@blackjack21 , let's talk about your response to my comments, they're interesting, at least to me, perhaps because of my own idiosyncratic political beliefs but more likely because they provide an opening for seeing the world as it stands on the end of the modern age. It reminds me of things I read in John Lukacs-perhaps you've read him? Here's a short link to some stuff about him;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lukacs
He was a profound historian and thinker, described himself as a ''reactionary'' but rather disliked Fascists, you should read some of his stuff. He wrote a really good book called; ''the Hitler of History''
which concerned the Prosopography of Hitler, but provided some amazing insights on Nationalism and Populism. Here is an excerpt from Wiki;
Lukacs saw populism as the primary threat to modern civilization. By his own description, he considered himself a reactionary. He identified populism as the essence of both National Socialism and Communism, denying the existence of generic fascism and asserted that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were greater than their similarities.
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end. The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
Anyway, Lukacs goes on in other writings to describe the main threats to America and Western civilization, its inner rot that actually is linked to it's populism, as Wiki describes;
''In his book Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred (2005), Lukacs writes about the current state of American democracy. He warns that the populism he perceives as ascendant in the United States renders it vulnerable to demagoguery. He claims that a transformation from liberal democracy to populism can be seen in the replacement of knowledge and history with propaganda and infotainment. In the same book, Lukacs criticizes legalized abortion, pornography, cloning and sexual permissiveness as marking what he sees as the increasing decadence, depravity, corruption and amorality of modern American society.''
So with that in mind, I dive into your statements;
Trump isn't a conservative. He's a nationalist. He thinks Gorsuch's recent rulings are good, while I think they are atrocious. You'll notice that they didn't protest Gorsuch in the Senate, while they trashed Kavanaugh.
Exactly. When I made the comment about Trump's Liberalism in the Socio-Cultural sense that by no means voids his Nationalism/Populism. He's not going to ''Conserve'' anything worthwhile, and Conservatives would do well to reflect on that. As much as I completely enjoy seeing Liberals lose their minds over this man, I reflect that over time and once he wins a second term ''Conservatives'' are likely to be losing their minds over him as well.
Pelosi's action was theater, but to suggest that behind the scenes she and Trump are buddies is ludicrous. Just because they are all capitalists doesn't mean they aren't enemies. Competition is at the very heart of capitalism.
Sure. I may have to explain my position a little further about the ''Elites'', in that there are always sub-groups and factions in any Elite over a society. President Trump is supported by some of those Elite people to a certain degree, and I suspect that after he wins in 2020 the rest will come to terms with him as well. They are all going to circle the wagons after he wins.
So to be clear; Trump will win. But then we're going to have to take stock of the direction everything is going after that.
But man is a fickle and disreputable creature and perhaps, like a chess-player, is interested in the process of attaining his goal rather than the goal itself.