POLL: Serious question for conservatives: Have you given up?

[martybegan]

I could easily be wrong here, but I'm seeing little signs here and there that there are conservatives who are more in a salvage operation than a rescue operation.

In other words, I'm getting the impression that they feel the country is clearly going down a different road, and that the major battle has been lost. What some seem to be doing now is trying to salvage what elements of conservatism they can. But other than that, it's over.

Am I right or wrong?
.

The original country died in 1865

yeah, damn that whole getting rid of slavery thing.

Federalism. Slavery was the issue, but the original notion of federal-state powers ended at that time.

it didn't end, but the power did shift towards the federal government, and that power only continued to be exploited by progressives to centralize power.

We can still go back to federalism under the current document, but only if our Courts stop making shit up.

We can't ever go back. We'd not have Medicaid under the original view. Even without the Civil War, World Wars forced changes. We just don't have standing armies, we have a standing weapons industry. Social needs forced changes. Soc Sec ... maybe, just possibly. Medicare ..... ok. But no way for Medicaid, not to mention the bizarre fed-state Obamacare structure.

We can go back when it comes to smaller stuff, and that would be a start. People just have to start small.

One example is the forced 21 year old drinking age. The amendment states that the States set their alcohol policy, but the government did an end run around that with highway funding, which to me is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[sealybobo]

If I had a dollar for every time someone claimed conservatism was dead, I would be a rich man.

What's funny is that it is the left who are on the ropes. This is pendulum that swings back and forth, with Obama it swung to the furthest left extreme, now it is swinging back.

But then, much has to do with how you define "conservative." The gay shit is over.

When's the last time the so-called pendulum swung in the direction of an actual advancement of a major conservative cause?

2014. Did you miss the elections that kicked you Bolsheviks out of both houses of Congress?[/QUOTE]
Low voter turn out. Lets see your mandate in a general election year. How come you can't turn out the vote instead you have to count on low voter turnout? That's not a mandate.

 

[martybegan]

And is, of course, only bad when THOSE GUYS do it.

And the 31-18-1 advantage Republicans have with Governors is due to gerrymandering as well, right?

I don't get it. Michigan's 2 Senate seats are always Democratic, we always vote Blue for President, and yet sometimes a Republican will win the Governors house. Baffling. Especially in a union state. But the unions fucked themselves 6 years ago when they voted in Snyder. They didn't think he'd do it but he made Michigan a right to work state. The unions deserve what's coming to them.

And Republicans completely own both state houses in Michigan.

Republicans realized a long time ago it was more important to control the state government than it is the federal government. You can get more done on a state level.

The Republicans in Michigan love the pork our Democratic senators bring home for them.

And Progressives realized long ago if you can get the Supreme Court to make crap up, you can ignore winning anything at the State level.

I think it was the GOP that realized 2 justices were going to be retiring so that is why they had to STEAL the 2000 election. They had to get Alito and Roberts on the court. Well this is karma for ya. The most right winger of your Justices just croaked and the timing couldn't have been more perfect. Even if Trump wins and he appoints a conservative, no way the guy will be as conservative as Scalia was.

You do know that most counts show the election going for Bush anyway, right? Regardless of how the final count ended up. Plus Gore lost his own State due to his gun control fetish. Blame his loss on that.

And your condolences for the deceased are noted.

Blame his loss on a perverted system where the guy who loses the vote can win the election.

Its because the States actually elect the president via the electoral college, not the people directly. Have a problem with that? Amend the constitution.

 

[sealybobo]

And is, of course, only bad when THOSE GUYS do it.

And the 31-18-1 advantage Republicans have with Governors is due to gerrymandering as well, right?

I don't get it. Michigan's 2 Senate seats are always Democratic, we always vote Blue for President, and yet sometimes a Republican will win the Governors house. Baffling. Especially in a union state. But the unions fucked themselves 6 years ago when they voted in Snyder. They didn't think he'd do it but he made Michigan a right to work state. The unions deserve what's coming to them.

