Wow dude, you sound like you are 16-17 years old. Do I have that right?
"Trump is the most successful and most popular Republican in History."
Thats funny - the guy who lost the popular vote for president twice? Who got 3 million fewer votes that Hillary Clinton, of all people? Who is the first and only president in the history of polling to never reach 50% approval in the weekly Gallup poll?
I know this is decades before you were born, but did you ever hear of Ronald Reagan? Became president by beating an incumbent by nine points, then reelected by winning 49 states?
Maybe I take another guess - are you 13 years old?
But hey, don't let me dissuade you. To the extent that you help purify the Republican party - i.e. cede the center of the political spectrum to the Democrats, you will actually be doing a service to this country.
btw - the phrase is "familiarity breeds contempt" which is the opposite point than what you meant.
My age has nothing to do with it. Your tone is very derogatory and I do not appreciate the negative sarcasm.
Simple fact is Trump received more votes as a Republican than any Republican is history. Current times of the deep swamp are extraordinarily different from the Reagan era, as is the voter composition. However, the thing both Reagan and Trump have in common is that they are both Non-Politician "Outsiders".
Regardless - the point of the post was to form a basis for this Blog which will be to identify and aide in the removal of "Fake" Republicans like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and many others. From the tone of your post my guess is that you are not a fan.
And
I will correct you. The Phrase is most certainly "Familiarity Breeds Content", I am guess this was another gassed sarcasm comment.
Lets keep it simple.
I'm a big fan of constructive criticism but negative commentary that goes against the main point of blog has no place since this is voluntary reading and is here to assist in a cause and not to offend anyone.
I suggest a google search for the phrase we disagree on.
Trump received more total votes than any previous republican, because the population is larger. He never even crossed 47% of the popular vote. Reagan got over 55. Richard Nixon was reelected with over 60% of the vote. Eisenhower hit the mid 50’s twice. Even George W got a higher percentage of the vote while coming in second to Al Gore, than Trump got either time.
You shouldn’t confuse the intensity of the support Trump has amongst those who do support him, with widespread popularity. He is the least popular President probably since Andrew Johnson in the 1860s. Being an ignorant, obnoxious pathologically lying narcissist while trying to engineer the first coup against our Constitution may recommend one to a fervent fringe, but will not make you widely popular.
The idea that people like Liz Cheney are not real republicans – someone whose family, and whose voting record is almost paradigmatic of modern Republicanism, while a former Democrat like Trump, who exploded our national debt more so than any previous president, who spits on the memory pf POWs, and who negotiated surrender terms with the Taliban is the “real Republican” is crazy. You, with him, are just redefining what it means to be a Republican, and for the worse.
Yes, I am hostile to your project. I think the country needs two healthy national parties. By driving everyone out of the GOP who isn’t an extremist, you will destroy that party. Might be a short tem gain for the country, but not a long time benefit to a competitive democracy.
But as a Trumpist, I am sure you do not care about that…
A lot we totally disagree on. I'm not going to argue cause we are both entitled to our opinions. Best we agree to disagree. I respect everyone has the right to their own opinion.
Trump was a big government phony - ballooning the deficit to the stratosphere and loading up debt and hyping up Congressional pork that no American citizen should be paying. Supporting Trump is not conservatism or Republicanism.
Appreciate you reading my post. Perhaps you can enlighten me on your definition of a Republican in terms of basic principles. I do believe in my definition I clearly stated "Smaller Government". I'd love to see you improve on my definition.
Can confirm that you are no Republican if you believe that a strong national defense = investing in the military industrial complex or that liberty means nanny government in your bedroom or healthcare. Happy to explain this further.
I do resent when someone mis characterizes me or my writing. Please highlight anywhere that I reference I'm for a "nanny gov in the bedroom or healthcare"? Liberty, means the opposite. Look it up.
Secondly, a "Strong National Defense" does NOT imply a bigger military industrial complex. Again, I did not say that.
I do appreciate constructive comments, but I do NOT appreciate being mischaracterized.
Certainly. This is going to be a long, respectful reply and I'll also preface it respectfully with "this may not be your intention, but this is what you wrote."
