moonbattery logo

Sep 14 2016

As Nation Plunges Toward Bankruptcy Because of Entitlement Spending, Trump Promises Another Entitlement

At least now we can dispense with the charade of pretending that being the Republican nominee means that Donald Trump has suddenly transformed into something other than a left-wing Democrat. Charles Krauthammer sounds off on Trump’s proposed maternity leave entitlement:

In remarks on Fox News’ “Special Report With Bret Baier,” Krauthammer called the reported plan to guarantees six weeks of paid maternity leave to working women as an “enormous new entitlement.”

“How many Democratic parties does the country need? We already have one,” he said.

“What he is proposing is to out-Democrats the Democrats,” he said. “This is an enormous new entitlement that will blow the debt and when he says mandate –– he will mandate from Washington –– isn’t that the one thing that Republicans all agree upon, the government stepping in and telling private industry what to do?”

But to be a Republican no longer has any meaning, because those who insist that Republican candidates believe in Republican principles have been marginalized as moral preeners and virtue signalers.

“He says that will be paid for by taking out waste, fraud and abuse from the unemployment insurance system. If you believe that, you will believe anything,” he added.

The “waste, fraud, and abuse” ploy for increased spending is a Big Government cliché so overused that it can only be interpreted as another unflattering comment by Trump on the perceived intelligence of his supporters.

Even Mark Levin, who out of terror of losing listeners claims he will vote for Donald Trump, is having a hard time choking this down:

This proposed “safety net for new mothers” is “liberal-speak” for creating a new welfare program, Levin said.

“So here we have more big-government proposals because Trump is, in his heart, a liberal with some conservative proposals.”

“What do you think?” Levin asked his audience. “I think it sucks.”

Yes, but we are supposed to go along with it, because Trump currently has an R after his name.

This is why Shrillary would cause less damage than Trump. Ideologically (not to mention ethically), they are cut from identical cloth, and would be indistinguishable one from the other on actual policy. But Shrillary would face Republican resistance. Resistance to Trump within the Republican Party has already caved.

Meanwhile, as both liberal candidates bid to outspend each other in their quest to buy our votes with our own money, the federal debt is closing in on an unsustainable $20 trillion.

No wonder Republicans have been privately panicking that Trump might actually win. It will mean that we have two Democrat parties, both promoting the reckless expansion of the already obscenely bloated federal government, with no recourse for the voters.

undocumented-documented-democrats

On tips from Varla, Torcer, and Jester. Graphic via Obama: The Enemy Within.



114 Responses to “As Nation Plunges Toward Bankruptcy Because of Entitlement Spending, Trump Promises Another Entitlement”

  1. Grumpy Cat says:

    Uh huh. Maternity leave subsidies will drive this nation over the cliff in mere weeks. Stupid cucks.

  2. Torcer says:

    Trump Republicans Are All Democrats Now
    If you have listened to talk radio in the past eight years you will have heard various hosts declare one of the chief reasons the GOP lost was because they ran as Democrat-lite instead of as actual conservatives with conservative ideas.

    Many of those same hosts, all of whom have profited a great deal from the conservative movement, now declare conservatism has conserved nothing and we need to run as Democrats. Of course, they do not actually say those last three words, but their candidate keeps providing more evidence that he is a Democrat.

    First, he has aggressively supported socialized medicine — Obamacare on steroids. In his own words he has championed a Canadian or Scottish healthcare system, both of which are further left than Obamacare and both of which Hillary Clinton used as models for HillaryCare in the 90’s, a healthcare plan Trump supported back then and still does.

    Second, he came out for a minimum wage increase.

    Now, on top of government healthcare and minimum wage increases, Trump is now championing six weeks of paid maternity leave at the government’s expense. “Free” as his acolytes call it.
    http://theresurgent.com/trump-republicans-are-all-democrats-now/

  3. Torcer says:

    Trump Tilts Further Left With His Climate Change Stance
    So he’s for touchback amnesty, single-payer healthcare, a childcare plan that is nothing more than expanded entitlements (an add-in from his daughter), a tariff on imports, is against fracking, and now wants to reconsider global warming.
    Sounds like the perfect candidate.

    For Democrats.

    “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of ‘climate change,'” he said in response to the questionnaire. He suggested that the nation focus on efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, rather than combating climate change.

    In the past, he has called climate change a “hoax” created by the Chinese, but he also has said he supports local bans on fracking.

