|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 04 2016 08:10 LegalLord wrote:
I think 95% of people would say nothing if Trump said nothing. I didn't see Khan's speech nor was it interesting enough for me to have cared if I had seen it.
Exactly.
Hell, he could have made a statement that he disagrees with what was said about him as long as he doesn't attack the parents of a soldier who died for his country while doing so. But he just HAD TO go one step further than just disagree and actually mock them.
|
Because he's completely unhinged and has the temperament of a toddler. He's basically like Erdogan with the difference that it actually took Erdogan 10 years to completely lose it. Trump hasn't even been in charge a single day yet
|
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Looking at the speech transcript, I think the proper response would be, "I'm sorry Khan feels that way, but I disagree." Nothing in there but standard Democrat fare and it wouldn't have converted anyone.
Although honestly, I find the way he addressed the crying baby to be worse. That was just a total jerk move on his part.
|
|
|
Yeah, I heard some of that and it was not comforting at all.
|
On August 04 2016 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows.
Their plan at this point is just to wait for Trump to go away. Not sure if that's the best plan, but I don't think starting a new party is a realistic option for them as they would basically be ceding control to the democrats for a few cycles if they tried that.
|
Frustration and resentment.
Except for that "Hillary suck, but less than Monica" shirt. This is okay. -.-
|
On August 04 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows. Their plan at this point is just to wait for Trump to go away. Not sure if that's the best plan, but I don't think starting a new party is a realistic option for them as they would basically be ceding control to the democrats for a few cycles if they tried that.
That's already the case though. They go out of their way to be unelectable. At some point, if they want to win the white house, they've gotta rebrand. Lose the Trump cancer, lose the Tea Party cancer, lose the anti-intellectual cancer and start over again. After Bush into Palin into 47% into Trump the white house is a pipe dream for the party.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable.
|
On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable.
What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ?
|
On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ?
It is really hard to tell. The Republics have slowly gone off the deep end since the late 90s. I think they spend less on things and let the states decide more stuff?
The fact is that we are so deep in dysfunction that we don't know what functional goverment looks like or the roles of the parties. Right now I would be happy with the House and Senate fighting again. Shit worked better when they disliked each other.
|
On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ?
Unfortunately not a lot. But when things are what they have been in politics for a while that's not surprising really.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ?
Less warhawking and more trustworthiness.
I see a reasonable Republican Party as something of a worker's party that holds onto traditional conservative values, but that drops the insane religious positions and corporate shilling. Something that isn't exactly progressive on social issues, but not ass backwards on them either.
|
On August 04 2016 08:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 04 2016 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows. Their plan at this point is just to wait for Trump to go away. Not sure if that's the best plan, but I don't think starting a new party is a realistic option for them as they would basically be ceding control to the democrats for a few cycles if they tried that. That's already the case though. They go out of their way to be unelectable. At some point, if they want to win the white house, they've gotta rebrand. Lose the Trump cancer, lose the Tea Party cancer, lose the anti-intellectual cancer and start over again. After Bush into Palin into 47% into Trump the white house is a pipe dream for the party.
ditching that stuff would put them at far too low a percentage of support to win anything, as evidenced by the successful primary challenges that happen to them a lot from more rightward candidates.
Hmm, what could actually work is altering their gerrymandering (when done) to make fewer heavy republican districts, so that the best win chances in a district are for moderates.
|
On August 04 2016 08:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 04 2016 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows. Their plan at this point is just to wait for Trump to go away. Not sure if that's the best plan, but I don't think starting a new party is a realistic option for them as they would basically be ceding control to the democrats for a few cycles if they tried that. That's already the case though. They go out of their way to be unelectable. At some point, if they want to win the white house, they've gotta rebrand. Lose the Trump cancer, lose the Tea Party cancer, lose the anti-intellectual cancer and start over again. After Bush into Palin into 47% into Trump the white house is a pipe dream for the party.
The issue is that while they may not win the white house with that, they have a pretty iron grip on the House as those are the groups that turn out in droves in off-year elections, and better than even odds at the senate as well. Control of the legislature may be more conducive to their goals, especially if their goals are nothing beyond "stop Obama/Hillary", as they seem to have devolved to recently.
Going for a new party would splinter pretty badly, it's been tried and while the GOP sort of seems like the Whigs did at their end currently people are more apt to remember Teddy Roosevelt handing Wilson the election with his third party shenanigans. The fundraising apparatuses, name recognition, etc. are all there for the GOP and I don't think they can be easily tossed aside in what they are reacting to as a 1 off candidate.
Realistically it would mean handing Hillary Clinton 4-8 years without meaningful opposition, and many in the GOP would
view that as the absolute worst possible outcome.
|
On August 04 2016 08:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Less warhawking and more trustworthiness. I see a reasonable Republican Party as something of a worker's party that holds onto traditional conservative values, but that drops the insane religious positions and corporate shilling. Something that isn't exactly progressive on social issues, but not ass backwards on them either.
Traditionally the Democrats are the party that is pro-union, pro-worker. The GOP has a strong anti-union, pro-business, worker at will streak. This dynamic has gotten weird when the GOP went full social conservative in the mid 90s.
|
Hillary president with a more progressive congress (influenced by Bernie's campaign) would be quite good as a middle ground, but I don't think it's possible with your two party system.
It's a bit sad that Obama is still a President, because I would gladly listen to him giving his actual point of view on Hillary and Trump.
|
On August 04 2016 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:
Hillary president with a more progressive congress (influenced by Bernie's campaign) would be quite good as a middle ground, but I don't think it's possible with your two party system.
It's a bit sad that Obama is still a President, because I would gladly listen to him giving his actual point of view on Hillary and Trump.
What does this mean?
|
On August 04 2016 08:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:
Hillary president with a more progressive congress (influenced by Bernie's campaign) would be quite good as a middle ground, but I don't think it's possible with your two party system.
It's a bit sad that Obama is still a President, because I would gladly listen to him giving his actual point of view on Hillary and Trump. What does this mean?
He's likely prevented from going full throated on his criticism of either. Though his recent public criticism of Trump as unfit for the office is unprecedented
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
