If Trump loses the election, do you think the Republican Party might split up?
M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
beckyromero · 36-40, F
View 6 more replies »
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@CedricH
Sure. But I am erratic at checking messages.
Haven't updated this in a while, but some of my political views are evident here.
https://similarworlds.com/random-subjects/whiteboards/2509132-Index-of-All-My-Stories-and-Questions-The-topics
Sure. But I am erratic at checking messages.
Haven't updated this in a while, but some of my political views are evident here.
https://similarworlds.com/random-subjects/whiteboards/2509132-Index-of-All-My-Stories-and-Questions-The-topics
BohemianBabe · M
My prediction is that they'll try to ditch and replace him like they did last time, but also like last time, he'll try to run again. When he finally dies, they'll start trying to rebrand, but that's going to be a long process. It'll take decades for the party to move away from Trumpism.
CedricH · M
@BohemianBabe
Exactly, and GDP/per capita growth was up rapidly during the 1980s under Reagan compared to the disappointing 1970s. Unemployment was down which, again, helps the poorest the most.
I‘m not arguing about whether or not neoliberalism is far superior to mixed economies or social democracy. Although I‘d love to because it evidently is. The question is merely about that of economic freedom, and when restrictions fall, taxes go down then economic freedom axiomatically goes up. You can bemoan that because it helps industry, or makes rich people richer or because it hurts unions when non-unionized individuals have now a real shot at competing in certain sectors of the economy. But there‘s no doubt that it increases opportunities and the rights of people by helping them to do more of what they‘d like to do.
You have a cartoonishly Marxist view on deregulation and on Reagan. It‘s sad that basic economic literacy eludes you. But I‘m not interested in teaching you econ 101. It would take too long, I‘m just telling you that less interference from the state might not create your desired outcomes but it factually increases the possibilities, flexibility and options for all economic participants. Investors, consumers, employees and employers alike.
There's a difference between overall GDP, and the GDP per capita. China has a huge GDP, but the average worker is poor.
Exactly, and GDP/per capita growth was up rapidly during the 1980s under Reagan compared to the disappointing 1970s. Unemployment was down which, again, helps the poorest the most.
I‘m not arguing about whether or not neoliberalism is far superior to mixed economies or social democracy. Although I‘d love to because it evidently is. The question is merely about that of economic freedom, and when restrictions fall, taxes go down then economic freedom axiomatically goes up. You can bemoan that because it helps industry, or makes rich people richer or because it hurts unions when non-unionized individuals have now a real shot at competing in certain sectors of the economy. But there‘s no doubt that it increases opportunities and the rights of people by helping them to do more of what they‘d like to do.
You have a cartoonishly Marxist view on deregulation and on Reagan. It‘s sad that basic economic literacy eludes you. But I‘m not interested in teaching you econ 101. It would take too long, I‘m just telling you that less interference from the state might not create your desired outcomes but it factually increases the possibilities, flexibility and options for all economic participants. Investors, consumers, employees and employers alike.
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH
So this is a huge mistake people make. It's not enough to just look at who is in office. You also have to look at the policies that caused whatever is happening now.
It's like when Trump says we had record highs when he was president, but now inflation is out of control. Sure, that's technically true. But we had record highs because Trump inherited Obama's economy, then he destroyed it, and then he passed it to Biden. Trump is one of the reasons inflation got so bad.
It's the same thing with Reagan. Don't just look at how things were when he was president, look at the results of his policies. Trickle down economics objectively caused more poverty. Deregulation of the prison industry caused more poverty. Deregulation of colleges cause the student loan crisis.
Conservative Capitalism doesn't just make rich people richer. It also makes poor people poorer, and gives them less worker's rights. Basically, it gatekeeps freedom behind wealth. You can say it's pro-freedom that now a rich business-owner can do whatever they want, but it's not pro-freedom for the workers who now have less rights and less money.
Exactly, and GDP/per capita growth was up rapidly during the 1980s under Reagan compared to the disappointing 1970s. Unemployment was down which, again, helps the poorest the most.
So this is a huge mistake people make. It's not enough to just look at who is in office. You also have to look at the policies that caused whatever is happening now.
It's like when Trump says we had record highs when he was president, but now inflation is out of control. Sure, that's technically true. But we had record highs because Trump inherited Obama's economy, then he destroyed it, and then he passed it to Biden. Trump is one of the reasons inflation got so bad.
It's the same thing with Reagan. Don't just look at how things were when he was president, look at the results of his policies. Trickle down economics objectively caused more poverty. Deregulation of the prison industry caused more poverty. Deregulation of colleges cause the student loan crisis.
You can bemoan that because it helps industry, or makes rich people richer or because it hurts unions when non-unionized individuals have no a shot at competing in certain sectors of the economy. But there‘s no doubt that it increases opportunities and rights of people to do economically.
Conservative Capitalism doesn't just make rich people richer. It also makes poor people poorer, and gives them less worker's rights. Basically, it gatekeeps freedom behind wealth. You can say it's pro-freedom that now a rich business-owner can do whatever they want, but it's not pro-freedom for the workers who now have less rights and less money.
CedricH · M
@BohemianBabe Reagan‘s policies were precisely what made the difference and turned the country around. More trade, less regulation, lower taxes and weaker unions structurally improved US competitiveness, growth and prosperity. Nowadays, and even under Reagan poverty has become a useless term because people talk about relative poverty. And relative poverty automatically rises when some people are more successful than others simply because they are better capable at using the economic freedom that‘s available to them.
Without deregulation, its implausible that so many kids would‘ve even gotten any loan in the first place. Which means lower quality education for them. Again! Economic freedom means the freedom to take risks, to make your own choices and to be more self-reliant. That means people now get the shot at first class higher education but they have to pay for it.
Without deregulation, its implausible that so many kids would‘ve even gotten any loan in the first place. Which means lower quality education for them. Again! Economic freedom means the freedom to take risks, to make your own choices and to be more self-reliant. That means people now get the shot at first class higher education but they have to pay for it.
Confined · 56-60, M
All Democrats are criminals, including Romney. I have no respect for any one that wants to keep these communists in office.
Inflation is the highest its ever been in US history. Food prices are at a historic high. All due to democrats.
National dept. No way possible we can pay it. The interest is one trillion and will be 1.5 trillion soon. Make no mistake we will default because of all the fraudlent spening by Comrad Biden. When we go into default, economic collapse. The US dollar will be worthless. What is the Democrat plan to prevent this?
Inflation is the highest its ever been in US history. Food prices are at a historic high. All due to democrats.
National dept. No way possible we can pay it. The interest is one trillion and will be 1.5 trillion soon. Make no mistake we will default because of all the fraudlent spening by Comrad Biden. When we go into default, economic collapse. The US dollar will be worthless. What is the Democrat plan to prevent this?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
I'm not a republican, I'm a conservative though.
Republicans won't split up. Neo-Cons already left the party, and joijed the Democrats. They will try to make a bid for taking party leadership again, but will be as successful as a fiscal conservative Democrat from 30 years ago making a bid to retake the Democrats- they are no longer a part of that.
The republicans returned back to their populist roots (that's what Abraham Lincoln was). Many know now they have a winning forumla, and shifted the base of society towards them (blue collar workers and unions). The bulk of the Republicans will cater to this for the next two generations at least, just like how Democrats pretended to be pro Union and pro-working man for two generations. They are more evenly split right now, but momentum is clearly on the republican side in this flip.
You are more likely to see the Democrats split in a much longer term as they settle down in core regional metropolitan areas and stop trying to be a nation wide party. When Trump was first elected the Democrats lost all their state level seats in Kansas (or maybe Oklahoma, fuzzy memory). They didn't get a office holder until the mid term elections. I think you will increasingly see this trend open up over the next few decades where Democrats simply put will not get elected in some states and will cease to be there. You'll just have more liberal republicans and more robust third parties in these states.
These regional democratic strongholds might very well begin to differ in outlook, but I think they will all pretend to be oke big democratic party in order to maintain a national coalition in congress.
Republicans won't split up. Neo-Cons already left the party, and joijed the Democrats. They will try to make a bid for taking party leadership again, but will be as successful as a fiscal conservative Democrat from 30 years ago making a bid to retake the Democrats- they are no longer a part of that.
The republicans returned back to their populist roots (that's what Abraham Lincoln was). Many know now they have a winning forumla, and shifted the base of society towards them (blue collar workers and unions). The bulk of the Republicans will cater to this for the next two generations at least, just like how Democrats pretended to be pro Union and pro-working man for two generations. They are more evenly split right now, but momentum is clearly on the republican side in this flip.
You are more likely to see the Democrats split in a much longer term as they settle down in core regional metropolitan areas and stop trying to be a nation wide party. When Trump was first elected the Democrats lost all their state level seats in Kansas (or maybe Oklahoma, fuzzy memory). They didn't get a office holder until the mid term elections. I think you will increasingly see this trend open up over the next few decades where Democrats simply put will not get elected in some states and will cease to be there. You'll just have more liberal republicans and more robust third parties in these states.
These regional democratic strongholds might very well begin to differ in outlook, but I think they will all pretend to be oke big democratic party in order to maintain a national coalition in congress.
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Captainjackass · 31-35, M
Naw he’ll do a repeat of before. Try to overthrow democracy with another crowd of losers and then insist the election was stolen and threaten everyone who disagrees with him.
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
I don't think they will split as a party cause that would be the end of them if they did. There will still be just one Republican party though it might have split factions inside it.
1490wayb · 56-60, M
hopefully it will return to normal and no longer worship him
My vote is an optimistic one. I hope it does.
legalboxers · M
the Cult base will go down like Jim Jones...
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
If Trump loses the USA will split up.
Bill1372 · 51-55, M
@hippyjoe1955 only one half will be capable of defending itself. That same half will be working. The other half will be busy giving everything to migrants and failing miserably
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
People have been expecting the republican party to implode for decades now, but it hasn't. There will likely be a power struggle internally but they'll find a way to move back into lockstep. For all of the policy disagreements and moral differences I share with Republicans, I've always been impressed by the effectiveness of their party apparatus to unify action. They might take a hit for a small period of time as they reorganize, but I don't doubt that they will reorganize.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@ViciDraco
Trump hasn't been a political issue for decades, so what you're saying here about the Republican Party wanting to implode for decades is utter nonsense.
The Republican Party of the USA no longer exists as it once did for decades.
What you have now is the Trump Party, which is no longer made up of traditional American, Constitutional Republicans.
Trump hasn't been a political issue for decades, so what you're saying here about the Republican Party wanting to implode for decades is utter nonsense.
The Republican Party of the USA no longer exists as it once did for decades.
What you have now is the Trump Party, which is no longer made up of traditional American, Constitutional Republicans.
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
@swirlie It isn't nonsense. I never stated Trump was the sole reason for implosion predictions. My point was that implosion predictions preceded Trump and that I don't view Trump as existentially different to the party.
People speculated the Republicans would fall apart when Obama beat McCain, again when he beat Romney, and some even began during Bush second term after the 'war on terror' honeymoon phase started wearing off.
The Republicans post Obama did become fairly different though. A lot of the old guard were run out by "Tea Party Republicans" the same way many have been run out by Trumpists.
If Trump loses power, it will reform. I don't know exactly what shape that reformation would take, but given the current base I imagine it will continue to be surrounding some form of 'owning the libs'. Probably continue culture war focus.
People speculated the Republicans would fall apart when Obama beat McCain, again when he beat Romney, and some even began during Bush second term after the 'war on terror' honeymoon phase started wearing off.
The Republicans post Obama did become fairly different though. A lot of the old guard were run out by "Tea Party Republicans" the same way many have been run out by Trumpists.
If Trump loses power, it will reform. I don't know exactly what shape that reformation would take, but given the current base I imagine it will continue to be surrounding some form of 'owning the libs'. Probably continue culture war focus.
swirlie · 31-35, F
No, because the old Republican Party doesn't exist anymore in America, which means that something that doesn't exist cannot be split into separate parts.
The Republican Party is now known as the Trump Party, which I don't say with derogatory intent or malice, but more as an acknowledgement of basic fact which surrounds America's current political status as a Democratic Republic.
The Republican Party is now known as the Trump Party, which I don't say with derogatory intent or malice, but more as an acknowledgement of basic fact which surrounds America's current political status as a Democratic Republic.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@CedricH
What I've learned about "repeated failure" in my own life is that if I keep doing the same thing the same way each time and I end up with the same result each time I do it, but I expect a different outcome each time I try to do it the same way, then I have fulfilled the definition of insanity, having no recourse if the Doctors in white coats finally come to take me away ha ha, to the funny farm.
The more often a political party tries to create an identity for itself but fails at every attempt to establish the integrity of who it is and what it's all about, the less credibility the masses at large will assign to that Party for the same reasons given in my first paragraph.
What I've learned about "repeated failure" in my own life is that if I keep doing the same thing the same way each time and I end up with the same result each time I do it, but I expect a different outcome each time I try to do it the same way, then I have fulfilled the definition of insanity, having no recourse if the Doctors in white coats finally come to take me away ha ha, to the funny farm.
The more often a political party tries to create an identity for itself but fails at every attempt to establish the integrity of who it is and what it's all about, the less credibility the masses at large will assign to that Party for the same reasons given in my first paragraph.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment