George Will speaks truth to his party

no it doesn't. if you got your way we wouldn't have had gorsuch. we would have got some blue haried dyke with hairy armpits appointed and then declaring it unconstitutional to assume someones gender. i get not liking trump but i don't get not caring about the supreme court to have it fucked up the A for 30 years. liberals do not believe in the constitution, they cannot get on the bench.

:palm:
 
If you are a fan of Douchebag Donald, then, clearly you have never believed in conservative values, and character means nothing to you. No other candidate would have received the level of heat that he takes, because, most human beings don't bring that much heat upon themselves. He was a professional media storm before he ran for office, so, I don't even understand how people can get so mad that he brought his profession into the White House.

He thrives on it. It's the only thing he understands.
 
I'm still shocked Trump selected someone as strong as Gorsuch. Trump's a guy who thought Kelo was a wonderful decision. Now maybe populists agree with him on that but not conservatives.

i have ranted about eminent domain many times on this board. I agree with you on the kelo thing. But it is what it is, we got a great judge under trump and if nevertrumpers won out post-nomination the court would have been lost forever. We would have lost scalias seat, gingsberg no doubt steps down under hillary as well instead of us getting a chance that she might die. breyer steps down too and kennedy also goes (we'll prob still get kennedy's seat). it would have been a disaster.

again the trump hate is perfectly understandable, but once it was between corrupt killing clinton and trump when it comes to 1/3rd of our government, you gotta go with the pussy grabber.
 
Last edited:
But you also thought George Dumbya Bush was a great choice to be president, and you undoubtedly defended him with every fiber of your being.

So between Dumbya and Trump on your voting resume, I'm not sure why anyone should trust your judgement let alone care about it, concerning who makes good presidential material.

bush and trump have very little in common on a philosophical or political level. you are a political dunce to think otherwise. Stop living in the aughts, get with modern times bitch. The conservatives and republicans have drastically changed in many areas. Bush was a globalist neo-con that believed in open borders and free trade and nationbuilding. Trump is a protectionist and anti-globalist that wants to turn money inward on america. Bush has WAY more in common with hillary clinton than trump. That's why the bushes voted for her. It is you that's on bush's side now, whether you realize it or not. What's the saying? Politics make strange bedfellows. Indeed.
 
There's are several reasons I voted for Trump.

One of the big ones is I was totally 'over it' with the kind of republicans George Will would approve of. No way, would illegal immigration be down 60% under any other republican in the last primary. I doubt we'd see the same jobs or economic number. We may or may not have Gorsuch, because you can't trust Jeb! and the rest of them.

I've watched too republicans fold up like cheap tents when faced with *a fraction* of the heat Trump takes from the leftist media.

I'm done with the whole lot of them
and I would absolutely vote for Trump, again. And I absolutely will again.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, George.
Something I've heard time and again from rpub voters.
 
bush and trump have very little in common on a philosophical or political level. you are a political dunce to think otherwise. Stop living in the aughts, get with modern times bitch. The conservatives and republicans have drastically changed in many areas. Bush was a globalist neo-con that believed in open borders and free trade and nationbuilding. Trump is a protectionist and anti-globalist that wants to turn money inward on america. Bush has WAY more in common with hillary clinton than trump. That's why the bushes voted for her. It is you that's on bush's side now, whether you realize it or not. What's the saying? Politics make strange bedfellows. Indeed.
Up is down and down is up. Like him or not, Trump tapped into something that nobody else had the foresight to see.
 
Even with the left, the MSM and a significant segment of his own party working against him, Trump's results would compare favorably with any other republican I can think of.

It's results with me. I just don't care about the other stuff. History won't either.

History won't be your final judge.
 
bush and trump have very little in common on a philosophical or political level. you are a political dunce to think otherwise. Stop living in the aughts, get with modern times bitch. The conservatives and republicans have drastically changed in many areas. Bush was a globalist neo-con that believed in open borders and free trade and nationbuilding. Trump is a protectionist and anti-globalist that wants to turn money inward on america. Bush has WAY more in common with hillary clinton than trump. That's why the bushes voted for her. It is you that's on bush's side now, whether you realize it or not. What's the saying? Politics make strange bedfellows. Indeed.

I think Douchebag Donald has a lot in common with Agosto Pinochet.
 
bush and trump have very little in common on a philosophical or political level. you are a political dunce to think otherwise. Stop living in the aughts, get with modern times bitch. The conservatives and republicans have drastically changed in many areas. Bush was a globalist neo-con that believed in open borders and free trade and nationbuilding. Trump is a protectionist and anti-globalist that wants to turn money inward on america. Bush has WAY more in common with hillary clinton than trump. That's why the bushes voted for her. It is you that's on bush's side now, whether you realize it or not. What's the saying? Politics make strange bedfellows. Indeed.

Half right. The Republican party voted for the retrenchment xenophobe isolationist noise maker. Trump's integrity or commitment to that case is doubtful. He has shown a willingness to spin on a dime already. Both parties have been majority free trade for several generations. And words like nationbuilding have built in overbreadth. It's truthful application is that when the US uses force it attempts to clean the mess by insisting a democracy replace the autocrat. It's not going around willy-nilly toppling everything it sees. Neither is free trade without limitations. We certainly have bilateral agreements and sanctions and import levies imposed by us and on us. So those items are a matter of emphasis, rhetoric and particular goals rather than nonnegotiable policy implemented everywhere at once. Only Trump was so devious or stupid to use categorical language in all his promises and goals which simply ensures he will be proven a liar in chief. I agree partially on the comparison of Trump vis a vis Hillary and Bush II. Hillary does not have more in common with Bush than Trump in a host of domestic items like consumer protections, the judiciary, military spending, social security, public finance and tax. The Bushes voted for Hillary, like all never Trump people, by the sheer revulsion of his bigotry, lack of statesmanship and complete lack of competence he displayed on any presidential skill set, in addition to ridiculous hairbrained schemes like the great southern Mexican wall of china lie.

Many people simply did not want the office degraded by a clown in chief, and that is exactly what you voted for, and we against.
 
Last edited:
Half right. The Republican party voted for the retrenchment xenophobe isolationist noise maker. Trump's integrity or commitment to that case is doubtful. He has shown a willingness to spin on a dime already. Both parties have been majority free trade for several generations. And words like nationbuilding have built in overbreadth. It's truthful application is that when the US uses force it attempts to clean the mess by insisting a democracy replace the autocrat. It's not going around willy-nilly toppling everything it sees. Neither is free trade without limitations. We certainly have bilateral agreements and sanctions and import levies imposed by us and on us. So those items are a matter of emphasis, rhetoric and particular goals rather than nonnegotiable policy implemented everywhere at once. Only Trump was so devious or stupid to use categorical language in all his promises and goals which simply ensures he will be proven a liar in chief. I agree partially on the comparison of Trump vis a vis Hillary and Bush II. Hillary does not have more in common with Bush than Trump in a host of domestic items like consumer protections, the judiciary, military spending, social security, public finance and tax. The Bushes voted for Hillary, like all never Trump people, by the sheer revulsion of his bigotry, lack of statesmanship and complete lack of competence he displayed on any presidential skill set, in addition to ridiculous hairbrained schemes like the great southern Mexican wall of china lie.

Many people simply did not want the office degraded by a clown in chief, and that is exactly what you voted for, and we against
.

:hand: :good4u: :flagsal: :thup: :yay:

 
Last edited:
Wait, so now conservatives are ok with you? Liberals have hated Will for years. He hasn't changed his views here, he's still a conservative yet now you're praising him for it?

Got it.

Bullshit.
I am a liberal and never hated Will.
 
i have ranted about eminent domain many times on this board. I agree with you on the kelo thing. But it is what it is, we got a great judge under trump and if nevertrumpers won out post-nomination the court would have been lost forever. We would have lost scalias seat, gingsberg no doubt steps down under hillary as well instead of us getting a chance that she might die. breyer steps down too and kennedy also goes (we'll prob still get kennedy's seat). it would have been a disaster.

again the trump hate is perfectly understandable, but once it was between corrupt killing clinton and trump when it comes to 1/3rd of our government, you gotta go with the pussy grabber.

I have no problem with Gorsuch. I knew I was getting a conservative, and Trump didn't pick a jerk idiot image of himself or some TV clown. All in all, better than I expected.
 
Bullshit.
I am a liberal and never hated Will.

I'm pretty conservative, or formerly was, but I appear liberal because Republicans lurched to the extreme far right and supplied the leadership with dumbasses like Trump, Palin, Kid Rock and Bush II.

I deaffiliated when they became the stupid party, much like Will.
 
I have no problem with Gorsuch. I knew I was getting a conservative, and Trump didn't pick a jerk idiot image of himself or some TV clown. All in all, better than I expected.

As long as he doesn't kowtow to the religious right by trying to overturn Roe v Wade or forcing religious education into public schools etc, etc, I don't really care if he rules in favor of the right in cases involving gay wedding cakes or transgender bathroom use or whatever.

Actually, I think the right will eventually find themselves more disappointed with Gorsuch than the left will.
 
As long as he doesn't kowtow to the religious right by trying to overturn Roe v Wade or forcing religious education into public schools etc, etc, I don't really care if he rules in favor of the right in cases involving gay wedding cakes or transgender bathroom use or whatever.

Actually, I think the right will eventually find themselves more disappointed with Gorsuch than the left will.

I assume he would attack Roe. The prudent angle is to demur to cases involving the issue, thereby punting and screwing the right.
You aren't going to get a Republican that does not take the reverse Roe pledge by inference in his/her written history. If one has the ambition and career trajectory of a Scotus justice,
one has the foresight to plan accordingly. So I was assuming arguendo all the dire social shit that comes with being a Republican nowadays, and assuming that, simply saying
you could have a clown nominated. Gorsuch, all other things aside, at least is a scholar. I thought Trump would nominate Judge Judy. And why wouldn't I think that? He does all kinds
of beyond the pale stupid shit.
 
I'm pretty conservative, or formerly was, but I appear liberal because Republicans lurched to the extreme far right and supplied the leadership with dumbasses like Trump, Palin, Kid Rock and Bush II.

I deaffiliated when they became the stupid party, much like Will.

Pretty much my story too.
Even my arch conservative father and uber conservative brother couldn't vote for the stupid lying country destroying fucks.
The stupid is all that remains of the right
 
I assume he would attack Roe. The prudent angle is to demur to cases involving the issue, thereby punting and screwing the right.
You aren't going to get a Republican that does not take the reverse Roe pledge by inference in his/her written history. If one has the ambition and career trajectory of a Scotus justice,
one has the foresight to plan accordingly. So I was assuming arguendo all the dire social shit that comes with being a Republican nowadays, and assuming that, simply saying
you could have a clown nominated. Gorsuch, all other things aside, at least is a scholar. I thought Trump would nominate Judge Judy. And why wouldn't I think that? He does all kinds
of beyond the pale stupid shit.

I dunno re: Roe.

It's such an established law, he may be unwilling to take on a radical "activist judge" role.
 
Back
Top