CDZ Is Donald Trump More Typical of a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent?

[JimBowie1958]

Well, indeed, there are relatively few classic liberals laying around. Virtually all of the current energy in the party lies with the Regressive Left, so I'm very hopeful that the post-mortem on the election begins to include a mirror pretty soon.
I've seen some small signs of that, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I think of myself as a 1965 style liberal, with a splash of libertarianism.

We can take this bitch back over if we stay focused.

 

[longknife]

The Washington Post seems to think that Trump more closely resembles an independent that did a 'hostile take over' of the GOP, than a genuine Republican.

But what defines Republican, or Democrat or Independent? Few seem to define these labels as anything other than membership in one of the two main parties or neither of them. There is no hard cast ideological definition of what a Republican is any more than here was eighty years ago, a definition that has been left behind in the dust of history. Back in the 1930's the GOP stood for Protectionism, Nationalism and a strong National Defense while we maintained a pseudo Isolationist view of the world.

No one in the Republican Party advances those same issues today, so why would we expect the GOP to remain steadfast to some other once dominant ideologies? Whatever the GOP was 4 years ago or 8 years ago, one thing it was for certain was a LOSER party that had painted itself into a demographic corner and had no way of getting out of it until Trump came along. While it had co-opted the Tea Party movement, a civil war ignited between the business as usual Party Establishment and the new rank and file over what was to be done.

While Trump is not a Tea Party man, he does have a whole lot of support among them. His problem within the GOP is that the hard core right, the Mark Levins, the Michael Savages, the Rush Limbaughs seem to want purity over effectiveness, and perfection over the 'good enough'. It is way past time for these ideologues to lose their control of the GOP so it can once again lead a more peaceful dialogue with the opposition and the left out of this country.

And Donald Trump has done three things that are simply amazing as a result of his ability to exploit the political situation from what it was a year go; he won the Presidency, he has brought back into the political discussion millions of out cast voters, and he has rebranded the Republican Party into a more populist and less ideologically pure party that once again has a chance to win a Presidential election.

And the GOP is all the better for it.

Yes Donald Trump is a Republican, and he is THE Republican.

His policies don't reflect any of the current political parties. He's a populist or even a constitutionalist.

It's going to be an interesting 8 years.

 

[longknife]

He's more typical of a Republican sociopath.

/thread

 

[Foxfyre]

What would you do to improve his cabinet thus far?

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Further commenting on your post here, I am not seeing him choosing strong ideologues. I'm looking up the resumes for the people he is choosing for his team and wow! Their credentials are really impressive.

His education secretary choice, for instance, has come under heavy fire from the leftwing ideologues who think government and education union controlled schools are the only way to go. Is belief that the government and education union controlled students are failing us--the USA is waaaaaaay behind most developed nations in education despite that we spend more per student capita than any other nation. This was three years ago, but I am confident nothing has changed:
U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows
The proposed education secretary has devoted a great deal of her life, energy, and philanthropy to the cause of good education but both she and Trump see eye to eye on how to start turning that around.

So is it ideology that promotes home schooling, charter schools, school choice, etc. in the face of the failures of the general public schools? Or is it common sense?

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

Conservatism in itself is not an ideology. Only those who defend certain concepts labeled conservative in the face of evidence that such does not merit a defense is ideology. Or pushing for a vision whether or not we see a clear path in how to reach it is an ideological concept.

It was conservative concepts such as those who break the law do not deserve more consideration and protection and sympathy than do the innocent who are harmed by those who break the law that earned Donald Trump votes in the past election. That is not born of ideology but is born of seeing the reality of the situation.

It was conservative concepts such as the education system is failing our students and we need to do something different that will work that turned people to Trump. That is not an ideological concept but is a pure verifiable fact.

It was conservative concepts such as creating a stable and business friendly atmosphere as the best way to get the economy moving that elected him. We are getting closer to ideology here, but we do have some clear evidence that what Trump is proposing has worked in the past.

So these are not ideological concepts. They are hard facts. Facts that most of those on the left disagree with and condemn as 'fascist' or 'anti-school' or 'oppressing the poor' yadda yadda.

Why in the world would you expect Trump to appoint people who want to maintain the status quo that he opposes or take us further left when that has so far failed? This is not ideology. It is in reasoned and reasonable belief in correcting what is wrong and getting it more right.

I've heard this "conservatism is not an ideology" thing before, and I don't agree. Plus, let's take this in context: We're talking about Left vs. Right ideologies, so let's just keep it simple.

And regarding "hard facts", another counter-productive element of ideologies is that they cause people to make up definitions to match their agenda, creating "facts" as they go. Both Republicans and Democrats have perfectly reasonable arguments for their positions on education and business and economics. In my non-ideological view, the smartest thing to do is just admit that and begin by looking for common ground.
.

There is no common ground when one side wants to continue policies that have obviously failed or have produced such tiny improvements at huge expense. Sometimes one side simply cannot have its way. As for whose definition shall be the 'correct' one, that is a whole different topic altogether. (Ideology usually causes a discussion about definitions to dissolve into a food fight too.)

But I digress - back on topic:

It is a erroneous ideological concept that two people, two entities, two political parties, etc. can always find a way to agree. Sometimes we won't agree and in those cases the majority will usually be the side that wins.

The person or group who labels the new education secretary as 'anti-school' is speaking from pure ideology and such people are almost never going to be reasoned with or reasonable. There is no common sense to be found in that kind of mindset or mindless statement.

The person who reads her resume and agrees with her approach to education is not necessarily operating out of pure ideology but rather can be operating out of common sense that her point of view makes a lot of sense.

Yes there is a general 'left' ideology and a general 'right' ideology in that proponents of each are more often than not going to be agreement on certain things. For example, those on the left are much more likely to see government as a solution for most problems while those on the right are much more likely to see government as the problem in most problems. That is ideological on a broad basis.

But bring it down to individual issues, and the arguments may or may not be ideologically driven.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What a pleasant conversation.

 

[Mac1958]

Oh, I haven't really thought about who I would put in what position, there's nothing I can do about this.

It's pretty clear, though, that he's going with straight conservatives and campaign allies, and not independents. I'd really like to see some non-ideological people in positions of power for a change.
.

Further commenting on your post here, I am not seeing him choosing strong ideologues. I'm looking up the resumes for the people he is choosing for his team and wow! Their credentials are really impressive.

His education secretary choice, for instance, has come under heavy fire from the leftwing ideologues who think government and education union controlled schools are the only way to go. Is belief that the government and education union controlled students are failing us--the USA is waaaaaaay behind most developed nations in education despite that we spend more per student capita than any other nation. This was three years ago, but I am confident nothing has changed:
U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows
The proposed education secretary has devoted a great deal of her life, energy, and philanthropy to the cause of good education but both she and Trump see eye to eye on how to start turning that around.

So is it ideology that promotes home schooling, charter schools, school choice, etc. in the face of the failures of the general public schools? Or is it common sense?

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

Conservatism in itself is not an ideology. Only those who defend certain concepts labeled conservative in the face of evidence that such does not merit a defense is ideology. Or pushing for a vision whether or not we see a clear path in how to reach it is an ideological concept.

It was conservative concepts such as those who break the law do not deserve more consideration and protection and sympathy than do the innocent who are harmed by those who break the law that earned Donald Trump votes in the past election. That is not born of ideology but is born of seeing the reality of the situation.

It was conservative concepts such as the education system is failing our students and we need to do something different that will work that turned people to Trump. That is not an ideological concept but is a pure verifiable fact.

It was conservative concepts such as creating a stable and business friendly atmosphere as the best way to get the economy moving that elected him. We are getting closer to ideology here, but we do have some clear evidence that what Trump is proposing has worked in the past.

So these are not ideological concepts. They are hard facts. Facts that most of those on the left disagree with and condemn as 'fascist' or 'anti-school' or 'oppressing the poor' yadda yadda.

Why in the world would you expect Trump to appoint people who want to maintain the status quo that he opposes or take us further left when that has so far failed? This is not ideology. It is in reasoned and reasonable belief in correcting what is wrong and getting it more right.

I've heard this "conservatism is not an ideology" thing before, and I don't agree. Plus, let's take this in context: We're talking about Left vs. Right ideologies, so let's just keep it simple.

And regarding "hard facts", another counter-productive element of ideologies is that they cause people to make up definitions to match their agenda, creating "facts" as they go. Both Republicans and Democrats have perfectly reasonable arguments for their positions on education and business and economics. In my non-ideological view, the smartest thing to do is just admit that and begin by looking for common ground.
.

There is no common ground when one side wants to continue policies that have obviously failed or have produced such tiny improvements at huge expense. Sometimes one side simply cannot have its way. As for whose definition shall be the 'correct' one, that is a whole different topic altogether. (Ideology usually causes a discussion about definitions to dissolve into a food fight too.)

But I digress - back on topic:

It is a erroneous ideological concept that two people, two entities, two political parties, etc. can always find a way to agree. Sometimes we won't agree and in those cases the majority will usually be the side that wins.

The person or group who labels the new education secretary as 'anti-school' is speaking from pure ideology and such people are almost never going to be reasoned with or reasonable. There is no common sense to be found in that kind of mindset or mindless statement.

The person who reads her resume and agrees with her approach to education is not necessarily operating out of pure ideology but rather can be operating out of common sense that her point of view makes a lot of sense.

Yes there is a general 'left' ideology and a general 'right' ideology in that proponents of each are more often than not going to be agreement on certain things. For example, those on the left are much more likely to see government as a solution for most problems while those on the right are much more likely to see government as the problem in most problems. That is ideological on a broad basis.

But bring it down to individual issues, and the arguments may or may not be ideologically driven.

Oh, I think there can be common ground found on most topics, if both ends are willing to be honest, reasonable and non-ideological.

The only issue that I can see an argument of no common ground is abortion. Pretty much everything else can have starting points.

Beyond that, I think any adult should be able to say "I'm not going to win everything; I'll win some, I'll lose some, I'll compromise on some. That's life."
.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is absolutely common ground to be found regarding many issues.

 

[Foxfyre]

Further commenting on your post here, I am not seeing him choosing strong ideologues. I'm looking up the resumes for the people he is choosing for his team and wow! Their credentials are really impressive.

His education secretary choice, for instance, has come under heavy fire from the leftwing ideologues who think government and education union controlled schools are the only way to go. Is belief that the government and education union controlled students are failing us--the USA is waaaaaaay behind most developed nations in education despite that we spend more per student capita than any other nation. This was three years ago, but I am confident nothing has changed:
U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows
The proposed education secretary has devoted a great deal of her life, energy, and philanthropy to the cause of good education but both she and Trump see eye to eye on how to start turning that around.

So is it ideology that promotes home schooling, charter schools, school choice, etc. in the face of the failures of the general public schools? Or is it common sense?

Well, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, no more so than in politics. The two ends will give you wildly different visions of common sense and swear to have a vice-like grip on it.

What I'm saying is that, if you look at these people from the standard political perspective, they clearly fall on the strong conservative side of the spectrum.

Might they be non-ideological and moderate and open-minded and curious in practice? Sure, it's possible, and I'm looking forward to being proven wrong. I'm just a little nervous at this early stage at what I'm seeing.
.

Conservatism in itself is not an ideology. Only those who defend certain concepts labeled conservative in the face of evidence that such does not merit a defense is ideology. Or pushing for a vision whether or not we see a clear path in how to reach it is an ideological concept.

It was conservative concepts such as those who break the law do not deserve more consideration and protection and sympathy than do the innocent who are harmed by those who break the law that earned Donald Trump votes in the past election. That is not born of ideology but is born of seeing the reality of the situation.

It was conservative concepts such as the education system is failing our students and we need to do something different that will work that turned people to Trump. That is not an ideological concept but is a pure verifiable fact.

It was conservative concepts such as creating a stable and business friendly atmosphere as the best way to get the economy moving that elected him. We are getting closer to ideology here, but we do have some clear evidence that what Trump is proposing has worked in the past.

So these are not ideological concepts. They are hard facts. Facts that most of those on the left disagree with and condemn as 'fascist' or 'anti-school' or 'oppressing the poor' yadda yadda.

Why in the world would you expect Trump to appoint people who want to maintain the status quo that he opposes or take us further left when that has so far failed? This is not ideology. It is in reasoned and reasonable belief in correcting what is wrong and getting it more right.

I've heard this "conservatism is not an ideology" thing before, and I don't agree. Plus, let's take this in context: We're talking about Left vs. Right ideologies, so let's just keep it simple.

And regarding "hard facts", another counter-productive element of ideologies is that they cause people to make up definitions to match their agenda, creating "facts" as they go. Both Republicans and Democrats have perfectly reasonable arguments for their positions on education and business and economics. In my non-ideological view, the smartest thing to do is just admit that and begin by looking for common ground.
.

There is no common ground when one side wants to continue policies that have obviously failed or have produced such tiny improvements at huge expense. Sometimes one side simply cannot have its way. As for whose definition shall be the 'correct' one, that is a whole different topic altogether. (Ideology usually causes a discussion about definitions to dissolve into a food fight too.)

But I digress - back on topic:

It is a erroneous ideological concept that two people, two entities, two political parties, etc. can always find a way to agree. Sometimes we won't agree and in those cases the majority will usually be the side that wins.

The person or group who labels the new education secretary as 'anti-school' is speaking from pure ideology and such people are almost never going to be reasoned with or reasonable. There is no common sense to be found in that kind of mindset or mindless statement.

The person who reads her resume and agrees with her approach to education is not necessarily operating out of pure ideology but rather can be operating out of common sense that her point of view makes a lot of sense.

Yes there is a general 'left' ideology and a general 'right' ideology in that proponents of each are more often than not going to be agreement on certain things. For example, those on the left are much more likely to see government as a solution for most problems while those on the right are much more likely to see government as the problem in most problems. That is ideological on a broad basis.

But bring it down to individual issues, and the arguments may or may not be ideologically driven.

Oh, I think there can be common ground found on most topics, if both ends are willing to be honest, reasonable and non-ideological.

The only issue that I can see an argument of no common ground is abortion. Pretty much everything else can have starting points.

Beyond that, I think any adult should be able to say "I'm not going to win everything; I'll win some, I'll lose some, I'll compromise on some. That's life."
.
.

Where is the compromise when one side demands that all the money go to the existing public schools on the theory they just need more money to be successful vs the side that believes the public schools are failing and should not be the only choice?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where is the compromise when one side demands that all the money go to the existing public schools on the theory they just need more money to be successful vs the side that believes the public schools are failing and should not be the only choice?

One cannot compromise when one or both sides are using universal terms like 'all of....'

 

[Foxfyre]

Where is the compromise when one side demands that all the money go to the existing public schools on the theory they just need more money to be successful vs the side that believes the public schools are failing and should not be the only choice?

One cannot compromise when one or both sides are using universal terms like 'all of....'

I figure if anybody on the planet can cut some deals so that all the factions get at least something they want, Donald Trump is the most likely person to have the skills to accomplish that.

But there can be no compromise with the mindset of those who would accuse the proposed education secretary of being 'anti school' because she accurately observes that too many public schools are miserably failing and that we need other options to educate the kids.

 

[Pogo]

The Washington Post seems to think that Trump more closely resembles an independent that did a 'hostile take over' of the GOP, than a genuine Republican.

But what defines Republican, or Democrat or Independent? Few seem to define these labels as anything other than membership in one of the two main parties or neither of them. There is no hard cast ideological definition of what a Republican is any more than here was eighty years ago, a definition that has been left behind in the dust of history. Back in the 1930's the GOP stood for Protectionism, Nationalism and a strong National Defense while we maintained a pseudo Isolationist view of the world.

No one in the Republican Party advances those same issues today, so why would we expect the GOP to remain steadfast to some other once dominant ideologies? Whatever the GOP was 4 years ago or 8 years ago, one thing it was for certain was a LOSER party that had painted itself into a demographic corner and had no way of getting out of it until Trump came along. While it had co-opted the Tea Party movement, a civil war ignited between the business as usual Party Establishment and the new rank and file over what was to be done.

While Trump is not a Tea Party man, he does have a whole lot of support among them. His problem within the GOP is that the hard core right, the Mark Levins, the Michael Savages, the Rush Limbaughs seem to want purity over effectiveness, and perfection over the 'good enough'. It is way past time for these ideologues to lose their control of the GOP so it can once again lead a more peaceful dialogue with the opposition and the left out of this country.

And Donald Trump has done three things that are simply amazing as a result of his ability to exploit the political situation from what it was a year go; he won the Presidency, he has brought back into the political discussion millions of out cast voters, and he has rebranded the Republican Party into a more populist and less ideologically pure party that once again has a chance to win a Presidential election.

And the GOP is all the better for it.

Yes Donald Trump is a Republican, and he is THE Republican.

Impossible to say. Rump is a sui generis Narcissist who really is unconcerned with any kind of policy at all. His interest is in gathering attention to himself, and he'll do or say whatever it takes to that end. Just as throughout his life he's cozied up to Democrats, or Republicans -- whoever serves his self-interest at the time. For all his faults, and there are countless--- being hopelessly partisan is not one of them.

How that translates to actual policies is a complete crapshoot with no guarantees at all. Depends on what works for Numero Uno at the moment.

As for political parties, they really mean nothing. That's just a vehicle to consolidate power and acquire it en masse. What its policies are changes with the times. Certainly the Duopoly of the two we have have swapped places virtually in their entirety over their history, so trying to pin that down to a fixed position is kind of pointless.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Washington Post seems to think that Trump more closely resembles an independent that did a 'hostile take over' of the GOP, than a genuine Republican.

But what defines Republican, or Democrat or Independent? Few seem to define these labels as anything other than membership in one of the two main parties or neither of them. There is no hard cast ideological definition of what a Republican is any more than here was eighty years ago, a definition that has been left behind in the dust of history. Back in the 1930's the GOP stood for Protectionism, Nationalism and a strong National Defense while we maintained a pseudo Isolationist view of the world.

No one in the Republican Party advances those same issues today, so why would we expect the GOP to remain steadfast to some other once dominant ideologies? Whatever the GOP was 4 years ago or 8 years ago, one thing it was for certain was a LOSER party that had painted itself into a demographic corner and had no way of getting out of it until Trump came along. While it had co-opted the Tea Party movement, a civil war ignited between the business as usual Party Establishment and the new rank and file over what was to be done.

While Trump is not a Tea Party man, he does have a whole lot of support among them. His problem within the GOP is that the hard core right, the Mark Levins, the Michael Savages, the Rush Limbaughs seem to want purity over effectiveness, and perfection over the 'good enough'. It is way past time for these ideologues to lose their control of the GOP so it can once again lead a more peaceful dialogue with the opposition and the left out of this country.

And Donald Trump has done three things that are simply amazing as a result of his ability to exploit the political situation from what it was a year go; he won the Presidency, he has brought back into the political discussion millions of out cast voters, and he has rebranded the Republican Party into a more populist and less ideologically pure party that once again has a chance to win a Presidential election.

And the GOP is all the better for it.

Yes Donald Trump is a Republican, and he is THE Republican.

His policies don't reflect any of the current political parties. He's a populist or even a constitutionalist.

It's going to be an interesting 8 years.

This is precisely why the GOP opposed him so strongly and so many literally tried to cut the legs out from under him. He is NOT one of 'them', i.e. a member of the permanent political class that exists primarily to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

That is not born of any kind of ideology but of self serving opportunism.

It's just that the GOP BASE holds mostly conservative (little 'c') views and Trump sees value in, or at least opportunity in, those views that took him to the GOP instead of the Democrats in this election. It is us conservatives (little 'c') as the term is used in modern day America who have felt the most screwed and mistreated under Obama's progressivism.

 

[Pogo]

He is NOT one of 'them', i.e. a member of the permanent political class that exists primarily to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

Actually if you strike the word "political" there, the "NOT" goes with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is NOT one of 'them', i.e. a member of the permanent political class that exists primarily to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

Actually if you strike the word "political" there, the "NOT" goes with it.

But striking the word 'political' completely changes the context and meaning of the point I was making. The permanent political class is a very distinct term for a specific definition.

 

[Pogo]

He is NOT one of 'them', i.e. a member of the permanent political class that exists primarily to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

Actually if you strike the word "political" there, the "NOT" goes with it.

But striking the word 'political' completely changes the context and meaning of the point I was making. The permanent political class is a very distinct term for a specific definition.

But the other adjectives are all confirmed. I don't see "political" as much of a distinction -- unless there's some kind of ideology involved. And that's not very common.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is NOT one of 'them', i.e. a member of the permanent political class that exists primarily to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

Actually if you strike the word "political" there, the "NOT" goes with it.

But striking the word 'political' completely changes the context and meaning of the point I was making. The permanent political class is a very distinct term for a specific definition.

But the other adjectives are all confirmed. I don't see "political" as much of a distinction -- unless there's some kind of ideology involved. And that's not very common.