And Republicans completely own both state houses in Michigan.

Republicans realized a long time ago it was more important to control the state government than it is the federal government. You can get more done on a state level.

The Republicans in Michigan love the pork our Democratic senators bring home for them.

And Progressives realized long ago if you can get the Supreme Court to make crap up, you can ignore winning anything at the State level.

I think it was the GOP that realized 2 justices were going to be retiring so that is why they had to STEAL the 2000 election. They had to get Alito and Roberts on the court. Well this is karma for ya. The most right winger of your Justices just croaked and the timing couldn't have been more perfect. Even if Trump wins and he appoints a conservative, no way the guy will be as conservative as Scalia was.

You do know that most counts show the election going for Bush anyway, right? Regardless of how the final count ended up. Plus Gore lost his own State due to his gun control fetish. Blame his loss on that.

And your condolences for the deceased are noted.

Blame his loss on a perverted system where the guy who loses the vote can win the election.

Gerrymandering Rigged the 2014 Elections for GOP Advantage | BillMoyers.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

If I had a dollar for every time someone claimed conservatism was dead, I would be a rich man.

What's funny is that it is the left who are on the ropes. This is pendulum that swings back and forth, with Obama it swung to the furthest left extreme, now it is swinging back.

But then, much has to do with how you define "conservative." The gay shit is over.

When's the last time the so-called pendulum swung in the direction of an actual advancement of a major conservative cause?

2014. Did you miss the elections that kicked you Bolsheviks out of both houses of Congress?[/QUOTE]

I said the advancement of a cause. The GOP Congress hasn't advanced anything.

A cause is like marriage equality. Which way did that go?

 

[martybegan]

And is, of course, only bad when THOSE GUYS do it.

And the 31-18-1 advantage Republicans have with Governors is due to gerrymandering as well, right?

I don't get it. Michigan's 2 Senate seats are always Democratic, we always vote Blue for President, and yet sometimes a Republican will win the Governors house. Baffling. Especially in a union state. But the unions fucked themselves 6 years ago when they voted in Snyder. They didn't think he'd do it but he made Michigan a right to work state. The unions deserve what's coming to them.

And Republicans completely own both state houses in Michigan.

Republicans realized a long time ago it was more important to control the state government than it is the federal government. You can get more done on a state level.

The Republicans in Michigan love the pork our Democratic senators bring home for them.

And Progressives realized long ago if you can get the Supreme Court to make crap up, you can ignore winning anything at the State level.

I think it was the GOP that realized 2 justices were going to be retiring so that is why they had to STEAL the 2000 election. They had to get Alito and Roberts on the court. Well this is karma for ya. The most right winger of your Justices just croaked and the timing couldn't have been more perfect. Even if Trump wins and he appoints a conservative, no way the guy will be as conservative as Scalia was.

You do know that most counts show the election going for Bush anyway, right? Regardless of how the final count ended up. Plus Gore lost his own State due to his gun control fetish. Blame his loss on that.

And your condolences for the deceased are noted.

You are dead wrong but that's because you've been listening to the right wing for too long. Republicans have proven they can argue anything. If they can argue they didn't steal 2000 then they can argue anything and the American people are stupid enough to let them get away with it.

Goldwater's Ghost in the Voting Machines?

"If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"

Now Your Vote Is The Property Of A Private Corporation

The Theft of Your Vote Is Just a Chip Away

OpEdNews Article: The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy: Privatizing Our Vote

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

'Stinking Evidence' of Possible Election Fraud Found in Florida

All sorts of "evidence", but nothing that has stood up in a court. No convictions, no arrests.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't get it. Michigan's 2 Senate seats are always Democratic, we always vote Blue for President, and yet sometimes a Republican will win the Governors house. Baffling. Especially in a union state. But the unions fucked themselves 6 years ago when they voted in Snyder. They didn't think he'd do it but he made Michigan a right to work state. The unions deserve what's coming to them.

And Republicans completely own both state houses in Michigan.

Republicans realized a long time ago it was more important to control the state government than it is the federal government. You can get more done on a state level.

The Republicans in Michigan love the pork our Democratic senators bring home for them.

And Progressives realized long ago if you can get the Supreme Court to make crap up, you can ignore winning anything at the State level.

I think it was the GOP that realized 2 justices were going to be retiring so that is why they had to STEAL the 2000 election. They had to get Alito and Roberts on the court. Well this is karma for ya. The most right winger of your Justices just croaked and the timing couldn't have been more perfect. Even if Trump wins and he appoints a conservative, no way the guy will be as conservative as Scalia was.

You do know that most counts show the election going for Bush anyway, right? Regardless of how the final count ended up. Plus Gore lost his own State due to his gun control fetish. Blame his loss on that.

And your condolences for the deceased are noted.

Blame his loss on a perverted system where the guy who loses the vote can win the election.

Its because the States actually elect the president via the electoral college, not the people directly. Have a problem with that? Amend the constitution.

Yes, it's stupid. If it's wrong to elect people based on who gets the most votes,

then every other election in the US, as far as I know, must be wrong.

Are they?

 

[easyt65]

The OP is funny as hell, serious question (which I doubt) or not.

The GOP has the most racially diverse set of candidates being offered in this entire primary / Presidential race.

The Liberals have 2 old, white, millionaire elitist millionaires who idolize Socialist Saul Alynski.
- 1 is a hair away from being brought up on criminal charges against the Espionage Act AND corruption charges.
- The other is an avowed Socialist wanting to drag the country into Socialism, and whose health will be an issue, possibly giving out somewhere between winning the nomination and his oath of office.

In the last primary the GOP had record crowds and voting while Democrats have some of the lowest turn-outs in YEARs, with the potential to beat the DNC's historic, record-setting loss in 2014.

The GOP doesn't have anything to worry about, and not nearly as much as Hillary does.

 

[martybegan]

And Progressives realized long ago if you can get the Supreme Court to make crap up, you can ignore winning anything at the State level.

I think it was the GOP that realized 2 justices were going to be retiring so that is why they had to STEAL the 2000 election. They had to get Alito and Roberts on the court. Well this is karma for ya. The most right winger of your Justices just croaked and the timing couldn't have been more perfect. Even if Trump wins and he appoints a conservative, no way the guy will be as conservative as Scalia was.

You do know that most counts show the election going for Bush anyway, right? Regardless of how the final count ended up. Plus Gore lost his own State due to his gun control fetish. Blame his loss on that.

And your condolences for the deceased are noted.

Blame his loss on a perverted system where the guy who loses the vote can win the election.

Its because the States actually elect the president via the electoral college, not the people directly. Have a problem with that? Amend the constitution.

Yes, it's stupid. If it's wrong to elect people based on who gets the most votes,

then every other election in the US, as far as I know, must be wrong.

Are they?

Most other elections are based on direct voting, with a plurality winning the election (some places do enforce run-offs for votes where the winner gets under 50% though).

Presidential voting is unique, and again, if you want to change it, the amendment process is out there. It's not like it hasn't been used to change the procedure before (or for that matter creating direct voting of senators).

 

[deaddogseye]

I could easily be wrong here, but I'm seeing little signs here and there that there are conservatives who are more in a salvage operation than a rescue operation.

In other words, I'm getting the impression that they feel the country is clearly going down a different road, and that the major battle has been lost. What some seem to be doing now is trying to salvage what elements of conservatism they can. But other than that, it's over.

Am I right or wrong?
.

As a strict constructional federalist with libertarian leanings, I haven't given up, but I am worried that things have to get worse before they get better.

my leanings are similar and you might be right. Remember that as much as I like Reagan (Im his biggest fan - trust me) he NEVER would have been president had it not been for the disaster that was Jimmy Carter. NEVER

That is also a central issue in the election today -- should the GOP go Democrat lite like a lot feel - some call it the establishment - or stand on principal knowing that even if the White house is lost this time it there will be a conservative soon enough. Go Democrat lite and the Democrats win now and into the future

 

[ogibillm]

w

I could easily be wrong here, but I'm seeing little signs here and there that there are conservatives who are more in a salvage operation than a rescue operation.

In other words, I'm getting the impression that they feel the country is clearly going down a different road, and that the major battle has been lost. What some seem to be doing now is trying to salvage what elements of conservatism they can. But other than that, it's over.

Am I right or wrong?
.

when so-called conservatives are railing because they can't hang signs on their businesses saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays", in 2016, I don't think the party has anything it can do but run a salvage operation.

seriously, actual conservatives get left out in the cold with raving loons like that. better to let them go start their own party and re-build from there.

if the shoe fits.
i mean this sort of stuff

The Left will ensure that by increasing over reach and abuse of (mostly) White Americans.

is almost always the product of racist white nationalists. is that you?

The lefty pretense that complaining about anti-white discrimination is the same as wanting anti-minority discrimination is noted and dismissed.

And please consider yourself ridiculed in the bargain, you asswipe.

there is a very strong correlation between complaining about 'anti-white' discrimination (whatever that might be) and racism. don't kid yourself.

but if that isn't you wonderful.

 

[martybegan]

I could easily be wrong here, but I'm seeing little signs here and there that there are conservatives who are more in a salvage operation than a rescue operation.

In other words, I'm getting the impression that they feel the country is clearly going down a different road, and that the major battle has been lost. What some seem to be doing now is trying to salvage what elements of conservatism they can. But other than that, it's over.

Am I right or wrong?
.

As a strict constructional federalist with libertarian leanings, I haven't given up, but I am worried that things have to get worse before they get better.

my leanings are similar and you might be right. Remember that as much as I like Reagan (Im his biggest fan - trust me) he NEVER would have been president had it not been for the disaster that was Jimmy Carter. NEVER

That is also a central issue in the election today -- should the GOP go Democrat lite like a lot feel - some call it the establishment - or stand on principal knowing that even if the White house is lost this time it there will be a conservative soon enough. Go Democrat lite and the Democrats win now and into the future

it depends on how much suffering you want the country to go through, and if the Dems can control the SC nominations for another 4-8 years, its gonna be a lot of suffering.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think it was the GOP that realized 2 justices were going to be retiring so that is why they had to STEAL the 2000 election. They had to get Alito and Roberts on the court. Well this is karma for ya. The most right winger of your Justices just croaked and the timing couldn't have been more perfect. Even if Trump wins and he appoints a conservative, no way the guy will be as conservative as Scalia was.

You do know that most counts show the election going for Bush anyway, right? Regardless of how the final count ended up. Plus Gore lost his own State due to his gun control fetish. Blame his loss on that.

And your condolences for the deceased are noted.

Blame his loss on a perverted system where the guy who loses the vote can win the election.

Its because the States actually elect the president via the electoral college, not the people directly. Have a problem with that? Amend the constitution.

Yes, it's stupid. If it's wrong to elect people based on who gets the most votes,

then every other election in the US, as far as I know, must be wrong.

Are they?

Most other elections are based on direct voting, with a plurality winning the election (some places do enforce run-offs for votes where the winner gets under 50% though).

Presidential voting is unique, and again, if you want to change it, the amendment process is out there. It's not like it hasn't been used to change the procedure before (or for that matter creating direct voting of senators).

Just because presidential voting is unique doesn't make it better.

 

[idb]

I think the R's had one too many presidential candidates of the same ole same ole in the beginning, also, the R's gaining full control of the House and Senate and still being a ''do nothing Congress has come back to bite them, making Trump stand out, as an outsider, more appealing than normal.

cool. Now explain Bernie.

Bernie is a serious candidate with a message that hasn't changed in 30 years. Trump is a parody candidate.

Stay on topic. The topic is consearervatives giving up.

I heard a theory that Trump is actually Andy Kaufman and he'll only reveal himself after the elections.
It would be his greatest joke.

 

[martybegan]

You do know that most counts show the election going for Bush anyway, right? Regardless of how the final count ended up. Plus Gore lost his own State due to his gun control fetish. Blame his loss on that.

And your condolences for the deceased are noted.

Blame his loss on a perverted system where the guy who loses the vote can win the election.

Its because the States actually elect the president via the electoral college, not the people directly. Have a problem with that? Amend the constitution.

Yes, it's stupid. If it's wrong to elect people based on who gets the most votes,

then every other election in the US, as far as I know, must be wrong.

Are they?

Most other elections are based on direct voting, with a plurality winning the election (some places do enforce run-offs for votes where the winner gets under 50% though).

Presidential voting is unique, and again, if you want to change it, the amendment process is out there. It's not like it hasn't been used to change the procedure before (or for that matter creating direct voting of senators).

Just because presidential voting is unique doesn't make it better.

it makes it what it is. The process is the process.

 

[martybegan]

I think the R's had one too many presidential candidates of the same ole same ole in the beginning, also, the R's gaining full control of the House and Senate and still being a ''do nothing Congress has come back to bite them, making Trump stand out, as an outsider, more appealing than normal.

cool. Now explain Bernie.

Bernie is a serious candidate with a message that hasn't changed in 30 years. Trump is a parody candidate.

Stay on topic. The topic is consearervatives giving up.

I heard a theory that Trump is actually Andy Kaufman and he'll only reveal himself after the elections.
It would be his greatest joke.

It would result in Chaos, but that would be freaking awesome.

 

[TNHarley]

People are tired of not being considered anymore. It isn't about conservatism or liberalism. It is about being an American. BOTH sides are reaching near lunacy. I don't think they care. I mean, I get it. What would be different besides the type of lunacy? Is American focused lunacy worse than corporatism and plutocrats?
I will vote for lunacy over the same old bullshit.

Then can I ask, how can you support anyone who supports Citizen United?

Who would that be?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Blame his loss on a perverted system where the guy who loses the vote can win the election.

Its because the States actually elect the president via the electoral college, not the people directly. Have a problem with that? Amend the constitution.

Yes, it's stupid. If it's wrong to elect people based on who gets the most votes,

then every other election in the US, as far as I know, must be wrong.

Are they?

Most other elections are based on direct voting, with a plurality winning the election (some places do enforce run-offs for votes where the winner gets under 50% though).

Presidential voting is unique, and again, if you want to change it, the amendment process is out there. It's not like it hasn't been used to change the procedure before (or for that matter creating direct voting of senators).

Just because presidential voting is unique doesn't make it better.

it makes it what it is. The process is the process.

The electoral college gives every state 2 electors for the fact they have 2 senators. That makes no sense.

 

[martybegan]

Its because the States actually elect the president via the electoral college, not the people directly. Have a problem with that? Amend the constitution.

Yes, it's stupid. If it's wrong to elect people based on who gets the most votes,

then every other election in the US, as far as I know, must be wrong.

Are they?

Most other elections are based on direct voting, with a plurality winning the election (some places do enforce run-offs for votes where the winner gets under 50% though).

Presidential voting is unique, and again, if you want to change it, the amendment process is out there. It's not like it hasn't been used to change the procedure before (or for that matter creating direct voting of senators).

Just because presidential voting is unique doesn't make it better.

it makes it what it is. The process is the process.

The electoral college gives every state 2 electors for the fact they have 2 senators. That makes no sense.

The purpose was to dilute the power of the larger states over the smaller states in elections. From that standpoint it makes perfect sense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I could easily be wrong here, but I'm seeing little signs here and there that there are conservatives who are more in a salvage operation than a rescue operation.

In other words, I'm getting the impression that they feel the country is clearly going down a different road, and that the major battle has been lost. What some seem to be doing now is trying to salvage what elements of conservatism they can. But other than that, it's over.

Am I right or wrong?
.

Yes, many conservatives seem to feel that way, but the country is still salvageable.

We may have to amputate some gangrenous limbs, but the country as a whole is salvageable.