Octopus Overlords

We're in the final stages of Sanders vs. Clinton, so of course Sanders people still don't like Clinton.

When it becomes Clinton vs. Trump, Clinton and Sanders will make appearances together and Sanders will declare that Trump is the enemy of everything every progressive has ever supported. He'll wag his righteous finger and remind them they they would be idiots to support the candidate endorsed by the KKK.

Much will depend on how enthusiastically Bernie endorses and/or stumps for Clinton, if at all. Since he has no particular party loyalty and seems to dislike Hillary at least as much as everyone else does, that will depend on (a) how big a threat he believes Trump to be, and (b) how much leverage he thinks he can have on the D platform and on Hillary's policies. And maybe (c) whether the media will deem him irrelevant and lose all interest in him after the convention.

I don't foresee a lot of Sanders independents crossing into the Trump camp, but I can imagine a lot of them staying home or casting protest votes unless he can convince them that she's a tolerable devil.

So Newt Gingrich is the first big GOP name to embrace Trump's "foreign policy" as anything but dangerous idiocy.

We'll probably see more start selling out/cashing in as Trump secures the nomination. Apparently Marco Rubio, who ran his whole campaign in desperate opposition to the damage Trump promises to do, is now hinting that Trump is really OK.

Gingrich is singularly vile, though, and he's probably the only Republican whose arrogance matches the frontrunner's. No doubt he hopes to play Kissinger to Trump's Nixon (except Gingrich probably thinks it's Aristotle to Trump's Alexander).

The GOP is at the crossroads now. If they go Trump's way, they're not coming back.

I think Gingrich wants to be (and has a reasonable chance of becoming) Trump's VP pick. It would make a lot of sense for both parties - Trump has said that he wants a politician as his VP pick, and he would get some institutional credibility by picking Gingrich. For Gingrich its a way back into power after years on the sidelines. Probably as a result, throughout the race Gingrich has been pretty Trump-friendly.

Trump's VP selection process will consist solely of an all day event in which politicians attempt to encompass as much of Trump's ass as they can with their lips.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 41% support to Clinton’s 39%. Fifteen percent (15%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... clinton_39

Rip wrote:Too early for those polls to matter.

I've had to repost this twice now in response to your quoting polls since you told me just last week they don't matter this early. I'm betting we can hit a half dozen by the end of the week!

Go Team Rip!

America has never been so ripe for tyranny

Long, unapologetically elitist argument says that democracies end when they become too democratic (because demagoguery). While I disagree with some of the guy's precepts, most glaringly that the US suffers a surfeit of democracy, he anticipates and addresses my objections and arrives at an accurate and chilling assessment. I found it disturbing and am interested in your opinions of his reasoning if you have the patience to read it critically.

Could it be that the Donald has emerged from the populist circuses of pro wrestling and New York City tabloids, via reality television and Twitter, to prove not just Plato but also James Madison right, that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention … and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”? Is he testing democracy’s singular weakness — its susceptibility to the demagogue — by blasting through the firewalls we once had in place to prevent such a person from seizing power? Or am I overreacting?

I'll feel better if you can show me where he's wrong.

Kraken wrote:America has never been so ripe for tyranny

Long, unapologetically elitist argument says that democracies end when they become too democratic (because demagoguery). While I disagree with some of the guy's precepts, most glaringly that the US suffers a surfeit of democracy, he anticipates and addresses my objections and arrives at an accurate and chilling assessment. I found it disturbing and am interested in your opinions of his reasoning if you have the patience to read it critically.

Could it be that the Donald has emerged from the populist circuses of pro wrestling and New York City tabloids, via reality television and Twitter, to prove not just Plato but also James Madison right, that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention … and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”? Is he testing democracy’s singular weakness — its susceptibility to the demagogue — by blasting through the firewalls we once had in place to prevent such a person from seizing power? Or am I overreacting?

I'll feel better if you can show me where he's wrong.

Not at all.

But you have already failed, nothing can stop it now.

I for one welcome our new Trumplords.

Rip wrote:Lynne Patton "The Trump Family That I Know" - A Black Female Trump Executive Speaks

Right. And the video that sprung up around her letter was just as spontaneous.

Rip wrote:

Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey

Ah, Rasmussen - the folks that had Romney up by 12 last time around. '

But I'm sure they're much more accurate this time around

I'll never say never when it comes to Trump, but I think he has a really hard time winning the Presidency due to low voter turnout. The Republicans will have to come out in droves to overcome his deficiency among Hispanics and women voters, and I just foresee a lot of people getting disgusted with both options and staying home.

I'm really looking forward to the debates. Does Trump's wit and "say anything" attitude trump (pun DEFINITELY intended) Clinton's poise? Or does she completely annihilate him with experience and feed him rope to hang himself? Should be fascinating to watch.

P.S. I think the nomination is over tonight. Trump will crush Indiana and Cruz will have to get back in his spaceship and fly home.

Hillary is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. She'll devastate Trump in any and all debates. But the problem is that Trump supporters don't care. They don't want intelligent, they want the spectacle and the empty promises that haven't even remotely been explained in any real detail by Trump. He's white, rich, been on tv and he sounds angry about all them damn minorities. That's all they need.

hepcat wrote:Hillary is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. She'll devastate Trump in any and all debates. But the problem is that Trump supporters don't care. They don't want intelligent, they want the spectacle and the empty promises that haven't even remotely been explained in any real detail by Trump. He's white, rich, been on tv and he sounds angry about all them damn minorities. That's all they need.

Let's just hope there numbers are too small to make a president.

Jeff V wrote:

hepcat wrote:Hillary is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. She'll devastate Trump in any and all debates. But the problem is that Trump supporters don't care. They don't want intelligent, they want the spectacle and the empty promises that haven't even remotely been explained in any real detail by Trump. He's white, rich, been on tv and he sounds angry about all them damn minorities. That's all they need.

Let's just hope there numbers are too small to make a president.

They are. Trump has historically bad favorability numbers for a nominee.

Jeff V wrote:

hepcat wrote:Hillary is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. She'll devastate Trump in any and all debates. But the problem is that Trump supporters don't care. They don't want intelligent, they want the spectacle and the empty promises that haven't even remotely been explained in any real detail by Trump. He's white, rich, been on tv and he sounds angry about all them damn minorities. That's all they need.

Let's just hope there numbers are too small to make a president.

His core supporters aren't numerous enough to elect him. If events hand Trump a major terror attack or economic downturn or domestic unrest that feeds people's fear, that could put him over the edge. Much will depend on whether the R Party holds its nose and rallies around him, or values its future more highly than winning this election.

Of course Clinton will demolish him with rational arguments...but landing a good zinger or two blows that away among those who are in it for the spectacle. From my last link:

If you like America as it is, vote Clinton. After all, she has been a member of the American political elite for a quarter-century. Clinton, moreover, has shown no ability to inspire or rally anyone but her longtime loyalists. She is lost in the new media and has struggled to put away a 74-year-old socialist who is barely a member of her party. Her own unfavorables are only 11 points lower than Trump’s (far higher than Obama’s, John Kerry’s, or Al Gore’s were at this point in the race), and the more she campaigns, the higher her unfavorables go (including in her own party). She has a Gore problem. The idea of welcoming her into your living room for the next four years can seem, at times, positively masochistic.

At this point it's a tossup whether fear of Trump or hatred of Clinton will prevail.

El Guapo wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

hepcat wrote:Hillary is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. She'll devastate Trump in any and all debates. But the problem is that Trump supporters don't care. They don't want intelligent, they want the spectacle and the empty promises that haven't even remotely been explained in any real detail by Trump. He's white, rich, been on tv and he sounds angry about all them damn minorities. That's all they need.

Let's just hope there numbers are too small to make a president.

They are. Trump has historically bad favorability numbers for a nominee.

<Rip feverishly looks for another poll that contradicts that>

Remember that Clinton's unfavorables include Republicans who have been taught to see her as the Devil since 1992. Sanders' numbers would be in a similar spot after a few weeks of actual attack ads.

So now Trump is claiming that Cruz's father was an ally of Lee Harvey Oswald. I saw the headline and assumed it was a parody. It wasn't.

I seem to make this mistake almost daily now.

Poe's Law writ large.

I'd heard Trump saying it was actually Ted Cruz's father that convinced George Lucas to edit Star Wars and have Greedo shoot first.

Also, Cocaine starts with a C, Cruz starts with a C. Cruz uses cocaine.

Anyway, now Trump is citing National Enquirer articles as facts...and his followers aren't going, "Wait...what?".

I'm back to siding with RM9. These people are f'ing morons.

hepcat wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

hepcat wrote:Hillary is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. She'll devastate Trump in any and all debates. But the problem is that Trump supporters don't care. They don't want intelligent, they want the spectacle and the empty promises that haven't even remotely been explained in any real detail by Trump. He's white, rich, been on tv and he sounds angry about all them damn minorities. That's all they need.

Let's just hope there numbers are too small to make a president.

They are. Trump has historically bad favorability numbers for a nominee.

<Rip feverishly looks for another poll that contradicts that>

Why would he need that? Don't you know that it's too early for polls to mean anything? Unless they support Rip's position.

Sssshhhhhh! I'm trying to get to a dozen reposts of his quote on that before Friday. Don't scare him off!

It's been somewhat frightening to watch my Republican friends start to coalesce around Trump. These are people who, a couple of months ago, claimed they would never vote for Trump in a million years. I had a co-worker who joked a few weeks ago about moving to Canada if Trump was the nominee come up and tell me how great Trump's organizations are and how he's not as racist as everybody thinks.

I think when you have to defend your candidate by saying "he's not as racist as everybody thinks," you've already lost.

The only family holdout so far is my dad, who I believe at this point would rather have Hillary in office than Trump. He's rabidly conservative on the issues of gun control, foreign policy, etc. but I think even he has grown disgusted with Trump's brand of cloaked (or not so cloaked) racism and misogyny. My dad also works with and is friends with a lot of Latino workers, and he gets really riled up when Trump starts spewing his wall-building nonsense.

YellowKing wrote:It's been somewhat frightening to watch my Republican friends start to coalesce around Trump. These are people who, a couple of months ago, claimed they would never vote for Trump in a million years. I had a co-worker who joked a few weeks ago about moving to Canada if Trump was the nominee come up and tell me how great Trump's organizations are and how he's not as racist as everybody thinks.

I think when you have to defend your candidate by saying "he's not as racist as everybody thinks," you've already lost.

The only family holdout so far is my dad, who I believe at this point would rather have Hillary in office than Trump. He's rabidly conservative on the issues of gun control, foreign policy, etc. but I think even he has grown disgusted with Trump's brand of cloaked (or not so cloaked) racism and misogyny. My dad also works with and is friends with a lot of Latino workers, and he gets really riled up when Trump starts spewing his wall-building nonsense.

I mean, most people are pretty reliably partisan. So there's a large number of votes that are more or less "baked in" for either major party nominee, even if that nominee is an insane man like Trump. It's not entirely irrational either, insofar as each major party nominee (even if crazy) is *probably* going to push mostly for that party agenda, so if you strongly favor one party agenda over the other, there's a case to be made for voting for the nominee even if they're crazy.

That said, your case still demonstrates how nominating Trump is going to cost the GOP. I think it's fair to say that (notwithstanding 2008) you lean pretty reliably republican in presidential elections, and your dad as well (perhaps even more so). So Trump's nomination will probably cause you to not vote for president (it sounds like), and may even cause your dad to vote for Clinton (or perhaps stay out as well). Trump doesn't need to lose that many reliable Republican votes to put states like NC (where Obama won in 2008 and came close (IIRC) in 2012) in play for Clinton. And due to the electoral map, if Trump loses states like Virginia and NC, it's almost impossible for him to get to 270.

YellowKing wrote:It's been somewhat frightening to watch my Republican friends start to coalesce around Trump. These are people who, a couple of months ago, claimed they would never vote for Trump in a million years. I had a co-worker who joked a few weeks ago about moving to Canada if Trump was the nominee come up and tell me how great Trump's organizations are and how he's not as racist as everybody thinks.

You haven't, by any chance, seen trucks of giant pods around, have you?

Defiant wrote:

YellowKing wrote:It's been somewhat frightening to watch my Republican friends start to coalesce around Trump. These are people who, a couple of months ago, claimed they would never vote for Trump in a million years. I had a co-worker who joked a few weeks ago about moving to Canada if Trump was the nominee come up and tell me how great Trump's organizations are and how he's not as racist as everybody thinks.

You haven't, by any chance, seen trucks of giant pods around, have you?

Keep an eye out for a health inspector with 70's style hair.

Ahh desperate hope becomes you guys.

Not to worry, I will ask President Trump to make your executions merciful.

You should back up your belief he'll be president with a poll.

hepcat wrote:You should back up your belief he'll be president with a poll.

And polls on this forum are, indeed, considered "scientific" as long as they are created by a scientist. Don't we have a few of those around here?

hepcat wrote:You should back up your belief he'll be president with a poll.

Not a belief but a foreboding........

You're not really sure what "foreboding' means, are you?

hepcat wrote:You're not really sure what "foreboding' means, are you?

It means the same thing as "unskewed."

Holman wrote:Remember that Clinton's unfavorables include Republicans who have been taught to see her as the Devil since 1992. Sanders' numbers would be in a similar spot after a few weeks of actual attack ads.

Exactly. I think there are way more Republicans that hate Trump than there are Democrats who hate Hillary. Additionally, during this campaign cycle there has not been a "Never Hillary" movement.

One thing about the Bernie movement is that I've been hearing a whole bunch of socialist coming out of the closet and in a lot of circles throughout the country it is not an indictment of character to be one.

However, I still believe at this time a self admitted socialist can not win a general election.

hepcat wrote:You're not really sure what "foreboding' means, are you?

Actually I do. No doubt you are surprised by my belief that it is a "dark" event.

You just have to realize that I see it that way not because of Trump himself but do to the inevitable meltdown and so many libtards that will be determined to see it answered with destruction, violence, and as much chaos as they can create.

If there is one thing you can count on from them is that they will become anarchists the second they realize they won't get their way. I don't relish in it but have accepted that it is inevitable.

Rip wrote:libtards

Really?

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:You're not really sure what "foreboding' means, are you?

Actually I do. No doubt you are surprised by my belief that it is a "dark" event.

You just have to realize that I see it that way not because of Trump himself but do to the inevitable meltdown and so many libtards that will be determined to see it answered with destruction, violence, and as much chaos as they can create.

If there is one thing you can count on from them is that they will become anarchists the second they realize they won't get their way. I don't relish in it but have accepted that it is inevitable.

We survived 6 years of Republicans doing exactly that to Obama, why would Trump be any worse?

Rip wrote:
You just have to realize that I see it that way not because of Trump himself but do to the inevitable meltdown and so many libtards that will be determined to see it answered with destruction, violence, and as much chaos as they can create.

If there is one thing you can count on from them is that they will become anarchists the second they realize they won't get their way. I don't relish in it but have accepted that it is inevitable.

The problem being that it seems like you're looking for that on a forum where there aren't any "libtards". Just a bunch of folks who aren't as extreme right as you are.

However, I personally hope you stick around so I can bear witness to your inevitable eruption into fits of impotent rage as your arch nemesis Hillary Clinton becomes president. The amount of time you will spend searching for photos of the woman in unflattering poses will dwarf your heretofore Herculean efforts.

And we will all bathe in your tears of frustration, as we've heard that the sobs of the far right are full of anti aging vitamins.

Yes...yes...give us your tears, Rip....give them to us.