President Donald Trump

[cardboardbox]

So according to Feral and ITC, everyone is to blame for Trump.

yes..

[Bernie Brewer]

Being on the moral high ground is a primary tenet of the progressive. Until its no longer the moral highground, then you find a new moral high ground...... see Bill Clinton's statement in my signature.

I think that one of the primary reasons this guy won was because there is a general distaste in the good country for those who believe that where they are perched is the moral high ground.

[The Feral Slasher]

I didn't see the smiley face :-), so I'm left to assume. You believe this!

In that regard, let me see if I have this right. If you did not vote at all or you supported and voted for anyone other than Hillary, then you are responsible for him. But, if you're in the "I'm with her" crowd you get a get out of jail free card because you are yet again on the moral high ground. No wonder we have this idiot in office.

Seriously you guys, if you have to put a smiley face or sarcasm font, what is the point ?

What I posted was just about the opposite of what I believe, hope that clarifies things.

[Bernie Brewer]

Seriously you guys, if you have to put a smiley face or sarcasm font, what is the point ?

What I posted was just about the opposite of what I believe, hope that clarifies things.

Unfortunately I failed to catch that, my apologies. And, more unfortunately, I suspect there more than a few in the IWH crowd that would agree with what you wrote.

[Redbirds Fan]

Presidential Succession List Current Order

1 Vice President Mike Pence (R)
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (R)
4 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (R)

Pick your poison...

Tough choices.

I won't go into an unfocused rage about Pence.

Hard to say what Ryan would do in the big chair. He has never showed much of a backbone when pushed. I have to say I don't care for the fact that he decries the Social Security system as 'socialist' when it apparently paid for his college, where he decided Ayn Rand had all the answers. Hey, Paul, I thought Nietzsche was cool when I was in college, but I didn't model my world view after him. And I don't slander the student loan program, since I wouldn't have an education without it.

His record has been a mixed bag, both ends of the spectrum. But he's 83. How many 83 year old guys would you trust with the launch codes?

Tillerson? Maybe the only guy in the Administration with less relevant experience than Trump. And he apparently doesn't even want the job he has.

[The Feral Slasher]

unfortunately i failed to catch that, my apologies. And, more unfortunately, i suspect there more than a few in the iwh crowd that would agree with what you wrote.

inwh

[Bernie Brewer]

inwh

We all might be, at this point!

[cardboardbox]

Tough choices.

I won't go into an unfocused rage about Pence.

Hard to say what Ryan would do in the big chair. He has never showed much of a backbone when pushed. I have to say I don't care for the fact that he decries the Social Security system as 'socialist'

I'm pretty sure most everyone knows our SS system needs fixing. Ryan is one of the very few that want to do something about it rather than kick the ball down the road.

I would have been ecstatic about a President Ryan until I saw his determination to pass a stupid bill that no one wanted.

[cardboardbox]

I found this headline hilarious:

"Worried about fallout, Dems poised to poll-test impeachment"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article150938202.html

[Redbirds Fan]

There is plenty of blame to go around. You progressives who brought forth the worst candidate (right next to Trump) are the reason Trump was elected.

As you stated, "You elected him. Own him."

This is a popular opinion, but what are the facts to support it? I hear it often from Bernie supporters. We know now that Russian operatives spread Hillary disinformation, negative internet articles, and literally millions of 'hate' posts where Bernie supporters gathered, all in order to drive up her negatives. I personally remember countless posts and links to articles that I knew were phony, and wondering where all that stuff was coming from.

Data tells a different story. Even with all the negatives, even with the Russians, even with Wikileaks, she beat Trump by three million votes. She came within 100,000 votes of equaling Obama's vote total from 2012.

So why do people say she was a horrible candidate? Because people made unfounded charges against her? Should she have beaten Trump by four million votes? The Hillary haters say Trump won because the Dems ran a terrible candidate, as if sixty million people didn't pull the lever for him.

[senorsheep]

What would happen to the Republican party if they dump him and a huge percentage of their base still want Trump?

Well, that's the trick, isn't it - how do you coax a core of angry, anti-establishment voters back into your establishment party? If they're going to dump Trump-ism, they're going to have to replace it with something a lot more attractive than Dubya-ism - that's what got their base so pissed off in the first place, IMO.

If they were to ask me, I'd tell them to go back and honestly review what about the Dubya administration alienated so much of their traditional conservative base. I'd suggest:

1) They promised to reduce spending; instead, they increased spending.
2) They promised to reduce the size and scope of government; instead, they expanded it.
3) They promised smart, tough foreign policy; instead they blundered about and cocked up everything they touched in the Middle East.

So, I'd tell them to start by committing to fixing those problems, and then to look at the issues and messages that resonated with the Trump coalition, and incorporate some of the more sensible themes into their campaign, minus the anger and trolling and resentment.

[Redbirds Fan]

I'm pretty sure most everyone knows our SS system needs fixing. Ryan is one of the very few that want to do something about it rather than kick the ball down the road.

I would have been ecstatic about a President Ryan until I saw his determination to pass a stupid bill that no one wanted.

Yeah, but you edited the quote. My gripe isn't that he knows SS needs fixing. My gripe is that he decries it as 'socialist' now that he no longer needs it to put him through college.

I'm just asking for some consistency here.

[Redbirds Fan]

Well, that's the trick, isn't it - how do you coax a core of angry, anti-establishment voters back into your establishment party? If they're going to dump Trump-ism, they're going to have to replace it with something a lot more attractive than Dubya-ism - that's what got their base so pissed off in the first place, IMO.

If they were to ask me, I'd tell them to go back and honestly review what about the Dubya administration alienated so much of their traditional conservative base. I'd suggest:

1) They promised to reduce spending; instead, they increased spending.
2) They promised to reduce the size and scope of government; instead, they expanded it.
3) They promised smart, tough foreign policy; instead they blundered about and cocked up everything they touched in the Middle East.

So, I'd tell them to start by committing to fixing those problems, and then to look at the issues and messages that resonated with the Trump coalition, and incorporate some of the more sensible themes into their campaign, minus the anger and trolling and resentment.

Help me here, sheep. In the last 50 years, has there been a Republican administration which didn't promise to reduce spending while actually increasing spending? Which didn't promise to reduce the size of government while actually expanding it? I'll look at some numbers, but I can't think of one.

Even token attempts at cutting back the size of the bureaucracy have been countered by the creation of huge organizations like Homeland Security. And military spending counts as government spending, despite what some would try to make us believe.

[senorsheep]

Help me here, sheep. In the last 50 years, has there been a Republican administration which didn't promise to reduce spending while actually increasing spending? Which didn't promise to reduce the size of government while actually expanding it? I'll look at some numbers, but I can't think of one.

Even token attempts at cutting back the size of the bureaucracy have been countered by the creation of huge organizations like Homeland Security. And military spending counts as government spending, despite what some would try to make us believe.

No Republican presidential administration has done it in my adult lifetime. Reagan might have if he had had a Republican Congress. The "Contract With America" Republican Congress is the best example I have of the national party actually walking the walk of their fiscal responsibility talk. The Dubya administration didn't even try, despite having a favorable Congressional makeup for much of his tenure. I think the seeds of Tea Party anger were planted as a result.

[cardboardbox]

Yeah, but you edited the quote. My gripe isn't that he knows SS needs fixing. My gripe is that he decries it as 'socialist' now that he no longer needs it to put him through college.

I'm just asking for some consistency here.

does it matter what he calls it? Isnt socialism a good thing to most democrats?