President of the US Picks

Nope - back up, you indicated Cruz was offering incrementalism. His platform does not indicate that - it indicates a bold vision of massive change, not incrementalism. So, where is his approach of incrementalism?

But campaigning to the wet dream alienates the very people who think incrementalism and a return to the 1990s level government are good. You want to sell incrementalism by selling the opposite of incrementalism?

Good for a laugh. Not much else.

Do you have an answer?

Does it alienate them, or you?

I want government to be an insignificant part of my life. If we were to get our 1990’s level of government I wouldn’t say “hooray, success!” Instead I would see it as a good start and keep working toward smaller, insignificant government.

It’s the same thing the leftist have been doing but in the opposite direction. Hell Obamacare isn’t even in full swing and yet and they are clamoring for full on socialized healthcare. Why can’t we work it the other way with the same fervor?

You know the GOP’s offerings this election cycle are the bottom of the barrel when,

It would alienate them. Independents are not looking for “constitutional conservatism” as a solution to the nation’s problems and will reject a candidate selling it. This is dirt simple politics and common sense - how is it you’re not getting it?

Here it is again:

Candidate Cruz: “I think we should shrink the government to 1990s size.”

Independents: “That is appealing, depending on exactly what you want to shrink. Life was good in the 1990s.”

Candidate Cruz: “I think we should shrink the government to pre-New Deal size but as a down payment, let’s shrink it to 1990s levels.”

Independents: “We will vote for another candidate because we have no interest in that. It’s extreme and out of touch. And even if we got to 1990s levels of government during your tenure, which would be ok, we don’t want anyone actively trying to get rid of government programs we’re ok with, which is what you would do.”

Koch is obviously a commie bastard, lol


Does the majority of our society not want to shrink government because:

  1. Don’t take my entitlement,
  2. We can borrow whatever and let the following generation worry about it,
  3. Living within one’s means is passe, stupid, made up religion way to control us,
  4. once spending increases = putting genie back into bottle,
  5. Life is unfair to many so share the wealth (I still deserve mine tho),
  6. Why do you even feel qualified to ask w/o 6 degrees in IR, Econ, policy,
  7. Other not mentioned?

I am curious why promising and attempting to dole out 2-8x the benefits vs paid ins seems logical and hope someone will answer.

That’s an easy one. The majority of Americans are not even thinking about it to begin with. They are more concerned with the Kardashians, the NFL or some other highly important topic. However, if they happen to see someone on TV mentioning a benefit cut they recoil and then it’s "Don’t take my entitlement.

Yep.

Because the more popular freedom is freedom from nature, not freedom from a large nanny government.
In fact, it is the nanny government that makes us free from nature, therefore, free to be individuals.
Given enough time we will gravitate towards the first in democracies.

Freedom from government promises that you might indeed be left to starve, in the elements, rotting from sickness, uncared for in your weak old age, raising your single-parent children all alone, and so on and so on. A bit difficult to exercise your very own special brand of free individualistic expression under such circumstances. Might those old traditional civil institutions–church, larger families (to better share the cost of caring for old and young), the rich local company-owning patrons hiring and investing in local–fill in to some extent in place of a nanny state?..Well, progressivism has rotted that away.

A nanny state, on the other hand, promises safety nets for those situations, leaving one more free and confident to get on with being a unique libertine individual.

I’m and independent and I am looking for a constitutional conservative. Not every independent is you.

Where has all your dirt simple politics gotten you this year? Has common sense reigned supreme this primary?

1 Like

I never said independents are all like me - but as I said above, independents are by and larger not anti-government libertarian, “constitutional conservatives”. I couldn’t care less if you personally consider yourself to be an independent - what matters is how they think generally and vote as a bloc. And they aren’t a bunch of Ron Paulnuts - they are middle of the road voters who aren’t clamoring to make government as insignificant as possible in their lives.

Nope - it’s a function of reading basic information about current polling and recent elections, which is available to you through reliable, objective sources should you desire to seek them out.

And it’s supported by the fact that not even Republicans are desirous of a “constitutional conservative” as a bloc - if they were, Trump wouldn’t be winning primaries.

[quote=“pushharder, post:360, topic:215570”]
Cruz is right behind him and winning primaries too.
[/quote]

Not sure about that. Cruz’ cruise has come to a mathematical end.

Trumps success, I believe, is tied more to a large, albeit politically silent, group that are tired of reading 'The Stupid 'thread’s political correct garbage.

He gives assurance that someone with (political) power, money and following shares their ‘values’.


but what do I know, I’m surrounded by Bernie and coexist bumper stickers.

1 Like