Republicans

[Svartalf]

That's where you are wrong joe, The GOP does not own frump, they own to him... he was the only guy they could muster to beat hillary, but he's not truly one of them, if only because he's even crazier than they are... and they have no real control over him.

Different definition of own Svarty. It might be peculiar to American slang.

I mean they own him in the sense that they will be held responsible for him. They had the opportunity to stack the deck against him at the convention, but lacked the courage to lose an election to preserve their party's principles.

I believe his stink will cling to the GOP for some time to come.

Well, after the 'tea party' unpleasantness, the GOP has become a crazy tea party, with trump as the mad hatter an pence as the dormouse... I'm still looking for the march hare and the white rabbit. I'm Alice and trying to make sense of it all.

[Svartalf]

The Will of the People. He won the nomination. Unless you stack the deck with super delegates or something similar there's always a possibility the mob will do something you don't like.

will of the people, my foot, if somebody hadd manage to make themselves more obvious, they might have had a chance, but frump used the reagan effect... big media personality going into politics... people voted on him because they knew his name from non political sources.

[Forty Two]

At least we know straight from the horse's mouth - see the NY Times Op Ed - that Trump is not a Republican. He is described as a President who has acted contrary to "long held conservative ideals" and it's only a few bright spots, achieved "despite" Trump, not because of him, where good things that conservative Republicans support have happened.....

See - if you take the NY Times OP ED guy at his word, Trump is still hated by the establishment Republicans and is acting contrary to their wishes. If anyone should be supportive of that, it's non-Republicans!

That's a big if Forty Two, taking this anonymous tattler at his, her, or their word.

I'll go with the fact the 88% of the Republicans who voted, voted for Trump. The GOP owns this guy, whether their "establishment" likes it or not.

He's like George McGovern in 1972 that way.

The Republican electorate certainly overwhelmingly supported him, and I would suggest that it's because the electorate are sick of the "long held conservative principles" this op-ed writer is trying to force on the American people, contrary to what the electorate overwhelmingly voted for - which was not that.

I found this op ed writer to be seriously full of shit. I highly, highly doubt that he or she is what most readers would consider "senior official" in the Trump administration. That's highly unlikely. This guy's summary rings true about it: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/wh ... spin-30757

In my view, I can't figure out what this op ed writer wanted the people to know. Who is he talking to? Does he not know that Republicans overwhelmingly support Trump to this day? I have to assume so, but then who is he talking to? Democrats? Or, the relatively small number of Republicans who don't support Trump (establishment republicans mostly)?

More disturbing is what he is seeking to convey -- that people the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Trump oppose are actively seeking to thwart the agenda that the overwhelming majority of peopel who voted for Trump support..... that he's actively trying to "thwart" his boss' policy goals, thus contradicting and opposing the elected leader whose policies this "senior official" is duty bound to see carried out (absent illegality, in which case the senior official is duty bound to make that illegality known to his superiors and if necessary resign his post).

[Forty Two]

The Will of the People. He won the nomination. Unless you stack the deck with super delegates or something similar there's always a possibility the mob will do something you don't like.

will of the people, my foot, if somebody hadd manage to make themselves more obvious, they might have had a chance, but frump used the reagan effect... big media personality going into politics... people voted on him because they knew his name from non political sources.

The more popular candidate won? Surprise surprise.

[Joe]

At least we know straight from the horse's mouth - see the NY Times Op Ed - that Trump is not a Republican. He is described as a President who has acted contrary to "long held conservative ideals" and it's only a few bright spots, achieved "despite" Trump, not because of him, where good things that conservative Republicans support have happened.....

See - if you take the NY Times OP ED guy at his word, Trump is still hated by the establishment Republicans and is acting contrary to their wishes. If anyone should be supportive of that, it's non-Republicans!

That's a big if Forty Two, taking this anonymous tattler at his, her, or their word.

I'll go with the fact the 88% of the Republicans who voted, voted for Trump. The GOP owns this guy, whether their "establishment" likes it or not.

He's like George McGovern in 1972 that way.

The Republican electorate certainly overwhelmingly supported him, and I would suggest that it's because the electorate are sick of the "long held conservative principles" this op-ed writer is trying to force on the American people, contrary to what the electorate overwhelmingly voted for - which was not that.

Given that only Pappa Bush, thanks to Ross Perot, got less than 80% of Republicans in the last 40 years, it's more likely most voted for Trump because he was the GOP nominee. Straight ticket voting may not be as prevalent as it used to be, but it hasn't gone away in either party.

[Forty Two]

Fair point, but the electorate voted for Trump. They did not vote for "not Trump." They did not vote for "long held conservative values" - Trump is not deviating from what he promised in the campaign. He's fulfilling his promises.

Once again, for the OpEd writer - the anonymous Republican Trump-Thwarting-Protector-of-Democracy - what has Trump done which threatens our Democracy or Democratic institutions? What has this OpEd person "thwarted" or helped thwart which is something other than a policy difference of opinion?

I submit to you that the OpEd writer identified exactly zero examples of those things precisely because there aren't any to give. He's not thwarted Trump from eliminating or destroying some democratic institution and he didn't thwart any impulse or inclination of Trump which posed a danger to democracy.

[Tero]

3 million of the electorate voted for Hillary over Trump. But what you claim did happen, only the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, an 18th century relic, voted for Trump.

[laklak]

Well, technically nobody except the electoral college votes for the president and vice-president. Whether that's good of bad is a matter of opinion.

[Brian Peacock]

But you send people to Congress by popular vote don't you?

[laklak]

Yeah, it's only the Prez and Vice that the college elects, the rest are popular vote.

[Brian Peacock]

Who elects the electoral college?

[Svartalf]

everybody, IIRC, they are the guv'ners and other high level elcted state magistrates...

[laklak]

It depends on the state, gets pretty complicated. In some they're appointed, in some the party leadership picks them. There's no national standard.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/ ... ors-232791

It's sort of like the Duckworth-Lewis rule for politics.

[Tero]

Each state, however small, gets a few freebies, the rest are by population
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elector ... ed_States)

[Joe]

Fair point, but the electorate voted for Trump. They did not vote for "not Trump." They did not vote for "long held conservative values" - Trump is not deviating from what he promised in the campaign. He's fulfilling his promises.

Once again, for the OpEd writer - the anonymous Republican Trump-Thwarting-Protector-of-Democracy - what has Trump done which threatens our Democracy or Democratic institutions? What has this OpEd person "thwarted" or helped thwart which is something other than a policy difference of opinion?

I submit to you that the OpEd writer identified exactly zero examples of those things precisely because there aren't any to give. He's not thwarted Trump from eliminating or destroying some democratic institution and he didn't thwart any impulse or inclination of Trump which posed a danger to democracy.

Or he was smart enough to know giving examples increased the risk of being identified, and there was no need for examples anyway, since a 488 page book full of examples and written by a reputable journalist was coming out today.

Now, those two things couldn't be related, could they?