• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump says he would like to 'hit' DNC speakers who disparaged him

Dittohead not! said:
Trump has had more positions on both gun control and health care than are found in the Kamasutra. How does anyone know where he really stands on a given issue? The Republican partisans seem to think he supports the Republican agenda, since he's running as a Republican. That makes him a conservative only by use of circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just going by what he puts in writing on his campaign site. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don't. I don't put much weight on what a real estate developer said while schmoozing New York City government, especially the stuff from decades ago.
 
tres borrachos said:
Donald Trump says America is a terrible place. Ronald Reagan said America was a great place. Apparently you didn't watch either candidate's speeches at their respective conventions to understand the distinction.
Click to expand...

That's one (highly predictable) difference between Reagan and Trump, yes. I wasn't saying that Trump and Reagan shared the same ideology and perspective on America (In fact, that couldn't possibly be true as I said Trump has no ideology and Reagan had an ideology).

I claimed that Reagan and his vision for America lead to Donald Trump, and in a number of senses. Firstly, I said that Reagan utterly welcomed racists into his party with coded racist tropes and language; that's a historical fact, I gave you one of Reagan's top aides explaining literally that. The relationship between this and Trump shouldn't be surprising; racists are a highly mobilized group due to Fox News, the racists factions of the Tea Party (funded by Ailes, the Koch Bros, Murdoch, etc).

Another really important issue here is that Reagan succeeded in what he wanted --in a pretty powerful example of "be careful what you wish for." Reagan propelled neoliberal capitalism of Reaganomics (as a replacement for the social democratic capitalism of the New Deal). This did what it set out to do --it crippled social safety nets and services, it lowered taxes on the wealthy, it deregulated industries (sometimes intelligently, but often just recklessly), it increased non-protectionist free trade deals, and it obliterated unions and weakened labor laws. It also blew up the military industrial complex and government contracts via privatization also exploded in size --and, for obvious reasons, so did the national debt, income inequality, and money in politics. Never ever really argued for smaller government, just a government that works for the "right" kind of people.


And behold his success: Poor and middle-class communities, and the institutions that support them, have been ravished and are being torn apart (or have been totally torn apart already), and largely in non-trivial, not easily described ways. So now our dear old, bumbling Donald walks into the scene and says all the "Right" things that superficially make sense: Our world is in shambles (Hint: If you're working class or poor, it is largely in shambles) because all of the living-wage jobs are gone, politicians just answer to the rich and powerful (Also largely true), and also all of our tax money is going to fund Mexicans and Muslims and other immigrants --and not you, my fellow American! (That last one is largely scapegoating, but is also prevalent and "logical" to them because of what they've heard on Fox News for the past 20 years.)

Yeah, this disastrous presidential candidate was inevitable, given the trajectory that our country has been on.
 
cpwill said:
Click to expand...


FIST SHAKE! :lol:

Hm. I"ll think about it.
Click to expand...

Thumbs up.

I'm pointing to both. Though you'll note the links are all about illegals.
Click to expand...

I know, but interchanging "immigration" and "illegal immigration" is a DNC propaganda trick. Trump's only position on legal immigration is that he wants to suspend immigration of countries known to have significant ISIS and Radical Islamic activity. I'm not really opposed to that. Granted, he's a buffoon and took forever to get around to stating his position clearly.

Trump is on public record at the time - hell, he attacked Mitt Romney from the left on the issue.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, though.. I actually agree somewhat with Trump's assessment of Mitt Romney's proposed immigration plan. In the black market economy of illegal immigration there would never be "self deportation". I agree with Mitt on actually enforcing the laws we already have as a method of controlling illegal immigration, but Trump has some salient points of how abysmally the Romney camp sold his plan.

Trump approaches things as a salesman which isn't entirely a terrible way to think about it. Republicans have been terrible salesmen.

Trump: We're gonna round up 11, 12 million people, and we'll do it humanely, but not everything is nice.
Trump, describing his plan: We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out.

He argued for mass deportation, and then later changed his tune. :shrug: He has absolutely altered his position.
Click to expand...

