The GOP Nomination--The Donald and So Much More!

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

That's about the only situation in which I'd vote for Trump. It would at least be a vote for the rule of law, than the cult of one man.

We're past the rule of law in this country, and we're not returning to it. Trump, in the same vein as Obama, is a cult of personality candidate; the key difference being that Trump expresses a dangerous xenophobic agenda that reminds me just a wee bit too much of 1930's Europe, and beyond that they share all of the other leftist beliefs.

 

Trump might just be the only man in America more dangerous than Obama.

Edited September 3, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Magox]

We're past the rule of law in this country, and we're not returning to it. Trump, in the same vein as Obama is, a cult of personality candidate; the key difference being that Trump expresses a dangerous xenophobic agenda that reminds me just a wee bit too much of 1930's Europe, and beyond that they share all of the other leftist beliefs.

Trump might just be the only man in America more dangerous than Obama.

Oh no. You said xenophobic. You must be a liberal.

Didn't you say you'd vote Hillary if the GOP nominee isn't libertarian?

 

So no Rand = Hillary? Or are there more libertarian candidates, according to youYou should vote Trump as a protest vote. Lots of people are just using Trump as a protest vote.

 

Rand can't win this election cycle, but he's young. If we can use Trump to destroy the GOP establishment, then maybe in 2020 Rand can emerge.

I've said this before, if by chance Trump were to win, not only would I not vote for Trump or merely vote for Hillary, but I'd round up my entire family and push for Hillary to everyone I know that has an interest in politics.

 

Not out of spite, because I don't roll like that, but because I'd like to try to do as much as I could possibly do from my part to keeping the GOP a relevant party not some nationalistic far right party like we see out in Hungary.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Magox

[Tiberius]

Pretty good argument, backed up with polls and stuff, saying Trump is just a Republican.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/what-donald-trump-understands-about-republicans.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

 

A more recent Pew survey in June found that when voters were given a choice between “immigrants burden the country by taking jobs, housing and health care” and “immigrants strengthen the country through hard work and talents,” a majority of those polled, 51-41, chose “strengthen the country.” Republicans, however, disagreed, with 63 percent saying immigrants were a burden and 27 percent saying immigrants strengthened the country.

Responses to the question of whether “discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities” reflect Republican concerns from a different perspective. This question was asked by the Public Religion Research Institute in October 2014. The results demonstrate that not only do a majority of whites, 52 percent, agree, but that this agreement is heavily concentrated among conservative constituencies, including Tea Party supporters and white evangelicals.

 

[Ozymandius]

Oh no. You said xenophobic. You must be a liberal.

I've said this before, if by chance Trump were to win, not only would I not vote for Trump or merely vote for Hillary, but I'd round up my entire family and push for Hillary to everyone I know that has an interest in politics.

 

Not out of spite, because I don't roll like that, but because I'd like to try to do as much as I could possibly do from my part to keeping the GOP a relevant party not some nationalistic far right party like we see out in Hungary.

 

Oh, I knew you would do that without you having to tell me.

 

Most races think racially and vote racially in their racial interests (or at least what they perceive to be in their interests). Only whites refuse to do so.

 

Funny how even if Trump wins the nomination, you would still vote against him out of some desire to "keep the GOP relevant." They would certainly be relevant if they won the presidency, lol. But I understand why you have to do what you do.

 

Whites have yet to fully wake up and become racially conscious, but it's slowly happening.

[B-Man]

What Other GOP Candidates Can Learn From Trump.

 

“It is true, however, that there is something refreshing about the way Trump talks. It’s not actually candor, though lots of people mistake it for that. Rather, he’s unfiltered. The one thing you can be sure of is that he hasn’t consulted with a political consultant about how to talk. He doesn’t worry what the liberal editors at the New York Times or the Washington Post — or, for that matter, the conservative editors at National Review — think of him. . . .

 

There are many reasons the non-politicians — Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina — are doing so well, but near the top is the fact that they haven’t internalized the language of political consultants and pundits. They understand something the politicians have forgotten: Politics is about sales.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Oh, I knew you would do that without you having to tell me.

 

Most races think racially and vote racially in their racial interests (or at least what they perceive to be in their interests). Only whites refuse to do so.

 

Funny how even if Trump wins the nomination, you would still vote against him out of some desire to "keep the GOP relevant." They would certainly be relevant if they won the presidency, lol. But I understand why you have to do what you do.

 

Whites have yet to fully wake up and become racially conscious, but it's slowly happening.

Good grief, you suck.

[Magox]

I argued this exact same point with 3rd the other day regarding Trump and the tea party.

 

Here are some of the things that have been said by the guy who has galvanized the GOP’s Tea Party base and taken the lead in the Republican presidential race:

“Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that.”

“As far as single payer [health care], it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland. … You can't let the people in this country, the people without the money and resources, to go without healthcare."

“People as they make more and more money can pay a higher percentage” of taxes.

Only one of two conclusions can be drawn here. Either the Tea Party base—which the media would have us think mainly consists of angry libertarians inveighing against taxes and runaway big government—hasn’t really been listening to Donald Trump, who made all the above statements, or, alternatively, most of the media have read the Tea Party and its true aims and ambitions entirely wrong.

I suggest the latter is the correct answer. The success of Trump’s campaign has, if nothing else, exposed the Tea Party for what it really is; Trump’s popularity is, in effect, final proof of what some of us have been arguing for years: that the Tea Party is less a libertarian movement than a right-wing version of populism. Think William Jennings Bryan or Huey Long, not Ayn Rand. Tea Partiers are less upset about the size of government overall than they are that so much of it is going to other people, especially immigrants and nonwhites. They are for government for them and against government for Not-Them.

This is what explains a lot of what’s going on now. After all, according to the commentariat, the Summer of Trump was supposed to have been the Summer of Rand Paul. It seems like only yesterday that the media were interpreting the rise of the Tea Party as a triumph of anti-statism and predicting that Paul, with his libertarian views on national security and data privacy, represented the future of the American right.

But Paul has all but disappeared from view, polling in the low single digits, while Trump has soared into the lead, and nothing he says, no matter how outrageous, seems to sour the right-wing base on him. Trump is no libertarian; quite the opposite. He is a classic populist of the right who peddles suspicion of foreigners—it’s no accident that he was the country’s leading “birther” raising questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship—combined with a kind of “producerism.” In populist ideology, society is divided not among rich and poor but among producers and parasites.

 

[Tiberius]

I argued this exact same point with 3rd the other day regarding Trump and the tea party.

 

I suggest the latter is the correct answer. The success of Trump’s campaign has, if nothing else, exposed the Tea Party for what it really is; Trump’s popularity is, in effect, final proof of what some of us have been arguing for years: that the Tea Party is less a libertarian movement than a right-wing version of populism. Think William Jennings Bryan or Huey Long, not Ayn Rand. Tea Partiers are less upset about the size of government overall than they are that so much of it is going to other people, especially immigrants and nonwhites. They are for government for them and against government for Not-Them.

 

BINGO

 

Don't cut our government hand out, cut theirs!

[Azalin]

I argued this exact same point with 3rd the other day regarding Trump and the tea party.

 

 

 

That author's opinion doesn't square with the TEA party folks that I know. None of them are concerned with social issues for the most part, except with regard to increasing the size and scope of federal programs. Maybe there's a cadre of TEA partiers somewhere that make a big deal out of social issues, but I've never met them.

[Magox]

 

That author's opinion doesn't square with the TEA party folks that I know. None of them are concerned with social issues for the most part, except with regard to increasing the size and scope of federal programs. Maybe there's a cadre of TEA partiers somewhere that make a big deal out of social issues, but I've never met them.

 

Its backed up by data, Azalin. I posted it in a previous thread, when asked what the most important issues are to people who now identify as Tea Partiers, it's immigration. The priorities of the Tea Party of 2010 and the Tea party of 2015 are not the same, all you have to do is look at the Tea party affiliated websites and the meme's and messages they post and they mainly deal with immigration.

 

Look at their priorities in 2010.

 

Far cry from today.

 

And if you look, even in 2010 tea partiers cared more about illegal immigration than standard Republicans. Which means that the first link that was provided skews the results even more so.

 

Plus, the supporters that love Donald are Tea partiers more so than anything else.

 

The Monmouth poll was more revealing, finding that Trump’s biggest boost came from the GOP’s Tea Party wing. “He has also made an incredible surge [since June] among the Tea Party supporters – flipping his decidedly net negative 20% to 55% rating with this group to a decidedly positive 56% favorable to 26% unfavorable rating now,” it reported.

“It looks like Tea Party voters are really responding to Trump’s aggressive illegal immigrant message,” said Patrick Murray, Monmouth University Polling Institute director.

 

 

Here is another link that again, shows that between Democrats, independents, Republicans and Tea party, they are most willing to deport all illegal immigrants, which goes back to that first link.

 

This post wasn't so much to be a knock on the Tea Party but more so a reflection of where people's priorities are that follow Donald Trump. Which is that there are now a sizable chunk of people who refer to themselves as Tea partiers that care more about immigration than anything else. That is undeniable. C'mon now Azalin, let's not pretend that immigration isn't what got Trump's supporters all up in a frenzy which is why they have this undying devotion for him. Look at Ozy, he's not an outlier , I mean his stance on exterminating illegal immigrants is but his belief that this country is being invaded by latino leeches is a pretty prevalent sentiment within Trump's supporters and let's be real, a good chunk of those that refer themselves as TODAY'S tea partiers are in that group as well.

 

 

LA Bills can tell you, I never referred to myself as a tea partier, but before you got here I created a thread on how I supported their beliefs, who they were etc etc. They were a group that cared about the Debt, taxes and government over reach. I supported their principles back then.

 

I no longer support today's tea party.

[Magox]

This is a Point of View from the libertarian wing with the debacle we see today from Reason Magazine. Good Mag.

 

 

As Republicans go batschit on immigration, Democrats turn into sweet angels

 

 

Matt Welch chronicled this week how Donald Trump has managed to bait even his relatively sane GOP rivals into saying something totally bonkers on immigration. (My personal favorite was Chris Christie’s suggestion to bar code foreign tourists so that they could be tracked like Federal Express packages.) But in the world of competitive politics, one party’s insanity is another’s opportunity. Hence, Democrats, whose official platform not-too-long ago Y-NCcould have been Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s wet dream and whose pro-union proclivities have done more than anything to create the gaping wound that is the 11 million unauthorized immigrants by ending guest worker or bracero program with Mexico in mid ‘60s, are pulling a switcheroo. They are becoming the unabashed pro-immigration party if their presidential candidates are any indication.

First there is the (soon to be former) frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Her husband pledged to root out “drugs and illegal immigrants” and boasted that he had placed Border Patrol agents so close together in El Paso that they could see each other. Not to be outdone, she herself opposed even drivers’ licenses for undocumented aliens. Yet, in a brilliant political move some weeks ago, she went whole hog amnesty. She promised to go much further than even President Obama's recent executive action and "defer" deportation proceedings against not just some illegal immigrants, but virtually all of them, while working toward comprehensive immigration reform that included citizenship for illegals. This might be a pipe dream, but it is clever because while Democrats' white and minority supporters are united on the issue of immigration (or at least not hopelessly divided), the GOP's are not, as I noted:

This means that the more Republicans question and condemn Clinton's support for "amnesty," the more they'll dig themselves in a hole with Latinos and make her more popular. On the other hand, it they stay

mute

—which is what most of them have done (with the

exception

of Lindsey Graham)—they'll risk alienating the anti-amnesty white base that they have spent the last decade riling up.

In other words, if Republicans fight Hillary's call for amnesty, they'll lose Latinos, which will benefit Hillary. But if they don't, they'll lose whites, which will also benefit Hillary.

In other words, she has constructed a perfect “heads I win, tails you lose” trap for Republicans IF she survives E-MailGate.

snip

The only Democrat in the presidential field sticking to the original party line on immigration is Bernie Sanders, an old-fashioned protectionist who still lives in a Malthusian universe where the economy is a zero-sum game. He says he’ll go further than Obama in legalizing the unauthorized population but wants to shut the door on new immigrants because – bet you never saw this coming! -- they threaten American wages and jobs (a line that, of all people, the union-buster Scott Walker has started regurgitating).

But if Sander’s fellow-Democrats have changed their tune on immigration it isn’t because they have suddenly grokked Adam Smith (after all they still believe that minimum wage mandates don't cost jobs), but because their political incentives have changed.

Restrictionism was a winning strategy when unions were a major force in moving votes and money of America’s predominantly white working class in the Democratic direction. But unions are a declining force in America and whites will be a plurality before 2050 — by which time new minorities such as Hispanics and Asians, the product of recent waves of immigration will have doubled from their levels in 2010.

Hence it makes perfect sense for Democrats to not just abandon their former restrictionism but also make immigration — not welfare, environment, economy or jobs — the wedge issue in the upcoming election by countering every nasty anti-immigration statement that comes out of the mouth of their Republican rivals with something piously pro-immigration.

The upshot of all this will be that the two parties will test polar opposite electoral strategies in 2016 with Democrats trying to win by playing identity politics with old and new minorities and Republicans trying to win by playing identity politics with working-class whites. (It is not a coincidence that, along with restricitonism, protectionism is also rising among Republican politicos. Witness Donald Trump’s populist jeremiads against “blood-sucking China” and traitorous automakers that move their plants to Mexico.)

Regardless of who prevails, the 180-degree shift by both parties on immigration shows that politics is where principles go to die.

 

[Rob's House]

If it comes down to Hillary v Trump, that burrito outing might come back to pay dividends.

[Azalin]

 

Its backed up by data, Azalin. I posted it in a previous thread, when asked what the most important issues are to people who now identify as Tea Partiers, it's immigration. The priorities of the Tea Party of 2010 and the Tea party of 2015 are not the same, all you have to do is look at the Tea party affiliated websites and the meme's and messages they post and they mainly deal with immigration.

 

Look at their priorities in 2010.

 

Far cry from today.

 

And if you look, even in 2010 tea partiers cared more about illegal immigration than standard Republicans. Which means that the first link that was provided skews the results even more so.

 

Plus, the supporters that love Donald are Tea partiers more so than anything else.

 

 

Here is another link that again, shows that between Democrats, independents, Republicans and Tea party, they are most willing to deport all illegal immigrants, which goes back to that first link.

 

This post wasn't so much to be a knock on the Tea Party but more so a reflection of where people's priorities are that follow Donald Trump. Which is that there are now a sizable chunk of people who refer to themselves as Tea partiers that care more about immigration than anything else. That is undeniable. C'mon now Azalin, let's not pretend that immigration isn't what got Trump's supporters all up in a frenzy which is why they have this undying devotion for him. Look at Ozy, he's not an outlier , I mean his stance on exterminating illegal immigrants is but his belief that this country is being invaded by latino leeches is a pretty prevalent sentiment within Trump's supporters and let's be real, a good chunk of those that refer themselves as TODAY'S tea partiers are in that group as well.

 

 

LA Bills can tell you, I never referred to myself as a tea partier, but before you got here I created a thread on how I supported their beliefs, who they were etc etc. They were a group that cared about the Debt, taxes and government over reach. I supported their principles back then.

 

I no longer support today's tea party.

 

The article in Breitbart you linked refers to illegal immigrants, not 'proper' immigrants. If it makes me a xenophobe to want people who came here illegally to be ousted, then so be it. They can go through the same process that others do in order to come here. I could support simplifying the immigration process for everyone, but one group of people DO NOT deserve special treatment over others, period.

 

The poll from Pew Research shows that 52% of TEA Party supporters who vote 100% of the time support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. That's not the same as being anti-immigration, in fact it shows a willingness on their part to forgive people for breaking the law to get here, and to welcome them into the community.

 

 

 

This is a Point of View from the libertarian wing with the debacle we see today from Reason Magazine. Good Mag.

 

 

As Republicans go batschit on immigration, Democrats turn into sweet angels

 

 

 

The article from Reason makes a good case - at least concerning O'Malley's position on the issue. I would support a simplification of our immigration laws. Legitimate citizens are more valuable to our country and our culture, and Latinos migrating here deserve better than being relegated to landscaping and cheap labor.

[Rob's House]

 

The article in Breitbart you linked refers to illegal immigrants, not 'proper' immigrants. If it makes me a xenophobe to want people who came here illegally to be ousted, then so be it. They can go through the same process that others do in order to come here. I could support simplifying the immigration process for everyone, but one group of people DO NOT deserve special treatment over others, period.

 

The poll from Pew Research shows that 52% of TEA Party supporters who vote 100% of the time support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. That's not the same as being anti-immigration, in fact it shows a willingness on their part to forgive people for breaking the law to get here, and to welcome them into the community.

 

Dude, you're definitely a xenophobe. You're probably a nativist and a racist too, for that matter.

[Magox]

 

The article in Breitbart you linked refers to illegal immigrants, not 'proper' immigrants. If it makes me a xenophobe to want people who came here illegally to be ousted, then so be it. They can go through the same process that others do in order to come here. I could support simplifying the immigration process for everyone, but one group of people DO NOT deserve special treatment over others, period.

 

The poll from Pew Research shows that 52% of TEA Party supporters who vote 100% of the time support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. That's not the same as being anti-immigration, in fact it shows a willingness on their part to forgive people for breaking the law to get here, and to welcome them into the community.

 

 

 

 

The article from Reason makes a good case - at least concerning O'Malley's position on the issue. I would support a simplification of our immigration laws. Legitimate citizens are more valuable to our country and our culture, and Latinos migrating here deserve better than being relegated to landscaping and cheap labor.

 

You totally missed the point. Weren't we just discussing the priorities of the tea party in that their main focus use to be matters of economics and how that has changed now to matters of immigration?

Dude, you're definitely a xenophobe. You're probably a nativist and a racist too, for that matter.

 

No, that's you.

[Azalin]

 

You totally missed the point. Weren't we just discussing the priorities of the tea party in that their main focus use to be matters of economics and how that has changed now to matters of immigration?

 

 

I was responding to this: "the Tea Party is less a libertarian movement than a right-wing version of populism."

[B-Man]

So..........................The Donald has agreed to sign the "support the GOP Candidate" pledge................NO 3rd party candidacy if he isn't picked.

 

 

 

The great thing about that pledge, is that if there is anything for which Donald Trump is famous, it is the steadfastness with which he keeps vows.

 

Ask Mrs. Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or Mrs. Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or Mrs. Trump.

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

 

No, that's you.

[3rdnlng]

Magox you knucklehead, I support the original Tea Parties charters and/or positions. You and I have basically came to agreement on immigration. You now are for insuring that the borders are secure and I agree with allowing illegal aliens that are not criminals a path to legal residency. Why do you bring up any positions of tea parties people that don't want a path to citizenship for illegals as anything to be scorned when it is now your position?

 

We must look at the big picture though and realize what an opportunity we have:

[boyst]

If Trump selects Howard Stern as his VP, as some are jokingly saying, I would vote for him twice.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/mexican-app-developers-creating-trumpealo-video-game-n419752

 

 

 

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has sparked outrage in Mexico over comments he has made about the country sending its rapists and criminals over the border. But he has also inspired the makers of piñatas and now even a new video game.

 

"Trumpéalo," created by Mexican developers KaraOculta, is a new parody game in which players follows a cartoon Trump around and throw shoes, soccer balls, and an assortment of items at him to prevent him from exiting the stage.

[Ozymandius]

Crossover appeal!

 

[Who is Yuri?]

Is the Trump candidacy for President just an excuse for major media outlets to pass off tabloid trash as real news?

 

Isn't there a choice regarding what is newsworthy? CNN looks like the worst offender to me. They've been covering the insults, not the issues.

 

Government should be serious business, but I am getting a Hollywood Insider Edition vibe from recent coverage, especially from CNN. I will be looking to other sources for principled journalism.

[meazza]

So Trump is complaining about gotcha questions because a radio interviewer asked him a simple foreign policy question?

 

This is who is leading in the polls?

[Who is Yuri?]

It really bugs me, as a bit of an Eisenhower fan, how Trump says that he'll discover the next General Douglass MacArthur to advise him. He sometimes says, "or Patton." Both of those men are admirable fighters, but without Marshall and Eisenhower making the important decisions and compromises, I don't believe we'd have been able to work nicely enough with others to win World War II. With nobody holding the bridle reigns, those two generals would go out in a tremendous blaze, but lose the war ingloriously.

 

I do not put Trump on the level of Marshall or Eisenhower. He's not even a Patton or MacArthur. Therefore, I don't think that Trump is qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Franz Kafka

[DC Tom]

It really bugs me, as a bit of an Eisenhower fan, how Trump says that he'll discover the next General Douglass MacArthur to advise him. He sometimes says, "or Patton." Both of those men are admirable fighters, but without Marshall and Eisenhower making the important decisions and compromises, I don't believe we'd have been able to work nicely enough with others to win World War II. With nobody holding the bridle reigns, those two generals would go out in a tremendous blaze, but lose the war ingloriously.

 

I do not put Trump on the level of Marshall or Eisenhower. He's not even a Patton or MacArthur. Therefore, I don't think that Trump is qualified to be Commander in Chief.

If Trump found the next MacArthur, he'd end up being deposed by him.

 

And Dugout Doug wasn't all his legend says.

[Who is Yuri?]

If Trump found the next MacArthur, he'd end up being deposed by him.

 

And Dugout Doug wasn't all his legend says.

 

I agree.

 

It's a small-time glory-hunter riding the coat-tails of big-time glory hunter. Trump'd been fired after the first campaign if he made it that far.

[Ozymandius]

Trump beating Hillary and all other Dems head-to-head

 

Remember, Trump is also beating all GOP contenders (except Carson) head-to-head

 

I wonder if we've reached peak Trump and it's all downhill from here

[Adam]

It really bugs me, as a bit of an Eisenhower fan, how Trump says that he'll discover the next General Douglass MacArthur to advise him. He sometimes says, "or Patton." Both of those men are admirable fighters, but without Marshall and Eisenhower making the important decisions and compromises, I don't believe we'd have been able to work nicely enough with others to win World War II. With nobody holding the bridle reigns, those two generals would go out in a tremendous blaze, but lose the war ingloriously.

 

I do not put Trump on the level of Marshall or Eisenhower. He's not even a Patton or MacArthur. Therefore, I don't think that Trump is qualified to be Commander in Chief.

I originally read that as you put him on their level

[TakeYouToTasker]

I originally read that as you put him on their level

I'm really not sure how a self described socialist (Franz) fancies himself an Ike fan, given that Ike was the last truely conservative president we've had, unless he's conflating the "military industrial complex" speech with his entire presidency.

[DC Tom]

I'm really not sure how a self described socialist (Franz) fancies himself an Ike fan, given that Ike was the last truely conservative president we've had, unless he's conflating the "military industrial complex" speech with his entire presidency.

 

Because Ike was the Great Compromiser. His generalship wasn't so much military as it was political (even before the war - he never commanded anything larger than a battalion before Torch, but he was the consummate staff officer.) He basically says that Ike was a better general than Patton, because while Patton was a better general, Ike was a better politician.

 

Typical liberal-think. Rewrite the language to fit the preconceived notion.

 

(And by the way, Franz...Dugout Doug ran a coalition, and did it better than Ike.)

[Who is Yuri?]

I'm really not sure how a self described socialist (Franz) fancies himself an Ike fan, given that Ike was the last truely conservative president we've had, unless he's conflating the "military industrial complex" speech with his entire presidency.

I've read a couple biographies on Eisenhower and his war memoirs. Alot of what Thomas Ricks has written about Eisenhower resonated with me. I am impressed by Ike's political savvy. For his time, I think Ike would be considered a moderate. I'm not sure he would be considered conservative by todays standards, but "conservative-" I'm not even sure what that stands for, with libertarians and social conservatives at odds sometimes.

[....lybob]

I've read a couple biographies on Eisenhower and his war memoirs. Alot of what Thomas Ricks has written about Eisenhower resonated with me. I am impressed by Ike's political savvy. For his time, I think Ike would be considered a moderate. I'm not sure he would be considered conservative by todays standards, but "conservative-" I'm not even sure what that stands for, with libertarians and social conservatives at odds sometimes.

[DC Tom]

 

Of course, that's taken out of context and altered to make him look like a populist and socialist, and not the moderate he actually was.

 

Not that you'd know that.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Of course, that's taken out of context and altered to make him look like a populist and socialist, and not the moderate he actually was.

 

Not that you'd know that.

Though he wasn't a moderate. He was a purist of his position, and as a sum of his parts, he was a conservative. The last of them.

[Who is Yuri?]

Though he wasn't a moderate. He was a purist of his position, and as a sum of his parts, he was a conservative. The last of them.

If you like Ike, I won't quibble with your reasons. I like him too. You call him conservatve, I call him socialist, you call him traditional, I call him disestablishmentarian, potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto...

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you like Ike, I won't quibble with your reasons. I like him too. You call him conservatve, I call him socialist, you call him traditional, I call him disestablishmentarian, potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto...

Tell me more about that "socialist" Eisenhower, who ushered in a decade of austerity, actually had the US under a balanced budget without accounting gimmicks, and demanded non-Keynesian monetary policy.

[Who is Yuri?]

"Today in America, unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice. I have no use for those -- regardless of their political party -- who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when organized labor was huddled, almost as a hapless mass. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice." Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Who is Yuri?]

Tell me more about that "socialist" Eisenhower, who ushered in a decade of austerity, actually had the US under a balanced budget without accounting gimmicks, and demanded non-Keynesian monetary policy.

"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."

- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952 on his refusal to lower the top marginal tax rate on the rich from 91%.

[DC Tom]

"Some people wanted champagne and caviar when they should have had beer and hot dogs."

 

-Eisenhower, about socialism.