WakeandBake
Well-known member
77,000 rustbelters can't be wrong amiright my man youknowwhatimsayin?
President Trump is building a new Republican Party
- Thread starter bobknightfan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Put down the monolith. Slowly back away. Climb. Conserve. Confess.
DeacMan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reaction score
- 948
LOL. Look at what Trump said he would do. It's insane he did better than Romney.
Which shows how totally inept and stupid Hillary's campaign management was.
DeacMan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reaction score
- 948
Sure. I know she sucked. But come on. She didn't call Mexicans rapists and say she was going to build a wall. It wasn't like she offended them. How is it that Trump could obtain a greater percentage of these voters than Romney?
WakeandBake
Well-known member
Better fear-mongering.
Yes, it's that simple.
Yes, it's that simple.
I swore I was informed she was the most qualified person for anything, ever. You may want to check your facts.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
You are more of a troll whore than me jhmd. Sad
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
http://www.politico.com/video/2016/...-qualified-presidential-candidate-ever-059832
Obama says Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate ever
Obama hailed his former secretary of state as they stood beside each other at their first joint campaign event in 2016, calling Clinton the most qualified man or woman to ever seek the White House.
And by the way, for those who are confused about Trump's actions since taking office:
He is doing exactly what the voters elected him to do.....and what he said he would do. (I realize that you seldom see that in a presidential candidate these days.)
Newenglanddeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 13,135
- Reaction score
- 390
"The significance and velocity of the orders unnerved and upset Mr. Trump’s critics and took aback some of his friends. But those orders—even though their use makes the presidency more imperial, even though it’s no way to govern, even though Mr. Obama did it, too—will likely not be unpopular in the country. It actually looked as if someone was doing something."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...mericans-disapprove-of-president-trump-faster
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...mericans-disapprove-of-president-trump-faster
DeaconSig
Well-known member
As a democrat (a real one, not the bitch-ass one that our favorite reverse mortgage salesman from Randleman was) I can't be happier that President Trump is building a new republican party. His new republican party will also serve as the end of the republican party.
Gather ye rosebuds, jh. Gather ye rosebuds.
Gather ye rosebuds, jh. Gather ye rosebuds.
Newenglanddeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 13,135
- Reaction score
- 390
I think it's a little premature to be putting the nail in the Dems coffin or crowning Trump as the next Reagan. I've heard this narrative enough times in the past decade to realize that no one has a fucking clue what's going to happen. Everyone said Dems were a dying party after the 04 loss (continued GOP control of house). Same thing was said about Pubs in 06 when House flipped blue. 2010...rinse, repeat. 2012...rinse, repeat with Romney's loss.
Newenglanddeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 13,135
- Reaction score
- 390
And here's the case for Dems...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/obamas-america-rises-again.html?mid=facebook_nymag
Obama’s America Rises Again
Jonathan Chait January 29, 2017 2:41 p.m.
Image
Demonstrators protest against President Trump’s executive immigration ban at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. Photo: Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images
John Quincy Adams was defeated for reelection in 1828 by Andrew Jackson, who proceeded to win reelection in 1832, and whose fellow Democrat, Martin Van Buren, won in 1836. It seemed to cement for all time the defeat of Adams’s vision of an active federal government that would invest in education and infrastructure, and the triumph of the Southern vision of slavery and weak central authority. “I fell, and with me fell, I fear never to rise again the system of internal improvement by national means and national energies,” he wrote in 1837, according to Louisa Thomas, and mourned that the defeats would “rivet into perpetuity the clanking chain of the slave.”
Long-term pessimism about the liberal project has come roaring back in style since the election. Barack Obama’s pet line, “the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” has been hauled out for a great deal of public mockery on all sides. The liberal coastal elite has wallowed in self-flagellation about their failure to understand the great country, a sentiment Donald Trump’s henchmen have exploited to cast the news media as an alien appendage from the real America and its deep, mystical bond with the new president. (“They don’t understand this country,” claims Steve Bannon, “They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”)
But the events of the last two weeks, both of which have seen massive nationwide protests against the new presidency, suggest a different conclusion. It is Trump who does not understand this country. And it is Obama’s vision of the country that will ultimately win out.
The election has provided ample reasons for alarm. But it is important to have some clarity about what we ought to fear. The federal government is in the hands of an extremist claque. It will probably carry out enormous amounts of terrible policy, and the tail risks of permanent disasters arising from misgovernance — new Katrinas, new Iraq Wars, or worse — are terrifyingly high.
On the other hand, there is no reason to believe Trump is actually good at politics. He has the largest popular-vote deficit of any president ever elected and comes into office with historically low approval ratings. The only things he has done well are to gauge correctly the fecklessness of his Republican rivals, who he understood would fall in line behind him even after he smeared and bullied them mercilessly, and to beat up on Hillary Clinton while James Comey, Vladimir Putin, and the national media pinned her arms behind her.
Some liberal journalists have greeted each new Trump action by solemnly insisting that we “take him literally” and that he will do what he says. But what exactly should we take literally? His promise to provide terrific health insurance that covers everybody, at lower cost? Forcing Mexico to pay for the wall? Resuscitating the declining coal industry? The complete eradication of Islamic terrorism? The most competent president would not achieve these goals. And Trump is a political amateur who has surrounded himself with other political amateurs. He will wreak a fearful toll on this country before he is finished, but the assumption that Trump will “do” what he promises extends him credit he does not deserve.
The argument of my new book is that Trump (who was an important character in it even before the election) represents the death rattle of a declining vision of American retrenchment, and Obama represents the future. The civic values our grandchildren will celebrate and be taught in schools will be Obama’s, not Trump’s. American history is punctuated with horrors. Yet the reality is that life in the United States is better — more affluent and more egalitarian — than it was 50 years ago, and 50 years ago it was better than 50 years before that, at which point it was better than a half-century before.
Obama’s story about the arc of history does not imply that progress moves forward steadily and without interruption, or that liberals should adapt to complacency, or that progress will occur without conflict. Indeed, that conflict has burned for more than two centuries. What we now call the struggle between red and blue America was the same basic divide that pit Adams against Andrew Jackson. Blue America envisions a positive role for government in developing the talents of all its citizens, regardless of identity. Red America intertwines a suspicion of elites and centralized authority with a commitment to racial revanchism.
Adams’s fatalistic assessment 180 years ago seemed accurate at the time, after his party had suffered three consecutive defeats. And, indeed, his Whigs would suffer a series of misfortunes leading to its ultimate expiration within two decades. Yet, in the long run, Adams’s ideas won out. Slavery was abolished in 1865, a national bank was established in 1913, and the federal government actively invested in education and infrastructure, all as Adams had dreamed. “From the vantage point of the twenty-first century,” writes historian Daniel Walker Howe, “we can see that the Whigs, though not the dominant party of their own time, were the party of America’s future.”
Why have the successes of blue America proven more durable than those of red America? One reason is that liberal politics has a better record of producing successful policies. For all the rage conservatives have generated against Obamacare, it is fulfilling its goals and providing access to medical care to people who are too poor or sick to afford it. When Republicans gathered Friday to strategize on health care, a secret recording revealed that they haven’t the faintest idea how to proceed. Trump’s immigration crackdown was drafted and executed in an absurd fashion. It looks “like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour,” one lawyer told Ben Wittes. “My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact.”
Demographic change is another source of liberal confidence that has sustained a lot of post-election mockery. Yet the fact remains that Republicans remain heavily dependent on running up large margins among the oldest voters. The youngest cohort has remained about as staunchly Democrat today as it was in 2008. Americans under the age of 30 are far more racially diverse than their parents and grandparents, and young whites are far less likely to vote Republican. The Trump coalition can win an election, but its margin for error is shrinking.
The blue coalition has weaknesses of its own. Liberal voters have a congenital tendency to sulk when Democrats hold the presidency. And the younger voters Democrats have come to rely on turn out less reliably than the Republican base. But the Women’s March last weekend, and the immigration protests this weekend, have drawn on powerful American ideals: inclusion, social mobility, and optimism. Obamaism may have lost control of the levers of government, but it has never lost the country.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/obamas-america-rises-again.html?mid=facebook_nymag
Obama’s America Rises Again
Jonathan Chait January 29, 2017 2:41 p.m.
Image
Demonstrators protest against President Trump’s executive immigration ban at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. Photo: Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images
John Quincy Adams was defeated for reelection in 1828 by Andrew Jackson, who proceeded to win reelection in 1832, and whose fellow Democrat, Martin Van Buren, won in 1836. It seemed to cement for all time the defeat of Adams’s vision of an active federal government that would invest in education and infrastructure, and the triumph of the Southern vision of slavery and weak central authority. “I fell, and with me fell, I fear never to rise again the system of internal improvement by national means and national energies,” he wrote in 1837, according to Louisa Thomas, and mourned that the defeats would “rivet into perpetuity the clanking chain of the slave.”
Long-term pessimism about the liberal project has come roaring back in style since the election. Barack Obama’s pet line, “the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” has been hauled out for a great deal of public mockery on all sides. The liberal coastal elite has wallowed in self-flagellation about their failure to understand the great country, a sentiment Donald Trump’s henchmen have exploited to cast the news media as an alien appendage from the real America and its deep, mystical bond with the new president. (“They don’t understand this country,” claims Steve Bannon, “They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”)
But the events of the last two weeks, both of which have seen massive nationwide protests against the new presidency, suggest a different conclusion. It is Trump who does not understand this country. And it is Obama’s vision of the country that will ultimately win out.
The election has provided ample reasons for alarm. But it is important to have some clarity about what we ought to fear. The federal government is in the hands of an extremist claque. It will probably carry out enormous amounts of terrible policy, and the tail risks of permanent disasters arising from misgovernance — new Katrinas, new Iraq Wars, or worse — are terrifyingly high.
On the other hand, there is no reason to believe Trump is actually good at politics. He has the largest popular-vote deficit of any president ever elected and comes into office with historically low approval ratings. The only things he has done well are to gauge correctly the fecklessness of his Republican rivals, who he understood would fall in line behind him even after he smeared and bullied them mercilessly, and to beat up on Hillary Clinton while James Comey, Vladimir Putin, and the national media pinned her arms behind her.
Some liberal journalists have greeted each new Trump action by solemnly insisting that we “take him literally” and that he will do what he says. But what exactly should we take literally? His promise to provide terrific health insurance that covers everybody, at lower cost? Forcing Mexico to pay for the wall? Resuscitating the declining coal industry? The complete eradication of Islamic terrorism? The most competent president would not achieve these goals. And Trump is a political amateur who has surrounded himself with other political amateurs. He will wreak a fearful toll on this country before he is finished, but the assumption that Trump will “do” what he promises extends him credit he does not deserve.
The argument of my new book is that Trump (who was an important character in it even before the election) represents the death rattle of a declining vision of American retrenchment, and Obama represents the future. The civic values our grandchildren will celebrate and be taught in schools will be Obama’s, not Trump’s. American history is punctuated with horrors. Yet the reality is that life in the United States is better — more affluent and more egalitarian — than it was 50 years ago, and 50 years ago it was better than 50 years before that, at which point it was better than a half-century before.
Obama’s story about the arc of history does not imply that progress moves forward steadily and without interruption, or that liberals should adapt to complacency, or that progress will occur without conflict. Indeed, that conflict has burned for more than two centuries. What we now call the struggle between red and blue America was the same basic divide that pit Adams against Andrew Jackson. Blue America envisions a positive role for government in developing the talents of all its citizens, regardless of identity. Red America intertwines a suspicion of elites and centralized authority with a commitment to racial revanchism.
Adams’s fatalistic assessment 180 years ago seemed accurate at the time, after his party had suffered three consecutive defeats. And, indeed, his Whigs would suffer a series of misfortunes leading to its ultimate expiration within two decades. Yet, in the long run, Adams’s ideas won out. Slavery was abolished in 1865, a national bank was established in 1913, and the federal government actively invested in education and infrastructure, all as Adams had dreamed. “From the vantage point of the twenty-first century,” writes historian Daniel Walker Howe, “we can see that the Whigs, though not the dominant party of their own time, were the party of America’s future.”
Why have the successes of blue America proven more durable than those of red America? One reason is that liberal politics has a better record of producing successful policies. For all the rage conservatives have generated against Obamacare, it is fulfilling its goals and providing access to medical care to people who are too poor or sick to afford it. When Republicans gathered Friday to strategize on health care, a secret recording revealed that they haven’t the faintest idea how to proceed. Trump’s immigration crackdown was drafted and executed in an absurd fashion. It looks “like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour,” one lawyer told Ben Wittes. “My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact.”
Demographic change is another source of liberal confidence that has sustained a lot of post-election mockery. Yet the fact remains that Republicans remain heavily dependent on running up large margins among the oldest voters. The youngest cohort has remained about as staunchly Democrat today as it was in 2008. Americans under the age of 30 are far more racially diverse than their parents and grandparents, and young whites are far less likely to vote Republican. The Trump coalition can win an election, but its margin for error is shrinking.
The blue coalition has weaknesses of its own. Liberal voters have a congenital tendency to sulk when Democrats hold the presidency. And the younger voters Democrats have come to rely on turn out less reliably than the Republican base. But the Women’s March last weekend, and the immigration protests this weekend, have drawn on powerful American ideals: inclusion, social mobility, and optimism. Obamaism may have lost control of the levers of government, but it has never lost the country.
MysteryMen
Scott "Rufio" Feather
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,943
- Reaction score
- 274
If that's what they're trying to do, they're doing a horrendous job of it. Because we already have a liberal run utopian city, it's called New York, and crime rates there are pretty low
marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,882
- Reaction score
- 2,091
If you fuck the jew, you pay the price.
marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,882
- Reaction score
- 2,091
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I'm still waiting for the first explanation from anyone (from the right or left) telling me why, as a progressive liberal coastal urban elite myself, I should be concerned about the future of the views I hold when the Democrat won the popular vote by three million votes, got more votes overall for the Senate, and won a sizable chunk of the House votes when the current demographic shift is towards an increase in minorities who vote overwhelmingly for democrat/liberal causes.
That's not to say that ideologies and parties can't attract new people under their umbrella, but to the extent that the argument is "the 2016 election shows Democrats are dead and they just haven't fallen down" I don't see it at all.
That's not to say that ideologies and parties can't attract new people under their umbrella, but to the extent that the argument is "the 2016 election shows Democrats are dead and they just haven't fallen down" I don't see it at all.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Donald was arguably the best thing that happened to the Republican party leading up to the election. At least he brought some populism into the fold to potentially increase the GOP umbrella to include lower-income voters who weren't objectively voting directly against their own economic self-interests when supporting Republican candidates. The shift of the GOP between the Bush II and Donald presidencies from middle-right party to far-right party run by a mix of Tea Partiers and spineless establishment politicians sure as hell wasn't increasing the size of the umbrella.
Skydog Deac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,643
- Reaction score
- 231
Quit reading as soon as I read the first sentence. Pay no attention to anything Noonan says. Ever.