"The other recent news-story of note is President Trump’s vow to send every adult U.S. citizen a check for $5,000 if — and only if — Republicans keep both the Senate and House in the midterm elections."
Of note, Bill O'Reilly said it's not a bribe because the recipients don't have to do anything, i.e. there's no quid pro quo. REALLY? Does Mr. O'Reilly think his base viewers are that stupid? Or maybe he thinks they'll want to believe his remark so much that they'll accept it without question? Or maybe Mr. O'Reilly is willfully dense when it comes to his old buddy Donald Trump.
He promised that at the so-called Mid-Term Convention when he was urging the audience - those in attendance especially but also viewers and those getting their info from right-wing screechers - to not only vote Republican but to canvass for Republicans and, yes, to vote more than once. Although on this last statement, his hardcore supporters will say "he was only joking." But he's the President of the United States delivering a primetime speech!
Although those included in his bribe were those not voting Republican, obviously for the Republicans to win the mid-terms there'd have to be collective and feverous activity.
If the bigwigs in the Democratic Party leap tall buildings to deliver the mid-terms to the Republicans, will President Trump's hardcore supporters say "He was only joking" when he reneges on his promise?
I mean, if he had any intention, or authority, to actually do it, why not do it NOW? From a pure bribery angle, wouldn't undecided voters be more inclined to vote for the party that GAVE them cold hard cash, as opposed to voting for the party that conditionally promised to give them cash AFTER they vote?
I often wonder how many people who identify as Republicans, even before the Trump era, if asked, could clearly articulate what conservatism actually is.
I think for many people, they pick a "team" at some point in their life, based on some burning issue of the day - more likely than not, a social/cultural issue, (e.g. gay marriage, or biological men playing in women's sports, or gun control).
Once they've chosen a team, they seek out media that is on the same team, and that becomes their primary source of news/information. So the tribal mentality (i.e. rooting for the team) is reinforced continuously.
It also gives them permission to stop thinking. After all, gathering information on complex issues in order to formulate an informed, principled, position is time consuming, and can be hard (or frankly boring). It's much easier to just parrot what the leaders of your chosen team (party) say, and accept their arguments, without any critical analysis, or hypocrisy checking.
Who knew that you are a conservative? You mention higher abortion rates like that is a "baby" of republicans. Who knew?
Also, your "what about isms" with Donald Jr. Amounts to nothing. Why? Because CNN must also think so. Not even remotely the scandal of Hunter -Joe deal with Ukraine to fill Hunter's bank account.
If you are a conservative, how is it nothing in your article mentions the destruction of the of America by the socialists/communists/democratic party? Their open boarders, no voter ID, homosexual, transgender, boys in girl's sports and designated areas are merely a few of the absurd positions proudly proclaimed by these lunatics.
If your goal is to point out that President Trump and his family have positions that do not identify with conservatism,so what? Would you rather have the socialist/communist/democratic fools in charge? The $5000 bribe? No. I see it as a reward for doing the right thing.
President Trump's achievements far and away eclipse any President except Lincoln and Washington who probably would have taken the same action if they were with us today.
If the Supreme Court, the Fed, and RINOs would get out of the way, the success would be immeasurable. And there would be no discussion about the essence of conservatism.
Anyone who's read or listened to me, and knows what conservatism is.
>>You mention higher abortion rates like that is a "baby" of republicans. Who knew?
No. I mentioned higher abortion rates, because after the overturning of Roe vs Wade (I supported its overturn), the leader of the GOP reverted back to being pro-choice, and the Republican Party largely abandoned the pro-life cause.
As I've argued a number of times, the pro-life cause is a cultural one, not purely a legal matter. The abortion rate in this country was in slow and steady in decline for decades. In recent years, it's been on the rise. Do I think the GOP (who was adamantly pro-life during the decline era) effectively throwing in the towel on this issue has hurt the pro-life cause? Yes. Do I blame the GOP more than I blame the Democrats and political left? No.
>>Also, your "what about isms" with Donald Jr. Amounts to nothing.
You obviously don't understand what whataboutism is.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not whataboutism. Evoking conduct on the other side, to defend or rationalize similar conduct on your side, is whataboutsm.
If you can't remember that, write it down.
I've been saying for years that Hunter's corrupt. (I literally did it again in this very column).
>>Why? Because CNN must also think so.
I don’t watch CNN. Cable-news warps the mind, as you've proven.
>>Not even remotely the scandal of Hunter -Joe deal with Ukraine to fill Hunter's bank account.
Lol. Thanks for proving the entire point of my column. I appreciate it.
>>If you are a conservative, how is it nothing in your article mentions the destruction of the of America by the socialists/communists/democratic party?
Lol. You’re wondering why I didn’t inject topics I’ve written and spoken about numerous times on this website into this specific column, which has nothing to do with those topics?
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I’m a coherent writer.
>>If your goal is to point out that President Trump and his family have positions that do not identify with conservatism, so what?
Uh, that’s not the goal of this column. Maybe you should have someone else read the column to you.
>>Would you rather have the socialist/communist/democratic fools in charge?
Both parties are more than dabbling in socialism and profound foolishness at the moment. You’re fine with the GOP doing it. I’m not fine with either party doing it.
>>The $5000 bribe? No. I see it as a reward for doing the right thing.
This is the rhetorical equivalent of punching yourself in the nuts. Congratulations.
>>President Trump's achievements far and away eclipse any President except Lincoln and Washington who probably would have taken the same action if they were with us today.
I’m sorry this has happened to you.
>>If the Supreme Court, the Fed, and RINOs would get out of the way, the success would be immeasurable.
I’m sorry this has happened to you. But once again, I appreciate you proving the entire point of my column.
"The other recent news-story of note is President Trump’s vow to send every adult U.S. citizen a check for $5,000 if — and only if — Republicans keep both the Senate and House in the midterm elections."
Of note, Bill O'Reilly said it's not a bribe because the recipients don't have to do anything, i.e. there's no quid pro quo. REALLY? Does Mr. O'Reilly think his base viewers are that stupid? Or maybe he thinks they'll want to believe his remark so much that they'll accept it without question? Or maybe Mr. O'Reilly is willfully dense when it comes to his old buddy Donald Trump.
He promised that at the so-called Mid-Term Convention when he was urging the audience - those in attendance especially but also viewers and those getting their info from right-wing screechers - to not only vote Republican but to canvass for Republicans and, yes, to vote more than once. Although on this last statement, his hardcore supporters will say "he was only joking." But he's the President of the United States delivering a primetime speech!
Although those included in his bribe were those not voting Republican, obviously for the Republicans to win the mid-terms there'd have to be collective and feverous activity.
If the bigwigs in the Democratic Party leap tall buildings to deliver the mid-terms to the Republicans, will President Trump's hardcore supporters say "He was only joking" when he reneges on his promise?
I mean, if he had any intention, or authority, to actually do it, why not do it NOW? From a pure bribery angle, wouldn't undecided voters be more inclined to vote for the party that GAVE them cold hard cash, as opposed to voting for the party that conditionally promised to give them cash AFTER they vote?
I often wonder how many people who identify as Republicans, even before the Trump era, if asked, could clearly articulate what conservatism actually is.
I think for many people, they pick a "team" at some point in their life, based on some burning issue of the day - more likely than not, a social/cultural issue, (e.g. gay marriage, or biological men playing in women's sports, or gun control).
Once they've chosen a team, they seek out media that is on the same team, and that becomes their primary source of news/information. So the tribal mentality (i.e. rooting for the team) is reinforced continuously.
It also gives them permission to stop thinking. After all, gathering information on complex issues in order to formulate an informed, principled, position is time consuming, and can be hard (or frankly boring). It's much easier to just parrot what the leaders of your chosen team (party) say, and accept their arguments, without any critical analysis, or hypocrisy checking.
Who knew that you are a conservative? You mention higher abortion rates like that is a "baby" of republicans. Who knew?
Also, your "what about isms" with Donald Jr. Amounts to nothing. Why? Because CNN must also think so. Not even remotely the scandal of Hunter -Joe deal with Ukraine to fill Hunter's bank account.
If you are a conservative, how is it nothing in your article mentions the destruction of the of America by the socialists/communists/democratic party? Their open boarders, no voter ID, homosexual, transgender, boys in girl's sports and designated areas are merely a few of the absurd positions proudly proclaimed by these lunatics.
If your goal is to point out that President Trump and his family have positions that do not identify with conservatism,so what? Would you rather have the socialist/communist/democratic fools in charge? The $5000 bribe? No. I see it as a reward for doing the right thing.
President Trump's achievements far and away eclipse any President except Lincoln and Washington who probably would have taken the same action if they were with us today.
If the Supreme Court, the Fed, and RINOs would get out of the way, the success would be immeasurable. And there would be no discussion about the essence of conservatism.
>>Who knew that you are a conservative?
Anyone who's read or listened to me, and knows what conservatism is.
>>You mention higher abortion rates like that is a "baby" of republicans. Who knew?
No. I mentioned higher abortion rates, because after the overturning of Roe vs Wade (I supported its overturn), the leader of the GOP reverted back to being pro-choice, and the Republican Party largely abandoned the pro-life cause.
As I've argued a number of times, the pro-life cause is a cultural one, not purely a legal matter. The abortion rate in this country was in slow and steady in decline for decades. In recent years, it's been on the rise. Do I think the GOP (who was adamantly pro-life during the decline era) effectively throwing in the towel on this issue has hurt the pro-life cause? Yes. Do I blame the GOP more than I blame the Democrats and political left? No.
>>Also, your "what about isms" with Donald Jr. Amounts to nothing.
You obviously don't understand what whataboutism is.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not whataboutism. Evoking conduct on the other side, to defend or rationalize similar conduct on your side, is whataboutsm.
If you can't remember that, write it down.
I've been saying for years that Hunter's corrupt. (I literally did it again in this very column).
>>Why? Because CNN must also think so.
I don’t watch CNN. Cable-news warps the mind, as you've proven.
>>Not even remotely the scandal of Hunter -Joe deal with Ukraine to fill Hunter's bank account.
Lol. Thanks for proving the entire point of my column. I appreciate it.
>>If you are a conservative, how is it nothing in your article mentions the destruction of the of America by the socialists/communists/democratic party?
Lol. You’re wondering why I didn’t inject topics I’ve written and spoken about numerous times on this website into this specific column, which has nothing to do with those topics?
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I’m a coherent writer.
>>If your goal is to point out that President Trump and his family have positions that do not identify with conservatism, so what?
Uh, that’s not the goal of this column. Maybe you should have someone else read the column to you.
>>Would you rather have the socialist/communist/democratic fools in charge?
Both parties are more than dabbling in socialism and profound foolishness at the moment. You’re fine with the GOP doing it. I’m not fine with either party doing it.
>>The $5000 bribe? No. I see it as a reward for doing the right thing.
This is the rhetorical equivalent of punching yourself in the nuts. Congratulations.
>>President Trump's achievements far and away eclipse any President except Lincoln and Washington who probably would have taken the same action if they were with us today.
I’m sorry this has happened to you.
>>If the Supreme Court, the Fed, and RINOs would get out of the way, the success would be immeasurable.
I’m sorry this has happened to you. But once again, I appreciate you proving the entire point of my column.
I was going to point out that Craig basically validated your entire column with his comments.
It's amazing how often things play out that way.