Another Republican Rejection

[ysabetwordsmith]

The Harvard Republican Club has issued a ringing condemnation of Trump. 

Understand that the Republican Party has been building toward this situation for ~40 years.  It's not an accident or a fluke. They have had, and promoted, very long-range plans to radicalize and divide politics to their own advantage.  All the racist, misogynist, classist, etc. nonsense that Trump spouts is just the natural conclusion of the direction in which they have been pushing all this time.  They've been aiming to elect people along those lines, and when it all comes together, we find ourselves faced with this bombastic, testosterone-poisoned troglodyte.

Suddenly, now that the station is in sight, people are deciding they don't want to be on this train.  Well, better late than never. I just hope it's enough.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Part of it lies with how they (republicans) practice conservatism... theyve glorified the past till.it shines, disregard all that was flawed or worse weapinize it and try to.drag people back into these boxes of place and station so.they can better be controlled.

Nevermind how people have changed and that weve got.proof that the restrictions of previous generations are.still damaging the present ones.

As for trump himself.its staggering that it took him attacking those parents to really make.people note his glaring flaws. I knew vert little.if him preceeding the election but backtracking and a little.digging once he announced his plans to run reveiled just how repugnant he was.

His actions during his run basically confirmed.he hasnt changed any.

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith]

That's all very troubling. I'm glad you easily recognized what a nutjob he is upon checking into Trump.

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Part of it lies with how they (republicans) practice conservatism... theyve glorified the past till.it shines, disregard all that was flawed or worse weapinize it and<<

That's true.

>> try to.drag people back into these boxes of place and station so.they can better be controlled. <<

They are disturbingly prone to be control freaks.

>>digging once he announced his plans to run reveiled just how repugnant he was. <<

It doesn't take much digging to discover that a manure heap is a giant pile of shit.

[shiori_makiba]

Oof . . . I think that was a negative five star review.

Not that it isn't warranted . . . just never thought I'd be nodding my head and agreeing this much with the conservatives.

It's not that I never agree with them. It's just usually we don't have the same opinion on a topic.

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith]

We need liberals to try new things and not get stuck in the past, and conservatives to remember old things and not overdrive our headlights. When the "conservatives" are actually radicals, that is a problem. Genuine conservatives sound more like the members of this club, and are useful, even if we don't often agree.

Re: Yes...

[shiori_makiba]

*Nods*

Gas pedal and brakes. You need both. Too much of either is dangerous.

It's also too bad that genuine conservatives are so often drowned out in the news and other sources by the noise and outrage of the radicals. Of course, you see that with liberals too.

I think a quote from the Bard sums up that kind of politics and the reporting thereof pretty well:
"Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
-Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5.

Re: Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Gas pedal and brakes. You need both. Too much of either is dangerous. <<

Yep.

>> It's also too bad that genuine conservatives are so often drowned out in the news and other sources by the noise and outrage of the radicals. Of course, you see that with liberals too. <<

Sadly so.

>> I think a quote from the Bard sums up that kind of politics and the reporting thereof pretty well:
"Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
-Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5. <<

Agreed.

This is actuallhy one problem that I dislike...

[johnpalmer]

In an ideal world, yes, liberals would push on the gas and conservatives would ride the brakes, and we'd probably get to some healthy balances. For example, cap and trade was a *great* idea from conservative folks. Liberal folks would have put strict limits on acid-rain creating pollution, conservatives said "Let's set a limit, but let's let people have allowances they can sell, so people will gamble with new technologies to reduce emissions, hoping to have something valuable to sell at a profit, later!"

But today, "conservative" doesn't mean "careful, and a bit old-fashioned" - not in the US political scene. A conservative would say that torture is wrong, always, and stupid - not cheer it on because it pisses off liberals. Hell - a true conservative would say that the government shouldn't be involved in abortion, other than more or less how Roe v. Wade suggested - but being in favor of government involvement and regulation of abortion is a litmus test for US conservatives.

A conservative would want to see tax increases - but in the US, it's "conservative" to insist that taxes must be "lower". ("Lower than what?" is the kind of question a LIEberal asks!)

The words get twisted out of any common sense meaning.

And you can't say that these people aren't conservatives because because enough "conservatives" in the US agree that this is "conservative".

I would like to see a real conservative movement in this country, I confess. But it's not likely to happen unless Trump gets utterly crushed and the GOP blames the right people for it.

[thnidu]

bombastic, testosterone-poisoned troglodyte

Excellent description.

Thank you!

[ysabetwordsmith]

I have heard some truly epic descriptions of Trump. He seems to inspire them.

[stardreamer]

Understand that the Republican Party has been building toward this situation for ~40 years. It's not an accident or a fluke. They have had, and promoted, very long-range plans to radicalize and divide politics to their own advantage. All the racist, misogynist, classist, etc. nonsense that Trump spouts is just the natural conclusion of the direction in which they have been pushing all this time.

THIS. This is what I've been saying as Republican politicians got more and more overtly crazy especially over the last decade. It's why I don't have any sympathy for them at all at this point; they made their bed, let them lie in it.

I will also note that nowhere in that "ringing condemnation" is any kind of acknowledgement that their own actions have had a significant part in the creation of this problem. They tilled the soil and sowed the seed and watered and fertilized and weeded* the crop -- but now that it's coming ripe, they suddenly want to dissociate themselves from it. Sorry, boys, it doesn't work that way.

OTOH, the news coming out of the Kansas state-level primary is encouraging. Apparently a whole bunch of district voters got up on their hind legs and said not just no but HELL NO to the teahadi assholes who have run their state into the ground. Sadly, the governor wasn't up for re-election... but he will be in another 2 years.

* That turns out to be a more apt metaphor than I thought, given the way they have consistently purged from the party any politician who displayed a modicum of sanity or empathy

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunatly the link requires a log in to read the article...

[johnpalmer]

I'd respectfully say that it's not the last decade, but the last two - it's just accelerated, as might be expected. In '94, they went full Gingrich - define everything the Republicans do as good, and everything the Democrats do as bad. For an election cycle or two, you can get away with that, but after that, it's no longer a strategy, it's a set of ideas that's starting to solidify as capital-T truth with people. By 2000, you had a lot of entrenched partisanship, and George W came along willing to play that game quite nicely, and lots of people willing to play along, hoping for a permanent majority. And you had some of the same Republicans who threw a fit over how Clinton could spy on people with "nothing more than a rubber stamp from the FISA court" supporting Bush who completely disregarded even that "rubber stamp".

And by now, you have a lot of people for whom the Democrats have always been horrible beasts and flat out wrong about everything. They're not playing by the strategy any more - they're reflecting reality as they've always heard it.

It's the gun nuts where I despair the most - and I do mean "nut" - there's a reason for that.

The gun nuts cheer that a guy (who walked away from a fight with a bloody nose and some small scratches on the back of his head) killed a man, and are horrified by the thought that he might go to jail for manslaughter. They don't even bother to note that his injuries are 100% inconsistent with his story. They don't care that he likely initiated the confrontation.

Me? There was one time in my life when I had a loaded gun for protection - and I stayed in place, with clear lines of sight, and a phone close at hand. I was 99% sure nothing was seriously wrong, but I was spooked. And that's one of the pieces of wisdom a responsible gun owner should remember: your own perceptions are warped when you're scared (or angry), and that's one of the reasons you *never* risk a confrontation unless you have no choice, because warped perceptions get people killed, and even if it'll be the other guy, and even if you won't face charges, another person getting hurt or killed needlessly is unacceptable.

But now it's tribalism - the liberal folks don't like guns or killing in self defense, so that's okay by the nuts. And that's the key, that's why I'll use the term "nut" for that subset. It's *never* okay to have to kill in self defense, even when it's truly the least-bad option, you should still hope for a way out that lets everyone walk away, alive.

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>I'd respectfully say that it's not the last decade, but the last two - it's just accelerated, as might be expected.<< The beginning of the concerted plan is actually about 40 years back. It just took a while to build up enough momentum they could get radical candidates elected. >> But now it's tribalism - the liberal folks don't like guns or killing in self defense, so that's okay by the nuts. << That's why I'm disturbed by both sides. Many of the anti-gun crowd want to train people to be sheep, to be good victims, never to fight back no matter how bad the situation gets. That is no more sane or sustainable than a tendency to shoot anything that moves. >> And that's the key, that's why I'll use the term "nut" for that subset. It's *never* okay to have to kill in self defense, even when it's truly the least-bad option, you should still hope for a way out that lets everyone walk away, alive. << I consider it perfectly ethical for people to kill in self-defense. If someone wants to rob, rape, or murder you then you can either agree that's okay and let him; or you can disagree and deploy strategies to stop him. You're justified in using as much force as he does plus one notch higher. It's excessive force that is wrong. If someone gets killed by doing stupid things, that's sad for their family, but a logical consequence of their actions. Of course it's preferable to solve problems without violence, but not always possible; and when not possible, adding self-recrimination to the mix is hardly helpful. But the amount of logic and rationality I see on the topic of self-defense is nearly nil these days -- and most of that is on martial arts, not firearms. I had a devil of a time hunting down a list that contained the gun safety laws I learned growing up, just hearing adults talk about them. Things like "Don't carry your gun over a fence; put it on the far side, climb over, then pick it up."

Re: Well...

[johnpalmer]

I do agree that killing in self defense is justified if you seriously believe that it's do or die. And you can't always wait long enough to determine if the threat is real.

I don't want people to beat themselves up if - one case I remember was this kid liked to run at people and wave and shout so he could snap a picture of people's scared/startled expressions - they use lethal force when a reasonable person would have, as happened in that situation.

(That news story is where I decided that one should *never* provoke a confrontation unless it's vital. While the shooting was justifiable under the circumstances, the man in question opened the door because property might have been at risk - not lives.)

But I want them to count it as "that wasn't how it was supposed to go down" and to be determined to do better, if possible, if the same thing happens later.

There are too many people who have a knee jerk "you did what you had to do!" response, and many times, a person didn't. Sometimes they did something a lot of fine people would do, but sometimes, there were other choices.

If the guy in the example above realized "I could have taken two steps back, closed and bolted the door, and called the police" I don't want him to feel eternally horrible that he didn't think about that in a split second, but I do want it to sting enough that, if he's ever in a similar situation, he checks all options before the confrontation occurs, so he has a better chance than he did previously.

I think we have very similar beliefs in self defense, but my fear is that the idea "it's okay to use lethal force in self defense" has gotten pushed too hard and needs some (gentle, careful) pushback.

[tomtac.livejournal.com]

Five days later, and it is getting worse.

We are as close as we may ever be to having the GOP officially concede the presidential election. I don't think they'd go that far publicly, but it is certain that privately the leaders don't want to spend their money on getting DJT elected. Instead, they are certainly focussing on the Congressional races and keeping control of both houses. I gloomily note that they have a good chance of doing that.

Trump is not one of their own. A decade ago he was a Democrat, then he spent a few years registered as an Independent. Then he swooped in and hijacked the GOP..... Because it had been getting weaker and weaker, in every presidential election.

To see this for what it is, you might like to look at a history of Ross Perot's party, "United We Stand", which became the "Reform Party". It was good as long as Perot was the nominee, but in 2000 he said he was tired of running, and then party would have to come up with its own nominee. Just like Trump in 2016, a guy named Pat Buchanan showed up, registered as a party member, and hijacked the party's nomination. The Reform Party has had a rocky time since then.

I wonder what the GOP will be doing come December about its primary system. I think we've agreed not to waste any tears on that party, but as it circles the drain we don't want them dragging the whole country down with them. I do think we will avoid that.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>>We are as close as we may ever be to having the GOP officially concede the presidential election. I don't think they'd go that far publicly, but it is certain that privately the leaders don't want to spend their money on getting DJT elected. <<

This at least reduces the chance of them simply cheating again to get him elected.

>> Instead, they are certainly focussing on the Congressional races and keeping control of both houses. I gloomily note that they have a good chance of doing that.<<

I'm not so worried about that. Hillary is so much of a disaster that she is tolerable only in comparison to the Republicans. She'll do less damage than them. But I think she will do a LOT of damage herself. I have not yet decided whether I think she would do more damage with actual control of the government, compared to the damage caused by more obstruction-to-stalemate like we've had in recent years.

>> I think we've agreed not to waste any tears on that party, but as it circles the drain we don't want them dragging the whole country down with them. I do think we will avoid that.<<

A dying elephant can still do a fuckton of damage. Plus we'd be left with one party in control of everything, which is not good.

Re: Thoughts

[tomtac.livejournal.com]

>> A dying elephant can still do a fuckton of damage

Oh, yes. Don't misunderstand me. Although the GOP could still survive, I say we are seeing exactly that.

A shame we won't get an apology, an admission like "We Republicans are very, very sorry that our primary system and our moderate/teaParty division inflicted Donald Trump on the country. We apologize for the weakening of NATO, the barrage of insults heaved towards Islam and the United States of Mexico, and the general damage to the U.S.A.'s image resulting from this harrowing candidacy."

Trump has the ability to drag us down with him, if he gets in. When I said "I do think we will avoid that", that is my best guess. But we are already not unscathed.

>> Plus we'd be left with one party in control of everything, which is not good.

Yes, temporarily at least, I think. (I do wish I knew what I was talking about.) the Democrats in charge, but I think the GOP will have significant members still in Congress, if not control of both houses.

What seems likely is that, in the same way the GOP split into two, there would soon be a split between the new democrats and the traditionals ... that is, the differences between Bernie and Hillary would soon boil over, and we could have a two party system again sooner than one would think. We could have the Democratic Socialists up against the President and her party. Although they are chummy now, if there ever is any issue on which neither side would back down, it could get furious quickly.

(Again, I have a tendency to talk as if I know what I'm talking about. In fact, your guess is as good as mine.)

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>>A shame we won't get an apology, an admission like "We Republicans are very, very sorry that our primary system and our moderate/teaParty division inflicted Donald Trump on the country. We apologize for the weakening of NATO, the barrage of insults heaved towards Islam and the United States of Mexico, and the general damage to the U.S.A.'s image resulting from this harrowing candidacy."<<

If only. The Republicans are flailing to get off the train now that they see the station, but they're acting like they didn't build the tracks and shovel the fuel into the engine. >_<

>> What seems likely is that, in the same way the GOP split into two, there would soon be a split between the new democrats and the traditionals ... that is, the differences between Bernie and Hillary would soon boil over, and we could have a two party system again sooner than one would think. We could have the Democratic Socialists up against the President and her party. Although they are chummy now, if there ever is any issue on which neither side would back down, it could get furious quickly.<<

I could live with a center-left and a left party a lot better than a barking mad and a slightly less mad party.

>> (Again, I have a tendency to talk as if I know what I'm talking about. In fact, your guess is as good as mine.) <<

Mine are based on two things: a deep knowledge of history and a very powerful extrapolative engine. This makes it very easy to predict some things (i.e. tyrants never seem to remember that they are vulnerable; a civilization which does not meet the needs of its citizens will fall) while others are difficult because there is no one outcome which is greatly more probable than others.

Re: Thoughts

[cissa.livejournal.com]

I agree with you re Hillary. Only Trump could make her look acceptable.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

Well, I would have preferred her to the other Republican candidates too. What a clowncar. :/ But that does not make her safe.

[cissa.livejournal.com]

The Harvard types just don't like how Trump makes bigotry look TACKY.

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

You nailed it.