2016 United States Election

[Dave_LF]

Understood, but what I hear is, "that argument was wrong in what may be the most extreme case in modern history, therefore it can never be right."

A key difference I'd point out is that Hitler had a long record of talk and action demonstrating that he really did believe what he was saying, while Trump seems to have only discovered his xeno-nationalism recently.

[axordil]

A much longer article than Vox normally puts out, but it offers an explanation not just about Trump but about American political trends generally:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tr ... itarianism

[Primula Baggins]

My question is, even if he doesn't share racist views himself (and who knows?), why would he not continue to pander to the racist vote after becoming president? He has a large ego and basks in the adulation of excited crowds—I don't know why that wouldn't continue after he was in office.

Cross-posted with Ax

[CosmicBob]

I think he would still pander to the racists, but would he actively do anything concrete? He's never going to be able get some wall built, no matter what he says. He may be able to ban Muslims, but I would imagine courts would quickly overturn that.

[Primula Baggins]

He would be president. He could accomplish a lot (if that's the phrase) simply by tolerating racism, welcoming racists to the White House, speaking out against people and organizations fighting racism, and cheerfully signing whatever a Tea Party Congress sends him. He doesn't have to build a wall. He can content himself with tearing down fifty years of advances in civil rights, or allowing them to crumble.

[yovargas]

A much longer article than Vox normally puts out, but it offers an explanation not just about Trump but about American political trends generally:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tr ... itarianism

tl; dr version - lots of people are scared, and scared people gravitate towards the world's Trumps.

[Cerin]

But logically, Prim, you might just as well say he'd try to be loved by the left by doing things that pleased them. And I actually think that's more likely, because he would have a lot of fences to mend in that direction because of his pandering to the right in order to win the nomination. If we're going with the idea that he'll do things in order to bask in adulation, then he'll want to garner the adulation of the largest number of people possible, not just the racists. And he'll also probably want to try and repair the damage to his reputation (such as it was).

[axordil]

A much longer article than Vox normally puts out, but it offers an explanation not just about Trump but about American political trends generally:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tr ... itarianism

tl; dr version - lots of people are scared, and scared people gravitate towards the world's Trumps.

Lots of a particular type of person, not a random cross-section.

[yovargas]

But even outside that particular type, the more scared people are the more they gravitate towards the world's Trumps.

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, I think Trump will do no such thing, since it will cost him all of the adulation he's now gotten very good at getting. Don't change horses in the middle of the stream, and all that.

Although actually, there's no predicting what he might take it into his head to do. Which is one of the things that IMO disqualifies him to be president.

[axordil]

But even outside that particular type, the more scared people are the more they gravitate towards the world's Trumps.

True. The threshold is higher for non-authoritarian types, but it's always there.

[Frelga]

Signs of times - my feed picked up a tweet from a "messianic Jew" (by which as far as I can tell he means "Christian"?) who is an avid and articulate Sanders supporter and uses quotes from Jesus to make his case. Very convincingly, too.

[Impenitent]

Trump's racism is just one of the heads of the hydra. Over the course of many years, he's also dropped comments that indicate homophobia, sexism and mysogeny (I read http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/03/drop-to-your-knees-trumps-locker-room-banter-is-simple-homophobia about it this morning).

And I don't think that's it either.

I think Trump is a world-class psychopath - and by that, I don't mean that he's a latent serial killer. He displays all the classic signs: superficial charm; inflated self-perception and sense of superiority - everyone else is a loser, he's smarter, more successful, sexier, etc; impulsiveness; constant need for stimulation - he sleeps maybe 4 hours a night because he needs constant entertainment and activity; grandiosity; pathological lying and deception - without the capacity to perceive his own lies; the ability and gleeful willingness to manipulate others; lack of remorse and empathy, though he can fake it to elicit pity; a willingness to use any method to get what he wants - charm, force, guilt, violence; emotionally shallow; poor behaviour control; unrealistic goals built an exaggerated sense of his own abilities ("I'm going to built the best wall, and make Mexico pay for it"); can't accept responsibility for - or even admit - his mistakes; bullying tactics - belittling, humiliating, mistreating, mocking , and attack physically those who get in his way...

Not sure how to fight a psychopath who already has so much power in his hands.

[tinwë]

I posted here a few days ago that the only hope the GOP had of stopping Trump was to rally around a single candidate and get the others to drop out. I have been wrong about a lot of things so far in this election, and I may have been wrong about that too. Mitt Romney yesterday proposed a strategy not of getting third tier candidates to drop out, but of keeping them all going to the end, the thinking being that no one person could defeat Trump one-on-one, but together they can stop him from getting enough delegates to win the primary outright. Romnay said “"I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state".

The point of course is to force a brokered convention where the party apparatus could reject Trump and pick their own candidate. That the candidate of choice could be Mitt Romney himself seems laughable, but so has most of this primary, so I wouldn’t be surprised by anything at this point.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... EC33G9428F

[Dave_LF]

Very bad situation to be in. Strong-arming Trump out of the nomination at a brokered convention would almost certainly cost the party many votes, unless they managed to locate and nominate a centrist who could pull in more Democrats than s/he would cost in erstwhile Trump supporters. Seems they have accepted that almost certain defeat is a better outcome than possible victory with Trump.

[axordil]

Even as I poo-poo my Bernie or Bust friends who think Hillary and Trump have a conspiracy going to weaken the GOP to ensure her election, I can see why that kind of conspiracy theory would appeal to people.

But the sad truth of the matter is there's a far more likely explanation: about a quarter of the American voting public is just straight out hateful. They would rather see people below them "kept in their place" than see everyone lifted up. They would rather see the world continue in darkness than light a candle to illuminate it, if it required chipping in on the candle.

I blame Calvinism and my cheap-ass, truculent Lowland Scot ancestors, who got kicked out of Europe for not being able to play well with others. And possibly epigenetics.

[axordil]

And in other downer thoughts: how long until a GOP debate features dick pix?

[Cerin]

That the GOP would now look to Romney, whom no one that I'm aware of was enthused about last election, says something (though I'm not sure what). Can anyone elucidate why it is that Republicans might rather forfeit the election than have Trump in the White House; I mean, as it relates to the Republican Party, as opposed to strong personal aversion to Trump. Is it just that TPTB, whom the Republicans serve, don't know if Trump will march to their tune?

[Frelga]

Well, I'd like to believe they are not so wicked that they would rather elect a chaotic neutral (to give him the benefit of doubt) authoritarian who shares none of their values than a qualified Democratic President who in reality is pretty close to their ideas if not their rhetoric.

But possibly it's that they think they will have an easier time obstructing Hilary than controlling Trump.

[Primula Baggins]

If Trump runs and loses, he's gone. If Trump is forced out at or before the convention, he will be back—maybe this year as a third-party candidate, maybe in 2020 if he's still around.

I've read a lot of speculation that the GOP is in fact ready to write off this election if that's what it takes to stop Trump. Drafting Romney at a brokered convention would pretty much guarantee that.