Trump

[WuShock16]

[Play Angry]

It will be interesting to see what happens to conservatives over the course of the next decade. I have a sinking feeling that Trump and the new direction of the Republican party will redefine the American "brand" of conservatism to mean something very different than its traditional connotations in the post-Goldwater era. Nationalism (blurred with xenophobia), a (much) strong(er) executive branch, protectionist economic policies (pandering populism), and isolationist foreign policy may come to represent the right wing platform when this finishes playing out. This is certainly the rapid trend at the moment.

There would be holdouts who will stay in the party and try to effect change from within, and there would also be those who leave the party entirely with the view that they have lost the war of ideas and need a new group to start fresh. The Buckley/Will/Koch/policy wonk wing of the Republican party is a large bloc with no home - will they splinter and form a third party? Will they continue the fight from the inside? Will those ideologies simply fade away due to waning support?

I am not eager or excited about the current and upcoming changes, but it will definitely be worth watching. My gut is that we are heading towards a European-style "rule by coalition" government, but our system of representation has a lot of barriers which will need to be torn down for that to be effective. We will see I suppose.

[SHOCKvalue]

It will be interesting to see what happens to conservatives over the course of the next decade. I have a sinking feeling that Trump and the new direction of the Republican party will redefine the American "brand" of conservatism to mean something very different than its traditional connotations in the post-Goldwater era. Nationalism (blurred with xenophobia), a (much) strong(er) executive branch, protectionist economic policies (pandering populism), and isolationist foreign policy may come to represent the right wing platform when this finishes playing out. This is certainly the rapid trend at the moment.

There would be holdouts who will stay in the party and try to effect change from within, and there would also be those who leave the party entirely with the view that they have lost the war of ideas and need a new group to start fresh. The Buckley/Will/Koch/policy wonk wing of the Republican party is a large bloc with no home - will they splinter and form a third party? Will they continue the fight from the inside? Will those ideologies simply fade away due to waning support?

I am not eager or excited about the current and upcoming changes, but it will definitely be worth watching. My gut is that we are heading towards a European-style "rule by coalition" government, but our system of representation has a lot of barriers which will need to be torn down for that to be effective. We will see I suppose.

Perhaps Libertarianism will finally take root as an actual and viable party. There are a lot of people in this country who just want the Federal Government to provide basic services, and otherwise fook off. Currently, they're forced to chose from the red pill or blue pill, when what they really want is a non-authoritarian option.

The scope and breadth of law and regulation in this country is overwhelming, and it grows at an exponential rate no matter who controls it. Weird! People have been hoodwinked into believing that their party is the root of liberty, but neither one actually is.

[SB Shock]

I've voted for more Republicans as president than Democrats... That said, I'd vote for Hillary a 100 times before I'd even consider 1 vote for Trump. I'm just amazed by how many people are being blinded by party lines when it comes to backing Trump. The point is the majority of smart republicans were calling him an idiot months, even weeks ago, now that he's their only hope they're backing him and forgetting everything they said before.

I think you are going a little "drama queen" on us. Only place that Trump was getting a majority of votes is pretty much liberal states. I suppose there are those ideologues who will just vote straight party ticket. But just as I type this Trump comes out and says:

I am not ready to support Speaker Ryans agenda"

This was in response to Ryan telling CNN he was not ready to support the Trump candidacy until he proven he would support and move conservative ideals and be a uniter instead of divider. This is a perfect example why Trump is incapable of winning.

[MoValley John]

I may sit this election out. That said, I've heard just as many disgruntled democrats trying to justify voting for Hillary as I have heard disgruntled republicans trying to justify voting for Trump. Hillary can only win if she energizes Bernie supporters, so far, she has been unsuccessful. Trump can only win if he now unifies republicans, so far he hasn't.

We have come to the fork in the road where our partisanship has given us exactly what we deserve.

[wu_shizzle]

Perhaps Libertarianism will finally take root as an actual and viable party. There are a lot of people in this country who just want the Federal Government to provide basic services, and otherwise fook off. Currently, they're forced to chose from the red pill or blue pill, when what they really want is a non-authoritarian option.

The scope and breadth of law and regulation in this country is overwhelming, and it grows at an exponential rate no matter who controls it. Weird! People have been hoodwinked into believing that their party is the root of liberty, but neither one actually is.

Just look at the demographics of this cycle in both parties.

If you're younger than 60, you overwhelmingly voted for Democratic Socialism or Constitutional Conservatism.

The problem (if you think there's a problem) is that voters over 60 determine elections.

[wufan]

Perhaps Libertarianism will finally take root as an actual and viable party. There are a lot of people in this country who just want the Federal Government to provide basic services, and otherwise fook off. Currently, they're forced to chose from the red pill or blue pill, when what they really want is a non-authoritarian option.

The scope and breadth of law and regulation in this country is overwhelming, and it grows at an exponential rate no matter who controls it. Weird! People have been hoodwinked into believing that their party is the root of liberty, but neither one actually is.

I'm all for the above! Federal govt should be as small as possible. State gov will vary based on need. Local gov should be populist in nature.

[Aargh]

Does a "small federal government" include dismantiling OSHA and the EPA?

Getting to a "small" government has to be done the way eating an elephant is done. You take one bite - and then another and just keep going. The current stance of the conservative group seems to be to dismantle everything and do it NOW. There are very few people inCongress with the cojones to take that step.

The situation in Washington is not totally unlike the situation in Kansas. We have a majority of the legislature in Kansas saying we have to cut spending, When they have the opportunity to do that, they refuse for fear of what might happen in the upcoming elections.

Cut things out of government that enough people want and the people will vote for someone else.Shrinking government requires walking a fine line.

[SHOCKvalue]

Does a "small federal government" include dismantiling OSHA and the EPA?

Getting to a "small" government has to be done the way eating an elephant is done. You take one bite - and then another and just keep going. The current stance of the conservative group seems to be to dismantle everything and do it NOW. There are very few people inCongress with the cojones to take that step.

The situation in Washington is not totally unlike the situation in Kansas. We have a majority of the legislature in Kansas saying we have to cut spending, When they have the opportunity to do that, they refuse for fear of what might happen in the upcoming elections.

Cut things out of government that enough people want and the people will vote for someone else.Shrinking government requires walking a fine line.

The Federal Government is like a cancer to our country. At the very least let's take steps to put it into remission (peg future spending to CPI-U growth or something).

Five out of the 10 highest household income counties in the US are located in the DC metro, as opposed to areas where... you know... stuff like goods and services are actually produced. What does that tell you?

[Aargh]

The Federal Government is like a cancer to our country. At the very least let's take steps to put it into remission (peg future spending to CPI-U growth or something).

That sounds great until you start specifying what spending is getting cut. The moment anyone says we are going to cut $XXX from YYY, the **** hits the fan. Congressmen take a "not in my district" position, lobbyists jump into the fray, special interests start pushing for exmptions and special allowances.

Saying "we've got to cut government down to size and get spending under control" gets politicians elected. Not doing that gets them re-elected. Unless there's some way to break that cycle, we will probably keep growing our national debt in an effort to prop up our standard of living and provide for everyone's pet projects.

The main difference I've seen in spending between the two parties is what they spend the money on. They both spend like sailors on shore leave in Amsterdam.

[SB Shock]

That sounds great until you start specifying what spending is getting cut. The moment anyone says we are going to cut $XXX from YYY, the **** hits the fan. Congressmen take a "not in my district" position, lobbyists jump into the fray, special interests start pushing for exmptions and special allowances.

It actually worse than that - just say you are going to slow the growth of spending and that is a "CUT"...

[shock]

Why I won't vote for Trump:

Bad attitude- arrogant, narcissistic, and crude.
New Yorker- generally more liberal than moderate. Hasn't given me anything to make me believe otherwise.
Very poor on foreign policy

Why I will vote for Trump:
Sound tax policy if he doesn't stray from it.
Might be the only guy with any chance to cut into the pile of debt
I'm not sure Billary would do less damage overall

Basically this election is turning me into a populist/nationalist. I don't like big government, but if it is to be then I want it to do what I want it to do. Maybe I would favor big government more if it did what I liked. Maybe Trump is a great 4 year president.

Maybe he is Andrew Jackson.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The worst thing about the attitude of "I don't like authoritarian big government, although I guess it is ok if it is my guy in the position of power" is that it further entrenches big government for the future. To say that Trump might strong-arm in a few decent policies is to miss the bigger point. Just like Federal Spending never goes away (budget cuts are near impossible to achieve), once you introduce power, it never gets reduced. I want nothing of Trump, even in his rare instances of good policy, because he brings a new acceptance to "centralized power is good, so long as my guy has the power" to the remaining portions of the electorate who have generally tried to fight such power grabs. Any good that an individual Trump policy might bring in the short term would be vastly overshadowed by the deathblow it would deliver to the limited government wing of the country (whatever is left of it anyway). Stopping Trump is vital to the cause of maintaining a movement for small government. Hillary's side (the left) has been big government for generations. At least if she wins, the limited government right will be energized to fight her. With Trump as President, I fear we would enter an era (not just 4 or 8 years, but decades) where our choices were big government liberals and big government nationalists. Some would say we are there already, but I think Trump would clearly extinguish any significant resistance to big government that currently remains and any hope that it might once again have a role in national politics.

#NeverTrump

[Play Angry]

The worst thing about the attitude of "I don't like authoritarian big government, although I guess it is ok if it is my guy in the position of power" is that it further entrenches big government for the future. To say that Trump might strong-arm in a few decent policies is to miss the bigger point. Just like Federal Spending never goes away (budget cuts are near impossible to achieve), once you introduce power, it never gets reduced. I want nothing of Trump, even in his rare instances of good policy, because he brings a new acceptance to "centralized power is good, so long as my guy has the power" to the remaining portions of the electorate who have generally tried to fight such power grabs. Any good that an individual Trump policy might bring in the short term would be vastly overshadowed by the deathblow it would deliver to the limited government wing of the country (whatever is left of it anyway). Stopping Trump is vital to the cause of maintaining a movement for small government. Hillary's side (the left) has been big government for generations. At least if she wins, the limited government right will be energized to fight her. With Trump as President, I fear we would enter an era (not just 4 or 8 years, but decades) where our choices were big government liberals and big government nationalists. Some would say we are there already, but I think Trump would clearly extinguish any significant resistance to big government that currently remains and any hope that it might once again have a role in national politics.

#NeverTrump

It has been interesting to watch the expansion of executive power over the last decade-plus.

GWB and Obama have both been very aggressive in this respect. Most Republicans didn't give a **** when it was accomplishing what they wanted between 2002-2006 (while Democrats were screaming bloody murder), and then predictably the script flipped completely when Obama continued the trend on a straight line over his eight years - Republicans couldn't scream loud enough that this was an unacceptable power grab, while Democrats could not care less because the executive orders have favored their policies during that period.

A few on both sides have recognized the hilarious hypocrisy involved, but most sincerely have no clue how dumb it looks when they complain about it from a "principled" standpoint only to break out the bullhorns and streamers when the same tactics favor their viewpoints. It is not really surprising though in a culture where so many on both sides legitimately believe the opposing group wants to "destroy America" or something similarly nefarious.

The last 16 years has been undeniably bad for supporters of limited government power. The last really significant check we had on executive power was the invalidation of the line-item veto, which ironically was probably the one tool that may have empowered Trump to have some level of effectiveness from a budget standpoint (the case was absolutely correctly decided, however).

The slide has been happening for a while, but we are about to enter the warp speed phase I am afraid.

[_kai_]

You forgot there's always the option not to vote at all. I think it is fairly likely that the turnout at the polls this cycle will be the lowest per capita in decades. Huge chunks of both sides hate their assumed candidate.

If Bernie doesn't make the final ballot, it will be ridiculously low. I have a feeling that the 18-30 year olds will just not vote this cycle. BHO really pulled the young vote the last two cycles, and if it is Hil vs Trump, that isn't attractive to a lot of the younger generation imo.