The Don

[goldfly]

Sigh. So you have a problem with peaceful protesters occupying an Oregon government building, but you don't have a problem with a guy who bragged about igniting bombs in 3 different government buildings.

OK

well, that didn't answer my question sturg

let's try again

why would someone be bothered by that (Obama's relationship with Ayers)?

 

[jpx7]

^^^ Point taken. I will though say that I think many of those on the ideological left (like Sav?) are being a bit too cavalier here as well in their assumptions. I suppose my point is that for all of us, that may be arguing more ideological positions, is that maybe we aren't really in tune with what a reality-TV, popular culture, electorate really gives a hoot about. Looks to me, at this point, that Trump does and panders to it. That's why I don't think it's particularly helpful pushing the left-right spectrum at this point in trying to understand what's going on. That smacks to me of us just trying to hang on to our old and comfortable narratives.

I'm acutely (and, sometimes I think, unfortunately) aware of it, but you're correct that I am not "in tune" with it—and I suspect that you're further correct that this sentiment applies to many of us on here. But ultimately—barring some unseen, and truly radical, turn of events—one of the people in this field will be the next President; and they are all pushing the "left-right spectrum" and hanging on to "our old and comfortable narratives"*, so we nonetheless have to engage with those terms, at least to a degree.

*To wit: though I've liked, on some level, the gestures at "civility" exercised by the Democratic field in the debates, I've been groaning when the candidates champion said exercise, clutching it winkingly like so many imitation-pearls, and touting their own classiness against the perceived slop of the "other side". Say it, don't spray it.

 

[jpx7]

Ron Paul is by textbook definition a conservative, but why then do we have to use the term libertarian for him?

If people like Jeb are considered moderate, what would Ronald Reagan be considered in this Republican Party today if he ran? They'd attack him on gun control bill signed as Governor, raising taxes several times, increasing the size of government, and most of all signing an amnesty bill by compromising with liberals.Oh not even mentioning negotiating with Iran for hostages. Giving them guns like Fast & Furious. Both things he would be crucified for by Beck, Limbs, Cruz, Palin, etc. But they sure love them some Ronald Reagan though.

I mean you have someone like Cruz, who REFUSES to compromise with his own party on anything. Are you really telling me that the characters Cruz and Trump play, are not what the base has wanted for years but are now finally getting huge boners to?

I think this is a great issue to illuminate. While there's plenty about which we can criticize the Democratic party, the sheer antipathy voiced and exercised recently by the GOP for any form of compromise is insane, and I think ultimately hurting them.

Obama was elected, in no small part, because he pledged to bring with him a work-across-the-aisle approach. And while I do think he tried (for better, or sometimes for worse), I also think an obstructionist Congress that planned to demonstrate that he couldn't unite them is really responsible for a lot of the DC gridlock of the past two terms; meanwhile, though the strategy's worked somewhat at the level of the House and Senate, it didn't really undermine Obama at all in 2012.

Likewise, George W Bush billed himself as a moderate, a "uniter", an executive not afraid to bend if he could achieve his nuts-and-bolts goals, and I think that served him well in his national elections—not to mention in actually effecting his policy-goals in the legislature.

But—unlike Democratic front-runners Sanders and Clinton—the current crop of GOP hopefuls profess no such intentions, not even paying it lip-service. Likewise, to their eventual detriment, guys like McCain and Romney—who'd lived effective compromise in their political careers—had to essentially declare it anathema to win their nominations.

Trump—and the "tough-guy persona" noted by [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is simply the purest expression of this "**** them to hell; all or nothing" posture, but Cruz, not to mention the reformulated Christie, represent this brand almost as succinctly (while Jeb! never had to compromise, as governor, since his legislature was mostly to the right of him).

 

[Runnin]

I think the question is more about where Reagan would lineup in today's political climate? Things have changed since the 80's. Clinton and now Obama have seized the political center and in effect forced the GOP to the right. Since they refuse compromise and all things from the Dems there's really nothing left for them but the radical right.

 

[sturg33]

well, that didn't answer my question sturg

let's try again

why would someone be bothered by that (Obama's relationship with Ayers)?

I guess for the same reason someone would be bothered by an endorsement (57 has already let us know that John Rocker and this other fella have endorsed Trump)

 

[57Brave]

I,wasn't bothered but did find one funny and the other tone deaf. Gonna let you sort out which is which

 

[goldfly]

I guess for the same reason someone would be bothered by an endorsement (57 has already let us know that John Rocker and this other fella have endorsed Trump)

are people bothered by the endorsements you used as an example or were they being shown that jokes of humans are endorsing someone? and from that, why would someone bothered by "Obama's relationship with Ayers"?

 

[goldfly]

I think the question is more about where Reagan would lineup in today's political climate? Things have changed since the 80's. Clinton and now Obama have seized the political center and in effect forced the GOP to the right. Since they refuse compromise and all things from the Dems there's really nothing left for them but the radical right.

could be the most true thing ever posted on this board

Reagan would be way closer to Obama and democrats today than anything the Republicans are pushing or stand for for the most part

which makes the love affair with him funny as ****

 

[Runnin]

could be the most true thing ever posted on this board

Reagan would be way closer to Obama and democrats today

I didn't state my meaning very well. I wanted to say that I wonder just how conservative/liberal Reagan would choose to be in today's climate. He'd have to separate himself from the Dems and in doing so I imagine he'd be right out there with the rest of 'em.

With this inept group he wouldn't have to show up to debates either.

 

[bravesnumberone]

Reagan would get attacked by today's Republican candidates in the same way John F. Kennedy would be attacked by a lot of today's Democrats.

 

[bravesnumberone]

It would be fascinating to see Reagan and Trump face off. Reagan would run circles around this current group because he was both charismatic and wasn't a prick to the people he was debating or criticizing.

I've seen almost all of the top Republican candidates in person throughout the campaign with my job.

Trump (twice) - Grabs your attention, massive douche
Cruz - Incredibly, but scarily charismatic, gaping A-hole.
Rubio (twice) - Eloquent, but kind of like the bully in high school who if you criticized him, he would come back with "Yeah, well your dad cheated on your mom, and your mom's fat," but in a subtle way.
Bush - Nice guy, but I'm more inspired by a statue.
Carson (haven't seen him) - dull
Christie - He does pretty well with a crowd, but obviously likes to talk about himself a lot.
Kasich (twice) - Really folksy with the crowd, but he can be a dick too when criticized or doesn't get his way.
Paul (haven't seen him, but his wife made a stop for him locally) - Just not as much of a rock star as his dad.
Huckabee - Great with the crowd and very affable one-on-one. If he wasn't such a damn nut case on every social issue, I'd give him more consideration.
Fiorina - She's running to put it on her resume.

 

[sturg33]

are people bothered by the endorsements you used as an example or were they being shown that jokes of humans are endorsing someone? and from that, why would someone bothered by "Obama's relationship with Ayers"?

Because Ayers was a terrorist?

 

[BedellBrave]

I think this is a great issue to illuminate. While there's plenty about which we can criticize the Democratic party, the sheer antipathy voiced and exercised recently by the GOP for any form of compromise is insane, and I think ultimately hurting them.

Obama was elected, in no small part, because he pledged to bring with him a work-across-the-aisle approach. And while I do think he tried (for better, or sometimes for worse), I also think an obstructionist Congress that planned to demonstrate that he couldn't unite them is really responsible for a lot of the DC gridlock of the past two terms; meanwhile, though the strategy's worked somewhat at the level of the House and Senate, it didn't really undermine Obama at all in 2012.

Likewise, George W Bush billed himself as a moderate, a "uniter", an executive not afraid to bend if he could achieve his nuts-and-bolts goals, and I think that served him well in his national elections—not to mention in actually effecting his policy-goals in the legislature.

But—unlike Democratic front-runners Sanders and Clinton—the current crop of GOP hopefuls profess no such intentions, not even paying it lip-service. Likewise, to their eventual detriment, guys like McCain and Romney—who'd lived effective compromise in their political careers—had to essentially declare it anathema to win their nominations.

Trump—and the "tough-guy persona" noted by [MENTION=68]BedellBrave[/MENTION]—is simply the purest expression of this "**** them to hell; all or nothing" posture, but Cruz, not to mention the reformulated Christie, represent this brand almost as succinctly (while Jeb! never had to compromise, as governor, since his legislature was mostly to the right of him).

And I guess my continued point is the Don's definition of "them." Imho, he's changing up the us/them dynamic. Heck, even the "Evangelicals" flocking to him aren't what I would consider faithful, practicing, Evangelicals of yesteryear. They aren't me. I'm a part of the Don's "them." And I think that I can attest that I'm a fairly traditional Conservative (of the stripe that George W. Bush ran as in his first term) - a conservative foreign policy (not a neocon one), a Reagan-Bush Sr. conservative approach to immigration, a social conservative (but that knows that changed hearts are the way to win on those issues on which we disagree), etc.

 

[BedellBrave]

I'm acutely (and, sometimes I think, unfortunately) aware of it, but you're correct that I am not "in tune" with it—and I suspect that you're further correct that this sentiment applies to many of us on here. But ultimately—barring some unseen, and truly radical, turn of events—one of the people in this field will be the next President; and they are all pushing the "left-right spectrum" and hanging on to "our old and comfortable narratives"*, so we nonetheless have to engage with those terms, at least to a degree.

*To wit: though I've liked, on some level, the gestures at "civility" exercised by the Democratic field in the debates, I've been groaning when the candidates champion said exercise, clutching it winkingly like so many imitation-pearls, and touting their own classiness against the perceived slop of the "other side". Say it, don't spray it.

Yes, engage them - but not, make the mistake of seeing what's going on exclusively in these terms.

 

[BedellBrave]

Reagan would get attacked by today's Republican candidates in the same way John F. Kennedy would be attacked by a lot of today's Democrats.

I think that's a good comparison. Both parties, at least in their rhetoric, are far from Reagan and Kennedy.

 

[jpx7]

And I guess my continued point is the Don's definition of "them." Imho, he's changing up the us/them dynamic. Heck, even the "Evangelicals" flocking to him aren't what I would consider faithful, practicing, Evangelicals of yesteryear. They aren't me. I'm a part of the Don's "them." And I think that I can attest that I'm a fairly traditional Conservative (of the stripe that George W. Bush ran as in his first term) - a conservative foreign policy (not a neocon one), a Reagan-Bush Sr. conservative approach to immigration, a social conservative (but that knows that changed hearts are the way to win on those issues on which we disagree), etc.

To wit, if you haven't already read it: this piece.

 

[zitothebrave]

Reagan would get attacked by today's Republican candidates in the same way John F. Kennedy would be attacked by a lot of today's Democrats.

What's important to remember is this is how people run. GWB ran different than he worked in office. Obama ran different then when he was in office. I was too young for Billy Boy to recall his initial campaign.

Again remember Obama was super liberal as a candidate, but then slid to the right in office./

 

[goldfly]

Because Ayers was a terrorist?

interesting theory

not sure why someone should be bothered by "Obama's relationship with Ayers" yet though

During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama, a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years. After being raised by the American and British press the connection was picked up by conservative blogs and newspapers in the United States. The matter was raised in a campaign debate by moderator George Stephanopoulos, and later became an issue for the John McCain presidential campaign. Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.

In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and criticized the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics.

 

[57Brave]

more from RedState on the pissing contest between Trump and ...

Is Donald Trump’s “Veterans” Rally a Scam?

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | January 28th, 2016 at 04:16 PM |

It sure seemed fishy when Trump announced yesterday that he would be holding a rally today in support of “veterans,” especially given that his go-to veterans organization Wounded Warrior Project new nothing about the event. Ever the salesman, Trump even set up a website that people could donate to if they couldn’t make the rally. What a great guy, raising money for the veterans, right?

There’s only one problem. As the Federalist discovered, the website Trump set up to allegedly help veterans diverts all donations to Trump’s personal foundation.

“Honor their valor,” the website, donaldtrumpforvets.com, states. “Donate now to help our Veterans.”

The website, which is nothing more than a single page with stock photosand a credit card donation form, claims that “100% of your donations will go directly to Veterans needs.”

There’s only one problem: 100% of the money raised on the site goes directly to Donald Trump’s personal non-profit foundation, according to a disclosure listed at the bottom of the page.

There is absolutely no accountability here for how Trump will spend this money. This is how hucksters like Trump operate. Rather than say that he’s going to raise money for a reputable vets organization – of which there are many – he diverts the money to his own sham tax shelter and hopes that his supporters never notice or demand an accounting for what was done with their money, as would be done for any 501 (c)(3) that was set up with the specific purpose for helping vets.

One assumes this means that all proceeds collected in person tonight will go to the same source. So instead of donating to “veterans,” what you’re actually doing is donating to Donald Trump’s personal foundation.

What is the record of Trump’s personal foundation? Not real great, actually. A look at their past filings shows that historically, they haven’t really done jack squat with the money they have collected over the years.

 

[goldfly]

Wounded Warrior Project is pretty much a scam in itself anyway

just like Susan G. Komen