

Further, they still have no alternative to what they derisively call Trumpism.
End Article

^^ How true and how poignant. Leaves one with the regrettable realization that the true breadth of those with a glimmer is no where near as sizable as the people had hoped election night 2016. Not only is the nightmare far from over, this country is still mired in deep trouble. Billy Kristol et-al, what of bunch of pompous, self imagined aristocrats.

If you listen to the likes of David Rubin or Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump's performance has been a God send. And as Julie says, the alternative was HILLARY CLINTON. Can you even imagine what the state of affairs around here might look like by now if she'd been elected? :please:

This rejection and calls for the impeachment of our President in the face of no justifiable cause WHATEVER, has in my view, existential ramifications.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yes a Trump/McConnell war would be great....for Democrats.

If you believed Trump when he promised to build a beautiful border wall and make Mexico pay for it, then how did you expect him to make good on that promise without taking on McConnell and Ryan? Did you expect him to use his personal charm to persuade more than a half dozen Democrat Senators and all the RINOs to help him keep his most often repeated campaign promise?

You do understand that Senate rules required at least 60 votes to allow a floor vote on such a bill, don't you? Where did you expect those 60 votes to come from?

[Hoot Gibson]

Oh I wouldn't obsess about it Hoot. I have come to realize the pragmatic view is a gift not visited upon most people, and therefore any limitations with which you may be encumbered are completely excusable. But somehow in the interest of preserving our country past the two century mark, I come up rather empty when trying to think of an example where any Dem or deepstater of late, has been held to account on the first darn thing.

So, because Democrats have low expectations for their politicians, conservatives and Republicans should also lower our expectations for those for whom we vote? It's okay for Republicans make campaign promises that they can't keep because Democrats don't keep their campaign promises?

Actually, Obama made good on his number one campaign promise. Democrats passed Obamacare. He also promised a war on coal and he delivered. Keeping promises, or at least making a good faith effort to keep them actually does work and it does get politicians re-elected. It is not unreasonable for Republicans to expect their presidents to keep their signature campaign promises - or to at least make a serious effort to keep them.

[WideRight05]

I'll admit, starting out I didn't expect Trump would keep 1/10th of what he promised. The only candidates I may have taken him over in that primary are Kasich, Christie, and definitely open social liberal George Pataki. Had that been held today, he wouldn't be my first choice but he would be moved up quite a few notches. For me, it’s all plain and simple – no matter who it is, if they come in and represent Christian, conservative principles they will have my support. If they don't, I will be critical of them.

As for the wall, look at some of the nice things Trump has done during his term especially economically. I’m surprised that he hasn’t been able to get the wall through. He knew coming in he would have a battle with Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell, I feel has been very much on Trump’s side with the wall but the problem with the Senate is you need 60 votes to get just about anything through there and neither party has had 60+ since the 1970’s. Unless Trump declares a state of national emergency I don’t see how he would be able to get the wall built unless the Republicans hang onto the Senate in 2020 and get the House back but that’s not looking to be a good election year for the Republicans at least at the Senate level because the Republicans have a lot more seats to defend. Unless either the Republicans get a big push in the House and retain the Senate in 2020 assuming Trump wins or they get a big push in 2022, it will be extremely difficult for Trump to get that through. His best shot was in his first term and I honestly think he either took some bad advice or was too confident that the Republicans would get several big gains in the House.

Overall, Trump has made more good moves than bad but we have to keep our eye on him. An important position that has influence over businesses is the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Trump just re-nominated an Obama-era radical who believes even stated herself that sexual liberty would take priority over religious liberty. Had it not been for a gutsy effort by Mike Lee, that would have slid through. Some of Trump’s judge picks have been nice, others I question. So far it seems like Gorsuch has been a home run and seems to follow a mold similar to Scalia as Trump indicated he would. Kavanaugh is not off to that same start though and I hold deep concern that he will not be the judge people think he is. Trump had Amy Comey Barrett and Don Willett to pick from and they would have been way more consistent with judges like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Also important is watching the lower level courts. Don Willett being promoted to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals under Trump has been an excellent move (I hope for a future SCOTUS run!) but by the same token as badly as Trump has wanted to re-shape the Ninth Circuit courts, Patrick Bumatay is someone that I’m sure Barack Obama would like. Follow that up with Mary Rowland of Illinois being nominated to a different court that drew like from Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth – not a good thing.

What has happened with Donald Trump represents a problem with society in general and how we elevate political candidates to the status of God. You saw the same thing with Barack Obama - he had a group of supporters that stood by him regardless of what he did and as good as some of Trump's moves have been a lot of people are not calling him out on the bad. I feel like Trump would do better with a party that would hold him accountable on everything he does. He’s done some good things and this is better than having somebody like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. But very few people will hold him accountable when he sends in a questionable judge nomination or pushes for a questionable piece of legislation. He promised recently that he would veto any legislation promoting abortion – but yet him, the Republican controlled House with simple majority rule and the Senate passed bill after bill that continued to fund planned parenthood.

Conservatism is gone and I hate to echo many of the writers I see that say we are living in a post-Christian era but the truth is the truth. The Republican Party is supposed to be the one that represents Christian, conservative principles and they have not been that party. Every president they have sent to the oval office since Ronald Reagan has been very much just right of center. Trump made some noise due to his talk on immigration and building the wall but when you get outside of the immigration issue you could say that Trump is much more moderate on issues than many Republicans and that even includes some of the fiscal issues.

We talked about Vermont in the abortion thread briefly. Vermont is heavily Democrat and other than a Republican Governor that may be the most liberal Republican in the country, Vermont is heavily Democrat. They also have a decent sized third party, the Progressive Party that is everything the name indicates. They're extremely liberal, moreso than the Democratic Party. The Progressive Party doesn't have nearly as many seats as the Republican Party does in that state but probably aren't too far behind in the level of influence they have given the state they're in. Point being, I see society eventually drifting to what Vermont is - the Democratic Party being like the Progressive Party and the Republican Party being like the Democratic Party is there. Every single election cycle the Republican Party drifts a little further to the left and despite the platform that represents conservatism, the people they send to office at the national, regional, and local levels tell different stories.

I hope I'm wrong and we see a move back to the Christian, conservative principles that were outlined in the party platform. With a couple more retirements on the SCOTUS likely, especially one I believe will retire is Stephen Breyer, there is a major opportunity to reshape this court and overturn Roe v. Wade, United States v. Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges and many other poorly made decisions. But right now we're seeing the Republican Party and country as a whole continue to drift to the left as it has under prior Republican administrations.

[TheRealThing]

So, because Democrats have low expectations for their politicians, conservatives and Republicans should also lower our expectations for those for whom we vote? [SIZE="1"]It's okay for Republicans make campaign promises that they can't keep because Democrats don't keep their campaign promises?

Actually, Obama made good on his number one campaign promise. Democrats passed Obamacare. He also promised a war on coal and he delivered. Keeping promises, or at least making a good faith effort to keep them actually does work and it does get politicians re-elected. It is not unreasonable for Republicans to expect their presidents to keep their signature campaign promises - or to at least make a serious effort to keep them[/SIZE].

Who really cares that Dems have low expectations? Is that not self evident?

Did you punch up Jet's link Hoot? You might want to look at it and maybe finally see what I and others on here have been saying about supposed conservative Trump bashers.

[Hoot Gibson]

Who really cares that Dems have low expectations? Is that not self evident?

Did you punch up Jet's link Hoot? You might want to look at it and maybe finally see what I and others on here have been saying about supposed conservative Trump bashers.

I read it but I didn't see much news in the article. I follow the news very closely, TRT. I am aware that there are conservatives that elected not to vote for Trump in the election and that some of them very actively oppose parts of Trump's agenda, and a few seem bent on opposing everything that he tries to do. I don't find that surprising at all. Obama had opposition in his own party who didn't think that he was liberal enough. No president manages to win 100 percent support within his own party.

So, it is not a matter of me finally seeing the light. I was never a William Krystol fan before the 2016 campaign and I believe that he has acted in a very petty way since the election. The same goes for many of the other well known NeverTrumpers. But as a conservative American, I respect their right to support or oppose whomever they choose. What purpose does it serve to call them names and disparage them as if they have any real influence over the general electorate?

Donald Trump is a very polarizing figure, not because his agenda is extreme - in most cases I don't find him conservative enough - but because he and so many of his supporters go out of their way to offend people who agree with his agenda 80 percent or more of the time. I know that you and JP do not see Trump as a divider, but the fact that millions of Republicans do see him that way is a problem for him, and it is not a problem that NeverTrumpers, RINOs, the media, or Democrats created.

As the greatest Republican president in the modern era said, a person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.

[jetpilot]

I read it but I didn't see much news in the article. I follow the news very closely, TRT. I am aware that there are conservatives that elected not to vote for Trump in the election and that some of them very actively oppose parts of Trump's agenda, and a few seem bent on opposing everything that he tries to do. I don't find that surprising at all. Obama had opposition in his own party who didn't think that he was liberal enough. No president manages to win 100 percent support within his own party.

So, it is not a matter of me finally seeing the light. I was never a William Krystol fan before the 2016 campaign and I believe that he has acted in a very petty way since the election. The same goes for many of the other well known NeverTrumpers. But as a conservative American, I respect their right to support or oppose whomever they choose. What purpose does it serve to call them names and disparage them as if they have any real influence over the general electorate?

Donald Trump is a very polarizing figure, not because his agenda is extreme - in most cases I don't find him conservative enough - but because he and so many of his supporters go out of their way to offend people who agree with his agenda 80 percent or more of the time. I know that you and JP do not see Trump as a divider, but the fact that millions of Republicans do see him that way is a problem for him, and it is not a problem that NeverTrumpers, RINOs, the media, or Democrats created.

As the greatest Republican president in the modern era said, a person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.

I'm an 80/20 Trump guy myself Hoot. I believe what we have to do is bite our tongue on the 20% and not bash him. Doing so only helps the Dems. You never see Dems bashing elected Dems do you?

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm an 80/20 Trump guy myself Hoot. I believe what we have to do is bite our tongue on the 20% and not bash him. Doing so only helps the Dems. You never see Dems bashing elected Dems do you?

I have no control over what Democrats do. If I did, we would only have two types of politicians in this country, conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats. I am just not the type to bite my tongue when I see elected officials behaving stupidly, even if that is only 20 percent of the time.

[jetpilot]

I have no control over what Democrats do. If I did, we would only have two types of politicians in this country, conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats. I am just not the type to bite my tongue when I see elected officials behaving stupidly, even if that is only 20 percent of the time.

Tunnel vision. So we can expect you to continue to help Dems and put most of Rep failures on Trump. Not surprised at all. I was crazy to go around the same block with you for the 100th time.