George Will officially left GOP

#52
#52
How can a guy who calls Iraq the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history represent the GOP establishment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#53
#53
People always get their panties in a wad when the electorate goes populist. It happened with Reagan. It happened with Perot. The new face is Donald Trump.

Trump didn't cause this. It was the conservatives that wet the bed in the 2000s when the White House and Congress were in their hands and they botched it royally with more crony politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#54
#54
UTCVol said:
This is anathema to Trump and most of his supporters.
Click to expand...

You're making the same mistake others are. Against Hillary having the opportunity to select 2, 3 or even 4 SCOTUS members is a true nightmare that could undue any legislation a future congress and POTUS might pass. Pass what you want and SCOTUS rules against it for 30 maybe more years and what do you have? This is bigger than many realize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#55
#55
n_huffhines said:
How can a guy who calls Iraq the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history represent the GOP establishment?
Click to expand...

He has fooled then IMO. Mark Levin has a great piece on who Will is. Will despised Reagan and worked HARD against him. Google "George Will cleanse GOP from Reagan". And if you don't think Levin is a small gov conservative then we can't talk politics.
 
#56
#56
ReaderVol said:
You're making the same mistake others are. Against Hillary having the opportunity to select 2, 3 or even 4 SCOTUS members is a true nightmare that could undue any legislation a future congress and POTUS might pass. Pass what you want and SCOTUS rules against it for 30 maybe more years and what do you have? This is bigger than many realize.
Click to expand...

First, I don't have any faith that Trump would appoint liberty-minded judges. We still have no idea what this guy's true beliefs are on almost any subject of importance. I hope he does actually care about small government, but nothing he says has given me that impression.

I'm going to spitball a bit here. If the Trump presidency doesn't go well (and I see no reason to believe it will), the Dems swoop in and save the day. The only reason he even has a prayer this year is because he's facing a pathological liar and criminal, and the Dems won't be as dumb as the GOP was this primary cycle in 2020 and elect someone even more unlikeable. This definitely swings the Senate back to the Dems if it wasn't already there, and probably the House as well. Even if we do believe a justice or two dies (no way anyone willingly retires during a Trump presidency) and Trump appoints conservative judges, the Dems are now set up to take control of the court for the foreseeable future because they have a stranglehold on every branch of government. At this point the GOP is stuck if Trump's policies become party dogma, because there's no way they can win national elections in a nation with rapidly shifting demographics. Even if they disavow Trump it could take a while to rehabilitate the party's image.

Contrast this to Hillary flailing around in office for four years and the GOP probably winning the presidency in 2020 as long as they nominate someone competent. Which scenario is worse long-term? The only downside I can see to the latter is the thought of Hillary replacing Scalia, RBG, and Breyer with younger progressives - and that admittedly is a massive, massive point against my argument IF Trump actually got to appoint justices and if they were actually conservative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#57
#57
UTCVol said:
First, I don't have any faith that Trump would appoint liberty-minded judges. We still have no idea what this guy's true beliefs are on almost any subject of importance. I hope he does actually care about small government, but nothing he says has given me that impression.

I'm going to spitball a bit here. If the Trump presidency doesn't go well (and I see no reason to believe it will), the Dems swoop in and save the day. The only reason he even has a prayer this year is because he's facing a pathological liar and criminal, and the Dems won't be as dumb as the GOP was this primary cycle in 2020 and elect someone even more unlikeable. This definitely swings the Senate back to the Dems if it wasn't already there, and probably the House as well. Even if we do believe a justice or two dies (no way anyone willingly retires during a Trump presidency) and Trump appoints conservative judges, the Dems are now set up to take control of the court for the foreseeable future because they have a stranglehold on every branch of government. At this point the GOP is stuck if Trump's policies become party dogma, because there's no way they can win national elections in a nation with rapidly shifting demographics. Even if they disavow Trump it could take a while to rehabilitate the party's image.

Contrast this to Hillary flailing around in office for four years and the GOP probably winning the presidency in 2020 as long as they nominate someone competent. Which scenario is worse long-term? The only downside I can see to the latter is the thought of Hillary replacing Scalia, RBG, and Breyer with younger progressives - and that admittedly is a massive, massive point against my argument IF Trump actually got to appoint justices and if they were actually conservative.
Click to expand...

There's a strong possibility Thomas retires as well. That's 4 to SCOTUS for the next POTUS. We may not know what Trump will do, we know damned well what Hillary will do. Trump put out a list of possible appointees that is pretty solid.
If Hillary wins it won't matter what the Congress and POTUS does. If the SCOTUS is overwhelming liberal they will overturn any good piece of legislation passed and signed into law for the next 30 plus years. That's the absolute worst scenario IMO. And the likes of George Will don't give a $hit as long as THEY maintain their position. If one doesn't kiss the ring of the establishment they will be vilified by the establishment. Look back to 76 and even 80. Will went after Reagan in both of those elections. Now that POS talks like he and Reagan were buds.
 
#58
#58
ReaderVol said:
There's a strong possibility Thomas retires as well. That's 4 to SCOTUS for the next POTUS. We may not know what Trump will do, we know damned well what Hillary will do. Trump put out a list of possible appointees that is pretty solid.
If Hillary wins it won't matter what the Congress and POTUS does. If the SCOTUS is overwhelming liberal they will overturn any good piece of legislation passed and signed into law for the next 30 plus years. That's the absolute worst scenario IMO. And the likes of George Will don't give a $hit as long as THEY maintain their position. If one doesn't kiss the ring of the establishment they will be vilified by the establishment. Look back to 76 and even 80. Will went after Reagan in both of those elections. Now that POS talks like he and Reagan were buds.
Click to expand...



The list he put out was to try to lure votes from the evangelical wing of the party. He'll probably just put those spots up for sale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#59
#59
UTCVol said:
Contrast this to Hillary flailing around in office for four years and the GOP probably winning the presidency in 2020 as long as they nominate someone competent. Which scenario is worse long-term? The only downside I can see to the latter is the thought of Hillary replacing Scalia, RBG, and Breyer with younger progressives - and that admittedly is a massive, massive point against my argument IF Trump actually got to appoint justices and if they were actually conservative.
Click to expand...
That's nuts. Why would you want to cede control of the executive branch for any reason? The thought of her making agency appointments and executive orders is sickening.
 
#60
#60
GAVol said:
That's nuts. Why would you want to cede control of the executive branch for any reason? The thought of her making agency appointments and executive orders is sickening.
Click to expand...

The thought of either of them making agency appointments and executive orders is sickening. Even more sickening is the idea of the Dems having a mandate in all governmental branches for the foreseeable future after President Trump gets resoundingly booted out of office.

I'm not suggesting they throw the election, nor should they. It seems like Trump is doing a good job of that in his own. I just think the long-term consequences of a Trump presidency would be absolutely catastrophic to the party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
UTCVol said:
The thought of either of them making agency appointments and executive orders is sickening. Even more sickening is the idea of the Dems having a mandate in all governmental branches for the foreseeable future after President Trump gets resoundingly booted out of office.

I'm not suggesting they throw the election, nor should they. It seems like Trump is doing a good job of that in his own. I just think the long-term consequences of a Trump presidency would be absolutely catastrophic to the party.
Click to expand...

Clinton naming 3 or 4 SCOTUS would be catastrophic for the nation.
And agency appointments get changed and orders overturned by Congress. SCOTUS rulings are law and can only be overturned by future SCOTUS which could take more than 3 decades if ever at all. That's the difference and is the real issue here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
I'm basing it on the entirety of his life being about satiating his own greed.
Click to expand...

Was it greed that the Kennedy family made their fortune on illegal booze during prohibition? Or John Kerry marrying a wealthy widow? Or Nancy Pelosi husband making serious coin off of her position or Babs Boxer the same? Ohhhhhhh that's right. Only Repubs are greedy when they make $.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#66
#66
ReaderVol said:
Clinton naming 3 or 4 SCOTUS would be catastrophic for the nation.
And agency appointments get changed and orders overturned by Congress. SCOTUS rulings are law and can only be overturned by future SCOTUS which could take more than 3 decades if ever at all. That's the difference and is the real issue here.
Click to expand...

And I fully agree with that. Scalia's death made the SCOTUS an issue of paramount importance, moreso than it already was. Under my scenario (and it probably is far-fetched) Trump maybe gets two SCOTUS appointments if another justice kicks the bucket. After that, the Dems pick up the scraps and we arrive at the same results. The only way I can see it being a net positive is if all three of RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer kick the bucket during Trump's four years and he is able to appoint relatively young conservative justices (there could very well be a Dem wave in the 2018 midterm, making that a bit more difficult - especially when they follow the GOP's lead and refuse to hold hearings during the last year). That could buy enough time for the party to recover from Trump before the court becomes a huge issue again. However, that's a mighty big "if". No one wants to cede Clinton three justice appointments, but I can't help but think it could be a lot worse.

I honestly see no good way out of this quandary unless Trump proves to not be irreversibly damaging to the GOP. I hope he isn't, but he hasn't given me much faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#67
#67
UTCVol said:
And I fully agree with that. Scalia's death made the SCOTUS an issue of paramount importance, moreso than it already was. Under my scenario (and it probably is far-fetched) Trump maybe gets two SCOTUS appointments if another justice kicks the bucket. After that, the Dems pick up the scraps and we arrive at the same results. The only way I can see it being a net positive is if all three of RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer kick the bucket during Trump's four years and he is able to appoint relatively young conservative justices (there could very well be a Dem wave in the 2018 midterm, making that a bit more difficult - especially when they follow the GOP's lead and refuse to hold hearings during the last year). That could buy enough time for the party to recover from Trump before the court becomes a huge issue again. However, that's a mighty big "if". No one wants to cede Clinton three justice appointments, but I can't help but think it could be a lot worse.

I honestly see no good way out of this quandary unless Trump proves to not be irreversibly damaging to the GOP. I hope he isn't, but he hasn't given me much faith.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake the next POTUS will have at a minimum 3 appointments and if Thomas retires as some expect that's 4. That changes our country for decades and decades.
Trump is not my ideal but he is better than the alternative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#68
#68
ReaderVol said:
He has fooled then IMO. Mark Levin has a great piece on who Will is. Will despised Reagan and worked HARD against him. Google "George Will cleanse GOP from Reagan". And if you don't think Levin is a small gov conservative then we can't talk politics.
Click to expand...

Levin is a fraud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#70
#70
ReaderVol said:
So a guy who worked to get Reagan elected and served in the Reagan admin is a fraud. The guy who worked to "cleanse" the GOP of Reagan is good to go?
Sir you couldn't be more off the mark.
Click to expand...

Not everything positively associated with Reagan is good, and not everything negatively associated with Reagan is bad. The hero worship is incredible until you bring up immigration. Or how Reagan would have treated the Middle East. Levin's position is the opposite of Reagan. Reagan pulled out after Beirut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#71
#71
n_huffhines said:
Not everything positively associated with Reagan is good, and not everything negatively associated with Reagan is bad. The hero worship is incredible until you bring up immigration. Or how Reagan would have treated the Middle East. Levin's position is the opposite of Reagan. Reagan pulled out after Beirut.
Click to expand...

Hero worship? LOL not quite just realistically discussing the facts. Your hero (Will) pulls Reagan's name like a pistol to validate his BS. When in reality he worked to keep Reagan out of office.
Will is an arrogant POS elitist and the more people like him leave the GOP the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#72
#72
n_huffhines said:
Not everything positively associated with Reagan is good, and not everything negatively associated with Reagan is bad. The hero worship is incredible until you bring up immigration. Or how Reagan would have treated the Middle East. Levin's position is the opposite of Reagan. Reagan pulled out after Beirut.
Click to expand...


Reagan ' s success was in staring down the Soviets, and in that he gets a lot of credit.

After that, though, it's just making the GOP feel like they washed away a little of the stain of Nixon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
Reagan ' s success was in staring down the Soviets, and in that he gets a lot of credit.

After that, though, it's just making the GOP feel like they washed away a little of the stain of Nixon.
Click to expand...

Sure, forget all about leading us out of an economic wilderness that the Peanut farmer took us into. Right? Remember the "misery index" during the Carter years? LOL nice try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top