Third-party effort fizzling out

[jmyrlefuller]

Very "drama queen" but negligent of the facts on nearly every point. Its important to remember that all your concerns will be better addressed under Trump and GOP leadership than under Clinton. Imperfect, yes...but vastly better.

If you believe that, then I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

[Bill Cipher]

Very "drama queen" but negligent of the facts on nearly every point. Its important to remember that all your concerns will be better addressed under Trump and GOP leadership than under Clinton. Imperfect, yes...but vastly better.

Not if one actually studies Trump's past, focusing on the facts, and ignores the self-serving "truthful hyperbole" rhetoric Trump has been serving up.  The only thing to count on is a GOP-controlled Congress to put some measure of limitation on the continuing depredations of the next liberal president, be that Trump or Clinton. 

[Mesaclone]

Not if one actually studies Trump's past, focusing on the facts, and ignores the self-serving "truthful hyperbole" rhetoric Trump has been serving up.  The only thing to count on is a GOP-controlled Congress to put some measure of limitation on the continuing depredations of the next liberal president, be that Trump or Clinton.

Studying his past is fine, and Trump supporters are fully cognizant of his earlier views on a whole range of topics, but people grow and change. More importantly, they are politically bound by the mandate on which they campaign. Yes, they can stray on some issues and have a bit of a parameter on others...but they have little choice, in practical terms, but to govern within their party's general platform. Failing to do so would simply mean no legislation, no judges...no anything for the most part. So while you may mistrust him from his past, it is equally true that he is politically bound to the GOP moving forward. He cannot, and is not dumb enough to try, govern or serve as President without party support. And that defines what he can and more importantly, cannot do as President. Ditto for Mrs. Clinton.

So count on what you will...but Trump will work with a GOP congress and Hillary, by nature of her party affiliation will work entirely at odds with the GOP. Worse yet, should she have a Dem congress...she will work within THAT platform and every liberal wet dream of an agenda will fast track into all of our lives. In short, there is no reasonable argument that can make the prospective governance of these two persons the same...if nothing else, their political ties force differences whether they are heart-held or simply expedient positions.

Reason and common sense lead to the obvious conclusion that a Trump presidency would be vastly more conservative than would a Clintonian one...and on some level that has nothing to do with the personal views of either candidate.

[Bill Cipher]

Studying his past is fine, but people grow and change. More importantly, they are politically bound by the mandate on which they campaign. Yes, they can stray on some issues and have a bit of a parameter on others...but they have little choice, in practical terms, but to govern within their party's general platform. Failing to do so would simply mean no legislation, no judges...no anything for the most part. So while you may mistrust him from his past, it is equally true that he is politically bound to the GOP moving forward. He cannot, and is not dumb enough to try, govern or serve as President without party support.

So count on what you will...but Trump will work with a GOP congress and Hillary, by nature of her party affiliation will work entirely at odds with the GOP. Worse yet, should she have a Dem congress...she will work within THAT platform and every liberal wet dream of an agenda will fast track into all of our lives. In short, there is no reasonable argument that can make the prospective governance of these two persons the same...if nothing else, their political ties force differences whether they are heart-held or simply expedient positions.

Reason and common sense lead to the obvious conclusion that a Trump presidency would be vastly more conservative than would a Clintonian one...and on some level that has nothing to do with the personal views of either candidate.

There is utterly no evidence whatsoever that Trump did any growing or changing. If there was I'd consider it. He registered republican for the sake of convenience, the way Bloomberg did in NYC, because it was the only way to get a shot at picking up the Yuuge trophy of being a candidate for president.  If he'd gone DNC he'd have to wait at least 4 and maybe more years given the lockstep seniority system the DNC seems to be using. 

Considering all the flak the Congressional republicans have taken for being spineless wimps in the face of the democrats in Congress and a liberal president, including from most Trumpists, it makes no sense to say "don't worry, Congress will keep Trump within his mandate."  If they've been the craven fools they've been accused of being with Obama they will continue to be so, which means that - if Trumpist words are to be taken seriously - that Trump won't have any problems continuing to push the liberal agenda over the top of Congressional republicans; all he'll need will be the Congressional DNC, which will be all too happy to go along with him, and the few republicans who generally go with the liberals.

You can't have it both ways.  If the fecklessness of the establishment as reflected by the Congressional republicans is the reason why we need Trump, as the Trimpists would have it, then the miraculous disappearance of that fecklessness cannot be used as a deus ex machina to convince us that Trump will be magically reined in by the same establishment he's supposed to be elected to shake up.

Trump is a Clintonian liberal and will have more than he needs with the congressional democrats and left-wing republicans to continue down the path of liberalism Obama has established.   

[Mesaclone]

If you believe that, then I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

There is nothing in Nebraska, oceanfront or otherwise, worth buying.

[Mesaclone]

There is utterly no evidence whatsoever that Trump did any growing or changing. If there was I'd consider it. He registered republican for the sake of convenience, the way Bloomberg did in NYC, because it was the only way to get a shot at picking up the Yuuge trophy of being a candidate for president.  If he'd gone DNC he'd have to wait at least 4 and maybe more years given the lockstep seniority system the DNC seems to be using.

As I said, we can disagree on his personal metamorphosis all day long...his simply stating different views now is evidence, though perhaps not sufficent for you to accept as convincing.  But that is not the point, really. The point is that whatever his personal intentions, he is politically tied to the GOP now and can only stray so far from the positions of the party...without losing all support, and thus power as president. No president can govern if both parties are opposing him, its just not humanly possible.

Having gone where he has on immigration and other issues, he can never gain substantial Dem support, which means the GOP is his only source of authority. As such, that binds him to traditional party positions within a certain parameter. That may be very imperfect to a lot of conservatives, but it is a far cry from a Hillary who is bound to the Dem platform AND who ideologically is working to push that platform as far Left as she can.

They will both have little choice but to govern with the consent of the majority of their own parties...its really not an arguable point. And that means very different things for the country depending on which takes office next January.

[jmyrlefuller]

Yes, they can stray on some issues and have a bit of a parameter on others...but they have little choice, in practical terms, but to govern within their party's general platform. Failing to do so would simply mean no legislation, no judges...no anything for the most part. So while you may mistrust him from his past, it is equally true that he is politically bound to the GOP moving forward. He cannot, and is not dumb enough to try, govern or serve as President without party support.

You do realize that the Republican Party is weak and easy to push over, right? Do you remember the Bush years? The Republicans rubber-stamped everything Bush proposed, no matter how bad of an idea it was.

The Republican Party has in essence named Donald Trump the titular head of the GOP. What he says will go, especially if elected—and remember, if he's willing to use sleazeball tactics against us for not supporting him, how far will he go to get a much more manageable number of people in Congress to do the same?

Mesaclone, you put way too much faith in the very party politics Donald Trump's supporters want to destroy.

[Bill Cipher]

As I said, we can disagree on his personal metamorphosis all day long...his simply stating different views now is evidence, though perhaps not sufficent for you to accept as convincing.  But that is not the point, really. The point is that whatever his personal intentions, he is politically tied to the GOP now and can only stray so far from the positions of the party...without losing all support, and thus power as president. No president can govern if both parties are opposing him, its just not humanly possible.

Having gone where he has on immigration and other issues, he can never gain substantial Dem support, which means the GOP is his only source of authority. As such, that binds him to traditional party positions within a certain parameter. That may be very imperfect to a lot of conservatives, but it is a far cry from a Hillary who is bound to the Dem platform AND who ideologically is working to push that platform as far Left as she can.

They will both have little choice but to govern with the consent of the majority of their own parties...its really not an arguable point. And that means very different things for the country depending on which takes office next January.

It's a very arguable point.  If Trump's virtue is his ability to overcome the establishment then you cannot simultaneously argue that the self same establishment will remain strong enough to force him to govern within the traditional boundaries of the GOP. For that to happen they would have to be more powerful than he, which is to say that you are counting on him to be a failure at precisely the main excuse for supporting him: that he will beat the establishment at their own game.

[Bill Cipher]

You do realize that the Republican Party is weak and easy to push over, right? Do you remember the Bush years? The Republicans rubber-stamped everything Bush proposed, no matter how bad of an idea it was.

The Republican Party has in essence named Donald Trump the titular head of the GOP. What he says will go, especially if elected—and remember, if he's willing to use sleazeball tactics against us for not supporting him, how far will he go to get a much more manageable number of people in Congress to do the same?

Mesaclone, you put way too much faith in the very party politics Donald Trump's supporters want to destroy.

Exactly. 

[Mechanicos]

What about our freedoms? Freedom to not buy health insurance, freedom to say no to a customer without being accused of a hate crime, freedom to criticize our leaders?

Your mere presence here proves my point to those who pay attention. Those who dare oppose Donald Trump face vicious, often personal, attacks. Is that the temperament of a leader of the free world? Are we even pretending to be free anymore? Do we not even want to be a free and responsible nation?

Or is the concept of freedom too hopeless to defend anymore, Mechanicos? If so, we ought to all just die.

The ISIS you are fighting to bring into your neighborhood will not give  a dam about those. And with Hillary not only do you lose them, but it could be forever.

[Mesaclone]

You do realize that the Republican Party is weak and easy to push over, right? Do you remember the Bush years? The Republicans rubber-stamped everything Bush proposed, no matter how bad of an idea it was.

The Republican Party has in essence named Donald Trump the titular head of the GOP. What he says will go, especially if elected—and remember, if he's willing to use sleazeball tactics against us for not supporting him, how far will he go to get a much more manageable number of people in Congress to do the same?

Mesaclone, you put way too much faith in the very party politics Donald Trump's supporters want to destroy.

I just know politics...and politicians are limited by the support they have. This is especially true of Presidents. Any president who failed to put forward policies in keeping...generally...with GOP ideals would lose support and become a lame duck very early in his presidency. That's just a fact of political life.

And yes, Trump has defeated the "establishment" in a primary race, but governing is not running for office...you either have enough votes in congress to pass your programs/agenda or you don't. If you stray too far from the platform, you don't have the support you need. So no, its really not an arguable point. Put simply, a president has limits that are set by those who support him in congress...so both Clinton and Trump will govern within the parameters of their own parties ideology. The will do so, because they must...a candidate can overcome the establishment, but a president cannot.

And no, I don't have faith in the party. I do have faith in the mechanics of politics, and I have faith that no president can achieve anything of substance without strong support from their own party.