A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
All fair points. I'd like to be able to in primaries, but cannot register GOP until they get back to Reaganism or even better: Rockefellerism.
Hindsight and all that...
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Fair enough, for what it is worth, I doubt you and I would have gotten into it so bad if this version of you had been posting instead of last week's version.
I have my concerns about Trump as well. Nothing wrong with that position at all.
Start local. You can have the biggest impact by setting the bench at the local level.
Do individuals really have an impact in an organization the size of the Republican or the Democratic parties? I view leaving as having more power. Look at it this way, if someone wanted to get you to sign a contract would you have more leverage before you sign or after? My issues with the Democratic party are what we saw in Wiki. I don't want "the party" choosing who runs, I want the party members to. I'm not a party member, I get that. But the party should have been neutral, the Democratic party shoot be democratic. I know others here disagree. It goes back to my volunteering heavily for Hart, I was annoyed the party bosses decreed Mondale and the primary was just a coronation.
Now Ranger's issues are more policy than structure. But once the GOP is guaranteed his cash and vote, why would they have to reform?
That "version" of me, to be clear, was irked by your and others' rationales for voting for Trump more than anything else. I still am. Trump was and is a huge gamble. A massive gamble. An astronomical gamble. I could just as easily post the 10 reasons for liberals to leave the country asap. I would never have taken that gamble and I don't think it was a sane gamble. I think it was a gamble based on blithe ignorance and straitjacketed ideology. The US is still far and away the greatest country in the world, so why gamble at all?
Furthermore, Trump's campaign was unilaterally atrocious. Electing him after such a despicable campaign sets an astonishing, embarrassingly, and horrifically bad example for future campaigns. Yes, Hillary expressed her opinion of Trump during her campaign, but she didn't malign 99% of the world in the process.
I'm proud to have voted for Hillary and I'm ashamed of anyone who voted for him.
But he's now our president-elect, so I'm granting him a blank planchet.
Just because he votes in the Primary does not mean that he has pledged his pocketbook and vote to whomever comes out of that Primary. Your best chance to have an individual impact right now, short of running yourself or suddenly coming into an ungodly amount of money, is to vote in the primaries because so few people do.
And I mirror you. I have not pledged allegiance to one party, although I tend to vote with one.
Well whatever.
I am comfortable in my final choice. If it does not work out, we get another try in 4 years.
I disagree with your list some, but I think one optimistic note for me is Trump's ego. Trump won't want to be just a President, he will want to be the best president. He's going to want them putting him on Rushmore and a dollar bill while he is alive (maybe while still president). I think he's smart enough to know that hiring a brute squad to deport isn't going to do it. We see this already, Giuliani and Christie both walked WAY back the talk on locking up Clinton. When it's all done the wall is going to be a chain link fence bought at Home Depot. OK, that's a slight exaggeration.
I do tend to vote with one, but long ago I quite volunteering for the party or giving the party money. If someone started a new (and intelligent, not that green party thing) left based party I would join in seconds.
Well, I think you and I both know the latter is probably never going to happen. There are virtually no forces, internal or external, compelling the GOP towards that direction.
But, if and when we ever get around to repairing the national finances, that would probably result in a pivot point.
Groups of like-minded individuals very much have impacts on parties.
Now, I do certainly agree that bolting, when properly wielded, can have impact. The Tea Party showed best how to do it. They certainly threatened to not vote for RINOs anymore. But they went one (critical) step farther: they promoted upstart candidates who could, at least, carry a lot of appeal in primaries....in many cases, enough to win nominations and, in some cases, enough to win office. But I don't think they cared if their candidates lost general elections -- in fact, they might have seen it as a consolation.
Their secret? They had the power to harm the Republican Party. And they also had the will to.
The thing is: there's a critical mass of TP philosophy within the Republican Party such that this posed a significant threat.
No offense to INRanger, but that critical mass simply doesn't exist for Rockefeller Republicanism. I'd say he was right to leave the GOP.
I have a firm belief that we as a country are stronger than one person. I also have the firm belief that Trump does not have the kind of support network in place to cover his butt if things go seriously wrong. The GOP establishment is not enamored with him, Democrats are not fans, and by extension that means the media is not going to cover for him like I feel they would have for Clinton. I fully expect the checks and balances to work as they should.
Biggest worry for me is foreign policy, I am interested to see who he picks for SoS and to see what his NSC looks like. There are plenty of competent people available to help steer him correctly.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
None taken. You can see my predicament and why I've voted the way I have since 2012.
Trump used to style himself as one before he turned full blown populist and started saying whatever the hell people wanted to hear.
Like I said, my concern is Trump nuking someone. He said we have them, why not use them. As long as he doesn't do that, I think he could be good for foreign policy. Hurt the rest of the world more than us probably.
I'm curious to see how Republicans handle the debt. They're already promising tax cuts that are estimated to cost the nation trillions over the next decade. That would be a classic example of straitjacketed, blinkered, braindead ideology.
Trump also gave Hillary heartfelt praise for her service to the country.
Trump will just continue Obama's deportation policy, whatever that is exactly. I think he's likely to finish the wall, whatever that involves, precisely for your ego reasons. Mexico's not paying for it. I could see him actually doing something for inner cities which would be amazing and might split the black vote forever. No clue what Republicans will try to do to "replace" Obamacare, but I could see Trump pushing for something for ego reasons. NAFTA's not going anywhere unless Trump does something by Executive Order, but maybe there are revisions beneficial to the US. I can't see Trump helping blue-collar workers other than with an infrastructure stimulus bill. I'd like to see Trump do something about the rigged Washington politics that "only he can solve." We can hope the basement of Trump Tower gets inundated so Trump will come around on climate change. I could see Trump doing something for women. I hope he doesn't go hog wild on military funding.
Guess who's getting any tax cut that's passed. Here's a hint: no one who actually needs one
The inner city issue sounds good, I am glad he mentioned it. One, when has the GOP wanted to spend money in the inner cities? Two, he has massive tax cuts and massive defense spending in his proposals. If both are enacted, where does the money for the inner cities come from? Believe me, he has my full backing for inner cities, I'm just not sure where the votes in congress or the money come from.
Republicans: inner city champions since, um, since, hmmmmmmm, since....
Shit! Will someone help me out here please?
I would like to see targeted tax hikes in certain points and a cut to the corporate rate along with looking at what where we spend. It appears the public has declared that they want a certain level of services, we now need to be realistic about what those services cost.
We are not nuking anybody.
I do see your predicament.
I've long thought that the move away from center, in both parties, is primarily -- maybe solely -- the result of the fork in the road that we all (well, almost all) know we're headed for. It's a political manifestation of battle lines being drawn, and heels dug in, for an era where something (probably a number of somethings) is going to have to give.
Of course, the emergence of Trump is going to make me rethink that -- because, so far as those seminal questions go, he's tough to pin down. I can say for certain that he doesn't strike me as somebody at all devoted to the virtue of restraint....fiscal or otherwise. The primary source of fiscal pain is our major entitlement programs -- and, thus far anyway, his attitude on that has been to leave them be (some call this "protecting" them -- but, of course, that's nonsense). And I'm sure this has plenty to do with the reason that so many Republicans are wary of him.
Anyway, I still don't think you should feel compelled to identify with a political party. In some ways, it can be liberating sit on the sidelines.
NAFTA's almost certainly going to be renegotiated. In fact, I suspect that would've happened with or without Trump. Stories out today about Canada and Mexico both being willing to revisit it.
As for climate change, I doubt we're going to be hamstringing the economy with much. The Paris Accord is a joke, anyway. And -- just like the Iran "treaty" -- our adherence to it is entirely resting on executive whim. I don't know if Trump will formally withdraw from Paris. But I'd be surprised if his level of commitment to meeting our pledged reduction of 26%/$GDP by 2025 is going to be quite as rigorous as Obama's.
Whatever we do regarding the accord, I'd be absolutely stunned if, 9 years from now, we've come anywhere near that target.
Private business involvement is the most likely. It should be comprehensively planned to handle food desert and other issues. Some things are already happening along these lines.
Or infrastructure stimulus? Something like the CCC for young black males? Probably a lot of possibilities. Just takes a serious initiative. I could see this being right in Trump's bailiwick though, since he's a real estate developer.
We? That brings up a question. Does the POTUS have sovereign control over that decision? If not, how does such a decision occur?
We don't know. But if POTUS were to take unilateral action, I think the 25th Amendment legal mutiny provisions would apply. Think Crimson Tide.
I just read it and I don't see that necessarily applying. Suppose Trump drops on nuke on ISIS. Or suppose we're in a war with some country and he drops a nuke. Why would that imply that Trump is unable to be POTUS?
I can see the world, including the US, being shocked but doing nothing.
Another way to ask the question: Who ordered the two nukes to end WWII?
Similar threads
