[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Shock: GOP establishment considering DRASTIC move if Trump’s the nominee The so-called GOP establishment’s distaste for frontrunner Donald Trump is well-documented. And with the first caucus just over two months out — and Trump continuing to dominate most polls, while establishment favorites like Jeb Bush flounder — the establishment’s panic seems to be reaching a fever pitch. While there’ve been rumors that the establishment might try to get someone like Mitt Romney into the race, there is now word of a far more drastic move some establishment leaders may make. As The Hill reports, some big money Republican donors may support Hillary Clinton if Trump ends up being the GOP nominee.
If this report is true to the spirit of the lunch referenced, the GOP could be in BIG trouble (more than it already is). Are we really at risk of having GOP “establishment” donors jump ship for not only a Democrat, but one who’s certifiably dishonest (if not just plain certifiable), not to mention of questionable competence? Please tell me that GOP leaders would not consider Hillary Clinton to “make a great president.” To be clear, the point is not about Trump himself, but rather about the mindset of the so-called “establishment” GOP. Is this just another sign of how out-of-touch the so-called GOP establishment is with the people? Whether it’s Trump, Carson, or even Ted Cruz dominating the polls, the GOP primary electorate seems to be sending a message, loud and clear, that business-as-usual ain’t cutting it anymore for the GOP. To be sure, polls suggest a Trump nomination would bring challenges, as the candidate — though dominantly popular amongst GOP primary voters — has shown great polarization in general election match-ups, showing up high on the “no way” list. Nonetheless, to those who suggest the GOP must have a more “moderate,” “establishment” candidate to win in the general election, I have to ask: how’d those “establishment” candidates work out for us in 2008 and 2012? What do y’all think? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Nonetheless, to those who suggest the GOP must have a more “moderate,” “establishment” candidate to win in the general election, I have to ask: how’d those “establishment” candidates work out for us in 2008 and 2012? maybe IF the base voters showed as much loyalty to the nominee as they now expect from the "establishment" supporters ,the outcome of 2008 and 2012 would've been different . For those who sat out 2012 ;you gave the country the emperor's 2nd term. How'd that work out ?
#5. To: tomder55 (#1) For those who sat out 2012 ;you gave the country the emperor's 2nd term. How'd that work out ? It has worked out splendidly. The GOP has been the rotten wood in the foundation of the country for a long time. With Obama's second victory, but a GOP Supreme Court and then, a GOP Congress opposing him, the fact that his entire agenda continues to be advanced demonstrates in the clearest possible way the absolute treachery of the GOP at its most fundamental political level. The GOP is not the party of conservatism. Conservatives have simply been duped into voting for the GOP for decades because the degree to Republican treachery was never made manifest. Obama's second term has made it crystal clear. Of course Obama is bad. But the thing is, the GOP PRETENDED for years and years not to be bad. Now they have been flushed out, and we see just exactly how bad they are. And conservatives and patriots are realizing that, to remake America, they need a political party. And that means that the FIRST thing they have to do is utterly destroy the GOP as we have known it. Donald Trump is poised to do just that, and the GOP as it currently exists would support Hillary rather than see that happen. Because Trump probably will be the nominee, what THAT will mean is that the GOP Establishment money will go for the Democrats, which will mean that the Democrat party becomes the party of angry Blacks, angry feminists, abortion, and crony capitalists. But Trump will bring together in the Republican party the patriots, the blue collar, sensible minorities and a lot of libertarians. That will give him the win. And then his policies - the policies of patriots and minorities and libertarians - and the sensible politics of "destroy your enemy's economic foundations" - will be able to impose the necessary taxation on those crony capitalists who broke and ran for Hillary. By taxing them heavily, you take their money away, and by doing that, you break their power. So it's a sort of Gotterdammerung for the crony capitalist right. They are flushed out, exposed by Trump, and when Trump wins, he will use the power of government to take their money away, to destroy them through the tax code, just as they used the power of government to set up unfairly favorable taxation and contracts for themselves to get the money in the first place. The crony capitalists have a lot of money, but not many votes. The blue collar laborer who is absolutely screwed by free trade and crony capitalism and open borders is FAR FAR more numerous, and FAR more valuable a constituency, than billionaires. As the billionaires leave, the blue collar enters the new Republican Party, and it becomes stronger and stronger, albeit with far less money. And that's a good thing. But it never would have happened had Trump not forced it all onto the front page. And the Trump phenomenon would not have happened had Obama not been re- elected. So, those Republicans who folded their arms and refused to vote for the odious Romney did the conservative movement a service, in the long term. Two terms of Obama was better for the country, long term, than letting the crony capitalist wing of the GOP win.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5) If only Trump was actually a conservative. He has you duped .
#13. To: tomder55 (#7) If only Trump was actually a conservative. He has you duped I am only a conservative to the extent that conservatism is compatible with Catholic statism.
Replies to Comment # 13. I am only a conservative to the extent that conservatism is compatible with Catholic statism. Limited government, free market policies align with Catholic teachings about the common good. One of the biggest problems in Washington is that the government has grown so big that it siphons $$$ trillions of dollars from the economy in it's persuit of being the benevolent sole provider of charity .This money gets lost in the self perpetrating aplhabet soup agencies in the bureaucracy instead of ever being spent on the intended . It also leads to corrupt cronyism as rent seekers try to game the system ,and regulators look to preserve their jobs instead of acheiving the stated purpose of the agency's creation. Trump btw is a player in the system .Don't let him fool you on this matter . His 'art of the deal ' has largely been buying ....ooops I mean "negotiating" favors ,mostly from local politicians ,but also from national players .
PAUL: Hey, look, look! He’s already hedging his bet on the Clintons, OK? So if he doesn’t run as a Republican, maybe he supports Clinton, or maybe he runs as an independent… BAIER: OK. PAUL: …but I’d say that he’s already hedging his bets because he’s used to buying politicians. TRUMP: Well, I’ve given him plenty of money. BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single- payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies. Use — you’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business- related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.” TRUMP: You’d better believe it. BAIER: So what specifically did they do? TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money. Business people must kiss the regulators’ ring or bribe the local bureaucrat at every turn . That is his 'art of the deal'. I see no reason to believe that business model will change with him as POTUS.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|