Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Trump wins primaries but the GOP establishment won't work with him, what happens?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jose50
    replied
    Trump/Buchanan...what a ticket!

    Yo Chief! I agree with he spaghet' and red gravy...and the monte is a nice touch too but don't forget the Parmisano Reggian for that salty finish on the top...

    The US needs Donald Trump during these sad times of unlimited social largesse to the millions of illegals who don't deserve cent one. When Trump says "Let's make America great AGAIN!" I'm of the opinion that the again part harps back to a time when immigrants went through due process in order to stay in this country. The Donald may well get to be president. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. A social shakeup is overdue here in the good old USofA. It happened in 1932 with FDR(not everyone's hero but was very effective) It happened again in 1980. Why do we need one now?
    Check out Pat Buchanan's latest rant:
    __________________________________________________ _________

    The Rejection Election
    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    Tuesday - January, 26, 2016

    With the Iowa caucuses a week away, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, who leads in all the polls, is Donald Trump.

    The consensus candidate of the Democratic Party elite, Hillary Clinton, has been thrown onto the defensive by a Socialist from Vermont who seems to want to burn down Wall Street.

    Not so long ago, Clinton was pulling down $225,000 a speech from Goldman Sachs. Today, she sounds like William Jennings Bryan.

    Taken together, the candidacies of Trump, Sanders, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz represent a rejection of the establishment. And, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, other Republican campaigns are now channeling Trump's.

    This then is a rejection election. Half the nation appears to want the regime overthrown. And if spring brings the defeat of Sanders and the triumph of Trump, the fall will feature the angry outsider against the queen of the liberal establishment. This could be a third seminal election in a century.

    In the depths of the Depression in 1932, a Republican Party that had given us 13 presidents since Lincoln in 1860, and only two Democrats, was crushed by FDR. From '32 to '64, Democrats won seven elections, with the GOP prevailing but twice, with Eisenhower. And from 1930 to 1980, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 46 of the 50 years.

    The second seminal election was 1968, when the racial, social, cultural and political revolution of the 1960s, and Vietnam War, tore the Democratic Party asunder, bringing Richard Nixon to power. Seizing his opportunity, Nixon created a "New Majority" that would win four of five presidential elections from 1972 through 1988.

    What killed the New Majority?

    First, the counterculture of the 1960s captured the arts, entertainment, education and media to become the dominant culture and convert much of the nation and most of its elite.

    Second, mass immigration from Asia, Africa and especially Latin America, legal and illegal, changed the ethnic composition of the country.

    White Americans, over 90 percent of the electorate in 1968, are down to 70 percent today, and about 60 percent of the population.

    And minorities vote 80 percent Democratic.

    Third, Republicans in power not only failed to roll back the Great Society but also collaborated in its expansion. Half the U.S. population today depends on government benefits.

    Consider Medicare and Social Security, the largest and most expensive federal programs, critical to seniors and the elderly who give Republicans the largest share of their votes.


    If Republicans start curtailing and cutting those programs, they will come to know the fate of Barry Goldwater.

    Still, whether we have a President Clinton, Trump, Sanders or Cruz in 2017, America appears about to move in a radically new direction.

    Foreign policy retrenchment seems at hand. With Trump and Sanders boasting of having opposed the Iraq war, and Cruz joining them in opposing nation-building schemes, Americans will not unite on any new large-scale military intervention. To lead a divided country into a new war is normally a recipe for political upheaval and party suicide.

    Understandably, the interventionists and neocons at National Review, Commentary, and the Weekly Standard are fulminating against Trump. For many are the Beltway rice bowls in danger of being broken today.

    Second, Republicans will either bring an end to mass migration, or the new millions coming in will bring an end to the presidential aspirations of the Republican Party.

    Third, as Sanders has tabled the issue of income equality and wage stagnation, and Trump has identified the principal suspect — trade deals that enrich transnational companies at the cost of American prosperity, sovereignty and independence — we are almost surely at the end of this present era of globalization.

    As in the late 19th century, we may be at the onset of a new nationalism in the United States.

    A vast slice of the electorate in both parties today is angry — over no-win wars, wage stagnation and millions continuing to pour across our bleeding borders from all over the world. And that slice of America holds both parties responsible for the policies that produced this.

    This is what America seems to be saying.

    Thus, given the deepening divisions within, as well as between the parties, either an outsider prevails this year, or Balkanization is coming to America, as it has already come to Europe.

    For the Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Carson voters, the status quo seems not only unacceptable, but intolerable. And if their candidates and causes do not prevail, they are probably not going to accept defeat stoically, and go quietly into that good night, but continue to disrupt the system until it responds.

    Unlike previous elections in our time, save perhaps 1980, this appears to be something of a revolutionary moment.

    We could be on the verge of a real leap into the dark.

    Where are we going? One recalls the observation of one Democrat after the stunning and surprise landslide of 1932:

    "Well, the American people have spoken, and in his own good time, Franklin will tell us what they have said."

    Leave a comment:


  • Bass_Man86
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Like beer... Sausages are proof that God loves us...

    Indeed, and so is a nice plate of spaghetti with some hot Italian sausage, a crunchy loaf of bread a bottle of red wine, preferably Montepulciano D'Abruzzo!

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    lodestar in charge of 'IT'

    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Lodestar gets it...
    GETS IT???!!!
    lodestar NEVER NEEDS TO 'GET' ANYTHING!!!
    lodestar CREATES IT!
    lodestar IS IN COMPLETE CHARGE OF IT!
    lodestar waits for others to get it!!
    THERE IS NO IT WITHOUT lodestar!

    and here's a couple of handy life tips from the master:

    STOP nosey neighbours from knowing which room you're in by stealthily crawling around the house on all fours.

    OLD telephone directories make ideal personal address books.
    Simply cross out the names and address of people you don't know.


    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    [...]

    The point is at this stage what he's doing is working.
    He's America's Silvio Berlusconi without the sex scandals and booze etc .
    He's essentially a populist demagogue giving a finger to the status-quo.
    Right man for American's umpteenth 'troubled times'.

    .
    [...]
    Lodestar gets it...

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    lodestar says Trump an American Silvio Berlusconi. Ergo ......?

    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    Reputable German news paper had Trump all over the front page yesterday. Comments where a narcissistic clown. Sounds close, sure got the narcissistic part for sure.
    lodestar says Trump an American Silvio Berlusconi. Ergo ......?
    All polis are narcissistic.
    lodestar knows much about narcissism.

    Trump is at least is honest about being so and has been called a clown since the 1980's.
    I bet he must have lost a lot of sleep and spent a lot of time wishing he could change.

    The point is at this stage what he's doing is working.
    He's America's Silvio Berlusconi without the sex scandals and booze etc .
    He's essentially a populist demagogue giving a finger to the status-quo.
    Right man for American's umpteenth 'troubled times'.

    .
    Americans just need to get used to his style as a candidate.

    lodestar was neither liked nor trusted. Not by those who raised him, those he grew up with and went to school with, those he worked with and associated with as an adult, nor those who know him now.
    One woman told him she felt uneasy around him because: 'Your eyes are the colour of dirty coins.'


    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Reputable German news paper had Trump all over the front page yesterday. Comments where a narcissistic clown. Sounds close, sure got the narcissistic part for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Is a milder sort of the GOP not something of the past? If the Democrats have ceased to be a center-left party,to become a left/ultra left party, a Liberal Republican party can not put over the helm, but only to make some small corrections = to delay the catastrophe .

    There is no longer place for the heirs of Ford, old Bush, Dole, McCain ,etc...

    Desperate times demand desperate solutions .
    Again a very interesting article on the American Conservative site about how Trump is more like Eisenhower than later Republicans. I personally am astonished that the author is seeing a comparison. I knew that there had to be a reason that Trump appeals to me, even if probably at a subliminal level.
    But in ways realms different from those considered by National Review and the Beltway right-wingers, Donald Trump is a kind of conservative. In his speeches, he has tried to fill out his “Make America Great Again” slogan with some notion of what kind of society he is trying to conserve, or restore. He has talked—not very politely, but probably in the only way possible to get people to listen—about ending illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration. This is of course critical if the United States is to remain the country which it has always been, one with relatively open spaces and relatively high wages. He speaks about stopping the hemorrhage of American manufacturing jobs to China and elsewhere. Would he succeed? It’s not clear—it would certainly be difficult. But nations before have tried, and succeeded, to protect their manufacturers, and the jobs and relative social stability that go along with them. For National Review however, such policies simply are not “conservative”—and the editors mock Trump for his “threats to retaliate against companies that do too much manufacturing overseas for his taste.”

    The society that Trump has in mind when he speaks of restoring America’s greatness is probably something like the America of the Eisenhower administration. Ike was reelected by a landslide when Donald J. Trump was ten years old. He carried New York state by 22 percent. Of course Eisenhower isn’t any sort of model for most in the conservative movement. The National Review of William F. Buckley’s era thought Ike’s administration stultifying. Conservative intellectuals railed against Ike’s readiness to accommodate itself to New Deal social legislation and his refusal to risk war by trying to liberate Eastern Europe. Eisenhower’s rule convinced Buckley’s friend Whittaker Chambers, for one, that capitalism was the losing side.

    But a certain style of main street conservatism did thrive during the Eisenhower era. It was not revolutionary, did not look towards unleashing “democratic revolutions” in distant regions, or unraveling the regulatory chains on finance capitalism. It was devoted to bettering the lives of average Americans and practicing a strategy of containment in the Cold War. Public infrastructure was built. Industry expanded, wages grew. Married couples raised big families. Illegal aliens were deported. It was not the conservatism of the Kristols or Podhoretzes—Ike didn’t start any big wars in the Mideast or elsewhere and indeed backed the UN consensus by forcing Israel to cough up its 1956 conquests in the Sinai. Nor of the Cato Institute—taxes on the rich were high, and the government spent a lot of money on public works useful to all.
    This is a long and quite interesting article. I enjoyed it a lot as it justifies a lot of my opinion, which has pretty much always been to take care of the US first and let the rest of the world go hang, and Trump’s plans to rebuild infrastructure definitely go along with that. After all Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway system and even if Trump only contributes to its improvement and maintenance that would be a big plus here in my state.

    Perhaps a return to Eisenhower-style conservatism is wishful thinking, but it will in all likelihood get a wishful vote from me, at least in the Missouri Primary and maybe in the General Election.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ke-not-a-bush/

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    Here's a monkey drinking beer and having a smoke

    That's.... different.

    Cancun, eh? I wonder how soon the Chimps will start to get all the good jobs down there... darn it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    A blogger that I read often, Rod Dreher, on my favorite Conservative site The American Conservative asks the question: Why not Trump? http://www.theamericanconservative.c...why-not-trump/ and in another article about the Conservative Intelligentsia and the Conservative Base and how different they are http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ntelligentsia/ discusses how Trump’s followers are not ideologically pure.

    The Republican Party in going full radical Conservative in the past 20 years or so and then not getting many of its policies through Congress (perhaps to keep on having issues to appeal to its base) has upset a lot of that same base. It would have been better to have been moderately conservative and willing to compromise on some things, to have appeared to be reasonable and to try to get along with the Democrats. In the end, for short term gain, they essentially sold the party’s soul and now they have to deal with the Devil in the form of Donald Trump.

    Perhaps, Donald Trump will turn out to be more moderate than he seems (he does talk about being a negotiator) and actually not quite so bound by ideology as some of his current competitors, that he might actually make a better and more moderate President than them. I have hopes anyway. Dreher postulates that the base is not so ideologically driven as the Republican theorists and pundits, and that the base may actually like a man that is upsetting the ideologues.

    I don’t think that you can appeal intellectually to a lot of us voters and Trump knows how to appeal emotionally. I, as an old Eisenhower/Rockefeller/even Richard Nixon Republican, i.e., Liberal Republican, and currently an Independent of some liberal tendencies, find Trump rather appealing, not so much for his ideology as his methods. It’s quite entertaining to watch the Western/Southern/DC Republican elite being shaken up. I am old enough to remember a milder sort of Republican Party and I would like to see Trump take us back to that.
    Is a milder sort of the GOP not something of the past? If the Democrats have ceased to be a center-left party,to become a left/ultra left party, a Liberal Republican party can not put over the helm, but only to make some small corrections = to delay the catastrophe .

    There is no longer place for the heirs of Ford, old Bush, Dole, McCain ,etc...

    Desperate times demand desperate solutions .

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Correct, I reacted to the word Beer, did not notice the brand. Corona is the biggest marketing 'stunt' ever pulled on 10's of millions of people. Pure genius, if evil.
    It's actually very good in the short brown bottles... I have only seen those in Mexico.

    Clear bottles + sunlight = Skunk p!$$

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Corona isn't "good beer." Its...

    Correct, I reacted to the word Beer, did not notice the brand. Corona is the biggest marketing 'stunt' ever pulled on 10's of millions of people. Pure genius, if evil.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    NEVER kill the taste of a good beer with a smoke.
    Corona isn't "good beer." Its...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    A blogger that I read often, Rod Dreher, on my favorite Conservative site The American Conservative asks the question: Why not Trump? http://www.theamericanconservative.c...why-not-trump/ and in another article about the Conservative Intelligentsia and the Conservative Base and how different they are http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ntelligentsia/ discusses how Trump’s followers are not ideologically pure.

    The Republican Party in going full radical Conservative in the past 20 years or so and then not getting many of its policies through Congress (perhaps to keep on having issues to appeal to its base) has upset a lot of that same base. It would have been better to have been moderately conservative and willing to compromise on some things, to have appeared to be reasonable and to try to get along with the Democrats. In the end, for short term gain, they essentially sold the party’s soul and now they have to deal with the Devil in the form of Donald Trump.

    Perhaps, Donald Trump will turn out to be more moderate than he seems (he does talk about being a negotiator) and actually not quite so bound by ideology as some of his current competitors, that he might actually make a better and more moderate President than them. I have hopes anyway. Dreher postulates that the base is not so ideologically driven as the Republican theorists and pundits, and that the base may actually like a man that is upsetting the ideologues.

    I don’t think that you can appeal intellectually to a lot of us voters and Trump knows how to appeal emotionally. I, as an old Eisenhower/Rockefeller/even Richard Nixon Republican, i.e., Liberal Republican, and currently an Independent of some liberal tendencies, find Trump rather appealing, not so much for his ideology as his methods. It’s quite entertaining to watch the Western/Southern/DC Republican elite being shaken up. I am old enough to remember a milder sort of Republican Party and I would like to see Trump take us back to that.
    Last edited by Jannie; 24 Jan 16, 12:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    Well if they pour all their resources behind Trump and he barges ahead in the Presidential campaign as he has to date in the primaries, doing 'his own thing' and ignoring their advice, council and shooting from the hip (I can't believe he said that!), Palin at his side what the heck do the conventional Republican figures do?

    Won't they just look ridiculous to their constituencies if they try and mouth 'Trumpisms' and thereby seriously damage their own reps?

    As Henry Ergas says Clinton would then gain an effortless, undeserved win by default and with a substantial majority of Americans thinking her she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the country would be bitterly divided?

    Regards lodestar
    If the unthinkable happens, the Establishment has to put all their resources behind Trump or live with the fact that they helped elect Hillary. The loon factor isn't relevant when the choice is between Harpo Marx and Karl Marx.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    The GOP appaers to have 'self-Trumped' theselves (sorry couldn't resist!)

    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    If the unthinkable happens, the Establishment has to put all their resources behind Trump or live with the fact that they helped elect Hillary.
    Well if they pour all their resources behind Trump and he barges ahead in the Presidential campaign as he has to date in the primaries, doing 'his own thing' and ignoring their advice, council and shooting from the hip (I can't believe he said that!), Palin at his side what the heck do the conventional Republican figures do?

    Won't they just look ridiculous to their constituencies if they try and mouth 'Trumpisms' and thereby seriously damage their own reps?

    As Henry Ergas says Clinton would then gain an effortless, undeserved win by default and with a substantial majority of Americans thinking her she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the country would be bitterly divided?

    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X