Where to for the republicans now

[credoconsolans]

Yea, it's going to be a tough four years. Prior to Nov 8, I assumed that Trump would lose, and it would split the republican party in two. But now it appears that they are unifying, and we are getting split.

Such is the price for complacency and arrogance. Really the writing for this was on the wall as far back as the primaries.

It was complacency to expect that our nation was not filled with bigots, sexist pigs, blinkered loyalists and under-educated gullibles too simple minded to see through lies?

Who refused to accept reason?

Who rejected facts and the presidency being a position needing a person of quality and education and intelligence to run it?

It was complacency that we shouldn't have expected most of voting America to be vapidly stupid?

Wow.

 

[LordKiran]

Such is the price for complacency and arrogance. Really the writing for this was on the wall as far back as the primaries.

It was complacency to expect that our nation was not filled with bigots, sexist pigs, blinkered loyalists and under-educated gullibles too simple minded to see through lies?

Who refused to accept reason?

Who rejected facts and the presidency being a position needing a person of quality and education and intelligence to run it?

It was complacency that we shouldn't have expected most of voting America to be vapidly stupid?

Wow.

Yes. It was also arrogance to assume that pulling the rug out of young voters who are overwhelmingly left-leaning but also difficult to motivate wouldn't have consequences.
It's also really hard to take Hillary seriously when she claims to stand up for LGBT rights even when there's video evidence of her true regressive views. In that way she's a lot like Trump. She'll lie right to your face and expect you to buy it.

 

[credoconsolans]

It was complacency to expect that our nation was not filled with bigots, sexist pigs, blinkered loyalists and under-educated gullibles too simple minded to see through lies?

Who refused to accept reason?

Who rejected facts and the presidency being a position needing a person of quality and education and intelligence to run it?

It was complacency that we shouldn't have expected most of voting America to be vapidly stupid?

Wow.

Yes. It was also arrogance to assume that pulling the rug out of young voters who are overwhelmingly left-leaning but also difficult to motivate wouldn't have consequences.
It's also really hard to take Hillary seriously when she claims to stand up for LGBT rights even when there's video evidence of her true regressive views. In that way she's a lot like Trump. She'll lie right to your face and expect you to buy it.

Republicans did that to younger voters when they passed laws to force them to return to their home towns to vote.

People change their minds and if not their minds, then their actions. People can still think gay people are sinners who are going to burn in hell, but still allow them equal rights.

 

[LordKiran]

Yes. It was also arrogance to assume that pulling the rug out of young voters who are overwhelmingly left-leaning but also difficult to motivate wouldn't have consequences.
It's also really hard to take Hillary seriously when she claims to stand up for LGBT rights even when there's video evidence of her true regressive views. In that way she's a lot like Trump. She'll lie right to your face and expect you to buy it.

Republicans did that to younger voters when they passed laws to force them to return to their home towns to vote.

People change their minds and if not their minds, then their actions. People can still think gay people are sinners who are going to burn in hell, but still allow them equal rights.

Somehow I doubt Hillary lost Penn and Wisc because of voter suppression against young voters.

And it just so happens that this change of heart in regards to HRC's core beliefs coincided with her second presidential bid. Right.

 

[Juma]

It's also really hard to take Hillary seriously when she claims to stand up for LGBT rights even when there's video evidence of her true regressive views.

Are there? Can you give examples?

 

[LordKiran]

It's also really hard to take Hillary seriously when she claims to stand up for LGBT rights even when there's video evidence of her true regressive views.

Are there? Can you give examples?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM

This is one of Hillary's biggest detriments and part of why she fails as a candidate. She's the stereotypical politician with a mask for all occasions. She can stand for the sanctity of marriage when she thinks it will play to a conservative constituency. She can then also stand for LGBT rights and marriage equality when the social landscape changes.

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

Let me ask you something. Can you point to anything HRC has done between this video and her bid for the 2016 election that has directly and purposefully benefited the LGBT community? If you can, I will retract my previous assertion that HRC sees the LGBT community as a means to an end, a stepping stone to the presidency.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When Mitt Romney lost 4 years ago, the GOP famously did an analysis of what went wrong and what they could do moving forward to strengthen their party. After the "autopsy" was published, they set about completely ignoring all the conclusions and recommendations.

This time around, they won. They will not look inward as they did in the aftermath of 2012. They won, so they don't feel the need to examine anything let alone change. If anything, their victory will make them even more intractable. They'll tell themselves that obstructionism was successful. That their economic program of "starve the beast" is what people really want. Of course they'll gut Obamacare as promised but won't replace it with anything, and they'll set about trying to roll back any minority outreach they may have tepidly attempted because by gosh white America still loves them.

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.

 

[Sea of red]

There's a reason we didn't choose Clinton in 2008. She is just simply a chameleon that will morph into whatever she has to in order to further herself. She doesn't care about gay-rights, abortion rights, climate change, the poor, minorities, or preserving a secular society. A Democrat In Name Only describes her perfectly.

As for Trump, he won't last very long. He can't control himself on fucking Twitter, much less represent his party for four years. His meltdowns will become more unhinged, he'll make enemies left and right, and his plans will be comedic failures. He will taint the GOP image. It says a lot about the Republicans that their best candidate could not get more votes than the Democrats worst candidate.

 

[Ford]

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.

I was having a conversation with someone at work today which puts this into perspective. He's friends with our boss, but also at odds with someone associated with a very important client. After an incident with this someone, the boss sat him down and said in no uncertain terms "if it comes down to a choice between you and (the client), you'll be fired in an instant."

That's the mindset of the GOP. I'm surprised that you - an unrepentant libertarian - don't understand this mind set.

The party leadership doesn't like Trump, but he's put them over the top. If you're a stalwart old guard Republican who stands on principle against Trump, the party will fuck you six ways to Sunday. They won't hesitate. Trump led them to victory and that's all they care about. Whether they like him or not is utterly, completely irrelevant.


They didn't particularly like Mitt Romney. They grudgingly accepted him because he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. They fucking hated McCain, but he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. When Trump became the nominee, Republicans who swore up and down that he was the worst thing that ever happened to their party lined up to support him. Now that he's won, they'll be 100 percent behind him, and anyone who breaks ranks will be fired in an instant.

 

[Juma]

Are there? Can you give examples?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

This is one of Hillary's biggest detriments and part of why she fails as a candidate. She's the stereotypical politician with a mask for all occasions. She can stand for the sanctity of marriage when she thinks it will play to a conservative constituency. She can then also stand for LGBT rights and marriage equality when the social landscape changes.

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

Let me ask you something. Can you point to anything HRC has done between this video and her bid for the 2016 election that has directly and purposefully benefited the LGBT community? If you can, I will retract my previous assertion that HRC sees the LGBT community as a means to an end, a stepping stone to the presidency.

To me her statement in the video (which is quite old) shows her displaying a great amount if political integrity: this was the political standpoint. What she felt personally towards gay friends that married was a totally another point.(she has been very supportive).
And she has changed her political standpoint since this video.

[speculation]
I think that you can hear from the overly bombastic wording "foundamental foundation" etc that she are loosing/already lost the real belief in what she says about marriage but she just hasnt come to terms with it.
[/speculation]

 

[Sea of red]

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.

I was having a conversation with someone at work today which puts this into perspective. He's friends with our boss, but also at odds with someone associated with a very important client. After an incident with this someone, the boss sat him down and said in no uncertain terms "if it comes down to a choice between you and (the client), you'll be fired in an instant."

That's the mindset of the GOP. I'm surprised that you - an unrepentant libertarian - don't understand this mind set.

The party leadership doesn't like Trump, but he's put them over the top. If you're a stalwart old guard Republican who stands on principle against Trump, the party will fuck you six ways to Sunday. They won't hesitate. Trump led them to victory and that's all they care about. Whether they like him or not is utterly, completely irrelevant.


They didn't particularly like Mitt Romney. They grudgingly accepted him because he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. They fucking hated McCain, but he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. When Trump became the nominee, Republicans who swore up and down that he was the worst thing that ever happened to their party lined up to support him. Now that he's won, they'll be 100 percent behind him, and anyone who breaks ranks will be fired in an instant.

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?

 

[nightwyrm]

I was having a conversation with someone at work today which puts this into perspective. He's friends with our boss, but also at odds with someone associated with a very important client. After an incident with this someone, the boss sat him down and said in no uncertain terms "if it comes down to a choice between you and (the client), you'll be fired in an instant."

That's the mindset of the GOP. I'm surprised that you - an unrepentant libertarian - don't understand this mind set.

The party leadership doesn't like Trump, but he's put them over the top. If you're a stalwart old guard Republican who stands on principle against Trump, the party will fuck you six ways to Sunday. They won't hesitate. Trump led them to victory and that's all they care about. Whether they like him or not is utterly, completely irrelevant.


They didn't particularly like Mitt Romney. They grudgingly accepted him because he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. They fucking hated McCain, but he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. When Trump became the nominee, Republicans who swore up and down that he was the worst thing that ever happened to their party lined up to support him. Now that he's won, they'll be 100 percent behind him, and anyone who breaks ranks will be fired in an instant.

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.

 

[blastula]

Are there? Can you give examples?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM

This is one of Hillary's biggest detriments and part of why she fails as a candidate. She's the stereotypical politician with a mask for all occasions. She can stand for the sanctity of marriage when she thinks it will play to a conservative constituency. She can then also stand for LGBT rights and marriage equality when the social landscape changes.

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!*!#$!!

 

[LordKiran]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM

This is one of Hillary's biggest detriments and part of why she fails as a candidate. She's the stereotypical politician with a mask for all occasions. She can stand for the sanctity of marriage when she thinks it will play to a conservative constituency. She can then also stand for LGBT rights and marriage equality when the social landscape changes.

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.

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.

 

[LordKiran]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

This is one of Hillary's biggest detriments and part of why she fails as a candidate. She's the stereotypical politician with a mask for all occasions. She can stand for the sanctity of marriage when she thinks it will play to a conservative constituency. She can then also stand for LGBT rights and marriage equality when the social landscape changes.

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

Let me ask you something. Can you point to anything HRC has done between this video and her bid for the 2016 election that has directly and purposefully benefited the LGBT community? If you can, I will retract my previous assertion that HRC sees the LGBT community as a means to an end, a stepping stone to the presidency.

To me her statement in the video (which is quite old) shows her displaying a great amount if political integrity: this was the political standpoint. What she felt personally towards gay friends that married was a totally another point.(she has been very supportive).
And she has changed her political standpoint since this video.

[speculation]
I think that you can hear from the overly bombastic wording "foundamental foundation" etc that she are loosing/already lost the real belief in what she says about marriage but she just hasnt come to terms with it.
[/speculation]

Again if HRC was sincere in her support of the LGBT community then her record should show it.

 

[Juma]

To me her statement in the video (which is quite old) shows her displaying a great amount if political integrity: this was the political standpoint. What she felt personally towards gay friends that married was a totally another point.(she has been very supportive).
And she has changed her political standpoint since this video.

[speculation]
I think that you can hear from the overly bombastic wording "foundamental foundation" etc that she are loosing/already lost the real belief in what she says about marriage but she just hasnt come to terms with it.
[/speculation]

Again if HRC was sincere in her support of the LGBT community then her record should show it.

What? She has supported same-gender marriage since 2013. What do you want?

 

[Juma]

So what? In the end, she clearly believes in the sanctity of marriage as defined as a union between one man and woman,.

No she doesnt. Where have you been the 3 last years?

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

I was having a conversation with someone at work today which puts this into perspective. He's friends with our boss, but also at odds with someone associated with a very important client. After an incident with this someone, the boss sat him down and said in no uncertain terms "if it comes down to a choice between you and (the client), you'll be fired in an instant."

That's the mindset of the GOP. I'm surprised that you - an unrepentant libertarian - don't understand this mind set.

The party leadership doesn't like Trump, but he's put them over the top. If you're a stalwart old guard Republican who stands on principle against Trump, the party will fuck you six ways to Sunday. They won't hesitate. Trump led them to victory and that's all they care about. Whether they like him or not is utterly, completely irrelevant.


They didn't particularly like Mitt Romney. They grudgingly accepted him because he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. They fucking hated McCain, but he seemed to have a chance at beating Obama. When Trump became the nominee, Republicans who swore up and down that he was the worst thing that ever happened to their party lined up to support him. Now that he's won, they'll be 100 percent behind him, and anyone who breaks ranks will be fired in an instant.

But never has a man of such moral turpitude held the office of the President of the United States. He is a vile man who's conduct is beyond the pale.

You can bet the GOP will keep a close watch on the mood of the nation with regards to our new president's actions going forward. If need be, they will hamstring him without batting an eye. Moreover, they would relish the opportunity. There is zero loyalty. Pence isn't there for nothing. Given the selection of Pence came shortly after Trump's meeting with the GOP and Trump's tepid introduction of Pence as his running mate, I've always assumed the GOP picked Pence, not Trump.


Or, the GOP and even some dems will go all in and we as a nation are fucked and it's unlikely will ever see another honest election again.

 

[LordKiran]

Again if HRC was sincere in her support of the LGBT community then her record should show it.

What? She has supported same-gender marriage since 2013. What do you want?

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.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What? She has supported same-gender marriage since 2013. What do you want?

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.