Who Won the Debate?


Larry Cotrell
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/2/2016 at 1:44 PM, Blueskye2 said:

I don't see that Trump has made the connections of ethics and law.  Tax laws come from a moral obligation, towards values of what a society requires to function, for the good of its citizens. When someone quips not paying taxes is smart, it calls into question for me whether or not they have understood the concept of societal ethics informing a law that we should pay taxes.

Have you ever heard of anybody - including the restaurant dishwasher - who laments, man!  I don't pay enough taxes!  I need to redo my tax returns!

With Trump, here's the context:

Personal tax is what your tax returns state is your taxes owed on your personal taxable income.  Personal taxable income is your paycheck or your capital gains or interest earned out of your savings.  Of course, when transparency in "tax returns" is demanded, the people expect Trump to be like everyone else who works for some guy (like Hillary working for the government) who gives them a paycheck.

A guy who OWNS THE COMPANY THAT WRITES THE PAYCHECK does not want to write himself a paycheck so big that he incurs a lot of personal tax.  That is VERY DUMB in the business arena.  Why is that?  Because, if you take out such money out of your investment, you have now STOPPED the means of that money to gain more money.  That means, you will not be using that money to expand the business, hire more people, invest in operating capital, etc. etc. which then gives you a return on that investment - more money!

Now, about ethics and taxes.  Every single business owner knows darned well that they have been taxed to the yinyang in corporate taxes, tarrifs, property taxes, document fees, etc. etc.

Have you ever bought a house?  Did you see all the money that goes to the government out of your closing costs?  Now, think about how much taxes Trump has given the government everytime he purchases, builds, sells, any of his real estate properties.

You sure you want to accuse Trump of a lack of ethics in paying Taxes?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off: grand.  That all sounds good and no disagreement here.  (Note here that I didn't enter into any part of this argument about Trump, nor will I.  What Trump knows or thinks is irrelevant to what I commented on.  I responded only to the erroneous notion that "WE" (individual human beings in a given geographic region, or possibly you meant you and yours) don't pay the hospital bills of people who don't pay their own hospital bills.)

17 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Second, the hospitals around here are nonprofit and treat anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Regardless of insurance status. Their model of operation is not what you are describing.

Second: that hospital has expenses.  They have to pay other people (suppliers and employees).  Not everything is given to them "for free", and even those who donate items had expenses and the people upstream from that had expenses, etc.  So, eventually, someone, somewhere, somehow, paid for the services provided by the hospital.  If the hospital doesn't bill anyone, then someone else (e.g. donors) give them money wherewith to pay for supplies and employees.  If the donors are individuals, then what I said stands - an individual human being paid.  If those donors are companies, the customers (and/or employees) of those companies picked up the cost of the donation.  If the donors are government, then tax-paying individual human beings picked up the cost.  If the hospital bills people, people who pay bills (help to) pay for those who do not / cannot pay.

In short, nothing material is "free".  Nothing material goes "unpaid for".  Eventually, one or more individual human beings pay for everything which has a monetary cost (and healthcare has a monetary cost - supplies, employees).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zil said:

Ah, culture.  In all probability, Putin, and many other Russians, see this as a compliment.  Certainly, without the Grouchy it would be a compliment (bears are very popular in Russia, sort of like lions or eagles here).  And "grouchy" is a genetic descriptor of Russians, so I don't know why any would object.  (I lived and worked there 3 years, so I know a little something about the culture.)

Lol .  . .hey it was the best I could come up with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

I'm not going to get into personal views on issues. Suffice it to say, I remember the Cold War. I remember nuclear bomb drills. I don't believe they should ever be used.  

Gosh, some Trump stump speech I watched weeks ago. Bomb everyone was pretty much what he was saying. 

And no, I watched the debate. All of it. I turned to my husband and said, Trunp is encouraging the Chinese military to action!  He was NOT saying anything about what Hillary should do. He was suggesting China take action in N Korea  Does he even know about the Korean War? Does he know a China sent millions of soldiers, which we fought? Like I said, stupid on more than one level.

I have a little .22 that I bought to shoot targets with friends  I bought it decades ago, in the 80s.  I haven't shot for 25 years or so. I don't have any shells for it so no I won't be sitting here hoping to shoot anyone.