He used Scott Pelley's words but that wasn't what he stated in the full interview. His position is that if you control the border then those who are deported don't come back. "rounding them all up" is not really what he is suggesting other than normal deportation procedures. His point is that as they are deported they won't come back illegally.

Actually the analogy he defended was FDR's concentration camps
Click to expand...

Please read that actual interview. Trump never supported concentration camps. Trump supported FDR's stopping of Japanese and German immigration during WW2. He specifically opposed FDR's internment of the Japanese. His primary point in that discussion was that he is merely suggesting stricter immigration while FDR is respected and did far worse. He is calling out the Democrats on their bias, not suggesting internment camps.

I think we should be deporting illegal aliens who otherwise break our laws. I don't think we should be rounding up and deporting millions of people - with a couple of exceptions, I supported the Rubio plan.
Click to expand...

The only difference between Rubio and Trump is that Trump's plan focuses more of countering recidivism while Rubio's doesn't. Trump also opposes rewarding those who succeed in entering the country illegally while Rubio supports special treatment, incentivizing those who seek to enter the country illegally. It's like having a law against theft, but once you have stolen something you get to keep it.
 
A surrogate, who is someone who is authorized to speak on behalf of the campaign. But no, not just one supporter.
Click to expand...

So two Trump supporters doubt that Trump will build the wall? Trump's campaign hasn't backed away from the claim.

My point is only that he absolutely has altered his position on illegals.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as cut and dry as you do, certainly not from the articles you have presented.

He has put us in a position where GOP audiences are booing Generals and Democrats are chanting USA, USA. If he was out to wreck the GOP for a generation, I struggle to think of how he could have done better or different.
Click to expand...

When John Allen got onstage at the DNC he wasn't doing it as a General, he was doing it as a political person. People are allowed to disagree with a Generals political opinions.

Arguing that a Judge cannot adequately dispose of their office because of their ethnic background and heritage is absolutely identity politics. It's no better or different than when the Left does it.
Click to expand...

He was right on the merits of the opposition, but his delivery sucked.

don't depend on anyone's propaganda - I'm not obliged to defend anyone who deserves to be criticized, nor attack anyone for reasons that they do not deserve to be attacked for. I have no dog in this fight.
Click to expand...

I know you don't think you do, but I'm actually reading what you post and the body of the story doesn't main the picture you seem to have derived from the headline in a lot of cases.

And no. A GOP nominee wrecking the Party's brand, harming our down-ticket, and sending conservatism into a civil war is far more damaging. The GOP is gonna have Trump hung around their necks for years. It's the Democrats new "Southern Strategy" card.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to grasp that you are a willing participant in that civil war and doing no favors to the down-ticket yourself in the process.
 
jmotivator said:
Except in that 60 minutes interview he never said he would pursue a single payer plan. I don't really care for his health insurance solution either, cpwill, but it does you no good lying about his current stated position. His actual, published health care reform plan is almost a straight copy of the Republican alternative to Obamacare.
Click to expand...

And I would bet a weeks' pay that he hasn't read it, anymore than he read his immigration plan (which was likely penned by Sen Sessions).

Nor am I lying about him or his stated positions - the idea that he stands opposed to Obamacare as a point in his favor holds no merit, because he supports precisely those portions of it that make it odious. It's like standing firmly against socialism but mentioning on the side that state ownership/control of the means of production has a lot going for it, and is something that you'd want to do as President.

Nor did I say he claimed he would pursue a single-payer-plan here in the United States - I cited him stating that he would support government funded healthcare for all that needed it, I cited him saying that he liked the mandate. Misrepresenting others' arguments while accusing them of lying only backfires on you.

I don't care for that plan, but at least attack him on the plan his campaign has proposed rather than the BS insinuations of Scott effing Pelley, for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

I will hit him on what he says. Whatever policy paper his campaign puts out - especially when it is clearly disconnected from what the man is saying - is unfortunately less relevant.

The headline is misleading and you know it. Being "opened to discussion" isn't support. I'm on your side on the no-fly issue given how that list is maintained, but do you want the Republican party to come off as the "not even a discussion" party?
Click to expand...

When it comes to tossing the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments out the window? Yes.

Nor was he merely "open to discussion", but announced that he was meeting with the NRA on it, ostensibly to try to get them on board.

No, not that sort of thing.

The first link Trump plays to Bernie voters by agreeing that Hillary stole the election and that jobs were going to Mexico. I'm sure you likely agree with the first assessment, and it all depends on what is done about the second. I'm not a protectionist, but supporting keeping jobs in America is not the main thrust of Bernie Sanders, and really shouldn't be a notion opposed by ANY American candidate unless they want to lose.
Click to expand...

Economic Protectionism is Economic Protectionism. Trump and Bernie's approach to Trade was indeed similar, as was there public railing against companies who made decisions they didn't like (and promises to wield the power of the government against them). There is a reason that Bernie thought he could steal Trump supporters, and Trump thought he could steal Bernie supporters :shrug:
 
jmotivator said:
I know, but interchanging "immigration" and "illegal immigration" is a DNC propaganda trick.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the DNC does. I'm not interested in making their arguments, generally only refuting them.

Trump's only position on legal immigration is that he wants to suspend immigration of countries known to have significant ISIS and Radical Islamic activity.
Click to expand...

That's a modification from his initial "Total And Complete Ban" of immigration of Muslims, then? Nice.

And no. Trump has had more positions on legal immigration than that - he was both for and against increasing the number of H1B Visas, for example.

Here's the thing, though.. I actually agree somewhat with Trump's assessment of Mitt Romney's proposed immigration plan
Click to expand...

You believe that enforcing the law is "mean spirited" or "maniacal"?

:shrug: okay. That doesn't mean that Trump hasn't changed his position, however.

He used Scott Pelley's words but that wasn't what he stated in the full interview. His position is that if you control the border then those who are deported don't come back. "rounding them all up" is not really what he is suggesting other than normal deportation procedures. His point is that as they are deported they won't come back illegally.
Click to expand...

:shrug: He was clear on mass deportation on a number of occasions, in interview, in debate. Hell, it was one of the things his supporters loved about him.

Please read that actual interview. Trump never supported concentration camps. Trump supported FDR's stopping of Japanese and German immigration during WW2. He specifically opposed FDR's internment of the Japanese. His primary point in that discussion was that he is merely suggesting stricter immigration while FDR is respected and did far worse. He is calling out the Democrats on their bias, not suggesting internment camps
Click to expand...

I didn't say he supported putting people in internment camps - I said that FDR was the analogy he defended (not Hitler).

Regardless, hyperbole about Hitler is no better than using hyperbole about Hitler as a shield for Trump's earlier support of mass deportation.

The only difference between Rubio and Trump is that Trump's plan focuses more of countering recidivism while Rubio's doesn't.
Click to expand...

What?

Did you even read those plans? Listen to their proponents?

Trump also opposes rewarding those who succeed in entering the country illegally while Rubio supports special treatment, incentivizing those who seek to enter the country illegally. It's like having a law against theft, but once you have stolen something you get to keep it.
Click to expand...

Actually both supported special treatment for those who entered this country illegally.
 
jmotivator said:
So two Trump supporters doubt that Trump will build the wall? Trump's campaign hasn't backed away from the claim.
Click to expand...

What part of "his politically connected supporters are suggesting he will change his position again" skipped past you there, and turned into a claim that the Trump Campaign had announced it's intention to do so?

I don't see it as cut and dry as you do, certainly not from the articles you have presented.
Click to expand...

:shrug: he went from mass deportation to decrying it. That's a fairly cut and dry switch.

When John Allen got onstage at the DNC he wasn't doing it as a General, he was doing it as a political person. People are allowed to disagree with a Generals political opinions.
Click to expand...

Sure. And that changes what I wrote not a single iota.

He was right on the merits of the opposition, but his delivery sucked.
Click to expand...

Yeah. No. You can't just say "his delivery sucked" as an excuse for why he said something different than what it would have been convenient for him to have said. Trump argued that the Judge was a "hater of Donald Trump" and had an "inherent conflict of interest" because the judge was Mexican (the Judge is American).

I know you don't think you do, but I'm actually reading what you post and the body of the story doesn't main the picture you seem to have derived from the headline in a lot of cases.
Click to expand...

I'm a political junkie/addict. I grab source citation, but I argued about all this crap as it was happening.

