Trump and the Failure of the Republican Party

[Revoltingest]

Holy vomit-inducer, Batman!!

Must...not...think of Hillary...in tights...

Think of the cape instead.

 

[esmith]

From what I've seen, and have heard from Veterans, Republicans are really only pro-veteran while they are active duty and shooting at people while being shot at. Once they come back home, the support seems to plummet, especially from Republican politicians.

Excuse me, I don't think you have been around long enough to make that statement and blame only Republicans. Ask some Vietnam veterans, or as a matter of fact any veteran what they think of the majority of politicians of all strips.

 

[Laika]

I think blaming republicans for trump is the sort of exercise in futility that will largely hand the presidency to the remnants of the Republican Party that support trump. The democrats have to build a strong cross-party consensus that trump does not and should not represent America. The wealthy republican elite and the more centrist republicans need- for this election- to be convinced to vote democrat to make it a safe victory.

Saying trump is bad is one thing: getting people to vote for Clinton so trump doesn't win is quite another. But Clinton has almost nothing really to offer and it's quite possible that trumps ability to keep the spotlight, make a lot of noise and stir up controversy could win him the election. Laughing at republicans who thought "trump can't happen" is of a magnitude of complacency that a Clinton campaign practically dares and invites people to vote trump out of anti-establishment spite.

The problem of course is that Clinton is not discernibly much better than trump in many areas so the big factor in this election will be voter turnout- not which candidate is best for the American people. They are both awful: the difference is one of them knows how to play a crowd. The republican establishment lost and that should really be a wake up call to the democrat establishment that this is not business as usual. They seem to not have even grasped how far realities have gone off script and that a stage managed performance won't be as persuasive as a buffoon who can get away with almost anything in front of a camera.

When U.S. Presidential elections have been reduced to a popularity contest the reality TV host could win this pretty easily because we've grown use to not taking politics seriously. We are not used to hearing people stand in front of a camera and humble themselves, with all their flaws, weaknesses and vulnerabilities, in the courage of their convictions in a way that makes politicans appear "human".

We are too used to being cynical that we are indifferent to the ideals that may be worth fighting for and we have to break through that hostility-whether it is out in the open in a trump rally or hidden in the rationalisations for voter apathy. I haven't seen Clinton do that and ask Americans to swallow pride for what remains of the good of their country and ask them what they really want America to stand for. Having a "human" moment and breaking from the establishment script for it then to be repeated on a news cycle could win it for Hillary (as it works for Obama who- whatever his policies- can play an audience with great skill and knows the power of rhetoric to make people swallow hard truths.) emotions trump facts in a media age and that is the power of the media to decide the election. as long as the democrats think they will win before the votes have been cast,Trump will win because he's more entertaining on TV whilst the opponent will look "arrogant" for dismissing "their" issues and not taking the people who want to vote trump seriously.

people may mistakenly believe that is a measure of personality to hold high office and decide who to vote for on that basis. Trump makes headlines and his popularity in this election will be in danger of becomeing a self-fulfilling prophesy by repetition. I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't put it past the voters to elect a clown because they feel so trapped and hopeless that they have reached the conclusion that nothing else will cheer them up than to embarrass an office which they have come to hold in deep contempt.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Excuse me, I don't think you have been around long enough to make that statement and blame only Republicans. Ask some Vietnam veterans, or as a matter of fact any veteran what they think of the majority of politicians of all strips.

Vietnam happened awhile ago. What I've seen is Republicans claiming to be pro-military, but yet at the same time cutting benefits for troops and their families.

 

[esmith]

Vietnam happened awhile ago. What I've seen is Republicans claiming to be pro-military, but yet at the same time cutting benefits for troops and their families.

