Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 09 2018 22:20 Plansix wrote: There are plenty of right leaning posters in the thread depending on the topic, they just don’t actively complain about number of left leaning posters. There is this narrative of repression and victimization among some self appointed spokespeople for the right. It is often used as a substitute for real arguments. Furthermore, it is hard theory to agree with since the Republicans have held both chambers for around 8 years at this point and the majority of the last two decades. It is hard to argue that a political view is oppressed when hold power for a decade or more. But it is a great way to stifle discussion.
Even more remarkable is that the ones whining on the right don't make the obvious connection between their flawed views and the decline of their power. They scream about media bias, shills, and manipulation instead of simply acknowledging that their "side" is just flat out regressive/unpopular. I have a number of friends who just can't seem to understand that they're backing a losing horse in this race of ideologies. Frankly, it scares me a bit. It shows that some people really are just too far gone to be helped.
That's why I poo poo anyone who claims the path to victory is trying to get through to those people and "turn" them. The numbers are such that they can just be ignored. I think the Dems should take power, impose their will legislatively and without mercy, and move on from there.
It's like dealing with children. Your kids don't understand or agree with your decision to ground them for breaking the rules, but they get it when they reap the benefits later. Same here. The Trumpets will get it when they have Medicare for all and decent jobs. Until then, just pretend they don't exist.
But they have welfare and healthcare subsidies and they still want them to be repealed because they believe it will effect 'lazy couch sitters' (or any number of other groups) and not them.
You cannot ignore Trump supporters, becuase they are the ones who have elected the President of the USA. For all your writing that the right decline of power, in the US, as far as I can tell, "the right" simply means the Rupublican party, and "the left" simply mean the Democratic party, at least in the way that these same supporters use it. Trump was not "the right" till he was the Republican nominee, then all of a sudden everything he did and say was suddenly "the right" philosophy, even if his ideas of freedom of media, independence of judiciary, free trade and mercantilism, the role of government, fiscal prudence, are complete polar opposite of what would be regarded as on "the right" previously.
Whether or not that the "traditional right" ideas are falling in popularity or not, it is those very same Trumpesque popularism that are courted that landed Trump in power, and it appears that they do not care whether or not their quality of life improve or not, or for the well-being of their country, so long as they can positievely identify with the messages so carefully tested and crafted by Cambridge Analytica.
… But his optimism would be tempered by the reality of Facebook's hunger for raw data about its users. He didn't like the direction it was going.
"They have a business model that is going to push them continuously down a road of deceiving people," he says. "It's a surveillance advertising business model."
Parakilas says he tried to warn his managers at Facebook that they were at risk of putting private information into the wrong hands. But the company was growing fast and making money. Its leaders believed connecting people was inherently good.
Many of its earliest investors believed in its mission too. But now Roger McNamee, who helped mentor Zuckerberg, says he feels bad about what's happened, "because at the end of the day these were my friends. I helped them be successful. I wanted them to be successful."
As part of his penance, McNamee helped found the Center for Humane Technology. The center is trying to "realign technology with humanity's best interests." Parakilas has also joined the effort as an adviser.
While Facebook may be in the headlines now, there is plenty of regret going around Silicon Valley from people who were part of other companies.
Guillaume Chaslot joined Google/YouTube in 2010. He too started as a true believer. "We could only make things better if people were more connected," he says. "If everybody could say what he wanted to say, things would naturally get better."
But Chaslot says he noticed the main goal at YouTube wasn't to inform people; it was to keep people watching videos for as long as possible. "This goal has some very bad side effects and I started to notice the side effect as I worked at YouTube," he says.
Among the side effects he noticed: People tended to get only one point of view on a topic — and not always the right one. For example, a search for "moon landing" might bring up videos from conspiracy theorists arguing that NASA faked the whole event.
Chaslot tried to create an algorithm that would show people different points of view. But, he says, his bosses weren't interested.
A spokesperson from the company says it has updated its algorithms since Chaslot left. According to the company, it no longer just tries to keep people on the site for as long as possible; the goal is to measure through surveys how satisfied users are with the time they spend on the site.
Chaslot left in 2013. But, he continued to lose sleep over what was happening on YouTube. From the outside, he observed the site fill up with conspiracy theories and divisive content. He privately met with former colleagues and tried to warn them. But,nothing began to change until after the presidential election, when news of Russian interference brought more attention to the kinds of videos on YouTube.
Chaslot now says he wishes he'd gone public sooner. "Now that's what I'm doing but with a bit of a delay," he says. He even started a site to track what kinds of videos surface when you search terms like "Is the Earth flat or round?" and "vaccine facts." The results bring up plenty of factually incorrect conspiracies…
We are hearing more and more from people who left companies like Google and Facebook these days. As many people suspected, both companies had employees who spotted the rise in conspiracy theories, false information and the software imposed walling off of information. Some as far back as 2013. But those people were ignored or pushed aside for profits. The most interesting part of this story is that they had a possible software solution to handle conspiracy theories, but the higher ups at Google didn't try it. I am increasingly convinced that this isn’t an act of idealism and hubris. The people at the top knew what was driving business and just wanted to make money off of it, negative impact on society be damned.
On April 09 2018 22:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You cannot ignore Trump supporters, becuase they are the ones who have elected the President of the USA. For all your writing that the right decline of power, in the US, as far as I can tell, "the right" simply means the Rupublican party, and "the left" simply mean the Democratic party, at least in the way that these same supporters use it. Trump was not "the right" till he was the Republican nominee, then all of a sudden everything he did and say was suddenly "the right" philosophy, even if his ideas of freedom of media, independence of judiciary, free trade and mercantilism, the role of government, fiscal prudence, are complete polar opposite of what would be regarded as on "the right" previously.
Whether or not that the "traditional right" ideas are falling in popularity or not, it is those very same Trumpesque popularism that are courted that landed Trump in power, and it appears that they do not care whether or not their quality of life improve or not, or for the well-being of their country, so long as they can positievely identify with the messages so carefully tested and crafted by Cambridge Analytica.
They can’t be ignored, but also they are not necessary for the opposition to gain power. We have a wealth of independent voters in the US in given states and those are the people that decide elections. That and raw turn out. When it comes to governing, of course our representatives should listen and work with the Republican/Trump supporter’s representatives if possible. But that isn’t how elections are won, which is the space we are in right now.
I've come to the conclusion that Peterson is the Millennial Jesus. He needs to be there for this generation because they're so inept at dealing with real world problems. He says basic things that need to be said that everyone kind of agrees upon, but the people that hear at and laud it simply haven't thought deeply about these fundamentals. The second he starts ranting about neo-marxists and socialism and spouts authority from his readings of Solzhenitsyn and 20 years+ experience and observations I'm preparing to use my :thinking: emoji. His mythological ramblings seem apt here and there, but it's mostly him going off the deep end in some instances. I can agree that certain archetypal stories have been distilled over the millennia we exist and these are fundamental to human behavior and how we act, but it's not just that. There's more to it. But that's not his focus. He's mostly trying to realign people that found themselves to be lost in this overwhelming place that is present day Earth, filled with individualism, allure of grandeur, ease of abuse and void of clarity. Basement dwelling, internet consuming trolls don't have much going for them. He gives them hope. It's almost like an archetypal story.. If you simply ignore his ideological ramblings he can be a very good guide for people that feel like they've got nothing going for them. Of course people need to ignore his ideological ramblings first (not just his critics).
On April 09 2018 22:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You cannot ignore Trump supporters, becuase they are the ones who have elected the President of the USA. For all your writing that the right decline of power, in the US, as far as I can tell, "the right" simply means the Rupublican party, and "the left" simply mean the Democratic party, at least in the way that these same supporters use it. Trump was not "the right" till he was the Republican nominee, then all of a sudden everything he did and say was suddenly "the right" philosophy, even if his ideas of freedom of media, independence of judiciary, free trade and mercantilism, the role of government, fiscal prudence, are complete polar opposite of what would be regarded as on "the right" previously.
Whether or not that the "traditional right" ideas are falling in popularity or not, it is those very same Trumpesque popularism that are courted that landed Trump in power, and it appears that they do not care whether or not their quality of life improve or not, or for the well-being of their country, so long as they can positievely identify with the messages so carefully tested and crafted by Cambridge Analytica.
