CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2016: God is Dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2016: God is Dead - Page 227

post #11301 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

I don't know that there's truly been a Dem analog of Trump, given how utterly uninformed Trump is about...well, everything.

 

That's why it is so difficult to come up with a counterpart.  I always want to say, like, Michael Moore, but he at least is a reasonably intelligent and informed person.

 

Maybe if someone like Jared Leto ran for President...

post #11302 of 22490

Michael Moore is a bit of a blowhard, but he's intelligent, conscientious, and has used his media presence to draw attention to horrible problems. He hasn't (long list of shockingly immoral things Trump has done and claimed he will do). 

 

Trying to find a Democrat equivalent to Trump will just become an exercise in false equivalency - no-one remotely as unfit to govern as Trump has ever risen as high among the Democratic Party as he has among the Republican one. 

 

Your best bet finding his closest equivalents is among the idiot, petty dictators that have been dime a dozen in South America and the Middle East over the last century or so. 

post #11303 of 22490
I do think that Clinton is the closest approximation to Trump in terms of baggage. It's very different and she's not the same, so I'm not making a false equivalency, but Clinton has to deal with a virulent strain of "perception is reality" and she rarely helps herself on that score.

If Bernie had bothered to expand his messaging in the campaign and boned up on foreign policy, Trump would have been fucked seven ways from Sunday (I question whether Trump would have gotten the nomination had Sanders steamrolled Clinton in the primary).
post #11304 of 22490
Clinton managed to lose 19 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses, with the DNC's heavy thumb on the scales in her favor, and with the press openly deriding Sanders voters as too stupid to be allowed to vote. Outside of Wall Street, she's nobody's idea of a strong candidate. How bad a candidate is she? A country where white cops can hunt black children like deer and get away with it elected its first black President in spite of her. Clinton is the Democratic nominee that Republicans have been waiting to run against since 1992. That's why the GOP candidates came out of the woodwork last year.

A competent campaign, for a halfway sane Republican candidate who didn't openly court the Ku Klux Klan and lend vocal support to the most violent Brownshirts at his rallies, could have eaten Clinton for breakfast. If John Kasich had been the Republican nominee, we'd see Democratic Senators, Representatives, and state Governors down ticket shopping their resumes around by now. Instead, the party nominated Trump. Never mind Trump's response when he loses on election night, I want to see Priebus'. That guy must go home and just kick the shit out of his furniture every night over the golden opportunity his party has squandered, while he was nominally in charge of it.
_
Edited by Reasor - 8/22/16 at 1:33pm
post #11305 of 22490

Agreed about Kasich. If he had won the nomination he would be the next President. Easily.

post #11306 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

Agreed about Kasich. If he had won the nomination he would be the next President. Easily.

 

Yup. In some ways I find him scarier than Trump simply because he (Kasich) comes across so reasonably you don't realize he's pretty far right. (For instance: he's defunded Planned Parenthood in Ohio.)

 

But agreed: Kasich as the nominee beats Hillary.

post #11307 of 22490
Man, if failure in politics worked anything like failure in the real world, Priebus and half of the Republican top brass wouldn't be able to get hired at Taco Bell after this.
post #11308 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

 

Yup. In some ways I find him scarier than Trump simply because he (Kasich) comes across so reasonably you don't realize he's pretty far right. (For instance: he's defunded Planned Parenthood in Ohio.)

 

But agreed: Kasich as the nominee beats Hillary.

He's the dream Republican candidate, able to seem somewhat reasonable in front of cameras while still happily signing the harshest right-wing legislation possible. But ultimately, the Republicans' "you aint no better'n me" wing took over.

post #11309 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post

He's the dream Republican candidate, able to seem somewhat reasonable in front of cameras while still happily signing the harshest right-wing legislation possible. But ultimately, the Republicans' "you aint no better'n me" wing took over.

That's the heart of it; the Republican Party has driven itself into the ground at the national level by trying to retain the votes of the worst people it could find.

The press has entirely misread Trump's "what do black voters have to lose" speech from Friday. There was no outreach to black voters there; the outreach was to the crowd he was addressing directly. He was giving his white audience his assurance that voting for him didn't mean they were racist in his eyes, and that four years would be all President Trump would need to straighten these misguided negroes out, and get them to embrace Reaganomics in their hearts and start voting Republican like Real Americans TM .
post #11310 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
 

 

That's why it is so difficult to come up with a counterpart.  I always want to say, like, Michael Moore, but he at least is a reasonably intelligent and informed person.

 

Maybe if someone like Jared Leto ran for President...

 

Jared Leto is probably the closest anyone has come.  The equivalent certainly wouldn't be a career politician, or even activist like Moore.  And while I take Johnny's point about Hillary's negatives as a candidate, that comparison misses the point I was making.  Trump's unique strengths and weaknesses are all tied up in being such an unprecedented political novice.  Hillary's come from the exact opposite, from being such a known quantity, at a point where rancor at the establishment is spiking.

 

I also don't think that Bernie has a walk in the general election.  Yes, he theoretically has all the same advantages, but I think he also has more trouble pivoting from primary to general election mode, which makes it harder for him to take advantage of Trump's complete failure to do so.  Bernie seems to have one gear, which is to put his head down and plow forward no matter what, and it served him well when he was trudging uphill against a party that didn't want him at the table.  But would it allow him to simply sit back while Trump imploded for weeks at a time?  Or would it have kept him out there, competing to drag the spotlight away from his opponent's fuck ups?  It's all conjecture, but Hillary appears to have the discipline to hang back and maybe never come off the ropes if she doesn't have to, even if her team has spent months planning a counterpunch. 

 

On the other hand, Bernie certainly wouldn't have the same liabilities re: Wikileaks, regardless of their overall agenda.

post #11311 of 22490
I imagine the chief difference in a general election with Sanders as his party's nominee would be Trump saying mind-blowing things about Jews every time he opens his mouth.
post #11312 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Jared Leto is probably the closest anyone has come.  The equivalent certainly wouldn't be a career politician, or even activist like Moore

 

In contrast to Trump he'd have to be young, dreamy... bro-ish enough to attract the dudes.  C'mon, Schwartz we can create this guy!

 

Wait... is it... is it fucking Tyler Durden?

post #11313 of 22490

The true inverse would be Dave Franco.  And he would never leave his safe space to actually hit the campaign trail.

post #11314 of 22490
I actually think Lena Dunham would be the Donkey's Trumpian equivalent. Self-obsessed and privilged with loads of personal baggage, but with a habit of insinuating herself in progressive political discussions.
post #11315 of 22490

Funnily enough, Rosie O' Donnell might be the best liberal equivalent to Trump.  9/11 truth-er who loves to tweet.  Seems like the type who gets most of their news from Facebook and memes.  Known for strong opinions and loud boorish behavior.  And honestly, they kinda look alike. Same "smile".

post #11316 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

Eric Trump on stagnant wages:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-immigration-stance-flip-flop-227260

 

 

He also suggested that Obama wouldn't have visited Louisiana if his father hadn't done so first, which is a ridiculous accusation.  Eric Trump isn't the brightest bulb out there.

 

Trump's "presidential" behavior lasted for less than twenty-four hours.  Shocking.  Imagine if Clinton's Twitter account was sending out shit like this?

 

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/767685048703279104

post #11317 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post

Eric Trump on stagnant wages:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-immigration-stance-flip-flop-227260



You've got to watch those Syrian refugees. They've got, you know, time travel technology.
post #11318 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I imagine the chief difference in a general election with Sanders as his party's nominee would be Trump saying mind-blowing things about Jews every time he opens his mouth.

#1 reason I'm glad HC is the next president.  I actually regret voting for Bernie, because a Jewish POTUS would have made my life a living hell.  After seeing what black America went through with Obama, I'll take a pass.  It's good enough for me that Raimi, Spielberg, and Shatner/Nimoy are Jewish ... I'm actually more excited about a Jewish Wonder Woman than a Jewish POTUS.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I actually think Lena Dunham would be the Donkey's Trumpian equivalent. Self-obsessed and privilged with loads of personal baggage, but with a habit of insinuating herself in progressive political discussions.

 

As the resident Dunham apologist, I'll argue that she's actually a relatively talented writer and marginally self-aware.  I don't see her maturing into a statesman like Al Franken, but I think she'll have a long career as a quasi-political "issues" figure like Carrie Fischer or Barbra Streisand.  If I had to name a left-wing equivalent to Trump, I'd probably go with Oliver Stone.

post #11319 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
 

 

He also suggested that Obama wouldn't have visited Louisiana if his father hadn't done so first, which is a ridiculous accusation.  Eric Trump isn't the brightest bulb out there.

 

Trump's "presidential" behavior lasted for less than twenty-four hours.  Shocking.  Imagine if Clinton's Twitter account was sending out shit like this?

