• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the GOP could cut ties with Donald Trump

themoviefinder said:
There's renewed talk in some Republican circles to find a way out as Trump lags big time behind Hillary Clinton in several new polls, and he has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate for a major party on record -- 70% in this week's Washington Post-ABC poll.
One source with knowledge of these discussions underscores to CNN, however, that all of the ideas being bandied about now are highly unlikely to see fruition -- mostly because this kind of move to get rid of a nominee elected by GOP primary and caucus voters would be unprecedented. And a second source says he has spoken directly to senior GOP operatives with extensive convention experience who are actively exploring how to dump Trump.

How GOP could cut ties with Donald Trump - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

What makes you think they want to cut ties? He's winning on this "I'm an outsider" act. They can't back him or he looses his appeal. Nothing in politics is unplanned.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Know first that I have spent seven years attacking Obama on about every issue, save one.

I have also maintained that he has "rock star" charisma and is a genius in exploiting that. He has matured, he hardly ever says "I" anymore where it used to be every 5th word. he has become more "presidential".

When popular leaders are ending their mandate on a high note, they have tremendous power, power the Clintons chose not to yield in 2000. He has the power of Air Force One, the Oval Office and any part of the White House from which to launch well prepared, damaging broadsides.

In the end, his amazing campaign power has only grown as his hair has greyed from the job. Yes, he carries weight. And to all but those who have always disliked him, he will have tremendous influence. The irony is that the GOP has never quite awakened to the very fact of that power. In both instances they threw a weak candidate at him while the public was willing to hand over both houses. They aren't exactly tactical geniuses, where Obama's people are.
Click to expand...
Possibly because as of late they've enjoyed executing from the office so infrequently! :mrgreen:
 
TheGoverness said:
Because there are no conservatives out there that dislike Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Apparently disliking crude, idiotic, big government liberals with an R after their name and a penchant for dallying with the alt-right now makes you a Hillary Booster.

Real Conservatives understand that the R is important, not the principles.


I am seriously rethinking my previous dedication to representative government as a result of this election.
 
ksu_aviator said:
What makes you think they want to cut ties? He's winning on this "I'm an outsider" act. They can't back him or he looses his appeal. Nothing in politics is unplanned.
Click to expand...
In the Republican primaries, very true. But recent general election polls suggest the "I'm an outsider" act has jumped the shark into another reality show.
 
Chomsky said:
The GOP have done well in associating and attacking the President in the mid-terms, but I think president Obama is going to be more effective in this election than some realize. His timing and manner of signalling the end of the Dem Primary was impeccable.

The Madame Sec'y & President are going to steadfastly portray themselves as the calm mature adults in the room, painting Trump as the impetuous immature unworthy child, while Liz Warren et al go for Trump's juggler doing the dirty-work.

I'm still not sure exactly where and how Bernie fits in all this, except to say I hope he keeps and grows his coalition as 'his', and does not turn over his email or donor lists to the the HRC or DNC organizations.
Click to expand...

This is probably one of the reasons Newt is being considered as a VP choice. From my observation, he can perform well in the typical VP attack dog role, and yet when he does, he still comes off as the adult in the room often making the object of his attacks look stupid, foolish, poor of judgement and poof of knowledge.

If chosen for this role, Newt's hands are going to be full (or whomever the VP choice ends up being), as not only will Hillary's VP be taking on the attack dog role, Warren appears to have already taken on it on as well, at least after it was clear that fellow socialist Bernie wouldn't be making it.
 
