Presidential debate ..

[dandelion]

The guy has done the opposite of every republican before him. Going against patriotism, veterans, the military and etc. The only people he may have left on his side are police forces, straight white males, women who don't care about their own rights, conspiracy theorists, racists, sexists and umm people looking for a handout. The only way he's making the distance is if the american public at large just blanks out on the last year or so right before the election.

Trump might be the republican candidate, but he is not the candidate the party wanted. He very likely has as much appeal to democrats as republicans. This was nearly an election of two non-party candidates in party clothing. I think it quite possible people will blank out his conradictory utterances, because what they fundamentally want is not to get the republican candidate or the democrat candidate. And such logic leaves them with just one person to vote for.

Presumably Clinton will argue Trump is a madman who should never be let near the whitehouse, but every time that argument is used it raises the question of the worthiness of his opponent too. This was the logic of the UK Brexit campaign, which persisted in quoting false statistics about the costs of the EU, knowing that every time an opponent complained it raised the issue of the existence of the cost, even if the quoted figure was patently wrong. The real issue they sought to get across was the existence of an opressive system. Vote Trump is a vote against that oppressive system. Vote Clinton is a vote for the system which has failed you time after time after time. It is a vote of confidence in the established political system, and I suspect more people dislike it than like it.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Trump might be the republican candidate, but he is not the candidate the party wanted. He very likely has as much appeal to democrats as republicans. This was nearly an election of two non-party candidates in party clothing. I think it quite possible people will blank out his conradictory utterances, because what they fundamentally want is not to get the republican candidate or the democrat candidate. And such logic leaves them with just one person to vote for.

Presumably Clinton will argue Trump is a madman who should never be let near the whitehouse, but every time that argument is used it raises the question of the worthiness of his opponent too. This was the logic of the UK Brexit campaign, which persisted in quoting false statistics about the costs of the EU, knowing that every time an opponent complained it raised the issue of the existence of the cost, even if the quoted figure was patently wrong. The real issue they sought to get across was the existence of an opressive system. Vote Trump is a vote against that oppressive system. Vote Clinton is a vote for the system which has failed you time after time after time. It is a vote of confidence in the established political system, and I suspect more people dislike it than like it.

I agree there were republicans/conservatives who didn't like or want trump but at the same time there just weren't enough of them or their voices weren't as loud or respected. Trump pulled it off by playing a numbers game. I'm an american so i can only guesstimate from what i've seen but brexit appears to have been the same sort of situation. I mean lies in politics is about as old as politics itself but these two instances saw a massive and blatant amount of lying. Difference being that lately that lying was directed solely towards certain kinds of people. The people most susceptible to it and the things it implies.

And i don't think he has as much appeal to democrats as republicans. Or at the very least not anymore. Maybe when he was touting the birther thing and handing out money but once he started crossing larger and larger plateaus of ignorance and downright insanity i think his appeal towards democrats evaporated. It had to. He started insulting larger and larger groups of people on a regular basis. Losing democrats left and right then picking up more an more republicans. Not only that but democrats who still would have voted for him had to come to grips with what that would mean long term. Supporting the guy who wanted to ban all muslims doesn't look good on the record of a democrat attempting to seem sympathetic to human beings in general. So not only was it a good move morally not to support him but strategically. And once he kept going there was little doubt in democrats inability to back him in any way. Hell if anything democrats HAVE to be against him now.

I agree with you on the worthiness balancing act to a degree. Clinton is not and never will be a saint and is/has been looked at as only more of the same but i don't think that matters anymore. Trump put too big a hole in his own foot for that to continue to make a difference. And thats where i think the similarities between trump/clinton and brexit end. Nigel Farage and his camp may have done things similar to donald trump but they did it in a place without as much back history, people and hard fought progress toward civil rights (as well as other rights). And to top it off they didn't go as far as donald trump. Sure, the general style of speaking between nigel farage and donald trump are similar but donald trump is an american and we americans generally go big for little or no reason.

With brexit there wasn't much attention paid to what was being said and done. The after effects and what not. With trump there was/is no choice but to wonder what might happen. He's gone so far to the right that he makes clinton look like a sunflower toting hippy. This after republicans in general have been trying desperately to take down not only her but barack obama. Doing so in full view of the american public...constantly and i might add constantly getting their asses handed to them on a silver platter with a side of common sense. Sure, the american public is fed up with the status quo but trump and republicans in general are and have been giving them something else to be angry about.

Keep in mind though that i don't think the racism, sexism, homophobia and etc were the things that did it. Sadly people would have voted for him in large numbers anyway. I mean his popularity didn't take a hit even when he talked openly about killing innocent people. I think (and i could very well be wrong) what did it was his taxes, him insulting POW's, vets, people finding out he made profit off of the housing bubble and in general his very way of being. That last part being a consequence of him running on his i'm not a politician speal. It might have worked had he not made sure just about any and everyone knew exactly how much of a douche he was/is.

So i agree it was a vote of confidence. Key word being was. At this point he has women, african americans, the lbgt community, muslims, immigrants, families of immigrants, mexicans, veterans, former POW's, republican's, and a whole host of other people preferring to a large degree that very same status quo..simply because they now know for a fact that if they don't they may not even survive during his presidency.

The guy has thrown out the majority of republicans/conservatives core principles leaving only abortion, gay marriage and lowering taxes for the rich. All the rest he's either ignored, got rid of or massively boned it up on multiple accusations. He can't hide behind the flag like other republicans have. Can't hide behind being conservative/responsible with money like other republicans have. I mean it isn't completely his fault. Since climate change denial is no longer a stable issue to stand on. Same with women's rights, wages, healthcare, the economy in general and etc. Republicans/conservatives in general have been eroding his ability to stand on those issues for a long time now.

I know i just typed a lot but err yeah trump played and is playing a numbers game that he had a chance to win with. Problem is he continued to open his mouth while clinton spent time not only actually doing stuffs but doing it as well as she could while having a gaggle of rabid republicans clipping at her heels constantly. I'm thinking he hit an incredibly large wall of diminishing returns. The more he acts like nigel farage the more people see the joker but the more clinton acts like rosa parks in the face of trump the more they see presidential material. If not by choice, without it.

I probably shouldn't be writing replies this long. I'll start trying to sum up my thoughts better.

 

[dandelion]

I agree there were republicans/conservatives who didn't like or want trump but at the same time there just weren't enough of them or their voices weren't as loud or respected.

The uS holds what I consider a crazy system where anyone can just roll up, claim an interest and vote to choose the party's representative. i guess it is part of entrenching a political party into a national duopoly of power which stifles possible newcomers. But it lays them open to the sort of takeover which nearly happened to both parties. Trump is not a republican candidate, merely the official candidate they have been lumbered with.

brexit appears to have been the same sort of situation.

Yes, Nigel farage has hijacked the conservative party which feels obliged to go along with him.

I mean lies in politics is about as old as politics itself but these two instances saw a massive and blatant amount of lying.

That too. But i keep going on about the fact voters could not possibly have failed to notice the inconsistencies in what Leave said. They chose to ignore it. But I think it was not as cut throat as in the US. Cameron and Johnson, leading the two campaigns both expected Remain would win. Ironically, Johnson seems to have counted on his side losing as much as Cameron did on himself winning. They both went to ths same school for goodness sake, and it was practically a re-run of the school debating society. Because the issues split parties, everyone was afraid to be really critical of their colleagues.

And i don't think he has as much appeal to democrats as republicans. Or at the very least not anymore.

Brexit did not go as far as it should have in politicians calling out their own lies. But then on the big issues both sides were saying the same lies. Difficult to call your opponent a liar on immigration when both had identical policies, to pretend to do something to stop it while secretly encouraging it. Brexit in the Uk is not over because the bad effects of Brexit still are only slowly being admitted or coming to light. It is entirly possible it will cripple the Uk economy. Remain were afraid to quote the worst-case predictions because they thought it would add credibility to their being called liars, which it did. Despite being true!

Maybe when he was touting the birther thing and handing out money but once he started crossing larger and larger plateaus of ignorance and downright insanity i think his appeal towards democrats evaporated. It had to.

You are thinking inside the box. Trump's win was impossible to become candidate. He won because of hatrd of the system. Although democrats may be vaguely left and republicans vaguely right, they are more alike than different. How low a proportion of people does he really need to persuade to his side to win? a third? a quarter? I assume many never bother to vote normally.

Not only that but democrats who still would have voted for him had to come to grips with what that would mean long term.

But the US delights in having governments which are hamstrung by division between the president and congress. Just as logical to have Trump opposed by even a republican congress as a democrat opposed by republicans.

Nigel Farage and his camp may have done things similar to donald trump but they did it in a place without as much back history, people and hard fought progress toward civil rights (as well as other rights).

I saw a black guy being interviewed on British television. He said, we turned out in droves for Obama, but what did we get? Nothing. I think they showed it to explain why Trump might win. if you are black (etc) the democrats wont help you either. The abstainers may swing it.

He's gone so far to the right that he makes clinton look like a sunflower toting hippy.

