Be “FOR” Something. Not “AGAINST” Something

This idiocy by National Review is exactly the reason why we have Democrats threatening to finish off the Bill of Rights.

badge_NR_against-trumpB

Trump is surging in the polls because he talks about the issues Americans are worried about and promises to make America great again. The same strategy which Reagan used.

If you don’t believe Trump or prefer someone else, promote the candidate you like. Attacking the Republican frontrunner like this is the political equivalent of being  a suicide bomber.

Ted Cruz was doing great while he stayed cool, calm and collected and stuck to his message. As soon as he went negative he started sliding in the polls.

Screenshot 2016-02-01 at 04.52.14 AM

Negativity does not attract people. That is basic human nature.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Be “FOR” Something. Not “AGAINST” Something

  1. gator69 says:

    Agreed. Trump is not in my top three, but I will vote for him if he is the nominee. Eating our own reduces the pride.

    • Barbara says:

      Excellent points. However, if given the chance, I will vote for “hope and change” again (8 years ago : ( .) and maybe have better luck. I’ll vote Trump if he somehow gets the nomination with both political parties against him and in control of the caucuses. Trump is not good about controlling his mouth, but just says what he thinks! I suffer from that , too, so have a certain sympathy. I do respect his intelligence and believe he is a patriot.

    • That was not Ronald Reagan’s strategy, Gator.

        • Well, I had thought you considered him someone who knew something about winning elections.

        • gator69 says:

          Different times and different people. Move on.

        • You’re basically making Nixon’s argument. But the only way to save the country is to stick to our principles and not to abandon them. People can be brought around. Doesn’t necessarily mean they will be. But you could have made the same argument in 1979, and millions did. Reagan went out and made it happen by changing people’s minds about conservatism. He made the sale, which he couldn’t have done if had followed Nixon’s way. (First of all, he couldn’t of gotten nominated, and secondly, people would have believed his message.)

          “Move on” is the same thing as saying “surrender”. That’s not going to happen. You can say it if you want, but it’s just not. Trump wants that to happen, but some of us will never give up.

          The problem here, it seems to me, is that many love to talk but when it comes time for action, the ranks melt away and disappear, afraid of their own shadow, it seems. I remember I had one person tell me a little while ago that any type of coordinated action was “cult-like behavior”. I responded, and the person disappeared. No resolution; just “move on” and forget about it.

          Gator, let me tell you something. I have two, possibly three, of my closest and dearest family who’ve been murdered by partisans of our United States / Globalist Establishment, for nothing more than being on the “wrong” side. Our side.

          Think about that. Just let that sink in for a second.

          Now, do honestly think that your admonition means a hill of beans to someone in my situation?

          Think about it, Gator. I can’t even have these crimes investigated. I can’t have anything done about it. Nothing will happen, in this life. All I can do is what I’m doing. That’s all that my lost friends have, for their loss. And you tell me to move on. Move on to what?

          For a while, it’s been only the Democrats who had the guts to stand for their principles. Now, for the moment, we have a window of opportunity opening. And where are the troops, when I, Mark Levin, and others call them? Well, they’re out in Iowa, tonight. But nationwide, it’s a limpwristed, milquetoast response. A bunch are running around hysterically saying we have to support Rubio or someone else. Trump is only the frontrunner because the followers of the Reagan strategy are divided into about six camps, not all of which are even conservative. That reflects their ignorance of the immediate need for coordination and unity. It reflects their attitude of “move on; just give it up.”

          If we were all united behind one candidate at this point, Trump would get trounced! And that would be a good thing — as Reagan would surely agree, if we were able to.

          But frankly, there are many out there who simply don’t care enough any more about the issues to make it a real fight, like Reagan did. If you won’t put the theory into practice, then did you ever really believe it? Actions speak louder than words.

        • gator69 says:

          Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………….

  2. Latitude says:

    I give up on republicans….

    • Drcrinum says:

      Trump is not a Republican…or a Democrat…or a politician…or someone beholden to lobbyists or special interests. He is an American…and is for America. That is why I will vote for him.

      • The last thing we need is to nominate someone who is not an authentic conservative. Every four years, we go in saying we must pick a conservative, or we’re going to lose the country. Every four years, they feed us a wolf in sheep’s clothing as the front runner. And every four years, we fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

        I will vote for the candidate in this race who has the greatest record of fighting the Establishment of both major parties, and not cozying up to them and horse-trading with them, and not caving to the Democrats and being their lap dog when they order us to do this or that. Not a candidate that the Democratic Party fed to us while openly admitting having done so.

        A candidate who has a demonstrated belief in using the power of the purse against the Democrats, and not one who suggests that using the power of the purse against the Democrats to try to slow them down, is not what we should want.

        A candidate whose list of positions does not correlate better with Hillary Clinton’s than with the authentic conservatives of our country.

        A candidate whose two-way match ups, both against Hillary and against Sanders, is not the worst or second worst of the Republican field, in almost every swing state … and not the candidate who, in state after state, is the only Republican indicated to lose to both Hillary and Sanders, in those polls.

  3. Barbara says:

    Me, too! For the same reasons. We’ve tried all the others, both political parties.

  4. Crashex says:

    Cruz’s polling began to regress when Trump attacked his Achille’s heal–Is he a natural born citizen?. People began to move away to avoid the electability concern; no one wants to see that argument played out by the Dem’s. It was an effective negative attack by Trump that caused the change, not a shift in the Cruz approach to counterattack Trump

    Trump is the soft setup for the Dem’s to run the same rich, out-of-touch elitist campaign that they used effectively to outmaneuver Romney. Trump is just more bellicose, a great showman with less intellectual depth. He is an expert at making use of the media and overwhelming all comers with the name recognition requirement. He has always supported the Democrat candidate running in NY and counts Schumer and the Clintons in his circle of friends. A classic RINO.

    It would not surprise me at all to see this as a maneuver to feed the red-meat to the conservative masses as an means to disrupt, and or win the primary; and then take a rhetorical dive for team Clinton by imploding during the general election. I wouldn’t trust Trump as far as I could throw him, and I suspect I couldn’t even pick him up.

    • Edmonton Al says:

      Well now, your handle and your comments fit in perfectly with the heading of this article. You are definitely “against” most everything.

    • Ted says:

      Crashex-

      I can’t dispute your theory, and it’s shared by a lot of people. But there’s one thing I don’t understand about it. In that scenario, what’s in it for Trump? That’s really the only question anyone ever need ask about Trump’s motives. If he could make Trump great by making America great, I have no doubt he’d do it. If he could make Trump great by destroying America, I think he’d probably do that too. How does getting Hillary elected make Trump great? The power to rig an election does seem big, but it’s irrelevant compared to the power of winning it himself. And he’s currently in at least as good a position to do it as she is.

  5. I have a news flash.

    Reagan was against a lot.

    So is Trump, for that matter.

  6. darrylb says:

    Human Nature. An integral part of the problem.
    If negative ads did not work, they would not be made.
    I am a bit incredulous as to the thought that Trump does not use negativism
    to the extreme.
    At lease Ben Carson does not do negative ads

  7. OrganicFool says:

    “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

    But then who wants to catch flies? Honey bees would be better, at least they produce something delicious. What does it mean to be “great again”? We got to produce something.

    Use google streetview and see what the world looks like. The United States is one of the richest countries on Earth. We give other nations hope, I hope. Freedom and such.

    The President’s job is to protect the Constitution. That to me is the ultimate test.

    Common sense helps too.

    • OrganicFool says:

      US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
      Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    • We’re not talking about catching flies, but corralling a bunch of three-foot-long, angry, poisonous, man-eating wasps who’ve selected us as their target. Oh yeah, and we’re not allowed to use any weapons or wear any body armor.

      We’re gonna need some help with this one.

      But, the would-be helpers are so traumatized by what they’ve seen, that they’ve taken to defending the wasps and calling us the problem!

      In other words, they’ve pretty much had a mental breakdown. They can’t process it anymore, they’ve folded up, and they’re becoming incoherent, a danger to themselves and a threat to the mission.

      What’s more likely to get them back on track? Honey, vinegar, or a combination of both? (Maybe start with a little vinegar, and see what happens?) Bear in mind, it’s a tactical situation; events are moving quickly, and whatever we do, there’s not a lot of time to do it. We may only get this one chance to pull it off, and if we fail, the consequence will be catastrophic.

      Indeed, honey alone might work on some of our teammates. But, it might not!

      ETA of the first incoming is ten seconds. Decision time.

  8. OrganicFool says:

    Ask any candidate to quote Article II, Section I

  9. OrganicFool says:

    Obama as Supreme Court Justice

    “Can a former POTUS go to work on the SCOTUS? Hillary Clinton thinks so.

    At an event in Iowa, an audience member asked Mrs. Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, whether she would nominate President Obama for a role on the Supreme Court if she became the next president. ”

    “Wow. What a great idea. Nobody has ever suggested that to me… I would certainly take that under advisement… he is brilliant and he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor. He has got all the credentials.”
    http://www.inquisitr.com/2743941/obama-supreme-court/#4Dvk3prvH0r7Je77.99

  10. gator69 says:

    Just got this from a buddy of mine, and thought it was pretty much spot on.

    Are You a Democrat or a Republican?

    Here is a little test that will help you decide.
    The answer can be found by posing the following question:

    You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small childen.
    Suddenly, a terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you,
    screams allahu akbar, raises the knife, and charges right at you.
    You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
    You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
    What do you do?

    THINK CAREFULLY AND THEN SCROLL DOWN:

    Democrat’s Answer:

    Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
    What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP?
    Does the man look poor or oppressed?
    Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling?
    Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
    Could we run away?
    What does my wife think? What about the kids?
    Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
    What does the law say about this situation?
    Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
    Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
    Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?
    Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
    If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
    Should I call 9-1-1?
    Why is this street so deserted?
    We need to raise taxes.
    Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior?
    I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
    This is all so confusing!

    Republican’s Answer:

    BANG!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s