Romney, Senate Republicans pave way for vote on Trump Supreme Court pick

[nattaya09]

4 hours ago, FlyingThai said:

Breyer and Thomas. Clarence Thomas will certainly retire in a second Trump term.

That would leave three liberals ..Kagan, Sotomayor and...of course.. Roberts   Lol

[Mama Noodle]

4 hours ago, maqui said:

Then any of the Supremes who will vote against Roe v Wade in 2021 will violate the constitution?

 

For one, abortion is not covered in the constitution. 

 

And two, even if they did overturn roe v wade, all it allows for after that is states to have the ability to choose if they want to allow abortions, limit when it can be done, etc. It does not ban outright. 

[sucit]

It would actually be interesting if any of this mattered. The justices do not uphold the constitution. They are all useless. They are appointed for life so they do not have to worry about being in a high school popularity contest. Unfortunately, a high school popularity contest has much more integrity than the supreme court does. The supreme court does not even do its one and only job, to uphold the constitution. Constitutional violations are the norm today. 

[geriatrickid]

*Deleted post edited out*

That is a good question, and if you do not mind me butting in, I offer some reasons why many non US nationals have views/opinions. First, let's put aside the usual collection of nutters who will hate anything that the US does.  The US and many of its organizations and laws have a direct impact on how other countries operate and the quality of the lives of their nationals. This is why so many people have  vocal opinions. Here are some examples;

 

1. US laws on trade embargoes and sanctions: Sometimes the US is a moral leader and speaks out when others do not. In other cases, it is a bully, with  politicians  passing laws that pander to vocal voting blocs. Example: Cuba.  The US has  its laws that go beyond the USA and seek to interfere in the  foreign and commercial policies of other countries like the EU and Canada who trade with Cuba. It is particularly evident with financial institutions and insurance companies. It is quite something when the USA seeks to stop the  export of products such as toilet tissue or gauze to Cuba.

Ask Canada how it feels about the US actions on Huawei. It has 2 of its nationals held as hostages in china now while the USA  is MIA  after the USA required Canada to act on  an arrest and extradition request.

 

2. US laws on environmental protection: It goes far beyond the usual climate change issues. The USA wants to dump polluted waste water into a river or to over use the water of the great lakes, it will pass a law and make it legal. Ask the people on the Canadian border how they feel about US abusive  environmental practices.

 

3. Trade and Commerce Laws: Trump has packed his courts with judges who will push a specific foreign trade law agenda.  Previous agreements and undertakings in respect to tariffs, duties, and general trade practices are in tatters. These are agreements with former trade allies and with countries that had the US had trade surpluses with. Sometimes those judgments and law changes backfire on the USA. There are now growing movements to  boycott US products, when really, we should all be seeking to reduce dependency on  trade with China.

 

4. Social Policy:  Americans have a habit of exporting their social views. For example, it is American influence which permeates the evangelical movement in Uganda. This has resulted in discrimination against gay people and women, including their physical abuse. Groups and organizations in the USA act to suppress democratic activity elsewhere. (They can also encourage and promote violence.) If Americans wish to kill each other, that is their social convention, but the social and legal policies which encourage and promote the sale and export of  firearms to criminals in Central America and Canada presents a threat to those countries.

 

5. USA legal and Foreign Policy:  The US position on such things as supporting Putin while he rampages, or not speaking out against the Brazilian president's wholescale destruction of the Amazon is wrong. Yes, the USA has the right to its own foreign policy, but it is as bad as China and Russia when it comes to  moral leadership.

 

Also keep in mind that the USA is one of the  largest economies in the world. It got there  because of a social contract it had with other free countries, whether it was the UK, Australia, Canada, or Denmark. People put their trust in the USA to try and do the right thing. Even at the height of the movement to free eastern Europe when PM Thatcher and President Reagan had some sketchy  policies, people knew that they would not betray their fundamental obligations to democracy and human rights. Today, the free world has lost faith in America. Sad to say, but the Republican party has abandoned responsible democratic and fiscal principles in pursuit of power. The end result are wounds that will not heal for a long time. The world has turned against the USA because of the ongoing politicization of institutions and actions which should not be politicized.  The USA is consuming itself and fighting internally to the delight of China, Putin's Russia, Iran and others. When the USA is weakened we all suffer.

 

The US political and social policy has resulted in instability and disunity in America. enemies of freedom  are delighted. Anyone who supports freedom, civil and human rights and responsible management of  resources should be  worried if the USA is weakened, because then it becomes another China or Putin's Russia.

