(10-24-2018, 10:59 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(10-24-2018, 10:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: I wouldn't use the word squishy.
Obviously when you use it you mean to say that "hard" is better, and you are the "hardest" of all.  I find that laughable.  Politics is won by herds adhering together.  If you are actually "hard", only people who are "hard" in the exact same way as you will ever adhere to you.  The good news is you are not actually "hard".   It would be a remarkable coincidence if your hard and rigid principles that you've supposedly kept for a long time corresponded exactly to what Donald Trump started saying in 2015.  No, you are actually soft and emotionally manipulable like everyone else, but you are attracted to the most dishonest type of people, the ones who invite you to adhere to them without actually using inviting words.  Instead they call you and everything that was good about you and your country garbage.  You confuse that for principled rhetoric and strong leadership.

Kasich and Christie are different from that. I  would say they both have a way of telling someone they disagree with to go to hell in such a nice way that they'll look forward to the trip.
Reagan had that. 
It's one of the things we lack now and need again.

I didn't like what Trump was saying in 2015, and I certainly didn't trust him when he took a conservative position in the primary campaign.

But his actual policy since taking office is something I approve of nearly 100%. Apparently you disagree, so please tell us what policy actions of his you don't like. I would have preferred less spending, but that's more the fault of congress than Trump. He could have vetoed the bill, but I doubt any other Pub candidate except maybe Cruz would have the cojones to do that.

I can see that you probably think Kasich or Christie would have had more success in getting congress to cooperate with him. Maybe, maybe not. Congressmen have their own agendas. But here again, what things do you think Kasich or Christie would have gotten done that Trump hasn't? I doubt either could convince Collins or Murkowski on ACA repeal, so it would come down to McCain. You think John McCain would fold under the cajoling of Christie? That's a slim hope to bank your entire hatred of Trump on.

I agree with most of what he has done but almost none of what he has said.
But I don't think he's done much. I see a lot of missed opportunities - a shrewder man would have followed through on the attitude of Trump's own acceptance speech, and used the rhetoric of a confident winner looking to unite and serve as many people as possible, rather than continuing to be a bully.  He would have looked beyond personal loyalty and flattery when choosing which members of the Senate and House to promote and which to attempt to silence.  And after he did that he could have really gotten some bipartisan stuff done.  But you don't see that.  You see the attempt to repeal the ACA as a good thing and its failure as a bad thing.  I see a big missed opportunity where a better leader would have focused on the one aspect of the ACA that actual voters don't like - the high premiums - without trying to touch the one aspect they do like, the guaranteed issue of insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions.  Republicans, from 2010 to 2016, regularly said "Obamacare does nothing to lower costs, it only transfers costs." And this was mostly true.  Why didn't they work on that?

---