In another thread Curtis and I were going back and forth on whether Trump's time in office demonstrated actual "lining his pockets" corruption or whether the former President's activities were within the bounds of acceptable behavior (not divesting from his business, the MANY Mar-a-Lago trips that benefited his company financially, etc.). My contention was that Trump was at the head of a financially-dubious business heading into 2016 (primarily a licensing and branding business that's largely lost its luster), and him ascending to the White House was a lifeline for his troubled company.
What I'm wondering now is to what extent Trump's personal financial fortunes are dependent on him continuing his "Ponzi scheme" or whether is bilking of GOP true-believers is him seizing on an optional opportunity that fate's dropped on his lap. For the Trump fans out there, can you recall ANYTHING in the past year that would indicate that the Trump Organization is a healthy solvent ongoing entity providing goods and/or services that the market demands OR is it primarily a rent-seeking enterprise at this point with declining assets that it can continue to monetize? Here in Chicago, the skyscraper with his name on it isn't doing well[1], his DC hotel's up for sale[2], and I wonder whether the same pattern is playing out elsewhere.
To put the question another way, if Trump choked on a taco salad tomorrow and went on his way to the Pearly Gates, is there ANY expectation that the company bearing his name would continue to exist as an ongoing corporate entity, or would it collapse like a house of cards? I think that the answer to this may shine a light on whether Trump's continued pumping of his political Ponzi scheme is an existential issue for him and his family or not.
Not to worry Chris, he won't be choking on a taco salad any time soon; maybe a double big mac, hold the pickle and tomato (those veggies will kill you.) Kudos to all three (yes, you too Steve) and especially L and C for nailing this.
Every day we see further the results of our slide into depravity. It's hard to go anywhere or read anything that allows comments and not see the charade of winning...when in reality trump got his ample backside kicked. The foaming at the keyboard rantings of what used to be normal people is impossible for me to get my head around.
The bigger question is simple: Ponzi games, the big con, usually ends when people finally get it. When they come to realize they've been cheated. I see no point in our future where any of those lined up to prove their fealty will ever let go the dream the orange guy is going to rise from the dead and lead us to the promised land.
Think not? Just ask Mitch and Lindsey who trump torched a week ago and they are still worshiping at the altar of the donald. Go figure?
I think the outcome depends on the inevitable battle to determine who Trump's political heir is. That's why McConnell and Graham will continue to play along, because they think that there's an advantage for them in that inevitable conflict.
I take heart in the fact that there's no clear frontrunner in that race, and participants will go to great lengths to beclown themselves for a chance to win. (I'm looking at you, J.D. Vance.) That makes it easier to figure out who to support in the next phase.
Trump does stand out from the crowd in that he was one of the few businessmen to become president without spending years as a politician. I doubt that Harry Truman sold enough clothing to people seeking his favors to make much of a difference. Same for Jimmy Carter - how much peanut brittle can lobbyists use.
Curtis, if nothing else you are reliable for an effort to put trump's best foot forward. Let's be clear, there is a huge difference between a "businessman" and a "con man." trump plain and simply was the latter.
I will give trump this, genius at branding and marketing. The problem is/was what he was selling was a shell game where there was no pea under any of them. What is so amazing is he could show the rubes there was nothing there and they still kept sending him money.
Seriously brother, i do love your passion for your beliefs, i just can't begin to grasp why an intelligent person would fall for his shtick. I would never come on here and tell you old Joe is anything other than a placeholder that took trump out. That was enough for me and about 80 plus million others.
And i will tell you more of us voted for joe than those of you who voted for trump. Now, can you pass that on to your friends that can't get their head around it? Thank you Curtis.
What seemed to help Trump in 2016 was the outsider's card. He had no political track record outside of his spoken words It probably made the difference as many late deciding voters gave him the benefit of the doubt. By 2020, he did have a political track record, and that he couldn't lay claim to being an outsider and thus receive the benefit of the doubt that came along with it. The last candidate before Trump that had leveraged that outsider's appeal I think was Ross Perot in 1992. And he managed to bag about 19 percent of the popular vote, and even got 2nd place in a couple of states if I remember correctly(Maine, Utah). Perot wasn't as successful in 1996, though he grabbed about 8 percent, as some of his prior support went to either Clinton or Dole. From what I heard from Kevin Williamson of the National Review, personality/character differences aside, Trump essentially ran Perot's 1992 campaign. But he ran it inside the Republican party, as opposed to the outside of it. And it paid off for him. I think there is a lot of truth to that. Having the advantage of the party structure and resources gave Trump help that Perot wasn't able to receive by running outside the two main parties.
Steve, You are far more optimistic than I if your worst case scenario is the death of the GOP because I believe the GOP will be the death of our Democratic Republic.
When the GOP apparatus began its systematic purge of moderates, it started the process of moving the party further and further to the right to the point we now have Marjorie Taylor Green, Madison Cawthorn, whose frontal lobe is not fully developed, Lauren Boebert, Tommy Tuberville, and a host of extremists in the US House and Senate and at all levels of government in numerous states. (I can,as I write this comment, literally hear Rush Limbaugh drawing out the word "moderate" with his jowls flapping. Conservative talk radio was the instrument for deriding moderate Relublicans.)
George Washington admonished us that "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth [unity in government]; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed" and he instructed us that it was "of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest..."
From 1986-2010, I voted Republican, but then I saw the infiltration into all levels of government and the march toward a one party state and it scared the Bejeezus out of me. We are closer to that one party state now. Should the GOP retake the House and Senate in 2022 and retain them while going the presidency, I think the one party state will be a done deal. We have seen the lengths which the party has taken to overturn our Democracy. All they need are more elected officials to be complicit and they will have them. The GOP has abandoned the principles of integrity in governance and personal rectitude in their relentless pursuit of absolute power.
Washington said it could happen, and it, just about has. "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty." 2024 will tell.
I have never feared for my country as I fear for it, now.
You underestimate the democrat march toward socialism. The number of people wanting free stuff will only increase as the economy of the USA is destroyed.
Just curious C, is your social security check socialism? How about your medicare, what you pay doesn't begin to cover the real cost. How about those "free" vaccine shots? Or pray tell, all those red staters' who are being treated these days for covid19 without insurance...should we cut them off and kick them to the street? And, don't even get me started on corporate welfare or red states that suck off the blue states who pay more than their fare share. I guess free stuff is only when the other guy gets it.
I am still paying into Social Security. Part of my pension is deferred income. I still pay for Medicare. I pay the maximum income tax on my Social Security. I haven't done the calculation lately but several years ago my payments and lost investment income would have covered my medical costs. I'm now in my eighties and expect my costs to increase but if I expire suddenly, I certainly will not break even.
I believe if you look at poverty rates in many states, you will find that much of the poverty is in blue cities as opposed to red states. Almost 25% in Atlanta. Even in Blue states most of the poverty is in big cities. About 20% in Los Angeles. So the sucking you talk about comes mostly from democrat controlled cities. Wages and cost of living and state and local taxes are all higher in places like Connecticut, New York and California. No amount of tax code reform will change the fact that states with higher wages and higher cost of living will pay more federal taxes. Maybe if the feds stuck to powers enumerated in the Constitution and left day-to- day matters to the states, each state would pay an appropriate share. Then, if Georgians and Mississippians do not like what they are getting from the state, they could move to where they pay more taxes or live off the state.
I hate to admit when i am confused, but are you telling me at age 80 you are not drawing your social security checks Curtis? Because that would be really dumb.
The better discussion is on disbursements of federal dollars. Here's a paragraph from a Forbes article: "Take New York and Kentucky as one comparison set, given the verbal fistacuffs between New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and Kentucky Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. According to the report, New York State had a balance of payments deficit of close to $22 billion, meaning it sent more in tax payments than it got back in federal spending in 2017; this equates to getting back only 90 cents for every dollar it gives. Kentucky, on the other hand, had a balance of payments surplus of over $45 billion; this equates to taking $2.41 for every dollar it gave to the federal government."
I did not say I am not receiving Social Security benefits. I said I am still paying into Social Security because I have earned income.
Evidently you did not follow my argument that New Yorkers pay more taxes because they have more income. They have more income because it costs so dang much to live there. If wages and cost of living were uniform across the fifty states, this would not be the case. If the feds left welfare to the states as they should, states would have no more to complain about. Just another case of Congress being useless and trying to buy votes. Presidents are complicit for not vetoing wasteful spending bills. They too want to buy votes.
I know what you said, i just wanted you to admit you were a socialist and taking that communistic money in the form of social security. It appeared to me you were trying to avoid admitting it.
However, now i am really pissed at you Curtis. I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading the "more balanced article" you linked. Turns out it was written by some asshat from ALEC. Geez. All's forgiven because the sum total of his article was to admit blue states pay more and get less but it's their own fault because they have higher tax rates and that's where the rich people live.
Anyway, still love ya Curtis. Nothing better than a friendly joust while still being friends.
Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen’s compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.
Interestingly, when one uses the term “moderate” it can mean a whole lot of things, as the term is very relative. Some of the people being purged from the major parties aren’t actually moderates ideologically, but maybe in temperament. Those are the ones that Trumpists and the Squad would consider sellouts, because they don’t engage in performative extremism. Brad Raffensperger is clearly a right of center conservative, as are Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and the 8 other GOP House members(to varying extents). Among the GOP Senators that voted to convict Trump on his 2nd impeachment, only Susan Collins can be reliably considered a moderate, and to a lesser extent, Lisa Murkowski. The rest are firmly conservative, and significantly to the to the right of center. People of good faith can be a passionate liberal, a centrist, or firmly conservative, yet be moderate in temperament and rhetoric. Some of the GOPers that Trump is calling RINOs are actually some of the most conservative elected officials out there. They are just guilty of not being performative extremists in being Trump sycophants(to be distinguished from those who reluctantly voted for Trump for party loyalty reasons or out of concern for the Dem’s leftward lurch). As far as ideology is concerned, the more left leaning Republicans eventually became Democrats and the more right leaning of Democrats eventually became Republicans over time. From what I’ve noticed with their voting patterns, the former GOP turned Democrats tended to shift left to some extent, and the Democrats turned GOP shifted about equally right. The moderates we talk about ideologically today, wouldn’t be considered moderates in the 1960’s to the 1990’s. Both parties have had realignments where this ideological consolidation took place. With the GOP turning more populist and big government, and the Dems shifting to reflect more of a suburbanite, white collar party, it’ll be interesting to see what the parties look like 20 years from now.
When it comes to temperament, there is a spectrum. On one extreme, you have those who live every aspect of their lives through the frame of partisan politics. They tend to be Very Online, sometimes very woke, and are prone to engaging in cancel culture for those don’t agree with them. On the opposite end is complete apathy. They believe everything government does is part of some grand conspiracy, and are very prone to accepting misinformation peddled as conspiracy theories. They sometimes behave like the hyper political when they don’t get their way. Trumpists seem to include a mix of both extremes. And a combo of both ends seems to be their driving fire to keep peddling the Big Lie, including what Steve eloquently mentioned is happening in Georgia. In the middle, are the moderates when it comes to political behavior. They may be strongly liberal, ideologically moderate, strongly conservative, and all shades in between. These rational, behavioral moderates used to be vocal enough and had enough numbers to keep the performative extremists on both ends in check. But lately, it seems the extremists are squeezing in and rooting out the sensible middle(who are ideologically diverse, but fair minded people of good will). And we are seeing Trump on a vengeful streak the very people who would contribute most to the conservative cause. They are moderate to solidly conservative, but are rhetorically and temperamentally moderate. One of the reasons why the late President Reagan was so successful, is that he knew that good politics is about the political arithmetic of addition, not division and subtraction.
In another thread Curtis and I were going back and forth on whether Trump's time in office demonstrated actual "lining his pockets" corruption or whether the former President's activities were within the bounds of acceptable behavior (not divesting from his business, the MANY Mar-a-Lago trips that benefited his company financially, etc.). My contention was that Trump was at the head of a financially-dubious business heading into 2016 (primarily a licensing and branding business that's largely lost its luster), and him ascending to the White House was a lifeline for his troubled company.
What I'm wondering now is to what extent Trump's personal financial fortunes are dependent on him continuing his "Ponzi scheme" or whether is bilking of GOP true-believers is him seizing on an optional opportunity that fate's dropped on his lap. For the Trump fans out there, can you recall ANYTHING in the past year that would indicate that the Trump Organization is a healthy solvent ongoing entity providing goods and/or services that the market demands OR is it primarily a rent-seeking enterprise at this point with declining assets that it can continue to monetize? Here in Chicago, the skyscraper with his name on it isn't doing well[1], his DC hotel's up for sale[2], and I wonder whether the same pattern is playing out elsewhere.
To put the question another way, if Trump choked on a taco salad tomorrow and went on his way to the Pearly Gates, is there ANY expectation that the company bearing his name would continue to exist as an ongoing corporate entity, or would it collapse like a house of cards? I think that the answer to this may shine a light on whether Trump's continued pumping of his political Ponzi scheme is an existential issue for him and his family or not.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-tower-chicago-value-slashed-commercial-retail-space2021-9
[2] https://therealdeal.com/2021/09/07/trump-org-in-advanced-talks-to-sell-dc-hotel-lease/
Not to worry Chris, he won't be choking on a taco salad any time soon; maybe a double big mac, hold the pickle and tomato (those veggies will kill you.) Kudos to all three (yes, you too Steve) and especially L and C for nailing this.
Every day we see further the results of our slide into depravity. It's hard to go anywhere or read anything that allows comments and not see the charade of winning...when in reality trump got his ample backside kicked. The foaming at the keyboard rantings of what used to be normal people is impossible for me to get my head around.
The bigger question is simple: Ponzi games, the big con, usually ends when people finally get it. When they come to realize they've been cheated. I see no point in our future where any of those lined up to prove their fealty will ever let go the dream the orange guy is going to rise from the dead and lead us to the promised land.
Think not? Just ask Mitch and Lindsey who trump torched a week ago and they are still worshiping at the altar of the donald. Go figure?
I think the outcome depends on the inevitable battle to determine who Trump's political heir is. That's why McConnell and Graham will continue to play along, because they think that there's an advantage for them in that inevitable conflict.
I take heart in the fact that there's no clear frontrunner in that race, and participants will go to great lengths to beclown themselves for a chance to win. (I'm looking at you, J.D. Vance.) That makes it easier to figure out who to support in the next phase.
Trump does stand out from the crowd in that he was one of the few businessmen to become president without spending years as a politician. I doubt that Harry Truman sold enough clothing to people seeking his favors to make much of a difference. Same for Jimmy Carter - how much peanut brittle can lobbyists use.
Curtis, if nothing else you are reliable for an effort to put trump's best foot forward. Let's be clear, there is a huge difference between a "businessman" and a "con man." trump plain and simply was the latter.
I will give trump this, genius at branding and marketing. The problem is/was what he was selling was a shell game where there was no pea under any of them. What is so amazing is he could show the rubes there was nothing there and they still kept sending him money.
Seriously brother, i do love your passion for your beliefs, i just can't begin to grasp why an intelligent person would fall for his shtick. I would never come on here and tell you old Joe is anything other than a placeholder that took trump out. That was enough for me and about 80 plus million others.
And I would never tell you that Trump is perfect, he's just better than Joe and the other democrat alternatives.
And i will tell you more of us voted for joe than those of you who voted for trump. Now, can you pass that on to your friends that can't get their head around it? Thank you Curtis.
What seemed to help Trump in 2016 was the outsider's card. He had no political track record outside of his spoken words It probably made the difference as many late deciding voters gave him the benefit of the doubt. By 2020, he did have a political track record, and that he couldn't lay claim to being an outsider and thus receive the benefit of the doubt that came along with it. The last candidate before Trump that had leveraged that outsider's appeal I think was Ross Perot in 1992. And he managed to bag about 19 percent of the popular vote, and even got 2nd place in a couple of states if I remember correctly(Maine, Utah). Perot wasn't as successful in 1996, though he grabbed about 8 percent, as some of his prior support went to either Clinton or Dole. From what I heard from Kevin Williamson of the National Review, personality/character differences aside, Trump essentially ran Perot's 1992 campaign. But he ran it inside the Republican party, as opposed to the outside of it. And it paid off for him. I think there is a lot of truth to that. Having the advantage of the party structure and resources gave Trump help that Perot wasn't able to receive by running outside the two main parties.
Steve, You are far more optimistic than I if your worst case scenario is the death of the GOP because I believe the GOP will be the death of our Democratic Republic.
When the GOP apparatus began its systematic purge of moderates, it started the process of moving the party further and further to the right to the point we now have Marjorie Taylor Green, Madison Cawthorn, whose frontal lobe is not fully developed, Lauren Boebert, Tommy Tuberville, and a host of extremists in the US House and Senate and at all levels of government in numerous states. (I can,as I write this comment, literally hear Rush Limbaugh drawing out the word "moderate" with his jowls flapping. Conservative talk radio was the instrument for deriding moderate Relublicans.)
George Washington admonished us that "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth [unity in government]; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed" and he instructed us that it was "of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest..."
From 1986-2010, I voted Republican, but then I saw the infiltration into all levels of government and the march toward a one party state and it scared the Bejeezus out of me. We are closer to that one party state now. Should the GOP retake the House and Senate in 2022 and retain them while going the presidency, I think the one party state will be a done deal. We have seen the lengths which the party has taken to overturn our Democracy. All they need are more elected officials to be complicit and they will have them. The GOP has abandoned the principles of integrity in governance and personal rectitude in their relentless pursuit of absolute power.
Washington said it could happen, and it, just about has. "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty." 2024 will tell.
I have never feared for my country as I fear for it, now.
You underestimate the democrat march toward socialism. The number of people wanting free stuff will only increase as the economy of the USA is destroyed.
Just curious C, is your social security check socialism? How about your medicare, what you pay doesn't begin to cover the real cost. How about those "free" vaccine shots? Or pray tell, all those red staters' who are being treated these days for covid19 without insurance...should we cut them off and kick them to the street? And, don't even get me started on corporate welfare or red states that suck off the blue states who pay more than their fare share. I guess free stuff is only when the other guy gets it.
I am still paying into Social Security. Part of my pension is deferred income. I still pay for Medicare. I pay the maximum income tax on my Social Security. I haven't done the calculation lately but several years ago my payments and lost investment income would have covered my medical costs. I'm now in my eighties and expect my costs to increase but if I expire suddenly, I certainly will not break even.
I believe if you look at poverty rates in many states, you will find that much of the poverty is in blue cities as opposed to red states. Almost 25% in Atlanta. Even in Blue states most of the poverty is in big cities. About 20% in Los Angeles. So the sucking you talk about comes mostly from democrat controlled cities. Wages and cost of living and state and local taxes are all higher in places like Connecticut, New York and California. No amount of tax code reform will change the fact that states with higher wages and higher cost of living will pay more federal taxes. Maybe if the feds stuck to powers enumerated in the Constitution and left day-to- day matters to the states, each state would pay an appropriate share. Then, if Georgians and Mississippians do not like what they are getting from the state, they could move to where they pay more taxes or live off the state.
I hate to admit when i am confused, but are you telling me at age 80 you are not drawing your social security checks Curtis? Because that would be really dumb.
The better discussion is on disbursements of federal dollars. Here's a paragraph from a Forbes article: "Take New York and Kentucky as one comparison set, given the verbal fistacuffs between New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and Kentucky Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. According to the report, New York State had a balance of payments deficit of close to $22 billion, meaning it sent more in tax payments than it got back in federal spending in 2017; this equates to getting back only 90 cents for every dollar it gives. Kentucky, on the other hand, had a balance of payments surplus of over $45 billion; this equates to taking $2.41 for every dollar it gave to the federal government."
The article itself is quite well done should you chose to read it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/05/12/blue-state-bailout-red-state-residents-received-largest-stimulus-checks-and-millions-in-federal-aid/?sh=28eb950e8352
I did not say I am not receiving Social Security benefits. I said I am still paying into Social Security because I have earned income.
Evidently you did not follow my argument that New Yorkers pay more taxes because they have more income. They have more income because it costs so dang much to live there. If wages and cost of living were uniform across the fifty states, this would not be the case. If the feds left welfare to the states as they should, states would have no more to complain about. Just another case of Congress being useless and trying to buy votes. Presidents are complicit for not vetoing wasteful spending bills. They too want to buy votes.
A more balanced analysis is found here:https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/
I know what you said, i just wanted you to admit you were a socialist and taking that communistic money in the form of social security. It appeared to me you were trying to avoid admitting it.
However, now i am really pissed at you Curtis. I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading the "more balanced article" you linked. Turns out it was written by some asshat from ALEC. Geez. All's forgiven because the sum total of his article was to admit blue states pay more and get less but it's their own fault because they have higher tax rates and that's where the rich people live.
Anyway, still love ya Curtis. Nothing better than a friendly joust while still being friends.
Imagine this in a Republican Party platform:
Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen’s compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.
Spending taxpayer money to pay people not to work and to buy votes does not impress me. It's already hard enough to get union employees to do work.
Interestingly, when one uses the term “moderate” it can mean a whole lot of things, as the term is very relative. Some of the people being purged from the major parties aren’t actually moderates ideologically, but maybe in temperament. Those are the ones that Trumpists and the Squad would consider sellouts, because they don’t engage in performative extremism. Brad Raffensperger is clearly a right of center conservative, as are Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and the 8 other GOP House members(to varying extents). Among the GOP Senators that voted to convict Trump on his 2nd impeachment, only Susan Collins can be reliably considered a moderate, and to a lesser extent, Lisa Murkowski. The rest are firmly conservative, and significantly to the to the right of center. People of good faith can be a passionate liberal, a centrist, or firmly conservative, yet be moderate in temperament and rhetoric. Some of the GOPers that Trump is calling RINOs are actually some of the most conservative elected officials out there. They are just guilty of not being performative extremists in being Trump sycophants(to be distinguished from those who reluctantly voted for Trump for party loyalty reasons or out of concern for the Dem’s leftward lurch). As far as ideology is concerned, the more left leaning Republicans eventually became Democrats and the more right leaning of Democrats eventually became Republicans over time. From what I’ve noticed with their voting patterns, the former GOP turned Democrats tended to shift left to some extent, and the Democrats turned GOP shifted about equally right. The moderates we talk about ideologically today, wouldn’t be considered moderates in the 1960’s to the 1990’s. Both parties have had realignments where this ideological consolidation took place. With the GOP turning more populist and big government, and the Dems shifting to reflect more of a suburbanite, white collar party, it’ll be interesting to see what the parties look like 20 years from now.
When it comes to temperament, there is a spectrum. On one extreme, you have those who live every aspect of their lives through the frame of partisan politics. They tend to be Very Online, sometimes very woke, and are prone to engaging in cancel culture for those don’t agree with them. On the opposite end is complete apathy. They believe everything government does is part of some grand conspiracy, and are very prone to accepting misinformation peddled as conspiracy theories. They sometimes behave like the hyper political when they don’t get their way. Trumpists seem to include a mix of both extremes. And a combo of both ends seems to be their driving fire to keep peddling the Big Lie, including what Steve eloquently mentioned is happening in Georgia. In the middle, are the moderates when it comes to political behavior. They may be strongly liberal, ideologically moderate, strongly conservative, and all shades in between. These rational, behavioral moderates used to be vocal enough and had enough numbers to keep the performative extremists on both ends in check. But lately, it seems the extremists are squeezing in and rooting out the sensible middle(who are ideologically diverse, but fair minded people of good will). And we are seeing Trump on a vengeful streak the very people who would contribute most to the conservative cause. They are moderate to solidly conservative, but are rhetorically and temperamentally moderate. One of the reasons why the late President Reagan was so successful, is that he knew that good politics is about the political arithmetic of addition, not division and subtraction.