Republican Party - On the Eve of a Civil War?

[SimpleDon]

Trump is running his campaign like a business venture. He's selling himself as a product. What he isn't doing is trying to be nice to the competition. To him it's a very business-like "fuck the competition." And he obviously doesn't have a platform or plan of any kind wrt governing if elected, because all he's trying to do is get himself elected. That's as far as his plan goes. His campaign slogan should be, "Buy Me. Buy a Winner," or something like that. He's just taking advantage of the great stupid that exists in the Republican Party, and I can't bring myself to get too excited about that. The core of what constitutes the Republican Party never gave a shit about the "Republican Party" anyway.

The best thing to come out of all this would be to permanently fracture the two-only-party system that exists in the U.S. That would be a good thing indeed.

You underestimate three things, conservatives meet a large part of their goals by doing nothing, hence the conservative victories over Obama by employing obstruction. And that both parties have a vested interest in the two party system. And the burdens of conservative leadership don't noticeably strain the intellect. Reagan was certainly the stupidest person to be President followed by Bush "earpiece” II in recent history.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump is running his campaign like a business venture. He's selling himself as a product. What he isn't doing is trying to be nice to the competition. To him it's a very business-like "fuck the competition." And he obviously doesn't have a platform or plan of any kind wrt governing if elected, because all he's trying to do is get himself elected. That's as far as his plan goes. His campaign slogan should be, "Buy Me. Buy a Winner," or something like that. He's just taking advantage of the great stupid that exists in the Republican Party, and I can't bring myself to get too excited about that. The core of what constitutes the Republican Party never gave a shit about the "Republican Party" anyway.

The best thing to come out of all this would be to permanently fracture the two-only-party system that exists in the U.S. That would be a good thing indeed.

You underestimate three things, conservatives meet a large part of their goals by doing nothing, hence the conservative victories over Obama by employing obstruction. And that both parties have a vested interest in the two party system. And the burdens of conservative leadership don't noticeably strain the intellect. Reagan was certainly the stupidest person to be President followed by Bush "earpiece” II in recent history.

I wonder if we'll ever know the truth to the alleged Debate ear-piece.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Considering El Trumpo's quick rise toward fuhrerhood...can we expect Glenn Beck to run in '20? The Silver Otter will bring back a Great 'Murka. He's full of Murkan values. He's a great 'Murkan.

 

[Terrell]

Trump is running his campaign like a business venture. He's selling himself as a product. What he isn't doing is trying to be nice to the competition. To him it's a very business-like "fuck the competition." And he obviously doesn't have a platform or plan of any kind wrt governing if elected, because all he's trying to do is get himself elected. That's as far as his plan goes. His campaign slogan should be, "Buy Me. Buy a Winner," or something like that. He's just taking advantage of the great stupid that exists in the Republican Party, and I can't bring myself to get too excited about that. The core of what constitutes the Republican Party never gave a shit about the "Republican Party" anyway.

The best thing to come out of all this would be to permanently fracture the two-only-party system that exists in the U.S. That would be a good thing indeed.

I doubt that the 2 party system in the U.S. would be permanently fractured. If Trump causes the Republican party to fracture, I think that the pieces would realign in some fashion to form another major party, and in some cases there would be some exchange between the Democrats, what's left of the Republicans, and maybe some parts of the minor parties would be absorbed into the 2 major parties. There would probably still be minor parties, but they'd likely be shut out in the same manner they are today. IMO the big question is the details of the coalitions that make up the 2 major parties.

IMO if we're going to have a multiple party system it would require a restructuring of how the election system itself works. It might require some sort of parliamentary system. I don't know exactly how you could make a multi party system (more than 2 major parties) viable in the US, or how to get enough of the states to agree to such a system.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, the big question is whether any one of the pieces get left out of the reconstituted party. Many may hope that the racists might be left out, but frankly they are too numerous. My guess is the neo-cons get left out. They seem to be fewest and even more unpopular than the racists. So we could see a party with racists, evangelicals and business interests. The question is whether the business interests could stomach that. While the racists and evangelicals play well with each other, with much overlap, and the business and neocon interests also overlap, could they ever be reconciled again? Would the business and neocon factions try to tempt a democratic constituency out and into a new party, leaving the racists marginalized? Or maybe business interests go entirely over to the democrats, perhaps causing the far left to leave, with the democratic party a genuinely centrist party with two extremist parties? I don't see this as being stable. The trouble is, I'm having a hard time seeing ANY stable outcome, short of the republicans coming to their senses and reestablishing their old coalition, which seems more unlikely than most others.

 

[Elixir]

Trump has said he'll run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination.

I wonder if the establishment doesn't feel more comfortable with HRC, even if they can't come out and say so. She's beholden to her contributors, whereas Trump isn't beholden to anyone. So they know what they're getting.

