Can someone explain what has happened to the GOP?

[Missourian]

It started in 2008 when the estabishment gave us Moderate McCain...what conservative values did he stand for?

And the revolution truly started in 2012 with the anybody but Romney revolt. What conservative values did he espouse? Bigger government, anti-second amendment positions, Romneycare? In fact, the only conservative values I can remember from governor Romney is that he lowered taxes. And Romney did it by raising fees, which is just a taxation wearing a different suit.

Then we find out, by Romney's own mouth, that he is "inevitable". That the way the RNC has manipulated the rules, we are always going to end up with the establishment choice. The Blue Wall of moderate states is just too tall to climb. And then he loses...just like we said he would during the primary.

And to add insult to injury...who does the establishment rally around in 2015...Mr. 3%, another Bush. Super moderate, pro-amnesty, big government, common core, pro-TPP. That was the last straw.

So, we found a candidate that moderate republicans, conservative republicans, socially conservatives republicans, hawkish republican, dovish republicans, rich, poor and middle class republican could all agree on...the only thing those republicans needed to have in common was they were sick and tired of the status quo.

Sure, Trump isn't as conservative as I'd like, and he isn't as liberal as a Pennsylvania republican or a New Hampshire or a Colorado republican might like. But he gives each of us 60% of what we're looking for...and the other 40% is he's not controlled by the establishment.

And if he doesn't make the cut, he takes the spot in the two man race that Romney rode to victory in the 2012 primary...keeping the Bush/Christie/Kasich establishment choice from gaining a foothold. That leaves Cruz if Trump fails (and I don't think he will)...and Cruz is a pretty good consolation prize.

But Trump is the best choice to win over Hillary. Trump can win in blue states and expand the electoral map, especially now that he has distanced himself from Fox News.

I suspect that this was all calculated. The prevailing wisdom is Romney lost by being moved too far to the right in the primaries...at least that what the establishment would have us believe...but Trumps actions by defying Fox News and the powers that be would certainly not be construed as moves to the right. More distancing himself from the right wing ideologues and making himself more palatable to Reagan style democrats and independents.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, this is the reckoning for years of the illusion of choice.

I'll understand if this was tl;dr

 

[candycorn]

And maybe explain it without the standard hyperbole and partisan BS. Just some honest, solid analysis. Or maybe provide a link to a piece that someone has written that calmly and reasonably explains it.

I think this "Fox News is the enemy" thing is the final straw with me. I'm now completely lost, and I feel like Sandra Bullock in Gravity, floating away from reality with no way to get back.

To wit:

• The aforementioned darling news network is, overnight, the target of at least as much derision as MSNBC
  
• A bombastic New Yorker who is clearly not a conservative is running away with the nomination
• That same candidate can literally say the most ridiculous things and it only makes his support stronger
  
• Suddenly, nationalism & populism clearly have more energy in the party than "conservative values"
• A nihilistic, "I don't care, just blow the whole thing up" attitude seems to completely permeate the party
  
• The slightest nod toward legislative cooperation is simply no longer allowed in public discourse
• The Establishment, whatever that is, appears to be more hated than any Democrat

It's like half the party has just snapped.

Exactly what is the goal here? And does anyone care if this inter-party schism is healed?
.

Conservative Ideology AND the Republican Party are means to an end, the interests of the Nation.

That some Conservative Ideology seems to have failed to deliver on that, ie supposedly Free Trade, and the Establishment Republicans have failed to deliver on that, you are seeing a Populist revolt of the Republican voters.

The "nihilism" you think you see is actually desperation, because we don't know if the interests of the country can be served at this late date.

The question is not can the inter-party schism be healed, the question is can we turn this country around from it's path of decline.

Populism is dangerous.

It offers simple solutions to complex problems, and relies on demagoguery and scapegoating of others. It speaks to people in a very dark place.

Some of the worst governments anywhere have been populist or had roots in populism - Chavez, Peron, Mugabe, Hitler to name a few.

Simple answers are sometimes called for.

And we are not scapegoating others. NOr are we operating from a "dark place".

 

[Rustic]

Poach more Rinos...

 

[candycorn]

Simple answer. Voters are retarded.

But simple answers are supposed to be bad.

Where's the nuance?

People who are set to vote for Donald Trump are retarded. Nuance supplied.

 

[Rustic]

Simple answer. Voters are retarded.

But simple answers are supposed to be bad.

Where's the nuance?

People who are set to vote for Donald Trump are retarded. Nuance supplied.

Said the lemming

 

[Correll]

And maybe explain it without the standard hyperbole and partisan BS. Just some honest, solid analysis. Or maybe provide a link to a piece that someone has written that calmly and reasonably explains it.

I think this "Fox News is the enemy" thing is the final straw with me. I'm now completely lost, and I feel like Sandra Bullock in Gravity, floating away from reality with no way to get back.

