# kaylasdad99: "It is unacceptable for America to ever again have a Republican as President." Well? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2016, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254 "2016-11-09T19:18:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/81 "2016-11-11T20:25:01Z")
Yay! Dictionary fight! [_starts waving Merriam-Webster flag_] ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/82 "2016-11-11T21:30:18Z")
For what little it’s worth, I enjoy it when **Bricker** bumps or brings up old topics like this. It’s entertaining. It reminds me of sports forums when people bump old prediction posts about who the champion will or won’t be and everyone has a good laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/83 "2016-11-11T22:08:23Z")
> [@bryan ekers](#): > > yay! Dictionary fight! [_starts waving merriam-webster flag_] OED!! OED!! word ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/84 "2016-11-12T00:41:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …but Trump is still President-Elect, so I respectfully suggest to you that perhaps mocking has not borne fruit as a valuable tool. An odd suggestion when mocking clearly works. It is just that Trump did more mocking and at higher volumes than his opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/85 "2016-11-12T02:01:44Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > No, you’ve redefined a proclamation or command to be some sort of argumentative assertion. > > “I assert that Republicans will never be president because \” is different than “I, RitterSport, hereby declare that Republicans are no longer allowed to hold the office of the presidency.” > > The first is an argument with, apparently flawed, reasoning behind it. The second is simply a proclamation, with no reasoning or argument. It’s a joke, or a desperate call, but it’s not an argument. > > You haven’t offered a rationale, you’ve redefined the words. The context of the proclamation is relevant. This proclamation came in response to the thread asking what kinds of qualities an ideal Republican would have – not a prediction about a specific person but a question about what kind of person could gain support. And his answer was that no set of qualities could possibly win. That’s an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/86 "2016-11-12T02:02:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > An odd suggestion when mocking clearly works. It is just that Trump did more mocking and at higher volumes than his opponents. Yes, I am forced to concede that mocking seemed to work well for Trump. I’m suggesting that Trump was sui generis in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/87 "2016-11-12T02:07:42Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > Lots and lots of people have been wrong on this. Can we expect more of the same? No. As I mentioned above, while lots of people were wrong about Trump, no other poster has said that any future Republican was essentially impossible - a “paradox,” a claim he has now withdrawn. > [@](#): > > Changing the subject just a bit: In all seriousness, as a reasoned conservative, if you were to start an analysis thread on the future of liberals (or conservatives), I would welcome that discussion. We have a fair number of shit-throwing monkeys going right now in other threads, but I would really like to discuss the future of the two parties in a mature way. (Yes, I can start my own thread. Perhaps I could start one on liberals and you one on conservatives?) Larger point - your input into those discussions would help us with this echo chamber effect we’re questioning right now and that is valuable. I’d be happy to, but I try to moderate my own predictions unless I’m very confident myself. I’ve offered quite a few bets over the years here, but only when I was very confident… and although I have a winning record, it’s not 1.000, so I don’t claim to be perfect. Just accountable. That said, I am happy to speculate. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/88 "2016-11-12T03:14:06Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > OED!! OED!! > > word You’re joking, but I’m a librarian, and sometimes it’s hard to turn it off even when I’m not at work. Not only did I check the OED, I even started to include quotes from the OED in my post when I realized that most people would probably rather I didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/89 "2016-11-12T03:47:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > An odd suggestion when mocking clearly works. It is just that Trump did more mocking and at higher volumes than his opponents. He took a real risk when he mocked that Gold Star family, though. Had they been white… hmm… Of course, the whole point is that they were loyal Americans who _weren’t_ white, but I kinda wish there’d been more blowback from that moment, and not just about how Trump’s remarks were rude and offensive (his supporters _loved_ that he was rude and offensive), but how he lacked the qualities to be sure that when he put American soldiers in harm’s way, as all presidents must, it would be for good reasons. I am sure there were ways to render that moment down to easily-repeatable slogans that could have stuck to Trump the way little else had. Reasoned discourse _didn’t_ carry the day, and that’s an unfortunate thing to learn about America. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/90 "2016-11-12T14:20:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The context of the proclamation is relevant. > > This proclamation came in response to the thread asking what kinds of qualities an ideal Republican would have – not a prediction about a specific person but a question about what kind of person could gain support. > > And his answer was that no set of qualities could possibly win. > > That’s an argument. The proclamation came in many threads, not only in one about what kind of qualities an ideal Republican would have. He popped into many Elections threads, reiterated his commandment and left. Now, you’re redefining a proclamation as an argument. I’m baffled as to why you’re calling out **KD99** out, but not the people who really did make arguments about Republicans having no chance due to the EC or demographics or what-have-you. Those posters really did make arguments and were proven utterly wrong. You and I are going around in circles. Feel free to redefine words however you’d like. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/91 "2016-11-12T16:48:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The context of the proclamation is relevant. > > This proclamation came in response to the thread asking what kinds of qualities an ideal Republican would have – not a prediction about a specific person but a question about what kind of person could gain support. > > And his answer was that no set of qualities could possibly win. > > That’s an argument. There is also the fact that Trump is not a republican. And before you argue about scottsmen and truth, let me explain. Those prognosticating upon the future without republican executives did so because they believed that the majority of the electorate was rejecting republican ideas. The didn’t want small government, they wanted government that would give them jobs. They didn’t want healthcare gutted, they wanted it fixed to work better for them. They didn’t vote to reverse marriage equality, they didn’t vote to remove a woman’s choice. To them, Trump did not represent these things. So, just because Trump had an R next to his name, does not mean that a republican was elected president, and definitley does not mean that republican values won over progressive ideas. It was Trump’s message of bringing back jobs and security was better than Clinton’s message of working together for incremental improvement. If a Bush or Rubio or Kasich had won, that would prove that the voters are looking towards these conservative principles. The fact that Trump won the electoral college, while losing the popular, does not, in my mind, bode all that well for the future of republicans running on conservative agendas. So, if you are going to nit-pick on what “unacceptable” and “paradox” means, then I will nitpick on what “Republican” means. Now, I will not in any way prognosticate on what letter the next president is going to have next to their name, but I would actually be willing to bet you a small sum that no president gets elected on conservative principles in the future. This is not an assurance. I admit that I may be wrong about it. I fear I may be wrong about it. But if you are looking for someone to back up their prediction, I am willing to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254/92 "2016-11-13T00:44:11Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There is also the fact that Trump is not a republican. And before you argue about scottsmen and truth, let me explain. > > Those prognosticating upon the future without republican executives did so because they believed that the majority of the electorate was rejecting republican ideas. The didn’t want small government, they wanted government that would give them jobs. They didn’t want healthcare gutted, they wanted it fixed to work better for them. They didn’t vote to reverse marriage equality, they didn’t vote to remove a woman’s choice. To them, Trump did not represent these things. > > So, just because Trump had an R next to his name, does not mean that a republican was elected president, and definitley does not mean that republican values won over progressive ideas. It was Trump’s message of bringing back jobs and security was better than Clinton’s message of working together for incremental improvement. > > If a Bush or Rubio or Kasich had won, that would prove that the voters are looking towards these conservative principles. The fact that Trump won the electoral college, while losing the popular, does not, in my mind, bode all that well for the future of republicans running on conservative agendas. > > So, if you are going to nit-pick on what “unacceptable” and “paradox” means, then I will nitpick on what “Republican” means. Interesting. There is no nit-picking on my part: **kaylasdad99** flatly said that a future Republican president was paradoxical, and concedes in this very thread: > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > To be fair to **Bricker** , that fact that I called it a paradox can be reasonably construed as an implication of impossibility. That’s not a nitpick. The problem with your claim is that admittedly I have no real idea WHAT Trump’s actual principles are. But I can point to plenty of things he said while campaigning that are consistent with Republican platform positions and stand opposed to the Democrats’ platform. He was reasonably pro-life and pro-Second Amendment, for example. Certainly his list of Supreme Court picks are consistent with GOP thought on judicial philosophy. The GOP platform says, “Any honest agenda for improving healthcare must start with repeal of the dishonestly named Affordable Care Act of 2010: Obamacare,” and Trump certainly was consistent in his campaign rhetoric on that point. He promised to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, dismantle the Iran deal, and promised that when he becomes president the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one; he would meet with Netanyahu immediately. This is certainly consistent with the Republican platform plank, “Therefore, support for Israel is an expression of Americanism, and it is the responsibility of our government to advance policies that reflect Americans’ strong desire for a relationship with no daylight between America and Israel. We recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and call for the American embassy to be moved there in fulfillment of U.S. law.” And an aside, isn’t it awful how all those Trump voters would just fail to concede they were wrong about factual claims about Hillary Clinton? You’d show them facts and they’d just not admit they were wrong! Why does someone do that, do you think? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kaylasdad99-it-is-unacceptable-for-america-to-ever-again-have-a-republican-as-president-well/771254.md?page=4)