Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Where does this party go from here? Eventually Donald Trump will be dead or in prison. How does this political party salvage their reputation and more importantly expand their base after this debacle?

*Crickets*

Political duopoly. There's always two parties. The Republicans will exist as long as the Democrats exist, if only as a refuge for half the country that doesn't like the Democrats (or at least the Democrats in power). 230+ years of history has told us this, you tell me why it's going to change and why you think we're going single party.

GannonFan wrote:Political duopoly. There's always two parties. The Republicans will exist as long as the Democrats exist, if only as a refuge for half the country that doesn't like the Democrats (or at least the Democrats in power). 230+ years of history has told us this, you tell me why it's going to change and why you think we're going single party.

Who said single party?

mainejeff wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Political duopoly. There's always two parties. The Republicans will exist as long as the Democrats exist, if only as a refuge for half the country that doesn't like the Democrats (or at least the Democrats in power). 230+ years of history has told us this, you tell me why it's going to change and why you think we're going single party.

Who said single party?

Then what are you talking about? Show me a period in our history where power hasn't been basically shared between two parties. You're asking how can the Republicans survive after this (you use the words "salvage" and "expand"). My contention is they don't have to do anything but exist and in the vacuum of a political duopoly that will take care of itself. The Democrats were closely associated with the Confederacy and slavery and the instigators of the Civil War back in 1860, and in 1876, just over 10 years after the most devastating event in our country's history and millions of casualties, the Democrats almost won the Presidency (they would just eight more years later) and the won back enough power in federal government to end Reconstruction. That's what happens in a political duopoly, parties always survive and always return to power without really have to do much other than exist.

GannonFan wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Who said single party?

Then what are you talking about? Show me a period in our history where power hasn't been basically shared between two parties. You're asking how can the Republicans survive after this (you use the words "salvage" and "expand"). My contention is they don't have to do anything but exist and in the vacuum of a political duopoly that will take care of itself. The Democrats were closely associated with the Confederacy and slavery and the instigators of the Civil War back in 1860, and in 1876, just over 10 years after the most devastating event in our country's history and millions of casualties, the Democrats almost won the Presidency (they would just eight more years later) and the won back enough power in federal government to end Reconstruction. That's what happens in a political duopoly, parties always survive and always return to power without really have to do much other than exist.

You represent a lot of Republicans which explains why very little is being done to challenge Trump's assertions or check his power. Good to know.

What about the Democratic Party? Where do they go from here?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

mainejeff wrote:Where does this party go from here? Eventually Donald Trump will be dead or in prison. How does this political party salvage their reputation and more importantly expand their base after this debacle?

Donald Trump does not define conservatives. Hell, he's not even a conservative, really.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the batshit crazy that has inhabited the brains of the leaders of the democratic party...that party is splintering before our very eyes.

We don't need to do anything now that we have a real leader like Trump.

The party is saved from all of the other shit bags like McConnell, Graham and Ryan

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

We’ll see how that works out for ya!

UNI88 wrote:What about the Democratic Party? Where do they go from here?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

All they have to do is bide their time and not rock the boat in a way that would change the way different demographic groups vote.

mainejeff wrote:*Crickets*

Well, you already know what I think. I think the Republicans are totally screwed by virtue of making Trump the face of their Party. I think they had serious problems for the long term anyway. But they made the situation much worse for themselves.

mainejeff wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Then what are you talking about? Show me a period in our history where power hasn't been basically shared between two parties. You're asking how can the Republicans survive after this (you use the words "salvage" and "expand"). My contention is they don't have to do anything but exist and in the vacuum of a political duopoly that will take care of itself. The Democrats were closely associated with the Confederacy and slavery and the instigators of the Civil War back in 1860, and in 1876, just over 10 years after the most devastating event in our country's history and millions of casualties, the Democrats almost won the Presidency (they would just eight more years later) and the won back enough power in federal government to end Reconstruction. That's what happens in a political duopoly, parties always survive and always return to power without really have to do much other than exist.

You represent a lot of Republicans which explains why very little is being done to challenge Trump's assertions or check his power. Good to know.

Check what power, MJ?

What power is Trump currently exercising that needs to be checked?

Are you ever going to answer my very simple, direct questions?

Examples, please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t hold your breath, CID.

A good example are the tariffs. The Constitution couldn't be more explicit that it's the role of Congress. Other Presidents have instituted tariffs before, but none anywhere near to the extent of Trump.

I know libertarianism is less en vogue... but, I'm surprised most of the Conks that trended libertarian post-2009 are cheerleaders for it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:A good example are the tariffs. The Constitution couldn't be more explicit that it's the role of Congress. Other Presidents have instituted tariffs before, but none anywhere near to the extent of Trump.

I know libertarianism is less en vogue... but, I'm surprised most of the Conks that trended libertarian post-2009 are cheerleaders for it.

Here's a secret: they were never libertarians.

Skjellyfetti wrote:A good example are the tariffs. The Constitution couldn't be more explicit that it's the role of Congress. Other Presidents have instituted tariffs before, but none anywhere near to the extent of Trump.

I know libertarianism is less en vogue... but, I'm surprised most of the Conks that trended libertarian post-2009 are cheerleaders for it.

I don’t know what you mean by “trended Libertarian.” There are only a few genuine libertarians in the House. Small-l, given the duopoly. Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, to name two. Both anti-tariff. Maybe Walter Jones.

In the Senate, Rand Paul has the right instincts on several libertarian issues, including tariffs and Constitutional warmaking.

∞∞∞ wrote: Here's a secret: they were never libertarians.

Ivytalk wrote: I don’t know what you mean by “trended Libertarian.” There are only a few genuine libertarians in the House. Small-l, given the duopoly. Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, to name two. Both anti-tariff. Maybe Walter Jones.

In the Senate, Rand Paul has the right instincts on several libertarian issues, including tariffs and Constitutional warmaking.

I was talking about on this site. Cid, who was struggling to think of an example of Trump's overreach, in particular.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: Here's a secret: they were never libertarians.

Ivytalk wrote: I don’t know what you mean by “trended Libertarian.” There are only a few genuine libertarians in the House. Small-l, given the duopoly. Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, to name two. Both anti-tariff. Maybe Walter Jones.

In the Senate, Rand Paul has the right instincts on several libertarian issues, including tariffs and Constitutional warmaking.

I was talking about on this site. Cid, who was struggling to think of an example of Trump's overreach, in particular.

Your obsession with me clouds your comprehension and causes you to use tortured logic

Trump's use os the tariff is not an expansion of executive power- it has been exercised before, as you said yourself. The magnitude of the current tariff is completely immaterial.

As for my libertarian bent - I am ambivalent on the executive trade powers and have consistently said so here. I am also decidedly not libertarian on immigration (full on "pure" libertarians are for open borders). Your calling me some kind of faux libertarian is a pure straw man. Take klam's advice and stop trying to shoehorn people into your personal labels

Again, I ask my question - what executive powers has Trump expanded? What has he done that is so inappropriate in yours and your fellow travelers' eyes that constitutes executive powers that have not been wielded by previous Presidents?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump has expanded presidential tariffs. Bigly.

The fact that other presidents have issued tariffs does not mean that Trump hasn't expanded executive power re: tariffs.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:We don't need to do anything now that we have a real leader like Trump.

The party is saved from all of the other **** bags like McConnell, Graham and Ryan

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Left to right: V. Putin, D. Trump:

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:




I was talking about on this site. Cid, who was struggling to think of an example of Trump's overreach, in particular.

Your obsession with me clouds your comprehension and causes you to use tortured logic

Trump's use os the tariff is not an expansion of executive power- it has been exercised before, as you said yourself. The magnitude of the current tariff is completely immaterial.

As for my libertarian bent - I am ambivalent on the executive trade powers and have consistently said so here. I am also decidedly not libertarian on immigration (full on "pure" libertarians are for open borders). Your calling me some kind of faux libertarian is a pure straw man. Take klam's advice and stop trying to shoehorn people into your personal labels

Again, I ask my question - what executive powers has Trump expanded? What has he done that is so inappropriate in yours and your fellow travelers' eyes that constitutes executive powers that have not been wielded by previous Presidents?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sucking Putin's dick without congressional approval?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Trump has expanded presidential tariffs. Bigly.

The fact that other presidents have issued tariffs does not mean that Trump hasn't expanded executive power re: tariffs.

Keep retreating, Jelly

“President Trump’s tariff is bigger”

That’s like “President Trump’s executive orders are bigger”

It isn’t how he did it, it is that he did it at all, to begin with

The issuance of tariffs is not an expansion of executive power. Period.

Next

So, executive power can only be expanded by introducing new powers no other President has used?

Executive power cannot be expanded by expanding existing powers?

If that's your opinion, then I agree. Trump hasn't really introduced new powers not previously used.

But, if that's the case, we also haven't had an expansion executive power over the last 20 years. Obama and Bush didn't introduce new Presidential powers. They did expanded existing powers.

They weren't the first to wage war without Congressional approval. But, they did expand this power.

They didn't establish the surveillance state. But, they did expand its use.

They weren't the first to use signing statements. But, they both did expand the use.

etc. etc.

It sounds like you are (as usual) giving a different standard to Trump than previous Presidents.

Skjellyfetti wrote:So, executive power can only be expanded by introducing new powers no other President has used?

Executive power cannot be expanded by expanding existing powers?

If that's your opinion, then I agree. Trump hasn't really introduced new powers not previously used.

But, if that's the case, we also haven't had an expansion executive power over the last 20 years. Obama and Bush didn't introduce new Presidential powers. They did expanded existing powers.

They weren't the first to wage war without Congressional approval. But, they did expand this power.

They didn't establish the surveillance state. But, they did expand its use.

They weren't the first to use signing statements. But, they both did expand the use.

etc. etc.

It sounds like you are (as usual) giving a different standard to Trump than previous Presidents.

Oh really?

Obama didn't go to war with Libya in circumvention of the War Powers Act?

That most certainly was an expansion of executive power not used before. Hell, even Bushitler McCheneyburton got Congress' approval first (an expansion of executive power authored by Bush I)

And yes, I am asking precisely that: what executive powers has Trump exercised that were an "expansion of executive powers"?

If you'd read carefully before picking semantic arguments you might not have to type all the word salad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk