President Donald Trump

[B-Fly]

Meanwhile, Fox News appears to have made the editorial decision to keep Trump's statements from the televised gun meeting off of their website entirely. (If you scroll down really far, you can see a few links to GOP leaders (Toomey and Scalise) defending their record and proposals, but no visible headline so much as acknowledging what the President actually said/supported in the meeting.)

[swampdragon]

Meanwhile, Fox News appears to have made the editorial decision to keep Trump's statements from the televised gun meeting off of their website entirely. (If you scroll down really far, you can see a few links to GOP leaders (Toomey and Scalise) defending their record and proposals, but no visible headline so much as acknowledging what the President actually said/supported in the meeting.)

I do sometimes watch or listen to fox and it is fascinating - there are major events that just dont exist in their world.

Like the womens march was not in their news on that Saturday.

To their credit they were the first news organization for call the Doug Jones win but of course that was so they could go on to other things quicker and forget that they were even supporters of Roy Moore.

[Sour Masher]

While I don't necessarily trust Trump to stick by the ideas/policies he outlined yesterday to address mass shootings, I believe the Democrats should immediately jump to support them and put the pressure on Trump and the GOP to follow through. This may be an only-Nixon-could-go-to-China moment that should not be allowed to go to waste!

I agree. I hope the Dems don't botch this opportunity. Then again, it may not really be an opportunity. If Trump doubles back on this issue, it won't be the first time he seems to have gone against the GOP, only to reverse course back to the party line. He did it during the immigration reform talks, seeming to side with Dems on DACA before reversing course.

[DMT]

I agree. I hope the Dems don't botch this opportunity. Then again, it may not really be an opportunity. If Trump doubles back on this issue, it won't be the first time he seems to have gone against the GOP, only to reverse course back to the party line. He did it during the immigration reform talks, seeming to side with Dems on DACA before reversing course.

Exactly, there is no reason to trust Trump on this.

[Bernie Brewer]

I agree. I hope the Dems don't botch this opportunity. Then again, it may not really be an opportunity. If Trump doubles back on this issue, it won't be the first time he seems to have gone against the GOP, only to reverse course back to the party line. He did it during the immigration reform talks, seeming to side with Dems on DACA before reversing course.

So, if for instance he were to, say, appoint a judge to the SCOTUS who reflects your stances, or get Congress to pass some legislation that is really important to you, like a tax law, some tweak to ACA, or DACA, you still wouldn’t support him or even think any better of him, but you’d see that even a really terrible, maybe even the historically worst, President might serve your purposes in some strange and weird way? Welcome to half of the GOP!

[Sour Masher]

So, if for instance he were to, say, appoint a judge to the SCOTUS who reflects your stances, or get Congress to pass some legislation that is really important to you, like a tax law, some tweak to ACA, or DACA, you still wouldn’t support him or even think any better of him, but you’d see that even a really terrible, maybe even the historically worst, President might serve your purposes in some strange and weird way? Welcome to half of the GOP!

Sure, I get that. It still doesn't excuse the Republican side of things that he won the primaries to begin with. The fact is that the majority of Republican voters supported this terrible person over many more respectable candidates who would have done everything Trump has done in terms if the GOP agenda, but without being a total embarrassment to our country, and without emboldening the most vile elements of the right to sleep up and poison the Republican party.

If someone like Trump rose up on the left, I'd have fought against him just as vehemently as I have as someone from the opposing party. More so, if that were possible, because of the danger he would pose to my side of the political spectrum. I think it is possible that of all the Carnage Trump leaves in his wake, none will sustain more lasting damage than the party that raised him up above all the rest to represent them. He is an afront to all that I have ever admired about Republicanism. He has no respect for the sanctity of the unbiased rule of law. He respects loyalty to himself above love of God and country. The fact that Evangelicals did not merely close their eyes and vote for him in the general with begrudging disgust, but largley passionately supported his rise through the GOP ranks is the height of hypocrisy.

