Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 3 2019 09:48pm)
You're missing the mark.
Trump is opposed by a party that supports open borders. There's a strong undercurrent within the party that doesn't believe candidates have a right to lead if they're white and male. Obama could not run in this environment and win.
Trump is not so attractive that everyone wants to follow the beat of his drum; the alternative is just worse.
Let's leave Goom/Cambo aside.
I don't really understand majoring in the minors. Yes, some of the party is moving left on certain issues, sometimes in comical ways(no abortion restrictions, tear down the border wall, no criminal penalty for crossing illegally, etc). But we can look to the 2016 primary and find nutty positions from the most popular candidates. Dismantle federal agencies(including IRS), intentionally target civilians in war, physically deport every illegal from the country, ban all foreign Muslims from entering, repeal Roe, leave NATO, let Japan get nukes, etc.
Why do we take one side's radicalism seriously, and hand-wave the other side's away? Can't we be nuanced with both sides and realize that even if one of the more left-wing nominees becomes president, they almost certainly won't have the political will or support to do many of these radical things?
So, if you want to make the argument that Trump will move the country forward better than the Democratic nominee, fair enough. But nutpicking from one side isn't a good argument.
----
Speaking of comical positions from the left:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/betsy-ross-flag-controversy-progressivism/This post was edited by IceMage on Jul 4 2019 02:41am