Donald Trump

[rangerx]

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 )

 

 

I'm a moderate conservative, a rare breed nowadays. Unlike American neocons who are indoctrinated to vote for the party, not the man. Even if they're a total wingnut, it's still better than a black person or a woman or god forbid the most insidious threat to the free world, a liberal democrat. *rolls eyes* I'll vote for another party before voting for an asshole. The lesser of the evils. Swing voters determine most elections.

 

Only fascists think they can change the Geneva Convention to include torture, deport entire races of people or build walls. Americans have swung so far to the right they make any political stripe look like bleeding heart liberals.

 

I'm not advocating anything no less a war, so I will thank you to not put words in my mouth. I'm merely observing America consuming itself in it's own rhetoric which has been far more incendiary than that of the days of Lincoln. Have you not noticed, none of the Republican candidates ever speak to policy issues insomuch as trash talking everyone and anything by advocating removing basic human rights and fanning the flames of civil unrest. Liberals are not exempt from the latter either (especially inner city violence and anti-police rhetoric). From the moment Obama came to office, Republicans have employed every underhanded trick in the book to unpatrioticly deligitimize their president at every turn. Any criticism of W's dirty little war was met with "why do you hate our troops" drivel. Donald Trump was at the forefront of the birther thing.

 

I saw less childish behavior from student council elections when I was in grade school. It's a joke. A dog and pony show and the world is laughing at the ridiculousness of it all.

 

Besides that, Trump is a lifelong, dyed in the wool liberal. He's taking the entire conservative movement for fools. Rational and reasonable conservatism is dead and gone. The lunatic fringe has co-opted everything.

 

I noticed you are from Canada. Didn't your previous conservative Prime Minister just get thrown out on his ass for backroom cronyism, gagging scientists, burning libraries, xenophobic rhetoric and media manipulation? Apparently he hid in a broom closet while your country was being terrorized. Beaten by another Trudeau, no less? Thank goodness our countries have more than two parties to choose from. Ours are nowhere near as polarized.

 

America will follow suit.... mark my words then let's continue this discussion next November. Believe it or not, we're actually on the same side. That's how bad the situation has gotten, that otherwise decent conservative folks are at each others throats for not being conservative enough.

[overtone]

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.

When facing fascism, a world in which inaccurate terms are accepted as equivalent to accurate ones, both "namecalling",

and one demonstrates maturity through reticence and dissembling in the face of open lies and public slander and physical threat,

lest one's truthful and correct terminology of objection alienate the liars and slanderers,

is a world lost to fascism. Why give up so easily?

 

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.

Continual accurate - the key: accurate - mockery and public shaming, until nobody will put up with their garbage in public any more. Most people are reasonable - they won't want to be publicly associated with dregs, once they recognize them.

 

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

( or worse, their kind carry guns )

We beat them into the ground and shot them in the holes once, burned their houses and barns, took their horses and cattle for compensation for our efforts, and freed all their slaves. We can do it again. If that's where they're taking this.

Edited March 11, 2016 by overtone

[Phi for All]

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 )

 

Yeah? And that seems like an appropriate response to outmaneuvering them politically, to beating the tar out of them at the polls where it counts? Actually, for them to bring their guns to the voting booths would be par for the course for a party that regularly tries to circumvent normal Congressional procedures by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

 

If I were talking about physically slapping Republicans, even you don't think it would be out of character for one of them to pull out a gun and kill me for it. That's your conclusion, based on what you know about conservatives. And I think you're right, many conservatives would find a way to justify an outcome like that. They understand strong emotions, because that's what they base all their decisions on. Someone slaps you in public, you shoot them dead.

 

This type of behavior is textbook psychosis. There is something NOT RIGHT about extreme conservatives, NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD. Conservatives are much more likely to have antisocial personality disorders, and so might easily justify murder for a perceived slight that hardly warrants such a response. Be honest, would you put it past some of the conservatives you know?

[MigL]

" Only civil war will end this nonsense "

I either misinterpreted the above, or I misquoted you, Rangerx.

Which is it ?

 

And no, Phi, none of the conservatives I know ( I am Canadian ) would pull a gun on me if I were to slap them in the head,. I was talking about Texans

Of the American conservatives that I've gotten to know on this forum, I don't think I'd worry about Tar at all, and I think I'd have to slap Waitforufo quite a few times before he'd retaliate ( and probably not with a gun ); he seems to be a pretty easy going guy. Neither hates the 'opposition'.

Of the American liberals I've gotten to know, Overtone is the only one I'd worry about.

He likes his guns and he hates the 'opposition'.

But he'll no doubt claim I don't know him at all...

