What this campaign season has taught me ...

[Azalin]

5. The anti-o, crazy fervor of the last 4 years has created a monster that is now untamable and ushered in an appetite for Trump. Instead of responsible political disagreement over the last 8 years, there has been a personalization and hatred - highlighted by issues-based dissatisfaction that admits itself through weird racial overtones.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with this, but I'd add that the personalization and hatred for the president isn't any more so than that which was directed at GW Bush, which was both ubiquitous and nearly hysterical in it's pitch. I believe that's going to be the way of presidential politics for quite a while, since most people tend to do nothing more than pick a team and stick with them no matter what.

[Juror#8]

Yet another liberal who believes they have some sort of insight because they managed to guess who won the election.

 

Let me guess... elections have consequences? .... is it time to ride in the back of the bus?Wasn't Obama getting elected supposed to magically cure racism?

That's very deep; thank you.

[DC Tom]

 

I don't disagree with this, but I'd add that the personalization and hatred for the president isn't any more so than that which was directed at GW Bush, which was both ubiquitous and nearly hysterical in it's pitch. I believe that's going to be the way of presidential politics for quite a while, since most people tend to do nothing more than pick a team and stick with them no matter what.

 

Which was not much more than what was directed at Clinton. This bull **** started with Newt Gingrich.

[Juror#8]

Nope, there are people who are equally at fault for thir racist demagoguery against the majority. Read my posts here. I've called out Sharptons, and blm, and even Michael Eric Dyson. Search "Juror 8" and "Al Sharpton." I feel that he is a racist blowhard perpetuating a left wing racist agenda. Period. I call a spade a spade, man. You are labeling me as "one of them" and unfortunately proving my point of alienation. I'm the guy saying that for every naacp, there should be a naawp that enjoys tax exempt status. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Right is right and fair I fair.

 

Cool, I didn't know that. However, as much as your posting history indicates, it's not something I gathered from your OP. More on this later.

But that has nothing to do with this environment right now. I'm talking about the course of the gop and what can be done to avoid a one party majority. I vote republican and I know a lot of black folks, like me, who want to see some change in the gop so that it doesn't get overrun by a far leftist agenda. I like my guns and I like my traditional values.

And I shouldn't have to say all that for my points to be taken seriously.

 

No, you shouldn't. But you have to. Do you know why? Because of what the course of the GOP is affected by. The right has the far greater reputation of racism than the left, when in reality, they aren't too far off. By making a post that singles out the minority racists of only one party, you lend credence to that narrative unwittingly. It's about protecting yourself more than anything else.

I'm different too in that I don't hate the current administration and feel that they are doing what they feel is best for the country. May not be exactly my cup of tea, but I don't hate them for it. They were voted in, let them do their job, and don't obstruct for the sake of obstructing. But there needs to be compromise ... from the administration and from congress. There hasn't much of any, anywhere.

 

Really? I find myself flip-flopping between the chief problem of this administration unrivaled ignorance or malevolence every week. Forgive my cliche, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even if the Obama administration believed the ACA was gonna work, the damage it's doing has completely invalidated their intentions, IMO. Maybe you can't hate him for trying to do what's right, but I can be mad as hell that he's !@#$ed it up more by trying.

 

On the point of obstructing. I would argue Obama has done more to instigate obstruction and a lack of compromise than anyone. Get in the backseat? Really? Any man who tries to impose their will like that is a ****ty politician, regardless of the fact that he feels he's doing what is best for the country. You simply cannot lead effectively in this country acting the way Obama has. And then there's the whole "if you won't agree with me, I'll violate the Constitution and overrule you," thing. Why the hell would you ever agree to compromise with a man like that?

 

Furthermore, there is a compromise fallacy. If Billy says the sky is red, and Cindy says the sky is blue, the correct answer is not the sky is purple. That's an unwieldy analogy but it'll have to do. There are certain things in this country that are simply uncompromising. Like the Second Amendment. It's right there in black and white, "shall not be infringed." But the "correct" thing to do is compromise on common sense gun control? Says who? (Edit: I'm not saying this is a position you hold or that we disagree on, only using it to highlight a point.) I'm not argue that any specific policy maker subscribes to any uncompromising positions (mostly because they are by and large snakes), but as a voter, what matters is the upholding of the Constitution, not compromising so we can have the illusion of getting things at the cost of our Rights being infringed upon.

As a final aside, you appear to be not voting for Trump because some folks at his rallies said some awful stuff. Can you elaborate?

I'm going to point-by point your post. It to be condescending but to ensure that I'm addressing your points in total.

 

1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate.

 

There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments.

 

I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association.

 

But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential.

 

2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.).

 

But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway.

 

So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist.

 

3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it.

 

They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened.

 

4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game.

 

I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere.

 

To be fair, I also had some great conversations with some thoughtful and insightful trump supporters at the rally.

I don't disagree with this, but I'd add that the personalization and hatred for the president isn't any more so than that which was directed at GW Bush, which was both ubiquitous and nearly hysterical in it's pitch. I believe that's going to be the way of presidential politics for quite a while, since most people tend to do nothing more than pick a team and stick with them no matter what.

I agree 100%. Bush was saddled with the same personal hatred and unfairness. People were disgusting and petty towards him - unfairly. He was a good man who did his best for the country during a difficult time. I feel the same way about Obama too. He is a good man who is doing his best for the country. The personalized attacks are silly and beneath people in a civilized nation - especially those who have the ability to principally and intelligently disagree without demonizing someone in the process. Edited June 20, 2016 by Juror#8

[Taro T]

Juror,

 

Really glad to see you back here. Enjoy your posts though I tend to disagree quite often. (Agree w/ a fair amount too.) Unfortunately, don't have the energy to respond now & will then be too busy the next couple of weeks.

 

Hope you stick around.

 

[4merper4mer]

Which was not much more than what was directed at Clinton. This bull **** started with Newt Gingrich.

I remember hearing Ronald Reagan was the anti-Christ and I'm pretty sure Newt Gingrich didn't say it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think the GOP is dead, and just doesn't know it yet. What will replace it, I don't know.

[4merper4mer]

What this campaign has taught me is that there are plenty of libs that have a schtick that starts out with "I'm not a liberal but....".

 

That's fine, but you guys should know it is very see through. The part that makes it so easy is that your criticisms of the Republicans, although often valid, are al you offer wrt their positions. Criticisms are often offered on very specific points and are sometimes right on the money. Other times they expose a deep philosophical disagreement. These folks seem reticent to offer opinions on the more general of topics which differentiate D/R.

 

When, less frequently, a criticism of the Democrats is offered, it is almost always under the guise of....it was a great idea but implemented poorly. This is what really exposes the mindset. The ACA is not a great idea because it cuts against the grain of everything that has ever worked in economic history. It is a move toward communizing health care and ignores the fact that people act in their own self interest and that a thing such as supply and demand exists.

 

In this thread my favorite theme is that Obama is just looking out for America in his own way, even though one of his most famous quotes is that he wants to fundamentally transform America. Those two things are diametrically opposed.

 

I mostly agree with the OP of this thread when it comes to Trump but find it hilarious that he spent a full page explaining why he is so open minded without even mentioning Hillary except to say that she will win. This campaign has taught me that even the most egregious, disgusting, stupid and criminal activities can be ignored and swept under the rug. The fact that even one person could vote for Hillary Clinton is a sad fact but doesn't even get a mention in the OP. It does far more to demonstrate the danger our country is in than any ridiculous thing Trump ever said or will say will ever do.

[4merper4mer]

I think the GOP is dead, and just doesn't know it yet. What will replace it, I don't know.

 

 

What makes you think anything will replace it? The Mitch McConnells of the world killed it and they are getting a great scapegoat to blame in Trump. Trump is definitely a symptom. He is neither the disease, nor the cure. He is like a patch of boils on the ass of the party. There are cures available but the patient does not want them. Instead, they opt to treat symptom, after symptom after symptom. A fair representation of history will excoriate people like this for the calamity set to devastate the next few generations of Americans. I doubt that it will be written.....or if it is that it will see the light of day.

[Magox]

I'm going to point-by point your post. It to be condescending but to ensure that I'm addressing your points in total.

 

1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate.

 

There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments.

 

I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association.

 

But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential.

