Clinton emails
- Thread starter zoogs
- Start date
TGHusker
New member
Even if he did, how long would he listen to them? He said he had a quality campaign staff but how many campaign mgrs. has he had. I lost count. How many other people has he run off - even a greater #. Trump being Trump can't keep on message and he'll frustrate many of these professional, experienced people in short time. I suspect we'd have a revolving door in the cabinet. Either him saying "Your Fired" or them saying "You're NUTS".
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Donor
Just a little nitpicky here, Knapp, because I agree with the body of your post.
The Uranium One thing has been looked into, and it runs into a whole lot of the same problems as every other one of the "controversies." Straight out of Politifact:
So, basically, you'd have to believe Clinton to be the most all-powerful, corrupt individual in the history of the world (I know that's not a stretch for some of my more partisan friends on the right) in order to pull all those strings to get this deal done. She not only signed off on the deal for her own department (one of those articles said it never even reached her desk), but convinced 8 other federal agencies and independent state and federal regulators to go along with her grand scheme?
Some of these supposed smoking guns against the Clintons are laughably easy to disprove.
I do wish people thought critically about whether they were legitimately seeing fire, or if as you've said, it's just smoke and they let their mind fill in the blanks how it pleases.
Don't get me wrong. If they're something legitimately corrupt there, I'd hope it gets exposed. You can only go through this so many times before you start to think there isn't. As is, I just think the Clintons have a very serious image problem wherein they cannot realize when they're doing something that could be interpreted as fishy or is legitimately bad judgment (emails).
I'm shocked and saddened that so great a segment of our country is so predisposed to hating the Clintons that they view poor email protocol as disqualifying while looking the other way for anything and everything Trump has been responsible for.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Donor
I agree.
There's a gigantic pool of foreign policy professionals, military personnel, and economists who've flatly declined to work with Trump. He won't even have ACCESS to the best and brightest. He's got a smaller pool to draw from to begin with.
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker
New member
Yes, that is my concern too. If he were to win, this cabinet will be filled wt perhaps the narrowest spectrum of political thought in recent memory. Newt, Rudy, Chris Christi (if he doesn't get indicted for bridge gate), his daughter, his son, his son # 2, my governor Fallin from Okla, and not sure who else, Michael Savage or Sean Hannity as his press sec - wouldn't that be a wild circus
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs
New member
Here's a pitch to my conservative friends:
- If Trump wins, the conservative movement is his -- and will be discredited for a generation.
- If Trump loses, there will be disruptive change and a battle for the reins. Party instability, that we can stomach -- party leaders are not in command of the American military and nuclear arsenal. And while we can't know the ultimate results, we can expect that the disruption will realign politics in both major parties, and that there's a chance it will be healthy.
The GOP has clearly been sick with this fever for a while; Trump merely capitalized upon it. If you want to take the garbage out and effect a dramatic reshaping of both the Republican and Democratic coalitions, then Trump must not be empowered this November.
That will have the clear effect of locking in our divides. We know even the most principled Republican leaders are running for cover under the Trump umbrella. They'd stay there. And the Democratic opposition would remain united.
- If Trump wins, the conservative movement is his -- and will be discredited for a generation.
- If Trump loses, there will be disruptive change and a battle for the reins. Party instability, that we can stomach -- party leaders are not in command of the American military and nuclear arsenal. And while we can't know the ultimate results, we can expect that the disruption will realign politics in both major parties, and that there's a chance it will be healthy.
The GOP has clearly been sick with this fever for a while; Trump merely capitalized upon it. If you want to take the garbage out and effect a dramatic reshaping of both the Republican and Democratic coalitions, then Trump must not be empowered this November.
That will have the clear effect of locking in our divides. We know even the most principled Republican leaders are running for cover under the Trump umbrella. They'd stay there. And the Democratic opposition would remain united.
TGHusker
New member
I don't think most true conservatives claim him as a conservative. He isn't. Trump is a Popular Nationalist. There is a difference. He is especially not a 'constitutional conservative'. He rarely talks about the constitution. Being a nationalist is what I think makes him dangerous. I don't like to drop the Hitler word as that is a sure way to discredit a post - however Hitler was a Nationalist. A fascist. I rang the bell on Trump early in the primary that his rhetoric was unacceptable and it made me think of Germany of 1934. I think Trump at his core is more of a nationalist than a conservative. He gives lip service to conservative principles and he will need conservative help to enact policies. But most conservatives were behind Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker and a few others. Read the definitions below and I think you will find that Nationalism and fascism more applies than conservatism.
fas·cism
- an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More Nazism, rightism;
- (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice
- (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice
Full Definition of nationalism
- 1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
- 1 : an advocate of or believer in nationalism
- 2 : a member of a political party or group advocating national independence or strong national government
- 1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative partyb : the Conservative party
- 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is establishedb : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
- 3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
zoogs
New member
I agree, TG. But if he wins, he captures, appropriates, and bastardizes the conservative movement beyond all recognition -- by capturing the Republican party and the loyalties of conservative politicians, as he has done.
So, the conservative movement will belong to him. Those who oppose will only recede into the margins, while their compatriots join.
But there's a chance for healthy conservatism to survive as an important political institution not stained with authoritarian, populist ethnonationalism. I don't know that it's a great chance. But it starts with a forest fire that can only happen if Trump does not prevail. The GOP does not control him, plain to be seen. It has been the other way around.
So, the conservative movement will belong to him. Those who oppose will only recede into the margins, while their compatriots join.
But there's a chance for healthy conservatism to survive as an important political institution not stained with authoritarian, populist ethnonationalism. I don't know that it's a great chance. But it starts with a forest fire that can only happen if Trump does not prevail. The GOP does not control him, plain to be seen. It has been the other way around.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Donor
Yet another reason the Libertarian ticket would've been better had the order of the ticket been flipped. I don't mind Johnson, but I'm genuinely fond of Weld. He seems like a damn decent man.
Make no mistake about it. Trump is in no way a conservative. You can see it every day in his positions-- anti-free trade, obviously not pro-life by his own choosing, uncomfortable with a completely anti-gun control stance... He merely co-opted the Republican party because they were there to benefit him, and rife with infighting. That gave him the seam he needed to slide right in there and assume control.
I feel that Trump and the NRA are merely a marriage of convenience. Like I said, he's espoused some pro-gun control viewpoints-- namely barring those on the No Fly list from purchasing firearms-- and has shown no historical affinity for the 2nd Amendment prior to the moment in time he realized he could bash Hillary with it for votes.
I have to question whether those who vote for Trump on the strength of his conservative bona fides really care about conservative policies. I don't think they're really likely to get them. Even if Trump says he'll appoint a who's who of Heritage Foundation heroes to the Supreme Court, do you really think he'll do so? He's done nothing but flip flop since the day he entered the race-- why wouldn't he flip flop again in his SC nominations? He couldn't even decide on a VP without serious strife.
It wouldn't shock me to see him nominate his sister to the Supreme Court before some sterling conservative judge. He's shown no aversion to nepotism in the past.
TGHusker
New member
I agree wt the bold. It becomes quilt by association. Due to a lack of choice, conservatives get tied to someone most opposed.
Again, a shortcoming of just having 2 major parties controlling things. Yet, I keep hearing politicians say we need to reform from within the party. Then we see all of the broken promises in DC. Repubs act as conservatives to get our vote and then vote like liberals. Passing one continuing resolution after another on our way to a 20 T debt.
It may take a tragic defeat for the conservatives to leave the party and join the Constitution Party or something similar. And start the movement. Regardless, Conservatives themselves need to clearly define their movement and not be defined by others including Trump.
TGHusker
New member
You are right, that is why I cannot trust him to do what he says. He's said the words to get the support, but when push comes to shove, he will do what makes him look the best in the end. Will he fight for conservative SC nominees - doubtful. He'll negotiate some deal. He doesn't have the emotional buy in to the conservative movement to fight for it. The guy never or rarely mentions the constitution which is at the heart of conservative thought.
TGHusker
New member
George Will agrees with you. He thinks a close loss would end up in finger pointing. A big loss would purge the party like vomit (my word - George is too refined to use it) of the Trumpism.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/george-will-gop-better-lose/2016/11/02/id/756718/
zoogs
New member
It's more than guilt by association. The GOP politicians running for cover under Trump aren't merely associated by party name, they're complicit in choosing to align with him.
The two-party system is generally stabilizing. The idea is that in having to represent such broad constituencies, some wacko can't just come in and take over.
You'd almost have to have a demographically narrow constituency and feed them decades of dangerous scorn for facts and the "mainstream".
I do agree with you on the last part, except it's not a defeat that will do that -- it's an internal power struggle. Trump forces may nonetheless win out even if he loses the election. But they will definitely win out should he win.
The point is that conservatives can't merely circle the wagons and define themselves as part of an ever-smaller movement. They have to find a way to assert their political influence -- in a way that is not toxic and leading to men like Trump and policies like voter suppression.
And you make a great point about Close vs Big loss. I wasn't thinking about the scale necessarily, but the larger the margin of defeat, the more likely it is for Trump forces to lose the ensuing power struggle. And so I'd encourage people who just don't want to see Hillary claim a large mandate to consider that. The GOP dislikes Hillary, fine. There will be a certain power in having to confront themselves with "We drove millions of people to her."
Otherwise, it's all too easy to say "Trump had a bad mouth and insulted women. We'll just get someone a little smarter than that and otherwise stay the same." (I am specifically mentioning women only here).
Last edited by a moderator: