Chris Ladd, a lifetime republican and author of GOPLifer called it quits with the GOP. His resignation letter or part of it..
Quote
“The Iraq War, the financial meltdown, the utter failure of supply-side theory, climate denial, and our strange pursuit of theocratic legislation have all been troubling. Yet it seemed that America’s party of commerce, trade, and pragmatism might still have time to sober up. Remaining engaged in the party implied a contribution to that renaissance, an investment in hope. Donald Trump has put an end to that hope.
From his fairy-tale wall to his schoolyard bullying and his flirtation with violent racists, Donald Trump offers America a singular narrative â€" a tale of cowards. Fearful people, convinced of our inadequacy, trembling before a world alight with imaginary threats, crave a demagogue. Neither party has ever elevated to this level a more toxic figure, one that calls forth the darkest elements of our national character.
With three decades invested in the Republican Party, there is a powerful temptation to shrug and soldier on. Despite the bold rhetoric, we all know Trump will lose. Why throw away a great personal investment over one bad nominee? Trump is not merely a poor candidate, but an indictment of our character. Preserving a party is not a morally defensible goal if that party has lost its legitimacy."
â€Fast-forward to our present leadership and the nature of our dilemma is clear. I watched Paul Ryan speak at Donald Trump’s convention the way a young child watches his father march off to prison. Thousands of Republican figures that loathe Donald Trump, understand the danger he represents, and privately hope he loses, are publicly declaring their support for him. In Illinois our local and state GOP organizations, faced with a choice, have decided on complicity.
Our leaders’ compromise preserves their personal capital at our collective cost. Their refusal to dissent robs all Republicans of moral cover. Evasion and cowardice has prevailed over conscience. We are now, and shall indefinitely remain, the Party of Donald Trump.
I will not contribute my name, my work, or my character to an utterly indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints. A party willing to lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the “good Nazis.â€
I hereby resign my position as a York Township Republican committeeman. My thirty-year tenure as a Republican is over."
Clinton might just win the biggest landslide in US political history.
I wonder if Trump were not the Republican candidate, if he were independent, how many Republicans would vote for him and how many would ignore his gaffes.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 05, 2016, 09:33:06 PM
I wonder if Trump were not the Republican candidate, if he were independent, how many Republicans would vote for him and how many would ignore his gaffes.
Hard to say. It is my impression that the people who propelled Trump into the general election were significantly people who otherwise would not have participated in the convention at all. Disgruntled blue collar racists who only voted Trump because he appealed to their narrow minded, idiotic view of how to "fix" America, ostensibly by removing brown people for the most part.
Apparently there were more of them than we ever imagined...
Wow. That's some pretty heavy shit right there.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 05, 2016, 09:33:06 PM
I wonder if Trump were not the Republican candidate, if he were independent, how many Republicans would vote for him and how many would ignore his gaffes.
Not many. Most voters identify strongly with one of the two parties, and tend to overlook the failures of that party's candidate, and glorify his policies, even if those are failures. Chris Ladd is an oddity. Yes, there are others like him, but I think the percentage is very small.
I don't think Trump's voters are the stock Republican voters though instead of people who vote Republican since they share hateful and xenophobic ideology, so I don't know how much difference that really makes. The only major difference I could see if trump was independent is he wouldn't have had the exposure he got as someone who played within the system.
Now Trump is implying that assassination may be an option if Clinton is elected.
https://youtu.be/EcxkkrNSv-4
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13902722_10153889910751872_7677261898348432240_n.png?oh=78afcb1a66fdcb41de3c28fde70dc48a&oe=581F536B)
I think that a lot of Trump suppoters are the types who like to tell you how wonderful a civil war would be and they have no fucking clue just how hard the US military's hammer would fall on them if they tried to overthrow our government. They by in large part seem to be the cold dead handers who think they can take out a hell fire missile from 10 miles away with a AR 15 and a bag of beef jerky..
A new civil war wouldn't go any more reasonably than the original one. Both the North and South were wrong in their expectations. Humans usually are. In the current era, it would be very ugly.
Someday the US will be history, and if Lincoln is right, it will be the fault of the American people. If you take the long view of history (way past my lifetime) ... that isn't a bad thing. Even fresh bread goes stale eventually.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 09, 2016, 05:49:33 PM
Now Trump is implying that assassination may be an option if Clinton is elected.
https://youtu.be/EcxkkrNSv-4
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13902722_10153889910751872_7677261898348432240_n.png?oh=78afcb1a66fdcb41de3c28fde70dc48a&oe=581F536B)
Here is another case of "Holy shit look at what insane shit Trump just did" and then turning around and not giving a shit when your own guy does it. Trump did not say anything about assassinating Clinton. Why would you think he was saying that at all? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clinton dying would do nothing. Her VP feels the same way she does about guns. Trump was saying that maybe people will stand up and fight back if they start taking the guns. Nothing about killing Clinton. What did Joe Biden say back in 2008? He said that he wouldn't be letting Barack Obama take his shotgun, and that he knew how to use it pretty well if Obama tried. Did you give a shit then? I highly doubt it. Did anyone here give a shit? Nope. Not one. Your own guy says it and no one even takes note. The other side says it and you act like it's the craziest thing a politician has ever said.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on August 12, 2016, 12:08:18 AM
Here is another case of "Holy shit look at what insane shit Trump just did" and then turning around and not giving a shit when your own guy does it. Trump did not say anything about assassinating Clinton. Why would you think he was saying that at all? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clinton dying would do nothing. Her VP feels the same way she does about guns. Trump was saying that maybe people will stand up and fight back if they start taking the guns. Nothing about killing Clinton. What did Joe Biden say back in 2008? He said that he wouldn't be letting Barack Obama take his shotgun, and that he knew how to use it pretty well if Obama tried. Did you give a shit then? I highly doubt it. Did anyone here give a shit? Nope. Not one. Your own guy says it and no one even takes note. The other side says it and you act like it's the craziest thing a politician has ever said.
I wasn't the only person who took Trump's comment as a threat to Clinton. I didn't know about the Biden statement but you are correct I would have not liked it.
The media actually spun Biden's comments into a positive for him and Obama. The media said, hey look, Biden is not anti-second amendment and this proves it. We approve of your message about participating in an uprising against your own running mate, because it helps the narrative that Obama doesn't want to take guns and helps Obama get more votes.
I don't have a problem with what Trump said here, but he said it in a not very politically smart way, so I do understand why even Republicans are speaking out against his comments. He should have just said something like "Hillary's not taking our guns. We're going to win this election.", but instead he goes and puts things in a way that is going to damage the Republican brand. I guess I can't get into his head and maybe he did mean that someone might assassinate Hillary, but that would make no sense because assassinating a politician doesn't actually do anything for anybody. Trump rarely does make sense though.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 12, 2016, 01:46:02 AM
I wasn't the only person who took Trump's comment as a threat to Clinton. I didn't know about the Biden statement but you are correct I would have not liked it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-08-09/should-joe-biden-have-taken-heat-for-his-2008-gun-joke
The context of Biden's comment was that he was defending Obama's gun control push and saying that people shouldn't buy this idea that Obama's coming for your guns because he owns a gun himself and "if he tries to pull my beretta, he's got a problem". I dunno about you guys, but I don't automatically assume that "he's got a problem" means "I'd shoot him if he tried". Maybe that's a Republican thing. It might be like the Eskimo words for snow: Texas argument, Mississippi dodgeball, 'Bama blam-blam, and Georgian "he's got a problem", I dunno. Considering that Biden was stumping for Obama in that speech, I'm pretty sure the intended message here wasn't that the President better watch his back.
The context of Trump's comment was that if Clinton tries to nominate judges, there's nothing you [his supporters] can do to stop it. "Although with the 2nd amendment people maybe there is..." It's pretty obvious this guy wasn't referring to a letter-writing campaign.
So, no dice. Not the same thing.
It's fun to watch the right-wing spin machine at full tilt, though.
"I got two. If he tries to fool with my Baretta he's got a problem. I like that little over and under. You know, I'm not bad with it." He's saying that Obama better not try to take his guns, because he knows how to use them. That's pretty clear and you can't spin that any other way.
Of course Trump wasn't taking about a letter writing campaign, because he followed it up with "that would be a horrible day". Trump was clearly talking about people dying, as was Biden.
How come all the Biden assassination threat stuff is from articles written two days ago, and not immediately after Biden made his speech?
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 12, 2016, 01:26:18 PM
How come all the Biden assassination threat stuff is from articles written two days ago, and not immediately after Biden made his speech?
Because most of the media was in the bag for Obama and Biden, so of course they just acted like there was no issue with the idea of fighting back if there was an attempt to take the guns, because Biden making comments like that actually helped Obama get votes from the undecided independent voters who didn't exactly want to see all of the guns in America taken away. Fox News and the like didn't call Biden out for it because that wouldn't have been something that would have helped John McCain at all in getting votes, so they didn't go there. It's really as simple as that.
I shouldn't have said that you were spinning things though, because the link you posted stopped Biden's remarks before he talked about how he was pretty good with his guns. I would not trust that media source any longer if they are cutting out very important parts of what was said like that.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on August 12, 2016, 02:57:38 PMI shouldn't have said that you were spinning things though, because the link you posted stopped Biden's remarks before he talked about how he was pretty good with his guns. I would not trust that media source any longer if they are cutting out very important parts of what was said like that.
Yeah. They evidently cut off Trump, too.
QuoteBecause most of the media was in the bag for Obama and Biden, so of course they just acted like there was no issue with the idea of fighting back if there was an attempt to take the guns, because Biden making comments like that actually helped Obama get votes from the undecided independent voters who didn't exactly want to see all of the guns in America taken away. Fox News and the like didn't call Biden out for it because that wouldn't have been something that would have helped John McCain at all in getting votes, so they didn't go there. It's really as simple as that.
Right. Okay, so let me see if I have this straight:
* 8 years ago, Biden made a speech where he threatened running mate Obama. The crowd is unperturbed. No backlash from the media, because they're in the bag for Obama and Biden. No condemnation from fellow Dems, including Obama, or the Republicans. No talk with the secret service.
* a few days ago, Trump made an implied threat against Hillary. Shocked/excited reaction from the crowd of Trump supporters. The media and the Dems attack him over it. Some Republicans call his remarks "dumb", "reckless" while others claim he's being misconstrued. Reported private chat with the Secret Service, though Trump denies it.
* shortly thereafter, the intrepid souls over at Breitbart and InfoWars break the news that Biden also made an implicit threat against Obama, finally bringing Biden's shocking behavior to light.
Quote from: Johan on August 06, 2016, 01:27:15 PM
Wow. That's some pretty heavy shit right there.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/de/33/c1/de33c10163d1dad958cb38095317f55a.jpg)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 12, 2016, 01:46:02 AM
I wasn't the only person who took Trump's comment as a threat to Clinton. I didn't know about the Biden statement but you are correct I would have not liked it.
Every politician should be threatened at the ballot box, every 2, 4 or 6 years. The American people get the cesspool they deserve. Please Mr Brer Bear, please don't enact term limits, I want to have to think before I vote ;-)
Quote from: Nonsensei on August 06, 2016, 09:13:25 AM
Hard to say. It is my impression that the people who propelled Trump into the general election were significantly people who otherwise would not have participated in the convention at all. Disgruntled blue collar racists who only voted Trump because he appealed to their narrow minded, idiotic view of how to "fix" America, ostensibly by removing brown people for the most part.
Apparently there were more of them than we ever imagined...
Honestly, I'm still of the opinion that the GOP encouraged Trump to run in the hopes that it would make a real fuckwit like Cruz or Rubio or Huckabee look sane by comparison, but they never really reckoned with how completely fucking bugfuck their teabagger base is and now they're stuck with him and the potential death of the GOP (waves flag, goes "yay").
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2016, 03:37:48 PM
Not many. Most voters identify strongly with one of the two parties, and tend to overlook the failures of that party's candidate, and glorify his policies, even if those are failures. Chris Ladd is an oddity. Yes, there are others like him, but I think the percentage is very small.
It's like this. If the Republican Party were a gigantic ship in the ocean, trump is the pirate that has taken control. The problem is, the ships new captain has no idea how to stear the ship that is heading straight for really sharp rocks. The Previous party leaders are on lifeboats floating aimlessly in the ocean trying to come up with a new name for a new party because the pirates have soiled the brand beyond repair.
Quote from: Johan on August 06, 2016, 01:27:15 PM
Wow. That's some pretty heavy shit right there.
My thoughts as well. If you can cut through the rhetoric, this resignation letter steams of disappointment with how Republican ideals have been perverted to the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on August 21, 2016, 10:01:59 PM
It's like this. If the Republican Party were a gigantic ship in the ocean, trump is the pirate that has taken control. The problem is, the ships new captain has no idea how to stear the ship that is heading straight for really sharp rocks. The Previous party leaders are on lifeboats floating aimlessly in the ocean trying to come up with a new name for a new party because the pirates have soiled the brand beyond repair.
This is bad, why?
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2016, 07:22:38 PM
This is bad, why?
I don't recall mentioning that it's bad - it's hilarious is what it is!
Quote from: hrdlr110 on August 23, 2016, 09:15:05 AM
I don't recall mentioning that it's bad - it's hilarious is what it is!
Arrh Matey!