I've been maintaining for a while that this election is less about ideology (lib vs con) than about establishment vs outsider. Sanders was an outsider, and he did remarkably well given his crazy beliefs. Trump is certainly a political outsider, even moreso than Sanders, and he did even better given his crazy beliefs. Against these two, there's the quintessential insider, Hillary Clinton, who has her own crazy beliefs but they're shared by those in power. She's put in the time, and she's next in line by the usual reckoning. I suspect, very strongly, that she will beat Trump like she beat Sanders, and for the same reason: despite the bitching and the cries of "throw the bums out", the establishment always ultimately wins. If they couldn't do this, they wouldn't be the establishment.
 
themoviefinder said:
There's renewed talk in some Republican circles to find a way out as Trump lags big time behind Hillary Clinton in several new polls, and he has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate for a major party on record -- 70% in this week's Washington Post-ABC poll.
One source with knowledge of these discussions underscores to CNN, however, that all of the ideas being bandied about now are highly unlikely to see fruition -- mostly because this kind of move to get rid of a nominee elected by GOP primary and caucus voters would be unprecedented. And a second source says he has spoken directly to senior GOP operatives with extensive convention experience who are actively exploring how to dump Trump.

How GOP could cut ties with Donald Trump - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...


They need to make a decision soon about whether to explicitly dump Trump and start trying to save their rears for 2020, or get behind him to try to ensure a GOP victory at all costs in 2016 ....... "all costs" might be the many international and domestic disasters Trump is likely to trigger, if his Presidency is anything like his thin-skinned bullying campaign.

Then again, there's a 50/50 chance he'd go "just kidding. I'm a centrist Democrat; but you should try my new Platinum Presidential Steaks! " upon getting elected.
 
eohrnberger said:
This is probably one of the reasons Newt is being considered as a VP choice. From my observation, he can perform well in the typical VP attack dog role, and yet when he does, he still comes off as the adult in the room often making the object of his attacks look stupid, foolish, poor of judgement and poof of knowledge.

If chosen for this role, Newt's hands are going to be full (or whomever the VP choice ends up being), as not only will Hillary's VP be taking on the attack dog role, Warren appears to have already taken on it on as well, at least after it was clear that fellow socialist Bernie wouldn't be making it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, from the GOP perspective I like Newt as Veep.

I actually thought he was the guy that could've helped the GOP move to Trump in the primary, if Trump could've gotten him onboard.

Newt is the consummate GOP & Washington insider, who plays himself off as an outsider - in essence: He's perfect for Trump, I think.

Trump is also in a bit of jam as to VP gender, I believe. If he picks a guy, it does little to change his 'anti-women' stereotype; if he picks a women (a good idea IMO), he might be seen as pandering.
 
cpwill said:
Apparently disliking crude, idiotic, big government liberals with an R after their name and a penchant for dallying with the alt-right now makes you a Hillary Booster.

Real Conservatives understand that the R is important, not the principles.


I am seriously rethinking my previous dedication to representative government as a result of this election.
Click to expand...
:lamo

I wouldn't go that far, but I have occasionally wished we were parliamentarian so we could avoid the 'all or nothing' scourge of the two-party system!
 
eohrnberger said:
This is probably one of the reasons Newt is being considered as a VP choice. From my observation, he can perform well in the typical VP attack dog role, and yet when he does, he still comes off as the adult in the room often making the object of his attacks look stupid, foolish, poor of judgement and poof of knowledge.

If chosen for this role, Newt's hands are going to be full (or whomever the VP choice ends up being), as not only will Hillary's VP be taking on the attack dog role, Warren appears to have already taken on it on as well, at least after it was clear that fellow socialist Bernie wouldn't be making it.
Click to expand...


who is VP rarely makes a difference. Bush one had a lamp post, the current moron has another moron.
 
Fearandloathing said:
who is VP rarely makes a difference. Bush one had a lamp post, the current moron has another moron.
Click to expand...

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

Gingrich would be an good VP choice, IMO. During his term as GOP Speaker of the House during the Clinton presidency, he used the slogan "Contract With America," which detailed what the GOP intended to do during his term as Speaker. They accomplished everything except getting a constitutional amendment on term limits! More importantly, IMO, in 1997 he appointed John Kasich as Chairman of the Budget process, and he and his Committee were responsible for the first balanced budget since 1969! Clinton as POTUS took the credit, of course, but that's SOP I guess! Unfortunately, it was also the last time time our government has had a surplus!! :2mad:
 
Fearandloathing said:
who is VP rarely makes a difference. Bush one had a lamp post, the current moron has another moron.
Click to expand...

