Before Donald Trump there was Sarah Palin

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Aug 8, 2019.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    I’m reading this book by Tim Alberta called American Carnage. It’s basically a history of the Republican Party in the Obama years all the way through the election of Trump. I’m at a point in the book possible presidential candidates spoke at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015. One of the speakers was Sarah Palin. I watched her speech (and the reaction from the crowd) and I swear it could have been given by Trump (though his might have been a bit more coherent).

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?323834-14/sarah-palin-iowa-freedom-summit

    It’s amazing how Palin foreshadowed what the GOP would become. The question is will it remain this way once Trump is gone?
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    Obama/trump/palin/sanders
    proof America is tired of run of the mill morons.
     
  3. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #3
    Considering the current crop of dorks and idiots vying for GOP nods already, I think the Republican party could spend a generation being a bunch of Know-Nothings.

    The whole "Tea Party" schtick probably proved to the best cons that it was easy pickings in pachyderm land. As long as you made the right noise and wore a tri-corn hat, you could get rich and famous telling people how to make gold from lead.

    Look at how Bannon, Kobach, et. al. managed to grift millions from people to build a "wall" in New Mexico that's 50-feet from the actual border, and therefore legally invalid as a means of "border security." That stunt, coupled with their obvious grift in the way that the "charity" is structured as slush-fund—already being used to fund another Kobach political run–says a lot.

    Seriously, the man defended himself in a lawsuit over his dealings as the Secretary of State in Kansas, and was told to take remedial law classes by a federal judge, but after wasting time trying to find illegal votes with Trump, he's going to go try and break Kansas some more. The fact that Kobach is raking in donations, and a decent, intelligent guy like Rep. Will Hurd is pulling the loud-handle, is telling.

    This isn't a defense of Democrats, who piss me off endlessly for being gutless and dippy, but more Republicans have convinced me that whatever brain-eating amoeba dug into the skulls of the CPAC brigade in 2008 has metastasized, and that Trump is only a symptom.
     
  4. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    I have said this before. I believe that McCain having Palin as his running mate is a factor in Trump getting elected. I'm sure if you draw a venn diagram of those that were and are Palin's base and Trump there would be a large overlap. Palin is like Trump without the massive criminal behavior and conflicts of interest
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I’m a bit unsure how the republicans have gone so wrong. The religious case for balanced budgets, hand ups not hand outs, and arguably small (but effective) government is there. It’s sad to see republicans lose their moorings on their principles so much.
     
  6. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #7
    Huge overlap is an understatement. I’ll bet 99% of MAGA supporters were ones still thinking in October of 2011 that Sarah Palin was running for President.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2788443/posts?q=1&;page=1
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Location:
    Velvet Green
    #8
    118 years ago, we had TR, one of the most left-leaning Republican presidents one could imagine. Then, about 107 years ago there was a tectonic shift, that led to the election of Tom W. Wilson as president and an ideological crossover in the parties. The GOP has drifted rightward in the subsequent century, most strikingly in 1980. Meanwhile, some of the superficial doctrine of the Democrats has changed a bit, but as a whole, the party has not changed fundamentally since the election of their first president (another Tom) in 1800.

    Which is to say, the time is ripe for the Republican Party to have another crossover. They have gone so far to the right that they are reaching the apex, and when they do, they will come out on the far left of the floundering Democrats, who really never change. It will finally be obvious with the election of Republican President Ocasio-Cortez.
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    The US as a whole is becoming more and more anti war. Still the Democratic Party has always kept the US military in champagne swimming pools.
     
  9. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    The party is only going to reflect the will if its constituent members. And right now, the constituent members of the Republican Party overwhelmingly favor know-nothing bigoted idiocy. Trump is only a symptom. The modern Republican Party is the disease.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #11
    Anti-war Democrats were often a minority in the party, and as @Eraserhead noted, they've kept the Pentagon in champagne and caviar for a long time.

    Keep in mind that it was Kennedy's brilliant idea to get involved in Vietnam, and Clinton didn't mind sending warplanes into former Yugoslavia, and Charlie Wilson sold the White House on the idea that we should sell Stingers to the Afghani mujahideen.

    But, Republicans start fights too, namely Libya, Grenada, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq again. And, some of those conflicts had to be cleaned up by Democrats.

    There's a good conversation to be had about how the Spanish-American War built the U.S. an empire that both parties have been happy to exploit, and how post-WWII gave room for the military industrial complex to grow and use both Republicans and Democrats into Vietnam, when the anti-war left started pushing Democrats in their direction.

    However, while Democrats have a complex, messy understanding of the value of the military for conflict resolution and peace-keeping, and promoting America's goals, but increasingly, it appears that Republican's "small government" goal was just a feint.

    Republicans pretended they cared about "small government" so they could promote an astroturf political group and undercut Democratic goals, but now that they're back in power, they're just as willing to press the government into every nook-and-cranny of American life, and they're burning through more cash than anyone.
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    Libya started under Obama. so was Syria.
     
  12. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #13
    Reagan bombed Libya in 1986.

    And, you still don't understand the Syrian conflict's beginning, or the U.S. role in the civil war.
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    WE SHOULD HAVE NO ROLES ON ANY COUNTRIES CIVIL WARS.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #15
    Well, that's a loudly-expressed opinion, but that doesn't say much about pro or anti-war Democrats, who can be really complex about the U.S. role in the world. Do we step back and just let a country tear itself to pieces, even if that means the murder of minorities, and even spill-over violence into other countries, including long-term allies? Or, do we intervene? And, how do we intervene?

    With Libya, the U.S. took a backseat to other NATO allies, and with Syria, the U.S. tried to aid one side, and also spent a great deal of effort trying to stop the war diplomatically. Of course, those subtitles have been ignored for the narrative that Obama started the wars, as if Obama had all that much control over a Middle East unsettled by the Bush-era invasion of Iraq.

    And, for Republicans, they're going to have to figure out that getting into a shooting war with Iran is exceedingly dumb, and that really, by constantly screwing around with the second-world nation, we're hurting ourselves and giving too much power to Saudis, who I believe are our real enemy in the Middle East.

    The Saudi regime—you know, the guys who funded and launched the 9/11 attack, backed the Taliban, and are currently shredding children in Yemen—gets our friendship because of oil and the Bush family, but the Iranians are still the "Axis of Evil."
     

Share This Page

14 August 8, 2019