Trump: Who Needs the Party?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

A Party is of course, its voters. But it is, also, an institution. Trump has zero interest in buidling up institutions of the Republican party. Normally, both major US parties are broad coalitions of disparate factions, but all factions benefit from mutual cooperation in achieving their needs. That cooperation is sustained by long-term relationships. Trump is not interested in those relationships. He represents just one element of the broad Republican coalition, but he creates no incentives for the other members of the coalition to stick with him. They will not get their policies implemented (since they disagree with him on policy), they will not get positive electoral coattails from his performance, they will not get resources to run campaigns. Trump, as long as he remains the face of the party, makes participation in the Republican electoral coalition unattractive to anybody, other than those who directly agree with him on issues or like him personally. Furthermore, he has no interest in sustaining the party institutions long term: as far as he is concerned, after him is the deluge. He is not the party leader: he is its undertaker.

Could these highlighted quotes also have been said about Dwight Eisenhower in 1952?  Eisenhower was put forth for the DEMOCRATIC Presidential nomination in 1948; it wasn't until after that campaign that it became clear that Ike was even a Republican.  Ike was always at odds with Congressional Republicans; he preferred Democrats to William Knowland, and he thought of naming Sen. Frank Lausche (D-OH), a conservative Catholic Democrat with an unpredictable voting record as his 1956 VP.  
Could those highlighted quotes apply to Jimmy Carter?  Carter was a lifelong Democrat, but his ties to the NATIONAL Democratic Party were always tenuous; he only began to take interest in the national party once he got the idea in his head that he could be the Democratic nominee for President.  He was never tight with the liberals in the Democratic Party, and he wasn't conservative enough for the conservative Southern Democrats still in the party.  

Could those highlighted quotes apply to Wendell Willkie?  Willkie was a Democrat until some time in the 1930s; he was a womanizer, and Roosevelt outlived him.  He was a non-politician; the "Barefoot Boy of Wall Street", with little interest in the Republican Party beyond being its Presidential nominee.

The party that turned to these men was focused on one thing:  BREAKING THE LOSING STREAK.  Trump, whatever his limitations, gets it that WINNING is important.  The difference between Trump and these other men is that Trump is part of a more ideological party than the others were.  It heightens the differences he has with the rest of the party.  But at least half of the party is OK with his differences.  

[ag]

Ike was a nationally unifying figure. I mean, the entire campaign theme was "I like Ike, you like Ike, Everybody likes Ike". He could have served as a figurehead for any coalition of everything good against everything bad. He chose the Republican coalition, and they did quite nicely by him. They, actually, got majorities in both Houses (a rare success fort the party in the age) and though he might not have been the most traditional Republican, he was not at odds either with mainstream Republicanism or with the party structure (the main reason not to work through Knowland was that Knowland was crappy at his job as a party leader - but, then, LBJ was then viewed as being very much on the conservative wing of the party, ideologically, on most issues, quite Republican-compatible). Overall, the party did fine by Ike, and never had reasons to complain.  As much as I stare at your post, I cannot find any similarities with the Trump case whatsoever.

Willkie lost. Miserably lost, BTW.

[RINO Tom]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

[Wisconsin+17]

The Wendell Willkie comparison is spot on, IMO. Liberal Democrat. Willkie only joined the party in 1939 for the 1940 convention. Businessman and outsider and not a politician.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

Eisenhower was a lifelong Republican, but he was discreet about it; a non-partisan figure until he entered the Presidential fray.  That he "voted for Dewey" hardly made him a conservative.  Dewey was a moderate Republican, almost a liberal Republican.  Truman won in 1948 in part because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact their platform before the election.  He knew they wouldn't because the Dewey Convention platform was a liberal Republican platform, but the GOP Congress was a conservative lot that was opposed to the Dewey agenda.

But, no, Eisenhower was not "up for grabs".  I've never said that.  He was the closest thing to a non-partisan President we've had in the 20th century.  Like Trump, most of his associates' partisanship was singular; the only Republican they cared about was Ike.  (This description of Eisenhower's advisers is attributed to Ike's biographer, the late Stephen Ambrose, but it is a description that fits Trump's advisers today.)

[RaphaelDLG]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

Eisenhower was a lifelong Republican, but he was discreet about it; a non-partisan figure until he entered the Presidential fray.  That he "voted for Dewey" hardly made him a conservative.  Dewey was a moderate Republican, almost a liberal Republican.  Truman won in 1948 in part because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact their platform before the election.  He knew they wouldn't because the Dewey Convention platform was a liberal Republican platform, but the GOP Congress was a conservative lot that was opposed to the Dewey agenda.

But, no, Eisenhower was not "up for grabs".  I've never said that.  He was the closest thing to a non-partisan President we've had in the 20th century.  Like Trump, most of his associates' partisanship was singular; the only Republican they cared about was Ike.  (This description of Eisenhower's advisers is attributed to Ike's biographer, the late Stephen Ambrose, but it is a description that fits Trump's advisers today.)

This is all very interesting history to read (no sarcasm).  Unfortunately, Donald Trump is a nonpartisan figure without a tenth of the character of Eisenhower.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

Eisenhower was a lifelong Republican, but he was discreet about it; a non-partisan figure until he entered the Presidential fray.  That he "voted for Dewey" hardly made him a conservative.  Dewey was a moderate Republican, almost a liberal Republican.  Truman won in 1948 in part because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact their platform before the election.  He knew they wouldn't because the Dewey Convention platform was a liberal Republican platform, but the GOP Congress was a conservative lot that was opposed to the Dewey agenda.

But, no, Eisenhower was not "up for grabs".  I've never said that.  He was the closest thing to a non-partisan President we've had in the 20th century.  Like Trump, most of his associates' partisanship was singular; the only Republican they cared about was Ike.  (This description of Eisenhower's advisers is attributed to Ike's biographer, the late Stephen Ambrose, but it is a description that fits Trump's advisers today.)

This is all very interesting history to read (no sarcasm).  Unfortunately, Donald Trump is a nonpartisan figure without a tenth of the character of Eisenhower.

Eisenhower won WWII while having an affair with his aide, Kay Summersby.  Eisenhower's racial views were hardly progressive.  People hoped he would speak up on the segregation crisis, then when he did, it was to criticize the civil rights movement, and calling for the pace of integration to be slower.  Ike was more of a racist than Trump on his worst day if we judge him by today's standards.  He made comments about how he wouldn't want his daughter marrying a black man.  He courted Southern Democrats, and let them know he was sympathetic to their desire to "maintain their way of life". 

I like Ike.  He was a great President.  He kept our nation out of war during a period of high tension, he kept the Constitution the way he found it, and he balanced the budget.  His warning against the Military-Industrial complex is one of the most important Presidential addresses in all of American history.  But he was far from a saint. 

[RaphaelDLG]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

Eisenhower was a lifelong Republican, but he was discreet about it; a non-partisan figure until he entered the Presidential fray.  That he "voted for Dewey" hardly made him a conservative.  Dewey was a moderate Republican, almost a liberal Republican.  Truman won in 1948 in part because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact their platform before the election.  He knew they wouldn't because the Dewey Convention platform was a liberal Republican platform, but the GOP Congress was a conservative lot that was opposed to the Dewey agenda.

But, no, Eisenhower was not "up for grabs".  I've never said that.  He was the closest thing to a non-partisan President we've had in the 20th century.  Like Trump, most of his associates' partisanship was singular; the only Republican they cared about was Ike.  (This description of Eisenhower's advisers is attributed to Ike's biographer, the late Stephen Ambrose, but it is a description that fits Trump's advisers today.)

This is all very interesting history to read (no sarcasm).  Unfortunately, Donald Trump is a nonpartisan figure without a tenth of the character of Eisenhower.

Eisenhower won WWII while having an affair with his aide, Kay Summersby.  Eisenhower's racial views were hardly progressive.  People hoped he would speak up on the segregation crisis, then when he did, it was to criticize the civil rights movement, and calling for the pace of integration to be slower.  Ike was more of a racist than Trump on his worst day if we judge him by today's standards.  He made comments about how he wouldn't want his daughter marrying a black man.  He courted Southern Democrats, and let them know he was sympathetic to their desire to "maintain their way of life". 

I like Ike.  He was a great President.  He kept our nation out of war during a period of high tension, he kept the Constitution the way he found it, and he balanced the budget.  His warning against the Military-Industrial complex is one of the most important Presidential addresses in all of American history.  But he was far from a saint. 

I knew about the affair.  I was more talking about the bolded stuff when referring to his character, as despicable as cheating on your wife is, I don't really care about it as far as my political figures are concerned.  I meant to say that I don't think Donald Trump has anything close to the concern for the country, the wisdom, discernment, and leadership ability that Ike had, relative inaction on civil rights issues aside.

[Doimper]

Trump's right. He has billions of dollars. What does he need with the Republican Party? With his billions of dollars, he will smash the crooked fraud!

Yeah, but even assuming he has as much money as he says he has (he values his brand at 3.3 billion, bahahaha) most of it's tied up in his extremely illiquid real estate holdings.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, Trump really is a modern day Eisenhower...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

Eisenhower was a lifelong Republican, but he was discreet about it; a non-partisan figure until he entered the Presidential fray.  That he "voted for Dewey" hardly made him a conservative.  Dewey was a moderate Republican, almost a liberal Republican.  Truman won in 1948 in part because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact their platform before the election.  He knew they wouldn't because the Dewey Convention platform was a liberal Republican platform, but the GOP Congress was a conservative lot that was opposed to the Dewey agenda.

But, no, Eisenhower was not "up for grabs".  I've never said that.  He was the closest thing to a non-partisan President we've had in the 20th century.  Like Trump, most of his associates' partisanship was singular; the only Republican they cared about was Ike.  (This description of Eisenhower's advisers is attributed to Ike's biographer, the late Stephen Ambrose, but it is a description that fits Trump's advisers today.)

This is all very interesting history to read (no sarcasm).  Unfortunately, Donald Trump is a nonpartisan figure without a tenth of the character of Eisenhower.

Eisenhower won WWII while having an affair with his aide, Kay Summersby.  Eisenhower's racial views were hardly progressive.  People hoped he would speak up on the segregation crisis, then when he did, it was to criticize the civil rights movement, and calling for the pace of integration to be slower.  Ike was more of a racist than Trump on his worst day if we judge him by today's standards.  He made comments about how he wouldn't want his daughter marrying a black man.  He courted Southern Democrats, and let them know he was sympathetic to their desire to "maintain their way of life". 

I like Ike.  He was a great President.  He kept our nation out of war during a period of high tension, he kept the Constitution the way he found it, and he balanced the budget.  His warning against the Military-Industrial complex is one of the most important Presidential addresses in all of American history.  But he was far from a saint. 

I knew about the affair.  I was more talking about the bolded stuff when referring to his character, as despicable as cheating on your wife is, I don't really care about it as far as my political figures are concerned.  I meant to say that I don't think Donald Trump has anything close to the concern for the country, the wisdom, discernment, and leadership ability that Ike had, relative inaction on civil rights issues aside.

Eisenhower was much more of a racist than Trump if we judge him by today's standards.  He was civilized about it, but he could have eased the difficulties of integration had he been inclined to.  He was a far more admired figure in his time than either JFK or LBJ (who were viewed as politicians).  Eisenhower avoided that rap because he was, for his time, considered a racial moderate who did sign the 1957 Civil Rights bill into law.  But Ike was super-supportive of Southerners wishing to "preserve their way of life".

[RaphaelDLG]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

Eisenhower was a lifelong Republican, but he was discreet about it; a non-partisan figure until he entered the Presidential fray.  That he "voted for Dewey" hardly made him a conservative.  Dewey was a moderate Republican, almost a liberal Republican.  Truman won in 1948 in part because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact their platform before the election.  He knew they wouldn't because the Dewey Convention platform was a liberal Republican platform, but the GOP Congress was a conservative lot that was opposed to the Dewey agenda.

But, no, Eisenhower was not "up for grabs".  I've never said that.  He was the closest thing to a non-partisan President we've had in the 20th century.  Like Trump, most of his associates' partisanship was singular; the only Republican they cared about was Ike.  (This description of Eisenhower's advisers is attributed to Ike's biographer, the late Stephen Ambrose, but it is a description that fits Trump's advisers today.)

This is all very interesting history to read (no sarcasm).  Unfortunately, Donald Trump is a nonpartisan figure without a tenth of the character of Eisenhower.

Eisenhower won WWII while having an affair with his aide, Kay Summersby.  Eisenhower's racial views were hardly progressive.  People hoped he would speak up on the segregation crisis, then when he did, it was to criticize the civil rights movement, and calling for the pace of integration to be slower.  Ike was more of a racist than Trump on his worst day if we judge him by today's standards.  He made comments about how he wouldn't want his daughter marrying a black man.  He courted Southern Democrats, and let them know he was sympathetic to their desire to "maintain their way of life". 

I like Ike.  He was a great President.  He kept our nation out of war during a period of high tension, he kept the Constitution the way he found it, and he balanced the budget.  His warning against the Military-Industrial complex is one of the most important Presidential addresses in all of American history.  But he was far from a saint. 

I knew about the affair.  I was more talking about the bolded stuff when referring to his character, as despicable as cheating on your wife is, I don't really care about it as far as my political figures are concerned.  I meant to say that I don't think Donald Trump has anything close to the concern for the country, the wisdom, discernment, and leadership ability that Ike had, relative inaction on civil rights issues aside.

Eisenhower was much more of a racist than Trump if we judge him by today's standards.  He was civilized about it, but he could have eased the difficulties of integration had he been inclined to.  He was a far more admired figure in his time than either JFK or LBJ (who were viewed as politicians).  Eisenhower avoided that rap because he was, for his time, considered a racial moderate who did sign the 1957 Civil Rights bill into law.  But Ike was super-supportive of Southerners wishing to "preserve their way of life".

Yeah, I don't disagree.  I think that's the major (legitimate) knock on Eisenhower.  You make a lot of excellent points.

Of course, Trump has talked about banning immigration based on religion, conducting blanket surveillance of mosques, refused to rule out having Muslims register based on religion, and suggested that a judge was unqualified to serve based on his ethnicity, etc. 

And I don't think he would add all of the positives that Eisenhower added, was my point.  He would be more progressive/less anachronistic on social issues, being a product of a different time, but I'm not sure that he has any discernable political core convictions.  Maybe his views on trade.  Everything else, he's sent mixed messages on, or changed his position too many times.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Okay, I'm done arguing about Trump's ruining of the GOP, but I will throw this out there:

The meme that Ike was "up for grabs" politically is patently false.  Period.  I've quoted the book a dozen times on here, but in the book "The Presidents Club," Ike discusses how he never wished to discuss politics with friends but he was finally forced to by Truman circa 1949, it severely impacted their personal friendship, as Eisenhower revealed he was a lifelong Republican and had voted for Dewey.  One memorable quote was something along the lines of (speaking of Truman) "He just couldn't imagine that anyone would be anything other than a Democrat, and that is a deplorable quality to have for either side."  That quote says a lot about how Eisenhower viewed governing, which has party led to this myth of him being anything other than decidedly right-of-center on just about every issue of his day.

Eisenhower was a lifelong Republican, but he was discreet about it; a non-partisan figure until he entered the Presidential fray.  That he "voted for Dewey" hardly made him a conservative.  Dewey was a moderate Republican, almost a liberal Republican.  Truman won in 1948 in part because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact their platform before the election.  He knew they wouldn't because the Dewey Convention platform was a liberal Republican platform, but the GOP Congress was a conservative lot that was opposed to the Dewey agenda.

But, no, Eisenhower was not "up for grabs".  I've never said that.  He was the closest thing to a non-partisan President we've had in the 20th century.  Like Trump, most of his associates' partisanship was singular; the only Republican they cared about was Ike.  (This description of Eisenhower's advisers is attributed to Ike's biographer, the late Stephen Ambrose, but it is a description that fits Trump's advisers today.)

This is all very interesting history to read (no sarcasm).  Unfortunately, Donald Trump is a nonpartisan figure without a tenth of the character of Eisenhower.

Eisenhower won WWII while having an affair with his aide, Kay Summersby.  Eisenhower's racial views were hardly progressive.  People hoped he would speak up on the segregation crisis, then when he did, it was to criticize the civil rights movement, and calling for the pace of integration to be slower.  Ike was more of a racist than Trump on his worst day if we judge him by today's standards.  He made comments about how he wouldn't want his daughter marrying a black man.  He courted Southern Democrats, and let them know he was sympathetic to their desire to "maintain their way of life".  

I like Ike.  He was a great President.  He kept our nation out of war during a period of high tension, he kept the Constitution the way he found it, and he balanced the budget.  His warning against the Military-Industrial complex is one of the most important Presidential addresses in all of American history. But he was far from a saint.  

I knew about the affair.  I was more talking about the bolded stuff when referring to his character, as despicable as cheating on your wife is, I don't really care about it as far as my political figures are concerned.  I meant to say that I don't think Donald Trump has anything close to the concern for the country, the wisdom, discernment, and leadership ability that Ike had, relative inaction on civil rights issues aside.

Eisenhower was much more of a racist than Trump if we judge him by today's standards.  He was civilized about it, but he could have eased the difficulties of integration had he been inclined to.  He was a far more admired figure in his time than either JFK or LBJ (who were viewed as politicians).  Eisenhower avoided that rap because he was, for his time, considered a racial moderate who did sign the 1957 Civil Rights bill into law.  But Ike was super-supportive of Southerners wishing to "preserve their way of life".

Yeah, I don't disagree.  I think that's the major (legitimate) knock on Eisenhower.  You make a lot of excellent points.

Of course, Trump has talked about banning immigration based on religion, conducting blanket surveillance of mosques, refused to rule out having Muslims register based on religion, and suggested that a judge was unqualified to serve based on his ethnicity, etc.  

And I don't think he would add all of the positives that Eisenhower added, was my point.  He would be more progressive/less anachronistic on social issues, being a product of a different time, but I'm not sure that he has any discernable political core convictions.  Maybe his views on trade.  Everything else, he's sent mixed messages on, or changed his position too many times.

Trump's out of bounds on much of what he says about domestic surveillance of Muslims.  There is a Constitution.  One of my concerns is that when it comes to unauthorized surveillance, Trump is just more open about his intents.

But Trump has not said that Judge Curiel is "unfit to serve" because he's a Mexican.  He is claiming that Judge Curiel's ethnicity has resulted in Judge Curiel being biased against Trump.  I'm not going to discuss the merits of Trump's ascertain, and I note that Trump's attorneys haven't called on Judge Curiel to recuse himself, but he IS asserting that the Judge has a particular bias in his case, and in this politicized era, that's not totally unreasonable.

And the immigration issue is very much misunderstood.  We CAN, under the Constitution, deny whole groups entry into the United States on the basis of whatever we want to choose if we, as a nation, view allowing a particular group of folks' coming to America to not be in the interest of the nation itself.  Discrimination against ethnicities and groups in immigration is Constitutionally permissible BEFORE they emigrate.  I'm not ready to say, "No Muslims, ever!".  But Sharia Law is what it is, and if enough Sharia Law adherants emigrated to the United States, the possibility that someday, they could have enough numbers to replace some of our Constitutional freedoms with Sharia Law is not ridiculous.  We are a Republic with democratic features and an enumerated list of rights and freedoms.  We have a right to ensure that we don't allow emigration to this country of enough people that are so unfavorably disposed to the form of government we have that they could, someday, use our democratic processes to vote in something that would not be liberty, but tyranny, and tyranny that could not be voted out.  Our immigration policies are supposed to safeguard our liberties, and not play chicken with them.  The Islam that subscribes to Sharia Law is a religion whose legal system is the antithesis of ours, and that religion IS the official state religion in nations where it holds demographic sway.

[Badger]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

Good.  We need a fresh start and a new name.  I like the sound of the National Party.

I'm sure you do.

[MK]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

Good.  We need a fresh start and a new name.  I like the sound of the National Party.

I'm sure you do.

Its time to dump the Trump for good.   

[Fuzzy Bear]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

And herein lies the problem at the heart of the Republican Party.  The party values, formulated from on high, shaped by lobbyists and big money, these are not the values of the voters.  Things like limiting tax for the wealthy, placing restraints on the federal government, free trade, and pro-business policies.  For decades, the Republican establishment tried to coax voters who had no vested interest in their policies to buy into them, using nationalism, using social wedge issues, using fear, using racism.  Meanwhile, the wealthy, northeastern, liberal Republicans all became Democrats, and soon, for a lot of voters, being Republican was about nativism, abortion, resisting social change, and using the military to keep us safe from terror.

The problem with that is, that's not the basis for a cohesive party platform.  That's the basis for a slogan on a baseball cap.  Also, you do have plenty of neo-liberal Republicans in the Midwest and West who want nothing to do with Trumpism, and aren't going to stand for a Trumpist party.

I suppose Trump's nomination is the symptom of something that was bound to have happened sooner or later.  President Trump still would spell complete doom for this shaky coalition.

Trump's campaign has done America the valuable service of exposing the disconnect between the GOP elites and the GOP voters.  Trump's views are far more "mainstream Republican" than both the "Establishment" and the "Movement Conservatives" ever dreamed of.  Indeed, the Establishment and the Movement Conservatives seem to be as one these days  because of their relative closeness to each other and their distance from Trump and the Trump coalition of voters on trade, foreign policy, and immigration.

[RaphaelDLG]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

And herein lies the problem at the heart of the Republican Party.  The party values, formulated from on high, shaped by lobbyists and big money, these are not the values of the voters.  Things like limiting tax for the wealthy, placing restraints on the federal government, free trade, and pro-business policies.  For decades, the Republican establishment tried to coax voters who had no vested interest in their policies to buy into them, using nationalism, using social wedge issues, using fear, using racism.  Meanwhile, the wealthy, northeastern, liberal Republicans all became Democrats, and soon, for a lot of voters, being Republican was about nativism, abortion, resisting social change, and using the military to keep us safe from terror.

The problem with that is, that's not the basis for a cohesive party platform.  That's the basis for a slogan on a baseball cap.  Also, you do have plenty of neo-liberal Republicans in the Midwest and West who want nothing to do with Trumpism, and aren't going to stand for a Trumpist party.

I suppose Trump's nomination is the symptom of something that was bound to have happened sooner or later.  President Trump still would spell complete doom for this shaky coalition.

Trump's campaign has done America the valuable service of exposing the disconnect between the GOP elites and the GOP voters.  Trump's views are far more "mainstream Republican" than both the "Establishment" and the "Movement Conservatives" ever dreamed of.  Indeed, the Establishment and the Movement Conservatives seem to be as one these days  because of their relative closeness to each other and their distance from Trump and the Trump coalition of voters on trade, foreign policy, and immigration.

Agree wholeheartedly. I think the establishment and the movement cons are so close because they agree on the crucial donor issue of neoliberal economics - which is the biggest issue the base is disconnected on.