What I expected. She wasn't going to associate herself with the Trump abomination in that way.Ernst, who in 2014 wrote her ticket to Washington in part with an ad referencing pig castration, recently told the presumptive Republican candidate she's very focused on Iowa and its role in the upcoming election as a potential swing state.
Shorter Ernst: Thanks for the interest, bless your heart, but I'll pass.
John, reading comprehension is key. I didn't say they were NOT naive and gullible at all, I insinuated that the party establishment needs to realize that they were not as naive and gullible as they thought they were. i.e. they were naive and gullible enough to buy Trump's line of BS but not naive and gullible enough to buy the party line and vote for an "establishment" candidate (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, etc.). Party Apparatchiks have been lying to them for years about smaller government, reducing the deficit, etc. all the while growing government and the deficit and using tax dollars to enrich their friends and special interests. These Apparatchiks then accepted trips, gifts and post-government employment. Essentially they were/are involved in their own brand of welfare whores sucking at the government teat.JohnStOnge wrote:You're kidding, right? You're actually saying that the Republican electorate voting in a sufficient plurality to make Trump the nominee is supposed to make one think it's NOT naive and gullible?UNI88 wrote: That would be JSO's approach when in reality it should be 'Look guys, it's obvious our electorate is on to us, they're not as naive and gullible as we thought. !'
The conclusion based on having had them support Trump is, "They are even MORE naive and gullible than we thought."
It is not ardent support for Hillary. It's ardent opposition to Trump. In fact I frankly wish the Democrats had come up with a better candidate than Hillary. She's so awful that Trump actually has at least SOME chance to win. And that would be very bad.That would explain your ardent support for Hilary.
More likely it was "Joni we're not picking you so you can go and talk about how you're turning us down to save face."JohnStOnge wrote:Back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/ ... onvention/
What I expected. She wasn't going to associate herself with the Trump abomination in that way.Ernst, who in 2014 wrote her ticket to Washington in part with an ad referencing pig castration, recently told the presumptive Republican candidate she's very focused on Iowa and its role in the upcoming election as a potential swing state.
Shorter Ernst: Thanks for the interest, bless your heart, but I'll pass.
Great job of avoiding the issue...again.JohnStOnge wrote:Here's the thing, UNI: The argument that the Republicans needed to get control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in order to really make progress is legitimate. Yes I know they had brief periods over the past 100 years where they had that and the results were disappointing. But the argument is still legitimate.
Things were set up really well for that happening. The chances were really good. But the Republican primary voters rendered the chances to virtually zero by virtue of selecting Donald Trump. And it was OBVIOUS that he was about the worst possible choice they could make if what they were interested in was seeing the policies and direction they wanted to unfold to unfold.
Then there are those additional things about him not being qualified for the job, being mentally ill, etc.
Voting for and/or supporting Trump during the Republican primaries was a stupid thing to do. There's just no way around it.
There's a new word: Apparatchik.UNI88 wrote:John, reading comprehension is key. I didn't say they were NOT naive and gullible at all, I insinuated that the party establishment needs to realize that they were not as naive and gullible as they thought they were. i.e. they were naive and gullible enough to buy Trump's line of BS but not naive and gullible enough to buy the party line and vote for an "establishment" candidate (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, etc.). Party Apparatchiks have been lying to them for years about smaller government, reducing the deficit, etc. all the while growing government and the deficit and using tax dollars to enrich their friends and special interests. These Apparatchiks then accepted trips, gifts and post-government employment. Essentially they were/are involved in their own brand of welfare whores sucking at the government teat.JohnStOnge wrote:
You're kidding, right? You're actually saying that the Republican electorate voting in a sufficient plurality to make Trump the nominee is supposed to make one think it's NOT naive and gullible?
The conclusion based on having had them support Trump is, "They are even MORE naive and gullible than we thought."
People had enough and they sent a message by voting for Trump and rather than listening to that message you're blaming the people that sent it. Why is that John? Is it because your wife is an Apparatchik? Does she have a position within the Louisiana Republican Party that allows her "special" benefits all the while ignoring the will of the people she is supposed to represent? Are you afraid that Trump will shut the spigot of illicit benefits off? That would explain your ardent support for Hilary.
88 nailed it. JSO is simply protecting his special interests instead of doing what's right. Typical establishment behavior.Ibanez wrote:There's a new word: Apparatchik.UNI88 wrote: John, reading comprehension is key. I didn't say they were NOT naive and gullible at all, I insinuated that the party establishment needs to realize that they were not as naive and gullible as they thought they were. i.e. they were naive and gullible enough to buy Trump's line of BS but not naive and gullible enough to buy the party line and vote for an "establishment" candidate (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, etc.). Party Apparatchiks have been lying to them for years about smaller government, reducing the deficit, etc. all the while growing government and the deficit and using tax dollars to enrich their friends and special interests. These Apparatchiks then accepted trips, gifts and post-government employment. Essentially they were/are involved in their own brand of welfare whores sucking at the government teat.
People had enough and they sent a message by voting for Trump and rather than listening to that message you're blaming the people that sent it. Why is that John? Is it because your wife is an Apparatchik? Does she have a position within the Louisiana Republican Party that allows her "special" benefits all the while ignoring the will of the people she is supposed to represent? Are you afraid that Trump will shut the spigot of illicit benefits off? That would explain your ardent support for Hilary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Establishment prick....Cluck U wrote:88 nailed it. JSO is simply protecting his special interests instead of doing what's right. Typical establishment behavior.Ibanez wrote:
There's a new word: Apparatchik.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's right in this case is to try to avoid having a total nut job who is a completely out of control patholotical liar in the Oval Office. And yes he's a pathological liar even beyond Hillary Clinton standards.Cluck U wrote: 88 nailed it. JSO is simply protecting his special interests instead of doing what's right.
Nothing on corporate personhood?JohnStOnge wrote:Right. If it were up to me we would call a Constitutional Convention with one of the primary objectives being to redefine the role of the Judiciary so that it would not be endowed with the power to make decisions about the direction of the society. I would legalize recreational drugs. I would legalize prostitution. I would repeal the Civil Rights Act because it denies people the right to opt not to engage in commerce with people they don't want to engage in commerce with. I would institute a system in which every proposed Federal Regulation would have to be approved by Congress before it went into effect. Lots of other stuff.
But I'm in the "establishment."
