WY - Liz Cheney loses primary race

[PAF]

Why does every thread that celebrates the defeat of a neocon devolve into a fight over Trump? $#@!, there's enough crap in the world, at least take a moment to savor a brief victory.

Ask those “R’s” if they would scratch, kick and fight to vote Massie, Rand or an equivalent for prez. Ask those “R’s” if they even like Ron Paul, and if given the chance vote him for president.

Why is it about Trump? Because that’s the exact reason they’re upset at the bitch. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter to them. Neither does nationalized medicine, or the police-state apparatus we’re under.

Talk to them about liberty matters and you will be shunned. So, tell me how that is “winning”, aside from the letter after the name.

[TheTexan]

Ask those “R’s” if they would scratch, kick and fight to vote Massie, Rand or an equivalent for prez. Ask those “R’s” if they even like Ron Paul, and if given the chance vote him for president.

Those expectations are both unrealistic and unnecessary. Perhaps when the state is much smaller than it is now, purity tests will begin to become relevant.

[PAF]

Those expectations are both unrealistic and unnecessary. Perhaps when the state is much smaller than it is now, purity tests will begin to become relevant.

Bless you son, you are right, 250 years of spiraling down the gutter just isn’t enough.

Perhaps if the 1% quit their griping and ranting, Liberty will spread at a faster rate.

LOL

[RJB]

Ask those “R’s” if they would scratch, kick and fight to vote Massie, Rand or an equivalent for prez. Ask those “R’s” if they even like Ron Paul, and if given the chance vote him for president.

Why is it about Trump? Because that’s the exact reason they’re upset at the bitch. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter to them. Neither does nationalized medicine, or the police-state apparatus we’re under.

Talk to them about liberty matters and you will be shunned. So, tell me how that is “winning”, aside from the letter after the name.

You come across as a bit obsessed.

[PAF]

You come across as a bit obsessed.

To the contrary. I’m not obsessed, everybody I speak to is.

Every time I think there is an opening to talk about fiscal responsibility, or another candidate for prez such as Rand or Tom, the obsessed repuGs keep repeating Trumps name and then accuse me of being a lib plant. We have no common ground.

[vita3]

DJt Branding is almost too strong for reason & anything else

Here's to true freedom

[dannno]

Ask those “R’s” if they would scratch, kick and fight to vote Massie, Rand or an equivalent for prez. Ask those “R’s” if they even like Ron Paul, and if given the chance vote him for president.

Why is it about Trump? Because that’s the exact reason they’re upset at the bitch. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter to them. Neither does nationalized medicine, or the police-state apparatus we’re under.

Talk to them about liberty matters and you will be shunned. So, tell me how that is “winning”, aside from the letter after the name.

Uh, ya, Derek Harvey, for example.. He was on Timcast last night, you can hear him in the link below. He worked in the Bush admin, worked closely with Cheney, and was literally in charge of our middle east policy. He said he doesn't understand why him and other Republicans were supporting the Bush admin back in the day, admits he was supporting "the lesser of two evils" (Gore/Kerry).

He supports Ron and Rand and is in full support of them running for VP, or even Rand for President (Ron can't really run for President at this point, he wouldn't run, but I'm sure he would vote for him if he was in that position).

Now that the neocons have gone home to the Democrat Party, the Republican Party stands out as the anti-war and smaller government party. Are they the anarchist party? No. Are they fully libertarian? Not exactly. But they are against the Covid mandates, they are for free speech and they are against never-ending wars. I'll take that any day over what the Democrats are offering. That doesn't mean I support just any Republican in any positition, but the Republican Party is not the same as it was under Bush, or even the same as it was 10 years ago.

You are still living in the past.

Ron Paul talked about taking over the Republican Party. Well, that kind of actually happened. We moved them closer to our position on many issues. There are still some hold-outs and some sell-outs and some that are compromised by the establishment, but we have made serious headway. Plenty of Republicans were upset about Trump's spending, but they continued to support him because he is so much better on so many other issues and while Trump would like to reduce spending in the longterm, he had goals for his Presidency that he felt included the necessity to vote for some egregious spending bills. The people who are part of the larger Trump movement were largely not happy with that particular aspect, and that is also a good sign we are moving in the right direction.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Dream-Matchup

All you are doing is sabotaging Ron's dream of helping bring the Republican Party back to it's roots of limited government, you aren't playing the long-game, you are nit-picky and obtuse and still living in 2008.

[nobody's_hero]

Uh, ya, Derek Harvey, for example.. He was on Timcast last night, you can hear him in the link below. He worked in the Bush admin, worked closely with Cheney, and was literally in charge of our middle east policy. He said he doesn't understand why him and other Republicans were supporting the Bush admin back in the day, admits he was supporting "the lesser of two evils" (Gore/Kerry).

He supports Ron and Rand and is in full support of them running for VP, or even Rand for President (Ron can't really run for President at this point, he wouldn't run, but I'm sure he would vote for him if he was in that position).

Now that the neocons have gone home to the Democrat Party, the Republican Party stands out as the anti-war and smaller government party. Are they the anarchist party? No. Are they fully libertarian? Not exactly. But they are against the Covid mandates, they are for free speech and they are against never-ending wars. I'll take that any day over what the Democrats are offering. That doesn't mean I support just any Republican in any positition, but the Republican Party is not the same as it was under Bush, or even the same as it was 10 years ago.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Dream-Matchup

I have to agree. Republicans are literally celebrating the name of Cheney being demolished in Wyoming. Expect a push back from the establishment in 2024. Don't let them regain a foothold.

[TheTexan]

Bless you son, you are right, 250 years of spiraling down the gutter just isn’t enough.

Perhaps if the 1% quit their griping and ranting, Liberty will spread at a faster rate.

LOL

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want a free state, then start/join a free state project. The FSP was a good idea, and similar ideas are needed if you truly want liberty in your lifetime.

The only other options for liberty are, 2) get rich enough to ignore the state, or 3) run into the woods and never come back.

What is not going to work ever is expecting the general population of this country or this world to start embracing freedom any time soon. That simply will not happen.

In the meantime, if you are not going to avail yourself of the above options, the only thing that remains is to make the best of what is realistic. Which is what most of us are doing.

[A Son of Liberty]

To the contrary. I’m not obsessed, everybody I speak to is.

Every time I think there is an opening to talk about fiscal responsibility, or another candidate for prez such as Rand or Tom, the obsessed repuGs keep repeating Trumps name and then accuse me of being a lib plant. We have no common ground.

Bud, you know full well where I stand. But there is such a thing as letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, or at least the "not as bad".

I guess it comes down to what particular issues you prioritize, and I respect that. As you know I don't like Trump, and I have a lot of issues with a lot of his policy positions. But when I look at what the D's are doing as a whole, I see a not insignificant difference between them and the "MAGA" wing of the R's. To a certain extent, I agree with you that it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation... Michael Malice says that the R's are just D's driving the speed limit, and I fully agree with that. But wouldn't you rather take your chances going 65 MPH vs. going 95 MPH? At 65 MPH, we at least have a chance to course-correct.

The whole situation sucks, no doubt. But to stand on the sidelines is to effectively enable the greater of two evils. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to the food shortages, the neo-fascist, total state controlled society that they (and I mean ALL of them) are driving us toward. But if that's the direction we're heading, I want more time between now and when we get there. And in my view, it is the left which is pushing to get us there fastest. Between now and then, we can store food, stockpile pews, and by chance change a few more minds in the hopes of averting this oncoming tragedy of human civilization. The fact of the matter is, none of this is going to be accomplished within a day, a week, a month or a year. But, to me, it doesn't make sense to shorten the timeframe we have to accomplish all we must accomplish.

[PAF]

Bud, you know full well where I stand. But there is such a thing as letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, or at least the "not as bad".

I guess it comes down to what particular issues you prioritize, and I respect that. As you know I don't like Trump, and I have a lot of issues with a lot of his policy positions. But when I look at what the D's are doing as a whole, I see a not insignificant difference between them and the "MAGA" wing of the R's. To a certain extent, I agree with you that it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation... Michael Malice says that the R's are just D's driving the speed limit, and I fully agree with that. But wouldn't you rather take your chances going 65 MPH vs. going 95 MPH? At 65 MPH, we at least have a chance to course-correct.

The whole situation sucks, no doubt. But to stand on the sidelines is to effectively enable the greater of two evils. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to the food shortages, the neo-fascist, total state controlled society that they (and I mean ALL of them) are driving us toward. But if that's the direction we're heading, I want more time between now and when we get there. And in my view, it is the left which is pushing to get us there fastest. Between now and then, we can store food, stockpile pews, and by chance change a few more minds in the hopes of averting this oncoming tragedy of human civilization. The fact of the matter is, none of this is going to be accomplished within a day, a week, a month or a year. But, to me, it doesn't make sense to shorten the timeframe we have to accomplish all we must accomplish.

Whether for this or for that, understanding liberty or not, it comes down to the dollar.

I'd take a full-on conservative if I knew he/she/it/they/them/IDon'tKnowWhatIAm actually abided by the word conservative.

DEBT=SLAVERY

Reign-in spending, slash this, cut that, cutting the funding to the vulture-lobbyists in DC, new agencies wouldn't be created, reduce/eliminate funding to the ones that already exist (OWS, TSA...), which puts money back in my pocket and "permits" a little more freedom.

I've always been a faster than fast driver. Got that from running drag all those years. As Lee Iacocca used to say, lead, follow or get out of the way ;-)


Edit: Until people start talking, caring and wanting to actually reduce the debt/SPENDING, nothing will ever change. As it stands, when I bring up all things fiscal with almost all republicans

[Snowball]

Whether for this or for that, understanding liberty or not, it comes down to the dollar.

I'd take a full-on conservative if I knew he/she/it/they/them/IDon'tKnowWhatIAm actually abided by the word conservative.

DEBT=SLAVERY

Reign-in spending, slash this, cut that, cutting the funding to the vulture-lobbyists in DC, new agencies wouldn't be created, reduce/eliminate funding to the ones that already exist (OWS, TSA...), which puts money back in my pocket and "permits" a little more freedom.

I've always been a faster than fast driver. Got that from running drag all those years. As Lee Iacocca used to say, lead, follow or get out of the way ;-)


Edit: Until people start talking, caring and wanting to actually reduce the debt/SPENDING, nothing will ever change. As it stands, when I bring up all things fiscal with almost all republicans

See this chart.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7127636

If you claim to care about the debt, it is not defensible to be impartial whether Republicans or Democrats win.
Republicans are the choice for your concern. The Dems almost rammed through a 2+ Trillion spending bill. If not for 2 out of 50 of them in the Senate, it would have happened.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ask those “R’s” if they would scratch, kick and fight to vote Massie, Rand or an equivalent for prez. Ask those “R’s” if they even like Ron Paul, and if given the chance vote him for president.

Why is it about Trump? Because that’s the exact reason they’re upset at the bitch. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter to them. Neither does nationalized medicine, or the police-state apparatus we’re under.

Talk to them about liberty matters and you will be shunned. So, tell me how that is “winning”, aside from the letter after the name.

Apparently the Republicans in Kentucky are willing to continue supporting Rand and Massie, and more importantly, vote for them.

I have to agree. Republicans are literally celebrating the name of Cheney being demolished in Wyoming. Expect a push back from the establishment in 2024. Don't let them regain a foothold.

The empire always strikes back. The establishment GOP (Rove, McConnell, neocons and friends) went hard after the Tea Party movement. We lost some great people, like Dave Brat and Rod Blum when they struck back. That same establishment, along with the DNC deep state, have been striking back at Trump since he beat Hillary. They still are throwing everything they have at him, and anyone who might support him. BAMN. Lie, cheat, steal. The ends justify the means.

[Invisible Man]

See this chart.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7127636

If you claim to care about the debt, it is not defensible to be impartial whether Republicans or Democrats win.
Republicans are the choice for your concern. The Dems almost rammed through a 2+ Trillion spending bill. If not for 2 out of 50 of them in the Senate, it would have happened.

The debt shouldn't be anyone's main concern. But that chart doesn't support your claim. On the contrary, it shows that Trump was worse than Biden on that score.

Yes, it's true that the Dems would have spent a lot more if they had enough of a majority to pass things like that. But that illustrates the value of not having a Congress of the same party as the president. When it was Trump pushing for big spending bills, almost all of the Republicans voted for them. When it's Biden in the WH, at least then we can count on most Republicans to vote against those bills.

[kahless]

This was such great news only to hear like a bad penny she is not going away with talk of taking on Trump.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Liz looking to run in the big race.

[pcosmar]

Liz looking to run in the big race.

Enjoyed Losing so much, she is going for the Big Lose.

[Anti Globalist]

Liz looking to run in the big race.

She should ask Beto O'Rouke how well it went for him after running for POTUS after losing his Senate race.

[vita3]

Who runs Cheney’s press relations?

They are earning their $$$

Lots of favorable articles being planted in regards to her future & “high character” loss

[Snowball]

The debt shouldn't be anyone's main concern. But that chart doesn't support your claim. On the contrary, it shows that Trump was worse than Biden on that score.

Yes, it's true that the Dems would have spent a lot more if they had enough of a majority to pass things like that. But that illustrates the value of not having a Congress of the same party as the president. When it was Trump pushing for big spending bills, almost all of the Republicans voted for them. When it's Biden in the WH, at least then we can count on most Republicans to vote against those bills.

Trump was not worse than Biden or any of the Democrats, especially when the GOP held Congress. See the Trump debt stay stagnant in the chart, it did not rise until Coronavirus and I do agree though that Trump's response to Covid was a cave-in, as was his utterly horrible last year in office.

[Invisible Man]

it did not rise until Coronavirus and I do agree though that Trump's response to Covid was a cave-in, as was his utterly horrible last year in office.

Exactly. It rose dramatically after COVID hit, and this not only happened while Trump was in office, but he zealously demanded the dramatic spending increases that led to that increase in debt (which exceeded debt and spending increases under Obama or Biden), and even demanded removal of Thomas Massie from the Republican party for his daring to even so much as ask for a Congressional vote on that spending.

You don't get to put an asterisk next to all that and pretend it doesn't count. When the debt goes from 14 trillion to 22 trillion in 4 years (using the chart you provided), that's not staying stagnant.

It is fact, proven by the numbers, including your own chart, that the answer to the question, "Under which recent president did US national debt increase the most in one term?" is Trump. And it is a fact that Trump did not put up any resistance to this, but rather actively demanded it.

Edit: But again, lest I be misunderstood, I object to making debt the metric to judge by. Spending is more important than debt, and paying for increased spending with increased taxation isn't any better than deficit spending just because it results in less debt.

[Snowball]

Exactly. It rose dramatically after COVID hit, and this not only happened while Trump was in office, but he zealously demanded the dramatic spending increases that led to that increase in debt (which exceeded debt and spending increases under Obama or Biden), and even demanded removal of Thomas Massie from the Republican party for his daring to even so much as ask for a Congressional vote on that spending.

You don't get to put an asterisk next to all that and pretend it doesn't count. When the debt goes from 14 trillion to 22 trillion in 4 years (using the chart you provided), that's not staying stagnant.

It is fact, proven by the numbers, including your own chart, that the answer to the question, "Under which recent president did US national debt increase the most in one term?" is Trump. And it is a fact that Trump did not put up any resistance to this, but rather actively demanded it.

You know that Covid and 911 have many similarities. As President both Bush and Trump were under tons of pressure. I still believe there is ample evidence that the GOP is a better financial alternative to the Democrats because the Democrats don't need a crisis to drive debt expansion - it is their policy. They create needs that aren't there and they foister absolute dependency and welfare expansion -- now, not only to Americans but to anyone willing to come here and take advantage of us.

[Invisible Man]

You know that Covid and 911 have many similarities. As President both Bush and Trump were under tons of pressure. I still believe there is ample evidence that the GOP is a better financial alternative to the Democrats because the Democrats don't need a crisis to drive debt expansion - it is their policy. They create needs that aren't there and they foister absolute dependency and welfare expansion -- now, not only to Americans but to anyone willing to come here and take advantage of us.

I agree with you about the Dems' policy. I think you are mistaken if you think it isn't also the Republicans' policy. Trump, Bush, and Reagan all openly and explicitly advocated policies of deficit spending, not as some kind of compromise with opponents, but as their own favored policy.

And if it is true that the Dems are still more pro-spending, pro-taxation, and pro-deficit than Republicans in word, that still doesn't change the fact about the actual results. It seems to me that having the President's party (whichever party it is) not control Congress proves to hamper the spending increases that both parties tend to pursue much better than having Republicans decisively control both branches does.

[Snowball]

I agree with you about the Dems' policy. I think you are mistaken if you think it isn't also the Republicans' policy. Trump, Bush, and Reagan all openly and explicitly advocated policies of deficit spending, not as some kind of compromise with opponents, but as their own favored policy.

And if it is true that the Dems are still more pro-spending, pro-taxation, and pro-deficit than Republicans in word, that still doesn't change the fact about the actual results. It seems to me that having the President's party (whichever party it is) not control Congress proves to hamper the spending increases that both parties tend to pursue much better than having Republicans decisively control both branches does.

Only if the party is Republican do they act to restrict the spending of the Democrat POTUS. All the fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years was imposed upon him by Newt Gingrich's Congress. It wasn't until 911 that the GOP Congress increased spending and there's the crisis I mentioned. Similarly, the chart I posted clearly shows deficits were stagnating while Trump had a Republican Congress. The facts do not bear out any reduction of deficit or taxes when a Democratic Congress interacts with a Republican President.

When Democrats don't get what they want from Congress, they turn to the Federal Reserve. That's how the Fed got their Employment Mandate in the 1970's. It's how Greenspan juiced the monetary expansion so heavily in the late 1990's, which they tried to make excuses for with the false Y2K event.

https://amarkfoundation.org/us-federal-deficits/

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-...eagan-deficits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_...tes_Congresses

[acptulsa]

You know that Covid and 911 have many similarities. As President both Bush and Trump were under tons of pressure. I still believe there is ample evidence that the GOP is a better financial alternative to the Democrats because the Democrats don't need a crisis to drive debt expansion - it is their policy. They create needs that aren't there and they foister absolute dependency and welfare expansion -- now, not only to Americans but to anyone willing to come here and take advantage of us.

And who says creating crises isn't GOP policy?

[Invisible Man]

Only if the party is Republican do they act to restrict the spending of the Democrat POTUS. All the fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years was imposed upon him by Newt Gingrich's Congress.

That's true. Republican congresses never do that to Republican presidents. Therefore, we are better off with Democrat presidents and Republican congresses than we are with Republicans controlling both, regardless of whether this result is intended.

It wasn't until 911 that the GOP Congress increased spending and there's the crisis I mentioned.

This is completely false. If you honestly believe this, that's surprising. And again, it doesn't matter anyway. So what if they used a crisis as the pretext for their big spending? They followed Rahm Emanuel's dictum and didn't let the crisis go to waste. That's not what we want. We want them to let the crisis go to waste. There will always be some crisis that politicians can use as a pretext for the additional money they want to spend and power they want to grab, and if there isn't one handy, they will come up with one. Some crises like drugs, Muslims, drag queens, immigrants, and unemployed teenage communist arsonists, aren't even crises at all, they're just always sitting there ready and waiting for someone (usually Republicans in those examples) to treat like one.

Similarly, the chart I posted clearly shows deficits were stagnating while Trump had a Republican Congress. The facts do not bear out any reduction of deficit or taxes when a Democratic Congress interacts with a Republican President.

The chart doesn't show any stagnating. But your basic point does hold. Republican presidents historically prove more ready to reach across the aisle and team up with Democrat congresses to pass big spending bills than Republican congresses tend to do with Democrat presidents. The moral of the story would be that Democrat presidents are historically preferable to Republican ones, since at least then we have a chance at gridlock (and in fact, historically, it usually does work out that if Democrat presidents start out with Congresses of their own party, that doesn't last long) again, regardless of whether this be the intended result or not.

Edit: Also, Republicans controlled the Senate for the entirety of Trump's tenure in office. And when Trump pushed through first a $2.2 Trillion "economic stimulus" spending bill in 2020 and then another $900 Billion after that, he did it with the overwhelming support of Republicans in Congress. Don't pretend those bills wouldn't have passed if they had the majority of the House of Representatives.

[Invisible Man]

And who says creating crises isn't GOP policy?

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again."

[pcosmar]

This was such great news only to hear like a bad penny she is not going away with talk of taking on Trump.

Has she announced her switch to the Democrat Party?

Sides with them anyway,, might as well drop the pretense.

[Dr.3D]

Has she announced her switch to the Democrat Party?

Sides with them anyway,, might as well drop the pretense.

I've been hearing reports that she got 10k dems to register as republicans so they could vote for her in the primaries.

[Snowball]

That's true. Republican congresses never do that to Republican presidents. Therefore, we are better off with Democrat presidents and Republican congresses than we are with Republicans controlling both, regardless of whether this result is intended.


This is completely false. If you honestly believe this, that's surprising. And again, it doesn't matter anyway. So what if they used a crisis as the pretext for their big spending? They followed Rahm Emanuel's dictum and didn't let the crisis go to waste. That's not what we want. We want them to let the crisis go to waste. There will always be some crisis that politicians can use as a pretext for the additional money they want to spend and power they want to grab, and if there isn't one handy, they will come up with one. Some crises like drugs, Muslims, drag queens, immigrants, and unemployed teenage communist arsonists, aren't even crises at all, they're just always sitting there ready and waiting for someone (usually Republicans in those examples) to treat like one.



The chart doesn't show any stagnating. But your basic point does hold. Republican presidents historically prove more ready to reach across the aisle and team up with Democrat congresses to pass big spending bills than Republican congresses tend to do with Democrat presidents. The moral of the story would be that Democrat presidents are historically preferable to Republican ones, since at least then we have a chance at gridlock (and in fact, historically, it usually does work out that if Democrat presidents start out with Congresses of their own party, that doesn't last long) again, regardless of whether this be the intended result or not.

Edit: Also, Republicans controlled the Senate for the entirety of Trump's tenure in office. And when Trump pushed through first a $2.2 Trillion "economic stimulus" spending bill in 2020 and then another $900 Billion after that, he did it with the overwhelming support of Republicans in Congress. Don't pretend those bills wouldn't have passed if they had the majority of the House of Representatives.

Controlling JUST the Senate doesn't affect budgets like owning both chambers does. You can't advance an agenda with just the Senate like you can with House and Senate. I guess you weren't old enough to remember the 1990s as an adult? The capture of both chambers by the GOP in 1996 was an historic event. The prior total control phases were only 2 years in the late 40s, 2 years in the mid-50s, before that you have to go back to the Roaring 20s and the Turn of the Century. On the other hand, Democrats brought us WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and it was only via the restrictions of conservatives in Clinton's second term that Democrat big spending dreams were stopped.. then 911 hit. Anyone who paid attention and is over 45 remembers this.