35 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-15-16

  1. Donna,

    “While I shudder to think of 4 years under Hillary, the best thing for the GOP is if Trump loses so conservatives can take back and rebuild a real and viable political party.”

    I think it’s cute that you think there is anything to take back. 🙂 Or that anyone would want to. Do you really think the RINO’s don’t have the same idea? And there’s way more of them than there are of us. The reason we are where we are is because the two sides can’t come to agreement on what makes a viable party. The RINO’s will be back to running things as usual should Trump lose. Back to being Democrat Lite. Either way, if Trump wins or loses, the RINO’s win, conservatives lose.

    Like

  2. After this election, there will be major debates about:

    1. What is conservatism?

    2. What is the future of the Republican Party?

    Since they are literate, the Never Trumpers will have an advantage.

    Hpwever, considering that Americans are increasingly amoral, ignorant, rude and lazy, they may decide that to be a conservative and a Republican in the future, one needs to be an amoral, big-spending, demagogic, insane, orange buffoon.

    Like

  3. Ricky, et.al. The real problem with the way we’re going is that it has to end.
    At a precipice.
    That’s what hurts. We can’t keep this up.
    We are $20 trillion in debt. There isn’t that much money.
    Hillary wants to create free college tuition.
    There ain’t no such thing as free tuition.
    Years ago, I read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayan Rand (If I got any of that correct, it was in the last century.) The bottom line of the book was that Atlas shrugged the whole world off his back.
    As for the society, I recently stated Shull’s Law. “To liberals, everything is tolerated except for the idea that something is wrong.”

    R.G. Lee had a sermon called “Payday Someday”.
    Someday the bill comes due.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Chas, You are exactly correct. Paul Ryan and House conservatives have made and are making proposals to deal with the fiscal cliff. Unfortunately, the Republican nominee is no more fiscally conservative than the Democrat.

    Eventually, the rest of the world will force the US to put its financial house in order. I hope to be in Singapore or The Cook Islands when that happens.

    Like

  5. If you are $20 trillion in debt, to whom are you in debt?
    China? Not Japan, surely, they have their own problems? To ourselves? It would hurt, but we could handle that.
    My mind just can’t handle $20 trillion. That is twenty thousand billion. I can remember when we used to worry about a billion. That was lots of money
    But that was then.

    Like

  6. The $20 billion is spread around quite a bit. Japan, China and Middle Eastern countries hold substantial shares. Individuals (here and abroad) hold quite a lot. That would be your creditors’ committee in the bankruptcy.

    Like

  7. There needs to be a viable, conservative party. There isn’t one currently and there’s a whole lot of blame to go around for that big mess.

    But unless we want to throw our hands up and say, Ok, it’s the Democrats’ country, we’re just along for the ride, the work will have to begin. It won’t be easy, not everyone will be happy or get what they want. But a strong, viable alternative political party will have to either be rebuilt on what’s left of the GOP or begun anew (but with enough appeal that it’s not a scraggly corner of “true believers” who can’t attract any more than their own narrow niche group).

    Like

  8. Probably the bigger problem is the state of conservative political thought in general in this country. It frankly doesn’t have a lot of followers. What’s needed is some vision (and some political visionaries & leaders) who can better frame and promote conservative ideals in a more sweeping, appealing way to counteract the nation’s far left spiral downward.

    Viable political conservatism seems to be lying in a tiny, pathetic heap of folks somewhere right now, arguing largely amongst themselves. 😦 😦

    Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s really nothing good about the prospect of a Hillary win. But if Trump wins (and he is no conservative), the party will be his by default. ‘

    If he loses in a landslide, he’ll likely get (and be) out of the way and there could be more of a blank slate to work with in looking forward to the next election.

    But not if everyone keeps attacking each other within. There’s got to be a coming together in order to rebuild. And for that, there needs to be some good, strong leadership that can bring people together. Right now, that doesn’t exist.

    Obviously.

    😦 😦

    And thus the Democrats continue their celebration of seeing the other side in virtual tatters, perhaps for a very long time to come.

    Like

  9. Agreed, Trump is a RINO. That’s why the RINOs win either way. Win or lose, they will still control the party. And conservatives lose. Sadly, there’s not enough of us to do anything about it.

