Agree or Disagree? Donald Trump Controls The Republican Party And Republicans Must Yield To Him (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

SAYING Trump controls the party does not make it so.  You guys know that, right?

No, so you've been provided evidence of those that have not walked the line and been summarily handicapped within the party by doing so. There are others -- Anthony Gonzalez, former tOSU receiver, for those who like background, has decided he won't run again due to the likelihood of losing in a primary and the vitriol he'll receive from his Ohio constituents that back Trump. 

But you can't provide any evidence like we can. You just accuse of declarations and emotions. That's par for the course. We're offering what happens to the political actors that actually oppose Trump. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/anthony-gonzalez-ohio-trump.html

 

[rockaction]

I disagree with you whole-heartedly. The only "evidence" that has been offered has been nothing more than feelings, emotions and wishes.

Full stop. Offering up people who have resigned, lost a position, or been threatened with a primary due to their position about Jan. 6th is evidence of Trump controlling the Party. It's not what you want to hear, but it's evidence. 

You're calling clear evidence "non-evidence," but simply calling it "not evidence" doesn't make it so. It's anecdotal evidence that shows a pattern of behavior by the Republican Party itself. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Full stop. Offering up people who have resigned, lost a position, or been threatened with a primary due to their position about Jan. 6th is evidence of Trump controlling the Party. It's not what you want to hear, but it's evidence. 

You're calling clear evidence "non-evidence," but simply calling it "not evidence" doesn't make it so. It's anecdotal evidence that shows a pattern of behavior by the Republican Party itself. 

So far we've got, what?  6 people that you say are being marginalized?  That's "control" of the GOP?

Like 1/6, you guys are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. 

Well, not necessarily you, but the left in general.  You're usually pretty fair in your criticisms, but I disagree with you on this topic.

 

[Rich Conway]

So far we've got, what?  6 people that you say are being marginalized?  That's "control" of the GOP?

Like 1/6, you guys are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. 

Well, not necessarily you, but the left in general.  You're usually pretty fair in your criticisms, but I disagree with you on this topic.

The fact that so few within the GOP are willing to say the election wasn't stolen is, in and of itself, evidence.  The fact that every single one who does so is then marginalized or punished is evidence.  Tell us how what happened to Liz Cheney isn't evidence or is just "feelings".

 

[The General]

I too have not seen this blind loyalty in my real friends who voted for Trump.

Which is one reason this question was interesting to me. I totally understand from a strategic angle why Democrats would want to paint it this way. It's convenient to generalize every Republican voter as a MAGA Rally super fan.

What will they do if he gets the nom?

 

[zoonation]

The idea that Trump doesn’t control the GOP is laughable.  Say the 2020 election was “ok”?   Get publicly eviscerated by Trump (in his awkward, rambling way) and told he will do everything he can to destroy you even though you’re not up for re-election for another 5 years.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

What will they do if he gets the nom?

What do you mean, "do"?

Do you mean would they vote for him if he was the Republican nominee in 2024? 

 

[BladeRunner]

The fact that so few within the GOP are willing to say the election wasn't stolen is, in and of itself, evidence.  The fact that every single one who does so is then marginalized or punished is evidence.  Tell us how what happened to Liz Cheney isn't evidence or is just "feelings".

ONE person is you're "evidence"? 

Not buying it.  I'm not a political operative so I don't have any behind the scenes details so all I can go on is what I see and hear around me and the news I distill.  The ONLY people concerned and controlled by Trump are guys like you - liberals.  

You talk about him constantly.  You think about him constantly. You make up or amplify things/narratives about him constantly.  He takes up ALL of your oxygen.   Literally every thread in this forum is about Trump but you're going to say he controls the GOP?

Again, the only thing he controls is you guys.  Stop talking about him.  Stop thinking about him. Stop making stuff up about him to confirm your bias.  The only reason he's around is because YOU GUYS keep him around. 

Treat him like Beatlejuice - don't say his name and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD don't say it three times in a row.

 

[zoonation]

I too have not seen this blind loyalty in my real friends who voted for Trump.

Which is one reason this question was interesting to me. I totally understand from a strategic angle why Democrats would want to paint it this way. It's convenient to generalize every Republican voter as a MAGA Rally super fan.

I also would like to see more detail on this.

No one is saying every voter is a rally guy.  But (almost) every Congressional Republican is afraid to say anything negative about Trump.  Why?  It is political suicide.  Look at my link from earlier in the thread for direct evidence.  Say the election wasn’t stolen?  You’re getting primaried  with the full weight of the Trump machine behind your opponent.  Which is why no one says it.  Out loud.  
 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I have no idea how all 20 of them will feel. 

Probably won't like it, but no big deal.

I thought it was your contention in the other thread that the majority of Republicans don't think the election was stolen?  Now Trump has called not thinking the election was stolen being "woke", so with those two things combined he's essentially calling the majority of Republicans "woke".

 

[The General]

What do you mean, "do"?

Do you mean would they vote for him if he was the Republican nominee in 2024? 

Yes. If he wins the nom, do they vote for him?

 

[BladeRunner]

What will they do if he gets the nom?

The better and more pertinent question is what will YOU do if he doesn't? 

You guys will be lost without Trump.

 

[BladeRunner]

I thought it was your contention in the other thread that the majority of Republicans don't think the election was stolen?  Now Trump has called not thinking the election was stolen being "woke", so with those two things combined he's essentially calling the majority of Republicans "woke".

I'm not sure what kind of pretzel logic you got going on here - I have no idea what you're trying to get across here. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'm not sure what kind of pretzel logic you got going on here - I have no idea what you're trying to get across here. 

Trump essentially said if you don't believe in his stolen election narrative you've "went woke".

You don't believe in his stolen election narrative.

By Trump's definition, you are woke.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes. If he wins the nom, do they vote for him?

I think they'd say too early to tell right now. I think they'd say it would depend on how the next two years go and their options. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Trump essentially said if you don't believe in his stolen election narrative you've "went woke".

You don't believe in his stolen election narrative.

By Trump's definition, you are woke.

And?  I don't give two beans with Trump says. 

You guys should try it sometime.

 

[The General]

The better and more pertinent question is what will YOU do if he doesn't? 

You guys will be lost without Trump.

Quite the opposite for me. 

 

[The General]

I think they'd say too early to tell right now. I think they'd say it would depend on how the next two years go and their options. 

Thanks. That Trump’s act after losing doesn’t auto-eliminate him is the thing that is hard to figure out from my perspective. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. That Trump’s act after losing doesn’t auto-eliminate him is the thing that is hard to figure out from my perspective. 

You're welcome.

And yes, I'm afraid "If you vote for Trump, you're an insurrectionist" will be this cycle's version of Jemele Hill's "If you vote for Donald Trump, you are a racist. You have no wiggle room."

We'll see. Lots of time between now and then. 

 

[Rich Conway]

You're welcome.

And yes, I'm afraid "If you vote for Trump, you're an insurrectionist" will be this cycle's version of Jemele Hill's "If you vote for Donald Trump, you are a racist. You have no wiggle room."

We'll see. Lots of time between now and then. 

I'll come right out and say it.  If you vote for Trump, you are indicating support for a man who tried to overthrow our democratic election process.

From your post above, it seems like you think this is a bad thing, or that it's disappointing people would feel that way.  What we're not getting from you is why you think that.  Why shouldn't people believe that a vote for Trump is a vote to support overthrowing our election process?  Why isn't that fair?

 

[massraider]

You're welcome.

And yes, I'm afraid "If you vote for Trump, you're an insurrectionist" will be this cycle's version of Jemele Hill's "If you vote for Donald Trump, you are a racist. You have no wiggle room." 

Well, one can spin it that way. 

But that spin can come from a question:

How is trying to subvert a Presidential election not a deal breaker?  

"I need you to find me 11, 780 votes"

That quote, on a recorded phone call we all heard, how is this not a deal breaker?

 

[massraider]

I'll come right out and say it.  If you vote for Trump, you are indicating support for a man who tried to overthrow our democratic election process.

From your post above, it seems like you think this is a bad thing, or that it's disappointing people would feel that way.  What we're not getting from you is why you think that.  Why shouldn't people believe that a vote for Trump is a vote to support overthrowing our election process?  Why isn't that fair?

Ha, great minds think alike. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'll come right out and say it.  If you vote for Trump, you are indicating support for a man who tried to overthrow our democratic election process.

From your post above, it seems like you think this is a bad thing, or that it's disappointing people would feel that way.  What we're not getting from you is why you think that.  Why shouldn't people believe that a vote for Trump is a vote to support overthrowing our election process?  Why isn't that fair?

I try to be clear in what I write. So people don't do what you're suggesting and read something that isn't there. 

I don't think it's helpful to make sweeping generalizations like what I referenced above. 

 

[GoBirds]

And?  I don't give two beans with Trump says. 

You guys should try it sometime.

If they haven’t been able to get over him at this point, I don’t see it happening ever. 

 

[massraider]

I try to be clear in what I write. So people don't do what you're suggesting and read something that isn't there. 

I don't think it's helpful to make sweeping generalizations like what I referenced above. 

Kind of admitting something about your original question in this thread, aren't you? 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Kind of admitting something about your original question in this thread, aren't you? 

How so? I thought the original question was pretty straight forward asking people what they thought. Did you not?

 

[Rich Conway]

I try to be clear in what I write. So people don't do what you're suggesting and read something that isn't there. 

I don't think it's helpful to make sweeping generalizations like what I referenced above. 

I understand you try to be clear, but it hasn't gone unnoticed that you generally decline to respond when asked for your opinion.

Why shouldn't someone characterize things that way?  What's unfair about it?  The man tried to subvert an election.  Why shouldn't that be an automatic disqualifier?

 

[The General]

You're welcome.

And yes, I'm afraid "If you vote for Trump, you're an insurrectionist" will be this cycle's version of Jemele Hill's "If you vote for Donald Trump, you are a racist. You have no wiggle room."

We'll see. Lots of time between now and then. 

I don't think it has to be to that extreme but how can it not be a serious discussion as to why these actions should remove him from your list? 

How would more time make a difference?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The better and more pertinent question is what will YOU do if he doesn't? 

You guys will be lost without Trump.

This is a really bizarre narrative

 

[Joe Bryant]

I understand you try to be clear, but it hasn't gone unnoticed that you generally decline to respond when asked for your opinion.

Why shouldn't someone characterize things that way?  What's unfair about it?  The man tried to subvert an election.  Why shouldn't that be an automatic disqualifier?

I'm way more interested in hearing what you folks think. Especially on something that's a poll. It seems obvious to me if I'm genuinely curious about finding out what the group things on something (which I am), it seems it would be inappropriate to lead or add what I think. That would defeat my purpose of trying to see what you folks think. The whole point for me is getting to hear what you all think. 

 

[TripItUp]

He does not “control”, not even close.

However, he has more influence than any other single person.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Well, one can spin it that way. 

But that spin can come from a question:

How is trying to subvert a Presidential election not a deal breaker?  

"I need you to find me 11, 780 votes"

That quote, on a recorded phone call we all heard, how is this not a deal breaker?

I try to be clear in what I write. So people don't do what you're suggesting and read something that isn't there. 

I don't think it's helpful to make sweeping generalizations like what I referenced above. 

I don't think it's a sweeping generalization.  No one is calling people that vote for Trump insurrectionists.  But would you say that people that vote for Trump in the future do not have an issue with a president that tries to subvert a Presidential election?

 

[BladeRunner]

This is a really bizarre narrative

Right?  I dont get the constant hyperventilating over a former President either.

Stop letting him control YOU, is my advice.

 

[AAABatteries]

Trumps sway over Republican politicians is undeniable.  I'd be willing to concede he doesn't have the sway that he does over the Republican voters if he either loses the nomination or it's at least close.  I don't expect either and at that point I will no longer give the GOP voters the benefit of the doubt - they want what he brings to the table and yes, I think that reflects poorly on the person who vote for him.

 

[TripItUp]

McConnell actually has more real power than Trump right now.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I try to be clear in what I write. So people don't do what you're suggesting and read something that isn't there. 

I don't think it's helpful to make sweeping generalizations like what I referenced above. 

I mean, if someone votes for Trump in 2024 they are acknowledging one of two things.

1) They believe the 2020 election was stolen

2) They acknowledge that Trump is trying to subvert the legal democratic process, but are still willing to vote for him.

Given that the conservatives on this board have made it clear that they believe people in group #1 are a minority of the Republican party, that will likely leave a lot of votes coming from group #2, which to me is unconscionable.

 

[AAABatteries]

He does not “control”, not even close.

However, he has more influence than any other single person.

That's just definitions - google search returns this for control:

"the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events."

We aren't talking about mind control here.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Trumps sway over Republican politicians are undeniable.  I'd be willing to concede he doesn't have the sway that he does over the Republican voters if he either loses the nomination or it's at least close.  I don't expect either and at that point I will no longer give the GOP voters the benefit of the doubt - they want what he brings to the table and yes, I think that reflects poorly on the person who vote for him.

I think this is a big issue.  It used to be very easy to separate the person from their politics.  Trump makes this very difficult.

 

[massraider]

How so? I thought the original question was pretty straight forward asking people what they thought. Did you not?

It was as sweeping a generalization as one could find. 

 

[Rich Conway]

I'm way more interested in hearing what you folks think. Especially on something that's a poll. It seems obvious to me if I'm genuinely curious about finding out what the group things on something (which I am), it seems it would be inappropriate to lead or add what I think. That would defeat my purpose of trying to see what you folks think. The whole point for me is getting to hear what you all think. 

I suppose, but a discussion has to be a two-way street.  At this point, I think the poll portion of the program is largely concluded and we're now in the discussion phase.

When you drop phrases like "it's disappointing to me..." or "it's not helpful when..." or "we'll have to agree to disagree...", that seems like you're participating in the discussion.  In order for others to interact with you in a meaningful way, you'll have to explain why you think certain things.

 

[The General]

McConnell actually has more real power than Trump right now.

Mitch isn't rolling into a district or other state and having any sway / leverage over anyone. He's just the legislative bagman - very important - but not Don level.

 

[Joe Bryant]

He does not “control”, not even close.

However, he has more influence than any other single person.

I was careful about how I chose the words for the question. And used control as that seemed to be how some had seen it. 

It was posts like this:

It's complete servitude to one man or you're out of the party. 

I wondered how widespread that thought was. So I asked the question for the poll. 

To me, that's a different question than who has the most influence. Although that could be interesting too. 

 

[TripItUp]

I think part of what is being lost here is that Trump has influence because 74 million people voted for him last election.
 

It’s not as if he’s Darth Vader and physically forced his way to his position of influence.  He has been empowered by the people.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It was as sweeping a generalization as one could find. 

Interesting. Thanks. I didn't see it as a generalization. As mentioned a couple of times here, I saw folks saying this and I wondered how many others thought similarly. So I asked in a poll. 

 

[Alex P Keaton]

He does not “control”, not even close.

However, he has more influence than any other single person.

This is a really good articulation of reality.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I think part of what is being lost here is that Trump has influence because 74 million people voted for him last election.
 

It’s not as if he’s Darth Vader and physically forced his way to his position of influence.  He has been empowered by the people.

Very true and fair.

Whats interesting about it is that when, say, the elder George Bush lost his re-election, he also lost pretty much most of his influence within the party.   Somehow Trump has managed to maintain his influence despite losing to a guy who is one of the least impressive candidates in modern history.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Very true and fair.

Whats interesting about it is that when, say, the elder George Bush lost his re-election, he also lost pretty much most of his influence within the party.   Somehow Trump has managed to maintain his influence despite losing to a guy who is one of the least impressive candidates in modern history.

I too think that's interesting.

I can't really remember, did Bush make it clear he wasn't running again? 

If so, do you think that might be one reason why it's different?

 

[The General]

I think part of what is being lost here is that Trump has influence because 74 million people voted for him last election.
 

It’s not as if he’s Darth Vader and physically forced his way to his position of influence.  He has been empowered by the people.

Yes that's the whole point, for me at least, that he hasn't lost the vast majority of these people.

 

[TripItUp]

Very true and fair.

Whats interesting about it is that when, say, the elder George Bush lost his re-election, he also lost pretty much most of his influence within the party.   

Why Trump still has so much influence is the much more interesting question in my opinion.  Because you're right, it's very different than other former Presidents.

 

[djmich]

This is a really good articulation of reality.

Very true and fair.

Whats interesting about it is that when, say, the elder George Bush lost his re-election, he also lost pretty much most of his influence within the party.   Somehow Trump has managed to maintain his influence despite losing to a guy who is one of the least impressive candidates in modern history.

Agree with both of these posts (first one being that control is different than influence).

With regard to the second its not surprising because all along with Trump its been very much about the personality.  Bush was not a personality for sure.