what about the blue wave elections coming? tsk tsk don't underestimate the true enemy

I know, and its one of my biggest gripes with Trump.
Nonetheless, Reagan was more than just Reaganomics, he also stood for an aggressive and internventionist foreign policy, he stood for big welfare cuts, he stood for blabla about morals, he stood for putting religion and the beliefs of evangelicals at the forefront of the GOP agenda.

Reagan's core base was the religious right.
Trump's core base is the areligious right.

Reagan's core base were social conservatives.
Trump's core base are cultural conservatives.

I am an atheist, a cultural conservative and consider myself to be pretty liberal on most questions of personal conduct and style of life.
Thus, it's no contradiction and actually makes perfect sense that I dont think highly of Reagan, but support Trump.
It makes perfect sense that my support for or view of Trump is unaffected by Reagan- (or Bush-)types of republicans speaking out against him.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 23 2018 08:09pm

What... trump doesn't win without religious people voting...

All feelings no numbers again

of course not. evangelicals/the religious right are still an integral part of the republican coalition, Trump needs them to win elections. but this time around, those folks were hesitant to back him, they arent too enthused by him and his antics. therefore, they are not part of what I was talking about, which is his core base. his core base are more the west virginia folks than the east texas folks.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 23 2018 10:35pm

Not true at all, they (evangelicals etc) could smell that supreme court seat like they could smell blood... unless youre talking about the republican primaries, which yes, they may have been hesistant to back him right away.

see, you just confirmed my point: the evangelicals didnt support trump for who he is or what he says - they merely (and reluctantly) supported him for an external cause (the supreme court seat).

his core base are those voters who really like him and his ideas.
his coalition is his core base plus those voters who support him for the sideffects (supreme court seats, tax cuts) or because they consider him to be the lesser of two evils compared to a Democrat in the white house.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 23 2018 11:09pm

Someone give Ms. Smoky Eye a slap on the wrist! bad girl!

thehill.com/homenews/administration/393816-ex-white-house-ethics-chief-sarah-sanders-tweet-on-restaurant-that?


Walter Shaub
✔
@waltshaub

Sarah, I know you don’t care even a tiny little bit about the ethics rules, but using your official account for this is a clear violation of 5 CFR 2635.702(a). It’s the same as if an ATF agent pulled out his badge when a restaurant tried to throw him/her out.
Sarah Sanders
✔
@PressSec

Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so



Sanders used her official govt account to condemn a private business for personal reasons. Seeks to coerce business by using her office to get public to pressure it. Violates endorsements ban too, which has an obvious corollary for discouraging patronage. Misuse reg covers both.
855 replies 10,740 retweets 27,481 likes

Walter Shaub
‏Verified account @waltshaub

Opening sentences of 5 CFR 2635.702 cover both; 702(a) gives example of coercion; 702(c) gives example of endorsement. Also 2635.101(b)(8) bars preferential treatment, with obvious corollary for singling out. She can lob attacks on her own time but not using her official position
3:36 PM - 23 Jun 2018

She didnt condemn the business, she condemned the owner, and she did it out of simple decency, not personal reasons.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jun 24 2018 09:59am