Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sunnymentoaddict

Mark Sanford is running for President.

Recommended Posts

Some former politician, who does not hold any moral high-ground compared to Trump when it comes his own private life (''hiking'', ''Appalachian Trail''....) really thinks he is the right man to unseat the president? 

Joe Cunningham will relax now. That's the only real impact of this decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Some former politician, who does not hold any moral high-ground compared to Trump when it comes his own private life (''hiking'', ''Appalachian Trail''....) really thinks he is the right man to unseat the president? 

Joe Cunningham will relax now. That's the only real impact of this decision.

Yeah, whats funny is that the Charleston County GoP tried courting Sanford to run for the House; because Cunningham did well in areas that Sanford traditionally did well in(the suburban areas such as Mount Pleasant and John/James Island).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Yeah, whats funny is that the Charleston County GoP tried courting Sanford to run for the House; because Cunningham did well in areas that Sanford traditionally did well in(the suburban areas such as Mount Pleasant and John/James Island).

Even if Sanford wants to establish himself as the opposite of Trump, a house seat would have been better for him. He has a realistic chance to get it. His chances for the presidency are not existent imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Even if Sanford wants to establish himself as the opposite of Trump, a house seat would have been better for him. He has a realistic chance to get it. His chances for the presidency are not existent imho.

Well, in a zeitgeist where people thought about their votes and the policies and what candidates were REALLY saying and how realistic their promises REALLY were and how they REALLY sounded, Trump should have had a non-existent chance to be elected in the first place. But we are in a zeitgeist where, as some old poet whose name I can't remember, once said, "where fools, swindlers, vagabonds, beggars, and thieves can become kings."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non of the republicans challenging Trump right now have any shot. They are too unknown and don't have a clear message for the GOP to jump ship and go to them. Weld is too moderate for them, Sanford has his own issues, and Walsh seems to agree with Trump's policies but just doesn't agree with his language.

Kasich would have been the best chance at making some noise. He's an established member of the party, lasted pretty far in 2016, and while he's still conservative, disagrees with the extreme positions of Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MysteryKnight said:

Non of the republicans challenging Trump right now have any shot. They are too unknown and don't have a clear message for the GOP to jump ship and go to them. Weld is too moderate for them, Sanford has his own issues, and Walsh seems to agree with Trump's policies but just doesn't agree with his language.

Kasich would have been the best chance at making some noise. He's an established member of the party, lasted pretty far in 2016, and while he's still conservative, disagrees with the extreme positions of Trump. 

Kasich didn't win a single state except his own -- and speaking as an Ohio resident who did this myself, he only won Ohio because it's an open primary state.  Democrats skipped their own primary to vote in the Republican one in an effort to stop Trump.  Kasich has no more of a future in the Republican party than the rest of the challengers have.  

While @Patine is absolutely correct that Trump represents NONE of the values that the Republican Party used to profess -- Donald Trump IS the Republican Party now.  Not because Trump changed, of course -- but because the Republican Party has.

Donald Trump did not become a Republican -- but Republicans became Donald Trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Kasich didn't win a single state except his own -- and speaking as an Ohio resident who did this myself, he only won Ohio because it's an open primary state.  Democrats skipped their own primary to vote in the Republican one in an effort to stop Trump.  Kasich has no more of a future in the Republican party than the rest of the challengers have.  

While @Patine is absolutely correct that Trump represents NONE of the values that the Republican Party used to profess -- Donald Trump IS the Republican Party now.  Not because Trump changed, of course -- but because the Republican Party has.

Donald Trump did not become a Republican -- but Republicans became Donald Trump.

 

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Kasich didn't win a single state except his own -- and speaking as an Ohio resident who did this myself, he only won Ohio because it's an open primary state.  Democrats skipped their own primary to vote in the Republican one in an effort to stop Trump.  Kasich has no more of a future in the Republican party than the rest of the challengers have.  

While @Patine is absolutely correct that Trump represents NONE of the values that the Republican Party used to profess -- Donald Trump IS the Republican Party now.  Not because Trump changed, of course -- but because the Republican Party has.

Donald Trump did not become a Republican -- but Republicans became Donald Trump.

 

 

22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Exactly

Oh, did the GOP party executive adopt "the Leader Principal," one of the defining features of parties that are Fascist by definition (as opposed to ones that are just perjoratively called such) at some binding convention on party rules that I was unaware of? I must have missed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

 

Oh, did the GOP party executive adopt "the Leader Principal," one of the defining features of parties that are Fascist by definition (as opposed to ones that are just perjoratively called such) at some binding convention on party rules that I was unaware of? I must have missed that.

Their registered voters are the determiners. Something like 89% want Trump over an establishment Republican. In this debate, I have to side with @Actinguy . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Their registered voters are the determiners. Something like 89% want Trump over an establishment Republican. In this debate, I have to side with @Actinguy . 

But Trump has no significant challengers in this Primary. Is this the analog of "clinical depression" and "self-destructive behaviour" before "committing suicide" for a political party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

But Trump has no significant challengers in this Primary. Is this the analog of "clinical depression" and "self-destructive behaviour" before "committing suicide" for a political party?

They’ve had hypothetical polls (“other”) and things like that. For whatever reason Trump has infested the GOP and it’s basically entirely his party. It’s a cult now. But even then there are reluctant Trump supporters that see him as the only one to beat Dems. If Dems crush Trump in 2020 then they can rebuild. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

They’ve had hypothetical polls (“other”) and things like that. For whatever reason Trump has infested the GOP and it’s basically entirely his party. It’s a cult now. But even then there are reluctant Trump supporters that see him as the only one to beat Dems. If Dems crush Trump in 2020 then they can rebuild. 

So, what happens to the Grand Ol' Party of Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan when Trump is out of the White House, and no longer eligible for any re-election? This is the potential "party suicide," in the long-term, I'm referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

So, what happens to the Grand Ol' Party of Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan when Trump is out of the White House, and no longer eligible for any re-election? This is the potential "party suicide," in the long-term, I'm referring to.

Nikki Haley, Dan Crenshaw, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Liz Cheney, Ben Sasse, Joni Ernst, Steve Scalise, and others all still exist. The party isn't just going to implode because of Trump. I know right now it seems like the party is very short sighted, and you like to think long term, but the party it self is thinking long term. That's why nobody prominent is running against Trump. Win or lose the party can recover from a Trump presidency, which I know sounds crazy, but they can. Just like with Nixon the party recovered. Hell if Trump wins re-election, I genuinely would not be surprised one bit if we have President Pence from Trump either resigning or getting impeached, and thus the process of 'recovering' from Trump begins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Patine said:

So, what happens to the Grand Ol' Party of Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan when Trump is out of the White House, and no longer eligible for any re-election? This is the potential "party suicide," in the long-term, I'm referring to.

The Party of Lincoln died with Hayes (who abandoned the Civil Rights focus). The party of McKinley died with Roosevelt, or Harding and Coolidge, both who were quasi-isolationists. The party of Roosevelt died with Harding and Coolidge too. The party of Eisenhower died with Goldwater's nomination. The party of Reagan died with Trump. Likewise, the party of Trump will die in 2020 if he's defeated. Presidents that are defeated for reelection don't have a lasting influence on the party. The next GOP might be the party of Haley, Cotton, Crenshaw, Cruz, Rubio, but I hope it's the party of Baker and Hogan (not Hulk). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Kasich didn't win a single state except his own -- and speaking as an Ohio resident who did this myself, he only won Ohio because it's an open primary state.  Democrats skipped their own primary to vote in the Republican one in an effort to stop Trump.  Kasich has no more of a future in the Republican party than the rest of the challengers have.  

While @Patine is absolutely correct that Trump represents NONE of the values that the Republican Party used to profess -- Donald Trump IS the Republican Party now.  Not because Trump changed, of course -- but because the Republican Party has.

Donald Trump did not become a Republican -- but Republicans became Donald Trump.

 

what exactly represent republicans in politicans,issues,etc for yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

But Trump has no significant challengers in this Primary. Is this the analog of "clinical depression" and "self-destructive behaviour" before "committing suicide" for a political party?

but this not are good for you if suppose happens? ?? since you want end of bipartisan in USA for example 4 partys in country one more right wing one more center right,centrist and for left one more center left and another leftwing/progressist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, victorraiders said:

but this not are good for you if suppose happens? ?? since you want end of bipartisan in USA for example 4 partys in country one more right wing one more center right,centrist and for left one more center left and another leftwing/progressist

Oh, I would like to see a multi-party system with ideologically organic parties, not forced coalitions tearing themselves apart at the seams under the surface. But for such a vaunted goal, the relic of the Founder Fathers' contempt and distrust for the common voter and (originally) to keep the Slave States from seceding before the Constitution was even ratified with them - the Electoral College  - would have to go and help move the U.S. electoral system into the more times enjoyed by many other First World Nations, instead of lagging behind, resting on their laurels from a day when their Constitution was the most innovative and workable in the world, and face the fact it isn't any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Patine said:

Oh, I would like to see a multi-party system with ideologically organic parties, not forced coalitions tearing themselves apart at the seams under the surface. But for such a vaunted goal, the relic of the Founder Fathers' contempt and distrust for the common voter and (originally) to keep the Slave States from seceding before the Constitution was even ratified with them - the Electoral College  - would have to go and help move the U.S. electoral system into the more times enjoyed by many other First World Nations, instead of lagging behind, resting on their laurels from a day when their Constitution was the most innovative and workable in the world, and face the fact it isn't any more.

but don't need break electoral college to this, well the majority o first world countrys electoral system force coalitions, the another way are one 2nd round if these things of break bipartisan happen and will force party to negotiate with senate,congress supposedly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, victorraiders said:

but don't need break electoral college to this, well the majority o first world countrys electoral system force coalitions, the another way are one 2nd round if these things of break bipartisan happen and will force party to negotiate with senate,congress supposedly

Bipartisanship in the United States is becoming rarer and rarer, and, when it does occur, usually is around irreprehensible and indefensible things like foreign wars to enrich resource, contracting, and arms corporations (and lie about the reasons thoroughly), send money and arms to foreign "allies" who commit war crimes and atrocities, utilize government-funded terrorist groups like the CIA, pass blatant and gross violations of Constitutional law like the Patriot Act, or screw over taxpayers by favouring the rich and big corporations in terms of tax break, bailing out big banks at the taxpayers' expense, and other awful things like that. These have been what has been typical of "bipartisan" legislation in the 21st Century. So, if it means the government making themselves high-level criminals to do so, I'd rather skip "bipartisanship" in the U.S., frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Who

Is there a context connect to that question without quotes? It could be asked of several previous posts, in some cases, of several different parts of some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Is there a context connect to that question without quotes? It could be asked of several previous posts, in some cases, of several different parts of some.

I believe he's (perhaps jokingly) referring to Sanford.

@ThePotatoWalrus  You remember Sanford.  The Governor who claimed he was going on a hike but disappeared for days...even his wife and children feared he was dead.  Turns out he was in Argentina with his mistress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I believe he's (perhaps jokingly) referring to Sanford.

@ThePotatoWalrus  You remember Sanford.  The Governor who claimed he was going on a hike but disappeared for days...even his wife and children feared he was dead.  Turns out he was in Argentina with his mistress.

So he's John McAfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

So he's John McAfee

No, he's Mark Sanford. That's another really annoying, stupid zeitgeist thing today too. Saying someone IS ACTUALLY someone else outright, because of one or several similarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...