First of all let's see if we can have this discussion in at least a vaguely calm and rational manner such that Chris Lambertz doesn't have a cow when he comes in on Monday morning. I realize that may be something of a stretch, but I think there's at least a fighting chance that we can pull it off. I also realize that at best only a few of the people on this board are likely to agree with my analyses. Regardless, some of the points I am going to raise are ones that I have not seen discussed before and I would like to get reasonable feedback on them. So if I can get some intelligent responses to this sans name calling I would appreciate it.
There is an extent to which various labels can get in the way more than help. But there is also an extent to which trying to have certain types of discussions without resorting to them can result in much space being consumed simply trying to define what it is that one is talking about. It will not come as a shock to most people on this board that I would describe myself as a "conservative". But there are various types of "conservatives" and not all of them are in agreement as to what it is that should be "conserved". So, it might help people if they knew that I was coming from the background of having been active in third party politics since the early 1990's. At various times I have been active with either the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. I would consider myself to be a "paleo" conservative who is much closer to Ron Paul or Rand Paul if I had to identify a "mainstream" politician that I would associate with.
Coming now to Trump, the topic of this discussion. There is an extent to which I would be "neutral" with a slight negative bias against him. At least part of the reason for that is Trump is going for the Republican nomination and I'm not a Republican. Neither the Libertarian Party nor the Constitution Party have had their conventions yet, so I don't know who their presidential candidates will be. Trump won't really factor into my analysis of who I'm going to vote for until the conventions have been held and I can compare and contrast the candidates who have been selected. If Trump makes that cut then I will look at him more closely than I have to date.
Some of the things that Trump has said I like, and some of the things that he has said have given me pause. The problem from my point of view is that Trump isn't a real "conservative". He understands business well enough, but he doesn't seem to understand the Constitutionally limited role of the Federal government anywhere near as well as I would like him to.
But there's potentially more going on than that. I am also something of a conspiracy theorist and I don't think it would shock that many people if I suggested there were one or more groups of "insiders" trying to rig the governmental and economic systems of this country in their favor. For lack of better terms I will define two of them as being "outside" insiders and "inside" insiders. The "outside" insiders are the ones most people know about and or could identify readily. These are largely the various different sorts of elected pests we have infesting the Congress, the Senate, and the Federal government in general. The "inside" insiders tend to operate more or less behind the scenes and use the "outside" insiders to advance their agenda(s). Think of the Koch brothers, George Soros, and others of that ilk. It is by definition not always obvious who belongs to that group and what they are up to is subject to much speculation. It is arguable that at least some of them are working at cross purposes to one another.
How this relates to Trump is that he has obviously been successful enough in business that he could potentially have a seat at a meeting of "inside" insiders. It should also be noted that at one point in time he explained away his connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton by stating that as a business man he bought politicians when he felt he needed to and Bill and Hillary were simply two of the ones he had paid off. Well, potentially give Trump some credit for honesty, but he also just admitted that he fit my definition of an "inside" insider. This gives me pause.
The second thing that has me somewhat suspicious is we all KNOW the media HATES Trump. How do we know this? The media makes sure that just about every waking minute on umpteen different television and radio programs we are bombarded with negative stories about Trump. Either that or interviews with other presidential candidates where the media is trying to get them to react to something Trump said. But consider that reverse psychology may be at play here. The "establishment" (both groups of insiders) know that they are on the "outs" with the electorate in general. What better way to channel this resentment against the "establishment" than by having the media hammer on an "inside" insider who's been a member of the club all along and portray him as a true alternative to the "establishment"? After all, as both Ron Paul and Rand Paul can attest, if the media really hates your guts/doesn't like your message you will NEVER get enough coverage to make a difference.
But a lot of that is supposition on my part. It is also true that Trump is something of a media mogul in his own right and he could have some of the mainstream media by the contractual short hairs. They simply can't ignore him like they could Ron Paul and Rand Paul and get away with it. So if they can't ignore him they smear him. Why? Come back to one of my previous points about the possibility that various insiders may be working at cross purposes to one another.
