In case you didn't see:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...erious-problem
Printable View
In case you didn't see:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...erious-problem
...a piece of fanfiction?
You are thinking very short term. Yes, Clinton would be a major risk. But polling shows over a third of GOP voters say they won't vote for Trump. Whether or not that is true remains to be seen, but it is widely viewed that Trump is tearing the GOP apart. Christie's defection is further sign of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Besides, since their hold on Congress seems to be pretty safe, the GOP can just continue to obstruct as they always did with Obama, so not much would get done anyways.
Also both sides have the backing of Wall Street, whatever the hell that means.
The two situations are not anywhere near similar. At all. For one, the respective establishments were solidly behind their candidates. The election of either did not threaten the breakup of any party.Quote:
I would say your conservative friends are about as delusional as Democrats thinking that 4 years of George Bush would shore up the DMC base for 2004.
It makes simple sense really. HRC in the White House means the GOP can keep on the attack which has proven to be profitable for them. If Trump is in the White House they are now on the defensive with an idiot in charge.
Whatever the GOP strategy is, we know that they won't get behind Trump. After the 2012 election the GOP decided it needed to do more to attract minority voters. Trump is ignoring all of that and appealing solely to the base that would vote republican regardless. Doesn't bode well at all for him. I'm sure in the end the GOP would work with him, it's the extent that they would that is the question. Trump is a divisive character, the GOP needs to decide if sabotaging Trump in the hopes that the guys in the middle would accept the GOP to win future elections is worth it.Quote:
Or, you know, they could just work with him. Since he is after all, a moderate conservative. The GOP's strategy is nonsense, it's old guard with ego's too big to let another one into the club.
I think it will hinge on whether or not Trump "sobers" once he wins the primaries.
Trump is an old-fashioned positional bargainer who likes to make deals. He starts at 300% of what he will settle for and then haggles until he gets something in the acceptable range. Trump supporters are currently basking in his 'no-holds-barred' rhetoric, but should he win the brass ring they will end up with governance far closer to the same-old-same-old that currently exists. THAT is when the GOP crisis peaks and we see if a party split occurs. Trump winning the nomination but losing to Hilary in the general will generate a continuance of the current state of things and will ALSO create a lesser risk of GOP break up as the Tea Party wing again feels themselves used and abused.
The only major candidate left who would truly attempt to downsize government, minimize the power of the executive, and pursue a more conservative social agenda is Ted Cruz. Unfortunately for Ted, BOTH the Dems and the GOP establishment would oppose him in a general were he to get the nomination (the establishment by damning through faint praise means).
Rather disconnected on a personal level I am. Like Cruz on downsizing government and following a more constitutional path, but do NOT want the government legislating social issues better left to the several states. Like Trump's theme of "great again" but do NOT see any substance behind him and roll my eyes at the thought of Trump v Putin at a summit. Rubio is establishment, despite his rhetoric, so we would have more of the same with him and someone who is not going to command respect among foreign leaders who will view him as an "intern."
All-in-all, we end up with another President Clinton, the Dems take bake the Senate on a 50/50 basis using the VP, the House continues as it is, and nothing definitively useful gets done for another four years. Go USA.
So after this, it is pretty much certain it's gonna be a Trump/Clinton face off, which also pretty much makes certain another Clinton will be in the White House.
Same old, same old.
Depends who you ask. Most I've seen say it would mean trump is certain to win.
General election polls this far out don't mean very much. We still have eight entire months for the candidates to dig up dirt on each other, for unexpected national and world events to change the situation, for somebody to say the exact wrong thing. In early September 2008, McCain looked to be on the rise after the initial positive reaction to Palin as his VP choice. By the end of the month that bump had reversed itself after America realized that Palin wasn't exactly the gold standard. In October the economy melted down. Each of these three instances was far more substantial than anything that may have taken up three news cycles in March and then got forgotten.
We're not even at the conventions yet.
Trump stumped the establishment so bad today, Graham said the only choice may be too rally behind Ted "basket case" Cruz.
Wise advice here. Yes, Clinton and Trump appear to have leads that are likely to see them secure the nomination levels prior to the convention. It is early, world events and/or 'foot-in-mouth-disease" could still change the playing field substantially.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Hilary's powerful numbers in the South, and among African and Latin descent Dem voters -- coupled with superdelegates -- strongly favors her. I suspect we shall see Sanders bow out near the end of March. Remember, thought, that Bernie's money comes from small donors who can still contribute more and he has raised lots -- he only will bow out when he cannot secure the nomination on delegate numbers, not for lack of funds.
The GOP is less certain. Trump's lead builds, but he is doing poorly in urban areas in the South and mid-Atlantic. Rubio likely cannot win, but DOES have the edge among that sub-set of Republicans. Trump is only winning first past the post, he doesn't have outright majorities anywhere so far. This means, as GH cautions, that the fat lady has not yet sung her aria (though you may hear her warming up her voice).
Interestingly, the last (?) poll in Minnesota (from mid-January) predicted this result:
Sanders 25%
Clinton 59%
Actual results were
Sanders 62%
Clinton 38%
Wonder if there are more like this one around.
(a lot of states appear to be missing polls altogether; or HP's overview hasn't included them)
Sanders is the plucky true-heart dem they would all want to be in their heart of hearts -- a true Social Democrat.
However, he has wins in: VT, NH, MN, CO, and OK to his name so far, and a tie in IA.
Vermont has elected and re-elected a self labeled socialist to the Senate; New Hampshire are Bernie's neighbors who have been hearing him on TV almost as long as has Vermont; Minnesota elected a professional wrestler to the governorship and a comedian to the Senate; Colorado is one of 4 states with legalized marijauna for recreational use; Oklahoma is a more "standard" state by US standards.....but hasn't voted for a Democrat President since LBJ (over Goldwater) when I was 9 months old.
Bernie is getting all the true hearts and all the eclectic states....he doesn't have the broader support he will need for a nomination. Heck, he even lost Massachusetts, which should have been in his wheelhouse (He DID win western Mass, but lost Boston to Clinton's machine).
I'm still half convinced Trump is a Hillary plant.
If the was any justice in the world, or less likely, our DOJ had the cojones; she would spend the rest of her life behind bars. Instead we get immunity handed out like Candy to former Staffers.
I voted for Kasich in the primaries because he is the closest to my actual views. However, burning the whole system down is my second choice and that means supporting Trump in the general. I won't support Bernie and I think Hillary is a felon, so that kind of rules the democrats out.
I watch the media and continue to be Jacks complete lack of surprise as they still can't understand Trump or the anger that drives people to vote for him. It's exactly that kind of smug condescension that will get him elected. At which point I hope S.E. Cupps high class head explodes.
I always knew that deep down, all you Americans want to be ruled by Slavs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Anyone can be AmericanQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Kasich is also the one I like the best, and surpise, at the same time he's widely unpopular with the GOP base. I've seen others describe him as a "republican for people who hate republicans". God forbid they should pick someone who is palatable to a broader public.
Depending on who wins eventually, that might have to be amended to anyone but Muslims and Mexicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
He said neither of those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Have you seen the Mexican border with Guatemala? Do you know where Trumps strongest support in Texas came from? Do you happen to know what the overwhelming majority of those people are ethnically?
It's funny considering how the MSM was saying he would never get a Hispanic vote. Heads firmly planted in their own asses.
As someone who grew up in South Texas, I know how much EVERYONE down there wants as much help as they can get.
Yes, I'm sure the people of Guatemala desperately need help.
I'm not sure what this means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It's a 10 foot concrete wall with razor wire attached.
Except Ted Cruz and Obama, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I didn't know the answer to all of your questions, although I did recently watch Sin Nombre, where the border was apparently relatively easy to cross on top of a train. It seemed like you were saying that the people in southern texas need help keeping all the immigrants out so I just wanted to remind you that Guatemalans also need help or they would probably stay in their country in the first place. The sad truth is just that a lot of countries are so poor or corrupt or both that their people will not just stop dreaming of a better place because there is a wall in the way. And the other sad truth is that some random teenager in a ghetto is rather unlikely to be able to improve his own country, he's far more likely to die or end up imprisoned. And then some country up north (also true for the EU) promises freedom, equality and lots of money. It is merely human to want to go there then, it's how America was discovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I am aware we cannot just accept all the poor in the world, but we could probably do more to get them out of poverty. It would help us, too.