I don't agree with your views on helping people. If I were pregnant and destitute. I'd want to come here too. WE don't pay for the hospital care of those who can't pay. But whatever. Let's build a wall to keep pregnant women where they belong. That will be soooo cost effective.  

 This last post reminds me of all the reasons I won't vote for Trump. Sorry, one being his supporters are not my kind of people. 

I asked for a direct quote a CFR, you couldn't provide one, ergo Trump didn't really say that, you just think that is what he said. CFR that he said he would "bomb everyone".

Since when does "China should lean on North Korea" become "China should go to war with North Korea" . . .only in people's mind who want it to be that way does "lean on" mean "go to war with". Lean on means, pressure, means political pressure.  We "lean on" Iran all the time with sanctions.  If that "lean on" means military action then I guess we've already attacked Iran according to the way you re-interpret words.

If I was pregnant and destitute, I'd want to come here too!! That's not the point.  If someone was handing out free houses, I'd want a free one too! That's not the point! The point is whether as a nation of laws and ethics (as you point it), we are ethically bound to give someone a free house as a country because thew want it.  You have a serious lack of understanding about economics and how things really work if you believe that WE don't pay for hospital care for those who can't pay. Someone, somewhere pays.  The Doctor's time must be paid (he doesn't go work at the hospital for free), the medical supplies must be bought (they don't just magically, poof!, show up). Those things have real costs.  If the hospital can't collect money from the person they are servicing and if they don't find some way to cover those costs-the hospital will go bankrupt and there won't be a hospital anymore. A non-profit organization must still pay people salaries, non-profit doesn't mean voluntary, it just means they don't provide payouts to shareholders, it's more of a tax term then anything else.  A non-profit uses the excess revenue or "profit" in other ways than paying out shareholders, etc.  A non-profit still makes money every year that they can roll-over the next year.  So they must collect that money and they do it by charging someone, somewhere the costs for those services. Those costs are spread out over all the rest of their customers; their customers include you and me, or anyone who can pay who uses their services, i.e. insurance.  

To wit: why do you think the ObamaCare exhanges are collapsing? Because those companies assumed a huge risk pool of individuals who couldn't pay or who would only pay significantly reduced rates. The only way those exchanges can survive is a massive increase in the actual premium preciously b/c so many people don't pay enough to cover the costs! 

Your ideas on this subject inform me that either a) you've simply voted R b/c everyone else votes R or b) you are really liberal at heart and would vote Hillary regardless of what Trump says or does-simply b/c or c) you really have no idea how the system works, including as to why Hillary is a really bad idea-yes way, way worse than Trump (and he's not that great either)

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2016 at 0:17 PM, Blueskye2 said:

No one believes people should riot. Most Americans I know have this idea we can protest.  There are police actions that should be protested. 

When you look at how Trump has used his nonprofit, it doesn't bring warm and fuzzies about his ability to not pay taxes, while bragging that he makes over 600 mil in one year. I make a five figure income and have never been able to get out of paying taxes. I must be a stupid taxpayer, I guess. 

You're not a stupid taxpayer.  You're not a BUSINESS OWNER.  See my post above on the difference between personal income tax and corporate tax.  By the way, if you ever wonder why Trump keeps on saying go look at my financial statement filings with the CoE... well, that's where you would find his corporate filings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

 I have always viewed the "Arab Spring" in Syria as the US on the wrong side. But then there was not a right side either. We started arming Al Qaida in Afghanistan, in the 80s. Truth be told if I could I'd leave this country. But that isn't going to happen. I feel obligated to vote. I don't like either candidate, but I like Trump less. I highly doubt he is going to make a positive difference to international interests. He doesn't even understand what the issues are and who is involved. 

 

I'm going to do a "shake my head" on this one.

Especially after you said this:

5 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

And no, I watched the debate. All of it. I turned to my husband and said, Trunp is encouraging the Chinese military to action!  He was NOT saying anything about what Hillary should do. He was suggesting China take action in N Korea  Does he even know about the Korean War? Does he know a China sent millions of soldiers, which we fought? Like I said, stupid on more than one level.

Your statement about China and North Korea above sadly shows a lack of basic foreign geopolitical understanding.  Therefore, your conclusions on Trump's foreign geopolitical understanding is a crap shoot at best.  Somebody without political savvy would, at the very least, see that an international business owner who has to navigate international political laws and relationships to survive in business, would understand international geopolitical issues and who is involved even as said business owner couldn't tell you one iota of any intimate details of military strategy that is normally accessible only to government employees or even classified (unless you happen to have a state department that runs communications through a server in some guy's basement and it ends up in wikileaks).

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
On October 2, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Blueskye2 said:

I think this points towards a serious moral defect in Trump. I think it points towards a view, that he sees morals and altruism as weaknesses. It gives me serious pause in considering him as our President. 

I know what you mean my friend. A lot of us feel the same way, for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I know what you mean my friend. A lot of us feel the same way, for sure. 

I understand; that is the difference between the pure capitalist and the politician. The capitalist many times is forced to be moral through market means rather than of their own volition. This is especially true in today's hyper-sensitive social justice warriors who enforce their version of morality on businesses and crucify them if they don't comply.

Contrast this with the politician who enforces their view of morality upon others through the enactment of laws and regulation.  One is a bottom-up push the other is a top-down pull. 

Personally, I'd rather have the businessman in control of the government vs. the politician who wants to dictate to everyone else their own morals. With the businessman, I don't care about his morals or altruism as long as he doesn't enforce his version upon the rest. The politician, I know will enforce their version on the rest and that version, I know I won't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

First off, hospital procedures are expensive because WE sue. A neighbor who didn't have health insurance, and was pregnant, shopped around at hospitals. One made her a deal, that if she would sign away her right to sue, they would deliver her baby for hundreds of dollars instead of thousands. Someone who does not have the right to sue, is by definition being treated at relatively low cost.

I'm not voting for Trump either, but I wanted to address this for a moment:  As a lawyer I have real heartburn about someone giving up their right to sue regardless of what harms the indemnified party thereafter inflicts.  If you give birth via c-section, and two months later you discover that there's a surgical glove in your uterus and you are rendered permanently sterile--guess what?  You should sue, and you should collect damages; because that's kind of a big deal.  And while some of the redundancies in medical care verge on the ridiculous, I think one would be hard-pressed to deny that the standard of care one sees in the average modern hospital is significantly above where we were at any point in the 20th century.

I could get behind thoughtful tort reform that considers--for example--heavier penalties against obviously frivolous suits, or denying certification of class-action status for medical malpractice suits, or finessing the distinction between regular negligence versus "gross negligence", or (saints preserve us!) limiting the fees plaintiffs' lawyers can charge to their clients; or other similarly intricate and carefully-tailored modifications along those lines.  But what I tend to see are blanket proposals rendering caregivers immunity regardless of the degree of negligence or the damage inflicted; which satisfies hospital CEOs and malpractice insurance firms but leaves honest-to-gosh victims of medical malpractice out in the cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I understand; that is the difference between the pure capitalist and the politician. The capitalist many times is forced to be moral through market means rather than of their own volition. This is especially true in today's hyper-sensitive social justice warriors who enforce their version of morality on businesses and crucify them if they don't comply.

Contrast this with the politician who enforces their view of morality upon others through the enactment of laws and regulation.  One is a bottom-up push the other is a top-down pull. 

Personally, I'd rather have the businessman in control of the government vs. the politician who wants to dictate to everyone else their own morals. With the businessman, I don't care about his morals or altruism as long as he doesn't enforce his version upon the rest. The politician, I know will enforce their version on the rest and that version, I know I won't like.

Oh, I agree with you, for sure. Well said, totally. 

Here is my grave concern with Trumpers (I do not consider you, @yjacket a Trumper): they fail to comprehend that politics is largely about bringing people together. Like it or not, you need to build coalitions in politics. If you are rough around the edges and have a lousy personality you generally (yes, generally. There are exceptions) won't succeed in politics (or in real life, either). Most Trumpers don't care. They'll argue, scream, holler and jump up and down if you dare to disagree, just like their fearless leader. That's not how you build relationships in the real world. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Here is my grave concern with Trumpers ....

MG,

I agree, but I wonder if it is more a symptom of our current society and the platforms we use such as FB, twitter, forums, etc. than it has with people who are specifically Trumpers.  I can easily say the same thing about ardent supporters of Clinton too. I think it's always been like this to some degree and worse.  The campaigns of Adams vs. Jefferson were horrible and who can forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner.

I do agree that politics is the art of compromise, true compromise where everyone wins. When the issues run deep enough and there is too much daylight between opposing sides, bad things do happen. 

But things that worry me where I personally feel everyone can come together regardless of background are things like:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/10/04/report-yahoo-secretly-scanned-customer-emails-for-u-s-intelligence.html

Le sigh . . . .

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
14 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I agree, but I wonder if it is more a symptom of our current society and the platforms we use such as FB, twitter, forums, etc. than it has with people who are specifically Trumpers.

Yeah I agree. I've thought about that too. You are absolutely right. The only thing I'll say in "defense" (for lack of a better word, I agree with what you are saying) is that the people who spend a lot of time online using FB, Twitter, Forums (I include myself in that, for sure. This is not pejorative at all) are a minority of people. So the majority might be more turned off by the really argumentative supporters of all the candidates than you and I are.  
 

But yeah I totally agree that FB, Twitter has made our culture more defensive, argumentative, and easily offended than before. For sure. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Just please tell me you aren't voting for Clinton?

Well . . .

When Trump clinched the nomination I recognized that conservatism (as distinct from populism) was about to spend some time in exile in the wilderness.  I further recognized that the result of conservatism's waning influence would be four very difficult years, with fallout that might last for decades; and I understood that in 2020 there will be some--maybe many--Americans who will be dead, but who could have been alive had Americans in 2016 elected a candidate who was more level-headed, more personally virtuous, and less short-sighted than either Clinton or Trump. 

I can't stop the domestic and international nightmare that either major candidate's administration would create; but I can do my part in making sure that the Republicans never again in my lifetime hand the reins of their party to such an unmitigatedly evil man.  (The Dems, I figure, are a lost cause in that regard.)  And the antics of a lot of Trump supporters--I've personally encountered--including not so much overt racism; but definitely a very strong anti-Mormon element and a willingness to muzzle those who disagree with them--scare the beejeebies out of me.  So at this point, my focus is trying to make sure that Trump loses my state (Utah).  That entails voting for whichever of his competitors seems to be leading in the polls.  I'd love for that to be McMullin or Johnson; but unless one of them has a spectacular month I think I may have to do the unthinkable.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well . . 

Wow . . .that is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If Clinton wins . . .I'll just get to laugh at you and the evil you've brought to this country in 2020 by voting for her.  Just don't come crying back in 4 years saying "what did I do???".  Good luck with that sir!

Clinton better than Trump . . .hahahhah that is a real good one.  JAG, I'll give you a hint after voting over 15 years for someone besides the major 2 parties. If you're going to stand on principle, do it with class.

Even in 2012, I couldn't stand Romney, but I knew Obama was worse, I just didn't vote for either.

As far as the Republican party, welcome to the Club. You are only just beginning to see how corrupt both parties really are and how they are really just 2 sides of the same coin who both conspire together to keep the Deep State running. That someone other than Bush won the nomination is a testimate that people are really getting sick of the coin/con.

You know in many ways it is actually quite satisfying to see so many so-called Repubs squirm b/c a guy won the nomination that they can't stand. It's even more enlightening to see what they do in reaction to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Wow . . .that is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

More like cutting out a tumor, I'd say.

Quote

If Clinton wins . . .I'll just get to laugh at you and the evil you've brought to this country in 2020 by voting for her.  Just don't come crying back in 4 years saying "what did I do???".  Good luck with that sir!

Oh, believe me; I've run out the likely consequences of a HIllary presidency (as well as a Trump presidency); and nothing you can say is scarier than the scenarios I've already contemplated.

You are certainly welcome to console yourself with the thought of laughing in the future; but I'm laughing now.  Because I saw the polling during primary season.  I knew that of the entire Republican field Trump was the least likely to defeat Hillary in a head-to-head election.  Having already gone through the "stages of grieving" process myself, I can get past the despair and remember something I said on these forums five months ago:

Quote

Trumpkins hitched their wagons to a despicable candidate on a vaguely populist platform.  Don't come crying to us conservatives now that you see the mud flats up ahead and realize you can't make it through the muck without help.  We were the ones who were telling you from the get-go that your jackass was incapable of pulling the wagon.  

You can go talk to all those "independent" voters you boasted would flock to Trump's banner, if you think you need someone to save your bacon. But as far as I, as a conservative, am concerned--you're on your own now.  Which, I note, is precisely where you threatened to leave us, in the event of a non-Trump nomination.

