• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So how exactly did this happen?

To be fair, they are in power now, so they don't have to be the party of small government anymore.
 
All along I have thought that there is a good chance the Trump was playing the far right of the base in order to get elected and that he would govern much more moderately on probably almost everything except for foreign trade (I think he sticks pretty close to his campaign on that issue). Personally I see him moving the Republican Party pretty far left on LGBT issues, and I think he will spend a bunch of money on infrastructure (which is something the Republican Party has been unwilling to work with Obama on). I think there is actually a decent chance he is a good president, and while I never would have voted for either he or Hillary, I am going to take a positive outlook on the situation and hope for the best. The liberals and ethnic groups that are freaking out are exactly like all my friends here in Mississippi who freaked out over Obama. In the end the Republic didn't did not collapse, and everything that has been done poorly is ultimately reversible (even ACA).

If Trump enacts a bunch of terrible policies, then the people will vote him out in 4 years. The only valid point of true concern for a super liberal is that they missed out on the opportunity to shift the Supreme Court, and I understand that. But that is the consequences of elections. Trump has won the right, and everyone knew this election would be pivotal for the court. If Ginsburg passes or her health makes continuing untenable we could see a seismic shift in the makeup. Even then though I don't see Trump nominated an uber conservative. He will have to pick someone conservative, but my guess is that it is more in the Merrick Garland mold of choice. Trump isn't a raging conservative. Look at his life. Liberals should be thanking their lucky stars that a guy like Cruz didn't get elected. Trump won't govern all that different from a liberal in a lot of ways.
 
It will be interesting to see who wins the trump congress tug of war. This was Obama's biggest failure.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
SCOTUS is the consequence on certain elections. Remember that seat became vacant during the term of a POTUS who was, in fact, elected.

I think Trump will be great or he will he be awful. He is far too bold for average to be an option.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Big words from a guy that purportedly didn't support Trump
Click to expand...

I would concern myself less with the size of the words that hurt your feelings, and more with the numbers of electoral votes your re-inevitable candidate coughed up. That's me, though.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I would concern myself less with the size of the words that hurt your feelings, and more with the numbers of electoral votes your re-inevitable candidate coughed up. That's me, though.
Click to expand...

my feelings aren't hurt that easily. I am, however, always amused by your dead-on portrayal of the laughing gremlin in Jabba's chamber. bravo.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
my feelings aren't hurt that easily. I am, however, always amused by your dead-on portrayal of the laughing gremlin in Jabba's chamber. bravo.
Click to expand...

I once wrote a poem about the creature in the tank that Jabba eats

It's lost for the ages but did include:

"Fate. The patient fisherman"
 
Deacfreak07 said:
SCOTUS is the consequence on certain elections. Remember that seat became vacant during the term of a POTUS who was, in fact, elected.

I think Trump will be great or he will he be awful. He is far too bold for average to be an option.
Click to expand...

Agree with both statements but I imagine the democratic response to a judge passing a few months before the election would have been the same in our current climate. I personally think they should have confirmed garland. Would have been the 'right' thing to do even if it isn't particularly strategic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TownieDeac said:
It's not that I think liberalism or progressivism has a monopoly on empathy and the interests of others. Empathy just doesn't feel to me like it's reflected in a lot of social conservative ideas, such as opposing same sex marriage, defunding women's health programs, or opposing legal Muslim immigration.
Click to expand...

Both sides can do that. I don't feel the abortion of a child is very empathetic. the reality is that we just disagree. Doesn't make you or I less empathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am glad that we have gotten clarification that posts here are person's opinions instead of some absolute truth. It has really added much to the conversation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
Wrangor said:
Agree with both statements but I imagine the democratic response to a judge passing a few months before the election would have been the same in our current climate. I personally think they should have confirmed garland. Would have been the 'right' thing to do even if it isn't particularly strategic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It was almost a year.
 
Wrangor said:
Both sides can do that. I don't feel the abortion of a child is very empathetic. the reality is that we just disagree. Doesn't make you or I less empathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree with Wrangor's perspective. Empathy has room for both sides of that issue. There is no empathy in opposing gay marriage that I have ever heard articulated.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
It was almost a year.
Click to expand...

My point stands. My opinion at the time and now hasn't changed. They were wrong. I just think the dems would have probably done the same. Who knows if they would. Doesn't excuse the pubs either way. Garland is a fine candidate. I disagree with his stance on abortion but he would make a fine judge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TownieDeac said:
Right. I don't think anyone was suggesting, as jhmd was, that people legitimately think any party has the bigger market share of empathy. People just have their opinions and tend to vote with those opinions when they can.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree with this statement any more.

ETA: This is not directed at Townie. However, the protests are a function of those who think they are "right" not winning the election. The election was won by those with "wrong" opinions.
 
Last edited:
TownieDeac said:
It's not that I think liberalism or progressivism has a monopoly on empathy and the interests of others. Empathy just doesn't feel to me like it's reflected in a lot of social conservative ideas, such as opposing same sex marriage, defunding women's health programs, or opposing legal Muslim immigration.
Click to expand...

I understand that and that is certainly fair. There are plenty of things that Republicans(TM) and Conservatives(TM) do that are off-putting to me, also (environmental policies are high on that list).

What I would ask is that you not conclude that because you rightfully disagree with a subset of the oppositions views that your side has all of the empathy (as my friend DF07 may have inadvertently implied).

I find the Left's opposing performance-based metrics in education and obstructing school choice as wanting in empathy, for instance.
 
834335bb-9b10-4da3-96d1-ff25ae4bbe95.jpg
 
BTW, I think I mentioned a couple of times how difficult it was for one political party to win three consecutive presidential elections. Reagan is still the only president since Truman won 68 years ago who could push his successor across the finish line after eight years in office. Ike, JFK/LBJ, Nixon/Ford, Clinton, GWB & Obama have now all tried & failed to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top