Yeah, this "idiocy" bothers me so much more than unsecure borders and runaway inflation.
Post-Trump GOP
- Thread starter BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Start date
Yeah, this "idiocy" bothers me so much more than unsecure borders and runaway inflation.
What got a kick in the pants is the myth that anyone with a R by his name is no different from Trump. Democrats are trying to make Trump and January 6 into an albatross on the entire GOP and conservatism in general - same playbook they deployed after Watergate. It's nowhere near as easy to do now partly because we don't have as much of a media monopoly as we had in 1974 and partly because of how toxic Democrats are now so they don't seem like a reasonable alternative to a lot of people.
Well, his supporters did well in the 2021 elections so the "albatross" of Trump wasn't there. I think people are waking up to the fact that things like Russian collusion and him being blamed for Covid that hurt him were media constructs. All you're left with is mean tweets.
Your "mean tweets" stuff is silly. Trump spends as much time (maybe more) attacking other GOP as he does the Dems. That is a piss poor attitude and approach to have if you are trying to lead a party. He has one fantastic attribute that he has used to entirely shift the narrative and to a certain degree the media landscape. He is tenacious as hell and fights anything and everything that doesn't bow to DJT. However when he turns that fight internally to other GOP then I have a problem with him. He has done that entirely too frequently and at his point I'm past forgiving it. I want that SOB to be a distant memory.
Many in our party do need an *** kicking.
I think there are elements of truth to both. I think the Trump taint was and is real. However, the passage of time is clearly dissipating it, and when Democrats try to throw it on people who have very little or nothing to do with Trump (like gubernatorial candidates), it isn't going to have a lot of effect anymore. It looks more like a diversion than a good faith criticism. And yes, I also agree that with the Russia controversy fizzling out like a bad fart (which is frankly generous since some of the creators of the controversy are now in criminal trouble) and the Covid "crisis" continuing on, people are realizing that the media narrative of Trump being uniquely unethical or uniquely incompetent was overblown. Doesn't mean he was perfect, but he wasn't as bad in these regards as he was portrayed.
However, I also think the anti-Biden/direction of the country factor is very large. Certainly no president and his party have ever misread his mandate more than they have. Biden and the Democrats were elected to be normal. They were supposed to be the opposite of what the media framed Trump to be - competent, non-divisive, and basically someone who would step back and let the economy come back.
Instead, they read their mandate to make major economic changes, and frankly, I don't get it. They won't admit it publicly, but even Democrats know the country largely liked how the economy was doing prior to the pandemic. They weren't clamoring for massive change, and it was stupid to act as though they were. They also read the rejection of Trump at the ballot box to be an endorsement of woke cultural politics across the board. It wasn't.
On top of that, they've **** the bed. The guy who was supposed to be the epitome of competence especially on foreign policy ended up being a colossal screw-up on Afghanistan. Like I've said before, I opposed withdrawing and would have criticized Trump for doing it, but if you're going to withdraw, the supposed "adults" did it about as recklessly and crappily as it could have been done.
I think Americans were willing to give them some slack on the economy, but I think overburdening it with regulations (Covid-related and otherwise) and pumping it up with inflation and soaring fuel prices is creating what looks like a contrived and avoidable economic crisis.
And of course, none of these measures from the government seem to be helping the pandemic. Numbers are generally coming down due to vaccinations, but we're still under pretty significant restrictions in a lot of areas. Furthermore, the restrictions all seem to be wildly-thrown sledgehammers (like mask mandates in schools and nationwide vaccine mandates) rather than narrowly drawn and well-considered efforts to stop Covid where it's at its worst.
In short, he is failing on the biggest thing he was elected to do - shutdown the virus and not the economy. He and his party are doing the exact opposite.
Exactly. Trump lied to further his goals and the media and libs went on like this was some new thing in politics. Is Trump unethical? I'd say yes. When he was blowing and going in the 90s in New York when the Five Families had a firm hold of the city I find it hard to believe Trump was an angel. However, with all of his warts his ideas(populism) are great for this country and our party. The republican party of old that embraces globalism, constant military intervention and worrying about what 2 adults do in their bedrooms has to die.
Another thing that's worth noting. The media and Democrats overestimate the effectiveness of the racism and xenophobia charges. Obviously they threw that at Trump 24/7 occasionally with some basis (the Judge Curiel comment) but usually not (the Charlottesville speech and whole assload of other occasions). They think it's a big deal because in their circles, it's a death sentence to their careers and reputations, and they constantly walk on eggshells to keep from offending the other elite white liberals they hang around with.
To normal people, it's bad, but they're not going to find it anywhere near as readily. Furthermore, even if they look at something and say it might have been insensitive, the media and Democrats righteously expect voters to completely overlook anything objectionable about their agenda because of it. Trump said something I view as racist about Judge Curiel. I condemned it, but does that suddenly mean inflation, tax hikes, tyrannical judges, court packing, and unconstitutional vaccine mandates become OK? Sorry, they don't. Judge Curiel will get over it.
To be honest I thought the same as Trump that a Hispanic democrat would never rule in his favor in this case. Goes to show that you can't stereotype people.
Here is the problem with your way of thinking on this. Sen Leahy.
He's going to retire. Do you think there is a snowballs chance in hell that Vt will elect anyone that fits your mold of a "true Republican"? Hint: No way, no how.
If you want someone in that seat that will at least vote conservative most of the time, you will have to accept a "RINO". And no "RINO" is going to want to run if their future is filled with asshats like Trump that can't see the reality of the political landscape and therefore insist that you vote with him 100% in order to claim your loyalty pin. And then openly and aggressively attack you if you don't. Different constituencies require different styles.
I for one would love to have two "RINO's" in GA right now that would have been able to stop this stupid Build Back Better before it was even started. DJT screwed us on that though.
Vermont used to have a Republican senator - James Jeffords. He was pretty liberal by Republican standards - probably only voted with the leadership maybe 1/3 of the time. He was pro-choice, favored environment regulation, and wasn't a huge tax cutter. However, he generally leaned right on fiscal policy and spending. All the RINO-haters started to give him ****, and he eventually got sick of it and became an independent who caucused with the Democrats. He then retired and was replaced by Bernie Sanders, who was obviously a light year to Jeffords's left. Very stupid.
You'd be surprised. When it comes to SCOTUS and appellate court judges, party affiliation is a big indicator of what kind of judge someone will be. District judges are often a different ballgame. Obviously a guy like Curiel wasn't going to be a big conservative, but it was also going to be expected that he be respected by the Bar, an adherent to the rules of evidence and procedure (more important at the trial court level), and therefore less of a partisan hack. (He was appointed to state court by Schwarzenegger.) He wouldn't be my choice for a judge, but there are a hell of a lot of judges I'd want to see retire before him.
Even in my own experience, I did a lot of God's Work in Travis and Williamson Counties. Obviously all the Travis County judges were liberal Democrats (John Dietz, Lora Livingston, Stephen Yelanosky, Margaret Cooper, Gisela Triana, Darlene Byrne, Orlinda Naranjo, Suzanne Covington, David Phillips, etc.). All the Willco judges were conservative Republicans (Burt Carnes, Ken Anderson, John McMaster). Was there a big difference in how they ran their courtrooms or even their rulings on procedural and substantive matters? No. My first trial was on front of Judge Ralph Strother of McLennan County. He was rock solid conservative, but as a judge you'd never know his politics. For the most part, all of these judges just followed the rules, statutes, and laws handed down to them. All judges should be like that, but beyond the trial courts, they mostly aren't. Too arrogant I guess.
humahuma
1,000+ Posts
Here is the problem with your thinking.
The Virginia governor received an endorsement from the evil man and won. Biden won Virginia by 10 the R won by 3%. You compromised your principles and you lose no matter what. Stick to conservative principles, Ds are like children screaming because they want something you are willing to cave, me sir I am not.
So you'd rather have Bernie than Jim Jeffords?
humahuma
1,000+ Posts
Didn’t say that and clearly no, I want Rs to stick to the principles of less government, but apparently that ship has sailed. Me I am an R who is for legalization of pot (I don’t smoke)and agnostic I might be an outlier. I am just tired of RINOs.
But ultimately you're making that choice whether you'll admit it or not. Do I want a moderate Republican from Alabama? No. I want a staunch conservative because I can get choosy in a state like that. But from a state like Vermont or Virginia, I'm a lot more willing to play ball. I'd much rather have a Rockefeller Republican who only votes with me 30 or 40 percent of the time but votes to let Republicans organize and run the Senate than insisting on nominating a Ted Cruz-like conservative who has no chance any conceding the seat to a socialist who has no redeeming qualities.
Youngkin did his level best to keep as much distance as he could from DJT without kicking the DJT nest over. I would much rather win a senate vote with 40 "true republicans" and 11 "RINOs" than lose a senate vote with 51 democrats. Your way of thrashing RINOs is to win the moral victory and lose the real battle.
humahuma
1,000+ Posts
I see your point, I am tired of doing the same thing. Rs have been playing ball with the same results. I agree Ted Cruz wouldn’t play well in Vermont, and I didn’t say run Ted. The RNC needs to back off some of the religious and pot issues for example in more liberal states but run candidate that would vote more than 40% with the Rs. But I don’t see it changing.
I understand that it leads to frustration on key votes. Jeffords (and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine) often disappointed me on individual votes. However, even 30 percent is a lot better than 0. Furthermore, he voted to let the GOP control the process and chair committees. That's huge.
I once heard of Chuck Schumer commenting on former Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and the fact that he almost never voted with his party. Schumer basically said that because Nelson was from a solidly red state, he didn't care if Nelson voted with the party. We should have that approach. Instead of having some hard and fast rule, look at the electorate. If it's solidly red, demand loyalty. However, if it's purple or blue, you have to fudge on that to varying degrees. A Republican from Virginia or Pennsylvania has to break with the GOP a significant amount of the time to hold his seat. A Republican from the Northeast? Be happy if they ever vote with the GOP.
I have no problem with private conversations trying to persuade less conservative RINO's to lean more conservative but when that effort goes highly public, and even worse when folks like DJT start to aggressively attack them, we end up in the same place as the Dem's are now. I get the urge the push hard when you are in control to get as much conservative stuff done as possible and steer the rudder hard to the right to correct for how hard it was pulled left before. But pressing too hard on the rudder and crucifying "RINO's" publicly and then trying to primary them is a recipe for failure (as the Dem's are learning right now with their holdouts on BBB)
Pretty much an MSM narrative there, bud. Also, while I agree that we can't throw the RINOs overboard in blue states (we learned that hard lesson in 2008) but you don't think the constant badgering/badmouthing of Trump from anti-Trumpers such as yourself isn't also damaging our party during elections? Your TDS kept you from seeing obvious fraud in the 2020 election. The TDS in most of you anti-Trump republicans caused you to go along with Russian collusion and impeachment that was extremely damaging to Trump. The sad thing is that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills knew all of that was ********* but TDS does strange things to people.
Last edited:
Do keep in mind that Trump acted pretty guilty when it came to Russia. In retrospect, it's pretty clear that the controversy was political and BS-driven, but he did very little to help his cause especially during the '16 campaign.
Here is the long and short of it. DJT is not president today because of what you like to refer to as TDS amongst independents. Their TDS was driven a little bit by DJT actions an a lot by what I call dumb tweets and you play off as "mean tweets". DJT is not president and will not be president again because he was not smart enough or wise enough or sophisticated enough to know when to say when. Had he been able to resist attacking his own team, and resist attacking his previous employees, and attacking dead people he could very well have been the quarterback of the winning team. but instead he needed to one-up everybody and attack even his own side and even when there was very little to be gained. so he will be a one-term president that will have waning influence and respect.
No, they were influenced by the media portrayal of Trump.
Yes, they were, but Trump often acted and spoke in accordance with the narrative. That made the media's narrative far more effective. Consider the Russian story. Yes, the media was full of **** and doing Hillary Clinton's bidding. However, it resonated to a point because Trump was rhetorically soft on Putin. He spoke like someone Putin would want to win. Frankly, it made little sense, because in substance, he wasn't soft on Putin.
DJT isn't president because of 24/7 disinformation from the media , RINOs going along with libs on anti-Trump witch hunts giving credence to the nonsense and massive election fraud. I like Desantis myself because of his youth but Trump will likely be president again barring health/age problems in 2024. If you want to have a friendly wager on that I'd love to take your money.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
