A Few Thoughts

[Kathianne]

To my way of thinking, this board is generally a microcosm of the conservative base of GOP. Some of us pull one way, others another. Basically we want the same things, but we disagree on the methods. In reality, we do reflect what's been going on with the GOP for many years.

Some want to somehow turn the party into one that can make the federal government reflect their values and beliefs, turning those into laws that will ensure that their will be done. They want a strong federal government that reflects their values. They want their values encoded in law.

Others want the federal government to be fundamentally changed returned to something restricted by checks and balances and a federated system as laid out in the Constitution-something it hasn't been since the Civil War. Pretty much the federal government should be limited to war, borders, interstate issues, coinage, treaties, etc.

A split is inevitable methinks. Unlike the Democrats we are not going to somehow come to the meeting of the minds.

Trump isn't the problem, his statements and themes have caused those schisms to show themselves and YES the democrats are enjoying this. Conservatives? Not so much.

I'm pretty sure, have actually thought so for at least 3 election cycles, that there is going to be a 3rd party.

Here's an article related to this line of thought-forget the title, this is not being posted as a 'Trump sucks' post. While Trump may be the lightening rod, he's a symptom-not the cause. The rift is likely to cause a 3rd party, it would happen whether he's there or not:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...html?nopager=1

Donald Trump, a One-Man Wedge Issue, Threatens GOP Future

9:50 AM, AUG 10, 2015 • BY FRED BARNES

Republicans have been slow in recognizing the real damage Donald Trump is doing to their party. The harm is not to the party’s image. What Trump has done is exacerbate the increasingly bitter rift between the party’s leaders and its grass roots. He’s made the GOP’s future dicey.


The quarter of the Republican electorate Trump has attracted consists largely of this alienated group. Since he voices their resentment of Republican elites – especially their arch-enemies in Congress – he’s become their champion. And champions are hard to dethrone.

Trump doesn’t have to run as an independent to be a serious troublemaker. As long as he stays in the GOP race, the split in the party is likely to deepen and primaries may turn into nasty and divisive contests. And imagine if he wins enough delegates to disrupt the Republican convention by making demands. The media would again make him the center of attention.

“The Republican party created Donald Trump, because they made lot of promises to their base and never kept them,” Erick Erickson, the conservative editor of RedState, told Molly Ball of the Atlantic.

Erickson is right. “At this point, most of the people I encounter on radio and on the internet, they’re not really people who at the end of the day want to vote for Donald Trump,” Erickson said. “But they sure do like that he’s burning down the Republican Party that never listened to them to begin with.”

...

[Kathianne]

To clarify, if this rift does cause a 3rd party rise, the left wing of the Democrat party is going to remain in office for several cycles, barring something catastrophic.

[Gunny]

To clarify, if this rift does cause a 3rd party rise, the left wing of the Democrat party is going to remain in office for several cycles, barring something catastrophic.

Marine response: can we kill them?

[Kathianne]

Just maybe, this is the time for the split? There's never a 'safe' time for big changes, but perhaps the thinking of waiting for safe has been wrong all along?

I may be wrong, but this time to me seems the US is facing its most dire times since the Civil War. At that time the Republican Party was just born and near immediately became a force-one that won that war.

It maybe that we are in just such a decisive time and the arguments must be made and sides chosen. Hopefully we'll survive and someday fences will mend.

[Kathianne]

Marine response: can we kill them?

I'd rather see our government killing or impoverishing our enemies than fellow citizens.

[fj1200]

Marine response: can we kill them?

[Kathianne]

I miss Burn Notice!

[Kathianne]

Now I'm not saying that the thought of more Obama terms is tickling me, remember this? 2nd term inauguration speech:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/0...ain-4/?print=1

Neville Again: Obama Promises ‘Peace in Our Time’Posted By Ed Driscoll On January 22, 2013
No longer content to compare himself with Jimmy Carter, Mr. Obama has moved on to quoting Neville Chamberlain in his speeches, promising a war weary nation “peace in our time,” Joel Pollack writes at Big Peace. What could go wrong this time?

It was either an embarrassing slip, or a frightening revelation of the president’s true worldview. Either way, the words “peace in our time,” made infamous by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as he promised an illusory peace with Adolf Hitler in 1938, should never have been in President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address. Yet they were, and went virtually unnoticed until caught by conservatives on social media.


The phrase appeared in a passage on foreign policy, in which the president pledged to defend the nation while resolving differences peacefully [emphasis added]:

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice–not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

Where’s his umbrella?



Beyond that, comparisons between the America left today and the appeasement-oriented England of the 1930s, I just can’t see it myself…

...

[Perianne]

My daughter asked me about the Trump issue last night, and I explained it this way:

I believe many Republicans see Trump as a savior to the values they hold. Yes, he has his own problems and is not a true conservative, but he is espousing many of the values conservatives hold dear. No one else is doing what he is doing, at least not in the same way.

When someone attacks Trump, these conservatives view it as a personal attack upon their own core values. As such, they respond with indignation.


I believe the Republican party has handled Trump very inappropriately. Look at this forum, for example. There is thread after thread about how terrible Trump is. While I personally can see both sides about Trump, there came a point to where I got tired of the (what I considered) trolling. With each new thread and the endless posts about how goofy Trump supporters might be, the people who share his stated values became more annoyed with the two main Trump antagonists. At some point it's gonna spill over and someone is gonna get angry.

Just my opinion.

[fj1200]

... a savior to the values they hold. ... is not a true conservative, ... the values conservatives hold dear.

What values would those be?

[Kathianne]

My daughter asked me about the Trump issue last night, and I explained it this way:

I believe many Republicans see Trump as a savior to the values they hold. Yes, he has his own problems and is not a true conservative, but he is espousing many of the values conservatives hold dear. No one else is doing what he is doing, at least not in the same way.

When someone attacks Trump, these conservatives view it as a personal attack upon their own core values. As such, they respond with indignation.


I believe the Republican party has handled Trump very inappropriately. Look at this forum, for example. There is thread after thread about how terrible Trump is. While I personally can see both sides about Trump, there came a point to where I got tired of the (what I considered) trolling. With each new thread and the endless posts about how goofy Trump supporters might be, the people who share his stated values became more annoyed with the two main Trump antagonists. At some point it's gonna spill over and someone is gonna get angry.

Just my opinion.

You're right. That's how his supporters see any criticism. The other side sees it as a response to things he's said and done. His supporters hear one thing, others see the hypocrisies. His supporters see 'firebrand', others see 'destruction without thought.'

Therein lies the schism which he reflects. What's sad is that we are all wanting many of the same things and see the dangers our current elite have given or rather not given.

What values would those be?

What I think they want to show by supporting Trump is validation that they have been unheard by their own party leadership for a long time, perhaps forever.

I'd like to think that they see liberals as a bigger threat, but after the debate reaction I'm thinking they are much more angry at the political elite of their own party. FOX would be part and parcel of that elite.

[fj1200]

What I think they want to show by supporting Trump is validation that they have been unheard by their own party leadership for a long time, perhaps forever.

I'd like to think that they see liberals as a bigger threat, but after the debate reaction I'm thinking they are much more angry at the political elite of their own party. FOX would be part and parcel of that elite.

There are more rational candidates it seems to me with far superior, and actual, conservative credentials that could use the support. I fear that there are too many who just glom on to the "talk first, 'splain later (or not at all)" ethos.

To me this all speaks to the need to educate the populace on actual conservative values even to those who already support the party. It's startling to me that even Fox is starting to anger the same people who would reliably rise to defend them before.

[Perianne]

What values would those be?

No explanation would be acceptable to those who have to ask. I personally can say that he took the firmest stance on illegal immigration. He made it front and center and for me that is enough to give him some support.

[Kathianne]

There are more rational candidates it seems to me with far superior, and actual, conservative credentials that could use the support. I fear that there are too many who just glom on to the "talk first, 'splain later (or not at all)" ethos.

To me this all speaks to the need to educate the populace on actual conservative values even to those who already support the party. It's startling to me that even Fox is starting to anger the same people who would reliably rise to defend them before.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here. We seem though to be a minority among this board, which as I said in the beginning is a microcosm of the conservative base. I'm not by nature 'extreme' in much, including politics. I am however conservative. I'm closer to libertarian in thinking than 'party.' Truth is, parties are about the elite, not governing.

I think those supporting Trump are 'principled' in their beliefs. Repeating myself here, they want their values and beliefs encoded in laws. Those strong in party are fighting for that. Doesn't matter which party, that's their ultimate goal.

[fj1200]

No explanation would be acceptable to those who have to ask. I personally can say that he took the firmest stance on illegal immigration. He made it front and center and for me that is enough to give him some support.

That's a cop out. Besides, others took just as firm a stance they just didn't do it so bombastically.