You don't seem to grasp that you are a willing participant in that civil war and doing no favors to the down-ticket yourself in the process.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - I'm fully in tune with the fact (and glad to be) a participant in the intra-conservative civil war. I'm on the side of the conservatives, who argue that we shouldn't support a big government liberal authoritarian simply because he has an "R" after his name.

And I'm not the one out there attacking Gold Star families, making an ass of myself on television, and driving the GOP favorable into the toilet - that's Trump.
 
poweRob said:
I think his brain doesn't work fast enough to make snappy comebacks so he just sticks with the small diction that he has. This weekend he said something crappy about that Muslim serviceman that died and Hillary said he didn't have the temperament to be prez. Trump's response... "I have the greatest temperament. SHE doesn't have the temperament to be president."

That's just an inability to think fast. IMO.
Click to expand...

Did you ever notice that everything out of Trump's mouth always seems to be "I", "me", etc. - except when he sees a chance to verbally attack someone, like Hillary (who he used to adore) and his opponents? He goes to rallies (where the worshipping by his adoring fans would make you want to vomit), and gives press conferences, and makes appearances, and all he does is bloviate all about himself. Nothing about the American people, their struggles, how he's going to make their lives better. Nothing about how hard some people have worked, how wonderful some parents are, how great our parents made this world for us, how many challenges so many people overcome on a daily basis. Nope.

Donald Trump's repeated daily messages while running for President: "I'm going to save everyone! Only I can do it! Everyone who criticizes me is an idiot. Hillary Clinton is crooked and she's saying mean things about me. Michael Bloomberg hurt my feelings. But enough about me, let's talk about you. What do you think of me?"
 
FieldTheorist said:
That's one (highly predictable) difference between Reagan and Trump, yes. I wasn't saying that Trump and Reagan shared the same ideology and perspective on America (In fact, that couldn't possibly be true as I said Trump has no ideology and Reagan had an ideology).

I claimed that Reagan and his vision for America lead to Donald Trump, and in a number of senses. Firstly, I said that Reagan utterly welcomed racists into his party with coded racist tropes and language; that's a historical fact, I gave you one of Reagan's top aides explaining literally that. The relationship between this and Trump shouldn't be surprising; racists are a highly mobilized group due to Fox News, the racists factions of the Tea Party (funded by Ailes, the Koch Bros, Murdoch, etc).

Another really important issue here is that Reagan succeeded in what he wanted --in a pretty powerful example of "be careful what you wish for." Reagan propelled neoliberal capitalism of Reaganomics (as a replacement for the social democratic capitalism of the New Deal). This did what it set out to do --it crippled social safety nets and services, it lowered taxes on the wealthy, it deregulated industries (sometimes intelligently, but often just recklessly), it increased non-protectionist free trade deals, and it obliterated unions and weakened labor laws. It also blew up the military industrial complex and government contracts via privatization also exploded in size --and, for obvious reasons, so did the national debt, income inequality, and money in politics. Never ever really argued for smaller government, just a government that works for the "right" kind of people.


And behold his success: Poor and middle-class communities, and the institutions that support them, have been ravished and are being torn apart (or have been totally torn apart already), and largely in non-trivial, not easily described ways. So now our dear old, bumbling Donald walks into the scene and says all the "Right" things that superficially make sense: Our world is in shambles (Hint: If you're working class or poor, it is largely in shambles) because all of the living-wage jobs are gone, politicians just answer to the rich and powerful (Also largely true), and also all of our tax money is going to fund Mexicans and Muslims and other immigrants --and not you, my fellow American! (That last one is largely scapegoating, but is also prevalent and "logical" to them because of what they've heard on Fox News for the past 20 years.)

Yeah, this disastrous presidential candidate was inevitable, given the trajectory that our country has been on.
Click to expand...

There's probably something interesting to some people about your theory that Ronald Reagan is somehow responsible for Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination, and Fox News is responsible for something too, but they each have zero to do with the thread. Maybe you could start a thread about Reagan and another thread about Fox News?
 
upsideguy said:
I would argue that if you detest one more than the other by a great deal, you are using only 1/2 your power in stopping the more detestable event (denying a vote is half the power; rendering your vote to the other guy is the other half). However, should you find them equally reprehensible, than voting 3rd party is the strongest vote you can make.

Do you find them equally reprehensible?
Click to expand...

They're equally reprehensible to me.
 
cpwill said:
What part of "his politically connected supporters are suggesting he will change his position again" skipped past you there, and turned into a claim that the Trump Campaign had announced it's intention to do so?
Click to expand...

What part of "suggesting" skipped past you? You want to make a fact out of a rumor.

:shrug: he went from mass deportation to decrying it. That's a fairly cut and dry switch.
Click to expand...

But he didn't. In your own provided link he said nothing about "mass deportation". He said he would build a wall and continue with deportation at Obama's rates. It seems his plan relies of reducing recidivism.

Sure. And that changes what I wrote not a single iota.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. You want people to treat a retired general with deference on his political opinion

Yeah. No. You can't just say "his delivery sucked" as an excuse for why he said something different than what it would have been convenient for him to have said. Trump argued that the Judge was a "hater of Donald Trump" and had an "inherent conflict of interest" because the judge was Mexican (the Judge is American).
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. I sure can make the distinction. I posted the case laid out by Alberto Gonzalez for you to read. I guess Alberto Gonzalez is racist too....

I'm a political junkie/addict. I grab source citation, but I argued about all this crap as it was happening.
Click to expand...

Except that in this case you seem to grab what you think suits your position, and it happens to be heavily slanted.

On the contrary - I'm fully in tune with the fact (and glad to be) a participant in the intra-conservative civil war. I'm on the side of the conservatives, who argue that we shouldn't support a big government liberal authoritarian simply because he has an "R" after his name.
Click to expand...

That being the case you have no business laying all the blame on Trump. You are fighting a battle you want.

And I'm not the one out there attacking Gold Star families, making an ass of myself on television, and driving the GOP favorable into the toilet - that's Trump.
Click to expand...

When Gold Star families become willing pawns of a political movement they should be expected to answer to it. It's an age old strategy of Catch 22 by the left that you help validate.
 
jmotivator said:
What part of "suggesting" skipped past you? You want to make a fact out of a rumor.
Click to expand...

No. You are attempting to claim that I said something that I didn't, and then arguing against that strawman.

What I said was A) He has changed his position in the past (fact) B) he has changed his position during this campaign (fact) and C) politically connected individuals with his campaign have suggested he will do so again in the future (fact).

But he didn't. In your own provided link he said nothing about "mass deportation".
Click to expand...

11 million people - how many do you have to have before it becomes "mass"?

He said he would build a wall and continue with deportation at Obama's rates.
Click to expand...

That is flatly false. He stated on multiple occasions his intention to deport the illegal immigrant populace of the United States and then bring the "great" ones back, because they are "great". :roll:

It seems his plan relies of reducing recidivism.
Click to expand...

:roll: you are inventing and projecting. I have no idea why.

Sure it does. You want people to treat a retired general with deference on his political opinion
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. I wrote "He has put us in a position where GOP audiences are booing Generals and Democrats are chanting USA, USA."

Both of those items are true regardless of your opinion of its' appropriateness.

Yeah, no. I sure can make the distinction. I posted the case laid out by Alberto Gonzalez for you to read. I guess Alberto Gonzalez is racist too....
Click to expand...

:shrug: I didn't say anything about Gonzalez. I stated that Trump has engaged in identity politics, which he has. The case that Gonzalez tries to make is not the argument that Trump made which was that being of Mexican heritage was an inherent conflict of interest. Running out and saying "Oh, well, surely what he meant to say was this other, different, more acceptable thing!" makes us no better than any other apologist.

Except that in this case you seem to grab what you think suits your position, and it happens to be heavily slanted.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, on this case I'm citing my points, which I have been making for months, since these things occurred.

That being the case you have no business laying all the blame on Trump.
Click to expand...

I don't lay all the blame on Trump. He had a crap-ton of enablers in getting the GOP to dump conservatism for big-government liberal authoritarianism.

You are fighting a battle you want.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I would much rather Conservatism had remained in the steering seat.

When Gold Star families become willing pawns of a political movement they should be expected to answer to it. It's an age old strategy of Catch 22 by the left that you help validate.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, when a Gold Star family criticizes you, the appropriate response is to honor their sacrifice and respectfully disagree. If you want to counter - you attack the political movement using them. You don't make an ass of yourself personally attacking Gold Star families.

The Left? :roll: No. That's called moral character, and it used to be something that Republicans claimed mattered. Until Trump came along, and suddenly the standard for "Presidential" was "anything we can ever find, that the lowest Democrat ever did on their worst day".
 
tres borrachos said:
There's probably something interesting to some people about your theory that Ronald Reagan is somehow responsible for Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination, and Fox News is responsible for something too, but they each have zero to do with the thread. Maybe you could start a thread about Reagan and another thread about Fox News?
Click to expand...

I agree that we are moving off the central topic of the thread, but I thought it was a point worth reiterating.
 
tres borrachos said:
History tells us that Donald Trump wanted Hillary Clinton to be President. That is an undisputed fact that can be verified easily. It has nothing to do with "conservatives". Don't view everything someone posts through a partisan lens.
Click to expand...

And that's crap. Why? Because Trump says whatever sounds good to him at. the. time. that. he. says. it.

Nobody's that good an actor - least of all, Trump.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And that's crap. Why? Because Trump says whatever sounds good to him at. the. time. that. he. says. it.

Nobody's that good an actor - least of all, Trump.
Click to expand...

Oh stop it Glen. There's nothing for you to be embarrassed about. Everyone knows Trump was a lifelong Democrat. He voted for the following candidates: Bill Clinton (twice), Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama (after supporting Hillary Clinton in the primaries). His political donations for the last 20 years are a matter of public record, and show his political leans. From Megyn Kelly to non braindead posters to politicians, the man has been called out as being a Democrat. Your refusal to simply acknowledge a fact that isn't even a debatable issue is nothing but hyperpartisan blather. Don't worry about the facts. Keep up the partisanship.
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh stop it Glen. There's nothing for you to be embarrassed about. Everyone knows Trump was a lifelong Democrat. He voted for the following candidates: Bill Clinton (twice), Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama (after supporting Hillary Clinton in the primaries). His political donations for the last 20 years are a matter of public record, and show his political leans. From Megyn Kelly to non braindead posters to politicians, the man has been called out as being a Democrat. Your refusal to simply acknowledge a fact that isn't even a debatable issue is nothing but hyperpartisan blather. Don't worry about the facts. Keep up the partisanship.
Click to expand...

'Scuse you, ma'am, but you're making a wild assumption. You're assuming that this was his plan all along, even back in 2008 when he was perhaps the single loudest voice of the Birthers, that he's kept up this charade the entire time, that all of the epic flip-flops and achingly-demonstrable falsehoods were all part of his grand scheme to tear down the GOP.

That, ma'am, is CT stuff. He simply ain't that good an actor.

What you're refusing to even consider is that maybe, just maybe he might not be playing with a full deck upstairs. The stories of his refusals to listen and learn, his refusals to take criticism, his inability to admit error or to apologize, his misogyny and his racism, are legion. If you'll look, it's easy to find them even back in the 1980's. I stated already that one guy who worked for me was a narcissist in the clinical sense - and Trump reminds me so much of him.

If anything, you should be mortified for the GOP and for the conservatives in general who bought into Trump's narcissism. Time heals all wounds, and time wounds all heels (which is why I'm not too worried about Trump himself)...but when those who bought into Trump whole hog finally realize what they allowed to happen, I honestly don't know how they'll react in general. Some will do as you're doing now - wrap themselves in denial. But many more will see what happened, and I suspect that some will become so cynical that they will lose all sense of patriotism.

TB, I honestly don't want to see the GOP crash and burn - remember, I was a Reagan Republican and I regularly brag about Bush 41 on here. But I do want the GOP to somehow recover because without the GOP, we essentially become (at least for a time) a one-party nation - and that's NOT good. And I'm not the only one saying it. This morning on her show, Stephanie Miller - a progressive talk-show host who's a heck of a lot more to the left than I am (she was also the daughter of Goldwater's running mate back in 1964) - said much the same thing. We don't want one-party rule! Of course, compare that to Karl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom