Why Donald Trump is Bad for the Republican Party

[IndyDave1776]

There's a difference between "pure", and Trump. He is not a Conservative. That's why I dislike him. I don't want a Liberal running under the GOP ticket.

There aren't many of the candidates that I'd consider 100% conservative... and that's alright. They're in the 50-90% range. Trump is 2%.

I would say that we are taking the same basic idea and putting different feet on it. I took a political quiz that sorts one's compatibility with the declared positions of selected candidates which showed me in 94-96% compatibility with Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, and Paul, with Trump coming in at 86%. The difference I see is that of the 90+ group, Paul isn't gaining any traction whatsoever and Jeb and Rubio have already established themselves at the RINOs who will talk a good game and then take a hard left turn when push comes to shove. I would be happy with Cruz. I feel comfortable that Trump is likely to stay the same from now until hypothetically taking office, which leaves me happier with the notion of having an 86% president than having a president who was a 96% primary campaigner and a 55% president, especially given that in Trump's absence, it is a foregone conclusion that the RNC WILL shove Jeb down our throats.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would say that we are taking the same basic idea and putting different feet on it. I took a political quiz that sorts one's compatibility with the declared positions of selected candidates which showed me in 94-96% compatibility with Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, and Paul, with Trump coming in at 86%. The difference I see is that of the 90+ group, Paul isn't gaining any traction whatsoever and Jeb and Rubio have already established themselves at the RINOs who will talk a good game and then take a hard left turn when push comes to shove. I would be happy with Cruz. I feel comfortable that Trump is likely to stay the same from now until hypothetically taking office, which leaves me happier with the notion of having an 86% president than having a president who was a 96% primary campaigner and a 55% president, especially given that in Trump's absence, it is a foregone conclusion that the RNC WILL shove Jeb down our throats.

Is that 86% alignment based on what he's saying now, on the campaign trail or is it based on his history, what we have tape of him saying and supporting?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Is that 86% alignment based on what he's saying now, on the campaign trail or is it based on his history, what we have tape of him saying and supporting?

In all cases, it is based on what they are saying now. The difference is that I expect the establishment politicians to do what establishment politician do, and more to the point what Rubio and Jeb have both done themselves. By contrast, I am willing to accept the notion of Trump evolving. He has in the past made bad decisions, learned from them, and had future success which outweighed the past failure as a result of the good decisions based on that past experience. That said, his patter indicates a strong likelihood that he has learned how well liberalism does NOT work, particularly the liberalism of people named Clinton and Obama, and has chosen a direction more likely to succeed.

The single most important element of my analysis of the matter is that Trump perceives his self-interest to be served by the strength of the United States, not by the weakening of the United States, which has been the goal of most all liberals for a variety of reasons. That would put Trump's personal interests more in line with mine than than personal interests of any other candidate.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In all cases, it is based on what they are saying now. The difference is that I expect the establishment politicians to do what establishment politician do, and more to the point what Rubio and Jeb have both done themselves. By contrast, I am willing to accept the notion of Trump evolving. He has in the past made bad decisions, learned from them, and had future success which outweighed the past failure as a result of the good decisions based on that past experience. That said, his patter indicates a strong likelihood that he has learned how well liberalism does NOT work, particularly the liberalism of people named Clinton and Obama, and has chosen a direction more likely to succeed.

The single most important element of my analysis of the matter is that Trump perceives his self-interest to be served by the strength of the United States, not by the weakening of the United States, which has been the goal of most all liberals for a variety of reasons. That would put Trump's personal interests more in line with mine than than personal interests of any other candidate.

Now this I could agree with.

 

[bwframe]

There's a difference between "pure", and Trump. He is not a Conservative. That's why I dislike him. I don't want a Liberal running under the GOP ticket.

There aren't many of the candidates that I'd consider 100% conservative... and that's alright. They're in the 50-90% range. Trump is 2%.

There is a difference between that sentiment and proclaiming that you just won't vote for the republican nominee. Romney lost because of the Republicans that didn't show up. Are those people happy with their decision now? Was it worth the costs?

Obamacare, immigration, EPA regulation, war on coal, cash for clunkers, activist judges, etc. etc. etc. Some of this stuff we may never recover from. How about the .22lr you used to go buy 24/7 at Walmart?

 

[Hookeye]

I'd expect the liberals to be head over heels in love with Trump.
His ego is almost as big as Barry's, and his success prior to seeking office a bit more measurable.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'd expect the liberals to be head over heels in love with Trump.
His ego is almost as big as Barry's, and his success prior to seeking office a bit more measurable.

There is the problem. According to the liberal mentality, you can't be philosophically pure if you aren't a bum who can't make a living on your own, unless you are named Clinton and then it magically becomes OK to be able to burn money in teh fireplace that you did NOT have when you took office.

Personally, Trump's ego doesn't bother me. At least he can justify having it unlike the Kenyan.

 

[JTScribe]

There's a difference between "pure", and Trump. He is not a Conservative. That's why I dislike him. I don't want a Liberal running under the GOP ticket.

There aren't many of the candidates that I'd consider 100% conservative... and that's alright. They're in the 50-90% range. Trump is 2%.

Neither was Romney. Or McCain. Or Dole. Or GWB. Or GWHB. Did you rail against them as fiercely as some of the GOP intelligentsia are against Trump? Not trying to make this personal, but two things strike me personally, which is making me reconsider your point, which was indeed one of my initial reactions.

First and foremost, he's ticking off the right people. It's tough for me to side against someone when schlubs like Lindsay Graham, Reince Preibus, Boehner, and McConnell are weighing in against him to tell me that he's "not conservative enough." Really? And you gentlemen are? The same guys who ran Lisa Murkowski as a third-party candidate when anti-establishment figure beat her in a primary? The same guys who torpedoed a Tea Party guy in Mississippi to keep a GOP good old boy in office? Who shoved guys like Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist on us, only for them to change parties when they lost out to Tea Party types. Why should I trust their opinions again?

The second thing is, was Trump leftish in the past? Sure. But you know what? Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, too. And looking at the two policy positions he's put out thus far, there's a lot to like. A damn sight more conservative and pro-freedom policies than Romney ever gave us. I'm going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt until at least the Indiana primary. Who's to say that having two sons who seem to be acclimated to the gun culture hasn't changed his heart? Why can we give Reagan the benefit of the doubt, and not do the same for Trump?

 

[Spear Dane]

EPA regulation, war on coal, cash for clunkers, activist judges, etc. etc. etc. Some of this stuff we may never recover from.

These are pictures of Beijing taken daily for a year of the same area. The problem? Coal fired power plants. Lots and lots of them. Coal is a horrible source of electricity. Ignorant ideology is no substitute for solid science and common sense.

 

[Dead Duck]

Coal is not that bad....

 

[mrjarrell]

These are pictures of Beijing taken daily for a year of the same area. The problem? Coal fired power plants. Lots and lots of them. Coal is a horrible source of electricity.

View attachment 41574

Actually, it's a reasonably good source of power when you compare it on a BTU basis. But, it is a terrible pollutant, you are right. I say this as someone who spent a couple of winters in Beijing blowing coal dust out of my nose and wiping down all our surfaces to get rid of the black dust. It should be replaced. Obama's problem, vis a vis energy is that he hasn't chosen to replace coal with anything more efficient. Solar and wind just won't cut it. He and the republicans are deathly afraid to promote what we really need in this country. Nuclear power. And lots of it. Trump will be no different, (if it even crossed his hairspray addled mind).

 

[Spear Dane]

Coal is not that bad....

I'm sure the people who live there are comforted by your casual dismissal of the rather obvious evidence. But, in fairness, I am willing to consider the idea that it's because aliens are dumping their carbon emissions there via a wormhole.

 

[Dead Duck]

I'd rather China use coal than nuclear.

They'd meltdown in no time and call it "The America Syndrome".

 

[bwframe]

These are pictures of Beijing taken daily for a year of the same area. The problem? Coal fired power plants. Lots and lots of them. Coal is a horrible source of electricity. Ignorant ideology is no substitute for solid science and common sense.

I'm sure the people who live there are comforted by your casual dismissal of the rather obvious evidence. But, in fairness, I am willing to consider the idea that it's because aliens are dumping their carbon emissions there via a wormhole.

If that is truly the case, then let's get bills into congress to pass this into law rather than by (illegal?) executive action and or EPA regulation.

The point is not the coal, it's regulation forcing skyrocketing direct electricity costs and everything related using electricity.

The even larger point is that this whole mess was forecast by intelligent people. Those that sat on their hands in the last election were too stubborn to listen to this and are now feeling these massive financial hits with the rest of us. Massive cost of living increases that may never be undone.

 

[Spear Dane]

If that is truly the case, then let's get bills into congress to pass this into law rather than by (illegal?) executive action and or EPA regulation.

The point is not the coal, it's regulation forcing skyrocketing direct electricity costs and everything related using electricity.

The even larger point is that this whole mess was forecast by intelligent people who those that sat on their hands in the last election were to stubborn to listen to.

Fair enough. You want laissez faire. Ideally we could do that except corporate interests are aligned with stock and bond holders and not clean air and the health of their customers. Economic forces will lead them to use the absolute cheapest/most efficient fuel that will get the electricity down the lines. This is (AFAIK) coal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Coal be consumed pretty darned cleanly. But the cleanliness the bunny-huggers want isn't cheap. Look at Duke's coal gasification plant in Edwardsport. As long as you don't mind paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars per month of electricity, that's what you get for your money.

 

[jamil]

Nuclear power. And lots of it. Trump will be no different, (if it even crossed his hairspray addled mind).

The problem with nuclear power is it has to be in someone's back yard.

Fair enough. You want laissez faire. Ideally we could do that except corporate interests are aligned with stock and bond holders and not clean air and the health of their customers. Economic forces will lead them to use the absolute cheapest/most efficient fuel that will get the electricity down the lines. This is (AFAIK) coal.

The problem with NOT coal is, someone has to pay for it.

We use the cheapest sources for a lot more reasons than boardroom decisions. It's affordable. "Clean" isn't.

You talked about opposition to "clean" is for ideological reasons. That's actually ideological bull****. We use the most practical resources for a reason.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems to me that, unless my suspicion is correct that his actual goals are destructive in nature, King Barry has attacked the primary source of our electricity through executive fiat without having given due consideration that he cannot decree a suitable replacement into existence.

 

[rhino]

These are pictures of Beijing taken daily for a year of the same area. The problem? Coal fired power plants. Lots and lots of them. Coal is a horrible source of electricity. Ignorant ideology is no substitute for solid science and common sense.

I'm sure the people who live there are comforted by your casual dismissal of the rather obvious evidence. But, in fairness, I am willing to consider the idea that it's because aliens are dumping their carbon emissions there via a wormhole.

Fair enough. You want laissez faire. Ideally we could do that except corporate interests are aligned with stock and bond holders and not clean air and the health of their customers. Economic forces will lead them to use the absolute cheapest/most efficient fuel that will get the electricity down the lines. This is (AFAIK) coal.

Are you referring specifically to carbon particulate emissions (i.e. soot) resulting from incomplete combustion of the fuel, or are you referring specifically to CO[SUB]2 [/SUB]?

If the former, a discussion could occur, but all coal-fueled electricity is not equal.

If the latter, then you have it backwards who is relying on ideology and who is relying on science. I won't address "common sense" because 1) I don't believe it exists, and 2) the definition in practice usually is akin to "common sense" = "my opinion."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

These are pictures of Beijing taken daily for a year of the same area. The problem? Coal fired power plants. Lots and lots of them. Coal is a horrible source of electricity. Ignorant ideology is no substitute for solid science and common sense.

View attachment 41574

Coal is a PLENTIFUL (and therefore inexpensive) fuel for electricity; ergo it is a good (or at least "adequate") source. It's certainly more reliable than current solar or wind technology.