The GOP in a Post-Trump World

[Blackrook]

In either 1 or 5 years, it will be a reality.
Does the GOP continue to be the party run by conspiracy theories (Q-Anon) where everyone is out to get them or do they move toward the sane middle?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that invites hate into it's platform or do they join the right-thinking Americans who disavow hate groups?
Does the GOP continue to call the press the "enemy of the people" or do they once again support freedom of the press?

Also, a bonus question. If you had to pick a person who is going to be the 2024 GOP candidate for President...who would you pick

Serious replies only. Thanks in advance.

Unless Limbaugh dies soon and takes Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and the entire crew at breightbart "news" with him they will continue to be rabid nut-bars with no connection to reality.

Those guys were still around when Bush, Romney, etc... were nominees and Presidents. They had some tether to reality at that point. So I don't really think their thought leaders will be driving it. Ratings in Radio and TV and the Internet to a degree are given by the vierwship/listenership of the stations, channels, and websites. The reason FOX focuses on sex appeal in their news readers isn't because they are qualified...its because they know who watches their station...angry frustrated males. The reason the guys you mentioned are so hateful is because their patrons are hateful. It is interesting that the hate has only gotten worse with the blob in office; is it not? It does reveal what the blob agenda is about...crystallized beautifully by Andrew Shepherd in the American President....he is interested in two things, "telling you who is to blame and making you afraid".

Anyway....I think that there will be a pendulum swing back toward the middle once the blob oozes out of office. But I think it will be a generation of three before most of us can have two parties to choose from once more.

To paraphrase Deep Throat from All the President’s Men: don’t believe the myth about Trump the media created, he’s not that smart.

Again, "telling you who is to blame and making you afraid" predates Trump; Republicans were using this sort of rhetoric more than 50 years ago – it got Nixon elected in 1968, it was the racism of Reagan’s ‘welfare queens.’

Trump is merely the symptom of a diseased GOP and the malignancy that is conservatism.

Clayton, go back to your university and demand a refund. All that education has just made you a twit.

He's correct.

Not that I expect you to admit it.

So long as Democrats are fucking killing little innocent children and fucking selling off their body parts for profit I will know that you fucking Democrats are in the wrong and I'm in the right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

The PBS thing is a small part of the budget but its clear that the American People shouldn't be paying for it when we're trillions in the hole already; small or not--doesn't matter.
As for Afghanistan, that was understandable at the time--that is where OBL was, protected by the Taliban, and some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained there as I recall
Iraq? That was a war of choice. A very bad choice.

So assuming the 2024 GOP candidate is a conventional politician, will you expect him (there is no her) to embrace facts and disavow conspiracy theories?

What matters is prioritizing spending cuts.

You start with what’s the most expensive.

As for the 2024 GOP candidate, assuming he’s a professional politician, he’ll acknowledge the facts beneficial to his campaign, and ignore the ones that don’t.

And he’ll use conspiracy theories to his advantage without getting dirty doing so.

 

[candycorn]

In either 1 or 5 years, it will be a reality.
Does the GOP continue to be the party run by conspiracy theories (Q-Anon) where everyone is out to get them or do they move toward the sane middle?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that invites hate into it's platform or do they join the right-thinking Americans who disavow hate groups?
Does the GOP continue to call the press the "enemy of the people" or do they once again support freedom of the press?

Also, a bonus question. If you had to pick a person who is going to be the 2024 GOP candidate for President...who would you pick

Serious replies only. Thanks in advance.

Unless Limbaugh dies soon and takes Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and the entire crew at breightbart "news" with him they will continue to be rabid nut-bars with no connection to reality.

Those guys were still around when Bush, Romney, etc... were nominees and Presidents. They had some tether to reality at that point. So I don't really think their thought leaders will be driving it. Ratings in Radio and TV and the Internet to a degree are given by the vierwship/listenership of the stations, channels, and websites. The reason FOX focuses on sex appeal in their news readers isn't because they are qualified...its because they know who watches their station...angry frustrated males. The reason the guys you mentioned are so hateful is because their patrons are hateful. It is interesting that the hate has only gotten worse with the blob in office; is it not? It does reveal what the blob agenda is about...crystallized beautifully by Andrew Shepherd in the American President....he is interested in two things, "telling you who is to blame and making you afraid".