 

 

 

 

 

[FlyingThai]

4 hours ago, nattaya09 said:

That would leave three liberals ..Kagan, Sotomayor and...of course.. Roberts   Lol

Actually Alito is no spring chicken anymore either. He doesn't get much attention but he's now 70 years old.

 

It's not unheard of that men that age suddenly drop. Strategically justices should retire at a point of their own choosing once they cross a certain age like 70. Who came up with this "working to death" system?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

The very first amendment says otherwise. 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

 

Precisely why people like you, and people who think like you, should never, ever see legitimate power. 

The first amendment also covers free speech.  Yet, as mentioned, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and slander is illegal.  Do you disagree with these restrictions on free speech?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

You and about 3, maybe 4 other people on planet earth believe this. 

 

The rest of us, we all know the Democrats would have done exactly what republicans did, or worse. 

 

I mean they accused Kavanaugh of being a gang rapist and serial woman abuser for crying out loud, and did it proudly, in front of the whole world. 

 

But sure, if you want to believe that they would have followed some sort of 'norm' and deny it, go for it. 

Stating your opinion as fact.  Once again, you can't prove a counter factual.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Actually McConnell didn't pull anything off. Obama, in his last year got the opportunity to pick a justice. Which he did, but the Senate was controlled by the Republican party. McConnell new full well they were not going to vote to put a liberal justice on the court. For this reason he refused to allow a vote to take place. Why? Because that would have demanded a full dog N pony show of a confirmation hearing, and he thought the Senate had better things to do then waste its time on a hearing that was only going to result in a NO Vote. Why did this bother Democrats? Because they would have wanted that whole show as a vote getting tool in the upcoming election. That was all it was about for them nothing more. How can I say that for sure? Because even the Democrats know that the GOP led congress was not going to confirm one of their nominations in a lame duck session.  It's grandstanding that's all. If the tables were turned right now, the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing as the GOP right now. There constituents would never allow otherwise. The party in power in the Senate is the GOP - that is simply the way it is. And what happen is the way it has always happened 17 times in the previous years of US history.  Only 3 times did it go the other way. As for supposed dying wish of RBG. She simply hoped to live beyond the Trump Presidency. On the other hand, she wanted to step down should Clinton would have won. Pretty much explains everything.

"but the Senate was controlled by the Republican party. McConnell new full well they were not going to vote to put a liberal justice on the court. For this reason he refused to allow a vote to take place."

 

As mentioned in another post, Merrick Garland was a centrist chosen to appeal to moderate Republicans.  McConnell refused to allow a vote because he know Garland could be confirmed. 

 

However did not have the integrity to be honest about this, so he invented the excuse that it wasn't proper to allow a Supreme Court confirmation vote during an election year.  Now the colossal hypocrite is promising such a vote less than six weeks before the Presidential election, which is unprecedented.

[Damual Travesty]

19 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Good point. Thanks for that. That decision would have made alot of sense, had she done it while Obama had at least a year to go in office.

 

However, that does not negate the sheer hypocrisy and extreme lack of integrity of republicans, for pushing this through with barely seven weeks to go, when they insisted 9 months to go was too short a period in 2016. That does reek. But, that is what 14 foot crocodiles do! 

 

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said at the time, The Hill reported. "We're setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, that you're not gonna fill a vacant seat of the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today. That's gonna be the new rule," he added, according to the Independent.

Integrity:

the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

 

The Republicans are doing exactly what they were elected to do and further they are following precedent in the Senate. There is no hypocrisy according to US history on the matter of what happens when a sitting President does not have the Senate. It simply is what it is. The Democrats would not be passing on this opportunity if the tables were reversed - obviously - OBVIOUSLY! Or would you disagree on that? To quote Joe Biden - "Come on man"!

[Scott]

Posts reported and removed.  

 

[nattaya09]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

".......As mentioned in another post, Merrick Garland was a centrist chosen to appeal to moderate Republicans.  McConnell refused to allow a vote because he know Garland could be confirmed. ..."

Sure.....according to the Democrats anyway. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, nattaya09 said:

Sure.....according to the Democrats anyway. 

Find a credible news source from the time that described Merrick Garland as anything other than a centrist.

 

Why would McConnell have been afraid of putting the nomination up for a vote, other than his fear that some Republicans would have voted for a qualified, centrist Justice?

