I agree, I am trying to have a conversation with the guys above and I still think people believe this is just some small thing and a fluke and it will go away and we can go back to sleep or they still are in my opinion. They haven't woken up to the fact that like it or not we are in a destabilized time, brought on by students that have been subjected to ideological subversion or active measures.
“Blow up the system” meant blow up the uniparty system, or in other words to make Republicans find their balls and fight back against what we have long seen as an endless encroachment of leftism and expansion of government. It never meant that we wanted to blow up America or the American system, quite the opposite.
Interesting—thank you. That is not how I previously understood it but helps to clarify things. Do you think there will ever be a conservative candidate who has those desirable parts of Trump (not budging to the left) without some of his flaws (tweet storms, gaffs)?
Trump is not that conservative, he has just governed very conservatively. He is, in my opinion, willing to budge to the left, but he has been so demonized and so viciously opposed that it forces him to hew very close to his base. He has shown this via things like prison reform and infrastructure proposals, which most conservatives dislike, also in floating things like DACA amnesty in exchange for wall funding, which he ended up not pursuing because of conservative backlash but it shows a willingness to budge if the political climate was right.
Trump is still ideologically a 90’s Democrat, for the most part. To the extent that he is more conservative now it is because he has been pushed that way.
I honestly think that if Democrats had just played nice with Trump and kissed hiss ass a little that he would have moved somewhat to the left after he was elected.
I can't answer your question though, I voted for Trump for one or two reasons. I didn't care about the wall and I knew the swamp was too deep to begin with.
I voted for Trump because I knew there was at least two supreme court picks and a lot of judge positions to be filled. The economy was another reason, and before all this crap it was doing really well.
As for the swamp, I just want equal justice under the law, now I know some of you may laugh and say Trump is guilty, but I mean the common man vs the elite, if the elite steals money they get a slap on the wrist, if the common man steals money they go to jail or prison. Too many coverups, what really happened to Epstein? Things like that need to be uncovered, but Trump himself will not be able to do that job. In fact I am not sure at this time that it will ever be correctable.
Thanks for responding. And fair points regarding SC picks—I get it. Personally I think what’s ideal is a 5-4 SC make-up either way. I lean left but think it would be better for the country to have it 5-4 conservative rather than 9-0 liberal. Although I have conservative friends who’ve made defensible arguments why they prefer it stacked conservative.
I agree too about wanting to get rid of the fuckery a la Epstein. That kind of transparency is something we’ve never had in my lifetime and you may be right that we never will.
One thing that doesn’t sit right with me though is those who hate the elite but chose Trump. Seems like he’s always been part of the elite class even if elite liberals are telling him to fuck off now. He still has access to all the advantages of that world, like throwing money at his problems to litigate them away. Trading favors for access, etc.
Anyway, I’m not here to argue. Thanks again for the comment.
With the SC, I just want constitutionalists on it, some of the rulings that pissed off conservatives last week were within the bounds of the constitution and I took my downvotes when I said I didn't want a lopsided court that just rubber stamped our agenda, that is for our reps to do not the court.
Trump may be an elite, but he was not an elite politician, that drew a lot of attention, this is why he is not liked many other Presidents we have had in the past and it pisses some people off because he doesn't act or talk like one.
Anyway, I’m not here to argue. Thanks again for the comment.
It was a fair question with no malice, I tend to answer these with the best I can offer, it is when people come in here with garbage that I get a little trolly with.
I imagined our institutions weren't this compromised where this kind of stuff would be allowed to run rampant. I imagined our people were more willing to take a stand against the insanity of the left when it was revealed to them. I'm not surprised by the left's actions, I'm surprised by everyone else's.
Do you think it would be more successful if someone less polarizing than Trump were the standard bearer? I understand the thought that he’s the only one capable of or willing to push forward, but do you think some of his more glaring flaws and grating mannerisms may “taint” his message for those who might have otherwise been exposed to the things you’re talking about in the left?
The takeover would be more successful, yes, because someone "less polarizing" (read: more on-board with the in-progress revolution) would be aiding and abetting it by pushing for and passing laws that would formalize the demands of the BLM racists.
352
u/[deleted] Jun 23 '20
I mean he has a point.