Kristen Gillibrand announces Presidential campaign on the Late Show.

[Ralin]

You claim to loathe Trump, but remains a Republican? How odd.

There are only two real parties, so by necessity they both cover a lot of conflicting opinions and blocs.

Which doesn't mean that being a Republican doesn't make you a bad person, but it's not at all implausible.

[SCRawl]

You claim to loathe Trump, but remains a Republican? How odd.

It is perfectly consistent for a person, however misguided they are, to identify with the core principles of a political party without endorsing or preferring that party's nominal leader, especially when you consider that that leader is chosen by those least informed among the electorate.

[The Romulan Republic]

But what ARE the core principles of the Republican Party, at this point, other than lockstep allegiance to Donald Trump?

[SCRawl]

But what ARE the core principles of the Republican Party, at this point, other than lockstep allegiance to Donald Trump?

I think that most Republicans would suggest that smaller government, decreased regulation, and a stronger emphasis on States' rights are the main planks of their party. All the other policies flow from these. Donald Trump just happens to be the president (and therefore the nominal leader of the party); some of his actions are clearly in line with these principles, but many of his actions are just either naked corruption or crazy pants.

Keep in mind that I am not a Republican (or even an American), so if the Republicans in this thread have a more accurate description for the party's core principles I would be glad to know them.

[TimothyC]

I think that most Republicans would suggest that smaller government, decreased regulation, and a stronger emphasis on States' rights are the main planks of their party. All the other policies flow from these. Donald Trump just happens to be the president (and therefore the nominal leader of the party); some of his actions are clearly in line with these principles, but many of his actions are just either naked corruption or crazy pants.

Keep in mind that I am not a Republican (or even an American), so if the Republicans in this thread have a more accurate description for the party's core principles I would be glad to know them.

I don't purport to speak for other republicans, but I believe in an overwhelming military capability but high levels of self control in exercising it. I believe in budgetary self control in good times and bad so that we have room to work when the bad times get really bad. I believe in a strong space program as a part of targeted research spending (because some things like high energy physics don't have direct paths to monetization, but the capacity to build Tevatron cut the price of magnets for MRI machines). I believe in federalism, and running government programs at the level closest to the people they can be reasonably run at so that people have a greater say in how things are run (and because what works in Massachusetts isn't always what works in Wyoming). I believe in simplifying and rationalizing government regulations so that they are clear and easy to follow, but cracking down on those that break the regulations.

That's what I believe in, and I'd say that Federalism, limited regulation, and military strength are probably the core ideas of the republican party.

[The Romulan Republic]

All of which is all well and fine- I agree with at best half of that list, but those are views of a reasonable person who Democrats could work with. But if you're referring to the contemporary Republican Party, and you're not including "loyalty to the party over country or principle" and "maintaining the cultural dominance of white Christian men" as core values, you're kidding yourself.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I don't purport to speak for other republicans, but I believe in an overwhelming military capability...

The Republicans agree with that.

...but high levels of self control in exercising it.

I spoke too soon, nevermind.

I believe in budgetary self control in good times and bad so that we have room to work when the bad times get really bad.

I hope you've paid enough attention they only make mouth noises about this and don't actually practice it.

I believe in a strong space program as a part of targeted research spending (because some things like high energy physics don't have direct paths to monetization, but the capacity to build Tevatron cut the price of magnets for MRI machines).

I have yet to see the Republican party agrees with you here.

I believe in federalism, and running government programs at the level closest to the people they can be reasonably run at so that people have a greater say in how things are run (and because what works in Massachusetts isn't always what works in Wyoming).

I mean, sometimes the Republican party agrees with you? But not always. With voter suppression being a core mechanic to their manner of governance the people don't have much say, really.

I believe in simplifying and rationalizing government regulations so that they are clear and easy to follow, but cracking down on those that break the regulations.

The Republican party wants to minimize regulation of businesses and maximize regulation of individuals. Look at their drug policy! I mean, you don't see eye-to-eye with them on this topic, if you're paying attention to what they actually do.