Love ya Pogo, but I've gotten into these discussions over definitions with you before. My definition for permanent political class is quite definite, at risk of being redundant, and I just don't have the time or stamina to have a go with you on that today. Hope you and yours had a great Thanksgiving though and are well in this holiday season.

 

[Pogo]

He is NOT one of 'them', i.e. a member of the permanent political class that exists primarily to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

Actually if you strike the word "political" there, the "NOT" goes with it.

But striking the word 'political' completely changes the context and meaning of the point I was making. The permanent political class is a very distinct term for a specific definition.

But the other adjectives are all confirmed. I don't see "political" as much of a distinction -- unless there's some kind of ideology involved. And that's not very common.

Love ya Pogo, but I've gotten into these discussions over definitions with you before. My definition for permanent political class is quite definite, at risk of being redundant, and I just don't have the time or stamina to have a go with you on that today. Hope you and yours had a great Thanksgiving though and are well in this holiday season.

First things first, love ya back Foxy, and all the best to you and yours.

We have had discussions on definitions yes but not this one. Actually I'm not parsing a definition --- I simply don't think there's much to a political party beyond its own self-preservation. That's why I don't hang with them.

We don't have political ideology classes really -- we have power classes, and those are divided into the have-powers and the have-nots. Parties are interchangeable.

 

[longknife]

The Washington Post seems to think that Trump more closely resembles an independent that did a 'hostile take over' of the GOP, than a genuine Republican.

But what defines Republican, or Democrat or Independent? Few seem to define these labels as anything other than membership in one of the two main parties or neither of them. There is no hard cast ideological definition of what a Republican is any more than here was eighty years ago, a definition that has been left behind in the dust of history. Back in the 1930's the GOP stood for Protectionism, Nationalism and a strong National Defense while we maintained a pseudo Isolationist view of the world.

No one in the Republican Party advances those same issues today, so why would we expect the GOP to remain steadfast to some other once dominant ideologies? Whatever the GOP was 4 years ago or 8 years ago, one thing it was for certain was a LOSER party that had painted itself into a demographic corner and had no way of getting out of it until Trump came along. While it had co-opted the Tea Party movement, a civil war ignited between the business as usual Party Establishment and the new rank and file over what was to be done.

While Trump is not a Tea Party man, he does have a whole lot of support among them. His problem within the GOP is that the hard core right, the Mark Levins, the Michael Savages, the Rush Limbaughs seem to want purity over effectiveness, and perfection over the 'good enough'. It is way past time for these ideologues to lose their control of the GOP so it can once again lead a more peaceful dialogue with the opposition and the left out of this country.

And Donald Trump has done three things that are simply amazing as a result of his ability to exploit the political situation from what it was a year go; he won the Presidency, he has brought back into the political discussion millions of out cast voters, and he has rebranded the Republican Party into a more populist and less ideologically pure party that once again has a chance to win a Presidential election.

And the GOP is all the better for it.

Yes Donald Trump is a Republican, and he is THE Republican.

Impossible to say. Rump is a sui generis Narcissist who really is unconcerned with any kind of policy at all. His interest is in gathering attention to himself, and he'll do or say whatever it takes to that end. Just as throughout his life he's cozied up to Democrats, or Republicans -- whoever serves his self-interest at the time. For all his faults, and there are countless--- being hopelessly partisan is not one of them.

How that translates to actual policies is a complete crapshoot with no guarantees at all. Depends on what works for Numero Uno at the moment.

As for political parties, they really mean nothing. That's just a vehicle to consolidate power and acquire it en masse. What its policies are changes with the times. Certainly the Duopoly of the two we have have swapped places virtually in their entirety over their history, so trying to pin that down to a fixed position is kind of pointless.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But striking the word 'political' completely changes the context and meaning of the point I was making. The permanent political class is a very distinct term for a specific definition.

Wow, you have the time to engage in navel gazing discussions with Pogo?

And I thought I had too much time on MY hands!

 

[Foxfyre]

But striking the word 'political' completely changes the context and meaning of the point I was making. The permanent political class is a very distinct term for a specific definition.

Wow, you have the time to engage in navel gazing discussions with Pogo?

And I thought I had too much time on MY hands!

Pogo is a great guy with a good heart and a sharp mind. He's somebody I appreciate a lot. It's just that he's a tad more than borderline OCD when it comes to definitions.