Impact of Palin's Endorsement?

Posted by krevello 8 years, 9 months ago to Politics
93 comments | Share | Flag

I've heard a lot of talk about Palin's motivations/the impact of her endorsement of Trump, but nothing about what it's done to conservatism in the country. My personal opinion is that it's seriously undermined the position and ideology of conservatives and really ushered in a lot of doubt. Wondering if anyone else agrees/has a different take.
SOURCE URL: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2016/01/palins-endorsement-is-day-that-will-live-in-infamy-for-conservatives/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 9 months ago
    Conservatism is worthless. Only being fully and consistently for freedom has value. Palin is irrelevant for that and Trump is certainly not particularly pro-freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      I agree that only a fully fleshed out ideology applied consistently across time has value. And I'm increasingly convinced that conservatism is no longer what it was when Barry Goldwater was railroaded over his principled stance against the Civil Rights Act because people decided it was racist- it's just another form of political establishment control. An interesting question is: are organized politics and principled ideologies mutually exclusive?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 9 months ago
    Her endorsement definitely helps Trump shore up conservatives and TEA party folks who may have been reluctant to support him. I don't think it guarantees him the nomination but it helps. As for the Conservative movement they have, to some extent, stayed on the sidelines in 08 and '12 which gave us two terms of Obama. Trump may not be their first choice but they better take whoever the party gives them this time or its President Hillary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 9 months ago
      Only an FYI. I considered myself a strong Tea Party supporter and very much liked Palin back when she was selected for VP. In fact that was the only way McCain got my vote. Of course I would never have voted Obama either. It would have been a no vote election for me.

      The announcement for Trump has changed my opinion of Palin as she no longer supports my values. Just saying.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by roneida 8 years, 9 months ago
      richrobinson,,, The public opinion of Palin matters not to me, but what I like about her presence is that she drives the socialist-libs absolutely insane with their hatred. There is no person that drives them as screaming rabid as Sarah Palin does. Remember the insane drivel that bimbo from SNL used to rescue her TV career? The lefties fall into fits even thinking about Palins popularity and public regard.She brings out there base operating tactic which is to destroy the messenger and never debate the message. Glad Sarah is on board and drawing
      hatred from the crazies...she exposes their weakness just by being alive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 9 months ago
        I have often thought that some of the liberal hatred of her is frightening. I'm not sure if many of them even understand why they hate her.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 8 years, 9 months ago
          richrobinson,, I think it is because she is female and because she absolutely refuses to play the dormant politically correct sham and cower before the "hurt feeling" mob. She could be a female Don Trump. I thought this race was sparky and volatile before...Sarah will only make it better. Give 'em hell Sarah, see how many libs you can send running for their shrinks and mommies.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      I think they kind of gave up in the generals because they were told they needed to in order to win, which obviously didn't work. But when they showed up in the midterms, the grassroots didn't stop the establishment anyway. So, it seems regardless conservatives lose, which seems to support, as you say, just taking the nominee to stop Hillary. A bitter pill.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 9 months ago
        I'm hoping Trump is more fiscally conservative than some of his past rhetoric suggests. The Republicans have nominated two moderates in a row and lost. His VP pick will be important. I'm guessing Kasich in order to try and secure Ohio.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          What I think is particularly disturbing about the strategic vying in picking out people like Kasich (who has definitely been running for VP) is a complete divorcement of what the party organs want because it's "best for the party" versus the primary being about the people picking their representative for the highest office.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 9 months ago
            The "best for the party" thinking has lost them 2 elections in a row. I was hoping Rand Paul would get the nomination but the establishment was able to squash him early.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
              Keep in mind Iowa and NH are leftist bastions, 27% of Iowans consider themselves socialist. All the camps will move further right in s couple of weeks.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
                None of those 27% are Republicans. The Iowa caucuses are closed to non-party members. Republicans in Iowa are very socially conservative by national standards. It is not a "leftist bastion" by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, their last two caucus winners were Huckabee and Santorum. It's hard to get further socially right than that. New Hampshire has an open primary system. They supported McCain. It is very different than Iowa.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
                  Ok, let me clarify. Iowa has cast its electoral college votes for a Republican presidential candidate once out of the last 8 presidential elections... New Hampshire has about the same voting record, so that Live Free or Die stuff is kind of bunk. California has the same record... Alabama for example is 11 out of the last 12.. Alaska has only voted once for a Democrat (in 1964), Arizona only once since 1948, even Arkansas is a more reliable red state than Iowa (9 out of 12 cycles).