That's what I believe in, and I'd say that Federalism, limited regulation, and military strength are probably the core ideas of the republican party.

They really aren't. Not the modern Republican party. The military strength is the only thing in that sentence they believe in, and they do not believe in using it with restraint and responsibility. They believe in using it to get what they want and to hell with other countries.

[bilateralrope]

When did the Republican party last show a pattern taking actions in support of those ideas ?

[J]

When did the Republican party last show a pattern taking actions in support of those ideas ?

Certainly not in my lifetime...

[Gandalf]

I don't purport to speak for other republicans, but I believe in an overwhelming military capability but high levels of self control in exercising it. I believe in budgetary self control in good times and bad so that we have room to work when the bad times get really bad. I believe in a strong space program as a part of targeted research spending (because some things like high energy physics don't have direct paths to monetization, but the capacity to build Tevatron cut the price of magnets for MRI machines). I believe in federalism, and running government programs at the level closest to the people they can be reasonably run at so that people have a greater say in how things are run (and because what works in Massachusetts isn't always what works in Wyoming). I believe in simplifying and rationalizing government regulations so that they are clear and easy to follow, but cracking down on those that break the regulations.

That's what I believe in, and I'd say that Federalism, limited regulation, and military strength are probably the core ideas of the republican party.

You must really hate GWB then. Would you consider him a war criminal?

It is perfectly consistent for a person, however misguided they are, to identify with the core principles of a political party without endorsing or preferring that party's nominal leader, especially when you consider that that leader is chosen by those least informed among the electorate.

Yeah, but what is Trump but a louder, cruder version of the party's previous poster boys?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, CNN is holding a "Democratic Presidential Town Hall With Kamala Harris", so I guess we can add her to the confirmed contenders.

Edit: And Bernie, along with Booker, is down campaigning in the Carolinas, so I guess he's at least learned he needs to put more work into securing the black vote, though I wish he'd just sit this one out rather than take votes from Warren.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I really, really don't want Bernie running in 2020. He's too damn old and I am unconvinced that he is likely to do well with some pretty necessary groups of the voter base no matter what he does.

Honestly, Gillibrand's recent voting history is largely good and she has expressed regret for some of the less pleasant positions she had back as a Rep. I need to look into more candidates' histories, but right now I pretty strongly favor Gillibrand on grounds that she has shown she listens to constituents and is willing to admit when she was in the wrong.

I worry about Warren's instincts based on how she handled the DNA test (taking the bait is, uh, unwise) and the simple fact that a lot of idiots will believe that she used distant ancestry to get an edge even though that is a falsehood. Paying actual attention to public perception is critical, regardless of what some may try to say. Gore and Kerry both suffered for not seeming "likeable" enough. Sucks, but it really is a popularity contest when it comes to the general. I am betting most unaffiliated voters first heard about her from the Native American ancestry situation, and first impressions are typically most important, especially when negative.

[The Romulan Republic]

I favor Warren because she's a progressive on economics, and a strong critic of Trump, but as someone who's a bit more moderate than Sanders, I feel that she has a better chance of uniting the vote (particularly in having appeal to Clinton supporters and others who really, really want a female president). I'm not certain that she has the high energy/charisma to be the ideal counter to Trump, but I think she'd be best for uniting the party.

I don't hold Sanders' age against him on principle, and if he has trouble with certain demographics, its at least as much due to unfounded smear campaigns as his actual record. But the fact remains that he is a divisive candidate, and that with Warren (and likely other strong progressives) already in the field, he's just going to be splitting the progressive vote, and potentially helping get a Centrist in. My position for a while has tended to be "Warren or Sanders should run, and I'll back whoever goes first". Warren moved first, and unless she's knocked out of the running, she's got my support.

[SCRawl]

It is perfectly consistent for a person, however misguided they are, to identify with the core principles of a political party without endorsing or preferring that party's nominal leader, especially when you consider that that leader is chosen by those least informed among the electorate.

Yeah, but what is Trump but a louder, cruder version of the party's previous poster boys?

President Trump is practically a different species from the leading lights of the GOP. If we're going to compare him with, say, Paul Ryan, the former Speaker of the House, Ryan outclasses him in every meaningful way. His policies are terrible, but at least he understands the issues, and is honest most of the time. He can make a reasoned argument, at least.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

For for the next election, can someone from the same party as the president run against him when he's going for re-election? Trump has done a good job of alienating much of the Republican party.

[Elheru Aran]

For for the next election, can someone from the same party as the president run against him when he's going for re-election? Trump has done a good job of alienating much of the Republican party.

In theory, yes, and a lot of people are honestly hoping for this to happen. It's called a "primary challenge". This is however pretty unusual as the sitting President almost always gets shooed into the position of candidate. Some have come close-- Edward Kennedy for example gave Jimmy Carter a hard time in 1980-- but as far as I know, no primary challenger has ever won and actually made the President an one-term leader.

Now that said, while Trump may have alienated a large percentage of the Republican base, I don't see him being so toxic as to automatically not be nominated for candidate. It helps him (to a certain degree) that he literally started campaigning shortly after being sworn in. Additionally, he has the fanatic devotion of the conservative Christian wing, which is a pretty decent proportion of the party. Couple that with the tradition, and it's an uphill fight. Not an impossible one, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if you see at least some token gestures in this direction, particularly if the Mueller report turns up anything particularly nasty that stays on the news cycle awhile.

[The Romulan Republic]

For for the next election, can someone from the same party as the president run against him when he's going for re-election? Trump has done a good job of alienating much of the Republican party.

Absolutely- Ted Kennedy unsuccessfully challenged Jimmy Carter in the primary, for example.

[Gandalf]

Sorry for the slow reply. Been on holiday.

Yeah, but what is Trump but a louder, cruder version of the party's previous poster boys?

President Trump is practically a different species from the leading lights of the GOP. If we're going to compare him with, say, Paul Ryan, the former Speaker of the House, Ryan outclasses him in every meaningful way. His policies are terrible, but at least he understands the issues, and is honest most of the time. He can make a reasoned argument, at least.

Do you have an example of him actually engaging in such honest debate? I've mostly seen him as a VP candidate, where he seemingly just regurgitated talking points in support of horrible policies.

[Rogue 9]

Sorry for the slow reply. Been on holiday.

Yeah, but what is Trump but a louder, cruder version of the party's previous poster boys?

President Trump is practically a different species from the leading lights of the GOP. If we're going to compare him with, say, Paul Ryan, the former Speaker of the House, Ryan outclasses him in every meaningful way. His policies are terrible, but at least he understands the issues, and is honest most of the time. He can make a reasoned argument, at least.

Do you have an example of him actually engaging in such honest debate? I've mostly seen him as a VP candidate, where he seemingly just regurgitated talking points in support of horrible policies.

I believe you've confused Paul Ryan (former Speaker of the House) with Mike Pence (current Vice President), as Mr. Ryan has never run as a vice presidential candidate to my knowledge. Pence is a scary motherfucker. He was governor of my state until winning the Vice Presidency, and judging from the policies he pursued as governor, I'm terrified of what he'd try to do if he ascends to the Presidency.

[Gandalf]

I was thinking of his time on the eminently forgettable Romney/Ryan campaign.

[Rogue 9]

Oh. Apparently that was eminently forgettable; I have literally no memory of him running with Romney. IGNORE ME!

[Gandalf]

That's cool. After I saw your post I went to wikipedia to double check it myself.

[SCRawl]

I've mostly seen (or rather heard, since I tend to digest these sorts of programs as podcasts) Ryan on the Sunday shows, spinning the GOP side of the story of the day. So I don't have a video to point to about this.

I mean, I disagree with most of his politics. He's just wrong about some things he says (such as how tax cuts are the best way to provide economic stimulus -- they aren't), and his influences (like Ayn Rand) are horrible, but in addition to being an ideologue he's also something of a policy wonk. He understands the issues, at least, even if his ideas about best to address them are misguided. President Trump appears not even to understand the issues.