Trump should run as an Independent

[LittleLambofJesus]

quote from a member on a closed thread on Trump:

Foxfyre said: ↑
That's the thing. He seems to be resented and opposed equally by the permanent political class in both parties. Which makes him the first truly independent President we have ever had.

================
I wonder if R P would have been a lot taller, he would had a better chance at being elected...colorful guy LOL

"giant sucking sound"

Ross Perot and Donald Trump: Presidential Candidates and Outsiders, Looking In

WASHINGTON — Ross Perot isn’t a familiar name to young Americans, and many older ones are more likely to recall Dana Carvey’s impersonation of Mr. Perot on “Saturday Night Live” or his quirky appearances on Larry King’s talk show in the 1990s.

But Mr. Perot was a significant figure in modern American politics: He won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential race against George Bush and Bill Clinton, making him the most successful third-party White House candidate since Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose campaign in 1912.

Mr. Perot did not win any electoral votes, but he ran competitively with those two major-party nominees in much of the country and even outpolled then-President Bush in Maine and Mr. Clinton in Utah. All told, nearly 20 million Americans cast a ballot for Mr. Perot.

Perhaps more important, the unlikely candidacy of Mr. Perot, the Texas business executive who died Tuesday at 89, signaled the tremors beneath the surface of the country’s political system that presaged the full-blown earthquake of 2016. President Trump was not the first wealthy, quippy outsider who entered politics by running for president and disrupted the status quo by borrowing from the hymnals of both parties

 

[Albion]

Perot had a chance at being elected until he announced that he was quitting his candidacy in mid-season.

He tried to restart it later and was on the ballots on Election Day, but by then he was thought by most people unsuited for the challenge of the presidency because of that quitting-but-maybe-not move.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The problem with being independent is that both parties working together can shut out an independent. The two parties even thought they were in total control of their destinies in the 2016 election when the party bosses ran their dynasty candidates: Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. The two parties expected business as usual.

Both parties were ripe for take-over. Democrat power brokers were able to hold back Bernie but the plan by Republican power brokers went awry despite the huge sums of money spent by Jeb Bush.

Now, the Republican party is being restructured by Trump and the Democratic party by Bernie. Even if Bernie fails to get the nomination he will have fundamentally shifted the party to full socialist mode.

Trump, on the other hand, has shifted the Republican party to saner ground in the middle-of-the-road. It turns out that looks pretty good to Republican voters.

 

[FenderTL5]

(thread title) Trump should run as an Independent

Why? He won as a republican and has operated according to the republican platform.
He's been more blunt about some of the negative aspects, but his policies are in line with the party.
To forego the built-in advantages our two party system automatically applies would be stupid.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

(thread title) Trump should run as an Independent

Why? He won as a republican and has operated according to the republican platform.
He's been more blunt about some of the negative aspects, but his policies are in line with the party.
To forego the built-in advantages our two party system automatically applies would be stupid.

The thread title was just "tongue in cheek" to get attention......

 

[wing2000]

No, Trump can have the now defunct "Republican Party" - and perhaps rename it to: America First Party.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

quote from a member on a closed thread on Trump:

================
I wonder if R P would have been a lot taller, he would had a better chance at being elected...colorful guy LOL

"giant sucking sound"

Ross Perot and Donald Trump: Presidential Candidates and Outsiders, Looking In

WASHINGTON — Ross Perot isn’t a familiar name to young Americans, and many older ones are more likely to recall Dana Carvey’s impersonation of Mr. Perot on “Saturday Night Live” or his quirky appearances on Larry King’s talk show in the 1990s.

But Mr. Perot was a significant figure in modern American politics: He won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential race against George Bush and Bill Clinton, making him the most successful third-party White House candidate since Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose campaign in 1912.

Mr. Perot did not win any electoral votes, but he ran competitively with those two major-party nominees in much of the country and even outpolled then-President Bush in Maine and Mr. Clinton in Utah. All told, nearly 20 million Americans cast a ballot for Mr. Perot.

Perhaps more important, the unlikely candidacy of Mr. Perot, the Texas business executive who died Tuesday at 89, signaled the tremors beneath the surface of the country’s political system that presaged the full-blown earthquake of 2016. President Trump was not the first wealthy, quippy outsider who entered politics by running for president and disrupted the status quo by borrowing from the hymnals of both parties

Thought that Ross dropped out early, otherwise he would have even done much better?
M-Bob

 

[brinny]

The thread title was just "tongue in cheek" to get attention......

LOL! Stop with the tryin' to get attention, amigo....

you had me going...

i was like "Say wut?"

 

[SammyClifnote]

(thread title) Trump should run as an Independent

Why? He won as a republican and has operated according to the republican platform.

Yes, but he did kinda show the GOP what was possible if they went full-on in pursuit of their tentative ideals. He just showed that if you push the barrier of "common decency" and fully embraced hypocrisy all things are possible!

He's been more blunt about some of the negative aspects, but his policies are in line with the party.
To forego the built-in advantages our two party system automatically applies would be stupid.

Trump is not necessarily known for "strategic thinking", but yeah. It's why he went with the GOP after years as a much more liberal person. He figured out that his racist "birther gambit" was a winning plan and it was! Once he got into office he showed the way for all future ideologues who lack an ideology.

 

[zephcom]

The problem with being independent is that both parties working together can shut out an independent. The two parties even thought they were in total control of their destinies in the 2016 election when the party bosses ran their dynasty candidates: Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. The two parties expected business as usual.

Both parties were ripe for take-over. Democrat power brokers were able to hold back Bernie but the plan by Republican power brokers went awry despite the huge sums of money spent by Jeb Bush.

Now, the Republican party is being restructured by Trump and the Democratic party by Bernie. Even if Bernie fails to get the nomination he will have fundamentally shifted the party to full socialist mode.

Trump, on the other hand, has shifted the Republican party to saner ground in the middle-of-the-road. It turns out that looks pretty good to Republican voters.

Hmmm. Bernie had 'fundamentally' shifted the party to 'full socialist mode' and Trump has 'shifted the Republican party to saner ground in the middle-of-the-road'.

I have to admit I completely missed that seismic shift in American politics.

 

[rambot]

Trump, on the other hand, has shifted the Republican party to saner ground in the middle-of-the-road.

Never heard something less sane in my ENTIRE life.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, Trump can stay right where he's at...More conservative leaning moderates should break off and form their own party and reach out to the liberal leaning moderates on the other side as a potential ally.

A real 3rd contender (or even 4th) would be what's best for our country right now. A two party monopoly and lack of competition has been what's fostering our current environment which allows two parties to push bad policy (that most of their own voters don't even care for) simply because they don't feel they have a real alternative choice without fear of helping the other side win. If both sides of the political spectrum actually had to earn their votes as opposed to simply getting them by default from "lesser of two evils"-minded voters, we'd see a very different political climate.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Never heard something less sane in my ENTIRE life.

False
Most republicans are very happy with
Mr. President Trump.

In 2020 I believe the Independents will be crawling out of the wood work so as to also vote for him.

It should be good.

M-Bob

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Now, the Republican party is being restructured by Trump and the Democratic party by Bernie. Even if Bernie fails to get the nomination he will have fundamentally shifted the party to full socialist mode.

Trump, on the other hand, has shifted the Republican party to saner ground in the middle-of-the-road. It turns out that looks pretty good to Republican voters.

I think I'd have to respectfully disagree with both of these assertions.

The republican party has been restructured, but not more toward the "middle of the road". "Middle of the road" would be more like a Charlie Baker or a Chris Sununu.

The groups that Trump is appealing to don't represent moderation in any sense of the word.

As far as "full socialist mode", examples of that would be China, Cuba, Laos, or Vietnam. Then you get into slightly more watered down version of non-Marxist socialist states like ones we see in South America.

Then you get into the Nordic Model (which is closer where Bernie would actually fall) where it's 70/30 split between private/public sector with regards to specific industries and markets. Pushing for "Medicare for All" and "No cost Tuition" and more progressive tax policies hardly makes one a "Full Blown Socialist". Each of those things have their potential drawbacks, but none of them would constitute "full socialist mode"

...not to mention, variations of each of those things exist in perfectly stable, free nations that still have private ownership of property and businesses in a wide variety of markets. Hyperbolic rhetoric isn't useful in these types of discussions...

 

[zephcom]

No, Trump can stay right where he's at...More conservative leaning moderates should break off and form their own party and reach out to the liberal leaning moderates on the other side as a potential ally.

A real 3rd contender (or even 4th) would be what's best for our country right now. A two party monopoly and lack of competition has been what's fostering our current environment which allows two parties to push bad policy (that most of their own voters don't even care for) simply because they don't feel they have a real alternative choice without fear of helping the other side win. If both sides of the political spectrum actually had to earn their votes as opposed to simply getting them by default from "lesser of two evils"-minded voters, we'd see a very different political climate.

I disagree. We can have as many parties as we want and nothing will change. The reason I say that is that it isn't the two party system which causes the problem. The problem is how politics in America is funded.

The vast majority of funding for politics in America comes from just one source...the wealthy. And since the wealthy fund our politics, it should not be surprising that the wealthy benefit the most from politics.

America has the best government money can buy. And every two years America's government sets up shop around the nation hawking its services to the highest bidder.

Adding more major political parties only adds to the clutter of politicians selling themselves to the wealthy.

 

[rambot]

False
Most republicans are very happy with
Mr. President Trump.

In 2020 I believe the Independents will be crawling out of the wood work so as to also vote for him.

It should be good.

M-Bob

That doesn't mean he's gone middle of the road...like... At all or to "saner" middle ground.

 

[Albion]

No, Trump can stay right where he's at...More conservative leaning moderates should break off and form their own party and reach out to the liberal leaning moderates on the other side as a potential ally.

They tried something like that last time. Do you remember their candidate's name? No one else does either.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They tried something like that last time. Do you remember their candidate's name? No one else does either.

I remember Gary Johnson and Jill Stein having to constantly chase moving goalposts in order to try to get on the national debate stage, only for the CPD (sponsored by the two main parties)- Commission on Presidential Debates - Wikipedia
...to keep moving the goalposts on them with regards to how high their numbers had to be in national polls in order to be eligible.

 

[Albion]

I think I'd have to respectfully disagree with both of these assertions.

The republican party has been restructured, but not more toward the "middle of the road". "Middle of the road" would be more like a Charlie Baker or a Chris Sununu.

The groups that Trump is appealing to don't represent moderation in any sense of the word..

Oh, no. You are confusing the real realignment or reorientation with the Democrat narrative.

It is necessary to guard against that in this overheated political atmosphere we are experiencing at the moment.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh, no. You are confusing the real realignment or reorientation with the Democrat narrative.

...no, it's not based on any sort of narrative. It's based on policy, facts, and reason.

People need to stop equating opposition to Trump to "not thinking for themselves" or "just buying into a democrat narrative".

Neither Trump's policies, nor the people he surrounds himself with, represent moderation in any sense of the word.

He's voiced support for judges who've made it their mission to defy SCOTUS rulings based on religious preferences and nothing more. He's appointed people who've voiced intent to re-ignite the failed "war on drugs", He's appointed people who have pushed or nationwide school voucher systems, as well as claiming they wanted to use the public school system to "advance the kingdom of God" (again, to pander to religious voters). He's appointed people to Environmental positions who are climate change deniers. (even though the environment was something that used to be common ground for both parties). He's voiced support for military expansionism. He's pushed for protectionist (and sometimes bordering on isolationist) trade policies...

None of that represents "middle of the road" or "moderate"

Groups like the Tea Party and people who tote around AR-15's and Confederate Flags and demonstrations don't pledge their overwhelming support for moderate "middle of the road" candidates.