Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[arpeggio]

Go ahead, ignore everything else I wrote if it makes you feel better. I do see them as such because they represent a failed ideology that was rejected by mainstream America in '08 and '12 and by the base of the GOP in '16. 

If they're not clowns then I'd be satisfied calling them useful idiots for your side. As soon as the Dems are back in power you will gladly kick them to the curb. If that is the role they want so be it.

So what? You seem to think it is OK for you to ignore everything we say. 

You hate democrats so much that you would rather see Jack the Ripper in the White House than a Democrat.  And of course you want liberals to hate you in order to justify your hatred.

And as soon as the Dems are back in power... Did you figure that out yourself or did your mommy and daddy help you.  Of course if Trump is defeated we will go back to squabbling with each other and having honest disagreements.

[Florestan]

Lol at Jack the Ripper. That sobriquet would certainly apply to Bill Kristol and his fellow neoconservatives who unleashed hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and elsewhere based on their ideology.

Not that THAT matters to you, since they hate Trump so much. 

Ain't it funny how Reagan or Bill Kristol have suddenly became paragons of virtues for people who probably hated them back then when they were in power as much as they hate Trump now? 

[arpeggio]

When I see discussions like this I think of the old joke, "A guy came up to me and asked me 'How is your mother-in-law?' and I responded 'Compared to what?'"

This exchange is getting too silly for me.

[71 dB]

I used to be a conservative...

Why did you used to be a conservative? Because of your family? Parents? What did make you question your conservatism?

Trump is so bad he has unified the Democrats. He is so bad most of us realize that in spite of our differences we have to get rid of him.

The Democrats are certainly unified about Trump being really bad, but totally divided about what to do about it. Some think getting rid of Trump is enough. Others think Trump is just a symptom of the broken system that has to be fixed or more "Trumps" will be elected in the future.

[arpeggio]

Why did you used to be a conservative? Because of your family? Parents? What did make you question your conservatism?

I am afraid to answer this question.  If I told you that my dad was the Democrat and I was the Republican you would come up with some Freudian nonsense that I had daddy issues.

[Todd]

Ain't it funny how Reagan or Bill Kristol have suddenly became paragons of virtues for people who probably hated them back then when they were in power as much as they hate Trump now? 

It is funny.  People who do so are either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.  Or both.  And besides, Bill Kristol is a neocon warmonger, who gives a fuck what he thinks?

Reagan won the Cold War, so it makes sense to invoke his name.  He was a great man.  But it is worth remembering what Reagan said about (American) liberals:

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

[arpeggio]

The situation in the United States is that the Trump wing of the Republican Party accounts for maybe at the most 30% of the electorate.  The democrats maybe a third.  In the last election Clinton received 48% of the popular vote while Trump received 46%.  Trump won the election as a result of a fluke in our electoral system.  Since 1992 the Republicans only won the popular vote once in 2004.  They are in the minority and they know it.  So they employ electoral tricks in order to win elections.

Trump is so bad he make Bush II look like a great president.  Compared to Trump he is.  In spite of his mistakes he did many good things.  He was a vociferous reader and I read in an article about him he could knock off and retain the contents of a 700 page non-fiction book in a week.  There is no doubt in our minds he would have done a better job of dealing with this crises than Trump.

Calling the non Trump segment of America childish names like 'clowns' or 'intellectually lazy' is not going to make a person magically support Trump.

[Todd]

It also funny how people confuse description and prescription.

[Florestan]

Trump is so bad he make Bush II look like a great president.  Compared to Trump he is.  In spite of his mistakes he did many good things.  He was a vociferous reader

It's voracious, actually. Vociferous has a completely different meaning. But your mistake is just about right in the context of Bush II, who might have made it himself. 

[Todd]

Words is hard.

[Karl Henning]

It's voracious, actually. Vociferous has a completely different meaning. But your mistake is just about right in the context of Bush II, who might have made it himself. 

His signature malapropisms were a hoot.  Yes, he was a Cicero, compared to Trump.

[Florestan]

His signature malapropisms were a hoot.  Yes, he was a Cicero, compared to Trump.

With all due respect, Karl, I doubt that during his presidency you found excuses for him or thought he was a good president on the ground that someone worse might one day be in his place. It's more probably that back then you thought he was a bad president and could hardly wait for him to be voted out of office. If I'm wrong I apologize. Am I?

[Todd]

No, they won fair and square courtesy of the US constitution.

The Electoral College snuck up on HRC and team.  It's like when trees jump in front of moving cars. 

[JBS]

The name calling goes both ways. I do see the list of "former" republicans you mentioned as useful idiots for the left until they regain power.

Your incoherence is showing. The people you labelled as useful idiots are the people who actually believe in the ideas encapsulated in your signature line. So you are suggesting the Founders were merely useful idiots for the left? Or do you merely find them a useful source of meaningless cliches?

Trump is everything the Founders were against: an authoritarian statist demagogue who is corrupt, incompetent, and with every appearance of being unintelligent.  If you realky believed the ideas you tout, you would be against Trump.

[Ratliff]

HRC got the popular vote because she won a few heavily populated states like California by several million people, disproportionate from the rest of the country.
No, they won fair and square courtesy of the US constitution. You don't want to badmouth the founding document so your tactic is to cry  foul when your side loses.

In one sense you are right, HRC knew their goal was to win the electoral college and they made some tactical errors, not devoting enough attention to some swing states that they assumed were in the bag, and which they subsequently lost.

My opinion that the U.S. electoral college, and indeed the U.S. Senate, is fundamentally unfair comes from my belief that all citizens should have equal voice in the government, no matter where they live. I see no reason why an individual who happens to live in Wyoming should have almost 80 times the influence in the senate as someone who lives in California, or more than 4 times the influence in the electoral college. And it is not a rural vs urban distinction. There are more rural voters in California than in Wyoming, and and their influence in government is likewise diluted.

And yes, I understand the compromises that were necessary for form the Unites States. The fact that they were necessary doesn't make them fair.

[Karl Henning]

With all due respect, Karl, I doubt that during his presidency you found excuses for him or thought he was a good president on the ground that someone worse might one day be in his place. It's more probably that back then you thought he was a bad president and could hardly wait for him to be voted out of office. If I'm wrong I apologize. Am I?

Your doubt is well founded. I should instead have said, in retrospect, his malapropisms are an hoot.

[Ratliff]

I am glad you see that. Not many Clintonites can admit her campaign took voters for granted.

You have made my point for me. All presidential candidates have to take voters for granted. If you are a Republican you write off California, New York, some other democrat bastions. If you are a Democrat you write off Georgia, the rest of the Southeast, Texas, other Republican bastions. Every candidate is ignoring most of the country and preaching to a few "swing states." Clinton and her campaign got the list of swing states wrong. If the president was elected by popular vote both parties would have to make their case to everybody.

Should we just get rid of the senate? Bicameralism was put in place to keep the House in order, with two senators in each state to balance out power but if you want to add more senators to make it "fair" it'll just be another version of the HOR, rubber stamping its legislation with the smaller states irrelevant. We already modified the senate via the 17th amendment; why not just abolish the senate if you're going to distort it that much?

I don't see how you can characterize the house as "rubber stamping." The house is not divided by states, but by districts. A rural district with about a half million residents gets the same representation as an urban district with about a half million residents. Why should the half-million urban residents get less representation because their district covers a smaller area?

I don't imagine it is practical to abolish the Senate. I think that electing the President by popular vote would be practical and an improvement.

[JBS]

That's debatable. I don't know if the Founders would have supported UN or NATO, the Patriot Act, the coerced democratization of the world via military force, etc.

The list of "conservatives" who hate Trump and are campaigning against him are useful idiots because are they clearly undermining the GOP and helping to put the Left back in power.   
Then go vote for Jessie Ventura, Webster or whichever third party candidate who embraces your views absolutely. You have the right to remain irrelevant. 

The only difference between Trump and the Left is the identity of the people  they want to use the government to help and whom they want to use government to hurt.   Which is why it is correct to say that anyone who supports Trump is opposed to the principles of limited government.

[Ratliff]

Nope, they would campaign primarily in the states that are the most populated to extract the most votes there, leaving others out of the decision. You have it backwards: the electoral college forces candidates to make their case to all citizens regardless of their population total, economic clout, etc. It is far more egalitarian.

"States" don't have rights, in my view, people have rights. In a direct popular vote for president the voters in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez district would get the same attention as the voters in Liz Cheney's district, or Nancy Pelosi's district, or Devin Nunes district. I don't think Wyoming has the right to get as much influence as California. A person in Wyoming deserves as much influence as a person in California.

[Todd]

"States" don't have rights, in my view, people have rights. In a direct popular vote for president the voters in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez district would get the same attention as the voters in Liz Cheney's district, or Nancy Pelosi's district, or Devin Nunes district. I don't think Wyoming has the right to get as much influence as California. A person in Wyoming deserves as much influence as a person in California.

A few quick amendments should solve everything then.  Dems should get on that.