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.
Trumpism is just identity politics for white people afraid of their impending future as a minority, and Baby Boomers who were hippies in 1969 rolling around in mud and raw sewage, cultivating new strains of venereal disease, getting high on drugs, talking for decades about how it was the pinnacle of American culture in the latter half of the 20th century, and about how they changed the world. And now they're scared ****less that another group of young people has that power now.
Fortunately for us, we're beyond the reach of these ungrounded Socialists. But thanks for the warning.
Could impeachment cost the GOP its Senate majority?
Possibly.
The Trump base can be anywhere from 35% to 80% of the 'Republicans' in a given area. The Republican (not the 'GOP', that term no longer applies) politicians NEED the approval of Trump's base to get re-nominated, IOW to be on the ballot in November most of them can't risk alienating the Trump base. They absolutely need it almost everywhere in the country to get a spot on the starting line.
Pandering to the Trump base makes many of them almost unelectable in the general election. Trump is under water in most places in the country and a majority of Americans favor impeaching and removing Trump from office. (He is not personally liked, or even likeable and people don't trust him.) The party is painting itself into a corner.
In the Senate, 21 Republican seats are up for contention compared to 11 for the Democrats. This over-exposure is just what the Democrats had to deal with two years ago. It is difficult to defend that many positions.
They could lose small, or they could lose big, but they will probably lose some and they appear to know it. The Trumpublican political machine is pushing this nightmare scenario hard on their super-rich donors (who, let's face it, remain the true core of the party) to raise as much money for propaganda as possible. The party knows the senate is at risk, they are raising money off of it and scaring up some serious coin.
There is no doubt Trump will not be acquitted by the Senate. Some senators may make some noise as if they are trying to be unbiased, blah blah -- but reality is -- they will not vote to impeach Trump (the Republicans).
The base on either side is strong.....I think that if a senator is a in a swing district maybe they might have an issue...but I don't see this being something to change the whole Senate make up.
(disclaimer -- I'm no expert with other districts throughout the country so I could be completely off -- lol)
First, you underestimate the Gen Y/late millennial vote, keep in mind people born up to 2002 will be voting here. I have T-shirts that still fit me that are older than this.
For my part, I'm center-ish libertarian-ish, don't really follow any norms or labels for the sake of it, don't think that what Bernie's selling is viable unless we completely drop out of the international warmongering and the defense contractors who are the real "deep state" if there is one will never let that end. But suppose we had President Bernie and a GOP majority in Congress not under the thumb of an Idi Amin wannabe who couldn't read the Constitution if he wanted to, we'd just have a period where nothing really happens and we'd get by until the old man croaks and the new blood comes in. I like what I'm seeing out of people like Justin Amash and Tulsi Gabbard. Call it like you see it, and **** parties.
Hillary is a complete coward (surprise? nah) for dragging people when she doesn't have the girl-stones to just officially join the race. Strictly speaking, Donald Trump is a symptom. Hillary is a disease.
You're right of course. And yes, children do tend to be more accepting (and demanding) of socialism. It's not unexpected. For their entire lives they have had parents to provide for their every need. They haven't had to do so for themselves, and now expect a government to do the same (a generalization of course-not all young people are like this-some are strongly economically conservative).
Thing is, it's always been this way. The "hippies" of the 60s-70s were no different than today's "gen Y" (except perhaps less catered to). They eventually grew up, got jobs, became productive members of society and moved away from the socialist tripe of their youth. This especially happened once they finally figured out that they were the ones that would be paying for the free chit they are being promised. Today's children are no different-they will eventually grow up, just as preceding generations have.
You're right of course. And yes, children do tend to be more accepting (and demanding) of socialism. It's not unexpected. For their entire lives they have had parents to provide for their every need. They haven't had to do so for themselves, and now expect a government to do the same (a generalization of course-not all young people are like this-some are strongly economically conservative).
Thing is, it's always been this way. The "hippies" of the 60s-70s were no different than today's "gen Y" (except perhaps less catered to). They eventually grew up, got jobs, became productive members of society and moved away from the socialist tripe of their youth. This especially happened once they finally figured out that they were the ones that would be paying for the free chit they are being promised. Today's children are no different-they will eventually grow up, just as preceding generations have.
If the argument is that people become more fiscally responsible as they get older, I don't see how that equates to GOP support at this point. Democrats support some modicum of tax increases to support social programs while the GOP supports deficit spending to pay for tax cuts for corporations. I don't see how anyone can make a plausible argument that Republicans are the economically conservative party.
Michelle Obama is the only one that could beat Trump.
How do you figure that? Michelle has zero relevant qualifications. She's never run for or won an elected office. She has never run a campaign. She has zero experience as a representative (senator/rep/assy/whatever) at either the state or federal level. She has zero executive experience running anything. She dabbled in some non-profits and had a token position at a school or two IIRC. But she's never had a real job, running a private business in her life. She has zero foreign policy experience. In short, she is even less qualified than the community agitator was.
Of course, her complete lack of qualifications or accomplishments won't necessarily stop Dems from voting for her. Voting for her because she is Barack's wife is letting the spouse of a surgeon operate on you.
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.