2016 United States Election

[Primula Baggins]

I do think it's ominous that Trump was apparently much less eccentric at the debate last night and is getting praised in the press for how "presidential" he suddenly was. The man is a chameleon and can, if he chooses, act more like a serious candidate. I suspect we'll see a lot of that now that he's almost reached the nomination.

I doubt he'll try the presidential thing in front of his rallies, though . . . so boring! And the people are there to be entertained. And enraged.

[Dave_LF]

Yes, although that breaks the Gandalf the White joke since he's clearly going to become Trump of Many Colors (no way he'd include the 'u').

[yovargas]

I understand why it happens but - being unable to vote in my primaries because I'm registered independent doesn't make me feel very good about our democratic process.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If you lived in California, you would be able to vote in the primaries. As well as quite a few other states.

ETA: Actually, I misspoke. Independents (referred to as "No Party Preference voters") can vote in the California presidential primaries for the Democratic, Libertarian, and American Independent parties, but that is all, so you would not be able to vote in the GOP primary.

[Primula Baggins]

Florida is definitely one of the states that is not focused on making it easy for large numbers of people to vote.

[Lalaith]

Being unable to vote in a primary is the number one reason I won't register as an Independent.

[Inanna]

I'm pretty sure this is fake, but at this point, I can't be quite sure about anything.

"He even had to ask Eru to intervene to come back as Gandalf the White. Such a Loser. Although this shows how being white is superior to everyone. He won as Gandalf the White. Whites win!"
.

And look how it turned out for Saruman after he changed from white to many colors (colours)! Clearly white is superior!

And Sauron was definitely black. He even wore black. And losing that ring! Loser.


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[Inanna]

I do think it's ominous that Trump was apparently much less eccentric at the debate last night and is getting praised in the press for how "presidential" he suddenly was. The man is a chameleon and can, if he chooses, act more like a serious candidate. I suspect we'll see a lot of that now that he's almost reached the nomination.

Which is why I am really worried about him being the nominee. I feel folks might vote for Trump over Hillary. Ted Cruz - not so much. Although the latter's presidency gives me the shudders. I can just see years of social progress rolling back.


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[Primula Baggins]

They would both roll it back—Cruz as a matter of principle, and Trump because he would start or restart several wars and there would no longer be money for frills such as health care for the poor or alternative energy research. (Cruz would start the wars, too, of course, but to him the cuts in domestic spending would be a feature, not a bug.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yesterday a Trump rally in Chicago was cancelled amid massive protests and clashes between Trump supporters and protesters. Meanwhile, Michelle Fields, the Breitbart reporter who alleges that Trump's campaign manager violently grabbed her and pulled her down filed a police report alleging assault and battery against him, and videos surfaced that, while not conclusive, seem to support her allegations, and those of the Washington Post reporter who witnessed the attack. And Breitbart's spokesman resigned over his disgust at the conservative group's seeming to support Trump's side of the story against their reporter.

On the other side, Hillary Clinton somewhat shockingly praised Nancy Reagan's "AID's activism" apparently misremembering that it was support for Alzheimer's research that she promoted after her husband was diagnosed, and that both Reagans were anything but supportive of the battle against AIDS. I doubt it will have much lasting affect on the campaign, but for those of us who remember the early days of the AIDS crisis, it rings a very discordant note. Her subsequent apology was very pro forma, and the whole thing doesn't sit very well.

[yovargas]

On the other side, Hillary Clinton somewhat shockingly praised Nancy Reagan's "AID's activism" apparently misremembering that it was support for Alzheimer's research that she promoted after her husband was diagnosed, and that both Reagans were anything but supportive of the battle against AIDS.

I was very confused by that. That she maybe got it mixed up with Alzheimer's research does kinda make me feel a little better about it in that, okay, maybe it was just an honest mistake. But if so, it's still a pretty ugly mistake and one that makes her look like the out of touch politician that she is often accused of being.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Exactly, yov.

[Cerin]

I would point out that the protest at the Trump rally was organized, with the goal of shutting down the rally (lest anyone assume that the disturbance was the fault of Trump supporters).

I wonder what we would think of a group of Trump supporters crashing a Clinton and/or Sanders rally and inciting a disturbance so as to prevent the rally from taking place.

Re Clinton and AIDS, maybe it was just a senior moment slip of the tongue (both diseases start with the letter 'A'). Both Democrats and Trump are past retirement age, and if Cruz ends up the nominee, I suppose age will become an issue in the campaign. I do worry about the strain of this rigorous campaigning on people their age, not to mention the pressures of the Oval Office.

[yovargas]

I wonder what we would think of a group of Trump supporters crashing a Clinton and/or Sanders rally and inciting a disturbance so as to prevent the rally from taking place.

I would think "Wow, Clinton and/or Sanders inspire an astonishing amount of anger, hate, and fear!"

[River]

Good for the protesters. We need more of that.

If Sanders or Clinton were behaving anywhere nearly as outrageously as Trump they'd deserve similar treatment. However, white supremacists aren't lining up to endorse either candidate, neither candidate has advocated wiping out entire families because one of them joined ISIS, neither candidate is advocating deporting 11 million people and banning members of a certain religion from entering the country, and neither Clinton nor Sanders invokes "bleeding from the whatever" when a female reporter dares to ask a difficult question. We won't even get into the Freudian business that went down a week or so ago.

In other words, Trump's a special case.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I read today that the event had been scheduled at a venue that has been a center for civil rights activism. The person I saw quoted, who said he was a Trump supporter, was very critical of the decision to schedule the rally there. I also read that a police spokesman said that the decision to cancel the event was made solely by the campaign, against the advice of law enforcement officials who insisted security was sufficient.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

River, your statement scares me a lot more than anything Trump has said.

[River]

Fortunately for your nerves, I'm not and never will be running for office.

[yovargas]

River, your statement scares me a lot more than anything Trump has said.

While I understand that you don't find Trump as frightening as many people do, I find it disappointing that you seem dismissive of why people find him so frightening. This isn't merely a case of a candidate who's policies I disagree with. This is a man who is fairly openly running as a heavy-handed authoritarian. He's not running as if he wants to be president, he's running as if he wants to be our king, ruler, or dictator. Even if I didn't find so much of what he says despicable, I would still be frightened my a man who wants to be our "benevolent dictator". Regardless of policies, the attitude is absolute poison to our supposed democracy so damn right people should be protesting. We should not quietly let a fascist take hold of power. I would ultimately rather have a president with bad ideas than a wanna-be fascist of any stripe.


ETA:This Salon article on the Trump-as-fascist notion mirrors my thoughts (and fears) very well:
Trump’s not Hitler, he’s Mussolini: How GOP anti-intellectualism created a modern fascist movement in America

[River]

Yeah, fascist isn't a word I throw around lightly or easily, but it seems applicable to Trump. Or, at least, the character Trump is playing to win votes.

If you want to know how the story ends when that type is left unchecked, I refer you to the mid-20th century. Swarms of protesters nipping this in the bud, before it turns to a repeat of what Europe suffered in the 1930's and 1940's, is, I think, the less daunting of our options.

But, I repeat, for the sake of those who find me scary, that a) I am not running for any office, b) I am not directly or indirectly involved with the groups that supposedly shut the Trump rally down, and c) just to give you an idea of the extent of my political activism these days, I didn't caucus on Super Tuesday. Even if I'd been able to finish my experiments on time, I'm not sure I could've gotten in (it was a total circus in my county) and frankly, I just wanted to go home and play with my kid. In other words, all words and no threat from this anti-fascist.