So sure, I've got time for a little schadenfreude.  I can laugh at the way Trumpkins expect me to cower before their little Hildebeast whip, when they should be on their knees in sackcloth and ashes begging for my forgiveness for the lies that they've told and the conservative ideologies and institutions they've been eviscerating for the past year.  That lovely mixture of naive optimism, condescension, bravado, willful ignorance, and overt misanthropy--it is, after all, quite amusing. 

But one can't linger too long over the spectacle.  Because in spite of the near-inevitable outcome of this election, there's still work to be done.  Step one involves firing the chefs who served up this manure-sandwich of a candidate; and that happens on election day.  Step two will take more time--it involves trying to teach the remaining staff in the Republican kitchen how to tell the difference between certified Angus beef, and a steaming pile of crap.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Step two will take more time--it involves trying to teach the remaining staff in the Republican kitchen how to tell the difference between certified Angus beef, and a steaming pile of crap.

 

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I can't stop the domestic and international nightmare that either major candidate's administration would create; but I can do my part in making sure that the Republicans never again in my lifetime hand the reins of their party to such an unmitigatedly evil man. 

Seriously, I need to learn to write like this. I love it. Reminds me of Matt Walsh a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

conservative ideologies and institutions they've been eviscerating for the past year.  

JAG, you are no conservative. You have absolutely no standing to claim yourself as a "conservative" when you are voting for the 2nd most (if not the most) liberal individual running for President on a major ticket in US history.

You have no moral ground to talk about "conservative ideologies", you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are going to actively vote for someone who stands against pretty much every conservative principle out there.

I get it you don't want to vote for Trump, I've got no problem with that-but for you to vote for Hillary when you know better, when you know what she represents-methinks you've been trolling us the whole time. You are written off on the conservative list. If you think Trump is worse than Hillary from a conservative perspective, quite frankly you aren't voting according to logic, you are voting with emotion b/c your guy lost.

Like I said, it is quite refreshing to see where people stand in this election-you start to find out what exactly are their real political beliefs.  You see the hypocrisy of the Bush's, Romney's etc. who every election say "you've got to vote R" and then this election when they didn't get their way actively vote for Hillary.

 

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, yjacket said:

JAG, you are no conservative. You have absolutely no standing to claim yourself as a "conservative" when you are voting for the 2nd most (if not the most) liberal individual running for President on a major ticket in US history.

You have no moral ground to talk about "conservative ideologies", you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are going to actively vote for someone who stands against pretty much every conservative principle out there.

I get it you don't want to vote for Trump, I've got no problem with that-but for you to vote for Hillary when you know better, when you know what she represents-methinks you've been trolling us the whole time. You are written off on the conservative list. If you think Trump is worse than Hillary from a conservative perspective, quite frankly you aren't voting according to logic, you are voting with emotion b/c your guy lost.

Like I said, it is quite refreshing to see where people stand in this election-you start to find out what exactly are their real political beliefs.  You see the hypocrisy of the Bush's, Romney's etc. who every election say "you've got to vote R" and then this election when they didn't get their way actively vote for Hillary.

 

Long time republican, also prefers Hillary to Trump.

Ironically voting for a third party that pulls more heavily from Clinton as I understand it. I honestly hope the entire republican ship goes up in flames and sinks. Whatever this party is that choose Trump as it's candidate, it's not the same party it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
23 minutes ago, yjacket said:

JAG, you are no conservative. You have absolutely no standing to claim yourself as a "conservative" when you are voting for the 2nd most (if not the most) liberal individual running for President on a major ticket in US history.

You have no moral ground to talk about "conservative ideologies", you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are going to actively vote for someone who stands against pretty much every conservative principle out there.

I get it you don't want to vote for Trump, I've got no problem with that-but for you to vote for Hillary when you know better, when you know what she represents-methinks you've been trolling us the whole time. You are written off on the conservative list. If you think Trump is worse than Hillary from a conservative perspective, quite frankly you aren't voting according to logic, you are voting with emotion b/c your guy lost.

Like I said, it is quite refreshing to see where people stand in this election-you start to find out what exactly are their real political beliefs.  You see the hypocrisy of the Bush's, Romney's etc. who every election say "you've got to vote R" and then this election when they didn't get their way actively vote for Hillary.

 

The way I see it, true conservatives will be the biggest losers in this election regardless of which candidate wins. The difference is that they will be able to say "I told you so", regroup, and reclaim the GOP if Hillary wins. If Trump wins, then the GOP will continue to tear itself apart for the next four years in an ideological war that traditional conservatives may not be able to win.

I'm certainly not a fan of conservatism, but this new populist side of the GOP is frankly terrifying. And a Trump victory will only make it worse. That's why some conservatives are willing to vote for Hillary, I'd wager. They're looking at the long game. They can either defeat a liberal in the short term, or win back the GOP in the long term by throwing this election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing tonight's debate, i must ask... what is a great guy like Pence doing hanging around an, ummm... slightly less great guy like Trump?  Pence is obviously far more gifted as a leader, far more in control, and far more authentic as a person.  It should be pence running for president!

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Godless said:

GOP will continue to tear itself apart for the next four years in an ideological war that traditional conservatives may not be able to win.

Anybody who thinks the GOP has been conservative in the last 25 years has been fooling themselves for a long, long time.  With Trump, the ocean went out and we can all see who has been swimming naked the entire time.  All I can say to those folks who think that hoping a Hillary win will bring the GOP back to it's roots is Good Luck!

People who think Bush was conservative, McCain was conservative, Romney was conservative, but Trump isn't . . . .hahahah what a bunch of fools. If this is you-you are not a conservative.  

People don't like Trump's personality, that is really it. he is no better or worse than any of those listed above. He wants to build a wall, big deal. Tariffs, umm, last I checked the US was founded on the idea that the Government would be funded primarily by tariff.  People say Trump is populist, yet they can't define it. I ask people to define what exactly they mean by populism?  The cult of Personality? For the record, I wouldn't classify Trump as conservative, I'd classify him as a non-ideological pragmatic. I don't like a lot of his ideas, but they are better than what got us here.

All I can say is if your version of Conservatism is Bush, McCain, Romney,  Bye!!! and don't let the door hit you on the way out!! The rest of us will actually try and restore liberty to this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
2 hours ago, yjacket said:

Anybody who thinks the GOP has been conservative in the last 25 years has been fooling themselves for a long, long time.  With Trump, the ocean went out and we can all see who has been swimming naked the entire time.  All I can say to those folks who think that hoping a Hillary win will bring the GOP back to it's roots is Good Luck!

Not so much a Hillary win as a Trump loss. That's the important thing. And Trump's only chance of losing is ultimately a Hillary win. Some idealists will vote for Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin out of principle, and that will help Hillary, but the fact remains that the candidate with the best chance to beat Trump is Hillary. FWIW, I'm doubful that a Trump loss will "fix" the GOP anytime in the near future, but it'll at least slow down or halt the direction that the GOP is headed, which right now is a direction of zealous nationalism and economic liberalism. To me, the latter isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely bad news for the GOP if Trump is allowed to redefine their economic policy in such a way.

 

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

People don't like Trump's personality, that is really it. 

 

To call Trump's personality "abrasive" would be a YUGE understatement. I'm normally willing to overlook some personality shortcomings, but Trump's shoot-from-the-hip nationalist ad libbing is a dangerous trait in a world leader. His inability to take criticism with any sort of grace and dignity is a dangerous trait in a world leader, and the criticism will only get exponentially worse if he's actually elected. So yes, his personality is a major problem.

 People say Trump is populist, yet they can't define it. I ask people to define what exactly they mean by populism?  The cult of Personality?

My BIL actually wrote a pretty interesting article on populism and the rise of Trump that ended up being featured in the Washinton Post. (link) He doesn't necessarily believe that Trump is a populist, but rather that he's the product of an ideological shift in the GOP that is dividing social conservatives and economic conservatives.

For the record, I wouldn't classify Trump as conservative, I'd classify him as a non-ideological pragmatic.

Funny, I have a similar view of Hillary.

I don't like a lot of his ideas,

but they are better than what got us here.

Emphasis mine. While there are plenty of people who agree with you, there's also plenty of bipartisan disagreement as well. Regardless of how this election turns out, it'll be very interesting to see what the future holds for the GOP, and your brand of conservatism in general. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, Mike Pence did a great job last night. Tim Kaine would not stop interrupting him, which made Kaine look bad. But lets face it, the Vice President doesn't do much more than attend funerals and stand behind the president when he speaks. I, as a republican, certainly wish Pence was our candidate instead of Trump. I thought the same thing last election with Romney and Ryan. But in the last four years, Paul Ryan has changed a lot. 

Mike Pence won the debate but it won't change anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share