[Baerboxer]

On 9/23/2020 at 5:40 AM, Somtamnication said:

RBG's body not  yet buried. Shame on these people.

 

Where does it say, anywhere, that there must be a set time frame after death before appointing a successor?

 

 

[spidermike007]

4 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Integrity:

the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

 

The Republicans are doing exactly what they were elected to do and further they are following precedent in the Senate. There is no hypocrisy according to US history on the matter of what happens when a sitting President does not have the Senate. It simply is what it is. The Democrats would not be passing on this opportunity if the tables were reversed - obviously - OBVIOUSLY! Or would you disagree on that? To quote Joe Biden - "Come on man"!

I disagree. Integrity is when you honor your word. I will be held responsible, is what Graham said. Is he being held responsible for his words? Or do words mean nothing anymore, in this age of Trump?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Where does it say, anywhere, that there must be a set time frame after death before appointing a successor?

 

 

 

There is no such stipulation I'm aware of. As with many things related to how the Trump administration rolls, the argument presented that if it ain't illegal, it's cool. Used to be times where a bit of class, propriety and decorum - or even plain respect meant something. Most Trump supporters on here seem to revel with each new instance where the President broadcasts his disdain for such.

[xylophone]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is no such stipulation I'm aware of. As with many things related to how the Trump administration rolls, the argument presented that if it ain't illegal, it's cool. Used to be times where a bit of class, propriety and decorum - or even plain respect meant something. Most Trump supporters on here seem to revel with each new instance where the President broadcasts his disdain for such.

Agree and with this administration there is absolutely no class, propriety and decorum or even plain respect as you so rightly say.

 

I have no idea why it is that trump supporters live in an entirely different universe, but then again nothing surprises me with these people and my recent interaction with one here left me stunned, when he blatantly said that trump didn't tell lies, that trump wasn't made to repay $2 million to the charities whom he defrauded, and that the Confederate flag was nothing to do with trump supporters, but was the signature of the Democrats!

 

Oh, and nearly forgot, this man said that there is no racism in the USA! Despite the fact that trump said the following in a recent rally of his.....

 

'Donald Trump promotes sinister 'racehorse theory' of eugenics.......
Racial theories that were thought consigned to the dustbin of history after they fuelled the horrors of the Holocaust have been given a fresh platform by US president Donald Trump, who learned them on his father's knee'.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12367607 
 

[opalred]

trump supporters seem to have caught the virus in there brains

[Damual Travesty]

22 hours ago, heybruce said:

Find a credible news source from the time that described Merrick Garland as anything other than a centrist.

 

Why would McConnell have been afraid of putting the nomination up for a vote, other than his fear that some Republicans would have voted for a qualified, centrist Justice?

Why would he put someone being called a centrist by every liberal rag in the Country on the Supreme Court when he does not have to? Why would he allow the Democrats their dog and pony show before an election when he does not have to? Why would he put someone who is not solidly conservative on the court- even conservative picks do not turn out to be conservative justices in the long run sometimes - as you really do not know how they are going to fall on cases that draw the national interest. You are making a hypothetical here regarding how a vote would have fell out - it is more likely that the Senate would NOT have confirmed him as it would have required Republicans all to violate the reason they are elected which is to confirm Conservatives to the Court - not quasi conservative liberal - we are not sure - middle of the road - maybes. Conservatives - we all know one when we see one. Especially in matters of how to apply the Constitution to the law.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Damual Travesty
sp

[Cryingdick]

6 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Why would he put someone being called a centrist by every liberal rag in the Country on he Supreme Court when he does not have to? Why would he allow the Democrats their dog and pony show before an election when he does not have to? Why would he put someone who is not solidly conservative on the court- even conservative picks do not turn out to be conservative justices in the long run sometimes - as you really do not know how they are going to fall on cases that draw the national interest. You are making a hypothetical here regarding how a vote would have fell out - it is more likely that the Senate would NOT have confirmed him as it would have required Republicans all to violate the reason they are elected which is to confirm Conservatives to the Court - not quasi conservative liberal - we are not sure - middle of the road - maybes. Conservatives - we all know one when we see one. Especially in matters of how to apply the Constitution to the law.

The dems just don't seem to get the fact that many people are now immune from their whining and opinions. You can only cry so often when you don't get your way before you get ignored. 

Now is not the time for negotiations and political good will. Now is the time to do what you promised your voters you will do and that was one of Trump's main platforms, to appoint judges. He has done so at a historical pace.

