I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The part of the GOP he personifies is the part that does not negotiate. It is the part that believes demonizing and ridiculing opponents is the only way to practice politics. It's the GOP of the radio talk shows, of Newt Gingrich, and of Ted Cruz.

The underlying positions he chooses based on what feeds power and ego. But the approach is straight out of the playbook they've been applying for the last 25 years.

You seem to lack an understanding of how the GOP works, and how Trump fits in. How can Trump be part of the uncompromising right, when all he does is flip flop. The only position that he has ever given completely consistent views is his love of Putin and Russia.

How is going from "Lock her up!" and "You'd be in jail!" to "She's good people and I don't want to hurt her" uncompromising or showing inflexibility? How about 4 positions on abortion over 3 days. How about Mexico paying for a physical wall or deporting all the illegals? I could go on, but it would take forever. He seems pretty willing to compromise on all those.

Because Trump is clearly not a Republican, not even a country club, chamber of commerce sort, I find it incredibly odd that you place him in cahoots with true GOP establishment sorts. If anything, doesn't the fact that the GOP is pushing back on Russia, and that McCain gave Comey the dossier indicate that the party is completely fractured?

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is absolutely correct. And those assholes refused to listen when every rational person told them how dangerous their protest vote would be.

TM

On my end, however, I still feel no regret towards my vote for Evan McMullin. As a former intelligence guy, he's had a lot to say these past few days that is right on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You seem to lack an understanding of how the GOP works, and how Trump fits in. How can Trump be part of the uncompromising right, when all he does is flip flop. The only position that he has ever given completely consistent views is his love of Putin and Russia.

How is going from "Lock her up!" and "You'd be in jail!" to "She's good people and I don't want to hurt her" uncompromising or showing inflexibility? How about 4 positions on abortion over 3 days. How about Mexico paying for a physical wall or deporting all the illegals? I could go on, but it would take forever. He seems pretty willing to compromise on all those.

Because Trump is clearly not a Republican, not even a country club, chamber of commerce sort, I find it incredibly odd that you place him in cahoots with true GOP establishment sorts. If anything, doesn't the fact that the GOP is pushing back on Russia, and that McCain gave Comey the dossier indicate that the party is completely fractured?

There is some fraying on the edges among the Republicans, in the traditional places, but most of them are marching in lock step. The GOP has focused on obstructionism. McConnell's attack on those who might delay supreme court nominees right after he blocked consideration of a nominee for the longest period on record is a good example of the double speak. He and Trump sound just alike.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

On my end, however, I still feel no regret towards my vote for Evan McMullin. As a former intelligence guy, he's had a lot to say these past few days that is right on.

McMullin is indeed the one third party candidate who probably took votes mainly from Trump and who has something worthwhile to say. I actually like the guy.

Besides, you are and always have been a lost cause from my perspective.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

On my end, however, I still feel no regret towards my vote for Evan McMullin. As a former intelligence guy, he's had a lot to say these past few days that is right on.

I couldn't possibly care less about what you do or do not regret.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The part of the GOP he personifies is the part that does not negotiate. It is the part that believes demonizing and ridiculing opponents is the only way to practice politics. It's the GOP of the radio talk shows, of Newt Gingrich, and of Ted Cruz.

The underlying positions he chooses based on what feeds power and ego. But the approach is straight out of the playbook they've been applying for the last 25 years.

I agree with that. And Democrats have never found a way to make Republicans pay for this politically.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I agree with that. And Democrats have never found a way to make Republicans pay for this politically.

I'm getting sick of this line.

It's true. But the giant caveat is that it is difficult to make a case to a willfully ignorant electorate who see all politicians in the same light. If one side takes us to stupid fucking wars for no reason and shuts down government and spends untold amounts of time obstructing even the most basic bills to win political points, and the other sides trumpets that message continually, whose fault is it that there are no repercussions and the message falls on deaf ears?

I'm willing to assign Democrats some of the blame. But, Jesus. When you have people out there happy to have the ACA while cheering the death of Obamacare, how is that the fault of Democrats? You can't fix stupid. I suppose you can cater to it. And surely the left could work on simplifying its message so that it resonates with even the dumbest among us. But at a certain point, the people who are not paying attention need to understand that "I hate all politicians, so vote 'em all out" is not a solution.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm getting sick of this line.

It's true. But the giant caveat is that it is difficult to make a case to a willfully ignorant electorate who see all politicians in the same light. If one side takes us to stupid fucking wars for no reason and shuts down government and spends untold amounts of time obstructing even the most basic bills to win political points, and the other sides trumpets that message continually, whose fault is it that there are no repercussions and the message falls on deaf ears?

I'm willing to assign Democrats some of the blame. But, Jesus. When you have people out there happy to have the ACA while cheering the death of Obamacare, how is that the fault of Democrats? You can't fix stupid. I suppose you can cater to it. And surely the left could work on simplifying its message so that even it resonates with even the dumbest among us. But at a certain point, the people who are not paying attention need to understand that "I hate all politicians, so vote 'em all out" is not a solution.

TM

It's not "the Democrats" who need to make them pay for obstructionism and bad faith. It's the voters. All of them, Dem, Independent, and Republican. The Dems can offer an alternative, but the voters have to choose it.

And if the voters say, hey, we like screaming about the fuckin' establishment more than we like talking about how we lower prescription costs, then the party that screams about the fuckin' establishment wins (even if they are the fuckin' establishment) and the party trying to figure out how to lower prescription costs loses.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm getting sick of this line.

It's true. But the giant caveat is that it is difficult to make a case to a willfully ignorant electorate who see all politicians in the same light. If one side takes us to stupid fucking wars for no reason and shuts down government and spends untold amounts of time obstructing even the most basic bills to win political points, and the other sides trumpets that message continually, whose fault is it that there are no repercussions and the message falls on deaf ears?

I'm willing to assign Democrats some of the blame. But, Jesus. When you have people out there happy to have the ACA while cheering the death of Obamacare, how is that the fault of Democrats? You can't fix stupid. I suppose you can cater to it. And surely the left could work on simplifying its message so that it resonates with even the dumbest among us. But at a certain point, the people who are not paying attention need to understand that "I hate all politicians, so vote 'em all out" is not a solution.

TM

I'm getting sick of it too, because the GOP playbook keeps working. There are some dumb voters. Blaming them may feel good, but it's a ticket to irrelevance.

I'm not saying that the solution is simple or easy. If I knew what it was, I would share.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's not "the Democrats" who need to make them pay for obstructionism and bad faith. It's the voters.

Yes. This was the whole point of the post.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. This was the whole point of the post.

TM

Ok, you want me to just edit to "2"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's not "the Democrats" who need to make them pay for obstructionism and bad faith. It's the voters. All of them, Dem, Independent, and Republican. The Dems can offer an alternative, but the voters have to choose it.

And if the voters say, hey, we like screaming about the fuckin' establishment more than we like talking about how we lower prescription costs, then the party that screams about the fuckin' establishment wins (even if they are the fuckin' establishment) and the party trying to figure out how to lower prescription costs loses.

Just an example right now: Chaffetz is using his role as lead congressional investigator not to review ethical conflicts of incoming Trump administration officials but to investigate the ethics agency head that is criticizing Trump. If none of the Rs in Congress care about this issue enough to call Chaffetz on it, and indeed if they praise him for it, no amount of railing by Dems is going to matter. It's below the radar for voters.

Either Republican elected officials choose to have some degree of integrity or they don't. Right now, the GOP is a celebration of a lack of integrity.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

TIt is the part that believes demonizing and ridiculing opponents is the only way to practice politics.

No, it's the part that actually believes the demonizing and ridiculing claims and doesn't understand that all that stuff is just politics. It's a step beyond Limbaugh, Newt and Cruz, who know they are full of shit but know that it works for them.

Which is a lot scarier.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Just an example right now: Chaffetz is using his role as lead congressional investigator not to review ethical conflicts of incoming Trump administration officials but to investigate the ethics agency head that is criticizing Trump. If none of the Rs in Congress care about this issue enough to call Chaffetz on it, and indeed if they praise him for it, no amount of railing by Dems is going to matter. It's below the radar for voters.

Either Republican elected officials choose to have some degree of integrity or they don't. Right now, the GOP is a celebration of a lack of integrity.

And just cause I'm on a rage, look at John McCain. Usually one of the Rs with the most integrity. What did he do during his campaign? He sucked up to Trump. He took cheap shots for the peanut gallery. He tried to hide every sign he had ever been willing to compromise or had taken positions that were out of step with the radicals. The GOP punishes those who try to show some integrity. It is a bad thing.

I can't fix that for them.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is some fraying on the edges among the Republicans, in the traditional places, but most of them are marching in lock step. The GOP has focused on obstructionism. McConnell's attack on those who might delay supreme court nominees right after he blocked consideration of a nominee for the longest period on record is a good example of the double speak. He and Trump sound just alike.

You're talking tactics. She's talking policy. You're both right.