·
How far can this guy get? Did you think he'd ever have gotten this far? What next?
user-inactivated · 945 days ago · link ·
You either believe in Democracy or you don't. Trump's ideas are relatively clear by now. He's anti-Islam, anti-immigrant, pro-war, etc. He isn't getting votes because he's charismatic; he's not charismatic. He's getting votes because there are a lot of people who want to elect someone who is anti-Islam, anti-immigrant, pro-war, etc. All of his other political vacillations are less important to his bloc, so they matter little. It's an inherent fault of democracy, that we will fall prey to a mass of people who disagree with us without a substantive mass to counter them. So, when there is a popular figure who we disagree with, we will organize against it or fall under it. And Sanders may not hate Muslims, but there are Constitutional protections against a lot of what Trump would like to do, and not especially against what Sanders wants to do. Hillary is the closest moderate choice, but she's not going to dissuade any would-be Trump voters, and is only serving to split and later disenfranchise the Sanders voters. I'm not voting for any of them; I vote Libertarian for a simple reason. If the government is smaller and less powerful, it will have less impact on my life when a shithead like Trump takes power.
–
I've had a paranoid fantasy for a while that the biggest reason conservatives are against sex education is that they would lose their lotsa baby having, 'God's Quiverful' supporters. You need these people to be ignorant about sex and sexuality so that way they have lots of kids who will probably vote republican.
blackbootz · 946 days ago · link ·
I think the common thinking is that Trump is a fixture of this election, not a fluke, because he's tapping into an extant and pervasive fear that's a result of wide-ranging economic uncertainty, disappointment with the "DC insiders," and terrorism. Commentators who derisively dismissed him were doing wishful thinking. Not that I wasn't one of those commentators. While I think it'd be an interesting development to see the rest of the Republican candidates unite against Trump... I have a not-insignificant suspicion that that would lionize and popularize him even more. Not to mention, this article is patently condescending to Republicans. "Jeb, you did good for dropping out, pat on the head. Cruz, you should consider rethinking your policy platform because it's a little too similar to Trump's for my taste. Marco, you're palatable." I mean, I don't care-- I'm not a fan of any of the candidates. But if her goal is convincing Republican candidates to unite, she could have done it a little less insultingly, no?
–
( 2 / 2 ) (Continued from elsewhere in this thread) I agree. When talking about this election year politics, I stop short of saying that Trump is pandering to extremists. It seems like a reasonable explanation from the lips (or fingertips) of reasonable people; however, if he's winning, that means there are enough people voting for him that they can't be considered extremists. As you write, he taps into sentiments that run through a huge number of Americans -- unmet needs, unheard desires, unexpressed fears, uncertain futures. I share many of their concerns, but I think a different candidate, irrespective of party affiliations, has the solutions to those problems.
I find the author's solution to be very unrealistic. As for any candidate, the press needs to ask Trump questions of substance, and make it plain when he doesn't answer them. If that is done over and over again, he will have a very difficult time in the general election.
Most, if not all, of Trump's stated positions (when he has actually said something intelligible), are in direct contravention of the Constitution, law precedent, and international agreements. We have a tri-cameral system for a reason. And Trump is that reason. Go ahead and elect him. Then see what happens. Absolutely nothing. He won't be able to make a single thing happen because all he does is spout whatever comes off the top of his head... he has no beliefs, no policies, no programs, no support from other elected officials... he's this bizarre marionette that dances and pantomimes, but there is nothing inside but sawdust.
–
–
Ummm... please? No? Actually, had an interesting debate today with someone about a Trump presidency. One of his first two actions would be military, and illegal on many fronts. (Carpet bombing Syria, or targeting known-terrorists' families.) The military would refuse the order from their Commander in Chief. (Which they are completely within their rights to do.) And then you have the US Military stronger than the President. A president who has already proven himself to be a petulant child... so... Military coup replaces Trump? Weird.
–
You think? The UN says they're supposed to, but then the UN says you're not supposed to tortureapply advanced interrogation techniques to prisoners either. I don't buy the military flat refusing anything that comes with any kind of rationale. There is already a mechanism to handle this situation. Congress impeaches Trump, and does so easily because both parties want him gone. No coup necessary. That said, I doubt Trump means most of what he spews, and while he wouldn't be a competent President, the amount of damage he could do would be limited by the grownups in his own party being as horrified by him as the rest of us. Trump getting elected would be bad, but not apocalyptic.The military would refuse the order from their Commander in Chief. (Which they are completely within their rights to do.)
A president who has already proven himself to be a petulant child... so... Military coup replaces Trump?
–
Two quick things because I only have a moment to respond: 1. Yes, all of the commanders in the US Military have already come out publicly against Trump's statements, and have said - unequivocally - that they would not obey these orders. 2. Impeachment is only a black mark on the President's record. Impeachment does not equal "removal from office." Several Presidents have been impeached, and then go back to work in the Oval Office the next day. Removing a sitting President has never been done, and I am not sure off-hand how that process works. (Nixon left of his own accord.)
–
Removing people from office is what impeachment is for. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." No president has ever been removed, but people have been removed from other offices.
BrainBurner · 945 days ago · link ·
I think he'll get the nomination but lose the general election. At this point, there's no way he's falling apart. He has plenty of support and seems to be scandal proof. Our only hope is that the fact that Trump, as the Republican choice, will motivate people that don't normally vote to vote against him and prevent him from gaining office. Frankly, I think the Democrats are thrilled by this. A Trump nomination will basically hand the election to them, plus set back the Republican Party into the stone age. The rapidly expanding section of the country that is not white, well-off, and rural based will not soon forget the awful propaganda that Trump is sure to spew during the general election cycle, and that the Republican party is effectively endorsing. In short, I think this election cycle is the death knell of the Republican Party as we know it. Change or die, mother fuckers.
–
( 1 / 2 ) I believe most true independents (not self-professed libertarians) have been voting Democrat for the past many years as a defensive crouch against unrepentant Republican lunacy. This would be one more major loss for Repubs and yet again those of us watching will shake our heads and wonder why they just don't get that the so-called Southern Strategy has played itself out to its logical end and proven to be neither sensible nor viable. In disclosure, I myself was a switch-hit voter for years, voting on each issue and candidate as I saw appropriate. That pretty much ended when Newt Gingrich gained prominence in Congress and began this era of institutionalized Republican idiocy replete with trumped-up scandals, government shutdowns, anti-science actions, and so forth. I am one of those defensive voters I mentioned above, and I hate being in this position. If we had run off voting or some other better representational system, I would totally be voting for a certain candidate who's neither a Republican nor a Democrat. (continued elsewhere in thread)
–
–
Poe's law here, I can't tell if you're being satirical or genuine. By one argument, he's a shill for trying to 'run the world' in the approved, nominal 'establishment' way. By another argument, he's a (I know we all hate this word) maverick who has become popular with extremists and republicans who are dissatisfied with their party and its leadership. Therefore, anti-establishment.
–
Because the President can't do most of the things these people are promising/threatening without at least their party backing them, they're either fooling themselves or cynically manipulating burned out votes trying to recreate Obama's trick of winning through the votes of people who don't vote. My money is on the latter for the most part; Trump is pretty open about it.