The stereotypical "inside" insider comes from a multi generational mega wealthy family that has so much money it has essentially become meaningless. All that really counts then isn't money, it's power. Such an individual is concerned only with increasing their own power to the best of his/her ability, and doesn't fear any consequences because within limits they are unknown and they believe that their mega wealth will protect them. These are the sorts of people who are at the root of pushing for things like the New World Order and a One World Government (NWO/OWG). Which if implemented according to the designs I have seen would effectively turn the entire world into a totalitarian hell hole run by faceless bureaucrats who are responsible, if they are responsible at all, only to people pulling strings from behind the scenes. But in order to do that they have to gut modern nation states as we know them and that most specifically includes America.
In this view of things Trump may simply be acting in his own enlightened self interest. He realizes that the NWO/OWG pipe dream can never actually be implemented because there are too many players in too many countries who will gleefully go along with weakening America as part of the plan and then reneg on their ends of the deal. Thus increasing their own power at the expense of those pushing for the NWO/OWG. To the detriment of everybody who had been caught up in that or was unfortunate enough to be living in a country that their own elites decided to throw under the bus. Trump could be the point man for "inside" insiders who have come to realize that if they gut the nation state that is their own power base, nobody else is going to have any use for them. So Trump crafts a "populist" message that he knows will appeal to a large percentage of those voters who rightfully feel they have been disenfranchised and goes about trying to get himself elected president in order to attempt to fix the problem.
Maybe. I honestly don't know. Trump could be channeling John Hancock in an honest attempt to fix some of the more serious problems we've got. Or he could be something far darker. My jury is out and my analyses are spinning in circles like a dog chasing its tail.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
...such that Chris Lambertz doesn't have a cow when he comes in on Monday morning.
She.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure if Trump believes what he says.
However, what he says is frightening and objectively bigoted by any yardstick.
Apparently, he would have more money today if he just took his inherited millions and put them in slow growth funds, rather than gambling aggressively in real estate and having businesses go bankrupt multiple times.
He has mobilized the racist section of the US population.
Those are my thoughts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
- Frank Zappa
It's not about what puppet is dancing on the stage, it's who's pulling the strings.
I'm going to leave it at that, as we were rather specifically asked in the last Trump thread not to have a blow-up-political thread during the weekend.
“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
- Frank ZappaIt's not about what puppet is dancing on the stage, it's who's pulling the strings.
I'm going to leave it at that, as we were rather specifically asked in the last Trump thread not to have a blow-up-political thread during the weekend.
With the above caveat, I am not actually going to delve into my opinions on Trump/voters/GOP.
That said, I think empirically if Trump were to get the republican nomination as presidential candidate, I don't see anyway of that party to win the White House. I think Trump is too polarizing a figure to attract swing voters or moderates, and I don't feel like he has enough support within the Republicans themselves to ensure a win.
“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
- Frank ZappaIt's not about what puppet is dancing on the stage, it's who's pulling the strings.
I'm going to leave it at that, as we were rather specifically asked in the last Trump thread not to have a blow-up-political thread during the weekend.
With the above caveat, I am not actually going to delve into my opinions on Trump/voters/GOP.
That said, I think empirically if Trump were to get the republican nomination as presidential candidate, I don't see anyway of that party to win the White House. I think Trump is too polarizing a figure to attract swing voters or moderates, and I don't feel like he has enough support within the Republicans themselves to ensure a win.
I would agree with this. For primary polls, they talk to folks who identify as republican (so about 40% of people, about 40% identify as democrat, and about 20% don't identify) and he seems to be capping out around 35% with all the real movement in the polls happening below him. It puts him in a front runner position only because of the huge field behind him. For perspective, Bernie Sanders had the same polling numbers on the democrat side but he is behind by 20 points in even the most generous polls.
Basically, I think Trump (and Bernie too for that matter) are at their apex. 40% of 40%, or about 16% of the general population who are going to (read: willing to) support them are already doing it and they don't really have any room to move. Just for giggles I will add that either of them could blow up in a huge popularist way given the right conditions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure if Trump believes what he says.
However, what he says is frightening and objectively bigoted by any yardstick.
Apparently, he would have more money today if he just took his inherited millions and put them in slow growth funds, rather than gambling aggressively in real estate and having businesses go bankrupt multiple times.
He has mobilized the racist section of the US population.
Those are my thoughts.
In 1989, there was a case referred to as the "Central Park Jogger Case". Five black boys were erroneously charged with a woman's rape and assault (they've since been exonerated). During the case, Trump took out a full page ad in 4 New York papers with the headline:
"BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY.
BRING BACK OUR POLICE!"
In it, Trump tells us that Japan and other nations are taking advantage of us. Stop the presses. He talks about the sneakiness of Japanese industry during the weak yen-strong dollar days that helped turn us into a debtor nation. But he doesn`t say anything about the current weak dollar-strong yen that has helped make us a bigger debtor nation.
He demands that Japan, Saudi Arabia and other international parasites pay for their protection. Yawn. Then he closes with the exhortation, ``Let`s not let our great country be laughed at anymore.``
Doesn't have the racist code-words, but another article from 1988
"Country-wide, we have serious problems," he said. "So many countries are whipping America . . . making billions and stripping the United States of economic dignity. I respect the Japanese, but we have to fight back."
A couple weeks ago, Trump retweet an image that claimed to contain statistics on crime. It turns out the statistics were false, the listed "source" was fictional, and the image is most easily traced back to Stormfront, a website for neo-nazi's.
I don't see that as evidence that Trump is a neo-nazi. Rather that we can all agree that neo-nazi's are racist, so people who tend to agree with their racist ideology, are probably also racist. I can't say that Trump agrees with all of their ideology, but he does seem easily influenced by that line of thinking.
Based on all this, a pattern that extends back for nearly 30 years, I think he does believe the things he's saying. I think he's a racist.
Oh, and Trump isn't a good businessman either. Trump Casinos have filed for bankruptcy many, many times over the past 30 years. And this isn't just him finding clever ways of making money as he has had to liquidate large personal holdings (company shares, yachts, airlines) in order to meet debt obligations.
If Trump had taken the money from his father in 1974 and just invested in the S&P 500, he would have had made about the same amount of money as he did with all his "deal making". If he had invested his estimated worth in 1982 ($200 million) in the S&P 500, he would have been worth about double what he is now.
Trump builds his businesses by gambling. No, I'm not referring to the fact that he owns casinos, but rather that he takes on massive debt as a way of financing his business. If it succeeds, he makes lots of money. If it fails, he puts the business in bankruptcy, leaving other people largely on the hook.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all let's see if we can have this discussion in at least a vaguely calm and rational manner such that Chris Lambertz doesn't have a cow when he comes in on Monday morning...
The Mods locked the previous (non-serious) thread on Trump last night because:
...In the best interest of not having this thread heat up over the weekend, I'll be locking it.
Creating a brand new thread to discuss Trump defeats the purpose of locking the original thread, especially when it done while it is known they are out of the office. IAmNotaMod, but if you wish to discuss this topic, it would probably be best to wait until they are back in the office.
First of all let's see if we can have this discussion in at least a vaguely calm and rational manner such that Chris Lambertz doesn't have a cow when he comes in on Monday morning...The Mods locked the previous (non-serious) thread on Trump last night because:
...In the best interest of not having this thread heat up over the weekend, I'll be locking it.Creating a brand new thread to discuss Trump defeats the purpose of locking the original thread, especially when it done while it is known they are out of the office. IAmNotaMod, but if you wish to discuss this topic, it would probably be best to wait until they are back in the office.
You Slaads are so chaotic! Also, I can't tell any of you apart.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump. Trump is just completely out there. Half the things I hear about him I have to go and fact check because they sound completely implausible. That the fact checks always turned out positive so far is concerning.
The man himself I can't view as anything other than a loon. I can still remember his hilarious dispute with Bill Maher before he went into politics. I've seen what his "policies" are in regards to delicate, sensitive and incredibly complex problems.
Look, the man himself is clearly very charismatic, but a good political leader is not something he is capable of being. The U.S frankly can't afford such a man to manage their foreign policy. He isn't fit to be the most powerful man on Earth.
What I find more interesting about Trump is the chord he is managing to strike in the U.S public. His mannerisms and style are so strongly opposed to the superficial political correctness that most American media and politicians use that he should have crushed and burned - yet it seems that there is a significant group of people who relish in the freedom he offers them. Who just want to hear someone come out and say straight that he doesn't want Mexicans and Muslims on U.S soil, that he thinks they are all rapists or terrorists or what have you. Trump's success may very well be the result of violent and xenophobic sentiments in the populace finally being given a face and a voice in public.
I am opposed to Trump and almost everything he stands for, but then I similarly oppose just about all other Republican candidates. For me the issue with Trump is not his ideals or ideas it's that someone like him should have never been able to get anywhere near the position he currently occupies.
...
A couple weeks ago, Trump retweet an image that claimed to contain statistics on crime. It turns out the statistics were false, the listed "source" was fictional, and the image is most easily traced back to Stormfront, a website for neo-nazi's.
...
I would be interested to see if you could provide a link for that. I understand that might take a while for you to find so there is no big rush.
Nevermind. Found it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To reiterate an observation made on Twitter:
"Trump is like an Internet comments section decided to run for President."
His ideas are half-baked and unfeasible at best, dangerous and unconstitutional at worst.
Trump. Trump is just completely out there. Half the things I hear about him I have to go and fact check because they sound completely implausible. That the fact checks always turned out positive so far is concerning.
The man himself I can't view as anything other than a loon. I can still remember his hilarious dispute with Bill Maher before he went into politics. I've seen what his "policies" are in regards to delicate, sensitive and incredibly complex problems.
Look, the man himself is clearly very charismatic, but a good political leader is not something he is capable of being. The U.S frankly can't afford such a man to manage their foreign policy. He isn't fit to be the most powerful man on Earth.
What I find more interesting about Trump is the chord he is managing to strike in the U.S public. His mannerisms and style are so strongly opposed to the superficial political correctness that most American media and politicians use that he should have crushed and burned - yet it seems that there is a significant group of people who relish in the freedom he offers them. Who just want to hear someone come out and say straight that he doesn't want Mexicans and Muslims on U.S soil, that he thinks they are all rapists or terrorists or what have you. Trump's success may very well be the result of violent and xenophobic sentiments in the populace finally being given a face and a voice in public.
I am opposed to Trump and almost everything he stands for, but then I similarly oppose just about all other Republican candidates. For me the issue with Trump is not his ideals or ideas it's that someone like him should have never been able to get anywhere near the position he currently occupies.
I'm not sure it is fair to say that he is striking a chord with the U.S. public. His poll numbers indicate that about 14-16% of the population like what he has to say. The only reason he has front runner status is because of the size of the republican field. He has virtually the same polling numbers as Bernie Sanders.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eagles certainly don't like him, proof that animals can dtect evil.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a twitter comment I saw and liked.
For every person who said that if they were in Germany in the 30's, they would have done something. Now is your chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, Trump does seem to be following the fascist handbook more or less to the letter...
One of the things I don't understand about both major parties this election cycle is that neither seems to be concerned about general electability. Primaries are worthless if you can't grab independents and other swing voters come the real election! We centrists hate both Trump and Clinton, for entirely different reasons. Sanders would absolutely dominate any of the mainstream republican candidates, (except maybe Rubio, because he's got like 37 Charisma and would win Florida without even trying, since the most democratic parts of Florida are Broward and Dade counties and he's both Latino and from Miami, and let's face it, win Florida and you win America, electorally speaking), and independents absolutely adore Rand Paul (who is barely registering on the Republican radar), yet right now the two party front runners are the most polarizing human beings in the country.
Its almost as if the Republicans, in seeing Clinton was going to win the primary, said to themselves "well, we can't just let them hand us the election; who could possibly lose to someone like Hillary?"
And so we got Trump...and every time he opens his mouth, I think to myself, there's no way this guy can keep going, that's idiotic...but the rednecks go crazy cheering for him, and he jumps in numbers, and I wonder what is wrong with my fellow Americans?
*sigh* I'm so tired of voting third party.
I do feel that his run has had one positive effect. It has allowed the reasonable conservatives a chance to show themselves by denouncing Trump.
|
Its almost as if the Republicans, in seeing Clinton was going to win the primary, said to themselves "well, we can't just let them hand us the election; who could possibly lose to someone like Hillary?"
Head to head matchup polls have fairly consistently shown Clinton beating ALL of the candidates running for the GOP nomination. Granted, they also show Sanders beating all of them by even larger margins, but the idea that Clinton would be easy to beat except for Trump just isn't borne out by the data.
Sure, Clinton is not particularly well-liked... but she's the least objectionable Republican in the race. I'm still hoping Sanders pulls it out and there will be an actual Democrat to vote for. Yes, the media insists that Clinton is inevitable, but they did the same thing eight years ago with Obama... and Sanders has actually been doing better than Obama thus far by most measures.
I do feel that his run has had one positive effect. It has allowed the reasonable conservatives a chance to show themselves by denouncing Trump.
You can tell who he's contacted for his runningmate by who doesn't.
Politically speaking, Fiorina would be his most likely bet. He's talked too much smack about Carson, and she fits his "outsider" mold that seems to be so popular. Plus, women hate him more than anyone who isn't Mexican or Muslim, and it's his best chance to steal any female voters from Clinton. Rubio, as I stated earlier, is a "you win the general election" card, but he seems to have some scruples, even if he has seemingly overnight turned into a Rumsfeld wannabe when it comes to the middle east. He still seems the right wing's best chance to have someone actually win the general election, though.
Frankly, I don't really like Fiorina, but there's a small part of me that wants her to win the primary just so Clinton sweats a little more about pulling that first woman president angle.
On the topic of who might win the primaries:
Western Illinois University, which has a good recent track record for these predictions, predicted Bush/Rubio vs Sanders/O'Malley.
Sanders won easily.
...is Vomit Guy still allowed in political threads?
The same Bush that hasn't broken past 4th place since...like...the beginning? They predicted that guy winning the primaries?
Forgive me for being skeptical given he's been the apex of mediocrity.
My two cents. I asked for opinions and comment, and that's what I got. Granted that I don't agree with most of it, but it was not my intention to turn this into a debate thread. The situation with Trump is obviously polarizing and I see no need to start generating heat as opposed to light.
Some points were raised that I was not aware of, and we all seem to have handled this without getting too obnoxious. So from my point of view this thread is a "success", at least as far as things stand now.
I may from time to time in the future post threads/make arguments that would likely send some of you screaming up the walls. That usually isn't the desired effect I'm looking for, but from occasionally I feel that certain seriously conservative points have to be made. However, when I do that I'll try to do it when the moderators are around so they can have their cows early :-) This wasn't the time and the place and a defense of Trump wasn't the right subject.
|
I do feel that his run has had one positive effect. It has allowed the reasonable conservatives a chance to show themselves by denouncing Trump.You can tell who he's contacted for his runningmate by who doesn't.
Politically speaking, Fiorina would be his most likely bet. He's talked too much smack about Carson, and she fits his "outsider" mold that seems to be so popular. Plus, women hate him more than anyone who isn't Mexican or Muslim, and it's his best chance to steal any female voters from Clinton. Rubio, as I stated earlier, is a "you win the general election" card, but he seems to have some scruples, even if he has seemingly overnight turned into a Rumsfeld wannabe when it comes to the middle east. He still seems the right wing's best chance to have someone actually win the general election, though.
Frankly, I don't really like Fiorina, but there's a small part of me that wants her to win the primary just so Clinton sweats a little more about pulling that first woman president angle.
Fiorina won't be Trump's VP, there is too much ego (Carly hides it better) for that to succeed, and both of them are smart enough to know it won't work regardless of political chan
The Daily Show started a petition to free Jeb Bush, comparing him to the orca whales at SeaWorld.
However, when I do that I'll try to do it when the moderators are around so they can have their cows early :-)
I'd compliment you on your good sportsmanship if you didn't feel the need to keep dropping snidenesses like this.
Donald Trump talking about his daughter
“Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . ”
It's not an isolated statement either. He's said this repeatedly over the years.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two threads Slaad has put up that got locked, both addressing LGBTAQ groups. I'm looking at them right now. I'm curious which one you're referring to (feel free to tell me via PM if there's one in particular you meant).
I can see why there's bitterness. I also don't think the mods did anything wrong, and I don't think it is wise to be sniping about it now in a wholly unrelated thread.
You actually make a valid point. This I unrelated. I'll go ahead and delete my comment and answer your question.
Wait, why wasn't THIS thread locked?!
Wait, why wasn't THIS thread locked?!
Prolly cause it's true.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem from my point of view is that Trump isn't a real "conservative".
I think this bit, right here, is going to give you some trouble. You're trying to unilaterally define what a "real conservative" is, and then lay into Trump for not meeting your personal (and undeniably arbitrary) definition.
There are quite a lot of people, Caesar Slaad, who would tar you as a fake conservative (or, more probably, a fake libertarian) for your opposition to gay marriage, for instance. You can certainly call Trump out for championing stupid policies, but you don't seem to be in any position to determine who is and isn't a "true conservative".
That said, Trump is an absolute disaster for you and for people like you. First, whether you accept it or not, you ought to be supporting the eventual Republican nominee. Despite your protestations to the contrary, your personal politics appear to line up very close to the Republican platform. Your third party so-you-can-sleep-at-night vote isn't going to accomplish anything except handing the offset of your opportunity cost to the Democratic Party (to the tune of one vote in the Democratic nominee's favor). Given that the horse you should be backing is the Republican, anything that lowers the chances of the Republican nominee becoming President is bad for you. Trump stands almost no chance of winning the general election, so Trump becoming the nominee is really bad for you. Worse, if Trump doesn't become the nominee, and (through the benevolent intervention of God himself) decides to run anyway as an independent candidate, the Republican nominee stands no chance at all of winning.
For the Republican Party to have even a long shot at the presidency, a) Donald Trump must lose the primary, b) Donald Trump must choose not to run as an independent, and c) the Republican Party must nominate Rubio. Even then, it will be an uphill climb. If any of these things fail to occur, you are looking at what is almost certainly another 8 years of Democratic presidency.
I'm as staunch a Democrat as they come, so this piece of advice is essentially charity: The best thing you can do for yourself in this election is to register as a Republican and vote for Marco Rubio in your state's primary.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may actually come out and vote for the first time just for Bernie.
I love you so much TriOmegaZero. :D
All my votes are belong to Bernie.
|
|
Head to head matchup polls have fairly consistently shown Clinton beating ALL of the candidates running for the GOP nomination. Granted, they also show Sanders beating all of them by even larger margins, but the idea that Clinton would be easy to beat except for Trump just isn't borne out by the data.That's not what I've been seeing the general election polling. Has it changed recently? I remember Clinton doing significantly better than Sanders in most polls.
Different things. Clinton leads in polls for the Democratic nomination. However, when people are asked questions like, 'Who would you vote for to become president: Clinton or Trump', then Clinton beats all of the potential GOP nominees, but Sanders beats all of them by even larger margins than Clinton.
Keep in mind that those polls are looking at different voter groups. The Democratic nomination is looking only at Democrats while the head to head matchups look at all voters. Clinton is doing better than Sanders with Democrats, but worse with Independents and Republicans.
Frankly, despite the Hillary hate that's certainly out there, I'd be pleasantly shocked if a Jewish Socialist could beat nearly anyone for President. Part of the reason could be that he hasn't faced any real attacks yet.
Yeah, that's a real concern. Though if he were somehow up against Trump (or, even more implausibly, Carson) I think he'd do fine.
Right now the tea party/angry voters seem to be lining up behind Trump, evangelicals behind Cruz, and the Wall Street/establishment wing behind Rubio. Given that Cruz fits more naturally in the tea party wing he seems the best positioned to win the nomination currently... despite the fact that the establishment absolutely loathes him.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing about polls is they mostly interview people with landline phones, which means, let's be honest, old people. Sanders has obtained a heavy following among young disenfranchised milennials and pretty much giving focus and direction to the people who were earlier part of the unorganized cluster f- that was Occupy Wallstreet, and they're just not the type to be included in most news polls.
Sanders has made a name for himself basically saying "you know what, f--- rich people!" People like that message. He would destroy Trump. A billionaire running against that kind of movement? Are you serious?
And before you say those people don't vote - that's what they said before Obama got elected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just remember, most people supporting Trump aren't supporting his views. They are supporting the fact that he is willing to actually express his opinion no matter the political consequences. Even most of his supporters know he his crazy. They just want a politician who behaves like something other than a politician.
My overall perspective this election cycle is this: If you had told me that last year around this time that the democrats would win the presidential election, I would have laughed.
At that moment, there was almost certain agreement that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee for the dems in the media. Although I don't mind her as a candidate, she has a lot of problems that other candidates don't; casual voters in her own party are not excited by her, she has a long history of negative press, and lets face it...she is a woman. A female politician can say the exact same things as a male politician, but while the male politician is a "strong leader", the female politician gets labeled with insults. That doesn't even get into all the other ways that a woman politician is judged. I strongly dislike Sarah Palin, but even there I see a lot of commentary a male politician wouldn't have gotten.
Basically I didn't expect Clinton to pull in the swing voters, and I expected a lot of apathy from the left, which would lead to lower voter turn out. The republican nominee (Jeb Bush of course!) should have had it easy!
But then the actually GOP field emerged...all one billion candidates (I exaggerate, but that is really what it feels like). Trump, who I expected to be a flash in the pan who would drop out by the end of the summer....somehow has managed to consistently lead GOP polls since summer, and he seems untouchable among those voters.
Had the nominee pool been smaller and had Trump tried different tactics/dropped out, things would be a lot different.
At this point I have to shake my head at the situation. YOU HAD ONE JOB GOP...to produce a candidate that was sane and more interesting than Clinton. Not a difficult feat at all. Between this and the Speaker of the House drama, it really makes me question the long term outlook of the Republican party.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here. The dominance of the two major parties in the American electoral system is well-understood, and is primarily mathematical, not political. (Look up Duverger's Law for an explanation.) Voting for anyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is equivalent to an abstention; in most states, your candidate won't get any electoral votes unless s/he wins the state outright.
So it doesn't matter if you vote for the Green Party, the Nazi Party, the Libertarian Party, or for Mickey Mouse -- you are depriving your preferred major party candidate of the marginal support of your vote, and little else.
But, as I said earlier, this is simple mathematics.