Trump Thread

[Greyblades]

Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?

Honour? Moral backbone? We knew they didnt have that when they headed the republican party and they most certainly dont now. What motivates them isnt some higher standard; it's bitterness for rendering their wing of the party impotent.

So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?

Honour? Moral backbone? We knew they didnt have that when they headed the republican party and they most certainly dont now. What motivates them isnt some higher standard; it's bitterness for rendering their wing of the party impotent.

So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.

I think you're both partially wrong, which is better than being partially right because it offers the opportunity for reflection.

On the one hand Rommey is more towards the Centre-Right (remember Rommeycare?) and doubtless finds Trump difficult to stomach at the best of time. On the other hand, being offended by Trump is a very low bar, morally speaking, and Rommey's 2012 presidential run, and his Primary campaign, helped to pave the way for Trump by pandering to the far-right.

[Greyblades]

Pandering to the far right helped cause trump? If you mean by the way his like failed to live up to the pandering when it came to action the electorate wanted: yes. If you mean he somehow turned the electorate "far right" through his pandering: no.

Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.

[Montmorency]

Ueland, eh? That's also the name of one of the widest streets in Oslo. Possibly a little crossover here between that other topic and a specific scenario concerning migration to the US you wanted me to address. Funny.

When Norway sends its people, they're not sending their best.

Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?

Last I checked, the left hate them all.

So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.

You do know these people all existed before Trump was a politician, right?

Pandering to the far right helped cause trump? If you mean by the way his like failed to live up to the pandering when it came to action the electorate wanted: yes. If you mean he somehow turned the electorate "far right" through his pandering: no.

Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.

Notably, what the earlier Republicans "failed" to do was reestablish herrenvolk patriarchy. What enflames the fascists so -and, poetically, what makes their defeat likely - is that there are more of us than there are of them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.

Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.

[Montmorency]

Trump vowed to not cut Social Security and Medicare — hours before proposing just that

He's been doing this all term, and he's slowly succeeding (via executive power).

And

For once, President Trump spoke the truth.

“We’re doing a lot of things that are good, including waste and fraud,” he said Monday, as his administration released its proposed budget. “Tremendous waste and tremendous fraud.”

Heh heh

Hahahahaha

Hee hee

It's funny because it's true.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.

Possibly true, in many cases, but the fact remains that these were promises that got them elected. That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.

The point about Rommey is that when a centre-right Republican moved to the Right he moved the Republican party to the Right with him. If Bernie moves the Dems to the Left it will leave a hole in the middle of US politics large enough that a new party might need to emerge to fill it.

[Montmorency]

Possibly true, in many cases, but the fact remains that these were promises that got them elected. That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.

The point about Rommey is that when a centre-right Republican moved to the Right he moved the Republican party to the Right with him. If Bernie moves the Dems to the Left it will leave a hole in the middle of US politics large enough that a new party might need to emerge to fill it.

Darn it, you know little enough about American politics to be paid for your insight. What are you waiting for?

[Greyblades]

Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.

Seems to be a common refrain on both sides of the the aisle, the whole "they dont know what's good for them" angle, I mean look at bernie; there are more than a few democrats who say what you said about his promises, never mind republicans.

That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.

Not in any scenario that includes maintaining people's faith in democracy. Scenarios without that tend to have bad ends.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Seems to be a common refrain on both sides of the the aisle, the whole "they dont know what's good for them" angle, I mean look at bernie; there are more than a few democrats who say what you said about his promises, never mind republicans.

The difference with Bernie is that there has never been a US government ran by democratic socialists. If one day it happens and they don't deliver the policy then we must start to think about the practicality of said promises.
Republicans on the other hand...

[Montmorency]

Republicans on the other hand...

Be careful not to slip into a common misunderstanding. The truth is...

[Greyblades]

The difference with Bernie is that there has never been a US government ran by democratic socialists. If one day it happens and they don't deliver the policy then we must start to think about the practicality of said promises.
Republicans on the other hand...

See, a lot of republicans would probably diagree with your first sentance. And your third for that matter, the republican party leadership doesnt exactly consider trump typical, to its detriment. Some would also say that before trump US government hadnt been run by thier idea of a republican since eizenhower or reagan.

Bernie and Trump are both reactions to failures to deliver; the desire to find a guy who will actually do what he says he will, as little watering down as possible. With the level of frustration that triggered these reactions whether or not the promised ideas work is almost immaterial.

Not that either of us would take much interest in the proclimations of inviability/bunk-dom by a competitor in such a polarized enviroment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The difference with Bernie is that there has never been a US government ran by democratic socialists. If one day it happens and they don't deliver the policy then we must start to think about the practicality of said promises.
Republicans on the other hand...

Well Bernie is no longer a Social Democrat, he's shifted to full-on Socialist after Warren took the Social Democrat spot. So, not very electable in the US, now.