Where to for the republicans now

[barbos]

I agree with this.

The difference though is that Trump will be the megaphone for people to judge the GOP performance by. Bush knew how to watch is mouth and be careful with how he presented himself. One of the reasons he won over Kerry was the latter inability to keep his mouth shut. I think the reason people voted for Trump despite far worse behavior is rather complicated, but unique in it's circumstances.

Trump will be very different. When things don't go his way, he'll throw tantrums; when people don't agree with him, he'll throw them out; when the media reports negatively on him, he'll revoke their press cards. The guy is literally the most unhinged person that has ever come into our politics. He is still running his head on Twitter as we talk about him.

The only question is, will the Democrats capitalize on it in 2018?

If Trump proves too intractable and unreliable, I wonder if the GOP would dig some dirt up, impeach him and then just follow Pence as the POTUS like they've always wanted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ade-another-forecast-trump-will-be-impeached/
Professor who predicted Trump election, agrees with you.

 

[LordKiran]

And yet the challenge remains, if you can point out one time she specifically voted for or passed legislature with the advancement or well-being of LGBT America in mind I will retract my previous statements.

I actually respect people more who are less dogmatic and rigid and are willing to change their opinion. I've also evolved on gay marriage. I fully support it now. Gay rights are going to be under great stress by the next administration, I wouldn't start alienating allies at this time.

It's not that I think people can't change but more I don't believe her to be genuine in her support.

 

[credoconsolans]

Exactly.

If Clinton won, that would have taught the GOP a lesson. That bogging down our government with their partisan obstructionism was not going to be tolerated by the American people who simply wanted them to do their jobs, not play 'let's keep our power at all costs'. That tail wagging the dog distractions like email non-scandals and dead horse Benghazi events were non-events and not crucial to them doing their jobs and that Americans were tired of their antics.

Instead, the Trump supporters rewarded them for their partisan politics and told them this is the way to hold onto to power. To block any opposition for anything for partisan reasons and no other reason. To not seek a compromise.

Obama offered a moderate Supreme Court justice nominee. Not a radical liberal left-winger. The Republicans ignored him because if they won after the election, they wouldn't have to compromise at all.

Compromise is the foundation of how our bgovernment works.

Trump supporters just destroyed it.

It's sickening.

The problem with that quick-and-easy analysis is that the party leadership doesn't like Trump. Not even a little. Sure they're happy that Hillary lost, and that a Republican is holding the White House, but they really do not like that it is that particular Republican.

They are in for their own soul-searching over the fact that the public face of the party and the leadership of the party are very seriously at odds with each other, practically can't stand each other.

Yes, but they don't care. Trump as president will fall back to his position as enforcer of laws, and the Congress will go back to doing their job which is actually running the country. He'll be just a figure head, doing twitter nights, outrageous grocery store openings, entertaining his supporters with bread and circuses while the House gets everything it wants with Trump there to greenlight whatever they want.

They no longer have to worry about someone with a brain and opposite opinions vetoing their bills.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you care about gay rights and didn't vote for Clinton, you have failed as a voter.

There's that lack of introspection I talked about in the Democrat thread that is counterpart to this one.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If you care about gay rights and didn't vote for Clinton, you have failed as a voter.

There's that lack of introspection I talked about in the Democrat thread that is counterpart to this one.

Well, would you be surprised if gay rights suffers a set back under the Trump administration?

 

[LordKiran]

There's that lack of introspection I talked about in the Democrat thread that is counterpart to this one.

Well, would you be surprised if gay rights suffers a set back under the Trump administration?

Nope, but then that's beside the point. Point being that I have no more reason to believe HRC is sincere in her support for the LGBT community than I do Trump.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, would you be surprised if gay rights suffers a set back under the Trump administration?

Nope, but then that's beside the point. Point being that I have no more reason to believe HRC is sincere in her support for the LGBT community than I do Trump.

What bullshit! HRC supports gay marriage. Period. End of story. Most democrats agree with her. The real president will be Mike Pence. Pence favors throwing gay couples in jail for 12 months:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/12/rachel-maddow-emotional-mike-pence

 

[LordKiran]

Nope, but then that's beside the point. Point being that I have no more reason to believe HRC is sincere in her support for the LGBT community than I do Trump.

What bullshit! HRC supports gay marriage. Period. End of story. Most democrats agree with her. The real president will be Mike Pence. Pence favors throwing gay couples in jail for 12 months:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/12/rachel-maddow-emotional-mike-pence

HRC supports gay marraige in the same way Trump supports the LGBT community: we only have their words to go on, I challenged the people here to name one time her support took the form of tangible action and I have yet to get a response. It's easy for people to promise that they're on your side when nobody actually calls them to task.

 

[skepticalbip]

What bullshit! HRC supports gay marriage. Period. End of story. Most democrats agree with her. The real president will be Mike Pence. Pence favors throwing gay couples in jail for 12 months:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/12/rachel-maddow-emotional-mike-pence

HRC supports gay marraige in the same way Trump supports the LGBT community: we only have their words to go on, I challenged the people here to name one time her support took the form of tangible action and I have yet to get a response. It's easy for people to promise that they're on your side when nobody actually calls them to task.

And Clinton's biggest problem in convincing anyone of her positions was that her stated position on any issue was dependent on the group she was addressing. That and the fact that she seldom stated any specifics, only broad generalities that could be interpreted many ways. The fact that she is known to have said that a politician needs to have both a public position and a personal position didn't help either. I think that most of her supporters only assumed that what they wanted was what Clinton held as her position (projection).

 

[Harry Bosch]

What bullshit! HRC supports gay marriage. Period. End of story. Most democrats agree with her. The real president will be Mike Pence. Pence favors throwing gay couples in jail for 12 months:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/12/rachel-maddow-emotional-mike-pence

HRC supports gay marraige in the same way Trump supports the LGBT community: we only have their words to go on, I challenged the people here to name one time her support took the form of tangible action and I have yet to get a response. It's easy for people to promise that they're on your side when nobody actually calls them to task.

What you and Skepticalbip fail to understand is that when you vote for a president, you are getting their entire team. You want to focus on the guys at the top, and forget about their staff. I will grant you that Trump is pretty supportive of gay rights. However, the rest of his team (which will comprise of almost 5,000 staff are wackos! Read for yourself what Pence has to say. How about Michelle Bachman. How about Newt? You may not like HRC, but her staff most likely would have included Kaine, Warren, Sanders, and many others.

Regardless. I say that we bookmark this silly argument. Let's compare the Trump administration's actions on gay rights in six months compared Obama. I hate to say it, but I think that you will be very surprised.

 

[skepticalbip]

HRC supports gay marraige in the same way Trump supports the LGBT community: we only have their words to go on, I challenged the people here to name one time her support took the form of tangible action and I have yet to get a response. It's easy for people to promise that they're on your side when nobody actually calls them to task.

What you and Skepticalbip fail to understand is that when you vote for a president, you are getting their entire team. You want to focus on the guys at the top, and forget about their staff. I will grant you that Trump is pretty supportive of gay rights. However, the rest of his team (which will comprise of almost 5,000 staff are wackos! Read for yourself what Pence has to say. How about Michelle Bachman. How about Newt? You may not like HRC, but her staff most likely would have included Kaine, Warren, Sanders, and many others.

Regardless. I say that we bookmark this silly argument. Let's compare the Trump administration's actions on gay rights in six months compared Obama. I hate to say it, but I think that you will be very surprised.

That is one hell of a mistaken assumption. Why the fuck would you think that we don't understand that a new President will bring in their own cabinet and department heads?

 

[Harry Bosch]

What you and Skepticalbip fail to understand is that when you vote for a president, you are getting their entire team. You want to focus on the guys at the top, and forget about their staff. I will grant you that Trump is pretty supportive of gay rights. However, the rest of his team (which will comprise of almost 5,000 staff are wackos! Read for yourself what Pence has to say. How about Michelle Bachman. How about Newt? You may not like HRC, but her staff most likely would have included Kaine, Warren, Sanders, and many others.

Regardless. I say that we bookmark this silly argument. Let's compare the Trump administration's actions on gay rights in six months compared Obama. I hate to say it, but I think that you will be very surprised.

That is one hell of a mistaken assumption. Why the fuck would you think that we don't understand that a new President will bring in their own cabinet and department heads?

First off, it's not just the cabinet and department heads. It's an entire staff. I could be wrong, but I believe that Obama's staff was around 5,000.

My assumption comes from that you tend to always describe the choice as being binary: HRC vs Trump. But the choice is really between the democratic party and the republican party. But if I'm wrong about you, I'll withdraw my statement.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is one hell of a mistaken assumption. Why the fuck would you think that we don't understand that a new President will bring in their own cabinet and department heads?

First off, it's not just the cabinet and department heads. It's an entire staff. I could be wrong, but I believe that Obama's staff was around 5,000.

My assumption comes from that you tend to always describe the choice as being binary: HRC vs Trump. But the choice is really between the democratic party and the republican party. But if I'm wrong about you, I'll withdraw my statement.

You are the one that was trying to convince me that the choice was binary. If you will remember, I voted for Johnson.

As far as the staff, who cares who the driver, receptionist, tour guides, cook, secretaries, librarian, speech writers, researchers, maids, lawn care people, travel staff, publicity people, etc. etc. are? The new people who are brought in that will effect life in the US are the cabinet members and department heads. And given that we don't have a clue what Clinton's real agenda is, there is no way to even guess who she would have appointed - given her record of piss-poor decision making. that could be a bit scary.

 

[LordKiran]

First off, it's not just the cabinet and department heads. It's an entire staff. I could be wrong, but I believe that Obama's staff was around 5,000.

My assumption comes from that you tend to always describe the choice as being binary: HRC vs Trump. But the choice is really between the democratic party and the republican party. But if I'm wrong about you, I'll withdraw my statement.

You are the one that was trying to convince me that the choice was binary. If you will remember, I voted for Johnson.

As far as the staff, who cares who the driver, receptionist, tour guides, cook, secretaries, librarian, speech writers, researchers, maids, lawn care people, travel staff, publicity people, etc. etc. are? The new people who are brought in that will effect life in the US are the cabinet members and department heads. And given that we don't have a clue what Clinton's real agenda is, there is no way to even guess who she would have appointed - given her record of piss-poor decision making. that could be a bit scary.

To add to this, I feel the need to reiterate that what Donald's stances are completely beside the point.

 

[Harry Bosch]

First off, it's not just the cabinet and department heads. It's an entire staff. I could be wrong, but I believe that Obama's staff was around 5,000.

My assumption comes from that you tend to always describe the choice as being binary: HRC vs Trump. But the choice is really between the democratic party and the republican party. But if I'm wrong about you, I'll withdraw my statement.

You are the one that was trying to convince me that the choice was binary. If you will remember, I voted for Johnson.

As far as the staff, who cares who the driver, receptionist, tour guides, cook, secretaries, librarian, speech writers, researchers, maids, lawn care people, travel staff, publicity people, etc. etc. are? The new people who are brought in that will effect life in the US are the cabinet members and department heads. And given that we don't have a clue what Clinton's real agenda is, there is no way to even guess who she would have appointed - given her record of piss-poor decision making. that could be a bit scary.

So you think that the political appointees are all drivers and cooks? To steal a line from Trump: Sad.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are the one that was trying to convince me that the choice was binary. If you will remember, I voted for Johnson.

As far as the staff, who cares who the driver, receptionist, tour guides, cook, secretaries, librarian, speech writers, researchers, maids, lawn care people, travel staff, publicity people, etc. etc. are? The new people who are brought in that will effect life in the US are the cabinet members and department heads. And given that we don't have a clue what Clinton's real agenda is, there is no way to even guess who she would have appointed - given her record of piss-poor decision making. that could be a bit scary.

