Opinion of Romney-Hillary voters?

[MT Treasurer]

LOL

Anyway, FFs, much better than the rubes who voted for Trump.  Can't wait until "Trumpism" - to the extent it means anything, haha - is discredited.  Trump was a last stand for people like Eharding and TN Vol, and the future of the GOP is gonna be a LITTLE less White trash, friends.

"White trash"? Wow... you really want the GOP to be a big tent party, huh?

[RINO Tom]

Even before Trump, most of them were pretty terrible fits for the Republican Party of today. They should just join the Democrats (where their heart belongs) and quit bragging about how voting for Clinton (whether it is in 2016 or 1996) was the only morally acceptable thing to do and that every Republican voter in 2016 is a Dixiecrat, racist or populist. They also seem to have this strange idea that the Republican Party was literally perfect in the age of Bush and appreciated the values of small government and conservatism back then, which is simply not true.

Romney voters didnt vote for Hillary because they like Hillary LMAO. They just considered her the lesser of two evils , and reluctantly voted for her. If Kasich,Bush, Rubio, Walker, Christe , and even paul  won the nomination they easily would have voted for the Republican. Even if Cruz was the Republican nominee a lot of them would have not voted for Hillary.

No instead the Populist Trump voters should join the Democratic Party because they like democrats want to implement policies what hurt small business and upper middle class workers.

Okay...

Broken clocks are right twice a day.  Populism is code word for getting a bunch of gullible and desperate people to get mad that they aren't as fortunate as other people and mobilize them to support policies that drag down said fortunate people and make their lives better in exchange.  Education, income, whatever.  It's what liberalism thrives on, and it has no place in the GOP.  You can stick it out in the GOP and try to make the party adopt it longterm, but you'll have a MASSIVE fight against it, and my money is on you losing.

[RINO Tom]

LOL

Anyway, FFs, much better than the rubes who voted for Trump.  Can't wait until "Trumpism" - to the extent it means anything, haha - is discredited.  Trump was a last stand for people like Eharding and TN Vol, and the future of the GOP is gonna be a LITTLE less White trash, friends.

"White trash"? Wow... you really want the GOP to be a big tent party, huh?

Not that big and with classier tent inhabitants.

[The_Doctor]

LOL

Anyway, FFs, much better than the rubes who voted for Trump.  Can't wait until "Trumpism" - to the extent it means anything, haha - is discredited.  Trump was a last stand for people like Eharding and TN Vol, and the future of the GOP is gonna be a LITTLE less White trash, friends.

"White trash"? Wow... you really want the GOP to be a big tent party, huh?

A lot of Trump voters would have fit in with the John Birch Society for the record. You know, the people that William Buckley and Ronald Reagan wrote out of the movement. They're also a a bunch of proto-Wallace voters.

Does the GOP really need these people?

[MT Treasurer]

Again, that wasn't my point. People like you seem to have this idea that the Republicans have cherished the values of small government in the past and that the party was totally perfect until Trump came around and "hijacked" it, but it's simply not true. Bush's 2000 campaign was in many aspects similar to Trump's: Populist, outsider, "compassionate conservative", somwhat isolationist... and you know what? He turned out to be a fraud, just like Trump (to a certain extent). Of course I have never seen you or any other Rockefeller Republican criticize Bush, but that's not surprising.

[The_Doctor]

Again, that wasn't my point. People like you seem to have this idea that the Republicans have cherished the values of small government in the past and that the party was totally perfect until Trump came around and "hijacked" it, but it's simply not true. Bush's 2000 campaign was in many aspects similar to Trump's: Populist, outsider, "compassionate conservative", somwhat isolationist... and you know what? He turned out to be a fraud, just like Trump (to a certain extent). Of course I have never seen you or any other Rockefeller Republican criticize Bush, but that's not surprising.

Straight up, W wasn't perfect. I hated the Medicare Part D expansion, I thought his government spending was out of control, and the No Child Left Behind Act was reprehensible. I thought this compassionate conservative stuff was inane.

But let's give W. a lot of credit where it's due. He protected the country in eight years, went to war for a cause he believed in (rightfully, exporting democracy to Iraq), cut taxes and put two conservative justices on the Supreme Court. He fought for Social Security reform in 2005 and after 2005, began to rein in government spending, so I give him credit on that. EDIT: He also enacted a number of sweeping free trade deals that were great for the country.

He did not: act as a rabid populist, he generally operated within Reaganite neoliberal conservative orthodoxy, and he exemplified the best parts of the GOP orthodoxy second to only Ronald Reagan.

You know Trump is a class apart from W and Reagan, and vastly more different. He's basically George Wallace with blonde hair.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is what I view as a true conservative


1.  Believes high taxes are bad
2.  Supports deregulating business (especially small ones) to stimulate the economy
3.  Supports balancing the budget without raising the top income tax in almost all cases except for the exception of war and an economic recession
4. Opposes Pork Barrel Spending
5.  Supports reducing the power of the executive branch
6 .  Opposes federal war on drugs(after seeing evidence that it hasnt worked)
7.  Supports reducing the size of the federal government and returning many of its powers back to the states
8. Supports reforming welfare

So, I guess I don't even count because of #6.  It almost seems like any libertarian could fit your definition.

(Of course, I spend post #4000 arguing about what a true conservative is)

If you support the Federal government  waging a war on drugs you wouldnt count but if you support doing it at the state level you would count.
 

Nope. That would be a closeted Neoconfederate.

Believing in the 10th amendment is neo confederate lmao

[MT Treasurer]

Well, TD, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm not a big fan of neocons and neoliberalism, and the idea that the US brought democracy to Iraq is obviously very dumb. The worst thing Trump has done so far is drone strikes, which of course are terrible as well, but at least he hasn't invaded another country and killed hundreds of thousands of people. The judges Bush appointed to the Supreme Court are a mixed bag, to say the least. We'll have to wait and see how Gorsuch turns out (I'm hoping he won't be another Souter).

[Cashew]

This is what I view as a true conservative


1.  Believes high taxes are bad
2.  Supports deregulating business (especially small ones) to stimulate the economy
3.  Supports balancing the budget without raising the top income tax in almost all cases except for the exception of war and an economic recession
4. Opposes Pork Barrel Spending
5.  Supports reducing the power of the executive branch
6 .  Opposes federal war on drugs(after seeing evidence that it hasnt worked)
7.  Supports reducing the size of the federal government and returning many of its powers back to the states
8. Supports reforming welfare

So, I guess I don't even count because of #6.  It almost seems like any libertarian could fit your definition.

(Of course, I spend post #4000 arguing about what a true conservative is)

If you support the Federal government  waging a war on drugs you wouldnt count but if you support doing it at the state level you would count.
 

Nope. That would be a closeted Neoconfederate.

Believing in the 10th amendment is neo confederate lmao

Bullsh**t. "States rights" has always been a cop out to support tyrannical government on a local level, while crippling the only force that could impose liberty on the people-the federal government.

Not always true, but this is the usual motive, not some principled ideal.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

FF's because they stood against TRUMP and voted to keep this country sane.

[Sumner 1868]

A Romney-Hillary voter? You mean racism is okay from Patrick Bateman but not from the town drunk?

[The_Doctor]

Well, TD, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm not a big fan of neocons and neoliberalism, and the idea that the US brought democracy to Iraq is obviously very dumb. The worst thing Trump has done so far is drone strikes, which of course are terrible as well, but at least he hasn't invaded another country and killed hundreds of thousands of people. The judges Bush appointed to the Supreme Court are a mixed bag, to say the least. We'll have to wait and see how Gorsuch turns out (I'm hoping he won't be another Souter).

I can respect that and we'll agree to disagree.

One question - how do you reconcile the fact that Reaganism is neoliberalism and the basis of the Republican Party?  It seems to me that you're rejecting, in part, Reagan's ideology in a sense (remember he was the father of NAFTA, just to give an example).

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is what I view as a true conservative


1.  Believes high taxes are bad
2.  Supports deregulating business (especially small ones) to stimulate the economy
3.  Supports balancing the budget without raising the top income tax in almost all cases except for the exception of war and an economic recession
4. Opposes Pork Barrel Spending
5.  Supports reducing the power of the executive branch
6 .  Opposes federal war on drugs(after seeing evidence that it hasnt worked)
7.  Supports reducing the size of the federal government and returning many of its powers back to the states
8. Supports reforming welfare

So, I guess I don't even count because of #6.  It almost seems like any libertarian could fit your definition.

(Of course, I spend post #4000 arguing about what a true conservative is)

If you support the Federal government  waging a war on drugs you wouldnt count but if you support doing it at the state level you would count.
 

Nope. That would be a closeted Neoconfederate.

Believing in the 10th amendment is neo confederate lmao

Bullsh**t. "States rights" has always been a cop out to support tyrannical government on a local level, while crippling the only force that could impose liberty on the people-the federal government.

Not always true, but this is the usual motive, not some principled ideal.

Dude no I don't believe a state should have a right to reimplement Jim Crow laws  or violate any of their citizens constitutional rights

States not the federal government should have power on drug laws ( unless they do cruel or unusual punishment ), abortion regulations (unless they pass something stricter then an 20 week ban ), education policy , most social issues in general , global warming  regulations  .

[RFayette]

LOL

Anyway, FFs, much better than the rubes who voted for Trump.  Can't wait until "Trumpism" - to the extent it means anything, haha - is discredited.  Trump was a last stand for people like Eharding and TN Vol, and the future of the GOP is gonna be a LITTLE less White trash, friends.

"White trash"? Wow... you really want the GOP to be a big tent party, huh?

Not that big and with classier tent inhabitants.

Because the classy thing to do is to call others white trash, apparently.

[JA]

LOL

Anyway, FFs, much better than the rubes who voted for Trump.  Can't wait until "Trumpism" - to the extent it means anything, haha - is discredited.  Trump was a last stand for people like Eharding and TN Vol, and the future of the GOP is gonna be a LITTLE less White trash, friends.

"White trash"? Wow... you really want the GOP to be a big tent party, huh?

Not that big and with classier tent inhabitants.

Because the classy thing to do is to call others white trash, apparently.

He has to engage in class signalling somehow, lest he be confused with *Frasier Crane's voice* one of those people.

[RINO Tom]

LOL, sorry was a little testy last night.

[MT Treasurer]

I can respect that and we'll agree to disagree.

One question - how do you reconcile the fact that Reaganism is neoliberalism and the basis of the Republican Party?  It seems to me that you're rejecting, in part, Reagan's ideology in a sense (remember he was the father of NAFTA, just to give an example).

Thanks. Always nice to argue with someone who doesn't call you (and basically all people that voted Republican in 2016) "White trash".

I wouldn't call myself a hardcore Republican or a Reagan fanboy. Reagan was a much better president than the Bushes, but that's about it. When it comes to issues like free trade, I'm probably closer to the "populist" side of the argument, but on social issues (abortion, death penalty, etc.) I'm definitely much, much closer to the GOP. The reason I don't have a Green avatar is because there are so many green avatars here that are more partisan than the most hackish Democrats/Republicans, which is quite annoying. Heck, I'm probably closer to the Greens and the Libertarians when it comes to foreign and environmental policy, but all in all I definitely see the Republicans as "the lesser of two evils". Unfortunately, I think Trump has turned out to be a fraud for the most part, but that doesn't mean that the Democrats (who are basically the party of the Clintons today) are any better. They really aren't.

[Mr. Illini]

[White Trash]

LOL

Anyway, FFs, much better than the rubes who voted for Trump.  Can't wait until "Trumpism" - to the extent it means anything, haha - is discredited.  Trump was a last stand for people like Eharding and TN Vol, and the future of the GOP is gonna be a LITTLE less White trash, friends.

"White trash"? Wow... you really want the GOP to be a big tent party, huh?

Not that big and with classier tent inhabitants.

Wow I thought we were friends.