    For most other conservative thinkers, the climate change… aka… “weather” debate has already been settled, and they recognize it as a wedge issue, in order to create broader government regulations.
    http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/09/13/trump-tilts-left-climate-change-stance/

  4. Dan Northrup says:

    Well, if you bang out six or seven kids that adds up to a years pay. Just gotta ask yourself who has the most kids, because that is who will benefit. You can’t fix the fact that our currency is so inflated men with jobs can’t even support a family anymore. Trump is trying to re-arrange the turds in a toilet that just ought to be flushed. Everybody is getting cucked this year, so don’t think you found some magic way out in Trump.

  5. TrojanMan says:

    What does not stop this country from going over the cliff needs to be fought. All entitlements should be stopped.

  6. Torcer says:

    So we now have a choice between leftist D and leftist R when we could of changed the course of our nation away from disaster.

    Thanks Trumpers!

  7. Torcer says:

    And of course a comment from a Trump supporter wouldn’t be complete without a strawman and childish name calling.

  8. Torcer says:

    You can be sure that other leftist agenda items will be added to the already growing list.

    So it will be a question of which candidate will bankrupt the nation last…

  9. Stosh says:

    Have some compassion, how are the illegal aliens having an anchor baby and can’t pick lettuce, supposed to pay their bills….

  10. Boola Boola says:

    Ok then. Got it. Vote for illary or that lame 3rd party write in schmuck.

  11. Torcer says:

    And just to lighten the mode:

    Hillary on Trump: How do we know he’ll put America’s interests above his own petty financial interests? – Hot Air http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/14/hillary-trump-know-hell-put-americas-interests-petty-financial-interests/

    Hahahaha!
    Is lack of self awareness a symptom of pneumonia?

  12. Torcer says:

    Don’t forget that there are the down ballot races..

    ‘illary’ Heh!

  13. Torcer says:

    Trump is giving into Hillary Clinton’s vision to make America more socialist
    Trump wants the federal government to give new mothers six weeks paid leave after having a child. People call it a “family leave plan,” but we should call it exactly what it is: A new federal entitlement program.

    Sure, most people can agree that family leave policies are good for families and employers who elect to provide the benefit should be applauded. But since when did Republicans start agreeing that the government should pay for it? Only since Trump started talking about it, apparently.

    To hear Donald Trump talk about his new plan, pushed to him by his liberal daughter Ivanka, one would think this was never controversial. That, suddenly, everyone is fine with creating a new entitlement program. That Trump’s plan to pay for all new mothers to take six weeks off work will be fully paid for by “eliminating unemployment insurance fraud.” All nonsense.

    Trump also said in a speech last night that “families with a stay-at-home parent will be able to fully deduct the cost of childcare from their taxes,” raising the idea that parenting should be considered a form of paid work, aka “childcare,” via the tax code.

    If we are honest about it, Trump’s plan is no different than Obamacare. It’s just another transfer of taxpayer-provided funds from taxpayers to a favored class of persons, either in terms of a subsidy or deduction. If we as a society want to broadly make these budget sacrifices to support working families, so be it. We must, however, be clear-eyed about the impact.
    – See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/trump-is-giving-into-hillary-clintons-vision-to-make-america-more-socialist

  14. N0T2L8 says:

    Another great plan from dRump… More guberment.. More unelected bureaucrats to rule over us.. More money out of our pockets to pay for those bureaucrats and their shiny new offices.. and More taxpayer dollars dished out to those who refuse to pay for their own life choices The gimmie-dats and the din-do-nuffins may just vote for him yet.. he should get some advice from bernie sanders then he can get the free chit people AND the WALL!! people.

  15. Gena Stratham says:

    Since he plans on cutting waste, fraud, and redundant agencies, I’m ok with this. This is a man who knows how to work a budget and I think it can work as long as these cuts and savings are made. Otherwise I would be totally against it

  16. Gena Stratham says:

    The only reason I’m ok with this is that I believe, as a wealthy and successful businessman, he knows how to work budgets and can make the cuts needed to pay for it. Fraud, waste, and redundant programs need GONE first

  17. N0T2L8 says:

    I’m not ok with MORE government AT ALL.. what ever happened to personal responsibility?

  18. ramrodd says:

    A willful destruction due to decades of swinging gate US borders
    along with Decades of Unconstitutional Trade Deals…….

  19. N0T2L8 says:

    I’m gonna make a guess here and say you haven’t paid much attention to politics in the past… we’ve heard the “cutting waste and fraud” thing a million times and nothing ever gets cut.

  20. TrojanMan says:

    No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth! Ronald Reagan

  21. JeffersonSpinningInGrave says:

    We need to make drastic cuts to begin paying off our debt. Shirking some parts of government and growing others won’t do that. We need a net decrease. A big one. He will not get this through Congress, anyway. He’s pandering. Which makes him like ever other politician.

    So, if he wins…meet the new boss, same as the old boss. You can get on your knees and pray, but we’ve already been fooled again.

  22. Big Al says:

    I don’t care if he promises everyone their own moon base, just vote him in.

  23. Deserttrek says:

    and if the congress was following the Constitution instead of stuffing their pockets full of money, they would not fund programs.
    the article and complaining are much ado about nothing

  24. TrojanMan says:

    You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln

  25. TrojanMan says:

    The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. George Washington

  26. TrojanMan says:

    “Crockett on the Power to Make Charitable Donations”

    http://www.constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm

  27. TrojanMan says:

    I have always supported measures and principles and not men. Davy Crockett

  28. Occam's Stubble says:

    Except he doesn’t get to work the budget in DC. That’s the job of Congress and when a Republican president says “Let’s have another entitlement!,” Medicare Part D for example, everyone both R’s and D’s get on board in a fast hurry and the taxpayer loses.

  29. J.j. Cintia says:

    You want to reduce abortions but you don’t see the need to help mothers who have children? You are all stupid is all. You can flail all you want against Roe vs Wade, but nothing ever happens. Trump wants to help women to have babies which will therefore encourage them not to abort but you call it an entitlement program. He’s playing Chess, and all of you are just playing with yourselves.

  30. God, the Crotch and NRO says:

    I don’t like it either, but he’s trying to get elected. Given that conservatives have not only failed to prevent any entitlements from being enacted, indeed, they’ve not been bashful about enacting them themselves (see Bush’s Medicare expansion), I don’t begrudge Trump exploiting a rather minor expansion for political gain.

    Again, Trump is not some scrotum-clutching cuckservative concerned about secondary issues that can be revisited at any point in the future, he’s a nationalist concerned with existential issues like preserving the traditional American people. Encouraging them to have children undercuts the argument that we need to augment our population through immigration. I’m still gonna hold my nose and vote for him.

  31. Nobama says:

    Well said

  32. God, the Crotch and NRO says:

    I don’t know about you, but I’d still rather live in socialist Sweden than small government Somalia. Those are your choices. The choice you want isn’t on the menu, and isn’t likely to be for decades to come, if ever again. Deal.

  33. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Are those the only choices? Really? All government or no government?

    Neither sounds like a really good idea. If only someone could propose a limited federal government; one that has certain defined powers and responsibilities, with the balance of the issues associated with government at the state or local level.

    Why hasn’t that been tried? What are the pitfalls of such an experiment?

  34. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Is that the same successful business man who was so good with budgets and planning that four times his projects ended up in the bankruptcy court?

    I personally know a lot of successful businessmen who haven’t ended up in bankruptcy court. Would you consider them more successful or having better judgment than a man who has been there four times?

  35. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Are those the only choices? Pay for childcare or live with abortions?

    What about this idea:
    1. Don’t have sex with a woman you aren’t married to.
    2. Get an education and job skills before embarking on having a family.
    3. Look to the husband/father as the major breadwinner.

  36. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Lemme see….Trump is trying to get elected. First, everyone knows that Trump, at best, is a moderate conservative. The last moderate conservative that the GOP ran was Mitt Romney in 2012. The reason Mitt wasn’t elected is that he lost not the moderates and independents, but the conservative base.

    So….Trump has problems with the conservative base; he already has the moderates and independents. What is he doing to convince the conservative base that they have a viable, small government alternative to Hillary?

  37. Mr. Freemarket says:

    BTW, comparing Trump’s plan with Bush’s expansion of Medicare Part D as a justification for expanding the federal government presupposes that George Bush was an actual conservative.

    He pushed through the expansion of Medicare, expanding the government welfare state. How did that work out for him and other republicans?

  38. J.j. Cintia says:

    One of the reason globalists use to keep our borders open is our low birth rate. Helping Americans have children to keep our population stable is always a good policy. Ending welfare programs that reward single mothers would be a better way to get people to marry and be responsible than bitching about providing child care. Also stopping the H1-B visa program that lets multinational corporations fire Americans and replace them with cheap foreign labor would also help Americans marry and have stable families. All your fake moralising is meaningless. Trying to change morality with laws is what the Left does. You should try to instead encourage responsible behavior by providing good jobs to Americans so they can marry and start families, end the free ride multinationals get to sell in America without employing Americans by setting up trade barriers and tariffs, and stop subsidizing single mothers by ending welfare for unmarried women.

  39. God, the Crotch and NRO says:

    Apparently it worked out pretty well, given that he got reelected,

    What you’re basically saying is that you haven’t been able to elect a True Conservative™ since 1988.

  40. God, the Crotch and NRO says:

    Um, hello? It’s not being tried because people won’t vote for it! The only people who are interested in voting for limited government are the ones your “free market” policies are demographically replacing. You might want to reflect on the wisdom of sticking it to the only people who would actually be interested in your ideas. That ship has already sailed.

  41. KirklesWorth says:

    So, who’s the one who needs to learn the lesson here? Is it the republicans who haven’t been given a conservative candidate that can cut the mustard or the conservatives who keep allowing the country to shift leftward by voting with their butts in their armchairs?

  42. KirklesWorth says:

    Would one of Davy Crockett’s principles be not to vote or to let the country move leftward if he could prevent it (or slow it down)?

  43. KirklesWorth says:

    Business is risk and sometimes risks don’t pay off. Would you condemn marriage because there are so many divorces?

  44. Jodie says:

    Guaranteed six months maternity leave for all Muslims. What could possibly go wrong? (eye roll).

  45. Mr. Freemarket says:

    The problem is with neither business nor divorce. The problem is with the poor and sometimes risky decisions that some people make towards either.
    Let’s look at marriage for a second. Some people take their time, look for a partner with shared interests and values. People take decidedly different approaches to where they go searching for potential partners. Some look for a partner in church. Some look for a partner in a bar. Do you think that you could predict whether one approach was more successful than the other based upon the time taken looking and the places scouted for a potential mate? The fact that about 50% of marriages end in divorce doesn’t mean that there is a fundamental problem with the concept of marriage. It means the many people haven’t been making good decisions. This is even more true when you realize that many of those in divorce courts are there for their second or more time.
    Same thing with business. If you choose to enter an area of business where political payoffs are required for your project to be “successful,” you have entered into an area of high risk.

  46. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Interesting how the country continues to shift leftward, despite the “compassionate conservatism” of republicans such a George Bush. Some folks call that progress.
    Apparently we will continue to shift leftward until the US collapses or until the Muslims take over.

  47. Mr. Freemarket says:

    We haven’t had a free market in over 90 years.

  48. KirklesWorth says:

    That’s all wise in concept, but not reality in practice. “High risk” is subjective, and even “low risk” ventures fail – it’s the nature of the beast. You don’t know what you don’t know, and sometimes optimism ends up in disaster.

  49. Mr. Freemarket says:

    There wasn’t a conservative on the presidential ballot in 1988. As to Bush winning versus John Kerry….I’m not sure that Mr. Compassionate Conservative was re-elected due to the expansion of Medicare.

  50. KirklesWorth says:

    And yet George W. Bush is considered the most conservative of the modern presidents by InsideGov.com – but so-called “conservatives” will sit on their duffs and let Obama be elected twice. Again, who needs to learn the lesson?

  51. KirklesWorth says:

    Because many so-called “conservatives” are the all-or-nothing idealists who will permit the opposition to win rather than “compromise their principles”.

  52. Mr. Freemarket says:

    The problem isn’t with the idealists. The problem is the “conservative” base who looks at the election and doesn’t see enough of a difference to get up and vote…..along with the mounting and massive voter fraud in the battleground states.
    I live in Utah. For as long as I remember, we have voted for the GOP candidate for president. So, effectively, my vote really hasn’t mattered because the election results will not be swayed by how my state votes. Yet I show up to the polls every two years. I attend party caucus meetings and the occasional party convention. Yet this year Trump has turned Utah from a “conservative” voting state to a toss up. The man has skills.

  53. Mr. Freemarket says:

    I followed you link and didn’t find an easy way to determine how they ranked different presidents. So, let’s examine a couple of issues important to conservatives:
    1. Did George Bush increase or decrease the size of government? I think DHS and TSA rank as an increase. I also think the expansion of Medicare ranks as an increase.
    2. Did George Bush increase individual rights and liberty? The expansion of the NSA for domestic spying, and the Patriot Act would put him on the side of “decreasing.”
    3. Did George Bush increase or decrease the “free market?” At one point he said we have to abandon the free market to “save” the free market.
    Apparently being the “most conservative” doesn’t make him very conservative. Yet I faithfully voted for McCain, Romney, and will vote for Trump.

  54. KirklesWorth says:

    Are you saying that this is “ideological equivalence” without “enough of a difference to get up and vote”? http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/1-5-40-70/Barack-Obama-vs-Mitt-Romney-vs-Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

    This is more about the so-called “conservatives” my-way-or-the-highway attitude where it’s either their candidate or they will be taking their marbles and going home.

  55. KirklesWorth says:

    I see you didn’t ask any questions or make comments about Reagan, so I will add some perspective. Reagan:

    Nearly tripled the deficit
    Gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants
    Raised the debt ceiling 18 times
    Expanded gun sale background checks and an assault weapon ban
    Signed at least 5 tax increases (Alan Simpson says 11 times)
    Increased the Social Security tax rate
    Unemployment reached 10.8%
    Appointed liberal justice Anthony Kennedy
    Had “issues” with Israel
    Bailed out Social Security for $165 billion
    Was a union leader in the Screen Actors Guild
    Negotiated with and armed terrorists in the Iran-Contra Affair

  56. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Let’s ask a question:
    Would you be better off to enter a low-risk business or take your money to Vegas and bet on your ability to be a successful gambler? There are differences of risk, and following the path of greater risk is more likely to end in disaster than following the path of low risk.
    BTW, where did you meet your wife?

  57. KirklesWorth says:

    I didn’t meet my wife at a bar…LOL.

    I’m not much of a risk-taker myself, so I concur with a lot of what you are saying. Nevertheless, my father either saved or started his own businesses and had so-called “partners” ruin some of them for him. My father risked his life savings on his current company, and he is cautious – but this time he doesn’t have any partners to screw things up for him. My point is that as you add people to the mix, things can become catastrophic quickly – unforeseen dangers, lawsuits, negligence, etc.. Declaring bankruptcy isn’t a badge of honor, but it doesn’t necessarily imply automatic incompetence on any specific person either.

  58. TrojanMan says:

    Three things: First the question is irrelevant because the country will continue to move leftward with Hitlery or Trump. Second i am not Davy Crokcett. Third anything that does not put full reverse on tyranny needs to be fought. You can slow a car down that’s heading over the cliff but unless you stop the car or throw it into reverse over the cliff you shall still go.

    If you want to look into a mind of a patriot read this:
    http://www.constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm

    Vote Trump and be well.

  59. Mr. Freemarket says:

    And yet Reagan was our most “conservative” president since Calvin Coolidge.
    You also missed the fact that Reagan promised to close the newly created Department of Education, but didn’t. On the other hand, Reagan had a democrat-controlled congress that he had to deal with. Bush didn’t have that problem for the first six years of his presidency.

  60. Mr. Freemarket says:

    It is hard to call someone who has been to bankruptcy court four times a “fantastic businessman with great judgment.” Doesn’t mean he is incompetent, but it implies that his business skills aren’t necessarily top tier either. Do I know businessmen who have accumulated in the neighborhood of or over a billion dollars who haven’t been to bankruptcy court a single time. Well….actually I do. One was the horrible Mitt Romney.

  61. KirklesWorth says:

    Three things. First, the question is not irrelevant as the “move leftward” is your opinion on Trump. But even if you are right, indications are that it would move slower left with Trump than Hillary – maybe in time to do something about it.

    Second, nobody claimed you were Davy Crockett, but if you are going to put into play someone who died almost two centuries ago, there may be questions about why you would quote him and not wonder how his views would apply to today’s situations.

    Third, “tyranny” is a panic-word thrown out imply that all options are irrelevant except yours. There will be more tyrannies under Hillary to be fought than with Trump. A speeding car can slow down in time for you to jump out before it goes over the cliff.

    “Patriots” wouldn’t have elected Obama, and wouldn’t permit a Hillary presidency – it just a matter of “how patriotic”.

  62. KirklesWorth says:

    And you hit the nail on the head – it’s not just about the president but the rest of government as well. And Obama with a republican-controlled government hasn’t done anything stellar conservative-wise either.

  63. KirklesWorth says:

    Do you think that Trump has his finger on the pulse of every aspect of his companies, or that he puts people in place to take care of the day-to-day operations and minutiae so that he can deal with the big-picture issues? We don’t know what we don’t know either. All I know is I would rather have a businessman’s take on risk rather than an idealist like Obama with GM, Solyndra, etc..

  64. TrojanMan says:

    I quoted him on how his words reflect my views. I support measures and principals and not men.

    “Third, “tyranny” is a panic-word thrown out imply that all options are irrelevant except yours. ” So when our founders used this word were they trying to create panic to imply that all options are irrelevant except theirs? Our government IS tyrannical and anything or anyone that will not stop it needs to be fought.

    “A speeding car can slow down in time for you to jump out before it goes over the cliff.” I take this to mean you would support secession if it gets bad enough for you?

    Patriots did not elect Obama nor are they permitting a Hillary OR a Trump presidency.

    Go vote Trump and be well.

  65. KirklesWorth says:

    I quoted him on how his words reflect my views. I support measures and principals and not men.

    Which is fine in concept, but how’s it working for you? Have you been getting the results your ideology seeks? If this election fails, is it going to generate the conditions you want to foment a major change in our country or will it just add to the misery?

    tyr·an·ny ˈtirənē noun: 1. cruel and oppressive government or rule; 2. cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

    “Tyranny” defines government in general. What we are evaluating is how much tyranny we will get based upon the decisions we make. Expecting a complete lack of tyranny would be naive, utopian, possibly anarchist, and ideologically ridiculous.

    Patriots did not elect Obama nor are they permitting a Hillary OR a Trump presidency.

    Are you the arbiter of “patriotism”? Are not progressive-liberal-socialist “patriots” in their own mind? This is why republican winners are moderates – because so-called “conservatives” are judgmental and my-way-or-the-highway types.

    I will be voting against Hillary, thank you very much.

  66. TrojanMan says:

    “Have you been getting the results your ideology seeks?” My principals are not that weak that i would abandon them for the sake of winning.

    “Is this election failure going to generate the conditions you want to foment a major change in our country,” I hope so.

    “or will it just add to the misery?” No matter who wins the misery will increase.

    “What we are evaluating is how much tyranny we will get based upon the decisions we make.” To willingly accept any tyranny makes you a slave.

    “Are you the arbiter of “patriotism”?” So it would seem our definitions of patriots differ.

    The way you cheer lead for Trump i would not have guessed you are “voting against Hillary”

    Furthermore i noticed you failed to address my question:
    “A speeding car can slow down in time for you to jump out before it goes over the cliff.” I take this to mean you would support secession if it gets bad enough for you?

    Go vote Trump and be well.

  67. KirklesWorth says:

    “Have you been getting the results your ideology seeks?” My principals are not that weak that i would abandon them for the sake of winning.

    Then your principles can be as much to blame for the shift leftward as any progressive-liberal-socialist who voted for a democrat.

    “Is this election failure going to generate the conditions you want to foment a major change in our country,” I hope so.

    Which again is fine, but some of us are not willing to risk it.

    “or will it just add to the misery?” No matter who wins the misery will increase.

    Another black-or-white, all-or-nothing response. Obviously you are willing to risk a Hillary tyranny over some selective indignations about Trump.

    “What we are evaluating is how much tyranny we will get based upon the decisions we make.” To willingly accept any tyranny makes you a slave.

    Gross over-simplification and ridiculous.

    “Are you the arbiter of “patriotism”?” So it would seem our definitions of patriots differ.

    “My definition” is not at issue here. The question was: “Are not progressive-liberal-socialists ‘patriots’ in their own mind?”

    The way you cheer lead for Trump i would not have guessed you are “voting against Hillary”

    And how would you suggest defeating Hillary? You don’t.

    I take this to mean you would support secession if it gets bad enough for you?

    I have no interest in entertaining any thoughts about secession, as I don’t live in Texas nor do I think it is worth my time considering at this point.

    I will be voting against Hillary. Who should that be?

  68. TrojanMan says:

    I will leave you with some of the greatest words that have ever been written:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Go vote Trump and be well.

  69. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Last I checked, Obama was not running as a conservative. unfortunately most members of the GOP run as conservatives; once elected they forget those promises.

  70. KirklesWorth says:

    Yeah, you can copy-and-paste all you want – how has that been working for you? Even great words mean little if disregarded, ignored, or contrarily ruled upon by the courts – which is what the left has been whittling away at for decades and will be utterly destroyed by Hillary.

    Abortion has determined to be part of women’s “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” – and how does that coincide with your “conservative” ideology?

    Gambling our country’s future for a Hillary win doesn’t put the “conserve” in conservative. Your good-ol’-conservative-days risk on losing more rights and liberties to Hillary hardly seems becoming of a “patriot”.

  71. TrojanMan says:

    If they gave them 9 months guaranteed then they would always be off of work collecting a check and putting the baby factory into overdrive.

  72. kirklesworthMentalMidget says:

    Many pretend conservatives love to nominate Progressive candidates for the GOP ticket then piss and moan and whine when actual Conservatives won’t vote for them.

    Three election cycles in a row you asshats have done this, that’s a shallow learning curve, jerklesworth..

  73. kirklejerkMentalMidget says:

    Why do you asshats have a “my way or the highway” attitude, demanding we vote for your cult leader?

    No to McCain, No to Romney, No to tRump. Are you getting the picture yet, fucktard? Next time nominate him as a Democrat where he belongs, and you with him, jerkoffsworth.

  74. 762x51 says:

    Which Conservatives have failed? All five of them in the Congress? Better be against Conservatives then.

    Conservatives are constitutionalists, where does the Constitution mention nationalism? Correct answer is it doesn’t, it talks about republicanism, not nationalism or populism, or socialism. You want that crap, move to Europe or Russia, we aren’t interested.

  75. kirklesjerkTheMoron says:

    Easy answer, it’s you Progressive fucktards who need to learn the lesson here. Go back to the Democrat party, one Progressive party is sufficient. We don’t like you, we don’t want you stinking things up around here and you are not welcome, get it?

  76. 762x51 says:

    Or until Civil War II begins. Guess which one happens first?

  77. kirklesjerkDoucheBag says:

    The assholes who nominated Progressive candidates on the GOP ticket are who needs to learn the lesson here.

    Bush 43 would only be considered “conservative” by a Progressive douche bag like you.

  78. 762x51 says:

    Where in the Constitution is that authority located, genius?

  79. 762x51 says:

    Or how about the federal government stay out of something it has no constitutional authority to do and leave that to the states? These imbeciles don’t get it that this is another entitlement. Entitlements = redistribution of wealth. EXACTLY what Obama has done and Shitlery would do. SO the difference between tRump/Obama/Clinton is? Nada, Zip, Zero.

    Big government entitlement programs are what they are regardless of who proposes them or what the alleged motivation is.

  80. 762x51 says:

    No, he would use his rifle.

  81. KirklesWorth says:

    You don’t know what a “progressive” is. Democrats got their candidate elected the past two times – what did so-called “conservatives” accomplish? It seems that moderate republicans can sometimes get elected, but conservative candidates have always come up as losers. What’s the point in courting so-called “conservatives” when they are disloyal, judgmental, and all-or-nothing failures?

  82. KirklesWorth says:

    So, punish the country with Hillary – got it. How did the previous two “punishments” go with McCain and Romney? No need for the so-called “conservatives” to learn their lessons that sitting on their duff just helps the country move left faster.

  83. KirklesWorth says:

    You keep using that word “progressive”, which you have no idea what it means.

    The so-called “conservatives” are impotent (no pun intended) when it comes to producing a decent candidate. The moderate republicans are better and more loyal as well.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d930c5d55946f8e39d2acbda310a9b61ce02b58d8f9349c748b6084a084aa061.jpg

  84. KirklesWorth says:

    The candidates are Trump and Hillary…what’s so difficult to comprehend? But go ahead and make Hillary president for your hopes of a civil war – but I’m going to interfere with your anti-Trump agenda so everybody knows you just want to kill people.

  85. KirklesWorth says:

    You don’t know what a “progressive” is other than “your enemy you have to kill”. Three election cycles show that moderate republicans are more loyal and patriotic than so-called “conservatives” who don’t care about the lessons of history.

  86. Torcer says:

    Ah yes, a lovely false dichotomy to begin the day..

    And that was Spoken like a true leftist, so congratulations in citing the best possible outcome of leftist ideology.

    The problem for you is that Sweden benefits from what used to be an homogeneous hard working population and the cost of their defense borne by US taxpayers.

    LOCH NESS SOCIALISM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvfHLr5aEqU

    So you’ve failed right from the get go – and what exactly are you referring to when you said “The choice you want isn’t on the menu”?

  87. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Of course Trump supporters say they will make companies pay rather than the government pay. As if that makes a difference. Of course the real difference is that companies can’t borrow and make future generations pay.

  88. God, the Crotch and NRO says:

    Conservatives are constitutionalists,

    Yeah, we know all about that!
    https://i.sli.mg/OISAsy.jpg

    where does the Constitution mention nationalism?

    It doesn’t need to, because it’s implicit:

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    You might also want to refer to immigration and naturalization acts of 1790 and 1795.

    Exactly what is it that conservatives are after – insuring that all those nice brown people who replace them enjoy the blessings of capitalism, low taxes and limited government?

    Realistically, there are only two possible views of the constitution vis a vis our current government:

    1. Either it authorizes it, in which case conservatives ought to consider it an abomination, or
    2. It failed to prevent it, which means if failed.

    Which one is it?

  89. God, the Crotch and NRO says:

    Fine! It sounds like you’re Ready for Hillary! And conservatives can continue the same way they have for the last 60 years – clutching their groins and bellowing in rage, pain and humilliation.

  90. God, the Crotch and NRO says:

    Ok, so let’s go back to 1984. Presumably you think Reagan was a True Conservative™. That’s 32 years since a conservative won a presidential election! And even Reagan admitted he’d failed at reducing the size and scope of government. So what miracle are you expecting is going to occur now?

    Here’s a hint: Reagan would have no chance of even being elected governor of California today, let alone president!

    Trump is no conservative, for sure. But at least he holds out the possibility of maintaining a country that might – might be able to elect one in the future. He buys time, and that’s all. 4-8 years of Hillary and open borders, and it’s game over!

  91. Mr. Freemarket says:

    As has been pointed out, Reagan was not a True Conservative. The fact is that, having Reagan run as a mostly conservative, speaking out for conservative values, he won in a landslide. And the continuing benefits from his policies (generally) were overwhelmingly positive.
    We haven’t had a candidate since speaking out for conservative values, and we keep squandering the opportunity to see how the general electorate would react to an actual conservative versus commie liberal, as opposed to progressive Lite, versus commie liberal.

  92. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Well, we get full blow Commie versus Progressive Lite as our next president. How’s that approach been working out for us? How did things work out under Mr. Compassionate Conservative (thanks for the TSA, the DHS, NSA spying, Patriot Act, bailout of GM…I could go on…).

  93. KirklesWorth says:

    Well, when conservatives can produce a quality candidate, they may be able to get things more in line with what they believe. But since they haven’t, looks like the conservatives will have to settle for Trump.

  94. Mr. Freemarket says:

    We had a number of quality candidates this year. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were to them. But the trumpists couldn’t figure out what it means to be a conservative.

  95. KirklesWorth says:

    Maybe Cruz and Paul were good for the reactionary conservatives, but apparently not the moderates. Now the opposite is the case – Trump is winning the moderates, but the reactionaries think they are being slighted.

  96. Mr. Freemarket says:

    I note your habit of using disparaging terms for those who disagree with you…particularly conservatives. Why must you and Trump put down those who disagree?

  97. KirklesWorth says:

    Which term is “disparaging”? Who am I “putting down” and how am I doing it?

    Reactionary: a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state in a society

    Moderates within the GOP, usually calling themselves “Main Street Republicans”, tend towards being fiscally conservative to moderate, and socially moderate to liberal, though there are others who are socially conservative and fiscally centrist or liberal

  98. Mr. Freemarket says:

    People who are fiscally liberal are not reflective of any conservative principle. There are not, for example, big government conservatives.
    A Trumpist is one who supports Trump regardless of any position he might take or if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue.

  99. Mr. Freemarket says:

    BTW a conservative, by definition, is one who wishes to conserve or bring back a constitutionally limited federal government. That is not reactionary.

  100. KirklesWorth says:

    So, I really didn’t use any “disparaging terms” as you claimed.

    Moderate conservatives can be fiscally conservative or moderate – what was unclear?

    What “Trumpist” do you know who supports Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue?

  101. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Donald Trump

  102. KirklesWorth says:

    Tell it to these sources, not me. Their definitions of reactionary:

    relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reactionary

    1. (adjective) of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
    2. (noun) a reactionary person. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reactionary

    And there are a lot more qualities to being a conservative than just wanting a constitutionally limited federal government. Who will it be more conservative with – Hillary or Trump?

  103. KirklesWorth says:

    That’s all you’ve got? A single person’s conjecture about himself?

    And I really didn’t use any “disparaging terms” as you claimed.

  104. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Reactionary is a disparaging term.

  105. KirklesWorth says:

    Says whom? Do you find it insulting even though it describes what you are saying?

  106. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Provide an example where “reactionary” is used in a positive light.

  107. KirklesWorth says:

    I did…didn’t you read it?

    relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reactionary

    1. (adjective) of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
    2. (noun) a reactionary person. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reactionary

    And you find this negative? You incorrectly claimed:

    BTW a conservative, by definition, is one who wishes to conserve or bring back a constitutionally limited federal government. That is not reactionary.

    When what you said is the de-facto definition of reactionary. Do you not like the truth?

  108. Mr. Freemarket says:

    You make no distinction between extreme conservatism and conservatism. Maybe to you all conservatives are extreme conservatives or reactionaries. In today’s political climate, “extreme” is not used as a term of endearment.

  109. KirklesWorth says:

    And many liberals don’t always like being called “liberals” even though that is what their views embody. Trump is a moderate conservative as was Reagan. People who find that “insufficiently conservative” move right further into the spectrum of “reactionary”, “extreme conservativist”, and/or “ultra-conservative”. I would call myself a reactionary conservative, but who is not slavishly bound to the ideology that I would permit progressive-liberal-socialist criminals to be elected president. You can call me a reactionary conservative – I don’t find it disparaging whatsoever – in fact, I find it a badge of honor.

  110. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Those on the left are decidedly not liberal. One needs only look at the definition of “classical liberal” to see how far they stray from the definition of “liberal,”
    In fact in most respects I am a classical liberal,
    I like the idea expressed by others that the TEA party wants to take over and leave everyone alone.

  111. […] he has proposed another federal entitlement, even as we plunge toward national […]

  112. […] to address the need to rein in the explosive growth of the welfare state, but who instead has been offering new entitlements that taxpayers will be expected to shoulder, is obligated by these laws to pay taxes […]


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy