Troller-in-Chief

Discussion in 'monkeyCage' started by bfun, Jan 30, 2016.

  1. #61 cmdrmonkey, Jun 24, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2016
    @alterego

    A Trump presidency would destroy the Republican Party once and for all and disrupt the political establishment in Washington. Both of those sound like wins for the common man to me.
     
  2. How does a Republican winning the White House with a majority Republican Congress and an 8 judge Supreme Court equal the destruction of the Republican party?
     

  3. Here are my thoughts. Trumps not a republican and he's not a democrat and he doesn't care about either party as a whole. He's an opportunist that's figured out he can tap into the vast horde of nationalist inside of the republican party. They've always been there and republicans acknowledge them and make promises to them but never really give them what they want. These people have nowhere else to go so they stay in the party. Now trump pops up and offers them a leader and a way forward. If he goes 3rd party he'll pull all the nationalist out of the republic party and maybe pull 25 or even 50% of their vote. A lot of these people aren't traditional republican and that's what took the media and other candidates by surprise. They don't care that Trump was a democrat or about the mistakes he makes and that's why nothing takes him down. Now if he becomes president I suspect trump will continue to cater to the people that put him in office. Those are the same people he can manipulate the most through fear and twitter. The nationalist. Maybe he'll unite the party and the middle class or maybe he'll spit the party and cause a race war that will ruin the republican image for decades. The same could have happened with Sanders. The democrats could have split into Democrats and Democratic Socialist. I don't think Sanders would want that to happen though. If his movement ever wins he'll want the full force of the party behind it. Splitting the party now would hurt his long term goals and I think his movement is only going to gain more traction in the next decade especially if Hillary wins.
     
  4. If Trump is elected, the GOP will do exactly the same thing that it does on the state level: speed run GOP legislation through Congress, and Trump is going to sign most of it (since, as you said, he's an opportunist and has no real stance either way). They'll also speed run the new Supreme Court appointment. Electing Trump isn't going to break the GOP. It's just going to give them the golden opportunity to destroy pretty much anything they choose, and have the SC as a backup.
     
  5. #66 cmdrmonkey, Jun 27, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2016
    @supersonic

    I've long wished that our ballot had a "none of the above" option, meaning you don't think either candidate is fit for office, and you want a new election with different candidates. Lesser of the two evils elections are lame. I would pick that for the current presidential election. I think a lot of people would. It's not unheard of either. Some places do have this option on ballots, including Nevada and a few countries:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above
     
  6. Aha....two successful converts to "don't vote" GOP astro-turfing.
     
  7. I can't actually recognize the lesser of 2 evils is this election.
     
  8. I can't either.

    Hillary = establishment center right Wall Street shill Republican running as a Democrat
    Trump = opportunistic businessman/troll running as a Republican

    I've been tempted to vote for the troll out of anger, but on second thought I probably just won't vote.

    These are really the best candidates a country of 300M+ people could come up with?
     
  9. You could always vote Libertarian or Green Party.
     
  10. If Trump wins, he will have done so in opposition to the entire power structure of the GOP. The Party threw everything and the kitchen sink at him to stop him from getting nominated, and now they've split over whether they want to throw the election to Hillary or help him win.

    The Republican Party, as an organization, will continue to exist, but the entire power structure is going to get purged. This could be as momentous as the Progressive movement tearing apart the Republican Party in the early 20th century and taking over the Democrats.

    It would also realign the political spectrum from being primarily about big vs small government to nationalism vs globalism, which hasn't actually been a debate in American politics since the early 20th century.
     
  11. LOL @ throwing the election. If anything, the democrats are actively throwing the easiest election ever. They're going with an extermly polarizing, unlikable woman, who is transparently corrupt and under federal investigation. She's going to get the straight-dem and 'not Trump' voter. Anybody else is a coin flip and she could very easily lose. Feminists aren't particularly fond of her and neither are gays.

    In comparison, there is not much for democrats to dislike about Sanders, and he could also bag the anti-establishment vote from independents. That would likely help him crush Trump but the fix has been in on Shillary since day 1.
     
  12. You keep saying that gays don't support Clinton, but that isn't really accurate.

    http://www.advocate.com/election/20...vote-hillary-clinton-will-his-lgbt-supporters

    "Both Sanders and Clinton are LGBT rights supporters. Clinton has received the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest and most influential LGBT organization. Most polls have found her leading among LGBT voters, but Sanders does have a strong base of LGBT support. In February a Community Marketing and Insights survey covering 46 states found 48 percent of LGBT Americans favoring Clinton, 41 percent in the Sanders camp."
     
  13. #74 cmdrmonkey, Jul 1, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2016
    I'm not sure that gays trust Clinton to protect them from Islam. After Orlando, Trump was actually talking about doing that. Clinton was talking about Islamophobia, whatever that is. As if the Muslims are the real victims and not all the people they shoot and blow up when they come down with Sudden Jihad Syndrome because they feel terribly triggered by a Christmas party or two men kissing.

    It's odd to me that liberals stand up for Islam. It's diametrically opposed to pretty much all liberal values. These are people who execute gays and treat women worse than shit. And feminists love to talk about rape culture. Islamic countries are real rape cultures where women are punished (usually forced to marry their rapist) or killed for being raped. I think we need to stop looking at Islam as a religion and regard it as a dangerous ideology similar to Nazism. And the idea of moderate Islam is mostly just a liberal myth. And I get the impression a lot of people in Britain feel the same way. A big part of Brexit was that many British don't want to be living under Sharia Law in a few years. And getting out of the EU was a first step in stopping all of the Muslim immigration.

    I also agree with Trump on nationalism vs globalization. Globalization/outsourcing is horseshit that was used by the rich to destroy the middle class and ruin the US economy. We need to go back to building things in America and looking out for our own interests. Corporations and rich assholes have been selling us out to the Chinese and the Mexicans for too long. Shillary is very pro outsourcing and globalization, which is one of many reasons she disgusts me.
     
  14. You do realize that Trump is basically in hock to Deutsche Bank, right? You might want to consider that a bit before thinking he has any real ideas about globalization.
     
  15. #76 cmdrmonkey, Jul 1, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2016
    So you're pro outsourcing now? Hillary loves NAFTA and outsourcing and her Wall Street masters who fill her pockets with dirty money love those things too. She wants to get rid of all the middle class jobs and put everyone on welfare. Trump wants to actually put people back to work.
     
  16. Huh? I've never said that I was "pro outsourcing". I'm saying that Trump is a piss-poor option when it comes to anything related to economics or globalization. He has no track record of being a public servant, and his private sector record is full of labor relations problems, huge loans from globalized banks, tax shenanigans, and refusing to pay people for the work they did. Considering that his current fame is based around a show where he fires people, I really have no idea why anyone who was sane would consider Trump as a viable source of helpful ideas in those areas.
     
  17. And Shillary has a track record of being pro-globalization, pro-outsourcing and fucking over the American worker at every turn.
     
  18. Of course... they had to purchase quickly before the queue was on backorder.

    "This week the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest LGBT group, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. It was a bit of a shocker not because HRC endorsed a Democrat — the group has only endorsed Democratic presidential candidates, as the GOP has always been hostile toward LGBT rights — but that it occurred before even one vote has been cast in the Democratic primaries and while two hugely gay-supportive candidates are so close in the polls in the first contests."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/this-week-the-human-right_b_9030106.html
     
  19. So you read an article that says "two hugely gay supportive candidates" and came to the conclusion that gays don't like Clinton?