It means breaking from all or nothing ideological stances when given the facts rather than opposing it because lobbyists would get angry. For example, him increasing medicare benefits for the lower income brackets while also raising taxes to fund them. Sure, some could argue sales taxes are regressive but he got flack from his own party for doing it.
Why does one have to be Jerry Falwell to be not considered a RINO? If someone has traditional conservative principles but not on the lunatic religious fringe, why can't they still be a Republican? The same is happening on the left, too. It's a shame that both parties have been dragged kicking and screaming to the fringes. Today is a perfect example. President Trump is whining about the negotiation on the spending bill because it's not fair that he has to negotiate with Democrats. He wants the rules changed so that there only has to be a simple majority. What kind of s*** is this? Is he really that scared to negotiate with Democrats and/or why has compromise become such an ugly word?
The anti-government nuts believe that all government spending is bad and that all tax cuts for the rich are good. They basically believe in the fantasy of a modern society without government spending and taxes. Yeah it would be cool to live in a modern society and keep 100% of your paycheck. Cool.
It was apparent to most that I lean conservative. I think the Republican party has enough power to get a lot of good done or lose their credibility with some of their base entirely. Losing credibility doesn't mean losing their vote, all you have to do is look at France to see where globalism takes you. Until somebody offers a credible alternative, I wouldn't vote for a different party. This thread is more for the conservatives, although dems are welcome to point and make fun. How can the Republicans take advantage instead of squandering this opportunity? Right now it looks like they are just revealing their true colors as Republican members of the bacon wrapped shrimp club. (People just in Washington to benefit themselves). They pander for votes and then spend our country into debt oblivion. My hope is that they get it together instead of remaining a fractured mess but is not trending that way. Trump is the only one who is trying to fulfill his promises, and I suspect half of his own party still hates him.
Wall funding is on Trump - that is a Trump issue, not a congressional Republican issue. The others are all on the congressional Republicans. Personally, other than immigration enforcement, I don't care too much for any of the other issues other than healthcare, which I would like to see remain as-is since the congressional Republicans are trying to shoot themselves in the foot while placing a massive burden on their constituents (and others).
I don't think that the party has "jumped the shark" so much as it has two incompatible factions. The "Freedom Caucus" is almost nihilistic in its approach to government while the more moderate wing doesn't want to strap bombs to itself on every issue. That's coming to fruition in the constant healthcare squabbles in the GOP. It's not unlike the mid 20th century Democratic party of Dixiecrats and Everyone Else.
I'll be serious since sincere conservative views on this board should be cherished, given the fare we're used to. I think we're at a partisan inflection point, like the 1964 flip on the Southern Strategy. Trump bisected the electorate a different way. So now you have a Republican party of 2 (or more) minds: the traditional conservatives, and now the populist conservatives. And I think the Congressional Republicans are struggling a lot with this pivot. Do they pursue their traditional goals that they've ideologically committed to to varying extents, or do they pursue these new goals the electorate seems to now want, but may look stupid to you to varying extents. Trump's wall didn't get funded, but a lot of more wonkish things about border security did. I don't think a lot of Republican congressmen are actually very sad about the wall. They know it's an amateurish solution, even if they can't say it in public. They'd rather not have to waste $30B if they can manage to blame the Democrats for it not happening. That's one example, I think, of the optics looking like Republicans not getting what they want, when really the problem is that they aren't actually agreed on what they want. I can see the party going a couple of different ways from here. It could split, with populists going one way and economic purists the other. Then the 3 parties can fight out which of them will fall out of our 2-party system. Or maybe they don't split. Maybe they find some kind of rocky compromise to coexist, the way the religious right and libertarians manage to coexist. Or maybe this is a flip like the Southern Strategy, and the Republicans will go down the populist road, and the elitists in the party will jump ship and join the Democrats. I don't think we really get clarity until 2020 at the earliest.
Both parties suck. This country has a huge problem in every area, but the people become less smarter by eating too much food to elect a bad president again, again, and again. When was the last time when a good president was elected in US?
I do not expect the populist GOP wing to last beyond Trump, they are only there because Trump promised them the moon. If he cannot deliver, which I do not think he can, there will be backlash against the GOP down the road.
Interesting question. i suppose the answer would vary depending on whether you asked republicans or Democrats. Republicans would all probably go back to Reagan. Democrats might say Obama or Clinton, and a few might go back to Kennedy.
Fiscal responsibility isn't a tenet of the Republican party any more than the Democrat party and when you have a life long Democrat as the Republican president....well what do you expect? The only reason the Republicans even pay lip service to fiscal responsibility is an effort to get the votes of conservative leaning Libertarians. When it comes down to it, the Republicans are no different from the Democrats.
Trump's success is a bit of cult of personality, and the dude is old. So, it makes sense to think that way. At the same time, we're facing growing economic inequality from the pressures of globalization, digitization, and automation. So, I still see a market for populism, or perhaps something similar like socialism.
They much more natural fit for populism would be on the Democrat side, not the the traditional GOP, although the Democrats do not have solution for the problem of globalization and technology advancement either at the moment.
Only Clinton and Reagan should be considered to be good presidents because they had an approval rate at >50%, which means that two were supported by both party people at a time. Obama was bad just as current one. Obama's 40% approval rate from >90% support from the black people, Trump's 40% approval rate is from his white people. That is not a way for selecting a president for a great country, but it is a bad reality.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx Obama's final approval rating was 59%.
Both Clinton and Reagan had their flaws, but they certainly look pretty good by comparison to the garbage we've had recently. When it comes to Clinton it's easy to point out the never ending scandals that plagued his presidency, but in the 2nd term he managed to work with a Republican congress that impeached him for the best interest of the country and is the last president that managed a budget surplus due to working with the Republicans. After 8 years of Obama it seems impossible to imagine a Democrat president working with a hostile opposition congress...so it makes Clinton look even that much better.
A problem is we can not have a better one who can be better than both of them. I just give up for the election right now.
That one does not mean much. His number was ~40% for years, I do not recall a few good thing that he has done for this country within eight years, except lots of vacations.
Stock Market Doubled. Unemployment was cut in half. He passed the most landmark piece of legislation since LBJ. I guess Facts don't matter.
I don't think job approval rating is a good approach, though Obama scores better on that metric than you give him credit for. But there isn't a lot that's rational in the job approval rating. But there's an ambiguity about what the benchmark is aside from how you measure it. I would say we've been blessed with a long line of highly competent people as president, and it's fickle of us to blame so many of our reversals on this one guy who has pretty limited abilities to affect outcomes. I think Obama was a great president stuck in a bad situation. I think Bush was probably the worst in recent history because of the unwise choice of invading Iraq and because of some of the unethical choices he made. But, he was also pretty astute and measured. Clinton was pretty effective though he had a way of making enemies. My appreciation for Bush Sr grows with the passage of time. I also hate Reagan less with the passage of time. Maybe these guys aren't super inspiring to you. But, what are you measuring them against? Do you see the kind of leadership they have in other countries? Putin subverting democracy and literally murdering people to maintain power. Erdogan reforming the Turkish constitution to consolidate power. Chavez and Maduro running their country into the ground in dramatic fashion. Mugabe, who destroyed agriculture in his country by expropriating land from the farmers who knew what they were doing. And that's just thinking of recent leaders, not the historic record. Point being, the international historic experience with national leaders should set the benchmark pretty low. I think I'd take an eternal string of Warren Hardings over having, say, Idi Amin as president.
