Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I find hilarious is how upset all the Trumpers are about this. Where was all this pearl clutching outrage when Ron Paul supporters were screwed at the RNC in 2008?
I was never a Ron Paul supporter, but I have many friend who were, some were even at the RNC for the floor votes. Paul's people got screwed and all those "establishment" types stuck together. Yet now all the Trumpers are crawling out of the woodwork raising their fists in revolt.
If you think you are going to get the Ron Paul supporters backing for your outrage, I don't think you should hold your breath. And I salute them for that!!
I was actually a Ron Paul supporter as was my millennial son and we were po'd by the way the RNC treated Paul and voted Gary Johnson. Many of my son's friends are Republican - leaning libertarian and are going to vote for Trump - not because they like him but want to see the whole system collapse - so I don't have to hold my breath - I already know there will be support.
Thank the Make Donald Drumpf again ap for that. I didn't change it, the app did automatically. But I thought supporters of his were supposed to be thick-skinned people wanting us all to be.... Edit: I'll make sure I don't change your's in the future so I don't have to hear another outburst like this.
Ahh, now I get it....sounds a lot like when my son says "it wasn't meeee, it was my hand that did it on it's own".
You have an app, it changed it because you loaded it and told it to. So yes young man, you DID change it.
Thank you for the apology though.
As for a supporter of Trump? Nope, I'm not supporting anyone at this point. I do know who'd I'd never vote for but I'm sure there's plenty of foolish people who will vote for her.
Trump is getting hit by both sides. Here is Trump running on the Republican ticket and the Republicans are hitting Trump harder than the democrats. The GOP are commiting party suicide.
Ahh, now I get it....sounds a lot like when my son says "it wasn't meeee, it was my hand that did it on it's own".
You have an app, it changed it because you loaded it and told it to. So yes young man, you DID change it.
Thank you for the apology though.
As for a supporter of Drumpf? Nope, I'm not supporting anyone at this point. I do know who'd I'd never vote for but I'm sure there's plenty of foolish people who will vote for her.
Thank you for the apology though.
Seriously though should I do it from my computer it comes out Drumpf rather than T-r-u-m-p.
Judging by your posts, I'm rather surprised that you aren't supporting him.
I think Conservatives have lost sight of who our real enemy is... It's the Democrats, not "the establishment"....
It seems this year, the Republican base is more interested in intensely fighting it's own party rather than the real opposition.
They can't see the forest for the trees.
They do see the forest for the trees. It's not the Republican base fighting its own party. It's two Republican bases fighting for control of the party. The more traditional Republicans haven't suddenly become irrelevant in the face of Republicans determined to get back America. The party base itself has split into two bases. And the leadership of the party falls into the more traditionalist base, while there is a less traditionalist base that calls itself the more conservative GOP (while they fall into line behind Trump, who, while no traditionalist, is no conservative either), but really seems to be very nationalistic. The nationalists are willing to destroy the party in order to seize control of it, because with our two-party system, that is the best strategy for staying relevant and getting your message heard and influencing policy.
They do see the forest for the trees. It's not the Republican base fighting its own party. It's two Republican bases fighting for control of the party. The more traditional Republicans haven't suddenly become irrelevant in the face of Republicans determined to get back America. The party base itself has split into two bases. And the leadership of the party falls into the more traditionalist base, while there is a less traditionalist base that calls itself the more conservative GOP (while they fall into line behind Trump, who, while no traditionalist, is no conservative either), but really seems to be very nationalistic. The nationalists are willing to destroy the party in order to seize control of it, because with our two-party system, that is the best strategy for staying relevant and getting your message heard and influencing policy.
Interesting - I'm not a big fan of Labels, but I certainly agree about these Different Trees in the Forest.
Let's use your labels for a minute.
1. Traditionalist (I guess this is also the dreaded Establishment, which nobody can define)
Big players would be: Kasich (candidate), Romney, Paul Ryan, Rubio, McConnell, McCain, pretty much most elected CongressCritters and almost every member of the RNC Rules Committee.
2. Conservative (battle here between Social/Libertarian but both consider themselves the "true")
Big Players would be: Cruz (candidate), Ron Paul/all Paulers, Rand Paul, Tea Party CongressCritters and some folks in the State RNC.
3. Nationalist (I think closer to Independent) Trump (candidate) and I really don't see anyone else except for the voters who are voting for Trump.
Democrats have the same different variety of Trees in their Forest - but that's for another thread and it's clear that the "Traditional Democrat" is already out of the picture and become a Dinosaur.
I don't get this Statement: The nationalists are willing to destroy the party in order to seize control of it, because with our two-party system, that is the best strategy for staying relevant and getting your message heard and influencing policy.
How will the "Nationalists" (Trump & Voters) get control when they have ONLY the power of the vote (in General State Elections) and no power in the RNC Leadership (State of National) OR the Rules Committee? How do they "destroy the RNC" when they are only using the VOTE of the Citizens to get to the Convention?
The "Traditionalists" are really talking about a Brokered Convention (decided behind closed doors)
The Conservatives are talking about a Contested Convention - Delegates change the votes from their State Primaries. (Kasich claims this tack, but he has only won 1 State - so brokered is his only option).
I suspect that the minute they start attempting to throw out the State Primary Results - the whole thing blows up ... IF ..... Trump still has a giant Plurality or even the Majority of 1237 AND if Cruz & Kasich are still far behind. It's statistically impossible for Kasich to have anywhere close to enough Delegates and very Improbable (if not Statistically impossible) for Cruz to get to 1237. The claims by some Members of the RNC Rules Committee (Traditionalists) is that ONLY they have the "right" to choose and that the Votes of the People don't matter. They will choose through "Rules", "Brokered" or "Contested".
And yet ....... the blame is all for the Nationalist who is just winning the States. How is that?
Unusual bit of Trivia -- Mitt Romeny had less Delegates/State Wins on March 15, 2012 than Donald Trump had on March 15, 2016 ..... and yet there was ZERO talk of "Contested", "Brokered", "Rules".
Add to that -- the RNC announced that Romney was the "Presumptive" Republican Candidate for President and threw all their support & resources behind him in late March. Romney didn't get to the final Delegate Count until the end of May.
Interesting - I'm not a big fan of Labels, but I certainly agree about these Different Trees in the Forest.
Let's use your labels for a minute.
1. Traditionalist (I guess this is also the dreaded Establishment, which nobody can define)
Big players would be: Kasich (candidate), Romney, Paul Ryan, Rubio, McConnell, McCain, pretty much most elected CongressCritters and almost every member of the RNC Rules Committee.
2. Conservative (battle here between Social/Libertarian but both consider themselves the "true")
Big Players would be: Cruz (candidate), Ron Paul/all Paulers, Rand Paul, Tea Party CongressCritters and some folks in the State RNC.
3. Nationalist (I think closer to Independent) Trump (candidate) and I really don't see anyone else except for the voters who are voting for Trump.
Democrats have the same different variety of Trees in their Forest - but that's for another thread and it's clear that the "Traditional Democrat" is already out of the picture and become a Dinosaur.
I don't get this Statement: The nationalists are willing to destroy the party in order to seize control of it, because with our two-party system, that is the best strategy for staying relevant and getting your message heard and influencing policy.
How will the "Nationalists" (Trump & Voters) get control when they have ONLY the power of the vote (in General State Elections) and no power in the RNC Leadership (State of National) OR the Rules Committee? How do they "destroy the RNC" when they are only using the VOTE of the Citizens to get to the Convention?
The "Traditionalists" are really talking about a Brokered Convention (decided behind closed doors)
The Conservatives are talking about a Contested Convention - Delegates change the votes from their State Primaries. (Kasich claims this tack, but he has only won 1 State - so brokered is his only option).
I suspect that the minute they start attempting to throw out the State Primary Results - the whole thing blows up ... IF ..... Trump still has a giant Plurality or even the Majority of 1237 AND if Cruz & Kasich are still far behind. It's statistically impossible for Kasich to have anywhere close to enough Delegates and very Improbable (if not Statistically impossible) for Cruz to get to 1237. The claims by some Members of the RNC Rules Committee (Traditionalists) is that ONLY they have the "right" to choose and that the Votes of the People don't matter. They will choose through "Rules", "Brokered" or "Contested".
And yet ....... the blame is all for the Nationalist who is just winning the States. How is that?
Unusual bit of Trivia -- Mitt Romeny had less Delegates/State Wins on March 15, 2012 than Donald Trump had on March 15, 2016 ..... and yet there was ZERO talk of "Contested", "Brokered", "Rules".
Add to that -- the RNC announced that Romney was the "Presumptive" Republican Candidate for President and threw all their support & resources behind him in late March. Romney didn't get to the final Delegate Count until the end of May.
You're right in pointing out that the Democrats have the same issues. For the past 70 years or so, the GOP has been the more cohesive party. And Democrats have been much more prone to splinter. And the splintering in the Democratic party was at least partly due to the very conservative Southern Democrats, who began to switch their allegiance to the Republican party in the late 70's and early 80's. To a degree, it's people with that same ideology who are now splintering the Republican party. Nationalism, and the people who are troubled by progressive policies will always split the political parties. And they should. They are a legitimate part of the electorate, and their calls to step back, to slow down, are an integral part of the American political system, of how slowly we move as a nation. They help to create the debate where the people have time to fully consider progressive policies, what the drawbacks are to those policies, as well as the advantages. To those who advocate progressive policies, they seem to be obdurate and obstructive, regressive and "uneducated", as something that as a nation we want to be rid of. But I don't think we want to be rid of any part of our electorate. They all bring something to the table. And the raucous, angry, rude and bitter debate is part of our heritage. It may be distasteful to some, but if you look at it another way, as an exercise in democracy, it's glorious. We're human beings, and in a system where we all have a voice, it's going to get as bitter and angry and loud as a fight during Thanksgiving dinner. That's what makes it real.
Interesting - I'm not a big fan of Labels, but I certainly agree about these Different Trees in the Forest.
Let's use your labels for a minute.
1. Traditionalist (I guess this is also the dreaded Establishment, which nobody can define)
Big players would be: Kasich (candidate), Romney, Paul Ryan, Rubio, McConnell, McCain, pretty much most elected CongressCritters and almost every member of the RNC Rules Committee.
2. Conservative (battle here between Social/Libertarian but both consider themselves the "true")
Big Players would be: Cruz (candidate), Ron Paul/all Paulers, Rand Paul, Tea Party CongressCritters and some folks in the State RNC.
3. Nationalist (I think closer to Independent) Drumpf (candidate) and I really don't see anyone else except for the voters who are voting for Drumpf.
Democrats have the same different variety of Trees in their Forest - but that's for another thread and it's clear that the "Traditional Democrat" is already out of the picture and become a Dinosaur.
I don't get this Statement: The nationalists are willing to destroy the party in order to seize control of it, because with our two-party system, that is the best strategy for staying relevant and getting your message heard and influencing policy.
How will the "Nationalists" (Drumpf & Voters) get control when they have ONLY the power of the vote (in General State Elections) and no power in the RNC Leadership (State of National) OR the Rules Committee? How do they "destroy the RNC" when they are only using the VOTE of the Citizens to get to the Convention?
The "Traditionalists" are really talking about a Brokered Convention (decided behind closed doors)
The Conservatives are talking about a Contested Convention - Delegates change the votes from their State Primaries. (Kasich claims this tack, but he has only won 1 State - so brokered is his only option).
I suspect that the minute they start attempting to throw out the State Primary Results - the whole thing blows up ... IF ..... Drumpf still has a giant Plurality or even the Majority of 1237 AND if Cruz & Kasich are still far behind. It's statistically impossible for Kasich to have anywhere close to enough Delegates and very Improbable (if not Statistically impossible) for Cruz to get to 1237. The claims by some Members of the RNC Rules Committee (Traditionalists) is that ONLY they have the "right" to choose and that the Votes of the People don't matter. They will choose through "Rules", "Brokered" or "Contested".
And yet ....... the blame is all for the Nationalist who is just winning the States. How is that?
Unusual bit of Trivia -- Mitt Romeny had less Delegates/State Wins on March 15, 2012 than Donald Drumpf had on March 15, 2016 ..... and yet there was ZERO talk of "Contested", "Brokered", "Rules".
Add to that -- the RNC announced that Romney was the "Presumptive" Republican Candidate for President and threw all their support & resources behind him in late March. Romney didn't get to the final Delegate Count until the end of May.
What I find is it hard to pin down some though I generally agree. One thing left out (at least I think so) is religious conservatism. These fluctuate between the three generally. Remember, all of the Republicans who have been in the primaries have been conservative on a religious basis (gay marriage and abortion/Planned Parenthood.) Then in ways, the "Nationalists" and "Conservatives" have a cross-section of both voters and also political stances. Yes, Trump has support who actually want single-payer healthcare but their stance on ISIS and immigration, mostly the same. Trump is just more of a cult of personality when it comes to the "fire in his belly" and the harsh rhetoric and insults he uses.
Here's the interesting thing with the Romney delegate situation vs. Drumpf's. Romney WASN'T an outsider. He was a governor who ran in 2008 but dropped out (I wouldn't say lost as the odds in a one-on-one election are better than a 10+ person field) and then entered 2012 again. Drumpf briefly only ran for President of the Reform Party in 2000 but ironically dropped out due to David Duke (funny how that name pops up and he don't know him now) being a part of the party. Romney at this point was running against Paul, Newt and Santorium. Only Paul was really against the grain and honestly, he was nowhere near as strong as Trump. Paul ended up carrying only three states. Trump is in the lead but he is nowhere near the point Romney was at. Romney was already close to 800 and would break it two days shy from four years ago with a thining and less contested candidacy. Trump is at 621 and it is still a contest.
Edit: I do think the TEA Party who have joined the "nationalists" with Trump, I honestly think that they want to tear down the party if it isn't what they want. TEA Partiers wanted it since 2009 and now they got their guy, Trump. Trump has the ability to be the martyr that they need to take over the party either through the nomination win or causing chaos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
You're right in pointing out that the Democrats have the same issues. For the past 70 years or so, the GOP has been the more cohesive party. And Democrats have been much more prone to splinter. And the splintering in the Democratic party was at least partly due to the very conservative Southern Democrats, who began to switch their allegiance to the Republican party in the late 70's and early 80's. To a degree, it's people with that same ideology who are now splintering the Republican party. Nationalism, and the people who are troubled by progressive policies will always split the political parties. And they should. They are a legitimate part of the electorate, and their calls to step back, to slow down, are an integral part of the American political system, of how slowly we move as a nation. They help to create the debate where the people have time to fully consider progressive policies, what the drawbacks are to those policies, as well as the advantages. To those who advocate progressive policies, they seem to be obdurate and obstructive, regressive and "uneducated", as something that as a nation we want to be rid of. But I don't think we want to be rid of any part of our electorate. They all bring something to the table. And the raucous, angry, rude and bitter debate is part of our heritage. It may be distasteful to some, but if you look at it another way, as an exercise in democracy, it's glorious. We're human beings, and in a system where we all have a voice, it's going to get as bitter and angry and loud as a fight during Thanksgiving dinner. That's what makes it real.
The Southern Democrat vote was starting back in 1964 (Goldwater), 1968 (Wallace) and even 1972 (Nixon.) Carter and Clinton were the last two Southern Democrats (running as Democrats) who were able to win southern states. Otherwise since 1964, it's been a Republican if not a southern Democrat (even if they were running as an independent.) It's not
I disagree with you guys's premise that the TEA Party Conservatives are siding with Trump. Conservatives ( not traditionalists ) just held a meeting in DC to find a way to derail Trump. Would anyone dare to claim Mark Levin is a Traditionalist? He doesn't support Trump. Glenn Beck isn't "establishment", he's not a Trump supporter either.
Trump isn't Conservative enough to get the Conservative nod, and he isn't moderate enough to get the Establishment's nod.
I think Trump is somewhat indefinable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Edit: I'll make sure I don't change your's in the future so I don't have to hear another outburst like this.
I do know who'd I'd never vote for but I'm sure there's plenty of foolish people who will vote for her.
) being a part of the party. Romney at this point was running against Paul, Newt and Santorium. Only Paul was really against the grain and honestly, he was nowhere near as strong as Trump. Paul ended up carrying only three states. Trump is in the lead but he is nowhere near the point Romney was at. Romney was already close to 800 and would break it two days shy from four years ago with a thining and less contested candidacy. Trump is at 621 and it is still a contest.
