President Trump: The Leader of the Post-Partisan America Party

[corbe]

Even the guy going on about that Bob Thompson guy.  Only briefly though....

   I certainly wasn't implying they were Listened to, only heard @Wingnut

[Wingnut]

   I certainly wasn't implying they were Listened to, only heard @Wingnut

That was a given!   

[Cyber Liberty]

   I certainly wasn't implying they were Listened to, only heard @Wingnut

 :huh?:

[Wingnut]

:huh?:

It makes sense if you don't think about it!

[Cyber Liberty]

It makes sense if you don't think about it!

That's it!  I'm overthinking this thing.   

[corbe]

That's it!  I'm overthinking this thing.   

   I'm learning Trump speak, how to say incredibly deep things in as few of characters as possible.

[ABX]

I was thinking where the GOP is with Trump as its head..came to the conclusion that its a lot closer to Kennedy's democrats of 1960 than Reagan's republicans of 1980...

Conservatives have been shown the door...

It is a populist movement, in the most classical sense of the word.

It is not Conservative, it is not liberal (in the modern or classical sense), it certainly isn't libertarian.

It is becoming more and more of this too, especially as seen last night in the well delivered populist message.

Whether that is good or not is up to each person to determine as we are delving into somewhat new territory.  One could argue Bill Clinton had a lot of populist veins in his campaign and positions. He certainly wasn't a radical like his wife. In reality though, the last real populist we saw run before Trump was George McGovern in 72 or maybe Pat Buchanan's several runs (although he was more of a pure Nationalist).

Populism generally has come from the left, and we saw a Progressive(sic) rebellion from the moderate/populist like Bill Clinton that made a radical shift to the left. It may be that the populism of the right may bring back classical, rational Conservatism.

Who knows. I'm at the point of spectator. Not a silent one, but I know nothing I say will influence anyone or change anything.

[ABX]

   I'm learning Trump speak, how to say incredibly deep things in as few of characters as possible.

I would argue shallow that uses linguistic trickery to make you interpret it as deep based on your own desire. (similar to Obama for the left).

[geronl]

  He wants to create jobs, so he'll use public/private partnerships to fix infrastructure without having to spend tax dollars to do so.

besides a trillion here and a trillion there

[geronl]

  Come to find out, he's pretty serious about immigration reform and border security. 

Her kept the DREAM act and is talking about compromising on illegals

[DB]

It is a populist movement, in the most classical sense of the word.

It is not Conservative, it is not liberal (in the modern or classical sense), it certainly isn't libertarian.

It is becoming more and more of this too, especially as seen last night in the well delivered populist message.

Whether that is good or not is up to each person to determine as we are delving into somewhat new territory.  One could argue Bill Clinton had a lot of populist veins in his campaign and positions. He certainly wasn't a radical like his wife. In reality though, the last real populist we saw run before Trump was George McGovern in 72 or maybe Pat Buchanan's several runs (although he was more of a pure Nationalist).

Populism generally has come from the left, and we saw a Progressive(sic) rebellion from the moderate/populist like Bill Clinton that made a radical shift to the left. It may be that the populism of the right may bring back classical, rational Conservatism.

Who knows. I'm at the point of spectator. Not a silent one, but I know nothing I say will influence anyone or change anything.

Just another flavor of big government who knows best. Not bound by the constitution or much of anything else. Its champions think the problem is how big government picks winners and losers and not that big government is the problem into itself. They want government to do this or that never questioning if or why the government has any constitutional authority to do so in the first place. Essentially they are SJW of a different flavor just as bent on applying the state by force to implement their moral directives.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The title alone tells me someone needs time in a sanitarium

 

[goatprairie]

Just another flavor of big government who knows best. Not bound by the constitution or much of anything else. Its champions think the problem is how big government picks winners and losers and not that big government is the problem into itself. They want government to do this or that never questioning if or why the government has any constitutional authority to do so in the first place. Essentially they are SJW of a different flavor just as bent on applying the state by force to implement their moral directives.

"Essentially they are SJW of a different flavor just as bent on applying the state by force to implement their moral directives"
yes, but since it's initiated by a Republican who is against the hated "establishment," it's completely different.  At least that's what I've been informed by the various Trumpsters....a trillion dollars in tax-payer money spent on make-work projects is completely different from the trillion dollars the Obama admin planned to spend on fake make-work projects. The money will fall like manna from heaven. Well, it will come from tax-payers, but Trump will sprinkle a little fairy dust on the whole thing, and it won't cost a cent of tax-payer money.   

[ckinv368]

At the end of the day, a pretty significant chunk / majority of the trillion dollars will come from private companies who will then charge some form of toll for use of the infrastructure they build.  It works well with tollroads, bridges, etc.  At the end of the day, infrastructure doesn't come for free.  But it doesn't have to be paid through direct taxpayer dollars either.  If you use it, you pay for it.  If you don't use it, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

[INVAR]

At the end of the day, a pretty significant chunk / majority of the trillion dollars will come from private companies who will then charge some form of toll for use of the infrastructure they build.  It works well with tollroads, bridges, etc.  At the end of the day, infrastructure doesn't come for free.  But it doesn't have to be paid through direct taxpayer dollars either.  If you use it, you pay for it.  If you don't use it, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Any time that the government is involved in any capacity in any project of any kind - it will demand it's cut, and then it will demand oversight.

Just because Private Companies will supposedly be in charge of building infrastructure at government behest, the moment there is an opening to acquire money and control of the movement of people - Government will simply assert itself as it always does.

Just more Government Socialism, done under a different banner.

[r9etb]

The title alone tells me someone needs time in a sanitarium

First clue: the guy's website is named after himself.  Almost always a red flag. 

[Cyber Liberty]

First clue: the guy's website is named after himself.  Almost always a red flag.

Ran out of ammo to use against the article, eh?

[r9etb]

Ran out of ammo to use against the article, eh?

The article's premise is idiotic.  Trump is no more a "post-partisan" president than Obama was a "post-racial" president.

At most, we're looking at a realignment of the political parties, similar to what happened to the Whigs of the 1850s. 

[Cyber Liberty]

The article's premise is idiotic.  Trump is no more a "post-partisan" president than Obama was a "post-racial" president.

At most, we're looking at a realignment of the political parties, similar to what happened to the Whigs of the 1850s.

Yeah, probably.  I could have sworn your argument was about this fellow naming the blog after himself (which just about every writer does).

First clue: the guy's website is named after himself.  Almost always a red flag. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

BTW, where's Humblegunner when you need him?

[r9etb]

Yeah, probably.  I could have sworn your argument was about this fellow naming the blog after himself (which just about every writer does).

It wasn't an argument so much as an observation.  I've noticed that eponymous URLs generally don't offer much in the way of new and useful information.

[Cyber Liberty]

It wasn't an argument so much as an observation.  I've noticed that eponymous URLs generally don't offer much in the way of new and useful information.

And I've noticed otherwise.  Meh.    

[geronl]

At the end of the day

it will come from taxpayers.