Republican Party Helsinki and beyond

[B-Fly]

I'm starting this as a companion thread to the Trump thread and the Democratic Party thread, because I think post-Helsinki is a pretty big decision point for the Republican Party as we hurtle towards the 2018 midterms and then the big questions raised around supporting Trump versus challenging or opposing him, whether around the question of impeachment/resignation, or around the 2020 primaries and general election. Rand Paul was the only prominent Republican political thought leader to really defend Trump's Helsinki performance, but he's been worlds apart from the bulk of the GOP on foreign policy for a long time, preferring isolation and inward focus and limiting US leadership/engagement/investment in geopolitics - especially military engagement.

What of the other thought leaders in the GOP? McCain came out swinging but could die very soon. Ryan and McConnell condemned the Helsinki performance, as did Rubio, Gingrich, the WSJ editorial board, Shapiro, the Bush foreign policy old guard, etc. Do they keep up the pressure? Who, if anyone, would/should mount a primary challenge to Trump in 2020 (assuming no impeachment or resignation)? Does anyone in the Trump Administration jump ship and mount a challenge? Does Romney potentially run again so soon after presumably winning a Senate seat from Utah? Cruz? Rubio? Kasich? Bush? Fiorina?

[Sour Masher]

It is too much to hope for Kasich or Romney, I think. It is probably too much to hope for anyone other than Trump, as I just don't see the Republicans splitting with him, since he would probably retaliate by running third party, ensuring their defeat. If it is someone else, I hope it isn't Cruz. Really don't like that guy.

[B-Fly]

What about Paul Ryan? What's his next play upon his retirement from the House?

[Sour Masher]

What about Paul Ryan? What's his next play upon his retirement from the House?

I don't know. He really doesn't seem to be much liked by the current Republican voting base. It wouldn't surprise me if he made a play, though.

[senorsheep]

It is too much to hope for... Romney...

I remember that guy. I guess now the soulless corporate slasher/ callous oligarch/ out-of-touch elitist/ war hawk extremist/ outsourcing monster who gave workers cancer/ weird Mormon cultist/ tax cheat/ high school bully/ dog abuser doesn't seem so bad.

[B-Fly]

I remember that guy. I guess now the soulless corporate slasher/ callous oligarch/ out-of-touch elitist/ war hawk extremist/ outsourcing monster who gave workers cancer/ weird Mormon cultist/ tax cheat/ high school bully/ dog abuser doesn't seem so bad.

LOL. I never bought into the the anti-Mormon, high school bully, dog abuser stuff, but guilty on the rest, and yeah, he doesn't seem so bad now.

[chancellor]

What about Paul Ryan? What's his next play upon his retirement from the House?

Well, in what I'm sure is purely a coincidence, the chair of the American Enterprise Institute has opened up. If I were a betting man, given Ryan's preference for policy over political fights, I'd bet on that.

[chancellor]

I remember that guy. I guess now the soulless corporate slasher/ callous oligarch/ out-of-touch elitist/ war hawk extremist/ outsourcing monster who gave workers cancer/ weird Mormon cultist/ tax cheat/ high school bully/ dog abuser doesn't seem so bad.

Yeah, that's when I pretty much crossed the Rubicon into wanting a nasty SOB who'd play Alinsky right back at the left and drink their tears when they cried about it.

[onejayhawk]

There seems to be an undercurrent in both parties that expects a wave election in 2018. Both think their party will win, so one or both is/are wrong. For the record, I'm going with both.

Helsinki is hardly a watershed event, so I am not sure why it was chosen. The watershed event was the Singapore summit with North Korea. In any event, the Republicans have a foreign policy they can defend, an economy they can run on and a massive FBI/DOJ scandal they can milk. That's a lot of firepower for the November elections. They will survive and may do better. Long term, they have a re-electable President. That's a lot.

J

[nullnor]

in identity politics the last thing you want to do is unite everyone under one thing. how you have democrats and republicans or liberals and conservatives, or things like 'us' and 'them'. i've been actually trying not to use words like them or 'others' or everyone 'else'. the Russia thing runs the risk of uniting everyone as americans. all of 'us' under one roof.

[nullnor]

i know this is dumb to ask but i am not sure why it's a bad thing for another country to try to influence our elections. if you are mostly talking about running misleading stories. i mean we do it to ourselves all the time. in a way it sounds like we are saying only we are allowed to have the free speech right to lie to each other. also, if everyone watches our elections even though they can't vote, shouldn't they be allowed to voice their opinion on the internet? ..it's not like they were flying planes over the country and dropping pamphlets. or is it?

it would be different if we went over to some small country nobody pays attention to and tried to influence their elections. but isn't our democracy strong enough to withstand interference? it's not like they were trying to get Peter from Oymyakon Sibera elected.

what if in the future we were lying to each other so much another government was trying to interfere by trying to tell the truth.

i am actually kind of worried asking this question. like i am being treasonous or i am missing something obvious..heh

[B-Fly]

i know this is dumb to ask but i am not sure why it's a bad thing for another country to try to influence our elections. if you are mostly talking about running misleading stories. i mean we do it to ourselves all the time. in a way it sounds like we are saying only we are allowed to have the free speech right to lie to each other. also, if everyone watches our elections even though they can't vote, shouldn't they be allowed to voice their opinion on the internet? ..it's not like they were flying planes over the country and dropping pamphlets. or is it?

it would be different if we went over to some small country nobody pays attention to and tried to influence their elections. but isn't our democracy strong enough to withstand interference? it's not like they were trying to get Peter from Oymyakon Sibera elected.

what if in the future we were lying to each other so much another government was trying to interfere by trying to tell the truth.

i am actually kind of worried asking this question. like i am being treasonous or i am missing something obvious..heh

I think the fake accounts and fake news on social media is probably international and unavoidable, although I do think Facebook, Twitter and other major social media players should be looking to innovate around ways to minimize that. The bigger issue is illegal hacking, phishing, stealing and leaking private information, and even more significantly, any efforts to hack/infect voting machines and vote counting.

[nullnor]

i am just say'n that in politics, for the last 20 years, we talk with our tongue out of our shoes so much and try to block people from voting and attempt any number of sketchy things that when another country tries to do the same thing we are doing to ourselves and suddenly we think we are as fine as frogs hair, and as sweet as Cleopatra's wine.

instead of focusing on scapegoating russians, we should be blaming ourselves and trying to fix our bearing.

[B-Fly]

i am just say'n that in politics, for the last 20 years, we talk with our tongue out of our shoes so much and try to block people from voting and attempt any number of sketchy things that when another country tries to do the same thing we are doing to ourselves and suddenly we think we are as fine as frogs hair, and as sweet as Cleopatra's wine.

instead of focusing on scapegoating russians, we should be blaming ourselves and trying to fix our bearing.

I don't think it's scapegoating, but I agree with your assessment of what we're doing to ourselves and think we can and should try to address both.

[revo]

Jamie Dimon '20?


"The JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPM, -0.58% CEO said he could best Trump in a race for the White House because he’s got the physical and mental chops.

On top of that, Dimon suggested that he wasn’t born with a proverbial silver spoon in his mouth, implying that Trump didn’t earn his wealth the hard way but instead inherited it.

“And by the way this wealthy New Yorker actually earned his money,” Dimon said. “It wasn’t a gift from Daddy” he said. Dimon’s net worth is approximately 1.4 billion, according to Forbes, compared with $3.1 billion for Trump. Forbes indicates that Trump “got his start working for his father, Fred, who developed low-cost housing in Brooklyn and Queens.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dimon-says-he-could-beat-trump-in-a-presidential-race-because-hes-smarter-than-he-is-2018-09-12