[Bernie Brewer]

Sure, I get that. It still doesn't excuse the Republican side of things that he won the primaries to begin with. The fact is that the majority of Republican voters supported this terrible person over many more respectable candidates who would have done everything Trump has done in terms if the GOP agenda, but without being a total embarrassment to our country, and without emboldening the most vile elements of the right to sleep up and poison the Republican party.

If someone like Trump rose up on the left, I'd have fought against him just as vehemently as I have as someone from the opposing party. More so, if that were possible, because of the danger he would pose to my side of the political spectrum. I think it is possible that of all the Carnage Trump leaves in his wake, none will sustain more lasting damage than the party that raised him up above all the rest to represent them. He is an afront to all that I have ever admired about Republicanism. He has no respect for the sanctity of the unbiased rule of law. He respects loyalty to himself above love of God and country. The fact that Evangelicals did not merely close their eyes and vote for him in the general with begrudging disgust, but largley passionately supported his rise through the GOP ranks is the height of hypocrisy.

I can’t say that I disagree with much of the above, with the exception of the notion of the “support” thingy. As has been discussed many many times, many of us on the right or in the center never supported Trump and still don’t. We voted for the least objectionable candidate, voted write in, or third party. And, yes the damage to the Republican party is, and will be, vast and lasting, but as long as the Democrats score own goals by nominating the Warrens, Bookers, Sanders of their party, they will keep the right and the GOP relevant. Both parties are on the ropes and looking for their new identities. At least the Dems can work on finding theirs now. The cancer of the GOP probably isn’t going anywhere for two and half to six and a half years! Russian investigations notwithstanding. The Never Trump moderates and conservatives have not thrown support his way, in fact they remain highly critical me vocal, but if he serves the moderate conservative’s agenda, at least in part, well, ya kinda hold your nose and hope for the best.

[B-Fly]

Sure, I get that. It still doesn't excuse the Republican side of things that he won the primaries to begin with. The fact is that the majority of Republican voters supported this terrible person over many more respectable candidates who would have done everything Trump has done in terms if the GOP agenda, but without being a total embarrassment to our country, and without emboldening the most vile elements of the right to sleep up and poison the Republican party.

If someone like Trump rose up on the left, I'd have fought against him just as vehemently as I have as someone from the opposing party. More so, if that were possible, because of the danger he would pose to my side of the political spectrum. I think it is possible that of all the Carnage Trump leaves in his wake, none will sustain more lasting damage than the party that raised him up above all the rest to represent them. He is an afront to all that I have ever admired about Republicanism. He has no respect for the sanctity of the unbiased rule of law. He respects loyalty to himself above love of God and country. The fact that Evangelicals did not merely close their eyes and vote for him in the general with begrudging disgust, but largley passionately supported his rise through the GOP ranks is the height of hypocrisy.

Good post. I agree with this. I really hope that Republican voters who recognize Trump's unique lack of qualifications, character and temperament for this presidency can unite behind a strong primary challenger in 2020.

[chancellor]

Normally, Bernie and I are pretty well-aligned, but I disagree with him a bit on the response to Sour Masher's post...

The fact is that the majority of Republican voters supported this terrible person over many more respectable candidates who would have done everything Trump has done in terms if the GOP agenda,

Actually, that's doubtful. Maybe Ted Cruz does all the things Trump has done, but if history is a guide, the others likely do not. Certainly, Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Rubio would not have. Appoint a Constitutional conservative justice who's unbending in the face of political pressure? Um, nope. Both Bush's whiffed on that one. Craft meaningful tax reform and beat on Congress to do their job and vote on it? Highly doubtful.

I had serious doubts Trump would deliver on the key issues that are meaningful to me as a conservative-leaning libertarian, but I've been pleasantly surprised. He's done vastly better than either Bush did.

If someone like Trump rose up on the left, I'd have fought against him just as vehemently as I have as someone from the opposing party. More so, if that were possible, because of the danger he would pose to my side of the political spectrum.

Interesting. I'd have to know better what "like Trump" means. My point of view is your party had someone like that - much less public in terms of tweets and stuff - but even more underhanded and devious. But you have the gender wrong, and it's not Hillary.

