The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Sullyute]

I agree with this conclusion, although I am not sure he is actually building a campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if he has already maxed out his support in depth if not in breadth. I suspect you're right about him running as an independent. It will give the election to Clinton. Depressing.

If it leads to a sustained third party then it is worth it. The real republicans need to get the wackos out of their party or start a new one if they want people to take them serious.

[creekster]

I wish there was good evidence to say otherwise, but I'm afraid there's a plurality of the republican base right now that agrees with Trump. From a sobering article:



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ty_s_base.html

Why was that article sobering? A large chunk of the electorate wanted nothing to do with a mormon in 2012. And when Kennedy ran for election in '60 there was a real question if a catholic could be elected. Moreover, some values of islam ARE opposed to american values. Have you read about sharia law? People are pissed, they are suspicious, and they want action, especially after the obvious facts have been misrepresented to them. But I remain convinced that there is a large gulf between angry responses in a poll and actually closing mosques or creating a religious test at the border.

Further, the French analogy doesn't really work. The french have never been as committed to civil rights as we are. Closing those mosques didn't cause any constitutional crisis there. In fact, it is probably their past poor treatment of immigrants that has contributed to the problems they are facing now.

This is not an easy issue. There are no simple solutions. But I don't think any of us should be surprised that people are angry and lashing out nor should we accept or allow unconstitutional actions from clowns like Trump.

[creekster]

If it leads to a sustained third party then it is worth it. The real republicans need to get the wackos out of their party or start a new one if they want people to take them serious.

A third party based on the personality cult of Trump would be neither sustainable nor worth it, IMO.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Why was that article sobering? A large chunk of the electorate wanted nothing to do with a mormon in 2012. And when Kennedy ran for election in '60 there was a real question if a catholic could be elected. Moreover, some values of islam ARE opposed to american values. Have you read about sharia law? People are pissed, they are suspicious, and they want action, especially after the obvious facts have been misrepresented to them. But I remain convinced that there is a large gulf between angry responses in a poll and actually closing mosques or creating a religious test at the border.

Further, the French analogy doesn't really work. The french have never been as committed to civil rights as we are. Closing those mosques didn't cause any constitutional crisis there. In fact, it is probably their past poor treatment of immigrants that has contributed to the problems they are facing now.

This is not an easy issue. There are no simple solutions. But I don't think any of us should be surprised that people are angry and lashing out nor should we accept or allow unconstitutional actions from clowns like Trump.

What percentage of the Democratic primary voters are supporting Bernie the socialist? Venezuela has made a go at socialism. The results are Hugo Chavez's daughter is now worth $4 billion and the Venezuelans have run out of toilet paper.

This might be a shock to some people, but there's a solid 30% plus on each side that are loons.

[frank ryan]

What percentage of the Democratic primary voters are supporting Bernie the socialist? Venezuela has made a go at socialism. The results are Hugo Chavez's daughter is now worth $4 billion and the Venezuelans have run out of toilet paper.

This might be a shock to some people, but there's a solid 30% plus on each side that are loons.

. Trump is another orbit of looniness than anyone else. Bernie is a Canadian/European style socialist not a charista. His rhetoric has been nowhere close to trumps asinine shit. It's not equal or is it close.

[Northwestcoug]

Why was that article sobering? A large chunk of the electorate wanted nothing to do with a mormon in 2012. And when Kennedy ran for election in '60 there was a real question if a catholic could be elected. Moreover, some values of islam ARE opposed to american values. Have you read about sharia law? People are pissed, they are suspicious, and they want action, especially after the obvious facts have been misrepresented to them. But I remain convinced that there is a large gulf between angry responses in a poll and actually closing mosques or creating a religious test at the border.

Further, the French analogy doesn't really work. The french have never been as committed to civil rights as we are. Closing those mosques didn't cause any constitutional crisis there. In fact, it is probably their past poor treatment of immigrants that has contributed to the problems they are facing now.

This is not an easy issue. There are no simple solutions. But I don't think any of us should be surprised that people are angry and lashing out nor should we accept or allow unconstitutional actions from clowns like Trump.

It's sobering because a lot of those primary voters who will decide the nomination are driven by fear. And that they are xenophobes.

Look, you and I and other rational people can judge sharia law to be completely at odds with American values. We can also support responsible action to curtail its effects here. We can feel fear, suspicion, and a lot of other base emotions. But rational people should not let themselves be driven by those emotions. Rational people also see how completely at odds Trump's ideas are with American values.

I'm tired of trying to explain away poll results. Trump consistently has the support of most those who identify as republican. He is doing nothing more than pandering to the very worst of the right side of the political spectrum. And now because he has their consistent support, he is becoming an embarrassment to those who usually side with the republicans on most issues. It is becoming obvious that the republican party has a big problem; it is allowing itself to be driven by those who support retrenchment to values fewer and fewer people believe in. They can be 'right' on a ton of other economic and foreign policy issues, but if they allow themselves to be branded as xenophobes, how many independents will even consider voting for them?

Like I said, it's pretty sobering.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

. Trump is another orbit of looniness than anyone else. Bernie is a Canadian/European style socialist not a charista. His rhetoric has been nowhere close to trumps asinine shit. It's not equal or is it close.

You mean he's like Jeremy Corbyn? I think I'd almost prefer the Hugo Chavez comparison.

[Nakoma]

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-poll-republ...-election.html

97c4dba60e95fd37890f6a7067003cb3.jpg

[frank ryan]

You mean he's like Jeremy Corbyn? I think I'd almost prefer the Hugo Chavez comparison.

You are really reaching with this whole "both sides are equally crazy" narrative. This isn't about conservatism versus liberalism; It's about the support Trump if receiving from a sizable chunk of republicans. Trump isn't a conservative, he's an aspiring dictator who would throw out the first amendment, due process etc. He thinks it would be appropriate to mandate some sort of boycott against starbucks because they aren't saying what he wants them to. Sanders is nothing like that. He is neither Corbyn nor Chavez. Think Canadian labor party.

[Eddie]

You are really reaching with this whole "both sides are equally crazy" narrative. This isn't about conservatism versus liberalism; It's about the support Trump if receiving from a sizable chunk of republicans. Trump isn't a conservative, he's an aspiring dictator who would throw out the first amendment, due process etc. He thinks it would be appropriate to mandate some sort of boycott against starbucks because they aren't saying what he wants them to. Sanders is nothing like that. He is neither Corbyn nor Chavez. Think Canadian labor party.

Are you for real? I know you are biased, that isn't new. I know you have your own view, which is great. I enjoy seeing a variety of perspectives. But isn't Trump crazy enough without having to use trumped up allegations to prove it?

Throwing out the first amendment? Haven't there always been things you can and cannot say? I assume you're talking about the closing mosques thing with this. And he never even really said that. But that's the spin ya'll are putting on it. OK.

Due process? What is that coming from? Seems like a new one, so I'm interested. What are you tying that to?

Mandated boycott? I remember hearing him say something about maybe Starbucks should be boycotted. He said maybe he would do it even though there is one in his building. But when did he ever say it should be "mandated"?

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you slant it so heavily.

Then again, I suppose this is a political thread. And elections are all based upon whatever shit people can make up and make stick.

And I'm no Trump fan. I just suppose I think he should be trashed for things that he's earned. I kinda feel the same way about all politicians no matter what side they're from.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Are you for real? I know you are biased, that isn't new. I know you have your own view, which is great. I enjoy seeing a variety of perspectives. But isn't Trump crazy enough without having to use trumped up allegations to prove it?

Throwing out the first amendment? Haven't there always been things you can and cannot say? I assume you're talking about the closing mosques thing with this. And he never even really said that. But that's the spin ya'll are putting on it. OK.

Due process? What is that coming from? Seems like a new one, so I'm interested. What are you tying that to?

Mandated boycott? I remember hearing him say something about maybe Starbucks should be boycotted. He said maybe he would do it even though there is one in his building. But when did he ever say it should be "mandated"?

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you slant it so heavily.

Then again, I suppose this is a political thread. And elections are all based upon whatever shit people can make up and make stick.

And I'm no Trump fan. I just suppose I think he should be trashed for things that he's earned. I kinda feel the same way about all politicians no matter what side they're from.

You are nitpicking on word choice. Frank is right, Trump defies all comparisons. To say that he is just the flip side of Hillary or Bernie is nonsense.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

For the fun of it over lunch today, I decided to play around with some old Japanese Internment Camp photos and turning them into Trump campaign photos. (Too much caffeine, maybe.) Here are a few.

EDIT: They were super rough jobs, so not need to critique the quality of the photoshopping. I may try and clean them up more to help blend them into the original better.

America1.jpg
America4.jpg
America6.jpg

[Northwestcoug]

You are really reaching with this whole "both sides are equally crazy" narrative. This isn't about conservatism versus liberalism; It's about the support Trump if receiving from a sizable chunk of republicans. Trump isn't a conservative, he's an aspiring dictator who would throw out the first amendment, due process etc. He thinks it would be appropriate to mandate some sort of boycott against starbucks because they aren't saying what he wants them to. Sanders is nothing like that. He is neither Corbyn nor Chavez. Think Canadian labor party.

You mean the historical Labor party in the 20's? Because there isn't a Canadian Labor party now.

[Northwestcoug]

For the fun of it over lunch today, I decided to play around with some old Japanese Internment Camp photos and turning them into Trump campaign photos. (Too much caffeine, maybe.) Here are a couple.

[ATTACH]6518[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6519[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6520[/ATTACH]

I like it.

[frank ryan]

You mean the historical Labor party in the 20's? Because there isn't a Canadian Labor party now.

Do they call themselves liberal party now?