This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Repubican Establishment Leaders Trashing Trump at the Country's Peril

 
A reader challenged my thesis that some of the establishment were power hungry sore losers. It appears a few like Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush are willing to sabotage Trump, causing him to lose, and then
they can regain their power.

However, as they strap on their suicide belts, many in the party are waking up to the realization that Hillary’s three Supreme Court appointments mean the end of our Second Amendment and more damage to our First and Tenth amendment. She will take our guns. Force religion out of the public square and increase the power of the Federal government. To pay for all this she will run us into bankruptcy. On top of that we will have to listen to that cackly voice for four years.
 
 
Many people don’t start paying attention to the election until around October. If their introduction to Trump is through a few of our soreheaded leaders, it could damage him. So the really important issue is not whether someone votes for him, it is whether or not they give him a good name with their support.

37 comments:

Cyclops said...

Yes, you're right about what Hillary is going to do to us and the Country. Trump supporters should have taken that into consideration instead of blindly following an authoritarian demagogue who has the policy knowledge of a 15-year old and the temperament of a six-year old.

Blogger said...

Cyclops are you trying to tell us you are wiser and more astute than the 10,702,962 of us, plus those added tonight, those yet to come and the most in number in all of the Republican party’s history? Wowzie!

Sarkazein said...

He also has a record for votes against him.

CLICK HERE

Sarkazein said...

Who be the wiser?

Sarkazein said...

Meeliuns voted against him. The vote against him is youge. Nobody likes him.

Cyclops said...

Blogger, that's meanness stat. While he got more primary votes than any Republican ever, more voted against him in the GOP primaries than any other Republican nominee ever.

And why I am usually modest, yes I will claim to be wiser and more astute than all those Trump voters. Remember in November what i told you in March and am repeating in May. Trump will takes conservatives over the proverbial cliff with him.

But I must add, Blogger, that if I turn out to be wrong, nobody will be happier and I will gladly eat crow and admit I am a dunce. But. unfortunately, that's not going to happen


Cyclops said...

Should have typed "meaningless", not meanness.

guy faukes said...

Cyclops, Trump will not harm conservatives. However, he may be the catalyst that expedites s much need change in the Republican party. As I have often said, the Republican part will either return to its base o it will remain in the hands of the establishment and die as a viable political party. Over a period of time, a third party would form. This party might consist of the conservative base or it might be the establishment , but they will not be in the same party. This change is inevitable in the long run. It is a good thing if Trump gets the ball rolling.

I am willing to wager that the response from both you and Sark is that the country will fall apart in the process. Fellows, it already has. The liberals have enslaved enough people with entitlement programs to create a voting block that is almost impossible to defeat. I believe that the bread and circus campaign has worked and we are past the tipping point. The question is how far will we fall before we reach the bottom. Even though I preferred Cruz, Trump may be our first step on the long road back.

I find it telling that a goodly number of the party first "yellow dog" Democrats I know claim that they will vote for Trump due to their loathing of Hillary. Many people dislike Trumo, but the Hildebeast is in the same position.

In any event, although I supported Cruz, Trump ,may be the better choice.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- I have made no prediction on whether Trump can win or not and no prediction on what kind of President he will be.
Who knows? I agree, the country is already falling apart. The character of the man may be more important than ever in the coming years. His views on abortion, Eminent Domain, protectionism, his manners, his real world experiences including his use of bankruptcy and his unusual ego is what concerns me. I am not ready to say that this is just what the doctor ordered.

Cyclops said...

Guy Faukes, do you really believe Trump will be elected our next president? If so, I want to meet you back here on November 9 to say I told you so or congratulate you. One crucial way Trump will hurt conservatives will be to let Hillary drastically change the make up and direction of the Supreme Court.

There are not enough staunch conservatives to win national elections. To make any gains, we must align with natural allies. If we don't, we will become as irrelevant at the Libertarians, who can never win any thing but who can keep good Republicans from winning.

2016 was set up to defeat the liberals and to roll make some of their gains under Obama. The country was fed up with liberal Democrat initiatives. But the desire to punish the "establishment" has cost us that chance. Certainly, conservatives could have retaken the Supreme Court with a Republican President. But nominating Trump is like going on a suicide mission. And it will have long lasting impacts favoring a rapid and permanent takeover by the radical left. Iff you think we are in bad shape now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

guy faulkes said...

I do not know if Trump can win or not. I do know many staunch Democrats prefer him to Hillary. Who knows, the way things are looking, Hillary may not be the candidate. She may be in jail.

guy faulkes said...

I do not think I have made myself clear about the issue of Trump vs. the establishment Republicans. It does not matter if he wins or loses as far as the the effect on the Republican party is concerned. If he wins, the establishment has lost their hold or at least has had it damaged heavily. If he loses, and the establishment is blamed or given the credit depending on your point of view, then there will be a mass migration of conservative Republicans to become unaffiliated (as the Wolf and I already did). This would remove any chance the Republicans would have in a national election.

In either case, the Republican party as it now exists will be no more.

Cyclops said...

Guy Faulks, recent history does not support your prediction that the "Republican party as it now exists will be no more." In fact, opposite trends have been the more the norm. After '64 and the Goldwater debacle, the GOP moved back to moderate conservatism and elected Richard Nixon in '68 after huge gains in the '66 midterms. After its surge to the far left in '72 with McGovern, the Democrat Party swung back to the middle somewhat with Cater, who many thought was a Southern moderate. Same from '88 to '92 when the Democrats moved away from ultra liberal Dukakis to Clinton.

After Trump, moderate conservatives will again dominate the GOP. A few hard core conservatives may drop out, but they will become mostly politically irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you're unaffiliated or not, you will have no viable candidates to support outside of the GOP. (Far right candidates like Greg Brannon max out at only 25 percent in a GOP primary.) And like Libertarians, all they can do is help defeat a moderately conservative Republican like McCrory, who is in real danger of losing this year not from Democrat strength, but from the Libertarian Party getting 3 or 4 percent.

guy faulkes said...

Cyclops. the Goldwatere situation was vastly different than that of today. Goldwater occurred during the "hippy" era which was the age of liberalism. It is no longer the age of Aquarius

More and more people are fed up with the direction the country has traveled under both the Democrats and the establishment Republicans. This is the reason that unaffiliated voters decide elections. Neither the Democrats or republicans can carry an election by themselves. It is only logical to accept that if either the establishment or the conservative base leaves the party, then the party is done for. It appears to be inevitable that this will happen.

The party not only no logger wants to move in the same direction, it no longer wants to arrive at the same destination.

The question is not about the Republican party. It is toast, although it has not admitted it yet. The question is how long will it be before the unaffiliated and the conservative portion of the Republican party will align and turn the country around.

Trump will have the advantage of the loathing many people hold for Hillary. Obama's actions have forced many hard line Democrats to examine their position. Dare i say they want a change. While he is far from a perfect conservative candidate, conservatives like Trumps America first rhetoric along with his business background. People are tired of career politicians that are more concerned with their career than the country.


Trump may be a catalyst to begin the long and painful process of returning to the American dream. Being Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or unaffiliated has nothing to do with a recovery. The point when people realize that they need to be makers instead of takers has everything to do with it. Will we have to reach to point of no moneys being available at all as did Greece for this to happen or can someone like Trump start the recovery without falling this far? Who knows? All we can do is hope

(Hope and change. Damn I am good.)

Cyclops, the future of the Republican party is irrelevant
.

Cyclops said...

Guy, I am betting you are way off base on your future predictions. And I am hoping we're both around long enough to see who's right. Political parties want to win more than anything else. After a Trump debacle, the GOP will adopt the appropriate strategies to be competitive. While the damage done by another Democrat administration may be irreversible, conservatives who drop out will become irrelevant like the Libertarians.

Blogger said...

Cyclops ". After a Trump debacle, the GOP will adopt the appropriate strategies to be competitive." You mean like they always have done?

Cyclops said...

I don't know about "always", Blogger, but elections like those in 2000, 2010 and 2014 certainly come to mind.

guy faulkes said...

Exactly, Cyclops. Both Bush teh elder and Bush the younger were establishment Republicans that added to the country's problems. They were proponents of big government.

Take, for instance, the reason for Bush the elder loosing his second term. he did an "assault rifle" importation ban that enraged gun owners. A petition was circulated to throw him out of the NRA. He resigned before that could happen. Thousands of gun owners did not cast a vote for him. he list because of this.

This is the fate of the Republican party. The conservative faction will not support the establishment and the establishment will not support the conservatives.

Wolf's Head said...

"Cyclops, the future of the Republican party is irrelevant" Guy

I concur.

Anonymous said...

No one can say with certainty why Bush 1 lost, though anyone can spin it in a way that supports their position. You might say it was assault rifles. Others might say it was Bush breaking his "Read my lips - no new taxes" promise. Still others might say he lost because Ross Perot won nearly 19% of the popular vote in 1992, allowing Clinton to win with only 43% of the popular vote. You can claim it was the gun owners that brought down Bush, but you cannot prove it.

USS Rodger Young said...

Nonymouse coward

Can you "prove" your wife isn't still a prostitute?

Your Ole pal

USS_RODGER YOUNG

Anonymous said...

Can you "prove" your wife isn't still a prostitute?

Your Ole pal

USS_RODGER YOUNG


Moron. I try to make a logical counter-argument and all you can respond with is a personal attack. Where have you been? Debate on transgenders hit a little too close to home for you?

Can you prove conclusively that THE reason Bush 1 lost is ONLY because of assault rifles? Or could it be, as I claim, that it was due to a variety of factors?

Cyclops said...

Guy Faulks, The Country got rid of Bush 1 and we got Bill Clinton instead. Do you think that was a good trade? BTW, I think most savvy political observers believe Bush 1 lost due to the '91 recession.

USS Rodger Young said...


Little Brau

You tried to make a logical counterarguement? No, you tried to ridicule Guy's thoughts on the 1992 election (he is right by the way), yet when you were ridiculed in similar fashion, you whined. Typical liberal socialist sheep. Stings don't it.

Your Ole pal

USS_RODGER Young

USS Rodger Young said...

Suspending the privilege of a supposed friend who stabs you in the back (bush 1) is worth it even if it means a socialist like Bill Clinton gets in office. No such thing as lesser of two evils - just evil. True conservativeStory understand this. RINOs don't

Anonymous said...

I was only pointing out that there are myriad possibilities as to why Bush 1 lost. Cyclops added another -- the recession, which, according to presidential history, tends to be the best predictor of who will win an election -- we've almost never reelected a president during or immediately following a recession. To say that there is one and only one reason demonstrates limited capacity for complex thought. Not that that surprises me about you. So you claim that the ONLY reason Bush 1 lost was because of an assault rifle ban? Prove it. Prove that THAT is the ONLY reason, conclusively, and that the recession, the breaking of the "No new taxes" pledge, the candidacy of Ross Perot did not contribute to his loss. I claim it was all of those factors -- a perfect storm that gave us perhaps the most corrupt married couple to ever occupy the White House (the Obama's run a close second).

All of that having been said, your only response to my initial comment was, "Prove your wife isn't still a prostitute." How mature! How intellectual! What brilliance, sir! THIS is the type of serious political discussion I visit this blog to engage in! Thank you, for your thoughtful, sincere and respectful contribution to furthering conservatism and the discussion on this blog! I guess what you are ACTUALLY admitting is what I am stating -- that you CANNOT prove that assault rifles are absolutely, positively the ONLY reason Bush 1 lost. Thank you for that admission!

Idiot.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Rico, care to express an opinion on HB2? This should be interesting! LOL!

guy faulkes said...

You are correct in that i cannot prove that Bush the Elder's defeat was solely due to the issue of his banning the importation of guns he falsely labeled as assault rifles because it was not. As a big government proponent establishment Republican, there were many reasons not to vote for him. However, in my opinion, it was the major cause of his loss. This is supported by the fact he resigned from the NRA after the petition was circulated to have him thrown out. A candidate claiming to be a hard line conservative (read my lips comment)does not abandon the most influential political organization in existence unless he knows he has already lost its support. There was around two million members in the NRA at the time. This indicates a significant number of voters supported him the first time and not the second.

The statement about Bill Clinton is meaningless, because the vast majority did not vote for him either. What you are saying is that we should support the candidate you choose because I should consider to be the lesser of two evils. No thank you. Evil is evil so if I have no one I can support, I will support no one.

Apparently, it is acceptable for the establishment Republicans to follow this policy with Trump, but was not acceptable to use it in regard to one of them.

guy faulkes said...

Should have said that gun people dd not vote for Clinton and that I should consider your candidate to be the lessor of to evils and vote for him.

Rico has a point in that is better to have an enemy yu can trust than a friend you cannot.

Cyclops said...

Anon 744, There is no point in having a debate with the likes of Rodger Young. You will never get an intellectually coherent response. Only knee jerk vitriol and personal insults. Best to ignore her/him and if you want to have a reasonable exchange of ideas and opinions.

Anonymous said...

Guy,
Thanks for your reasoned comment -- so much better than Rico. You agree with the point I was trying to make. One can disagree over what was the MAJOR cause of Bush's defeat without ever reaching an absolute answer. I would take issue with one of your points. You say it is better to have an enemy you can trust than a friend you cannot trust. There is one thing you are leaving out of that statement -- "in power," as in, "having power over you." I would rather NOT have an enemy that I trust WILL seek to harm me having power over me. An enemy will never respond to pressure from me, and if that enemy is placed in a position of power over me, he will use that power to harm me. Think IRS abuse of conservative groups under Obama. Think of Obama's many attempts at gun control. He knows he'll never get the support of gun rights advocates, so he might as well try to openly harm them. I predict he will try again before leaving office.

As to Trump, I am curious. Will conservatives here support him ONLY because he is not establishment, even if he is a RINO? An interesting dilemma! Will the choice between Trump and Hillary be a choice between two evils? Will the anti-establishment crowd here choose the "lesser" of two evils (Trump) in this instance, when they decry such a choice when the "lesser" evil is an establishment Republican. Personally, I haven't made up my mind. I will never support Hillary, so call me a member of the "Never Hillary" movement. Trump is everything a RINO is -- probably pro-choice; he'll sell out gun rights after the first mass shooting after his election; lying to get elected (you'll never see a wall constructed under Trump); protectionist rather than free market (to his personal advantage); favors government power over the rights of individuals (see his stand on eminent domain); hostile to traditional morality and values (see his stand on transgenders and his invitation to Bruce/Caitlin Jenner) -- the list could go on. Not exactly the standard bearer conservatives have hoped for. But again, will the anti-establishment conservatives sell out their conservative values and vote for a quasi-conservative if he is "anti-establishment?" An interesting question...

Anonymous said...

And another question -- does anyone have any inkling what kind of justice Trump will appoint to the Supreme Court if elected? Thankfully, McConnell seems to be sticking to his promise to not have the Senate confirm a new SC Justice until after the election. If Trump wins, what kind of person will he appoint? Will it be a constitutional conservative? Will it be someone in the mold of Scalia (we could wish!) Will it be someone who cherishes the First Amendment and religious freedom? Or will the persecution of Christians continue, supported by our krytocracy (government by judges)?

guy faulkes said...

You bring up an interesting question Anonymous. Should one go with Trump who has nothing but rhetoric to showcase his conservatism (today's statements instead of those in the past) or should one go with the establishment Republicans that have proven countless time they are not conservative by their actions?

I personally choose Trump because there is a least a chance with him. There is no ch acne the establishment Republicans will change to conservative thinking.The establishment Republicans are big government proponents that want to maintain the stats quote at all costs. They always have and they always will.

Johnny Rico said...

Nonymouse coward aka Little Brau,

Keep up with current events and you will know that Trump has already indicated who he intends on replacing dead or retiring Supreme Court Justices with. The fact the liberal news media doesn't want to report on it should be proof enough that his picks are good ones. Sort of like the liberal news media gives a passing nod to his speech at the NRA on Friday. As for McConnel, he's a RINO coward who sticks to the promise of increased government, less freedom for the proletariat, and a much bigger government. As long as RINO liberals (you and your Big Brother Cyclips) continue to support these commie liberals, they will have a voice. Just go ahead and come out of the closet as a liberal; you two idiots have more in common with them than you do conservatives. Stings don't it.

Anonymous said...

Idiot Rico/Uss Roger Young or whatever you want to be called,

I know chronological reasoning is probably a bit much to ask from someone with a brain the size of a baby pea like you, but I posted my comment above asking about Trump's judicial appointments on May 16. He announced his 11 potential nominees on May 18 -- he must be reading my comments! And his picks were covered by a lot of media outlets:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/18/trump-unveils-list-11-potential-supreme-court-justices.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees.html?_r=0

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-supreme-court-nominees-223331

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-court-idUSKCN0Y92K5

You will notice all of these are dated May 18 or later, so when I posted my querry, Trump had not yet indicated his potential nominees. You have been proven wrong.

I'm not a fan of McConnell myself, but you have to admit that he HAS kept THIS promise. If Dems were in control of the Senate, Obama's pick of liberal Merrick Garland would already be on the court, serving for the rest of his life, and the balance on the court would be decidedly liberal. They would, right this minute, be issuing rulings that would take away our 2nd Amendment rights. Chew on that for a while before castigating McConnell.

Finally, look to Guy for a lesson on how to engage in respectful discussion. I guess THAT'S too much to ask from you as well.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for you to proffer an opinion on HB2. You don't hesitate to tell everyone what you think on everything else -- why the silence on this? Again, I ask, is the transgender issue hitting a little too close to home for you? Are you a woman who wishes she were a man? LOL!

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 7:05 PM- I am going to enjoy sitting back and reading the written beat-down you are about to get. Hold on!