Lion of the Blogosphere

Why are Republicans Republicans?

In a NY Times article about Donald Trump:

[T]he stubborn popularity of Mr. Trump, who defies Republican orthodoxy on issue after issue, shows how deeply the party’s elites misjudged the faithfulness of rank-and-file Republicans to conservatism as defined in Washington think tanks and by the party’s elected leaders.

Because politicians and pundits alike are so mired in policy, they overestimate its importance. The default viewpoint, that people have certain policy beliefs, and then they choose the political party that most closely represents those believes, is wrong. It works the other way around. For whatever reason they choose a party, they then come to believe what they are supposed to believe as good loyal party members. The GOPe has gotten its party members to believe some pretty dumb stuff, like for example that tax breaks for the top 1% somehow benefits middle-income Republican voters. (But it trickles down!)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 17, 2016 at 3:22 pm

Posted in Politics

75 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Tax breaks or increases are rarely so narrowly tailored, so one affecting the 1% is likely to also affect those in lower tax brackets. So seems to me on this count at least supporting lower taxes for the “wealthy” is pretty logical if you want them for yourself as a middle or upper middle class voter. Hillary and Obama’s definition of the “wealthy” includes many middle class folks with pretty ordinary income and even more meager assets.


    February 17, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    • Republican talking points. If Republicans wanted to, they could easily tailor a tax increase to only the top 1%.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    • Are you one of those idiots who doesn’t understand the concept of marginal taxation?

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      February 17, 2016 at 8:34 pm

      • The problem with marginal taxation is that, in a few years, the middle class will be in what is currently the upper middle class bracket due to inflation. The upper class bracket today is the middle class bracket tomorrow.


        February 18, 2016 at 2:23 am

      • So advocate for tying the brackets to inflation. People pretend all the time that the only way to fix some flaw in a law is to totally capitulate to the interests of the wealthy. It drives me crazy.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        February 18, 2016 at 7:08 pm

  2. If “Republican orthodoxy” is that the Iraq war was a good idea, and we should not criticize Dubya Bush for launching it, then Republican orthodoxy is stupid and needs to be stubbornly defied.

    If the GOPe and its lickspittles at NRO think the Iraq war was somehow “conservative” then they are stupid and they need to be stubbornly defied. Same with immigration — nothing could be LESS conservative than their foul open borders dogma, which should be defied and resisted.

    The Republican base is ideological. The problem is that the GOPe is deviating from that ideology and aligning with the enemies of that ideology, i.e., the liberals.


    February 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm

  3. Party affiliation is tribal. I’m fill-in-the-blank because daddy was, and all my friends are, and they don’t like the other guys. Then the rational of positions come later. I’m sure you’ve seen on you tube where they mis-identify positions of politicians as the opposite, and the man on the street who supports the politician will justify that “new” position.

    Mike Street Station

    February 17, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    • Yes, exactly. In fact I feel a bit odd whenever I vote for a Republican. My family was passionate New Deal FDR Democrats. Although my father wouldn’t recognize today’s black-LGBT-“womyn” party. I dont’ know what he would do about Trump. He would never idolize the guy, but he might have voted for him – once, and never changed his party affiliation.


      February 17, 2016 at 9:35 pm

      • Coming from the South, my family were all Democrats.The only Republicans they knew were Mr Burns-like evil land barons. But the cracks started when the party nominated McGovern. They still supported the war and couldn’t accept the defeat/retreat mindset that has dominated the Democratic Party ever since. Now of course, they are almost all Republicans. Just one branch of my family is still Democratic, and it’s the faction that couldn’t get their act together; the single mom-constant drama branch of the family.

        Mike Street Station

        February 18, 2016 at 6:40 am

      • Grammar note: I say my family was, you say my family were. I believe this usage came about as a result of unprecedented British influence on American colloquial speech.

        The 3rd gen of my family split sharply on party affiliation, not unlike yours. But I don’t think that my father could ever have voted Republican (not 100% sure of that, he’s passed on now, who knows) and when I vote Republican I feel vaguely disloyal to him.

        But things are beyond that now. We are in a fight for our national life.


        February 18, 2016 at 12:42 pm

  4. Today, choosing party is more about opposing the opposite party. Millions of voters see the Democrat party become more and more a coalition of fringes, and demand the Republican party be a party for normals. The GOPe has resisted, insisting on the same diversity crap that the Democrat party has. Where can they go? Only Donald J. Trump.


    February 17, 2016 at 4:02 pm

  5. Some positions of the Republican party, from open borders libertarianism to nation-building adventurism were never the views of the base. Many people never had a candidate represent them well, and finally they do.


    February 17, 2016 at 4:38 pm

  6. OT: Trump comes close to calling Lindsay Graham out. Trump called him a nut job. Would have been better to call him fruity and nutty, a fruitcake, but I think people get the inference.

    BTW, when I graduated from college in the early 1980s I toyed with the idea of joining the CIA. When I sent in an inquiry about joining they sent back a reading list of books about CIA methods and procedures, books that apparently every public library in the US keeps on file. So I went to the library, checked out the books and read them. As detailed in the books, I was amazed with how many instances the CIA used the homosexual honey trap to ensnare and suborn foreign operatives. The CIA of 1981 certainly believe that the closeted homosexual was a great security risk, in the interim has anything really changed in this regard?


    February 17, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    • When I graduated from undergrad in the mid-80s, I interviewed with the CIA in Washington, DC for a software developer job. The series of interviews went well, but I dropped that idea when I learned of the pathetic G-7 starting salary, and I accepted a similar job with a large government defense contractor at almost twice the pay. I suspect that government software jobs pay more competitively today.

      Smartest Woman on the Internet

      February 17, 2016 at 6:03 pm

      • I too interviewed with the CIA, in ’83. It was in a hotel room in San Francisco. They wanted me to go to Central America. Apparently I wasn’t enthusiastic enough, because I never heard from them again.

        various names

        February 17, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    • The CIA doesn’t care whether someone is homosexual or not, they care about whether he hides this fact or not. If he does he might be a risk.


      February 17, 2016 at 9:03 pm

  7. Lion,

    Your wrote:

    “The GOPe has gotten its party members to believe some pretty dumb stuff, like for example that tax breaks for the top 1% somehow benefits middle-income Republican voters. (But it trickles down!)”

    This is actually incorrect.

    There is no such such thing as “trickle-down” economics. The theory is that, if you allow rich people to keep more of their money, then they will spend more and that will “trickle down” to everyone else. This is wrong.

    In reality, “everyone else” always gets paid first, because most people are workers, and workers get paid first. Lower taxes and regulations spur economic activity because capital gets an opportunity to grow when invested. A big part of those investments are the salaries of employees, which get paid out first before the business can count profits and then add to the stock of capital.

    Of course, this particular sound understanding is drowned out by the need to pay foreign workers.


    February 17, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    • Income and sales tax is really a tax on employment and trade. It’s a tax on cooperation. The IRS penalizes someone every time money changes hands. The problem with that is that employment and trade create wealth by allowing those who are most efficient at producing a good or service to do so. By taxing income and sales they’re harming productivity and economic growth.


      February 18, 2016 at 2:35 am

      • Wrong, income tax does NOT tax employment. Salaries are a deduction against income.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 18, 2016 at 6:13 am

      • It doesn’t matter whether businesses can deduct labor costs. Employees are still paying income tax so employment is still being taxed. Whether corporations or employees are paying it is irrelevant.


        February 18, 2016 at 6:36 am

      • Income is being taxed, not employment.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 18, 2016 at 6:39 am

      • If income is being taxed then employment is being taxed.


        February 18, 2016 at 7:48 am

  8. …or that dropping bombs all over the Middle East helps promote stability in the region.

    Great Again

    February 17, 2016 at 5:04 pm

  9. The GOPe has gotten its party members to believe some pretty dumb stuff, like for example that tax breaks for the top 1% somehow benefits middle-income Republican voters. (But it trickles down!)

    They have also been taught to believe, thanks to Rush Limbaugh and others, that taxing the rich and corporations is a form of CLASS WARFARE against THEM as White working class, middle class White Americans.

    Think of the genius of that kind of switch up! LOL.


    February 17, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    • “They have also been taught to believe, thanks to Rush Limbaugh and others, that taxing the rich and corporations is a form of CLASS WARFARE against THEM as White working class, middle class White Americans.”

      Let’s not start believing in nonsense here.

      The Left has engaged in class warfare rhetoric and controlled the House of Representatives from FDR until 1995. In that time period, the rich got richer and the concentration of wealth increased.

      The rhetoric of taxing the rich is disguised for the purpose of taxing the middle classes to benefit the poor, who are the clients of the rich, and cripple the middle class, who are potential competitors. Most Republican voters understand this score.


      February 17, 2016 at 5:59 pm

      • Most Republican voters understand this score.

        Plenty of them don’t unfortunately and that’s why the Bush family and their cronies have/had so much power and influence.

        And why there is STILL resistance to Trump by the Republican cult members.

        The rich and corporations are to a great degree at economic war against the middle class all over the White/Western world.

        Cultural Capitalism, which they run, has an agenda and the interests of White middle class people are NOT their/its priority.


        February 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm

      • Yes the House of Representatives is the key to everything in American politics. You convinced me.

        The percentage of government spending that benefits the poor is actually quite small. And while there is very little that explicitly goes to the wealthy as such they tend to benefit dramatically from favorable regulation, subsidies, and contracts. It’s totally undeniable that demcratic tax policy would help rather than hurt the middle class.

        The real area where the middle class pay because of the poor is in housing and education where they spend every cent they can spare (and often then some) to live as far away from poor people (especially poor minorities) as possible. If you want to make the argument that conservatism (or at least a kind of conservatism) is actually good for the middle class financially it’s this issue and immigration that you should focus on not tax policy.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        February 17, 2016 at 9:08 pm

      • Well put. Not sure if LOBS is Republican but he definitely doesn’t understand the score. Supply side economics is simply focusing on productivity and the overall efficiency of the economy rather than hare-brained efforts to stimulate demand. The only reason we can have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world is that we don’t tax as much as the rest of the G7. The rich in Denmark pay about the same as the rich in the U.S. but their middle class gets clobbered. Class warfare is about generating envy towards the 1% and then taxing the bejesus out of the top 40%.

        Trickle down economics is a rhetorical creation of the left. No one espouses that. Actually the left practices trickle down by taking 40% of the national income distributing it cronies and rent-seekers — those with political power — and then figuring some will trickle down to the poor even though they have disproportionately less political power.

        That’s why the left despises the middle class — they aren’t happy with the crumbs like the lower class.



        February 17, 2016 at 9:32 pm

      • “The real area where the middle class pay because of the poor is in housing and education where they spend every cent they can spare (and often then some) to live as far away from poor people (especially poor minorities) as possible.”
        @Lloyd –
        This admin has declared war on middle class (i.e., white) towns with section 8. While it’s true that the majority of gov. spending goes right back to the middle class, imagine what it’s like if all of your wealth is in your home, and Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson gets moved in nearby.


        February 17, 2016 at 9:40 pm

      • Lloyd Llewellyn,

        I don’t disagree with you that immigration and demographics is that which is of primary interest to the middle class, more so than tax policy. Where I disagree with you is the notion that Democrat tax policies are beneficial to the middle class. They are not.

        Democrat tax policies are a typical bait-and-switch, where marginal rates increase for those whose upward mobility depends on income increases, while the tax code exempts existing wealth from taxation. That is how Democrats have spun their tax plans over the decades. You get dinged with massive taxes if you make $100,000 a year, but the guy with a $100 million fortune gets taxed almost nothing because his income derives from municipal bonds and his mansion is in Florida. This is where you get so many gazillionaire Democrats.

        One thing I wish the Republicans would abandon is the tax plan of lowering marginal rates while closing loopholes. This is really not a tax-reduction plan at all. Marginal rates may go down but the effective tax rate remains unchanged. I would support 3 or 4 percentage point lower for the middle rate while keeping everything else the same.


        February 17, 2016 at 11:29 pm

      • Map: Without knowing the history of either I would bet that both making muni bonds tax free and having a 100 million dollar house with no property tax (or whatever it is you’re referring to) were supported more by republicans than democrats. Just like it’s republicans who want to get rid of capital gains taxes entirely.

        Republicans will cut middle class taxes (always as part of a broader deal that cuts the top rate) because they’re willing to kick the can down the road indefinitely and run up the debt. Democrats are somewhat responsible and when republicans and conservative democrats don’t let them raise revenues purely by raising the top rate or capital gains they also raise middle class taxes.

        The other cost, along with housing and healthcare, that also dwarfs the impact of any realistic change in tax rates is health care. The US collectively spends two trillion dollars a year more on health care than they need to. Here the democrats are also miles ahead of republicans in accepting the need for utility style price controls. There’s a stupid small minded obsession with taxes versus other costs of living that makes no sense.

        Republican economic policy is atrocious and needs to be abandoned entirely.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        February 18, 2016 at 2:02 am

      • mvsetsel: You’re closer to the truth than map because you recognize that federally spending does much more to help “cronies and rent-seekers” than the poor. Where you’re wrong is in assuming that without the government everything will magically work out unlike those big government shithole basket cases like Denmark (with the 5th highest median quality of life to the US’s 27th).

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        February 18, 2016 at 2:10 am

      • “. Here the democrats are also miles ahead of republicans in accepting the need for utility style price controls.”
        Something tells me that Trump would be quite amenable to that. That’s another part of his appeal.

        In any case, the stupid NY Times and their stupid articles always ignore the elephant in the room, which is that white people – not the white working class, but regular middle-class white people – don’t have a party of their own. Trump is smashing that barrier.

        Hillary just gave a speech attacking Sanders directly, on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation. Paraphrasing, she said, ‘ do you think if we break up the big banks, that will help blacks, women, the LGBT?” and the audience responded with a resounding “No!” In other words, an explicitly race/gender/sexual orientation pitch.

        There’s no place in her Democratic party for people like me. The Times still hasn’t come around to admitting that. It’s in minor online websites for political junkies, and Charles Murray dealt with that as honestly as he could, but the Times hasn’t come round yet. When it does something signficiant will have happened.


        February 18, 2016 at 7:58 am

      • “The Left has engaged in class warfare rhetoric and controlled the House of Representatives from FDR until 1995. In that time period, the rich got richer and the concentration of wealth increased.”

        Actually from FDR to when Reagan came to power, the middle class did well and income inequality was relatively muted. From Reagan onward, the middle class stagnated and income inequality soared. The reasons were obvious: huge tax cuts for the rich, union busting, free-trade agreements with countries that employed near-slave labor, financial deregulation, and massive Third World immigration.

        Mark Caplan

        February 18, 2016 at 8:14 am

      • Gothamette: I agree that the great hope of Trump is that he transforms our political culture so the republicans advocate for the interests of white people, men, and christians instead of the wealthy and large corporations. You’re right that it’s very difficult for middle class white people (and poor white people as well) because they’re stuck between a party that hates them because of how much money they make and one that hates them because of their identity.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        February 18, 2016 at 7:14 pm

      • @Lloyd Llewelyn,

        I’m hoping that this is the chance to transform the Republican party into the party that represents the interests of average white Americans. If we can’t do it this time, I dunno….but even if Trump is elected that won’t be enough. I want the voters to throw out Ryan, McConnell, and clean out all the dry rot. A President is great, but it’s not enough.

        Also, I agree with you about white identity being fluid. I think that most Hispanics (so-called) can be assimilated into the mainstream, but we’ve got to get rid of this race-based bean counting system. The racial classification system in the US is as bad as South Africa. It’s horrifying. This all must be rolled back.


        February 18, 2016 at 8:47 pm

  10. Naw, it doesn’t mean anything of the kind. It just means that the problem of immigration reached critical mass in 2015 and Trump was the only one who decided to jump on it. If the Dems were reasonable on immigration and black crime, there would be no Trump or Cruz or Carson or Jeb.


    February 17, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    • I made the point recently that if the DNC had not chosen to become the Anti-White Party, they’d dominate American politics. Imagine if their immigration position was Amnesty in exchange for a pre-1965 style quota system. The GOP would’ve looked stupider for not taking that deal, and Trump doesn’t happen.


      February 18, 2016 at 1:01 pm

  11. American politics used to be like the politics of most other countries, which is to say tribal. People voted for politicians based on race, family heritage, religion, geography, history, and so on. Government didn’t do that much in those days, so there was probably less reason to have a strong philosophy.

    As government got bigger, more powerful, and more complicated philosophy became more important. In 1972, with the candidacy of George McGovern, the Democrats became officially left, and in 1980, with the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, the Republicans became officially right. Since then, our political conversation has become a lot more abstract and ideological.

    Both left and right have coherent philosophies. Rright-wing philosophy holds that individual freedom is paramount, and therefore everyone should keep as much of their own money as possible, and that unfortunately includes billionaires.

    A lot of people seem to desire a return to tribal politics, and are tying to make Trump into a tribal figure for whites. Democrats are much more effective at combining tribal politics AND philosophical politics, but as Steve Sailer often discusses, tribalism threatens to ruin their coalition. I think white tribalism is ruining the GOP, as well.


    February 17, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    • Both parties are corrupt but Democrats actually fight for the people that vote for them. The republicans totally ignore the their actual voters in favor of fighting for the uber wealthy and large corporations. And then pundits try to make the rank and file republican voters feel better about being idiots and getting screwed over by telling them how philosophical and principled they are.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      February 18, 2016 at 2:20 am

      • Exactly. It’s Trump’s genius to see that there are a lot of disenfranchised voters and to appeal to them. I guess in the commercial world you would call that an untapped market.

        A lot of people who comment here (and similar websites) get butt hurt that Hillary & Co. say and do things that they disagree with. They’re supposed to do that.


        February 18, 2016 at 8:04 am

  12. Trump: I’d Give Bergdahl Back to the Taliban – I’d Fly Over and Drop Him Off



    February 17, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    • The best! Better than Putin.


      February 17, 2016 at 6:47 pm

  13. Any thoughts on the new WSJ/NBC poll showing Cruz ahead of Trump nationally?


    February 17, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    • Based on all other polls, this being such an oddball indicates random error, and I’d simply add the 5% margin of error to Trump’s total which would put him above 30%.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 17, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    • Assuming the poll isn’t rigged somehow and reflects a real shift in national support for Trump, I think he can easily overcome this with big wins in SC and Nevada before Super Tuesday. Social proof and people liking to vote for winners and all. But if Trump’s wins in either state are in the single digits, I think we have a problem.


      February 17, 2016 at 6:05 pm

      • Very bad news for Trump. First it’s a huge 22 point swing from the last national poll and a 15 point swing from the previous NBC poll. Second, it confirms my read of the SC debate — Trump f’d up big time by sounding like a radical BDS/truther leftist and flinging feces at Cruz. For the last three nights Mark Levin, the loudest voice opposing amnesty for years and a former booster and defender of Trump, has been tearing him a new one. Brutally.

        When you lose an Ann Coulter fan and single-issue immigration voter like me, you’re going to lose other Republicans as well.



        February 17, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    • 1. I think it’s rigged.

      2. It’s a national poll, and we don’t elect Presidents nationally, it goes state-by state (but I still think it’s rigged, an absolute lie. I would not put anything past WSJ at this point.)

      3. Dick Morris says it will all be over by mid-March. The marginal candidates will be expelled from the race – by the rules. I expect it will come down to a Trump/Cruz race – and I wouldn’t put my money on Cruz, smart as he is.


      February 17, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    • Oh, also Cruz clobbers Trump head to head.


      February 17, 2016 at 10:59 pm

  14. If you worship the Golden Fetus they’ve got you for life, your own self-interest be damned.


    February 17, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    • If you worship the Golden Fetus they’ve got you for life, your own self-interest be damned.

      Another express of pathological altruism among White people.


      February 17, 2016 at 5:58 pm

      • Pathological altruism is an insane trope invented by Kevin McDonald, popular on the neo-Nazi right. They believe Northern Europeans are just the darndest, sweetest babes, who never did a bad thang in their national lives.


        February 17, 2016 at 9:42 pm

      • Pathological Altruism was the title of a book about a scientifically valid concept.

        It’s a disorder nearly every SJW suffers.

        You, however, suffer a very different type of illness.


        February 18, 2016 at 3:24 am

      • Well, there is something wrong with us.


        February 18, 2016 at 3:57 am

    • Go fuck yourself, “destructure.” McDonald has been raving about “pathological altruism” long before 2012, when that book came out. But I shoud have know he didn’t invent anything. He’s not capable of inventing anything. He take ideas and twists them. It’s the cornerstone of his worldview and I am positive that your buddy “rifleman” was introduced to it by that creep. The other side of this lofty and unprovable pathological altruism is….Jews, who exist to infect the host and kill it.

      In fact, I had actually skimmed that book when it came out and found it to be completely UNscientific and not especially memorable, so I forgot about it.

      I’ll speak up against anti-Semitism where I see it. You don’t scare me.

      (BTW the alt-right was moaning about the bombing of Dresden the other day. Did you attend a ceremony?)


      February 18, 2016 at 8:12 am

  15. I’d vote for Trump but let’s face it, his positions are incoherent. Take the Apple privacy brouhaha. Trump says Apple has to give it up for national security, but if we’d just stop admitting ME’s, Chechens and the like, there’d be no need to crack encrypted cell phones in the first place.

    I Feel I Can Open Up to You

    February 17, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    • So now, I’m incoherent to believe that open borders and black crime are negatives in my life, and that terrorists need IPhone privacy to protect me from hackers. Cause meet effect., but Trump says it better.


      February 17, 2016 at 6:43 pm

  16. Lion,

    You posted recently on fountain pens and I forgot to ask: are there regular stores that sell fountain pens, or are they only found at specialty stores and online?


    February 17, 2016 at 6:16 pm

  17. This is a great point by LOB.

    I grew up with old political science textbooks made in the 1950s, and they all said that the best predictor of peoples’ voting habits was partisan affiliation. In other words, Democrats would vote for Democratic candidates and Republicans would vote for a Republican candidates. Nothing else, not income or demographics or actual beliefs made as much as a difference.

    There were two problems with this concepts. First, for some reason political scientists in those days were uninterested in what made someone a Democrat or Republican in the first place (they still aren’t). This is probably an important political science question and it would be nice if someone would do the research.

    The second problem is that after the Civil Rights Act and the following riots, jump in crime, and affirmative action, this thesis became out of date. Alot of Democrats became “constructive Republicans”, in that they would start voting for Republican candidates while keeping their Democratic affiliation. These tended to be white working class voters and for obvious reasons this was especially noticeable in the South. These voters tended to vote Republican for President, but still voted Democratic in less publicized down-ballot races. This resulted in the Republicans winning five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988, while the Democrats kept control of the House of Representatives and most local government.

    There was also a smaller counter-movement of “gypsy moth” educated and socially liberal Republicans towards the Democrats, again first in Presidential contests, which gained critical mass in the 1990s and is the real reason why the Democrats became competitive in presidential races again.

    However, as these voters died off, their children just registered directly as Democrats and Republicans, and partisan affiliation became really important again. Essentially partisan affiliation has always been the main predictor of American voting habits, except for a thirty year period where the two parties essentially swapped most of their core voters between each other.


    February 17, 2016 at 7:50 pm

  18. According to the latest Emerson poll, Trump is absolutely annihilating Cruz amongst Evangelicals.

    If this is true, and I suspect it is, Trump’s problem is not “stupid Christians” but rather “stupid Iowans/Midwesterners”.

    I fucking hate Iowans. They stole Iowa from us. I am worried that the stupid midwesterners will hurt Trump in the midwest. All they care about is abortions and “muh Constitution”.

    We must take away the right to vote in primaries away from stupid Midwesterners! They have ruined America.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 18, 2016 at 12:09 am

    • OK, OK.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 18, 2016 at 12:18 am

    • We must take away the right to vote in primaries away from stupid Midwesterners! They have ruined America.

      Part of the problem may be that they are “isolated”. Not just in the midwest but in their own social world.

      They don’t have an understanding of the full US in the larger global system.

      Cruz, liar that he is, says he’s not running for “pastor and chief” and yet that is in fact what he is doing.

      Running as pastor in chief and chief law nerd of America.


      February 18, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    • This article has maps showing where Trump is most popular. Part of his problem is that he offend midwestern notions of niceness and politeness.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      February 18, 2016 at 7:17 pm

  19. I know that people will snipe at me for saying this, but the Republicans are essentially the pro-America party.

    A pro-immigration Democrat will say, “America needs immigrants because our culture is so shallow and terrible! Nothing is worse than white racism, and white racism will finally end once whites are no longer the majority!”

    A pro-immigration Republican will say, “America needs immigrants because our way of life is the best, so if people want to come and be apart of it, they should be welcome here. White people can be a minority in America, but as long as non-whites follow the Constitution and practice our culture, then that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”

    Trump is running successfully as a Republican because it’s easier to argue that America is so great that it shouldn’t accept people who will ruin its value, rather than America is so terrible that no one should come here to try to make it better.


    February 18, 2016 at 12:44 am

    • Sid, This is a good point, however:

      The Republicans, are rhetorically, more pro-American than the Democrats (as an example: most Denocrats would be pretty hard pressed to find an historical American figure to admire…even FDR or Lincoln, when looked at in detail, are pretty, pretty tough cookies and most certainly ‘racist’, etc).

      Republicans have no problem admiring the country’s past and the historic American nation (while still feeling bad about slavery, etc).

      Functionally: it doesn’t seem to really matter—it is just words.

      If we elect the Democrats, we get:
      -Disorder, violence and war internationally.
      -more immigration.
      -more spending.

      If we elect the Republicans we get:
      -Disorder, violence and war internationally.
      -More immigration.
      -More spending.

      They are the same party…using the cover of dissimilar rhetoric, but governing the same way, with the same policies.

      Going back to the question posed by LOTB: I think people tend to be R or D based on parental affiliation. My parents were loyal Rs, so that is my natural sympathy…I have a hard time voting D because just the thought brings disgust. The words “Ted Kennedy” were said around my house the way that someone says “I stepped in dog shit.”

      Rationally; I know that the parties are pretty much the the same…in what regard does the Republican Party of today resemble the old GOP?

      FB (Former Beta)

      February 18, 2016 at 10:40 am

      • In one sense, I would agree that Republicans are often indistinguishable from Democrats once they’re in Washington, but the people who vote for Republican politicians are still drawn to pro-America rhetoric and policies. When Trump starting running as a Republican, the policies he proposed appealed to Republican voters. His policies were what they had always wanted. In contrast, if he had run on an anti-immigration platform as a Democrat, he would have been booed off the stage.


        February 18, 2016 at 4:25 pm

  20. This two party system is now just a bad joke. The GOP made a Big Fucking Deal of how 2014 was the crucial election to stop Obama, and even though they crushed their opponents, they folded and went along the very next day. My Father said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between these two parties and he was right. They are just two faces of the same criminal gang that steals taxpayer money to reward their donors for giving them cinchy jobs that involve no work and require no skills or talents.
    I wouldn’t trust any of these retards to watch my cat for an hour while I picked up groceries. They are the worst bunch of clueless arrogant silver spoon spoiled brat babies I’ve ever seen. They can’t even get their lies straight anymore. All their WWE style play fighting has stopped too. Either they believe they have no need for it, or they’re just too fucking lazy to go through the motions anymore.

    Joshua Sinistar

    February 19, 2016 at 10:55 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: