Republicans Conspire to Deny Trump the Party's Nomination

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jun 18, 2016.

?

Will Conspiring Republicans Deny Trump the Party's Nomination?

  1. Yes

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. No

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  3. Can I have a drink?

    4 vote(s)
    50.0%
  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    That's why the independent group was divided into "lean" categories, indicating the independents who leaned or tended to vote for one party over the other.

    Ok, you are back to your conspiracy nonsense. You have no evidence to support any of that. You have no evidence of anything untoward. The fact is your candidate lost the Democratic primary fair and square. You've thrown out a never ending series of changing excuses to rationalize his failures. You have no evidence your candidate would fare any better against Republicans. You should get over it. Your candidate lost. It's time to move on.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The ones that "lean Republican" are Republican, and just as likely to be nutcases as the ones who straight up say "I'm Republican". No large body of reasonable, independent, conservative people the Republican Party could court for membership -

    the folks Ivan was talking about when he posted this: "The largest party in the US is not even a party. They are the independents which tend to be moderate" -

    currently exists. If the Republicans kick all the slag out of their Party, there is no pool of reasonable people they could tap to replace them. The Party would cease to exist as a major electoral force in American politics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    That may already be the case. Heck, this week, even George Will [the consummate conservative!] ditched the Republican Party.

    And I guess the Republican party is now the isolationist party, and not the free trade party.

    I don't think the Independents are as polar as suggested. I'm independent because both parties are too extreme for me.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

    Many Independents have definite voting preferences but clearly don't identify with their old party as they once did. I was a Republican for most of my early adult life. But then Carl Rove came along and ripped down the big tent.

    One thing I know for sure: I don't like Hillary but Trump makes me sick. I can't even stand the watch the idiot any more. The man is absolutely repulsive. And I thought it was a bad dream when Bush II got elected. Then Palin!!! And now this? What the hell is wrong with people?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Which brings up the question of what Party he ever thought he was in. If he didn't ditch the Party when Reagan made his appeals to "States rights" from the Neshoga County fairground, or W chose Cheney and pandered to the crowd at Bob Jones University (which in the 1970s paid a million dollars to the IRS in back taxes rather than allow black and white students to date each other, and is afaik the only "University" in the world founded specifically to oppose the teaching of Darwinian evolutionary theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University

    why would he suddenly get his back up now? My guess: the humiliation. Nobody can hide the Donald's true colors, as Cheney's could be screened. That "I'm With Stupid" T-shirt one has had to put on to be a Republican since 1980 is printed on both sides in fluorescent letters a foot high - you can't even turn it inside out for photos.

    Meanwhile, the emergence of Trump is not from any significant change in the electoral base of the Republican Party. The Trump voters are the same faction of the American people as voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. And they couldn't care less about George Will - he's been writing his little bus bench grouches to an isolated tower crowd for most of his adult life now.
    There is no centrist, reasonable position from which the Democratic Party is "extreme".

    Anything involving the language of "both Parties" or "both sides" or the like, in the current situation, is rightwing corporate authoritarian media bs. Except possibly statements involving gun control.
    W was not just "elected" (ok, electoral fraud, but still a close race), but re-elected (and the fraud, though significant, was not necessarily decisive that time). He was enormously popular in the Republican Party, and shamelessly fawned over by the mainstream media - go back and look at the news reports on "Mission Accomplished" day. And his policies, governing competence, rhetoric, etc, were not much different from Reagan's. Anyone who liked Reagan's governance could hardly object to W's continuation of it.

    Trump is less extreme - in his actual positions - than most Republican national politicians. And fully as competent as Rubio, or Jeb, or whomever. So what is your actual objection to him?

    What is wrong with "people"? It isn't "people" - it's the core voting base of the Republican Party as assembled by Nixon and bolted together by Reagan and kept oiled up for action by Fox and Limbaugh and Rove and Gingrich and a dozen Evangelical pulpit-pounders for thirty years now. It's the old Confederacy, risen again as promised. It's the Party of Jefferson Davis, now, not Lincoln.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2016
  8. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Firstly, most Republicans didn't vote for Trump. Also, there has long been a growing toleration of the fringes, which have slowly infiltrated the party like a cancer. When I was a Republican I certainly didn't support any of what you cite.

    He stated his reason explicitly: When Ryan didn't denounce Trumps entirely un-American comments about the Judge trying his case. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. That sort of thing is unprecedented in modern US politics.

    I saw Reagan as a virtual father figure but I hate Trump with a passion. Don't be so narrow. I can hardly imagine two people who are less alike. Reagan had class. I don't agree with many of his policies now but still respect him. Were he alive today he would probably be a Democrat again after seeing Trump.

    He is a true conservative - mainly a fiscal conservative. Even though the Republican economic platform has completely failed -Ayn Rand libertarianism and the claim that markets can regulate themselves - he has always espoused the sincere views of fiscal conservatives.

    Sure there is. There are nutty liberals just like there are far too many nutty Republicans. I can't say conservatives because Republicans are no longer conservative.

    If you can't see a middle then you are by definition an extremist.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Of course not. They voted for guys like Cruz and Rubio. They will now vote for Trump.
    This "fringe" has dominated the Republican Party since 1980, and owned it since 1994.
    Like I said - he had not problem with the truckload of sewage Reagan dumped into his Party, he had no problem with W&Cheney's dishonest and incompetent and lethal warmongering and economic kleptocracy, he watched Palin step up to the mic a heartbeat candidate from the Oval Office and control of America's arsenal, and he leaves the Party because a nutcase like Ryan dissembles over something Reagan did in spades and with Will's full support. This is giggle time.
    So your objection is that Trump is vulgar - that makes sense. But how did you guys get fooled by Reagan? - he had the same voting base, the same political approach, the same basic qualities of governance. And you thought he had "class"? WTF?
    But the Democratic Party is not dominated by them. You don't see them on TV as "Democrats". They have no representation in the Dem Party power structure, no candidates for national office, etc. There simply are no Dem Trumps, Dem Cruzes, Dem Gingriches, Dem Palins, Dem Kantors, Dem whackos in Congress and on TV and representing the Party. Even a mildly leftwing guy like Sanders has to come in from outside the Party, and run as some kind of "revolutionary" when he's proposing a partial restoration of the ordinary American tax and regulatory structures of 1965.
    The left/right middle is inside the Democratic Party - centered a bit to the left of Clinton. The authoritarian/libertarian middle is considerably to the libertarian side (let's say "below") of any candidate running in 2016. So the intersection - the "middle" of the American political field - is a bit left and well below Clinton's political position, and far left of and even farther below any Republican national politician's position.

    Can you see it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2016

Share This Page