Let me ask you a question.
Which party is very supportive of unions? Give you a hint...Democrats
What appears to be the major problem with the VA system? Give you a hint....it isn't the doctors and nurses
Why can't those administrators that are not doing their jobs be fired? Give you a hint....unions

Can you tell me what benefits have been cut for active duty personnel and their families?
I'll give you one point for benefits being cut for retired personnel and their families and that was the TRICARE program.
And your statement "Vietnam happened awhile ago" is typical of a certain thought process.and that is "don't confuse me with facts when they run contrary to the point being put forward.
I've been associated with the military since 1961 and I can tell you flat out that the majority of politicians only care about the active duty military, retired military, and veterans when it is time to get re-elected.
Your above statement is totally predicated on your very short time being aware of the political process in this country.

 

[Altfish]

What is wrong with unions?
If someone isn't doing their job, you can sack people - at least you can in the UK, I can't imagine that US laws are more restrictive, but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is wrong with unions?
If someone isn't doing their job, you can sack people - at least you can in the UK, I can't imagine that US laws are more restrictive, but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

Here, unions are often about minimizing work done, maximizing the number of workers, & blindness to making their employers less competitive.
I've seen it first hand in the auto industry & construction.
At GM Truck & Bus, I signed on to design a radical new heavy truck air brake control system.
When we reached the phase of building a mock-up, management first advised me to not
wake up workers sleeping on my job. There were some good workers (especially the machinists),
but the union protected the goof offs & layabouts.

 

[metis]

Let me ask you a question.
Which party is very supportive of unions? Give you a hint...Democrats
What appears to be the major problem with the VA system? Give you a hint....it isn't the doctors and nurses
Why can't those administrators that are not doing their jobs be fired? Give you a hint....unions

Can you tell me what benefits have been cut for active duty personnel and their families?
I'll give you one point for benefits being cut for retired personnel and their families and that was the TRICARE program.
And your statement "Vietnam happened awhile ago" is typical of a certain thought process.and that is "don't confuse me with facts when they run contrary to the point being put forward.
I've been associated with the military since 1961 and I can tell you flat out that the majority of politicians only care about the active duty military, retired military, and veterans when it is time to get re-elected.
Your above statement is totally predicated on your very short time being aware of the political process in this country.

What you appear to conveniently forget is that it is the Pubs that have been consistent with pushing and passing cuts that affect the VA. My father was in the Battle Creek V.A. for two years, and I talked with one of the directors there that was , let's say, not happy with the cuts that were being pushed and passed by mostly Pubs.

Secondly, to blame unions for this is actually one of your better jokes. Throughout the senior care system, including private care, the hands-on workers tend to be underpaid, therefore turnovers and inept hirees are commonplace. My father received far better treatment at the VA than he did at two private nursing homes that he had stayed in previously. When my father passed away (he had Alzheimers), my sister and I sent a large tray of nuts and goodies to the VA workers with a very nice note thanking them for their dedication and service. BTW, we never told the VA when we were coming, so there was no "show" that they prepared for us.

Sorry to break another one of your stereotypes.

 

[Underhill]

Here, unions are often about minimizing work done, maximizing the number of workers, & blindness to making their employers less competitive.
I've seen it first hand in the auto industry & construction.
At GM Truck & Bus, I signed on to design a radical new heavy truck air brake control system.
When we reached the phase of building a mock-up, management first advised me to not
wake up workers sleeping on my job. There were some good workers (especially the machinists),
but the union protected the goof offs & layabouts.

I work with a non union shop and if it's better, it's a marginal improvement.

The world would be a better place if the republicans stopped trying to destroy unions and started working to fix them. The notion that unions are evil and need to be destroyed is every bit as harmful to workers as those who claim unions are a panacea of manufacturing bliss while watching companies become noncompetitive.

 

[Revoltingest]

I work with a non union shop and if it's better, it's a marginal improvement.

The world would be a better place if the republicans stopped trying to destroy unions and started working to fix them. The notion that unions are evil and need to be destroyed is every bit as harmful to workers as those who claim unions are a panacea of manufacturing bliss while watching companies become noncompetitive.

I can't speak for Republicans, but I don't see unions as necessarily evil.
It's a balance of power between unions, business & consumers....one
which shifts over time.
I don't see that Pubs ever wanted to "destroy" unions (leftish histrionics).
But they did want to curb excessive union power, & that I can agree with.

 

[Underhill]

I can't speak for Republicans, but I don't see unions as necessarily evil.
It's a balance of power between unions, business & consumers....one
which shifts over time.
I don't see that Pubs ever wanted to "destroy" unions (leftish histrionics).
But the did want to curb excessive union power, & that I can agree with.

Sure, they want to curb union power by making them completely toothless. Thus destroying unions.

It is the traditional two party problem. One side is in denial that there is a problem, the other blows the problem out of proportion and attacks like a rabid dog. The results are such that in some states, the unions are out of control, and in others they barely exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, they want to curb union power by making them completely toothless. Thus destroying unions.

Pish posh!
Paranoia.

It is the traditional two party problem. One side is in denial that there is a problem, the other blows the problem out of proportion and attacks like a rabid dog.

Each side thinks the other is the rabid dog.
I just see 2 sides fighting with each other.
There will be varying degrees of both merit & wrong on both sides.

The results are such that in some states, the unions are out of control, and in others they barely exist.

I see this as a good thing.
Everyone can learn from seeing different results from different systems.

 

[Underhill]

Pish posh!
Paranoia.

Each side thinks the other is the rabid dog.
I just see 2 sides fighting with each other.
There will be varying degrees of both merit & wrong on both sides.

I see this as a good thing.
Everyone can learn from seeing different results from different systems.

You think anyone bothers to learn? Really? I mean we see this in issue after issue and rarely, if ever, do I see any real learning take place. If so you would see these sorts of issues gradually mediate to the ideal. I can't think of many examples of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

You think anyone bothers to learn? Really?

Note that I did say "can learn".
Some won't, but some will.

I mean we see this in issue after issue and rarely, if ever, do I see any real learning take place. If so you would see these sorts of issues gradually mediate to the ideal. I can't think of many examples of that.

Let me show you this brief documentary on learning.....

 

[metis]

Unions are like any other kind of organization-- they ain't all the same, nor do they have the same power or lack thereof.

Over 71 years, I've worked many jobs, some with unions and some without, and I'll take the former over the latter at least most of the time.

For people committed to democracy, they should be pro-union because unions work on a democratic model with elections that can be monitored by the fed under federal law. They also serve to represent those who otherwise have little voice in their employment, and also they are much responsible for the emergence of the middle class historically.

But business owners and CEO's tend to not like unions because it's so much more convenient and self-serving for them to operate from a dictatorial or oligarchical paradigm. These these tend to be more efficient, but they also tend to be more susceptible to illegal practices because there is no union oversight. And, needless to say, workers can be harassed, besides often working under low wages and poor working conditions.

Now, what you'll probably see in response to above is the charge of "union thugs", which sometimes was indeed a problem in the past, but we no longer live at the time when labor and business were pretty much at war with one another. Also, those who bring up "union thugs" tend to somehow forget to mention "goon squads" that some business owners used, and we saw that first hand here in s.e. Michigan with the companies hiring these people, including their rather infamous actions at the G.M. Flint assembly plant and the U.S. Tire & Rubber Company that one of my grandfathers worked and witnessed for himself.

So, I guess I'll go with advocating a democracy paradigm, and it'll be interesting to see how some may respond to justifying their dictatorial or oligarchical paradigm. Stay tuned.

 

[Acim]

"Opinion: How the GOP scammed its voters … and created Trump"

Fascinating read by billionaire venture capitalist and political activist, Nick Hanauer. Please discuss!

It's hard to read such a biased piece and then discuss it, without bringing up the bias.

To me, the crisis brought up here is observable all the way around, but less discernible if you filter it only one way. Like the recent polls showing 3% of people (surveyed in Nebraska) saying the party is united, thus leading to implication that 97% of all Republicans (everywhere) think it is not united. Great fodder for the other side, but same polls that day showed that if Bernie doesn't get nomination for Dems, then among Democrat voters, 37% of them say they would vote for Trump over Hillary, and around 20% said they'd vote for neither. That strikes me as pretty alarming, or crisis type stuff, but I'm pretty sure that will be downplayed while the not united thing is seen as BFD.

I personally don't get why some minorities support Dems when it is rather observable that things haven't gotten significantly better even when a minority representative is POTUS. That crisis seems way overdue, but instead it seems like sheep are great for maintaining an ineffective status quo.

 

[esmith]

What you appear to conveniently forget is that it is the Pubs that have been consistent with pushing and passing cuts that affect the VA. My father was in the Battle Creek V.A. for two years, and I talked with one of the directors there that was , let's say, not happy with the cuts that were being pushed and passed by mostly Pubs.

Secondly, to blame unions for this is actually one of your better jokes. Throughout the senior care system, including private care, the hands-on workers tend to be underpaid, therefore turnovers and inept hirees are commonplace. My father received far better treatment at the VA than he did at two private nursing homes that he had stayed in previously. When my father passed away (he had Alzheimers), my sister and I sent a large tray of nuts and goodies to the VA workers with a very nice note thanking them for their dedication and service. BTW, we never told the VA when we were coming, so there was no "show" that they prepared for us.

Sorry to break another one of your stereotypes.

Again we seem to be having a problem on this forum and that is reading comprehension. Let me reiterate what I posted.
What appears to be the major problem with the VA system? Give you a hint....it isn't the doctors and nurses
Why can't those administrators that are not doing their jobs be fired? Give you a hint....unions

Do I not specifically say that it isn't the doctors and nurses (basically those in direct contact with the veteran) that are the problem.
Have you not been keeping up with the problems? Guess not, because it is the administrators that are the problem and they are unionized. How many of those administrators have been fired that was found to be "gun-decking" the reports?

 

[Wirey]

Here, unions are often about minimizing work done, maximizing the number of workers, & blindness to making their employers less competitive.
I've seen it first hand in the auto industry & construction.
At GM Truck & Bus, I signed on to design a radical new heavy truck air brake control system.
When we reached the phase of building a mock-up, management first advised me to not
wake up workers sleeping on my job. There were some good workers (especially the machinists),
but the union protected the goof offs & layabouts.

Those days are pretty much over. We're a union company and I can fire someone for sleeping or not working pretty much any time I want. That said, it has been my experience that union made products take a little longer, and work far better, while non-union shops move faster but require more rework. A generalization, true, but overall true.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those days are pretty much over. We're a union company and I can fire someone for sleeping or not working pretty much any time I want. That said, it has been my experience that union made products take a little longer, and work far better, while non-union shops move faster but require more rework. A generalization, true, but overall true.

Progress.....good.
Things were particularly bad at GM in the 70s & 80s.

 

[esmith]

Those days are pretty much over. We're a union company and I can fire someone for sleeping or not working pretty much any time I want. That said, it has been my experience that union made products take a little longer, and work far better, while non-union shops move faster but require more rework. A generalization, true, but overall true.

So you are taking one example and then applying that to all unions. Correct?
Fine let's try and apply that to something else.
Chicago has a democrat as mayor so what happens there using your hypothesis would imply that all large cities governed by a mayor who is a democrat is identical
Murder rate in Chicago has increased by 72% over this time last year. Source
Doesn't look to good for cities with democrats as mayor does it.

Now I have worked for 4 different high-tech companies of which none were unionized. ( product line of first company purchased by the follow-on companies) At each company union rep's tried to unionize us and were told by the employees to take a hike. It has been my experience that non-union shops make products that take a little longer to get out the door to insure quality control , and work far better than products made in union shops. A generalization, but in all aspects true.