I have been watching and listening to the debate over Donald Trump and I have finally drawn some conclusions. Unfortunately, they do not bode well for our nation. If you have a moment, I’d like to explain my concerns and, if you’ll let me, ask a few questions we should all answer for ourselves.
View original post 1,489 more words
The Rio Norte Line 
Given your unrelenting attack on Trump ( which is the same position as the entire Main Stream Media BTW). You probably feel all jiggly about Glenn Beck and his crew snarking daily and applying their professional sophomoric ridicule of Trump.
I can understand. Really it is hard to go against the grain….and when the Clique is on your side it is a Good feeling.
So let ME ask a question.
Given Beck’s ( and the rest of everyone else’s) siding up to the Known Establishment RINO Candidate Rubio….and making excuses for Rubio’s obvious continued push for the Establishment AMNESTY plan, how does this “not bode well for our Nation” ??
Don,
Getting snarky with me over my position on Trump is beneath you. I know that you KNOW you either have to deal with the points in my argument or at least concede that my case is valid. You have done neaither. What you have done is respond as a typical Liberal/Progressive: with ad hominem and diversion. Honestly, this disappoints me, as you are one of the few to whom I look to guide my own thinking and actions. So, if the likes of those such as yourself will abandon their reason to chase after someone they KNOW is not what he pretends to be, what hope is there for the lesser among us? 😦
Now, as for Beck — you know I have soured on him. Unless he is talking about history or exposing some form of corruption in government, I find little of value in his work. Even his new book sounds suspect in my mind, but I’ll know more after I read it.
Finally, Rubio. Let me sum him up in two words:
Definitely PROGRESSIVE!
That should tell you where I stand on him, too. As I said, I have 1 — ONE candidate for whom I still hold hope, and that is Cruz. But even he is causing me to worry that his judgment may be no better than any of the rest. But then, as I said in my post: when we will compromise what we say we believe just to win, what — exactly — are we pretending to be trying to preserve?
Well actually MY case was the continued Trump criticism. And the almost uniform non-stop gang-up against him…..whoever is doing the gang-up. Which is what I addressed.
And my second point re: Establishment Hucksterism isn’t diversion at all but directly targeting the GOP candidates who stand in opposition to Trump and are increasingly showing their paucity of platforms as well as a lack of Conservative bona fides.
They make the case for Trump with each passing day.
Finally, Rubio. Let ME sum him up in two words as well :
DANGEROUSLY PROGRESSIVE.
Don,
OK, I guess I slightly mis-read you, but now I think I have a better understanding of where you are on Trump. Yes, I can see your point. It isn’t all that far from mine. However, I do not wish to be seen as ‘bashing’ Trump as much as questioning those who are supporting them. I would expect them to know better by now. Trump is who he is and, if the people are going to fall for his sales pitch, then he has every right to run as a Republican. And if the GOP does not like his popularity, then it is as you say: their fault for not fielding a REAL constitutional’ candidate with the conviction to speak out as forcefully and boldly as Trump has been.
But then, in an earlier post, I did point out that Trump is showing the way to victory by proving that the people will support a candidate who breaks with the PC routine. It’s just that the candidates do not seem to be listening — well, sadly, none of them except Kell’s boy, Carson. I’ll be honest, were it not for his stance on the 2nd Amendment and mandating vaccinations, he might be able to win me over. Maybe Cruz should be cozying up to Carson instead of Donald?
I feel exactly as you do about Rubio. In CA we called Rubio “Facebook’s Senator” for his close relationship with a certain Mr Z. Fiorina is pro Amnesty, pro H1b workers too. I guess my litmus test has more to do with Amnesty & American workers & I can flex a bit on other issues, but if we lose the country nothing else really seems to matter. Just call me xenaphobe!
The only time I remember so many nice people so angry at a Presidential candidate was when Reagan ran. Oh the names we called him—Ronny Raygunz, the Bad B Movie Moron! Who could have known how wrong we were. I had to eat those words many years later when I grew up & realized how totally ineffective Carter was & that Reagan was probably a really exceptional leader. Live & Learn.
Trapp,
With respect, those who understand character and the principles upon which this nation was founded would have and did know that Reagan was going to be a good president.
Trump is no Ronald Reagan, and we can know this for the same reasons. Can you imagine Reagan boasting about how he paid off politicians so he could call in favors, and how he was just going to ‘do’ something without explaining how or by what principle he would be guided in the process of doing it?
Trump is being Honest.
In contrast to other Politicians and the Business associates of those very Politicians. He gave to some ( most?) on the Stage that night. And NONE have acknowledged THAT.
He is saying this is how it has been done, and in coming clean on it is not endorsing it. But as with much of his dialogue shows the difference between those who would try and keep it a Silent truth versus himself who puts it out there for inspection and discussion.
For the Slow who frequent this site in silence….he is saying “I ain’t clean, I’m not a saint, no one is….let’s put our cards on the table and try and address some of America’s CRUCIAL problems”.
And to date not a single one has “put their cards on the Table”…..not even Cruz !!
I understand — all of it. And I know you are correct — in so far as you go. What I am saying is that I cannot and will not support someone who accepts that “this is how it is done” when they could just as easily have chosen NOT to be corrupt.
At some point, we have to decide: will we live so that we can account for the rules of this world, or so that we can make an account in the next. I have decided, and I am done with the corruption of this world. No, we will never be perfect, but when we accept the white part of the target as ‘good enough,’ we’ll never get in the black, let alone hit inside the ‘V-ring.’
You are 100 % Correct !
And It is not about xenophobia at all. It is about Sovereignty and common sense. Without a border a country isn’t a country. Every living thing is defined and protected by the boundary which its surface or skin differentiates between others and itself. Even within our bodies the immune system distinguishes between self and not-self.
This is such a basic feature from organism up to social constructions that to deny it is to engage in the highest form of fallacy and flim-flam.
With respect to Political strategy the integrity of borders and the laws which protect them is so fundamental to National identity, that for a mass of people to cross them WITHOUT adherence to the law has always been considered an invasion. So the defense of borders is the FIRST line of defense and perhaps the second would be quislings from within.
Common Sense and a sense of of decency of necessity puts the Country and the protection of its borders first…..because so much flows from that. The potential to address and conquer hard problems, the ability to plan and build for future prospects….all depend on a Cohesive and secure homeland not under constant threat.
European Countries are combating this “immigrant”/ “refugee” scourge today too.
Finally. NO OTHER Country who exports their populace because of failed social opportunities such as India or Mexico or in Africa and the ME would tolerate for one WEEK ANY sizable disrespect of their borders.