6 ms·

What an incredible moment in the history of a major political party in the US. Trump is the man for the GOP, and it's hard not to imagine that it doesn't mark t

What an incredible moment in the history of a major political party in the US. Trump is the man for the GOP, and it's hard not to imagine that it doesn't mark the beginning of the end of the GOP in some form, in the long run.

mkaziz 10y ago
Why would you say it's the beginning of the end? Maybe it's the beginning of a descent to a darker time pre-Civil Rights, where the Trumpian ideology is mainstream.
- gallonofmilk 10y ago
  Why would you say it's the beginning of a descent to a darker time pre-civil rights? What has Trump said that makes you think he will take away civil rights? Have you considered that a huge number of Americans have effectively spoken as he becomes the nominee?
  - jkmcf 10y ago
    The Republican party is the minority party, only ~29% of the population identify as such. A smaller % is actually registered, and a small percent of that (< 30%) actually vote in primaries. I would confidently say that a "huge" number of Americans did not choose Trump.
    - raincom 10y ago
      The same argument applies to any democrat primary candidate.
      - learc83 10y ago
        That's true, and if someone said that a huge number of Americans voiced support for Hillary Clinton based on her primary performance, I'd say they were wrong too.
  - learc83 10y ago
    >Have you considered that a huge number of Americans have effectively spoken as he becomes the nominee? That doesn't have anything to do with whether the OP's conjecture is correct. It could be that a huge number of Americans would welcome that change (not that I think they do). Also I wouldn't say a huge number of voters have spken. Trump has only gotten about 10 million votes [1]. That's more than any other republican nominee, but hardly a sizeable percentage of the country. >Why would you say it's the beginning of a descent to a darker time pre-civil rights? Trump said that he wants to: commit war crimes by murdering and torturing the civilian families of terrorists; ban all Muslims from entering the country; deport 3% of the country; and build a wall between us and Mexico. I can see how people are worried about a descent to a darker time. [1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/repub...
    - gallonofmilk 10y ago
      I feel like many people don't actually read or listen to what he is saying other than through soundbites... > commit war crimes by murdering and torturing the civilian families of terrorists. He has said that the terrorist groups don't play by any rules that civilized societies do and so we must crush them. War is ugly and nothing will change that. I think it's a stretch to say he wishes to "murder and torture" anyone. He is clearly saying we have to crush them. > ban all Muslims from entering the country This along with the next thing you say are the primary bits of conjecture that have been spun in the media to paint Trump as a bigot, racist, islamaphobe etc... If you again go back and listen to what he's talking about, you'll hear him say that he wants to TEMPORARILY ban all Muslims coming from certain regions of the world as refugees (syria, north africa, etc). He also uses Europe as an example of failed refugee policies where millions of people are flooding in and unfortunately that includes bad actors because there is no way to properly vet them. So no, he has never once said to "ban all muslims". He is saying we should not let refugee's in until we know how to vet them, handle them, ensure that they WILL assimilate, and not have what's going on in Europe happen. > deport 3% of the country; and build a wall between us and Mexico. We have millions of people in our country ILLEGALLY that leech off our social systems, don't contribute monetarily (taxes) and send their money back to their home countries. Many of them that come in illegally ARE affiliated with drugs, crime etc. Not all of them (as he said) but it doesn't matter. The question becomes at what point do we decide we are going to enforce our own laws or do we just abolish our laws completely? What is wrong with building a wall at our border? What do you say to the millions of people who come into our country legally and through the proper channels often taking time, and effort to come in? Almost every country in the world has some form of this including the United States. News flash: we already have walls in many places along the border. Ask anyone who grew up in a south western state where drug tunnels of increasing complexity are routinely discovered, or who has worked in a hospital where the illegals have their children whether or not it's a logical thing to build a wall and I think you'll get a consistent viewpoint. Again check the soundbite. He never once says "all Mexicans are rapists" as the idiot rioters in California (waving MEXICAN flags for heck sake) have tried to make you believe. edit: I don't agree with everything he says but especially the last two bits which are the primary reasons people have mislabeled him as racist, bigot etc, are simply not true. I do think people underestimate him greatly so we'll see what happens.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    Just every other thing he says? Let's pick at random - registration of Muslims, no same sex marriages, requesting mass surveillance, etc.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  That would be an end then, with the inevitable demographic shifting of the US over time.
trhway 10y ago
GOP has been selling "Washington establishment/insiders" hate-story to its electorate for a bunch of years, and finally that electorate bought it. One reaps what the one sows. Or something about the cake. Anyway, can't wait to see Bill back in the WH :)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bhouston 10y ago
  Hillary seems to be captured by special interest, almost completely so. She is loved by banks, defense companies and oil and gas companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=2008 https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N000... https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillarys-financial-armada-233033648.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillarys-financial-armada-2330336... http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/ http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clint... She supported the Iraq war, and opposed the recent deal with Iran. I am not sure what is a redeeming quality of Hillary as a democrat, she seems like an establishment GOP candidate in her positions, excluding social issues, more than anything.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    >I am not sure what is a redeeming quality of Hillary as a democrat, she seems like an establishment GOP candidate in her positions, excluding social issues, more than anything. You just said it yourself: social issues. That's the only thing where mainstream Dems and Reps differ. They use these "wedge issues" to give the illusion of differences between the parties and keep us distracted from the real issues.
steve19 10y ago
It won't end the GOP. At worst they will spend another 8 years outside the whitehouse, while a disgruntled population also throws them out of congress. The bug/feature of a two party system is that ~40% of the population (the non-swing voters) have no alternative to the GOP. Sigh, I lost some money on betting Trump would not being the nominee (so take my political acumen with a grain of salt)
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >Sigh, I lost some money on betting Trump would not being the nominee (so take my political acumen with a grain of salt) Trump is NOT the nominee. Not yet. He still hasn't gotten enough votes to become nominee, and if he doesn't, then they go to a brokered convention, where most likely Kasich will win. That's why Kasich is still in the race even though he has very few delegates. You may still win that bet.
  - r00fus 10y ago
    THe GOP would be stupid to throw away Trump's popularity with their base. They will do what they did in 1980: Marry the populist (Reagan) with an insider (Bush) and dog-whistle to their establishment that Trump won't make any really meaningful decisions (that aren't supported by the insiders). It's a tried and true winner. The last brokered convention was 50+ years ago without today's retail politics.
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      The problem with this idea is that they can't control Trump, and he's completely unpredictable. Reagan wasn't.
aaronbrethorst 10y ago
Not in the long run, today. At the very least, this is the end of the "three legged stool" Republican party that has existed since the 1980s. It's gone.

mkaziz 10y ago

Why would you say it's the beginning of the end? Maybe it's the beginning of a descent to a darker time pre-Civil Rights, where the Trumpian ideology is mainstream.

gallonofmilk 10y ago
Why would you say it's the beginning of a descent to a darker time pre-civil rights? What has Trump said that makes you think he will take away civil rights? Have you considered that a huge number of Americans have effectively spoken as he becomes the nominee?
- jkmcf 10y ago
  The Republican party is the minority party, only ~29% of the population identify as such. A smaller % is actually registered, and a small percent of that (< 30%) actually vote in primaries. I would confidently say that a "huge" number of Americans did not choose Trump.
  - raincom 10y ago
    The same argument applies to any democrat primary candidate.
    - learc83 10y ago
      That's true, and if someone said that a huge number of Americans voiced support for Hillary Clinton based on her primary performance, I'd say they were wrong too.
- learc83 10y ago
  >Have you considered that a huge number of Americans have effectively spoken as he becomes the nominee? That doesn't have anything to do with whether the OP's conjecture is correct. It could be that a huge number of Americans would welcome that change (not that I think they do). Also I wouldn't say a huge number of voters have spken. Trump has only gotten about 10 million votes [1]. That's more than any other republican nominee, but hardly a sizeable percentage of the country. >Why would you say it's the beginning of a descent to a darker time pre-civil rights? Trump said that he wants to: commit war crimes by murdering and torturing the civilian families of terrorists; ban all Muslims from entering the country; deport 3% of the country; and build a wall between us and Mexico. I can see how people are worried about a descent to a darker time. [1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/repub...
  - gallonofmilk 10y ago
    I feel like many people don't actually read or listen to what he is saying other than through soundbites... > commit war crimes by murdering and torturing the civilian families of terrorists. He has said that the terrorist groups don't play by any rules that civilized societies do and so we must crush them. War is ugly and nothing will change that. I think it's a stretch to say he wishes to "murder and torture" anyone. He is clearly saying we have to crush them. > ban all Muslims from entering the country This along with the next thing you say are the primary bits of conjecture that have been spun in the media to paint Trump as a bigot, racist, islamaphobe etc... If you again go back and listen to what he's talking about, you'll hear him say that he wants to TEMPORARILY ban all Muslims coming from certain regions of the world as refugees (syria, north africa, etc). He also uses Europe as an example of failed refugee policies where millions of people are flooding in and unfortunately that includes bad actors because there is no way to properly vet them. So no, he has never once said to "ban all muslims". He is saying we should not let refugee's in until we know how to vet them, handle them, ensure that they WILL assimilate, and not have what's going on in Europe happen. > deport 3% of the country; and build a wall between us and Mexico. We have millions of people in our country ILLEGALLY that leech off our social systems, don't contribute monetarily (taxes) and send their money back to their home countries. Many of them that come in illegally ARE affiliated with drugs, crime etc. Not all of them (as he said) but it doesn't matter. The question becomes at what point do we decide we are going to enforce our own laws or do we just abolish our laws completely? What is wrong with building a wall at our border? What do you say to the millions of people who come into our country legally and through the proper channels often taking time, and effort to come in? Almost every country in the world has some form of this including the United States. News flash: we already have walls in many places along the border. Ask anyone who grew up in a south western state where drug tunnels of increasing complexity are routinely discovered, or who has worked in a hospital where the illegals have their children whether or not it's a logical thing to build a wall and I think you'll get a consistent viewpoint. Again check the soundbite. He never once says "all Mexicans are rapists" as the idiot rioters in California (waving MEXICAN flags for heck sake) have tried to make you believe. edit: I don't agree with everything he says but especially the last two bits which are the primary reasons people have mislabeled him as racist, bigot etc, are simply not true. I do think people underestimate him greatly so we'll see what happens.
- viraptor 10y ago
  Just every other thing he says? Let's pick at random - registration of Muslims, no same sex marriages, requesting mass surveillance, etc.
Aelinsaar 10y ago
That would be an end then, with the inevitable demographic shifting of the US over time.

trhway 10y ago

GOP has been selling "Washington establishment/insiders" hate-story to its electorate for a bunch of years, and finally that electorate bought it. One reaps what the one sows. Or something about the cake. Anyway, can't wait to see Bill back in the WH :)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bhouston 10y ago
Hillary seems to be captured by special interest, almost completely so. She is loved by banks, defense companies and oil and gas companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=2008 https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N000... https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillarys-financial-armada-233033648.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillarys-financial-armada-2330336... http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/ http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clint... She supported the Iraq war, and opposed the recent deal with Iran. I am not sure what is a redeeming quality of Hillary as a democrat, she seems like an establishment GOP candidate in her positions, excluding social issues, more than anything.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >I am not sure what is a redeeming quality of Hillary as a democrat, she seems like an establishment GOP candidate in her positions, excluding social issues, more than anything. You just said it yourself: social issues. That's the only thing where mainstream Dems and Reps differ. They use these "wedge issues" to give the illusion of differences between the parties and keep us distracted from the real issues.

steve19 10y ago

It won't end the GOP. At worst they will spend another 8 years outside the whitehouse, while a disgruntled population also throws them out of congress. The bug/feature of a two party system is that ~40% of the population (the non-swing voters) have no alternative to the GOP. Sigh, I lost some money on betting Trump would not being the nominee (so take my political acumen with a grain of salt)

Grishnakh 10y ago
>Sigh, I lost some money on betting Trump would not being the nominee (so take my political acumen with a grain of salt) Trump is NOT the nominee. Not yet. He still hasn't gotten enough votes to become nominee, and if he doesn't, then they go to a brokered convention, where most likely Kasich will win. That's why Kasich is still in the race even though he has very few delegates. You may still win that bet.
- r00fus 10y ago
  THe GOP would be stupid to throw away Trump's popularity with their base. They will do what they did in 1980: Marry the populist (Reagan) with an insider (Bush) and dog-whistle to their establishment that Trump won't make any really meaningful decisions (that aren't supported by the insiders). It's a tried and true winner. The last brokered convention was 50+ years ago without today's retail politics.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    The problem with this idea is that they can't control Trump, and he's completely unpredictable. Reagan wasn't.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago

Not in the long run, today. At the very least, this is the end of the "three legged stool" Republican party that has existed since the 1980s. It's gone.