 

They (Conservative talk radio hucksters) don't repudiate it because a portion of the base harbors some variation of those sentiments. It's a problem on two fronts, A) Because it's ignorant and wrong and B) The shifting demographics increasingly means that the GOP will be a long-term minority party. For a party that usually is on the right side of economic logic the base completely ignores the inevitable outcome that could easily be deduced by applying simple math.

 

It's not racist or bigoted to want welfare reform or to want to control the inflow of illegal immigration but the way these things are communicated by the talk radio hucksters and a portion of the base certainly drives home that perception. I see it all the time and it's a problem. But rather than address it head on, they'd rather go back to their comfort zones and continue preaching what they preach to their own choirs.

2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.).

 

But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway.

 

So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist.

 

Something did give and that was the middle class getting a raw deal. Yes, I agree with the concept of people getting assistance to have healthcare and I also agree with the concept of no one being denied coverage. However, it was painfully clear that from the very beginning the way they were going to achieve this was going to come at the expense of many hard-working people. Whether it was throwing everyone (very sick people) into small pools of insured individuals to the additional taxes imposed on ACA policies to the insanity of the minimum essential coverage, it was inevitable that you were going to see rates sky rocket the way they have.

 

Yes, the law is helping many lower-income people out but it is wholly unfair to the middle class who are seeing their rates nearly doubling. This has got to be addressed.

 

The goals of the law were well-intentioned, but the design and execution were atrocious.

 

And I disagree with the idea that "something" had to be done so let's just pass anything and take it from there. Ok, something should have been done years ago but to essentially fundamentally change the way healthcare is distributed is a big !@#$ing deal. To be honest with you, without uprooting the entire system there could have been some changes around the margins that would have had a much better outcome.

 

What they should have done is create a big subsidized risk pool that put the majority of the previously uninsurable individuals together. That way you get the majority of the higher costing people out of the private risk pools which would have dramatically lowered rates for everyone else. Also, the idea that everyone has to have maternity, substance abuse coverage and etc etc is undoubtedly going to increase the cost of coverage for everyone.

 

They had a golden opportunity to improve things but rather than do that they went into their bag of liberal political orgasmic wants and pulled out a bunch of paternalistic douchebaggery.

3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it.

 

They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened.

 

You are right, the idea that the country is a monolithic group of people who share the same ideology is insane, yet base voters from both parties are so entrenched in their views they believe the country should only be governed with how they see things. The idea of "compromise" with the opposing party is seen as politically toxic so toxic that the deeply flawed primary system we have punishes politicians who even entertain the thought. The majority of voters like the idea of compromise (even though that number is shrinking) but the majority of primary voters, specially in off presidential year elections do not. Ideological purity trumps all. "So sad"

 

4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game.

 

I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere.

 

To be fair, I also had some great conversations with some thoughtful and insightful trump supporters at the rally.

I agree 100%. Bush was saddled with the same personal hatred and unfairness. People were disgusting and petty towards him - unfairly. He was a good man who did his best for the country during a difficult time. I feel the same way about Obama too. He is a good man who is doing his best for the country. The personalized attacks are silly and beneath people in a civilized nation - especially those who have the ability to principally and intelligently disagree without demonizing someone in the process.

[TH3]

You've proven my point; thank you.

 

And I have no clue what you're talking about with "your world."

 

I am most certainly a Christian.

 

I'm most certainly not a lefty.

 

But maybe it helps you to categorize everyone neatly in boxes so you that feel justified in your feelings about the world.

 

Don't you understand - on this board if you criticize the right you are by default a liberal...

6. The major issue of what you bring up was 100% flamed by Barrack Obama. He has divided this nation so strategically and thoroughly that it will be a long time to repair.

 

 

Or - the 40 percent of the US who could not get over having a black president divided it.....

[Magox]

 

Don't you understand - on this board if you criticize the right you are by default a liberal...

A) You are a liberal

 

Or - the 40 percent of the US who could not get over having a black president divided it.....

 

B) So the entire GOP are racists? You're an idiot.

[B-Man]

Magox............don't forget Baskin's most even handed, middle of the road post.

 

baskin, on 12 Mar 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

 

Why don't you guys just drop the facade and come out and say it....you think BO is just a niqqer and wasn't your President....feel the hate...feels good doesn't it

 

[GG]

I used to work in politics. Some remember in 2012 I had some rather prescient strategic observations about the state of the 2012 race. Specifically I mentioned that anyone who felt that Romney had a chance, based on internal polls that I was seeing, was nut-swinging from conservative media that was pushing a weird agenda of confirmatory bias that was eaten happily like **** pie by some of the more gullible on this thread who think that some conservative revolution was underway.

 

It was sad to see such inanity flow.

 

Anyway, I had a cool conversation over fish and chips and a couple schooners of Yuengling with someone who works for a political think tank in dc. In addition to some other super smart people that I have an occassion to talk with frequently, this is what I've learned this campaign season:

 

1. Donald Trump is banking on ethno-nationalism. He is won't admit it overtly, but he is and hoping that it galvanizes a semi-silent demographic that off-sets the growing political power of the minority voting bloc. These are people who sadly believe that most blacks and other minorities suck the tit of the welfare system and languish in perpetual poverty and are imparting that culture, by way of politics, into our American ethos.

 

Sadly many of those dolts are here and are under the mistaken belief that the country, intrinsically, loves the right and loathes the left.

 

Dolts.

 

2. This country is decidedly center right; however the right misses a golden opportunity to court demographics that naturally fit it's party platform by subscribing to ethno-nationalism and being conspicuously quiet on **** that it shouldn't be quiet on. I went to a trump rally and it fundamentally changed my perspective. I've never seen anything like that. I could not align my vote with *some* of the people there after seeing them and some of the things said by supporters. Some were good people and I enjoyed some good conversation with like-minded folks. And then there were the others who displayed and said things that were as odious and offensive as anything that you could imagine.

 

It was epiphany-inducing.

 

Anyway, the right could easily have 60% of the southern black vote and 25% of the black vote everywhere else if they took the L on this election cycle and marginalized Trump now. He is going to lose anyway The Asian vote is another that's nearly tailor-made for the taking in republican politics but their rhetoric is making that increasingly powerful vote unattainable in a generational way.

 

If Clinton gets 60% of the white female vote and Trump 65% of the white male vote, the minority vote will be dispositive. The gop is counting on a lack of enthusiasm from the minority contigent but the dems have some very interesting and persuasive tactics up their sleeve - ads tantamount to the 70s "Daisy" ad - that should drive turnout and scare up support. Also warren is the front-runner but look out for a name that doesn't appear much in national news, Tim Ryan.

 

3. Gop should have let Garland proceed to a vote. They played the math wrong. They would have ended up with a moderate-left justice who was a flip on potentially key issues. He would not defacto align himself with the left on the bench. If/when Hillary is in office, she will have substantial progressive pressure to put a super lefty on the bench. And mind you it will be right after she takes office so the optics around a gop push back will be bad and have no public support because of what will have been a one-year vacancy. And also new presidents have loads of goodwill.

 

Dumb, dumb, dumb. And the word is that gop lawmakers are starting to realize it.

 

Check-mate

 

4. I would have voted for Bush and he should have been the nominee. I would have voted for Kasich too. Read back to my posts from 2011. I mentioned, on this forum, being a supporter of Bush presidency back in 2012 and he wasn't running. I mentioned a Kasich presidency 5 years ago because of his resume and big things that he was doing in Ohio at the time only 2 years in as governor. I also mentioned Buddy Roemer who I still believe would be a great third party candidate. The gop is being hijacked by its basest, most feral instincts. And I believe that it's on the verge of 20+ years in the national minority. Because they can't replace their hatred with assimilation.

 

As of 2014, there were 20 million in this country under the age of 5. 51% were minority. Almost 20% mixed race marriages last year. Projected almost 60% of the population "minority" by 2060. Do the math. The gop is losing ground. Because it's alientating, or at least not welcoming, a growing swath of voters.

 

5. The anti-o, crazy fervor of the last 4 years has created a monster that is now untamable and ushered in an appetite for Trump. Instead of responsible political disagreement over the last 8 years, there has been a personalization and hatred - highlighted by issues-based dissatisfaction that admits itself through weird racial overtones. That will rub some here the wrong way because they will think that they're being called "racist." There are some here (micro), and nationally (macro) that are generally just in different ideological camps. There are some (minority) that are using ideological differences as a proxy for racial biases. In their head the "n" word flows indiscriminately as they work with minority's happily and without incident every day.

 

You know who you are. And it is a decided minority.

 

6. Some dolts here will think that Hillary doesn't stand a chance against Trump. And she may not. I see polls that give her an advantage over advantage. Either way, though, I challenge you to view multiple media sources because I'm convinced that Fox spins an agenda that tries to reshape polling data. Oc and others here fell for that **** on the last go round though I was saying "I'm looking at internal data points that shows Romney down 8 points in Ohio and worse in other swing states ..."

 

7. With the scotus thing and damn near this entire election cycle, to this point, the gop is playing checkers while the dems are playing chess.

 

This was a very long-winded way of saying you were wrong about Trump a few months ago. Are you laughing about Ponzi schemes now?

[FireChan]

Don't you understand - on this board if you criticize the right you are by default a liberal...

 

 

Or - the 40 percent of the US who could not get over having a black president divided it.....

I didn't even call him a liberal. Both you and him seemed to have struggled with that. Not sure why.

[3rdnlng]

 

Don't you understand - on this board if you criticize the right you are by default a liberal...

 

 

Or - the 40 percent of the US who could not get over having a black president divided it.....

You showed up here claiming to be a conservative and then proceeded to voice only criticism of conservatives and republicans. Every position you took was liberal and chock full of liberal talking points. For you to claim that 40% of the U.S. is racist and by inference on the right is just plain ignorant. Ben Carson, Alan West and Herman Caine are all thought of very highly by the right. I'm willing to bet that there are many more racists on the left than on the right.

 

When Obama first became president he almost immediately set out to divide this country. Statements like "back of the bus' and "elections have consequences" coupled with his "Louisiana Purchase and "Cornhusker Kickback" were just the beginning. Those along with a myriad of corruption in his administration and his violations of the Constitution are only some of the reasons he is despised by those on the right. The color of his skin has nothing to do with it regardless of how often you lefties try to pin that on us.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

 

What makes you think anything will replace it? The Mitch McConnells of the world killed it and they are getting a great scapegoat to blame in Trump. Trump is definitely a symptom. He is neither the disease, nor the cure. He is like a patch of boils on the ass of the party. There are cures available but the patient does not want them. Instead, they opt to treat symptom, after symptom after symptom. A fair representation of history will excoriate people like this for the calamity set to devastate the next few generations of Americans. I doubt that it will be written.....or if it is that it will see the light of day.

 

Well stated. Well, may as well start preparing for THE party to take over.

[4merper4mer]

 

Well stated. Well, may as well start preparing for THE party to take over.

 

 

Correct. But anyone who is of the ages 40-65 in this country had a good run and has no right to complain. That it wasn't preserved for futures generations is among the greatest shames in world history.

[unbillievable]

I heard that the left are developing a series of videos explaining to people why they are racist.

[Deranged Rhino]

How dumb are people?

 

Dumb enough to believe there's actually a difference between the left and the right in this country when it comes to how they govern? How they campaign is surely different, but both parties are owned by the same interests and march to the same beat. The government no longer represents the people in the most fundamental sense, and hasn't for some time.

 

Four years. Cracks are already forming in the facade of the last eight years. The media won't be as in the tank for Hiliary as they are for President Potemkin

 

Next four years are gonna be rough

 

Disagree we'll only get 4 years of HRC. Assuming she doesn't get indicted (which I doubt, but would restore much faith if she is), we better buckle in for 8 more years of war, division, and totalitarian slide caused by government creep.

 

 

I don't disagree with this, but I'd add that the personalization and hatred for the president isn't any more so than that which was directed at GW Bush, which was both ubiquitous and nearly hysterical in it's pitch. I believe that's going to be the way of presidential politics for quite a while, since most people tend to do nothing more than pick a team and stick with them no matter what.

 

Yup. Though I'd argue it really started with Clinton and Newt.

 

 

Which was not much more than what was directed at Clinton. This bull **** started with Newt Gingrich.

 

Beat me to it.