There are many issues involved, I am sure, and dont want to seem to oversimplify. But he will get votes from people who think, 'i dont care what his policy is, I just want to screw up washington'

Sure, the american public is fed up with the status quo but trump and republicans in general are and have been giving them something else to be angry about.

But that is old news. there comes a point when fed up translates into a political landslide, and that point is very near even if Trump does not make it.

his popularity didn't take a hit even when he talked openly about killing innocent people.

Duh. I thought the Us had this as a national policy! Ask Iraqis. Ask Adolph Hitler how his policy on racial minorities went down with the nation.

people finding out he made profit off of the housing bubble

And people would not want a president who knows how to do well even in bad times? isnt it the american dream to do well for yourself ? America is not a caring sharing nation, look to europe for that.

I know i just typed a lot but err yeah trump played and is playing a numbers game that he had a chance to win with

He has won. Even if he loses the election, he has won. Even if he is trounced in the election, he or someone like him will likely stand as candidate next time and win the nomination. The republicans have lost control of their own party.

I probably shouldn't be writing replies this long.

I do it all the time, its addictive.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

The uS holds what I consider a crazy system where anyone can just roll up, claim an interest and vote to choose the party's representative. i guess it is part of entrenching a political party into a national duopoly of power which stifles possible newcomers. But it lays them open to the sort of takeover which nearly happened to both parties. Trump is not a republican candidate, merely the official candidate they have been lumbered with.

Yes, Nigel farage has hijacked the conservative party which feels obliged to go along with him.

That too. But i keep going on about the fact voters could not possibly have failed to notice the inconsistencies in what Leave said. They chose to ignore it. But I think it was not as cut throat as in the US. Cameron and Johnson, leading the two campaigns both expected Remain would win. Ironically, Johnson seems to have counted on his side losing as much as Cameron did on himself winning. They both went to ths same school for goodness sake, and it was practically a re-run of the school debating society. Because the issues split parties, everyone was afraid to be really critical of their colleagues.

Brexit did not go as far as it should have in politicians calling out their own lies. But then on the big issues both sides were saying the same lies. Difficult to call your opponent a liar on immigration when both had identical policies, to pretend to do something to stop it while secretly encouraging it. Brexit in the Uk is not over because the bad effects of Brexit still are only slowly being admitted or coming to light. It is entirly possible it will cripple the Uk economy. Remain were afraid to quote the worst-case predictions because they thought it would add credibility to their being called liars, which it did. Despite being true!

You are thinking inside the box. Trump's win was impossible to become candidate. He won because of hatrd of the system. Although democrats may be vaguely left and republicans vaguely right, they are more alike than different. How low a proportion of people does he really need to persuade to his side to win? a third? a quarter? I assume many never bother to vote normally.

But the US delights in having governments which are hamstrung by division between the president and congress. Just as logical to have Trump opposed by even a republican congress as a democrat opposed by republicans.

I saw a black guy being interviewed on British television. He said, we turned out in droves for Obama, but what did we get? Nothing. I think they showed it to explain why Trump might win. if you are black (etc) the democrats wont help you either. The abstainers may swing it.


There are many issues involved, I am sure, and dont want to seem to oversimplify. But he will get votes from people who think, 'i dont care what his policy is, I just want to screw up washington'

But that is old news. there comes a point when fed up translates into a political landslide, and that point is very near even if Trump does not make it.

Duh. I thought the Us had this as a national policy! Ask Iraqis. Ask Adolph Hitler how his policy on racial minorities went down with the nation.

And people would not want a president who knows how to do well even in bad times? isnt it the american dream to do well for yourself ? America is not a caring sharing nation, look to europe for that.


He has won. Even if he loses the election, he has won. Even if he is trounced in the election, he or someone like him will likely stand as candidate next time and win the nomination. The republicans have lost control of their own party.

I do it all the time, its addictive.

Guess i'll go backwards here but yeah it's actually very difficult NOT to but i agree in a lot of ways he has won. Our political system has been leveled to that of a reality tv show. People are looking at these things as if they were some sort of boxing or wrestling match when it's the fate of our country at stake. Don't get me wrong though i think it's always been that way to a certain degree...just...not that bad. And i agree they've completely lost it. I can't even imagine who their next candidate will be. Odds are good that you are correct. That the next person will just be another version of him. Republicans in general (not all) tend to double and triple down constantly so i'm in fully agreement there.