Edited March 11, 2016 by MigL

[dimreepr]

Why would anyone worry about Tar (however much he seems to be a verbose conservative)? But Waitforufo would happy slap you with the least provocation, whilst Overtone just lives up to his name; I know which name I’d be more wary of.

Edited March 11, 2016 by dimreepr

[rangerx]

" Only civil war will end this nonsense "

I either misinterpreted the above, or I misquoted you, Rangerx.

Which is it ?

 

 

You've misinterpreted. I do not advocate civil war, insomuch as commented on the rate of how things are going.

 

The Republicans are dug in opposing everything and anything simply because of ideology and little else.

 

That never leads to a good place.

If I were to tell my kids, if they don't study they'll fail, does not mean I'm calling them failures.

 

I'm only advising of the inevitable outcome. Surely you know the difference.

[overtone]

He likes his guns and he hates the 'opposition'.

But he'll no doubt claim I don't know him at all...

You don't have to worry about the gun - never owned one. Or locked my front door when at home. Maybe it's the Canadian airflow in my childhood home. And hatred? Please. One of the strangest things about conservative folks is this mirror they carry around, that they think they see the world in.* One of the more disturbing things is the frequency with which they see hatred in that mirror. There's a Buddhist bon mot: "That art thou" - but one seldom expects it to be embodied at such a crude and material level.

And one of downright funny things is listening to them describe a Trump rally as if it were some kind of new and different manifestation of American political life.

Guys: this whole Trump thing is basically the Republican Party the rest of us have been watching grow hair since 1980. The biggest difference is style points - the vulgarity coming from the podium, instead of backstage and behind the radio mic and so forth. Rush Limbaugh has been the voice of the Republican Party for twenty years. I have yet to read or hear a single Republican pundit or shill whose career has spanned the rise of fascism in the Republican Party use words like "we" and "our" and "us" when assigning blame for this mess - apparently, the elephant in the room can't see itself as itself, mirror or no mirror.

I take that back, there's another significant difference: Trump occasionally says true things about Republican politicians, history, and policies. That's almost unique, in that Party - no wonder some of them think he's a Liberal.

*( A marked enough characteristic that it can be used to discover Republican political tactics - vote fraud and electoral manipulation, for example, and this business of politicians buying support with legislation, and welfare fraud, and draft dodging, and rounding people up for whatever reason, and so forth. Just notice what they accuse others of doing, and you'll know what they're up to this time)

Edited March 12, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

I think we are witnessness a shift in society akin to the civil rights movement. White flight as a solution to protect heritage/tradition and ensure quality outcome has failed. The Republican party has spent the last 50yrs creating villians and claiming protection from those villians would equal prosparity. Pointing the finger at welfare queens, illegal immigrants, gangs, and etc since the civil rights movement has not been a true success. Our public schools still lag behind, our infastructure is still aging, and many have become restless with the status qou. For some that restlessness have taken the shape of a death throes approach of tripling down on the rhetoric that has failed them. On the other side it has popped to a socialism now chant where we get a lot of what we want all at once. End of the day change is tough and change is slow.

 

For the first time in a long time I think we have a political atmosphere that is fairly honest. People I lining up and saying they don't trust or particulary like immigrants, they feel negatively about blacks as a community in broad terms, that the USA is superior to other countries and deserves the right to dictate terms on a slew of issues, and so on. The language is not coded. Trump says he'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it because we say so! China will start do as we want becasue we say so! Muslim refugees has no place in our country, and blah blah, blah. I think this is healthy. I think the first step to resolving an issue and ending argument is for people to come clean about what they want. Drop all the pretense and surperfluous issues and be honest.

 

Hearing stupid ideas out loud sobers most up to how truly stupid those idea are. Trump is in line with the Republican talking points on most issues he just dropped the coded language. As result many Republicans are jumping ship. People like Mitt Romney who pandered to the same group of voters just 4yrs ago is now out there running around the country soberly pointing out how crazy the rhetoric is. Bush, Graham, Ryan, Rubio, Dole, McCain, and many establishment Republicans and pulling back hard against a message they all previously were willing to support before the light were turned on. This is a place were a real conversation can start. I think in the big picture it is healthy.

[DimaMazin]

I think we are witnessness a shift in society akin to the civil rights movement. White flight as a solution to protect heritage/tradition and ensure quality outcome has failed. The Republican party has spent the last 50yrs creating villians and claiming protection from those villians would equal prosparity. Pointing the finger at welfare queens, illegal immigrants, gangs, and etc since the civil rights movement has not been a true success. Our public schools still lag behind, our infastructure is still aging, and many have become restless with the status qou. For some that restlessness have taken the shape of a death throes approach of tripling down on the rhetoric that has failed them. On the other side it has popped to a socialism now chant where we get a lot of what we want all at once. End of the day change is tough and change is slow.

 

For the first time in a long time I think we have a political atmosphere that is fairly honest. People I lining up and saying they don't trust or particulary like immigrants, they feel negatively about blacks as a community in broad terms, that the USA is superior to other countries and deserves the right to dictate terms on a slew of issues, and so on. The language is not coded. Trump says he'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it because we say so! China will start do as we want becasue we say so! Muslim refugees has no place in our country, and blah blah, blah. I think this is healthy. I think the first step to resolving an issue and ending argument is for people to come clean about what they want. Drop all the pretense and surperfluous issues and be honest.

 

Hearing stupid ideas out loud sobers most up to how truly stupid those idea are. Trump is in line with the Republican talking points on most issues he just dropped the coded language. As result many Republicans are jumping ship. People like Mitt Romney who pandered to the same group of voters just 4yrs ago is now out there running around the country soberly pointing out how crazy the rhetoric is. Bush, Graham, Ryan, Rubio, Dole, McCain, and many establishment Republicans and pulling back hard against a message they all previously were willing to support before the light were turned on. This is a place were a real conversation can start. I think in the big picture it is healthy.

You have only problems, but you want more problems with Muslim refugees and Latinos. Trump has success due to your delusion.

[Ten oz]

You have only problems, but you want more problems with Muslim refugees and Latinos. Trump has success due to your delusion.

Muslims and Latinos exist. The world gets more connected everday than it has ever been. The delusion is to believe we can simple tune out the world. Build a gaint wall and keep USA isolated from everything conservatives have convinced themselves go bump in the night.

[DimaMazin]

Muslims and Latinos exist. The world gets more connected everday than it has ever been. The delusion is to believe we can simple tune out the world. Build a gaint wall and keep USA isolated from everything conservatives have convinced themselves go bump in the night.

And they must create problems only for such people who love them.If you love them then you must leave USA to help them,because not all Americans love them.

[overtone]

On the other side it has popped to a socialism now chant where we get a lot of what we want all at once.

Nonsense. All that is being asked for is actual attempts to progress in actually a good direction, an end to the ongoing rollback of the New Deal. Politicians who are on the good side, at least. Some pull on the left rein, with input from reality.

 

 

For the first time in a long time I think we have a political atmosphere that is fairly honest. - - - - I think this is healthy.

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, - you know the names. There's nothing new here. This is not new. This is not suddenly honest, this is the same crazy that's been collecting in one place and growing - right out in public - since 1980 or before.

 

There's an American illusion that more violent and vulgar is more honest - it isn't. Liars can swear and rant to their purpose. And crazy is beyond honest and dishonest.

 

 

Hearing stupid ideas out loud sobers most up to how truly stupid those idea are.

If that were true the sobering would have happened in 1994. It would certainly have shocked the honchos into sudden prudence, when they heard Alan Greenspan submit as formal testimony that he never imagined top drawer bankers would act irrationally for their own benefit, and read that he was an Ayn Rand acolyte in his forties.

 

Hearing stupid ideas out loud only sobers people up if they have a source of good ideas, for contrast.

The people flocking to Trump have been hearing their ration of these "ideas" out loud (and almost nothing else) for more than twenty years, and the faction has been growing and becoming more central and more powerful that entire time. They now control Congress - they are the dominant constituent base of a voting majority of the House and Senate.

 

Marco Rubio was until a couple of months ago a Tea Party wacko, which meant (in the "both sides" fable) a wingnut from the fringe. He hasn't changed. He is now thought of as a centrist, a moderate - that's because he is, in fact, and always has been, relative to his Party. He's a center and establishment Republican. And a Tea Party fruitcake. At the same time.

 

Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House is not on the fringe - he's third in line for the White House, and in control of the budget of the country. (Another Ayn Rand acolyte in adulthood, btw, and given budgetary control after - not before - Greenspan's testimony. Still think giving crazy and stupid "ideas" control of the world's biggest bullhorn is healthy ? )

 

It's not a conflict of ideas any more. That was lost when the American idea presenters - the news media - were turned over to a handful of coordinated corporate interests and their professional marketing operations. Have you been following what's been happening recently at MSNBC? The following statement is a fact: according to Rachel Maddow herself, and most lefties agree with her, she is ideologically only slightly to the left of Dwight Eisenhower. She is what an Eisenhower Republican would look like on TV these days. She's the centrist in your conflict of ideas. So use that as your measuring scale, and realize what sort of "ideas" the regular American is now immersed in, 24/7, nothing else coming in, and calling it "both sides". Because only a minority of Americans - and it's not a large minority - ever get as far as Maddow for even brief visits into what was once known as reality.

 

 

 

Bush, Graham, Ryan, Rubio, Dole, McCain, and many establishment Republicans and pulling back hard against a message they all previously were willing to support before the light were turned on.

The "message" is irrelevant. They lost control of their monster, and they want it back, is all. They don't want it dead - they want it back. The "message" was just bs they were making up as they went along anyway.

 

 

 

This is a place were a real conversation can start.

I've been hearing that my entire adult life, with every new disaster. That was what was supposed to happen after Reagan's election on the bigot and fundy coalition and subsequent vandalism of the US economy while embarrassing the country in public, for example -

 

the self-identified "reasonable people" said that it was healthy and good to have such failure be so public and the responsibility and blame unavoidable, that we would finally have this conversation so long overdue, that at least people would now come to their senses. Not quite what happened, eh?

 

The question never answered is this one: Conversation how, and with whom?

Edited March 12, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

On the other side it has popped to a socialism now chant where we get a lot of what we want all at once.

 

Really?

Can you cite some sort of evidence for that?

[Ten oz]

@ Overtone, Rush, Hannity, and etc have a message that is only heard by specific groups. The majority of the country doesn't follow politics or even fewer listen to AM radio. Trump's rhetoric is new to the uninitiated. By the time Replublican candidates are doing the rounds and actually being seen and heard by the masses their talking points have normally been bleached. Trump's racism and call for international bullying is new to the 10's of millions who spend their evenings watching the AGT and the Voice rather than Foxnews. it is to those people that the message is sobering. Those who only vaguely understand what the differences between Democrats and Republicans are.

Really?

Can you cite some sort of evidence for that?

On the flip side to Trump we do have Bernie Sanders (socialist) doing very well. Sanders is doing well as anyone with his level of progressive message has done in my life lifetime. I am not saying that everyone is chanting "socialism"; rather I was contrasting. Trump says to build a wall and make Mexico pay. Bernie says to provide free college and that we all should pay.

[John Cuthber]

But, by the standards of everyone else in the world, Sanders is barely socialist. Obama and (H) Clinton are not socialists. They are to the right of Reagan.

So, where's the " socialist chanting" coming from?

(And that's before we address the fact that Trump simply can't "make Mexico pay")

"Socialist" does not mean "slightly to the Left of galloping insanity".

[Willie71]

But, by the standards of everyone else in the world, Sanders is barely socialist. Obama and (H) Clinton are not socialists. They are to the right of Reagan.

So, where's the " socialist chanting" coming from?

(And that's before we address the fact that Trump simply can't "make Mexico pay")

"Socialist" does not mean "slightly to the Left of galloping insanity".

Yes, Sanders is center left, not even fully left. Much of Europe is farther left. Even in Canada, we have Ontario experimenting with guaranteed minimum income. He only sounds radical to Americans who have been lied to by the corporaticracy marketing department they call the media.

 

Warren

 

 

This shows where the 2016 election candidates are in the generally accepted definitions of left and right,

 

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

 

[overtone]

Rush, Hannity, and etc have a message that is only heard by specific groups. The majority of the country doesn't follow politics or even fewer listen to AM radio. Trump's rhetoric is new to the uninitiated.

For at least 40% of the American electorate, Trump is just saying from a podium what their radio and TV pundits have been saying for years now. For many of the rest, it's familiar. Plus they've seen him on TV, so his style is not a shock.

 

Rush Limbaugh is the leading and most influential voice of the entire Republican Party. Trump is mainstream.

 

 

Trump says to build a wall and make Mexico pay. Bernie says to provide free college and that we all should pay

The one is a bizarre, near impossibility that most of the Western world regards as a joke and that would be a disaster if it ever somehow happened. The other is a standard, normal thing that most Western industrialized countries already do more or less, and that the US itself has done in the past (GI Bill, etc) and that proved to be a very good thing - possibly the best public expenditure American ever made.

 

And that is how most of the Trump/Bernie comparisons devolve. They are similar in some sense, but not in their relationships with physical reality.

Edited March 13, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

But, by the standards of everyone else in the world, Sanders is barely socialist. Obama and (H) Clinton are not socialists. They are to the right of Reagan.

So, where's the " socialist chanting" coming from?

(And that's before we address the fact that Trump simply can't "make Mexico pay")

 

"Socialist" does not mean "slightly to the Left of galloping insanity".

If Bernie were to win the primary I would happily vote for him. I like Bernie. My comments are not a slight against Bernie. However how the world views socialism isn't the context of my post. By (USA) standards Bernie is very progressive.

[iNow]

John raises an excellent point, though. Bernie gets attacked due to a label that barely applies in context, and it will likely cause him to lose.

 

Meanwhile, Trump gets attacked with labels like fascist that in many ways are accurate and applicable, and yet he will likely win (at least the nomination).

[John Cuthber]

If Bernie were to win the primary I would happily vote for him. I like Bernie. My comments are not a slight against Bernie. However how the world views socialism isn't the context of my post. By (USA) standards Bernie is very progressive.

Progressive is a good word for it; he's a step in the correct direction.

But he's not actually Left.

The US seems to have a few interesting "issues"

1 socialism isn't a bad thing. Without some element of helping each other, you die out as a species.*

2 there are no Left wing politicians in the US. There are "a bit Right", "a lot Right" and "bat-shit crazy Right" politicians.

3 Your media are stacked up with the third of those groups.

4 You think it's a good idea to export these views.

 

* it's interesting to note that the US probably hands out more in social spending per capita than just about any other county but, rather than conventionally allocating it to some sort of "paying out social security payments" department they hand it to the department of defence who hand it out via the military industrial complex which essentially uses it to buy bombs and planes, then employs people to fly them round then scraps them.

Seriously, that's the real reason why your military expenditure is higher than the sum of the next dozen or so other countries. There isn't a plausible military reason for that.

It kind-of works, but it's hugely bad for the environment and it does mean that your biggest beneficiaries from social welfare spending are the heads of large businesses. You seem not to have noticed that your taxpayers are giving a lot of money to people who are already very rich, rather than those actually in need of help.

Edited March 13, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

Progressive is a good word for it; he's a step in the correct direction.

But he's not actually Left.

The US seems to have a few interesting "issues"

1 socialism isn't a bad thing. Without some element of helping each other, you die out as a species.*

2 there are no Left wing politicians in the US. There are "a bit Right", "a lot Right" and "bat-shit crazy Right" politicians.

3 Your media are stacked up with the third of those groups.

4 You think it's a good idea to export these views.

 

* it's interesting to note that the US probably hands out more in social spending per capita than just about any other county but, rather than conventionally allocating it to some sort of "paying out social security payments" department they hand it to the department of defence who hand it out via the military industrial complex which essentially uses it to buy bombs and planes, then employs people to fly them round then scraps them.

Seriously, that's the real reason why your military expenditure is higher than the sum of the next dozen or so other countries. There isn't a plausible military reason for that.

It kind-of works, but it's hugely bad for the environment and it does mean that your biggest beneficiaries from social welfare spending are the heads of large businesses. You seem not to have noticed that your taxpayers are giving a lot of money to people who are already very rich, rather than those actually in need of help.

I agree with your post personally but feel the majority of the country wouldn't. Bernie is absolutely a step in the right direction but by our standards here in the United States today Bernie is left. Electing Bernie would be a much bigger move toward progressive policies than Obama or Bill Clinton were. I am a liberal but I also understand everyone else is not. Electing Bernie would be as big a success for the progressive movement as electing Trump would be for the far right. In no way is that meant to imply they are equals but rather to point out that in this election people are pushing hard for what they want and moderates (who tend to dominate) are having a tougher time. I think it is healthly. We finally are getting some honest contrast in political ideas. That contrast is making things more clear. Only a truly disturbed individuals could look at Bernie and Trump and decide perhaps Trump is the better option. Where as the differences between Kasich and Hillary are less clear and that helps perpetuate apathy.

[John Cuthber]

Only a truly disturbed individuals could look at Bernie and Trump and decide perhaps Trump is the better option

Disturbed or deliberately mislead.

[Willie71]

Uninformed is much easier to deal with than misinformed.

[Ten oz]

Uninformed is much easier to deal with than misinformed.

I don't think uniformed or misinformed explains it. Any adult with average intelligence and a general concept of governement knows that building a wall and demanding Mexico to pay is silly. Trump supports are just angery and enjoy the slander.

[Phi for All]

Trump supports are just angery and enjoy the slander.

 

Enough so that they don't listen when anyone points out that Trump's "tax plan" deficit spends three times what W deficit spent. Even though balancing the budget has been an ultra conservative talking point for years, they don't propose to do it in a responsible way. Let's keep all the stuff that makes rich folks richer, and just cut the social stuff the rich never get involved with.

 

I wonder if they've thought about how much more money Drumpf will want when he finds out Mexico doesn't have to pay for his wall?