- #106
p1l0t
- 79
- 6
So how did he do in Iowa?
Greg Bernhardt said:This morning NPR's "On Point" had a fantastic program that I think all should listen to in order to gain understanding on the Trump situation
The National Review's Case Against Trump
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/01/26/election-2016-donald-trump-national-review
It won't disappear, it will just evolve. The parties are a power system.anorlunda said:But suppose that Republicans did disappear in a puff if smoke. What then? 100 million conservative people could join the Democratic Party as red dogs and try to seize control of the party.
I think we need to end "First Past the Post" voting. It would take most of the power out of party. Then we would have to vote for candidates based on actual issues not just identifing ourselves with one party or the other (which is what I believe 95% of Americans do). Giving so-called third parties a fighting chance is the only real chance for real change. Maybe most people don't want real change so they buy right into the age-old fight. But I think if people could vote for what really believe in without fearing "throwing away" their vote to the lesser evil than it would change everything. Good luck getting the two-party regime to change the thing that has kept them in power since the 1800s though!Greg Bernhardt said:It won't disappear, it will just evolve. The parties are a power system.
Even though I lean left, the possibility of the Republican party melting down does not make me happy. The two-party system has plenty of faults, but for it to work well you need two *healthy* parties.anorlunda said:Good program. Several pundits suggest that Trump will destroy the Republican Party, and even that Bill Clinton put Trump up to it as a dirty trick.
Many Democrats are thrilled. But suppose that Republicans did disappear in a puff if smoke. What then? 100 million conservative people could join the Democratic Party as red dogs and try to seize control of the party. It would render elections meaningless, with nomination as the only meaningful event. Does anyone think that would be better?
There are two different ways to read/respond to that:Rick21383 said:At least Evo gets it. Whether you support Trump or not, refusing to admit that he is a serious candidate is idiotic.
lisab said:Even though I lean left, the possibility of the Republican party melting down does not make me happy. The two-party system has plenty of faults, but for it to work well you need two *healthy* parties.
IMO, the Republican party has a nagging illness that hasn't been properly diagnosed yet. It's getting quite sick now. I can't even imagine the consequences if it dies.
Is that sentence punctuated properly?Astronuc said:Sarah Palin's endorsement didn't help as expected.
BobG said:I think there's some truth to this. Is it that Trump is loved by Republicans? Or is it that Republicans hate the Republican Party?
Richard Lugar gets primaried in Indiana because he's a RINO. There was an attempt to primary Lindsey Graham because he's a RINO. There's no fear of criticizing McCain's war hero status because he's a RINO. Bob Dole suggests he might forget to vote if Cruz is nominated because Dole is a RINO. Boehner and Kasich, heroes of the Republican wave in the 90's are despised because they're both RINOs. Nikki Haley takes a slap at Trump because she's a RINO.
Trump is the epitome of "not a Republican" (not a politician of any kind, really).
Parties only stay the same for so long. Every so often, the existing political parties change drastically. In the really old days, one party or the other would just die completely (Whigs, Federalists, for example) and be replaced by a new party. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the name may the stay the same, but the parties may not. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party changed drastically during the depression, with neither bearing much resemblance to their pre-depression make-up. Both parties also changed drastically during the 60's with a complete shake-up in who belonged to each party.
I think we're probably seeing another drastic shake-up. Who knows where the "new" Republican Party settles, but it definitely doesn't look like the Republican Party of even 15 years ago.
And I can imagine the consequences. All the RINOS (which now includes Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Bob Dole, John Boehner, John Kasich, and Nikki Haley) join the Democratic Party, which means candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Saunders are toast. We'll all vote for Democrats like Ken Salazar and Kathleen Sebelius (which would be good - there's a lot of good Democrats between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevadas).
StatGuy2000 said:solid political conservatives in pretty much every respect, so would be unlikely to join the Democratic Party as it currently exists
anorlunda said:As it currently exists is the point. The goal of those joining would be to turn the party red, or at least less blue. In other words, a heist.
Charles Murray said:What does the [American creed] consist of? It's three core values may be summarized as egalitarianism, liberty, and individualism. From these flow other familiar aspects of the national creed that observers have long identified: equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free-market economics, decentralized and devolved political authority.
...
Today the creed has lost its authority and its substance. What happened? ... the emergence of a new upper class and a new lower class, and in the plight of the working class caught in between. ... Both of these new classes have repudiated the creed in practice, whatever lip service they still pay to it.
...
During the same half-century, the federal government allowed the immigration, legal and illegal, of tens of millions of competitors for the remaining working class jobs.
...
Add to this the fact that while working class men are looked down upon by the elites and get little validation in their own communities for being good providers, fathers and spouses - and that life in their communities is falling apart. To top it off, the party they have voted for in recent decades, the Republicans, hasn't done a damn thing to help them. Who wouldn't be angry?
...
If Bernie Sanders were passionate about immigration, the rest of his ideology would have a lot more in common with Trumpism than conservatism.
...
As a political matter, it is not a problem that Mr. Sanders doesn't share the traditional American meanings of liberty and individualism. Neither does Mr. Trump. Neither, any longer, do many in the white working class. They have joined other defectors from the American creed.
...
When faith in that secular religion is held only by fragments of the American people, we will soon be just another nation - a very powerful one, a very rich one, still called The United States of America. But we will have detached ourselves from the bedrock that has made us unique in the history of the world.
Spot on. That's the best answer to this thread that I've seen. Thanks for posting it.anorlunda said:I found a link to Murray's essay that is not behind a pay wall.
http://www.aei.org/publication/trum...content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly021216
If you are truly puzzled about why Trump gets so much support, you owe it to yourself to read it.
This is the thing I find saddest of all. Why do people want to "lash out" at the two-party regime that's been in power since the 1800s by electing someone with more promises from within one of the "two" parties.anorlunda said:I found a link to Murray's essay that is not behind a pay wall.
http://www.aei.org/publication/trum...content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly021216
If you are truly puzzled about why Trump gets so much support, you owe it to yourself to read it.
p1l0t said:This is the thing I find saddest of all. Why do people want to "lash out" at the two-party regime that's been in power since the 1800s by electing someone with more promises from within one of the "two" parties.
gleem said:When Trump says that He wants to make America great again beside economically to what else is He referring or to what period in our history would He like to return that reflects his view of greatness? When He states that He will bring back water boarding or worse is that part of His vision of greatness?
Yes I read that. And I don't disagree competely with it being a slap in the face, but it isn't nearly as big a slap in the face as it would be to vote some 3rd party candidate in. Trouble is nobody thinks it's possible and therefore won't even express there disinterest by voting that way even if they do. That's why we need to end "first past the post" voting and go to some kind of instant runoff.anorlunda said:You are both focusing on Trump rather than Trump's supporters. I think that some of his supporters (and some Sanders supporters too) want to repudiate the system with a dope slap. A slap in the face is not a suggestion to the slapee of how to behave better; it's message is "change your behavior"
Read the Murray essay linked above,
p1l0t said:don't disagree competely with it being a slap in the face, but it isn't nearly as big a slap in the face as it would be to vote some 3rd party candidate in.
And if there was an instant runoff system Ross Perot might have won.anorlunda said:Sure, I agree. But at its best, voting in an election is a very blunt weapon. The voters have little chance to be nuanced. If they were nuanced, politicians could choose to misread the message.
In 1992, Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote. How much of Perot's message was remembered on Clinton's Inauguration Day? I think zero.
Some kind of parliamentary like system can have appeal. But there is zero chance of changing the constitution to get it, so we should forget it.
anorlunda said:You are both focusing on Trump rather than Trump's supporters.
Peace and prosperity.gleem said:Then what does make America great again mean to Trump's supporters?
If that were only the whole story. You forgot the white and christian, well armed and "just like me" part.Dotini said:Peace and prosperity.
That's a grim view of where America is going. Not sure if that's really what motivates Trump supporters, but it is what has me most worried for the future of the US, philosophically.anorlunda said:I found a link to Murray's essay that is not behind a pay wall.
http://www.aei.org/publication/trum...content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly021216
If you are truly puzzled about why Trump gets so much support, you owe it to yourself to read it.
Donald Trump is again hinting at a possible independent run for president if the Republican National Committee (RNC) doesn’t condemn Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his recent barrage of political attacks against the billionaire.
Jeb Bush retorted, ". . . my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe, and I’m proud of what he did,” . . .“Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?” Trump thundered when asked about his call for then-President George W. Bush to be impeached. “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none.”
Trump added, “George Bush made the mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty.”
The essay is a brief history of the trend that's been taking place over the past 50 years. But yes, if things continue the way they have, then it's a pretty grim view. My worry is that it's just too late to turn it around.russ_watters said:That's a grim view of where America is going. Not sure if that's really what motivates Trump supporters, but it is what has me most worried for the future of the US, philosophically.
Trump is the wrong guy to turn it around, but he might be the right one to be an alarm clock.TurtleMeister said:The essay is a brief history of the trend that's been taking place over the past 50 years. But yes, if things continue the way they have, then it's a pretty grim view. My worry is that it's just too late to turn it around.