The Don

The Tea Party isn't the Republican Establishment. Far, far, far from it.

A lot of big money backing the tea party, including the Kochs. They're maybe not THE establishment, but that would be like calling the Unions or Wall Street not establishment in the dems.
 
The difference between Tea Party and Establishment was on display in an earlier debate, when Cruz and Kasich tangled about bailing out BofA were it about to fail.

Cruz made a dumb populist stab at saying he wouldn't bail it out.

Kasich called him on it and made the case for what a responsible person would do.

Cruz, being a smart guy and an excellent debater, made a polished and emotionally-charged case for why he was right, even though he was pretty self-evidently wrong. Tea Party types lapped it up, objectively dumb as it was.

What's the difference between the Tea Party Republican and the Establishment Republican? It's what they say they'd do. In practice, they'd do the exact same thing.
 
I'll buy that - Cruz only panders to the populists/anti-establishment. Now the question for me is, do Saunders, Paul and Trump do that as well?
 
I'll buy that - Cruz only panders to the populists/anti-establishment. Now the question for me is, do Saunders, Paul and Trump do that as well?

I guess I'd suggest that everybody does, to some extent.

Some are gonna walk the walk more than others. Cruz may be "anti-establishment" in the sense that he's bucked party leadership a few times. He's not anti-establishment in any meaningful cultural sense, I'd argue, and he is certainly a friend of plutocracy.

To answer the rest of your question, my sense is that Sanders is more legitimately not-of-the-mainstream but not above pandering, Paul is likewise (although he really only buck establishment on a few issues, they're heterodox enough to be notable) and that Trump is pure pander.
 
The Canadian wants to be Prime Minister of Israel more than President of the USA
 
The Canadian wants to be Prime Minister of Israel more than President of the USA

What actually soured me the most on Cruz was when he went to that meeting of ME Christians in the US and played up the pro-Israeli card not giving one iota of concern for their legitimate grievances with both Muslims and Israelis.
 
Anybody notice how much better the Don looks than the sexual predator from Hot Springs at the same age?

honestly have no idea what this means

but Vol seems to be checking out the looks of dudes (and that's cool if that's your thing)
 
Daily Shouts
Daily Shouts
January 14, 2016
Li’l Donald
By Bill Flanagan

Mrs. Abernathy called the roomful of eleven-year-olds to order and told them to open their math books to page thirty-one. Her eyes scanned the class and came to rest on a stocky boy beneath a dome of golden hair, who was making grotesque faces at a girl in leg braces.

“Donald! What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”

The boy turned his attention to the teacher with sleepy-eyed indifference.

“I’m sorry, what did you say?”

“What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”

“Do I know the square root of a hundred and forty-four? Is that what you’re asking me? Of course I do. It’s absurd that you would even ask me that.”

“Please tell the class what it is.”

“You want ME to tell the class? Excuse me—aren’t you supposed to be the teacher? I think we can all agree that, if anyone around here is going to tell the class the square root of a hundred and forty-four, you should be the one to do it. If you even know the square root of a hundred and forty-four—which, frankly, I have my doubts.”

This last phrase was delivered to three boys sitting across the aisle from the blond boy. They giggled.

“Donald, go the blackboard.”

The boy registered astonishment. “I’m supposed to go to the blackboard?”

“If you do not, you will get an F.”

“I don’t think so.”

“Do you know the answer, Donald?”

“Do I know the answer? Lady, I am super-smart. My I.Q. is, like, many multiples of the square root of a hundred and forty-four. Beyond anything you have seen in this grammar school, believe me.”

“Then you can tell us the square root of a hundred and forty-four.”

“Listen, I know the square root of a hundred and forty-four. I have known it for YEARS.”

“What is it?”

“I don’t do hypotheticals.”

“The square root of a hundred and forty-four is not hypothetical.”

“Oh, really? Says who? You? Has anybody here ever seen a square root? No? I didn’t think so. People, it’s your parents, the taxpayers, who are paying this woman’s salary. Money that could be going to you, personally, for Three Musketeers bars is lining the pocket of this person so that she can stand here asking me to do her job for her. May I be honest? It sickens me.”

“Donald, would you like to go to the principal’s office?”

“Let me tell you something: the principal and I get along great. He respects me, the principal. We see eye to eye on many, many subjects. I wouldn’t mind sitting down with the principal and discussing a few issues pertaining to how this class is being run. I think the principal would be very interested in what I would have to tell him.”

“Are you threatening me, Donald?”

“Threatening you? Whoa! Where did that come from?” Donald turned to the boys across the aisle and said, out of the side of his mouth, “Must be somebody’s time of the month.”

“Donald, what is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”

“You keep asking the same question! We’ve been over this and over this. I’m starting to wonder if there’s something else going on here. I’m wondering if perhaps someone is not properly accredited as a math teacher. It’s just a question.”

“Sit down, Donald. I am giving you an F.”

The boy did not sit. He turned to speak to the students seated behind him.

“Look, I have demonstrated many, many times that I am a super math brain. I knew the square root of a hundred and forty-four before anybody was even talking about the square root of a hundred and forty-four.”

“What is it?” the teacher asked.

“Don’t worry, Mrs. Abernathy. When you hear my answer, you are going to love it so much. You are going to be very, very happy.”

“Good. What is your answer?”

“To what?”

“The square root of a hundred and forty-four.”

“I am so sick of these gotcha questions.”
 
From Dana Milbank's article in the Washington Post:

My colleague Michael Gerson, the former George W. Bush speechwriter, wrote that “the nomination of Trump would reduce Republican politics — at the presidential level — to an enterprise of squalid prejudice. And many Republicans could not follow, precisely because they are Republicans. By seizing the GOP, Trump would break it to pieces.”

Heck, Trump could even win — particularly if Democrats nominate a socialist to oppose him — but the only thing more likely to devastate the Republican Party and the conservative movement than a Trump wipeout in November would be a Trump victory. Either way, he’d cement the Republican Party’s long-term demographic problems and bind conservatism to bigotry and nativism.
 
From Dana Milbank's article in the Washington Post:

My colleague Michael Gerson, the former George W. Bush speechwriter, wrote that “the nomination of Trump would reduce Republican politics — at the presidential level — to an enterprise of squalid prejudice. And many Republicans could not follow, precisely because they are Republicans. By seizing the GOP, Trump would break it to pieces.”

Heck, Trump could even win — particularly if Democrats nominate a socialist to oppose him — but the only thing more likely to devastate the Republican Party and the conservative movement than a Trump wipeout in November would be a Trump victory. Either way, he’d cement the Republican Party’s long-term demographic problems and bind conservatism to bigotry and nativism.

I'd argue they've reduced to those levels when they've had people like Bachman, Cain, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, etc. leading in polls.

The Trump nomination will just make the circle complete from 2008.
 
I'd argue they've reduced to those levels when they've had people like Bachman, Cain, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, etc. leading in polls.

The Trump nomination will just make the circle complete from 2008.

It's not just the Rs he's drawing from though. It's blue-collar Ds. This ain't as predictable as I think we are accustomed to.

And Trump isn't those sort of candidates at all. This is a different animal.
 
It's not just the Rs he's drawing from though. It's blue-collar Ds. This ain't as predictable as I think we are accustomed to.

And Trump isn't those sort of candidates at all. This is a different animal.

That's been a strategy though of the R's in the last 2 election cycles.

That's why they always bring up Ronald Reagan, and the Reagan "Democrats". They're trying to take them back.

This isn't anything new, the R's have shifted farther right the last 4 election cycles (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014). 2016 is them nearly completing the circle. No matter whom they nominate whether Cruz, Trump, or even Rubio those 3 candidates are as far right if not more than the last two election cycles. I mean Cruz and Trump especially. There was a time Cruz was considered the extremist in the Republican Party. Now he's in good position to possibly get the nomination.

I mean if you think about it, Romney was their most electable candidate, and look at how much damage the primary season did to him. Every (R) contender tried to take down Romney from Pawlenty (Obamneycare), Perry (Massachusetts Mitt), Bachman (Conservative Governor from a Liberal State), Gingrich (release your taxes), Santorum (Romney is multiple choice flip flopper) to even Christie's GOP convention speech being nothing about Mitt but everything about Christie. Now the frontrunners of this cycle, are more in agreement than the last two presidential cycles. This race has become a contest of who can say the most mouthdropping things.
 
That's been a strategy though of the R's in the last 2 election cycles.

That's why they always bring up Ronald Reagan, and the Reagan "Democrats". They're trying to take them back.

This isn't anything new, the R's have shifted farther right the last 4 election cycles (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014). 2016 is them nearly completing the circle. No matter whom they nominate whether Cruz, Trump, or even Rubio those 3 candidates are as far right if not more than the last two election cycles. I mean Cruz and Trump especially. There was a time Cruz was considered the extremist in the Republican Party. Now he's in good position to possibly get the nomination.

I mean if you think about it, Romney was their most electable candidate, and look at how much damage the primary season did to him. Every (R) contender tried to take down Romney from Pawlenty (Obamneycare), Perry (Massachusetts Mitt), Bachman (Conservative Governor from a Liberal State), Gingrich (release your taxes), Santorum (Romney is multiple choice flip flopper) to even Christie's GOP convention speech being nothing about Mitt but everything about Christie. Now the frontrunners of this cycle, are more in agreement than the last two presidential cycles. This race has become a contest of who can say the most mouthdropping things.

Trump isn't a conservative though. He's a populist, socially liberal, fear-monger. He's not shifting to the right - "right" isn't an apt descriptor.
 
Trump isn't a conservative though. He's a populist, socially liberal, fear-monger. He's not shifting to the right - "right" isn't an apt descriptor.

He isn't shifting to the right personally, I think he's doing it all for show because he knows it will work on the base.

But the base has been shifting this way more and more. I wondre if the rino's will save the day by coming out strong for Jeb or even Christie.
 
But no matter it isn't a shift to the "right" - it's merely anti-immigration (which plays to blue-collar Dems too) and bravado. That's it. There's no core conservatism. There certainly isn't moral conservatism.

And it looks like the base hasn't been moving right so much as it has been moving in a populist-xenophobic direction.
 
Trump isn't a conservative though. He's a populist, socially liberal, fear-monger. He's not shifting to the right - "right" isn't an apt descriptor.
But no matter it isn't a shift to the "right" - it's merely anti-immigration (which plays to blue-collar Dems too) and bravado. That's it. There's no core conservatism. There certainly isn't moral conservatism.

While I don't think his recent rhetoric has been "socially liberal", that is obviously where a lot of his past allegiances have been situated, so it does make one wonder what he really intends. Otherwise, yea: populist, nativist, fear-monger, utter-opportunist, and altogether a pretty objectionable fellow, no matter where your ideological preferences lie—unless one really does simply prefer morally sick, policy-vacant, slavish sycophants.
 
Back
Top