Trump Triggers The Nineteenth Amendment!

Prospects for November 6 are auspicious.

 

I merely point out that individuals of both genders and all races exhibit a range of personal conduct from the meritorious to the iniquitous. Cultural milieus afford the opportunity for both extremes as well as the vast range in between.

You can indulge yourself in notions of racial and gender identification if it makes you feel good. As a White male, I am saddled with neither your self-serving assumptions of gender and racial superiority, nor of inferiority. The human condition is equally applicable in each and every instance.

Meanwhile, to return to the thread's topic, the spectacle of Brett Kavanaugh (aka "Bart O'Kavanaugh") is further inciting female migration away from your White, male-dominated Party. That is a demographic reality.

​

 

But no doubt it is attracting males.

I marvel how you decry identity politics in one paragraph and indulge in it in the very next one.

 

As I pointed out before, and you ignored, most women do want to restrict abortions. Do you need the link again?

 

If you cannot differentiate between demographic empirical data and boasts of racial or gender supremacy, so be it.

 

Yes, I'm pleased to see women finally asserting the power that they achieved by passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

It bodes well for America.

In our increasingly diverse nation, women are fleeing the Party of Trumpery, following the exodus of Black Americans from the Republican Party.

The Republican Party cannot persist as an elite, exclusive enclave of male, White privilege in a government of, by, and for the People.

That demographic ineluctability has the certitude of anthropogenic clime change. Only the hopelessly deluded cannot handle the truth.

 

​

The P-Grabber has been a major motivator, no doubt.

The Democratic Party's diversity that is reflective of America is in stark contrast to the white, male enclave Party, but Lyin' Don (hailed as "Glorious Leader!" by neo-nazis and other white supremacists) has been befouling our national values, and younger, better-educated Americans, women, and minorities are committed to progress.

 

The hyperbolic pomposity of the New Democratic Party, with their pretentious claims of "diversity",always collapses into the quivering bog of stench it keeps soaking itself in. All one has to do is watch the Mobs it unleashes on "non-believers", to see what "diversity" truly means to it.

That's a visual and narrative that direct connects to the history of regimes who encouraged citizens to round up enemies, in order to bring purity to their ideology.

That newsreel doesn't play well outside the following trained in seek and destroy by the NDP.

 

I don't think sex, race, religion, non-religion, whatever is important. It's the quality of the candidates. If the Democrats chose their candidates based on sex, race, religion or non-religion instead of quality of the candidates, then we're in big trouble as a nation when the Dems take back the House.

Now if they were the best of the best, then we're good. It is my opinion nothing should over ride quality.

 

Barriers based upon sex, race, religion, non-religion, race, ethnicity, etc. all limit the pool of quality candidates .

 

Representative democracy demands representation that is representative of the people. Participation is a good thing.

 

Right. You mean representative of those who demonstrate purity.

That's been tried. Didn't work out well.

 

That may be what you mean.

What I mean is not excluding anyone from the talent pool based upon gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or other irrelevant factors. That is in the interests of the nation.

A political party that is representative of the people must reflect the diversity of the people.

 

But excluding people because of a lack of purity of thought and allegiance is fine.

People get it already. The Mobs message is quite clear

 

You are free to entertain that thought.

The Brett Kavanaugh (aka the passing-out-drunk "Bart O'Kavanaugh") scandal comes at an opportune time from an electoral perspective.

Meanwhile,

 

I believe the gift the New Democratic Party handed the GOP was historic. I don't have a crystal ball, so I won't claim anything beyond that.

The fact the NDP still doesn't get it surprises me.

They created this ad for the GOP.



I have only one complaint about it. The closing line.

"The Left: An unhinged mob"

While accuate, they shouldn't use that line. It's almost cast from the same emotion.

All the closing should say is:

"Remember. Vote Republican November 6".

Let the viewers connect the dots.

 

The "mob" meme that has been issued to be hysterically parroted consigns most Americans to that category.

Only ideologically-hidebound paranoids are braying it to one another.

 

LOL

Impracticable denials of reality are the cornerstone of thoughtless ideologues.

As such, it's not surprising such a poor response to reality is zeroed to the intellectual vacancy of those attempting it.

 

Barriers, yes. But to select candidates based on sex, race, religion, non-religion allows for the selection of lesser qualified and perhaps not up to the job candidates.

I may be wrong, have been on a lot of things. But it seems to me the Democratic Party is selecting more and more candidates based on sex, race, religion or non-religion than qualifications.

 

One could claim with equal justification that the GOP is doing likewise. I have no reason to believe that white males are more capable of representing the people than is a diversity of candidates that reflects the people they are elected to represent.

I am impressed by the experience in governance of many women now running for higher office - as opposed to the Republican Party's consummate model, a white, male reality tv performer who acts accordingly.

 

Trump is indeed an obnoxious, oaf of a president who behavior belongs more to a wrestler in the WWE than in the Oval Office. No argument there. True that the GOP spaced over a bunch of more qualified candidates before settling on a 8 time party switcher, reality TV show host. Very, true.

But perhaps we're over looking one important aspect here. Presidential elections are basically a beauty contest. Usually determine by likability and electability. You can have the most qualified quality candidate, but if he isn't liked or electable in our beauty contest, quality and qualifications do not matter. That's the nature of the beast. We just had an presidential election between the two most disliked presidential candidates in history. Or at least since FDR when Gallup and Pew research started keeping track of these things. What are or were the odds the two most disliked and unwanted candidates since then would end up opposing each other in the same election where one or the other had to win?

I think both major parties are now going with ideology over qualifications. But that is their choice. Nominating whomever they want is their right. I might disagree whole heartily with whom they nominate, but there is no denying their right to do so.

 

I'm not sure how ideology actually impacts the Party of Trumpery - beyond strident lip service.

Conservative thinkers such as Max Booth, George Will, Kevin Williamson, and others are repulsed by the perversion of what had been their Party. Bloating the national debt, contriving tariff wars to strangle free trade, federal intrusion into both the private sector and local governance, not to mention the abandonment of personal integrity and modest reserve that had long been the Republican politician's paradigm. "Bray loudly and lash out with a niggling twig!" has become the guiding rubric.

Evangelicals no longer even attempt to hide behind their moral hypocrisy, blatantly selling their souls and votes to a degenerate for political ends, now fellow travelers with neo-nazis and other white supremacists in a bizarre deviance that has them blowing kisses at tyrants such as Kim and Putin whilst indulging in petty sniveling concerning allies such as Trudeau, Merkel, Macron, and May.

The RINOs of Trumpery have transformed the GOP into a personality cult, venerating a woefully dysfunctional personality.

What became of that touted Trump®Care that was to "immediately" replace the ACA with "something terrific!" that covers "everybody" at "less cost"?

What became of the reality tv performer's commitment to allow the federal government to negotiate the price of prescription drugs it covers through Medicare? “If we negotiated the price of drugs we’d save $300 billion a year!”

His promise to allocate a trillion dollars to the nation's desperately-needed infrastructure renewal?

His repeated assurance that he would raise taxes on the rich, including on himself. “It’s going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true!” he said. It was, actually, another lie.
He gifted himself and his pampered cronies with a windfall.

His relentless, strident insistence that he would withdraw US troops from the Afghanistan quagmire? It has now been seventeen years since Bush's disastrous blunder that Trump vowed to end.

All his happy talk gone the way of his guarantees to make public his tax returns.

Despite the spineless kowtowing of so many Republican politicians, to allege that Trump is the quintessence of Republicanism is to malign the Party of Lincoln.

Eventually there shall be a Return to Normalcy, to decency, to probity, to integrity for the GOP, but the damage to the nation will have been done, with no shortage of complicit quislings.

 

I won't defend Trump mainly because I don't like him. I will however admit I supported some of his policies and opposed others. That is nothing new as I have done the same for every other president in my lifetime. As for being a fiscal responsible president, Bill Clinton was the last one we had of those. Prior to Bill, it was Carter on back.

I would say the republican party is far from the party of Eisenhower and the democratic party far from the one JFK knew. In fact during JFK's time, the Democratic Party as the big tent party minus all the litmus tests today's Democratic Party imposes.

I can understand Evangelicals support of Trump. He is the lesser of two evils. He's not a Democrat which party and candidates in their eyes are out to destroy their religion. He's not a Democrat who believes in, using their words, not mine, the killing of unborn babies. More and more Evangelicals have come dislike Trump, but considering the alternatives, he is still their best hope.

Yes, to a certain extent you do have a cult worship of Trump. But I also remember the so called Obamabots who worshiped him in the same manner. As for the party, any president automatically become the leader of the party. That isn't anything new. For the most part, those in congress of the same party of the president become more party of the administration than members of congress trying to give the president everything he wants. This also isn't new. Although there was a time when congress guarded its powers and wouldn't cave into a president even if that president was of the same party. Those times are gone. In fact Carter had more problems with democrats in congress than republicans.

With Trump his approval and favorable ratings are about right where they were on inauguration day. They haven't moved much outside of a three point above or below 40%. I do think this shows those who support him aren't going to change their minds, neither are those who oppose him. Strangely, the undecideds, the not sure's are also roughly the same percentage over these last couple of years. You either love him or hate him or ignore him. No one should expect anyone to change their minds about him. That, I don't think will ever happen.

 

It is true that conventional political leaders have always had their devoted followers.

The redeeming aspect of Trumpery is that its inherent instability and volatility engender the reasonable abiding hope that it will go away, and far sooner than the thousand years for which some may hope.

Whether and how the Republican Party recovers from it is their concern. The Marshal Pétains who now collude with it will be answerable.

 

I totally agree, Trump is a Republican problem. I should probably say what happens to the GOP after Trump is a Republican problem. I do think the nation in order to combat "His Trumpness," will elected a Democratic House next month. Bring some check and balance to government. Perhaps in this era, we don't like one party rule. Bill Clinton lost congress in 1994, Obama lost the House in 2010, Trump looks like he is going to lose the House in 2018. All began their presidency with their party in total control. The exception was G.W. Bush, but he had 9-11 happen prior to his first midterm which unified the country behind him and his party. Bush promptly lost the congress in 2006.

Even during the 40 straight years of Democratic rule in the house we switched presidents instead of congress. Truman to IKE, IKE to JFK/LBJ, LBJ to Nixon/Ford, Ford to Carter, Carter to Reagan. An exception to the 8 year rule happened here with Reagan/G.H.W. Bush. But we went back to it again with Bill Clinton succeeding G.H.W.

Do we subconsciously, Americans as a whole have an aversion to one party rule? Perhaps not when both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. When both parties were much more moderate in their political philosophy and ideology. But once both parties shed their unwanted wings, we, America as a whole have decided divided government is the only way to stop extreme lurches left and right.

Thoughts?