Yes, people do say that thats what america is about but actually it isn't. Or at least not when it comes to how it happened and who did it. It's only making a dent because trump has pointed so many fingers outward. Americans in general understand at least to some degree that it isn't all rainbows an kittens but most americans still don't realize the extent of the damage done or the people who profited off it. Once trump made that connection he put himself in the cross hairs of those angry with the system. He put his own face on the act. Same with his taxes. It's one thing for people not to have visual of the types of people benefiting from their misery and then another to have someone proudly take up that visual. Like i said, couple that with his tax moves, plans on trickledown economics and visually speaking he made himself the 1%.

Also true. It is pretty much a thing with america but most americans don't really notice it or want to notice it. The only person to flat out say it in the most casual of ways.....trump. As horrible as it is theres a level of deniability there left over from decades of bullshit. If it were say a journalist saying it it's a different story from say someone running for the presidency saying it. And then it traveling to other countries. All deniability for those voting for him then goes right out the window.

I agree there does come a point. And had trump shut up part of the way through it would have carried him into the white house. Sad to say but it would have. At the same time, the people who are fed up with the government just so happen to be the people most responsible for it being so bad. Speaking in general terms of course. Most of the people fed up are the ones who've been voting consistently for republicans who instead of not doing anything when they get in office have been working against just about everyone's best interests in one way shape form or another. Giving even more money to the rich, defunding programs to help the poor and etc. With the resulting effect being multiple structures not being able to hold their own weight and crashing on top of the very people who by and large elected them. It's a strategy that worked back in the day for republicans in general because there were not only less people but more available jobs. Over a very stretch of time that same strategy comes back to bite them in the ass regularly. So i agree, the general upsettedness of people does have an effect but that effect is why america is in the predicament it's in now.

And once again i agree he will continue to get votes from those types of people. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. Again though, many of these types of people are the same ones i talked about before. The ones who've been consistently in a way committing suicide vote wise. Which has the effect of dwindling down their numbers each time they succeed. Not just on opinion but follow through. Every time republicans have defunded a program people needed it has been noticed. Sure, not by a very large amount but it has been. It just so happens though they've attempted to defund damned near everything. Giving them more and more exposure each time. Letting people understand exactly whose doing it and why. And the more that happens. The more people wise up and look elsewhere or the more people stay far away from anyone in red. Creating this avalanche of sorts. And with republicans in general not even coming close to getting the message they fall into it over an over again.

Now this also goes a bit with democrats in general just to a much lesser degree. It still happens and democrats do still fuck things up but not nearly as much as republicans do. So when people do finally get fed up the lesser of two evils thing comes in and democrats come out on top. Now there are independents of course but they have even less of a chance of swaying people than republicans. Based solely on numbers. Though when you take into account the many people donald trump has pissed off it adds a massive amount more weight towards people literally running away from people in red. Then looking towards independents as just bumps in a possible trump road.

So yeah the amount of people who just want to throw a monkey wrench in the works is already small. Add everything else and that number shrinks with each passing day because people start to realize the seriousness of the situation. Thanks to trump.

 

[dandelion]

I think politics in the US and Uk has been in the 'lesser of two evils' mode for decades. Its now getting to 'a plague on both their houses'. Shakespeare saw the point.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

The uS holds what I consider a crazy system where anyone can just roll up, claim an interest and vote to choose the party's representative. i guess it is part of entrenching a political party into a national duopoly of power which stifles possible newcomers. But it lays them open to the sort of takeover which nearly happened to both parties. Trump is not a republican candidate, merely the official candidate they have been lumbered with.

Yes, Nigel farage has hijacked the conservative party which feels obliged to go along with him.

That too. But i keep going on about the fact voters could not possibly have failed to notice the inconsistencies in what Leave said. They chose to ignore it. But I think it was not as cut throat as in the US. Cameron and Johnson, leading the two campaigns both expected Remain would win. Ironically, Johnson seems to have counted on his side losing as much as Cameron did on himself winning. They both went to ths same school for goodness sake, and it was practically a re-run of the school debating society. Because the issues split parties, everyone was afraid to be really critical of their colleagues.

Brexit did not go as far as it should have in politicians calling out their own lies. But then on the big issues both sides were saying the same lies. Difficult to call your opponent a liar on immigration when both had identical policies, to pretend to do something to stop it while secretly encouraging it. Brexit in the Uk is not over because the bad effects of Brexit still are only slowly being admitted or coming to light. It is entirly possible it will cripple the Uk economy. Remain were afraid to quote the worst-case predictions because they thought it would add credibility to their being called liars, which it did. Despite being true!

You are thinking inside the box. Trump's win was impossible to become candidate. He won because of hatrd of the system. Although democrats may be vaguely left and republicans vaguely right, they are more alike than different. How low a proportion of people does he really need to persuade to his side to win? a third? a quarter? I assume many never bother to vote normally.

But the US delights in having governments which are hamstrung by division between the president and congress. Just as logical to have Trump opposed by even a republican congress as a democrat opposed by republicans.

I saw a black guy being interviewed on British television. He said, we turned out in droves for Obama, but what did we get? Nothing. I think they showed it to explain why Trump might win. if you are black (etc) the democrats wont help you either. The abstainers may swing it.


There are many issues involved, I am sure, and dont want to seem to oversimplify. But he will get votes from people who think, 'i dont care what his policy is, I just want to screw up washington'

But that is old news. there comes a point when fed up translates into a political landslide, and that point is very near even if Trump does not make it.

Duh. I thought the Us had this as a national policy! Ask Iraqis. Ask Adolph Hitler how his policy on racial minorities went down with the nation.

And people would not want a president who knows how to do well even in bad times? isnt it the american dream to do well for yourself ? America is not a caring sharing nation, look to europe for that.


He has won. Even if he loses the election, he has won. Even if he is trounced in the election, he or someone like him will likely stand as candidate next time and win the nomination. The republicans have lost control of their own party.

I do it all the time, its addictive.

And i agree, black people didn't get anything from obama. That was the point. Black people weren't suppose to. I idea was to make things even and to a certain degree obama did that if only by existing. Now don't get me wrong there were more than a few things i completely disagreed with regarding him but overall he did more for black people than anyone in his time....by accident. Just by existing he smoked out a lot of racists/bigots. Other than that healthcare in general has been a good thing for a very large amount of people. Sure, it gets complicated but more people have been helped then not. Also generally speaking...no democrats don't usually put that much effort towards helping people of color. Speaking specifically towards lower levels that help is nonexistent. Which would be very upsetting if we didn't already know how things would be for minorities under republicans. And i happen to know that. And...not only is it not good but consistently not good. Voter suppression. Police brutality (an stop and frisk). Wages. Hirings. Firings. Defunding of programs. The list goes on and on. And it's regularly directed towards people of color. No matter which republican it is and no matter where they are it usually goes that way. So while democrats don't do much for people of color in general. It's still leagues above republicans targetting them for just about any and everything on a regular basis.

I don't think the US delights in it. In fact i'm sure the US despises it. Thats why blame for these things are used as election ammo. Again though, once you start to look at who is doing what the totals have a clear winner with regard to shutting down government, crippling programs, defunding things and etc. And that has only multiplied over the years. With republicans getting more and more desperate. Once again, don't get me wrong. When it comes to that the totals aren't extreme. Democrats are also responsible for some seriously stupid moves too. It's just that once again republicans out do them on it.

Yes, trump won because of hatred for the system...but also because of sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, elitism and etc. Trump literally threw everything he could at the wall and most of it stuck. Until now that is. At this point there is no vaguely left. If you aren't a die hard republican then even those die hard republicans will say you're a lefty. Thats the nature of it. All democrats have to do these days to be considered on the left is not be as insane as the right currently is. All hillary clinton has to do is NOT casually talk about killing innocent people.

Well like i said. I don't know all that much about brexit but from what i saw there was elements of time, population and confusion involved. The way i saw it the remain campaign and people in general were attempting to point out the flaws and lies in leave's campaign but people weren't taking it seriously. Which would be similar to people pointing out trump's lies if it weren't for trump making it so easy to and continuing on insulting just about everyone but also generally ignoring the time frame in which he's running. If i'm not mistaken brexit was created and voted on with out all that much time for people to fully understand just how important a choice it was. I mean once again i am an american so i could be completely off but i would guess that america also has more minority groups to disrespect.

And i don't think both parties were left open. I like bernie but he didn't have a chance while donald trump was running. He needed way too many things and resources an what not to make an effective campaign. I would like to think the american public could do something like that but republicans have become a monster of a thing. So i'm not all too sure just anybody could have. Maybe just anybody with insane amounts of money maybe but not just anybody.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

I think politics in the US and Uk has been in the 'lesser of two evils' mode for decades. Its now getting to 'a plague on both their houses'. Shakespeare saw the point.

I tend to disagree. Like i said, democrats aren't usually the most active of people. In part because they're usually too busy defending against republicans but this election is different. Republicans in general seem to have pissed all on the lesser or two evils idea and went for being the only evil while democrats have been sitting back enjoying every minute of it.

I mean it has been that way for some time now on the lower levels but this time it's constantly being jammed in everyone's face. You can't go a day without hearing about how donald trump lied about this or insulted that. And while there will be yet another donald trump down the line the effect will be different. People know how to deal with a guy like that now. Democrats now have tools to put a massive dent in republicans in general. Which alone will tip the scales for all parties. The more republicans in general fuck up the better things will be for democrats and third parties.

Ok...if....that is they don't fuck it up themselves. Which speaking of third parties it seems they have already. Thought they would get further than that but ah well. The next election i'm sure will be different. Maybe not for republicans since they rather enjoy using the same tactics over and over again but it seems to me that democrats and third parties have a real chance at getting out of their rut and really make a difference. Once again though, chance does not equate to success. The chance is still there though. And thats a hellavalot of typing.

 

[Klingsor]

Trump might be the republican candidate, but he is not the candidate the party wanted. He very likely has as much appeal to democrats as republicans.

Trump couldn't have won the Democratic party nomination. However out of step he may be as a Republican, he's still a better fit there.

 

[dandelion]

Yes, but clinton nearly did not win either, despite having that big chunk of party apparatchik superdelegates voting for her nomination. Those votes gave her an inbuilt bandwagon effect from the start. Whoever finally wins has to capture enough votes from the entire national electorate, not from one or other partisan side. there are in effect three pools of voters. Those inclined democrat or republican, and those who consider neither worth voting for. Trump might seek to appeal to democrats, but he also has the potential to attract from the remaining third. he beat the republican party nominees because he is an outsider and could draw on outsider support.

From my perspective as an outsider to all US politics, I think crimsonlurker is being wildly optimistic in believeing people will 'see through' Trump. They are just as likely to believe it is all one massive conspiracy against him. Not least because there IS a conspiracy against him, the democratic party, which has shown itself in the past to be a bunch of liars. What the Brexit campaign demonstrated was that the biggest liar won. The remain campaign was afraid to attack Leave on detail because it believed (possibly quite correctly) that the more it called leave liars and the more experts it paraded in front of the public supporting its case, the more the public did not believe Remain. The more it tried to force the public to see the truth, the more the public turned away. leave were selling a dream and the public did not want to be disillusioned.

 

[Industrialsize]

Yes, but clinton nearly did not win either, despite having that big chunk of party apparatchik superdelegates voting for her nomination. Those votes gave her an inbuilt bandwagon effect from the start. Whoever finally wins has to capture enough votes from the entire national electorate, not from one or other partisan side. there are in effect three pools of voters. Those inclined democrat or republican, and those who consider neither worth voting for. Trump might seek to appeal to democrats, but he also has the potential to attract from the remaining third. he beat the republican party nominees because he is an outsider and could draw on outsider support.

From my perspective as an outsider to all US politics, I think crimsonlurker is being wildly optimistic in believeing people will 'see through' Trump. They are just as likely to believe it is all one massive conspiracy against him. Not least because there IS a conspiracy against him, the democratic party, which has shown itself in the past to be a bunch of liars. What the Brexit campaign demonstrated was that the biggest liar won. The remain campaign was afraid to attack Leave on detail because it believed (possibly quite correctly) that the more it called leave liars and the more experts it paraded in front of the public supporting its case, the more the public did not believe Remain. The more it tried to force the public to see the truth, the more the public turned away. leave were selling a dream and the public did not want to be disillusioned.

The fact is that Secretary Clinton Beat Senator Sanders by more than Barak Obama beat Hillary Clinton.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Yes, but clinton nearly did not win either, despite having that big chunk of party apparatchik superdelegates voting for her nomination. Those votes gave her an inbuilt bandwagon effect from the start. Whoever finally wins has to capture enough votes from the entire national electorate, not from one or other partisan side. there are in effect three pools of voters. Those inclined democrat or republican, and those who consider neither worth voting for. Trump might seek to appeal to democrats, but he also has the potential to attract from the remaining third. he beat the republican party nominees because he is an outsider and could draw on outsider support.

From my perspective as an outsider to all US politics, I think crimsonlurker is being wildly optimistic in believeing people will 'see through' Trump. They are just as likely to believe it is all one massive conspiracy against him. Not least because there IS a conspiracy against him, the democratic party, which has shown itself in the past to be a bunch of liars. What the Brexit campaign demonstrated was that the biggest liar won. The remain campaign was afraid to attack Leave on detail because it believed (possibly quite correctly) that the more it called leave liars and the more experts it paraded in front of the public supporting its case, the more the public did not believe Remain. The more it tried to force the public to see the truth, the more the public turned away. leave were selling a dream and the public did not want to be disillusioned.

Yeah she did. If she had not won you can bet that republicans would have used it to get her locked up. She didn't steal anything and there is no conspiracy out there to keep trump from winning anything. The democrats aren't lying about him either. He lost this election simply because he isn't fit for office. Not fit for any type of office in any respect.

Wildly optimistic? No. I'm saying as much because of replies i read online, the direction of conversations, the debates and in general what donald trump has let fly out of his own mouth. Once again, the guy has insulted everyone but straight white men. He got the nomination by savagely lying about and outmaneuvering his republicans rivals. Setting them up for traps they then walked right directly into and even going so far as to start rumors about their families. It's so bad that some republicans have HAD to come out as being against him or lose votes. The guy even insulted the military. Which is unprecedented for a republican.

So yeah i don't know why you're implying there is some sort of conspiracy against trump but i do know you are dead wrong. Amazingly wrong. Trump shouldn't have even been able to run with his history and temperament. And also never should have been able to get this far.

 

[dandelion]

Perhaps I should explain better. A political party IS a conspiracy. It is a group of people organising and planning to ensure a favourite of theirs wins an election. As far as I can see both US parties use every means they can to boost their candidate and are not picky about how fairly they portray their candidate or their opponent.

 

[Chrysippus]

Perhaps I should explain better. A political party IS a conspiracy. It is a group of people organising and planning to ensure a favourite of theirs wins an election. As far as I can see both US parties use every means they can to boost their candidate and are not picky about how fairly they portray their candidate or their opponent.

No! a conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

A political party is a group of people who come together to elect its candidates and hold power in the government. They may agree on some policies to further their supporters' interests.

You're a sloppy thinker.

 

[dandelion]

No! a conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

And?

A political party is a group of people who come together to elect its candidates and hold power in the government.

I have not the tiniest doubt political parties have secret plans they do not tell voters. They usually seek to act lawfully, but I think it quite obvious their plans are harmful. If two parties have divergent plans, then at least one of them MUST be harmful. Probably both, but perhaps to different groups. much of the art of politics is to keep secret your plans so as to trick people into voting for things which will be harmfull to them.

.

 

[Chrysippus]

And?

I have not the tiniest doubt political parties have secret plans they do not tell voters. They usually seek to act lawfully, but I think it quite obvious their plans are harmful. If two parties have divergent plans, then at least one of them MUST be harmful. Probably both, but perhaps to different groups. much of the art of politics is to keep secret your plans so as to trick people into voting for things which will be harmfull to them.
.

logic error:
If two parties have divergent plans, then at least one of them MUST be harmful.

 

[dandelion]

logic error:
If two parties have divergent plans, then at least one of them MUST be harmful.

Yes. They cannot both be equally benficial, so one must be more harmfull

 

[Chrysippus]

Yes. They cannot both be equally benficial, so one must be more harmfull

illogical conclusion.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Perhaps I should explain better. A political party IS a conspiracy. It is a group of people organising and planning to ensure a favourite of theirs wins an election. As far as I can see both US parties use every means they can to boost their candidate and are not picky about how fairly they portray their candidate or their opponent.

If you think two parties are out to do harm then you would have to think all parties are out to do harm. And further, since those parties are made up of people that all people are out to do harm. Meaning everyone is out to get you. Without logically checking anything and making blanket statements about large groups of people you pretty much conspiracy theory yourself into a black hole from which no light escapes.

Once again, logically speaking if you can evaluate those two groups as being conspiratory in nature without any real evidence of how or why then you have to do the same for every group and every person. Leading you to a dead end of your own making.

Technically you're right to a degree but chrysippus is by those same degrees even more right. When people say something is a conspiracy they're usually implying something sinister. And like i said, if you can and do make that claim without evidence broadly then you have to do the same for all parties. And in turn all people. Which includes all future bodies of government, future people's and in general all expected forms of people ever. Again, a logical dead end that leads no where, fixes nothing and only serves to stroke your ego. Giving you the cynical illusion of being prophetic. It's a very comfortable spot to be in where you don't have to do any real thinking. You don't have to put any real effort towards figuring out the best way forward. It's a cop out that has nothing but a negative effect on anyone or anything.

In this very specific case though, there are clearly those wanting more destruction than others. Maybe you should invest a little more time in the details here.

 

[dandelion]

If you think two parties are out to do harm then you would have to think all parties are out to do harm.

Yes. Political parties represent particular viewpoints or ideologies which favour one group over another. Simple example, low tax high spend v. high tax low spend. The people who get the spent money and the people who pay the taxes are likely to be different so one will lose compared to the other. Even if a party had the ideal policy which creates the greatest benefit overall, someone will be worse off. A govrnment which prevents dumping of nuclear waste in city parks would benefit lots of people, but harm the owners of the waste who will now have to pay for safe disposal. Thats a very common example, where industry fails to pay for the polution it causes.

And further, since those parties are made up of people that all people are out to do harm.

They probably do not think about it that way, they just see what they want. Some rationalise that helping them helps society, and so forth. You do not have to deliberately set out to do harm to in fact do so.

Meaning everyone is out to get you.

probably not personally, just generally. But generally, yes.

When people say something is a conspiracy they're usually implying something sinister.

The US and UK have two main political parties bigger than all the others, which dominate government. They form a duopoly of power and control government. Largely they are self appointing oligarchs who choose two candidates and then the voters are forced to take one of them as their leader. Thats pretty sinister, yes. Trump is a remarkable exception where an outsider has muscled in on the two party monopoly. Both parties hate him for this more than they dislike each other. the parties are rivals, not enemies. They mutually assist each other to continue to exist.

if you can and do make that claim without evidence broadly then you have to do the same for all parties.

All parties represent a self interest group. Thats hard to avoid, but the system of choosing governments we have prevent smaller factions being represented at all in government. How many green party senators do you have? Yet what percentage of the population might have wanted a green party to be represented congress?

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Yes. Political parties represent particular viewpoints or ideologies which favour one group over another. Simple example, low tax high spend v. high tax low spend. The people who get the spent money and the people who pay the taxes are likely to be different so one will lose compared to the other. Even if a party had the ideal policy which creates the greatest benefit overall, someone will be worse off. A govrnment which prevents dumping of nuclear waste in city parks would benefit lots of people, but harm the owners of the waste who will now have to pay for safe disposal. Thats a very common example, where industry fails to pay for the polution it causes.

They probably do not think about it that way, they just see what they want. Some rationalise that helping them helps society, and so forth. You do not have to deliberately set out to do harm to in fact do so.

probably not personally, just generally. But generally, yes.

The US and UK have two main political parties bigger than all the others, which dominate government. They form a duopoly of power and control government. Largely they are self appointing oligarchs who choose two candidates and then the voters are forced to take one of them as their leader. Thats pretty sinister, yes. Trump is a remarkable exception where an outsider has muscled in on the two party monopoly. Both parties hate him for this more than they dislike each other. the parties are rivals, not enemies. They mutually assist each other to continue to exist.

All parties represent a self interest group. Thats hard to avoid, but the system of choosing governments we have prevent smaller factions being represented at all in government. How many green party senators do you have? Yet what percentage of the population might have wanted a green party to be represented congress?

I feel like i'm repeating myself here but no that is not why both parties "hate" him...

...Seriously, for like the one hundredth time there is no conspiracy. Both parties do not "hate" him. Republicans in general still endorse the guy. And democrats don't "hate" him, they think he would be a disaster for not only america but the world. Try as you might to modify or manipulate the facts. It is still what it is. Republicans in general still support him not matter what he says or does and democrats look at his history, what he has said, what he has done, his lack of a plan in multiple areas, his comments about women, his comments about racial groups, his comments about religion, his comments on innocent people and etc to deem him deeply unworthy for the very seat he is gunning for.

There is no conspiracy. No shady group lying about trump. No system of dark overlords pulling strings against him. You make it sound like everyone is ganging up on the man when he has consistently gone after everyone else. Which is throughly ridiculous. Trump is not a remarkable exception. Trump is just the logical progression of the amount of money in politics and in general the slanted distribution of wealth in america. There isn't anything amazing or stupendous about it.

Man with some money thinks he can get over on people and make more money.

It's about as normal as breathing. And him doing so by insulting everyone but one specific group of people to gain support is again about as normal. Him lying about everything is also about as normal as it gets. It's a story we've heard a million times in a million different ways.

It's so normal in fact that we as human beings have a word for it.

con art·ist
noun
informal
noun: con artist; plural noun: con artists

1. a person who cheats or tricks others by persuading them to believe something that is not true.
   "the debonair con artist lives by scamming rich women"

And no you don't have to set out to do harm to cause it but once again you're chasing ghosts here. You haven't brought up not one bit of concrete evidence to prove your point towards both having intent to do harm. Meaning your suggestion that theres a conspiracy with both is about as believable as trump is. Don't get me wrong though, there is a philosophical debate/discussion in here but you aren't anywhere near close to it. Especially when you think trump is somehow an "outsider". Tell me, how exactly can one brag about or say they are an outsider after they've bragged about or talked about how they've bought people off for various reasons? I'm sorry but you can't both be an outsider AND paid for things on the inside as well. One or both of those things are a lie.