United States Trump v Biden 2, electric boogaloo

[Bigking321]

You began this exchange by claiming I do not understand conservatives, then you claim harkening back to Reagan is part of why Trump won.

What on earth are you talking about?

He said Trump appealed to conservatives and moderates. Just like Reagan appealed to conservatives and moderates. And that the term for a democrat voting republican because of such a large breadth of appeal is "Reagan Democrat" because that was what Reagan did. He was a populist.

He didn't say anything about only appealing to the trad con base or anything remotely like that.

At some point the old school GoP base needs to realize they will never be in the drivers seat again, they will be front passenger seat at best to the desires of moderates and Blue Dogs who control the GOP's future.

The GOP will be a vehicle of the Blue Dogs and moderates to fight the Far-Left, if it has any future at all, more than a bastion of 'conservatism' because geography and redistricting don't care about conservative values.

...

Nah.

That would be the same thing as the idiots that wreaked blue states moving to red states and then wreaking them by voting for the same things that destroyed the blue states in the first place.

I'm fine welcoming whoever to get away from the radical leftists but I'd much prefer they join up with groups that share their principles instead of trying to hijack other groups.

If they want to remain left leaning moderates I'll happily fight the radicals with them but I'll oppose them trying to take over the conservative party and cast aside the original base.

They could just as easily join up the blue dogs and rinos and create a new moderate party instead of trying to completely remove conservatives from everything.

And if they despise conservatives that much, why join that party? Make your own party, with blackjack and hookers! Show how great moderate ideas are, instead of latching onto another party like a parasite and trying to kill the host.

 

[Bacle]

What on earth are you talking about?

He said Trump appealed to conservatives and moderates. Just like Reagan appealed to conservatives and moderates. And that the term for a democrat voting republican because of such a large breadth of appeal is "Reagan Democrat" because that was what Reagan did. He was a populist.

He didn't say anything about only appealing to the trad con base or anything remotely like that.

You still do not understand one whit of how the majority of Conservatives think.

The very first part of this exchange began with this line.

...

Nah.

That would be the same thing as the idiots that wreaked blue states moving to red states and then wreaking them by voting for the same things that destroyed the blue states in the first place.

I'm fine welcoming whoever to get away from the radical leftists but I'd much prefer they join up with groups that share their principles instead of trying to hijack other groups.

If they want to remain left leaning moderates I'll happily fight the radicals with them but I'll oppose them trying to take over the conservative party and cast aside the original base.

They could just as easily join up the blue dogs and rinos and create a new moderate party instead of trying to completely remove conservatives from everything.

And if they despise conservatives that much, why join that party? Make your own party, with blackjack and hookers! Show how great moderate ideas are, instead of latching onto another party like a parasite and trying to kill the host.

The Libertarian Party is a thing, and does get numbers in places, but it is far easier to effectively fight the Far-Left using the new direction of the GOP, than to try to fight them using the Libertarians.

If US wasn't stuck in this two-party system, maybe things would be different.

But for now the easiest way to fight the Far-Left effectively is by shifting the modern GOP to be more focused towards swing demographics/areas and issues that matter to them, rather than preaching to the shrinking and non-swing district/state living choir.

It may not be fair to the old school GOP base, but they don't decide Federal level elections, or have the demographic numbers or control of the geographic locations to make themselves into a swing demographic or location. Due to how state level and national level politics in the US work, and the proportion of independent/moderate voters in swing areas, mean that about 10% of US voters have a massive, massive influence on who wins national level general elections.

Texas being red for now, and it is turning more and more blue by the election cycle, is the only reason the rest of the national GOP has any hope of national level power.

If/when the GOP lose Texas on the national level, the GOP is fucked for at least a generation, if not more, and can kiss power in DC goodbye for what is likely to be decades, unless they can retake Texas or flip Cali/NY.

The illusions the old school GOP base has been living under about it's own power, influence, and the general electorate are it's biggest threats to power right now, not the Dems, and I'm just trying to wake people up before it's too late to correct course.

 

[LordsFire]

snip.

You are literally quoting what I actually said, and then acting like I said something different.

This kind of thing is why I say you still think like a leftist. You act like you're some kind of bloody mind-reader, who knows the thoughts of others not just without them saying something, but directly into contravention to what they are actually saying.

Also, thanks Bigking for getting the point.

 

[Bacle]

You are literally quoting what I actually said, and then acting like I said something different.

This kind of thing is why I say you still think like a leftist. You act like you're some kind of bloody mind-reader, who knows the thoughts of others not just without them saying something, but directly into contravention to what they are actually saying.

Also, thanks Bigking for getting the point.

You keep trying to push this purity spiral 'still a leftist' shit on me, like I have to prove myself to you, and I have pointed out parts of the larger context to this (and not just in your arguments, but general tradcon/conservative arguments I've seen you and others like you use), and you just ignore it.

Let's go over how this all began:

1) My reply to S'task

This is why we need a DeSantis/RFK Jr. bipartisan ticket; make it so we can move beyond just a single party option and actually give us a combo that would clean house in Washington and handle the deep rot.

RFK Jr. know better than most the price of the rot in DC, and RFK Jr. finally getting vengence for his father and uncle would be a beautiful thing to see, and DeSantis would be able to competently govern if he didn't have to worry about a snake in every seat like Trump had going on.

It would also make it easier for sane Dems to finally rebuke and seriously hurt the lunatic progressives who hijacked their party.

However, I think Pence is in this to sabotage both Trump and DeSantis; he's the "let the GOP take the fall for the economic/social catastrophe just over the horizon so we don't, but with governence that might let us keep power overall" candidate for DC/the Dems.

2) Your first reply to me, where you began the purity spiral again.

You still do not understand one whit of how the majority of Conservatives think.

Any lefty like RFK Jr as a running partner would be seen as definitive proof of whatever Republican was running with them being an establishment beast, a sellout, and completely untrustworthy.

Taking a Democrat (current, not 'was a Democrat 20 years ago) as a running partner is the kiss of death for any Republican.

3) My first reply to you, trying to get you to understand that taking on a Dem for a bipartisan ticket would not be a 'kiss of death' in a general election.

Conservatives aren't the only people who vote, and the GOP needs to win on a general election, not whatever makes the tradcon crowd happy.

Trump won in 2016 because he was a populist, not a conservative, and it is a mistake to think the GOP can win much of anything anymore if the only people the party cares about pleasing is the tradcon choir, while ignoring the feelings of the rest of the electorate.

4) Your second reply assumes I meant the GOP had to 'throw away' it's base, rather than realize it's 'base' is not only people the GOP has to account for in elections. It is also where you began to reference Reagan and Reagan Dems/what other might call Blue Dogs, while ignoring the populism label/political movement as related to Trump and how it factors into what I said.

Throwing away your base to appeal to 'moderates' has never worked.

Trump won because he appealed to both Conservatives and moderates, much in the way that Reagan did. There's a term, 'Reagan Democrat,' for a reason.

5) My second reply to you, where I try to get you to understand the point I was trying to about populism and the wider appeal the GOP needs beyond it's base, while trying to point out appeals/references to Reagan do not really matter for much of the modern electorate, and that the old GOP base is not located in swing districts/states which means they have less electoral power/leverage than moderates/Blue Dogs in swing areas.

The Tradcon base is not all there is to the GOP, unless you've just tried to ignore the Big Tent populism that Trump got in 2016.

Also, there are simply more moderates than hardcore tradcons these days, and elections are won with addition, not subtraction, and just preaching to the choir doesn't work in US politics.

Reagan and his legacy/politics DO NOT FUCKING MATTER to much of the modern US electorate anymore, get that through your skull.

Trump won because he was a populist with populist policies, not because of 'tradcon conservatism' being more appealing to moderates, and because Hillary was just that bad.

This is you once again operating under the illusion that the tradcon base of the GOP matters for national elections anymore; they don't.

The people the GOP can peel off the Dems and appeal to in the center have more numbers in the places that matter (swing states/districts are a thing).

From there you just started snipping my reply instead of addressing the points in detail, and then began dodging by saying I wasn't reading what you wrote.

Maybe the disconnect is that you do not get that I consider you a tradcon, @LordsFire, and good representation of tradcons in US politics.

 

[LordsFire]

4) Your second reply assumes I meant the GOP had to 'throw away' it's base, rather than realize it's 'base' is not only people the GOP has to account for in elections. It is also where you began to reference Reagan and Reagan Dems/what other might call Blue Dogs, while ignoring the populism label/political movement as related to Trump and how it factors into what I said.

You quote where I literally said that Reagan and Trump both won by appealing to both conservatives and moderates.

And then you act like I'm trying to say 'Republicans only need to appeal to conservatives.'

I explicitly said that Trump won by appealing to both. Then you start saying crap like this:

You are still under the illusion Trump won over moderates in 2016 because of a 'conservative silent majority' or 'going back to Reagan appeal' or some such, rather than because he was a populist who appealed to more than just the tradcon/religious conservative base, and because Hillary was just that bad.

Literally repeating my own point, and then acting like it both contradicted what I said, and claiming I'd said things that I had not said.

I did not say Trump won because of a 'conservative silent majority.' I did not say he won by 'going back to Reagan appeal.' You literally invented these things out of your own mind and attributed them to me.

What I did say was:

Throwing away your base to appeal to 'moderates' has never worked.

Trump won because he appealed to both Conservatives and moderates, much in the way that Reagan did. There's a term, 'Reagan Democrat,' for a reason.

Can you actually read the words I posted, or are you too deep in your own dogma to be able to see them clearly?

My point was that a Republican presidential candidate should be trying to win by getting the conservative base, and a majority of the moderates. Discarding either is a bad idea, and no Republican presidential candidate in modern history has managed to take the White House while abandoning the base.

 

[Cherico]

You keep trying to push this purity spiral 'still a leftist' shit on me, like I have to prove myself to you, and I have pointed out parts of the larger context to this (and not just in your arguments, but general tradcon/conservative arguments I've seen you and others like you use), and you just ignore it.

Let's go over how this all began:

1) My reply to S'task


2) Your first reply to me, where you began the purity spiral again.


3) My first reply to you, trying to get you to understand that taking on a Dem for a bipartisan ticket would not be a 'kiss of death' in a general election.


4) Your second reply assumes I meant the GOP had to 'throw away' it's base, rather than realize it's 'base' is not only people the GOP has to account for in elections. It is also where you began to reference Reagan and Reagan Dems/what other might call Blue Dogs, while ignoring the populism label/political movement as related to Trump and how it factors into what I said.


5) My second reply to you, where I try to get you to understand the point I was trying to about populism and the wider appeal the GOP needs beyond it's base, while trying to point out appeals/references to Reagan do not really matter for much of the modern electorate, and that the old GOP base is not located in swing districts/states which means they have less electoral power/leverage than moderates/Blue Dogs in swing areas.


From there you just started snipping my reply instead of addressing the points in detail, and then began dodging by saying I wasn't reading what you wrote.

Maybe the disconnect is that you do not get that I consider you a tradcon, @LordsFire, and good representation of tradcons in US politics.

A lot of the reason why Reagan won a sweep was because the left basicaly acted like total asshats for 20 fucking years.

The 60s expecially the latter part of it was a total shit show, the 70s had inflation a bad economy, high oil prices, you had race riots wreak the cities, crime was high and people were just tired of it all. They just wanted an end to the chaos, bullshit and crime.

The left hated Reagan they truely fucking hated him but the mood of america was one of just being done.

 

[49ersfootball]

Pence just announced he's running as well.

Mike Pence just officially filed to run for president in 2024, challenging Trump after dramatic January 6 fallout

Two other Republican presidential candidates are announcing a run this week. They're entering a crowded race to defeat Trump.

www.businessinsider.com

He will NOT last long after the IA Caucuses.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

If he lasts that long @49ersfootball
I don't think Pence is going to get ANY traction at all.

 

[Blasterbot]

If he lasts that long @49ersfootball
I don't think Pence is going to get ANY traction at all.

I think he has enough establishment people to push him through to the 1st primaries at least. they got some big donors that can throw money at him if nothing else.

 

[Cherico]

He will NOT last long after the IA Caucuses.

he burned pretty much all of the good will last election.

 

[Sobek]

Pence thinks he can still get evangelicals to vote for him after literally LARPing as Judas down to getting paid in solid metal coin for his treason dude is delusional.

 

[Cherico]

Pence thinks he can still get evangelicals to vote for him after literally LARPing as Judas down to getting paid in solid metal coin for his treason dude is delusional.

Hey 40 pieces of silver is 40 pieces of silver

 

[Typhonis]

Hey 40 pieces of silver is 40 pieces of silver

However Judas was repentant about what he did afterward. Has Pence shown as much?

 

[Sobek]

He did some interviews today and said he wouldn't pardon any Jan 6th people.

So I am gonna say no.

 

[Planchar]

Pence thinks he can still get evangelicals to vote for him after literally LARPing as Judas down to getting paid in solid metal coin for his treason dude is delusional.

Exactly what treason was that?

 

[IndyFront]

Since the Antidemocrats are cancelling primaries and shutting down any and all opposition to the establishment I'll likely be holding my nose and voting for Trump, seems like the Antidemocrats have the most incompetent, fascist and environmentally-unfriendly administration in recent memory. They and their liberal sycophants must be stopped.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

They just wanted an end to the chaos, bullshit and crime.

the more things change, the more they stay the same i guess.

 

[Bacle]

So seems Chris Christie effectively fucked Trump using his friends from Bridgegate, including Wray, who was Christie's attorney.

 

[Rocinante]

I'm gonna just post this instead of quoting people because I don't feel like getting in rhe middle of the spaghetti post debate.

I find myself often agreeing with @Bacle In that the GOP needs to widen its base and not just rely on the hard base.

I agree with @LordsFire that him running wirh RFK would be a kiss of death.

the GOP needs to find a way to widen the base, without throwing out the current base. Which is far more tricky.

They need both to win.

RFK is a solid candidate and the most sane and moderate Democrat to run in my life. If you noticed when he announced his run, I said I'd prefer him over Biden and wouldn't be in an existential panic with him in instead of Biden, but that I'd never vote for him due to the D next to his name.

I'm not even hard-core GOP base and felt that way. The current base is not going to vote for an RFK ticket.

 

[Sobek]

Exactly what treason was that?

Depending on who you ask:

1- Not using VPOTUS power to nullify the election due to fraud

2- Not helping stop election fraud

3- Imediatly turning on Trump once Jan 6th happened

4- The way he has behaved since he left office and going full RINO

IMO for me it's a mix of 2 and 4. From his own comments he believed a VP did not have the power to nullify and was not going to do it, but he said nothing in public and kept making vague statements about it that made it sound like he would, teasing people until he capitulated and helping making Jan 6th more chaotic.

And then he has spent a lot of time since being a RINO and insisting on this shit.