| Author |
|
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 5:41pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I don't know why we can't accept that Trump believes what he believes.
He's an authoritarian bigot. His voting for Democrats in the past doesn't
preclude him from legitimately being a Republican now -- especially since
generally speaking people do become more conservative with age.
But just from a basic review of his personality, he has few liberal traits: He
worships power -- to the point that he considers Putin a "good leader" or a
"better" leader than Obama simply because of how much power Putin has
with no regard to *how* the power is used. He's a nationalist who believes
other countries are "screwing" the U.S. and he has specific venom for
Mexico.
He fully embraces Reaganism, as Peter said, but in a much more twisted
way: He is the undisciplined, not very smart Reagan booster from the 1980s
(think Al Bundy).
Trump would have to be the best gambler in the world to have run this
campaign based on saying what he thinks will get him elected. His infamous
speech when he announced his candidacy will likely be studied decades
hence as defying all expectations for what would normally doom a
campaign.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17997
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 7:42pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
If enough people think that ["my one little vote won't be missed in the short run], sure it will. This is not a conventional election. -- That should be true, but it's not. Look at the polls: people are by and large throwing in with their sides, even though both sides' candidates have record high negatives. If there was ever an election that should avoid the two-party dichotomy, this is it. But it ain't. I've been saying it since the conventions: Trump should be polling third at best. But as long as Antonin Scalia stays dead and Merrick Garland stays unconfirmed (which he will at least until and if HRC wins the election), Trump is a viable candidate. And it's fucking disgusting that the Republicans are doing that, and getting away with it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17997
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 7:44pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
A third party has to be built from the ground up -- Abraham Lincoln
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6144
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 7:49pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Joe McCarthy rode a similar wave when he announced off the cuff that he had a "list of communists" that he meant to expose. He was just a so-so senator with nothing to his credit and no one's ear until all of a sudden he accidentally said the right thing to make the whole system take notice. And, like McCarthy, Trump seized the moment.
McCarthy was also totally undisciplined and ran things mostly through improv, and he paid the price. It's too predictable that Trump will one day be caught with his chin hanging way out there and get clobbered. Too bad he may likely be President at that moment.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 8:22pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
The Republican Party arguably was not a third party at its genesis, because at that point there was not any dominant second party challenging the Democrats. Rather, the Republicans were one of several parties vying to become the new second party after the collapse of the Whigs, and ultimately they were successful at that.
Besides which, you also had the significant factor of the Democratic Party splitting over the slavery issue and almost collapsing itself. It was a unique time. It's in no way comparable to today, where you have two well-established, entrenched political parties, each of which commands fairly consistent and strong loyalty from about 40% of the voters.
If we look at the US historical record, successful new political parties have been able to emerge and take hold at the Presidential level only when there has been a void created by the collapse of one of the two existing dominant parties. A new party has never been able to take hold and displace one of the dominant two parties. Earlier this year there was speculation that Trump might succeed in splitting the Republican Party to the point it would collapse, but that doesn't seem to be the case now, as most of the notable anti-Trump Republicans seem to have bitten the bullet and decided to support him, or at least remain quiet and not actively oppose him.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 28 September 2016 at 8:26pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30917
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 8:42pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
The insane thing is that all the people I know that support Trump are telling me he wiped the floor with Hillary in the debate. Not only that, they agree that he's smart for not paying taxes. When I make the point that he's bilking the groups he says he supports, like the military they still say he's smart. Jesus Christ. They make me want to just pound my head into the wall.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Kopperman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3168
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 9:52pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Johnson's second 'Aleppo moment': http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-a leppo-moment.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
First time is a gimme. Second time basically shows that the man has zero interest in world affairs.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 28 September 2016 at 11:20pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
The L.A. Times has an ongoing poll. As of Sept. 28, It shows Trump leading by 4%. His moronic performance actually helped him.
Edited by Joe Zhang on 28 September 2016 at 11:21pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 29 September 2016 at 1:55am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Joe, that LA Times poll appears to have a definite pro-Trump skew that is not proportional to what other polls over the same period have said; ie, it shows Trump leading at times most other polls did not. I don't think Trump has ever led in the average of polls at any time throughout the entire campaign. The best he's done is to pull within a rough tie at his best points in the campaign.
Also, note that it says: "We update the data each day based on the weighted average of poll responses over the previous week. That means results have less volatility than some other polls, but also means the poll lags somewhat in responding to major events in the campaign."
In other words, that poll does not reflect any post-debate changes, and will not for another week.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 29 September 2016 at 1:56am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7654
|
| Posted: 29 September 2016 at 3:17am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"Why would anyone vote for a guy who doesn't know what Aleppo is? That's ignorance on a monumental scale."
In the video, as soon as the interviewer clarified that he was talking about, Johnson was able to respond adequately and consistently with his platform. Unfortunately, the picture is left as though he had no knowledge about the situation whatsoever. But, at least he is a candidate who asked for more information instead of making up an answer. And I hardly think it is a gaff worse than either major party candidates have made to date. Frankly, I see it as inconsequential by comparison. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- No one in a Presidential race should need to ask the follow on question. The guy's clueless about world events. And I don't think he responded adequately either. Maybe I'm wrong, because I live in the UK where Syria is wall to wall coverage, but this is not a small gaff. This is a guy that is claiming he can be Commander in Chief yet needs reminding of the single most visible humanitarian disaster that is going on right now.
Clueless
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17997
|
| Posted: 29 September 2016 at 3:36am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
"The insane thing is that all the people I know that support Trump are telling me he wiped the floor with Hillary in the debate"
-- And that's true to the extent that he was able to put out a lot of the same bullshit he always does without being called out on it. I mean, his argument about Iran is completely incoherent. Lester Holt couldn't mention that the Iran deal involves several nations and that the "bribe for hostages" is actually the culmination of a thirty-year-long fight? That's his hard-fought "victory": Donald Trump enabled the ignorance of his tribe, and they're always gonna love him for that.
Edited by Kevin Hagerman on 29 September 2016 at 3:40am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 29 September 2016 at 5:35am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Isn't it amazing how supporters of a person always feel they did the best? Bias, eh?
We had a debate on TV here in 2010 for the three parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats). I'm a floating voter so can be non-biased: the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, performed remarkably well in the debate. I wasn't even a natural bedfellow of his party, either.
The others performed poor in relation to him - and yet their own supporters claimed they were marvelous.
Again, bias, eh?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