 

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/767685048703279104

 

Wow.  Stay classy Don.

post #11320 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

#1 reason I'm glad HC is the next president.  I actually regret voting for Bernie, because a Jewish POTUS would have made my life a living hell.  After seeing what black America went through with Obama, I'll take a pass.  It's good enough for me that Raimi, Spielberg, and Shatner/Nimoy are Jewish ... I'm actually more excited about a Jewish Wonder Woman than a Jewish POTUS.


Respect!


post #11321 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trav McGee View Post

Trump's presidential campaign office in a key Colorado county is being run by a 12-year-old boy.

"Last year at school, kids would bully me."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. And I live in the Denver part of Jefferson County. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Seriously though. If the Dems some how lose Colorado....
post #11322 of 22490

VEEP wouldn't even consider something like that as a subplot. Too unbelievable.

post #11323 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post


Ha ha ha ha ha ha. And I live in the Denver part of Jefferson County. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Seriously though. If the Dems some how lose Colorado....


Right now Clinton is polling double digits over Trump in CO, and over 50%.

 

And speaking as someone who lived in CO until 2009 and still has a ton of family there (including my entire immediate family), the CO GOP couldn't find dogshit at the Puppy Bowl. The Republicans have completely written off the Senate race against Bennett, who really was eminently beatable. They are just a stunningly incompetent bunch even for the GOP.

post #11324 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

VEEP wouldn't even consider something like that as a subplot. Too unbelievable.

Definitely AD levels of reality, there.
post #11325 of 22490
Doogie Howser, Campaign Chairman.
post #11326 of 22490

You know... If Trump is actually two kids standing on each others' shoulders with a suit draped over them to hide the bottom kid, it would explain SO much. The ADD, the temper tantrums, the random stupid ideas, the TINY HANDS.

 

It all makes sense now!!!

post #11327 of 22490

9E67E0B74.jpg

 

chibitr_dai7.jpg

 

It also explains why the KKK find him so appealing!

post #11328 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

You know... If Trump is actually two kids standing on each others' shoulders with a suit draped over them to hide the bottom kid, it would explain SO much. The ADD, the temper tantrums, the random stupid ideas, the TINY HANDS.

It all makes sense now!!!

It's the most efficient way to run for office. The bottom kid can be tweeting furious while the top slams his tiny Hitler hands up and down on the podium.
post #11329 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
 

You know... If Trump is actually two kids standing on each others' shoulders with a suit draped over them to hide the bottom kid, it would explain SO much. The ADD, the temper tantrums, the random stupid ideas, the TINY HANDS.

 

It all makes sense now!!!

post #11330 of 22490
post #11331 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post


Right now Clinton is polling double digits over Trump in CO, and over 50%.

And speaking as someone who lived in CO until 2009 and still has a ton of family there (including my entire immediate family), the CO GOP couldn't find dogshit at the Puppy Bowl. The Republicans have completely written off the Senate race against Bennett, who really was eminently beatable. They are just a stunningly incompetent bunch even for the GOP.

Yeah, I know Colorado has pretty much turned blue. I'm just being cautious, can't take anything for granted. And yeah, the Colorado GOP is a total shit show. Just look at how they bungled the Presidential Primaries.
post #11332 of 22490

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-immigration-deportation-20160822-snap-story.html

 

So Trump wants to deport the illegal immigrants again? He changes his position more than his underwear nowadays. 

post #11333 of 22490

 

If that's what I think it is it's just the one poll, which uses kind of different methods, and Trump hasn't seen a similar bump in the important state polls.  (Least that's basically what I read on 538 yesterday.)

post #11334 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bain View Post
 

Vincent Adultman is a saint! A saint!  He'd be a much better President than Trump, and unlike ol' Donny he knows how to actually run a business factory.

post #11335 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
 

 

He also suggested that Obama wouldn't have visited Louisiana if his father hadn't done so first, which is a ridiculous accusation.  Eric Trump isn't the brightest bulb out there.

 

Trump's "presidential" behavior lasted for less than twenty-four hours.  Shocking.  Imagine if Clinton's Twitter account was sending out shit like this?

 

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/767685048703279104

 

It's so weird that even Scarborough and company have turned against Trump. I mean, not too long ago, Morning Joe might as well have been an official campaign outlet. What does it say about Trump that he can't even keep people like them on board? And it happened not because of any crazy thing he's done, either -- they became alienated only because Trump's a drama junkie addicted to conflict. All he had to do was be nice to them and they'd still be carrying water for the guy.

post #11336 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

That's why it is so difficult to come up with a counterpart.  I always want to say, like, Michael Moore, but he at least is a reasonably intelligent and informed person.

Maybe if someone like Jared Leto ran for President...

I've got one for you who was actually a contestant on the Celebrity Apprentice... Rod Blagojevich.
post #11337 of 22490

This is why I'm not crazy about Clinton. Either one of them.

 

Yes, it's standard politics (or just life): when you donate huge sums of money to a cause, it's understood this generally gets you access to the powers that be in that cause. No one is surprised by this. ANd there's no evidence that policy was affected by the donors.

 

But come on. This shit just looks bad. And rightly so. And the Clintons know it. And they're doing their usual deflecting. 

 

Additionally, all this does is raise valid concerns over the emails she destroyed and what they contained.

 

I don't think HRC is Boss Tweed in a skirt as far as corruption goes. I do think the Clintons have consistently acted in ways that communicate a disdain for the rules and laws that apply to..well, everyone. It's this arrogance, this circuitously justified self protectionism, that gives off a "trustworthy?" vibe.

post #11338 of 22490

The thing is, that's how politics works. It's a Favor Bank. I contribute to your campaign, maybe host a fund raiser for you, maybe even speak out in public on your behalf. And in exchange, you're going to totally ignore me? 

 

There's always that grey line where such favors conflict with the Public Good, and it's a very large grey area often going into the black. 

 

For some counter examples, Obama took a LOT of money from Wall Street and Hedge Fund managers in 2008, and a lot of them felt shut out by Obama afterwards, leading many to support Romney and whine in public. 


The ultimate example is Lyndon Johnson, who cultivated White Racist Southerners for decades, but once he became a full term President in 1964, he did a 180 and ram rodded the biggest Civil Rights Legislation since the Civil War. And as a direct result, fundamentally realigned politics in the US (and destroyed the Democratic Party for decades). 

 

I don't see Clinton being that kind of force for change that Johnson was, though just maybe, someone with her baggage and history could be the perfect President to champion Women's and Children's rights in a way we haven't seen yet. 

post #11339 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

The thing is, that's how politics works. It's a Favor Bank. I contribute to your campaign, maybe host a fund raiser for you, maybe even speak out in public on your behalf. And in exchange, you're going to totally ignore me? 


Right. The problem isn't so much that donors asked for access; it's the deleted emails, the vagueness by which Clinton and her attorneys defined "personal use," and so on. The Clintons have a reputation and history of pushing the letter of the law and rules and protesting too much. 

 

I know she'll be a competent executive and I don't think she'll Ruin The Country, but I remain pretty unhappy about our choices this year. 

post #11340 of 22490

A couple of new polls this morning. NBC has Clinton at +5 in the general, and she's 16 points ahead in Virginia according to a Roanoke poll. In other words, that L.A. Times poll was a little high.

 

That said, I'll be voting for Hillary, but there's stuff that makes me groan like what Michael is saying. I'm a registered Democrat. I voted Bernie in the primary. I'd rather him or Warren. But I'm warming up to Hillary and to Kaine, and I just want everything possible to be pushed against Trump. He's a boogeyman. I'm terrified of him, no matter how much hot air he has.

 

I have a disability. He already mocked that group. I was bullied in school, and I don't like bullies. I could list a whole other slew of reasons, but that's my personal stake.

post #11341 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterTarantino View Post
 

That said, I'll be voting for Hillary, but there's stuff that makes me groan like what Michael is saying. I'm a registered Democrat. I voted Bernie in the primary. I'd rather him or Warren. But I'm warming up to Hillary and to Kaine, and I just want everything possible to be pushed against Trump. He's a boogeyman. I'm terrified of him, no matter how much hot air he has.

 

I think what's truly frightening about a Trump win is the very real possibility that it becomes a Pence administration because Trump has no interest in the details of governing. Pence is the real evil deal, and with a Republican controlled Congress, there's a lot of damage he could do.

post #11342 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 


Right. The problem isn't so much that donors asked for access; it's the deleted emails, the vagueness by which Clinton and her attorneys defined "personal use," and so on. The Clintons have a reputation and history of pushing the letter of the law and rules and protesting too much. 

 

I know she'll be a competent executive and I don't think she'll Ruin The Country, but I remain pretty unhappy about our choices this year. 

 

 

Oh I'm with you on that. It's been a cliche for way too long, but this year it's really the case that the election will go to the candidate hated less than all the others. 

post #11343 of 22490

I'm not voting for Hillary, I'm voting against Donald.  The only way to ensure that Donald does not win is to vote FOR Hillary, and I have made peace with this.  If there was a viable Republican candidate on the ticket, they'd probably get my vote.

post #11344 of 22490

Meanwhile, Rudy Guiliani continues to dump on his own reputation. 

post #11345 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

I think what's truly frightening about a Trump win is the very real possibility that it becomes a Pence administration because Trump has no interest in the details of governing. Pence is the real evil deal, and with a Republican controlled Congress, there's a lot of damage he could do.

 

Yeah, he's another one. Ultra-conservative, misogynist douche.

 

I do echo the sentiments that Kasich was likely the RNC's best bet, and while your case against him was scary, he struck me as reasonable compared to Trump, Cruz, and Christie (who, LET ME TELL YOU, is a fucking buffoon).

post #11346 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

I'm not voting for Hillary, I'm voting against Donald.  The only way to ensure that Donald does not win is to vote FOR Hillary, and I have made peace with this.  If there was a viable Republican candidate on the ticket, they'd probably get my vote.

Define "viable".

IMO, the Republican Party in this country doesn't have one positive aspect to its' name.
They painted themselves as the party of the military, financial responsibility and personal freedom...and they have shown themselves to be incompetent at all these things.
I'd argue that it is ideologically impossible for the GOP to be 'viable'.
Edited by VTRan - 8/23/16 at 8:48am
post #11347 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


Define "viable".

IMO, the Republican Party in this country doesn't have one positive aspect to it's name.
They painted themselves as the party of the military, financial responsibility and personal freedom...and they have shown themselves to be incompetent at all these things.
I'd argue that it is ideologically impossible for the GOP to be 'viable'.


"Ideologically" don't really mean squat.

 

If a Republican candidate managed to get the nom without blowing all the dogwhistles, at least paying lip service to immigration and criminal justice reform (even if they had no intention of following through) and basically not saying anything outlandish or crazy, they're perfectly viable regardless of their true ideology, especially against a candidate as disliked as Clinton.

 

Basically:  The bar is low enough that all they have to manage is "don't be offensive, or at least don't offend a particular segment that's too big to overwhelmingly lose."

 

Your post is basically ignoring that about 40-45% of voters in the US are already inclined to vote for a Republican.  That makes them "viable" right out of the gate.  Even Trump is probably going to break 40-42% simply because of the "R" next to his name, and if he hadn't completely alienated women (even white women aren't really voting for him) we'd have a real horse-race here despite having alienated hispanics and blacks.

post #11348 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


Define "viable".

IMO, the Republican Party in this country doesn't have one positive aspect to it's name.
They painted themselves as the party of the military, financial responsibility and personal freedom...and they have shown themselves to be incompetent at all these things.
I'd argue that it is ideologically impossible for the GOP to be 'viable'.

 

Nobody who was put forth as a Republican candidate this year was 'viable' to me.  Maybe it'll happen again, but for now I'm pretty firmly on the Democratic side until the Republicans get their heads out of their asses and stop pandering to the nutjobs and the uber religious.

 

Also: kindly dial it back.

post #11349 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


Define "viable".

IMO, the Republican Party in this country doesn't have one positive aspect to it's name.

 

Define "possessive pronoun."

post #11350 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
 

 

Nobody who was put forth as a Republican candidate this year was 'viable' to me.  Maybe it'll happen again, but for now I'm pretty firmly on the Democratic side until the Republicans get their heads out of their asses and stop pandering to the nutjobs and the uber religious.

 

Also: kindly dial it back.


'dial it back'.....really?  <sarcastic eye roll>

 

You made a comment about the GOP putting forth a viable candidate and wondered what sort of criteria that so-called viability consisted of. It was a simple question.

 

Regarding the GOP pandering to nutjobs and uber religious....fine, they get cut out of the party...what's left? You have the neo-libertarian/Frieidman/freemarket-solves-all contingent....the 'trickle-down' theory of economics that has been shown to be highly detrimental and ineffectual at it's core. 

 

Again, I ask...what sort of positive, non-regressive policies do 'modern' Republicans bring to the political table in this country?

 

FWIW, I do have my problems with the Dems but at least they are attempting to look forward. That accounts for something and is a hell of alot better than hoping for things to be like the 'good old days'.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2016: God is Dead