Anyway....I think that there will be a pendulum swing back toward the middle once the blob oozes out of office. But I think it will be a generation of three before most of us can have two parties to choose from once more.

To paraphrase Deep Throat from All the President’s Men: don’t believe the myth about Trump the media created, he’s not that smart.

Again, "telling you who is to blame and making you afraid" predates Trump; Republicans were using this sort of rhetoric more than 50 years ago – it got Nixon elected in 1968, it was the racism of Reagan’s ‘welfare queens.’

Trump is merely the symptom of a diseased GOP and the malignancy that is conservatism.

Good Points.

This is what tickles me about all of the wild conspiracy theories they spin about the Democrats. On one hand, the DEMS would do anything to hold on to power but at the same time, they are taking the most unpopular stances which will certainly cost them at election time. This is the sort of wild conspiracy theory I was talking about in the OP.

The kicker is that Republicans don’t believe the ridiculous conspiracy theories they propagate – regardless how they respond in polls.

They know that Hillary wasn’t running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor.

Republicans also know they’re in the minority, that time is not on their side, that America is becoming more diverse, inclusive, and progressive.

Conspiracy theories, therefore, are a political tool Republicans have resorted to in an effort to offset that disadvantage – along with tactics such as voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Republicans seek to sow mistrust with, and discord in, the political process, to undermine the political process in the hope that voters perceived to be likely Democratic voters give up on the process and abandon voting altogether – thus maintaining Republicans’ minority rule.

Good stuff.

 

[Blackrook]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

The PBS thing is a small part of the budget but its clear that the American People shouldn't be paying for it when we're trillions in the hole already; small or not--doesn't matter.
As for Afghanistan, that was understandable at the time--that is where OBL was, protected by the Taliban, and some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained there as I recall
Iraq? That was a war of choice. A very bad choice.

So assuming the 2024 GOP candidate is a conventional politician, will you expect him (there is no her) to embrace facts and disavow conspiracy theories?

What matters is prioritizing spending cuts.

You start with what’s the most expensive.

As for the 2024 GOP candidate, assuming he’s a professional politician, he’ll acknowledge the facts beneficial to his campaign, and ignore the ones that don’t.

And he’ll use conspiracy theories to his advantage without getting dirty doing so.

Whoever he is, he'll be reasonable which is more than one can say for any Democrat.

 

[candycorn]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

The PBS thing is a small part of the budget but its clear that the American People shouldn't be paying for it when we're trillions in the hole already; small or not--doesn't matter.
As for Afghanistan, that was understandable at the time--that is where OBL was, protected by the Taliban, and some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained there as I recall
Iraq? That was a war of choice. A very bad choice.

So assuming the 2024 GOP candidate is a conventional politician, will you expect him (there is no her) to embrace facts and disavow conspiracy theories?

What matters is prioritizing spending cuts.

You start with what’s the most expensive.

As for the 2024 GOP candidate, assuming he’s a professional politician, he’ll acknowledge the facts beneficial to his campaign, and ignore the ones that don’t.

And he’ll use conspiracy theories to his advantage without getting dirty doing so.

Perhaps not. Remember when McCain put that old bitty in her place about Obama's citizenry? One of the brighter more recent points of American Politics and it wasn't all that long ago. And like you said earlier, those who continue to trumpet the long-debunked theory about Obama being born in Kenya don't really believe so...they are just carrying the water for the blob.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

The PBS thing is a small part of the budget but its clear that the American People shouldn't be paying for it when we're trillions in the hole already; small or not--doesn't matter.
As for Afghanistan, that was understandable at the time--that is where OBL was, protected by the Taliban, and some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained there as I recall
Iraq? That was a war of choice. A very bad choice.

So assuming the 2024 GOP candidate is a conventional politician, will you expect him (there is no her) to embrace facts and disavow conspiracy theories?

What matters is prioritizing spending cuts.

You start with what’s the most expensive.

As for the 2024 GOP candidate, assuming he’s a professional politician, he’ll acknowledge the facts beneficial to his campaign, and ignore the ones that don’t.

And he’ll use conspiracy theories to his advantage without getting dirty doing so.

Perhaps not. Remember when McCain put that old bitty in her place about Obama's citizenry? One of the brighter more recent points of American Politics and it wasn't all that long ago. And like you said earlier, those who continue to trumpet the long-debunked theory about Obama being born in Kenya don't really believe so...they are just carrying the water for the blob.

Correct.

McCain the consummate politician.

But McCain gladly accepted her vote – and had no problem with Republican political operatives using fear, racism, and hate to garner more votes for McCain; see, e.g., Sarah Palin.

 

[candycorn]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

The PBS thing is a small part of the budget but its clear that the American People shouldn't be paying for it when we're trillions in the hole already; small or not--doesn't matter.
As for Afghanistan, that was understandable at the time--that is where OBL was, protected by the Taliban, and some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained there as I recall
Iraq? That was a war of choice. A very bad choice.

So assuming the 2024 GOP candidate is a conventional politician, will you expect him (there is no her) to embrace facts and disavow conspiracy theories?

What matters is prioritizing spending cuts.

You start with what’s the most expensive.

As for the 2024 GOP candidate, assuming he’s a professional politician, he’ll acknowledge the facts beneficial to his campaign, and ignore the ones that don’t.

And he’ll use conspiracy theories to his advantage without getting dirty doing so.

Perhaps not. Remember when McCain put that old bitty in her place about Obama's citizenry? One of the brighter more recent points of American Politics and it wasn't all that long ago. And like you said earlier, those who continue to trumpet the long-debunked theory about Obama being born in Kenya don't really believe so...they are just carrying the water for the blob.

Correct.

McCain the consummate politician.

But McCain gladly accepted her vote – and had no problem with Republican political operatives using fear, racism, and hate to garner more votes for McCain; see, e.g., Sarah Palin.

Well hold on....

Obama likely took the votes of thousands who disagreed with him on a number of issues. Jewish supporters who voted for him for example probably were not happy about the 2 state solution.

Just as we pick the candidate who best fits our desires; candidates take support from people who don't share all of their views as well.

I will agree that with the GOP, the radical far right is much more anti-American than the radical far-left who are not exactly the type of people I want to see gain traction in the next DEM administration. So you're right, GOP candidates have no problem taking votes from hate groups but DNC candidates have no problem taking votes from the pie-in-the-sky liberals. Remember Dennis Kucinich who wanted to replace the Defense Dept. with the Peace Dept?

 

[WelfareQueen]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

You mean the War Joe and Hillary voted for and supported. The war Trump always opposed? That war?

 

[Mello711]

I also wonder if the next republican candidate will be as radical as trump, or if he will be more moderate.

 

[Mello711]

In either 1 or 5 years, it will be a reality.
Does the GOP continue to be the party run by conspiracy theories (Q-Anon) where everyone is out to get them or do they move toward the sane middle?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that invites hate into it's platform or do they join the right-thinking Americans who disavow hate groups?
Does the GOP continue to call the press the "enemy of the people" or do they once again support freedom of the press?

Also, a bonus question. If you had to pick a person who is going to be the 2024 GOP candidate for President...who would you pick

Serious replies only. Thanks in advance.

Unless Limbaugh dies soon and takes Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and the entire crew at breightbart "news" with him they will continue to be rabid nut-bars with no connection to reality.

Those guys were still around when Bush, Romney, etc... were nominees and Presidents. They had some tether to reality at that point. So I don't really think their thought leaders will be driving it. Ratings in Radio and TV and the Internet to a degree are given by the vierwship/listenership of the stations, channels, and websites. The reason FOX focuses on sex appeal in their news readers isn't because they are qualified...its because they know who watches their station...angry frustrated males. The reason the guys you mentioned are so hateful is because their patrons are hateful. It is interesting that the hate has only gotten worse with the blob in office; is it not? It does reveal what the blob agenda is about...crystallized beautifully by Andrew Shepherd in the American President....he is interested in two things, "telling you who is to blame and making you afraid".

