Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[BasilValentine]

You can and should blame Trump for believing so much of the nonsense that is spouted by the alternative media, but the deeper problem is with the outlets themselves. The right wing has created its own echo chamber which is increasingly disconnected from reality. There are millions of Americans who share Trump's outré beliefs — which helps to explain why his presidential campaign has done better than expected.

I'm not sure belief has anything to do with what Trump espouses or that the concept of truth versus falsehood has anything to do with how he approaches reality. Words to him seem merely to be  means by which one extracts material assets, or forces advantageous concessions of power and recognition, from other humans. That is to say, he is a narcissistic sociopath. Thinking he is a human personality in the full sense is a grave error. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

a narcissistic sociopath.

Watch out! the scorn heaped on my head by the resident GMG Thought Police for saying the same thing months ago was a wonder to behold. Do a print preview of the thread and search for "sociopath." At times one has be very careful when one says true things on this board.

[San Antone]

But if the Republican Party learned anything from 2012 it was that they needed to be a lot more inclusive, which suggests that the Republican Party is not very good at learning.

If Trump loses to the least popular D candidate in decades, I'm not sure that "more candidates like Trump" should be the lesson for Rs anyway.

Barring a Trump win, my guess is that their 2020 nominee will be somebody like Tom Cotton.

A "candidate like Trump" as in someone who would represent a change from the business-as-usual party regulars. 

Trump's problem has been his complete disregard for common sense messaging.   His need to respond to every perceived slight is tedious and beneith the diginity of the office for which he is campaigning.  Basically, his ideas about trade, taxes, immigration and security are being buried by his adolescent and irratic tirades. Hence his inability to remain competitve against Hillary Clinton despite her enormous negatives.

The phrase "political elites" is shorthand for the corporate donars and their lobbyists, big-name journalists and opinion swayers, and the leadership of elected officials and other Beltway insiders.  They all go to the same cocktail parties and are so threatened by what Trump represents, his opposition transcends partisanship and aligns all insiders against the rabble rouser who is storming the gates to the palace.  It exposes how little really separates Democrats and Republicans who all suck at the same corporate teat and have the most to lose by a Trump victory.

[Karl Henning]

Just an example of his schtick which brings guffaws and cheers from his core supporters, but which sounds like rubbish to anyone who hasn't drunk the El Tupé Kool-Aid:

I think CNN, they call it the Clinton News Network that's why the ratings aren't doing very well.

Where "they call it" means "I'm saying that, but this makes it sound almost like it ought to be something near a fact";  and the irrelevant (nor do we have any reason to consider it at all informed) snark about the ratings.

No, El Tupé isn't going to pivot to discussion of substance anytime soon.  Ooh, maybe he'll do more impressions on Sunday night . . . .

[Karl Henning]

That's Presidential!

Trump wanted the Central Park Five executed. DNA tests proved their innocence. He's not backing down.
Trump still can't admit he made a mistake.

[Herman]

I don't know if Obama will be viewed positively by history.  [...]  it is hard to square his popularity with his legacy:  a bitterly divided society over race, class and politics;

And how on earth is Obama to blame for other people's racism?

Oh, I see. Because he's black, it's his fault.

[Brian]

"Grab her by the pussy." Trump caught on microphone (in 2005, newly surfaced audio) talking about women in all sorts of crude ways. Trump's official defense is that it's "locker-room banter" and Bill Clinton talks that way too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

[San Antone]

And how on earth is Obama to blame for other people's racism?

Oh, I see. Because he's black, it's his fault.

No.  It is because he, and Eric Holder, enflamed tensions after Ferguson and elsewhere, for example. 

Presidents are supposed to lead, and as America's first Black president there was the expectation that race relations would improve, in part because that was one of the things he promised as Candidate Obama.  However, according to recent polling Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years.

Managing racial tensions has been an important yardstick of presidential success since FDR; Obama has offered no leadership and in fact, race relations are worse off now than eight years ago.

[Madiel]

In terms of living in a media bubble, I recently saw an article saying that Trump is heading down the same Fox-focused path that Romney did in 2012, only more so.

Remember how that turned out? Fox was full of how Romney was winning, right up until they broadcast the shock and outrage and the downright telling off of voters when Romney didn't win.

One of the year things that truly disturbs me about Trump, though, is the way he's been preparing the ground for losing by implying this will be because things are rigged. He has openly talked about this in ways that sound as if he is going to urge his supporters to not accept the election result.

[André]

Thanks to all who support their views through media links. This is still the way most people on Earth not living under tyranny can get facts, hear about conflicting opinions and have an understanding about issues. US media may be of differing backgrounds and persuasions, but they are overwhelmingly up to the task of reporting and analysing.

I exclude from the above all the (left or right-leaning) opinions that emanate from so-called "alternative media". In a country that as per occidental values defines democracy and free speech, I don't think kookoo views need be added to the enormous array of well researched, well argued and well written media such as the USA offers its communities.

.....................................................................................


Speaking of communities, what is the role of the Federal Government in tying up common values to regulations, common goals to economic and global policies, federating its citizens toward a common purpose ?

In Canada we have our own model, as does Australia, Brasil or the UK, with small or large numbers of entities (States, Provinces) deciding on issues and then arguing with the federal entity that often tries to uniformize local policies in search of a semblance of uniformity (for example, abortion, end-of-life care, immigration, health, culture, religious freedom, etc etc).

Which is okay. That's what we agreed at the outset after all and so far no civil war, rebellion or secession has broken out. And when it reaches real hotness, a referendum is called for and everybody goes back to their huts to lick their wounds and pick up the good life where they left it.

Why is it that on many of these issues there seems to be such bitterness, such animosity, in the US of A ? Obviously some scores have never been settled (racial equality and wealth distribution most prominently), but nobody is even open to the idea of contemplating the thought of a semblance of the shadow of a tentative agreement on these issues  . I mean, many people in the US mean WAR against their own federal government. 

This is something that baffles the First World, does nothing to reassure the Second World with their own internecine issues and downright antagonizes the Thirld World with its accent on White Supremacy ( a perception that most Judeo/Christian Whites in the US knowingly deny or are totally impervious to).

The US after all has come a long way (from the antislavery movement that culminated in the Civil War to the antisemitic views of Roosevelt, Truman and Nixon), to the "birther" movement that plagued the latest Presidency. Bravo !

Now, more needs to be done and IMHO wealth redistribution is the most pressing issue.

[Parsifal]

One of the year things that truly disturbs me about Trump, though, is the way he's been preparing the ground for losing by implying this will be because things are rigged. He has openly talked about this in ways that sound as if he is going to urge his supporters to not accept the election result.

This is actually a big deal. One of the distinctions between function and dysfunctional democracies is that in functional democracies the party that looses concedes and promises to support the elected leader/government. Gore fought Bush in the courts, but when the decision was made he sucked it up and admitted he had lost (even if he did not believe it in his heart). If Trump goes down the road of claiming he lost because the election is rigged, yada yada yada, it could be a big problem, and could set the US on a path to becoming truly dysfunctional.

[Zeus]

"Grab her by the pussy." Trump caught on microphone (in 2005, newly surfaced audio) talking about women in all sorts of crude ways. Trump's official defense is that it's "locker-room banter" and Bill Clinton talks that way too.

Further proof, if any is needed, that Trump belongs on the Jerry Springer show, not in a presidential campaign.

Trump has been living and acting this way his whole life. Plenty of other dirt has been hidden behind forced non-disclosure agreements, threatened lawsuits, payoffs, etc. There is even some evidence that he repeatedly had sex with a 13 year old girl around the same time as the above quotes. It seems that one of his party buddies was into underage girls and eventually Trump succumbed to temptation.  His friend subsequently beat the girl, because he was supposed to be the one to take her virginity.

It kills me that some Christian Fundamentalists are supporting Trump, as if he is their champion. Which part of the Christian message does Trump's life reflect?  None of it.  If ever there was a rich man headed straight to hell, it is Trump.

Let's hope he doesn't drag down too many others with him!

[Mister Sharpe]

The Don sure knows how to treat a lady! Thoroughly discredited at this point, he ought to do at least one noble deed and resign the race. Pence could prob. give Hillary a run for her money, though I certainly hope not...

[Madiel]

The phrase "political elites" is shorthand for the corporate donars and their lobbyists, big-name journalists and opinion swayers, and the leadership of elected officials and other Beltway insiders. 

I'd like to remind you that the last time I agreed with you that corporate donors are not a great thing, you turned around and started arguing how it was important that corporations had the ear of politicians because corporations were more affected than the ordinary man on the street.

I still think that latter argument is a pile of rubbish, but it was your argument. I continue to feel that the only reason you MADE that argument was because you stuck a label on my head that said "opponent" and concluded that if I was against corporate influence over politicians, you suddenly needed to be in favour of it.

But now you're back again to saying that they're part of the "political elites", which appears to you have a negative connotation.

I note now that "elected officials" are part of the club as well. Well, elected people SHOULD be part of the club, shouldn't they? Or is this just a typo?

[BasilValentine]

Watch out! the scorn heaped on my head by the resident GMG Thought Police for saying the same thing months ago was a wonder to behold. Do a print preview of the thread and search for "sociopath." At times one has be very careful when one says true things on this board.

Anyone who has heard the tape will have to admit that what I wrote is an objective description. Trump claims sexual assault as a right due him because he is rich and famous. That, my friends, is a sociopath.

[kishnevi]

Just an example of his schtick which brings guffaws and cheers from his core supporters, but which sounds like rubbish to anyone who hasn't drunk the El Tupé Kool-Aid:

I think CNN, they call it the Clinton News Network that's why the ratings aren't doing very well.

Where "they call it" means "I'm saying that, but this makes it sound almost like it ought to be something near a fact";  and the irrelevant (nor do we have any reason to consider it at all informed) snark about the ratings.

No, El Tupé isn't going to pivot to discussion of substance anytime soon.  Ooh, maybe he'll do more impressions on Sunday night . . . .

In fact, many if not most of Trump's lines are picked up from the right wing blogs and websites.  CNN=Clinton News Network has been a staple since the campaign season began, anchored in a certainty  (meaning total disregard of fact) that the major media outlets are heavy-handidly biased in Hillary's favor.  Trump's only contribution is the business about the ratings, and even that is not entirely original.

[kishnevi]

Thanks to all who support their views through media links. This is still the way most people on Earth not living under tyranny can get facts, hear about conflicting opinions and have an understanding about issues. US media may be of differing backgrounds and persuasions, but they are overwhelmingly up to the task of reporting and analysing.

I exclude from the above all the (left or right-leaning) opinions that emanate from so-called "alternative media". In a country that as per occidental values defines democracy and free speech, I don't think kookoo views need be added to the enormous array of well researched, well argued and well written media such as the USA offers its communities.

.....................................................................................


Speaking of communities, what is the role of the Federal Government in tying up common values to regulations, common goals to economic and global policies, federating its citizens toward a common purpose ?

In Canada we have our own model, as does Australia, Brasil or the UK, with small or large numbers of entities (States, Provinces) deciding on issues and then arguing with the federal entity that often tries to uniformize local policies in search of a semblance of uniformity (for example, abortion, end-of-life care, immigration, health, culture, religious freedom, etc etc).

Which is okay. That's what we agreed at the outset after all and so far no civil war, rebellion or secession has broken out. And when it reaches real hotness, a referendum is called for and everybody goes back to their huts to lick their wounds and pick up the good life where they left it.

Why is it that on many of these issues there seems to be such bitterness, such animosity, in the US of A ? Obviously some scores have never been settled (racial equality and wealth distribution most prominently), but nobody is even open to the idea of contemplating the thought of a semblance of the shadow of a tentative agreement on these issues  . I mean, many people in the US mean WAR against their own federal government. 

This is something that baffles the First World, does nothing to reassure the Second World with their own internecine issues and downright antagonizes the Thirld World with its accent on White Supremacy ( a perception that most Judeo/Christian Whites in the US knowingly deny or are totally impervious to).

The US after all has come a long way (from the antislavery movement that culminated in the Civil War to the antisemitic views of Roosevelt, Truman and Nixon), to the "birther" movement that plagued the latest Presidency. Bravo !

Now, more needs to be done and IMHO wealth redistribution is the most pressing issue.

It might be said that the central point of contention is specifically what the role and reach of the Federal Government is.

Subsidiary to that, the people who want a smaller Federal government would tell you that the government, at any level or size, had no business redistributing wealth.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Anyone who has heard the tape will have to admit that what I wrote is an objective description. Trump claims sexual assault as a right due him because he is rich and famous. That, my friends, is a sociopath.

I am not the one who disputes that description. I made it months ago and was excoriated by the resident Know It Alls for venturing to offer an uncredentialed "clinical diagnosis" of someone I had never personally examined.

[kishnevi]

And how on earth is Obama to blame for other people's racism?

Oh, I see. Because he's black, it's his fault.

Three main factors are in play
1. Blacks have come to realize that just because one of their own is President does not mean there is any substantial improvement in their daily lives.
2. Obama reinforces many attitudes in the black community about institutional racism instead of criticizing the ones that are not fully based in reality: meaning above all he should be, but is not,  pointing to the fact that many problems arise from poverty and not racism, and that the black community seems unable to rid itself of widespread antisocial behaviour (most notably the rate of black on black homicide).
3. A political strategy by the American left, to label as racist and therefore not worthy of consideration, any opposition to Obama, even though that opposition is to the policies of the most leftward leaning President since FDR, and would occur even if Obama was a blue eyed blonde haired pureblood WASP.

[Madiel]

Subsidiary to that, the people who want a smaller Federal government would tell you that the government, at any level or suze, had no business redistributing wealth.

Then one wonders what government is actually for. Some people are very keen to tell you what the government ought not to be doing, but they're not usually very good at identifying what the role of government is supposed to be.

Plus we need to distinguish the Legislature from the Executive, of course.

I have noticed from time to time that there at least some Americans who seem to believe that people without wealth shouldn't be helped by government, but by churches and charities. These are not necessarily the people who actually give anything to churches and charities that would enable them to help the poor. But it's an interesting mindset.