Post-Trump GOP

It's all about purity of populism, Trump's populism, not the big tent or mooring to any set of ideals/principles. @BrntOrngStmpeDe I'm not a huge party guy but the other party is clearly more Big Tent than the current Trumpican party. Something to think about.

 

I like your respons . The issue for people/employees is that splitting benefits creates bureaucracy. Every employee would have to create multiple physician care teams, maybe splitting hospital systems for procedures. Because I don't want universal coverage, every hospital and every physician has the choice to take or not take certain coverage contracts. That is more expensive and less effective.

If you want tng government to pay/facilitate its better to maintain a single care team/system and credit them.

 

I think the jump to universal coverage is too drastic. Extending Medicare down to 55 and allowing buy in would be a good way to think about it.

 

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Post Trump social media.

 

This is precisely the point. Let's be honest. "RINO" is a pejorative. We used to reserve it for Republicans who are ideologically unreliable to a significant degree and most often for sleazy reasons.

Well, you're now applying that logic to personal loyalty to a man. In your book, Cassidy and Sasse aren't RINOs who should lose their jobs not for being ideologically unreliable but for not being sufficiently loyal to a person. It's an expansion of the term, and it fosters authoritarianism (like the führer oath), whether you intend it that way or not. And yes, I know the Left overuses the term "authoritarian" to describe Trump and his supporters when it's clearly out of place. However, it's not out of place here.

I don't particularly mind that you used the word "felt." I recognize that the terms are often used interchangeably. I'm not hung up on the semantics here. I am hung up on the fact that you give Mike Pence a right of conscience, that you won't give to Sasse and Cassidy. He can do what he thinks or feels is right, but they cannot.

I'm not sure which Cassidy explanation you heard, but what I heard was not emotional or based on feelings. It was based on an examination of the facts, and it was logical. Furthermore, I see no evidence of TDS in him. He was a pretty loyal Trump supporter prior to this incident.

If you want to bust Sasse's balls, that's fine. He has never been a Trump guy in much the same way I'm not. If you're a Buckley-oriented conservative, you're not going to like Trump. You're not going to like the rhetorical and ideological sloppiness and giving the Left more ammunition than it knows what to do with. But is he motivated by TDS? He voted to acquit the first time. That doesn't sound very "TDS-like" to me.

 

It looks like you are mistaking not requiring employers to purchase coverage with eliminating health insurance companies. The individuals would continue to buy coverage from health insurance companies. The insurer middlemen would still act as aggregators and negotiate with the physicians and hospitals.

 

Dude, enough with the loyalty-fuhrer-oath whatever nonsense you cooked up in your head. It has absolutely nothing to do with loyalty to Trump. It has to do with going after the president with illogical means due to TDS and to earn brownie points with the left/media. IMHO, these despicable senators tried to save themselves from the liberal jihad after the capitol riot. When you can't come up with legal reasons to oust Trump and go with the fact you don't like the way he handled things you need to go. Pence's decision was a logical thought process and he might be right in regards to the law. Sasse and Cassidy went with what they thought could make themselves look better coupled with TDS, not with the law or conscience. With Cassidy's game of connect the dots I could oust any president of the last 28 years out of office. Now, if the incitement legal definition would have been met its a whole different ballgame.

 

You might be right except for a very key thing. Kevin McCarthy is a great example. He blasted Trump on the phone and then told the media that he "bears some responsibility for the attack". But, not long after he was kissing the ring at Mar A Lago.

Then he did an airing of the grievances at his own little festivus party. Trump blasts GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach: 'Get rid of them all'

 

I think Kevin McCarthy and McConnell got caught up with the "incitement' stuff that was being pushed and pulled back once the incitement stuff turned out to be BS. They also might have been trying to earn themselves MSM brownie points as well and once the heat died down they quit going along with the nonsense.

 

Or maybe they were personally threatened that it took so long to get backup for THEIR security teams.

 

It's gonna be tough for the GOP to ever go back to the country club agenda. Globalism is down 21-7 to Populism right about now, and overseas military interventions will be met with a jaundiced eye.

Style is another thing entirely. A populist conservative with the dress and mannerisms of a George H.W. Bush or Dwight Eisenhower could be viable with high quality media ads and consultants. Celebrity is another thing that can boost the GOP's chances. That was Trump, Arnold, and others.

At the end of the day, one of the GOP's strongest selling points to independents and moderates is--"Look at how bat sh!t crazy those Democrats are nowadays. We're not them."

 

A. I concur on your score. Classic West Mall.
B. To me, that's the reason that the left needs to not become an extension of "the squad" and remain enough in the middle that the AOC's of the world have a little of the red arse and the Sasse's/Kinzinger's of the world at least have some ideological room to grow toward.

 

I would prefer that the Democratic Party go back to moderation. Right now, the GOP looks after the interests of the wealthy (and always has). The Dems look after the interests of the very poor, various identity groups, and a select few wealthy individuals and industries. That leaves the bulk of our country not effectively represented. I'd like both parties to become more moderate. But I'm a bit out of tune with most in this polarized era.

And populism used to be the domain of the Democratic Party. What happened there?

 

That's what Josh Hawley is trying to seize on, right?

 

This. Gerrymandering has been a path to the extremists having too great an influence in both parties. It's a pox on both houses that needs to be solved.

I do think that the primary D's made a conscious decision to reject the the Sanders/Warren more extreme portions of the party. Biden was a "Centrist" candidate that spend a career in the Senate working collegially across the aisle. There is a desire to paint him as some sort of "socialist" or extremist but that belays what his history and what he's done already in office. Has he implemented a left of center agenda? Of course, he's a progressive. Has he adopted an extreme agenda? You simply need to listen to the screams from the far left to get an appreciation for how not extreme Biden's policies have been so far. He's pissing off the far left and Republicans. That's centrism defined.

 

Biden is a moderate Democrat. You'll see some incremental change, but he's a corporatist who doesn't want to rock the boat too hard. A bit to the left of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, but not much. I think someone has sold him a bill of goods on this Green New Deal--or he's just giving it lip service to appease the radical environmentalists. That's another thing, the Democratic Party used to be a very strong supporter of the oil and gas industry. WTF happened there...? Where's John Breaux or Jim Wright when you need them?

Many other leaders in the party these days are anything but moderate.

 

most of the leadership is moderate but the leftists have a loud set of megaphones and the NYT egging them on.

 

Hannity: "Hold my beer".

 

Biden, like Obama won't move fast enough for the far left. Everything he pushes will be a watered down proposal of what the AOC, Sanders and Warren's want. I personally voted for the moderation. My disdain for the extremes (and populists?) is no secret.

I do agree that Biden is a Corporatist. He understands that Capitalism needs to be part of our solution and corporations are the direct representation of it.

 

Biden might be a moderate, but he isn't determining the policy agenda. The Far Left aren't calling the shots, but the D party shifted WAY left, so moderate left is now very much left. These guys are printing trillions of dollars. They advocate taking over markets and even eliminating some by law. This is fascism at its best.

The Rs aren't much better they are big government too. They just want to stamp the R on the law so they get credit.

The only hope for me is that Rs respond to populist impulses of those the Ds are leaving behind. They abandoned the working and middle class. Trump picked them up, but the National Review crowd doesn't want to accept any kind of populism. Populism can go wrong, but there is a version which could lead to more freedom, more markets, and more traditional culture.

 

This isn't the case.

 

He was trying to and had some potential, but he blew his credibility with the election contest.

 

I have read multiple articles there fearing a move toward populism and nationalism. There have been a few supporting some aspects of it, but my feel is that they are against.

 

It's a mixed bag. Guys like Rich Lowry and Michael Brendan Dougherty are more populist friendly. Guys like Kevin Williamson and C.W. Cooke are much less so.

 

Let's unpack this a little. Bill Cassidy and and Ben Sasse represent some of the reddest states in the country. They are completely invulnerable to Democratic challengers, and they could back Trump and comfortably hold those seats for the next 40 years if they want to. Furthermore, both are solidly conservative. They might get a somewhat favorable article or two on CNN or the New York Times for voting to convict Trump, but those accolades will be very short-lived. Just looking at it logically, there is no reason for them to vote to convict absent a sincere belief that it's the right thing to do. The upside is far too small and the downside far too great. Republican politicians don't put their careers at great risk for a week of less-than-totally-hostile coverage from CNN several years before they're up for reelection. It makes no sense at all.

And again, if it's TDS, why didn't these guys vote to convict Trump the first time around?

You do know that impeachment isn't a criminal matter and on the merits involves no questions of law, right? It is a political matter. You don't have to break the law to be impeached and removed. Furthermore, breaking the law doesn't necessarily require impeachment and removal.

He "might" be right on the law like you "might" be right that stopping on a red light is right on the law. This was never a serious controversy outside of the freak show brigade.

I don't follow this at all. No president in the last 28 years (or 228 years) has done what Trump did.

It would make a difference but only superficially. It's politically easier to make the argument if the President commits a crime, but it's not necessary.

 

This logic is going to get you a bad rep.

 

Will their political careers suffer? Who knows? They would be willing to risk this because of 1) Dislike for Trump. 2) Money 3) Media brownie points It's funny how nearly all of this comes from people who have had past issues with Trump. That's a red flag. Cassidy might have had issues with Trump but kept it to himself until just now. They will also increase their coffers because of this political stunt. Pulling this during the turbulent time and turning on Trump will help with their lobbying and dark money. This WILL definitely help with them with the left wing donors. They didn't do it the first time simply because attacking Trump at that time wasn't beneficial to them. Also, the case was even weaker then this. What could you think of to impeach him for? At least here you can cry incitement or something. However, I admit I could be wrong with these assessments and perhaps what they had was just a dumb emotional response to a bad situation. I highly doubt it was a vote with their conscience. Seems like it was vindictive.

Yes, I know it doesn't need a legal reason but doesn't it make sense to have one? Without one it just turns into an emotional response.

No, the law isn't quite clear. So, no.

What did Trump do that was so bad? Fighting to stop what he believes was fraud? Everything he did was legal and above board. Please, don't go on with the left wing talking points with the "big lie" nonsense. Past presidents? Are you trying to tell me Obama closing down the Fast and Furious investigation with an EO which would have finished his AG off wasn't as severe? His deal with Iran with all sorts of nonsense going on? Come on, man.

 

A. The “big lie” was a money grab.
B. Wonder if they could have saved a few lives and some felony charges and jobs of would be “patriots” by having the national guard utilized a few hours earlier?

 

Can the national guard stop myocardial infarctions?

 

Nobody knows for sure, because this whole controversy could die down with other bigger and more pressing problems. (That's my hope not only for them but for the party in general.) However, there is no question that they took a massive risk that was easily avoidable. In fact, it's about the riskiest thing they could do.

Sasse didn't like Trump, but I've seen no evidence that Cassidy had an issue with him. But even if they didn't like Trump, you're talking about these guys like they're doped-up thugs waving a gun around police officers - so caught up in the emotion that they can't think straight about their own well-being. These aren't stupid or unhinged men. One has a Ph.D., and the other is a doctor. They aren't going to take the biggest risks of their careers just because they don't like somebody. They aren't that dumb.

And for guys who supposedly disliked Trump, they were quite supportive of him at other times as you can see from their voting records. They were not kneejerk Trump-haters.

At least in my experience, donors tend to throw money at people who support their policy agenda. Labor unions, trial lawyers, tech companies, Planned Parenthood, etc. (left-wing donors) tend to throw money at Democrats, because they are friendly to those donors' policy agendas. Insurance companies, construction companies, pharmaceutical companies, oil and gas companies (right-wing donors) tend to throw money at Republicans because they are friendly to those donors' policy agendas.

Ben Sasse and Bill Cassidy virtually never support the policy agendas of left-wing donors, but you think those donors are going to suddenly start throwing money their way just because they voted to convict Trump in an effort everyone knew would be fruitless? That's just not plausible and makes no sense at all. Suppose Barbara Boxer had voted to convict Bill Clinton. Do you think that right-wing donors would have suddenly flipped and started throwing money at her? Of course not. A friendly phone call and maybe a free dinner at Sizzler would have been about the most she could have hoped for.

This is a little like the donor thing. These guys will get media brownie points (at least compared to other Republicans) for about 2 weeks, and then the media will **** on them anytime it serves the Democrats' interests to do so. Very, very little gain for the amount of risk.

But it's beneficial to do it now in a way that it wasn't back then?

You could cry bribery. That wasn't my case, but it's what the impeachment managers basically went with. Some people bought it. Some didn't.

You're gonna jump down my throat on this, but you have a bit of derangement yourself on this. You can't accept that someone who's conservative can be adverse to Trump without it being in bad faith, and that just isn't true. It's not a mark on one's conservatism to be against Trump on something. He is not the embodiment of conservatism. It is possible to be pragmatic about him. It's possible to be supportive of him when he's doing the right thing and hostile to him when he's doing the wrong thing. That was largely my approach to Trump for the last five years, and of course, there's plenty of room for disagreement on what's right and what's wrong. It's not as simple as loving him or hating him.

It makes sense to have one, but it doesn't automatically become an emotional response if you don't. One can make the argument that he didn't meet the legal definition of incitement (and he didn't) but that he did incite in fact by what he did over the previous few months and by what he didn't do after the attack began. That's not emotional. It's still based on fact.

He said it was fraud in public far more than he said it was fraud in court and therefore under oath and/or subject to penalties for frivolous pleadings and so forth (and sometimes affirmatively said that he WASN'T alleging fraud in court). Just think about that for a minute. I'm not necessarily saying it was all a big scam like Switzer is, but I think you're giving him the benefit of the doubt more than you should.

I'm saying that he did something that no other president had ever done. There wasn't a precedent for it. I'm not necessarily saying it was the worst thing a president had ever done. Honestly, I think that kind of judgment is stupid, because that really is a subjective. For example, Nixon was effectively removed. Did other presidents do worse things than he? Absolutely.