Trump Goes Full Retard

[hal2kilo]

You don't think this is why the great Orange One and the Republican party have themselves to blame for all of this?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-rejection-opposition-research-comes-back-haunt-him

As the public learned last night about new allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump, cartoonist Tom Tomorrow raised a good point: evidently, none of Trump’s Republican primary rivals “have ever heard of oppo research.”

 

[Fanatical Meat]

.

I'm willing to bet that a lower tax, fewer regulation, socially conservative party could absolutely win presidential elections going forward. The thing is that they seem to be caught between two poles, neither of which are appealing to normal voters. They have the ultra rich pole, which makes them focus their lower tax agenda almost exclusively on the ultra rich, and they have the culture war base that makes them think climate change is a UN conspiracy and that gay people are an existential threat to America. I know tons of people, even in NYC that would vote for a Republican if they were sane on just those three issues, none of which requires the Republicans to stop being conservative. There's just a difference between conservative and reality denying crazy.

This is a good point. Even one of Trumps PAC Ads talks about (my figure could be slightly off) Trumps tax plan lowers taxes 20% on working families and cuts the business tax rate from 35% to 20% (maybe 15%). My first thoughts after hearing this were:
a) this plan is unrealistic
b) I get a 20% cut and business gets a 50% cut?

 

[soundforbjt]

Ben Carson said it didn't matter whether the womens accusations were true or not, they could be taken care of at a later time.

 

[fskimospy]

This is a good point. Even one of Trumps PAC Ads talks about (my figure could be slightly off) Trumps tax plan lowers taxes 20% on working families and cuts the business tax rate from 35% to 20% (maybe 15%). My first thoughts after hearing this were:
a) this plan is unrealistic
b) I get a 20% cut and business gets a 50% cut?

Of course the problem is that the ad is a complete lie. His plan would do basically nothing for working families or in some cases they would pay even more. The tax cuts are overwhelmingly focused on the ultra rich. He could have just as easily crafted a tax cut that cost the exact same amount and cut taxes across the board for all Americans. He didn't do so.

 

[Mursilis]

It's consistently amazing to me how unwilling the GOP has been to craft a message that is palatable to a majority of the country. If they didn't have the luxury of midterm elections where turnout is vastly lower and geographic/gerrymandering advantages they would have been blown out a long time ago. It seems exceedingly dangerous to stay on that course.

I'm willing to bet that a lower tax, fewer regulation, socially conservative party could absolutely win presidential elections going forward. The thing is that they seem to be caught between two poles, neither of which are appealing to normal voters. They have the ultra rich pole, which makes them focus their lower tax agenda almost exclusively on the ultra rich, and they have the culture war base that makes them think climate change is a UN conspiracy and that gay people are an existential threat to America. I know tons of people, even in NYC that would vote for a Republican if they were sane on just those three issues, none of which requires the Republicans to stop being conservative. There's just a difference between conservative and reality denying crazy.

They've had a dearth of truly charismatic leaders since Reagan, figures who could both satisfy the faithful (more or less) but not alienate the rest of the country. I'm no fan of either (Bill) Clinton or Obama, but those guys had charisma, at least in comparison to anyone the GOP managed to trot out in the past few decades.

The GOP has also learned that in a two-party system, there's more than enough anger right now to allow them to ride the "we're the other party" wave indefinitely. They don't have to do anything more than be the "not-the-Dems" party and they'll guarantee themselves some base level of success. Sure, it won't get them the White House anytime soon, but it will help them win a lot of smaller races. As long as the Dems continue to promise far more than they can ever hope to deliver, they'll keep saving the GOP from the hole it keeps wanting to dig. The more amazing question to me is why the Dems keep saving the GOP from its own self-destruction.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Ben Carson said it didn't matter whether the womens accusations were true or not, they could be taken care of at a later time.

I wonder what Don would do if someone groped his beautiful wife?

 

[fskimospy]

They've had a dearth of truly charismatic leaders since Reagan, figures who could both satisfy the faithful (more or less) but not alienate the rest of the country. I'm no fan of either (Bill) Clinton or Obama, but those guys had charisma, at least in comparison to anyone the GOP managed to trot out in the past few decades.

The GOP has also learned that in a two-party system, there's more than enough anger right now to allow them to ride the "we're the other party" wave indefinitely. They don't have to do anything more than be the "not-the-Dems" party and they'll guarantee themselves some base level of success. Sure, it won't get them the White House anytime soon, but it will help them win a lot of smaller races. As long as the Dems continue to promise far more than they can ever hope to deliver, they'll keep saving the GOP from the hole it keeps wanting to dig. The more amazing question to me is why the Dems keep saving the GOP from its own self-destruction.

I don't think the Democrats face a competitive Republican Party in downballot elections due to overpromising, there are just major structural disadvantages for the Democrats in the House, Senate, and off-year elections. I mean in 2012 the Democrats won a majority of the House vote and that led to the Republicans having a 33 seat majority. Additionally the Republicans have relied on a smaller pool of voters that vote at higher rates for quite awhile now so off-year elections naturally benefit them. In the Senate, smaller more rural states that trend Republican have a natural over-representation.

In short, in the current situation downballot races are, for lack of a better word, 'rigged' in favor of Republicans. We can debate the merits of that, but the structural advantages are clear. When you add in hyper partisanship on top of that I think you end up in a situation where it's very difficult for the Republicans to ever entirely self destruct but it makes it very difficult for them to win nationwide races in my opinion.

 

[hal2kilo]

Ben Carson said it didn't matter whether the womens accusations were true or not, they could be taken care of at a later time.

I heard that interview on MSNBC satellite radio on the way into work this morning.

It was painful to listen to him dissemble. Saying we have to pay attention to the "train going over the cliff", instead of getting side tracked into Judo Christian morality conversations which don't belong in political discussions. (paraphrased)

 

[Mursilis]

I don't think the Democrats face a competitive Republican Party in downballot elections due to overpromising, there are just major structural disadvantages for the Democrats in the House, Senate, and off-year elections. I mean in 2012 the Democrats won a majority of the House vote and that led to the Republicans having a 33 seat majority. Additionally the Republicans have relied on a smaller pool of voters that vote at higher rates for quite awhile now so off-year elections naturally benefit them. In the Senate, smaller more rural states that trend Republican have a natural over-representation.

In short, in the current situation downballot races are, for lack of a better word, 'rigged' in favor of Republicans. We can debate the merits of that, but the structural advantages are clear. When you add in hyper partisanship on top of that I think you end up in a situation where it's very difficult for the Republicans to ever entirely self destruct but it makes it very difficult for them to win nationwide races in my opinion.

That's a factor, but there's a huge lesson in the fact that a complete clown like Trump has any support whatsoever, and it's indicative of the Dem's apparent lack of self-reflection. In a lot of ways, the Dems are poor winners - too arrogant, too smug, and too condescending toward a GOP base which used to belong to them. From Hilary's "deplorables" comment to the constant playing of the race card on (legitimate) issues like immigration, the Dems keeping pushing a large part of the working class back toward the GOP. Even unsophisticated people don't like being reminded they're dumber than average on a regular basis. You can say the House is "rigged" in favor of the GOP, but the Dems managed to hold it for ~40 years prior to 1994. The Dems used to do well enough in smaller elections; why can't they now?

 

[theeedude]

He is indeed, and he's been a disaster for the GOP, but they've mostly been shooting themselves in the foot for the last decade plus, so that's nothing new. Still, as was the case in the late 1990s, I suspect a Clinton will provide a rallying point for the GOP to save it from itself. Hilary will win in Nov. and while Trump will fade away, Hilary's huge unfavorability ratings (even within her own party) will not, and might likely be worse in 2020 when she's failed to deliver all the sunshine and roses she promises. Assuming the GOP can manage to nominate a sensible candidate in 2020 (and there's no certainty they will), Clinton will have a tough campaign for re-election.

GOP won't nominate a sensible candidate in 2020. The party is in a death spiral, they have alienated the sensible moderates, who may vote GOP in elections, but aren't registered Republicans who participate in the primaries. Also, the conservative media clown show complex provides incentives for demagogues to enter the primaries, so the moderates get crowded out. Now, you may say, they nominated Romney in 2012, but begrudgingly so because Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum peaked too early, split the deplorables vote, and flamed out. Note that Jon Huntsman, who was the most sensible and likely to beat Obama, got no traction.

But 2020 is post Trump. How much of Romney's primary vote is still in the GOP?

 

[VRAMdemon]

During the last election, Obama made the better use of social media, as a straightforward method of mobilizing his voters.

This election is where information bubbles first showed their effect. Especially the effects of selecting info and facts, conspiracy theories and multiplying rage.

And the effect is terrible. Not sure how this ever becomes right again.

 

[Mursilis]

GOP won't nominate a sensible candidate in 2020. The party is in a death spiral, they have alienated the sensible moderates, who may vote GOP in elections, but aren't registered Republicans who participate in the primaries. Also, the conservative media clown show complex provides incentives for demagogues to enter the primaries, so the moderates get crowded out. Now, you may say, they nominated Romney in 2012, but begrudgingly so because Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum peaked too early, split the deplorables vote, and flamed out. Note that Jon Huntsman, who was the most sensible and likely to beat Obama, got no traction.

But 2020 is post Trump. How much of Romney's primary vote is still in the GOP?

It's hard to know what's going to rise out of the ashes of the GOP in 2020, but unless it's another Trump, the GOP nominee is going to have a decent shot in the next race. Hilary's liabilities will still be there. She better hope she can perform an economic miracle in the next four years and ride a rising tide back to the White House, because otherwise, there's still going to be a ton of voter discontent.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a factor, but there's a huge lesson in the fact that a complete clown like Trump has any support whatsoever, and it's indicative of the Dem's apparent lack of self-reflection. In a lot of ways, the Dems are poor winners - too arrogant, too smug, and too condescending toward a GOP base which used to belong to them. From Hilary's "deplorables" comment to the constant playing of the race card on (legitimate) issues like immigration, the Dems keeping pushing a large part of the working class back toward the GOP. Even unsophisticated people don't like being reminded they're dumber than average on a regular basis.

I think that regardless of what the Democrats do or the Republicans do the floor on any GOP candidate nationally is somewhere around 40% or so due to hyperpartisanship in the US. While I agree that it seems that Republican voters view Democrats as arrogant and that probably alienates some people to me that is an output of hyperpartisanship and not an input. I believe it's a case of people rationalizing their partisanship.

You can say the House is "rigged" in favor of the GOP, but the Dems managed to hold it for ~40 years prior to 1994. The Dems used to do well enough in smaller elections; why can't they now?

Smaller, rural areas used to vote heavily for Democrats in the South for years until the 80s/early 90s when the party realignment was complete. What used to be a 'rigged' system for the Democrats became a 'rigged' system for the Republicans. The advantage was always there, it just benefits the other party now. When you add gerrymandering and increasing population density in cities on top of it you get a large structural GOP advantage. I mean specific causes aside, surely you can agree that when one party gets a majority of the vote but a substantial minority of the representation there is a structural disadvantage at play there, no?

 

[fskimospy]

It's hard to know what's going to rise out of the ashes of the GOP in 2020, but unless it's another Trump, the GOP nominee is going to have a decent shot in the next race. Hilary's liabilities will still be there. She better hope she can perform an economic miracle in the next four years and ride a rising tide back to the White House, because otherwise, there's still going to be a ton of voter discontent.

It probably depends a lot on the economy. If the real wage gains of the last year or so continue during her presidency it will probably be a cakewalk for her. If they don't I imagine the Republicans will present a formidable challenge.

 

[theeedude]

It's hard to know what's going to rise out of the ashes of the GOP in 2020, but unless it's another Trump, the GOP nominee is going to have a decent shot in the next race. Hilary's liabilities will still be there. She better hope she can perform an economic miracle in the next four years and ride a rising tide back to the White House, because otherwise, there's still going to be a ton of voter discontent.

A lot of voters have been sold this lie that if Hillary is elected the world will end, so simply showing up for work and doing a reasonably competent job will exceed those voters' expectations. Hillary got reelected for NY Senate by a higher margin than she came in, meaning she won over more conservative rural voters in upstate NY with her work. Also, GOP House will make sure to make Hillary looks like the only adult in the room.

 

[pauldun170]

Hard reality...
There is nothing Trump could do or say or be caught doing that would change one mind of one single Trump supporter.
Not a single thing.
I've learned this the hard way within my own family.
A long litany of their concern for the family values, for their children, for the morals of family and children, and THEN..... they add, "That is why I support Donald Trump".
And I go.... W T F ??? O M G !!!!!!

Seriously,
remember that 1978 film INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS?
Has this possibly happened?
Has anyone noticed strange weird flowering pods around the home?
Especially around the homes of Donald Trump supporters?
I always thought Trump looked like a big fat orange pod.

I'm laughing out of sadness...but still laughing
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm willing to bet that a lower tax, fewer regulation, socially conservative party could absolutely win presidential elections going forward. ........... There's just a difference between conservative and reality denying crazy.

Is there? I see those only as symptoms of the full blown disease we are witnessing, a disease that will lead always to the rearing of the same ugly head. I see the rational analysis you present here as the liberal enabling blindness to threat, the liberal brain defect. It is typical for rational people to assume that others are or want to be motivated by reason. Others see that as a weakness that can be played.

 

[trenchfoot]

Of course the problem is that the ad is a complete lie. His plan would do basically nothing for working families or in some cases they would pay even more. The tax cuts are overwhelmingly focused on the ultra rich. He could have just as easily crafted a tax cut that cost the exact same amount and cut taxes across the board for all Americans. He didn't do so.

And this, IMO, is the most important reason why any and all big business leaders would care to run for political office. Their highest priority is to cut taxes on themselves and their business buddies. Next on their priority list is to get rid of any and all regulations that prevent them from running rampant on the average consumer. And of course, next but not the least is their deepest desire to dismantle any and all essential social safety net programs in order to privatize and make yuuuuge profits out of them.

Big business buddies Bush and Cheney proved this beyond the slightest doubt.

Trump is no different in this regard.

 

[SMOGZINN]

And of course, next but not the least is their deepest desire to dismantle any and all essential social safety net programs in order to privatize and make yuuuuge profits out of them.

Don't forget that dismantling economic safety nets increases worker insecurity and creates desperation in the work force allowing large businesses to push wages down. That is a whole lot of what the hire-layoff-rehire cycle we went through in much of the late 90's was about. Remove the safety nets and that system would work wonders to suppress worker's ability to demand competitive wages and benefits in the labor market.

 

[Puffnstuff]

GOP won't nominate a sensible candidate in 2020. The party is in a death spiral, they have alienated the sensible moderates, who may vote GOP in elections, but aren't registered Republicans who participate in the primaries. Also, the conservative media clown show complex provides incentives for demagogues to enter the primaries, so the moderates get crowded out. Now, you may say, they nominated Romney in 2012, but begrudgingly so because Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum peaked too early, split the deplorables vote, and flamed out. Note that Jon Huntsman, who was the most sensible and likely to beat Obama, got no traction.

But 2020 is post Trump. How much of Romney's primary vote is still in the GOP?

The GOP's best hope was Ron Paul who they couldn't run off fast enough to their own demise.

 

[agent00f]

It's consistently amazing to me how unwilling the GOP has been to craft a message that is palatable to a majority of the country. If they didn't have the luxury of midterm elections where turnout is vastly lower and geographic/gerrymandering advantages they would have been blown out a long time ago. It seems exceedingly dangerous to stay on that course.

I'm willing to bet that a lower tax, fewer regulation, socially conservative party could absolutely win presidential elections going forward. The thing is that they seem to be caught between two poles, neither of which are appealing to normal voters. They have the ultra rich pole, which makes them focus their lower tax agenda almost exclusively on the ultra rich, and they have the culture war base that makes them think climate change is a UN conspiracy and that gay people are an existential threat to America. I know tons of people, even in NYC that would vote for a Republican if they were sane on just those three issues, none of which requires the Republicans to stop being conservative. There's just a difference between conservative and reality denying crazy.

Just a head up that Trump easily won their primary.

Ben Carson said it didn't matter whether the womens accusations were true or not, they could be taken care of at a later time.

It'll remain one of the world's great mysteries how this guys was ever good at brain surgery.

 

[fskimospy]

Just a head up that Trump easily won their primary.

He sure did. How's the presidential election going for him?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just a head up that Trump easily won their primary.



It'll remain one of the world's great mysteries how this guys was ever good at brain surgery.

Ben is an Idiot Savant. He's incredibly good at one thing but useless at everything else.

 

[rh71]

If you ever watched him on tv before (ie. The Apprentice), he can't get out of the way of his own ego. Threatening to sue anyone who puts him down is just another example of this.

Yes, let's put someone who wouldn't hesitate for a second to argue on the internet into the oval office. This trainwreck humming along is the only reason they still put him on the news everyday. Not because he's an actual threat to take office.

 

[agent00f]

He sure did. How's the presidential election going for him?

Your claim was "It's consistently amazing to me how unwilling the GOP has been to craft a message that is palatable to a majority of the country. "

They literally had latinos in the primary field and other assorted well-researched candidates. They lost badly to the demagogue.