Fractured RNC gives unique historical opportunity

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thewap, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #1
    Giving some thought to all the obvious turmoil in the RNC with Trump an outsider that cannot be bought (and the danger it poses to the entrenched neocons), what if the RNC split into two separate parties with Trump leading the way to a new 3rd party?. This would effectively end the two party system which would be a good thing in my book.
     
  2. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #2
    Great, we'd have to become a parliamentary system and we'd probably have a couple dozen governments in five or six years.

    Remember Dr. Strangelove... How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? Well we just need to stop worrying and love compromise for the sake of the public good once again. The public that's the 99%, for a change...
     
  3. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #3
    Well strangelove was a coup, funny you should mention it, as I feel like Sellers in all this political hoopla.:)

    There's nothing wrong with competition to the status quo...
     
  4. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #4
    Well for openers we'd probably see the center Dems and the mainstream GOP forming a coalition to overcome the extreme positions taken by the possibly somewhat enlarged rump right (currently known as the Freedom Caucus).

    Not so different from what's already happening, I suppose, except that in the recent past it's been Ted Cruz waltzing over from the Senate to try to orchestrate a takeover of the GOP by that Freedom Caucus. Which is why Cruz can't get any traction from his colleagues during his presidential run. It's not so much that they loathe everything coming out of the FC, they just don't like a Senator forgetting himself and trying to be some kind of extra majority whip in the House. The Senators were not married to the idea of Boehner as Speaker, but the level of disrespect by Cruz and his pals was phenomenal. Sure I'm talking establishment here. It's a constitutional establishment...

    We've just forgotten how to be Americans first and ideologues second. It's not an insurmountable project to turn this around inside of a two-party system. Occasionally we see flashes of cooperation on budget development, so it can be done.

    I don't think anti-establishmentarianism has to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We need to subtract more of K street from the equation. The purposes of both parties have been hijacked by an elite that does not have the interests of "Americans" at heart. The elite has been there a long time but they used to be kept more in check by cooperation between Democrats and Republicans who had all their constituents in mind. Now the legislators are more interested in getting re-elected than in anything else, so they will not cross those party lines for fear of offending their elite benefactors (some of whom, it's true, even donate to both sides of the aisle!).

    I just don't think that electing Trump is a solution to this problem. You can stick someone in the White House, but you can't bring a bought Congress to heel just by doing that.

    In a race involving Clinton, Trump could end up with about the percentage of votes that Ross Perot had, whether or not he is in a three way race in the fall by the time the GOP decides what the heck to do.

    In a two-way with Sanders, I believe Trump would lose, even given that both candidates are anti-establishment. Bernie is anti-establishment but he's not a loose cannon; he'd probably get treated more or less the way Congress has treated Obama. Clinton is establishment all the way and could draw Republican votes (with nose held) from the Wall Street crowd. She's not going to bust up the banks...
     
  5. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #5
    The way to shake up congress and the senate would be to replace the US attorney General, the director of the FBI, HS, NSA, with an outsider's choices. I would bet that accountability would soon return.

    In a race with Clinton/ Trump, I am pretty sure that Clinton would loose, as she does not have the party momentum as a *Sanders progressive*. In a Sanders / Trump race, Sanders I think would be deemed too radical for most of the US , even though I do respect him for being consistent.
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #6
    I'm not usually a betting person but I'd put my two cents on Clinton over Trump, and on Sanders over Trump as well.

    Why? Trump is way, way too unpredictable. The markets don't like unpredictable. The world's stable governments don't like unpredictable. At least half the Republican voters in this race are sensible people. They and the obviously sensible Democrats :p will either put Clinton or Sanders into the White House if faced with either of them versus Trump.

    The only entities that I'm pretty sure really go for unpredictable are the guys that make a living on logistical support of military protection of chaotic sources of oil and gas in the Middle East. They are probably Republicans, it's true. But they are a distinct minority. So they plus the wacko side of the GOP are not going to be able to put Trump over the top.

    Aside from the predictability issue, Sanders voters, if their candidate loses to Clinton in the primaries, will go for Clinton in swing states and red states in November because they'll be concerned about the social hot button issues. In blue states they might be like me and look for alternatives like the Green Party candidates if they cannot bring themselves to vote for Clinton. But if I lived in a swing state or a red-going-blue state, I'd be pulling down that Clinton lever for sure.

    If Sanders wins the Dem nomination, and it's Sanders v Trump, Sanders will win because Sanders is the devil you know -- worst case he is no more or less effective than he has been as a Senate backbencher all these years-- and Trump is a complete roll of the dice.

    What does Trump stand for? Himself. He could literally say or try anything just for the merry hell of it. He does not have a sense of time, place, decorum. He says he'd be different in office. I call BS. The Congress would try to keep him in check since it's part of their job. The fallout from abroad could be terrible. The fallout here could be pretty bad too. What has he promised? Things he cannot possibly achieve, partly because some of them are not feasible and some are not even legal (like taking out the families of targeted terrorists?!).

    What does Clinton stand for? Establishment. Pragmatism. She may disappoint, but she will not surprise.

    What does Sanders stand for? Anti-establishment. Break up the banks. Put more into America and less into the multinational megacorporations currently running the place. He may not succeed but I would not bet against his making some big dents. He will have some plenty of constituents on his side, and some powerful allies in the Congress. Better yet, he already knows who those allies are.

    I'll take either of the latter two candidates over Trump. So will the voters, in their majority.
     
  7. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #7

    Sorry, I do not share your opinion. She operates on a double standard, many officials lives have been ruined and charged with a crime for 5% of her indiscretions, and her words have never met her actions on any platform she may just decide to switch to to get the vote. The Clinton *political* machine of abuse is very well known in America. The last thing we need in the white house is another run of the most notorious cartel in America.
     
  8. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #8
    A double standard? The notorious politician's anthem of "I was for it before I was against it"? She does not have a lock on that one, I'm sure.

    As for the "many officials lives have been ruined and charged with a crime for 5% of her indiscretions", thank you for not asserting that she has committed crimes that have been overlooked. If there is another woman on earth who's been more investigated than Clinton, I don't know who that is. Even some of the Republicans got around to more or less saying that their having tried to prosecute her (or persecute her) for what happened in Benghazi was inappropriate.

    All pols make promises they cannot keep when they meet up with the opposition after elections. ALL OF THEM. It is the nature of political campaigning to promis change, and the nature of elective office to encounter resistance to change from the loyal, or not so loyal, opposition.

    I'm not a fan of the Clinton machine either. I agree we don't need Clintons in the White House again although I would not say they're in charge of the most notorious cartel in America. That prize goes to the bosses of the drug runners feeding the apparently insatiable appetite of Americans for mind-altering chemicals.

    My objection to a rerun of The Clintons, as many here probably know, is mostly to her husband's donor list and wondering how to keep them out of her policymaking.

    Sorry if Clinton supporters regard that as unfair to her candidacy, but it's a big concern of mine. I cannot buy that all those donations were made out of the sheer goodness of the donors' hearts. They surely hope for access, and input to policymaking, which would in fact be a form of quid pro quo that people like you and I will not have.

    I'm also just not a fan of her/their entourage. It encourages the Clintons to live in their bubble. We already did the bubble of that entourage. I don't want it back again. I hope against weary expectation that it will be different this time. I would be happier if Sanders won, even if it meant a re-run of obstructionism from the Republicans.
     

Share This Page