…from CNN Politics…
Former Republican House Speaker John Boehner lamented Thursday that the GOP he knew is no more, and in its place is the “Trump Party.”
“There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump Party,” Boehner said during an appearance at a policy conference on Mackinac Island, Michigan, Thursday while sipping on Bloody Marys.
“The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere,” he quipped, according to a livestream of the Mackinac Policy Conference posted by its host, the Detroit Regional Chamber.
The former Ohio congressman said the President’s style is “not quite my style” and that Trump is “clearly the most unusual person we’ve elected as President.”
“But if you can peel away the noise, and the tweets and all that, which is virtually impossible to do, but if you peel all this away, from a Republican standpoint, the things that he’s doing by and large are really good things,” Boehner said, pointing to the Trump administration’s deregulation and progress on negotiations with North Korea.
The former GOP House leader, who left Washington in 2015 in the middle of his term, also shared that he was surprised by Trump…..
Your post is here Bdog….
The guys here will LOVE it….
You don’t believe this,do you James?
For the 100th time……
Trump HAS the support of 60 to 70% of the party now….That support varies….
While he gets most of lawmakers of his party to vote for him…
Most do NOT support him, but are afraid of the brainwashed party people that express support for his crazy assed actions…
Even among this who express support?
They do NOT like his egomaniac actions…
Yes…
He HAS adopted the party for the most part…
You ate still on that he had adopted the party? Hsven’t Republicans adopted Trumpudm instead?
He just does that because we rib him about it.
James is very childlike.
It’s sort of like sticking his tongue out at us saying
“Can too”
Can too”
And I back at you Jack ole buddy!
Nope….
Donald adopted them early 2016….
Most of his supporters knew him as NYC Real Estate and Entertainment guy…
See what I mean.
See what I MEAN…
Trumps approval rating among Republicans ,May21-28,Gallup,….85%
this is substantially higher than GBW finished with anong Republicans
CNN Politics, April 20,2018….One can now say the Republican Party is Trumps Party.
Explain to us (who perhaps don’t know our ,uh, “stuff” like you do) with the ,I am sure, deep research for which you are so well known ,the basis of you conclusion that .
“Most (Republican lawmakers)do not support him(Trump)”
I have on several occasions shown how Congress
Led by Republicans have disregarded Trump’s wishes
Also explain ,once again with the scholarly insights you exhibit here daily,the basis of your current nclusion that Republicans who support Trump have been “brainwashed.”
Perhaps your conclusion was reached by studying the actions of Mitt Romney’s father, George, who as a Republican presidential candidate in 1968,declare he had been “brainwashed “ by the military people in Vietnam?
Have you considered the more simple explaination that Donald Trump more accurately reflects the views of the vast majority of Republican voters at this time?
If you know a guy you voted for is fucking u in your wallet and job ?
And u STILL SUPPORT the guy?
I’m gonna call ya brain washed
There is no evidence to suggest that these folks you are talking about believe that Trump is doing any such thing.
Once again, you substitute your view for theirs.In effect, you are offering an “excuse” for their behavior.ie, they have been “brainwashed.”
The better explanation is that they are so devoted to Donald Trump and his kind of politics that they see things totally differently and have convinced themselves,with no third party pressure, that Trump is actually helping them..
Please James!
Let Republicans be Republicans!
He, he, he….
Yea….
Republicans ARE GOPer’s….
Devoted to Trump?
I’d bet he trips and falls and they will leave him in the dust….
He’s the guy they have to try to set the country BACK….
They’d follow just about anyone….
To Defend James…I don’t think a lot of law makers support Trump on a lot of things he does (though his two most significant achievements Tax Cut and Supreme Court Nomination, they did support him almost fully, except for the the blue state Republicans who voted against tax cuts because if they didn’t it would be political suicide)…However, they do go along with him because they are scared of losing his base and his support (it is a semantical difference, but a difference none the less)…James may be looking at the longer picture…once this guy is gone and buried…the Republicans won’t have to worry about him…I bet many are secretly wishing he loses in 2020 because they don’t like how their party is getting portrayed and losing the numbers games (now it is squarely a party supported by angry white males, and the last time i checked us angry white men are declining in number as far a percentage of the population (though I am an angry white man, but no Republican)…
As a side bar…the party in power is clearly anti-immigration and thereby partially anti-hispanic, but this country is ever increasingly becoming like a latin American Country Politically (divide between wealthy and the rest has increased, debt spirals out of control, political leaders begin to act like strong mans,)…waiting for that political coop and our transformation will be complete or maybe a soccer riot, wait that won’t happen we can’t even make the world cup…
And BDog
I’d bet that the Latino population of this country will CONTINUE TO GROW no matter how hard Trump tries to wall them out…
Republicans,and CG I believe has mentioned this on occasion,believe that Latinos will gradually “Americanize” themselves in political,as well as other ways.
Thusly, their party affiliations will likely ,as the years go by ,reflect pretty much the breakdown of the rest of the country.
In the long term that is likely true – and is not a bad thing. In the short term, Latinos will take note of racist comments towards them that have come from the president. And I will add that “the long term” can be a very long time.
What if the evolution of the GOP is not complete? Can we be sure that the next Republican president will be less racist than Trump?
It’s not always true that as ethnic groups assimilate, their political breakdown mirrors that of the U.S. population as a whole.
Negroes were historically and understandably first aligned with the Republican Party, but they slowly migrated over to the Democratic Party, first with Wilson, then with Al Smith, FDR and Truman. Even as late as Dewey, Eisenhower and Nixon, Republicans had reasonable hopes of
either keeping or winning back a significant proportion of the black vote, and in fact were essential to passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 & 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the Afro-American vote has stayed decisively Democratic ever since the 1970’s, only accentuated by the elections that included Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
Similarly there’s always been a significant Hispanic Republican vote. In fact (so far as I can tell) the first Hispanic elected officials in Congress and Governors’ mansions belonged to the GOP. And, just as with African Americans, they would have had good reason to. Not only was the Democratic Party an overtly racist party in general, but it was Democratic war hawks from the South and West who promoted the wars with Spain and Mexico that put hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Chicanos under U.S. rule. Insofar as those wars faced any opposition, it was from the Whig Party (e.g. Abraham Lincoln) that was one of the GOP’s main ancestors. [However, it must be conceded that Republicans fulfilled the old Southern Democratic dream of taking over Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spain.]
Despite their historical distribution across both sides of the political aisle, it seem to me that the bulk of Hispanics are now on the Democratic side. After the Cuban revolution of 1959, Cuban refugees and their descendants had formed a clearly Republican bloc within the Hispanic community, but the younger Cuban-American generation is much more open to Democrats. Only 30% of Hispanics voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
And I see no particular reason why the Hispanic vote, any more than the Afro-American vote, should shift back in the current alignment of parties.
My expectation (perhaps hope is s better word) is that racism will gradually fade away over generations and as it does, so will minorities willing to identify with the Democratic Party, and many whites with the GOP.
My feeling is racism, religious intolerance and other biases will continue as it has thru out the recorded history of mankind…
Agreed DSD….
I think you view is why GOPer’s also do NOT want more people of color coming to this country….
That holds for others beside’s Latino’s
Really?
I thought these Republicans had been “brainwashed” by Trump?
Get you Bs straight!
Oh, Trump HAS brainwashed the Republican masses for the most part…
And he is sly enough to use exactly what I said…
Human’s inherent trait of biases ….
So let me get the straight(this is so damn funny)
What you’re saying is that Republicans aren’t “really ”opposed to these people coming into the country.
It’s just that the evil master Trump has managed to stir that part of their brain that carries these”inherent biases” and that is what causes Republicans to act this way.
I presume if we could eliminate Trump,Republicans would all of a sudden be welcoming these folks?Right?
I mean with the “brainwashing”no longer present their “inherent biases “ would recede .
Republicans , you remember ?….Where gonna have a new strategy of trying to embrace the Latino’s in 2015 and early 2016…..
It wasn’t a love in…
Just a move to blunt Jeb and others who might seem reapproachment…
But Donald Trump threw THAT out…
He pushed hard at amplifying the fear of ALL people of color….
I NEVER said any such thing Jack….
He, he, he….
You do try to work your view of things as others views….
Yes, I think we all understand…
You don’t even understand what “brainwashing” means.If you did, then that is Exactly what you’re saying.
All you do here is push Bullsit upon Bullshit and when caught try to laugh it off.
Like I said yesterday,”childlike.”
He, he, he….
Temper..Temper…Temper Jack….
Ya gotta take…. not just give…..
….this certainly fits the 85% you keep talking about….
brain·wash
ˈbrānˌwôSH,ˈbrānˌwäSH/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: brainwashing
make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.
“the organization could brainwash young people”
synonyms: indoctrinate, condition, reeducate, persuade, influence, propagandize, inculcate
“the evidence is compelling that these cult members were indeed brainwashed”
Wiki…
And the silliness continues…
Hey you know about aDictionary?
I’m impressed..
Read it then..
And let me explain it to your childlike mentality…
If Trump is “brainwashing” Republicans, then he is trying to make them believe something “radically different” from what they previously believed.
In other words Republicans never believed in this anti immigration stuff until Trump “brainwashed” them
That is demonstrably untrue.
See?
Brainwashed is a relevant term as it relates to some. I have compared it to Stockholm Syndrome.
It is too easy for people who have been sworn enemies of the Republican Party for over 50 years to simplify this.
Before Trump took over the party, most Republicans would have considered his rhetoric or specific positions on immigration to be abhorrent. That is what the early polls among Republicans said about Trump.
Sure, some agreed with him, but they were either minimized in the party or outside of the party. He won for a variety of reasons, and thus emboldened those voices.
Some changed their minds to accommodate them. Some choose to stay silent because they have other priorities, and some just try to ignore it.
All the stuff about “build the wall”, nobody but the Trump die-hards even take it seriously as something that is going to happen. And a lot of people approve of Trump who are not his original supporters or die-hards. They simply don’t take things he says seriously, which in and of itself is an issue.
I don’t see where the majority of Republicans position on immigration has changed significantly since Trump became President.
Actually you yourself were quite critical of the majority Republican position on this issue in the past.
I am glad to see you agreeing with James.
Does this mean you are going to start talking to him again?
As the Sunday hijinks continues…..
I’m reluctant to talk to james not because I have a feud with him like you want to have, but because I am frustrated by the inability to communicate and have other concerns that are best not speculated on here.
Now, most Republicans opposed illegal immigration before Trump and still do and support legal immigration before Trump and still do. The marginalized voices just have more influence now and people choose to accommodate that. What Trump himself thinks is largely irrelevant.
Trump himself has been on every side of the issue, talking about “letting the good ones back in right away” and musing about positions that if any other politician had said, his die-hards would call “amnesty.”
Once again,you want to concentrate on Trumps words ,not his actions.
To contend that his actions and proposals are anything other than hardline anti immigration is ridiculous.
Indeed, an argument can fairly be made that such is the centerpiece of his Administration.
His views are much more representative of the typical Republican than yours.Indeed, your views (gulp!) are much closer to many Democrats,even mine, than you wish to admit.
As to James?Get off it.You have been as sharply critical of him in the past as I have and our mutual frustrations with him are pretty much the same.
I don’t think Democrats would want someone with my views, even on immigration, in their party.
If you are talking specifically about Muslim bans, in regards to “actions”, I think that is a prime example of something that just about all mainstream Republicans would have opposed before Trump, but now, they whether genuinely or disingenuously find a way to excuse it.
As I have said before, people on the right will stand by Trump just because of who the Democrats and the media are and how they conduct themselves. Tribalism on both sides like never before.
Just to jump in?
Democrats?
Like Republicans have varied points of view on different issues
That is why BOTH parties have on going civil wars running below the surface
With a majority in Congress and the White House?
Republicans have fallen in line mostly
I didn’t say anything about you becoming a Democrat .I just commented that ,on this issue ,your position is closer to many Democrats,including me.
I know you don’t like to concede this.It is simply a fact.
As for your continuing contention that Republicans are now so devoid of any independent thought that they are now guided only by their dislike of Democrats and the media.We agree and,in my view, that is a damning indictment of your own party.
