August 10, 2015 at 9:04 pm #2521
Just enjoy his antics knowing that he’s a clown.
Without having followed proceedings this is pretty much my take on it.
An amusing and cringe-making sideshow before the real business begins.August 10, 2015 at 9:40 pm #2522August 10, 2015 at 9:41 pm #2523
And yet, we are the ones who are so frequently criticized for being ignorant or naive regarding the inner workings of other countries.
I think this is even true for Americans, being ignorant of how things work in their own country. I’ve avoided 95% of Trump news, not even believing he’s gained ground (until recently). I’m pissed at 1) Americans who love him for being “just like us”, and 2) the American mass media who cater to the sensationalism.
Think conservative talk shows, and what comes to mind is Faux News and arrogant, hateful narratives even outside of Faux News. The people who believe so strongly in traditionalist idealism (i.e. “I got mine, and the poor deserve their poverty”) are the same blind idiots who have no clue that other points of view can be valid, or positive. In fact “liberals hate America”, or shouldn’t even be called American. (Oh yeah, so I just thought of the term “Faux Americans”.)
American media produces that freak show, for profit, as the arrogant right and other freak show lovers eat it up. Trump just knows how to play the media game better than anyone.
The GOP itself is blind to the dangerously conservative wing’s pathology, just as petrol-funded theocracies in the Middle East are blind to non-theocratic ways to govern. Tradition beats Progress, in ultra-conservative minds. This part, I’d like to keep secret: Trump-like blindness will win GOP primaries as they draw rabid ultra and neo-conservatives, but they’ll lose the general election. The red states look really big and powerful on the map, but they don’t reflect population density.
August 10, 2015 at 9:42 pm #2526
- This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: my usual fixes to bad writing
If Trump somehow manages to avoid a complete meltdown and actually gets the Republican nomination, then he could very well win. Don’t forget that the Citizens United SCOTUS decision virtually guarantees that corporations will pour millions of dollars into the election, mostly supporting whoever the Republican nominee is. The Koch brothers have personally pledged over $900 million into getting a Republican into the White House. If Trump gets the nomination, he will also have his multi-billion dollar personal fortune to support him. If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, even with her Wall Street backers, she will be hard pressed to compete against this onslaught of greed arrayed against her. Sanders, with his unwillingness to resort to creating a super-pac will be in even worse shape. If Trump does end up as a third party candidate, the Democrats will still have a huge challenge to combat against the billions of dollars that they will be up against.August 10, 2015 at 9:55 pm #2527
Don’t forget that the Citizens United SCOTUS decision virtually guarantees that corporations will pour millions of dollars into the election, mostly supporting whoever the Republican nominee is.
True. I mean, I hope not! When it comes to general elections, maybe they are less understood and less predictable. Gore would have beat Bush, if not for Nader sucking away just enough democratic votes, and that may have even changed the whole world for the better instead of for the worse. My biggest fear is that Trump is smarter than he currently acts, and will back off on crazy talk for a general election.August 10, 2015 at 11:52 pm #2532
the worst he can do (which is ironically the best for most of us) is run a third party campaign that hands the election over to the Democratic Party
Do you not have any kind of vote transfer? Here in Australia we can vote for a minority party and if they don’t win the seat, our vote is transfered either according to our preference (indicated when placing our vote) or by the minority party’s preferences (determined by the party to best represent the party’s interests.
So we have two main parties, who win the majority of the seats, but alot of those votes come from peoples’ preferences after their initial vote failed to win the seat.
On to the Trump issue: American politics appear to be a farce. In that vein, Trumps candidacy is a natural progression.August 11, 2015 at 7:29 am #2538August 11, 2015 at 12:24 pm #2539
The Twittersphere rocked in, after Donald insinuated that the female moderator of the republican ponyshow was hormonal. #periodsarenotaninsult hashtag tweets here, to help your cringing Trumpy sensations dissipate.August 11, 2015 at 12:41 pm #2543
If the politicians were more responsive to the people’s needs, then he never would have gained traction. The other candidates have no one to blame but their sorry selves. They have consistently put their need to get re-elected in perpetuity over all other considerations.
I am loving every minute of it.August 11, 2015 at 8:37 pm #2553
They have consistently put their need to get re-elected in perpetuity over all other considerations.
That kind of makes sense, but I think it’s the voters who elect them that refuse to see the big picture of their efforts. I think Christy has been trying to move people to the left? But I haven’t been watching closely the recent GOP circus acts. I’m also happy to watch arrogant, naive voters maintain their unrealistic zeal, especially after those damaging, naive Bush years they (and naive Naderites) brought us.August 11, 2015 at 8:44 pm #2554
I’m thinking about starting a right-wing-related topic “Oath Keepers“, but I have to read more about them, first. I wouldn’t mind if someone else jumped into that, first. E.g., they appear to be very libertarian, but I’m still wondering how they might like to engage with white supremacy. (Hmmm, in fact it seems their website might even be overwhelmed with internet traffic, at the moment. Try again, later.)August 11, 2015 at 9:42 pm #2556
Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator
Is it just me or are the Democrats very silent? They must be loving this because it is doing their own campaign work for them.August 11, 2015 at 11:35 pm #2558
If Trump somehow manages to avoid a complete meltdown and actually gets the Republican nomination, then he could very well win. Don’t forget that the Citizens United SCOTUS decision virtually guarantees that corporations will pour millions of dollars into the election, mostly supporting whoever the Republican nominee is. The Koch brothers have personally pledged over $900 million into getting a Republican into the White House. If Trump gets the nomination, he will also have his multi-billion dollar personal fortune to support him. If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, even with her Wall Street backers, she will be hard pressed to compete against this onslaught of greed arrayed against her. Sanders, with his unwillingness to resort to creating a super-pac will be in even worse shape. If Trump does end up as a third party candidate, the Democrats will still have a huge challenge to combat against the billions of dollars that they will be up against.
A meltdown won’t matter. He’s “The Teflon Donald.” He’s a tar-baby. With his followers, an attack against Trump is a black mark against you not him. Maybe if he was found to have molested crippled children, but I’m unsure about even that.
So, basically, if PAC money goes after him with negative ads, it’s likely to be like investing money in a boat (“A boat is a hole in the water you pour money into.”) In other words, a waste of their money.
The strange thing about Trump and super-PAC’s is that, in a way nobody really anticipated, he’s made them irrelevant. I doubt if he’d align himself with a PAC. He wants to do it all by himself. This is how he does all of his businesses. He wants the win, not a share of the win.
Where money will matter is with Bernie Sanders. Is he another dark horse as Obama was? Maybe, but of all the candidates, his money problems will be fatal, I think.
Trump’s fatal problem is that no way will he be able to amass a national majority for the presidential election.
August 11, 2015 at 11:50 pm #2562
- This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by Unseen.
@regthefronkeyfarmer The Democrats aren’t slinging any mud at each other. Early on and consistently, Bernie Sanders refused to disparage Hilary Clinton despite provocation. He won’t use personal attacks. As a result, it would appear rather churlish of Hilary, should she not at least reciprocate such behavior and she doesn’t attack him either.
Sadly, no attacks means no scandal and nothing noteworthy to occupy the minds, keyboards and cameras of the political paparazzi. But hey! Look! The Republicans have enough mud to sling for everyone to play!August 12, 2015 at 1:12 am #2564
American style attack ads used to be a really big no-no in Canada…especially after a nasty ad in the 90s that reduced a massive majority government to only 2 seats. A decade later…the current conservative government started up with bitchy adds and then went nuts with it. And not only during elections campaigns. They did these vicious attack ads all year long generally smearing the leaders of other parties relentlessly. None of the other parties joined in…they were the better party…Canadians don’t buy into nasty ads after all. The conservatives went on to win three elections in a row. Slowly the other parties joined in but first simply with negative adds. Recently they have joined in with the attack ads as well. Now ads are prominent in Canadian election campaigns and they can be nasty from all sides.
Along with major limits on political party donations…two Scandanavian countries (Denmark and Sweden) banned (in part) the nastiest of ads through the argument of libel. Eventually they did away with TV ads all together. Egad…the idea that political parties spread their platform by…gasp…revealing their platforms in speeches, debates and rallies and pamphlets and canvassing. Imagine attracting voters by saying what your party stands for instead of exposing your opponents for the acid blooded vampires they are waiting to eat your children?
Voting rates went up…people actually went out of vote more…and no one complained or missed nasty mudslinging at all.
This would never work in some countries. Because…freedom and stuff.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.