2016 Presidential Horse Race

[woolybug25]

Following this logic, we'd have to assume the current POTUS is either a bigot or condones bigotry. Jeremiah Wright married him, baptized his kids and Obama sat in his church for years. Obama even wrote in his book that he was inspired by his sermons.

I can't agree. I have no idea what Obama feels in his heart but he doesn't strike me as a bigot even though he sat in this twit's church. I think he's misguided and disagree with his policies but I don't believe the man to be a bigot or a man that would condone bigotry.

Similarly, I don't believe all Trump supporters are bigots or condone bigotry.

I was unaware that Jeremiah Wright was running for President and is supported by Obama.

Not to mention, Obama denounced Wright and left his church. So when Wright started saying things that were outside the value set of Obama, he did what Trump supporters are unwilling to do. He dismissed him, removed his support and moved on. Exactly what I am saying Trump supporters should do.

So you're example is a little flawed to say the least...

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Robert Reich humor for today:

This morning’s surprise admission by Donald Trump that he was born in Tijuana, Mexico of Mexican parents has American politics spinning. His birth certificate, dated June 14, 1946, bears the name Donna Drumfasa, and lists his parents as Frederico and Maria Drumfasa. “That was then,” said the Republican front-runner. “Now is now. I’m more American than anyone.”

But what may prove to be an even larger political bombshell came hours later when Isabella Drumfasa, Trump’s sister, claimed Donna was born a girl. “We always called her Prima Donna,” said Isabella. “She wanted all the attention.” Isabella says Donna had a sex-change operation in her late teens, but Carlos Trumfasa, Trump’s brother, disputes that account, insisting that Donna is still a woman. “That’s why Donna came to America in the first place,” says Carlos. “She was pregnant. She had her baby in San Diego so she could become an American citizen. It was her anchor baby.”

When asked directly whether he is a woman, Trump grew testy. “I’ve already told you there’s no problem down there,” he shouted.

 

[GoIrish41]

Following this logic, we'd have to assume the current POTUS is either a bigot or condones bigotry. Jeremiah Wright married him, baptized his kids and Obama sat in his church for years. Obama even wrote in his book that he was inspired by his sermons.

I can't agree. I have no idea what Obama feels in his heart but he doesn't strike me as a bigot even though he sat in this twit's church. I think he's misguided and disagree with his policies but I don't believe the man to be a bigot or a man that would condone bigotry.

Similarly, I don't believe all Trump supporters are bigots or condone bigotry.

If you just listen to the sound bite, out of context portion of Wright's "God damn America" sermon, it is easy to conclude he is a bigot. If you listen to the whole sermon, not so easy to come to that conclusion. Similarly, if you listen to Trump speak (which, I have done all too many times now), there is little misunderstanding about what he is saying. He is an unapologetic bigot. Those who are supporting him hear the same things that I've heard, and yet they follow. That tells me they are, at best, OK with having a known racist run the country. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that what a certain cross section of them are so angry about is that we've had a black president for the past 7 years and they want to Make America Great Again.

 

[connor_in]

Pretty sure this is how many posters react when seeing replies to their posts in this thread...

 

[Wild Bill]

I was unaware that Jeremiah Wright was running for President and is supported by Obama.

Not to mention, Obama denounced Wright and left his church. So when Wright started saying things that were outside the value set of Obama, he did what Trump supporters are unwilling to do. He dismissed him, removed his support and moved on. Exactly what I am saying Trump supporters should do.

So you're example is a little flawed to say the least...

He was put in a shitty position and was forced to denounce him. Perhaps he would have either way, I'm not sure.

My point is that I don't believe Obama to be a bigot (or condone bigotry) simply b/c he supported Wright, just like I don't believe a citizen is a bigot (or condones bigotry) simply b/c he or she supports Trump.

If you just listen to the sound bite, out of context portion of Wright's "God damn America" sermon, it is easy to conclude he is a bigot. If you listen to the whole sermon, not so easy to come to that conclusion. Similarly, if you listen to Trump speak (which, I have done all too many times now), there is little misunderstanding about what he is saying. He is an unapologetic bigot. Those who are supporting him hear the same things that I've heard, and yet they follow. That tells me they are, at best, OK with having a known racist run the country. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that what a certain cross section of them are so angry about is that we've had a black president for the past 7 years and they want to Make America Great Again.

There are plenty of reasons I have not to support Trump but it's certainly not b/c I believe him to be a bigot or a racist. I just don't see it as clearly as you do.

 

[woolybug25]

He was put in a shitty position and was forced to denounce him. Perhaps he would have either way, I'm not sure.

My point is that I don't believe Obama to be a bigot (or condone bigotry) simply b/c he supported Wright, just like I don't believe a citizen is a bigot (or condones bigotry) simply b/c he or she supports Trump.

You're not getting what i'm saying. Obama didn't support Wright after he made the comments. It's not even the same argument I made. You are saying that you don't believe that Wright's comments reflect on Obama, well... you're damn right they don't. As Obama denounced the comments, denounced him and left the church.

If Obama would have stayed and said, "well, I don't agree with those comments but still support him", then that would be equivalent to a Trump supporter. That's not what he did and it's not an accurate comparison.

 

[GoIrish41]

He was put in a shitty position and was forced to denounce him. Perhaps he would have either way, I'm not sure.

My point is that I don't believe Obama to be a bigot (or condone bigotry) simply b/c he supported Wright, just like I don't believe a citizen is a bigot (or condones bigotry) simply b/c he or she supports Trump.



There are plenty of reasons I have not to support Trump but it's certainly not b/c I believe him to be a bigot or a racist. I just don't see it as clearly as you do.

I guess we simply disagree about the the point at which indifference toward bigotry is itself bigotry. Perhaps its my liberal political correctness shining through, but birds of a feather and all that ...

 

[wizards8507]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/S_iBr4Nl13M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Ndaccountant]

You're not getting what i'm saying. Obama didn't support Wright after he made the comments. It's not even the same argument I made. You are saying that you don't believe that Wright's comments reflect on Obama, well... you're damn right they don't. As Obama denounced the comments, denounced him and left the church.

If Obama would have stayed and said, "well, I don't agree with those comments but still support him", then that would be equivalent to a Trump supporter. That's not what he did and it's not an accurate comparison.

That's kind of what he did though, no?

In the "A More Perfect Union" speech he said the following:

he (Wright) contains within him the contradictions—the good and the bad—of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.........I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother—a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

He did not renounce his membership in Wright's church until 3 months after the sermons were made public and giving that speech.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't disagree. I think the thing that dispirits a lot of principled conservatives and even moderate Republicans is that you'd think Trump's supporters were a huge portion of the population. From the media coverage and the way he's been portrayed as the "overwhelming front-runner," you'd think these ignorant voters were much more numerous than they are. However, the country is only about 1/4 registered Republican and Trump has received about 1/3 of the popular vote so far. That means that Trump supporters are only about 8% of the population. Meanwhile, Trump has been getting 52% of all election coverage and 68% of Republican campaign coverage, making the rate of voter ignorance appear much greater than it actually is.

That 8% is still a crucial piece of the Republican coalition. Without it, the GOP cannot hope to win another national election, barring a major paradigm shift which the party might not survive.

 

[Wild Bill]

You're not getting what i'm saying. Obama didn't support Wright after he made the comments. It's not even the same argument I made. You are saying that you don't believe that Wright's comments reflect on Obama, well... you're damn right they don't. As Obama denounced the comments, denounced him and left the church.

If Obama would have stayed and said, "well, I don't agree with those comments but still support him", then that would be equivalent to a Trump supporter. That's not what he did and it's not an accurate comparison.

He was a member of the Church for nearly a decade (perhaps longer) after Wright made these statements, and only denounced him only after it became a controversy.

If I believed Trump supporters to be bigots merely b/c they support Trump, I'm not so sure my opinion of them would change ten years later if they decided to denounce him b/c of a controversy that threatened to derail their political or career ambitions.

Some of Trump's supporters are bigots, no doubt. Nobody is naive enough to believe otherwise. I just don't think they're all bigots or that they all condone bigotry.

 

[woolybug25]

He was a member of the Church for nearly a decade (perhaps longer) after Wright made these statements, and only denounced him only after it became a controversy.

If I believed Trump supporters to be bigots merely b/c they support Trump, I'm not so sure my opinion of them would change ten years later if they decided to denounce him b/c of a controversy that threatened to derail their political or career ambitions.

Some of Trump's supporters are bigots, no doubt. Nobody is naive enough to believe otherwise. I just don't think they're all bigots or that they all condone bigotry.

[/shrug]

You can choose to believe this or not, but Obama clearly stated that he never heard, witnessed or knew of Wright making those types of statements. So as far as can be proven, he denounced them as soon as he was aware of them.

Furthermore, Trump supporters have their controversy and are choosing to ignore it. You say that they are not "condoning bigotry", but I am not sure if you understand the definition of "condone". Let's take a look:

con·done
kənˈdōn
verb
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

I'm pretty sure that his followers a) accept b) allow behavior that is both morally wrong and offensive to continue.

There's really not an argument here. This is pretty black and white.

 

[wizards8507]

That 8% is still a crucial piece of the Republican coalition.

No it's not. Trump keeps talking about how he's bringing over blue collar Democrats and people who have never voted before. It's part of the reason he over-performs in open primaries and does poorly in closed primaries and caucuses. The Trump people weren't part of the Republican base in the past so the Republicans don't need them to be part of their base in the future. It's not like they'll go over to the Democrats (unless they came from the Democrats in the first place), they'll just drop out of the process.

I firmly believe that the number of people who would leave the Republican party because of Trump is greater than the number of people who would leave the party if not for Trump.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No it's not. Trump keeps talking about how he's bringing over blue collar Democrats and people who have never voted before. It's part of the reason he over-performs in open primaries and does poorly in closed primaries and caucuses. The Trump people weren't part of the Republican base in the past so the Republicans don't need them to be part of their base in the future. It's not like they'll go over to the Democrats (unless they came from the Democrats in the first place), they'll just drop out of the process.

I firmly believe that the number of people who would leave the Republican party because of Trump is greater than the number of people who would leave the party if not for Trump.

Ah yes. The answer to Trump is, "Learn nothing, change nothing, and wait for this all to blow over." The GOPe seems to agree with you. Let's see how well that sells over the next few cycles.

 

[irishroo]

This is very interesting:

The GOP’s Nuclear Option to Stop Donald Trump: A Third-Party Candidate - The Daily Beast

 

[wizards8507]

Ah yes. The answer to Trump is, "Learn nothing, change nothing, and wait for this all to blow over." The GOPe seems to agree with you. Let's see how well that sells over the next few cycles.

What exactly should the Republicans be learning from this? If there was a neo-Nazi candidate pulling 8% popular support, would you be advocating that the GOP make accommodations? Because, gee, it'll really go a long way to defeating the Democrats if we lock down the neo-Nazi vote. There's no point in winning if your path to victory made you just as culpable in the decline of America as the "other guys" would have been if you lost.

As you said yesterday about abortion, I'd rather see the Republicans lose rejecting Trump and all of the bullshit he stands for than to win on a platform of ignorance and stupidity.

This is very interesting:

The GOP’s Nuclear Option to Stop Donald Trump: A Third-Party Candidate - The Daily Beast

While interesting, I think it's a bit misleading. While it's true that conservative Republicans and the GOP establishment are both anti-Trump, they're generally not the same people as this article somewhat implies.

Strategically, I think several spoiler candidates would be more effective than just one. Send Kasich out there as a third party in Ohio. Send Rubio out there as a third party in Florida. Etc.

 

[woolybug25]

This is very interesting:

The GOP’s Nuclear Option to Stop Donald Trump: A Third-Party Candidate - The Daily Beast

Am I reading that correctly? In the scenario they propose, the House of Representatives would pick the POTUS, not just a candidate?

 

[wizards8507]

Am I reading that correctly? In the scenario they propose, the House of Representatives would pick the POTUS, not just a candidate?

If no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the House selects the POTUS from the top three electoral vote-getters. The Senate elects the VPOTUS from the top two electoral vote-getters.

ETA: Note that it's not a one-representative-one-vote rule. Each state delegation gets one vote. So it's kind of like the House of Representatives voting as if it were the Senate.

 

[woolybug25]

If no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the House selects the POTUS from the top three electoral vote-getters.

Jeebus... that would go over well with the public. There's something there for everyone to hate.

 

[GoIrish41]

He was a member of the Church for nearly a decade (perhaps longer) after Wright made these statements, and only denounced him only after it became a controversy.

If I believed Trump supporters to be bigots merely b/c they support Trump, I'm not so sure my opinion of them would change ten years later if they decided to denounce him b/c of a controversy that threatened to derail their political or career ambitions.

Some of Trump's supporters are bigots, no doubt. Nobody is naive enough to believe otherwise. I just don't think they're all bigots or that they all condone bigotry.

For the record, here is what Wright actually said in his sermon ... not really what was presented in "these statements" pushed by the right as anti-American, anti-white rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqrXVNfYUI

 

[wizards8507]

Jeebus... that would go over well with the public. There's something there for everyone to hate.

*Shrug.* People also hate Hillary, Trump, Cruz, and Socialism. So...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What exactly should the Republicans be learning from this?

Offer real policy solutions to its lower- and middle-class voters. Cutting the top marginal rate and signing international trade deals that make it easier for multinationals to outsource American jobs is not a "rising tide", and large chunks of the GOP coalition are finally realizing that.

If there was a neo-Nazi candidate pulling 8% popular support, would you be advocating that the GOP make accommodations? Because, gee, it'll really go a long way to defeating the Democrats if we lock down the neo-Nazi vote. There's no point in winning if your path to victory made you just as culpable in the decline of America as the "other guys" would have been if you lost.

As Bill mentioned above, the Trumpistas give voice to some very ugly sentiments. But they're also giving voice to a lot of anger, fear and resentment that is justifiably being directed that the GOPe, since it has taken their support for granted for decades without representing their interests. Writing them off as nothing more than bigoted rubes is whistling past the graveyard.

So let's imagine the GOPe comes straight out and directly tells Trump voters to f*ck off, that they're human trash and henceforth unwelcome in the party going forward. How are the Republicans going to muster enough votes to ever win the White House again?

 

[wizards8507]

Offer real policy solutions to its lower- and middle-class voters. Cutting the top marginal rate and signing international trade deals that make it easier for multinationals to outsource American jobs is not a "rising tide", and large chunks of the GOP coalition are finally realizing that.

As Bill mentioned above, the Trumpistas give voice to some very ugly sentiments. But they're also giving voice to a lot of anger, fear and resentment that is justifiably being directed that the GOPe, since it has taken their support for granted for decades without representing their interests. Writing them off as nothing more than bigoted rubes is whistling past the graveyard.

That's a false dichotomy. Criticizing Trump and his supporters does not make one a special pleader for the GOP status quo. There actually are policy positions that would create the rising tide that you mock, but neither Trumpists nor the GOP are promoting them.

So let's imagine the GOPe comes straight out and directly tells Trump voters to f*ck off, that they're human trash and henceforth unwelcome in the party going forward. How are the Republicans going to muster enough votes to ever win the White House again?

The problem is that these people don't know what's good for them because they don't have basic economic literacy, let alone the advanced understanding to wrap their heads around complex national and global issues; nor can they can't be bothered to educate themselves. Many of the policies they think will help them will actually make things worse. They've never heard of Smoot-Hawley and don't know what "protectionism" means. They don't know who the Ayatollah Khomeini is or why he matters. If the options are give into these peoples' hostile takeover of the Party or go down in flames without them, I'm going down in flames.

ETA: You talk about "justified anger." Black people were justified in their anger when Rodney King was beaten by the LAPD. That doesn't mean you should burn the damn city down or align yourself with those who do.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's a false dichotomy. Criticizing Trump and his supporters does not make one a special pleader for the GOP status quo. There actually are policy positions that would create the rising tide that you mock, but neither Trumpists nor the GOP are promoting them.

Criticizing Trump and his supporters is, at least on the right, usually just a way for GOPe dead-enders to avoid the difficult soul-searching and policy work necessary to coopt this populist fervor and prevent another such rebellion from destroying the party in the future. The only criticism you level at the GOP is for not doubling down even harder on stale Reaganism.

The problem is that these people don't know what's good for them because they don't have basic economic literacy, let alone the advanced understanding to wrap their heads around complex national and global issues; nor can they can't be bothered to educate themselves. Many of the policies they think will help them will actually make things worse. They've never heard of Smoot-Hawley and don't know what "protectionism" means. They don't know who the Ayatollah Khomeini is or why he matters. If the options are give into these peoples' hostile takeover of the Party or go down in flames without them, I'm going down in flames.

Since we enfranchised the masses, it's never been otherwise. Telling them, "You're just too stupid to understand why the stale policies we've been pushing for the last 30 years are really what's best for you" isn't going to get the GOP anywhere. Lots of Trumpistas have seen their life expectancies drop and their employment prospects disintegrate over the last few decades. They know they're being sold a bill of goods.

ETA: You talk about "justified anger." Black people were justified in their anger when Rodney King was beaten by the LAPD. That doesn't mean you should burn the damn city down or align yourself with those who do.

No, but if your political party's success depends upon the support of black people, it would probably be a good idea to support substantive policy changes--like mandatory body cameras for all police officers--in order to address that anger. Saying instead, "Lots of these people are bigoted and uneducated, so we'll do nothing instead" is precisely the wrong thing to do.

 

[drayer54]

This is very interesting:

The GOP’s Nuclear Option to Stop Donald Trump: A Third-Party Candidate - The Daily Beast

Mattis-Webb 2016! Now that's a ticket I would get out of bed for!

 

[MJ12666]

That's a false dichotomy. Criticizing Trump and his supporters does not make one a special pleader for the GOP status quo. There actually are policy positions that would create the rising tide that you mock, but neither Trumpists nor the GOP are promoting them.


The problem is that these people don't know what's good for them because they don't have basic economic literacy, let alone the advanced understanding to wrap their heads around complex national and global issues; nor can they can't be bothered to educate themselves. Many of the policies they think will help them will actually make things worse. They've never heard of Smoot-Hawley and don't know what "protectionism" means. They don't know who the Ayatollah Khomeini is or why he matters. If the options are give into these peoples' hostile takeover of the Party or go down in flames without them, I'm going down in flames.

ETA: You talk about "justified anger." Black people were justified in their anger when Rodney King was beaten by the LAPD. That doesn't mean you should burn the damn city down or align yourself with those who do.

I generally agree with most of your ideas but you are quite incorrect on this point. Whiskey has got it right. If you asked me two weeks ago who I would support it would have been Trump (although his recent comment on punishing women who have an abortion may have changed my mind), and I am hardly the Trump supporter you described above. I am a CPA, have traveled the world on business, am a multi-millionaire, and frequently read Busnessweek and The Economist. I am hardly some ignorant rube. I have come to the conclusion that the "Republican" party I keep voting for does not do what they say. They spend like the Dems and cut taxes and expect the deficit to shrink. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Is Trump a good candidate. Absolutely not but I refuse to vote again for one of these party "hacks". Mine will be a "protest" vote or no vote at all and I suspect there are quite a few who share my views.

 

[drayer54]

I generally agree with most of your ideas but you are quite incorrect on this point. Whiskey has got it right. If you asked me two weeks ago who I would support it would have been Trump (although his recent comment on punishing women who have an abortion may have changed my mind), and I am hardly the Trump supporter you described above. I am a CPA, have traveled the world on business, am a multi-millionaire, and frequently read Busnessweek and The Economist. I am hardly some ignorant rube. I have come to the conclusion that the "Republican" party I keep voting for does not do what they say. They spend like the Dems and cut taxes and expect the deficit to shrink. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Is Trump a good candidate. Absolutely not but I refuse to vote again for one of these party "hacks". Mine will be a "protest" vote or no vote at all and I suspect there are quite a few who share my views.

Just because the party isn't playing your song doesn't mean you need to shit on the floor. Someone who talks about nukes and trade wars with ease is dangerous and likely going to land us President Clinton Part Deux. This is the problem with the people who want to throw the firecracker at DC. The message is heard in the short run, but the liberal supreme court and policies are what will stick in the long run.

 

[wizards8507]

I generally agree with most of your ideas but you are quite incorrect on this point. Whiskey has got it right. If you asked me two weeks ago who I would support it would have been Trump (although his recent comment on punishing women who have an abortion may have changed my mind), and I am hardly the Trump supporter you described above. I am a CPA, have traveled the world on business, am a multi-millionaire, and frequently read Busnessweek and The Economist. I am hardly some ignorant rube. I have come to the conclusion that the "Republican" party I keep voting for does not do what they say. They spend like the Dems and cut taxes and expect the deficit to shrink. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Is Trump a good candidate. Absolutely not but I refuse to vote again for one of these party "hacks". Mine will be a "protest" vote or no vote at all and I suspect there are quite a few who share my views.

I don't think we disagree, it's just that we're using different vocabulary so we're talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between a "Trump supporter" and a "Trump voter." You sound like the latter. I'm talking about the real supporters, not the ones who are just going to vote for Trump as a f*ck you to the GOP. The people who think "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is a robust immigration stance. The people who don't care that Trump doesn't know what the nuclear triad is because they don't either.

I also think you're making a different point than Whiskey in the first place. You seem to be saying "Trump supporters aren't ignorant rubes." He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Whiskey would acknowledge that a good chunk of them are ignorant rubes, just that it would be unwise to identify them as such.

 

[MJ12666]

Just because the party isn't playing your song doesn't mean you need to shit on the floor. Someone who talks about nukes and trade wars with ease is dangerous and likely going to land us President Clinton Part Deux. This is the problem with the people who want to throw the firecracker at DC. The message is heard in the short run, but the liberal supreme court and policies are what will stick in the long run.

As I previously said I am wavering on voting for Trump. But seriously you have no clue about how the government operates if you think all the president has to do is say launch the nukes and it will happen or I am going to slap China imports with a 45% tariff. Not going to happen either. And as far as the Supreme Court goes, how did Reagan's and Bush's appointments work out? Not that great as far as conservatives are concerned. But that is an issue I don't want to get into. Besides I actually went through this before when I voted for Perot. That actually worked out pretty well if you can stomach the idea of having a sexual pervert running the country for eight years. But economically it work out fine, so quite frankly I see I have nothing to lose by a protest vote. Personally I do not think he has a chance of winning anyway and I really don't think if the Dems win again it will really impact my life much anyway. Not much will change.

 

[MJ12666]

I don't think we disagree, it's just that we're using different vocabulary so we're talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between a "Trump supporter" and a "Trump voter." You sound like the latter. I'm talking about the real supporters, not the ones who are just going to vote for Trump as a f*ck you to the GOP. The people who think "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is a robust immigration stance. The people who don't care that Trump doesn't know what the nuclear triad is because they don't either.

Agreed, but this is looking a lot like what happened on the early 90's with Perot.