You're not going to change anyone's mind/heart insulting people. It's drowning out your good points. I'd also add that free markets and national sovereignty can stand alone on it's intellectual merits. When the facts are on your side, you don't need to talk down to people.
The "NeverTrumpers" are quite literally members of his own party criticizing him, so that throws that argument out of the window. He won by building a coalition of members of both parties who feel disenfranchised by both parties establishment... the same establishment that loathes the man.
I didn't until I received petty replies. What are you supposed to do if everyone is brainwashed and nothing you say matters? I shouldn't care because of my tinnitus but I think some of it, at least, results in the poor state of research and treatments today.
I'm under the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the never Trumpers are currently a small part of the GOP base. Even the people who initially criticized him (Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz) did a 180 because their constituents seem to demand it.
Hammer them with facts and don't relent on a point until it's been conceded. Too many times valid arguments get off-track onto some tangential discussion with no end.
They are a small part of the GOP base given his approval ratings within the Republican Party are as high as they are (somewhere in the 90's). That said, NeverTrumpers openly criticize him in a manner you don't typically see in the Democrat Party. Mitt Romeny, Lisa Murkowski, etc, openly speak out against him. The rest of Trump supporters have the mentality as such: "Everything you don't like about his style, personality, etc, we don't like either." Now I think some of it is needed on his part since the media has a documented slant, and he fights back. It's uncomfortable to watch since prior Republican leaders weren't willing to push back. But the people who support him recognize this, and instead focus on his policies, not his personality which is not palatable to most people.
Romney is pushing back because he's a rich Mormon in a safe state for rich Mormons. I think this puts him in a very unique position.
You're right. There's so many stubborn people though that are so brainwashed...what bothers me is they won't research anything or consider another perspective. I do agree with you. My tinnitus is so bad though that I can shrug my shoulders more easily than before, however.
I think that's why he's taking so long to choose, he doesn't wanna end up choosing a Sarah Palin level disaster like John McCain.
I hear you, I'm tired too and we're going to heck in a hand basket. Debt is exploding, reasoning is lacking, speech is being censored. Hard not to feel hopeless sometimes, but that's often where the best leaders come from.
Bernie has said he's a democratic socialist like Scandinavia, not a socialist like China. He currently campaigns for the Democratic party (he is working directly with Biden atm) not a third party and is actively doing so now. AOC is another example.
I respect you a lot but I am not buying it. Socialism is socialism. In the end, the tyranny of a majority is just as much as a threat to the minority no matter the means to get there. It's not what our founders wanted, and that's why the US was set up the way it was, to try to give some power to minority parties and small, less populous states. Bernie Sanders understands that he needs the Democrat party to further his agenda, he couldn't do it in the style of his Vermont mayor days going off on his own.
Thanks, you're right I failed to mention that as well as the nuclear option controversies. The only precedents I am aware of come from (which isn't much of a precedent but highly ironic):@Watasha -- I found your post interesting, though I have to say I disagreed with much of it. But I always appreciate reading people's comments when it's clear they've given things a lot of thought (too many people really don't think much before making comments).
That said, I certainly had to do a double take when I read your last sentence. You seem to be lauding Republicans for the way they've mostly followed Senate tradition and decorum surrounding supreme court nominees. However, you notably neglect to mention Mitch McConnel wouldn't even bring Obama's supreme court nominee up for hearings, much less a vote. My understanding is that move was unprecendented, and certainly not in line with Senate tradition.
Around and around we go. Perhaps Nixon felt he had some bones to pick after he lost his first election in 1960 which most certainly included fraud. Would it have changed the outcome, we will never know...This ebb and flow can go back to the beginning of the country and is nothing but a series of escalations. At some point, maybe someone will stop the escalating.
McCann was a great example. I forgot about him. But would you not agree conservative voters turned on him the second he criticized Trump? Same with Jeff Flake but he wasn't running again same with the Bushes who were critical.
Gotta agree with you on that point. It's not what I want either. The current problem I see, is that Trump is doing everything he can to further increase illegitimate power for himself and the Presidency. What's just as bad (or worse) is that weak-spined Republicans are allowing to do just that.
I'll have to end the conversation here for reasons of time. Plenty of arguments can be made around Obama's AG protecting him, executive orders that were loopholes around law, etc. Thanks for keeping it civil. Would be happy to have a policy vs. policy discussion though, these "who's the more hypocritical" conversations don't go very far to advance anyone's cause. Again, I think the the fundamental issue is that in 250 years, too much power has accumulated to the federal government, and one side is always going to feel like a major loser every four years.
That's your opinion and everyone's got one. I find some of the laws that Obama pushed to be absolutely morally reprehensible and borderline evil, but that's my opinion. Sadly, our opinions of people personally do very little to enhance any sort of policy debate.
(Though it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if there was balanced oversight).They turned on McCain most largely because he torpedoed the Obamacare repeal, which was a campaign process for 8 years.
If you can tell me a way that prevents each administration from expanding the role and scope of the federal government and accumulating power at the top I am all ears! Sadly, I think at this point we're at a cycle where no administration wants to concede their power for fear of the next using it against them.Agree!
Member