All the attack dog antics don't make a difference? I think Perot's VP tried that. Didn't seem to work all that well.

Anyway, Newt might be a good balance for Trump in that he's got the practical governing experience, and dealing with congress, which Trump doesn't.
 
TheGoverness said:
Trump's Anti-Vaccine? I never heard of that before.
Click to expand...

Hey...didn't you know?

If it's something that someone is for, to those who don't like Trump he'll be against it. In their minds, he MUST be against it...whether he's made any mention of it or not.
 
themoviefinder said:
There's renewed talk in some Republican circles to find a way out as Trump lags big time behind Hillary Clinton in several new polls, and he has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate for a major party on record -- 70% in this week's Washington Post-ABC poll.
One source with knowledge of these discussions underscores to CNN, however, that all of the ideas being bandied about now are highly unlikely to see fruition -- mostly because this kind of move to get rid of a nominee elected by GOP primary and caucus voters would be unprecedented. And a second source says he has spoken directly to senior GOP operatives with extensive convention experience who are actively exploring how to dump Trump.

How GOP could cut ties with Donald Trump - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

Dump Trump and lose by the biggest landslide since Reagan vs Mondale.

Trump will take his voters with him if he is forced to sit home on election day.
 
Mr Person said:
They need to make a decision soon about whether to explicitly dump Trump and start trying to save their rears for 2020, or get behind him to try to ensure a GOP victory at all costs in 2016 ....... "all costs" might be the many international and domestic disasters Trump is likely to trigger, if his Presidency is anything like his thin-skinned bullying campaign.

Then again, there's a 50/50 chance he'd go "just kidding. I'm a centrist Democrat; but you should try my new Platinum Presidential Steaks! " upon getting elected.
Click to expand...

Chuckle.
 
70% unfavorable rating is awfully high. So if an election were held today, Trump could lose by a landslide. If he doesn't see that, then he's going to drive his campaign into bankruptcy....just like he did his businesses.

They say how a candidate runs their campaign is a good way to judge how they would be as president. As it stands, Trumps campaign is in turmoil and falling apart from within and they're not prepared for the general election. And without the support of big party donors....he isn't going to win. It's inconceivable!!!
 
Last edited:
MickeyW said:
And one dumb ass Senator said yesterday that he was voting for Hillary.

Political suicide for the Party. They 'd rather hillary win and wait 4 years....what totally worthless, cowardly, assholes!
Click to expand...

They recognize that Trump is incapable of being more than a servant to his ego, and would both disgrace and endanger the nation.
 
MickeyW said:
And one dumb ass Senator said yesterday that he was voting for Hillary.

Political suicide for the Party. They 'd rather hillary win and wait 4 years....what totally worthless, cowardly, assholes!
Click to expand...


trump killed the GOP
 
I don't know that the GOP is dead. Fractured and lost, for sure. But don't blame or give credit to Trump for this.
 
katzgar said:
trump killed the GOP
Click to expand...

Talking in the past tense about the GOP like that and attributing that incorrect summation of the condition of the GOP..."killed", that is...to Trump is, I'm thinking, just plain wrong wishful thinking on your part.

The fact is...

1. The GOP is not "killed". Not only do they continue to control an entire branch of our government they have a pretty decent chance of gaining control of another branch...and thereby ensuring their influence upon the makeup of the third branch for decades to come. That can hardly be characterized as being "killed".