"Next you expect any elected Republican to back basic principles such as smaller government (less taxes, less regulation, more freedom), a strong national defense, a strong local police, Anti-Crime, Pro-Individual liberty. Including all the common sense issues like support other Republicans (Especially ones that do a great job like Donald Trump), fight against democrat tyranny, uphold our right to self defense (including the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and own a gun), uphold our rights to privacy and above all uphold our continued “Freedom and Capitalism” that America stands for."
Yes...you do expect that. But I'm a bit confused since you you explicitly wrote that Donald Trump did a great job, it's directly in contradiction with what you rightfully claim is a Republican ideal. Donald Trump MASSIVELY ballooned our deficit spending. His positions on the military spending were - and remain in - contradiction with small government defense spending and the advice of the Pentagon. (In fact, his budget for more MIC spending we did not need is in lock step with the budget of *this* Democratic Congress)
So if a "strong national defense" - unchanged from Bush (pseudoconservative), Obama (big government proponent), and Candidate Clinton's approach (yikes) - means that your perception of Republicanism is more military tech like the president you specifically endorse as a "Republican," this ideas are directly in conflict. This...is not Republicanism. (Trump famously advocated for more beautiful boats and a beautiful military....that we do not need more of when looking at our expenditures.)
Not only is this idea in conflict with small government conservatism, but it trickles down to another point you made: small, local police force. We've seen over-spending on the military (again, with your and my tax dollars) find its way into unnecessarily militarizing local police. I'm pro 2A and pro-cop, and do not need any of my local force using military grade hardware. They neither need it nor are qualified to use it. (This reduces liberty and over-relies on more government spending).
You make the right point here -- Democrats ARE hypocrites. However, electing Trump-like RINOs who are over-reliant on spending and working the fed to keep interest rates low? I don't believe I'm mischaracterizing you if this is what you believe Republicanism - but more importantly conservatism - is in 2021.
Wow dude, you sound like you are 16-17 years old. Do I have that right?
"Trump is the most successful and most popular Republican in History."
Thats funny - the guy who lost the popular vote for president twice? Who got 3 million fewer votes that Hillary Clinton, of all people? Who is the first and only president in the history of polling to never reach 50% approval in the weekly Gallup poll?
I know this is decades before you were born, but did you ever hear of Ronald Reagan? Became president by beating an incumbent by nine points, then reelected by winning 49 states?
Maybe I take another guess - are you 13 years old?
But hey, don't let me dissuade you. To the extent that you help purify the Republican party - i.e. cede the center of the political spectrum to the Democrats, you will actually be doing a service to this country.
btw - the phrase is "familiarity breeds contempt" which is the opposite point than what you meant.
My age has nothing to do with it. Your tone is very derogatory and I do not appreciate the negative sarcasm.
Simple fact is Trump received more votes as a Republican than any Republican is history. Current times of the deep swamp are extraordinarily different from the Reagan era, as is the voter composition. However, the thing both Reagan and Trump have in common is that they are both Non-Politician "Outsiders".
Regardless - the point of the post was to form a basis for this Blog which will be to identify and aide in the removal of "Fake" Republicans like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and many others. From the tone of your post my guess is that you are not a fan.
And
I will correct you. The Phrase is most certainly "Familiarity Breeds Content", I am guess this was another gassed sarcasm comment.
Lets keep it simple.
I'm a big fan of constructive criticism but negative commentary that goes against the main point of blog has no place since this is voluntary reading and is here to assist in a cause and not to offend anyone.
Rh,
I suggest a google search for the phrase we disagree on.
Trump received more total votes than any previous republican, because the population is larger. He never even crossed 47% of the popular vote. Reagan got over 55. Richard Nixon was reelected with over 60% of the vote. Eisenhower hit the mid 50’s twice. Even George W got a higher percentage of the vote while coming in second to Al Gore, than Trump got either time.
You shouldn’t confuse the intensity of the support Trump has amongst those who do support him, with widespread popularity. He is the least popular President probably since Andrew Johnson in the 1860s. Being an ignorant, obnoxious pathologically lying narcissist while trying to engineer the first coup against our Constitution may recommend one to a fervent fringe, but will not make you widely popular.
The idea that people like Liz Cheney are not real republicans – someone whose family, and whose voting record is almost paradigmatic of modern Republicanism, while a former Democrat like Trump, who exploded our national debt more so than any previous president, who spits on the memory pf POWs, and who negotiated surrender terms with the Taliban is the “real Republican” is crazy. You, with him, are just redefining what it means to be a Republican, and for the worse.
Yes, I am hostile to your project. I think the country needs two healthy national parties. By driving everyone out of the GOP who isn’t an extremist, you will destroy that party. Might be a short tem gain for the country, but not a long time benefit to a competitive democracy.
But as a Trumpist, I am sure you do not care about that…
A lot we totally disagree on. I'm not going to argue cause we are both entitled to our opinions. Best we agree to disagree. I respect everyone has the right to their own opinion.
Trump was a big government phony - ballooning the deficit to the stratosphere and loading up debt and hyping up Congressional pork that no American citizen should be paying. Supporting Trump is not conservatism or Republicanism.
Appreciate you reading my post. Perhaps you can enlighten me on your definition of a Republican in terms of basic principles. I do believe in my definition I clearly stated "Smaller Government". I'd love to see you improve on my definition.
Can confirm that you are no Republican if you believe that a strong national defense = investing in the military industrial complex or that liberty means nanny government in your bedroom or healthcare. Happy to explain this further.
I do resent when someone mis characterizes me or my writing. Please highlight anywhere that I reference I'm for a "nanny gov in the bedroom or healthcare"? Liberty, means the opposite. Look it up.
Secondly, a "Strong National Defense" does NOT imply a bigger military industrial complex. Again, I did not say that.
I do appreciate constructive comments, but I do NOT appreciate being mischaracterized.
Certainly. This is going to be a long, respectful reply and I'll also preface it respectfully with "this may not be your intention, but this is what you wrote."
"Next you expect any elected Republican to back basic principles such as smaller government (less taxes, less regulation, more freedom), a strong national defense, a strong local police, Anti-Crime, Pro-Individual liberty. Including all the common sense issues like support other Republicans (Especially ones that do a great job like Donald Trump), fight against democrat tyranny, uphold our right to self defense (including the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and own a gun), uphold our rights to privacy and above all uphold our continued “Freedom and Capitalism” that America stands for."
Yes...you do expect that. But I'm a bit confused since you you explicitly wrote that Donald Trump did a great job, it's directly in contradiction with what you rightfully claim is a Republican ideal. Donald Trump MASSIVELY ballooned our deficit spending. His positions on the military spending were - and remain in - contradiction with small government defense spending and the advice of the Pentagon. (In fact, his budget for more MIC spending we did not need is in lock step with the budget of *this* Democratic Congress)
So if a "strong national defense" - unchanged from Bush (pseudoconservative), Obama (big government proponent), and Candidate Clinton's approach (yikes) - means that your perception of Republicanism is more military tech like the president you specifically endorse as a "Republican," this ideas are directly in conflict. This...is not Republicanism. (Trump famously advocated for more beautiful boats and a beautiful military....that we do not need more of when looking at our expenditures.)
Not only is this idea in conflict with small government conservatism, but it trickles down to another point you made: small, local police force. We've seen over-spending on the military (again, with your and my tax dollars) find its way into unnecessarily militarizing local police. I'm pro 2A and pro-cop, and do not need any of my local force using military grade hardware. They neither need it nor are qualified to use it. (This reduces liberty and over-relies on more government spending).
You make the right point here -- Democrats ARE hypocrites. However, electing Trump-like RINOs who are over-reliant on spending and working the fed to keep interest rates low? I don't believe I'm mischaracterizing you if this is what you believe Republicanism - but more importantly conservatism - is in 2021.
If I am, I apologize -- Please clarify.
Lets make this simple. Rather than critique me. Per my Prior Post -
Simply Write YOUR definition of a Republican.
If Its clearer and better than what I have written, then I will rewrite the post with your definition.
Republicanism begins and ends with sound fiscal policy that facilitates individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.