| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23324 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:00 Nebuchad wrote: The american right needs to be Hillary Clinton. ^ That's it right there. If we told Republicans 8 years ago that after Obama a Democrat will consider Kissinger an esteemed contributor to their foreign policy they would have voted for them that day if they could. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:00 Nebuchad wrote: The american right needs to be Hillary Clinton. Pretty much. They need to be the party that keeps the Sanders of the world in reality and ditch pandering to social conservatives. They could have half the minority vote if they just stopped trying to repress their voting rights and listen to them. Its not like the Dems are doing amazing things for minorities, but they are not actively trying to repress them. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 01 2016 05:49 Sermokala wrote: What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans. NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21815 Posts
On October 01 2016 05:57 xDaunt wrote: How much time do you have? The single biggest issues are that conservatives have lost control of the terminology of the debate and that conservatives have lost the initiative in setting proactive policies. Might this be because the party has been taken over by the 'tea party'? That the tea party section in the party has taken over the narrative and lead into the rise of Trump? If so, how exactly is Trumps primary win a positive for conservatives? How do they come out stronger out of this? If anything I think it shows that conservatives lost the battle for the party and that drastic measures are needed to regain the ability to carry their message forward. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:08 Nevuk wrote: I dunno, Obama was a pretty good republican. I don't get all the GOP whining Obama was a pragmatist. He was going to shoot the moon on a couple issues, like the ACA and Iran and be happy with those. Anything more might not last. The whining about Obama has a lot of do with him being the first black president and a lot of the country not being able to deal with it. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote: ^ That's it right there. If we told Republicans 8 years ago that after Obama a Democrat will consider Kissinger an esteemed contributor to their foreign policy they would have voted for them that day if they could. Kissinger like Realpolitik has always had proponents on both sides of the spectrum, in Europe as well as the US. That's not really news. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21815 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:03 Slaughter wrote: They already know this. Their postmortem after losing to Obama spelled out their flaws but they just ignored them and rode the Trump train once they couldn't defeat it. What choice did they have? Either they resist their own elected nominee and destroy the party or they join behind him and pray he isnt a complete dumpsterfire while trying again in 4 years (turned out Trump was even worse then everyone was saying he was). | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 01 2016 05:57 xDaunt wrote: How much time do you have? The single biggest issues are that conservatives have lost control of the terminology of the debate and that conservatives have lost the initiative in setting proactive policies. I'm on the road right now, so not all that much time to respond (on my phone right now) but if you could explain what issues it is that you think are important to the party as it should be, it would be much appreciated. I'll respond when I can. Just in general and in some depth so I have an idea which specific issues you think the party should care about most. I have that previous comment chain a few weeks ago to tell you my thoughts on the matter, so I think you know where I stand. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:09 LegalLord wrote: NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart. The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like. Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:13 Gorsameth wrote: What choice did they have? Either they resist their own elected nominee and destroy the party or they join behind him and pray he isnt a complete dumpsterfire while trying again in 4 years (turned out Trump was even worse then everyone was saying he was). History will judge Paul Ryan as a vacuous moron. I'm sure the GOP had better options somewhere, anywhere, than to allow Trump to represent them and Ryan is one of those people responsible, who thought they could control Trump and it wouldn't be that bad. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote: Pretty much. They need to be the party that keeps the Sanders of the world in reality and ditch pandering to social conservatives. They could have half the minority vote if they just stopped trying to repress their voting rights and listen to them. Its not like the Dems are doing amazing things for minorities, but they are not actively trying to repress them. As I've said before, in that case call me a Republican. | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
Hillary sounded like a liar she is - constantly yapping about how she's all for the middle class, which is absolute BS. She stole a ton of ideas from the Bernie camp too. I hope this country doesn't get Trump but I sure as hell hope this country doesn't get Clinton. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:16 Plansix wrote: The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like. Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time. If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21815 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:22 Grumbels wrote: History will judge Paul Ryan as a vacuous moron. I'm sure the GOP had better options somewhere, anywhere, than to allow Trump to represent them and Ryan is one of those people responsible, who thought they could control Trump and it wouldn't be that bad. Trump won the nomination strait up. The only other option the GOP had was to ignore the result of the primary. At which point they lose ~half their voters forever and with it they lose congress so hard the Democrats would likely have a super majority + the presidency giving them complete free reign. Please show me these other options they had. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:16 LegalLord wrote: I'm on the road right now, so not all that much time to respond (on my phone right now) but if you could explain what issues it is that you think are important to the party as it should be, it would be much appreciated. I'll respond when I can. Just in general and in some depth so I have an idea which specific issues you think the party should care about most. I have that previous comment chain a few weeks ago to tell you my thoughts on the matter, so I think you know where I stand. I'll make a more detailed post later. Don't have time right now. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:28 LegalLord wrote: If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation. Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about? | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:27 parkufarku wrote: Trump sounded unpolished; Hillary sounded like a liar she is - constantly yapping about how she's all for the middle class, which is absolute BS. She stole a ton of ideas from the Bernie camp too. I hope this country doesn't get Trump but I sure as hell hope this country doesn't get Clinton. So both are liars, both are not for the middleclass but try to give the impression they would help the middleclass. He did not steal a lot f ideas but he still tried to get Sanders voters. So why is she the devil and he is a bitter pill that needs to be swallowed? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 01 2016 06:10 Gorsameth wrote: Might this be because the party has been taken over by the 'tea party'? That the tea party section in the party has taken over the narrative and lead into the rise of Trump? If so, how exactly is Trumps primary win a positive for conservatives? How do they come out stronger out of this? If anything I think it shows that conservatives lost the battle for the party and that drastic measures are needed to regain the ability to carry their message forward. The tea party is a reaction to the root problems of the republican party, not the cause. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
