While rival Republican candidates try to distance themselves from Trump, does he better represent the Republican mainstream than they do?
Is Trump a mainstream Republican?
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
The New York Times wants it both ways. They like to point out a lot of the lack of transparency with Hillary and by extension this entire Administration. Yet the get indignant when people express anger.
Trump is a lightning rod for anger. Most Republicans see things [like San Francisco letting loose a felon under sanctuary who kills an innocent woman] and many lash out. Trump fills that role again as a lightning rod. Hopefully with time, debates, etc. people will see that mere anger is not productive.
What is productive is putting together a team that can 1) get elected and 2) work together to bring about reasonable changes. There is a good chance of winning this election. But Donald Trump will never do it. The danger to the Republicans is that he will have enough support that his World Class Ego will lead him to run third party. The money is there.
Trump is worse than Bernie Sanders [in rhetoric not in view] and is more like Al Sharpton. So the short answer to WATU's question "Is Trump mainstream Republican?" is "Is Sharpton mainstream Democrat?"
Trump is a lightning rod for anger. Most Republicans see things [like San Francisco letting loose a felon under sanctuary who kills an innocent woman] and many lash out. Trump fills that role again as a lightning rod. Hopefully with time, debates, etc. people will see that mere anger is not productive.
What is productive is putting together a team that can 1) get elected and 2) work together to bring about reasonable changes. There is a good chance of winning this election. But Donald Trump will never do it. The danger to the Republicans is that he will have enough support that his World Class Ego will lead him to run third party. The money is there.
Trump is worse than Bernie Sanders [in rhetoric not in view] and is more like Al Sharpton. So the short answer to WATU's question "Is Trump mainstream Republican?" is "Is Sharpton mainstream Democrat?"
You may not like what he says, but he is HONEST; much different than HRC.
The thing I think most people like is he doesn't back down from criticism or back peddle like most politicians.
The thing I think most people like is he doesn't back down from criticism or back peddle like most politicians.
Most people in Oklahoma like what he says. Most Republicans like what he says. But that doesn't get you elected. As the smaller party Republicans must get independents.
I think the Democrats found out that liking what Obama said didn't make him a good president. Obama's popularity, even among Democrats fell. You have to be able to do the job.
Now some will tell you that unless you get everything you want from a candidate you aren't gaining anything. But if a Republican had been elected instead of Obama, we wouldn't have Obamacare today. You could still keep your insurance if you liked it.
Newt Gingrich said a lot of things that people liked and he said them very well. But he wasn't the candidate because he had a history and a personality that many didn't like. Trump will wear thin with time.
Now you and I both don't want HRC to be president. If Trump runs third party he will split the moderate conservative and the ultra conservatives and elect HRC. He used to be a democrat...maybe he is a stalking horse for them now. I'm sure he is Hillary's favorite person right now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/
Beware of position shifters who run for office.
Beware of position shifters who run for office.
Yes, I am lucky too. I am on Medicare. But we have people, even on this board, who have lost coverage for themselves or in once case for their employees. Additionally, most non-governmental insurance has seen large increases in co-payment and deductible along with higher monthly premiums. Many people had catastrophic coverage and those policies are gone. This hits pretty hard for people who loose their job a few years from 65. Many company policies have cut their coverage down to the lower levels of Obamacare and raised premiums. In those cases you keep your policy but in a weaker form, which de facto means it is not the policy you had.
But my point was one example of the fact that obviously it does make a difference who is president. There are other examples of this in the Keystone Pipeline and the Iranian agreement. There are many examples where gridlock does not protect us. This president simply uses executive orders to go around the law.
My message was to conservatives. Do you want a president who passes 100% of the hot button questions and loses or one who you agree with on important issues and has a chance to win. A candidate who can bring some independent voters along is better the Hillary Rodham Clinton. Politics is the science of the possible.
But my point was one example of the fact that obviously it does make a difference who is president. There are other examples of this in the Keystone Pipeline and the Iranian agreement. There are many examples where gridlock does not protect us. This president simply uses executive orders to go around the law.
