Can Trump unify the Republican Party?

[Seattle Husker]

Is it possible? Yesterday Paul Ryan, the former Republican darling, stated he won't support Trump until he proves he can unify the Republican party. The political consultant spin on this is that Ryan's non-support gives other House-Senate candidates leeway to not support Trump. Trump's response to Ryan? "I'm not ready to support his platform."

Yesterday, in Washington State, the R nominee to unseat Patty Murray, Chris Vance, openly stated he wouldn't be voting for Trump. This is occurring in many State races across the country, especially in purple/blue states.

Trump claims he a "unifier" but is that said in the same vein as "women love me" and "Hispanics love me"? Trump's build a base of support on an authoritarian platform. Rather than "unifying" his platform/strategy is "they will bow to my will". Is it possible for him to unify the party?

 

[Musburger1]

The short answer is no. The groundswell of support Trump has received is anti-establishment. These are nationally oriented people who blame globalism for a decline in their income and living standard. The establishment Republican Party which represents corporate interests above all, supports TTIP and TPP which Trump and his supporters oppose. You can't close that gulf.

The other issue is foreign policy. I don't think Trump's supporters are very much focused on this issue, but the establishment is very much threatened by Trump's positions which elevate diplomacy over the threats of force and regime change. The possibility of disbanding NATO and protecting Japan if they don't pay for the protection also is enathema to the establishment.

The question isn't whether Trump can unite the party (he can't), but whether a third party will emerge if he holds to his guns.

 

[UTChE96]

Trump can't but Hillary probably could. Hillary has been forced so far to the left because of Sanders. I think her leftist stances will motivate the Republican base. Plus Trump will continue reminding voters about the number of SCOTUS appointments over the next four years. I think after a few months, many Republicans will hold their nose and vote against Hillary (not so much for Trump).

Furthermore, I'm not sure Ryan has much credibility after passing the recent Omnibus spending bill. If the Congressional Republicans were trying to ensure a Trump nomination, they could not have done a better job than passing that irresponsible spending bill.

That said, I still doubt Trump can overcome his negatives with women and Hispanics to win a general election. But I have been wrong about Trump so far, so who knows.

 

[Musburger1]

Each party has contradictions and dichotomies which are beginning to come to light as a result of the Trump and Sanders campaigns.

First the Republicans. Most of the support base want to slash spending. Only a few of the Republican congressmen actually advocate spending cuts although all of them have to publically champion the cause. Behind the scenes, corporate interests as well as Wall Street know that when spending is cut, profits go down and growth stalls. When Trump talks about rebuilding infrastructure (bridges, highways, airports, high speed rail) this sounds more like Roosevelt to many Republicans.

Secondly is "trade." You won't hear Republicans use the term off shore. Instead they use the term free trade. In many of these "free trade" arrangements nothing is ever exported from the US. What happens is US companies set up subsidiaries in other countries and then export their product back home. That's why we have trade deficits. As we see, a number of Republicans insist we keep pushing for more of this "free trade" while at the same time many more have figured out its not such a great deal for them.

Democrats on the other hand traditionally have claimed to be the champion of labor and the working class. But just as the Republicans falsely claim to be for smaller government, most democrats are now bought and paid for by Wall Street and many corporate interests. Hillary is an example and both Sanders and Trump (NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA) are pouncing on this. So as Hillary feigns moving further left, she owes her millions to her Wall Street masters.

Also, Hillary is a neocon and therefore aligns more closely with Republicans on foreign policy. Trump will not get the support of the Republican establishment but Hillary's support from the rank and file Democrat is tenuous.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump can't but Hillary probably could. Hillary has been forced so far to the left because of Sanders. I think her leftist stances will motivate the Republican base.

How crazy is it that both Parties will rely on presumptive nominees of the other party to energize their own party? That says a lot about the current state of our political parties.

 

[Mr. Deez]

How crazy is it that both Parties will rely on presumptive nominees of the other party to energize their own party? That says a lot about the current state of our political parties.

May the worst candidate lose.

 

[Phil Elliott]

That says a lot about the current state of our political parties.

This is true. The rise of Trump and Bernie says to me that voters on both sides are pretty fed-up with our current political class.

 

[nashhorn]

Furthermore, I'm not sure Ryan has much credibility after passing the recent Omnibus spending bill. If the Congressional Republicans were trying to ensure a Trump nomination, they could not have done a better job than passing that irresponsible spending bill.

That said, I still doubt Trump can overcome his negatives with women and Hispanics to win a general election. But I have been wrong about Trump so far, so who knows.

Exactomundo

 

[Joe Fan]

Can Hillary unify the Republican Party?

FIFY

 

[Mr. Deez]

FIFY

Yep. But I don't think she will. I think she'll run a moderate campaign in hopes that she won't motivate anti-Trump conservatives to hold their noses and vote for him. Trump and his idiocy will be enough to motivate the Democratic base.

 

[Joe Fan]

She just said she is going to go buck wild with gun control via executive order.

 

[Seattle Husker]

She just said she is going to go buck wild with gun control via executive order.

On Donald Trump said he default on the US Debt as a means to renegotiate and reduce it.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/

"I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal," Trump said. "And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can't lose."

Our national debt should be the #1 campaign issue. Neither candidate is prepared to deal with it but Trump acting like a loose cannon could be disastrous.

 

[Joe Fan]

Our national debt should be the #1 campaign issue....

Not to diminish the debt but the overwhelming issue of this election is the future make-up of the SCOTUS. If Hillary gets multiple nominations, she will effectively install a permanent leftist majority. If this happens, Separation of Powers will be eroded to the point of being meaningless. At that point, the American Experiment will be over.

Actions of a President can often be subsequently undone or reversed. Not so much with the Court. Its work tends to be longer-lasting, usually permanent. These people do not like the restraints the Constitution puts on them, and they plan to fix that as soon as they can ("fundamentally transform the United States of America"). This election is the Battle of Thermopylae - stop them now or it's all over.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Not to diminish the debt but the overwhelming issue of this election is the future make-up of the SCOTUS. If Hillary gets multiple nominations, she will effectively install a permanent leftist majority. If this happens, Separation of Powers will be eroded to the point of being meaningless. At that point, the American Experiment will be over.

Actions of a President can often be subsequently undone or reversed. Not so much with the Court. Its work tends to be longer-lasting, usually permanent. These people do not like the restraints the Constitution puts on them, and they plan to fix that as soon as they can ("fundamentally transform the United States of America"). This election is the Battle of Thermopylae - stop them now or it's all over.

Are you assuming the Democrats take back the Senate?

I'm not a lawyer but I'd wonder what Separation of Powers the libs on the court have eroded. On social issues they are clearly liberal but so is Trump so what guarantee do you have that he doesn't pull a Reagan and nominate another Kennedy?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Are you assuming the Democrats take back the Senate?

I'm not a lawyer but I'd wonder what Separation of Powers the libs on the court have eroded. On social issues they are clearly liberal but so is Trump so what guarantee do you have that he doesn't pull a Reagan and nominate another Kennedy?

It isn't necessarily the separation of powers doctrine that gets wildly different treatment from liberal justices. It has more to do with federalism. Of course, liberals haven't had a majority on the Supreme Court for many years, but when they did, their common practices were (1) using the 14th Amendment (usually the due process clause but sometimes the equal protection clause) to strike down any state law they don't like and usually on arbitrary reasoning; (2) strong hostility to the death penalty; (3) interpreting the commerce clause so broadly that as a practical matter there is no limitation on federal power; (4) interpreting the 10th Amendment so narrowly that it's pretty much meaningless; and (5) interpreting the 2nd Amendment so narrowly that it's pretty much meaningless.

Despite all that, I still won't vote for Trump. Right now I'm leaning toward voting for Gary Johnson, but Trump's talk about the debt is downright scary - makes me seriously consider voting for Hillary Clinton.

 

[Musburger1]

Trump cannot unify the Republican Party. His success up to this point is that he ran against the Republican Party.
1. The Republican Party is pro-globalism and pro-corporate. Trump has run on pro-labor and anti-globalism.
2. Trump has run on stemming the flow of both illegal immigration and Muslim immigration. The Party is anti-wall and describes the latter as bigoted.

These differences cannot be reconciled. If Trump compromises he loses support. If he doesn't compromise, the Party splits. It's really that clear cut.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Plus Trump will continue reminding voters about the number of SCOTUS appointments over the next four years. I think after a few months, many Republicans will hold their nose and vote against Hillary (not so much for Trump).

I'm one of them. Trump is not my favorite, but if my only realistic choices are Trump and Hillary, I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump. We absolutely cannot stand to have any more leftists appointed to the SCOTUS.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I seem to recall a lot of similar angst about what an actor(!) would do as POTUS, ie, Ronald Reagan. That worked out OK.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I seem to recall a lot of similar angst about what an actor(!) would do as POTUS, ie, Ronald Reagan. That worked out OK.

The concerns about Reagan centered around his experience, or lack thereof. Those concerns proved unfounded, as he was very effective and surrounded himself with good people.

The concerns about Trump center around his demeanor and radical ideas / ideals. He has relied upon insults, threats, and oneupsmanship throughout his life to get what he wants. That approach just won't work when dealing with crazy foreign leaders, or even rational ones, or with senators and congressman who have their own turf to protect. Plus, he has brought America's lowest common denominator of racism, sexism, and xenophobia to a roaring froth, and there is little doubt that he will continue to feed that ugly beast.

Indeed, my concern is not that Trump may prove unable to take the country in the direction he wants to. My concern is that he may prove able to do so.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If I hear another Trumpster compare Trump with Reagan I'm going to vomit. In fact, few politicians in recent history have LESS in common with Trump.

Yes, liberals claimed that Reagan was inexperienced and make the same claim about Trump. But you know what the difference is? They were full of **** about Reagan, but they (along with many conservatives) are right about Trump. When he became President, Reagan had been a successful two-term governor of the largest state in the country and had been politically active (even with national identity for 30 years). Trump has never held a government office and has no meaningful political experience of any kind.

Other differences? Reagan was a man of humility who sought out the best advisers and cabinet officials he could find. Trump is an arrogant know-it-all with delusions of grandeur who can't stop talking about himself and doesn't think he needs to listen to anybody.

More differences? When Reagan won the Republican nomination, he sought reconciliation and unity with moderate wing of the party. Trump is doing the political equivalent of an end zone dance.

Reagan offered a very clear conservative policy agenda and communicated it in a persuasive manner that convinced undecided voters to embrace it and liberals to at least make compromises to accommodate it. Trump's agenda is an incoherent clusterfuck riddled with inconsistencies, devoid of any clear principles, and communicated in about the most alienating manner possible. Furthermore, he can't even keep his positions straight from week to week. He's all over the map.

Along similar lines, Reagan appealed to people by selling his ideas. Trump appeals to people by bad-mouthing other people, and he has to do this, because it's impossible to sell such an disorganized mess of an a policy agenda.

Perhaps the biggest difference - Reagan believed that the American people would make America great by getting the government out of their way. Trump believes that he will make America great by empowering himself. It's a fundamental difference in approach.

 

[Musburger1]

I can only see one similarity between Trump and Reagan, but it's an important one.

Both of these men have the ability to use their speaking ability, charisma, salesmenship, etc. to go over the head of a hostile Congress and speak directly to the public in order to effect change.

 

[nashhorn]

Trump's talk about the debt is downright scary - makes me seriously consider voting for Hillary Clinton.

Just cannot get that scary for me. But it is quite scary to see Deez say that. I cannot imagine a scenario which would cause me to vote for Hillary. She disturbs me that much on sooooo many levels.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I can only see one similarity between Trump and Reagan, but it's an important one.

Both of these men have the ability to use their speaking ability, charisma, salesmenship, etc. to go over the head of a hostile Congress and speak directly to the public in order to effect change.

He may have the ability to do this, but his agenda is too incoherent and hi
s appeal is too narrow for it to matter. Furthermore, unlike Reagan, he acts like too much of a prick to actually persuade anyone who disagrees or is undecided to go along with him. In fact he does the opposite. He unifies his opposition and the undecided (even those predisposed to support him because of his party affiliation) against him.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Just cannot get that scary for me. But it is quite scary to see Deez say that. I cannot imagine a scenario which would cause me to vote for Hillary. She disturbs me that much on sooooo many levels.

I'm not there yet, and it's hard to imagine being there. I've always detested the Clintons, and I've never even considered voting for a Democratic presidential candidate. Most likely I'll stick with Gary Johnson. However, Trump is getting into territory that isn't just wrong but downright nutty and bordering on dangerous. Frankly, I was hoping he'd start acting more like sensible human being after he had the nomination secured, and he's actually getting worse.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I am not a "Trumpster" but I am a "NeverHillary". I never said Trump was like Reagan, so unwad your panties. I said there were a lot of people wringing their hands over the thought of him as POTUS, just as there are now about Trump. As you point out, they were wrong about Reagan, but they were no less sure of their dire predictions about him. They, and you, might be wrong about Trump. I hope we get to find out b/c I want nothing to do with HRC as POTUS. I am *way* more scared of what she has already done than I am of what you and other so-called experts claim Trump will do.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am not a "Trumpster" but I am a "NeverHillary". I never said Trump was like Reagan, so unwad your panties.

I'm a NeverTrump and a NeverHillary, though Trump is making a pretty damn good case to reconsider the NeverHillary side of it. And you can haggle over semantics all you want, but you compared Trump favorably with Reagan. The two could not be less comparable.

I said there were a lot of people wringing their hands over the thought of him as POTUS, just as there are now about Trump. As you point out, they were wrong about Reagan, but they were no less sure of their dire predictions about him.

The "they" isn't the same people, and more importantly, the facts aren't the same. In 1980, liberals (Democrats and Republicans) freaked out about Reagan, and the facts didn't support their freak-out. They dismissed him as a mere "actor," but he was much more than an actor. Reagan actually was experienced and qualified to be President based on his record as a successful governor. In 2016, conservatives are freaking out about Trump, and the facts do support their freak-out. He has no experience, and worse, he thinks he knows everything. Ignorance and inexperience can be accounted for and mitigated. Stupidity and arrogance can't be.

I am *way* more scared of what she has already done than I am of what you and other so-called experts claim Trump will do.

Neither you nor I can claim what Trump will or won't do, because he's full of inconsistencies. Hillary is a known commodity. She's a run of the mill, self-serving liberal with sleazy ethics. However, she's less dangerous than Trump, because she'll have a conservative opposition. If he wins (not likely), Trump will not. He will have a liberal opposition but only on some issues. For example, suppose Trump decides to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a single payer system, which is a real possibility. Liberals won't fight him, and certainly enough Republicans will go along.

 

[Musburger1]

Hillary Clinton is a corporatist using the democrat logo as camouflage. She was pro-NAFTA, pro-Wall Street, and pro TTIP, and TPP. She uses liberal rhetoric and will appoint liberals in matters of social issues. On foreign affairs, she is pro-military industrial complex. In short, she is everything that Bernie Sanders is not. While she is for universal health care, you can bet she will protect monopoly interests and fraud will only increase under her watch.

Trump is more difficult to classify because he's painted himself differently over time. If his campaign speeches represent where he wants to go, he is pro-labor, anti TTIP and TPP. He appears willing to negotiate with enemies rather than simply dictate to them.

Could Trump be something entirely different than what he projects? Perhaps, but if he actually pursues the path he promises, it will be an improvement over the suicidal trajectory the country is pursuing.

 

[Mr. Deez]

He appears willing to negotiate with enemies rather than simply dictate to them.

One particular enemy - your buddy. However, I wouldn't say that's his approach to US enemies in general. Also, you do know that Trump advocates increasing defense spending, right? He also said that after he "bombed the **** out of ISIS," he'd let Exxon come in and take the oil. Sounds pretty similar to Halliburton's exploitation of Iraq.

Could Trump be something entirely different than what he projects? Perhaps, but if he actually pursues the path he promises, it will be an improvement over the suicidal trajectory the country is pursuing.

Which Trump projection? There are several of them.

 

[nashhorn]

Can't seem to get quotes to work but to read Deez describe Hillary as being "run of the mill" is to me the height of understatement. Nothing about the Clintons is 'run of the mill'. No offense Mr Deez.

 

[Musburger1]

I don't know anybody who doesn't want to see an aggressive response to ISIS. What I'd like to see is an end to the collaboration with the Saudis and Turkey, both of whom continue to support Wahabi indoctrinated jihadists in the quest for regional control. There is no question that both Obama and the Republican leadership don't have the resolve to address this matter. Thus far, neither has Trump, but his take on Islam is such that I think he would realize our war on terror is mired in contradiction.

As far as increasing defense spending, that's a mischaracterization. Trump states he wants to strengthen and rebuild the military but also wants payment from Japan and European countries if we are going to continue to provide for their defenses. It would be an about face from the current imperialistic policy which requires more and more expenditures to not only topple regimes, but then deal with aftermath.