                  As for the political center, that moves farther right as you move west as a rule of thumb. I'm from Minnesota originally, all my family still lives there, I know the politics there well and it's moving right, but will still be a blue state for a long time yet. Republicans in Minnesota barely meet the standards to be a democrat in the west. If you don't have signs up on your restaurants by the front door as to whether you can carry your side arm in or not, you're not really that conservative overall (would be my opinion).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
                    I thought we were talking about party primaries and caucuses. You've switched to talking about general elections. My point was simply that the Iowa Republican caucuses are decidedly not bastions of leftism. Palin's endorsement might actually help Trump in that race to some small degree.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
                      That's generally going to be the case everywhere, the people that participate in primaries and caucuses are usually the fringe left & right of their party... so you tend to get these very polarized campaigns that appeal to those bases of voters. The mainstream media doesn't really get that, nor do the casual evening news spectator. Being a very vocal right wing 27% of the vote doesn't help much though.

                      We actually have a similar but somewhat opposite problem here. About 85% of California by land territory is very, very Republican. Unfortunately there are so many lib-tards by population in LA and San Francisco that we vote to the left every cycle. It tends to be all that rent control, gun control, minimum wage, etc... If it involves "control" those people are for it. We swing right though anytime the Republicans have a decent turnout. I'm optimistic this cycle, Bernie's communist crap isn't going to play well in Silicon Valley, and we already have the highest taxes in the country, there is no one here that will jump for that 90% crap. With a lackluster democrat nominee (either one in handcuffs or a commie), and not in our governor election cycle, I don't see a lot of interest. On the other hand, the Republicans here have been buying 1.5 million guns a year (up from about 600,000 prior to Obama), so 8 years has been pretty long... I see a huge red voter turnout coming. LA is fresh off terrorism and they have more cars registered than people (not an exaggeration), that global warming stuff is not even on the radar screen for them right now.

                      Can Bernie be a socialist and have any chance outside of the bluest of the blue states like Iowa & New Hampshire? No way. He's trying to move left when the country has obviously been moving to the right with Obama killing off a filibuster-proof majority into the smallest minorities that the Dems have had in 50 years.

                      We have the same dim-wits here, Kamala Harris is running for the Feinstein seat in the Senate... she's the attorney general that refused to uphold and defend Proposition 8 in court (voter-ban on gay marriage). However someone feels about it, her job was to defend a constitutional amendment on the books, she did not do her job. Now she wants to "take strong liberal leadership to Washington"... Really? The Dems will lose more seats this cycle, her 'leadership' would at best be a Vice chair position on the Capitol janitorial oversight committee (if there were only 2 committee members). Our knucklehead voters will vote for her though instead of say, a good Republican that would get California something close to a equal share of federal spending instead of a straight-up donor state (we only get less than 50 cents on the dollar back of fed tax revenue). We have the dumbest electorate in the nation... but its been well-programmed in our green-party controlled school systems.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
              I'd like to see someone like Rand or even Jim Webb (who I don't agree with on a lot of things but I think is nevertheless principled) run a third-party campaign. The conventional political wisdom of course says he would get crushed and just hurt the party- political collectivism. But, I maintain, digital politics has revolutionized campaigning. Political insiders and bundlers don't control campaigns anymore. The grassroots has a much bigger potential to impact elections through social media and small donations.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
          I doubt it, Marco would make more sense to shore up Florida/Texas/Arizona/Nevada and maybe even swing California. California waffles on our Governor's, we've had s long stretch with Moonbeam, I wouldn't rule out a victory here.

          Black pastors are endorsing Trump, if he can secure a Latino caucus it would be over, the build a wall thing has turned them off though. My wife is Hispanic, hates illegals, but centering Mexico isn't the best approach, most of the violence and illegals are from further south.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
        Trump is unusual in that way, it's not the best job he's ever had, nor does he use establishment money... That is evil-talk to the beltway piglets suckling on the taxpayer. Their pet programs are in deep trouble.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
          Trump will have his own "pet programs." He just hasn't told us what they are yet other building an enormous wall costing billions, hunting down and expelling 12 million illegals spread across the U.S. at a cost of billions more, pouring unlimited tax dollars into the VA and, of course, killing lots of people in the middle east at an additional cost of billions. These "pet programs" are enough to feed lots of government contractors for a long time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
            His plan for building a wall is actually quite sound, the President can, by foreign policy, stop wire transfers from the Fed to a foreign country by way of embargo or sanction. Either the president or congress can impose sanctions, but one cannot lift those imposed by the other.

            Stopping wire transfers from immigrants here back to Mexico and embargoing the oil sale would tremendously stress the Mexican government. He's been saying all along, it's their problem, they need to fix it and pay for it. I don't disagree with that assessment. They don't do anything to stop the central americans from riding trains across their southern border (or walking across it) on their way here either.

            If Mexico allowed my wife and I for example to inherit and own her family's ancestral villa in PV, maybe my views (and hers) would be different, but we cannot legally own it, so someone in her siblings needs to get dual citizenship, or the government will seize it when her father dies. Do we do that to Mexican residents here? of course not. Get in an accident in Mexico? You either get a air-evac back to the US, or you might die there. It's not an equal partnership, it never has been.

            The "pet programs" he talks about in smaller groups is amplifying HUD redevelopment funds to rebuild our inner cities. The source of strife in America, the chaos in the streets, is all rooted in poverty. If you didn't have a car and have to take a bus 10 miles or walk there to go to a grocery store if you live in South Central LA, your view of the world is probably different than say, mine, where I live outside Lake Tahoe and even here in the mountains I walk to a corner grocery store or Starbucks in under 500 feet.

            The 'war on poverty' was handouts, it was never a hand-up. Now, it's so bad, no sane-minded business person would ever build something back in the ghetto... but what does work is helping a few that grew up in those places, got out, went to school, and instead of going to work for Goldman Sachs, help them (or make it easier for them) to bring those skills and entrepreneurship back to their community. Everywhere it is tried, it seems to work (LeBron James in Cleveland is a good example).

            How do you win back a growing base of the party, reduce the cost of government, and bring back conservative values? You have to move the needle back in our direction. Show them what conservatism is about. It will take some priming of the pump obviously, but when there is money to be made, it will pour in. You gotta create a model though.

            These communities are sick of the last 50 years, nothing changes, nothing gets better.

            So, would you rather have someone like Hillary or Bernie or Cruz planning future communities? Or would you think Trump might know a little more about real estate development...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
              I don't want any government socialist or fascist "planning future communities." The United States is not a "real estate development" owned by the President. And how do you "reduce the cost of government" while, at the same time, "priming the pump"?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
                You can't. It's about priorities, we spend a lot of money on pretty dumb stuff. Ultimately, the only way to pay off the debt is by growing the size of the pie (the economy). I owned and managed medium-sized businesses all my career, you can never cut your way to profitability. You can tighten the belt, but ultimately you need to raise the top line (growth).

                Our problem is we have a president that thinks that people are happy working their Walmart jobs & whatever, so we have "5% unemployment" when it's really closer to 15-25% it seems like. When people are not really fully employed, they are not really paying taxes either.

                Loss of that revenue and paying out earned income credits & all that boondoggle pile to people that should really just be earning a realistic income is where most of the money goes.

                Government-sponsored development is one of the cheapest things we can do, it's like the SBA, you don't really spend anything on it, it's just guaranteeing the loans. If they don't pay, the government pays back the lender but they also seize everything the borrower has and enslave their tax returns for life until its paid back.

                Nonetheless, development is non-existent in those communities because underwriting standards will have requirements such as "rooftops in vicinity", "vehicle traffic per hour/day", etc.. for retail for example. If you are in the hood, there isn't going to be as much retail traffic as in a retail magnet. Even if people want to invest, on the open market it's difficult to do so, or impossible.

                Does it square with where we want to be right now? No, probably not, but it's a realistic part of the process to move past the welfare state and is more of a policy issue than a fiscal cost.

                Here's a great example, under Obama, it's very "unpopular" to make mortgages available to 'undesirable' homeowners. If you live in California, and are underwater, but have an 800 FICO and negligible debt vs. income, you will not qualify for one of those Obama refinance loans... you are stuck in that adjustable-rate interest-only jumbo because we can't possibly stand for helping people in $800,000 houses... (even though everyone in that zip code has an $800,000 house). It's called social engineering, does it cost the government anything more to guarantee an $800k mortgage to someone with huge credit scores and quadruple the income as a struggling couple in a $300k home and bad credit and crushing consumer debt? Of course not, it's a silly argument. But the Obama policies will pick the struggling people every time because "We gotta help those folks!" The same has been the SBA policies since ancient times practically, student loans for college - are you a white male veteran with distinguished service and want to go to medical school? Probably not going to happen. Are you a female with an unpronounceable name whose parents don't pay taxes? Sure - welcome wagon open!

                To me, it's about repealing all that crap, simply looking at the numbers on a yes/no decision, get the gender/race questions completely out of the stupid applications altogether, and let people achieve on merit alone.

                I've actually been slapped before when some distant relative-in-law was bitching about the cost of education and all I said was "sign up for the military, makes college free"... You know what, it was good enough for me, it can be good enough for others.. To me, college should only be 'free' if you serve as part of the compensation. If you do not serve, it's called a loan, and you pay it back with interest. Giving it away for free because mom & dad are illegal immigrants makes no sense to me, while at the same time charging people who actually work and pay taxes. I don't care if they are poor, they came here, must be better than where they came from. Don't make the underwriting any harder than it is for anyone else as long as they are citizens or permanent residents, but nothing should be free for anyone. If your degree isn't going to pay the bill and you can't afford to pay it otherwise, better pick some other options... maybe diesel mechanic, they make more than teachers... by double...

                We need to get away from this rewarding for nothing mentality. It's only fair if everyone pays their own way, it lowers taxes, and it unburdens the economy. If you can't figure out a way to piddle away that $100 student loan payment until the end of time if that is all you can afford you have no business going to college anyway - stick to the trades or a union job or whatever.

                Cut off the flow of people to careers that require an education but pay poorly, and guess what - within 10 or 15 years those careers are going to pay better.. it's called supply & demand.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago
    "shuffle after Palin bleating contently like mindless sheep"
    Proof that the author really understands GOP voters.
    Only mindless sheep could have felt that Palin was anything but a politician.
    Palin, a Conservative leader? Rubbish!

    Thanks for posting it, krevello.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 9 months ago
      ...cheer leader?

      Although I haven't heard it anywhere, yet, watching her with him, I got the clear impression of a paid political spokeswoman. She knows how to get paid in the reality show business. They made a "deal".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 9 months ago
    The effects of endorsements will be lower in this election than in any prior election. In fact, what little effect endorsements have may be negative.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      I hope so. I've never understood the competition for endorsements or why they're so coveted. It's one thing to discuss shared values and have a rational discussion and let people come to their own conclusions, but endorsements basically rely on force of personality as a voter rationale. Not a practice that should really hold any sway in a democratic society.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
      I agree, the value of Palin is that she endorsed and campaigned for Cruz into the senate, she snubbed him now, but his actual ability to govern and make rational decisions in my opinion is suspect. It's not a one-man band, when everyone left the room and went home and he kept going... While I agree with his message and intent, I don't see him as someone that can balance his emotions out.

      He's also a Canadian anchor baby, I'm not confident he would defeat an eligibility challenge. His mom had a work permit and had legitimately immigrated, not just there for the holiday.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
        I heard she voted in Canada. Does anyone know if that is correct or just an internet rumor?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
          I heard the same actually.. from more than one source, but I can't validate it either.

          If she did, it's game over. That is citizenship. She did at least have permanent residency and work visa while working there... For most immigrants here, their home country would not recognize their children born here as citizens of say India or the UK.

          Commonwealth countries are a little different, they are recognized as British subjects, obviously, we are not a Commonwealth country but Canada certainly is. I don't know anything about the specific countries and policies, but I do know it varies by locale.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
            His other problem is obvious, he pissed off everyone on both sides of the aisle that could potentially help him (the Senate for example), which translates into no judge being a fan, and I would say on a grey-area issue like that, he's on thin ice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
    What most conservatives never have understood about Palin is that she is not a conservative per se, she is more a Tea Party person. Further, what the conservatives also don't understand is that the Tea Party is the party of outrage. It was born out of resentment to Obama and his policies, such as Obamacare. It has conservatives, Democrats, blacks and independents all squished together and their common cause is the extreme left of Obama. Trump perfectly fits their agenda. He could be called Mr. Tea Party he fits their ideals so well. So does our Sara. The Tea Party got its conservative label from the press. It was easier for them to slap that label on them than to do true research as to what they were all about. Ms. Palin's endorsement will not hurt Trump, but solidify him as a spokesman for her and the Tea Party's cause.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Suzanne43 8 years, 9 months ago
      Well said, Herb. People in the Tea Party wakened up to the fact that so many politicians are not conservative or care one wit about defeating the left....case in point, nominating McCain and Romney. Many in the Republican party just care about being in control. So supporters of Trump see him as refreshing and hope that he'll push back against the left. He is a totally backlash candidate.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      But a lot of that outrage was directed at specific policies and behaviors adopted by politicians on both sides of the aisle to win votes and then promptly proceeded to do exactly the opposite once they had power. And Trump behaves exactly the same way. Some of his policy switches can be obviously rationalized, and only he ultimately knows whether he's lying, so he should be given the benefit of the doubt. But during the primary he's contradicted himself on positions and people he supports within weeks, as his poll numbers have flagged. That's exactly the kind of opportunism that drove the Tea Party wave elections and other protest movement like Occupy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        The original of that ultimately knows sentance came from people like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolin. Anything said that supports the party is the truth. The benefit of the doubt part was the next sentence. The party will tell you what is the truth for each moment of each day.

        You can't get much more left wing socialist facist than that.

        The both sides of aisle part is another left wing fascist lie. they moved the center to the center of the left. The republicans are the right wing of the left and they are ALL left wing socialist fascists. Either as Rinos And Dinos or as enablers who do what they are told.

        Sorry Comrades I don't serve the party. No matter how you form or frame the BS.

        That's how you define evil.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 8 years, 9 months ago
    I really liked Palin at first, especially when she had the disabled child. She could have quietly aborted it, and the fact that she didnt ment she was willing to accept the results of her beliefs. However I lost respect for her when she didnt finish out her term as Govenor of Alaska.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 9 months ago
    Ayn Rand gave a speech in 1960 entitled "Conservatism: An Obituary." Fifty-six years later conservatism has yet to arise from the grave. It has no position or ideology to undermine.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
    I read Sarah's book "going rogue" and understand how
    she made the hard turn towards Trump. . she is damned
    tired of the turncoat "conservatives" with whom she has
    been consorting, and wants to win -- even if it's only a
    partial conservative win. . and She Does Not Want Hillary. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      John they are what you call "Over and Out" politicians. In communications It's either one or the other and cannot be both. In simplex (one way at a time - something Trump is incapable of) only one station may transmit while the other is receiving. So Over means it's your turn to transmit. Out which may only be used by the originating station means the conversation is over. Hang up. Can't to both. As an analogy it's a political oxymoron. So it fits most politicians

      Palin is most famous for being the only one in the room that understood geography and the Constitution but then the room was full of reporters not journalists. Using those terms together would be a media oxymoron. You wish they would get over it and just go...out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
    I heard a Fox talking head opine that Palin perceives the winner and is looking for a "Drill, baby, drill!" cabinet job.
    I'm now retired but recall valuing a steady job.
    Yawn, now I prefer naps.
    Yawn is also my perception of any Palin endorsement, though I watched it.
    An excitable grizzled mama kinda gal, ain't she?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
    Agree...I think it will go against him...which is just fine with me.
    Just wonder if something is going on that is not apparent. Never would of guessed Palin would get involved...maybe she's under his spell.