Posts like this one make me want to build walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes, it's understandable. I don't think I would do it in the same situation (I'm not an adventurous type), but I understand the material motives for wanting to ditch a developing country for a rich one. I just dislike it when people phrase these motivations in quasi-humanitarian terms. Every now and then I even hear or read the term "economic refugee" - GAH!
If Americans want to seal their border with concrete they have every right to do so. One might wonder how effective it would be or wether it's worth the effort, but that's not my concern. The only stupid things about Trumps' proposal are his bigoted way of phrasing it and the idea that Mexico is somehow going to pay for it. More likely he'll find some other way to weasel Mexico out of some money, and then claim that the wall is financed entirely out of that.
I'm more concerned about the environmental aspect, i.e. the movement of wildlife as opposed to undocumented fortune seekers.
That's like being concerned about dead lawn grass after a nuclear reactor melted down near your house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The wall, the costs of maintaining it, the costs of patching up whatever workarounds people find around it, as well as other not readily obvious reprecussions seem to outweigh whatever benefit might come of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
What exactly makes you angry about what I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
That I have sympathy for people who were born in squalor, corruption and violence?
Wouldn't that include a whole lot of our own ancestors?
I don't forbid anyone from building walls, I just think it's a stupid, superficial, heartless, xenophobic idea borne out of selfishness that does not solve the root of the problem at all, it only puts one more obstacle into the way of desperate people. The Spanish built three very high fences around Melilla and people still try to climb them. They also send people back illegally and have the Morrocan police beat them up and people still try to get in.
As for undocumented fortune seekers, as I said before, trying to make things go your way, having goals and following them ruthlessly, even being stupid as a teenager are things which are cherished in our culture until someone poor from outside our culture gets the same idea, then they're greedy criminals...
You know, there are simple ways to start, such as paying a price for coffee that does not require what's basically slave labor...
But "the market" being the way it is makes it okay I guess.
I'd like to see numbers before someone says it'll be too expensive.
I don't think it would be, it's more like putting a bandaid onto a tumor. Although perhaps one like the DDR had with minefields and guards that shoot all trespassers may work even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Did you know Mexico has a democratic government that Mexicans can participate in. Did you know that (like Trump says) Carrier among other companies have moved their production into Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Your view of Mexicans is very condescending, as if they have no agency and no real choice but to live in their current conditions. In fact, Mexico is suffering in part due to their own choices. Some heroic and commendable (like the government deciding to wage war against the cartels) others, not so much.
I thought we were talking about Guatemala.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
But yes, Mexico has a democratic government, like Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, The Democratic People's Republic of China, Turkey, Russia, Algeria, Greece and so on. It's almost like nation states exist in a vacuum and only the people inside can influence things, like when Greece decided to go bankrupt.
Why? I said having goals and following them ruthlessly, the pursuit of money and happiness are commendable qualities in a person in our culture. Many Mexicans choose not to live in their current conditions and move to the US in the pursuit of happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Every country is suffering in part due to its own choices. It's hilarious that you bring up the war on cartels because that one is like playing whack-a-mole. The moment Colombia began to win that war by allying with the US, the cartels popped up in Mexico, totally what all Mexicans voted for of course. It has absolutely nothing to do with the war on drugs or other countries being the main consumers and money whales that keep cartels a viable option.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The point being: Don't call the poor greedy because they want to have what you (and I) are afraid to lose.
I get the same half feeling about Trump the more I see how the Republicans are doing. The Republican candidates are being trolled into a mess. Look what happened to Jeb. Actually, Trump's verbal attacks remind me of the actings done by the WWE wrestlers. (I've read Trump's book before he announced his presidential campaign. Believe it or not, his book mentioned how he enjoyed the WWE and his participation of it). On the other hand, I've read about an issue about his father that creeps me out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South