 

Joe won't even let us know who he is thinking of because we all know he would probably try AOC (joking here, sort of) or some other nutcase.

[Damual Travesty]

21 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The dems just don't seem to get the fact that many people are now immune from their whining and opinions. You can only cry so often when you don't get your way before you get ignored. 

Now is not the time for negotiations and political good will. Now is the time to do what you promised your voters you will do and that was one of Trump's main platforms, to appoint judges. He has done so at a historical pace.

 

Joe won't even let us know who he is thinking of because we all know he would probably try AOC (joking here, sort of) or some other nutcase.

Exactly !!!!

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Why would he put someone being called a centrist by every liberal rag in the Country on the Supreme Court when he does not have to? Why would he allow the Democrats their dog and pony show before an election when he does not have to? Why would he put someone who is not solidly conservative on the court- even conservative picks do not turn out to be conservative justices in the long run sometimes - as you really do not know how they are going to fall on cases that draw the national interest. You are making a hypothetical here regarding how a vote would have fell out - it is more likely that the Senate would NOT have confirmed him as it would have required Republicans all to violate the reason they are elected which is to confirm Conservatives to the Court - not quasi conservative liberal - we are not sure - middle of the road - maybes. Conservatives - we all know one when we see one. Especially in matters of how to apply the Constitution to the law.

Nothing hypothetical about saying he might have been confirmed.

 

Also nothing hypothetical for pointing out that McConnell invented a rule for not putting the nomination to a vote that he is now blatantly violating.

[Morch]

59 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The dems just don't seem to get the fact that many people are now immune from their whining and opinions. You can only cry so often when you don't get your way before you get ignored. 

Now is not the time for negotiations and political good will. Now is the time to do what you promised your voters you will do and that was one of Trump's main platforms, to appoint judges. He has done so at a historical pace.

 

Joe won't even let us know who he is thinking of because we all know he would probably try AOC (joking here, sort of) or some other nutcase.

 

Now is not the time? Seems like it wasn't the time during Obama's terms either. Maybe it's never the time for some. Got to wonder what hyper-partisans on either side think will happen - that all those holding views will be 'converted'? That they will see the light? Be 'reeducated'? At the bottom line, this hyper-partisanship cannot have a happy ending. Not one that will preserve the USA or the stature it still holds. Guess some are more invested in 'winning'.

 

You closing comment is bogus and irrelevant. Was dealt with on numerous posts and topics already.

[Isaan sailor]

Have seen the funniest media montage on FB concerning the utmost importance of filling every S.C. seat.  Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Liz Warren and other leftists all crying for action to follow the Constitution. 

[Damual Travesty]

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Nothing hypothetical about saying he might have been confirmed.

 

Also nothing hypothetical for pointing out that McConnell invented a rule for not putting the nomination to a vote that he is now blatantly violating.

You are giving an opinion here that I disagree with fully. And blah blah blah, a nominee will be put forward by the President, lawfully, no one will contest the lawfulness of this nomination, the Senate will confirm, and we will have a new Supreme Court Justice. It's like when I was saying that Trump will not be removed from office for impeachment, and when I was saying that Trump is not a Russian agent and the Mueller report will find no collusion or conspiracy.

 

Now I am saying he will be elected in a a landslide because at the end of the day Americans are seeing how Joe Biden is functioning every day - with their own eyes. They are listening to his speech. The see - they hear. We all know that it is somehow very sad. Now revelations of his Son are coming to the forefront as well. It's just a terrible sad mess. Someone called it elder abuse. The way they are pushing around this old man in front of the cameras who appears lost all the time. I have been watching Biden for Decades. It is very noticeable to me as an observer that his mental acuity is suffering. His own family are failing this old man by not pulling him from the race. They should have done this long ago, but of course that would leave the Democrats with socialist Bernie, and no one else. A long time ago they succumb to the far left tendency.

 

 Howard Schultz formerly from Starbucks would have made a far better candidate. Reasonable, sensible sounding, but that does not please the loony left so here we are - a very sad spectacle. Honestly as an American I am someone embarrassed and saddened to see Joe Biden being pushed around like this. It reminds me of Weekend at Bernie's. A man who cannot say one sentence straight. That is the truth of it. Who can argue with that? Seriously? Who can argue with that point? Can he say more then one sentence straight? Can he? Honestly the would be wise to right now - today - declare a doctor has examined Joe Biden and found him unfit. Then they could find a new candidate. I would not even know what the procedure for that would be- would have to look it up - but that it what they should do. Someone send the old man home.

[Sujo]

Bidens son has been cleared by the republican committee.

[Damual Travesty]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Now is not the time? Seems like it wasn't the time during Obama's terms either. Maybe it's never the time for some. Got to wonder what hyper-partisans on either side think will happen - that all those holding views will be 'converted'? That they will see the light? Be 'reeducated'? At the bottom line, this hyper-partisanship cannot have a happy ending. Not one that will preserve the USA or the stature it still holds. Guess some are more invested in 'winning'.

 

You closing comment is bogus and irrelevant. Was dealt with on numerous posts and topics already.

Again, Partisan views are informed by the ideology that inspires them directly related to policy in place or potential that result from elections. Conservatives are not trying to win - we are trying to conserve - to preserve American values - historical values that founded us as a Nation. That we hold dear. I am not in love with any personality, I am in fear of attempts to stack the supreme court, an attempt to allow illegal aliens to vote, an attempt to allow 16 yo to vote, open borders, unchecked immigration of non-skilled, illegal immigration which is not checked, activist judges, a weak on China foreign policy that results in the World at risk of war, one sided trade deals that hurt the US worker, the destruction of the US oil and gas industry, the destruction of the US manufacturing industry, foreign interventionist wars, the attempted confiscation of weapons from American citizens, the re-ordering of American education, attacks on religous freedom, abortion in the 3rd trimester, attempts at SOCIALISM and the rise of an obviously TOTALITARIAN LEFT etc etc. and I could go on. That is what informs my vote. There is no more middle of the road. One side will lose and one side will win. One party is going to die and it is going to happen in this election. I will not even declare which one - but one political party is going to die after this election. That is the way it is. If Donald Trump loses this election there will not be another Conservative President of the USA. I believe that one hundred percent. The Democrats will consolidate power quickly and viciously.

[Damual Travesty]

43 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Bidens son has been cleared by the republican committee.

No he has not. He has been referred to the DOJ to look for potential indictment for crimes. As I am afraid to post most links here under fear of their removal I suggest you search this phrase.

 

GOOGLE: committee passes report to DOJ to look at potential crimes of Hunter Biden

 

What is Truth said Pilate.

[Damual Travesty]

21 hours ago, xylophone said:

Agree and with this administration there is absolutely no class, propriety and decorum or even plain respect as you so rightly say.

 

I have no idea why it is that trump supporters live in an entirely different universe, but then again nothing surprises me with these people and my recent interaction with one here left me stunned, when he blatantly said that trump didn't tell lies, that trump wasn't made to repay $2 million to the charities whom he defrauded, and that the Confederate flag was nothing to do with trump supporters, but was the signature of the Democrats!

 

Oh, and nearly forgot, this man said that there is no racism in the USA! Despite the fact that trump said the following in a recent rally of his.....

 

'Donald Trump promotes sinister 'racehorse theory' of eugenics.......
Racial theories that were thought consigned to the dustbin of history after they fuelled the horrors of the Holocaust have been given a fresh platform by US president Donald Trump, who learned them on his father's knee'.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12367607 
 

Interesting is it not? A post like this which is aimed at the most pro Israel President in the history of the USA. One whose very own Jewish son in Law helped make peace beween Arab and Jew? A President who is supported by a national Network of Black and Hispanic supporters. One who re-located the American Embassy of Israel to Jerusalem? Does it not turn your stomach the blatant attempt by these people to turn truth upside down before our very eyes? It does me. What is it that this man from New Zealand finds so atrocious in policy regarding his home Country that would result in this kind of post? What does Donald J Trump have to do with New Zealand? What personal pain has this man suffered at the hands of Donald Trump that would lead him to post such nonsense as this?

[Morch]

59 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

You are giving an opinion here that I disagree with fully. And blah blah blah, a nominee will be put forward by the President, lawfully, no one will contest the lawfulness of this nomination, the Senate will confirm, and we will have a new Supreme Court Justice. It's like when I was saying that Trump will not be removed from office for impeachment, and when I was saying that Trump is not a Russian agent and the Mueller report will find no collusion or conspiracy.

 

Now I am saying he will be elected in a a landslide because at the end of the day Americans are seeing how Joe Biden is functioning every day - with their own eyes. They are listening to his speech. The see - they hear. We all know that it is somehow very sad. Now revelations of his Son are coming to the forefront as well. It's just a terrible sad mess. Someone called it elder abuse. The way they are pushing around this old man in front of the cameras who appears lost all the time. I have been watching Biden for Decades. It is very noticeable to me as an observer that his mental acuity is suffering. His own family are failing this old man by not pulling him from the race. They should have done this long ago, but of course that would leave the Democrats with socialist Bernie, and no one else. A long time ago they succumb to the far left tendency.

 

 Howard Schultz formerly from Starbucks would have made a far better candidate. Reasonable, sensible sounding, but that does not please the loony left so here we are - a very sad spectacle. Honestly as an American I am someone embarrassed and saddened to see Joe Biden being pushed around like this. It reminds me of Weekend at Bernie's. A man who cannot say one sentence straight. That is the truth of it. Who can argue with that? Seriously? Who can argue with that point? Can he say more then one sentence straight? Can he? Honestly the would be wise to right now - today - declare a doctor has examined Joe Biden and found him unfit. Then they could find a new candidate. I would not even know what the procedure for that would be- would have to look it up - but that it what they should do. Someone send the old man home.

 

More of your fantasies and crystal balling. You do not actually have a uniquely in-depth insight regarding what Americans think. At best, what you post is echo chamber stuff or wishful thinking. If asked (futile though, isn't it?) to support it, the answer would be another deluge of waffle.

 

Your nonsense about Biden are, again, quite amusing considering the candidate you support. Apparently to your 'expert' eyes, Trump does not exhibit any deficiencies whatsoever. Oh well....guess we're looking at his public addresses and such from different angles. Your being with head shoved deeply in the sand.

 

Once more, you have zero qualifications, and yet express your opinions as being firmly entrenched in fact and reality. They are nothing of the sort.

 

[Morch]

50 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Again, Partisan views are informed by the ideology that inspires them directly related to policy in place or potential that result from elections. Conservatives are not trying to win - we are trying to conserve - to preserve American values - historical values that founded us as a Nation. That we hold dear. I am not in love with any personality, I am in fear of attempts to stack the supreme court, an attempt to allow illegal aliens to vote, an attempt to allow 16 yo to vote, open borders, unchecked immigration of non-skilled, illegal immigration which is not checked, activist judges, a weak on China foreign policy that results in the World at risk of war, one sided trade deals that hurt the US worker, the destruction of the US oil and gas industry, the destruction of the US manufacturing industry, foreign interventionist wars, the attempted confiscation of weapons from American citizens, the re-ordering of American education, attacks on religous freedom, abortion in the 3rd trimester, attempts at SOCIALISM and the rise of an obviously TOTALITARIAN LEFT etc etc. and I could go on. That is what informs my vote. There is no more middle of the road. One side will lose and one side will win. One party is going to die and it is going to happen in this election. I will not even declare which one - but one political party is going to die after this election. That is the way it is. If Donald Trump loses this election there will not be another Conservative President of the USA. I believe that one hundred percent. The Democrats will consolidate power quickly and viciously.

 

I think that your 'not in love with any personality' (or in it's earlier version 'I'm no Trumpter') is comical, given the adulation poured on Trump regardless of anything, or ignoring all his faults wholesale. Doubt anyone is convinced by your words.

 

Most of the things you list a being afraid from are bogeymen. As in not actual policies, but talking points from your echo chamber, or at best, fringe ideas with little prospects of going anywhere. That you treat or present them as real is misleading.

 

At the bottom line you have nothing to offer but what I portrayed in my post - hyper-partisanship, and a focus on 'winning' envisaged as eradication of opposing views. This is neither democratic, nor really fits with the spirit of the constitution.

 

More to the point, it does not offer a realistic resolution. What does one side 'winning' actually imply? That all those seeing thing differently (at the very least, half the people) would live under tyranny and a set of ideals they do not agree with? That only one creed of beliefs and views be accepted? Where does this so called 'winning' lead to, exactly?

 

As for your closing remarks, conservatism in it's fossil form, will probably not survive much longer - them demographic and social trends being what they are. Your side could, maybe, slow down things some, with the price tag of deepening fractures and increased animosity. But ultimately, something will have to give.

 

But conservatism could adapt, as it has over decades, to a new reality. Not by enforcing old ideals, but by picking which things are important and which things aren't. Having the whole cake ain't gonna work - there will simply be no cake for everyone. If that's the sort of 'winning' sought, then it's not much of a goal.