Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on April 25, 2016, 11:36:36 AM
-
So apparently Cruz and Kasich have reached an agreement in which they work together to win each other delegates in an attempt to slow down / defeat Trump. My thoughts:
1) They have already been hit with "collusion" charges by the media and others. Given the way they're setting up the agreement, it's going to be difficult for them to shake that, even if it's not true. In fact everything I saw on the news this morning with snippets of their press conferences have been dominated by them explaining how what they're doing is not collusion. If anything, it seems they're giving Trump more ammunition and making themselves look weaker because of the "two against one" optics.
2) They originally said they were doing this to stop Trump, but now seem to be changing their narrative (possibly because of the backfiring taking place) that they're doing this to stop Clinton. To immediately veer my thread, to me, this makes Clinton look stronger as well.
If they really want to make Clinton look weaker, they should mess with her mind and say they need to stop Sanders, and not mention Clinton at all. :)
-
The hilarious bit being that if they manage to block Trump, neither of them will be on the ticket.
-
All this represents is the fact that the GOP will not win this presidential election. At best, Kasich and Cruz will manage to derail Trump and got one of them on the ballot, but the Trump supporters won't jump to either of them, so the Dem wins. Worse case, the party falls into chaos at the convention, and no matter who gets the nomination, the fractured and segmented GOP won't be able to compete with the Democrats unified behind whichever one gets the nod.
What the really means, though, is that the 2A fight will be front and center. Clinton and her daughter have both made no bones about their intention to (1) bring back the bans and (2) go after the manufacturers, If she pulls this off, and it's looking more and more likely, the NRA is in for a big fight.
-
All this represents is the fact that the GOP will not win this presidential election. At best, Kasich and Cruz will manage to derail Trump and got one of them on the ballot, but the Trump supporters won't jump to either of them, so the Dem wins. Worse case, the party falls into chaos at the convention, and no matter who gets the nomination, the fractured and segmented GOP won't be able to compete with the Democrats unified behind whichever one gets the nod.
What the really means, though, is that the 2A fight will be front and center. Clinton and her daughter have both made no bones about their intention to (1) bring back the bans and (2) go after the manufacturers, If she pulls this off, and it's looking more and more likely, the NRA is in for a big fight.
I am holding out hope that Bernie will divert enough Hillary voters
-
Whether it is Trump or Hillary as the President, we are going to have a Democrat in the White House for at least another 4 years. Best hope is a contested convention and someone out of left field comes into play.
-
Whether it is Trump or Hillary as the President, we are going to have a Democrat in the White House for at least another 4 years. Best hope is a contested convention and someone out of left field comes into play.
Trump ~ 1980 Democrat
Hillary ~ 2016 Democrat
GOPe ~ 2000 Democrat
-
In a head-to-head matchup of each party’s frontrunner, Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump by only 3 percentage points nationally (46 to 43; 11 percent undecided). Comparatively, Mr. Sanders fares slightly better against Mr. Trump (51/40/10).
Still too early for gen election polls to be hard, but that ^^^ is sort of what I expected. _The more coverage Hillary gets, the less people like her._ Sanders would be a harder opponent for Trump, IMO.
If Trump ends up GOPPOTUS candidate, I smell a blowout--for Trump. If GOPe stops trying to cut his throat, that would help, too.
-
Still too early for gen election polls to be hard, but that ^^^ is sort of what I expected. _The more coverage Hillary gets, the less people like her._ Sanders would be a harder opponent for Trump, IMO.
If Trump ends up GOPPOTUS candidate, I smell a blowout--for Trump. If GOPe stops trying to cut his throat, that would help, too.
Thing is I don't thinK anything short of a prison cell is going to keep Hillary off the ticket at this point in time.
-
Still too early for gen election polls to be hard, but that ^^^ is sort of what I expected. _The more coverage Hillary gets, the less people like her._ Sanders would be a harder opponent for Trump, IMO.
If Trump ends up GOPPOTUS candidate, I smell a blowout--for Trump. If GOPe stops trying to cut his throat, that would help, too.
Doubtful.
-
Thing is I don't thinK anything short of a prison cell is going to keep Hillary off the ticket at this point in time.
I don't think a prison cell would slow her down. Might help her "war on women" message.
-
Still too early for gen election polls to be hard, but that ^^^ is sort of what I expected. _The more coverage Hillary gets, the less people like her._ Sanders would be a harder opponent for Trump, IMO.
If Trump ends up GOPPOTUS candidate, I smell a blowout--for Trump. If GOPe stops trying to cut his throat, that would help, too.
While Trump is not my first choice by any means, the GOP could nominate a monkey as the candidate and I would vote for the monkey over Hilary Clinton. (especially if the monkey is not anti-gun.)
-
Trump, after wins: "I really thank the media, they've really covered me fair.... uh... for the last two hours."
I could never, ever, ever vote for anyone who confused a verb and an adverb.
Never, ever, ever. =D
Terry
-
While Trump is not my first choice by any means, the GOP could nominate a monkey as the candidate and I would vote for the monkey over Hilary Clinton. (especially if the monkey is not anti-gun.)
I was of that view until recently. I'm trying to talk myself back into it.
The Republican party is determined to make itself irrelevant. I read an article in which Priebus called on Trump to move more toward unifying the party. What a hypocrite! Trump has almost twice as many delegates as Cruz, and Kasich still hasn't caught up to Rubio, who dropped out a month ago. It isn't Trump who should be unifying, it's the Republican National Committee that should stop trying to torpedo Trump's campaign and start working on unifying the Republicans who take the position that they're loyal Republicans but they won't vote for any candidate other than [Cruz/Kasich/Rubio] so, if Trump is the nominee, they'll stay home on election day.
Idiots.
-
While Trump is not my first choice by any means, the GOP could nominate a monkey as the candidate and I would vote for the monkey over Hilary Clinton. (especially if the monkey is not anti-gun.)
Perfect candidate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vpuh6q2O_c)
-
It's my opinion that the GOPe would rather lose to Hillary than have Trump in the white house. I'm also of the opinion that the GOPe will happily chew off their own testicles to make it happen.
If When Hillary gets elected all bets are off. I doubt we will ever see another Republican, let alone a conservative in the oval office.
-
It's my opinion that the GOPe would rather lose to Hillary than have Trump in the white house. I'm also of the opinion that the GOPe will happily chew off their own testicles to make it happen.
If When Hillary gets elected all bets are off. I doubt we will ever see another Republican, let alone a conservative in the oval office.
Hope you're wrong on the last sentence.
-
I don't think the GOPe would let anything close to a true Conservative get elected. For all of Cruz's faults* I still think he is, at the core, a constitutional conservative, look at how the establishment has treated him.
We know Trump is mostly a result of the peons getting tired of being peed on and even with that fact as blatantly obvious as it is the Rs still are in denial, either from sheer stupidity or they know and don't care. Mostly I don't think they give a rat's rectum what the electorate and their constituents think or want. Hell, even Inhofe is trying to make hay with all fo the wonderful accomplishments made by the Republican majority in the Senate and House.
*Still nominally/marginally a Cruz supporter but there is something about him that makes the back of my neck start itching, his recent deal with Kasich has started to sour him for me though.
-
My understanding of the "deal" is they just said, "I'll campaign over here. You campaign over there." I thought the coverage on it was a bit overblown.
-
*Still nominally/marginally a Cruz supporter but there is something about him that makes the back of my neck start itching, his recent deal with Kasich has started to sour him for me though.
Yep, been getting that same feeling for awhile and this doesn't help.
If I decided to vote my vote was his (Cruz) to lose. This despite him being a Senator and his wife being a bankster.
He has more than a few neocons in his foreign policy team and he comes off pretty hawkish on middle east issues, that is a big strike against him.
His instincts just aren't good. Trump and him have got this far by running against the GOPe. Embracing Kasich is about as dumb as declaring if chosen Lindsey Graham will be your running mate.
As Trump fleshes out his positions/policies I'll be watching who he surrounds himself with as that should speak volumes about what his administration would like like.
-
Considering that Trump used to be a huge ally/friend of Hillary Clinton, or still is, this could be interesting. It'd be interesting if they had arranged to try for this exact situation.
-
Considering that Trump used to be a huge ally/friend of Hillary Clinton, or still is, this could be interesting. It'd be interesting if they had arranged to try for this exact situation.
Hillary finds herself a Cabinet position and Bill gets an Ambassadorship.
-
Once we see who Trump surrounds himself with we will see if he is really a nationalist vs your typical internationalist that we've been electing since GHB.
The only real positive I see in Trump is his nationalism.
-
At this point I think the left might have a larger role than the right. I think there is a majority percentage of disenchanted Bernie voters. I think it might come down to not how many people vote for Trump, but how many people on the left don't vote for Clinton via sitting it out or voting third party or voting write-in (for Bernie).
I believe the right will pull in a lot of "hold your nose and vote for the least bad" votes, because even the Trump hate on the right cannot at all compete with the Clinton hate on the right.
-
Once we see who Trump surrounds himself with we will see if he is really a nationalist vs your typical internationalist that we've been electing since GHB.
The only real positive I see in Trump is his nationalism.
When all the other candidates are overt America-haters or are just waiting to sell America out to their donors, the one guy who merely doesn't hate America shines like a diamond in a goat's ass.
Of course, to grasp that diamond requires putting your hand up a goat's ass...
-
Considering that Trump used to be a huge ally/friend of Hillary Clinton, or still is, this could be interesting. It'd be interesting if they had arranged to try for this exact situation.
I still maintain my opinion that Trump is nothing but controlled opposition.
-
Once we see who Trump surrounds himself with we will see if he is really a nationalist vs your typical internationalist that we've been electing since GHB.
The only real positive I see in Trump is his nationalism.
I think it was AJ who speculated Trump's rhetoric was essentially an NYC Dem's stereotype of what flyover country Republicans want to hear. He has no govt experience, which is not inheriently a bad thing. But it's a substantial gamble to see if he rides his current rhetoric if he gets elected.
He personally doesn't show much backing for his nationalism in his business decisions. His clothing line is made in China/Vietnam. Like certain companies, he abuses H1B visas like a red headed step child to bring in cheap foreign labor. Not saying that's bad either, but it's certainly not proof that he's inclined to follow his current rhetoric.
-
I will admit that the Cruz/Kaisch deal has soured me on Cruz. I expected him to stand for his principles, not sell out to the GOPe. =|
If Trump gets the nomination, I would like it if he named either Cruz or Abbott to the USSC, can some put that bug in the Trump's ear.
I too will be anxious to here who the running mates are, along with the advisers and potential cabinet posts. Mattis as SecDef or SecState. Bolton as SecState. Ron Paul at Treasury. I know Trump will put Christie as either VP or AttyGen.
-
I too will be anxious to here who the running mates are, along with the advisers and potential cabinet posts. Mattis as SecDef or SecState. Bolton as SecState. Ron Paul at Treasury. I know Trump will put Christie as either VP or AttyGen chief food taster.
-
News coming down is Cruz is announcing Fiorina as his running mate should he get the nomination.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
News coming down is Cruz is announcing Fiorina as his running mate should he get the nomination.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
French G called it first!
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=51420.msg1048381#msg1048381
-
News coming down is Cruz is announcing Fiorina as his running mate should he get the nomination.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/27/sources-cruz-to-announce-fiorina-as-choice-for-running-mate.html
Wondering if he had announced it a couple of months earlier if it would have swayed enough voters that he would have locked the nomination.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/27/sources-cruz-to-announce-fiorina-as-choice-for-running-mate.html
Wondering if he had announced it a couple of months earlier if it would have swayed enough voters that he would have locked the nomination.
I was thinking the same, or at least that it would have gotten him a few more wins. I know a lot of guys here don't like her, but I think she's a good pick specifically for Cruz to offset and temper some of the negatives that the "middle of the road" rights have with him. She's kind of moderation for him without being establishment, while still being fiery over topics like abortion.
I'm thinking too little, too late now though.
-
Carly is unacceptable to me.
I'll not be voting for Cruz if he miraculously wins the nomination.
-
Carly is unacceptable to me.
I'll not be voting for Cruz if he miraculously wins the nomination.
Is that a change from a week ago?
-
Carly is unacceptable to me.
Why?
-
Is that a change from a week ago?
I've been torn on voting for him, or nobody, or writing in someone.
Neocon foreign policy is really the deal breaker.
It's just so hard to not vote for anyone that's running against Hillary.
Felt the same way about Obama.
-
Does it really make sense to let a veep candidate influence one's vote in any way?
-
Why?
Her foreign policy is very neocon, she worked on the McCain campaign (economic advisor) and she is weak on immigration.
Also, I would like the VP to someone I would be OK with as president.
-
When all the other candidates are overt America-haters or are just waiting to sell America out to their donors, the one guy who merely doesn't hate America shines like a diamond in a goat's ass.
Of course, to grasp that diamond requires putting your hand up a goat's ass...
If you wear a long glove it really isn't all that bad...
-
Trump/Webb
Just to see Charbys head explode :laugh:
-
Does it really make sense to let a veep candidate influence one's vote in any way?
Well, to the point Ron mentioned, that they could in fact become president.
Also I do think it influences votes in other ways. It potentially can say something about the candidate that they don't project in speeches, etc. For instance, I will change my view on Trump again (more to the negative) if he officially announce Christie as his VP choice. It says something to me about where Trump stands if he chooses the most left leaning, "respect LE authoritay, safety over freedom" guy of all the R contenders for president this round.
-
Trump/Webb
Just to see Charbys head explode :laugh:
:rofl:
-
Well, to the point Ron mentioned, that they could in fact become president.
Also I do think it influences votes in other ways. It potentially can say something about the candidate that they don't project in speeches, etc. For instance, I will change my view on Trump again (more to the negative) if he officially announce Christie as his VP choice. It says something to me about where Trump stands if he chooses the most left leaning, "respect LE authoritay, safety over freedom" guy of all the R contenders for president this round.
I guess you mean it confirms a lot of the Trump conspiracies.
For Cruz at this time, I think the decision is solely what can get him enough delegates to deny a majority to Trump. VP choices are largely used for that these days. When I turn on the news, all I see is the news playing clips of Trump talking trash about Cruz. This gets him some temporary coverage of his own. Hard to say if it will help or hurt.
-
I was never a big Fiorina fan, but I didn't think she had a great deal of support so I am curious what the Cruz campaign sees in this that helps them.
-
I was never a big Fiorina fan, but I didn't think she had a great deal of support so I am curious what the Cruz campaign sees in this that helps them.
He is gunning for the "You Go Girl!!" vote.
-
He is gunning for the "You Go Girl!!" vote.
As I just heard, he was also looking to shut down the "Trump just won five states" stories which it may have successfully done.
-
I was never a big Fiorina fan, but I didn't think she had a great deal of support so I am curious what the Cruz campaign sees in this that helps them.
He is gunning for the "You Go Girl!!" vote.
Ron beat me by a second, but yes, because she has boobs.
-
But she was a business person. She is not a politician. That is what Trump supporters have been saying for months about him. =D I also heard she ran in California and might help Cruz there. Who knows.
-
After trumps foreign policy speech john podhoretz wrote, disdainfully, that it could have been a rand paul foreign policy speech.
Are the neocon sorts trying to push me towards trump? The policy i liked least from cruz was his neocon "bomb the middle east in perpetuity" foreign policy.
-
He is gunning for the "You Go Girl!!" vote.
Sort of, but she's more a shield against waronwomenz charges.
-
Ron beat me by a second, but yes, because she has boobs.
And, it seems, a vagina.
These days one can never have to many qualifications on gender.
-
Tag teaming against another candidate just shows they want to play the Beltway Games. [barf]
-
Tag teaming against another candidate just shows they want to play the Beltway Games. [barf]
Likely, which is why I was a bit disappointed in Cruz. The "collusion" charge is mostly media and politically motivated. I'm pretty sure for it to be collusion, they would have had to do it in secret and be found out. If you announce it at a press conference, it's not collusion, but it is beltway games.
-
So what is the problem with two candidates trying to derail another candidate? They're trying to keep their campaigns alive, right?
-
The only real positive I see in Trump is his nationalism.
You forgot, "He's not Hillary."
-
So what is the problem with two candidates trying to derail another candidate? They're trying to keep their campaigns alive, right?
Yes -- on artificial respiration and life support.
I received an e-mail today from the Kasich campaign. I'm sorry I deleted it, it was hilarious. He was bragging about losing five more primaries. In his view, coming in second in four of the five somehow proves that he's a winner, that he's the guy to STOP TRUMP!, and that he's the only R who can beat Hillary.
This, of course, ignores the inconvenient reality that his delegate count still hasn't caught up to Rubio, who dropped out a omnth ago.
-
As I just heard, he was also looking to shut down the "Trump just won five states" stories which it may have successfully done.
Again, too little, too late.
The whole country already knows that Trump just won five states. And in most of them Cruz was locked out. Picking Carly can't change that.
-
Again, too little, too late.
The whole country already knows that Trump just won five states. And in most of them Cruz was locked out. Picking Carly can't change that.
Kaisch has been winning over Cruz lately, though as you say - he's such an underdog that he's still below a candidate that officially dropped out.
Going into the conference, if I was a delegate, I can't help but think - at least Trump has people getting out and voting for him. Will he steal votes from the democrats? Will he be able to pull in independents? Will he so tick people off that, other than his followers, he'll encourage more democrats to come out and vote against him? Are the other candidates any better? Because Trump is, in the face of it, a rather lousy republican, yet he won that.
-
Citizens United for Cruz & Kasich otherwise known as C.U.C.K
-
Citizens United for Cruz & Kasich otherwise known as C.U.C.K
Because opposing a known leftist is so very "establishment."
So if Cruz had 900-some delegates, and Trump and Kasich were the underdogs, would it be wrong, or dirty, or "beltway" for them to team up against Cruz? What's the problem?
-
So what is the problem with two candidates trying to derail another candidate? They're trying to keep their campaigns alive, right?
I do not see one, my own self, in and of itself. OTOH, folk are free to comment on it, think it signals this or that, look on it as dirty pool. For my own part, I think it was a big mistake for Cruz. He gained nothing but looked both desperate and willing to get in bed with GOPe.
Cruz & Kasich are not keeping their campaigns alive. The GOPe & GOPe donors are doing that.
Because opposing a known leftist is so very "establishment."
No, that won't fly. Trump is not a leftist. He is not a rightist. He is neither because his speech and actions over decades indicate the man is not particularly ideological, other than being generally pro-American.
If someone looks at Trump and hopes for a doctrinaire "Conservatism, Inc." card-carrier, they are delusional. Same with those who look at him and see a leftist.
-
After trumps foreign policy speech john podhoretz wrote, disdainfully, that it could have been a rand paul foreign policy speech.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Because opposing a known leftist is so very "establishment."
So if Cruz had 900-some delegates, and Trump and Kasich were the underdogs, would it be wrong, or dirty, or "beltway" for them to team up against Cruz? What's the problem?
It's just a funny little acronym I ran across.
We know Kasich is a statist neocon who is more than likely bought and paid for by the big money guys. He is something of a squishy manlet also.
Cruz has done a decent job of appearing not to be those things except for his neocon hawkishness. Being a US Senator married to a bankster doesn't bode well for future actions on his part independent of the powerful and monied interests.
To be fair, Trump does talk about destroying ISIS like the neocons but in true form he never says how. Of course he isn't funded by the big money guys, he considers himself one of the big money guys. Neither is he opposed to big government in principle.
Still, if we were going to choose who the "kept" men are out of the three; Cruz and Kasich are the ones who are beholden or in sympathy with the establishment, much more than Trump.
At this point Trump still seems to be an independent actor. I'm not sure it is true but that is how it looks. If he would even change or try to make things better as we define it I have no idea.
We have our first viable third party candidate, it's just that he is in the process of subverting the Republican nomination away from the GOPe instead of starting from scratch. Pretty impressive IMHO.
-
No, that won't fly. Trump is not a leftist. He is not a rightist. He is neither because his speech and actions over decades indicate the man is not particularly ideological, other than being generally pro-American.
Trump is a Capitalist/Businessman, all he is concerned about is making money.
-
Trump is a Capitalist/Businessman, all he is concerned about is making money.
That is a fair summary of his life. Not sure that is what is motivating him to run for POTUS, though.
His actions this election season have the smell of a nobleman financing the building of a monastery so they'll pray his butt out of purgatory faster than he deserves.
-
That is a fair summary of his life. Not sure that is what is motivating him to run for POTUS, though.
His actions this election season have the smell of a nobleman financing the building of a monastery so they'll pray his butt out of purgatory faster than he deserves.
he's building a temple, and making Satan pay for it!
-
Trump is a Capitalist/Businessman, all he is concerned about is making money.
Except he's not not that good at business either. If he was concerned about making money, he'd could be somewhere between five and ten times rich if he had thrown his money in a S&P 500 index fund and did... well anything reasonably affordable for the last couple of decades. He made a career out of ego gratification. Which isn't a bad thing, maybe he doesn't care about what number his bank account says. Guy has more than enough money to indulge his hobbies.
He started off in the business the old fashion way. Inheriting money and a successful business. Give or take, he got around $100m when his dad kicked the bucket. He's now allegedly worth maybe $2b on paper, but most of that is tied to businesses that may not be easily liquidated and heavily variable depending who is buying them and for how much. Had he thrown that $100m ish amount into an index fund, he'd be worth in excess of $6b. Far in excess of any reasonable estimate of his wealth. Realistic best case scenario would be that he's worth a third of what his inheritance would have gotten him if competently invested and managed. Realistic worst case, a tenth or less of competent investment.
It'd be a slam on the guy, if you were strictly measuring him by his bank account. But with hundreds of millions of dollars, dude could live in any manner that wasn't excessively wasteful. He looks for opportunities to feed his ego, and that's what he uses his inheritance towards. It's certainly not the worst pastime someone could take up. Better than a coke habit, or buying gold Lambos.
He is a businessman, but it's not his competency, it's his hobby/brand/etc.
-
Trump is not a leftist. He is not a rightist. He is neither because his speech and actions over decades indicate the man is not particularly ideological, other than being generally pro-American.
If someone looks at Trump and hopes for a doctrinaire "Conservatism, Inc." card-carrier, they are delusional. Same with those who look at him and see a leftist.
He's a leftist in the same sense that anyone who doesn't want to outlaw abortion is pro-abortion. Not having a position is taking a position.
-
Except he's not not that good at business either. If he was concerned about making money, he'd could be somewhere between five and ten times rich if he had thrown his money in a S&P 500 index fund and did... well anything reasonably affordable for the last couple of decades. He made a career out of ego gratification. Which isn't a bad thing, maybe he doesn't care about what number his bank account says. Guy has more than enough money to indulge his hobbies.
He started off in the business the old fashion way. Inheriting money and a successful business. Give or take, he got around $100m when his dad kicked the bucket. He's now allegedly worth maybe $2b on paper, but most of that is tied to businesses that may not be easily liquidated and heavily variable depending who is buying them and for how much. Had he thrown that $100m ish amount into an index fund, he'd be worth in excess of $6b. Far in excess of any reasonable estimate of his wealth. Realistic best case scenario would be that he's worth a third of what his inheritance would have gotten him if competently invested and managed. Realistic worst case, a tenth or less of competent investment.
It'd be a slam on the guy, if you were strictly measuring him by his bank account. But with hundreds of millions of dollars, dude could live in any manner that wasn't excessively wasteful. He looks for opportunities to feed his ego, and that's what he uses his inheritance towards. It's certainly not the worst pastime someone could take up. Better than a coke habit, or buying gold Lambos.
He is a businessman, but it's not his competency, it's his hobby/brand/etc.
Give me $100m or so to play with. I would feed my ego from here to hell and back. :laugh:
-
He's a leftist in the same sense that anyone who doesn't want to outlaw abortion is pro-abortion. Not having a position is taking a position.
OK, Humpty Dumpty.
-
Sure, you could say Trump's not ideological. Neither is the "GOPe." That's the whole problem we've been having with them. Don't get me wrong; I prefer Trump's brand of middle-of-the-road, unprincipled pragmatism to the establishment's brand. I'm just sayin'.
-
Sure, you could say Trump's not ideological. Neither is the "GOPe." That's the whole problem we've been having with them. Don't get me wrong; I prefer Trump's brand of middle-of-the-road, unprincipled pragmatism to the establishment's brand. I'm just sayin'.
I can see where you're going there. Makes sense.
I still do not think it accurate to call Trump a leftist. That would require more ideological commitment than he can muster. And if he is not non-ideological, I think it an easy case to say ideology does not mean much to him, one way or the other.
Also, non-ideological != unprincipled. An ideology is usually a set of beliefs that have some sort of logic or rationale that is carefully thought out (by someone, if not the holder). Many folks' principles are not nearly so systematic and when pushed to logical bounds, it is easy for them to clash with other principles. This is not as big a deal as some might think:
1. Most folk are not concerned that their beliefs are a consistent whole.
2. Most folk don't live on those logical bounds and their principles serve them perfectly well where they do live.
I think GOPe and Trump are both, as you point out, not particularly ideological, but they both do have principles. Those principles, however, are very different.
-
Trump/Sanders 2016, that would make people's heads explode.
-
Trump/Sanders 2016, that would make people's heads explode.
Bite your damn tongue.
-
After trumps foreign policy speech john podhoretz wrote, disdainfully, that it could have been a rand paul foreign policy speech.
Germany didn't like the speech, which tells me that Trump probably said something good. (I didn't see or hear the speech.)
-
No, that won't fly. Trump is not a leftist. He is not a rightist. He is neither because his speech and actions over decades indicate the man is not particularly ideological, other than being generally pro-American.
IMHO, having a president who is pro-American would be a welcome change ...
-
Trump is a Capitalist/Businessman, all he is concerned about is making money.
For those old enough to remember, that used to be the base of the Republican party. The Republicans were the party of the businessmen and capitalists, the Democrats were the party of the unionized blue collar workers.
-
Trump/Sanders 2016, that would make people's heads explode.
I predict there would be a lot of explosions during that administration.....