2. In many respects, any changes that come about from Trump's influence actually doesn't affect the "GOP"...unless you consider the Elite of the GOP to be the only defining influence the Party has. But the reason Trump is the nominee is that a quite sizable portion of the actual GOP membership do NOT want the Elites to have the defining influence they have enjoyed to date. A large portion of the GOP membership would like nothing more than to "kill" off that influence and take the GOP back to its traditional direction of enforcing laws without encroaching upon the freedoms and responsibilities of the citizen.

If anything, the GOP Elite has brought this on themselves. It really has been only a matter of time before someone...Trump, in this case...came along to articulate what the GOP members have been feeling for quite some time and who is willing to lead the change.

Personally, not being a member of the Republican Party, I see this change as a good thing. Others...those who support the Elite...see this as a bad thing and, of course, the left watch this and spout their crowing hyperbole while they trumpet and celebrate the "death" of the GOP.

So it goes...
 
Mycroft said:
Talking in the past tense about the GOP like that and attributing that incorrect summation of the condition of the GOP..."killed", that is...to Trump is, I'm thinking, just plain wrong wishful thinking on your part.

The fact is...

1. The GOP is not "killed". Not only do they continue to control an entire branch of our government they have a pretty decent chance of gaining control of another branch...and thereby ensuring their influence upon the makeup of the third branch for decades to come. That can hardly be characterized as being "killed".

2. In many respects, any changes that come about from Trump's influence actually doesn't affect the "GOP"...unless you consider the Elite of the GOP to be the only defining influence the Party has. But the reason Trump is the nominee is that a quite sizable portion of the actual GOP membership do NOT want the Elites to have the defining influence they have enjoyed to date. A large portion of the GOP membership would like nothing more than to "kill" off that influence and take the GOP back to its traditional direction of enforcing laws without encroaching upon the freedoms and responsibilities of the citizen.

If anything, the GOP Elite has brought this on themselves. It really has been only a matter of time before someone...Trump, in this case...came along to articulate what the GOP members have been feeling for quite some time and who is willing to lead the change.

Personally, not being a member of the Republican Party, I see this change as a good thing. Others...those who support the Elite...see this as a bad thing and, of course, the left watch this and spout their crowing hyperbole while they trumpet and celebrate the "death" of the GOP.

So it goes...
Click to expand...



your number 2 is a romanticized version of the past
 
Fearandloathing said:
who is VP rarely makes a difference. Bush one had a lamp post, the current moron has another moron.
Click to expand...
The only real use for a VP in an election is to deliver a battleground state. That's it, otherwise nobody cares. If Trump doesn't get someone from Ohio or Florida, there's no way he'll win.

I wrote something before the 2k election, reviewing POTUS elections since Carter and making the case that the winner is always the one who will be the most entertaining. I think this might be the first election where that theory will fail.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

Gingrich would be an good VP choice, IMO. During his term as GOP Speaker of the House during the Clinton presidency, he used the slogan "Contract With America," which detailed what the GOP intended to do during his term as Speaker. They accomplished everything except getting a constitutional amendment on term limits! More importantly, IMO, in 1997 he appointed John Kasich as Chairman of the Budget process, and he and his Committee were responsible for the first balanced budget since 1969! Clinton as POTUS took the credit, of course, but that's SOP I guess! Unfortunately, it was also the last time time our government has had a surplus!! :2mad:
Click to expand...
If you look back at why '69 had a balanced budget, it was because medicare taxes were collected that year but the payouts hadn't started. It's a similar reason there were balanced budgets in the late 90's: baby boomers were at or near peak income, which swelled the coffers of social security. Couple that with a dotcom bubble, the start of the housing bubble, and increased FIT , and a balanced budget was all but inevitable.
 
cpwill said:
Apparently disliking crude, idiotic, big government liberals with an R after their name and a penchant for dallying with the alt-right now makes you a Hillary Booster.

Real Conservatives understand that the R is important, not the principles.


I am seriously rethinking my previous dedication to representative government as a result of this election.
Click to expand...

Thinking of going fascist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom