Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The fact that we conservatives COULDN'T get a conservative through the primary blows up your point.
so then who exactly voted *for* Trump? Who was showing up at his rallies? Who pushed him through over the likes of Jeb and Ryan and Cruz? Who are these Republican voting non-conservatives and what would one call them? Who are all these people identifying as "conservative" in polls that have consistently shown support for trump and approval of his tenure thus far?
Are they #MAGA fanboi/girl? Or, are they voting for Trump because 'HOLY gak I SURE AS FETH DON'T WANT CLINTON!!'
The answer? The polls does a poor job distinguishing the two...
The answer matters, but even if it's 100% what you hope the conservative movement has still fallen on it's face.
I grew up listening to conservatives talk about the (Bill) Clinton scandal. Those people, the way they talked, NEVER would have voted for Trump. EVER.
And then they did.
Right... and who was Trump's opponent?
That's why...
So conservatives were able to be duped into supporting a crazy used car salesman selling them lemons about all the things they wanted to hear as opposed to a person who is sane. Doesn't speak well for conservatives.
Yeah, the democrats should have done what the republicans did: nominate a con man
They did. Thats the problem. Oh wait, I forgot, a conman under investigation by the FBI.
Should have run Biden or even Julian Castro. Instead you nominated Emperor Palpatine's meaner, more awkward kid sister.
I don't agree with your characterization, but good Lord I wish the Democratic voters could just own up to the fact that they nominated a deeply unpopular nominee.
I dont think anyone is denying that, only the charge that Conservatives, at least as defined by what most people on the street or doing data collection would define as such, dont support Trump.
As South Park put it, Clinton was a turd sandwich, but thats getting off another rabbit hole.
You don't win by nominating someone huge swaths of people actually despise.
The Republicans did it with Trump, lets not make it out like Trump is any more broadly liked or that much of anyone was predicting a Hillary loss as a result of that.
Indeed they did, but imagine if we had actually run someone whose national popularity wasn't in the gutter. Someone admired by the white working class. It probably wouldn't have been much of a contest.
No more Clintons, please...the country is obviously finished with them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 19:53:03
The fact that we conservatives COULDN'T get a conservative through the primary blows up your point.
So what's your conclusion then? That "conservatives" are such an irrelevant fringe group that they couldn't even make an interesting fight out of the primaries?
Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: That "conservatives" are such an irrelevant fringe group that they couldn't even make an interesting fight out of the primaries?
The conservative moment was crushed in the primaries, and the remnants are horrified of Trump and Trumpism.
See Paul Ryan kissing Trump's ass at every opportunity for a case in point.
Look back at who they voted for in the primaries. The conservatives got who they voted for.
Then its a sign the "conservatives" (aka GOP Primary voters, more accurately) no longer support traditional conservatives, because Trump was the least conservative guy running. They had plenty of traditional conservatives to pick from.
So I was right when I said that Conservatives are now an irrelevant fringe of US politics.
And there is absolutely no reason for the GOP to actually offer them anything as all they need to do is demonise the other side enough that they will not vote for their opponent and they will win (or lose because the other person got more people to vote but the conservatives are still irrelevant in that scenario).
Which is an end result exactly like what people like Seb have been warning about when irresponsible governance becomes commonplace and seen as business as usual.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 20:00:09
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Peregrine wrote: Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.
Nope.
She deserved to be opposed to at all cost. She'd be really bad for the country.
Peregrine wrote: That "conservatives" are such an irrelevant fringe group that they couldn't even make an interesting fight out of the primaries?
The conservative moment was crushed in the primaries, and the remnants are horrified of Trump and Trumpism.
See Paul Ryan kissing Trump's ass at every opportunity for a case in point.
Look back at who they voted for in the primaries. The conservatives got who they voted for.
Then its a sign the "conservatives" (aka GOP Primary voters, more accurately) no longer support traditional conservatives, because Trump was the least conservative guy running. They had plenty of traditional conservatives to pick from.
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
whembly wrote: They're not as strong as we thought they'd be...
Your "conservatives" aren't even relevant. Trump won the nomination in a landslide, and it was quickly apparent that the only hope for any other candidate winning was to exploit a weird technicality in the convention voting rules. The alternative candidates never even threatened to win the vote. And once Trump got the nomination all of the "conservatives" fell neatly in line behind him. So we have two choices here:
1) Conservatives support Trump, as demonstrated by the actions of the only conservative party that matters in US politics.
or
2) Conservatives are a fringe group in US politics and have no power, and the republican party (like its 60 million voters) is some weird not-conservative-not-liberal party.
I think it's pretty obvious that the first option is the most reasonable interpretation of the situation. Conservatives supported Trump, no matter how many "no true Scotsman" fallacies you want to make in an attempt to pretend that conservatives don't have any responsibility for their actions.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.
Uniquely horrible does fit. With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign. Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible. If not, who else hit those levels?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 19:59:59
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So I was right when I said that Conservatives are now an irrelevant fringe of US politics.
I don't think they're irrelevant. They are still there, but they are much diminished and basically subservient to Trump, because they fear getting primaried by him and his supporters if they don't tow the new line.
Peregrine wrote: Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.
Oh but she was:
Nurgle: didn't you see her die and come back to life with the help of the secret service on the campaign trail
Tzeentch: she has all of these mastermind plans with her foundation
Slaneesh: Bill. Also she is probably a lesbian so she just puts up with him for politics--more Tzeentch.
Khorne: all of those people she has has killed. Blood for the blood god.
Her opposition didn't seem to realize that their characature of her is based on satire. She was Be'lakor.
whembly wrote: A more apt description is that they're severely fractured now...
That's an interesting description of a situation where there's a republican president and republican majorities in both houses of congress (republican majorities that are doing nothing to oppose Trump's actions).
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: That "conservatives" are such an irrelevant fringe group that they couldn't even make an interesting fight out of the primaries?
The conservative moment was crushed in the primaries, and the remnants are horrified of Trump and Trumpism.
See Paul Ryan kissing Trump's ass at every opportunity for a case in point.
Look back at who they voted for in the primaries. The conservatives got who they voted for.
Aye, I'm still wondering who all the conservatives who seem to support trump in the primaries, exit polls, and job approval ratings today are, unless we're redefining the term "conservative" and what constitutes that constituency.
I mean, I get individuals have their own preferences andnmany "conservatives" dont support trump, but it appears the bulk do.
Better. He will stick with the constitution and beat down gov't over reach from both Ds and Rs if is track record is an indication of future rulings.
lets hope, but "govt overreach" also varies highly depending on ones definition
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Peregrine wrote: That "conservatives" are such an irrelevant fringe group that they couldn't even make an interesting fight out of the primaries?
The conservative moment was crushed in the primaries, and the remnants are horrified of Trump and Trumpism.
See Paul Ryan kissing Trump's ass at every opportunity for a case in point.
Look back at who they voted for in the primaries. The conservatives got who they voted for.
Then its a sign the "conservatives" (aka GOP Primary voters, more accurately) no longer support traditional conservatives, because Trump was the least conservative guy running. They had plenty of traditional conservatives to pick from.
They did. And yet they supported him. That's all I'm saying. Others are trying to rewrite history or what the word "support" means.
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".
Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.
The Republican party had told a lie of bootstraps, nationalism and bringing back the past for decades. It was only a matter of time before they started believing it.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Those don't show *why* they voted for Trump.
It doesn't matter. The point made was that conservatives support Trump, the specific reasons why they support Trump are not relevant to that particular discussion. A vote for a candidate is support for that candidate, however you justify it to yourself.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to keep from realizing what a horrible candidate you picked.
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".
Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.
Peregrine wrote: That "conservatives" are such an irrelevant fringe group that they couldn't even make an interesting fight out of the primaries?
The conservative moment was crushed in the primaries, and the remnants are horrified of Trump and Trumpism.
See Paul Ryan kissing Trump's ass at every opportunity for a case in point.
Look back at who they voted for in the primaries. The conservatives got who they voted for.
Then its a sign the "conservatives" (aka GOP Primary voters, more accurately) no longer support traditional conservatives, because Trump was the least conservative guy running. They had plenty of traditional conservatives to pick from.
They did. And yet they supported him. That's all I'm saying. Others are trying to rewrite history or what the word "support" means.
Like all the Sanders supporters who didn't support HRC because...HRC.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 20:05:02
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".
Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.
And the fact that conservatives supported him en masse (against tradionally conservative candidates) tells you what the modern conservative movement wants. Simple.
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".
Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.
And the fact that conservatives supported him en masse (against tradionally conservative candidates) tells you what the modern conservative movement wants. Simple.
Winners. Sanders people stayed out and HRC lost.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".
Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.
Yeah, he's not conservative, simply nationalist. I would, however, posit that the majority of republicans are also not Conservative. It has been at least a decade since the republican party could truly call it'self conservative. The leadership is, but it's not the leadership who controls the party, as we all found out during this election.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
So, is the suggestion therefore, the idea that the American 'traditional' conservative voters (to distinguish them from other voter who identify as conservatives but may not follow traditional values), having failed in the primaries to support their preferred candidates (could this have been the case off too much of a split vote?), then, broadly, chose to stay home during the election, therefore allowing a new group of voters to come on and vote Trump forward to victory?
I've gotta say, it seems plausible enough. I've had this thing at the back of my mind for a long while of the 'reality TV voter' who normally wouldn't give two monkeys about politics, or voting in general, until you have someone like Trump turning up, who then turns the election into a real life, world wide version of "American Idol" who then go to vote for him.
Seems plausible enough to me.
Essentially, that would suggest that America is only a hop, skip and a jump away from electing Sky Marshal Anoke as their next President...
CptJake wrote: With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign.
Trump's fraudulent "university" says hi. It's a sign of how dysfunctional US conservatives are that "Clinton is being investigated for being a typical politician*" is portrayed as some uniquely horrible situation where voting for literally anyone is justified as long as it keeps her out of office, but deliberately running a for-profit "university" that blatantly scammed its customers for large amounts of money is completely forgotten. The investigation into Trump's scam may be less prominent than the Clinton scandals, but it should be a much bigger red flag when considering who is worth voting for. Clinton's offenses were business as usual for high-level politicians, Trump's was not.
*Remember, republicans have used similar email servers and had similar issues with mishandling classified information, with a similar lack of punishment.
Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible.
I don't think that a political party putting its support behind a particular candidate is really that alarming, as much as I would have preferred Sanders. Remember that parties have no obligation to hold primaries at all, and are free to nominate whoever they want by whatever means they want.
If not, who else hit those levels?
Trump, even without resorting to hypothetical "the next Hitler" candidates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Whatever you need to tell yourself to keep from realizing what a horrible candidate you picked.
I didn't vote for Clinton in the primaries, and "your guy is just as bad" is not a compelling counter-argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 20:11:25
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".
Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.
And the fact that conservatives supported him en masse (against tradionally conservative candidates) tells you what the modern conservative movement wants. Simple.
Winners. Sanders people stayed out and HRC lost.
So liberals stayed true to their beliefs and decided not to support a candidate they couldn't support. The conservatives didn't. Okay. Let's see how this plays out. I think I would rather lose and not sell my convictions to the Trumpster than win and see how what we supported goes against every fiber of my being. With Clinton at least her rule would have been slowed by a congress and Supreme Court. I'm not sure Trump could pass a basic civics class anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 20:14:36
No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.
If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".
Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.
And the fact that conservatives supported him en masse (against tradionally conservative candidates) tells you what the modern conservative movement wants. Simple.
I think Trumpism is so much different than traditional conservatism, that continuing to use the term conservative for him or his supporters isn't too helpful. Or we should give traditional conservatism a new name like Reaganism or something.
Don't forget that alot of states that voted for Obama switched over to Trump. I don't think these people woke up and became traditional conservatives, but in Trump found an alternative to traditional conservatism. And probably alot just couldn't stomach the thought of Clinton, for whatever reason.
And another subset probably just voted against our entire system with a big middle finger.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 20:19:09
