• 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!

Would reactions be different under another GOP president?

Would reactions be different under another GOP president?

  • Total voters
    36
Mycroft said:
Would things be different if some other GOP person won instead of Trump?

No.

We would STILL have a situation where Queen Hillary lost. We would STILL have the pissed off Mainstream Media spinning everything against that GOP President. We would STILL have Congressional Democrats determined to oppose and undermine everything that GOP President tried to do.

And we would STILL have people making **** up trying to hurt that GOP President.

The only thing that would be different are the details.
Click to expand...

^^^^
All true.

One need only look at what was said about candidates as milquetoast as John McCain and Mitt Romney, and what was said about Bush (about whom, contrary to what Nilly says above, WAS called an "international embarrassment," regularly).
 
Simply, yes. But also no. We have been in a hyperpartisan era since the G.W. Bush Presidency, and it's just gotten worse each year since. It's very likely that no other person would be getting the hateful attacks that Trump is getting, or anyone else would have the great majority of the press trying to overthrow their Presidency, but, no one else would be immune from the partisan witch hunts in their entirety.

For instance, if Hillary had won, then there would be similar Russian problems with her ties to Russia and Bill's payments from Russia and of course the uranium deal. However, she would have the press on her side deflecting as much of the attacks as possible, where Trump has the press repeating unsubstantiated claims of treason as if they're true.

As for another GOP President, no, not really. Other than anyone other than Trump would be dealing with it better.

That's the difference as I see it.
 
X Factor said:
Would the hype, both positive and negative be any different or would we being pretty much what we're seeing now?

I know that's vague and broad. My question is something to the effect of would people generally, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on, be reacting any differently than they are now if a different Repub candidate had won? Would the press, both left and right leaning, treat him/her differently? Would the opposition be calmer and/or more cooperative or would we, for the most part, be seeing substantially the same things we are now?

My belief is that, personal as the criticism often gets with Trump (and yes, he makes it super easy sometimes) any of the other candidates would encounter pretty much exactly the same, both in support and in hostility.
Click to expand...

Okay, I accidentally voted yes. I think the correct answer is NO. Trump was a uniquely divisive (non-PC to his supporters) candidate who insulted everyone and everything but Putin/Russia, including the other GOP candidates and former GOP presidents.
 
X Factor said:
Would the hype, both positive and negative be any different or would we being pretty much what we're seeing now?

I know that's vague and broad. My question is something to the effect of would people generally, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on, be reacting any differently than they are now if a different Repub candidate had won? Would the press, both left and right leaning, treat him/her differently? Would the opposition be calmer and/or more cooperative or would we, for the most part, be seeing substantially the same things we are now?

My belief is that, personal as the criticism often gets with Trump (and yes, he makes it super easy sometimes) any of the other candidates would encounter pretty much exactly the same, both in support and in hostility.
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz would have received pretty much the same treatment. Hillary would have been generally accepted and there would have been pretty much no fuss from the media or inside the beltway.
 
Lutherf said:
Ted Cruz would have received pretty much the same treatment. Hillary would have been generally accepted and there would have been pretty much no fuss from the media or inside the beltway.
Click to expand...

Hillary would have been completely hamstrung by continued nonstop investigations into Benghazi (yes, still. After all, how long did the Obama birtherism last, until Trump pulled finally pulled their leash and ordered them to heel?), faux outrage over Leon Pantetta's Emails (with all the scary stuff in there, after all, right?). We would be seeing the crowds yelling "Lock her up!" pulled to a fever pitch.

After all, in the GOP, you are dealing with an electorate for which objective facts have very little role to play. Having an Attorney General lying with impunity to everyone's face is just the same side of the story as Hillary's campaign manager saying in a private Email that he has a preference for her over Sanders.
 
ataraxia said:
After all, in the GOP, you are dealing with an electorate for which objective facts have very little role to play. Having an Attorney General lying with impunity to everyone's face is just the same side of the story as Hillary's campaign manager saying in a private Email that he has a preference for her over Sanders.
Click to expand...

Color-coded for the amusing irony.
 
The GOP is pretty loony these days, but I would accept a moderate who is fiscally conservative.

Trump scares people because of his openly hateful rhetoric and grandstanding. So yes I think people would react differently to someone else.
 
Trump as entrepreneur, entertainer, marketeer, TV Star and developer did not bother me in the least.

Trump demonstrated his impressive will with his successful campaign. I do not expect him to finish his term. Somehow I hope he becomes a catalyst for positive change.

I voted "yes" in the poll.
 
Look at Trumps numbers. Historically bad and justifiably so.

Almost anyone other than Trump would be better for America (except a Clinton).
 
radcen said:
I believe so, yes. There would still be division and (possibly hyper-) partisanship, simply because that's who WE have devolved to be, but not the level that we have right now.

Collective "we".
Click to expand...

I am afraid that has some truth to it.
 
How do you think he's reached the lowest approval rating ever and in just 2 months?