It might be but I doubt it. The establishment wants to protect the income inequality that has built up over the years of conservative rule and Democrats adopting conservative positions, like Clinton I with welfare reform and deregulation and Obama with ObamaCare based on the free market principle that the private sector always does it better, in spite of the realities of it.

If the establishment is most concerned with protecting income inequality, then Hillary will be a good choice for them. I don't think she'd even be talking about it if Bernie wasn't forcing her to do so. As it is, lip service is required, but action is not. And if Trump runs as an independent, the establishment becomes irrelevant anyhow.

 

[Sarpedon]

We aren't dealing with people who are rationally judging outcomes by how profitable or not they will be to them. While this sort of thing was how their fortunes were made, today's super rich are long removed from that sort of mentality. Instead, they have turned their perceived privilege into a kind of religion. Surrounded by yes men, their egos have grown to the point where rationality no longer penetrates. Even Clinton's lukewarm social justice is considered to be a brutal attack on their holy money, akin to shitting in a font.

If someone's actions make no sense, re-evaluate your assumptions. In this case the money has produced a mentality about the money, that has become divorced from a rational evaluation of the money. This produces a situation that is confusing if you are proceeding with simple assumptions.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They nailed it four years ago:
http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Trump today, warned the GOP that if they steal the nomination from him, he will bolt the party and take a lot of his followers with him. The thinking from some off the wall pundits, blocking Trump from getting 50% + and then bringing in an outside to take the nomination. Mitt Romney perhaps? Or who else? A real WTF situation.

 

[Sarpedon]

I guess it depends on what he considers 'steal.' If he wins the outright majority (which he is on track to do, according to FiveThirtyEight) and they change the rules to require 60% or something, most people would consider that stealing.

But if he wins the most delegates, but not the majority, and they beat him according to current rules, on the second round of voting or something, will he consider that stealing? Probably, but who knows with him? Most people wouldn't. But he doesn't need 'most people' to screw the GOP. If even a small percentage of his voters follow him, the GOP loses. It would be easy to imagine he ends up with, say 45%, with the rest divided, who then unite on the second or third vote.

 

[maxparrish]

One shouldn't spend too much time trying to untangle the 'what ifs'; at this point (as I suggested in the OP) this is a part of American political history that might result in some cataclysmic events - who knows, perhaps an 1860 moment when the Whigs collapsed. Whatever happens though, its only worth watching as sheer entertainment.

Hours after news mania over Romney's denunciation, came the GOP debates...as we write. I don't watch live debates, finding the yelling. lying, and hypocrisy too annoying. But if twitter feeds are accurate this one is one hell of a tag team assault on Donald, worse than last time, with Rubio being more aggressive and getting under Donald's skin and Cruz' blows hitting hard.

The winner, though, according to Frank Luntz is Kasich. He's above the fray and dramatically scoring better than Cruz (2nd place), Rubio (3rd Place), and Trump (last place).

A sample of a twitter caught my eye as a summation of Trumps debate 'changes':

"So Trump is becoming more liberal on immigration, more lawless on executive powers, and more barbaric on torture just in this debate."

Apparently he is now changing his mind on technology workers, blathering about flexibility, and refusing to release his NYT interview. On the other hand, he has doubled down on torture, making illegal orders to the military, and executive orders.

 

[arkirk]

One shouldn't spend too much time trying to untangle the 'what ifs'; at this point (as I suggested in the OP) this is a part of American political history that might result in some cataclysmic events - who knows, perhaps an 1860 moment when the Whigs collapsed. Whatever happens though, its only worth watching as sheer entertainment.

Hours after news mania over Romney's denunciation, came the GOP debates...as we write. I don't watch live debates, finding the yelling. lying, and hypocrisy too annoying. But if twitter feeds are accurate this one is one hell of a tag team assault on Donald, worse than last time, with Rubio being more aggressive and getting under Donald's skin and Cruz' blows hitting hard.

The winner, though, according to Frank Luntz is Kasich. He's above the fray and dramatically scoring better than Cruz (2nd place), Rubio (3rd Place), and Trump (last place).

A sample of a twitter caught my eye as a summation of Trumps debate 'changes':

"So Trump is becoming more liberal on immigration, more lawless on executive powers, and more barbaric on torture just in this debate."

Apparently he is now changing his mind on technology workers, blathering about flexibility, and refusing to release his NYT interview. On the other hand, he has doubled down on torture, making illegal orders to the military, and executive orders.

I really think it is good the Repugs are showing how calloused and heartless they are. Far better for everybody to know how they are than for many to trust they are humane when they are NOT as a matter of policy.

 

[bilby]

I think that it is much more likely that they convince Trump that it is in his best interests to keep much closer to the standard conservative orthodoxy if he wins. And to take his rhetoric down a couple of notches and to turn to denigrating Hillary.

This would be doable for Trump. His talking points are largely divorced from any connection with reality. I mean how realistic is it to deport 11 million people or to get Mexico to pay for a fifty foot high wall that won't prevent the problem? But the conservative orthodoxy is also disconnected from reality, it is largely a set of lies intended solely to keep the vast majority of the parties supporters from voting for their own economic self-interests.

What Trump is doing is voicing that which was meant to be unspoken in the conservative orthodoxy. It won't be hard for Trump to shift gears ever so slightly to keep his support but not to scare the Republican establishment into not supporting him with their billions of dollars.

I agree. It is completely unrealistic for the National Socialists to actually remove all the Jews from Germany. If they come to power, they will tone things down - all the hyperbole is just to appeal to their more radical supporters. [/1932]

 

[iolo]

Senator McCarthy and his chums made a real economic alternative pretty well impossible, producing a population as brainwashed as that of the Soviet Union, but with less economic hardship to wake them up. When 'the American dream' goes dead on them, a large section of the population will therefore choose a ranting madman as 'sincere' and 'against the Establishment'. I think a vote for Trump is a vote for War.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One shouldn't spend too much time trying to untangle the 'what ifs'; at this point (as I suggested in the OP) this is a part of American political history that might result in some cataclysmic events - who knows, perhaps an 1860 moment when the Whigs collapsed. Whatever happens though, its only worth watching as sheer entertainment.

Hours after news mania over Romney's denunciation, came the GOP debates...as we write. I don't watch live debates, finding the yelling. lying, and hypocrisy too annoying. But if twitter feeds are accurate this one is one hell of a tag team assault on Donald, worse than last time, with Rubio being more aggressive and getting under Donald's skin and Cruz' blows hitting hard.

The winner, though, according to Frank Luntz is Kasich. He's above the fray and dramatically scoring better than Cruz (2nd place), Rubio (3rd Place), and Trump (last place).

A sample of a twitter caught my eye as a summation of Trumps debate 'changes':

"So Trump is becoming more liberal on immigration, more lawless on executive powers, and more barbaric on torture just in this debate."

Apparently he is now changing his mind on technology workers, blathering about flexibility, and refusing to release his NYT interview. On the other hand, he has doubled down on torture, making illegal orders to the military, and executive orders.

I really think it is good the Repugs are showing how calloused and heartless they are. Far better for everybody to know how they are than for many to trust they are humane when they are NOT as a matter of policy.

There are lots of calloused, heartless people. That's why there is a republican party.

 

[fromderinside]

There are lots of calloused, heartless people. That's why there is a republican party.

...and why religion works for those who are fearful which are more than those who are heartless.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-republicans-ryan-idUSMTZSAPEC34IQ9V68

The Committee to Draft Speaker Ryan filed papers as a Super PAC with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday, adding to the groups of mainstream Republican leaders and donors with a shared goal: stopping Trump.

Ryan, the House of Representatives speaker who spoke out against Trump for not quickly rejecting white supremacist support, did not appear ready to take on the role.


Wheeeee! One more group of desperate crazies enters the dog fight.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why would he? Ryan has a lot more to lose than Romney.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why would he? Ryan has a lot more to lose than Romney.

He has avowed he has no interest in any of this, but it is fun too see a bunch of these clowns panicking and forming a commmittee to draft him. So, who will these bozos annoint next? Newt Gingrich?

 

[maxparrish]

I think that it is much more likely that they convince Trump that it is in his best interests to keep much closer to the standard conservative orthodoxy if he wins. And to take his rhetoric down a couple of notches and to turn to denigrating Hillary.

This would be doable for Trump. His talking points are largely divorced from any connection with reality. I mean how realistic is it to deport 11 million people or to get Mexico to pay for a fifty foot high wall that won't prevent the problem? But the conservative orthodoxy is also disconnected from reality, it is largely a set of lies intended solely to keep the vast majority of the parties supporters from voting for their own economic self-interests.

What Trump is doing is voicing that which was meant to be unspoken in the conservative orthodoxy. It won't be hard for Trump to shift gears ever so slightly to keep his support but not to scare the Republican establishment into not supporting him with their billions of dollars.

I agree. It is completely unrealistic for the National Socialists to actually remove all the Jews from Germany. If they come to power, they will tone things down - all the hyperbole is just to appeal to their more radical supporters. [/1932]

True enough. Some time ago I saw a war documentary (can't recall the title) on the history channel. There was a clip wherein they quoted a diary entry or letter of an upperclass German Jew woman in 1932/33; in the document she explained to her friends at a cafe that Hitler was actually a good thing for Germany, and to not worry about his rhetoric. She fully supported him.