    The only choice now is Hillary or Trump. It’s pick the Democrat, or pick Democrat Lite. There is no viable 3rd option. So I’m voting Trump. I won’t waste my vote on Johnson or Stein. While some of you may feel you have the option of voting 3rd party because your state won’t matter, I don’t. My state will matter, so I’ll vote accordingly. It sucks, but it is the reality now.

    While it would be nice to build a viable conservative 3rd party, it ain’t gonna happen. We don’t have the numbers to accomplish a win in a presidential race. Unless of course, once again, we compromise and join with others, but then you get the same problem, a watered down conservative option, which is what we have now, and how we got here.

    So for me it’s…

    Trump 2016
    Sure he sucks, but everyone else sucks more.

    How’s that for a campaign slogan? 🙂

    Like

  10. AJ, Most of my friends agree with you and you may well be right. However, I don’t see Trump as Democrat Lite. I think he is more Democrat Nuts.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. 2016 is everyone for himself — I would not criticize anyone who abstains, votes 3rd party or who votes for Trump. It’s the giant mess-of-a-mess that’s come to pass in this country (for now, anyway).

    To win elections, parties by necessity have to be coalitions. So to some degree, the center-right has to find a way to coalesce in an effective way. You can have a far right party, but it won’t win very often. So I figure what’s even the point of that?

    Most of the general electorate are in the center and weave both right & left, from one party to the other, depending on their mood or the appeal of the candidates. That’s how Obama got elected. Enough of the voters decided sure, they’d give him a chance. He’s hip, he’s cool, he’s new. Everyone was easily carried away, especially with an older “white guy” (McCain, then Romney) as the alternative. Most people don’t really have consistent political or philosophical principles on which they act (or vote), especially not these days.

    A strong case is waiting to be made for a conservative approach that’s more rooted in our constitution. It can be something that has a broad appeal, I think (I hope). But for now, no one on the horizon seems well placed to make that argument that can win at least a potential working majority of the voters to its side. But after this election, there may be more ‘ears to hear’ out there.

    Like

  12. Some folks won’t like this, but that’s probably the result of their own guilty conscience. 😆

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438963/never-trump-republicans-help-hillary-clinton

    “Rather than encourage Trump — whose victory could secure these and other conservative goals after 16 years of molar-grinding Bush-Obama statism — the Never Trump crowd slaps away his extended hand.

    These malcontents should help Trump develop the best conservative ideas and present them to the voters as attractively as possible. Supply-side heavyweights Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and Steve Moore helped craft Trump’s economic proposal. The man who Never Trumpniks say “never listens” heeded these free-marketeers on taxes and the Heritage Foundation on judges. Conservative Trump haters should do something productive: Offer the GOP nominee issues and ideas he can use to win.”

    “Evidently it’s more fun, though, to flee reality and reside in Fantasyland. If only, the say, an unknown candidate — such as Evan McMullin — could ride to the rescue, vanquish the entire GOP apparatus and its nominee, leapfrog Clinton, and then land softly in the Oval Office. Never mind that McMullin already has missed ballot-access deadlines in two dozen states.

    The charisma-free Libertarian party candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, faces a similar 90-degree climb.

    The inescapable fact is that no third-party candidate has won the White House since Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans defeated the Democrats and Whigs in 1860. The Never Trumpniks should Google Henry Wallace, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader. The closest any of them got to the White House was the South Lawn during the annual Easter Egg Roll. Turning to McMullin, Johnson, or any other Never Trumpnik would splinter the Center-Right without garnering enough votes to prevail. Meanwhile, the Left will march in lock-step, as it usually does, when things really matter.

    The result? Crooked Hillary wins, likely with a large enough margin to claim a mandate. Clinton rarely awaits green lights. But if the signal is any brighter than pistachio ice cream on November 8, she will floor it on January 20, and go from zero to socialism in seven seconds. Conservative elites on Capitol Hill, in the commentariat, and among the campaign-consultant complex know this perfectly well. Thus, Hillary Clinton enjoys a cadre of de facto conservative supporters.

    Even when a flawed candidate promises to practice most of what the Right has preached for decades, and even as these desperately needed solutions enjoy a fighting chance of being signed into law by a President Trump, Crooked Hillary’s conservative comrades reject Trump – the only candidate who can stop Hillary. Instead, they are building the gallows on which the Left’s Lady High Executioner will hang their ideas until dead.”

    Like

  13. If my state were hanging in the balance, I suppose I’d be hard-pressed not to vote for Trump. As it is, I’m not in one of those states. So I probably have “the luxury” of opting out without affecting the end result. (Yeah, I still think she’d be worse than he would.)

    RINO is applied to a lot of folks (some fairly, some not fairly) — I had a co-worker who very rightly applied the term to herself. At 18, she’d registered Republican essentially to please her family; but after college, she turned out to be quite liberal (surprise, surprise) — or at least libertarian — in her thinking, especially on social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). She only recently (after 30 years!) left the Republican party (good decision), and I think she’s independent now — but she’d fit very comfortably in the (now) far left-leaning Democratic party which is how I suspect she votes 99% of the time, if not 100%.

    But it’s not fair to call people RINOs just because they’re moderate conservatives & not on the far right. If winning elections and having at least some power within the government is a real goal (and it obviously should be), there must be room for both moderate conservatives and those further right than that within the GOP.

    Ideally (in terms of winning elections), there also should be room for more centrist Democrats within that party’s fold.

    Political parties can’t really afford to be “purist” in the strict sense of that word. That’s what 3rd parties are for. You know, the parties that can hold their national conventions in an elementary school auditorium and never win any office.

    Like

  14. Third parties are interesting. I know part of the argument is that they can influence the major parties, but I’ve never seen that happen in my lifetime. Instead, they seem to exist in a vacuum, somewhere way off center stage, operating in a political void. Most of the country is unaware they even exist.

    But they can influence close elections (by drawing voters away from one of the major parties), something that cuts both ways in this era when the country seems so (almost) evenly, 50-50, divided. I will forever love Ralph Nader. 🙂

    Like

  15. 538 now puts Trump’s chances of winning the election at 11%. Trump is getting 9% of the under 30 vote. 70% of the American people hate Trump. He has put himself in this position. Evan McMullin, Gary Johnson and the Constitution Party’s candidate each have almost as good a chance of winning as the liberal orange lunatic. As Cruz said: Vote your conscience. However, it is clear that one group put Hillary in the White House: the people who voted for Trump in the primaries.

    Like

  16. A large part of the problem is the system.
    Consider Lindsey Graham. He was the pride or northwestern SC because he was so conservative. One of the best in the House. But he got ambitious, moderated and ran for Senate.
    Good men go there, they are invited to some parties, they appear on TV, they are not one of those radicals. They are with the program. The program is always Progressive, only at a slower pace.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Seen on Facebook:

    Trump plans on bringing his ‘borrow and spend and then declare bankruptcy’ business model to the US. This is how nations crumble. This is the worst of the Democratic Party’s economic policy on steroids.

    “I’ve always, you know, respected leverage, but I’ve always loved it. But a country is a different thing. However, with that being said, the interest rates are so low, I mean, the numbers are so low, that, yes, this is a time to borrow and to borrow long-term,” says the Republican nominee for president on CNBC.

    — Does he not realize why the rates are so low? It’s because if they raise them, we won’t be able to pay even the interest on our massive debt, and face the possibility of monetary collapse. He wants to dramatically increase the debt.

    Like

  18. DJ – This year, the Libertarian Party is breaking out of the basement, polling much higher than ever before. Many Republicans, even those in the government, have declared they are voting for Johnson this year.

    Like

  19. I was reading today in Numbers with a cross reference to Deuteronomy of the twelve “chiefs” of the tribe of Israel who went in to scout out the land.

    God allowed them in because they asked for a scouting trip (see Deuteronomy), and when they returned 10 reporting only the giants. 2 had eyes to retain their belief and saw opportunity.

    10 prevailed and all the children of Israel suffered as a result for the next 40 years–except the two men who had eyes of faith. Though, they had to live in the desert with heartbreak, too.

    I live in a nation that has decided to jettison my personal beliefs about government and moral responsibility. I have a choice: leave or remain with my nation–whatever they choose.

    I’m going to retain my personal integrity and not vote for president if the two choices remain in November.

    I see myself similar to that remnant in the desert who stayed with their people’s leaders’ choice. They continued to teach their children, love their God and died in the desert. But, their faith carried on–often in awkward ways–when their children, in theory untainted by Egypt, moved into the promised land behind a leader who trusted God and believed his word.

    They were out there 40 hard years. The Chinese Christians have been faithful, some under terrible persecution, for 60 years. The Russian Church limped through Communism a tattered remnant, for 70 years.

    Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will trust in the name of the Lord our God.

    Liked by 5 people

  20. Karen, but mainly (only?) because of the choices from the 2 big parties? If they had a wider appeal or more attractive candidate, it would maybe be higher, but I’d almost expect 11% in 2016 for any other 3rd candidate as well

    Like

  21. Recently, Peter shared a link to his blog where he shared an email from a friend. . .

    “I’m not so certain that Trump is actually less evil than Clinton, but I do know this: we are most certainly not limited to two options, because God is not limited to two options. Do Christians still have so little faith in the power of God to act on our behalf, after two thousand years of Christianity prevailing over impossible odds in various cultures across planet?

    If biblical history and church history tell me anything, it’s that God loves to stack the deck against Himself so that He can win anyway, leaving unbelievers to scrape their jaws off the floor with a spatula. Without much effort, I’m sure you can compose a list of times God has done so, everything from the exodus out of Egypt to the spread of house churches in Iran. That same God is our God, and I doubt that He is looking to Donald Trump for salvation in the kind of anxious way many Christians are.”

    http://3rdandcollege.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-rock-hard-place-and-god-friend-sent.html

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Amen, Michelle

    I suspect that’s where we are (by divine Providence, which should strengthen and encourage us)

    Though He slay me …

    Like

  23. DJ – I agree that that is the reason, but there usually does have to be some kind of catalyst for change or growth.

    Like

  24. It’s sad that anti-Trump conservatives are taking pot-shots at pro-Trump people, & pro-Trump conservatives are taking pot-shots at anti-Trump people.

    Pro-Trumpers can blame anti-Trumpers for “letting” Hillary win, but anti-Trumpers can blame pro-Trumpers for not voting for a more viable & reasonable candidate in the first place.

    Like

  25. its interesting to read the conversation here. It seems most people are implicitly acknowledging that both parties are extremely similar or at least the elite and its platforms. One cannot keep calling candidates RINOs (or DINOs) without admitting that a party has no distinctive ideological core. Two party systems and first past the post system encourage coalition stye parties. In proportional representation, parties are more ideological and the compromise and coalitions are built after the election in the legislature not within the party.

    In the US, both parties follow a neoliberal economic agenda of low taxes, minimal gov’t involvement, privatization, supply side ideology, corporatist, etc. Thus, Obama implements a heath care plan that resembles Bob Dole and Mitt Romney’s ideas and polices. Bush implements a pharma plan. Clinton repeals Glass-Steagal, etc. The economic platform at its core is extremely similar. Occasionally each party will offer a variation to appeal to a segment within its party but essentially they are no different. Similarly, foreign policy is extremely similar — maintaining America’s dominant position in the world. Their methods may differ according to personal preference or interest group they serve but essentially they work to the same goal. So Bush may prefer old school warfare and Obama may prefer drones but they want the same thing.

    Because social conservatives have hitched themselves to the Republican party, there may be a slight difference but they hooked themselves to the party that is slightly more neoliberal or libertarian than the other party. Hence, we have this contradictory state where social conservatives somehow expect politicians who are adverse to govt interference in the economy to interfere in personal morality. This contradiction makes the Republican coalition more difficult to coordinate than the Democratic coalition.

    Like

  26. Conservative social issues (nationally speaking, for now, as viable political positions) are probably dead for the most part, considering the shift in cultural attitudes overall

    Going back to more of a federalist distribution of power with the states will replace some of that perhaps for a rejuvenated Conservative party or movement

    It will be very interesting to see where things go from here

    Liked by 1 person

  27. HRW, it isn’t that the parties don’t have an ideological core. Both parties can clearly state their positions. It is that when politicians get to Washington, they are more than willing to accommodate, cross the aisle, and modify their positions in order to get along.
    Money and reelection have a big part in this.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s