i khant see a way back for him tbh, in one recent poll drumpf got fewer minority votes than jill stein the green lady
I hope you're right. The way even Republican leaders seem to be turning on him over this is new ground. Even so, I am still worried about the long run, if the Ds don't find a way to reassure the working class who are losing their livelihoods and killing themselves at higher and higher rates that they won't be left behind. I think Clinton got lucky that her general election opponent is a know-nothing maniac.
Republican elites are against Trump because he's talking about how trade and foreign intervention are bad for the working class. Trump's comments about Khan are just providing them cover. They're hardly above going after war heros like Tammy Duckworth, Max Cleland or John McCain when it suits them.
“I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly,” Stone said. “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’”
I hope you're right. The way even Republican leaders seem to be turning on him over this is new ground. Even so, I am still worried about the long run, if the Ds don't find a way to reassure the working class who are losing their livelihoods and killing themselves at higher and higher rates that they won't be left behind. I think Clinton got lucky that her general election opponent is a know-nothing maniac.
I think your fear is a little overblown, but there's a metric ton of truth to this. There is a dangerous amount of overt white supremacy and jingoism feeling free to show up in this election. The Dems have to find some way to rally the non-uberracist working class whites to their cause.
I wonder how many Republican leaders start full-on jumping ship when October rolls around and Trump is getting massacred in the polls. They basically have a free election in 2020 if they can moderately get their **** together. No matter how competent Hillary is, she won't be liked, and getting a 4th Dem term in a row would be quite the feat regardless
-1776 again or TRUMP 2016
-Maybe there's a few emails from the hag to the voting machine co. CEO's? Ya never know...
-It’s already becoming a foregone conclusion that her and the Democratic Party will try something fraudulent.
-Doesn't Soros own the software company that runs the machines?
and the most mental,
-The Tree of Liberty is VERY thirsty...After Trump's inauguration, we can LIBERALLY water its parched roots with the hemoglobin of RICO-ed Establishment Vampires and their Corporate Donor-Minions
I wonder how many Republican leaders start full-on jumping ship when October rolls around and Trump is getting massacred in the polls. They basically have a free election in 2020 if they can moderately get their **** together. No matter how competent Hillary is, she won't be liked, and getting a 4th Dem term in a row would be quite the feat regardless
There's already a lot of quiet maneuvering going on based, I assume, on the assumption that Trump runs this into a reef and the Reds real fight will be in 2020.
Tons of quiet maneuvering, and some not-so-quiet maneuvering (Cruz etc) with Paul Ryan doing his best to not go insane. But I think at some point you start to see overt bailing off the platform
This is the same man who said in a campaign speech that "we're gonna open up those libel laws" in order to sue The New York Times when it reports negatively on Trump as President.
To be extraordinarily clear, just this should be enough to prove to literally any breathing American, beyond all conceivable argument, that Donald Trump cannot be President. Destruction of the free press - or more mildly, government policy designed to prevent coverage of the Executive by a free press - is destruction of democracy. To vote Trump is a moral failing. Nothing more need be said.
And yet, there are probably more than 90 other proofs that he is entirely unfit to be President. He cannot have influence over our lives. He should not have influence over our lives. To vote for him to have influence over your life is to prove you are possessed both of an inferior intellect and an inferior soul.
Tons of quiet maneuvering, and some not-so-quiet maneuvering (Cruz etc) with Paul Ryan doing his best to not go insane. But I think at some point you start to see overt bailing off the platform
Sure I think we already have Cruz and Kasich making pretty loud statements that they can later refer back to and say "I wasn't one of them".
I think you're spot on with the timeline. If we hit mid-october and Trump is trailing by 10% or similar, we'll see open defiance and even people with a certain level of blame of "those people" that nominated him.
I think your fear is a little overblown, but there's a metric ton of truth to this. There is a dangerous amount of overt white supremacy and jingoism feeling free to show up in this election. The Dems have to find some way to rally the non-uberracist working class whites to their cause.
I hope you are right. At the bottom line, I do not think there are enough of these people to elect Trump, but there might be. And my worry then is that the Dems don't do enough to help these people economically, they become more desperate, and in 2020 one of these other empty suits figures out a way to marry the protectionist message with plausible deniability on the overt racism, and that wins enough of a coalition to hand things back to the "cut everything because the Heritage Foundation said so" boys. (A side concern is that we start seeing more domestic white terrorism during Clinton's administration.)
The scary part is that he's kind of right about the "CNN anchors are out of touch with everyday people" things. It's still my biggest worry that no matter what Trump does, enough people will still vote for him because the Democrats, the media, and the establishment just don't get that "telling poor desperate people they're racist and stupid" is not a winning strategy. Of course a certain percentage will vote for him no matter what because they're racist. But it should be a terrifying sign that a significant number of people's lives have gotten so bad that "sure, let's blow it up and see what happens" seems like a reasonable solution to them.
I think the bold is pretty important. How do you convince people that they've been sold a bill of goods for decades by a party? I live in probably the most conservative part of Missouri and these people hate Hillary and the dems so much that they don't care who is at the top of the ticket. How the hell do you talk to them in any kind of rational way?
There’s an old saying that in politics there are no permanent victories—and no permanent defeats. Barry Goldwater was crushed in 1964 but the ideas that animated his candidacy found new life in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over in 1996 and 14 years later we got ObamaCare.
The inevitable turning of the policy wheel should comfort conservatives unnerved by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Liberals overreach. Statist solutions fail. Voters tire of one-party rule. To govern is to own, and the next president will own the next recession, the next foreign-policy fiasco, the next Veterans Affairs scandal. If Mrs. Clinton is everything Republicans say she is—an opportunistic, dishonest, incompetent left-wing ideologue—they can at least look forward to a one-term presidency. I know I do.
But to say there are no permanent victories or defeats in politics doesn’t mean there is no permanent dishonor. Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, Alger Hiss, Joe McCarthy and Bull Connor are the foul names of America’s 20th century, and always will be. And those who supported and excused them will always be tainted by association.
This is where Republicans now find themselves with their presidential nominee. Of all of Donald Trump’s vile irruptions—about Sen. John McCain’s military record, or reporter Serge Kovaleski’s physical handicap, or Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s judicial fitness—his casual smear of Ghazala Khan is perhaps the vilest.
This isn’t simply because Mrs. Khan is a bereaved mother. Bereavement alone does not place someone above criticism, especially when it comes to political differences. Nor is it because Mrs. Khan’s son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, died heroically to protect his troops in Iraq. The special deference given to Gold Star parents is, at bottom, a social convention.
No: What makes Mr. Trump’s remarks so foul is their undisguised sadism. He took a woman too heartbroken and anxious to speak of her dead son before an audience of millions and painted a target on her. He treated her silence as evidence that she was either a dolt or a stooge. He degraded her. “She was standing there. She had nothing to say,” Mr. Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
In this comment there was the full unmasking of Mr. Trump, in case he needed further unmasking. He has, as Humayun’s father Khizr put it, a “black soul.” His problem isn’t a lack of normal propriety but the absence of basic human decency. He is morally unfit for any office, high or low.
This is the point that needs to dawn—and dawn soon—on Republican officeholders who pretend to endorse Mr. Trump while also pretending, via wink-and-nod, that they do not. Paul Ryan has tried to walk this razor’s edge by stressing how much he disagrees with Mr. Trump’s “ideas.” On Sunday the speaker issued a flabby statement extolling the Khan family’s sacrifice and denouncing religious tests for immigrants without mentioning Mr. Trump by name.
Mr. Ryan is doing his personal reputation and his party’s fortunes no favors with these evasions. The central issue in this election isn’t Mr. Trump’s ideas, such as they are. It’s his character, such as it is. The sin, in this case, is the sinner.
It will not do for Republicans to say they denounce Mr. Trump’s personal slanders; his nativism and protectionism and isolationism; his mendacity and meanness and crassness; his disdain for constitutional protections—and still campaign for his election. There is no redemption in saying you went along with it, but only halfway; that with Mr. Trump you maintained technical virginity. To lie down with him is to wake up with him. It’s as simple as that.
That’s a thought that ought to frighten Republicans. The Khan slander was not Mr. Trump’s first and will not be his last or worst. As one wag on Twitter put it, the man always finds a new bottom. Nor are we likely done with new disclosures about Mr. Trump’s business practices and associations. Conservative die-hards may try to hold fast to the excuse that Hillary Clinton was, is, and always will be “worse,” but the argument can’t be sustained indefinitely. Mrs. Clinton is not the apotheosis of evil. She may be a corner-cutter and a liar, and she’ll almost surely appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. But at least she’s not a sociopath.
Politics is mostly the business of maintaining popularity in the here-and-now. Not always. Come January, Mrs. Clinton will likely be president. Whether there is a GOP that can still lay a claim to moral and political respectability is another question. Mr. Ryan and other Go-Along Republicans should treat the Khan episode as their last best hope to preserve political reputations they have worked so hard to build.
I hope you are right. At the bottom line, I do not think there are enough of these people to elect Trump, but there might be. And my worry then is that the Dems don't do enough to help these people economically, they become more desperate, and in 2020 one of these other empty suits figures out a way to marry the protectionist message with plausible deniability on the overt racism, and that wins enough of a coalition to hand things back to the "cut everything because the Heritage Foundation said so" boys. (A side concern is that we start seeing more domestic white terrorism during Clinton's administration.)
I wrote what ended up being a wordbomb of a post about spending in response to this, but I decided to ask here to gauge interest first. Are people interested in talking about the spending problem of the past 16 years, and the fiscal implications of the budgets of our two major party candidates? I have a spreadsheet that's translated the revenues and spending since 1980 to constant 2016 dollars, and I've included per capita figures as well to help break down the numbers into more manageable chunks, but it'll just remain my private bugaboo if no one else is interested.