Anyway....I think that there will be a pendulum swing back toward the middle once the blob oozes out of office. But I think it will be a generation of three before most of us can have two parties to choose from once more.

To paraphrase Deep Throat from All the President’s Men: don’t believe the myth about Trump the media created, he’s not that smart.

Again, "telling you who is to blame and making you afraid" predates Trump; Republicans were using this sort of rhetoric more than 50 years ago – it got Nixon elected in 1968, it was the racism of Reagan’s ‘welfare queens.’

Trump is merely the symptom of a diseased GOP and the malignancy that is conservatism.

Clayton, go back to your university and demand a refund. All that education has just made you a twit.

He's correct.

Not that I expect you to admit it.

So long as Democrats are fucking killing little innocent children and fucking selling off their body parts for profit I will know that you fucking Democrats are in the wrong and I'm in the right.

You think republicans aren’t doing the same things? You think that not one person involved in the scheme was a republican? Cmon man

 

[candycorn]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

You mean the War Joe and Hillary voted for and supported. The war Trump always opposed? That war?

Actually he supported it when asked.

 

[candycorn]

I also wonder if the next republican candidate will be as radical as trump, or if he will be more moderate.

Radical...in what way?

If you are of the belief that Washington needs to change, radical action is needed. The problem is that the "radical" approaches the blob has taken have been rather dumb. Starting a trade war with allies is dumb. Stating that building a wall from coast to coast is dumb considering most illegals are here due to visa over-stays. Sending mixed signals to allies is dumb. Destroying your personal credibility is dumb.

 

[Mello711]

I also wonder if the next republican candidate will be as radical as trump, or if he will be more moderate.

Radical...in what way?

If you are of the belief that Washington needs to change, radical action is needed. The problem is that the "radical" approaches the blob has taken have been rather dumb. Starting a trade war with allies is dumb. Stating that building a wall from coast to coast is dumb considering most illegals are here due to visa over-stays. Sending mixed signals to allies is dumb. Destroying your personal credibility is dumb.

Well I mean radical as far as hatred and bigotry

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

In either 1 or 5 years, it will be a reality.
Does the GOP continue to be the party run by conspiracy theories (Q-Anon) where everyone is out to get them or do they move toward the sane middle?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that invites hate into it's platform or do they join the right-thinking Americans who disavow hate groups?
Does the GOP continue to call the press the "enemy of the people" or do they once again support freedom of the press?

Also, a bonus question. If you had to pick a person who is going to be the 2024 GOP candidate for President...who would you pick

Serious replies only. Thanks in advance.

I thought q was dead ...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In either 1 or 5 years, it will be a reality.
Does the GOP continue to be the party run by conspiracy theories (Q-Anon) where everyone is out to get them or do they move toward the sane middle?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?
Does the GOP continue to be the party that invites hate into it's platform or do they join the right-thinking Americans who disavow hate groups?
Does the GOP continue to call the press the "enemy of the people" or do they once again support freedom of the press?

Also, a bonus question. If you had to pick a person who is going to be the 2024 GOP candidate for President...who would you pick

Serious replies only. Thanks in advance.

To expand on the thread a bit – can the GOP return to being a moderate, slightly right of center party, the party of Eisenhower and Goldwater, a party not dominated by social conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, and rightwing extremists and ideologues?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

The PBS thing is a small part of the budget but its clear that the American People shouldn't be paying for it when we're trillions in the hole already; small or not--doesn't matter.
As for Afghanistan, that was understandable at the time--that is where OBL was, protected by the Taliban, and some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained there as I recall
Iraq? That was a war of choice. A very bad choice.

So assuming the 2024 GOP candidate is a conventional politician, will you expect him (there is no her) to embrace facts and disavow conspiracy theories?

What matters is prioritizing spending cuts.

You start with what’s the most expensive.

As for the 2024 GOP candidate, assuming he’s a professional politician, he’ll acknowledge the facts beneficial to his campaign, and ignore the ones that don’t.

And he’ll use conspiracy theories to his advantage without getting dirty doing so.

Perhaps not. Remember when McCain put that old bitty in her place about Obama's citizenry? One of the brighter more recent points of American Politics and it wasn't all that long ago. And like you said earlier, those who continue to trumpet the long-debunked theory about Obama being born in Kenya don't really believe so...they are just carrying the water for the blob.

Correct.

McCain the consummate politician.

But McCain gladly accepted her vote – and had no problem with Republican political operatives using fear, racism, and hate to garner more votes for McCain; see, e.g., Sarah Palin.

Well hold on....

Obama likely took the votes of thousands who disagreed with him on a number of issues. Jewish supporters who voted for him for example probably were not happy about the 2 state solution.

Just as we pick the candidate who best fits our desires; candidates take support from people who don't share all of their views as well.

I will agree that with the GOP, the radical far right is much more anti-American than the radical far-left who are not exactly the type of people I want to see gain traction in the next DEM administration. So you're right, GOP candidates have no problem taking votes from hate groups but DNC candidates have no problem taking votes from the pie-in-the-sky liberals. Remember Dennis Kucinich who wanted to replace the Defense Dept. with the Peace Dept?

I don’t accept the premise that Democrats and Republicans are ‘the same’; whatever the Democrats’ faults and failing – and there are many – to attempt to compare the two is meritless sophistry.

That some Democrats might advocate for naïve, pie-in-the-sky policies is in no manner the same as Republicans facilitating and exploiting fear, hate, bigotry, and racism for political gain.

Moreover, unlike the extreme right and its significant influence over the GOP, the radical far-left has been relegated to the political wilderness for at least the last 40 years (no biblical reference intended) – with little, if any, influence over Democratic policies and positions.

Unlike the GOP, the Democratic party remains a moderate, slightly center-left party – that the likes of Joe Biden will be their presidential nominee is compelling evidence of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I also wonder if the next republican candidate will be as radical as trump, or if he will be more moderate.

It’s not so much a matter of radical vs. moderate – rather, it’s a matter of experienced politician vs. a feckless amateur and neophyte, Trump being the latter.

In fact, Trump is the typical conservative: authoritarian, frightened of diversity, inclusion, and positive, beneficial change, seeking to compel conformity and punish dissent – consequently, Trump is in no manner a ‘radical.’

The problem with Trump is he lacks the temperament, experience, and political acumen to be president – or to hold any elected office, for that matter.

It’s anyone’s guess as to whether Republicans will repeat the Trump debacle.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I also wonder if the next republican candidate will be as radical as trump, or if he will be more moderate.

Radical...in what way?

If you are of the belief that Washington needs to change, radical action is needed. The problem is that the "radical" approaches the blob has taken have been rather dumb. Starting a trade war with allies is dumb. Stating that building a wall from coast to coast is dumb considering most illegals are here due to visa over-stays. Sending mixed signals to allies is dumb. Destroying your personal credibility is dumb.

Exactly.

And that most undocumented persons are here due to visa over-stays is a fact Trump and his supporters gleefully ignore.

Much more frightening and compelling to conservatives is the lie that ‘illegals’ are streaming over the border, taking white Americans’ jobs.

 

[candycorn]

‘Does the GOP continue to be the party that discounts facts as "partisan rhetoric" or do they once again accept facts and form positions based on those facts?’

It’s been a very long time since Republicans accepted facts and formed positions based on those facts, long before the advent of Trump.

Indeed, Trump is the product of decades of Republicans ignoring the facts, rejecting the truth, and adhering blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative political, social, and economic dogma.

This won’t change when Trump is gone – it will in fact get worse, particularly if Biden is elected this November.

Good Post. I disagree with some of it though.

Did Bush disavow facts like the blob does? No. Neither did Romney. Neither did McCain. I agree with you on the social and economic dogma incluing Roe and tax cuts. Political dogma? Obama had it right (and was skewered by Pelosi and others by the way) that we do need to reform Social Security and entitlements and I think Bush/Romney/McCain would agree. FWIW, Romney was right about a few things; why are we still funding PBS when we're trillions in the hole? Any EPA ruling that will cost us X number of jobs should be subject to congressional vote.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain were professional politicians – Trump is not.

Reagan, GHWB, GWB, Romney, and McCain had the political acumen to use the hate, fear, and racism of the GOP to their political advantage without getting dirty themselves.

Trump does not.

And Romney was wrong about PBS, its budget is miniscule compared to other appropriations – he was just pushing a favorite rightwing hot button issue for votes.

Funding PBS is perfectly appropriate and warranted – it benefits the nation as a whole.

The better question is why are we funding a failed, illegal war in Afghanistan – which in no manner benefits the nation.

The PBS thing is a small part of the budget but its clear that the American People shouldn't be paying for it when we're trillions in the hole already; small or not--doesn't matter.
As for Afghanistan, that was understandable at the time--that is where OBL was, protected by the Taliban, and some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained there as I recall
Iraq? That was a war of choice. A very bad choice.

So assuming the 2024 GOP candidate is a conventional politician, will you expect him (there is no her) to embrace facts and disavow conspiracy theories?

What matters is prioritizing spending cuts.

You start with what’s the most expensive.

As for the 2024 GOP candidate, assuming he’s a professional politician, he’ll acknowledge the facts beneficial to his campaign, and ignore the ones that don’t.

And he’ll use conspiracy theories to his advantage without getting dirty doing so.

Perhaps not. Remember when McCain put that old bitty in her place about Obama's citizenry? One of the brighter more recent points of American Politics and it wasn't all that long ago. And like you said earlier, those who continue to trumpet the long-debunked theory about Obama being born in Kenya don't really believe so...they are just carrying the water for the blob.

Correct.

McCain the consummate politician.

But McCain gladly accepted her vote – and had no problem with Republican political operatives using fear, racism, and hate to garner more votes for McCain; see, e.g., Sarah Palin.

Well hold on....

Obama likely took the votes of thousands who disagreed with him on a number of issues. Jewish supporters who voted for him for example probably were not happy about the 2 state solution.

Just as we pick the candidate who best fits our desires; candidates take support from people who don't share all of their views as well.

I will agree that with the GOP, the radical far right is much more anti-American than the radical far-left who are not exactly the type of people I want to see gain traction in the next DEM administration. So you're right, GOP candidates have no problem taking votes from hate groups but DNC candidates have no problem taking votes from the pie-in-the-sky liberals. Remember Dennis Kucinich who wanted to replace the Defense Dept. with the Peace Dept?

I don’t accept the premise that Democrats and Republicans are ‘the same’; whatever the Democrats’ faults and failing – and there are many – to attempt to compare the two is meritless sophistry.

That some Democrats might advocate for naïve, pie-in-the-sky policies is in no manner the same as Republicans facilitating and exploiting fear, hate, bigotry, and racism for political gain.

Moreover, unlike the extreme right and its significant influence over the GOP, the radical far-left has been relegated to the political wilderness for at least the last 40 years (no biblical reference intended) – with little, if any, influence over Democratic policies and positions.

Unlike the GOP, the Democratic party remains a moderate, slightly center-left party – that the likes of Joe Biden will be their presidential nominee is compelling evidence of that.

Oh. I wasn't making the argument that they were the same policy wise. I think candidates are the same across the spectrum insofar as accepting support from people they would not want to put front and center if they were asked who their supporters were. This goes for Dems, Reps, Libertarians, Greens, etc...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I also wonder if the next republican candidate will be as radical as trump, or if he will be more moderate.

Radical...in what way?

If you are of the belief that Washington needs to change, radical action is needed. The problem is that the "radical" approaches the blob has taken have been rather dumb. Starting a trade war with allies is dumb. Stating that building a wall from coast to coast is dumb considering most illegals are here due to visa over-stays. Sending mixed signals to allies is dumb. Destroying your personal credibility is dumb.

Well I mean radical as far as hatred and bigotry

Understood.

‘Radical’ in that Trump was supposed to be the ‘anti-politician,’ a kind of rightwing Übermensch who would go to Washington, destroy the ‘Washington establishment,’ end ‘business-as-usual’ politics, and root-out the evil ‘deep state’ defending that hated ‘establishment.’

In this Trump was an unmitigated failure.