They Do This to Every Republican.

[anatess2]

If Republicans/Conservatives want to remain relevant, they need to destroy this with a national backlash.

This is, what... the 3rd time.. .in 6 months that I linked to a Rush Limbaugh excerpt.  I'm not really that much of a follower of Limbaugh but I do take a glance at his website because everything that happens in his show is transcribed.  I use Rush to balance places like the New York Times.

So, here's some excerpts:

• He was really on message, and now the Trump people and Pence are saying that evidence will soon be forthcoming to refute all of the allegations here that these various women are making.

• You've got to remember, you've got to understand that they do this to every Republican nominee.  They did it to John McCain.  The New York Times ran a story about how he had an affair with somebody way back. I don't even remember the details.  They did it to Newt Gingrich in the 2012 primaries.  They went out and claimed that Newt's ex-wife claimed that he did this to his third ex-wife and the second ex-wife was mad, and the first ex-wife wanted to get...

  It was so bad that Newt, if you remember in the South Carolina primary, John King of CNN opened the debate asking Newt to explain all this philandering and stuff, and his ex-wifes.  And Newt just destroyed the guy on the basis that how dare you denigrate what we are doing here by bringing it up anonymously like this.  Newt got three standing ovations in three-minute answer.  And then John King tried to say, "Hey, the story is out there. They reported over there."

  "Don't do that, John.  You chose to open this debate with this filth.  You chose to do it.  Don't try to blame this on other people." 

• So Donald Trump, 30 years an A-list celebrity, 30-years, wildly rich, wildly famous, he's owned the Miss Universe pageant, he's been surrounded by beautiful women all over the world, 30 years.  And not once in those 30 years has any of them ever claimed that he octopused 'em and he assaulted 'em, not once.  Nope, not until three weeks ago before the presidential election. 

• Did you see this rally in Cincinnati Trump had last night?  There were 20,000 people in the arena.  There were 7,000 people that wanted to get in that couldn't, that were standing outside.  It was streamed. Facebook had... Yeah, 240,000 people were watching it online various ways, and whatever implications are on that.  I mean, it was huge last night, and Trump was on message 100%, and I had somebody send me a note that was watching it last night who said, "If the Drive-By Media would cover this, Trump would win by 10 points.  If this speech Trump's giving..." This rally that Trump had in Cincinnati last night." If these were being seen by the people in this country, he'd win by 10 points."

Read it all here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/10/14/they_do_this_to_every_republican_and_it_s_about_time_for_a_national_backlash

 

And here's the Cincinatti rally.  50 minutes of encapsulation of Trump policy positions delivered in a speech style that only Trump can deliver.  How many of you claiming Trump can't win have not yet seen a Trump rally?  I'm looking at you @Carborendum.  If you've been to/watched one take a few glances at this one to refresh what winning issues the guy has stood for this whole time. 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Larry Cotrell]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

And here's the Cincinatti rally.  50 minutes of encapsulation of Trump policy positions delivered in a speech style that only Trump can deliver.  How many of you claiming Trump can't win have not yet seen a Trump rally?  I'm looking at you @Carborendum.  If you've been to/watched one take a few glances at this one to refresh what winning issues the guy has stood for this whole time.

I looked at poll numbers from each state and calculated the electoral votes. Trump didn't even come close, and that was before all of this stuff came out about him being a pervert. What Trump has done is far beyond anything John McCain ever did, and they have video proof. If you don't believe me, look at the polls. @Carborendum and I don't always see eye to eye, but this time we do. Trump will lose. Just wait and see.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[bytebear]

There is clearly a double standard when it comes to the infidelities of Democrats vs. Republicans.  Frankly, I am surprised they didn't try to smear Romney, although I am sure they tried to find something.  That's far more telling about Romney really, since you should live a life so that if you are accused of wrong doing, your character will win out.  Trump is taking heat because it's probably true that he was a masher.  But I do find it hard to swallow the notion that some random woman comes forward after 30 years to complain about his behavior.   And for the NYTimes to actually run with this story as if it has even an ounce of verifiability, just tells me the deep dishonesty of the media.  Journalism is dead. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by bytebear

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

Journalism is dead. 

And that is the real story here.  The vast majority of what we see, think and feel is shaped by the peddlers of news and except for the conspiracy theorist no one thinks the news media is that corrupt. Yet wikileaks proves otherwise, the system is corrupt, journalism in bed with politicians letting the politicians write their own story and read the script (verified by wikileaks that Clinton does this).  Anyone who doesn't become part of the corrupt system will be trashed. 

The news media is the first line of protection for the Gaddianton Robbers and power elites.

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

There is clearly a double standard when it comes to the infidelities of Democrats vs. Republicans.  Frankly, I am surprised they didn't try to smear Romney, although I am sure they tried to find something.  That's far more telling about Romney really, since you should live a life so that if you are accused of wrong doing, your character will win out.  

From a liberal standpoint, Romney is by far the most likeable candidate the GOP has put forth in recent years. All they could get on him was his "47 percent" remark and his "binders full of women" gaffe. Aside from that, they had to fight him on the actual issues, which was actually the bigger weakness for him.

And yes, Republicans are absolutely held to a higher moral standard, because it's a pedastal of their own making. I'm not condoning it or saying it's right (it's not), but it's a harsh fact of life that those who claim moral superiority will be held to that standard by their opponents and have their hypocrisy put on display at the first opportunity.

And with Trump, the hypocrisy is staggering. Many on the religious right were throwing fits over the bathrooms used by transgender people earlier this year, and now that same Evangelical segment is doubling down on a known pervert and misogynist. While less religiously zealous Republicans are jumping ship, Evangelicals are covering their ears and pretending Trump is a suitable candidate to represent their values.

 

Again, I'm not trying to justify the double standard, but it's reaching a point where religious conservatives are losing all of their moral credibility. And for what? A Supreme Court Justice? Is that worth throwing your values to the wolves?

Edited October 15, 2016 by Godless

[yjacket]

10 minutes ago, Godless said:

From a liberal standpoint, Romney is by far the most likeable candidate the GOP has put forth in recent years. All they could get on him was his "47 percent" remark and his "binders full of women gaffe". Aside from that, they had to fight him on the actual issues, which was actually the bigger weakness for him.

And yes, Republicans are absolutely held to a higher moral standard, because it's a pedastal of their own making. I'm not condoning it or saying it's right (it's not), but it's a harsh fact of life that those who claim moral superiority will be held to that standard by their opponents and have their hypocrisy put on display at the first opportunity.

And with Trump, the hypocrisy is staggering. Many on the religious right were throwing fits over the bathrooms used by transgender people earlier this year, and now that same Evangelical segment is doubling down on a known pervert and misogynist. While less religiously zealous Republicans are jumping ship, Evangelicals are covering their ears and pretending Trump is a suitable candidate to represent their values.

 

Again, I'm not trying to justify the double standard, but it's reaching a point where religious conservatives are losing all of their moral credibility. And for what? A Supreme Court Justice? Is that worth throwing your values to the wolves?

I said at the time and I still think so that personally Romney is a very moral man-but he is still part of the power elites.

No the hypocrisy isn't staggering. The bathroom thing is all about government control.  And to use the left term "factcheck", Trump is not a known pervert.  Today's society is sick, a women just has to claim "he abused me" and a man is done for-it's amazing men even go on dates anymore; why take the chance of being persecuted in public court.  3 weeks before election day and this all comes out . . .pleez that is political motivation.  One of the women works for the Clinton Foundation (the woman who accused Trump for something 30 years ago) . . .hmmm.

If he is a perv, bring a suit, and we'll see. That's the thing in today's society, a woman just makes the claim and she must be believed or else you hate women.

Frankly, we don't know what the truth is and it will take a while to actually sort it out, and 3 weeks isn't enough to sort it out, it is enough for a political takedown however.

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

From a liberal standpoint, Romney is by far the most likeable candidate the GOP has put forth in recent years. All they could get on him was his "47 percent" remark and his "binders full of women" gaffe. Aside from that, they had to fight him on the actual issues, which was actually the bigger weakness for him.

And yes, Republicans are absolutely held to a higher moral standard, because it's a pedastal of their own making. I'm not condoning it or saying it's right (it's not), but it's a harsh fact of life that those who claim moral superiority will be held to that standard by their opponents and have their hypocrisy put on display at the first opportunity.

And with Trump, the hypocrisy is staggering. Many on the religious right were throwing fits over the bathrooms used by transgender people earlier this year, and now that same Evangelical segment is doubling down on a known pervert and misogynist. While less religiously zealous Republicans are jumping ship, Evangelicals are covering their ears and pretending Trump is a suitable candidate to represent their values.

 

Again, I'm not trying to justify the double standard, but it's reaching a point where religious conservatives are losing all of their moral credibility. And for what? A Supreme Court Justice? Is that worth throwing your values to the wolves?

 Just think about how those of us who are sympathetic to the GOP feel, @Godless. I'm not "conservative" (pro gay marriage, moderately pro-choice, etc) but I do agree with them on guns and the economy. And they nominated this guy. Where do people like me go? 

[Just_A_Guy]

A lot of this stuff *was* out there about Trump, on a low level.  Had been for years.  But Trump had a way of keeping things from gaining steam via a combination of litigating, bullying, and flat-out lies.  The most obvious example is his lackeys' treatment of the reporter who broke the story of Ivana's rape affidavit.  But as another example, I was at a CLE on appellate law today where the presenter quoted from an appellate brief from a decades-old case in which Trump sued an author who supposedly lowballed Trump's net worth.

That largely worked, for a time.  Once the campaign got under way it wasn't in the media's interest for the proof to come out before Trump had clinched the nomination (THAT's the big election tampering story of 2016--the media apparently suppressed info in their possession as part of a concerted scheme to give their preferred candidate the weakest possible opponent), and I think none of Trump's competitors really did their homework because--let's face it--attacks like that aren't how Republicans are used to campaigning.

I think @Godless makes some good points, but the dynamic that needs to be understood from the Right's standpoint is that we've traditionally given the nomination to sincerely good people (Bush 2, Reagan, Romney) or bona fide war heroes (Bush 1, Dole, McCain)--only to see the left portray each of them in succession as racists, sexists, and junior-mint dictators while lionizing the ex-Klansmen, rapists and statists within their own ranks.  If that kind of hypocritical character assault is inevitable, then as a Republican at some point it gets tempting to just say "to heck with it" and nominate a bona fide sexist, racist  and dictator.  Then when the inevitable hand-wringing starts again, you just retort "yeah, we know.  Makes limited government sound like a good idea, doesn't it? Wanna talk some issues now?"

Edited October 15, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

I think @Godless makes some good points' but the dynamic that needs to be understood from the Right's standpoint is that we've traditionally given the nomination to sincerely good people (Bush 2, Reagan, Romney) or bona fide war heroes (Bush 1, Dole, McCain)--only to see the left portray each of them in succession as racists, sexists, and junior-mint dictators while lionizing the ex-Klansmen, rapists and statists in their own ranks.

And the trumpers wrongly mistake being a "good person" as being moderate, wishy-washy or something like that. Romney, McCain and W are not moderates in the least. They are traditional conservatives. The fact that a large part of the base thinks these people are "moderate" just because they aren't bomb throwers shows what the GOP has become. 

Trump and his Trumpers are the epitome of the anonymous, rage filled online poster who insults others and will argue over anything. It's so disturbing. 

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And the trumpers wrongly mistake being a "good person" as being moderate, wishy-washy or something like that. Romney, McCain and W are not moderates in the least. They are traditional conservatives. The fact that a large part of the base thinks these people are "moderate" just because they aren't bomb throwers shows what the GOP has become. 

Trump and his Trumpers are the epitome of the anonymous, rage filled online poster who insults others and will argue over anything. It's so disturbing. 

I think they're just frustrated at all the apparent cheating on the other side, to the point that they are willing throw the old rule book away.  That's understandable--if you have thought long and hard about what the new rules will be.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think they're just frustrated at all the apparent cheating on the other side, to the point that they are willing throw the old rule book away.  That's understandable--if you have thought long and hard about what the new rules will be.