So you think that the political appointees are all drivers and cooks? To steal a line from Trump: Sad.

The only appointees that anyone needs to be concerned with are the ones that are actually involved in governance.

Specifically which staff political appointees are you talking about other than cabinet and department heads. Press secretary (who is not involved in governance but more involved with the speech writers and publicity people)?

 

[Harry Bosch]

So you think that the political appointees are all drivers and cooks? To steal a line from Trump: Sad.

The only appointees that anyone needs to be concerned with are the ones that are actually involved in governance.

Specifically which staff political appointees are you talking about other than cabinet and department heads. Press secretary (who is not involved in governance but more involved with the speech writers and publicity people)?

Again, there are thousands of important people in the executive branch. On such important group is the Council on Environmental Quality. The current managing director is Christy Goldfuss.

Christy Goldfuss serves as Managing Director at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Her group is responsible for setting the president's environmental and energy policies. I've been working with a couple of her staffers with a nonprofit that I'm involved with. Anyway, to make a long story short her staff are very pro environment and pro science. Her entire group will soon be replaced with a bunch of religious wackos with no belief in science.

 

[blastula]

OMG! It's the purity police! Do you have a clue about what was going on in 2004? Gay marriage was only supported by 30% of the country then. It was a very successful wedge issue at the time. There were anti-gay marriage bills on several states that year that helped bring out the evangelical vote for Bush, it may even have made the difference.

And did you even listen to what she was saying? She was arguing against a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage AND WHICH SHE VOTED AGAINST.

When Obama ran in 2008, he wasn't publicly for gay marriage neither, OH HORRORS! But he came around to help gay rights in a lot of ways. Yes, Clinton wasn't a trailblazer on gay marriage, but she is fully on board the right side now and would have done so much more for that cause than what is now going to be likely reversals on gay rights in the Trump administration. It's possible he could get enough Supreme Court nominations to reverse Obergfell. Gay rights and so much more could be rolled back for a generation.

Someone once said that a friend to everybody is a friend to nobody. I think that applies to HRC pretty well actually.

You know who's not a friend to the gay rights cause? Anyone who didn't support Clinton against Trump.

If you care about gay rights and didn't vote for Clinton, you have failed as a voter.

BUT CLINTON SAID THAT THING ONE TIME YEARS AGO!!! AND THE EMAILS!!@!!%! SHE SENT EMAILS!*!#$!!

So what? In the end, she clearly believes in the sanctity of marriage as defined as a union between one man and woman, voting against such an amendment ultimately doesn't matter given there could be other reasons for that as these decisions aren't made in a bubble. HRC could have had problems with the constitutionality of such an amendment and the precedent it sets to allow faith to dictate policy.

What do you mean, so what? She voted the right way for gay rights. You think it's not good enough because you need some kind of metaphysical connection with her soul. Get over yourself, it's not all about you. You're not voting for a soulmate. You should be voting for someone to implement policies you like.

And it is virtually guaranteed that had she been elected, she would have maintained present gay rights and expanded them. When she was Secretary of State, she implemented non-discrimination policies in her Dept. Obama implemented the same throughout federal government in benefits and hiring and contractors. All that could easily be reversed now. Gay rights is popular now with Democrats, it was not in the early 2000s. If she switched to being for gay marriage (like most every other Dem has had to do) because of popular opinion, that works because popular opinion is on the right side now.

Again, the point isn't that she hates gay people, the point is she never actually stuck up for us so I have no real reason to think she is being sincere when she claims to now.

You know who is sincerely against gay rights? Mike Pence and the Heritage Foundation. Trump has promised to appoint Heritage Foundation approved judges. They could very well overturn not just Obergefell but several other civil rights decisions. If you knew anything about this, the choice was obvious.

I say this assuming you didn't support Clinton. If you did, given your misgivings, then good for you. If you didn't, then you have failed the gay rights cause.