Viva la revolution?

Some posters talk about the need for conservatives to have a revolution to change the current form of government.

They probably mean change the administration, not the government.

Were Trump to win re-election and go down his Trumpish highway then the democrats would feel the same way about the need for an administration change as the republicans do now.

My point: it isn't the form of government that people want to change, it is the administration: those voted out of power want power again.

Hey, that's democracy: the art of compromise is what has allowed this country to survive the many shifts in the political wind, and currently there is little or no compromise: the beginning of the end?

Sadly Republicans have become the party of Trump. I have (even recently, though locally to be fair) voted for Republicans because Republicans are often the party with the correct views on foriegn policy and global stability.

But, that changed with Trump. The one issue that they had going for them is gone. If somebody has backwards social views, but is correct on security that is acceptable. If somebody has backwards social views and has no idea about security they are not worth listening to.

Security, strength and stability (SSS) is the most important issue, and Republicans have lost that highground ever since Trump tried to dissociate with Neoconservatives. The old saying was (paraphrasing) "Neocons are liberals who became skeptical of the left on strength and security". Now Neocons are shifting left.

Republicans have become the party of Russian apologetics and Taliban negotiations.

Quote: missedhervee

Some posters talk about the need for conservatives to have a revolution to change the current form of government.

They probably mean change the administration, not the government.

Were Trump to win re-election and go down his Trumpish highway then the democrats would feel the same way about the need for an administration change as the republicans do now.

My point: it isn't the form of government that people want to change, it is the administration: those voted out of power want power again.

Hey, that's democracy: the art of compromise is what has allowed this country to survive the many shifts in the political wind, and currently there is little or no compromise: the beginning of the end?

We're not anywhere near the level of dysfunction to require a revolution. It's kook talk. Once you start a revolution, there's no guarantee it will turn out the way you expect. The rules and referees are gone. It's like asking for a tornado to renovate your house.

Quote: Gandler

Sadly Republicans have become the party of Trump. I have (even recently, though locally to be fair) voted for Republicans because Republicans are often the party with the correct views on foriegn policy and global stability.

But, that changed with Trump. The one issue that they had going for them is gone. If somebody has backwards social views, but is correct on security that is acceptable. If somebody has backwards social views and has no idea about security they are not worth listening to.

Security, strength and stability (SSS) is the most important issue, and Republicans have lost that highground ever since Trump tried to dissociate with Neoconservatives. The old saying was (paraphrasing) "Neocons are liberals who became skeptical of the left on strength and security". Now Neocons are shifting left.

Republicans have become the party of Russian apologetics and Taliban negotiations.

So you do not like the guy who did not get us into a war? Your idea of security is staying in a place for decades with no hope of it improving?

Quote: rxwine

Once you start a revolution, there's no guarantee it will turn out the way you expect. The rules and referees are gone. It's like asking for a tornado to renovate your house.

At the age of 80 General Porfirio Díaz was re-elected as President of Mexico in 1910 having ruled for 34 years (4 years via a puppet) in what was widely viewed as just the latest in a series of fraudulent elections. The people had enough and started a revolution.

On October 27, 1910, Mexico's third national census was completed, reporting 15.2 million inhabitants. The decade long revolutionary war began a few weeks later on 20 November 1910. The total dead were between 1.7 and 2.7 million (civilian and military). The Mexican revolutionary was considerably deadlier than the American Civil War, the deadliest in American history.

The US census of 1860 reported 31.44 million inhabitants in 33 states and 10 organized territories. Counting slaves who died of disease it is said to have resulted in 616,222 to 1,000,000 dead.

After the war there was a decade of great instability in politics, which finally ended in the formation of a single political party in 1929 (The Institutional Revolutionary Party) that was guaranteed to win re-election. At 5:05 PM PST, on 23 March 1994, at a campaign rally in Lomas Taurinas, a poor neighborhood of Tijuana, Baja California, Luis Donaldo Colosio Murrieta, the presidential candidate, was shot in the head with a . 38 Special that was originally purchased in San Francisco. The shooter, Mario Aburto Martínez, was arrested at the site, and remains in prison today.

Ernesto Zedillo replaced Colosio and served his six years which were began with one of the worst economic crises in Mexico's history, which started only weeks after he took office. Today he works at Yale University following a time honored tradition of many Mexican Presidents leaving the country after their 6 years are completed.

The Institutional Revolutionary Party lost their first Presidential Election in 2000 when Vicente Fox was elected.

Quote: AZDuffman

So you do not like the guy who did not get us into a war? Your idea of security is staying in a place for decades with no hope of it improving?

Yes, has been shown in history. Not getting in a war just for the sake of saying you did not get into a war is not a good thing on its face. Pacifism is not a laudable goal. WWII could have been prevented (or extremely mitigated) if people in Europe and Asia were not so desperate to avoid conflict. It's the "let them have just one more territory, does it really matter to us" mindset. There is a reason "I have achieved Peace in our time" quote is looked at with skepticism.

Look how great German and Japan are now in contrast to less than a lifetime ago, and debatley both countries were the most evil in history during WWII era (when you combine their war crimes and forceful annexations). America has a huge footprint in both countries to this date, and now are close allies.

Quote: Gandler

Yes, has been shown in history. Not getting in a war just for the sake of saying you did not get into a war is not a good thing on its face. Pacifism is not a laudable goal. WWII could have been prevented (or extremely mitigated) if people in Europe and Asia were not so desperate to avoid conflict. It's the "let them have just one more territory, does it really matter to us" mindset. There is a reason "I have achieved Peace in our time" quote is looked at with skepticism.

Look how great German and Japan are now in contrast to less than a lifetime ago, and debatley both countries were the most evil in history during WWII era (when you combine their war crimes and forceful annexations). America has a huge footprint in both countries to this date, and now are close allies.

And this has to do with Trump not starting a war how?

Maybe you forget that the disaster of the USSR in Afghanistan or the USA in Vietnam. Cuba in Angola.

Trumps term is near 100% foreign policy success.