NY Times Op Ed by Tim Egan (Trump is) Burning Down the House

I have said for a long time that the Republican party will need to implode and possibly build back up as two separate parties. There is no way that those that are far right conservative, religious Republicans can be in the same party as those that are fiscally and Constitutionally conservative but socially liberal. This, however, is not the implosion that I was expecting or hoping for.

Oh man, I want so bad for there to be a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  That would be my dream party. 

Agreed. While I've never supported a Republican for POTUS because I can't get in line with the social aspects of the platform, I've never, ever viewed an R as legitimately dangerous before Trump. I have young brothers of a ddraftable age. I honestly fear for a their safety under a Trump presidency. Of all the horrible things he's said about women, minorities, the disabled...those things speak to his character as a person, and that person isn't very nice. However, it's the way he runs his business that terrifies me. If he wins and runs this country the way he runs his businesses, he's going to piss off a lot of very powerful people who just happen to be our enemies and have access to nuclear weapons. That outcome is unimaginable. 

Mr. Trump-----don't go away mad, just go away.

Trump reminds me of Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays.

A few years back, there was a lot of 'Happy Holidays' to show respect for other people with different religious backgrounds who might not celebrate Christmas. There were a few Merry Christmases from the 'defiant' few.

The next year was all 'Merry Christmas and sobeit if anyone might be offended by it' as if it was some sort of victory in a war on Christmas or something. The same mindset is why people were outraged by the red cups at Starbucks last year. 'How could you possibly ignore Christmas specifically and offend so many people' was how it was viewed instead of trying to be all inclusive as the 'happy holidays' trend had been.

Except this defiance of socially acceptable ways of addressing and regarding people who are different than you is a (to use his phrasing) HUGE deal. It's nothing like being defiant and choosing Merry Christmas over Happy Hoidays, it is saying it's okay to mistreat any and every person who doesn't fit your mold of acceptable. His way of not being politically correct is making people feel justified in their bigotry. It's marketed as not being afraid of the 'PC police' and the bigots who have been hushed for decades because of public shame have been fed this idea of it being okay to do it, that they're not going to be forced into silence any longer. But the comparison of common human decency and political correctness is a farce. It is not PC to treat people with respect, it is being a decent human being.

Unfortunately, it seems for many people, the idea of empathy is completely gone. Political correctness and empathy/common human decency have been marketed to be interchangeable. What scares me the most is that there are not only people who still have wayward thinking when it comes to gays (it's a relatively 'new' public concept, so I can kind of understand it) but that there are such large numbers of people who still carry so many prejudices against skin colors and gender after so many decades and think putting those groups down is acceptable. It also makes me sad for what kind of people their children will grow up to become, because these teachings come from home.

From Wikipedia.  

The Libertarian Party advocates repealing all laws that control or prohibit homosexuality.[100] According to the Libertarian Party's platform, "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.  

And yes the less regulation on everything  you can think of is kind of what the party is all about, and probably how they came up with their name...  

i think that there are MANY people that fall into this category

but we are taunted with ' a third party vote is a vote for -------?

even Obama made the remark

so is there REALLY a third option?

gina

That's my feeling too. When I voted for Perot (who thought that someone would outcrazy him?) it was a vote hoping for 3rd party strength in the future. I knew it was futile in 1992, but I had really hoped that by this time, there would be a strong 3rd party (but what do I know, because I also thought that when I visited the "House of the Future" at the 1982 World Fair that solar would be used much more by this time also).

That's why I don't necessarily think that the complete breakdown of the Republican party is a bad thing. It's a bad thing for voters this election cycle to be sure but the party is in need of rebuilding and has been for some time. I just hope that a viable and respectable party (or two) will emerge.



And thank you Merge for saying that, but based on the threads and comments in the past few months, horrified isn't really the first word that comes to mind. Gleeful would be more accurate (not you personally, but as a whole). But to be fair, I have no doubt that conservatives would react the same if Hillary went down in flames.