My message was to conservatives. Do you want a president who passes 100% of the hot button questions and loses or one who you agree with on important issues and has a chance to win. A candidate who can bring some independent voters along is better the Hillary Rodham Clinton. Politics is the science of the possible.
The Obamacare fiasco was all about transitioning to single payer. But govt healthcare is terribly expensive. Check the US debt clock web site. Medicare/medicade is spending almost 1 trillion dollars this year. 48 years ago that budget item was only 3 billion dollars - in 1967 - its first budgeted year. But now, with an unlimited amount of money being printed by Uncle Sam, medical inflation has increased over 300 times that amount. And on top of that, we have thousands of lawyers chasing the medicare ambulance as well as treatment for fictional diseases like sleep apnea that require expensive stays in a "sleep center" to prove the patient has a "snort" in their sleep. What are we doing to our kids and their future when we hand over this kind of debt for them they'll be paying for the rest of their lives?
How silly this has become. A community instigator president again on comedy central. A narcisist president and his spouse spewing hate and disgust for america (americans) in their speeches. That sexual predator (BC) possibly going back in the WH. Govt virtually encouraging people to "drug up". The acceptance of infanticide. The ten commandments removed and Satan "possibly" erected in its place. On and on.
And what alternative from the opposition? More of the same -IMO.
What kind of country is this? What kind of country do we want for our kids?
In My Opinion
How silly this has become. A community instigator president again on comedy central. A narcisist president and his spouse spewing hate and disgust for america (americans) in their speeches. That sexual predator (BC) possibly going back in the WH. Govt virtually encouraging people to "drug up". The acceptance of infanticide. The ten commandments removed and Satan "possibly" erected in its place. On and on.
And what alternative from the opposition? More of the same -IMO.
What kind of country is this? What kind of country do we want for our kids?
In My Opinion
One of the things that I don't like about this new format, is there is no way to tell who WATU2 was responding to. There was around five who responded to it. In the old format it was often easier to tell.
Then, there is also the possibility that he was just throwing out a one line response that none of us were capable of understanding the wisdom of the article. However, he posed a question and the answers pretty much seem to be that Trump in the opinion of most is that he does not represent the mainstream Republican party.
A recent poll showed strong overlap between Trump and Jeb supporters. Jeb poll numbers would go up something like 16 points if Trump left the race. Seems to indicate the support is mostly based on celebrity status and name recognition, because most of Trumps more rabid supporters hate Jeb.
I have seen various opinions, but a large number said he lost ground. And since he is complaining that the questions were "mean," I rather doubt that he thinks he gained ground. That is an odd comment for someone famous for his rough verbal treatment of people.
Add that to Hillary's server containing her emails while Sec of State being "safeguarded" in a bathroom of a mom and pops computer shop and it's been an entertaining month.
I won't support either Jeb of Donald. WATU....will you support Hillary if she is the Dem nominee?
I won't support either Jeb of Donald. WATU....will you support Hillary if she is the Dem nominee?
Depends on who runs against her. No enthusiasm for her. But still no proof of any damage from Hillary's private server. As for the ongoing clown show, I prefer to let the candidates speak for themselves.
Speaking of proof, the evidence is that US torture does more harm than good. No one has provided any proof that we got anything from torture, yet we violated the Constitution and our damaged our reputation by using it. Jeb has gone all in on his brother's record. Hardly reassuring.
Damage is a ridiculous standards. Our Sec of State purposely directed official emails to a private unsecured server maintained by a mom and pops shop in a bathroom. Couldn't make this stuff up. That decision reeks of recklessness and incompetence. Yet, you still want this person serving as our President?
No one has even identified whether any classified material was sent to or from H's server.
All this huffing and puffing is stands in sharp contrast to the rabid defense of General Patreus who knowingly kept classified information at home, knowingly shared it with his lover so she could write a gushy biography about him, and then pled guilty to a "misdemeanor" so he could 'move on' to providing sage wisdom to KKR. The same Republicans in the Congress who bled tears for him have all acquired conveniently short memories. Yes, it's "good politics" if your only standard is getting the upper hand on the opposite party, but it's hardly good politics.
All this huffing and puffing is stands in sharp contrast to the rabid defense of General Patreus who knowingly kept classified information at home, knowingly shared it with his lover so she could write a gushy biography about him, and then pled guilty to a "misdemeanor" so he could 'move on' to providing sage wisdom to KKR. The same Republicans in the Congress who bled tears for him have all acquired conveniently short memories. Yes, it's "good politics" if your only standard is getting the upper hand on the opposite party, but it's hardly good politics.
Dude....you're defending using a private server hosted by some rinkydink outfit with no physical security procedures by the Sec of State?
Patreus resigned and should have received a stiffer penalty imo. I for one never defended his actions.
Truly surprised you have taken this position. Again...damage isn't the standard. Incompetence and recklessness are far more fitting.
As far as Dubya and Jeb....didn't support Dubya (I have been a constant critic of his on this board) and don't support Jeb.
Patreus resigned and should have received a stiffer penalty imo. I for one never defended his actions.
Truly surprised you have taken this position. Again...damage isn't the standard. Incompetence and recklessness are far more fitting.
As far as Dubya and Jeb....didn't support Dubya (I have been a constant critic of his on this board) and don't support Jeb.
This is a big lol. Based on the classification, we're talking about info that probably was obtained via communications intercepts and identifies the agency and how they acquired it. Not a small deal.
I love this new "No Damage Rule." So if I go 80 in a 45 mph zone or weave all over the road drunk or steal something at a store but get caught, then there is no damage, I simply point that out and they let me go.
As far as General Patreus getting off too light, perhaps that would best be discussed with the Justice Department...which at last check was run by a liberal Democrat under our current President. He got off light because they wanted the whole thing over.
So why do they arrest drunks who did no damage driving? Because it creates a danger and violates the law. The Secretary of State violates both regulations and apparently law and we play the no harm card. But in the "most transparent administration ever" while she put security at risk no harm can be proven. Of course, she had a couple of years to wipe her disk, fought like hell against any release of the records, and turned them over to her lawyer .
Even if you take her at her word...probably a bad idea...she did it for her own convenience. But given her behavior about the whole situation are reasonable person might infer that there are things she wants to keep hidden. But that's okay because she is Hillary Clinton and she can't be bother with laws or Department policy.
As far as General Patreus getting off too light, perhaps that would best be discussed with the Justice Department...which at last check was run by a liberal Democrat under our current President. He got off light because they wanted the whole thing over.
So why do they arrest drunks who did no damage driving? Because it creates a danger and violates the law. The Secretary of State violates both regulations and apparently law and we play the no harm card. But in the "most transparent administration ever" while she put security at risk no harm can be proven. Of course, she had a couple of years to wipe her disk, fought like hell against any release of the records, and turned them over to her lawyer .
Even if you take her at her word...probably a bad idea...she did it for her own convenience. But given her behavior about the whole situation are reasonable person might infer that there are things she wants to keep hidden. But that's okay because she is Hillary Clinton and she can't be bother with laws or Department policy.
I'm not sure we will ever know the "damage" caused by this act. Clinton had the server professionally wiped clean before complying with the FBI's request to turn it over. Thus, we may never know what classified material was on there which was open for viewing by even the most elementary of hackers. Again....you have a Sec of State using what amounts to an out of the garage computer shop to control and safeguard federal emails to a cabinet level position because she didn't want an official record of the same. Yet, there are people who still would intrust her with our highest level of national security matters and support her over good people like Sanders and O'Malley. Simply boggles one's mind.
You might ask Hillary that. She did not appear to have much fun at her last press conference about her emails and server.
I did a water spit yeasterday when I was watching "the Five" on FoxNews. They were discussing Hillary's comment about wiping her "server" with the towel gesture and (the comedic) Greg Guttfeld said Bill always wipes his server clean as well after using it. 
It should be sold anyway.. the president isn't an elected King. He is a citizen just like each of us.
Trump might win the GOP nomination. He actually sounded plausible on Bill O last night, though he must eventually submit a workable plan for deportation, with estimated costs and all, plus address the deportation process. Do you pull people out of their homes at night, that should work out well.
Then GOP operative Lutz, who hates the guy, actually stated yesterday that it's very conceivable that the guy could win it, considering the amount of animosity the GOP faithful have concerning illegal immigrants. I don't know, I think you guys need to get ready for a Trump/Fiorina ticket maybe.
Then GOP operative Lutz, who hates the guy, actually stated yesterday that it's very conceivable that the guy could win it, considering the amount of animosity the GOP faithful have concerning illegal immigrants. I don't know, I think you guys need to get ready for a Trump/Fiorina ticket maybe.
Last edited:
Right now the leaders are Trump and Hillary. I would be surprised if either one is the nominee of their party. Hillary was the favorite in 2008 and we know how that turned out. Trump will have more time to make a jackass out of himself.
But I must hand it to Eastcane, if he has the stomach to watch Bill O, he has a much patience than I do. That is the most annoying man on the planet.
But I must hand it to Eastcane, if he has the stomach to watch Bill O, he has a much patience than I do. That is the most annoying man on the planet.
The more apt description in the US would be a three way race between a socialist, a Democratic corporate welfare-ist and a Republican corporate welfare-ist. At least until we get the big money out of the system. Bernie is NOT a socialist, at least in any other country but the USA. Anyone who points at the pernicious effects of income disparity and big money in politics which is driven by government policies has to differentiate himself from the two mainstream parties.
Other than to get votes, the 0.1% isn't against immigration. They are immune to its effects or even dependent on cheap labor. That's what so weird about Republican politics: it is dependent upon votes from people who are actually harmed by many of the party's economic policies, but the R candidates get away with it but keeping them focused on social/religious issues.
The politics of immigration certainly makes for some strange bedfellows. Trump has been fairly outspoken on the benefit such a vast influx of low wage workers has on their labor costs. I don't agree with the argument that the top .1% vote based on social issues. They are typically highly educated and vote based on their pocket book not social issues. The Chamber supports immigration btw. The working class Repub (especially in the south) is another story.
On the other side, the two most loyal Dem base groups (Afro-Americans and working poor) both seem to support basically unlimited immigration even though those millions of largely unskilled and low educated workers compete for their jobs and drive down wages due to supply.
Both sides seem to support immigration policies which isn't necessarily in its best interest due to party loyalty. Fascinating stuff
On the other side, the two most loyal Dem base groups (Afro-Americans and working poor) both seem to support basically unlimited immigration even though those millions of largely unskilled and low educated workers compete for their jobs and drive down wages due to supply.
Both sides seem to support immigration policies which isn't necessarily in its best interest due to party loyalty. Fascinating stuff
Don't forget Hispanics and other minority groups who support immigration as well as (at least up here) Microsoft, Amazon, and the rest of the tech community. As for the working poor, the Republican antagonism to a minimum wage, unions, job training, broad based health care coverage, etc. likely outweigh the immigration issue. Are all Afro-Americans threatened by immigration?
[On the other side, the two most loyal Dem base groups (Afro-Americans and working poor) both seem to support basically unlimited immigration even though those millions of largely unskilled and low educated workers compete for their jobs and drive down wages due to supply.
Both sides seem to support immigration policies which isn't necessarily in its best interest due to party loyalty. Fascinating stuff[/QUOTE]
[On the other side, the two most loyal Dem base groups (Afro-Americans and working poor) both seem to support basically unlimited immigration even though those millions of largely unskilled and low educated workers compete for their jobs and drive down wages due to supply.
Both sides seem to support immigration policies which isn't necessarily in its best interest due to party loyalty. Fascinating stuff[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Are we talking about supporting immigration or supporting the immigration laws?
Are we talking about immigration through the legal process, changing the law, or what the heck just ignore the law? Could there be a Hispanic somewhere who came in through a long legal process who is less than thrilled about others who came in illegally?
I'm partial to the idea of deciding which laws I want to support. I may not file an income tax return this year...uh well...crap, I'll probably get a refund.
Yeah, from my time in El Paso I can tell you there are quite a few Hispanics that are not big fans of the illegals and even a lot of the people who legally cross the border everyday to work.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
🏀 Recruiting TU signee Tyler Behrend discusses his long road to D-1 basketball
- Latest: chito_and_leon
-