(08-16-2022 12:56 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  And despite not winning tonight she will still be a lame duck member and star on the j6 committee. Hopefully she will be there to participate in and witness the downfall of that proto-fascist.

Star of a J6 committee that’s partisan, selective and doesn’t offer dissent questions and talking about proto-facist in the same sentence is laughable

(08-16-2022 12:59 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Why are all the former Bush associates becoming Democrats then?

Being anti trump is one thing, but abandoning your entire belief system so you can grift and stay relevant is another thing. The Lincoln Project (all who wanted to work under Trump but were denied) is entirely a liberal Super PAC.

I'd argue that the beliefs of the Republican party (especially under Trump) changed considerably. He didn't shrink the government, he raised spending. He added to the national debt when he said he wanted a smaller government and a balanced budget. Granted, not since Newt was Speaker has the Republican party been the party for smaller government and balanced budgets.

It is pretty sad to say that Clinton is the most fiscally conservative President in my lifetime. He reformed welfare, saving billions of dollars. He worked with Newt to balance the budget (we had a surplus). I wish we could the 2 parties to work together again... but each party is moving towards the fringes and not to the moderates. That is why there is so much talk of a 3rd party that takes the moderates of both parties. That is where 80% of the electorate is.

(08-16-2022 12:46 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:32 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:27 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  A pretty good opinion piece on just this topic. Outlines Liz Cheney's voting record and her history as a conservative. She will lose the election tonight for one and only one reason.... her principled opposition to a protofascist. End of story.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/13/opinions/...index.html

She's not a conservative, never has been. You shouting it over and over doesn't make it any more true.

You mean she has been caught up in Trump World but there's a line she won't cross. This Republican Party isn't the Republican party of George W bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. It began to change under Trump and is really accelerated this past year.

diarrhea flailing is not a good look.

(08-16-2022 01:04 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:59 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Why are all the former Bush associates becoming Democrats then?

Being anti trump is one thing, but abandoning your entire belief system so you can grift and stay relevant is another thing. The Lincoln Project (all who wanted to work under Trump but were denied) is entirely a liberal Super PAC.

I'd argue that the beliefs of the Republican party (especially under Trump) changed considerably. He didn't shrink the government, he raised spending. He added to the national debt when he said he wanted a smaller government and a balanced budget. Granted, not since Newt was Speaker has the Republican party been the party for smaller government and balanced budgets.

It is pretty sad to say that Clinton is the most fiscally conservative President in my lifetime. He reformed welfare, saving billions of dollars. He worked with Newt to balance the budget (we had a surplus). I wish we could the 2 parties to work together again... but each party is moving towards the fringes and not to the moderates. That is why there is so much talk of a 3rd party that takes the moderates of both parties. That is where 80% of the electorate is.

I know where you're getting at, but I don't subscribe to that premise.

It's absolutely true that the Republican party has become less elite and more working class/populist. Absolutely correct.

As you know, if it was up to Reagan or Trump, they would have dramatically cut the size of government, but our system of government hasn't allowed for this to happen. Newt and Bill were very ideologically aligned in a lot of ways which enabled them to grow the tax base and cut future spending. Don't forget that if Clinton got his way we would have had much more spending in the 90's - healthcare being the main driver.

I credit Clinton for understanding the country's sentiment and adapting year over year to remain popular, but let's not pretend he wasn't an ideologue from 92-94.

(08-16-2022 01:04 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:59 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Why are all the former Bush associates becoming Democrats then?

Being anti trump is one thing, but abandoning your entire belief system so you can grift and stay relevant is another thing. The Lincoln Project (all who wanted to work under Trump but were denied) is entirely a liberal Super PAC.

I'd argue that the beliefs of the Republican party (especially under Trump) changed considerably. He didn't shrink the government, he raised spending. He added to the national debt when he said he wanted a smaller government and a balanced budget. Granted, not since Newt was Speaker has the Republican party been the party for smaller government and balanced budgets.

It is pretty sad to say that Clinton is the most fiscally conservative President in my lifetime. He reformed welfare, saving billions of dollars. He worked with Newt to balance the budget (we had a surplus). I wish we could the 2 parties to work together again... but each party is moving towards the fringes and not to the moderates. That is why there is so much talk of a 3rd party that takes the moderates of both parties. That is where 80% of the electorate is.

Let's be fair. A LOT of that spending had to do with covid. Certainly not all and there is room for criticism on that. But we spent tons on covid. Had he opposed that.......well you know what would have happened.

Also, to be fair Clinton had to be forced to work with Newt. Thankfully, it all worked out.

(08-16-2022 01:10 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Let's be fair. A LOT of that spending had to do with covid. Certainly not all and there is room for criticism on that. But we spent tons on covid. Had he opposed that.......well you know what would have happened.

Also, to be fair Clinton had to be forced to work with Newt. Thankfully, it all worked out.

No doubt that COVID destroyed his last year's budget. But the spending had gone up considerably each of his first 3 years.

As far as Clinton having to work with Newt, I wish both parties would feel the need to work with each other all the time instead of the constant trolling and attacking we see in today's politics. Everyone wants a one liner to become popular on twitter instead of actually finding a middle ground to work together on.

(08-16-2022 01:15 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 01:10 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Let's be fair. A LOT of that spending had to do with covid. Certainly not all and there is room for criticism on that. But we spent tons on covid. Had he opposed that.......well you know what would have happened.

Also, to be fair Clinton had to be forced to work with Newt. Thankfully, it all worked out.

No doubt that COVID destroyed his last year's budget. But the spending had gone up considerably each of his first 3 years.

As far as Clinton having to work with Newt, I wish both parties would feel the need to work with each other all the time instead of the constant trolling and attacking we see in today's politics. Everyone wants a one liner to become popular on twitter instead of actually finding a middle ground to work together on.

The electorate in the 1990's was much more in tune to the issues than today. People will vote against/for based off of phony investigations and personality.

In the 90's, the voters demanded less government spending and wanted a President that was willing to be a pragmatic officeholder by the end of his first term.

(08-16-2022 01:04 PM)mlb Wrote:  It is pretty sad to say that Clinton is the most fiscally conservative President in my lifetime.

Without knowing how old you are, it’s difficult to evaluate that comment. But of all the presidents before Clinton, only FDR and LBJ were less fiscally conservative than Clinton, and FDR was dealing (ineffectively, but still) with the Great Depression.

Quote:[Clinton] reformed welfare, saving billions of dollars. He worked with Newt to balance the budget (we had a surplus).

The welfare reform of 1996 was forced on Clinton, very much against his political will. He “worked with Newt” on absolutely *nothing* but did a great job of accepting credit for things that worked out, or seemed to, while he was in office.

Quote:there is so much talk of a 3rd party that takes the moderates of both parties. That is where 80% of the electorate is.

Don't misunderstand me: I think the 2-party system is harming America every day, and will eventually destroy us if it’s not replaced. But if “80%” don’t like what’s going on, they sure have a strange way of showing it.

The problem is it's going to be tough to leave a two-party system. Each of the parties will always modify their way back up to 50% or thereabouts of the electorate. And they'll grab those extra votes whether that makes them more extreme or more moderate.

(08-16-2022 01:24 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  The problem is it's going to be tough to leave a two-party system. Each of the parties will always modify their way back up to 50% or thereabouts of the electorate. And they'll grab those extra votes whether that makes them more extreme or more moderate.

Good post - I agree

(08-16-2022 01:24 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  The problem is it's going to be tough to leave a two-party system. Each of the parties will always modify their way back up to 50% or thereabouts of the electorate. And they'll grab those extra votes whether that makes them more extreme or more moderate.

One way to attempt to counter to this would be to allow second choice voting or ranked voting. That way an extreme candidate that appeals to 30% or so doesn't wind up with the nomination in a crowded field. And now that party feels stuck with someone like Donald Trump.

(08-16-2022 01:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Without knowing how old you are, it’s difficult to evaluate that comment. But of all the presidents before Clinton, only FDR and LBJ were less fiscally conservative than Clinton, and FDR was dealing (ineffectively, but still) with the Great Depression.

43, and he is the only president in my lifetime that balanced the budget on his watch. Whether it was him or the Republican congress, it happened while he was in office (and at a time that, if I remember correctly, he had the line item veto).

Quote:Don't misunderstand me: I think the 2-party system is harming America every day, and will eventually destroy us if it’s not replaced. But if “80%” don’t like what’s going on, they sure have a strange way of showing it.

I think it is because both parties have done a great job of making the primary issues gay rights, abortion, and gun control. All of those issues are generally pushed hard by the fringe elements of each party.

(08-16-2022 01:28 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 01:24 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  The problem is it's going to be tough to leave a two-party system. Each of the parties will always modify their way back up to 50% or thereabouts of the electorate. And they'll grab those extra votes whether that makes them more extreme or more moderate.

One way to attempt to counter to this would be to allow second choice voting or ranked voting. That way an extreme candidate that appeals to 30% or so doesn't wind up with the nomination in a crowded field. And now that party feels stuck with someone like Donald Trump.

In 2016, that is true. Today he would get a super majority of Republican support.

This is where we are. Proponents of unitary executive theory and the Iraq Liberation act are talking about "muh democratic norms" and leftists and media lapdogs that used to hate these people are now gushing about them.

I've never really liked Trump all that much but if you think the principle of "no one is above the law" is what's driving the actions being taken against Trump I have a flying donkey to sell you. This is about trying to crush a man that is hated by the political class.

(08-16-2022 12:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  She will be the 2024 version of Evan McMuffin, hoping to siphon enough votes off Trump so the the Dems will win purple states

Its a bold strategy though because does anyone really support (right or left) her outside of the DC Bubble

She can run all she likes. She’ll get kamala’ed, won’t get 1% and be OUT before the first primary. She has NO shot.

BTW to the OP: what the hell is an “Ultra Conservative”?

Is that like Mega-MAGA or whatever the mumbler in thief* tried make stick like it was an insult? It didn’t and wasn’t.

(08-16-2022 01:39 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I've never really liked Trump all that much but if you think the principle of "no one is above the law" is what's driving the actions being taken against Trump I have a flying donkey to sell you. This is about trying to crush a man that is hated by the political class.

Definitely disliked by the career politicians. But I think he has a dislikable factor by a lot more than just them. I know almost as many working class people who dislike him as like him. These are people who have worked in DoD all the way through factory positions. He has the highest likeable/dislikeable factor I've ever seen... usually there are a lot of people who don't care one way or the other.

(08-16-2022 11:55 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  After Trump is gone the MAGA party drifts away leaderless. Like when Forrest Gump stopped running. Cheney may be able to run in 2024 for the presidency. She will certainly draw a certain number of Republicans and independents. I don't think the Democrats could stomach voting for her despite her character and her vote to impeach Trump. Still in a crowded Republican primary it could happen.

Are you high??

(08-16-2022 12:27 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  A pretty good opinion piece on just this topic. Outlines Liz Cheney's voting record and her history as a conservative. She will lose the election tonight for one and only one reason.... her principled opposition to a protofascist. End of story.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/13/opinions/...index.html

(08-16-2022 12:54 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:37 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:21 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(08-16-2022 12:11 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  The People vs Big Gov't.

Took way too long for many to realize what has been going on since WWII or for that matter the creation of the FED in 1913.

Let's do our best to educate the liberals on this board. The Trump base are these factions:

1. Blue dog Democrats (1980-2000)
- Economic policy on trade
- America First agenda

2. Reagan conservatives (1976-1988)
- Leadership/Willingness to fight
- Lower taxes for middle class
- Less business regulations

3.Tea party voters (2010-2016)
- Government is too big
- Lower taxes
- Anti Fed/QE

4. Ross Perot supporters (1992)
- Government spending/debt
- Mexico steals away American manufacturing
- NAFTA sucks
- Successful businessman

It's about those ideas and beliefs why Trump has his base. There is no room for the Bush Doctrine or Cheney foreign policy.

Good summary. I've only been alive for 3, but definitely would have fit under 2. Still a little weary on all of Ronald Reagan's ties (why I put him 3 behind DJT and JFK/Bobby in my presidential rankings of having the best interest of the people since WWII), but his work as president speaks for itself.

DJT base has definitely expanded more and more into 1 and 4 since '16 and it's still growing!

That post should be stickied

(08-16-2022 12:56 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  And despite not winning tonight she will still be a lame duck member and star on the j6 committee. Hopefully she will be there to participate in and witness the downfall of that proto-fascist.