[Terez]

Let's be real here. W is not Trump.

[EmperorMagus]

Terez, on 08 December 2015 - 06:40 AM, said:

To which most Republicans with wits would respond that we were always intended to be a republic. Our founders largely did not trust majority rule, so they decentralized power in what they felt was a pragmatic way, limiting the power of the unwashed masses. It's why we have such creative election laws, despite some progress toward a truer democracy over the last 200 years. There are various safeguards in the system to prevent people like Donald Trump from ever coming to power (not that he really has a chance in the general election).

That's fair enough.
I still think it's an outdated system that puts too much power into the hands of the rich and the political elite, but as a system it's as valid as any other system.

[Tapper]

What surprises me most is how much Trump (and others) can say. One thing several Americans I've met who live(d) in/visited Europe say, is that Europe is more racist than the States, and maybe we are when it comes to skin colour and how we speak about it - it is a much more sensitive issue in the States.

Yet the generalist remarks on groups of faith like Islam (which is fragmented and never mind the fact that the US is loosely allied to multiple islamic governments), racial groups like Hispanics (isn't calling them murderers and rapists racist?) intolerance of all belief systems except seemingly a (white supremacy) form of conservative protestantism, condemnation of any sexual orientation other than a patronizing form of heterosexuality, and the fear for different marriage practices dwarfs Europe, even with our current (mishandling of the) refugee crisis, which was rightly branded crazy by several US news outlets.

Trump would have been sued and would have lost multiple times this side of the Atlantic, even in countries with deeply conservative religious constituencies, like Poland.

[Morgoth]

I suspect Poles would be unwilling to entertain registries and camps as actual policy.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 09 December 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

I suspect Poles would be unwilling to entertain registries and camps as actual policy.

Historically, one would expect aversion to such measures, yes.

PiS and Kaczynski, though? Some of my fears might be because of the GF's deep distrust and dislike of him and her expectations of his (puppet) government may colour my perception, but this summary of the ministerial line-up is shall we say pointing towards rash, populist and perhaps unwise decision making.

Anyway, that is besides the issue. Back to worrying about leads for Trump in the polls, I guess. And if it won't be him, then who?

This post has been edited by Tapper: 09 December 2015 - 01:42 PM

[Morgoth]

If Trump does not gain the nomination I suspect it will be Rubio. The least offensive of the available candidates.

However, if Trump were to be nominated Hillary Clinton will trounce him. Or, so the polls seems to claim.

[QuickTidal]

Does anyone else think that Trump decided to run just to show that he could and gain traction with it....but when he started polling in decent numbers he freaked out and that the last few months have been his attempt to be crazier and crazier and burn all his bridges in a monstrous conflagration of insanity in an attempt to drop out without dropping out?

Like he was insane before, but the Trump who is running for the Republican candidate seems to me to be completely over the top. Every single thing he says is bad or evil. Hell, JK Rowling just compared him to Voldemort yesterday.

It just seems like it could be an elaborate act by a desperate man who appears to have lost his marbles.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 09 December 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

If Trump does not gain the nomination I suspect it will be Rubio. The least offensive of the available candidates.

However, if Trump were to be nominated Hillary Clinton will trounce him. Or, so the polls seems to claim.

The field seems to be shaping up nicely for another democratic president, yes. The issue is that other Republicans will have to tread carefully between sounding nearly as tough but more realistic than Trump and actually making promises they can deliver. Whichever candidate enters the field, they'll have shifted to the right... as for Rubio, is there any separation between him and other senators/governors that run?

[Morgoth]

He is the last of the establishment candidates left now that Bush and Walker have crashed. He is relatively young, relatively charismatic and doesn't seem to produce outright disgust in any particular part of the electorate. So I believe that the establishment will gather under his banner eventually, though that requires Trump to collapse first, which seems less and less likely.

[Terez]

Tapper, on 09 December 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

What surprises me most is how much Trump (and others) can say. One thing several Americans I've met who live(d) in/visited Europe say, is that Europe is more racist than the States, and maybe we are when it comes to skin colour and how we speak about it - it is a much more sensitive issue in the States.

This is perhaps a bit of an oversimplification. We have a lot of racists in the US. The difference is that casual racism commonly extends into the liberal class in Europe, whereas we have a sort of strict PC code in Liberal America. There are a lot of shades of that PC code and there are a lot of casual racists who consider themselves liberals, but the code nevertheless shapes the general discourse in such a way that the difference is really noticeable when liberal Americans and liberal Europeans get together (even online). I think liberal Americans are generally more aware of the sociology of race, and even as I write that it seems like it shouldn't be true.

Tapper, on 09 December 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yet the generalist remarks on groups of faith like Islam (which is fragmented and never mind the fact that the US is loosely allied to multiple islamic governments), racial groups like Hispanics (isn't calling them murderers and rapists racist?) intolerance of all belief systems except seemingly a (white supremacy) form of conservative protestantism, condemnation of any sexual orientation other than a patronizing form of heterosexuality, and the fear for different marriage practices dwarfs Europe, even with our current (mishandling of the) refugee crisis, which was rightly branded crazy by several US news outlets.

Trump would have been sued and would have lost multiple times this side of the Atlantic, even in countries with deeply conservative religious constituencies, like Poland.

The interesting thing about the Trump phenomenon is that we really haven't seen anything like this for a long time in the US, precisely because of that PC culture. (That term is usually used pejoratively by conservatives, but I don't use it any particular way. It can be a good thing, it can be a bad thing.) So since it's fairly new to us, we haven't yet figured out how we're going to deal with it.

Republicans have been openly courting the racist vote since Goldwater (though later figures did so more enthusiastically), but they've really honed the art of dog-whistling. Trump largely dispenses with the dog-whistling.

It's honestly probably the best thing to happen in American politics in my lifetime next to Obama's election. (The two are hardly unrelated.) Finally we can stop pretending that the GOP base is motivated by anything other than xenophobia, the saner wing of the GOP will be forced to go to greater lengths to embrace PC culture and distance themselves from it, and ultimately the world will be a better place because fewer children will be taught to hate.

I don't believe that Trump will win the nomination. I don't know if he will lose ground before the convention, but if he makes it to the convention he's unlikely to win there because he's unlikely to get a majority of delegates. Most Republicans understand that he can't win in the general, and they want to win. Some (perhaps a minority) even understand that he shouldn't win.

Rubio has been my pick to win pretty much since the beginning. I knew Walker would fizzle out because he doesn't have the charisma, and though I didn't expect JEB to tank so dramatically and so early, I knew the GOP base would be reluctant to nominate yet another Bush. We're only on our second Clinton; they're on their third Bush. That leaves Rubio and Kasich, and Rubio is the stronger candidate of the two. His swing state is also bigger, and he's the most popular of the three candidates with ties to the Hispanic population (him, Cruz, Bush).

I don't agree with Rubio on much but I would be much more comfortable with him as president than anyone else who is running. He's pragmatic for a Republican. I hope for his sake that he can solidify himself as the establishment pick early on in the actual primary process, because a brokered nomination would be a terrible way to start his hypothetical presidency.

Morgoth, on 09 December 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

He is the last of the establishment candidates left now that Bush and Walker have crashed. He is relatively young, relatively charismatic and doesn't seem to produce outright disgust in any particular part of the electorate. So I believe that the establishment will gather under his banner eventually, though that requires Trump to collapse first, which seems less and less likely.

It doesn't require Trump to collapse first. It requires his establishment competition to collapse or bow out first. That means JEB needs to be gone after South Carolina at the latest (which follows only Iowa and New Hampshire), not that JEB is hurting him much. Carson should be gone by then too, though his voters would probably split between Trump and Cruz. If the competition stays in the race too long, then Trump's plurality is more likely.

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

Does anyone else think that Trump decided to run just to show that he could and gain traction with it....but when he started polling in decent numbers he freaked out and that the last few months have been his attempt to be crazier and crazier and burn all his bridges in a monstrous conflagration of insanity in an attempt to drop out without dropping out?

Like he was insane before, but the Trump who is running for the Republican candidate seems to me to be completely over the top. Every single thing he says is bad or evil. Hell, JK Rowling just compared him to Voldemort yesterday.

It just seems like it could be an elaborate act by a desperate man who appears to have lost his marbles.

I don't much follow the blogs, but this came to me via social media friends who do:

http://whatever.scal...t-donald-trump/

He makes a fair argument for being wary of Trump conspiracy theories of any kind.

This post has been edited by Terez: 09 December 2015 - 04:57 PM

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 09 December 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

I don't much follow the blogs, but this came to me via social media friends who do:

http://whatever.scal...t-donald-trump/

He makes a fair argument for being wary of Trump conspiracy theories of any kind.

Wow, great link. Thanks!

[worry]

I agree with pretty much all of what Terez says, but I'd also argue that Rubio being the lesser of 14 evils isn't that reassuring. Nothing suggests to me that he won't be -- through youth, ideology, eagerness to please, and a supportive congress -- just as craven as GWB. His cabinet isn't exactly likely to appeal to his better nature. And I've said it before, but it's always worth reiterating: the next president will be appointing at least one supreme court justice, and frankly Rubio is just as skincrawling as any of the other Rs in the race on that issue.

[Terez]

Just to clarify, I would be more comfortable with him than any other Republican, and he's my pick to win their nomination, but I wouldn't vote for him over a Democrat. I'm not fond of Hillary and I think she'll be bad for the party in the long run, but policy-wise she's clearly preferable to any Republican.

That said, with the way our politics work it might be better if the GOP wins the presidency this time around so long as it's a relatively sane candidate. Yeah, SCOTUS nominations, etc., but the tide is going to turn back to the Republicans eventually, and if it doesn't happen this time, the crazy will undoubtedly get way worse before 2020. No party has held the White House for 12 years since Reagan and HW. We've been trading 8s since then. (Nifty jazz term there.)

[worry]

Don't worry, it's clear you're not a booster of him, but still I dunno. I'm not saying the pendulum cycle is an illusion, but I don't think it's a necessity or a prophecy. I don't see any reason for the presidency to ever go back to the right. They're despicable -- more plainly, openly despicable than ever -- and I don't think the crazy getting worse will do them any favors (it might in Congress, of course, but that's a different electoral story). And sure I fear a return to a Republican White House, as anyone who leans left of sociopath should, I just don't expect it as an inevitable eventuality anymore. Human beings cannot afford it.

[Terez]

All I'm saying is, opposition politics are stronger than incumbent politics. If the Dems keep the White House, the opposition politics will only get scarier, especially if it's Hillary (which seems likely).

PS: Sorry for elaborating on edit, but I agree with you that the crazy won't exactly do them any favors. It's not doing them any favors now, and that's part of why it's unlikely they'll actually win this election. But we should be prepared for Hillary's first term to be messier than anything we saw during Obama's presidency. Thanks to our pragmatic founders, the opposition party has the power to do a lot of damage, and that's just in the official realm. We're talking about a lot of crazy people with guns, after all. A lot of guns.

This post has been edited by Terez: 10 December 2015 - 01:44 AM

[Terez]

Apologies for the double-post, but I'm starting to wonder if Trump's latest comments will actually be the thing to do him in. I gave up asking that question months ago and honestly never really considered that this would be the thing after his comments were reported, even after some high-profile Establishment types denounced him. But then by god Netanyahu took him on, and some of the scariest conservatives in my Facebook feed are denouncing him, and now I'm daring to get my hopes up.

Trump just canceled his planned trip to Israel; he says he'll go after he becomes president.

Another PS: This is relevant to comments earlier about how far money can get you.

This post has been edited by Terez: 10 December 2015 - 02:54 PM

[worry]

Terez, on 10 December 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

All I'm saying is, opposition politics are stronger than incumbent politics. If the Dems keep the White House, the opposition politics will only get scarier, especially if it's Hillary (which seems likely).

PS: Sorry for elaborating on edit, but I agree with you that the crazy won't exactly do them any favors. It's not doing them any favors now, and that's part of why it's unlikely they'll actually win this election. But we should be prepared for Hillary's first term to be messier than anything we saw during Obama's presidency. Thanks to our pragmatic founders, the opposition party has the power to do a lot of damage, and that's just in the official realm. We're talking about a lot of crazy people with guns, after all. A lot of guns.

Yah, I agree with this in terms of crazy reactionary politics (and localized scary behavior/events outside a strictly political arena). I just think a Republican president would be worse than all of that combined, even for just 4 years. I see the temptation, long-term, of a "this time around" reasoning but I just couldn't justify it to myself or loved ones who'd be damaged by it.

As far as Trump goes, it really might be the beginning of the end. Even my Apprentice-watching, Black Lives Matter-not-understanding, why-isn't-there-a-White Entertainment Television extended family members are angered and disgusted by his racism.

[Terez]

worry, on 10 December 2015 - 10:55 PM, said:

Terez, on 10 December 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

All I'm saying is, opposition politics are stronger than incumbent politics. If the Dems keep the White House, the opposition politics will only get scarier, especially if it's Hillary (which seems likely).

PS: Sorry for elaborating on edit, but I agree with you that the crazy won't exactly do them any favors. It's not doing them any favors now, and that's part of why it's unlikely they'll actually win this election. But we should be prepared for Hillary's first term to be messier than anything we saw during Obama's presidency. Thanks to our pragmatic founders, the opposition party has the power to do a lot of damage, and that's just in the official realm. We're talking about a lot of crazy people with guns, after all. A lot of guns.

Yah, I agree with this in terms of crazy reactionary politics (and localized scary behavior/events outside a strictly political arena). I just think a Republican president would be worse than all of that combined, even for just 4 years.

Yes, but the difference is that it would put the ball back in our court, and the GOP wouldn't have the 12-year party rule to motivate them and/or justify their downtrodden state of mind.

worry, on 10 December 2015 - 10:55 PM, said:

As far as Trump goes, it really might be the beginning of the end. Even my Apprentice-watching, Black Lives Matter-not-understanding, why-isn't-there-a-White Entertainment Television extended family members are angered and disgusted by his racism.

I reevaluated when I looked at the local social media (Sun Herald, WLOX) and saw the comments there. Trump still has a lot of defenders. But still, the renouncers are growing, and I think these comments made the first truly noticeable dent in Trump's popularity since....whatever it was he said/did when Carson started to overtake him. I forget.

[worry]

I know you're using "sane" relatively, but even the "sanest" among them is way way past my line. I also think their numbers are shrinking proportionally, and we're not going back. We will not see another socially conservative (by current standards) president. Republicanism itself is going to have to change. Even Rubio is, ultimately, baldly poisonous for the country.

http://www.thedailyb...rotections.html

[Tsundoku]

Terez, on 10 December 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

Apologies for the double-post, but I'm starting to wonder if Trump's latest comments will actually be the thing to do him in. I gave up asking that question months ago and honestly never really considered that this would be the thing after his comments were reported, even after some high-profile Establishment types denounced him. But then by god Netanyahu took him on, and some of the scariest conservatives in my Facebook feed are denouncing him, and now I'm daring to get my hopes up.Trump just canceled his planned trip to Israel; he says he'll go after he becomes president.Another PS: This is relevant to comments earlier about how far money can get you.

worry, on 11 December 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:

I know you're using "sane" relatively, but even the "sanest" among them is way way past my line. I also think their numbers are shrinking proportionally, and we're not going back. We will not see another socially conservative (by current standards) president. Republicanism itself is going to have to change. Even Rubio is, ultimately, baldly poisonous for the country.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/10/moderate-marco-rubio-wants-to-undo-gay-marriage-end-obama-s-lgbt-protections.html

Speaking of Rubio, another link in the Vox article linked by Terez above talks about "dark money". Rubio is in really, really deep to some vested interests he is much too close to if he wins the Presidency. So who are they, what do they want, and how does he pay them back if/when he loses?

Sorry USAnians, but your electoral system and campaign finance laws are truly deplorable.