It has been often said the ultimate value of conservatism and populism is to question authority, to question the status quo, and to move away from corrupting “bigness” and move back toward the citizenry. Sometimes the Democratic Party runs against the corrupt status quo, as did FDR, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Other times, the Republican Party does, as with Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan.

This time, Donald J. Trump ran on a platform of anti-corruption, anti-Washington and anti-Bigness.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat said that Trump’s platform and appeal to the people “is like nothing we have seen before — a shatterer of all norms and conventional assumptions, a man more likely to fail catastrophically than other presidents, more constitutionally dangerous than other presidents, but also more likely to carry us into a different political era, a post-neoliberal, post-end-of-history politics, than any other imaginable president.” Douthat is wrong.

In what is perhaps the most upset election of American history, the experts, the media, the pollsters, all were proven wrong by the American people and the American electorate.

Trump represents much — not all but much — that American conservatism had strived for over the years. An outsider who has a skeptical view of not just the government establishment, but the importance of conservative judges and conservative members of the cabinet in order to restrain government. A survey of history shows that Trump is not a detour, but consistent with American presidential tradition.

Originally Posted by Guest

It has been often said the ultimate value of conservatism and populism is to question authority, to question the status quo, and to move away from corrupting “bigness” and move back toward the citizenry. Sometimes the Democratic Party runs against the corrupt status quo, as did FDR, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Other times, the Republican Party does, as with Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan.

This time, Donald J. Trump ran on a platform of anti-corruption, anti-Washington and anti-Bigness.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat said that Trump’s platform and appeal to the people “is like nothing we have seen before — a shatterer of all norms and conventional assumptions, a man more likely to fail catastrophically than other presidents, more constitutionally dangerous than other presidents, but also more likely to carry us into a different political era, a post-neoliberal, post-end-of-history politics, than any other imaginable president.” Douthat is wrong.

In what is perhaps the most upset election of American history, the experts, the media, the pollsters, all were proven wrong by the American people and the American electorate.

Trump represents much — not all but much — that American conservatism had strived for over the years. An outsider who has a skeptical view of not just the government establishment, but the importance of conservative judges and conservative members of the cabinet in order to restrain government. A survey of history shows that Trump is not a detour, but consistent with American presidential tradition.

Right. And his candidate picks look so anti-establisment. And his actions also seem to be the same old "What's in it for me!" And this man has a vision of probably the biggest most invasive Federal Government ever with very few checks-and-balances on it.

you're just a hater who will believe anything negative connected to Trump

Originally Posted by Guest

you're just a hater who will believe anything negative connected to Trump

Please do not use the term "hater." That is a term reserved for Libtard use only. We should merely point out how blind they are, naive they are, or ignorant they are regarding facts and real American ideology.

You're right they do watch CNN and other MSM

Originally Posted by Guest

Right. And his candidate picks look so anti-establisment. And his actions also seem to be the same old "What's in it for me!" And this man has a vision of probably the biggest most invasive Federal Government ever with very few checks-and-balances on it.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

I laughed at the "list" of "corruption free" administrations. I've got news for ya honey...they've ALL been corrupt.

Maybe not Mr Washington, he just wanted to get to being a wealthy landowner. He scoped out ans scooped up, some mighty fine parcels when he surveyed before the war.

Originally Posted by Guest

Please do not use the term "hater." That is a term reserved for Libtard use only. We should merely point out how blind they are, naive they are, or ignorant they are regarding facts and real American ideology.

Ignorant about real...anything. Ever try to talk about "real" subjects with a liberal? At least conservatives "know things". Unfortunately, most of them bring along "religious baggage".

Originally Posted by Guest

Right. And his candidate picks look so anti-establisment. And his actions also seem to be the same old "What's in it for me!" And this man has a vision of probably the biggest most invasive Federal Government ever with very few checks-and-balances on it.

There is an old corporate saw that states "never try to manage from beneath" Trump's transition team has a puzzle (new administration) to solve and has to bring together many competing voices, with various skills to shore up weakness and improve strengths and to verify and re-verify decisions and to continual assess objectives and goals. He will need a team that is both experienced and new to the process,etc etc etc.

The puzzle is not complete and this Administration is not yet in play so I for one am reluctant to comment .

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

There is an old corporate saw that states "never try to manage from beneath" Trump's transition team has a puzzle (new administration) to solve and has to bring together many competing voices, with various skills to shore up weakness and improve strengths and to verify and re-verify decisions and to continual assess objectives and goals. He will need a team that is both experienced and new to the process,etc etc etc.

The puzzle is not complete and this Administration is not yet in play so I for one am reluctant to comment .

Personal Best Regards:

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss...the only thing that changes is who gets rich. The REAL bosses remain.

Originally Posted by Guest

There is an old corporate saw that states "never try to manage from beneath" Trump's transition team has a puzzle (new administration) to solve and has to bring together many competing voices, with various skills to shore up weakness and improve strengths and to verify and re-verify decisions and to continual assess objectives and goals. He will need a team that is both experienced and new to the process,etc etc etc.

The puzzle is not complete and this Administration is not yet in play so I for one am reluctant to comment .

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss...the only thing that changes is who gets rich. The REAL bosses remain.

What's wrong with getting rich? Personally, I have nothing against money, as long as it is mine and nobody wishes to take it from me.

You seem to forget that half this country voted for a Gov that will take care of them and lead them. The other half is tired of the supposed "progressive" tyranny. There will always be "bosses" but the point is whether or not one wishes to be led by that boss.

Originally Posted by Guest

What's wrong with getting rich? Personally, I have nothing against money, as long as it is mine and nobody wishes to take it from me.

You seem to forget that half this country voted for a Gov that will take care of them and lead them. The other half is tired of the supposed "progressive" tyranny. There will always be "bosses" but the point is whether or not one wishes to be led by that boss.

It depends HOW you do it...ethically or not. Most of the very wealthy did it by "cheating", maybe not legally, but ethically. Gates "stole" DOS from IBM making them dependent on him. Jobs got kids hooked on Apple by giving them to schools. Rockefeller and his oil...JP Morgan...etc.

Originally Posted by Guest

It depends HOW you do it...ethically or not. Most of the very wealthy did it by "cheating", maybe not legally, but ethically. Gates "stole" DOS from IBM making them dependent on him. Jobs got kids hooked on Apple by giving them to schools. Rockefeller and his oil...JP Morgan...etc.

First off, where do you get off making a blanket statement that MOST got rich by cheating?
Second, Gates did NOT steal DOS. He paid for it/bought it.

The rest is just your ranting garbage so I am not even going to bother with it. I won't call you an idiot because it would not be nice. Obviously, you are an example of wealth envy.

Originally Posted by Guest

First off, where do you get off making a blanket statement that MOST got rich by cheating?
Second, Gates did NOT steal DOS. He paid for it/bought it.

The rest is just your ranting garbage so I am not even going to bother with it. I won't call you an idiot because it would not be nice. Obviously, you are an example of wealth envy.

Yes, you're right Lady MLDMB or whatever it is...I know nothing and you know everything.

Enough with the personal sh!t...lets move on to the topic, not the poster. You women and your interpersonal drama...give it a rest!

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, you're right Lady MLDMB or whatever it is...I know nothing and you know everything.

Enough with the personal sh!t...lets move on to the topic, not the poster. You women and your interpersonal drama...give it a rest!

Your poor, poor wife. She must be a saint

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, you're right Lady MLDMB or whatever it is...I know nothing and you know everything.

Enough with the personal sh!t...lets move on to the topic, not the poster. You women and your interpersonal drama...give it a rest!

Yeah, I got your "lady" right here, sissy boy. If you listened half as much as you spout your garbage, you would know a little more about who you are replying to, idiot. I have a feeling by the garbage you spout against anything anyone says on here, that you are a little short ugly/nasty bald headed, big eared sissy boy that got bullied so much that you are pi$$ed off at the world. Unlike the rest of the posters on here, that would be able to get along fine in a social setting, I bet you would hide in a corner, a recluse that hates everyone.

But, to get back on topic like YOU said, I did respond to you, by correcting your inaccurate rant against everyone else in the world that seems to have wronged you or you perceived has wronged you. You try to act like you are all knowing, but then make blanket statements like "most" wealthy got it illegally and that Bill Gates "stole" DOS when anyone with a HS education knows that Bill Gates bought MSDOS for $50,000.

Since I am one of the very few that will ever respond to you, you really should abstain from irritating the only ones on here that defended you from those that wished to have you removed from the forum for the nasty racist, bigoted and generally anti-social behavior you exhibit on here.

Then again, perhaps you are just an above average troll, that is not constrained to the limits of talking points.