The New Four Party Politics

[Kathianne]

While more pronounced on the right, the left too has issues. I wasn't 'mad' when I spoke of a schism forming back in the summer of '15:

http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-party-of-trump/


The Party of Trump

Column: America's new, combustible four-party system BY: Matthew Continetti (http://freebeacon.com/author/matt/)

<time class="entry-date" datetime="2017-08-18T05:00:24+00:00" pubdate="" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-style: italic; color: rgb(135, 135, 135);">August 18, 2017 5:00 am</time>
On July 18, 2015, about a month into his long-shot campaign for president, Donald Trump famously attacked John McCain. "He's not a war hero," he said. "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured." Campaigning in Iowa that summer, Trump mocked Jeb Bush for being "low-energy." In February 2016, Trump said Bush's brother, the forty-third president, had lied in order to invade Iraq. When Mitt Romney attacked Trump the following month, Trump responded by calling the 2012 Republican nominee a "choke artist." On his path to the 2016 GOP nomination and then the presidency, Donald Trump positioned himself at odds with the leadership of the party he sought to command.


The majority of Republican officials and voters supported Trump in his general election contest against Hillary Clinton, believing that, no matter his faults, his presidency would be better than his Democratic opponent's. Trump did not repay the favor. As president, he continued to bash fellow Republicans whenever they annoyed him. In recent months, he criticized his attorney general, the first U.S. senator to endorse his candidacy and the man who gave his campaign policy heft. He fired the two highest-profile members of the Republican establishment to hold positions in his White House. He lashed out at the Senate majority leader. In the midst of his unhinged August 15 press conference, he again vented his spleen at McCain. Two days later, he tweeted, "the people of South Carolina will remember" the misrepresentations of "publicity seeking Lindsey Graham," and said it was "great to see" another sitting Republican senator, Jeff Flake, draw a primary challenge from a nut ball.

This is not how presidents act. The American president is not only head of state, not only head of government, but also head of his political party. His behavior over the last two years makes it clear that Trump does not see himself as the leader of the Republican Party. Nor does he see his role as a dealmaker in a grand coalition, the man who will protect GOP majorities, and cajole and persuade his friends in private. More often than not he is annoyed at his party, at its officials, at its factions. And the feeling is mutual. Recently Chuck Todd invited (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/17/chuck-todd-tried-to-interview-70-republicans-about-trump-and-charlottesville-they-all-declined/?utm_term=.8f4cf9bfbb52) around 70 different Republicans to appear on his show in support of the president's remarks about the white supremacist rally and murder in Charlottesville. None accepted.


This president is not the leader of the GOP. He shows no interest in the job, is not good at it, and has no feel for the party structure, what makes it tick. But he is the leader of a party: the party of Trump. In truth, that is the only party to which he has ever belonged. And the party of Trump is larger than you think. Most Republican regulars support the president's response to Charlottesville. Pollster Kristin S. Anderson puts the floor of Trump approval at a quarter of the electorate. This attachment is personal. A somewhat tongue-in-cheek poll by two academics found that half of Republicans would support delaying the next presidential election if Trump also supported it. Trump knows his people. The nucleus (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/explaining-donald-trump-charlottesville-behavior/) of his support may be fans of The Apprentice, readers of the National Enquirer, listeners of Alex Jones, lost boys posting to 4Chan and Reddit. But beyond that core are several concentric circles of disaffected voters, populists, independents, Evangelical Christians, and everyday Republicans. They find in the party of Trump something that they think the mainstream Republican Party lacks: a willingness to say anything, an eagerness for combat, an insouciance toward other people's feelings, toward norms of discourse and behavior. "Donald Trump reflects and connects to the vulgar manliness in the American (or any) people," writes Harvey Mansfield in Commentary (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/vulgar-manliness-donald-trump/). "He is demotic rather than democratic, intuitive himself in finding what is instinctive in us." Members of the party of Trump lap it up.


Allegiance to Trump is not just personal or attitudinal. There are also policy implications. When political scientist Lee Drutman analyzed voter data from last year's election, he found (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond) that the Republican Party is divided by ideology: "By making questions of national identity more salient, Donald Trump succeeded in winning over ‘populists' (socially conservative, economically liberal voters) who had previously voted for Democrats."


Trump's emphasis on social issues broadly construed—on abortion, guns, judges, crime, drugs, immigration, terrorism—and his rejection of orthodox GOP support for free trade and entitlement reform transformed the Republican makeup. What Drutman describes as a "split in the Republican Party between populists and conservatives" can also be interpreted as a division between the party of Trump and the Grand Old Party. The two parties may agree on some issues, but they differ in tone and outlook and on crucial policy questions. It is difficult for them to function as a coalition government. Trump's health care reform is stalled in Congress, his tax reform is inchoate, and his infrastructure plan is nonexistent. The two parties are able to unite against the left, but have trouble finding common legislative ground.

Making things more complicated is the fact that there are more than these two parties. Drutman also found divisions within the Democrats. "To the extent that the Democratic Party is divided, these divisions are more about faith in the political system and general disaffection than they are about issue positions." The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations. What we might call the party of Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is both more radical on questions of political correctness and identity and hostile to the established order. The party of Sanders wants radical change. Beginning with Medicare for all.


Recent events have brought to light the distinction between the party of Trump and the GOP. But it would be foolish for Democrats to believe that they are out of the woods, that America has settled, for the moment, on a three-party system. What we have are four parties: The mainstream Republicans, the party of Trump, the mainstream Democrats, and the party of Sanders. White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American Prospect magazine can be seen as a clumsy attempt to forge a new majority by rejecting the mainstream Republicans and aligning with the party of Sanders on trade, entitlements, and infrastructure spending. But the effort is doomed to fail. In twenty-first century America culture and identity take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break between left and right is found.


President Trump's isolation from the party whose nomination he wrested from insiders and scions is just part of a larger trend in American society and politics. The widening divisions within and between parties are symptoms of our fractured republic (https://www.amazon.com/Fractured-Republic-Renewing-America%C2%92s-Individualism/dp/0465061966), of the unbundling, disaggregation, and dissociation (http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-politics-of-dissociation/) of our communal lives. Mounting political violence, too, is a consequence of the polarization that estranges Americans from one another and turns every disagreement into an apocalyptic battle royal. Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, and Sanders are pulling the mystic chords of memory in four different directions. And they won't quit doing so. Until the chords snap.

[michiganFats]

That sounds about right. I noticed the split in the Democrats over 20 years ago and I think Trump's election has forced the GOP to at least recognize the people they up until 2016 preferred to ignore, the people who ended up supporting Trump over their establishment candidates. Maybe the strict Constitutionalists would be another faction to consider although I'm not sure there are enough of them to matter.

[Black Diamond]

That sounds about right. I noticed the split in the Democrats over 20 years ago and I think Trump's election has forced the GOP to at least recognize the people they up until 2016 preferred to ignore, the people who ended up supporting Trump over their establishment candidates. Maybe the strict Constitutionalists would be another faction to consider although I'm not sure there are enough of them to matter.
The candidates you're thinking of would be marginalized in a general election or before.

[michiganFats]

The candidates you're thinking of would be marginalized in a general election or before.

That's what I was thinking. Even if there were support for them in the electorate it wouldn't be concentrated enough to actually win any seats.

[Black Diamond]

That's what I was thinking. Even if there were support for them in the electorate it wouldn't be concentrated enough to actually win any seats.
Oh....

may have more of a chance in senate or congressional level. See Ron Paul. But president? No.

[Kathianne]

I guess it's going to depend on which party is more split.

One thing I do know, for the most part, the Democrats do not look to be trying to cull votes they already have. They are picking on Hillary, but she isn't in government now.

Only the Republicans are looking to get rid of Republicans, even ones that vote the way the President wishes.

[Gunny]

That sounds about right. I noticed the split in the Democrats over 20 years ago and I think Trump's election has forced the GOP to at least recognize the people they up until 2016 preferred to ignore, the people who ended up supporting Trump over their establishment candidates. Maybe the strict Constitutionalists would be another faction to consider although I'm not sure there are enough of them to matter.I don't agree with it. Four parties and one must be in the "Party of Trump" or the "GOP" ...

So WHERE's the conservative party? The one where people are neither in Trump's camp AND think the GOP is the gutless wonder mentioned above?

[michiganFats]

I guess it's going to depend on which party is more split.

One thing I do know, for the most part, the Democrats do not look to be trying to cull votes they already have. They are picking on Hillary, but she isn't in government now.

Only the Republicans are looking to get rid of Republicans, even ones that vote the way the President wishes.

The Democrats have very few people left to purge, they've already done their purging.

[Kathianne]

The Democrats have very few people left to purge, they've already done their purging.

I admit I never watched Democrat political process much, who did they get rid of in a real political sense? That folks were voted out by district or state, that happens, not often but it does.

Did the Democrats purge with primaries?

[Black Diamond]

The Democrats have very few people left to purge, they've already done their purging.
That word makes me think of Stalin. :)

[michiganFats]

I don't agree with it. Four parties and one must be in the "Party of Trump" or the "GOP" ...

So WHERE's the conservative party? The one where people are neither in Trump's camp AND think the GOP is the gutless wonder mentioned above?

I don't know. This might be a regional thing but I don't know very many people who really are conservative unless you mean just socially conservative and even then I don't know many.

[Kathianne]

I don't agree with it. Four parties and one must be in the "Party of Trump" or the "GOP" ...

So WHERE's the conservative party? The one where people are neither in Trump's camp AND think the GOP is the gutless wonder mentioned above?

It's now going on two years since I figured something had to happen with the GOP. Personally I'm just waiting to see if there are actually any conservatives of my ilk that run for office. If not, I'll vote for whomever comes the closest.

[michiganFats]

I admit I never watched Democrat political process much, who did they get rid of in a real political sense? That folks were voted out by district or state, that happens, not often but it does.

Did the Democrats purge with primaries?

In my area they got rid of basically every white guy who works for a living or is even remotely religious.

[Gunny]

I don't know. This might be a regional thing but I don't know very many people who really are conservative unless you mean just socially conservative and even then I don't know many.

It IS regional. Been saying it for years but the same one-size-fits all crowd that thinks a National minimum wage would work believe conservative is conservative. I've lived in most regions at different times and a conservative in most of them is not one here.

Then you have knuckleheads who are clearly not even close calling themselves such and running as Republicans. McCain and Trump come to mind. I had to hold my nose to vote for either, and consoled myself with the knowledge I was voting AGAINST the Dem, not FOR anyone.

Is the party split? Sure it is. More than 2 ways though.

[aboutime]

Look at how well, and successful our TWO party system has worked.

Adding another TWO parties will only make everything worse...if that's even possible.

[Kathianne]

In my area they got rid of basically every white guy who works for a living or is even remotely religious.

Who is "they"? Obama? The DNC?

[Black Diamond]

Look at how well, and successful our TWO party system has worked.

Adding another TWO parties will only make everything worse...if that's even possible.
Even with the Ron Paul example, he ran on the republican ticket. I don't see any other tickets if you will gaining traction.

[aboutime]

Who is "they"? Obama? The DNC?

Kathianne. You decide 'WHO' as you watch this from DETROIT.



http://youtu.be/s8p__NyaxGI

I personally had friends who were born in Detroit who moved East. They were Firefighters in that city, and you wouldn't believe the conditions, and the excuses they were given for NOT GETTING PAID.

[Black Diamond]

Kathianne. You decide 'WHO' as you watch this from DETROIT.



http://youtu.be/s8p__NyaxGI

I personally had friends who were born in Detroit who moved East. They were Firefighters in that city, and you wouldn't believe the conditions, and the excuses they were given for NOT GETTING PAID.

1967?

[Kathianne]

Even with the Ron Paul example, he ran on the republican ticket. I don't see any other tickets if you will gaining traction.

Me neither, for the time being. However, there are folks out there that have left one party or the other, making independents the deciders. While the Republicans that voted for Trump, in spite of his character, it was independents which made up the difference of those Republicans that didn't vote for him and then some.

It's been the Independents for the most part that have given the GOP the edge time and again. Will they in 2018 or 2020? While polling data shows Trump holding the Republican, granted by a lower percentage by far than average; the Independents aren't holding, they are beginning to approach the Democrats in support for the President.

It seems there's some argument to be made that many, even most Independents more than lean conservative, at least in the political sense. They are not as socially conservative in general. If some leaders appealed to them and disenfranchised Republicans, there may be takers.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. You decide 'WHO' as you watch this from DETROIT.




I personally had friends who were born in Detroit who moved East. They were Firefighters in that city, and you wouldn't believe the conditions, and the excuses they were given for NOT GETTING PAID.


Who got rid of the 'white guys or those that worked for a living?' Earlier someone said the Democrats purged their party earlier. Was it Obama? The DNC? Or was it the voters?

Voters don't 'purge' they vote.

[Black Diamond]

Who got rid of the 'white guys or those that worked for a living?' Earlier someone said the Democrats purged their party earlier. Was it Obama? The DNC? Or was it the voters?

Voters don't 'purge' they vote.
What about Bernie?

[Kathianne]

What about Bernie?




Oh he was ripped off big time! LOL! I don't know if that was a purge as much as the joys of running for President against the heir apparent. Still, seems that several folks in the DNC leadership should have paid! Well they sort of did, in a way. But wouldn't have if she'd won.

[michiganFats]

Who is "they"? Obama? The DNC?

The Democrats, in my case the local Democrats.

[Kathianne]

The Democrats, in my case the local Democrats.

Have you ever been involved in politics? Have you ever knocked on doors, manned the phones? That is what people do, they work for their candidates. If you want someone else, get out there and work.

What is going on today on the national stage of the Trump party is that if a Senator doesn't like the President, yet votes at least 98% the way the president wants, they can be threatened and likely will be primaried. Allegiance to the president has never been a requirement. In fact, many Senators have had problems with a given president, yet retaliation wasn't a problem Until now, with our non-traditional president.

I'm not into cult presidents. Nor petty ones.

[aboutime]

Who got rid of the 'white guys or those that worked for a living?' Earlier someone said the Democrats purged their party earlier. Was it Obama? The DNC? Or was it the voters?

Voters don't 'purge' they vote.

You should spend a year in Detroit Kathianne. Then come back and tell us Voters don't purge they vote. In Detroit....oh, never mind. You just don't want to hear it.

So...tell us how they vote....
http://youtu.be/rbsssFqslhI


http://youtu.be/1En2jpw3nvE

[Kathianne]

You should spend a year in Detroit Kathianne. Then come back and tell us Voters don't purge they vote. In Detroit....oh, never mind. You just don't want to hear it.

So...tell us how they vote....


Doesn't matter where it is, if one doesn't like who's elected, go to work for their opposition. This has 0 to do with Detroit, the topic had been waging war by the president on your own party leaders, because they don't like you personally.

Many here voted for Trump, though didn't like him, though they liked how he spoke, when not about pussies or something of that sort. Same with some of those that Trump is targeting.

He can afford to lose more votes in the Senate, when there's a real chance they could lose that house, in which case guess who votes on impeachment? Brilliant.

[Black Diamond]

Doesn't matter where it is, if one doesn't like who's elected, go to work for their opposition. This has 0 to do with Detroit, the topic had been waging war by the president on your own party leaders, because they don't like you personally.

Many here voted for Trump, though didn't like him, though they liked how he spoke, when not about pussies or something of that sort. Same with some of those that Trump is targeting.

He can afford to lose more votes in the Senate, when there's a real chance they could lose that house, in which case guess who votes on impeachment? Brilliant.
That's the Left's wet dream that will never happen.

[Kathianne]

That's the Left's wet dream that will never happen.

Time will tell. I don't want him impeached, unless there are real crimes that haven't been revealed. If the Dems take control of the House, there will be impeachment. Who's in the Senate does matter.

[Black Diamond]

Time will tell. I don't want him impeached, unless there are real crimes that haven't been revealed. If the Dems take control of the House, there will be impeachment. Who's in the Senate does matter.
Very difficult to remove president. Ask Newt. (And whoever senate leader was ) 2/3 is a big number.

[Kathianne]

Very difficult to remove president. Ask Newt. (And whoever senate leader was ) 2/3 is a big number.
Ask Clinton, what is he remembered for?

[Black Diamond]

Remember the left saying once we take the Congess back, bush is gone? Many wanted Pelosi gone for not bringing forth articles.

[Gunny]

I would say there's an entire 'party" of people out there that are too stupid to be allowed to vote. Their knowledge of politics comes from what they read on Twitter. Look at all the crying leftwingers that demanded a do-over because they didn't win. Wanted to throw out the electoral college results. Still some hangers-on calling for impeachment. If ANYONE should have been impeached, Obama was it.

First thing that needs to happen is people need to be honest with themselves and what they actually stand for. Most are not. In today's society they just ride around on the fence getting splinters in their asses.

[Black Diamond]

Ask Clinton, what is he remembered for?
Impeachment and removal are two different things. I think you are one of the one percent in America who knows that.

[Kathianne]

Impeachment and removal are two different things. I think you are one of the one percent in America who knows that.

That is why the Senate numbers do matter.

[Kathianne]

Remember the left saying once we take the Congess back, bush is gone? Many wanted Pelosi gone for not bringing forth articles.

I may be too naive or cynical, but think when push comes to shove, most Republicans would not vote for impeachment without real cause. I don't believe the same of the Democrats.

[Gunny]

Impeachment and removal are two different things. I think you are one of the one percent in America who knows that.On what grounds can he be impeached? Dems don't like him? I mean, I don't like him, but he's really done nothing to warrant even consideration. The backlash might be worth the price of admission though :).

[michiganFats]

Have you ever been involved in politics?

Yes, when I was younger.


Have you ever knocked on doors, manned the phones?

I've manned phones and done some other things but knocked on doors, no. There's a reason for that.


That is what people do, they work for their candidates.

I tried to think of a nice way to put this but the best I can come up with is to say that I think this is very naive. That may work in Mayberry but that is not how it's done in Detroit. Working for your candidate means a lot of things that you've probably never considered.


If you want someone else, get out there and work.

If the Party doesn't want you then you don't even get to the table to begin with except in rare cases. Trump is one of those rare cases.


What is going on today on the national stage of the Trump party is that if a Senator doesn't like the President, yet votes at least 98% the way the president wants, they can be threatened and likely will be primaried.

So you say. We'll see how that really shakes out.


Allegiance to the president has never been a requirement.

Didn't you say earlier today that the President is the head of his Party? I think you did.


In fact, many Senators have had problems with a given president, yet retaliation wasn't a problem Until now, with our non-traditional president.

Maybe the retaliation wasn't so overt but I guarantee you there has been retaliation in the past.


I'm not into cult presidents. Nor petty ones.

How about duly elected Presidents? Are you into them?

[Gunny]

I may be too naive or cynical, but think when push comes to shove, most Republicans would not vote for impeachment without real cause. I don't believe the same of the Democrats.The wiser course of action for the Dems would be to let him fail. If they go after him, they will have a partisan backlash on their hands in 20. If he fails -- and he is not impressing -- the Dems can run on 'We told you so".

[Kathianne]

Yes, when I was younger.



I've manned phones and done some other things but knocked on doors, no. There's a reason for that.



I tried to think of a nice way to put this but the best I can come up with is to say that I think this is very naive. That may work in Mayberry but that is not how it's done in Detroit. Working for your candidate means a lot of things that you've probably never considered.



If the Party doesn't want you then you don't even get to the table to begin with except in rare cases. Trump is one of those rare cases.



So you say. We'll see how that really shakes out.



Didn't you say earlier today that the President is the head of his Party? I think you did.



Maybe the retaliation wasn't so overt but I guarantee you there has been retaliation in the past.



How about duly elected Presidents? Are you into them? Which is why I have said he was elected and is legitimate. I refrained from gratuitously criticizing at every turn for more than 6 months. My self-imposed deadline passed, though I gave him a bit more time. Then the past two weeks happened.

I still will defend that he is not a traitor, illegitimate, and should not be impeached for anything other than proven grave crimes or wrong doing. I respect the process, the office, not necessary to respect that man.

The 'head of the party' has responsibilities, I don't have the same in giving him allegiance.

Detroit isn't all that different from Chicago, the cities changed and so did many of the representatives. That's how it goes. In Chicago there may be more diversity today, but if they don't get it together the odds of that lasting are not good. Then again, if the city and state are being run poorly and they are, who put the clowns in office?

[Black Diamond]

A president thrown out with no crime?



Where's that civil war thread I started ?

[aboutime]

Yes, when I was younger.



I've manned phones and done some other things but knocked on doors, no. There's a reason for that.



I tried to think of a nice way to put this but the best I can come up with is to say that I think this is very naive. That may work in Mayberry but that is not how it's done in Detroit. Working for your candidate means a lot of things that you've probably never considered.



If the Party doesn't want you then you don't even get to the table to begin with except in rare cases. Trump is one of those rare cases.



So you say. We'll see how that really shakes out.



Didn't you say earlier today that the President is the head of his Party? I think you did.



Maybe the retaliation wasn't so overt but I guarantee you there has been retaliation in the past.



How about duly elected Presidents? Are you into them?


michiganFats. Why does it even matter whether someone worked for a campaign by walking the streets, knocking on doors, or phone parties before an election...I ASK?

See how well all of that stuff worked for BERNIE, and HILLARY?
As we were all instructed, warned, and taunted after Obama's election.

''He is our President. The Constitution verified it. Call back in four years!":laugh:

[michiganFats]

I may be too naive or cynical, but think when push comes to shove, most Republicans would not vote for impeachment without real cause. I don't believe the same of the Democrats.

I think they would. I don't believe they want him as President.

[michiganFats]

michiganFats. Why does it even matter whether someone worked for a campaign by walking the streets, knocking on doors, or phone parties before an election...I ASK?

See how well all of that stuff worked for BERNIE, and HILLARY?
As we were all instructed, warned, and taunted after Obama's election.

''He is our President. The Constitution verified it. Call back in four years!":laugh:

She asked, I answered. I also think the reason Hillary lost in Michigan and Ohio is because she didn't spread the WAM around. She didn't use rustlers and she lost because of the low voter turnout in the cities.

[Black Diamond]

She asked, I answered. I also think the reason Hillary lost in Michigan and Ohio is because she didn't spread the WAM around. She didn't use rustlers and she lost because of the low voter turnout in the cities.
I still say populism and her coronation complex cost her Michigan penn Wisconsin and the election.

[Kathianne]

A president thrown out with no crime?



Where's that civil war thread I started ?

Would you disagree that the Democrats may well do so, if able?

[michiganFats]

I still say populism and her coronation complex cost her Michigan penn Wisconsin and the election.

She lost Michigan by 18,000 votes. The rustlers easily could have made that up but Hillary didn't use them. If she had done business as normal I think we'd have President Clinton today. I'm glad she didn't win but it wasn't the blowout a lot of people want to believe it was.

[Kathianne]

She lost Michigan by 18,000 votes. The rustlers easily could have made that up but Hillary didn't use them. If she had done business as normal I think we'd have President Clinton today. I'm glad she didn't win but it wasn't the blowout a lot of people want to believe it was.

Have to agree, she really didn't care about the traditional Democrat voter. She didn't even go to WI when they knew she was falling further. Sad to say, Bill warned her and her staff. They knew better.

[Black Diamond]

Would you disagree that the Democrats may well do so, if able?
Many would . But every single one of them???

[Black Diamond]

She lost Michigan by 18,000 votes. The rustlers easily could have made that up but Hillary didn't use them. If she had done business as normal I think we'd have President Clinton today. I'm glad she didn't win but it wasn't the blowout a lot of people want to believe it was.
Blowout? Depends how you look at it? What's a rustler ?

[Kathianne]

Many would . But every single one of them???

If they have the Senate, they only need a few Republicans, Trump has made enemies. Not saying it would, but could.

[michiganFats]

Blowout? Depends how you look at it? What's a rustler ?

A rustler is (or was back when I worked on campaigns) the guy you pay a lot of money to in cash to go into his assigned neighborhoods and make sure people are registered to vote and that they show up to vote. They spread cash around when they have to. Politics isn't really about ideas, it's about organization and money, although I do admit I may be jaded.

[Gunny]

Which is why I have said he was elected and is legitimate. I refrained from gratuitously criticizing at every turn for more than 6 months. My self-imposed deadline passed, though I gave him a bit more time. Then the past two weeks happened.

I still will defend that he is not a traitor, illegitimate, and should not be impeached for anything other than proven grave crimes or wrong doing. I respect the process, the office, not necessary to respect that man.

The 'head of the party' has responsibilities, I don't have the same in giving him allegiance.

Detroit isn't all that different from Chicago, the cities changed and so did many of the representatives. That's how it goes. In Chicago there may be more diversity today, but if they don't get it together the odds of that lasting are not good. Then again, if the city and state are being run poorly and they are, who put the clowns in office?NOTHING justifies piling on constantly for the pettiest of crap. At the end of the day, he is STiLL better than having Hillary and her cronies in the WH with a chance to get their dirty, corrupt hands on the Supreme Court.

And if he fails, he's going to be a 1-termer and we are going to pay dearly for it. I was against him from Day One and you know it. In the end, ou use what you have, not what you wish you did, and get the job done. The Democrats have proven they don't deserve to have their hands on anything. They're a bunch of immature crybabies and whiners and want to turn this country into Europe Lite.

Bitching about him and parroting the naysayers isn't accomplishing anything positive. And it appears to obstruct his vision greatly.

[Black Diamond]

If they have the Senate, they only need a few Republicans, Trump has made enemies. Not saying it would, but could.
It could. I think losing the house is a long shot.

[Black Diamond]

NOTHING justifies piling on constantly for the pettiest of crap. At the end of the day, he is STiLL better than having Hillary and her cronies in the WH with a chance to get their dirty, corrupt hands on the Supreme Court.

And if he fails, he's going to be a 1-termer and we are going to pay dearly for it. I was against him from Day One and you know it. In the end, ou use what you have, not what you wish you did, and get the job done. The Democrats have proven they don't deserve to have their hands on anything. They're a bunch of immature crybabies and whiners and want to turn this country into Europe Lite.

Bitching about him and parroting the naysayers isn't accomplishing anything positive. And it appears to obstruct his vision greatly.
He will serve two terms.

[Kathianne]

NOTHING justifies piling on constantly for the pettiest of crap. At the end of the day, he is STiLL better than having Hillary and her cronies in the WH with a chance to get their dirty, corrupt hands on the Supreme Court.

And if he fails, he's going to be a 1-termer and we are going to pay dearly for it. I was against him from Day One and you know it. In the end, ou use what you have, not what you wish you did, and get the job done. The Democrats have proven they don't deserve to have their hands on anything. They're a bunch of immature crybabies and whiners and want to turn this country into Europe Lite.

Bitching about him and parroting the naysayers isn't accomplishing anything positive. And it appears to obstruct his vision greatly.

Luckily I have free speech, so do you. I don't consider it petty what he's been doing. You have not been against him, still are for him. You try to have it both ways and fail.

The crybabies are from all sides. Those that won't accept that he won and is President. Those that were thrilled with an outsider that has been just that and is not embraced. All the time, they complain that 'he's not getting the support, like other presidents.' Well he's not like any other candidate or President and they got what they wanted. Until they got it.

[michiganFats]

Luckily I have free speech, so do you. I don't consider it petty what he's been doing. You have not been against him, still are for him. You try to have it both ways and fail.

The crybabies are from all sides. Those that won't accept that he won and is President. Those that were thrilled with an outsider that has been just that and is not embraced. All the time, they complain that 'he's not getting the support, like other presidents.' Well he's not like any other candidate or President and they got what they wanted. Until they got it.

I'd like to say at this time that I think it's a good thing that the President and Congress don't get along. This is the first time in my life that Separation of Powers has actually meant something.

[Kathianne]

I'd like to say at this time that I think it's a good thing that the President and Congress don't get along. This is the first time in my life that Separation of Powers has actually meant something.

On that we agree. I actually see the possibility of Congress taking back the powers and responsibilities they are charged with. They gave up many so they wouldn't be held responsible come voting time. Seems some are beginning to find reason to reclaim those.