    Gets more bizarre every day.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 9 months ago
    I cannot stand her voice! Very annoying. So, do you agree with all of the "Conservative" authors who came out against Trump? (They were on the Kelley File). They do not think he is the "face" for America.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      Conservative means nothing. The term along with liberal has been redefined so many times it's useless. It would help if you names 'all or even some of the authors - meaning books Most so called conservatives are neocons of the the left and the remainder are either confused or RINOS. If they are right wing it's the right wing of the left. and not an inch closer to the Constitution than the gap between the left and the true Center, not the Center of the left.

      Enough of this spin. Spin is another word for deceit.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 8 years, 9 months ago
    I used to be as liberal as they come. Or so I thought. Then I became wiser and saw how intolerant liberals are. Go figure. Now I incline right but don't consider myself a conservative. What I've notice that I don't like about some prominent conservatives is they think others are not conservative enough. Go figure. I believe the best thing Palin has done is to go rogue years ago. By doing so she exposed the flaws of both parties and dropped the PC pervasiveness. Trump, I think, is a Palin likeness on steroids. That is the attraction from his supporters. So in that sense, yes, Palin will help him (but not a game changer). I believe that if Trump were not running these elections, we would be hearing the usual political BS of every elections. If Trump is the candidate, I will vote for him. But, I not sure if I would vote for him in a primaries. Nevertheless, thank you Trump and thank you Palin. I like the fresh air.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
      In the most recent poll he got a big bump, probably because of Palin showing up and picking him instead of Cruz. He's already polling really well New Hampshire. If he takes both Iowa and New Hamshire he's going to be hard to stop.

      Somewhat telling is the fact that he's polling better than Rubio and Bush put together -- in Florida!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
    Doesn't really matter to me, but I rarely pay attention to endorsements anyway. One politician talking up another politician? Not only do I not want to hear it, but to me its all about the issues - not the endorsements.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
    I think the caribou Barbie hurts trump and republicans. She is kind of the dumb blind poster chile. Trump is the serious minded candidate and he should smile and distance himself from her or he will kill his political career
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 9 months ago
      She is a perfect match for Trump. Both understand reality show ratings and what the public will swallow. If she can help him get shortsighted voters to the polls, he wins...we lose.

      Right now, people want a "hero" to save them and they don't want to peek under the "mask" of the one with a big "T" on his chest at the top of Trump tower. Enter Palin, who says Trump is the "one"...because she gets paid well to say it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
        I can tell you really dislike Trump. I wonder how you will like President Hillary or President Sanders by comparison? Because one of them will definitely be the next president if Trump doesnt prevail.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 9 months ago
          You're right; I don't like Trump. He is a lying Pragmatist, or worse. It's just depressing to see how many people are drinking his koolaid (reference intended). He must be laughing behind the scenes...his biggest qualification is that he knows crony corruption from the inside, so that makes him the best to change it. He knows the words to say about the subjects that concern people...and, regardless of his past, they lap it up. They can enjoy the collar, while he pats them on the head.

          Hillary or Sanders are not going to be elected President. The rats are already jumping from her ship; the crew will be last to notice. She's looking more and more like she's headed toward a "medical issue" that will help her save face and bow out while she deals with her legal issues. Hopefully, she becomes the pariah she deserves to be, since it's unlikely she will serve time in prison. With luck, her world will crumble around her in a 'Lance Armstrongesue' meltdown.

          A Socialist is not going to win a general election. Not yet.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
            If its not Trump on the Repub side, Either sanders or Hillary will win The other repubs are either religious zealots or just generally unelectable, leaving the "entitled" people to vote for Sanders or Hillary (whichever gets nominated). I originally thought Biden would be electable on the democratic side and the one to win, but he bowed out.

            I just read about Sanders' proposals for free college , medicare for everyone, and all the other stuff he stands for. His tax increases would be dramatic, but not as high as under Eisenhower where the top marginal rate was 91%. If it gets close to Hillary or Sanders seeming to overtake Trump (who is NOT going to raise taxes like that), I am going to sell any stocks I have before the tax rates go sky high.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 9 months ago
              More reasons not to like Trump. http://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/01/24...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
                Its going to be Trump OR (Hillary/Sanders). No one else is electable and we WILL have a new president come november of this year. Trump is not a perfect candidate, and Gulchers HATE him, but look at the alternatives? The culture here is way too leftist for a change big enough to elect an Objectivist during my lifetime (maybe I have 10 more years at most), so I dont want to ride down the rollercoaster any faster than necessary. Maybe you will be around longer and want to go through the crash and then the rebuilding part.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
      She has a loyal following and had her own TV show for a while. And while the leftists like to pan her (as they did when she was McCain's running mate) she destroyed Biden in the VP debates.

      Her endorsement means nothing to me, however. I wasn't going to vote for Trump and her endorsement doesn't change that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
        I would estimate no other candidate can have a possibility of beating Hillary or Sanders, so get ready for a President Hillary or President Sanders if we dont fall behind Trump this time. He wont be nearly as bad as either Hillary or Sanderes by a long shot
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
          A variety of meaningless polls have shown Cruz, Rubio, and Trump beating either Hillary or Sanders. Others have shown the other way. We won't know until the actual election.

          The reality is that because of the way the Electoral College is built, the race is the Democratic candidate's to lose because they open with such a huge head start from New York and California. I think that is indicative of one of the major problems in making the electoral college popular-based rather than State-based - especially where most States are all-or-nothing voters.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
            The "polls" seem to me to be driven by agendas, not reality. So I kind of ignore them.

            Perhaps the democrats will win anyway regardless, and our once great country will continue its slide (faster with Sanders than Hillary). Its very depressing actually. I will vote for Trump if he gets nominated and hope the slide will be slower with him than the democrats. My lousy vote wont count for much, and I doubt many of the gulchers will vote for Trump. Its going to be interesting for those who hate trump so much, how they can live with Hillary or Sanders.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 1musictime 8 years, 9 months ago
    May not phase. What way to prevent an endorser? Prevent her because of believing she'll hinder?Like she realizes it, secretly is against Donald, and endorses him before people believing her endorsement will interfere.May not phase like she's not deliberately making it more awkward toward him to win by endorsing him.She maybe believes he'll win. She maybe wants him to win.She maybe believes her endorsement will not interfere.Maybe she's not realizing the possibility her endorsement will interfere and various people believe it may. Maybe if she believes the possibility, it may be of various people believing her endorsement will interfere will not interfere.One believing she's bad may also believe she's with certain good.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
    I think that you can link the endorsement to the theme of crony capitalism that she started to espouse toward the end of the aborted 2012 campaign. She has also been particularly interested in vet's since the beginning and Trump has made that a major plank -- possibly as protection for his stating that McCain wasn't a hero, but possibly honestly.

    She has been pretty bitterly attacked by both the left and the Republican establishment so one can see her attracted to the most anti-establishment candidate she can find.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
      She's also been unemployed a while, might be a good Sec of Interior.

      Trump is on record as far back as his keynote at the 88 convention with strong support for vets and that morphed to include first responders after 9/11.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
        She has written books and been paid for speaking so "unemployed" is perhaps an inappropriate term. I've been employed but certainly haven't made as much money! I do like interior or EPA. She has a clear love for the environment which would help inoculate her from the "hates the environment charge" if she tried to pull back on regulations.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      Right, which is particularly discouraging I think. If the so-called "principled right" goes in for crony capitalism, there's no real anti-state influence in the government. It's just various strains of personal lobbying, which wouldn't be a problem, except it comes at the expense of individual interests.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        you are going to have to define your terms....right wing of the left. Right wing of the right. Right of Center (the real one). You are probably right but then you could be Right?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          I'm starting to think that "defining the terms" may be 95% of the argument about who's conservative versus whatever other strain of right and the difference between that and the left.

          To me, the fundamental difference between right and left is about the size of government. Left likes big, protectionist statism. Right likes small, localized government. That definition only works within the American system however. And I don't know how widely accepted it is. I have a degree in political science and when I said that was the chief difference between the two parties in class my professor snapped at me that was not true. Anyway, then you get into "right wing of the left" and terms like that, as you point out. And that becomes more a matter of philosophical differences, which is further complicated by individual interpretations.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo