Donald Trump

[dimreepr]

It reminds me of “The grapes of wrath” - John Steinbeck, particularly the part where they, not only protected the waste food from the starving people but actively sought to destroy it before “the masses” could get there, undeserving, hands on such a bounty.

[Phi for All]

It reminds me of “The grapes of wrath” - John Steinbeck, particularly the part where they, not only protected the waste food from the starving people but actively sought to destroy it before “the masses” could get there, undeserving, hands on such a bounty.

 

Many conservatives would claim they'd do it differently, but in the end, the leadership they elect does EXACTLY the same thing (sometimes with good legislation too; if it has bipartisan support, kill it before it helps anybody). And they let them do it. and must approve of it, because they keep electing them and letting them do what they please, over and over again.

[Ten oz]

As for D. Trump...

I am hoping his support can be attributed to conservative minded people who are opposed to the direction the Republican party has taken as of late, and simply wish to register an 'anti-establishment' vote.

These are the conservatives that could very easily be swayed to vote Democrat.

And Clinton and Sanders should be targeting those people ( though I think Clinton would have more success ).

Trump could turn out to be a gift for the Democrats, and the beginning of the end for Republicans as we now know them.

Trump has only managed 34% of the vote in the primary thus far. The majority of Republicans are voting for someone else. Not only that but exit polls show that only 49% of Republican primary voters would be okay with Trump as the nominee which is worse than how either Gingrich or Santorum did in exiting polling back in 2012 and Mitt Romney was over 60% by this point. For a "presumptive" nominee Trump is trending weak.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

 

It is an interesting situation. On one hand Trump is very successful if we look at the common standards: has won most races to date, gets the most media coverage, and is leading in all the polls. On the other hand he is unsuccesful with key primary points: endorsements, majority party support, and majority delegate count. Win or lose many historical presedences fall.

 

To put it into perspective Bernie Sanders has gotten more Democratic support in the primary to date than Trump has gotten Republican support in the primary. Yet Bernie is being crushed and has no chance of winning and Trump is the "presumptive" nominee. It is a bizarre.

[Willie71]

I'm never sure if the misunderstandings are purposeful, or just so deeply entrenched that you can't uncover the reasons for the misunderstandings. Most of waitforufo's arguments are really outdated misconceptions, but he's convinced when you say it that way that you're just spinning things. He never bothers to stick around and listen to the fact that Reagan made up the Black Welfare Queen, in an attempt to discredit welfare spending. This is a FACT, but he'll never hear it, never even consider that his detractors might have even one ounce of evidence that Reagan was a racist pig who left a whole generation of Americans at the mercy of powerful banks and mega-corporations interested only in taking away a little bit more money from People who could ill afford it.

 

This is who Trump appeals to also. And I think waitforufo is secretly glad he'll be "forced" to vote for Trump if he gets the party's nomination. His hands will be tied, after all. Completely blameless, you see.

Lee Atwater explained how to use dog whistle racism, rather than outright in your face racism. Those code phrases are still used every day today in politics. It's amazing to see the apologetics when you hear the republicans say it directly. Same with the "southern strategy." These aren't accusations, but clearly outlined plans.

 

[overtone]

I was referring to your response to my comment about government being irrelevant to many in the american middle. That is politics, and what I said it is correct and it is not juvenile. That's why voter turn out is so low.

It's juvenile to think government is irrelevant to any adult in a democracy governing a modern industrial State. Voter turnout is low because people are lazy.

 

Why is it liberals like yourself always rail against the rich and their children, - -

I don't.

 

You say "Nobody "deserves" inherited wealth from relatives they did not support, financially or economically in some way, thereby acquiring a contractual interest of some kind. " - - - Why do you begrudge these children their remittance?

I don't. I just point out the obvious: they did nothing to earn it or acquire a claim on it. I have no problem establishing a government and using it to ensure that most wealth accumulated by citizens is passed on to whomever they wish to receive it upon their death - that's completely contrary to capitalist economics, of course, but I think it's a good idea and I firmly support it.

 

Are you really surprised that you have to provide reasons to people when you want to take from them by force the product of there labors?

I don't. The subject was the estate tax.

 

Perhaps you can answer my question about who is rich and who is not. Why s it that liberals are simply unwilling to answer this question? What is it about that question that so hard to answer.

In the case of the estate tax it's defined by the Federal government: individuals bequeathing wealth valued at more than 5.45 million dollars are held to be "rich", and nobody else.

 

If you read the big signs printed in block letters and carried around by the OWS crowd on television for years now, you'll find the "rich" defined as those in the upper 1% income bracket.

 

And so forth. These definitions are easy to find, if you ever need them. I don't, of course, for any of my posting here, and you don't for any replies to my posting here.

 

And while some, like iNow and waitforufo, commendably strive to find common grounds for discussion, - -

Waitforufo typically trolls, baits, goads, misreads and misrepresents, namecalls, and badgers people with rhetorical questions irrelevant to the discussion. The "common ground" is seldom approached in that manner.

 

As far as why anyone would support Trump - he's Republican, and no more objectionable than half the Republican candidates for any national office over the past thirty years or so. Newt Gingrich, say (temporary frontrunner in 2011 for Pres.) Sarah Palin. Ted Cruz. Richard Cheney. W.

Edited March 5, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Ted Cruz had a good Saturday. However his wins were in caucus states with closed races. Not sure Cruz can replicate that success in open primaries. However those are not the type of details that headlines and tweets delve into. To on the surface Ted Cruz will get a lot of good press these next couple days.

 

On the 8th we will see ID, HI, MS, and MI. Hi is a caucus and Cruz has spent a lot of time in ID so he will probably win those. Trump will win MI and MS. If Cruz can make MI close (lots of delegates there) the 8th could be another really good night for him.

 

Trump is leading overall but continues to underperform. Trump was polling to win everywhere last night and then lost 2 of 4 barely winning KY and getting crushed in ME. His support simply isn't growing even as his odds of being to nominee have grown. Trump needs to turn that around if he is going to win the needed delegates to take the nomination. Because if he continues to lose a third or more of states he is projected to win he will not make it to 1,237 delegates and there will be a brokered convention.

[Bill Angel]

It appears that Trump has flip flopped again on the issue of the acceptability of the use of torture:

Donald Trump on torture: 'We have to beat the savages'

Edited March 6, 2016 by Bill Angel

[overtone]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

 

Trump has well over 100% of the total he needs at this date to make it likely - according to 538.com - that he takes the nomination outright, with more than 1237 committed delegates going into the convention. So he has overperformed the 538 statistical models so far, while running in Cruz and Rubio and Kasich strongholds with proportional primaries and caucuses.

 

 

Because if he continues to lose a third or more of states he is projected to win he will not make it to 1,237 delegates

There are no more very large States with enough evangelical voters to hand Cruz easily predictable wins, and his most favored States (Utah, Missouri, maybe North Carolina, etc) are proportional, not winner take all. Trump can take it by winning 11 of the larger remaining winner take all states including California, without getting a single delegate from a proportional State - if he runs anywhere near Cruz in the large proportional States, he doesn't need California. So if he loses only a third of the remaining States, and that third includes the proportional ones favoring Cruz, he locks up the nomination before he ever sees California.

 

That man is looking down the road, and it's all downhill to the following: President Trump.

Edited March 9, 2016 by overtone

[dimreepr]

That man is looking down the road, and it's all downhill to the following: President Trump.

 

 

The mythical Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” grows more poignant with every Trump success.

[Phi for All]

The mythical Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” grows more poignant with every Trump success.

 

Our best bet, if this happens, is to get the conservatives to guard the Mexican border, while the liberals guard the Canadian border.

[Ten oz]

To clarify; I have posted various levels of doubt about Trump winning the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination and would like to note that I have no fears or concerns with Trump as the nominee. As I speak with more people I have noticed that my doubts keep getting confused as being objections. Nothing would please me more than Trump as the Republcan nominee.

 

Trump hit his ceiling amongst Conservative voters months ago. He he leading in the primary but only doing so with support that is stuck in the mid 30's. If Trump can not even crest above 50% support within his own party it is very unlikely, imo, he could steal or flip democratic votes. If Trump becomes the nominee he will lose badly in the general election.

[MigL]

Have to agree.

Even if the Republican party is forced to give him the nomination, there is no way the half of the American voters who have conservative leanings will vote for him. The large majority of them are sane ( by my definition, anyway ).

 

Something else I've noticed about the man. There isn't an altruistic bone in his body.

He's not doing this out of a desire to help the country that did so much for him and his family.

He's in it for himself.

[Phi for All]

Something else I've noticed about the man. There isn't an altruistic bone in his body.

He's not doing this out of a desire to help the country that did so much for him and his family.

He's in it for himself.

 

Not completely true, not by our current definition of personhood. His fellow branded corporate persons stand to profit big time if they could manage to get him elected.

[iNow]

Also, he attracts more than just conservative voters.

It's not just conservatives who are down trodden and angry and looking for change.

Basically, while majority leans right, Trump support doesn't fall entirely on just one side of the partisan divide.

(in other words, there are ignorant, racist, xenophobic democrats, too)

[overtone]

Even if the Republican party is forced to give him the nomination, there is no way the half of the American voters who have conservative leanings will vote for him. The large majority of them are sane ( by my definition, anyway ).

This country voted for W: Twice. Reagan: twice.

 

There is nobody - nobody at all - that someone who voted for W&Cheney in 2004 will not vote for if properly marketed. The sanity level of the average US conservative was checked on that one, and it didn't register on the dipstick.

 

So Trump is going to have a lot of voters turning out for him, especially white men - let's try some possibilities:

 

#A majority of the white men over 35 voted for McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan - and the black vote stays home this time. So does the brown - Clinton's record is spotty, and a lot of them are Catholic.

 

#Assuming Clinton and a standard VP, the left libertarians (a plurality of the country) will have nobody to vote for - lots of them stay home. The evangelicals, despite having no one to vote for, turn out anyway in a protest vote against Clinton. So do the gun rights folks - two weeks before the vote, hunting season approaching, a propaganda campaign with half-truths about Clinton's position and warnings about her Court influence launches.

 

#The voter suppression efforts and gerrymandering effects (and some actual vote rigging) work, cutting the black and brown vote by 10 - 15% in at least a couple of key States.

 

#We get a genuine Muslim terrorist attack somewhere that registers on the US awareness screen.

 

#Clinton has to take time off to be deposed on the email question. Also, somebody gets hold of a copy of her Goldman Sachs speeches, and they read as we expect them to. Trump settles his troubles out of Court quietly and quickly, claiming the exigencies of more important business.

 

#Putin, recognizing an ally, arranges for some kind of Russian event that makes something Clinton did look bad. He also hints that he is more worried about Trump than any other American (he can get some advice from the Iranians who got rid of Carter for somebody they could do business with).

 

#We get a financial scandal in October involving people or institutions connected with Clinton, and the stock market takes a hit.

Edited March 10, 2016 by overtone

[MigL]

I'm still wondering why you choose to live in a country where YOU consider almost half the population insane, Overtone ?

 

#And if aliens land on the White House lawn, Daffy Duck will be elected president.

[Phi for All]

I'm still wondering why you choose to live in a country where YOU consider almost half the population insane, Overtone ?

 

#And if aliens land on the White House lawn, Daffy Duck will be elected president.

 

I just posted in a thread about analogies, so I'm going to attempt a very limited one. Just remember not to stretch it too far. Using my limited phrasing, and that alone, might help to make the analogy effective.

 

Imagine someone is doing something very destructive, like kicking a support post in the basement of a building. It's clear they don't understand the danger involved. When you mention it, they insist the post isn't necessary, and that it needs to be removed as soon as possible. You have the blueprints in front of you, and the knowledge that removing the post could bring the whole house down, so you go into more detail, explaining why removing it would be wrong, using all the knowledge you have about similar situations.

 

But the reply makes no sense. This person insists that posts like this don't work, that they're too inherently unstable, and that the house will be better off without them. And then we can take the money we save by not using posts, and spend it on better fencing.

 

And you watch incredulously as this person grabs a sledge hammer, and starts to really beat against those support posts. The more detail you bring up to show it's a really bad idea, the more passionately he swings the hammer.

 

And now you turn around and realize the basement is full of people, and half of them are cheering this guy on as he tries to remove the supporting posts that are keeping the ceiling from being the floor with you under it. They're thinking about saving money, and about the freedom to walk around a basement free of posts. They're cheering all the good things they think are going to happen pretty soon, and the guy with the hammer is promising them it's going to be great, drowning out your efforts to point out that his changes are going to cost about $35T over the next 10 years.

 

You're screaming now, pointing to the cracks in the ceiling as the load loses support. How can you stop these people, short of grabbing the hammer out of their hands? When you threaten this, they tell you that if you try to put the support posts back in place, they'll do everything they can to hamper your efforts.

 

It's hard not to think of it as insanity. Were it not for the fact that so many conservatives believe so many things that aren't true (Socialism = Communism, walls will work to keep illegals out, welfare creates dependency, the list is really large), and believe them with a fervor that defies fact and reality, I could sympathize with those who've been so heavily manipulated by extremists. It's hard not to think of it as insanity when so much hard evidence is ignored in favor of screaming speeches about hatred and fear, and changing all that by being MORE hateful and fearful.

[MigL]

I have no problem thinking of the current Republican party as insane. The tea partiers sure give that impression.

What I have a problem with, is regarding half of the American voting population as insane.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they regard your side as insane ?

 

Its not a matter of sanity. That label just gets people upset and stifles discussion.

Its a matter of priorities. Some things are more important to some people than others. Heck, you could even say that about the wealthy 1%, to them, personal wealth is the overriding concern. But under a democracy, they have every right to vote according to this concern.

Whether you or I think this is right or wrong has no bearing on that right.

 

That is one of the problems with a two party system like the US has.

Its one party removed from a dictatorship.

 

By all means, Phi ( and Overtone ), try to change people's concerns. Our fellow men/women should be more important than personal wealth.

Our environment and health should be more important than corporate profits. Knowledge and understanding should be more important than ignorance and fear. And so on and so on.

But you won't accomplish this by calling them insane !

[Phi for All]

By all means, Phi ( and Overtone ), try to change people's concerns. Our fellow men/women should be more important than personal wealth.

Our environment and health should be more important than corporate profits. Knowledge and understanding should be more important than ignorance and fear. And so on and so on.

But you won't accomplish this by calling them insane !

 

This is just a current tactic to make conservative people listen. It's perhaps more forceful for the same reasons you turn up the volume when you realize your audience doesn't seem to be able to hear you.

 

Nothing before has worked either. How should the change be accomplished, how can we talk about change in an effective way to conservatives?

 

Please don't suggest we be more reasonable with them.

[overtone]

What I have a problem with, is regarding half of the American voting population as insane.

You can have a problem with it all you want, but the 2004 vote and their reasons for casting it are a matter of historical record.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they regard your side as insane ?

Sure they do. But they don't know what my "side" is. I know this because they tell me what my "side" is all the time, they have an entire history of my "side" (everchanging, but always some version present), and it doesn't even agree with the simple physical facts in front of them, let alone the events that took place in years past. And it bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I think and say my "side" is. So wtf?

 

Some things are more important to some people than others

When the most important factors in somebody's political decision making are batshit hallucinations, the matter of "priorities" among them is a secondary concern.

 

Whether you or I think this is right or wrong has no bearing on that right.

Whoever said anything about anybody's rights? Except the folks who advocate taking away mine because the wingnut emergencies of the world in their heads must be fought in that manner, I mean.

 

But you won't accomplish this by calling them insane !

Not to quibble, but I didn't actually - I called their state of mind when they voted for W in 2004 insane. It was. And it disassembles the comforting illusion that since conservatives are sane they won't vote for Trump.

Anybody who listens to Rush Limbaugh or watches Fox News because they "have a point of view";

anybody who voted for W&Cheney in 2004, McCain/Palin in 2008, and/or Romney/Ryan in 2012;

can be persuaded to vote for Trump in 2016.

And you know I'm right about that.

 

But you won't accomplish this by calling them insane !

No harm in trying. We've tried basically everything else in the way of hinting, suggestion, reason, careful presentation of select and not too discomfiting fact, respectful consideration of their latest Acorn vote fraud video or chemtrail hallucination or secret Muslim President evidence or proposal to build torture interrogation facilities under the American flag or thousand mile wall along the Mexican border with twelve million people deported to the other side of it.

We've been respectful. We've been calm and kind. When they elected Louie Gohmert and James Inhofe to Congress we provided their chosen representatives with the same staff and facilities and privileges and protection against legal interference with their activities we provide actual adults performing the duties of office. When their hero rancher cheated us of a million dollars he owed our Parks and Recreation budget, assembled a private militia with military grade firearms to threaten the Sheriffs and emissaries who tried to collect on his promises, and strutted around threatening to kill people who thought he belonged in jail, we didn't just drone his terrorist ass and bury the remains with the carrion of the eagles and wolves and cougars he had poisoned and shot in our wilderness, somewhere in a hole in the cowburnt waste he had made of our public land.

We even made special rules for the media figures they prefer, so they could tell lies and slander people as "news" without getting fired, and we got rid of anyone who made them too uncomfortable or treated them with disrespect. We repealed the Fairness Doctrine so that Rush Limbaugh could set up in business. We partly deregulated the licensing of the public airwaves so that a few corporations and a couple of very wealthy men could dominate the news media over huge geographical areas. Remember Brian Williams instructing Matt Taibbi in the necessity of deference, of not reporting plainly on what he, Taibbi, had discovered by interviewing and listening to those attending Tea Party events and Republican political rallies?

The problem with Taibbi's reporting was that his reporting of facts and quotes and actual events made the Tea Party look corrupt and crazy and bigoted and not very intelligent or grown up. As Taibbi put it, after many weeks of diligent and honest research, they were full of shit and financed by billionaires and racist to the bone. So Brian Williams was in the awkward position of having to choose between being respectful and being an accurate deliverer of news and information. And he chose to be respectful, because that was his policy and company policy in the news business, and he lectured Taibbi on that policy.

That's how far we've gone in not calling the crazy out. We step on actual reporters, curb the competent and honest and hardworking and insightful, so that the likes of Brit Hume and Joe Scarborough can dish what they dish without public embarrassment. We suspend Brian Williams and coddle Bill O'Reilly, just to keep the wingnuts happy and feeling respected.

It's not working.

Edited March 10, 2016 by overtone

[MigL]

Very colourful prose, Overtone.

But they have a vote, same as you, and you're just gonna have to deal with it.

The only choice you have is in HOW you deal with it.

 

You can choose to call them names like they call your president a 'Muslim', but then you'd be no better.

Or you can be the bigger man.

Just like you can choose to fight terror by being as brutal as the terrorist, or you can have morals and try to avoid involving innocents.

I know you've preached the moral option in the fight against terror.

[Phi for All]

You can choose to call them names like they call your president a 'Muslim', but then you'd be no better.

Or you can be the bigger man.

 

Oh, we started out, and have always been, the bigger humans, at least in terms of reasonableness. That time is gone, I'm afraid.

 

If we want to stop the insanity of running Middle Eastern wars like a business, growing terrorism by throwing fear fuel on the ever-growing flames, causing us and the rest of the world to commit insane amounts of resources to the fallout, we need to stop asking and just punch their goddamn political lights out. We need to kick the crap out of the conservative establishment and leave them so bloody they won't be able to get up to any shenanigans for a good 50 more years, to offset the damage they've done for the last 50.

 

Perhaps they'll be able to see the good in the changes that happen without them while they're in timeout, perhaps not. But we won't be the American Clowns anymore, and maybe we can help the rest of the world avoid this conservative trend we're seeing do so much harm.

 

I think the Sanders Movement should be called the American People Movement. Like all the social movements before it, it's not going to happen by consensus. Smart people need to step in and slap some folks, make it happen, and then step back and say, "You're welcome".

[MigL]

Good luck with that, Phy.

But you'd better step back quick, as you're liable to get slapped back.

( or worse, their kind carry guns )

[rangerx]

Republicans piss and moan the loudest over issues that affect them the least.

 

They claim homosexuality isn't godly and get bent out of shape over selling a cake as though it forces them into a shotgun gay marriage.

 

They want to carpet bomb families, torture people, execute criminals and deny health care, yet have the audacity to call themselves pro-life.

 

They claim government cannot interfere with personal rights, yet insist women must be incubators for the welfare state.

 

They claim Obama cannot name a SCOTUS nominee for any reason, no less any liberal (whom they've deemed as second class citizens), but make no bones about appointing a conservative on the off chance Republicans are elected.

 

A sign of a monkey with a bone through it's nose in the likeness of their president is fair game under free speech while a Bernie shirt gets you removed from a rally.

 

Recently, they've been praising George Bush for keeping them safe after 9/11... WTF is with that?

 

Many claim to support Trump because he's thinking what they are thinking, which is true. Unhinged racist, xenophobic, sexist, polluting fear mongers and liars.

 

The party of No. Dead in the water. Dinosaurs. The lunatic fringe has eaten the reasonable majority of conservatives alive.

 

As an outsider looking in, the Republican presidential campaign is laughing stock of the rest of the world. None of them are taken seriously, but only to put a madman at the switch. Their witch hunt of Hillary Clinton may well blow up in their face, by causing a far more left of center candidate to be elected.

 

Only civil war will end this nonsense, because all reason and rationale has long gone out the window.

 

Trump is making America weak. A farce and a sham. He's rude, irrational and thin skinned. Paralleling him to Hitler is not unreasonable, but a fact issue of international proportions.

[MigL]

Holy shit !

Here we have someone advocating civil war to fight the evil conservatives ( some of which are your neighbours ), and comparing Trump ( admittedly an idiotic buffoon ) to Hitler.

Let me guess, does he belong to the peaceful, tolerant group who like to call themselves 'liberal' ?

Or should I just compare him to D. Trump ?

( see his description above )