On the immigration topic specifically, it is worth noting that Senators Cotton and Perdue have a bill, backed by Trump (and one which NYCMike is in love with) that would drastically cut the number of legal immigrants to the U.S.
Despite this, and despite the support from the President, it has virtually no support from other Republicans in the House and Senate. So not everything Trump says he “wants” on immigration is ever going to come to pass.
My position is that we should use technology and resources to better secure the border. We should deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes and get rid of sanctuary cities.
I don’t think that makes me closer to the Democrats. I think it puts me in line with every Republican I ever voted for to be President.
To me and many others, it seems like Democrats would be fine with complete open borders and are willing to not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. They just want people put on the voter rolls as soon as possible.
Yeah that’s all we want.their votes!
Well, you’re not in line with most Republicans today and your caricature of the Democrats is nothing more than you lashing out because of my suggestion.
No, not all Democrats are in favor of open borders .You know this but my suggestion got you all worked up do you thought you would throw that out.
What is the Democrat proposal to decrease illegal immigration? Who do Democrats find it appropriate to deport and when?
Democrats fight that the use of the term “illegal” is wrong and that “no person is illegal.” (by the way, I never use the term “alien.”)
Democrats are not for illegal’s per say
They ARE for the America that the Statue of Liberty beckons for….
They ARE for confusing the America of the past that offers refuge to those oppressed
Or endanger for their lives
The America that does Not use religion as a marker for entre to this place
Barack Obama shipped more illegals out than Trump
Trump just has made more noise for his base about his efforts
The bottom line is whether the issue is immigration or guns or some other things, both parties have become so tribalized and so afraid of the loudest voices in their base, that compromise becomes next to impossible and the country will suffer as a consequence.
I think it is a major reason why electing an Independent as President in 2020 would be a step in the right direction.
As a Person who understands politics, you well know that the next President is going to be aDemocrat or aRepublican.
If you want to engage in a theoretical discussion of this “independent “candidate,I have no problem with such.
He/she isn’t going to win and we both know it.
As to your interest in compromise?That too seems to be more theoretical with you than practical.If you are serious, why not throw some of your proposed “compromises”out there?Lets see if two partisans like you and I could agree.Go ahead.
I agree that that a Independent candidate for President has a prayer in America…
I don’t know that for sure, although the next President is probably going to be someone who at least at one point was a member of a major party.
We know it has happened at lower levels, up to the Governorship and that realignment, as seen recently in other countries, is not merely a foreign concept.
As someone who understands politics I thought there was no chance that Donald Trump could become President, so after that I think it is smarter to realize that just about anything can happen that might surprise us.
You already know my nuanced position as it relates to illegal immigration, as it involves legalizing the Dreamers (although you think I am far too harsh on how long a path to citizenship I would have for most), as well as other opportunities for people who came illegally to come out of the shadows and have the chance to be legalized. Plus, guest worker programs, etc. Nothing different than what GWB ran on in 2000.
As for guns, I have said that we should expand and perfect the background check system universally and that I would be open to raising the age from 18-21 for some guns.
I don’t have a problemwiyth any of that.
I think we disagree on the amount of time for a path to citizenship as to the dreamers. I presume as a compromise we could simply split the difference.I can support removing from the country immediately those who commit crimes and could support local authorities assisting the federal government in doing so( thus ending so Caledonia sanctuary cities) but with a concomitant path to citizenship for those already here .Upon such, Then. I would support increasing border controls and reforms in the immigration courts with the objective of much more rapid determination ad to immigration status.
As to guns, I believe a person has the right to own a gun(s) .I support a short waiting period for gun purchases until ones background be checked.I am not wedded to the twenty one year old age limit,however.
On the contrary, BDog, what could be likelier to start a soccer riot and attempted lynching than failing to qualify for the World Cup for the first time in three decades ?
Riots and lynchings have started over far, far less.
There is a vast difference,in my view, about a personal dislike of an individual and support for his policies.
As you point out the Republicans almost universally have supported him on the Gorsuch nomination and the tax cuts and why not?Both were poster child’s for conservative moves in general.Further, they continue to support almost all his initiatives.
So they don’t “ like” him personally.I fail to see the significance of that.Theyre “afraid” of his “base?” Ok but let’s be clear That is ,in effect, saying they are “afraid” of their own party.( see Trumps overwhelming approval ratings among Republicans)
Therein lies the larger point.Trump ,with his antics ,is now the face of that party.In my view, most Republicans fully support his agenda, find his conduct ,while not exemplary by any means ,at least “acceptable” and look to him for leadership of their party far more than they do any of these Congresspeople.
Although my hit on James had a certain tongue in cheek quality,it’s because I find this entire “ excusing” or “ explaining” the conduct of these Republicam Congresspeople as off putting.
Who gives a damn about their personal like of dislike of Donald Trump?And why is that of any importance really?They vote with him, they verbally support him or( with a couple of exceptions) fail to criticize his daily outragesand his demonstrable lies and silently acquiesce in his general demeaning of the American presidency.
Let James ,you, or anyone else lament the “ poor “ Republican Congresspeople and their ,uh, dilemma.
As far as I’m concerned ,their likes and dislikes have all the relevance of last years winner of the Oklahoma Chinese Checkers Championship.
The great thing about this place is you have ur view Jack
And I have mine
Love It!
And as I will repeat to you James…
Everyone has the right to their own opinion,
Nobody has the right to their own facts.
That includes Donald Trump,and you.
One thing I don’t understand though…
You and CG have almost identical views on the Republican Party,yet things have gotten so bad between you that this past week CG said he could no longer even talk to you.
Can’t you boys ,who essentially share the same view of Trump and the Republicans, just get along?
It doesn’t really make sense to me how someone can like the Gorsuch appointment, but not like Trump. Gorsuch seems like a mini-Trump to me. He doesn’t follow Supreme Court etiquette and he raises the rhetoric to louder more offensive levels.
I recall a few years ago (before Trump announced he would run) that CG admitted he wouldn’t criticize Republicans. And lots of Republicans felt the same way as CG did. So now a handful are upset with what The GOP has become, and some (not yet CG) are even realizing that the GOP didn’t really change that much with Trump’s election. Well good for them. Maybe some day they will recognize their unintended role in the GOP becoming what it has become.
Zreebs has a fanciful imagination (and often reads too quickly and misses key points in peoples posts).
The idea that I have not criticized Republicans, and that you all haven’t had the opportunity to see me doing so online going back to 2004 is ridiculous.
I see no relevant comparison between Gorsuch and Trump. I have not heard anything about Gorsuch being “offensive” in his rhetoric. I understand why liberals are upset that Gorsuch is on the Court, but elections do have consequences, and that was a major factor in Trump winning.
I agree that elections have consequences
DoGorsuch and Trump agree on most issues?
Likely,that why Trump have appointed him?Hes a conservative,like you and Trump.
I think Gorsuch has forgotten more actual information than Trump will ever know.
It’s not a valid comparison. Gorsuch has already taken positions on the court against what Trump wanted.
Gorsuch is someone who could have been appointed by any Republican President.
Yes but he was appointed by Trump.
Supreme Court justices often take positions contrary to the President that appointed them.So?
You think Trump ever heard of him?
The Federalist Society had a list of names for him and someone told him to pick Gorsuch and he did. That is a big reason why he has maintained support on the right.
Previously, Trump said his liberal judge sister belonged on the Supreme Court and cited Lawrence Tribe as the best legal mind in America.
So, what’s your point?
The simple fact is that Trump appointed him and the Trump of today,the Republican President, and Gorsuch and you agree on most issues.
Why do you seemingly want to fight that which is plainly self evident?
I also notice that you’re throwing around “liberal” a lot today.
It reminds me that if you were attending Republican meetings down here in S C and expressed the views on many issues and Trump that you do here?Yiu would be branded a “liberal”
Yikes!
Do liberals not exist?
I get called a liberal all the time by Trumpists, but I disregard it as the bs it is.
People like you guys shouldn’t run from the label though unless you can point out why it does not fit.
I don’t think Trump even knows what most Republicans believe. He has advisors that tell him what the various positions are. Some of his advisors are conservatives. Some are not. He often changes his mind on a dime and is highly influenced by whomever the last person to talk to him was.
The only consistent position Trump has ever seemed to have in his life is his position on trade that fits in with the left-wing of the Democrats.
Yeah he’s definitely a left wing Democrat now.
What a joke.
Trump is the Leader of the Republican Party and is the epitome of what it means to be a “conservative”today.
Youre always wanting to quote Ric Flain to me .Hers another of his sayings, applicable especially to you.
“You may not like it,Learn to live with it!”
He’s the most conservative President since Ronald Reagan .
Former RNC Chair Reince Priebus today said he was doing a “terrific job.”Didn’t Trump dump Reince?
What dedication!
Trump is the leader of the Trump Party which at present is far more powerful than the Republican Party.
As I have said before, nobody who really loves Trump considers him a conservative or cares that he is not. They looked at his election as proof that a non-liberal (they don’t think he is a liberal either) alternative to conservatism can prevail, when conservatism could not.
They actively and vocally waived the white flag on conservatism in the 2016 campaign.
I see no basis for saying that Trump is a conservative President.
It’s just that he is lined up as the opposition to the Democrats and their allies in the media, and as they go farther left, people cannot help but look at things through the prism of an old rule-book.
Maybe you can’t, but the vast majority of your fellow party members do.
Your argument is with them more than me.
Your problem is that Trump is reshaping the conservative movement in his own image with the active connivance or at least acquiescence of many associated with that movement.
He’s reshaping conservatism to the extent that the people who have always been opposed to conservative want to attach him to it because they realize that one day Trumpism will be gone and they will still want to fight conservatism.
Trump’s die-hards will tell you they aren’t conservatives (and certainly will say they don’t like Republicans as an institution) and will say that he isn’t a conservative either but far better. Yes, by virtue of who is in Congress and who works under him, some things that conservatives support will get done, but that doesn’t mean that Trump is a conservative, or advancing it, or representing it well.
It is just the opposite.
Those who wish for the defeat of conservatism should be happy that Trump has for now largely buried the movement. They just have to find a way to contend with the populism he represents though and how it appeals to many traditional Democrat voters.
In SC every Republican running in the primaries is running as a conservative and an ardent supporter of Trump.
Indeed the arguments are over who is “conservative enough” and that is being judged by the ardor of their support for the new Mr. Conservative, Donald Trump.
What is Mark Sanford running as? Has he done a 180?
From what I have read, it looks like Sanford has not deviated from his views on Trump and that his opponent is using that against him.
So, if your theory holds, Sanford ought to lose solidly in the primary. I guess we will see what happens.
Enjoy Sunday.
He is trying to fend off a surprisingly strong challenge from a one term State Legislator, Katie Arrington, who is attacking him as insufficiently supportive of Trump .
Sanford isn’t backing down and says that when he doesn’t support Trump, it’s because he is being true to his fiscally conservative principles.
Sanford is in a fight as evidenced by the fact that is spending a lot more money than he usually does.
I think he will win but it may be close.
I also agree that Donald Trump isn’t politically as smart As some think he is….
He adopted the GOP for HIS own means
When he was in NYC doing his Real Estate?
He was in bed with the Democrats
He REALLY. Has only the politics of HIMSELF
It is true that I don’t read everything. In fact I only saw this comment by chance
I do recall CG once saying that he won’t Criticize Republicans. And it wasn’t 2004. I didn’t start coming to Politics1 until 2007. My guess is that you said it around 2011.
There is no question that Gorsuch is more intelligent fhan Trump, and I have no reason to believe he is a sexual predator or corrupt. But he is a flame thrower. and one of Justice Kennedy’s clerk even commented something like “With everything else going to shit, we don’t need someone like Gorsuch to raise the intensity level”. The quote is not quite accurate, but it is essentially what he said.
My guess is that you took something way out of context. I criticize anyone in politics I think is wrong and have taken on comment board posters who were “on my side” as well.
I am unaware of any stories about Gorsuch being too intense or rude to anyone. I know that it has been commented on that he asks questions during the cases, which is what Scalia frequently did. If people do not like that aspect, I hope they do not also dislike Clarence Thomas’s approach of just listening.
My recollection now is that I was frustrated by james’ defense and the others silence on Harry Reid admitting he lied to accuse Mitt Romney of committing a crime just to affect the 2012 elections and that he felt no regret over that.
That was clearly something that if the partisan roles were reversed, the rest of you would have been beyond up in arms about. So, I might have said something like, “well, if you won’t ever criticize a Democrat because all that matters is winning, then I should defend everything a Republican would do.” Of course, I was offering an extreme example to illustrate the partisan extremism that existed on the other side, and am too honest and principled myself to be silent about unfairness or lying on my side.
I further recall that on the very same day we had this discussion, I had an interchange with Scott on our differences over the Reid matter, by specifically criticizing Michele Bachmann for extreme things she said about Barack Obama.
Those on the left who defended or just looked the other way at Reid’s slander though certainly would go on to get a taste of their own medicine in regards to how Trump won in 2016. Unlike the vast majority on my side who looked back at these past partisan battles and either cheered him on or washed their hands of the matter ,I never had any problem calling Donald Trump a dangerous liar and a demagogue. But Harry Reid belongs in the same category, to be sure.
Reid ain’t in the same league as Trump by THOUSANDS of miles….
Give it up CG…..
Same league. A lie is a lie. It ought to eat you up inside to know you have to defend it just because someone has a D next to their name.
Actually don’t bother me one bit…..
New CNN poll out and Trump has an 86% approval rating from Republicans, a number that is keeping his overall approval rating just above 40%. These folks are not going to turn on him, not now, and probably never as long as he gives them their red meat.
I am still waiting for an example of how the Congressional Republicans have opposed Trump on anything.
Right now they are going out of their way to protect Trump from the Mueller investigation. Have they taken any proactive steps to stop his Trade war? Have they gone against him on immigration? Still waiting for that discharge petition to fly out of the House and force a vote on DACA. But, none of these things have happened.
So, some of them dislike him. So? Lots of Democrats in the House and Senate disliked Bill Clinton, I know, I was there. But that didn’t stop them from working with him on issues.
We really have two Trump apologists here. Folks that seem to think they can excuse those folks up on the Hill who have forgotten they run a co-equal branch of the government. Excuse them for being an enabler of a crazy racist who calls immigrants animals.
So, get back to me when those Republicans grow a spine.
I need to get going. Driving down to the game this afternoon.
No No No Keith it’s more like 60% approval from Republicans.
Just ask James.
He knows!
And those 60%?Theyve been “brainwashed “ by Trump.They don’t even know what they’re doing!
The number seesaws…..
And I have also pointed out the no ‘balls’ by GOPer’s…
You don’t own it Jack….
He, he, he….
Jack you are SOooooooo Funny!
And transparent….
I add this to the pundit herding on the ‘Trump is the Republican party’ singing these days…
Trump’s 500-Day Coup of the Republican Party
June 3, 2018 at 11:46 am EDTBy Taegan Goddard0 Comments
Jonathan Swan: “In 500 days, Trump’s hijacking of the formerly conservative GOP is complete — an astonishing accomplishment. The majority party in America is fully defined by his policies, his popularity with the base, his facts-be-damned mentality, his ability to control and quiet virtually all Republican elected officials.”
“Trump has wiped out a large portion of Obama’s legacy. He’s exited the Paris climate deal; signed major tax cuts, especially for corporations; confirmed an ultra-conservative Supreme Court justice and record numbers of circuit court judges; deregulated like crazy; exited the Iran deal; exited the TPP trade deal; repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate; and moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing it as Israel’s capital.”
“New hardline immigration enforcement is in place, including separating children from parents of illegal immigrants.”
Axios points out that Trump “commands the second highest ‘own party’ approval rating of any president at the 500 day mark since World War II, behind only President George W. Bush, after 9/11.”
Politicalwire…
If by transparent you mean calling you on the many blatant lies and corny Bullshit you push here…
Sure I am.i
Warror’s in 4!
So CG is again brining up Harry Reid’s claim that Romney paid no taxes. But I don’t recall CG criticizing Romney for lies that he made during the campaign.
How about the one that Obama’s sold Chrysler to the Italians?
Link?
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-lies-auto-chrysler-jobs-2012-10
That sounds like that is in the realm of a policy disagreement, similar to Obama’s false claims that Romney was going to “fire Big Bird” or eliminate foreign aid.
Nowhere in the same league as Reid’s deliberate and personal slander accusing someone personally of committing a felony and inventing a source in the process, which Reid later laughed about.
This is what CG said earlier in this thread. I guess it doesn’t hold to Romney,
“A lie is a lie. It ought to eat you up inside to know you have to defend it just because someone has a D next to their name.”
I see no evidence Romney told a “lie.” Candidates disagree on issues and sometimes even get facts wrong.
What Reid did was a lie.
What Trump has done are lies.
When Obama said, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, that was a lie.
As Keith pointed out, the Romney campaign continued to run the ad even after it was reported as a lie by publications like Business Insider. And don’t the ads end with something like. “I am Mitt Romney and I approved this message”.
All we asking if for you to be a little more consistent like most of the other people on this site. Romney lied. Whether Obama also lied is irrelevant to this discussion.
I am not familiar with this situation from the campaign. If a campaign had an ad that was in anyway false, it should not have been run, but sounds like this is something that every campaign does to some extent. Negative ads get run and then the other campaign runs ads saying the ads against them are false, and it goes back and forth. This happens for the Presidency down to the City Council.
What Reid did was a personal slander, accusing someone of being a criminal, for which Reid could have been held legally responsible, had he not deliberately said it on the floor of the U.S. Senate in order to be able to claim legislative immunity. What he did normalized the Trump campaign modus operandi.
It speaks volumes that nobody else here has any issue with what Reid did. You can hardly claim to take the high road.
I don’t recall Reid accusing Romney of criminal behavior. You are always so dramatic and shifty.
If my recollection is correct, Reid simply said Romney didn’t pay taxes. He didn’t say he did anything criminal. Romney could have refuted him if he wanted to, but he concluded that doing so would be more harmful than helpful – undoubtedly because there was something in the tax return that Romney wanted to hide.
Please check this out on Reid and Romney taxes thing…
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., touched off a firestorm last week after he claimed that an unnamed investor in Mitt Romney’s company, Bain Capital, told him that Romney hadn’t paid any taxes for 10 years.
In a July 31, 2012, interview with the Huffington Post, Reid attacked Romney for refusing to publicly release tax returns prior to 2010. Reid said, “His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” referring to George Romney’s decision to release 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Reid told the website that about a month earlier, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office and said, “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”
Reid continued, “He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?….
More…
Media reports that are sometimes the result of herding get something NOT quite right and THAT becomes the precepted truth….
Romney released his taxes. What Reid accused him of was a felony. After the election, Reid admitted he made it all up and that it worked as intended.
You did NOT read the linked info?
The Reid claim was rated about the most obvious “Pants on Fire” thing one could get.
And this was many months before Reid admitted he made the whole thing up and was proud of it.
No less of a “pants on fire” than Obama sold Chrysler to the Italians.
As I recall Scott, the Romney campaign kept on running this ad even when they were called out on the lie.
I was actually more upset about the dog whistle comments the Romney surrogates were making at the time trying to infer that Obama was not really an American.
But, why are we still talking about this? Is someone really trying to make the case that somehow Harry Reid was singularly responsible for Romney’s defeat? And that defeat led to the Trump nomination? Is that the “theory” here?? If so, I will laugh now.
Came home last night and wanted to start the draft Steve Kerr for President campaign. It was a great game.
Got to go. Phone banking this evening into Orange County. I think the polls here have been all over the place and seriously under report both Asian and Hispanic voters. Interesting that our last Republican Governor announced he isn’t voting for the two leading Republican candidates tomorrow. Oh, and the Republicans have fallen into third place in the registration numbers. I heard from a friend at the Secretary of States office that the new under 30 registrations are running below 10% in some areas. Not a good sign.
…young people simply do NOT vote….