Except for the context in which I wrote that was in regards to the libs here, not that this tactic is anything new on this board.I never said Reagan and GWB were Eisenhower Republicans
Except for the context in which I wrote that was in regards to the libs here, not that this tactic is anything new on this board.I never said Reagan and GWB were Eisenhower Republicans
Is this a trick question?In the spirit of fair play, I will make every attempt to keep my comments respectful. I would like to hear your assessment as to why you support Trump, and do you believe he is honest and not guilty of violating the emoluments clause in the Constitution?
I suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome and posted myself blue-in-the-face opposing his hair-brained decision to invade Iraq. This board was predominately conservative, with a firebrand conservative moderator who enjoyed stirring the pot as much as anyone.Don't agree at all, Bush Derangement Syndrome was a thing way before Trump got elected.
But hey, thanks for proving my point for me anyway
You wrote one sentence. That's just a little context-thin, even for me. Was your point that balance budgets are some benchmark for republicanism? I don't think I need to go through the balanced budget history with you. We last had a balanced budget when? 1999? And after bleating about balanced budgets for 8 years during Obama the last time a republican mentioned balanced budgets was......?Except for the context in which I wrote that was in regards to the libs here, not that this tactic is anything new on this board.
It's not really the deficits per se, it's the nature of the spending.If this thread is intended to let conservatives make their arguments maybe one of them will explain how the deficit is always a terrible problem when the Dems are in power, but when the GOP takes over, they no longer care about it, and don't hesitate to make it that much bigger.
I think one of the cons that posted upstream claimed he was pointing out hypocrisy so I do wonder how he could overlook that glaring example.
Just trying to start a thread where Republicans can actually post opinions and not get smashed like a Hillary team members Blackberry.
Now that is a trick question.If this thread is intended to let conservatives make their arguments maybe one of them will explain how the deficit is always a terrible problem when the Dems are in power, but when the GOP takes over, they no longer care about it, and don't hesitate to make it that much bigger.
I think one of the cons that posted upstream claimed he was pointing out hypocrisy so I do wonder how he could overlook that glaring example.
You mean kind of like the dems are doing right now?If this thread is intended to let conservatives make their arguments maybe one of them will explain how the deficit is always a terrible problem when the Dems are in power, but when the GOP takes over, they no longer care about it, and don't hesitate to make it that much bigger.
I think one of the cons that posted upstream claimed he was pointing out hypocrisy so I do wonder how he could overlook that glaring example.
Just to be explicit, is your issue with how democratic candidates are upset over the trillion dollar hole in the budget due to a tax cut, but are now proposing trillion dollar projects with no real way of paying for them?You mean kind of like the dems are doing right now?
Pot meet kettle.
hy·poc·ri·sy
noun
- the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/30/2020-democrats-trillion-dollar-proposals-007013
I haven't posted much here lately, for the very reasons bamamc1 is citing, and this post is a prime example of why.In the spirit of fair play, I will make every attempt to keep my comments respectful. I would like to hear your assessment as to why you support Trump, and do you believe he is honest and not guilty of violating the emoluments clause in the Constitution?
Just trying to start a thread where Republicans can actually post opinions and not get smashed like a Hillary team members Blackberry.
Bazza was right.as of the most recent gallup poll i could find (sept 3-15), trump is currently at 91% approval with republicans.
maybe some of y'all non-trump republicans who don't like getting lumped in with the trump republicans should be concern trolling and having debates with the folks that drug the republican party into the ditch and are doing their damndest to pull the country along with it.
I mean, Trump is the head of the Republican party and holds almost universal approval among admitted Republicans. The same relationship does not hold true with AOC and the Democrats, so that's a silly comparison.I haven't posted much here lately, for the very reasons bamamc1 is citing, and this post is a prime example of why.
bamamc1 posted about Republicans. He said exactly nothing about Donald Trump, Trump's honesty or anything other than Republican opinions.
In the recent past, I have been called out (with some justification) for painting all Democrats with the Occasio-Cortez / Talib / Omar brush. I was quickly reminded that they don't represent all Dems, and told that the only reason I thought that was FoxNews' over-coverage of their off-the-wall positions. But my experience is that Republicans are repeatedly painted with the Trump brush, with no consequences whatsoever for the over-broad characterization.
I'm a lifelong Republican, but I've never been a defender of Donald Trump. Not here, not anywhere. Didn't vote for him or Hillary. Wrote in Nick Saban. Have said that repeatedly in numerous threads. Yet our blue posters often lump me in with the crazies.
This is what is keeping us from having true debate. "If you don't agree with me, you're with the most extreme of the other side, and don't deserve even a modicum of respect." And that's what's happened here.
bamamc1 asks for Republican ideas, and immediately gets accused of believing Donald Trump is honest. How you go from Point A to Point B is beyond me.
So 4Q BC posts a well reasoned (IMO) and thoughtful post.I mean, Trump is the head of the Republican party and holds almost universal approval among admitted Republicans. The same relationship does not hold true with AOC and the Democrats, so that's a silly comparison.
If you're an anti-Trump Republican, you're in the minority. Which is fine, of course, but it does not follow that this should be assumed, so I think your complaint rings a bit hollow.
As usual, cbi is the only one posting conservative discussion points while everyone else is too busy clutching pearls about the social injustice of belonging to a party led by a madman. If Trump does not represent your conservative values, I think that's what this thread is actually about.
Let's look at the contrast between what we both posted.You mean kind of like the dems are doing right now?
Pot meet kettle.
hy·poc·ri·sy
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
- the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/30/2020-democrats-trillion-dollar-proposals-007013
you must be new hereLet's look at the contrast between what we both posted.
I mentioned someone was fussing about hypocrisy, and I was specific in exactly what I was talking about (the deficit) when I pointed out what I thought was hypocritical. (as an aside, I'll mention that hypocrisy was condemned in the Bible 23 times.)
I thought you might address the specific example I brought up, or at least be specific about what you thought Dems were being hypocritical about, if you didn't want to defend the GOP position on the deficit.
Instead, you fell back on the old "I'm rubber and you're glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"
My opinion: My thought after reading your posts in this thread is you haven't come to grips with how the current form of the GOP is nothing like the traditional GOP you've identified with over the years. You haven't left the Republican party (yet) but the GOP has left people like you behind in the rear view mirror.Bazza was right.
Apparently, it's OK to paint with a broad brush if enough people fit the profile the painter wants. Otherwise, don't profile anybody for anything. If you do, you're racist / sexist / Islamophobic / homophobic / ignorant / pick your own abhorrent adjective. Unless there are enough examples of the alternative. In which case, it's a totally understandable oversight. Not enough harm = no foul...so long, of course, as you agree with me.