Prime time speech at the RNC

[DrHoops]

Dear lord.

With respect to Aloha, this IS the RNC. No mention of Reagan, Lincoln, Eisenhower. All of these men, while I disagreed with Reagan, it is now the Hulk Hogan party?



It’s now all about WWF, Q, and every other bonkers person. The lowest common denominators.

 

[Upset Alert]

Get used to it. Neither party is what it used to be. Dems are so outraged that Trump jumped sides. Guarantee if he was still a Dem you TDS'ers would be on his side.

 

[baileyiu]

Get used to it. Neither party is what it used to be. Dems are so outraged that Trump jump sides. Guarantee if he was still a Dem you TDS'ers would be on his side.

Absolutely not true!

 

[Upset Alert]

Absolutely not true!

False, chief. You partisan hacks only vote blue. That's how we know who hates the USA.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Dear lord.

With respect to Aloha, this IS the RNC. No mention of Reagan, Lincoln, Eisenhower. All of these men, while I disagreed with Reagan, it is now the Hulk Hogan party?

View embedded media

It’s now all about WWF, Q, and every other bonkers person. The lowest common denominators.

I can’t remember who it was. But I very much do remember Reagan being mentioned in a speech.

That said…there’s no question that Reaganism has taken a back seat to nationalist populism in Trump’s Republican Party. And this is profoundly disappointing to Reaganites like myself.

That said, I think the blame for this falls on the Bush/McCain/Romney era GOP leadership. They opened the door to Trump’s demagoguery by being tone deaf (at best) on the issue of illegal immigration and by generally failing to match deeds to their words on conservative governing ideals.

When Romney announced he was hanging it up, he said something about making an effort to better understand the role that he and others like him played in ushering in the Trump revolution. I was thrilled to hear him say that - but concerned that he’d come to the wrong conclusions.

 

[DrHoops]

I can’t remember who it was. But I very much do remember Reagan being mentioned in a speech.

That said…there’s no question that Reaganism has taken a back seat to nationalist populism in Trump’s Republican Party. And this is profoundly disappointing to Reaganites like myself.

That said, I think the blame for this falls on the Bush/McCain/Romney era GOP leadership. They opened the door to Trump’s demagoguery by being tone deaf (at best) on the issue of illegal immigration and by generally failing to match deeds to their words on conservative governing ideals.

When Romney announced he was hanging it up, he said something about making an effort to better understand the role that he and others like him played in ushering in the Trump revolution. I was thrilled to hear him say that - but concerned that he’d come to the wrong conclusions.

I think it’s incredibly sad. Growing up in Indiana, my family was a rare, rural Democratic bunch. At the same time, voting for HW, McCain, or Romney wasn’t a crazy thought. All of these people would be a relief to me now vs. the bizarre group who actually believes Donald Trump is good for America or good for the world.

Most importantly, the fact that the Republican Party offers no fresh ideas and has Hulk Hogan ripping off his shirt as a prime time speaker is just symbolic of a party that is no longer relevant, whether Trump wins in November or not. It’s embarrassing.

There’s nothing left.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think it’s incredibly sad. Growing up in Indiana, my family was a rare, rural Democratic bunch. At the same time, voting for HW, McCain, or Romney wasn’t a crazy thought. All of these people would be a relief to me now vs. the bizarre group who actually believes Donald Trump is good for America or good for the world.

Most importantly, the fact that the Republican Party offers no fresh ideas and has Hulk Hogan ripping off his shirt as a prime time speaker is just symbolic of a party that is no longer relevant, whether Trump wins in November or not. It’s embarrassing.

There’s nothing left.

I share much of this frustration - although I certainly wouldn’t describe Trump’s GOP as no longer relevant - especially if he wins the election. If that were really true, we’d have nothing to worry about.

I was heartened to see the Biden administration pivot on border security earlier this year - even if it was done mostly out of near-term political considerations. Both parties need to continue moving more in that direction if they are to have any hope of caging the populist tiger. If the Bush/McCain/Romney era Republicans had been more alert to what was brewing on that issue, perhaps Trump could’ve been avoided.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That said…there’s no question that Reaganism has taken a back seat to nationalist populism in Trump’s Republican Party.

A shining city on the hill is the best and most succinct way to describe national populism.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a strong nationalistic theme in politics. In fact I think nationalism is vital if we see the U.S. as a vibrant and want it to be an effective force for good in the world.

There likewise is nothing wrong with populism and it is the bedrock in Lincoln’s government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I agree the GOP is more populist now than 20 years ago, , but Trump didn’t make it so. Trump is the beneficiary of it. populism is the antidote for just about everything the Obama and Biden Administrations, as well as state and local democrats, have done, including energy boondoggles, uncontrolled borders, public schools who give the public the finger, student loan forgiveness, no cash bail, gun crime leniency, and on and on and on.

 

[ulrey]

Absolutely not true!

Kamala Harris? Really

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

A shining city on the hill is the best and most succinct way to describe national populism.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a strong nationalistic theme in politics. In fact I think nationalism is vital if we see the U.S. as a vibrant and want it to be an effective force for good in the world.

There likewise nothing wrong with populism and is the bedrock in Lincoln’s government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I agree the GOP is more populist now than 20 years ago, , but Trump didn’t make it so. Trump is the beneficiary of it. populism is the antidote for just about everything the Obama and Biden Administrations, as well as state and local democrats, have done, including energy boondoggles, uncontrolled borders, public schools who give the public the finger, student loan forgiveness, no cash bail, gun crime leniency, and on and on and on.

Gosh, I just fundamentally disagree with this.

For starters, foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy leans towards the isolationist. I won't say that it's explicitly that -- I think that would be an exaggeration. But it certainly has those overtones. It's unimaginable to me that Reagan would have, for instance, been the least bit hesitant to provide all the military aid he could to Ukraine to help stanch Russian expansionism. I realize that Trump's line is that it "never would've happened had he been president" and that he'll "solve it in 24 hours" (or words to that effect). But the former is counterfactual musing based on his inflated ego, the latter is just idle bravado bullshit. It reminds me of the old adage that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.

Second, trade. Trump is almost certainly the most protectionist president we've had since the onset of the Great Depression. And this absolutely is part and parcel to his populist economic message. It is absolutely true that many peoples' livelihoods have been negatively affected by free trade. And I'm not going to blame an opportunistic politician for trying to make hay out of that. It's low hanging fruit -- especially when elections are being won and lost in the Rust Belt. Michael Moore was absolutely spot on about this when he predicted Trump's victory in 2016.

But however potent this narrative is politically, nobody should confuse it with anything Reagan stood for. Free trade, like any other economic policy, has its trade-offs. But there is absolutely zero question that it's a net positive for nations that practice it. This is one of the biggest reasons Javier Milei has been such a breath of fresh air. The guy gets it.

Ultimately, though, populism is about framing elections as an epic struggle between normal people and some powerful entities. In Trump's case, and in the case of many of his supporters, that entity is often summed up in the term "globalists."

Can anybody imagine Reagan (or any of those who came up more or less in his image) utilizing this kind of a political appeal? Because I certainly couldn't.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Gosh, I just fundamentally disagree with this.

For starters, foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy leans towards the isolationist. I won't say that it's explicitly that -- I think that would be an exaggeration. But it certainly has those overtones. It's unimaginable to me that Reagan would have, for instance, been the least bit hesitant to provide all the military aid he could to Ukraine to help stanch Russian expansionism. I realize that Trump's line is that it "never would've happened had he been president" and that he'll "solve it in 24 hours" (or words to that effect). But the former is counterfactual musing based on his inflated ego, the latter is just idle bravado bullshit. It reminds me of the old adage that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.

Second, trade. Trump is almost certainly the most protectionist president we've had since the onset of the Great Depression. And this absolutely is part and parcel to his populist economic message. It is absolutely true that many peoples' livelihoods have been negatively affected by free trade. And I'm not going to blame an opportunistic politician for trying to make hay out of that. It's low hanging fruit -- especially when elections are being won and lost in the Rust Belt. Michael Moore was absolutely spot on about this when he predicted Trump's victory in 2016.

But however potent this narrative is politically, nobody should confuse it with anything Reagan stood for. Free trade, like any other economic policy, has its trade-offs. But there is absolutely zero question that it's a net positive for nations that practice it. This is one of the biggest reasons Javier Milei has been such a breath of fresh air. The guy gets it.

Ultimately, though, populism is about framing elections as an epic struggle between normal people and some powerful entities. In Trump's case, and in the case of many of his supporters, that entity is often summed up in the term "globalists."

Can anybody imagine Reagan (or any of those who came up more or less in his image) utilizing this kind of a political appeal? Because I certainly couldn't.

That isolationist claim is a crock. . Killing Soleimani, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, Wanting to establish a permanent US base in Poland, (closer to Russia and the Baltics) and South China Sea push back are all evidence to the contrary. The USMCA is also not an isolationist thing. Many have posted the isolationist claim here, nobody has supported it. Ukraine is not a convincing argument for many reasons.

The South China Sea is part of Trumps tariff policy. Biden continued all of Trumps China Tariffs. Trump threatened Tariffs bring Mexico around on remain in Mexico. The point is that Trump used Tariffs as diplomatic leverage and it mostly worked.

There are many descriptions for the reason for populism. Globalists who see that some kind of world mission should take priority over America first is one. So is elitism and the notion that government is a ruler in stead of a servant. I strongly belive that a country well grounded in nationalism is a more effective player on the world stage than a government that prioritizes the world. The latter must always yield to contrary interests at some point.

 

[Willdog7]

Get used to it. Neither party is what it used to be. Dems are so outraged that Trump jumped sides. Guarantee if he was still a Dem you TDS'ers would be on his side.

wrong

 

[Willdog7]

A shining city on the hill is the best and most succinct way to describe national populism.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a strong nationalistic theme in politics. In fact I think nationalism is vital if we see the U.S. as a vibrant and want it to be an effective force for good in the world.

There likewise is nothing wrong with populism and it is the bedrock in Lincoln’s government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I agree the GOP is more populist now than 20 years ago, , but Trump didn’t make it so. Trump is the beneficiary of it. populism is the antidote for just about everything the Obama and Biden Administrations, as well as state and local democrats, have done, including energy boondoggles, uncontrolled borders, public schools who give the public the finger, student loan forgiveness, no cash bail, gun crime leniency, and on and on and on.

the gop is not populist, it is nationalist and supremacist with all white men.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That isolationist claim is a crock. . Killing Soleimani, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, Wanting to establish a permanent US base in Poland, (closer to Russia and the Baltics) and South China Sea push back are all evidence to the contrary. The USMCA is also not an isolationist thing. Many have posted the isolationist claim here, nobody has supported it. Ukraine is not a convincing argument for many reasons.

The South China Sea is part of Trumps tariff policy. Biden continued all of Trumps China Tariffs. Trump threatened Tariffs bring Mexico around on remain in Mexico. The point is that Trump used Tariffs as diplomatic leverage and it mostly worked.

There are many descriptions for the reason for populism. Globalists who see that some kind of world mission should take priority over America first is one. So is elitism and the notion that government is a ruler in stead of a servant. I strongly belive that a country well grounded in nationalism is a more effective player on the world stage than a government that prioritizes the world. The latter must always yield to contrary interests at some point.

You're making arguments in favor of Trump's nationalism/populism -- some of which may at least be arguable.

But I don't really want to get into the particulars right now on that. I'd just say that my primary point is that it's absurd to compare this general worldview to the one which defined Reagan and his era. I mean, the fact that Biden has continued Trump's tariffs says nothing about Reagan's view of free trade -- let alone the absolute centrality of that tenet to the Hayekian economics which has long served as the foundation of Republican economic orthodoxy.

It's profoundly disappointing to me that the president of Argentina -- the home of Peron and Kirchner! -- has a better appreciation for the goodness of open trade than the Republican candidate for President of the United States.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

the gop is not populist, it is nationalist and supremacist with all white men.

Of course Trump is a populist.

Populism is merely the framework of pitting the "ordinary man" against some powerful entity who seeks to keep the ordinary man down, in check, in his place, etc.

What exactly do you think the whole "globalist" thing is? Or the "Deep State" thing? It's classical populism.

The dissonance of this to left-wing ears is that they've always seen populism as a good thing. Because most on the left practice it as well -- just with other betes noires (rich people, corporations, etc.).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're making arguments in favor of Trump's nationalism/populism

No. I’m arguing in favor of nationalism and to a lesser extent populism. Those notions exist with or without Trump.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Populism is merely the framework of pitting the "ordinary man" against some powerful entity who seeks to keep the ordinary man down, in check, in his place, etc.

Populism is bigger than the refuge for “ordinary men”. Populism addresses the basic question of the role and function of sovereign authority.

 

[Willdog7]

Of course Trump is a populist.

Populism is merely the framework of pitting the "ordinary man" against some powerful entity who seeks to keep the ordinary man down, in check, in his place, etc.

What exactly do you think the whole "globalist" thing is? Or the "Deep State" thing? It's classical populism.

The dissonance of this to left-wing ears is that they've always seen populism as a good thing. Because most on the left practice it as well -- just with other betes noires (rich people, corporations, etc.).

You just explain, what trump , the gop, and Project 2025 are. They even hate women's issues.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Get used to it. Neither party is what it used to be. Dems are so outraged that Trump jumped sides. Guarantee if he was still a Dem you TDS'ers would be on his side.

guaranteed that is not true, which is why Trump jumped sides. He knew he wouldn't get elected as a dem and he said as much in an interview a long time ago.

I doubt a single dem cares that he is not pat of their party anymore. More like good riddance.

 

[IU_Hickory]

False, chief. You partisan hacks only vote blue. That's how we know who hates the USA.

Yea because voting for the person that tried to undermine the last election shows how much you love the country.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You just explain, what trump , the gop, and Project 2025 are. They even hate women's issues.

What's ironic about this discussion and the HF's Project 2025 agenda is that, from what I've read about it, it very much is much more in Reagan's image....which many Democrats are lamenting about the Trump-era Republican Party.

Trump, for his part, has quite forcefully rejected it. Even just looking at one headline issue: it calls for a nationwide abortion ban, Trump thinks abortion policy should be left to the states (I agree with him on that, BTW).

There is so much cognitive dissonance in all this that it's head-spinning. So is Reaganism a good thing that we should want to come back? Because people who believe that should be promoting Project 2025. Trump isn't promoting it, he's disowning it. Yet his critics are attaching it to him...while simultaneously decrying the death of Reaganism.

If anybody is able to make sense of this, please let me know.

 

[Willdog7]

What's ironic about this discussion and the HF's Project 2025 agenda is that, from what I've read about it, it very much is much more in Reagan's image....which many Democrats are lamenting about the Trump-era Republican Party.

Trump, for his part, has quite forcefully rejected it. Even just looking at one headline issue: it calls for a nationwide abortion ban, Trump thinks abortion policy should be left to the states (I agree with him on that, BTW).

There is so much cognitive dissonance in all this that it's head-spinning. So is Reaganism a good thing that we should want to come back? Because people who believe that should be promoting Project 2025. Trump isn't promoting it, he's disowning it. Yet his critics are attaching it to him...while simultaneously decrying the death of Reaganism.

If anybody is able to make sense of this, please let me know.

How can he reject it, when the authors are part of his party and members who serve under him? How can he reject it, when his name is mentioned 312 times in the document?

 

[snarlcakes]

Second, trade. Trump is almost certainly the most protectionist president we've had since the onset of the Great Depression. And this absolutely is part and parcel to his populist economic message. It is absolutely true that many peoples' livelihoods have been negatively affected by free trade. And I'm not going to blame an opportunistic politician for trying to make hay out of that. It's low hanging fruit -- especially when elections are being won and lost in the Rust Belt. Michael Moore was absolutely spot on about this when he predicted Trump's victory in 2016.

But however potent this narrative is politically, nobody should confuse it with anything Reagan stood for. Free trade, like any other economic policy, has its trade-offs. But there is absolutely zero question that it's a net positive for nations that practice it. This is one of the biggest reasons Javier Milei has been such a breath of fresh air. The guy gets it.

Links to this claim? That’s a bold statement. Trump’s policies are similar to a 90s Democrat. Also, what changes has Biden made to the tariffs?

Also, it’s not free trade when one side isn’t allowing for free trade. Trump was correct in trying to use it as leverage.

Edit: Trump made a substantial increase in military spending when he was in office. That’s the opposite of an isolationist. I wish he would have cut it.

 

[outside shooter]

How can he reject it, when the authors are part of his party and members who serve under him? How can he reject it, when his name is mentioned 312 times in the document?

When speaking to the Heritage Foundation last year, Trump himself said that they were developing the blueprint for his administration.

But then the blueprint came out and there was media criticism on many points, including social media outrage. So Trump claims to know nothing about it now, when his minions crafted everything, FOR HIM!

Lesson: Whichever way the wind blows is how Trump waffles.