To wit:

• The aforementioned darling news network is, overnight, the target of at least as much derision as MSNBC
  
• A bombastic New Yorker who is clearly not a conservative is running away with the nomination
• That same candidate can literally say the most ridiculous things and it only makes his support stronger
  
• Suddenly, nationalism & populism clearly have more energy in the party than "conservative values"
• A nihilistic, "I don't care, just blow the whole thing up" attitude seems to completely permeate the party
  
• The slightest nod toward legislative cooperation is simply no longer allowed in public discourse
• The Establishment, whatever that is, appears to be more hated than any Democrat

It's like half the party has just snapped.

Exactly what is the goal here? And does anyone care if this inter-party schism is healed?
.

Conservative Ideology AND the Republican Party are means to an end, the interests of the Nation.

That some Conservative Ideology seems to have failed to deliver on that, ie supposedly Free Trade, and the Establishment Republicans have failed to deliver on that, you are seeing a Populist revolt of the Republican voters.

The "nihilism" you think you see is actually desperation, because we don't know if the interests of the country can be served at this late date.

The question is not can the inter-party schism be healed, the question is can we turn this country around from it's path of decline.

Populism is dangerous.

It offers simple solutions to complex problems, and relies on demagoguery and scapegoating of others. It speaks to people in a very dark place.

Some of the worst governments anywhere have been populist or had roots in populism - Chavez, Peron, Mugabe, Hitler to name a few.

Simple answers are sometimes called for.

And we are not scapegoating others. NOr are we operating from a "dark place".

YOur biased partisan delusions about our actions and our motives are not reality.

 

[Correll]

Simple answer. Voters are retarded.

But simple answers are supposed to be bad.

Where's the nuance?

People who are set to vote for Donald Trump are retarded. Nuance supplied.

It is a common stereotype that liberals think anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid or evil.


MOst stereotypes are based on truth.

Thank you for demonstrating the truth of the lib stereotype.

Your statement reveals that you have a very closed mind.

 

[Jackson]

And maybe explain it without the standard hyperbole and partisan BS. Just some honest, solid analysis. Or maybe provide a link to a piece that someone has written that calmly and reasonably explains it.

I think this "Fox News is the enemy" thing is the final straw with me. I'm now completely lost, and I feel like Sandra Bullock in Gravity, floating away from reality with no way to get back.

To wit:

• The aforementioned darling news network is, overnight, the target of at least as much derision as MSNBC
  
• A bombastic New Yorker who is clearly not a conservative is running away with the nomination
• That same candidate can literally say the most ridiculous things and it only makes his support stronger
  
• Suddenly, nationalism & populism clearly have more energy in the party than "conservative values"
• A nihilistic, "I don't care, just blow the whole thing up" attitude seems to completely permeate the party
  
• The slightest nod toward legislative cooperation is simply no longer allowed in public discourse
• The Establishment, whatever that is, appears to be more hated than any Democrat

It's like half the party has just snapped.

Exactly what is the goal here? And does anyone care if this inter-party schism is healed?
.

This is what happens when you no-longer represent your constituency. When you've sold out to special interests and rich donors.

So you nominate one of the rich donors? It would be like you're pissed at your CEO for not coming out with a new product in 20 years then promoting the head of new product development to the job of CEO because he's funny.

I think you have missed the point. Trump was one of those donors who expected the politicians to perform for him. He knows the game and used it to his advantage. He is quite honest about it, isn't he?

So, if he wins the race and becomes president, the game in the White House stops. He doesn't have the wealthy donors who are expecting him to act for their agenda, he's working for the agenda of all the people. I don't think many candidates can say that. Even Bernie who I think is basically honest will have favors to give and play the game.

 

[miketx]

One thing is for sure; Bernie will continue our demise into becoming a third world shithole.

 

[Jackson]

One thing is for sure; Bernie will continue our demise into becoming a third world shithole.

I'm not sure if he can do that much damage in four years, but if he was in that office for eight, it would be devastating.

 

[candycorn]

And maybe explain it without the standard hyperbole and partisan BS. Just some honest, solid analysis. Or maybe provide a link to a piece that someone has written that calmly and reasonably explains it.

I think this "Fox News is the enemy" thing is the final straw with me. I'm now completely lost, and I feel like Sandra Bullock in Gravity, floating away from reality with no way to get back.

To wit:

• The aforementioned darling news network is, overnight, the target of at least as much derision as MSNBC
  
• A bombastic New Yorker who is clearly not a conservative is running away with the nomination
• That same candidate can literally say the most ridiculous things and it only makes his support stronger
  
• Suddenly, nationalism & populism clearly have more energy in the party than "conservative values"
• A nihilistic, "I don't care, just blow the whole thing up" attitude seems to completely permeate the party
  
• The slightest nod toward legislative cooperation is simply no longer allowed in public discourse
• The Establishment, whatever that is, appears to be more hated than any Democrat

It's like half the party has just snapped.