I think it is possible that of all the Carnage Trump leaves in his wake, none will sustain more lasting damage than the party that raised him up above all the rest to represent them.

I doubt it. But should Trump win re-election, I'll be happy to revisit the topic in five or six years and compare the carnage suffered by the Democrats during the Obama administration - loss of the House and Senate, and to-date unrivaled losses in state governors and legislative bodies - and see if the carnage the Republicans suffer under Trump comes even close.

The fact that Evangelicals did not merely close their eyes and vote for him in the general with begrudging disgust, but largley passionately supported his rise through the GOP ranks is the height of hypocrisy.

Categorically untrue, and statistics by pollers on both sides of the spectrum support that it's false. Evangelicals supported Cruz and Rubio in greater numbers than Trump. Once Cruz and Rubio were gone, and it was pretty much just Trump and Kasich, yes, at that point, Evangelicals did support Trump over Kasich.

[Sour Masher]

Responding to Chance, I need help seeing how a conservative Republican like Cruz or Rubio would not have been able to do everything Trump has, with much less of a Carnival sideshow, given that any candidate would have had the full support of a Republican controlled Congress. Saying Trump has delivered on the conservative agenda more than either Bush is setting the bar pretty low. I have little doubt a staunch conservative would have been appointed to the SC if either of those candidates were elected. And either would have gotten tax reform done, although I concede neither may have been so bold as to lower the corporate rate quite so low.

For me, "like Trump" means anyone who is highly divisive, dismissive of the rule of law, unqualified to the extreme, racist, misogynistic, xenoophobic, a bully who constantly punches down in a way that denigrates his office and position, etc. I'm curious who fits that bill on the left. Not saying a vile candidate could not emerge on the left, but I don't see anyone on Trump's level on the national stage at the moment, though concede many have noteworthy faults of their own.

As far as Evangelical support, I should have specified my remarks were directed to those who supported Trump early in the crowded field of other candidates who could actually name Bible verses. Polls I've seen suggested that while Evangelicals who identified as very religious and those that went to church frequently did not come around on Trump until late in the game, many less religious Evangelicals, and especially white Evangelicals supported him early and passionately (although, I must admit to not understanding how one can identify as both Evangelical and "less religious"--if you believe the doctrine is tied to the fate of your immortal soul, I'd think being a follower of the faith would be all in on).

Here is breakdown of the early support for Trump among Evangelicals: http://www.christianitytoday.com/new...r-tuesday.html

[B-Fly]

For me, "like Trump" means anyone who is highly divisive, dismissive of the rule of law, unqualified to the extreme, racist, misogynistic, xenoophobic, a bully who constantly punches down in a way that denigrates his office and position, etc. I'm curious who fits that bill on the left. Not saying a vile candidate could not emerge on the left, but I don't see anyone on Trump's level on the national stage at the moment, though concede many have noteworthy faults of their own.

President Farrakhan?

[revo]

Interesting. I'd have to know better what "like Trump" means. My point of view is your party had someone like that - much less public in terms of tweets and stuff - but even more underhanded and devious. But you have the gender wrong, and it's not Hillary.

President Keane on "Homeland?"

[Sour Masher]

President Farrakhan?

Yes, good example. If Farrakhan rose to become the face of the Democratic party, I'd be completely appalled. But he is a fringe figure at the moment.

[The Feral Slasher]

Yes, good example. If Farrakhan rose to become the face of the Democratic party, I'd be completely appalled. But he is a fringe figure at the moment.

So if he ran on a platform reflecting positions that you agree with, would you vote for him or Mike Pence for president ? Or Mitt Romney ?

[Sour Masher]

So if he ran on a platform reflecting positions that you agree with, would you vote for him or Mike Pence for president ? Or Mitt Romney ?

No, I would vehemently oppose him from day one and denounce the party for putting him up, much like many did with hrc. I would probably vote 3rd party or write in if it were pence. If it were Romney, id vote romney over a farrakhan.