Does the president define the party?

[Timsup2nothin]

Republicans in the US face a dilemma.

Their party nominated Donald Trump. Unlike previous Republican presidents, Donald Trump is supported by white supremacists gleefully, and openly, rather than quietly and grudgingly. The appearance is that they recognize one of their own. Trump, in turn, refuses to condemn white supremacists in any meaningful way, where previous Republican presidents condemned them unflinchingly even as they used dogwhistles to appease them.

Republicans now are confronted by whether denouncing their president to fight for 'their' party is a false choice. Is it Donald Trump's party, the party for open white nationalists and neo-nazis? To prevaricate behind "well we agree with the agenda" while failing to denounce the president's embrace of outright evil is the ultimate in "evil triumphs while good men do nothing." The best face that can be put on the Republican party would be that the white nationalists are "just one wing of the party that happens to have taken over for the moment," but no one can be allowed to pretend that the Republican agenda they are claiming to support can go forward without that 'wing.'

Where does this leave Republicans? Is their only real option to acknowledge that the Republican party has been lost to the white nationalists and leave to form their own party? Or is it possible to declare a sitting president as "not representing Republican values and not a member of our party"?

 

[Lexicus]

Nope, the party defined the President, and all this attempt to separate the "good" Republicans from the horrible Nazis is a complete waste of time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nope, the party defined the President, and all this attempt to separate the "good" Republicans from the horrible Nazis is a complete waste of time.

It would be a waste of my time or yours, definitely. But what about the time of such a good republican? Is it not worth their time to try to separate themselves from the white supremacists that have taken control of their party? Acknowledging that such white supremacists have been sheltered within their party for decades, the current state where the white supremacists have openly taken charge is still a change. How should someone who thinks of themselves as such a "good Republican" respond?

I'm crystal clear that saying "well, this is a part of our party and we need them to forward our agenda" is unacceptable to me. But that's easy for me since I left the Republican party years ago. Those who haven't left are the ones facing the dilemma.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, as far as I'm concerned Republicans who remained in the Republican Party last year made their choice.

 

[civvver]

So were democrats in crisis cus hamas and black panthers and other terrorist and supremacist groups endorsed obama?

Also the number of neo nazis in the country is exceedingly small. I heard on the radio today it's like 13,000.

Everyone's just worked up over what trump said. I think he just likes picking stupid fights with the media. He doesn't endorse the kkk or neo nazis.

I am not a member of either party btw, I just think saying that everything a president represents is reflective of the party members is false.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So were democrats in crisis cus hamas and black panthers and other terrorist and supremacist groups endorsed obama?

Nope, because he didn't embrace them in return. They also never came close to becoming the 'leading wing' of the party. If he had, or they had, we could have an interesting discussion on the subject, but since that didn't happen such a discussion would be just a distraction.

 

[Lexicus]

So were democrats in crisis cus hamas and black panthers and other terrorist and supremacist groups endorsed obama?

Hamas endorsed Obama? When did that happen? And what on Earth makes you think the Black Panthers are comparable to organizations like the Klan? For that matter, what makes you think Hamas is comparable to the Klan?

He doesn't endorse the kkk or neo nazis.

No, just refuses to condemn them and tacitly appeals to them constantly.

I just think saying that everything a president represents is reflective of the party members is false.

Trump's approval rating currently stands at 79% of Republicans.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Trump's approval rating currently stands at 79% of Republicans.

Correction. "Most recently polled" and "currently" are not interchangeable given the rapidly changing political landscape.

 

[warpus]

In Canada the Prime Minister is the leader and the face of the Party.

In the U.S.. the president is.. the guy the party picked that they thought would have the best chance of winning? Right?

With that in mind I don't think the American president "defines" the party. He is just a person they picked to run for them. He isn't even the party leader. He might be the face of the party in many ways, but he was just basically tagged into action by the party to win the presidentship. In Canada's case it's completely different because our PM is the party leader and as such gets to drive the direction the party is going in, in some ways anyway.

Mind you this doesn't change the fact that the Republicans have to deal with the bad PR of having a racist as Republican president.

 

[Lexicus]

True, that 79% comes from the Gallup Aug 7-13 poll. It will be interesting to see whether the number changes in light of events this weekend; my guess is it won't, though it will probably continue to trend shallowly downward.

 

[rah]

In all good conscience, I can no longer call myself a Republican.
The only thing is I refuse to call myself a democrat
Maybe when I retire in a few years and looking to make sure I still have health coverage.

There are many of us that now need a home. Maybe something good will come out of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In all good conscience, I can no longer call myself a Republican.
The only thing is I refuse to call myself a democrat
Maybe when I retire in a few years and looking to make sure I still have health coverage.

There are many of us that now need a home. Maybe something good will come out of it.

I salute you.

 

[Lexicus]

Good stuff, indeed. As you didn't vote for him though you were already cool in my book.

 

[rah]

I'm still a moderate.

AND NO, i didn't vote for him, I wasted my vote on a dumb slug.
But since I live in Illinois, it didn't matter.
But I did vote for some other Republicans, but I'll be looking to see how they react to this, But of course this being Illinois, most of them lost

 

[Perfection]

Sometimes the president defines the party, sometimes the party defines the president, and sometimes the president can't define the difference between "council" and "counsel".

 

[civvver]

Nope, because he didn't embrace them in return. They also never came close to becoming the 'leading wing' of the party. If he had, or they had, we could have an interesting discussion on the subject, but since that didn't happen such a discussion would be just a distraction.

I fail to see how the kkk is becoming a leading wing of the party. The only people who seem to seriously believe this are the media.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I fail to see how the kkk is becoming a leading wing of the party. The only people who seem to seriously believe this are the media.

White supremacists are the wing of the party that the president is most clearly concerned with appeasing. That makes them, de facto, the leading wing of the party nationally.

 

[civvver]

What's he doing to appease them? I still fail to follow that logic. If you mean he's not condemning them harshly enough for your preference ok, but that's hardly appeasement.

The only thing he's really said that could be construed as inline with white supremacists is his ravings against immigrants. Which is mostly anti muslim and I don't see how that specifically appeases white supremacists.

What's Trump really done since in office? He tried to dismantle obamacare and put in place a travel ban.

 

[Perfection]

What's he doing to appease them? I still fail to follow that logic. If you mean he's not condemning them harshly enough for your preference ok, but that's hardly appeasement.

The only thing he's really said that could be construed as inline with white supremacists is his ravings against immigrants. Which is mostly anti muslim and I don't see how that specifically appeases white supremacists.

What's Trump really done since in office? He tried to dismantle obamacare and put in place a travel ban.

Lots of antihispanic aspects of his immigration policy.

He is going after affirmative action via doj legal challenges (claiming descrimination against whites)

Reversal of DoJ reccomendations against harsher sentencing (which disproportionately effects black people)

His invesigation into election integrity is likely going to push for purging voter rolls in effort to disenfranchise minority votes

Just a few things off the top of my head

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What's he doing to appease them? I still fail to follow that logic. If you mean he's not condemning them harshly enough for your preference ok, but that's hardly appeasement.

The only thing he's really said that could be construed as inline with white supremacists is his ravings against immigrants. Which is mostly anti muslim and I don't see how that specifically appeases white supremacists.

What's Trump really done since in office? He tried to dismantle obamacare and put in place a travel ban.

You may not recognize it, but Trump routinely uses his platform to voice the same arguments, word for word, that open white supremacists in leadership positions within their movement use to defend their positions. He voices the arguments they use to defend themselves in defense of...? Oh, THEM.