Regardless of whether or not Trump is a Republican (he isn't), his ideas and those pushed by actual Republicans are so bad that it has mobilized a significant portion of our country. We now have 1 in 5 Americans participating in marches and protests and that number keeps going up. I posit that the Trump supporters can in fact be ignored, because they are so obviously overwhelmed at this point. Sure, they had their moment of glory when they elected the Cheeto Benito, but that was about it. You can look at pretty much any race a Democrat has won in the past year and see that "we" don't need "them". When this big blue wave hits in November, there won't be much need to reach out to the crazy Trump wing of the Republican party anymore. I genuinely believe that those people will stop being so stupid when they see proof that progressive policy helps them. Or maybe I just really hope they will. Otherwise, we are fucked.
… But his optimism would be tempered by the reality of Facebook's hunger for raw data about its users. He didn't like the direction it was going.
"They have a business model that is going to push them continuously down a road of deceiving people," he says. "It's a surveillance advertising business model."
Parakilas says he tried to warn his managers at Facebook that they were at risk of putting private information into the wrong hands. But the company was growing fast and making money. Its leaders believed connecting people was inherently good.
Many of its earliest investors believed in its mission too. But now Roger McNamee, who helped mentor Zuckerberg, says he feels bad about what's happened, "because at the end of the day these were my friends. I helped them be successful. I wanted them to be successful."
As part of his penance, McNamee helped found the Center for Humane Technology. The center is trying to "realign technology with humanity's best interests." Parakilas has also joined the effort as an adviser.
While Facebook may be in the headlines now, there is plenty of regret going around Silicon Valley from people who were part of other companies.
Guillaume Chaslot joined Google/YouTube in 2010. He too started as a true believer. "We could only make things better if people were more connected," he says. "If everybody could say what he wanted to say, things would naturally get better."
But Chaslot says he noticed the main goal at YouTube wasn't to inform people; it was to keep people watching videos for as long as possible. "This goal has some very bad side effects and I started to notice the side effect as I worked at YouTube," he says.
Among the side effects he noticed: People tended to get only one point of view on a topic — and not always the right one. For example, a search for "moon landing" might bring up videos from conspiracy theorists arguing that NASA faked the whole event.
Chaslot tried to create an algorithm that would show people different points of view. But, he says, his bosses weren't interested.
A spokesperson from the company says it has updated its algorithms since Chaslot left. According to the company, it no longer just tries to keep people on the site for as long as possible; the goal is to measure through surveys how satisfied users are with the time they spend on the site.
Chaslot left in 2013. But, he continued to lose sleep over what was happening on YouTube. From the outside, he observed the site fill up with conspiracy theories and divisive content. He privately met with former colleagues and tried to warn them. But,nothing began to change until after the presidential election, when news of Russian interference brought more attention to the kinds of videos on YouTube.
Chaslot now says he wishes he'd gone public sooner. "Now that's what I'm doing but with a bit of a delay," he says. He even started a site to track what kinds of videos surface when you search terms like "Is the Earth flat or round?" and "vaccine facts." The results bring up plenty of factually incorrect conspiracies…
We are hearing more and more from people who left companies like Google and Facebook these days. As many people suspected, both companies had employees who spotted the rise in conspiracy theories, false information and the software imposed walling off of information. Some as far back as 2013. But those people were ignored or pushed aside for profits. The most interesting part of this story is that they had a possible software solution to handle conspiracy theories, but the higher ups at Google did try it. I am increasingly convinced that this isn’t an act of idealism and hubris. The people at the top knew what was driving business and just wanted to make money off of it, negative impact on society be damned.
Because that is was we stamp into peoples head over and over again. Companies exist for profit and more profit. And if they try to do 'the right thing' their shareholders pull them back because profit much always go up. Capitalism requires someone to reign in the excess, because we are human and we will go to far if we get the room.
On April 09 2018 22:53 Uldridge wrote: I've come to the conclusion that Peterson is the Millennial Jesus. He needs to be there for this generation because they're so inept at dealing with real world problems. He says basic things that need to be said that everyone kind of agrees upon, but the people that hear at and laud it simply haven't thought deeply about these fundamentals. The second he starts ranting about neo-marxists and socialism and spouts authority from his readings of Solzhenitsyn and 20 years+ experience and observations I'm preparing to use my :thinking: emoji. His mythological ramblings seem apt here and there, but it's mostly him going off the deep end in some instances. I can agree that certain archetypal stories have been distilled over the millennia we exist and these are fundamental to human behavior and how we act, but it's not just that. There's more to it. But that's not his focus. He's mostly trying to realign people that found themselves to be lost in this overwhelming place that is present day Earth, filled with individualism, allure of grandeur, ease of abuse and void of clarity. Basement dwelling, internet consuming trolls don't have much going for them. He gives them hope. It's almost like an archetypal story.. If you simply ignore his ideological ramblings he can be a very good guide for people that feel like they've got nothing going for them. Of course people need to ignore his ideological ramblings first (not just his critics).
The seriously dangerous problem here is that the people taking his basic guidance seriously are also taking his other BS with it. You can't pretend people will separate consistently the basic guidance from the things that are definitely discriminatory and problematic (albeit it with a little layer of obfuscation). In fact that aspect of his writing is likely a big part of why he has that particular demographic so hooked.
EDIT: In retrospect this makes the whole biblical analogy more accurate =/
Regardless of whether or not Trump is a Republican (he isn't), his ideas and those pushed by actual Republicans are so bad that it has mobilized a significant portion of our country.
Which idea? This one?
On April 09 2018 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:
But they have welfare and healthcare subsidies and they still want them to be repealed because they believe it will effect 'lazy couch sitters' (or any number of other groups) and not them.
How many other people's healthcare are you paying for right now? You sound like you have a high income, eat healthy, and exercise regularly, and you're just itching to give away another 25% of it to people you've never met, but there's no way for you to give your money away unless you are legally obligated to.
Regardless of whether or not Trump is a Republican (he isn't), his ideas and those pushed by actual Republicans are so bad that it has mobilized a significant portion of our country.
But they have welfare and healthcare subsidies and they still want them to be repealed because they believe it will effect 'lazy couch sitters' (or any number of other groups) and not them.
How many other people's healthcare are you paying for right now? You sound like you have a high income, eat healthy, and exercise regularly, and you're just itching to give away another 25% of it to people you've never met, but there's no way for you to give your money away unless you are legally obligated to.
User was warned for this post
Do I want to pay for others healthcare? If I was making 250k-500k a year, then by all means. Yes. Exactly. Now? In my current state? It would do more harm than good.
There's always someone who posts a sneering comment about universal healthcare. Something like "do YOU want to pay out of your pocket so others can have healthcare?"
It's as if you expect me to suddenly change my mind and decide I don't want to help others because it might cost me. Just because you're apparently greedy and selfish doesn't mean everyone else is.
How many other people's healthcare are you paying for right now? You sound like you have a high income, eat healthy, and exercise regularly, and you're just itching to give away another 25% of it to people you've never met, but there's no way for you to give your money away unless you are legally obligated to.
Right now? Between 0 and the other 60 million people, depending how how you calculate paying for. 8% of my income goes to national healthcare directly. Of course I don't actually have a choice in this case. I do have a choice for private healthcare. But 8% is pretty close to the upper limit in the UK for as yet, still a world class universal healthcare, so I don't know where you would get 25% from. But I suspect you aren't genuinely interested in the answer.
But they have welfare and healthcare subsidies and they still want them to be repealed because they believe it will effect 'lazy couch sitters' (or any number of other groups) and not them.
How many other people's healthcare are you paying for right now? You sound like you have a high income, eat healthy, and exercise regularly, and you're just itching to give away another 25% of it to people you've never met, but there's no way for you to give your money away unless you are legally obligated to.
User was warned for this post
I pay for however money people are signed up with my insurer. I don't think they report those numbers so I can't tell you how many. And they are all paying for mine, as does the government (through subsides for those who cannot afford to pay).
If I cannot afford to pay it then the government will spring in, either partially or fully paying my share because a healthy population is a good thing and the subsidy cost is cheaper then having me forfeit payment because I'm bankrupt and then sitting at home cashing disability checks because I can't afford to get fixed.
I happily pay this money to people I have never met because I know that if I got a serious injury or illness I will be ok and everything will be payed for. Something I could never ever hope to do on my own. When my mother suffered a stroke last year my father did not have to worry about the cost for a second, because we pay insurance. Months of hospital stay, more months of rehabilitation and it didn't cost a single extra penny.
If my parents lived in the US before the ACA they would be broke, my mother would be unable to work and they would spend the rest of their life in poverty trying to pay off the debt on my dads pension.
On April 09 2018 22:09 Schmobutzen wrote: DatkPlasmaBall, I laud it whenever someone says they will refrain from further posting and instead think about or just clear their mind. That is a thing everyone should learn and practice!
On April 09 2018 22:20 Plansix wrote: There are plenty of right leaning posters in the thread depending on the topic, they just don’t actively complain about number of left leaning posters. There is this narrative of repression and victimization among some self appointed spokespeople for the right. It is often used as a substitute for real arguments. Furthermore, it is hard theory to agree with since the Republicans have held both chambers for around 8 years at this point and the majority of the last two decades. It is hard to argue that a political view is oppressed when hold power for a decade or more. But it is a great way to stifle discussion.
Even more remarkable is that the ones whining on the right don't make the obvious connection between their flawed views and the decline of their power. They scream about media bias, shills, and manipulation instead of simply acknowledging that their "side" is just flat out regressive/unpopular. I have a number of friends who just can't seem to understand that they're backing a losing horse in this race of ideologies. Frankly, it scares me a bit. It shows that some people really are just too far gone to be helped.
That's why I poo poo anyone who claims the path to victory is trying to get through to those people and "turn" them. The numbers are such that they can just be ignored. I think the Dems should take power, impose their will legislatively and without mercy, and move on from there.
It's like dealing with children. Your kids don't understand or agree with your decision to ground them for breaking the rules, but they get it when they reap the benefits later. Same here. The Trumpets will get it when they have Medicare for all and decent jobs. Until then, just pretend they don't exist.
I like to debate against people with opposing political views, not to turn them per se, but to turn those who are listening and are on the fence. If that undecided voter feels that he has two choices- to join me or to join my opposition- I'd much rather try convincing him than convincing someone who's probably a lost cause, and I might succeed in convincing the undecided voter if I present my arguments and side more intelligently and more correctly and more appealingly than my opponent. That being said, even if there's no third party in the room, those discussions can still force me to be intellectually honest, to be introspective, and to recognize if there are holes in my arguments or rationale.
I don't see any significant decline in conservative power, especially since they currently control all three branches of government. I also agree with Dangermousecatdog that regardless of whether or not the percentage of conservatives is shrinking, or if society as a whole is becoming more and more progressive, the conservatives are still casting just as many votes as liberals are (and, more importantly, in "better" locations), so we can't ignore them. This is especially true because we use the electoral college system, rather than a popular vote. Out of the last 5 presidential elections (GWB, GWB, Obama, Obama, Trump), the Republican candidate won the popular vote only 1 time (GWB second term vs. Kerry), yet 3/5 of these elections gave us Republican presidents because of the electoral college. For that reason, we can't ignore the Trump supporters (or Republicans in general) and we need to convince more people to vote. Or convince a few million voters to just move to other states...
Do I want to pay for others healthcare? Now? In my current state? It would do more harm than good.
It's as if you expect me to suddenly change my mind and decide I don't want to help others because it might cost me.
Amazing... Am I the only one seeing the problem there? Truly amazing. Also, you can give money to a charity. Or do your own charity work. You'd probably spend the money more efficiently than you would by outsourcing your charity to government (while forcing everyone else to do the same).
On April 09 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote: Speaking of conspiracy theory YouTube channels, that one has pretty impressive videos about utter nonsense.
Do you have anything to say about the specific video I posted there, or are you just conceding the hypocrisy it exposes and just moving on to trying to discredit the source?
How many other people's healthcare are you paying for right now?
Right now? Between 0 and the other 60 million people, depending how how you calculate paying for. 8% of my income goes to national healthcare directly. But I suspect you aren't genuinely interested in the answer.
That's not a genuine answer.
On April 09 2018 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:
I pay for however money people are signed up with my insurer. And they are all paying for mine
Same problem as above.
On April 10 2018 00:25 zlefin wrote: petra, if you want a proper response to your video post, you should post it in a way that doesn't get you warned. there's no reason for us to reply properly to a post that was improper in the first place.
I'm only interested in a relevant response. It's ok if someone is rude to me while addressing my point. Maybe I'll have a more civil opening next time. We can hope.
petra, if you want a proper response to your video post, you should post it in a way that doesn't get you warned. there's no reason for us to reply properly to a post that was improper in the first place.
I pay for however money people are signed up with my insurer. And they are all paying for mine
Same problem as above.
By all means restate your question because it obviously wasn't clear. You asked for a number, you were given an approximation (since specific numbers are not publicly available)
Do I want to pay for others healthcare? Now? In my current state? It would do more harm than good.
It's as if you expect me to suddenly change my mind and decide I don't want to help others because it might cost me.
Amazing... Am I the only one seeing the problem there? Truly amazing. Also, you can give money to a charity. Or do your own charity work. You'd probably spend the money more efficiently than you would by outsourcing your charity to government (while forcing everyone else to do the same).
On April 09 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote: Speaking of conspiracy theory YouTube channels, that one has pretty impressive videos about utter nonsense.
Do you have anything to say about the specific video I posted there, or are you just conceding the hypocrisy it exposes and just moving on to trying to discredit the source?
How many other people's healthcare are you paying for right now?
Right now? Between 0 and the other 60 million people, depending how how you calculate paying for. 8% of my income goes to national healthcare directly. But I suspect you aren't genuinely interested in the answer.
I pay for however money people are signed up with my insurer. And they are all paying for mine
Same problem as above.
I understand you are new here, but you need to understand that you aren't contributing remotely new or nuanced ideas (so far). Posting a youtube video in some mic drop kind of way is not a compelling argument and we have already gone over similar ideas in the past. We've all been doing this a while and you are clearly just getting started. Simply put, the ideas you are putting forward are not fleshed out enough to be responded to. You're not really saying anything. How about elaborating on what you see as key ideas in the video and see how that works. I'm assuming your warning spelled most of this out for you.
On another topic,
Does anyone care to speculate on the future of Paul Ryan?
“Everyone is talking about this,” said one veteran Republican House member who requested anonymity in discussing the brewing rivalry. . “We’re sizing them up, seeing who would be a better fit. It’s the prism that we look at them through now.”
As Ryan’s No. 2, McCarthy would have the clearest path to the speakership, though it’s far from a lock. Distrust among the conference’s right flank contributed to his failed 2015 bid, when Ryan was recruited as a white knight. McCarthy did not lose interest, however, and he is trying to forge new alliances as well as patch up a once-rocky relationship with the House Freedom Caucus ahead of a potential second run.
Personally, it feels to me like Ryan played his cards a little too conservatively and now he has nothing. He's not in Trump's circle, he's certainly not in Democrats' circle and there isn't really a non-Trump wing of the republican party anymore. His game plan of being an intermediary between Trump and reason doesn't exist anymore because most everyone in the party has "gotten in line".
“Everyone is talking about this,” said one veteran Republican House member who requested anonymity in discussing the brewing rivalry. . “We’re sizing them up, seeing who would be a better fit. It’s the prism that we look at them through now.”
As Ryan’s No. 2, McCarthy would have the clearest path to the speakership, though it’s far from a lock. Distrust among the conference’s right flank contributed to his failed 2015 bid, when Ryan was recruited as a white knight. McCarthy did not lose interest, however, and he is trying to forge new alliances as well as patch up a once-rocky relationship with the House Freedom Caucus ahead of a potential second run.
Personally, it feels to me like Ryan played his cards a little too conservatively and now he has nothing. He's not in Trump's circle, he's certainly not in Democrats' circle and there isn't really a non-Trump wing of the republican party anymore. His game plan of being an intermediary between Trump and reason doesn't exist anymore because most everyone in the party has "gotten in line".
I think a lot of that depends on Trump's relationship with Ryan vs. Trump's relationship with McCarthy; which horse would Trump back? Presumably, it could change on any given day with a simple compliment or two to change Trump's mind, so I couldn't really make a prediction right now.
Your mention of "there isn't really a non-Trump wing of the republican party anymore" has also made me wonder if there are Republican leaders who are trying to *kind of distance themselves from Trump/ Trump ideology without being too obvious and offending Trump*, in case they want to run against Trump in the next presidential election.
Really? Did the Republican party fall in line while I wasn't looking? Last I heard they were repeatedly struggling to get a simply majority, which they themselves hold.
No one wanted the job last time and they had to beg and plead Ryan to do it. There has been talking about replacing him for almost as long as he has been speaker. I don't see it happening.
EPT