Exactly what is the goal here? And does anyone care if this inter-party schism is healed?
.

This is what happens when you no-longer represent your constituency. When you've sold out to special interests and rich donors.

So you nominate one of the rich donors? It would be like you're pissed at your CEO for not coming out with a new product in 20 years then promoting the head of new product development to the job of CEO because he's funny.

I think you have missed the point. Trump was one of those donors who expected the politicians to perform for him. He knows the game and used it to his advantage. He is quite honest about it, isn't he?

Good to see you are voting for an opportunist.

He is a dishonest person and this is well documented. The reason he is honest about contributions is because it's public record. In my view, if the questions about his contributions had come up after he saw how gullible and frankly blind his supporters are, he would have denied them too. I mean, really, you guys never hold his feet to the fire for anything.

So, if he wins the race and becomes president, the game in the White House stops. He doesn't have the wealthy donors who are expecting him to act for their agenda, he's working for the agenda of all the people.

I don't think many candidates can say that. Even Bernie who I think is basically honest will have favors to give and play the game.

Sure; his days of opportunism are long gone.

His agenda is "telling you what you want to hear" and that is all.

 

[Correll]

And maybe explain it without the standard hyperbole and partisan BS. Just some honest, solid analysis. Or maybe provide a link to a piece that someone has written that calmly and reasonably explains it.

I think this "Fox News is the enemy" thing is the final straw with me. I'm now completely lost, and I feel like Sandra Bullock in Gravity, floating away from reality with no way to get back.

To wit:

• The aforementioned darling news network is, overnight, the target of at least as much derision as MSNBC
  
• A bombastic New Yorker who is clearly not a conservative is running away with the nomination
• That same candidate can literally say the most ridiculous things and it only makes his support stronger
  
• Suddenly, nationalism & populism clearly have more energy in the party than "conservative values"
• A nihilistic, "I don't care, just blow the whole thing up" attitude seems to completely permeate the party
  
• The slightest nod toward legislative cooperation is simply no longer allowed in public discourse
• The Establishment, whatever that is, appears to be more hated than any Democrat

It's like half the party has just snapped.

Exactly what is the goal here? And does anyone care if this inter-party schism is healed?
.

This is what happens when you no-longer represent your constituency. When you've sold out to special interests and rich donors.

So you nominate one of the rich donors? It would be like you're pissed at your CEO for not coming out with a new product in 20 years then promoting the head of new product development to the job of CEO because he's funny.

I think you have missed the point. Trump was one of those donors who expected the politicians to perform for him. He knows the game and used it to his advantage. He is quite honest about it, isn't he?

Good to see you are voting for an opportunist.

He is a dishonest person and this is well documented. The reason he is honest about contributions is because it's public record. In my view, if the questions about his contributions had come up after he saw how gullible and frankly blind his supporters are, he would have denied them too. I mean, really, you guys never hold his feet to the fire for anything.

So, if he wins the race and becomes president, the game in the White House stops. He doesn't have the wealthy donors who are expecting him to act for their agenda, he's working for the agenda of all the people.

I don't think many candidates can say that. Even Bernie who I think is basically honest will have favors to give and play the game.

Sure; his days of opportunism are long gone.

His agenda is "telling you what you want to hear" and that is all.

And you know that how?

 

[candycorn]

Simple answer. Voters are retarded.

But simple answers are supposed to be bad.

Where's the nuance?

People who are set to vote for Donald Trump are retarded. Nuance supplied.

It is a common stereotype that liberals think anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid or evil.


MOst stereotypes are based on truth.

Thank you for demonstrating the truth of the lib stereotype.

Your statement reveals that you have a very closed mind.

So, when I stereotyped you, I was speaking the truth. Cool. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[candycorn]

And maybe explain it without the standard hyperbole and partisan BS. Just some honest, solid analysis. Or maybe provide a link to a piece that someone has written that calmly and reasonably explains it.

I think this "Fox News is the enemy" thing is the final straw with me. I'm now completely lost, and I feel like Sandra Bullock in Gravity, floating away from reality with no way to get back.

To wit:

• The aforementioned darling news network is, overnight, the target of at least as much derision as MSNBC
  
• A bombastic New Yorker who is clearly not a conservative is running away with the nomination
• That same candidate can literally say the most ridiculous things and it only makes his support stronger
  
• Suddenly, nationalism & populism clearly have more energy in the party than "conservative values"
• A nihilistic, "I don't care, just blow the whole thing up" attitude seems to completely permeate the party
  
• The slightest nod toward legislative cooperation is simply no longer allowed in public discourse
• The Establishment, whatever that is, appears to be more hated than any Democrat

It's like half the party has just snapped.

Exactly what is the goal here? And does anyone care if this inter-party schism is healed?
.

This is what happens when you no-longer represent your constituency. When you've sold out to special interests and rich donors.

So you nominate one of the rich donors? It would be like you're pissed at your CEO for not coming out with a new product in 20 years then promoting the head of new product development to the job of CEO because he's funny.

I think you have missed the point. Trump was one of those donors who expected the politicians to perform for him. He knows the game and used it to his advantage. He is quite honest about it, isn't he?

Good to see you are voting for an opportunist.

He is a dishonest person and this is well documented. The reason he is honest about contributions is because it's public record. In my view, if the questions about his contributions had come up after he saw how gullible and frankly blind his supporters are, he would have denied them too. I mean, really, you guys never hold his feet to the fire for anything.

So, if he wins the race and becomes president, the game in the White House stops. He doesn't have the wealthy donors who are expecting him to act for their agenda, he's working for the agenda of all the people.

I don't think many candidates can say that. Even Bernie who I think is basically honest will have favors to give and play the game.

Sure; his days of opportunism are long gone.

His agenda is "telling you what you want to hear" and that is all.

And you know that how?

Pick a policy of his you disagree with or you think will cost way too much money.

 

[Missourian]

Candycorn is a pretty savvy liberal. She is a damn fine barometer to identify the candidate the the left fears the most.

 

[Correll]

Simple answer. Voters are retarded.

But simple answers are supposed to be bad.

Where's the nuance?

People who are set to vote for Donald Trump are retarded. Nuance supplied.

It is a common stereotype that liberals think anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid or evil.


MOst stereotypes are based on truth.

Thank you for demonstrating the truth of the lib stereotype.

Your statement reveals that you have a very closed mind.

So, when I stereotyped you, I was speaking the truth. Cool. Thanks for the confirmation.

YOur assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or evil is about you being a closed minded fool.

It has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Ravi]

Trump is popular because he makes it acceptable to blame others for your own faults.

 

[candycorn]

Candycorn is a pretty savvy liberal. She is a damn fine barometer to identify the candidate the the left fears the most.

That would be Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie.

 

[Rouge Rover]

Populism is dangerous.

It offers simple solutions to complex problems, and relies on demagoguery and scapegoating of others. It speaks to people in a very dark place.

Some of the worst governments anywhere have been populist or had roots in populism - Chavez, Peron, Mugabe, Hitler to name a few.

Not always.

Populism, at least in the USA, is not all bad and has provided some good.

Think of Teddy Roosevelt and his trust busting. He was a populist president and did some good.

Think of the many anti-war movements during our history. If only they had prevented FDR from embroiling the nation in WWII, thousands of lives would have been saved. Populism could have prevented our involvement in WWII. The Vietnam War protest movement helped to stop that stupid war. What of the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party? Both offered the nation some good.

So, populism like most political movements is not all bad.

I can't agree. FDR set it and prolonged it.

There was a very strong populist peace movement prior to WWII...FDR said repeatedly during the 1940 campaign that American boys would not die in Europe, so he could be elected to an unprecedented and unwarranted third term..all the while conniving to make war happen.

You're forgetting about Germany's ally Japan.

No. See my post above.

I should probably explain a little better. I agree with you that populism can be both good and bad. I think overall populism has had a positive effect socially. I think it's bad if it prevents the nation from protecting itself or its interests even after attacked. Trump really only has one populist position and that's on illegal immigration. I happen to think he's right but his position is being portrayed by some as ugly. We'll have to wait and see whether or not this instance of populism is good or bad if and/or when the effects are known.

 

[Correll]

This is what happens when you no-longer represent your constituency. When you've sold out to special interests and rich donors.

So you nominate one of the rich donors? It would be like you're pissed at your CEO for not coming out with a new product in 20 years then promoting the head of new product development to the job of CEO because he's funny.

I think you have missed the point. Trump was one of those donors who expected the politicians to perform for him. He knows the game and used it to his advantage. He is quite honest about it, isn't he?

Good to see you are voting for an opportunist.

He is a dishonest person and this is well documented. The reason he is honest about contributions is because it's public record. In my view, if the questions about his contributions had come up after he saw how gullible and frankly blind his supporters are, he would have denied them too. I mean, really, you guys never hold his feet to the fire for anything.

So, if he wins the race and becomes president, the game in the White House stops. He doesn't have the wealthy donors who are expecting him to act for their agenda, he's working for the agenda of all the people.

I don't think many candidates can say that. Even Bernie who I think is basically honest will have favors to give and play the game.

Sure; his days of opportunism are long gone.

His agenda is "telling you what you want to hear" and that is all.

And you know that how?

Pick a policy of his you disagree with or you think will cost way too much money.

He's either agreeing with me or is less aggressive on my top three issues, Immigration, Trade and NOT having a war with Russia.

I haven't bothered looking at issues that are less important to me.