I guess they are. What they couldn't comprehend is how unelectable he'd be in the general. It was obvious to anyone who wasn't duped. He's turned off women, moderates, independents-basically anyone who isn't part of the base. As anyone who has followed politics for five minutes can tell you-you can't just appeal to the base to win. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

52 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Romney, McCain and W are not moderates in the least. They are traditional conservatives. 

Blatantly false, they are neoconservatives and moderates.  Romney was a moderate.  I've looked into this and the only reason why he became a Republican was so he could run against Kennedy and possibly win (it is documented that he was a Dem. prior).  Romney instituted RomneyCare? That's conservative?

Cruz is more traditional conservative (and I don't like Cruz and he does have a flare of neo-con in him, but it's more subdued) than Romney, McCain, W (they are the War Party).

 

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

48 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think they're just frustrated at all the apparent cheating on the other side, to the point that they are willing throw the old rule book away.  That's understandable--if you have thought long and hard about what the new rules will be.

Nope, it's not cheating by the other side, it's that people realize that both sides are corrupt.

Really, how long and how often has the Rs talked about deficit and debt reduction? For all my entire adult life and not once have they actually done anything substantial to make it happen, a bunch of coward, spineless sellouts (except for a very select few). Even the great Reagon did jack.

Look at the past 100 years and it is one long train in one direction (with very minor blibs), larger and larger government with more and more control.

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Blatantly false, they are neoconservatives and moderates.  Romney was a moderate.  I've looked into this and the only reason why he became a Republican was so he could run against Kennedy and possibly win (it is documented that he was a Dem. prior).  Romney instituted RomneyCare? That's conservative?

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. And that's fine, it's not personal, just politics. I see where you are coming from. 

In my view, Romney was pro-life, pro-buisness, pro-gun  and pro-tradtional marriage-or, at least he claimed to be. He had to be "moderate" to be elected in Mass. When I think of "Moderate" I think of Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee (sp?) or Arlen Spector. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Romney was pro-life, pro-buisness, pro-gun  and pro-tradtional marriage-or, at least he claimed to be. He had to be "moderate" to be elected in Mass. When I think of "Moderate" I think of Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee (sp?) or Arlen Spector. 

I don't feel like rehashing his policies, but he was is part of the problem not the solution, more big government-talks a good game but not really.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I don't feel like rehashing his policies, but he was is part of the problem not the solution, more big government-talks a good game but not really.

Oh I know what you mean. Believe me, in a dream world I'd cut 75% of government. Voted for Ron Paul in 2008 (even wrote him in) and in the primary in 2012. So I'm hardly a "big government" guy. But I have become more practical/pragmatic in my older years, that's for sure. I think with age (And again, I have no idea how old you are. None of my business. I'm in my mid 30's) you being to realize that not everyone agrees with you and in politics, you need to settle for perfect being the worst enemy of the good. So I voted for Romney in the general in 2012. 

 

[yjacket]

I've said it before, the #NeverTrumpers simply do not understand what this election is about.  They think about policies and this election isn't and never has been about policies.  

It's about the fact that a very substantial number of people feel completely used and screwed over by the politicians who were supposed to be "conservative" and have simply sold them down the river and haven't stood up for them.

I can't say it enough, Trump is not part of the political elites and that is why he has garnered so much support.  You can laugh, despise and make out the "Trumpkins" are fools, idiots, etc. But to do that is to completely misrepresent, underestimate and not understand what is going on politically.

The political elites don't understand it and to not understand it is do to so at one's own folly.

[yjacket]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Oh I know what you mean. Believe me, in a dream world I'd cut 75% of government. Voted for Ron Paul in 2008 (even wrote him in) and in the primary in 2012. So I'm hardly a "big government" guy. But I have become more practical/pragmatic in my older years, that's for sure. I think with age (And again, I have no idea how old you are. None of my business. I'm in my mid 30's) you being to realize that not everyone agrees with you and in politics, you need to settle for perfect being the worst enemy of the good. So I voted for Romney in the general in 2012. 

 

I'm probably close to your age.  I've gone a little bit the other way, it's not about being pragmatic, it's seeing the system the way it really works.  Maybe it's b/c I was involved in a few political local "takeovers" with Ron Paul in 2012. I've learned that being "pragmatic" means getting run-over, slammed against the wall and run roughshod over. I've seen more local dirty political tricks than I care to.

These people don't play nice, they don't give up power and they are out for blood. If they were actually willing to work with you that is one thing, but they aren't . ..their view of working with you is to throw a few crumbs here and there while they slam the crap out of you.  It doesn't matter if you are 48% of the vote, if you don't have the majority you are screwed.  After several years of playing the game kissing the ring, etc. i.e. you become indoctrinated into the program, then they give you a few more than crumbs.  But by that time you've become one of them.

The real power brokers are out for blood and if you aren't ready to give it right back at 110% you will be destroyed.

Pragmatism just means government grows larger and larger.  That works until the party stops and believe me one day the party will stop b/c of fiscal constraints and then it will be very interesting.

Jefferson was right: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

When it's not the system just becomes more and more corrupt. I'm not advocating for actual revolution, but from time to time the system needs to be completely flushed; we are at that point.

 

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 Sorry, I've learned that being "pragmatic" means getting run-over, slammed against the wall and run roughshod over. I've seen more local dirty political tricks than I care to.

You don't need to apologize to me, that's for sure. In the end we are just two guys on the internet. Our opinions don't really matter. 

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You don't need to apologize to me, that's for sure. In the end we are just two guys on the internet. Our opinions don't really matter. 

I meant it more as a figure of speech than a literal sorry :-).

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I meant it more as a figure of speech than a literal sorry :-).

 No you didn't. You were bowing down and demanding my approval. We both know that and it's obvious to everyone here pal. 

(Kidding! Kidding!) 

[yjacket]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 No you didn't. You were bowing down and demanding my approval. We both know that and it's obvious to everyone here pal. 

(Kidding! Kidding!) 

Lol . . .I shall grovel and obey you my king . . where is your ring to kiss! Can I pick up your train too?

[Guest Godless]

I think the biggest issue in this election is that, yes, our government is absurdly corrupt and self-serving and needs a drastic overhaul, but there's no consensus about how to do it or who to trust with the job. Trumpers have latched on to Trump as their savior who will break the system and make the government work for the people again. A very noble pursuit, to be sure, but there are many who think Trump isn't the right person to do it. You don't win a game of chess by burning the board. You can't fix a broken government by uprooting the entire establishment. That's not how things work in a democracy based on checks and balances. That's why Sanders was the white knight of the left. He's a career politician, but also an idealist who knows how to work the system, unlike Trump. Trump has burned too many bridges. He talks like he can fix the government and our country single-handedly, like a dictator. If you think gridlock has been bad under Obama, just imagine how much worse it would be with a president who has made enemies of both parties.

[yjacket]

And Ron Paul was the white Knight on the Right, but just like Bernie they treated him like crap.  

The real problem is that many honestly do not understand just how far we have gone. The deck is set for a dictator.  The Boston Lock-down?  Another 9-11 and it's toast, our freedoms are gone.  Maybe Trump instigates it or maybe he is the last hope, I don't know.  But this much I do know, Hillary would make the Boston lockdown look like child's play and we are stupidly letting immigrants in from war-torn countries that do not like us, are we really that dumb.

It'd be like letting a mass of Germans or Japanese into the US in 1943, dumb, dumb, dumb. If you do, you better have a really good vetting process.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

 A Supreme Court Justice? Is that worth throwing your values to the wolves?

I posted this on another website:

 

Vote your conscience has been a long standing ideal that many of us on GLO have been a proponent of following.

Here is some food for thought on conscience. If voting for Trump gives him the win and he rather then Hillary appoints 2-4 supreme court judges, whose decisions will affect multiple generations to come, is a vote for him a vote in good conscience?

This election and the SC issue have made me really look long and hard at voting my conscience and what that means.