Question for Trump supporters: Would this be okay with you?

[Mac1958]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

It ensures Hillary will win. If that is what the Rove camp wants, why not be honest and switch parties openly?

I can't speak for those guys, but it seems like there is an element in the party that is wondering if it's literally better to lose than for Trump to win.

So they'd think that he'd do the party more harm than good by winning, which is a pretty wild thought.
.

 

[sealybobo]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

Of course we would. They insisted that Trump support the Republican nominee, whoever he was. Running an independent would be a stab in the back.

The GOP is worried trump is going to cost GOP house members senators and governors who are also up for re election. High voter turn out will not help Republicans.

 

[Two Thumbs]

he supports forced use of ethanol even though it's been shown to be worse than just gas

OK. Is that the total difference?

If you want more information on how many of your policies trump supports, look it up yourself.

Not my policies. I'm well aware of where we differ or agree. I'm just wondering why the GOP is so hostile to him when he is only saying what they have advocated for a long time.

so you don't push for ethanol?

was that before or after you learned trump supported it

That was when it was made clear that producing ethanol used about as much energy as it produced. We need to develop more efficient energy sources, and subsidizing that development is a good idea. However, every effort won't be successful, and when they aren't, we need to pull back at least some on the less productive ones..

So why does it keep getting money?
why has the left dumped so much into failed solar?
why has the left dumped so much into animal and nature killing wind?

and wtf happened to no corporate welfare?

Is it actually different when it's something you want?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If they did that wouldn't that be like saying there is no Republican party? and voters really do not count?

They're shitting bricks. It's beginning to look like they'd rather lose the general than back Trump. So outside of just bending over and taking it, this would be their only option.
.

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

Trump is not a conservative.

With all his talk about banning Muslims and building a wall, he's not a liberal. He's all yours. The GOP built him. He's all yours.

He's never been a conservative. He's making noises, but no one believes he's going to actually govern that way.

I disagree. His supporters clearly DO think he's going to govern the way they want. The odd thing is that they think that regardless of whether or not he actually says it, or says it and then reverses it. They just listen to the parts they like, tune the rest out, and project whatever wasn't covered.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

Trump is not a conservative.

With all his talk about banning Muslims and building a wall, he's not a liberal. He's all yours. The GOP built him. He's all yours.

He's never been a conservative. He's making noises, but no one believes he's going to actually govern that way.

I think anyone who really thinks they know what this guy would do in any given situation is kidding themselves.

He's gonna do and/or say whatever it takes to get him through that moment.
.

Hence my confidence that he is no conservative, because conservatives usually have some strength in their convictions.

True. Conservatism is, by definition, an ideology. To be a conservative, one must believe in that ideology. Trump is the ultimate narcissistic pragmatist. He believes in Donald Trump, and does whatever serves Donald Trump at this particular time.

 

[Zander]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

If Trump goes to the convention with 1237+ delegates he will be the nominee. If he goes with the most delegates but less than 1237 and he is not the nominee. I will not vote for whatever person they nominate.

If they did that wouldn't that be like saying there is no Republican party? and voters really do not count?

They're shitting bricks. It's beginning to look like they'd rather lose the general than back Trump. So outside of just bending over and taking it, this would be their only option.
.

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

No he isn't.

Trump is saying "Build the wall". Not "comprehensive immigration reform" like the GOPe- but specifically "BUILD THE WALL".
He is pushing for "Smart trade" - not "Free trade". He's the only candidate that has the guts to admit that the USA has made lousy, one sided trade deals that have cost a lot of Americans jobs.
He is pushing for tax reform- yes a lot of GOP candidates talk about this, but he is very specific and he addresses corporate inversions as well.
He's the only GOP candidate that talks about fixing the VA by allowing Vets to go to ANY HOSPITAL.
He admits that we fucked up by going into Iraq- No other GOP candidates have the balls to admit this fact. That alone makes him far superior to any of the others
He's not in the pockets of the donor class or big business.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can't speak for those guys, but it seems like there is an element in the party that is wondering if it's literally better to lose than for Trump to win.

So they'd think that he'd do the party more harm than good by winning, which is a pretty wild thought.
.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but then I'm no fan of Rove and the Neocons either. My concern is the courts. Putting Hillary in office means we end up with a radical left court for a generation. Effectively the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments will be gone forever if she takes office. I think Trump will be a disaster as president, BUT I think he will appoint center to right SCOTUS justices, which makes him a little better than Hillary for the nation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No argument on the media. But as I tell my children, your behavior should be dictated by what's right and wrong, not by what other people choose to do.

Ronald Reagan didn't do anything about "saving others from PC" because, just possibly, he was the kind of man who thought they should be capable of saving themselves. Ronald Reagan was never the sort of person who thought others were stupid, helpless victims who needed someone else to fight every battle in life for them, and certainly not via the power of government.

I said this earlier, I think in another thread: the American people are the most powerful force on Earth. Not the President, not Congress, not the Supreme Court, not even the IRS. We are. All of those entities derive 100% of their power from us, through our consent to be governed. But all too often, we'd rather whine about our helplessness and victimhood and wring our hands, waiting for a knight in shining armor to save us than shake off our apathy, withhold our consent, and demand better. And usually, what we get instead of a knight in shining armor is an asshat in tinfoil.

Most of the real problems in this country can not be seriously discussed because of Political COrrectness.

The "power" of the America people to do so much, such as control their own borders, has been successfully hampered.

They "cannot"? Or they just ARE not? Personally, I discuss 'em all the damned time, as do many others.

The main thing hampering the American people's ability to control its borders and other things is the people's manifest unwillingness to USE its power. We do not - yet - live in a country where our government can make us helpless without our own complicity. Hell, the Trumpettes themselves should be proof of that. The Republican Party is a multimillion-dollar private corporation that has been one of the two major powers in the US government since the War Between the States, and a gaggle of screaming, infuriated rednecks has them shitting their frillies and on the brink of extinction.

Do you really?

Because every time I see these issues breached, the discussion is buried under a pile of screaming hysterical libs.

Who are you talking to that actually responds in a meaningful way?

If you were thinking it was possible to "fix" the world such that there would never be an opposition, with varying levels of screaming hysteria, then I hate to puncture your illusion, but it ain't gonna happen.

And as it happens, on the topic of Donald Trump, YOU are my opposition, and we seem to be communicating meaningfully at the moment.

A fair point, re: there will always be some hysterical libs.

But a world where the Conventional Wisdom and the GOP leadership did not agree with them, does not seem to be too much to hope for.

And yes, we disagree very strongly on the issues, and yet manage to stay on topic.

So it can be done.

Well, conventional wisdom isn't terribly wise, and never will be. And there will always be sellouts. But you're correct that the sellouts should not be the heads of the ostensible "opposition".

The problem that I'm having with the Trump movement - other than Trump himself being a noxious creature - is that it's all anger, and it's the anger of the helpless victim. It's a position of weakness, rather than the righteous rage of the strong. It's all "Burn it down! Smash it!" with not much plan for what happens once you're standing in the rubble and ashes. And it looks for a savior to fix things, rather than everyone moving forward together. It has historical precedents in the French and Russian Revolutions - although not as extreme, since I don't THINK anyone's going to get executed - and as far back as Spartacus' slave revolt.

 

[Mac1958]

I can't speak for those guys, but it seems like there is an element in the party that is wondering if it's literally better to lose than for Trump to win.

So they'd think that he'd do the party more harm than good by winning, which is a pretty wild thought.
.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but then I'm no fan of Rove and the Neocons either. My concern is the courts. Putting Hillary in office means we end up with a radical left court for a generation. Effectively the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments will be gone forever if she takes office. I think Trump will be a disaster as president, BUT I think he will appoint center to right SCOTUS justices, which makes him a little better than Hillary for the nation.

Yeah, I wonder how they'd be acting if the SC weren't in the balance like it is.
.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

It ensures Hillary will win. If that is what the Rove camp wants, why not be honest and switch parties openly?

Well, they're tone-deaf. They actually think there's some world in which they get to grab back the reins of power and continue on with business as usual. They don't get that there's not one, but TWO, segments of their own base who are never going to let that happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't speak for those guys, but it seems like there is an element in the party that is wondering if it's literally better to lose than for Trump to win.

So they'd think that he'd do the party more harm than good by winning, which is a pretty wild thought.
.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but then I'm no fan of Rove and the Neocons either. My concern is the courts. Putting Hillary in office means we end up with a radical left court for a generation. Effectively the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments will be gone forever if she takes office. I think Trump will be a disaster as president, BUT I think he will appoint center to right SCOTUS justices, which makes him a little better than Hillary for the nation.

WHY do you think he'll appoint center-to-right? What evidence do you have of it? You can't even get the sleazy bastard to stick to a position through a primary, let alone commit to an ideology he doesn't profess worth shit all the way through a Presidency.

 

[Correll]

Most of the real problems in this country can not be seriously discussed because of Political COrrectness.

The "power" of the America people to do so much, such as control their own borders, has been successfully hampered.

They "cannot"? Or they just ARE not? Personally, I discuss 'em all the damned time, as do many others.

The main thing hampering the American people's ability to control its borders and other things is the people's manifest unwillingness to USE its power. We do not - yet - live in a country where our government can make us helpless without our own complicity. Hell, the Trumpettes themselves should be proof of that. The Republican Party is a multimillion-dollar private corporation that has been one of the two major powers in the US government since the War Between the States, and a gaggle of screaming, infuriated rednecks has them shitting their frillies and on the brink of extinction.

Do you really?

Because every time I see these issues breached, the discussion is buried under a pile of screaming hysterical libs.

Who are you talking to that actually responds in a meaningful way?

If you were thinking it was possible to "fix" the world such that there would never be an opposition, with varying levels of screaming hysteria, then I hate to puncture your illusion, but it ain't gonna happen.

And as it happens, on the topic of Donald Trump, YOU are my opposition, and we seem to be communicating meaningfully at the moment.

A fair point, re: there will always be some hysterical libs.

But a world where the Conventional Wisdom and the GOP leadership did not agree with them, does not seem to be too much to hope for.

And yes, we disagree very strongly on the issues, and yet manage to stay on topic.

So it can be done.

Well, conventional wisdom isn't terribly wise, and never will be. And there will always be sellouts. But you're correct that the sellouts should not be the heads of the ostensible "opposition".

The problem that I'm having with the Trump movement - other than Trump himself being a noxious creature - is that it's all anger, and it's the anger of the helpless victim. It's a position of weakness, rather than the righteous rage of the strong. It's all "Burn it down! Smash it!" with not much plan for what happens once you're standing in the rubble and ashes. And it looks for a savior to fix things, rather than everyone moving forward together. It has historical precedents in the French and Russian Revolutions - although not as extreme, since I don't THINK anyone's going to get executed - and as far back as Spartacus' slave revolt.

Well, considering the way that our collective interests have been completely ignored by both sides of the Political Elite and we keep getting fucked one way or another,

in that sense we have been "helpless" to effect the changes we have been wanting for way too long.

Have you considered that even if Trump is defeated, that this portion of the population that has been supporting him, will still be there just getting more and more frustrated with each defeat?

 

[Cecilie1200]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

It ensures Hillary will win. If that is what the Rove camp wants, why not be honest and switch parties openly?

I can't speak for those guys, but it seems like there is an element in the party that is wondering if it's literally better to lose than for Trump to win.

So they'd think that he'd do the party more harm than good by winning, which is a pretty wild thought.
.

I've put some contemplation into this very question, and I've come to the conclusion that the Republican leadership doesn't WANT to win, generally speaking. They don't WANT to be the party in power. There's no percentage in it for them. They LIKE being the "principled opposition". As elected officeholders, they get to exempt themselves from every noxious law and regulation that gets imposed on the rest of us, and they get to make lots of backroom deals and compromises that give them the power and prestige they want, and then they can just run their mouths with complaints without ever actually being expected to do anything.

Meanwhile, if they're the party in power, suddenly they're on the hot seat and things are being expected of them. They're willing to accept that occasionally, just to keep themselves relevant, as long as they can do it with a bland "company man" who'll stick to the main goal of maintaining the status quo and their personal job perks.

 

[BULLDOG]

If they did that wouldn't that be like saying there is no Republican party? and voters really do not count?

They're shitting bricks. It's beginning to look like they'd rather lose the general than back Trump. So outside of just bending over and taking it, this would be their only option.
.

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

Trump is not a conservative.

With all his talk about banning Muslims and building a wall, he's not a liberal. He's all yours. The GOP built him. He's all yours.

He's never been a conservative. He's making noises, but no one believes he's going to actually govern that way.

Whatever he is, he's yours. His supporters seem to believe he intends to do what he says.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, they're tone-deaf. They actually think there's some world in which they get to grab back the reins of power and continue on with business as usual. They don't get that there's not one, but TWO, segments of their own base who are never going to let that happen.

Considering how swiftly the Neocons became the GOP establishment, they shouldn't be shocked when someone pulls the rug out from under them. They have made a real mess of the world, including America.

 

[Uncensored2008]

WHY do you think he'll appoint center-to-right? What evidence do you have of it? You can't even get the sleazy bastard to stick to a position through a primary, let alone commit to an ideology he doesn't profess worth shit all the way through a Presidency.

I think this because he is a narcissist with no real principles who will appoint whom his advisers recommend. He lacks the ideological bent to be passionate and will go with a GOP middle of the road pick.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They "cannot"? Or they just ARE not? Personally, I discuss 'em all the damned time, as do many others.

The main thing hampering the American people's ability to control its borders and other things is the people's manifest unwillingness to USE its power. We do not - yet - live in a country where our government can make us helpless without our own complicity. Hell, the Trumpettes themselves should be proof of that. The Republican Party is a multimillion-dollar private corporation that has been one of the two major powers in the US government since the War Between the States, and a gaggle of screaming, infuriated rednecks has them shitting their frillies and on the brink of extinction.

Do you really?

Because every time I see these issues breached, the discussion is buried under a pile of screaming hysterical libs.

Who are you talking to that actually responds in a meaningful way?

If you were thinking it was possible to "fix" the world such that there would never be an opposition, with varying levels of screaming hysteria, then I hate to puncture your illusion, but it ain't gonna happen.

And as it happens, on the topic of Donald Trump, YOU are my opposition, and we seem to be communicating meaningfully at the moment.

A fair point, re: there will always be some hysterical libs.

But a world where the Conventional Wisdom and the GOP leadership did not agree with them, does not seem to be too much to hope for.

And yes, we disagree very strongly on the issues, and yet manage to stay on topic.

So it can be done.

Well, conventional wisdom isn't terribly wise, and never will be. And there will always be sellouts. But you're correct that the sellouts should not be the heads of the ostensible "opposition".

The problem that I'm having with the Trump movement - other than Trump himself being a noxious creature - is that it's all anger, and it's the anger of the helpless victim. It's a position of weakness, rather than the righteous rage of the strong. It's all "Burn it down! Smash it!" with not much plan for what happens once you're standing in the rubble and ashes. And it looks for a savior to fix things, rather than everyone moving forward together. It has historical precedents in the French and Russian Revolutions - although not as extreme, since I don't THINK anyone's going to get executed - and as far back as Spartacus' slave revolt.

Well, considering the way that our collective interests have been completely ignored by both sides of the Political Elite and we keep getting fucked one way or another,

in that sense we have been "helpless" to effect the changes we have been wanting for way too long.

Have you considered that even if Trump is defeated, that this portion of the population that has been supporting him, will still be there just getting more and more frustrated with each defeat?

No, we haven't been helpless at all. We've been lazy and apathetic, and gulled into thinking our power lies in getting entrenched bureaucrats and politicians to listen to us, pretty please with sugar on top. How often do we impeach people who are egregious sleazebags? How often do we even vote the stupid fuckers out? How often do we bypass them entirely and pass laws ourselves when they refuse to? Hell, do you know how many states don't even HAVE an effective mechanism for the people to vote in their own laws?

We've completely forgotten that they get their power from us, and we allow them to tell us that we must request power from them. And they ignore us, because we let them.

And yeah, I do know that there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be angry no matter what happens. Have YOU considered that if Trump wins the nomination - or God help us, the election - you're going to have a two-front war, with the liberals on one side and the conservatives on the other, the same conservatives who started all of this with the Tea Party movement?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, they're tone-deaf. They actually think there's some world in which they get to grab back the reins of power and continue on with business as usual. They don't get that there's not one, but TWO, segments of their own base who are never going to let that happen.

Considering how swiftly the Neocons became the GOP establishment, they shouldn't be shocked when someone pulls the rug out from under them. They have made a real mess of the world, including America.

For clarification, who are these "neo-cons" you're vilifying?

 

[Cecilie1200]

WHY do you think he'll appoint center-to-right? What evidence do you have of it? You can't even get the sleazy bastard to stick to a position through a primary, let alone commit to an ideology he doesn't profess worth shit all the way through a Presidency.

I think this because he is a narcissist with no real principles who will appoint whom his advisers recommend. He lacks the ideological bent to be passionate and will go with a GOP middle of the road pick.

Even if that were true, and I'm far from convinced it is, we've seen how well "GOP middle of the road" goes. Even Ronald Reagan ended up giving us a couple of Justices who got to Washington and "evolved".

 

[Uncensored2008]

For clarification, who are these "neo-cons" you're vilifying?

{Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries, the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In their statement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:}


http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm