Hey  Geoffrey!

As is typical, the far left, Anti-Republican/Anti-Trump media is going to
exploit this, but I don't think it was as bad today as what the media is
making of the #NeverTrump antics this afternoon...

Moreover,  (and  agree with you about the split between the
Globalist/Rockefellerian/Establishment/Elitist faction of the Republican
Party, and the conservative, "Grass-Roots" supporters);  but I tend to
believe that for the most part, the Republican Party will come out of the
Convention more unified than we were last week.....Personally, I have no
use for the Globalist faction and to me, they're no different than far left
liberal Democrats.


On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:56 PM, geoffrey theist <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The article is somewhat accurate the Republican party is dividing into
> what I believe will be two distinct factions. I think the establishment
> globalist really threw down the gauntlet coming out so strongly against
> Trump. And I don't  see a logical path and I stress logical to any
> reconciliation.
>
> On Jul 18, 2016 9:38 PM, "Keith In Tampa" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <Grin>!
>>
>> Good Answer!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:58 PM, 'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the input from the Libertarian kiddy table. I suppose it's
>>> much easier to criticize other parties when you never win elections, lol.
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:41:42 PM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you Michael, (for posting this) and literally clueless Nick
>>>> Gillespie aren't watching the Republican National Convention!
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who watched the two surviving Benghazi soldiers tonight in
>>>> Cleveland could not support Hil Clinton unless they are a traitor.....
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:55 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *A party whose rhetoric (if never its actual policies) is all about
>>>>> shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government cannot even pretend
>>>>> anymore to stand for any of those things. *Jul. 18, 2016
>>>>>
>>>>> *The RNC Isn't a Convention, It's a Wake *
>>>>> *Cleveland is where the GOP as we know it is going to die. *Nick
>>>>> Gillespie
>>>>>
>>>>> Reason TV, Todd KraininThe Republican Party, conservatives, and
>>>>> certainly Donald Trump may not fully understand it yet, but they are
>>>>> meeting in Cleveland not to chart the future of the GOP but to host its
>>>>> funeral.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Republican Party and the larger conservative movement for which it
>>>>> has stood since the days of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan is dead but
>>>>> not yet buried. A party whose rhetoric (if never its actual policies) is
>>>>> all about shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government cannot 
>>>>> even
>>>>> pretend anymore to stand for any of those things. As important, it hasn't
>>>>> been serious about governing for a very long time. Remember just how
>>>>> terrible and world-ending they said Obamacare was back in 2009 and 2010?
>>>>> They weren't wrong and yet it took the Republicans, despite holding
>>>>> congressional power for most of the 21st century, until June of this year
>>>>> to roll out an actual alternative that certainly wasn't worth the wait
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/28/the-gops-new-health-care-plan-shows-that>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Before whatever Trumpian display of narcissism, delusion, and disdain
>>>>> for actual knowledge of policy and process clicks into high gear in
>>>>> Cleveland over the next few days, it's worth taking stock of what the
>>>>> Republican Party has become. Trump is not the cause of its collapse but an
>>>>> effect of utter failure of Republicans to deliver even partly on their
>>>>> promises over the past several decades. Republicans and conservatives have
>>>>> officially elevated atavistic tribal allegiances to the most important
>>>>> place possible in their causes. While Trump famously and disturbingly
>>>>> called out Mexicans at the start of his speech announcing his candidacy
>>>>> last year, his dyed-in-the-wool conserative critics actually attacked him
>>>>> for not *being tough enough* on immigration. National Review, in its
>>>>> house editorial laying out the case against Trump, didn't conjure the
>>>>> ghosts of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush in 1980 arguing over who would
>>>>> do more to legalize and help illegals gain a legitimate place in our
>>>>> country
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/20/the-gops-35-year-devolution-on-immigrati>,
>>>>> they said the Trump's plan to remove 11 or 12 million people from the
>>>>> country was a "poorly designed amnesty" plan
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/25/pity-national-review-conservatives-for-d>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's leave aside for the moment that by all accounts illegal
>>>>> immigration into the United States by Mexicans country peaked in 2007
>>>>> <http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-states-fall-in-14/ph_2014-11-18_unauthorized-immigration-05/>.
>>>>> Should a political party be taken seriously when fears about people
>>>>> choosing to come here to work and live is among its top concerns
>>>>> (especially since immigrants, legal and otherwise, commit less crime
>>>>> <http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/01/06/more-immigration> than
>>>>> natives)? Immigration isn't simply part of America, it *is* America,
>>>>> which explains why fully two-thirds of us
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/12/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-citizenshi>
>>>>> (including at least 50 percent of Republicans) want to create some pathway
>>>>> to legal status for illegals. Since then, of course, Trump and Republicans
>>>>> have burnished their credentials as xenophobes by conflating religion and
>>>>> race, and declaring that refugees from the same Middle East that
>>>>> conservative and Republican policymakers have done so much to destroy and
>>>>> wreak havoc on should not be allowed to enter the United States. Here too
>>>>> the Republican brain trust (such as it is) is divided against itself, as
>>>>> it's chided Trump for not being harsh enough or war-like enough or
>>>>> personally dedicated to a Weekly Standard-style foreign policy of military
>>>>> aggression.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to social issues, the Republican Party has spent the
>>>>> past several decades warring against abortion (even as its incidence has
>>>>> declined, along with declines in rates of youth sex and unwanted
>>>>> pregnancies
>>>>> <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-abortion-rate-is-falling-because-fewer-women-are-getting-pregnant/>
>>>>> too) and "homosexual agenda" and pimping for the drug war that has managed
>>>>> to turn the United States into the world's largest jailer nation. Even as
>>>>> Americans of all stripes are rethinking the stupidity of putting more and
>>>>> more people in jail, the party's vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence
>>>>> told Indiana residents this year in his State of the State Address that he
>>>>> was " leaning into the drug war
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/12/meet-mike-pence-possible-donald-trump-vi>"
>>>>> and increasing mandatory minimums for various drug-related activity. Being
>>>>> anti-abortion and scared of gays and in favor of the drug war are central
>>>>> to the conservative movement. These are not the concerns of a party with a
>>>>> future. They are the issues of a party that is terrified of a present that
>>>>> has escaped its understanding. Forget about thinking about the future. The
>>>>> Republican Party with its ritual incantation of the traditional family and
>>>>> normalcy or whatever, isn't even living in the present any more.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to economic policy, Trump (like Hillary Clinton, to be
>>>>> sure) stands adamantly against the free-er trade that is articulated in
>>>>> trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American
>>>>> Free Trade Agreement. Neither of these things is perfect but we can say
>>>>> with certainty that NAFTA, which created 25 million net jobs in the 15
>>>>> years after it passed, was better than the status quo it replaced. What 
>>>>> are
>>>>> non-Trump conservatives positing in the place of TPP? Nothing really, 
>>>>> other
>>>>> than shifting the conversation to how China must be hemmed in a rising
>>>>> global economic and military power.
>>>>>
>>>>> The greatest failure of the Republican Party in recent memory was the
>>>>> Bush presidency <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275512887811775>
>>>>> which was perpetrated with virtually total support of a Republican 
>>>>> Congress
>>>>> and the conservative commentariat at the time. Bush presided over a 50
>>>>> percent increase in federal spending, mired the country in two wars that
>>>>> were failures both in conception and prosecution, increased major
>>>>> regulatory structures and then­as the door was hitting his ass on the way
>>>>> out­bailed out the financial industry and the auto industry, claiming
>>>>> nonsensically that the only way to save capitalism was to embrace
>>>>> socialism. Channeling the "destroy the village in order to save it" logic
>>>>> of the war he worked so hard to avoid fighting in, Bush actually said, "
>>>>> I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2008/12/16/ive-abandoned-free-market-prin>."
>>>>> The 2008 GOP presidential nominee, John McCain, signed TARP and all the
>>>>> other related legislation, as did his Democratic rival, Barack Obama. 
>>>>> Those
>>>>> of us who opposed bank bailouts­libertarians mostly, and some lefties
>>>>> too­were called nihilistic for wanting to business to rise and fall on
>>>>> their performance in the market. The conservative-Republican position was
>>>>> in favor of bailouts, with pundits such as National Review editor Rich
>>>>> Lowry and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal defending Bush's
>>>>> incoherent position. In The New York Times, David Brooks said the
>>>>> congressmen who initially voted down TARP were staging a "revolt of
>>>>> the nihilists."
>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> But after eight years of a supposedly conservative Republican
>>>>> government that increased spending on everything by 50 percent in real
>>>>> dollars, creating whole new entitlements such as free or cheap drugs even
>>>>> for wealthy seniors, consolidated federal control of education funding via
>>>>> No Child Left Behind, pushed a full-employment act for accountants known 
>>>>> as
>>>>> Sarbanes-Oxley, an energy bill that lead to the phase-out of incandescent
>>>>> lightbulbs <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pNKz7iOaLE>, created a
>>>>> new cabinet agency and, perhaps most devastatingly, entered willingly not
>>>>> just into failed military interventions but secretly built a surveillance
>>>>> state anathema to the history and ethos of our country.
>>>>>
>>>>> So forget Trump burning the mother down this week. The GOP has been in
>>>>> ashes for most of the 21st century because it has never faced up to just
>>>>> how awful it behaved when it had power. It was the failure and the fraud 
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Bush years that destroyed the GOP and the broader conservative 
>>>>> movement
>>>>> by making it impossible to reconcile the vast difference between their
>>>>> generic rhetoric about smaller government and individual freedom on the 
>>>>> one
>>>>> hand and the actual actions of a GOP majority on the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the years since Bush retreated from public life and started
>>>>> painting David Hockney-style bathroom art
>>>>> <http://www.chron.com/life/article/Which-of-George-W-Bush-s-paintings-is-your-5885691.php#photo-4364385>,
>>>>> conservatives have not seriously grappled with what the GOP did the last
>>>>> time it controlled the federal government. Rather than look inward, 
>>>>> confess
>>>>> their sins, and work for atonement with the American people, they instead
>>>>> sounded the alarms about Barack Obama and the creeping socialism that
>>>>> ultimately was not so different from what they themselves had recently
>>>>> signed off on. Rather than face up to the party's complete abdication of
>>>>> serious reflection and engagement with an increasingly libertarian
>>>>> sensibility growing in America that they might contribute to, it was more
>>>>> than enough to say that Obamacare would gut Medicare instead of, you know,
>>>>> actually pushing through any sort of health care reform that would 
>>>>> actually
>>>>> allow markets to develop and flourish. It was more important to claim the
>>>>> Obama and the Democrats weren't war-like enough, even as they continued 
>>>>> the
>>>>> ruinous foreign policy created under Bush. It was enough to stamp their
>>>>> feet about the rise of post-gender and post-sexual-orinetation America and
>>>>> instead have moral lepers like Newt Gingrich talk about the sanctity of
>>>>> traditional marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lack of focus and seriousness in the Republican Party is what
>>>>> created the conditions for Donald Trump to rise­in a crowd of 17
>>>>> candidates, including more than a few who were serious people and might
>>>>> have made excellent presidents. To be sure, the clown show that is now 
>>>>> upon
>>>>> us­the Republican Party has nominated a man to be president who has
>>>>> absolutely zero experience in public office!­will accelerate the demise of
>>>>> today's Republican Party. So will his plan to increase spending as a
>>>>> percentage of GDP from a historically high 22.1 percent to 22.5 percent
>>>>> over the next decade (for contrast, Hillary Clinton wants to raise it only
>>>>> a little more than Trump, to 22.7 percent). Here we are, nearly 20 years
>>>>> into a century in which fewer Americans have confidence in major
>>>>> institutions than ever and want the government to do less and spend
>>>>> less
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/22/the-libertarian-moment-is-everywhere-aro>.
>>>>> And the Republican nominee­channeling the most recent Republican president
>>>>> and his own party­wants to jack up spending even more and plainly use the
>>>>> government to bully any individuals and groups that bug him. This, in a
>>>>> country where according to Gallup
>>>>> <http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/08/the-libertarian-moment-is-so-over-that-l>,
>>>>> socially tolerant and fiscally responsible libertarians comprise the
>>>>> single-largest ideological group in the country, bigger than 
>>>>> conservatives,
>>>>> liberals, and populists. Good luck with all that, GOP.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are good reasons to believe that whatever ultimately replaces
>>>>> this version of the Republican Party may well be better, especially if the
>>>>> GOP channels the energy and appeal and future orientation of its
>>>>> libertarian-leaning members such as Rand Paul, Jeff Flake, Mike Lee, 
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> Massie, Justin Amash, and a few others. But until conservatives and
>>>>> Republicans admit that they have brought this on themselves through their
>>>>> unwillingness to propose policies that match the libertarian rhetoric they
>>>>> mumble like bored altar boys saying the Rosary­nothing will stir in the
>>>>> ashes, either here in Cleveland or beyond.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/18/the-rnc-isnt-a-convention-its-a-wake
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>
>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> --
>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>
>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "PoliticalForum" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to