Can someone explain what has happened to the GOP?

[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.

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.

You just said it did...
As for disagreeing with me; feel free to do so. Disagreement is what makes the board fun. The reasoning should be sound for disagreement however.

Is Trump dishonest? Yes.
Are his policies remotely workable? No

 

[Seawytch]

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?
.

You answered your own question. I put it in red, bolded it and underlined it for you. Half your party snapped. Now what on earth made them snap one wonders...

 

[Missourian]

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.

LOL...I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Not your words...they are full of lies like this one. It is your actions...who you spend your time and energy attacking, disparaging and denigrating that are the barometer.

 

[candycorn]

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.

So you disagree with him on nothing....it's almost as if he's told you exactly what you want to hear.

 

[miketx]

Is Trump dishonest? Yes.
Are his policies remotely workable? No

 

[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?

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.

Sorry, sister... he is being honest. Something we don't see often in politics. His opportunist behavior of the past would have been hard to substantiate. He welcomed the opportunity to give examples of a broken process in the political arena. He knew how to use a situation to get what his goal was. Now his goal is the country and it's place in the world again which has been severely negative the past 7 years.

You are such a staunch democrat, it's hard for you to see both sides of an equation.

 

[Ravi]

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.

LOL...I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Not your words...they are full of lies like this one. It is your actions...who you spend your time and energy attacking, disparaging and denigrating that are the barometer.

She must have been terrified of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, too.

 

[Missourian]

I'd just like to take a moment to highlight the Drudge headline this morning...

 

[Slyhunter]

Close the damn border. Seal it. Nobody in unless they go through the gate.
No new immigrants unless they bring money or jobs, until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
No imports from countries that cheat the system by manipulating their currency, or from countries that pay substandard wages that American companies can't compete with.
Decrease Capital gains tax. Repatriate corporations foreign earned money back to the US where it can be used to make Americans richer.
Get rid of state border controls for Medical insurance providers. Allow them to compete nation wide for customers.
Allow the people to purchase drugs from Canada or other countries with high levels, Equal to our FDA, of drug approval policies so we can get their cheaper prices since Drug Companies like to gouge Americans for their R&D.

Trump for President.

 

[Correll]

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.

You just said it did...
As for disagreeing with me; feel free to do so. Disagreement is what makes the board fun. The reasoning should be sound for disagreement however.

Is Trump dishonest? Yes.
Are his policies remotely workable? No

Your opinion does not a stereotype make.

Try to be less dishonest.

 

[Correll]

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.

So you disagree with him on nothing....it's almost as if he's told you exactly what you want to hear.

Or I might have picked to support the one candidate who's views best match my own.

 

[gipper]

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 illeAfgal 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.

I do not believe populism is bad. After all, populism essentially means a political idea that is popular with a large segment of the people. Most Americans want illegal immigration stopped and the border controlled. Trump has advocated for this and of course his popularity arises from it. He also advocates for better trade terms and protecting American jobs....I would think most Americans agree with this. Of course as it is with all things, will his policies actually work to the people's benefit or to their detriment.

 

[Missourian]

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.

LOL...I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Not your words...they are full of lies like this one. It is your actions...who you spend your time and energy attacking, disparaging and denigrating that are the barometer.

She must have been terrified of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, too.

Nah, she liked Romney. Thought he was best choice for Republicans if they were smart. I'll dig it up for you is you like. She wasn't around for Palin...that was just you, me and Toro in this thread.

 

[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.

LOL...I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Not your words...they are full of lies like this one. It is your actions...who you spend your time and energy attacking, disparaging and denigrating that are the barometer.

Coming from you--Mr. Conservative--I'll take the scorn as a badge of honor as you prepare to vote for the most liberal guy in your party's nomination process.

Mac1958

To answer the OP, perhaps the GOP is tired of getting beaten silly in the General Election so they are rallying around anything that passes for a Republican. I can't explain it either.

This November will be very entertaining from the standpoint of a liberal. What is even more delicious is after 90%+++ of the Congress is re-elected and things settle down; on the board we will get to see who is going to try to re-brand themselves as Conservative once more.

 

[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.

LOL...I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Not your words...they are full of lies like this one. It is your actions...who you spend your time and energy attacking, disparaging and denigrating that are the barometer.

She must have been terrified of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, too.

Nah, she liked Romney. Thought he was best choice for Republicans if they were smart. I'll dig it up for you is you like. She wasn't around for Palin...that was just you, me and Toro in this thread.

Feel free to quote me on anything I've said.

But for the record, the only GOP candidate that scared me last time was Jom Huntsmann. Obama would have had his hands full.

I do recall stating about Romney "He deserves a better party".

 

[Missourian]

Coming from you--Mr. Conservative--I'll take the scorn as a badge of honor as you prepare to vote for the most liberal guy in your party's nomination process.

What scorn? We both know that was a lie. And I am paying you a compliment. I think you very accurately recognize the most dangerous candidate to your agenda, then mobilize adroitly to attempt to neutralize that threat.

That's exactly what I would do.

 

[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.

Sorry, sister... he is being honest. Something we don't see often in politics. His opportunist behavior of the past would have been hard to substantiate. He welcomed the opportunity to give examples of a broken process in the political arena. He knew how to use a situation to get what his goal was. Now his goal is the country and it's place in the world again which has been severely negative the past 7 years.

You are such a staunch democrat, it's hard for you to see both sides of an equation.

Now I'm a democrat?

 

[candycorn]

Coming from you--Mr. Conservative--I'll take the scorn as a badge of honor as you prepare to vote for the most liberal guy in your party's nomination process.

What scorn? We both know that was a lie. And I am paying you a compliment. I think you very acutely recognize the most dangerous candidate to your agenda, then mobilize adroitly to attempt to neutralize that threat.

That's exactly what I would do.

Not sure what you're talking about. People post threads and I comment on them. Someone puts a thread up about Rubio and it gets legs, I'll be there.

Trump poses no threat to Clinton. The GOP has to flip 64 EC votes. He's basically opened up states that were out of bounds in the West (MT and AZ) to the Dems. He will get creamed in Florida, VA, possibly NC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?
.

Food for thought:

Anarcho-capitalism has recently had a considerable vogue in the West where it has helped put the role of the State back on the political agenda. It has become a major ideological challenge to the dominant liberalism which sees a role for government in the protection of property. The anarcho-capitalists would like to dismantle government and allow complete laissez-faire in the economy. Its adherents propose that all public services be turned over to private entrepreneurs, even public spaces like town halls, streets and parks. Free market capitalism, they insist, is hindered not enhanced by the State.

The New Right & Anarcho-Capitalism

 

[Jackson]

Coming from you--Mr. Conservative--I'll take the scorn as a badge of honor as you prepare to vote for the most liberal guy in your party's nomination process.

What scorn? We both know that was a lie. And I am paying you a compliment. I think you very acutely recognize the most dangerous candidate to your agenda, then mobilize adroitly to attempt to neutralize that threat.

That's exactly what I would do.

Not sure what you're talking about. People post threads and I comment on them. Someone puts a thread up about Rubio and it gets legs, I'll be there.

Trump poses no threat to Clinton. The GOP has to flip 64 EC votes. He's basically opened up states that were out of bounds in the West (MT and AZ) to the Dems. He will get creamed in Florida, VA, possibly NC.

You are too short sided here. The issue isn't that Trump poses a threat to Hillary, it's the FBI recommending an indictment that will threaten Hillary.