There's been a lot of crazies out of the GOP since 2008, and a lot of corrupt scum out of the democrats, but not the transparently lies on top of lies, self-serving hypocrisy, and endless whining that makes baghdad bob look like an honest broker. Literally from day one ("biggest inauguration crowd ever"). Calling newspapers "enemy of the people" and threatening to censor them, vast and enormously expensive walls and travel bans, vowing to prosecute his rivals, and to take health care from 24 million...

It's my opinion that he's the most pathetic brand of wannabe dictator i've ever seen, but it's a fact that he's the most polarizing figure imaginable. There's truly no way that ted cruz or hillary or sanders would generate these kind of reactions that just build on top of each other, because everything Trump does is more and more cartoonishly polarizing, with no regard whatsoever for the 240 million who did not vote for him (and for many who did - see the health care debacle). It's really only his rhetoric that keeps him from being universally hated, now that he's in office - which really is a blight on his remaining supporters, given how deplorable his rhetoric always has been

Then there's the whole russian and electoral college double cross matter that a popular vote winner who wasn't in bed with the enemy wouldn't have to deal with
 
Rogue Valley said:
Look at Trumps numbers. Historically bad and justifiably so.

Almost anyone other than Trump would be better for America (except a Clinton).
Click to expand...

Hillary knows (well, knew until the hacking) how to hide her lies, total opposite of Trump. In terms of polarizing, a blander centrist than her you would never find
 
ataraxia said:
Hillary would have been completely hamstrung by continued nonstop investigations into Benghazi (yes, still. After all, how long did the Obama birtherism last, until Trump pulled finally pulled their leash and ordered them to heel?), faux outrage over Leon Pantetta's Emails (with all the scary stuff in there, after all, right?). We would be seeing the crowds yelling "Lock her up!" pulled to a fever pitch.

After all, in the GOP, you are dealing with an electorate for which objective facts have very little role to play. Having an Attorney General lying with impunity to everyone's face is just the same side of the story as Hillary's campaign manager saying in a private Email that he has a preference for her over Sanders.
Click to expand...

Investigations often none pay attention to. Her election in spite of benghazi would have validated it as something none care about to make any difference, similar to "grab them by the *****" Can we do better than that as a country? Hell yes. Is it enough to bring down the elite? Absolutely not. Likewise, the birther crap absolutely none of middle america let alone Obama's base gave two craps about.

There has to be new and damning evidence, the kind i suspect we'll shortly find about collusion with Putin. Hell, the guy who organized the "lock her up" chants now is begging for immunity to testify

Or continuous **** ups like we've seen out of Trump for 3 months running. He has been hamstrung by the courts with his unconstitutional EOs (after vowing to undo Obama's "unconstitutional" EOs no less), and by the voters with his attempt to rape them of health care. His credibility is shot, and his own doing. Much as i think Hillary and Cruz are conniving scum, they are far less polarizing
 
No difference. One need only remember how quickly the media turned on their darling McCain.
 
X Factor said:
Would the hype, both positive and negative be any different or would we being pretty much what we're seeing now?

I know that's vague and broad. My question is something to the effect of would people generally, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on, be reacting any differently than they are now if a different Repub candidate had won? Would the press, both left and right leaning, treat him/her differently? Would the opposition be calmer and/or more cooperative or would we, for the most part, be seeing substantially the same things we are now?

My belief is that, personal as the criticism often gets with Trump (and yes, he makes it super easy sometimes) any of the other candidates would encounter pretty much exactly the same, both in support and in hostility.
Click to expand...

I think the answer is somewhat yes but I don't think it is enough for me to vote yes. This last election was all about two candidates with the highest negatives of any nominees in history so that would certainly factor into dissatisfaction and polarization. But the dysfunction in the system is at high levels and even if, we'll say, Cruz had won the left would still be going rabid and being the party of no, if nothing else, just to get back for the last several years.
 
X Factor said:
My belief is that, personal as the criticism often gets with Trump (and yes, he makes it super easy sometimes) any of the other candidates would encounter pretty much exactly the same, both in support and in hostility.
Click to expand...
Not even close. Trump has no business being POTUS in any stretch of the imagination. How can you even compare someone like Kasich to Trump? Or even Pence? The problem with Trump is that not only is he a spoiled rich kid who is simply getting his kicks off, having absolutely no clue how to run government or lead government...he is TERRIBLE at hiding this. If we do have to suffer a dolt for a president, I wish they would be kind enough to avoid the lime light...much like Bush. Bush was terrible, but he delegated the POTUS to everyone else...which strangely enough felt better than Trump. I figured worst that could happen with GWB would be that he called Daddy for help. Trump? He called Bannon and his daughter. Reagan was a bit of a cry for help technically, but he had some vision, and a good heart, and took it seriously. Trump has none of those qualities.
 
Mach said:
Not even close. Trump has no business being POTUS in any stretch of the imagination. How can you even compare someone like Kasich to Trump? Or even Pence? The problem with Trump is that not only is he a spoiled rich kid who is simply getting his kicks off, having absolutely no clue how to run government or lead government...he is TERRIBLE at hiding this. If we do have to suffer a dolt for a president, I wish they would be kind enough to avoid the lime light...much like Bush. Bush was terrible, but he delegated the POTUS to everyone else...which strangely enough felt better than Trump. I figured worst that could happen with GWB would be that he called Daddy for help. Trump? He called Bannon and his daughter. Reagan was a bit of a cry for help technically, but he had some vision, and a good heart, and took it seriously. Trump has none of those qualities.
Click to expand...

People all over the world are throwing the establishment out. This is why Trump won. Voters didn't want a polished establishment president and the voters that wanted establishment to win simply can't understand this and still don't.
 
Moderate Right said:
People all over the world are throwing the establishment out. This is why Trump won. Voters didn't want a polished establishment president and the voters that wanted establishment to win simply can't understand this and still don't.
Click to expand...
Rejecting the establishment is fine, very much desired, but...

1) We should have included Congress, and...

2) We shouldn't have chosen a mentally ill person for President.
 
radcen said:
Rejecting the establishment is fine, very much desired, but...

1) We should have included Congress, and...

2) We shouldn't have chosen a mentally ill person for President.
Click to expand...

I'll go with you on number one. With number two it is my belief that the jury is still out. Trump is Trump. I don't think that automatically means he is mentally ill. Just because you are different doesn't mean you are mentally ill, not that I'm denying it is a possibility.
 
Mach said:
Not even close. Trump has no business being POTUS in any stretch of the imagination. How can you even compare someone like Kasich to Trump? Or even Pence? The problem with Trump is that not only is he a spoiled rich kid who is simply getting his kicks off, having absolutely no clue how to run government or lead government...he is TERRIBLE at hiding this. If we do have to suffer a dolt for a president, I wish they would be kind enough to avoid the lime light...much like Bush. Bush was terrible, but he delegated the POTUS to everyone else...which strangely enough felt better than Trump. I figured worst that could happen with GWB would be that he called Daddy for help. Trump? He called Bannon and his daughter. Reagan was a bit of a cry for help technically, but he had some vision, and a good heart, and took it seriously. Trump has none of those qualities.
Click to expand...

He has the most important business being the President: how won the election.

The rest is negative characterization couched in sour grapes and butt hurt.
 
VanceMack said:
Just go back to the primaries and see the responses on this site to all the different candidates and you will see that the attacks on the candidates would be different...but the same. The simple fact is that the leftists in this country are not responding to Trump...they are responding to the loss of the ring of power. They are Gollum. Worse...they have only themselves to blame, and I think they know it.

This explains why Trump won. Lots of cuss words in it so watch at your own discretion.



The people protesting in the streets over every stupid cause...they caused it, and now they own it. That has to suuuuuuuuuck.
Click to expand...


Lmao, this post goes straight into the trash bin when you take into account that the GOP did everything in their power to stop Trump from winning the nomination. So, it isn't just "leftists" who dislike your boy, it's also the GOP as well.

Why don't you just man up and admit your fellow "conservatives" elected a corrupt childish piece of garbage to the presidency? Just admit it and move on. You didn't vote for him, so why the hell are you constantly defending him in EVERY single thread?
 
Harshaw said:
^^^^
All true.

One need only look at what was said about candidates as milquetoast as John McCain and Mitt Romney, and what was said about Bush (about whom, contrary to what Nilly says above, WAS called an "international embarrassment," regularly).
Click to expand...

Considering the way the right attacked the Obama's, who are in reality just good all around family folks, I'm not so sure you should be pointing any fingers. Your ilk made Obama out to be a socialist, anti white racist muslim who wasn't even BORN in the united states, and you wan't to complain about attacks on GOP candidates? Pleaseeeee!
 
Puigb said:
Lmao, this post goes straight into the trash bin when you take into account that the GOP did everything in their power to stop Trump from winning the nomination. So, it isn't just "leftists" who dislike your boy, it's also the GOP as well.

Why don't you just man up and admit your fellow "conservatives" elected a corrupt childish piece of garbage to the presidency? Just admit it and move on. You didn't vote for him, so why the hell are you constantly defending him in EVERY single thread?
Click to expand...
WHat is it with you and the whole 'your boy' thing? Seriously...I think you have this weird need to create some sort of connection and culpability that hinges on unhealthy. Both Trump and Clinton were lowest common denominator candidates.

Please...feel free to point out a defense of him. That should be easy for you. Right?

And in case you missed it...thats a LIBERALS explanation of why Trump won.
 
VanceMack said:
WHat is it with you and the whole 'your boy' thing? Seriously...I think you have this weird need to create some sort of connection and culpability that hinges on unhealthy. Both Trump and Clinton were lowest common denominator candidates.

Please...feel free to point out a defense of him. That should be easy for you. Right?

And in case you missed it...thats a LIBERALS explanation of why Trump won.
Click to expand...

Because you are in almost every thread involving Trump defending him and bashing "liberals"...You're biased, admit it.
 
Puigb said:
Because you are in almost every thread involving Trump defending him and bashing "liberals"...You're biased, admit it.
Click to expand...
As I said...then you shouldnt have any problem pointing out where I have defended Trump. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom