FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
historian said:
The huge beach party in NJ might indicate that stats is swinging Trump's way plus their have been some reports from New York of various groups supporting Trump: blacks, Hispanics, union workers, Jews, etc. All if these groups have traditionally voted Dem but have voted for the GOP in the past. Some of them used to be called Reagan Democrats. He won two landslide victories with their help (3 if you count Bush #41 in 1988, essentially Reagan's third term).
The fascists are certainly worried but a lot can happen in the next 6 months. For one thing, they can print lots of fake ballots using names from cemeteries, etc and illegal aliens to help them. They have decades of experience stealing elections.
Will be interesting, Trump can use a little Reaganism to reassure those Reagan Democrats AND the Reagan Republicans (the moderate NeoCons, as they love to label them)
Strictly speaking, the NeoCons were only a part of one of three pieces of the Reagan coalition, which has been often described as a three-legged stool consisting of Fiscal Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Hawks. NeoCons were an outsized force in the Foreign Policy, many of them former Democrats Hawks.
NeoCons are also a very noisy part of the neverTrump movement, still posing as Republicans but for all intents & purposes having returned to their Democrat roots.
Where I take offense is the posing, if you don't agree exactly with your groups definition you are not a true conservative, even though the Poster Boy for Republican Conservatism (Reagan) agreed through words and actions with many of the NeoCon positions.
Why don't you just face it, you are more Trump than Reagan. Reagan would not endorse Trump, as we saw with Bush (Reagan term 3). Yet, you keep saying Trump and MAGA are the true conservatives.
I don't think I've said that at all. I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in some of your assumptions, historical parallels, and othering of Trump supporters. like, for example, one you posed just above which suggested Reagan and Bush were from the same wings of the party. Not. at. all. Bush was the establishment choice, the very blue blooded country club fellow well met with a very impressive resume of establishmentarian service. Reagan was from the Goldwater wing of the party, the radical conservative end. He played well with all those people you dismiss as crazy. It was Bush he had a hard time with. Lots & lots of journalism about those two not thinking highly of one another, scarcely could talk to one another, about how improbable it was to get both of them on the ticket, etc..... They worked it out. Sure, some of that speaks to the character of the two men, but it also speaks to the allure of the office....a chance to be VP is a rare thing which affords a very strong position to become an even rarer thing - POTUS.
Trump and Reagan have plenty of parallels. Both were ridiculed by polite society as unintelligent boobs who would get us into WWIII. They were both loud mouthed authoritarians. And on and on and on. Their style is certainly different. The polices not so much. Trump certainly stole a page from Reagan on deregulation in ways the Bushies never did......
I'm not so sure Reagan wouldn't endorse Trump. Failure to do so is certainly going to be a black mark on the Bush family, and make their return to leadership of the party very unlikely.
