Vote 3rd party or you're an idiot!Chris Matthews can suck it. (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

so fear?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost - John Quincy Adams

 

[matuski]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

so fear?

or common sense?

 

[The Commish]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

so fear?

or common sense?

unless you're using some obscure definition I don't see how that would apply here under standards definitions

 

[timschochet]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

so fear?

Yep. I am fearful of a Trump presidency. I will vote to prevent it. That has now become my primary motivation in this election cycle.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Give me a third and fourth candidate

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

 

[timschochet]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

 

[timschochet]

And Saints if I believed, as Sinn Fein does, that Sanders has a better chance to beat Trump than Hillary, I'd switch to Bernie right now, though I disagree with him on a variety of issues.

I'll admit it's convenient for me that I was already going to support Hillary, and that I firmly believe that Hillary is the best shot there is at keeping Trump from power. But if that weren't the case I'd jump off the Clinton bandwagon in a heartbeat, because the situation has changed.

 

[The Commish]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

not surprised by much of this. Only that you think cruz is better than trump. That's scary

 

[timschochet]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

not surprised by much of this. Only that you think cruz is better than trump. That's scary

Cruz is a far right conservative, a tea party type, and the sort of extremist I've been opposed to my entire life. Yet he falls within our political system. He believes in the Constirution, he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He would do damage to many of the causes I believe in, and then in 4 years he would be up for re-election. I believe that Donald Trump could impose a dictatorship. I have no idea what he believes in or respects other than himself. He could, after the next terrorist attack, suspend the Constitution, abolish free speech, and declare himself the Leader. And I believe there are plenty of the public that would be willing to go along with him because they don't believe in our institutions any longer, if they ever did. That's where I think we are right now.

 

[Joe Summer]

If the Republicans launch a third-party candidate, it will be just as disastrous as if Trump made a third-party run. There just aren't enough "mainstream" voters to go around. Their best bet is to just grit their teeth and support Trump and hope that it leads to a stronger majority in Congress.

 

[NCCommish]

And Saints if I believed, as Sinn Fein does, that Sanders has a better chance to beat Trump than Hillary, I'd switch to Bernie right now, though I disagree with him on a variety of issues.

I'll admit it's convenient for me that I was already going to support Hillary, and that I firmly believe that Hillary is the best shot there is at keeping Trump from power. But if that weren't the case I'd jump off the Clinton bandwagon in a heartbeat, because the situation has changed.

Might want to read some polling then because Bernie beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary. Oh right only polls that show Hillary winning count at this point my bad.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If the Republicans launch a third-party candidate, it will be just as disastrous as if Trump made a third-party run. There just aren't enough "mainstream" voters to go around. Their best bet is to just grit their teeth and support Trump and hope that it leads to a stronger majority in Congress.

Why would the "grit your teeth" plan lead to a stronger majority in Congress? Seems to me it would be the opposite.

 

[NCCommish]

As far as Huntsman goes I don't agree with him on everything but he isn't a loon. He is a true centrist Republican. Not many left. I could live with a Huntsman presidency. I think he is a decent man. I don't think he wants to burn the whole thing down. Unlike all the people Tim just said he'd support.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If the Republicans launch a third-party candidate, it will be just as disastrous as if Trump made a third-party run. There just aren't enough "mainstream" voters to go around. Their best bet is to just grit their teeth and support Trump and hope that it leads to a stronger majority in Congress.

The GOP should have kicked Trump out of the first debate when they had the chance and rolled the dice.

Now, Trump has access to GOP resources, money, brand, party loyalty, state campaign staffs on the ground. If they had kicked him out he would have had to build that out in all 50 states, essentially he would have been a more potent version of Buchanan 2000. Trump ran on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, he got tired of it and he quit early in the process, they should have made him do that again.

Annnnddd you have the media, which has had the advantage of saying 'hey let's look at what the Republican Party leading candidate said today and what x, y and z said about that.... [insert ratings #'s here]'. The man has turned the presidential race and whole party into a reality show, he really has.

Now they are paying a ##### of a price.

As for Congress - take a look at Angle in NV, McConnell in DE, the guy in Missouri, etc. The GOP had gotten through the whole Tea Party thing, but they probably lost the Senate in 1-2 terms because of it. This will be like putting one of those tea partiers at the top of the ticket. It will have disastrous effects IMO.

And if the GOP does win with Trump, what have they won? Their party is led by a guy who hasn't even been a Republican a good part of his recent life. Congrats to the Elephant.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

On what basis would the Republicans have "kicked Trump out"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

On what basis would the Republicans have "kicked Trump out"?

First debate, it was an open question whether the GOP would let Trump participate. Trump threatened to bolt if they blocked him. They should have let him.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

On what basis would the Republicans have "kicked Trump out"?

First debate, it was an open question whether the GOP would let Trump participate. Trump threatened to bolt if they blocked him. They should have let him.

I have no recollection of this. Why was it an open question?

 

[Steve Tasker]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

not surprised by much of this. Only that you think cruz is better than trump. That's scary

Cruz is a far right conservative, a tea party type, and the sort of extremist I've been opposed to my entire life. Yet he falls within our political system. He believes in the Constirution, he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He would do damage to many of the causes I believe in, and then in 4 years he would be up for re-election.I believe that Donald Trump could impose a dictatorship. I have no idea what he believes in or respects other than himself. He could, after the next terrorist attack, suspend the Constitution, abolish free speech, and declare himself the Leader. And I believe there are plenty of the public that would be willing to go along with him because they don't believe in our institutions any longer, if they ever did. That's where I think we are right now.

I still don't really think Trump means half the #### he says. The guy is and always has been an expert in drawing attention to himself, and at this point, that's all the political cycle is. Trump is a buffoon but he's no dummy. If he becomes president, it'll be bad for the country for sure, but I don't think he'll bring the entire country to the ground like he's talking now. Because right now he's willing to say whatever it takes to get on TV and the radio and keep the other guys out of the spotlight....and it's working. It's kinda a brilliant campaign to this point.

Ted Cruz scares me as I think he genuinely believes the insane #### he spouts. He's a legitimately scary candidate. He's an actual candidate with an actual political background who comes off as just personable enough to convince average Joe Elector for a vote. He's a political insider with party clout who actually believes what he spouts, and whose presidency could (if he gets his way) set this country back 40 years.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

On what basis would the Republicans have "kicked Trump out"?

First debate, it was an open question whether the GOP would let Trump participate. Trump threatened to bolt if they blocked him. They should have let him.

I have no recollection of this. Why was it an open question?

Because it was, there were rumors the party might exclude him because of his comments (take your pick) before the first debate.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Looks like it was just one big donor who floated the idea but it never was seriously considered:

A grow­ing chor­us of Re­pub­lic­ans, nervous that Trump is hurt­ing the GOP’s brand ahead of 2016, are scram­bling to neut­ral­ize him. To that end, the most ag­gress­ive sug­ges­tion came from GOP mega-donor John Jordan, who told the As­so­ci­ated Press this week that Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers should find a way to ban Trump from par­ti­cip­at­ing in the primary de­bates.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/2015/07/08/why-republicans-cant-kick-donald-trump-out-their-debates

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looks like it was just one big donor who floated the idea but it never was seriously considered:

A grow­ing chor­us of Re­pub­lic­ans, nervous that Trump is hurt­ing the GOP’s brand ahead of 2016, are scram­bling to neut­ral­ize him. To that end, the most ag­gress­ive sug­ges­tion came from GOP mega-donor John Jordan, who told the As­so­ci­ated Press this week that Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers should find a way to ban Trump from par­ti­cip­at­ing in the primary de­bates.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/2015/07/08/why-republicans-cant-kick-donald-trump-out-their-debates

- I can't access that whole article, however it was definitely put before Reince Priebus and the GOP leadership. Now we can say maybe they never seriously considered it, but IMO if they hadn't backed down in the face of the Trump 'treat me fairly' business then he could have been put to the test.

If I find a link I will post it, we're talking June or July here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok FatGuy, yeah that must have been iit.

From 7/6/15:

California-based Republican donor John Jordan said Monday that GOP leaders should take steps to block outspoken developer Donald Trump's access to the first presidential debate in early August.

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-infighting-grows-donors-call-calm-201717076--election.html

- That was put before Preibus and the GOP in two ways. Either 1. yeah just exclude Trump or 2. Trump threatened that if he wasn't treated "fairly" then he would bolt. On no. 2, they let Trump set the rules they would play by. How nuts is that? They had opportunities, on both counts, to either outright block him from the debates, and likely other party sanctions were available, or two just drive him out by being as critical as they wanted to be.

eta - Has any party ever - ever - allowed someone who ran for president in a different party run for their own presidential nomination? I really seriously doubt it unless we go back to the Whigs.

 

[The Commish]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

not surprised by much of this. Only that you think cruz is better than trump. That's scary

Cruz is a far right conservative, a tea party type, and the sort of extremist I've been opposed to my entire life. Yet he falls within our political system. He believes in the Constirution, he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He would do damage to many of the causes I believe in, and then in 4 years he would be up for re-election. I believe that Donald Trump could impose a dictatorship. I have no idea what he believes in or respects other than himself. He could, after the next terrorist attack, suspend the Constitution, abolish free speech, and declare himself the Leader. And I believe there are plenty of the public that would be willing to go along with him because they don't believe in our institutions any longer, if they ever did. That's where I think we are right now.

yes. Trump is smart enough to circumvent our entire political system and create a dictatorship Tim. AND all the power hungry yahoos will stand by and watch without saying a word. Good Lord Tim. This is absurd.

 

[The Commish]

As far as Huntsman goes I don't agree with him on everything but he isn't a loon. He is a true centrist Republican. Not many left. I could live with a Huntsman presidency. I think he is a decent man. I don't think he wants to burn the whole thing down. Unlike all the people Tim just said he'd support.

 

[tom22406]

Maybe we can just settle for this and be good?-http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Trump-Clinton.jpg

 

[timschochet]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

not surprised by much of this. Only that you think cruz is better than trump. That's scary

Cruz is a far right conservative, a tea party type, and the sort of extremist I've been opposed to my entire life. Yet he falls within our political system. He believes in the Constirution, he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He would do damage to many of the causes I believe in, and then in 4 years he would be up for re-election. I believe that Donald Trump could impose a dictatorship. I have no idea what he believes in or respects other than himself. He could, after the next terrorist attack, suspend the Constitution, abolish free speech, and declare himself the Leader. And I believe there are plenty of the public that would be willing to go along with him because they don't believe in our institutions any longer, if they ever did. That's where I think we are right now.

yes. Trump is smart enough to circumvent our entire political system and create a dictatorship Tim. AND all the power hungry yahoos will stand by and watch without saying a word. Good Lord Tim. This is absurd.

Hopefully you're right. I would much rather you and everybody else reading this believe that I am wrong, paranoid and stupid rather than see me proved at all accurate. Even better, hopefully neither Trump nor Cruz will ever be elected and all of this will remain mere wild speculation.

 

[Joe Summer]

If the Republicans launch a third-party candidate, it will be just as disastrous as if Trump made a third-party run. There just aren't enough "mainstream" voters to go around. Their best bet is to just grit their teeth and support Trump and hope that it leads to a stronger majority in Congress.

Why would the "grit your teeth" plan lead to a stronger majority in Congress? Seems to me it would be the opposite.

If the party doesn't throw its full support behind Trump, then Republicans will stay home in droves and they'll definitely lose seats in Congress. They need to find a way to get voters into the booths, even if it means gritting their teeth and plugging their nose and telling everyone that Trump is a perfectly acceptable candidate. Kinda like with Sarah Palin in 2008 -- it was pretty obvious after a couple weeks that Palin was a giant anchor that was going to sink McCain's chances. But by that point the Republicans had no other choice but to support her. Otherwise the 2008 would have been an even bigger disaster than it was for Republicans.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If the Republicans launch a third-party candidate, it will be just as disastrous as if Trump made a third-party run. There just aren't enough "mainstream" voters to go around. Their best bet is to just grit their teeth and support Trump and hope that it leads to a stronger majority in Congress.

Why would the "grit your teeth" plan lead to a stronger majority in Congress? Seems to me it would be the opposite.

If the party doesn't throw its full support behind Trump, then Republicans will stay home in droves and they'll definitely lose seats in Congress. They need to find a way to get voters into the booths, even if it means gritting their teeth and plugging their nose and telling everyone that Trump is a perfectly acceptable candidate. Kinda like with Sarah Palin in 2008 -- it was pretty obvious after a couple weeks that Palin was a giant anchor that was going to sink McCain's chances. But by that point the Republicans had no other choice but to support her. Otherwise the 2008 would have been an even bigger disaster than it was for Republicans.

I agree they need Republican-leaning voters in the booth. But a lot of those Republican-leaning voters will never be convinced to vote for Trump. Maybe they can get them to vote by presenting a more palatable alternative on a third-party ticket. Which would probably kill their chances at the Presidency, but at least the people who came out to vote for the 3rd party guy would be likely to vote Republican down ticket.

 

[Rich Conway]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

not surprised by much of this. Only that you think cruz is better than trump. That's scary

Cruz is a far right conservative, a tea party type, and the sort of extremist I've been opposed to my entire life. Yet he falls within our political system. He believes in the Constirution, he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He would do damage to many of the causes I believe in, and then in 4 years he would be up for re-election.I believe that Donald Trump could impose a dictatorship. I have no idea what he believes in or respects other than himself. He could, after the next terrorist attack, suspend the Constitution, abolish free speech, and declare himself the Leader. And I believe there are plenty of the public that would be willing to go along with him because they don't believe in our institutions any longer, if they ever did. That's where I think we are right now.

It's official. You've finally lost your tenuous grasp on reality.

 

[Joe Summer]

If the Republicans launch a third-party candidate, it will be just as disastrous as if Trump made a third-party run. There just aren't enough "mainstream" voters to go around. Their best bet is to just grit their teeth and support Trump and hope that it leads to a stronger majority in Congress.

Why would the "grit your teeth" plan lead to a stronger majority in Congress? Seems to me it would be the opposite.

If the party doesn't throw its full support behind Trump, then Republicans will stay home in droves and they'll definitely lose seats in Congress. They need to find a way to get voters into the booths, even if it means gritting their teeth and plugging their nose and telling everyone that Trump is a perfectly acceptable candidate. Kinda like with Sarah Palin in 2008 -- it was pretty obvious after a couple weeks that Palin was a giant anchor that was going to sink McCain's chances. But by that point the Republicans had no other choice but to support her. Otherwise the 2008 would have been an even bigger disaster than it was for Republicans.

I agree they need Republican-leaning voters in the booth. But a lot of those Republican-leaning voters will never be convinced to vote for Trump. Maybe they can get them to vote by presenting a more palatable alternative on a third-party ticket. Which would probably kill their chances at the Presidency, but at least the people who came out to vote for the 3rd party guy would be likely to vote Republican down ticket.

They may not vote for Trump, but you still need them to get into the booth and vote "R" for every other candidate. But if the Republican party submits a third-party candidate, then I think a lot more Republicans won't even bother showing up to vote.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

They may not vote for Trump, but you still need them to get into the booth and vote "R" for every other candidate. But if the Republican party submits a third-party candidate, then I think a lot more Republicans won't even bother showing up to vote.

Well, I guess this is all speculative, but your position seems counterintuitive to me. I think that Republicans who hate Trump would be more likely to vote if they could vote for somebody they actually liked for President.

 

[jonessed]

Tim that's admirable but you were committed to Hillary before Trump became a factor.

I was. But right now I would be content with Rubio as President. I would be-barely-content with Cruz as President. Anyone but Trump.

not surprised by much of this. Only that you think cruz is better than trump. That's scary

Cruz is a far right conservative, a tea party type, and the sort of extremist I've been opposed to my entire life. Yet he falls within our political system. He believes in the Constirution, he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He would do damage to many of the causes I believe in, and then in 4 years he would be up for re-election.I believe that Donald Trump could impose a dictatorship. I have no idea what he believes in or respects other than himself. He could, after the next terrorist attack, suspend the Constitution, abolish free speech, and declare himself the Leader. And I believe there are plenty of the public that would be willing to go along with him because they don't believe in our institutions any longer, if they ever did. That's where I think we are right now.

It's official. You've finally lost your tenuous grasp on reality.

You don't believe Trump would suspend the Constitution, abolish free speech, and declare himself dictator?

 

[joffer]

Tim, it might be time to get up and go outside for a while

 

[TLEF316]

93k+ posts full of mostly absurd hyperbole and that one might be tim's worst.

So so bad. If I knew nothing else, it would still be impossible to ever take him seriously again after that post.

I'm by no means in favor of a trump presidency (I think this whole thing is a publicity stunt that he simply can't get himself out of at this point)but the idea that he would "abolish free speech and declare himself leader" is just ridiculous

 

[timschochet]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Not voting, didn't vote in the last election either. Prob won't vote for president ever again, they all suck and I'm powerless to change it.

 

[NCCommish]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Tim less actual people support Trump than support Sanders or Clinton. He is not as nationally popular as the media is telling you.

 

[Soonerman]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Indeed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016

 

[The Commish]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

stop

 

[McGarnicle]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Agreed on all counts Tim. I've been reading a lot about Hitler lately and all the parallels are there. I think the chances of Trump succeeding in those goals would be extremely low and I still doubt he'll even be elected president, but the reactions here reflect the ignorance of who Trump really is.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Indeed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016

Subjective political analysis, from the geniuses who brought us this

Seriously, how is the National Review even still in operation after that? Who sees that and thinks to themselves "these are the people I want to educate me on the important matters of the day"?

 

[Soonerman]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Indeed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016

Subjective political analysis, from the geniuses who brought us this

Seriously, how is the National Review even still in operation after that? Who sees that and thinks to themselves "these are the people I want to educate me on the important matters of the day"?

Nice deflection.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Indeed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016

Subjective political analysis, from the geniuses who brought us this

Seriously, how is the National Review even still in operation after that? Who sees that and thinks to themselves "these are the people I want to educate me on the important matters of the day"?

Nice deflection.

It's not a deflection, it's a reminder that the National Review is a useless rag that regularly misleads the public.

Want more proof? The very first hyperlink in the linked article about how the Democrats are totalitarians (I assume that's why the article was posted here) claims that Democrats "proposed banning politically unpopular academic research" and links to a blog entry that doesn't mention any proposals by anyone, certainly not by any Democrats. They say that in the midst of a bunch of other supposed misdeeds of Democrats that are obviously fictional, of course- it's just that they don't even bother with citations or hyperlinks for the other lies. The NR has devolved into pure nonsense, and we should be making fun of their stupidity at every opportunity, including this one.

 

[Soonerman]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Indeed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016

Subjective political analysis, from the geniuses who brought us this

Seriously, how is the National Review even still in operation after that? Who sees that and thinks to themselves "these are the people I want to educate me on the important matters of the day"?

Nice deflection.

It's not a deflection, it's a reminder that the National Review is a useless rag that regularly misleads the public.

Want more proof? The very first hyperlink in the linked article about how the Democrats are totalitarians (I assume that's why the article was posted here) claims that Democrats "proposed banning politically unpopular academic research" and links to a blog entry that doesn't mention any proposals by anyone, certainly not by any Democrats. They say that in the midst of a bunch of other supposed misdeeds of Democrats that are obviously fictional, of course- it's just that they don't even bother with citations or hyperlinks for the other lies. The NR has devolved into pure nonsense, and we should be making fun of their stupidity at every opportunity, including this one.

It does not exactly say Democrats proposed that. Read it again.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

Indeed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016

Subjective political analysis, from the geniuses who brought us this

Seriously, how is the National Review even still in operation after that? Who sees that and thinks to themselves "these are the people I want to educate me on the important matters of the day"?

Nice deflection.

It's not a deflection, it's a reminder that the National Review is a useless rag that regularly misleads the public.

Want more proof? The very first hyperlink in the linked article about how the Democrats are totalitarians (I assume that's why the article was posted here) claims that Democrats "proposed banning politically unpopular academic research" and links to a blog entry that doesn't mention any proposals by anyone, certainly not by any Democrats. They say that in the midst of a bunch of other supposed misdeeds of Democrats that are obviously fictional, of course- it's just that they don't even bother with citations or hyperlinks for the other lies. The NR has devolved into pure nonsense, and we should be making fun of their stupidity at every opportunity, including this one.

It does not say Democrats proposed that. Read it again.

It says "the Democrats and their allies on the left," which is a horribly misleading thing to do in the first place; imagine what I could say if I wanted to list activities of "the Republicans and their allies on the right" and then included anyone I subjectively considered to be "on the right" in that analysis. But the fun doesn't stop there! Because as I said, the hyperlinked blog entry doesn't actually include any proposals by anyone to ban anything! They couldn't even support their own shady, underhanded argument with actual facts.

Stop defending the modern day NR. It is indefensible. Move on, and maybe consider getting your news and analysis from a better source. There are plenty of right-leaning ones that have not completely lost their credibility, if that's your preference.

 

[lod01]

Sigh. So easy to ridicule I know.

I'm not saying that it's likely. I'm suggesting that it could happen if we had another major terrorist attack (it would have to be worse than 9/11) or an economic catastrophe.

But if you look past the bluster and rudeness, the signs are there. Trump and his followers are not conservatives; they are nationalists, opposed to free trade, to Wall Street, to immigration. They want toughness abroad and a socialist structure at home. They have much more in common with the neofascist right wing European parties than they do with traditional American conservatism. Trump has already suggested abrogating the Constitution in several ways, and they cheer him on. These are scary times.

stop

No, please continue This is as entertaining as you have ever been. I was talking to Trump the other day, I'm in line to be in charge of his hit squads.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I actually voted Green Party in the recent statewide race for Dept of Agriculture.

Is there a real presidential campaign going on by any parties besides the GOP and the Dems right now?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, you think Trump is opposed to Wall Street? The one thing I will say is that at least it's more honest with Trump. At least with the Don the thin veneer between Wall Street and Hilkary is ripped away and they just go ahead and put one if their own in the WH instead of maintaining the facade of the Clinton puppet show.