Republicans hate Trump

Clash of Republican Con Artists, Paul Krugman

Tom, A part of me wants Trump to win.  The Republicans allowed and built this fool.  for the last number of years, Reps have encouraged Tea Party crazies, birthers, racists, etc. I say, bring it on. We are still a very immature society/country and the election of Pres. Trump might wake a few people up.

krugle1, sometimes I feel that way. They did get what they asked for, but it's not what the country deserves.

I wish they disliked him more, and sooner.

Republicans hate Trump?

How can that be? Isn't Trump the Republican party? Isn't Trump the one who is saying outright what that party has been dog whistling for 30 years?

To hate Trump's positions and rhetoric is to hate themselves. They hate Trump because he is making very obvious what the party really is, costing votes of the unsure.

The real outrage is the possible loss of the next presidency, those thousands of lost administration jobs, the loss of White House neo-con policy, the loss of nominations to the SC and lower courts. 

How many of them have had the courage to say they wouldn't vote to elect him President?  

Leader of the free world...with his finger on the...ya know. 

Trump's campaign responded to his change in regards to torture and going after families of terrorists by saying that what Trump says should NOT be taken literally.

krugle1 said:

Tom, A part of me wants Trump to win.  The Republicans allowed and built this fool.  for the last number of years, Reps have encouraged Tea Party crazies, birthers, racists, etc. I say, bring it on. We are still a very immature society/country and the election of Pres. Trump might wake a few people up.

Yeah, this is true, but I don't see it as complete.

A lot of Trump's support comes from places don't have much racial tension or fear of terrorism, but suffer from economic decline.  If you live somewhere that objectively used to be better off "Make America Great Again" is going to resonate.  

Surveys show that a lot of Trump's supporters are actually ex-Democrats.  They are people on the periphery of the Republican coalition.  Trump is repelling more people from the GOP than attracting people to it, but turnout in the GOP primaries has been extremely high, indicating that a lot of his voters are not conventional Republicans at all.   

And honestly, places like Chappaqua, New York, where there are probably about 0 Trump voters, have a vein of racism a mile wide too.  Chappaqua is less than 2% black and is notorious for being the most anti-affordable housing town in Westchester. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/04/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Runner_Guy, curious why you named Chappaqua of all places.  I'm sure you know that's where the Clintons live.  Growing up in Mamaroneck, northern Westchester was kind of a mystery, and everyplace outside of Ossining, Mt. Kisco and Peeksill were super rich and WASPy.

 We were far more aware of the endemic racism and segregation practiced by NY's 4th largest city, home at the time to 25% of Westchester's residents, Yonkers. 

 That city's defiance of a desegregation order on affordable housing was a battle of hideous proportions.  David Simon did a miniseries last summer, and the baldfaced racism on display would be at home among Trump supporters, though currently Mexicans and Muslims are the focus of Trump's bile, because as we know he's "always had a great relationship with the blacks". Then again, I'm not sure if " the Blacks ", or anyone in touch with reality, had a positive opinion of his Obama birther witch hunt.

http://www.lohud.com/story/entertainment/television/2015/05/20/hbo-show-hero-yonkers/27650069/

I think the Republican establishment doesn't like Trump mostly because he's unpredictable, is likely to start off his Presidency doing his own thing, and might not be a cog in the political bosses' machine.

I just started reading ‘Supreme City,’ by Donald L. Miller, and saw a parallel to NYC Mayor Jimmy Walker (between 1926 and 1932), who seems a bit of a loose cannon at first to the Tammany Hall political bosses. But Jimmy Walker eventually gets tired of all the work being Mayor requires, and by the end of his first term, became a smoothly moving cog in the Tammany Hall political machine. 

The Republicans who are getting behind Trump may be hoping for a similar pattern should Trump become president: That Trump will tire of the work the Presidency requires -- and then they can 'help' him run things more smoothly, and with less effort, so Trump can just do the parts of the job that he wants to do. Then the Republican establishment can move back into their positions of power as they take care of the rest.

BG9 said:


To hate Trump's positions and rhetoric is to hate themselves. They hate Trump because he is making very obvious what the party really is, costing votes of the unsure.

*

Tom_Reingold said:

BG9 said:


To hate Trump's positions and rhetoric is to hate themselves. They hate Trump because he is making very obvious what the party really is, costing votes of the unsure.

That is the point of the Krugman piece. I invite you to read it. He is even hotter with anger than usual, and he expresses some good points extremely well.

Agree that his diction has gotten more strident. So has the NYT editorial commentary lately. 

krugle1 said:

Tom, A part of me wants Trump to win.  The Republicans allowed and built this fool.  for the last number of years, Reps have encouraged Tea Party crazies, birthers, racists, etc. I say, bring it on. 

Sometimes the only way something can be rebuilt is if it is completely broken.  The louder the establishment Republicans condemn Trump, the more the electorate sings his praises.  The Republicans created Donald Trump.  He is the wing nut-Tea Partiers', KKKers dream come true.  The GOP hierarchy cannot now pretend to be shocked, outraged and anguished.  They were beating that drum with winking and nodding dog whistles all along, while making public declarations that they'd learn how to talk to disillusioned women, minorities, bankrupted millennials, and the collapsing middle class.  The truth was that there was nothing in the GOP talking points bag for them.  The Republicans took for granted the idea that the super PAC money and the deep-pocketed wealthy would win it for them.  Today many eulogies have been written for the GOP party.  

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/02/26/lessons-in-unmanliness-from-victor-frankenstein/

"After the monster rose to life, (Dr.) Frankenstein was horrified at his creation, and ditched. Plain and simple. He got out of dodge, ran home, and hoped that his perceived disaster would somehow remedy itself.

This is understandable. We’ve all run at one time or another from some problem we’ve created. And hopefully we’ve come to learn that running only escalates those problems, and they can truly take on a life of their own. Think of the snowballing lie where you’re spending more time and thought on the lie than the reality of the situation. And those instances usually come back to bite us in the rear even worse than had we owned up right away.

What’s most frustrating about (Dr.) Victor Frankenstein is that he had multiple chances to take responsibility and own his mistakes and fix them, and each time he shrank like a coward and came up with excuses."

But Young Frankenstein made some people very happy.....(and it seems he didn't have small hands).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeOKWMpsPvU

Once in a while I pop-over to read http://www.redstate.com

They freakin' HATE Trump over there and seem to be in love with Cruz and are ok with Rubio.

The populist outcry against Romney and the establishment trying to broker the convention will prevent that strategy from happening. The only choice left will  be for the establishment to distance the other candidates from Trump, let him go down in flames, and pick up the pieces in the next presidential cycle.

dk50b said:

Runner_Guy, curious why you named Chappaqua of all places.  I'm sure you know that's where the Clintons live.  Growing up in Mamaroneck, northern Westchester was kind of a mystery, and everyplace outside of Ossining, Mt. Kisco and Peeksill were super rich and WASPy.

 We were far more aware of the endemic racism and segregation practiced by NY's 4th largest city, home at the time to 25% of Westchester's residents, Yonkers. 

 That city's defiance of a desegregation order on affordable housing was a battle of hideous proportions.  David Simon did a miniseries last summer, and the baldfaced racism on display would be at home among Trump supporters, though currently Mexicans and Muslims are the focus of Trump's bile, because as we know he's "always had a great relationship with the blacks". Then again, I'm not sure if " the Blacks ", or anyone in touch with reality, had a positive opinion of his Obama birther witch hunt.

http://www.lohud.com/story/entertainment/television/2015/05/20/hbo-show-hero-yonkers/27650069/

My general point about the "Trump Country" article is that Trumpism is also driven by economic displacement.  People are saying that the GOP made a deal with the devil back in the 1960s over segregation and now it's reaping what it sown, but I think the GOP made another deal with the devil by favoring Wall Street over Main Street and by letting manufacturing get gutted by NAFTA and similar free trade deals.

Yes, Bill and Hill live in a segregated town.  Chappaqua has waged a war of attrition over affordable housing too.  For at least 15 years they have opposed any affordable housing, even 20 unit microdevelopments that were proposed by highway offramps and by railroad tracks.  (I don't see any similarity in the scale of the projects proposed for Yonkers and Chappaqua.)

All I'm saying is that Trump's supporters don't have a monopoly on racism.  There's racism in places where Trump's support is probably in the single digits. 

http://www.lohud.com/story/money/personal-finance/taxes/david-mckay-wilson/2015/05/17/new-castle-affordable-housing-resistance/27502835/

I think the main reason they dislike Trump is that he is not conservative enough, and that many of his positions are too far left for the GOP's taste.

relx said:

I think the main reason they dislike Trump is that he is not conservative enough, and that many of his positions are too far left for the GOP's taste.

....and that they can't buy him.  Which is what his supporters LOVE.

I thought Cruz was supposed to be the Tea Party's Anointed One?

please excuse me barging in. This is only a question, because I've been trying very hard to follow all of this from far way, with a very different system (embroiled in its own mess, and in the business end of its own election cycle):

Surely the point is, if you don't want a particular candidate or party, then you all show up to vote the other way? I mean, I understand choices are obviously narrow and difficult, but if more potential voters are actually voting, then isn't the system working? (Even if it's not what 'we' would want, and even if it appears to place the reputation of the nation and the office of head of state in question?) 

Runner_Guy said:

dk50b said:

Runner_Guy, curious why you named Chappaqua of all places.  I'm sure you know that's where the Clintons live.  Growing up in Mamaroneck, northern Westchester was kind of a mystery, and everyplace outside of Ossining, Mt. Kisco and Peeksill were super rich and WASPy.

 We were far more aware of the endemic racism and segregation practiced by NY's 4th largest city, home at the time to 25% of Westchester's residents, Yonkers. 

 That city's defiance of a desegregation order on affordable housing was a battle of hideous proportions.  David Simon did a miniseries last summer, and the baldfaced racism on display would be at home among Trump supporters, though currently Mexicans and Muslims are the focus of Trump's bile, because as we know he's "always had a great relationship with the blacks". Then again, I'm not sure if " the Blacks ", or anyone in touch with reality, had a positive opinion of his Obama birther witch hunt.

http://www.lohud.com/story/entertainment/television/2015/05/20/hbo-show-hero-yonkers/27650069/

My general point about the "Trump Country" article is that Trumpism is also driven by economic displacement.  People are saying that the GOP made a deal with the devil back in the 1960s over segregation and now it's reaping what it sown, but I think the GOP made another deal with the devil by favoring Wall Street over Main Street and by letting manufacturing get gutted by NAFTA and similar free trade deals.


Yes, Bill and Hill live in a segregated town.  Chappaqua has waged a war of attrition over affordable housing too.  For at least 15 years they have opposed any affordable housing, even 20 unit microdevelopments that were proposed by highway offramps and by railroad tracks.  (I don't see any similarity in the scale of the projects proposed for Yonkers and Chappaqua.)

All I'm saying is that Trump's supporters don't have a monopoly on racism.  There's racism in places where Trump's support is probably in the single digits. 

http://www.lohud.com/story/money/personal-finance/taxes/david-mckay-wilson/2015/05/17/new-castle-affordable-housing-resistance/27502835/

If you're talking about individuals, then yes, of course you're right. No party, candidate, or region has a monopoly on racism. It's baked into the country's DNA.

If you're talking about racism as a motivating force for political action, though, I think you're making a false equivalence. As a political force, racism is far more prevalent in the Republican party, and is clearly part of Trump's strength.

PVW said:

Runner_Guy said:

dk50b said: 

If you're talking about individuals, then yes, of course you're right. No party, candidate, or region has a monopoly on racism. It's baked into the country's DNA.

If you're talking about racism as a motivating force for political action, though, I think you're making a false equivalence. As a political force, racism is far more prevalent in the Republican party, and is clearly part of Trump's strength.

I edited my last post a lot and in an earlier version I had said the same thing you said about racism not being a motivator for Clinton support.  Indeed, most of Clinton's supporters don't live in towns like Chappaqua and probably wouldn't want to (or couldn't).  Chappaqua, however, where Trump has no support, is really far on the economic spectrum from places like Fall River, MA and Buchanan County, VA, (where Trump has a lot of support) and Chappaqua is also racist in its own way.   

A lot of surveys show that Trump's supporters like him because they perceive him as a strong leader.  Or, to put it another way, Trump's supporters are authoritarians.  When Trump talks about free trade hurting the economy and the other Republican candidates just talk voodoo economics about tax cuts and Obamacare killing jobs, that's going to appeal to some people. 

DottyParker said:
Sometimes the only way something can be rebuilt is if it is completely broken.  The louder the establishment Republicans condemn Trump, the more the electorate sings his praises. 

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I am not comforted at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying let the system get as broken as possible, and its brokenness will be sufficiently evident that the people will agree to fix it. That idea was put forth when we were horrified at Reagan's candidacy. It didn't prove to be a winning strategy, and I still wonder what the world would have been like without him winning the presidency.

joanne said:

please excuse me barging in. This is only a question, because I've been trying very hard to follow all of this from far way, with a very different system (embroiled in its own mess, and in the business end of its own election cycle):

Surely the point is, if you don't want a particular candidate or party, then you all show up to vote the other way? I mean, I understand choices are obviously narrow and difficult, but if more potential voters are actually voting, then isn't the system working? (Even if it's not what 'we' would want, and even if it appears to place the reputation of the nation and the office of head of state in question?) 

The problem is that the Republican party has let Fox News (which ought to have its licenses removed) and its ilk be its spokes platforms. These are highly manipulative media which rely on lies and deception rather than reasoning and truth. The danger now is that the more people who show up at the polls, the worse the result is.

Thank you, Tom.

We have a similar situation here, with the same media owner who is also locked in a media-ownership war with another (the other) media dynasty in the nation. They have two agendas: lock everyone else out of media ownership/influence, and totally control any aspect of regulation and decision-making anywhere in the nation at any level. Weekend revelations of salacious scandals at the highest levels, leading to the current PM protecting the last PM from charges of treason (via leaking Defence secrets to the media last week) are the easiest part of it to write about. 

Thing is, it's not new. But now we have other ways to overcome this stranglehold on information. You can get more from people you trust  in other ways. And we keep hearing that your kind of democracy works best, that the system is self-correcting because of built-in safeguards (the freedoms and the Constutition). So if more of you are taking this seriously and showing up to vote, (gulp) isn't that the system working?

Yes - we're having similar debates, only ours involve how many people are seeking amnesty from fines having not enrolled before, or actually had correct addresses etc. 

joanne, maybe our system would work best if turnout were good, but it is deplorable, much worse than yours in Australia. Those who do vote are often the most manipulable. And cynical manipulation can increase turnout of the worst kinds of voter.

One grim reality we are facing is that the people here very often choose a president who has the opposite personality of the current president at the time. If so, we are doomed.

Sigh. For both our systems.