Psuedo-cons

[Michael Press]

| But the psuedo-cons don't care, yet cynically exploit this
| nonsense

(President Trump posting to Twitter)

| to undercut Trump to regain their diminished status. All
| you soft boys whose mommy and/or daddy handed you a conservative
| magazine and made you think you had a divine right to be taken
| seriously by us normals, pay attention. The issues Trump is
| talking about matter to us. Sometimes it's our livelihoods,
| sometimes it's our very lives---often put at risk in wars you
| pushed from behind your laptop. I get that under Hillary Clinton,
| your mediocre positions in the big DC/NY scheme of things
| would've been secure, but I've got to break it to you---we don't
| care. Your pathetic status as obedient gimp-cons serving your
| liberal masters in the establishment big house may mean
| everything you, but it means nothing to us.

<http://tinyurl.com/yaem9mzw>

--
Michael Press

[xyzzy]

This statement is correct to a point.

Trump has tapped into issues that people care about that the NR crowd (or The Atlantic crowd) didn't get.

He did it by not being a real conservative. He's the pseudo-con.

Because real conservatiism resonates with a very small subset of people. He had to be a pseudo-con to get elected. This is what the real cons don't get.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

Smaller government and individual liberty only resonates with a small number of people?

Doug

[xyzzy]

Correct.

[wolfie]

"Emperor Wonko the Sane" wrote

> Smaller government and individual liberty only
> resonates with a small number of people?

The Libertarian Party says "hi!"

[Futbol Phan]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 9:57:08 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:

> Smaller government and individual liberty only resonates with a small number of people?
>

When taken to an extreme, yes.

[michael anderson]

sadly, this is true. But I guess it depends on how you define 'small number'. I'd say 15-18% of the *voting* population cares about less taxes, smaller govt overall, etc...

Is that enough to get elected? Hell no...but thats why the strategy has always been to combine that group(my group) with:

-social/cultural conservatives(of which there is some overlap of course)
-another group that just hates dems and everything that stand for even though there are neither hard core social cons or fiscal cons(again some overlap)

thats always the strategy. Is it enough to get elected? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Fortunately we have a few tools on our side we use to help put us over the top

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Gary Johnson Libertarian New Mexico 4,489,221 3.28%

[michael anderson]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 9:54:17 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:

well someone like rubio(who is more of a real con than someone like trump, although rubio is far from perfect) would have won by a much wider margin. Simply because of how unlikable trumps opponent was. A wider margin only because trump was so unlikable by himself.

The interesting thing about this election was that any other republican(outside of maybe a fringe candidate type) would have beaten clinton by more. In one way you could say the same thing about any generic dem candidate vs trump because trump was so unlikable...but the problem with this statement, while theoretically true, has issues because the democratic national bench is so sorry that there is no 'generic dem candidate'....there is nothing generic about bernie sanders. They used to have these candidates in the past(a younger joe biden for example), but the democratic party doesn't have many joe bidens amongst its national ranks anymore. Just a lot of unelectable types(sanders, pocahontas, keith ellison) or very unappealing types(that black guy from new jersey)

[Ken Olson]

Then we are doomed.

[Michael Press]

In article <df07d9ee-8c94-44b2...@googlegroups.com>,

xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 3:23:32 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
> > | But the psuedo-cons don't care, yet cynically exploit this
> > | nonsense
> >
> > (President Trump posting to Twitter)
> >
> > | to undercut Trump to regain their diminished status. All
> > | you soft boys whose mommy and/or daddy handed you a conservative
> > | magazine and made you think you had a divine right to be taken
> > | seriously by us normals, pay attention. The issues Trump is
> > | talking about matter to us. Sometimes it's our livelihoods,
> > | sometimes it's our very lives---often put at risk in wars you
> > | pushed from behind your laptop. I get that under Hillary Clinton,
> > | your mediocre positions in the big DC/NY scheme of things
> > | would've been secure, but I've got to break it to you---we don't
> > | care. Your pathetic status as obedient gimp-cons serving your
> > | liberal masters in the establishment big house may mean
> > | everything you, but it means nothing to us.
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/yaem9mzw>
> >
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> This statement is correct to a point.
>
> Trump has tapped into issues that people care about that the NR crowd (or The Atlantic crowd) didn't get.
>
> He did it by not being a real conservative. He's the pseudo-con.

I am not taking your word on who is a real conservative.
In the second place playing "Who is a real conservative"
is a waste of time.

> Because real conservatiism resonates with a very small subset of people. He had to be a pseudo-con to get elected. This is what the real cons don't get.

Yes, that is exactly the topic of the paragraph.

--
Michael Press

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 7:54:17 AM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:

> This statement is correct to a point.
>
> Trump has tapped into issues that people care about that the NR crowd (or The Atlantic crowd) didn't get.
>
> He did it by not being a real conservative. He's the pseudo-con.
>
> Because real conservatiism resonates with a very small subset of people. He had to be a pseudo-con to get elected. This is what the real cons don't get.

What Trump is is what most Conservatives want to be.

"Grab 'em in the pussy" WON him everything, and actually galvanized him over the finish line, because that's what many sub-cultures in this country have informally codified, some to the point that their survivability relies on it.

The Tea Party was started on a wish to finally kill or segregate into slavery the poor and useless. Trump is seen as the last hope, since even the mainstream clowns aren't willing to do it.

Many on the Right want a civil war in this country. It's a war they may not win.

Mike

[darkst...@gmail.com]

We are. This country is finished. Divorce.

Mike

[Ken Olson]

Your delusion is showing.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 1:52:14 PM UTC-7, Ken Olson wrote:

> Your delusion is showing.

Keep lying.

Mike

[plai...@gmail.com]

OK, your delusion isn't showing. I can't see it anywhere.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Unfortunately, in this day and time - yes. Gov't Sugar Daddy is popular

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

But the fact that Republicans get so many votes means that a lot of
people know better.

It is amazing how many Democrats and journalists (but I repeat myself) ponder
why "people are voting against their own interests" when it comes to health
care. It's because they know that stuff is simply not sustainable, if not on
a conscious level, on an intuitive level.

--
Fiction was invented the day Jonah arrived home and told
his wife that he was three days late because he had been
swallowed by a whale. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 10:12:34 AM UTC-7, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:

> > Smaller government and individual liberty only resonates with a small number of people?
>
> Unfortunately, in this day and time - yes. Gov't Sugar Daddy is popular

The alternative is people like me get put to sleep like rabid dogs -- at about age five.

Mike

[Michael Press]

In article <ca4381c8-80d6-4f7c...@googlegroups.com>,

How popular?

--
Michael Press

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Gotta suck to think you're nothing but a leech on society

[wolfie]

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote

> It is amazing how many Democrats and journalists (but I
> repeat myself) ponder why "people are voting against their
> own interests" when it comes to health care. It's because
> they know that stuff is simply not sustainable, if not on
> a conscious level, on an intuitive level.

Nah, it's just the GOP is going to take it away from all
"those people." The GOP voters are responsible, and
the GOP's not going to take it away from THEM. Just
"those people." And we all know who "those people"
are....

But go ahead and tell us how "people are voting against
their own interests on health care" when the GOP's bill
has one in five approval, if not lower. Tell people THEY
lose Medicare or THEIR premiums are going up and,
surprisingly enough, they're against it.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Judging by the continued give aways w/o accountability - quite

[Ken Olson]

47%

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:14:25 PM UTC-7, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:

> Gotta suck to think you're nothing but a leech on society

Sucks worse to understand Rethuglipigs would've said that about me in 1974.

Mike

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Yeah, little people like you are too stupid and worthless to exist
without responsible people subsidizing you.

Hugh

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com