The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).

The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.

historian said:

---

The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).

The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.

---

Will be interesting, Trump can use a little Reaganism to reassure those Reagan Democrats AND the Reagan Republicans (the moderate NeoCons, as they love to label them)

Maybe so. It seems to be heading that way…

historian said:

---

Maybe so. It seems to be heading that way…

---

I think Trump being able to show a little Statesmen would help. He has the bomb throwing outsider down. Too bad there is no World Leader he can meet with and discuss the world situation. He needs to set at ease the establishment a bit. Not change positions, but maybe throw them a bone.

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).

The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.

---

Will be interesting, Trump can use a little Reaganism to reassure those Reagan Democrats AND the Reagan Republicans (the moderate NeoCons, as they love to label them)

---

Strictly speaking, the NeoCons were only a part of one of three pieces of the Reagan coalition within the GOP, which has been often described as a three-legged stool consisting of Fiscal Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Hawks. NeoCons were an outsized force in the Foreign Policy, many of them former Democrats Hawks. Those three factions drove the ROckefeller wing of the party, often called the "country club Republicans," into the political wilderness.

NeoCons are also a very noisy part of the neverTrump movement, still posing as Republicans but for all intents & purposes having returned to their Democrat roots.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).

The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.

---

Will be interesting, Trump can use a little Reaganism to reassure those Reagan Democrats AND the Reagan Republicans (the moderate NeoCons, as they love to label them)

---

Strictly speaking, the NeoCons were only a part of one of three pieces of the Reagan coalition, which has been often described as a three-legged stool consisting of Fiscal Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Hawks. NeoCons were an outsized force in the Foreign Policy, many of them former Democrats Hawks.

NeoCons are also a very noisy part of the neverTrump movement, still posing as Republicans but for all intents & purposes having returned to their Democrat roots.

---

Where I take offense is the posing, if you don't agree exactly with your groups definition you are not a true conservative, even though the Poster Boy for Republican Conservatism (Reagan) agreed through words and actions with many of the NeoCon positions.

Why don't you just face it, you are more Trump than Reagan. Reagan would not endorse Trump, as we saw with Bush (Reagan term 3). Yet, you keep saying Trump and MAGA are the true conservatives.

This is probably more a testament to how bad the two main choices are rather than RFK being particularly appealing.

You should take Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seriously.

He’s polling better than any third-party candidate in decades — and he could decide the whole 2024 election. pic.twitter.com/MKTHoq6yIB

— The Recount (@therecount) May 14, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).

The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.

---

Will be interesting, Trump can use a little Reaganism to reassure those Reagan Democrats AND the Reagan Republicans (the moderate NeoCons, as they love to label them)

---

Strictly speaking, the NeoCons were only a part of one of three pieces of the Reagan coalition, which has been often described as a three-legged stool consisting of Fiscal Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Hawks. NeoCons were an outsized force in the Foreign Policy, many of them former Democrats Hawks.

NeoCons are also a very noisy part of the neverTrump movement, still posing as Republicans but for all intents & purposes having returned to their Democrat roots.

---

Where I take offense is the posing, if you don't agree exactly with your groups definition you are not a true conservative, even though the Poster Boy for Republican Conservatism (Reagan) agreed through words and actions with many of the NeoCon positions.

Why don't you just face it, you are more Trump than Reagan. Reagan would not endorse Trump, as we saw with Bush (Reagan term 3). Yet, you keep saying Trump and MAGA are the true conservatives.

---

I don't think I've said that at all. I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in some of your assumptions, historical parallels, and othering of Trump supporters. like, for example, one you posed just above which suggested Reagan and Bush were from the same wings of the party. Not. at. all. Bush was the establishment choice, the very blue blooded country club fellow well met with a very impressive resume of establishmentarian service. Reagan was from the Goldwater wing of the party, the radical conservative end. He played well with all those people you dismiss as crazy. It was Bush he had a hard time with. Lots & lots of journalism about those two not thinking highly of one another, scarcely could talk to one another, about how improbable it was to get both of them on the ticket, etc..... They worked it out. Sure, some of that speaks to the character of the two men, but it also speaks to the allure of the office....a chance to be VP is a rare thing which affords a very strong position to become an even rarer thing - POTUS.

Trump and Reagan have plenty of parallels. Both were ridiculed by polite society as unintelligent boobs who would get us into WWIII. They were both loud mouthed authoritarians. And on and on and on. Their style is certainly different. The polices not so much. Trump certainly stole a page from Reagan on deregulation in ways the Bushies never did......

I'm not so sure Reagan wouldn't endorse Trump. Failure to do so is certainly going to be a black mark on the Bush family, and make their return to leadership of the party very unlikely.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).

The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.

---

Will be interesting, Trump can use a little Reaganism to reassure those Reagan Democrats AND the Reagan Republicans (the moderate NeoCons, as they love to label them)

---

Strictly speaking, the NeoCons were only a part of one of three pieces of the Reagan coalition, which has been often described as a three-legged stool consisting of Fiscal Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Hawks. NeoCons were an outsized force in the Foreign Policy, many of them former Democrats Hawks.

NeoCons are also a very noisy part of the neverTrump movement, still posing as Republicans but for all intents & purposes having returned to their Democrat roots.

---

Where I take offense is the posing, if you don't agree exactly with your groups definition you are not a true conservative, even though the Poster Boy for Republican Conservatism (Reagan) agreed through words and actions with many of the NeoCon positions.

Why don't you just face it, you are more Trump than Reagan. Reagan would not endorse Trump, as we saw with Bush (Reagan term 3). Yet, you keep saying Trump and MAGA are the true conservatives.

---

I don't think I've said that at all. I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in some of your assumptions, historical parallels, and othering of Trump supporters. like, for example, one you posed just above which suggested Reagan and Bush were from the same wings of the party. Not. at. all. Bush was the establishment choice, the very blue blooded country club fellow well met with a very impressive resume of establishmentarian service. Reagan was from the Goldwater wing of the party, the radical conservative end. He played well with all those people you dismiss as crazy. It was Bush he had a hard time with. Lots & lots of journalism about those two not thinking highly of one another, scarcely could talk to one another, about how improbable it was to get both of them on the ticket, etc..... They worked it out. Sure, some of that speaks to the character of the two men, but it also speaks to the allure of the office....a chance to be VP is a rare thing which affords a very strong position to become an even rarer thing - POTUS.

Trump and Reagan have plenty of parallels. Both were ridiculed by polite society as unintelligent boobs who would get us into WWIII. They were both loud mouthed authoritarians. And on and on and on. Their style is certainly different. The polices not so much. Trump certainly stole a page from Reagan on deregulation in ways the Bushies never did......

I'm not so sure Reagan wouldn't endorse Trump. Failure to do so is certainly going to be a black mark on the Bush family, and make their return to leadership of the party very unlikely.

---

But the Conversation is not just about Trump 1 and Reagan. Trump 1 actually has policies MGT would not aporove.

This is about Trump 2 and MAGA, with Trump being their leader. MAGA proclaims to have a monopoly on true Conservatism, you have seen it on this Board. Reagan, GHW Bush (Bush is included as part of Reagan), Goldwater, Buchanan the founding fathers is of Modern conservatism all had policies that would be RINO. I am talking actual actions, not speech stuff. MAGA is a problem, shutting everything down is not Governing and definitely not true Conservative policy.

Just for the record, I am not sure Trump can control the monster he created. See MTG and Johnson.

boognish_bear said:

---

This is probably more a testament to how bad the two main choices are rather than RFK being particularly appealing.

You should take Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seriously.

He’s polling better than any third-party candidate in decades — and he could decide the whole 2024 election. pic.twitter.com/MKTHoq6yIB

— The Recount (@therecount) May 14, 2024

---

I had made up my mind to vote for RFK until he picked some Northern California serial divorcing druid as a VP candidate.

Now it comes down to who Trump picks. The difference being that both Trump and Biden are old enough that they may die of natural causes by 2028 leaving their VP in charge. So in Trump's case if the VP choice is bad, that may be reason enough to vote RFK despite his pick.

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

This is probably more a testament to how bad the two main choices are rather than RFK being particularly appealing.

You should take Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seriously.

He’s polling better than any third-party candidate in decades — and he could decide the whole 2024 election. pic.twitter.com/MKTHoq6yIB

— The Recount (@therecount) May 14, 2024

---

I had made up my mind to vote for RFK until he picked some Northern California serial divorcing druid as a VP candidate.

Now it comes down to who Trump picks. The difference being that both Trump and Biden are old enough that they may die of natural causes by 2028 leaving their VP in charge. So in Trump's case if the VP choice is bad, that may be reason enough to vote RFK despite his pick.

---

you have read the room correctly

Actually, 'for the record' we get it that you think Trump is the worst possible choice for President, except Hillary or Biden.

You honestly do not have to pop off some paranoid pot shot six times a day. We get it, and frankly it just makes you look looney-tunes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, 'for the record' we get it that you think Trump is the worst possible choice for President, except Hillary or Biden.

You honestly do not have to pop off some paranoid pot shot six times a day. We get it, and frankly it just makes you look looney-tunes.

---

Well, thanks for your input. I will put it in the same place I put KaiBear...

Sitting in Airports, I can't think of anything better than pissing you and Kai off...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, 'for the record' we get it that you think Trump is the worst possible choice for President, except Hillary or Biden.

You honestly do not have to pop off some paranoid pot shot six times a day. We get it, and frankly it just makes you look looney-tunes.

---

Well, thanks for your input. I will put it in the same place I put KaiBear...

Sitting in Airports, I can't think of anything better than pissing you and Kai off...

---

Reading a book or listening to music are options I use in airports, but you stick to what you know ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, 'for the record' we get it that you think Trump is the worst possible choice for President, except Hillary or Biden.

You honestly do not have to pop off some paranoid pot shot six times a day. We get it, and frankly it just makes you look looney-tunes.

---

Well, thanks for your input. I will put it in the same place I put KaiBear...

Sitting in Airports, I can't think of anything better than pissing you and Kai off...

---

Reading a book or listening to music are options I use in airports, but you stick to what you know ...

---

Who says I haven't. Your concern is touching, but believe me if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't. Most of what I comment on is so off base, that someone needs to provide a balancing view. I am sick of bullies just pushing their views as fact and then resorting to making fun of those that disagree.

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, 'for the record' we get it that you think Trump is the worst possible choice for President, except Hillary or Biden.

You honestly do not have to pop off some paranoid pot shot six times a day. We get it, and frankly it just makes you look looney-tunes.

---

Well, thanks for your input. I will put it in the same place I put KaiBear...

Sitting in Airports, I can't think of anything better than pissing you and Kai off...

---

LOL

My work is done.

Biden — for the second time in less than a week — falsely claims inflation "was at 9%" when he took office.

It was 1.4%. pic.twitter.com/lmiX9SFhjS

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 14, 2024

Jack Bauer said:

---

Biden — for the second time in less than a week — falsely claims inflation "was at 9%" when he took office.

It was 1.4%. pic.twitter.com/lmiX9SFhjS

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 14, 2024

---

it would be easier to report what Biden said that was true.. pretty short list

DEBATE: Biden’s debate challenge to Trump came with fine print:

• No live audience
• RFK Jr. is banned
• Trump’s mic is muted when Biden speaks
• Only hosted by NPR, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS
• Moderated by Democrat-aligned reporter pic.twitter.com/ST4ZKTcMFA

— @amuse (@amuse) May 15, 2024

Oldbear83 said:

---

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Yet here you are, again. Notice you don't comment on the number of time people that agree with you post.

As for you, haven't exactly been a dialouge poster, you pretty much come after me and get confused when I come back at you. At least others here, have dialogues. But, I don't think you are trying to resolve anything. Like you alter-ego, just want to throw bombs.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Yet here you are, again. Notice you don't comment on the number of time people that agree with you post.

As for you, haven't exactly been a dialouge poster, you pretty much come after me and get confused when I come back at you. At least others here, have dialogues. But, I don't think you are trying to resolve anything. Like you alter-ego, just want to throw bombs.

---

Tell me you put blinders on when you read these forums, without actually using that phrase.

1. Popularity is not the same thing as being right. I have had posts with a number of stars and the always-impressive blue background, but those are not the ones I think were my best.

2. Over the years, I have written a wide variety of posts, serious and silly, profound sometimes stupid, short and pithy and sometimes long and detailed. You are not being truthful at all to claim I just 'throw bombs'. All that claim means, is that you ignore any reasonable post I make which does not support your opinion. Ironically, that gives you a trait currently on display on several Ivy League campuses, but not in a praiseworthy way.

3. This is a forum, and since it focuses on politics and religion, there is not even one thread where anyone changed their mind. Ergo, this is a forum for expressing opinion, venting, and having some fun. You seem to have somehow missed that in your crusade to damn those of us who are simply expressing ourselves and taking a break from a world gone mad.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Yet here you are, again. Notice you don't comment on the number of time people that agree with you post.

As for you, haven't exactly been a dialouge poster, you pretty much come after me and get confused when I come back at you. At least others here, have dialogues. But, I don't think you are trying to resolve anything. Like you alter-ego, just want to throw bombs.

---

Tell me you put blinders on when you read these forums, without actually using that phrase.

1. Popularity is not the same thing as being right. I have had posts with a number of stars and the always-impressive blue background, but those are not the ones I think were my best.

2. Over the years, I have written a wide variety of posts, serious and silly, profound sometimes stupid, short and pithy and sometimes long and detailed. You are not being truthful at all to claim I just 'throw bombs'. All that claim means, is that you ignore any reasonable post I make which does not support your opinion. Ironically, that gives you a trait currently on display on several Ivy League campuses, but not in a praiseworthy way.

3. This is a forum, and since it focuses on politics and religion, there is not even one thread where anyone changed their mind. Ergo, this is a forum for expressing opinion, venting, and having some fun. You seem to have somehow missed that in your crusade to damn those of us who are simply expressing ourselves and taking a break from a world gone mad.

---

I ask for dialogue, not just name calling. I have laid out facts and data supporting my positions. So far from you I get a lot of name calling, insults and supposition. I have not heard any facts or data to support your positions. Lately, it has just been telling me to go read a book because you are sick of hearing from me.

As for disregarding your posts. I apologize if I have done that. I have supported several of your positions. I do not react well to name calling or bullying. I have no issues discussing and agreeing with people. Just don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

I respect Whiterock, he provides real data and analysis. I may not agree, but when he is right I tell him. That is a dialogue. Being called an idiot is not. You want to discuss? I am all for it, it is an election year. Want to argue conservatism? Have at it. But if you just want to brow beat, I don't have time or tolerance for people like that.

I will start fresh.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Yet here you are, again. Notice you don't comment on the number of time people that agree with you post.

As for you, haven't exactly been a dialouge poster, you pretty much come after me and get confused when I come back at you. At least others here, have dialogues. But, I don't think you are trying to resolve anything. Like you alter-ego, just want to throw bombs.

---

Tell me you put blinders on when you read these forums, without actually using that phrase.

1. Popularity is not the same thing as being right. I have had posts with a number of stars and the always-impressive blue background, but those are not the ones I think were my best.

2. Over the years, I have written a wide variety of posts, serious and silly, profound sometimes stupid, short and pithy and sometimes long and detailed. You are not being truthful at all to claim I just 'throw bombs'. All that claim means, is that you ignore any reasonable post I make which does not support your opinion. Ironically, that gives you a trait currently on display on several Ivy League campuses, but not in a praiseworthy way.

3. This is a forum, and since it focuses on politics and religion, there is not even one thread where anyone changed their mind. Ergo, this is a forum for expressing opinion, venting, and having some fun. You seem to have somehow missed that in your crusade to damn those of us who are simply expressing ourselves and taking a break from a world gone mad.

---

I ask for dialogue, not just name calling. I have laid out facts and data supporting my positions. So far from you I get a lot of name calling, insults and supposition. I have not heard any facts or data to support your positions. Lately, it has just been telling me to go read a book because you are sick of hearing from me.

As for disregarding your posts. I apologize if I have done that. I have supported several of your positions. I do not react well to name calling or bullying. I have no issues discussing and agreeing with people. Just don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

I respect Whiterock, he provides real data and analysis. I may not agree, but when he is right I tell him. That is a dialogue. Being called an idiot is not. You want to discuss? I am all for it, it is an election year. Want to argue conservatism? Have at it. But if you just want to brow beat, I don't have time or tolerance for people like that.

I will start fresh.

---

I agree about starting fresh, although I chuckle at your claim that I don't provide facts or data. After all, you have even agreed with an observation of mine not long ago about not being required to be taxes unless the IRS actually gets involved; someone saying you owe taxes is not the same thing.

I am also amused that you take such umbrage to 'name calling', considering how quickly you default to attacking anyone who defends Trump on an issue or point, even when you know full well those people preferred other candidates to win the nomination.

I really do think you may be taking some posts too seriously. I generally ignore the really nasty ones, for the same reason that no one is obliged to bark back at an angry dog. I agree with you that there is value and purpose to a good conversation, and sometimes someone you consider a complete dolt may yet make a good point, just as someone you respect may have a bad day.

I would also suggest that there are different styles of forum posters. Some are hard data types, which are useful unless they cherry-pick their data. I do those posts when discussing opinion polling, specifically the methodology and numbers behind margin of error, but not many people seem to really appreciate that level of nerd-dom. I also have done a lot of work in political history, which is one reason why, despite preferring Cruz in 2016 and DeSantis in 2024 I find Trump a fascinating study in running against expectations. But again, that is something of an acquired taste.

I also know enough History to understand that leaders see their image change over time. Harry Truman, for example, left office with the image of an unpopular and stubborn man who was not willing to see how the world had changed after World War 2, but has since evolved into an icon for sensible leadership and dedication to principle. It's interesting to consider whether Trump in 20 years will be remembered as a better leader than some see now, a failure compared to the moment, or something else. Like so many other leaders, Trump will - I think - see his legacy formed by the actions of his opponents and how he fights his battles. It matters because he will shape our course by his decisions, so it is to our own interest to hope he finds wisdom and a sense of duty beyond his ego. This presumes, of course, that the election plays out this November as it now appears to be going.

boognish_bear said:

---

DEBATE: Biden’s debate challenge to Trump came with fine print:

• No live audience
• RFK Jr. is banned
• Trump’s mic is muted when Biden speaks
• Only hosted by NPR, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS
• Moderated by Democrat-aligned reporter pic.twitter.com/ST4ZKTcMFA

— @amuse (@amuse) May 15, 2024

---

Trump in March

Texas State University was set to be the first university in Texas to host a presidential debate, but both candidates for president are going rogue. Two new debate dates will be hosted by CNN and ABC News, slated to take place on June 27 and Sept. 10.https://t.co/FZzKzjCk75

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) May 15, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).

The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.

---

Will be interesting, Trump can use a little Reaganism to reassure those Reagan Democrats AND the Reagan Republicans (the moderate NeoCons, as they love to label them)

---

Strictly speaking, the NeoCons were only a part of one of three pieces of the Reagan coalition, which has been often described as a three-legged stool consisting of Fiscal Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Hawks. NeoCons were an outsized force in the Foreign Policy, many of them former Democrats Hawks.

NeoCons are also a very noisy part of the neverTrump movement, still posing as Republicans but for all intents & purposes having returned to their Democrat roots.

---

Where I take offense is the posing, if you don't agree exactly with your groups definition you are not a true conservative, even though the Poster Boy for Republican Conservatism (Reagan) agreed through words and actions with many of the NeoCon positions.

Why don't you just face it, you are more Trump than Reagan. Reagan would not endorse Trump, as we saw with Bush (Reagan term 3). Yet, you keep saying Trump and MAGA are the true conservatives.

---

I don't think I've said that at all. I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in some of your assumptions, historical parallels, and othering of Trump supporters. like, for example, one you posed just above which suggested Reagan and Bush were from the same wings of the party. Not. at. all. Bush was the establishment choice, the very blue blooded country club fellow well met with a very impressive resume of establishmentarian service. Reagan was from the Goldwater wing of the party, the radical conservative end. He played well with all those people you dismiss as crazy. It was Bush he had a hard time with. Lots & lots of journalism about those two not thinking highly of one another, scarcely could talk to one another, about how improbable it was to get both of them on the ticket, etc..... They worked it out. Sure, some of that speaks to the character of the two men, but it also speaks to the allure of the office....a chance to be VP is a rare thing which affords a very strong position to become an even rarer thing - POTUS.

Trump and Reagan have plenty of parallels. Both were ridiculed by polite society as unintelligent boobs who would get us into WWIII. They were both loud mouthed authoritarians. And on and on and on. Their style is certainly different. The polices not so much. Trump certainly stole a page from Reagan on deregulation in ways the Bushies never did......

I'm not so sure Reagan wouldn't endorse Trump. Failure to do so is certainly going to be a black mark on the Bush family, and make their return to leadership of the party very unlikely.

---

But the Conversation is not just about Trump 1 and Reagan. Trump 1 actually has policies MGT would not aporove.

This is about Trump 2 and MAGA, with Trump being their leader. MAGA proclaims to have a monopoly on true Conservatism, you have seen it on this Board. Reagan, GHW Bush (Bush is included as part of Reagan), Goldwater, Buchanan the founding fathers is of Modern conservatism all had policies that would be RINO. I am talking actual actions, not speech stuff. MAGA is a problem, shutting everything down is not Governing and definitely not true Conservative policy.

Just for the record, I am not sure Trump can control the monster he created. See MTG and Johnson.

---

You do remember, don't you, that MTG supported McCarthy to the bitter end?

You are completely incorrect that there is anything remarkable about MAGA whipping on moderates. The conservative base ALWAYS believes it is the true defender of conservatism. It was that way under Reagan (who was part of the wild-eyed conservative base). It was that way under the Tea Party. And it's that way now under MAGA. And to the extent that always the moderates voting for stuff that is NOT at all conservative, the base kinda has a point, don't they? I have cited here many times what I always tell conservatives planning to run for office = "a Republican Primary is a RINO hunt." No matter how conservative you think you are, you are going to get called a RINO until you prove otherwise, because soooooo many candidates have said all the right things then gone to Congress and developed voting records that sorely disappoint the base. The reflexive suspicion is a case of Pavlovian conditioning so ingrained that it's become culture.

In the Democrat Party caucus, the left base elects the leaders, and the leaders whip the moderates. (Go back thru Dem leaders and see how far you have to go to find a conservative Speaker). It's only in the GOP where the moderates think they are entitled to lead and whip the (larger) conservative base. When it backfires, the moderates squeal at how unreasonable the conservatives are being (notwithstanding the irony of moderates whipping the base). And when we actually do get a pretty conservative leader, the moderates threaten to bolt over to Democrats (rather than playing with conservatives).

The problem here is THE MODERATES. They think they're too wise and principled to cut deals with people on their own team. They're octopuses when it comes to reaching across the aisle, and alligators when it comes to playing team ball.

Who are the Democrat moderates always frustrating the squad, threatening to overthrow their leader for being too liberal, constantly enabling conservative legislation while utterly failing to accomplish anything notably progressive? (crickets....)

Every time someone cites the Democrats as an example of how to work together, they are acknowledging the proper structure of a Congressional Caucus = leadership beholden to the base pushing legislation ideological enough to require whipping of moderates. In fairness to Republican leaders (of any stripe), their job is harder because Democrats do not have any moderates in the sense Republicans do.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Yet here you are, again. Notice you don't comment on the number of time people that agree with you post.

As for you, haven't exactly been a dialouge poster, you pretty much come after me and get confused when I come back at you. At least others here, have dialogues. But, I don't think you are trying to resolve anything. Like you alter-ego, just want to throw bombs.

---

Tell me you put blinders on when you read these forums, without actually using that phrase.

1. Popularity is not the same thing as being right. I have had posts with a number of stars and the always-impressive blue background, but those are not the ones I think were my best.

2. Over the years, I have written a wide variety of posts, serious and silly, profound sometimes stupid, short and pithy and sometimes long and detailed. You are not being truthful at all to claim I just 'throw bombs'. All that claim means, is that you ignore any reasonable post I make which does not support your opinion. Ironically, that gives you a trait currently on display on several Ivy League campuses, but not in a praiseworthy way.

3. This is a forum, and since it focuses on politics and religion, there is not even one thread where anyone changed their mind. Ergo, this is a forum for expressing opinion, venting, and having some fun. You seem to have somehow missed that in your crusade to damn those of us who are simply expressing ourselves and taking a break from a world gone mad.

---

I ask for dialogue, not just name calling. I have laid out facts and data supporting my positions. So far from you I get a lot of name calling, insults and supposition. I have not heard any facts or data to support your positions. Lately, it has just been telling me to go read a book because you are sick of hearing from me.

As for disregarding your posts. I apologize if I have done that. I have supported several of your positions. I do not react well to name calling or bullying. I have no issues discussing and agreeing with people. Just don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

I respect Whiterock, he provides real data and analysis. I may not agree, but when he is right I tell him. That is a dialogue. Being called an idiot is not. You want to discuss? I am all for it, it is an election year. Want to argue conservatism? Have at it. But if you just want to brow beat, I don't have time or tolerance for people like that.

I will start fresh.

---

I agree about starting fresh, although I chuckle at your claim that I don't provide facts or data. After all, you have even agreed with an observation of mine not long ago about not being required to be taxes unless the IRS actually gets involved; someone saying you owe taxes is not the same thing.

I am also amused that you take such umbrage to 'name calling', considering how quickly you default to attacking anyone who defends Trump on an issue or point, even when you know full well those people preferred other candidates to win the nomination.

I really do think you may be taking some posts too seriously. I generally ignore the really nasty ones, for the same reason that no one is obliged to bark back at an angry dog. I agree with you that there is value and purpose to a good conversation, and sometimes someone you consider a complete dolt may yet make a good point, just as someone you respect may have a bad day.

I would also suggest that there are different styles of forum posters. Some are hard data types, which are useful unless they cherry-pick their data. I do those posts when discussing opinion polling, specifically the methodology and numbers behind margin of error, but not many people seem to really appreciate that level of nerd-dom. I also have done a lot of work in political history, which is one reason why, despite preferring Cruz in 2016 and DeSantis in 2024 I find Trump a fascinating study in running against expectations. But again, that is something of an acquired taste.

I also know enough History to understand that leaders see their image change over time. Harry Truman, for example, left office with the image of an unpopular and stubborn man who was not willing to see how the world had changed after World War 2, but has since evolved into an icon for sensible leadership and dedication to principle. It's interesting to consider whether Trump in 20 years will be remembered as a better leader than some see now, a failure compared to the moment, or something else. Like so many other leaders, Trump will - I think - see his legacy formed by the actions of his opponents and how he fights his battles. It matters because he will shape our course by his decisions, so it is to our own interest to hope he finds wisdom and a sense of duty beyond his ego. This presumes, of course, that the election plays out this November as it now appears to be going.

---

No issues here. I literally hold grudges about 6 minutes. Don't see much value. I appreciate the olive branch and accepting from a dolt.

I am voting Trump, there is no choice. Biden is a disaster. I think the area we disagree most is role of Govt.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Yet here you are, again. Notice you don't comment on the number of time people that agree with you post.

As for you, haven't exactly been a dialouge poster, you pretty much come after me and get confused when I come back at you. At least others here, have dialogues. But, I don't think you are trying to resolve anything. Like you alter-ego, just want to throw bombs.

---

Tell me you put blinders on when you read these forums, without actually using that phrase.

1. Popularity is not the same thing as being right. I have had posts with a number of stars and the always-impressive blue background, but those are not the ones I think were my best.

2. Over the years, I have written a wide variety of posts, serious and silly, profound sometimes stupid, short and pithy and sometimes long and detailed. You are not being truthful at all to claim I just 'throw bombs'. All that claim means, is that you ignore any reasonable post I make which does not support your opinion. Ironically, that gives you a trait currently on display on several Ivy League campuses, but not in a praiseworthy way.

3. This is a forum, and since it focuses on politics and religion, there is not even one thread where anyone changed their mind. Ergo, this is a forum for expressing opinion, venting, and having some fun. You seem to have somehow missed that in your crusade to damn those of us who are simply expressing ourselves and taking a break from a world gone mad.

---

I ask for dialogue, not just name calling. I have laid out facts and data supporting my positions. So far from you I get a lot of name calling, insults and supposition. I have not heard any facts or data to support your positions. Lately, it has just been telling me to go read a book because you are sick of hearing from me.

As for disregarding your posts. I apologize if I have done that. I have supported several of your positions. I do not react well to name calling or bullying. I have no issues discussing and agreeing with people. Just don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

I respect Whiterock, he provides real data and analysis. I may not agree, but when he is right I tell him. That is a dialogue. Being called an idiot is not. You want to discuss? I am all for it, it is an election year. Want to argue conservatism? Have at it. But if you just want to brow beat, I don't have time or tolerance for people like that.

I will start fresh.

---

I agree about starting fresh, although I chuckle at your claim that I don't provide facts or data. After all, you have even agreed with an observation of mine not long ago about not being required to be taxes unless the IRS actually gets involved; someone saying you owe taxes is not the same thing.

I am also amused that you take such umbrage to 'name calling', considering how quickly you default to attacking anyone who defends Trump on an issue or point, even when you know full well those people preferred other candidates to win the nomination.

I really do think you may be taking some posts too seriously. I generally ignore the really nasty ones, for the same reason that no one is obliged to bark back at an angry dog. I agree with you that there is value and purpose to a good conversation, and sometimes someone you consider a complete dolt may yet make a good point, just as someone you respect may have a bad day.

I would also suggest that there are different styles of forum posters. Some are hard data types, which are useful unless they cherry-pick their data. I do those posts when discussing opinion polling, specifically the methodology and numbers behind margin of error, but not many people seem to really appreciate that level of nerd-dom. I also have done a lot of work in political history, which is one reason why, despite preferring Cruz in 2016 and DeSantis in 2024 I find Trump a fascinating study in running against expectations. But again, that is something of an acquired taste.

I also know enough History to understand that leaders see their image change over time. Harry Truman, for example, left office with the image of an unpopular and stubborn man who was not willing to see how the world had changed after World War 2, but has since evolved into an icon for sensible leadership and dedication to principle. It's interesting to consider whether Trump in 20 years will be remembered as a better leader than some see now, a failure compared to the moment, or something else. Like so many other leaders, Trump will - I think - see his legacy formed by the actions of his opponents and how he fights his battles. It matters because he will shape our course by his decisions, so it is to our own interest to hope he finds wisdom and a sense of duty beyond his ego. This presumes, of course, that the election plays out this November as it now appears to be going.

---

No issues here. I literally hold grudges about 6 minutes. Don't see much value. I appreciate the olive branch and accepting from a dolt.

I am voting Trump, there is no choice. Biden is a disaster. I think the area we disagree most is role of Govt.

---

You're right. I have seen too many bad people in government roles, especially in unelected agencies, who have destroyed lives and ruined good people with absolutely no accountability.

I was born 200 years too late, it seems.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"if there was nothing to comment, I wouldn't"

Your history over the last six months on this board says otherwise.

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Yet here you are, again. Notice you don't comment on the number of time people that agree with you post.

As for you, haven't exactly been a dialouge poster, you pretty much come after me and get confused when I come back at you. At least others here, have dialogues. But, I don't think you are trying to resolve anything. Like you alter-ego, just want to throw bombs.

---

Tell me you put blinders on when you read these forums, without actually using that phrase.

1. Popularity is not the same thing as being right. I have had posts with a number of stars and the always-impressive blue background, but those are not the ones I think were my best.

2. Over the years, I have written a wide variety of posts, serious and silly, profound sometimes stupid, short and pithy and sometimes long and detailed. You are not being truthful at all to claim I just 'throw bombs'. All that claim means, is that you ignore any reasonable post I make which does not support your opinion. Ironically, that gives you a trait currently on display on several Ivy League campuses, but not in a praiseworthy way.

3. This is a forum, and since it focuses on politics and religion, there is not even one thread where anyone changed their mind. Ergo, this is a forum for expressing opinion, venting, and having some fun. You seem to have somehow missed that in your crusade to damn those of us who are simply expressing ourselves and taking a break from a world gone mad.

---

I ask for dialogue, not just name calling. I have laid out facts and data supporting my positions. So far from you I get a lot of name calling, insults and supposition. I have not heard any facts or data to support your positions. Lately, it has just been telling me to go read a book because you are sick of hearing from me.

As for disregarding your posts. I apologize if I have done that. I have supported several of your positions. I do not react well to name calling or bullying. I have no issues discussing and agreeing with people. Just don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

I respect Whiterock, he provides real data and analysis. I may not agree, but when he is right I tell him. That is a dialogue. Being called an idiot is not. You want to discuss? I am all for it, it is an election year. Want to argue conservatism? Have at it. But if you just want to brow beat, I don't have time or tolerance for people like that.

I will start fresh.

---

I agree about starting fresh, although I chuckle at your claim that I don't provide facts or data. After all, you have even agreed with an observation of mine not long ago about not being required to be taxes unless the IRS actually gets involved; someone saying you owe taxes is not the same thing.

I am also amused that you take such umbrage to 'name calling', considering how quickly you default to attacking anyone who defends Trump on an issue or point, even when you know full well those people preferred other candidates to win the nomination.

I really do think you may be taking some posts too seriously. I generally ignore the really nasty ones, for the same reason that no one is obliged to bark back at an angry dog. I agree with you that there is value and purpose to a good conversation, and sometimes someone you consider a complete dolt may yet make a good point, just as someone you respect may have a bad day.

I would also suggest that there are different styles of forum posters. Some are hard data types, which are useful unless they cherry-pick their data. I do those posts when discussing opinion polling, specifically the methodology and numbers behind margin of error, but not many people seem to really appreciate that level of nerd-dom. I also have done a lot of work in political history, which is one reason why, despite preferring Cruz in 2016 and DeSantis in 2024 I find Trump a fascinating study in running against expectations. But again, that is something of an acquired taste.

I also know enough History to understand that leaders see their image change over time. Harry Truman, for example, left office with the image of an unpopular and stubborn man who was not willing to see how the world had changed after World War 2, but has since evolved into an icon for sensible leadership and dedication to principle. It's interesting to consider whether Trump in 20 years will be remembered as a better leader than some see now, a failure compared to the moment, or something else. Like so many other leaders, Trump will - I think - see his legacy formed by the actions of his opponents and how he fights his battles. It matters because he will shape our course by his decisions, so it is to our own interest to hope he finds wisdom and a sense of duty beyond his ego. This presumes, of course, that the election plays out this November as it now appears to be going.

---

No issues here. I literally hold grudges about 6 minutes. Don't see much value. I appreciate the olive branch and accepting from a dolt.

I am voting Trump, there is no choice. Biden is a disaster. I think the area we disagree most is role of Govt.

---

You're right. I have seen too many bad people in government roles, especially in unelected agencies, who have destroyed lives and ruined good people with absolutely no accountability.

I was born 200 years too late, it seems.

---

Like everything else, it has also done some great things and has a lot of good people. Definitely not perfect.

it's kinda funny how Maryland, despite already being ultra blue, still just keeps getting bluer and bluer. there really are just no good trends anywhere for the GOP in the state lol pic.twitter.com/KCsgjG8gAg

— Roose (@RuNoseP) May 15, 2024

whiterock said:

---

In the Democrat Party caucus, the left base elects the leaders, and the leaders whip the moderates. (Go back thru Dem leaders and see how far you have to go to find a conservative Speaker). It's only in the GOP where the moderates think they are entitled to lead and whip the (larger) conservative base. When it backfires, the moderates squeal at how unreasonable the conservatives are being (notwithstanding the irony of moderates whipping the base). And when we actually do get a pretty conservative leader, the moderates threaten to bolt over to Democrats (rather than playing with conservatives).

The problem here is THE MODERATES. They think they're too wise and principled to cut deals with people on their own team. They're octopuses when it comes to reaching across the aisle, and alligators when it comes to playing team ball.

Who are the Democrat moderates always frustrating the squad, threatening to overthrow their leader for being too liberal, constantly enabling conservative legislation while utterly failing to accomplish anything notably progressive? (crickets....)

Every time someone cites the Democrats as an example of how to work together, they are acknowledging the proper structure of a Congressional Caucus = leadership beholden to the base pushing legislation ideological enough to require whipping of moderates. In fairness to Republican leaders (of any stripe), their job is harder because Democrats do not have any moderates in the sense Republicans do.

---

100% correct. And it is this history of betraying the base that led to the rise of Trump. Consider that he was the only candidate in that broad 2016 field willing to touch on the mass immigration issue.

Trump should insist on a few things too:

Turn off the mic whichever candidate is not answering a question, including Biden
No earpiece for Biden or the "moderator" (Dem flunky)

Those are actually reasonable demands that will make them more like real debates instead of staged racist propaganda stunts.

Source: https://stream.org/the-brew-will-judge-in-hush-money-case-issue-directed-verdict-declaring-trump-not-guilty The Brew: Will Judge in 'Hush Money' Case Issue Directed Verdict Declaring Trump Not Guilty?

Here is the original: https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/15/bidens-debate-demands-show-his-weakness-trump-can-capitalize-on-it/

There are no Dem moderates because they were purged by Nancy Pelosi. The fascists are completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them on anything, even in their own party.