Anxiety over Trump cuts into House Republicans' support

[webfact]

Anxiety over Trump cuts into House Republicans' support
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Anxiety over Donald Trump spread among congressional Republicans Monday, pushing several to follow House Speaker Paul Ryan's lead and withhold their support from the divisive billionaire. Ryan himself declared there's no point in trying to "fake" party unity.

"If we go forward pretending that we're unified, then we are going to be at half-strength this fall," Ryan told The Journal Times in Racine, Wisconsin, defending his stunning decision last week to refuse to endorse his party's presumptive presidential nominee.

Still, in interviews with home-state reporters Monday, Ryan denounced the idea of any Republican launching a third-party or independent candidacy to challenge Trump, telling the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel it "would be a disaster for our party."

And Ryan said he'd step aside from the House speaker's traditional role as chairman of the Republican National Convention if Trump wants him to, a scenario that Trump left open over the weekend, underscoring the depths of strife now afflicting a GOP divided against itself.

"He's the nominee. I'll do whatever he wants in respect to the convention," Ryan said, striking a conciliatory note.

Trump himself shrugged off the need for unity heading into the November general election and a likely match-up against Democrat Hillary Clinton, even though that would be the goal in any normal election year after a candidate effectively clinches the nomination, as Trump did last week.

"I think this is a time for unity. And if there's not going to be unity, I think that's OK, too," Trump said on Fox Business Network. "I mean, I'll go out and I think I'll do very well. I think I'm going to win the race either way."

The comments from Ryan and Trump came as both men prepared for a face-to-face meeting Thursday, which Republican leaders hope will begin to mend the fabric of their party. Trump will also meet Thursday with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate GOP leaders.

Still, ahead of the meeting, Ryan's negative stance appeared to be providing cover for some vulnerable Republicans who are anxious to distance themselves from Trump and his controversial comments about women, Latinos, prisoners of war and others.

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, one of the most endangered Senate Republicans, wrote an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer drawing back from his long-stated intent to back the GOP nominee.

"His vulgarity, particularly toward women, is appalling. His lack of appreciation for constitutional limits on executive powers is deeply concerning. ... In short, I find his candidacy highly problematic," Toomey wrote of Trump. "There could come a point at which the differences are so great as to be irreconcilable."

Toomey appeared to be the only Senate Republican running for re-election to publicly step back from plans to vote for Trump. However, other backing has come with little enthusiasm as senators have announced in the same breath plans to skip the July convention in Cleveland.

Party leaders fear Trump's candidacy could cost Republicans control of the Senate. Even in the House, where Republicans command the largest majority in decades and are unlikely to lose control, vulnerable members are visibly nervous.

Several newly elected lawmakers who could face difficulty in November, including Martha McSally of Arizona, Will Hurd of Texas and Barbara Comstock of Virginia, have told local publications they are not ready to back Trump.

Another Republican in a closely divided district, Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, said in an interview that he and others were finding it difficult to support Trump given his history of incendiary comments and his own uncertain record as a Republican, including donations to many Democrats, Clinton among them.

"When you're a candidate running for office you don't like to be in a position where you have to put distance between yourself and someone in your own party," Dent said. "But in this case you're compelled to do it because of the nature of these inflammatory statements."

Trump's tendency to shift stances on policy issues, which has troubled conservatives while handing ammunition to Democrats, arose anew Monday as he defended a weekend suggestion that his tax plan could be negotiable. Clinton aides pounced on the issue in a conference call while Trump defended himself, saying, "This is a negotiation."

Ever confident, Trump announced that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a former foe but now an enthusiastic supporter, would head his transition team as he heads for the White House after the election.

Another former opponent, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who's been mentioned by Trump as a potential vice presidential pick, issued a statement saying he wasn't interested because Trump "will be best served by a running mate and by surrogates who fully embrace his campaign."

___

Associated Press writers Nicholas Riccardi and Jill Colvin contributed.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-05-10

[Rob13]

The GOP's so divided and screwed up, I don't see how Billary can lose.

[Emster23]

""He's the nominee. I'll do whatever he wants in respect to the convention," Ryan said, striking a conciliatory note." After the convention, "have a nice day".

plenty of VIP seats available on Trump bandwagon. Lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

[jacksam]

And the world has a daily laugh about American politics.

[Pinot]

The GOP's so divided and screwed up, I don't see how Billary can lose.

Trump can win, if we let him

[Rob13]

The GOP's so divided and screwed up, I don't see how Billary can lose.

Trump can win, if we let him

It's lose/lose. My vote's going to the highest bidder.

[connda]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

[connda]

The GOP's so divided and screwed up, I don't see how Billary can lose.

Trump can win, if we let him

It's lose/lose. My vote's going to the highest bidder.

Both the House and the Senate electees do the exact same thing, which is why the American political system is totally broken today. The American people unconsciously know this which is why Congress enjoys a 6% approval rating.

It time to change the model.

[Traveler19491]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

I completely agree with your last statement, however, your first statement is lacking in historical context. The "conservative roots" you speak of never existed. The GOP was, originally, the party of Progressivism, a la Lincoln. Even up through Eisenhower the party embraced elements of democratic socialism, with tax rates for the wealthy at 91% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate rates at 50% on taxable profits over $25,000. It was during the Eisenhower years, with these same high rates of taxation, that the middle class exploded, the interstate highway system was authorized and began construction, the space race got its start, the American education system was the envy of the world, our manufacturing practices were studied by every major industrialized country, and our business models were the most copied. It was also during this period of explosive growth that unions had their highest membership. A family with one income could afford to buy a house, buy a new car, send their kids to college, take a vacation, and still save money. It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson managed to enact that Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the Republicans began their move to the right, in order to lure southern Democrats who were abandoning the party because of its emphasis on racial equality.

Even with the stratospheric tax rates under Eisenhower, wealthy people did not flee the country, corporations did not go offshore, and the rich still kept trying to get richer. The purpose that these high tax rates served was to encourage corporations to reinvest in themselves rather than dole out huge dividends, and the workers during that era benefited. Also, both parties worked together for the benefit of the entire country, not just a grossly opinionated few who demanded that everything go exactly the way they expected. Negotiations yielded results that, while not making everyone happy, nevertheless moved the country forward. It's way past time to abandon a failing model of entrenched, dogmatic rhetorical purity that will never do anything more than alienate vast swaths of the populace, and move toward a more conciliatory model that strives to give everyone something.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Traveler19491

[oldsailor35]

Seems that Ryan is considering his party before his duty to the USA as a whole. Surely there is enough proof that the majority of the people want Trump as their man. So why does "bottom feeders" such as Ryan have any say.

[stevenl]

Seems that Ryan is considering his party before his duty to the USA as a whole. Surely there is enough proof that the majority of the people want Trump as their man. So why does "bottom feeders" such as Ryan have any say.

There are elections scheduled for November to find out whether this is true or not.

So no, there is not enough proof.

[elgordo38]

The GOP's so divided and screwed up, I don't see how Billary can lose.

The GOP hierarchy make me laugh. They make note of Trumps comment on women yet they want to pass laws controlling women's rights over their bodies as related to pregnancy. What a bunch of old dinosaur hypocrites.

[Publicus]

Democrats nationally in 2012 got 1 million more total votes for the House of Representatives than the Republican candidates got. Yet the R party retained its majority no sweat.

Gerrymandering in Republican party controlled states saved their weak or otherwise vulnerable R's in the House.

Prof. Larry J. Sabato of the U of VA Center for Politics, who has yet to make a wrong call in Potus elections, says there needs to be a 7-point swing nationally for the D party to defeat gerrymandered Republicans in the House.

HRC leads Trump in the polling averages by 11 percent. That's enough to overcome gerrymandering in the House. Which is why Speaker Ryan is doing all he can in moderate ways to separate both himself and the House R's from Trump leading the R party into oblivion the general election.

Ryan clearly wants out of his role as chairman of the national convention at Cleveland in July. Ryan does not want to be seen on tv all the time presiding over the Trump wildness and have Americans connect Speaker Ryan the Republican to the Republican House member running in their local district, cause it will drag down the Republican. The Republicans.

Prof Sabato notes D's need a net gain of 30 seats to take back majority control of the US House. Sabato and his team figure that presently 15 R's are in tough reelection races back home, and that another 19 R's are on the ropes with their voters back home. That's 34 endangered species House R party seats since Trump emerged as the (presumptive) nominee.

The R party majority by 4 in the Senate is pretty much gonzo already. Several R party senators in "safe" R seats are now tied with their D party opponents, to include McCain in AZ, Burr in NC, Blount in MO among others. The three states are Red states that are beginning to look Purple.

The most vulnerable R senators up for reelection are the 6 in Blue states, to include Kirk in IL, Johnson in WI, Rubio's open seat in Purple FL, Portman in OH, Toomey in PA, Ayotte in NH. All of 'em are suffering the cold sweats as the polling data come in week after week, month after month.

D party open seats are either safe or favored for the D running in each of 'em, in CA, NV, MD. Incumbent D's up for reelection in Blue states remain safe, as with Bennett in Purple CO.

Voters look like they're fixin to clear the decks.

[elgordo38]

The GOP's so divided and screwed up, I don't see how Billary can lose.

Trump can win, if we let him

It's lose/lose. My vote's going to the highest bidder.

Neither one will do much for retirees they have already plundered our benefits with fudged COLA figures and zero percent interest on our hard earned savings. Then they enacted FATCA to keep a close eye on what we do with our hard earned money. What a bunch of BTS

[elgordo38]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

I completely agree with your last statement, however, your first statement is lacking in historical context. The "conservative roots" you speak of never existed. The GOP was, originally, the party of Progressivism, a la Lincoln. Even up through Eisenhower the party embraced elements of democratic socialism, with tax rates for the wealthy at 91% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate rates at 50% on taxable profits over $25,000. It was during the Eisenhower years, with these same high rates of taxation, that the middle class exploded, the interstate highway system was authorized and began construction, the space race got its start, the American education system was the envy of the world, our manufacturing practices were studied by every major industrialized country, and our business models were the most copied. It was also during this period of explosive growth that unions had their highest membership. A family with one income could afford to buy a house, buy a new car, send their kids to college, take a vacation, and still save money. It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson managed to enact that Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the Republicans began their move to the right, in order to lure southern Democrats who were abandoning the party because of its emphasis on racial equality.

Even with the stratospheric tax rates under Eisenhower, wealthy people did not flee the country, corporations did not go offshore, and the rich still kept trying to get richer. The purpose that these high tax rates served was to encourage corporations to reinvest in themselves rather than dole out huge dividends, and the workers during that era benefited. Also, both parties worked together for the benefit of the entire country, not just a grossly opinionated few who demanded that everything go exactly the way they expected. Negotiations yielded results that, while not making everyone happy, nevertheless moved the country forward. It's way past time to abandon a failing model of entrenched, dogmatic rhetorical purity that will never do anything more than alienate vast swaths of the populace, and move toward a more conciliatory model that strives to give everyone something.

Enjoyed your read. The part of about the rich not leaving however true back then has changed. The richer you get the smarter you get. Throw in a government that works to protect your interests and screw the working man. As governments shed badly needed personal to monitor the rich the rich are hiring rooms full of lawyers and accountants to hide their wealth. Wall street is full of algorithm traders accountants that give fuzzy numbers on quarterly and annual earnings. We the sheep the middle class are just here to be shorn.

[chilli42]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

I completely agree with your last statement, however, your first statement is lacking in historical context. The "conservative roots" you speak of never existed. The GOP was, originally, the party of Progressivism, a la Lincoln. Even up through Eisenhower the party embraced elements of democratic socialism, with tax rates for the wealthy at 91% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate rates at 50% on taxable profits over $25,000. It was during the Eisenhower years, with these same high rates of taxation, that the middle class exploded, the interstate highway system was authorized and began construction, the space race got its start, the American education system was the envy of the world, our manufacturing practices were studied by every major industrialized country, and our business models were the most copied. It was also during this period of explosive growth that unions had their highest membership. A family with one income could afford to buy a house, buy a new car, send their kids to college, take a vacation, and still save money. It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson managed to enact that Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the Republicans began their move to the right, in order to lure southern Democrats who were abandoning the party because of its emphasis on racial equality.

Even with the stratospheric tax rates under Eisenhower, wealthy people did not flee the country, corporations did not go offshore, and the rich still kept trying to get richer. The purpose that these high tax rates served was to encourage corporations to reinvest in themselves rather than dole out huge dividends, and the workers during that era benefited. Also, both parties worked together for the benefit of the entire country, not just a grossly opinionated few who demanded that everything go exactly the way they expected. Negotiations yielded results that, while not making everyone happy, nevertheless moved the country forward. It's way past time to abandon a failing model of entrenched, dogmatic rhetorical purity that will never do anything more than alienate vast swaths of the populace, and move toward a more conciliatory model that strives to give everyone something.

I agree, excellent points. So who today is putting this on the table as an option? Sanders maybe, but he is going nowhere. My own view is the culture of politics has changed so the "a more conciliatory model" seems impossible. Let's admit that it's very unpopular, however realistic, to tell voters, corporations and the military what they are not going to get. Sure, voters have allowed this to happen to themselves. They think narrowly and selfishly. Though I think they would understand short term pain for long term gain if they were able to bring themselves to ever trust a politician. I would blame the media who have failed to put the real issues forward. The plea for help from the media to be dillegent, truthful and courageous goes back to JFK and has remained unheeded. The media has turned the election and political process into a spectator sport as they chase ratings and profits. Sure people are fed up and sick of the whole mess but nobody has access to insights as to who will lead them out of this ... so they end up voting against the status quo and end up with Trump. Forget Rep vs Dem, a significant number of voters on both sides want out of the status quo. Witness the surprising success of Trump and Sanders.

[wabothai]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

I completely agree with your last statement, however, your first statement is lacking in historical context. The "conservative roots" you speak of never existed. The GOP was, originally, the party of Progressivism, a la Lincoln. Even up through Eisenhower the party embraced elements of democratic socialism, with tax rates for the wealthy at 91% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate rates at 50% on taxable profits over $25,000. It was during the Eisenhower years, with these same high rates of taxation, that the middle class exploded, the interstate highway system was authorized and began construction, the space race got its start, the American education system was the envy of the world, our manufacturing practices were studied by every major industrialized country, and our business models were the most copied. It was also during this period of explosive growth that unions had their highest membership. A family with one income could afford to buy a house, buy a new car, send their kids to college, take a vacation, and still save money. It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson managed to enact that Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the Republicans began their move to the right, in order to lure southern Democrats who were abandoning the party because of its emphasis on racial equality.

Even with the stratospheric tax rates under Eisenhower, wealthy people did not flee the country, corporations did not go offshore, and the rich still kept trying to get richer. The purpose that these high tax rates served was to encourage corporations to reinvest in themselves rather than dole out huge dividends, and the workers during that era benefited. Also, both parties worked together for the benefit of the entire country, not just a grossly opinionated few who demanded that everything go exactly the way they expected. Negotiations yielded results that, while not making everyone happy, nevertheless moved the country forward. It's way past time to abandon a failing model of entrenched, dogmatic rhetorical purity that will never do anything more than alienate vast swaths of the populace, and move toward a more conciliatory model that strives to give everyone something.

Enjoyed your read. The part of about the rich not leaving however true back then has changed. The richer you get the smarter you get. Throw in a government that works to protect your interests and screw the working man. As governments shed badly needed personal to monitor the rich the rich are hiring rooms full of lawyers and accountants to hide their wealth. Wall street is full of algorithm traders accountants that give fuzzy numbers on quarterly and annual earnings. We the sheep the middle class are just here to be shorn.

whoever invented or is responsible (there must be somebody) for the 0% interest BS, should be shot on sight.

[chilli42]

There is a masochistic side of me that wants to see Trump elected just to make sure both parties understand they are no longer relevant I their current form and platform. A vote for Trump is clearly not a vet for the Rep party but against the agendas of both parties and politicians. The pain of having Trump as Pres for 4 years might be outweighed by the clear signal to both parties that they must change and to accomplish this they need to shrug off their elite, corporate and military masters ... and get back to leading the country to a brighter future. One way or the other a day of reckoning is coming. I could live with it now, I don't want to even think about the debacle my children will inherit.

[Pimay1]

This will garner even more support for Trump as the American people are sick and tired of politics as usual and this is all it is.

[mrwebb8825]

Trump really doesn't care or need "The Good 'Ol Boys" to win. I think it's time for an across the board shake-up in DC. Kick 'em down the road and let them all gather at the Bush ranch in TX, grilling DemDogs, lighting each other's farts and telling antiquated war stories about "the good 'ol days".

The Donald is waking up quite a few people to the fact that they really do still have a voice IF they get off their couch, out of their armchairs and vote instead of taking it in the shorts year after year.

[Publicus]

Trump is a wild man radical crackpot.

I'm beginning to consider that he's worse than the uniquely American Mussolini he started out as being. More like a Francisco Franco.

Let him get state power and he'll really go berzerk.

[Srikcir]

Seems that Ryan is considering his party before his duty to the USA as a whole. Surely there is enough proof that the majority of the people want Trump as their man. So why does "bottom feeders" such as Ryan have any say.

Because Ryan is no.2 in line of succession for POTUS?

Hardly a bottom feeder.

[losworld]

It is important to note that the party hierarchy is divided not the people. The rats are being flushed out. The controlling elite has its agenda and Trump is not a cheerleader. Wake up people.

[Traveler19491]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

I completely agree with your last statement, however, your first statement is lacking in historical context. The "conservative roots" you speak of never existed. The GOP was, originally, the party of Progressivism, a la Lincoln. Even up through Eisenhower the party embraced elements of democratic socialism, with tax rates for the wealthy at 91% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate rates at 50% on taxable profits over $25,000. It was during the Eisenhower years, with these same high rates of taxation, that the middle class exploded, the interstate highway system was authorized and began construction, the space race got its start, the American education system was the envy of the world, our manufacturing practices were studied by every major industrialized country, and our business models were the most copied. It was also during this period of explosive growth that unions had their highest membership. A family with one income could afford to buy a house, buy a new car, send their kids to college, take a vacation, and still save money. It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson managed to enact that Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the Republicans began their move to the right, in order to lure southern Democrats who were abandoning the party because of its emphasis on racial equality.

Even with the stratospheric tax rates under Eisenhower, wealthy people did not flee the country, corporations did not go offshore, and the rich still kept trying to get richer. The purpose that these high tax rates served was to encourage corporations to reinvest in themselves rather than dole out huge dividends, and the workers during that era benefited. Also, both parties worked together for the benefit of the entire country, not just a grossly opinionated few who demanded that everything go exactly the way they expected. Negotiations yielded results that, while not making everyone happy, nevertheless moved the country forward. It's way past time to abandon a failing model of entrenched, dogmatic rhetorical purity that will never do anything more than alienate vast swaths of the populace, and move toward a more conciliatory model that strives to give everyone something.

Enjoyed your read. The part of about the rich not leaving however true back then has changed. The richer you get the smarter you get. Throw in a government that works to protect your interests and screw the working man. As governments shed badly needed personal to monitor the rich the rich are hiring rooms full of lawyers and accountants to hide their wealth. Wall street is full of algorithm traders accountants that give fuzzy numbers on quarterly and annual earnings. We the sheep the middle class are just here to be shorn.

I agree. However, the fact is that we, the people, still control the power, IF we wake up and realize it, then determine to use it. The wealthy are vastly outnumbered, which is why they resort to ridiculous things like voter suppression, transphobic bathroom legislation, gay marriage, abortion, and so many other stupid "problems" which don't exist, so that they can distract the masses from the realization that, if we all get together, their days are numbered.

[Traveler19491]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

I completely agree with your last statement, however, your first statement is lacking in historical context. The "conservative roots" you speak of never existed. The GOP was, originally, the party of Progressivism, a la Lincoln. Even up through Eisenhower the party embraced elements of democratic socialism, with tax rates for the wealthy at 91% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate rates at 50% on taxable profits over $25,000. It was during the Eisenhower years, with these same high rates of taxation, that the middle class exploded, the interstate highway system was authorized and began construction, the space race got its start, the American education system was the envy of the world, our manufacturing practices were studied by every major industrialized country, and our business models were the most copied. It was also during this period of explosive growth that unions had their highest membership. A family with one income could afford to buy a house, buy a new car, send their kids to college, take a vacation, and still save money. It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson managed to enact that Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the Republicans began their move to the right, in order to lure southern Democrats who were abandoning the party because of its emphasis on racial equality.

Even with the stratospheric tax rates under Eisenhower, wealthy people did not flee the country, corporations did not go offshore, and the rich still kept trying to get richer. The purpose that these high tax rates served was to encourage corporations to reinvest in themselves rather than dole out huge dividends, and the workers during that era benefited. Also, both parties worked together for the benefit of the entire country, not just a grossly opinionated few who demanded that everything go exactly the way they expected. Negotiations yielded results that, while not making everyone happy, nevertheless moved the country forward. It's way past time to abandon a failing model of entrenched, dogmatic rhetorical purity that will never do anything more than alienate vast swaths of the populace, and move toward a more conciliatory model that strives to give everyone something.

I agree, excellent points. So who today is putting this on the table as an option? Sanders maybe, but he is going nowhere. My own view is the culture of politics has changed so the "a more conciliatory model" seems impossible. Let's admit that it's very unpopular, however realistic, to tell voters, corporations and the military what they are not going to get. Sure, voters have allowed this to happen to themselves. They think narrowly and selfishly. Though I think they would understand short term pain for long term gain if they were able to bring themselves to ever trust a politician. I would blame the media who have failed to put the real issues forward. The plea for help from the media to be dillegent, truthful and courageous goes back to JFK and has remained unheeded. The media has turned the election and political process into a spectator sport as they chase ratings and profits. Sure people are fed up and sick of the whole mess but nobody has access to insights as to who will lead them out of this ... so they end up voting against the status quo and end up with Trump. Forget Rep vs Dem, a significant number of voters on both sides want out of the status quo. Witness the surprising success of Trump and Sanders.

Very valid points. However, I would disagree that Sanders "...is going nowhere". Hillary leads by only 290 pledged delegates (not counting the superdelegates). A win in California would potentially deny Hillary a first ballot win at the DNC convention, which would throw the convention open. As Sanders polls well ahead of Clinton against Trump, it stands to reason that in a contested convention the delegates would be more concerned about who stands the better chance of defeating Trump. Ergo, as Casey Stengal would say, "It ain't over 'til it's over". Sanders still has a reasonable possibility of taking the nomination. If he does, then the probability is that the Senate and House will both be won back, and we're talking about a completely new ball game. Long shot, I admit, but far from impossible.

[Linzz]

Trump is a wild man radical crackpot.

I'm beginning to consider that he's worse than the uniquely American Mussolini he started out as being. More like a Francisco Franco.

Let him get state power and he'll really go berzerk.

I concede that erosion of democracy by stealth is possible without sufficient checks, balances and watchdogs but can bombastic speech, insults, populist and contradictory assumptions make a fascist? Trump would have to plan to overthrow democracy, by-pass Congress, censor the Press, control the judiciary, suspend the rule of law, tear up the Constitution and take over the armed forces. Then he would have to exile any opposition including the Clintons and Obama.

I don't see Trump supporters as fascists but simply people who have been abandoned by both the Dems and the Reps, whose wages have stagnated for decades and without fascist supporters Trump can never be a dictator. It is up to the 2 major parties to address the concerns of the supporters of Trump but they haven't to date and it's now probably too late and the result is Trump, as irrational as it may seem to you but to me quite a logical sequence of events.

[Traveler19491]

Trump is a wild man radical crackpot.

I'm beginning to consider that he's worse than the uniquely American Mussolini he started out as being. More like a Francisco Franco.

Let him get state power and he'll really go berzerk.

I concede that erosion of democracy by stealth is possible without sufficient checks, balances and watchdogs but can bombastic speech, insults, populist and contradictory assumptions make a fascist? Trump would have to plan to overthrow democracy, by-pass Congress, censor the Press, control the judiciary, suspend the rule of law, tear up the Constitution and take over the armed forces. Then he would have to exile any opposition including the Clintons and Obama.

I don't see Trump supporters as fascists but simply people who have been abandoned by both the Dems and the Reps, whose wages have stagnated for decades and without fascist supporters Trump can never be a dictator. It is up to the 2 major parties to address the concerns of the supporters of Trump but they haven't to date and it's now probably too late and the result is Trump, as irrational as it may seem to you but to me quite a logical sequence of events.

Well, let's see...he can bypass Congress by Executive Order, he has already stated that he plans to change the libel laws so that he can sue the press (censorship by intimidation), he WILL control the judiciary by appointment, the President can declare martial law at any time for any reason (which suspends the rule of law and would have the effect of tearing up the Constitution), and has stated that, "the military will obey me". Seems fairly clear to me.

[NovaBlue05]

Maybe the GOP Bosses will piss off Trump enough to make him run as an Indy. Then Sanders follows suit . That would be much more fun

[Linzz]

This whole issue is separating 'grass-roots' conservatives, i.e., voters, from main-steam, dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Republican who are Conservatives in Name Only (CINO). Time to split the party and roll it back to it's conservative roots. The Wall Street/Goldman-Saches backed neo-cons can go join the Democrats where they belong, or start their own Neo-con Party.

This so called 'divisiveness' is the best thing the American political system has seen in the last 100 years.

I completely agree with your last statement, however, your first statement is lacking in historical context. The "conservative roots" you speak of never existed. The GOP was, originally, the party of Progressivism, a la Lincoln. Even up through Eisenhower the party embraced elements of democratic socialism, with tax rates for the wealthy at 91% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate rates at 50% on taxable profits over $25,000. It was during the Eisenhower years, with these same high rates of taxation, that the middle class exploded, the interstate highway system was authorized and began construction, the space race got its start, the American education system was the envy of the world, our manufacturing practices were studied by every major industrialized country, and our business models were the most copied. It was also during this period of explosive growth that unions had their highest membership. A family with one income could afford to buy a house, buy a new car, send their kids to college, take a vacation, and still save money. It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson managed to enact that Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the Republicans began their move to the right, in order to lure southern Democrats who were abandoning the party because of its emphasis on racial equality.

Even with the stratospheric tax rates under Eisenhower, wealthy people did not flee the country, corporations did not go offshore, and the rich still kept trying to get richer. The purpose that these high tax rates served was to encourage corporations to reinvest in themselves rather than dole out huge dividends, and the workers during that era benefited. Also, both parties worked together for the benefit of the entire country, not just a grossly opinionated few who demanded that everything go exactly the way they expected. Negotiations yielded results that, while not making everyone happy, nevertheless moved the country forward. It's way past time to abandon a failing model of entrenched, dogmatic rhetorical purity that will never do anything more than alienate vast swaths of the populace, and move toward a more conciliatory model that strives to give everyone something.

Enjoyed your read. The part of about the rich not leaving however true back then has changed. The richer you get the smarter you get. Throw in a government that works to protect your interests and screw the working man. As governments shed badly needed personal to monitor the rich the rich are hiring rooms full of lawyers and accountants to hide their wealth. Wall street is full of algorithm traders accountants that give fuzzy numbers on quarterly and annual earnings. We the sheep the middle class are just here to be shorn.

whoever invented or is responsible (there must be somebody) for the 0% interest BS, should be shot on sight.

If you're talking about Central banks lowering interest rates to 0% or negative % so depositors have to pay for the banks to hold their money, then that is a tool employed to get banks to loan out money and not hold it, to stimulate a stagnated economy. The problem is what that does to pension funds and one or two states have recently run out of money to pay their guarantees.

Regarding the article above advocating high taxation as the reason for America's wealth in the past, is it not high taxation today that is the cause of why it now takes two in a household to work to bring in the same income that previously could be provided by one? Two people working = twice the taxation.

[Linzz]

Trump is a wild man radical crackpot.

I'm beginning to consider that he's worse than the uniquely American Mussolini he started out as being. More like a Francisco Franco.

Let him get state power and he'll really go berzerk.

I concede that erosion of democracy by stealth is possible without sufficient checks, balances and watchdogs but can bombastic speech, insults, populist and contradictory assumptions make a fascist? Trump would have to plan to overthrow democracy, by-pass Congress, censor the Press, control the judiciary, suspend the rule of law, tear up the Constitution and take over the armed forces. Then he would have to exile any opposition including the Clintons and Obama.

I don't see Trump supporters as fascists but simply people who have been abandoned by both the Dems and the Reps, whose wages have stagnated for decades and without fascist supporters Trump can never be a dictator. It is up to the 2 major parties to address the concerns of the supporters of Trump but they haven't to date and it's now probably too late and the result is Trump, as irrational as it may seem to you but to me quite a logical sequence of events.

Well, let's see...he can bypass Congress by Executive Order, he has already stated that he plans to change the libel laws so that he can sue the press (censorship by intimidation), he WILL control the judiciary by appointment, the President can declare martial law at any time for any reason (which suspends the rule of law and would have the effect of tearing up the Constitution), and has stated that, "the military will obey me". Seems fairly clear to me.

OK I am not an American so with respect if you are and you are right then all you say is available to Obama as well? Or any President for that matter.