7 ms·

True. FWIW I think Thiel's goal is to take the opportunity to be on the national stage a bit, expecting to have a bit more involvement in future elections. Al

True. FWIW I think Thiel's goal is to take the opportunity to be on the national stage a bit, expecting to have a bit more involvement in future elections. Also, FWIW, I think people who live in CA should seriously consider voting for a third party candidate, since HRC is certain to win the state.

tptacek 10y ago
I think a lot of people are chill about Trump and Trumpism because they're sure Hillary Clinton is going to win. They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean, because nothing is forcing them to. They, too, should reconsider. First: Trump could very well win. The polls before Brexit leaned slightly towards its success, but that depended on how you read them: almost as many polls showed it headed for defeat as success. Brexit took Europe by surprise. It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries. Trump, too, is a part of the popular nationalism movement. Not only that, but there's still 3 weeks of election to go. If you believe Sam Wang, this has been an extremely stable election, and it's unlikely to tip. But if you believe Nate Silver, this has been one of the most volatile elections since we've begun tracking it, and the two previous big swings in opinion took less than a week each. Second: there will be no getting around the tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism. If Trump loses, he'll create his own cable news network, which will have a built-in audience of millions. That network will drag Fox News further to the right. Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. Remember: the GOP may not have believe Trump to be an existential threat to democracy in 2015, but they were sure as shit aware that Trump was a grave threat to their chances at re-taking the White House. His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent.
- TAForObvReasons 10y ago
  > His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent. IMHO The forces against Trump acted too late. In a field with 17 candidates, one of whom appeals to a significant percentage of the base, the outlier will usually win. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC forces out weaker candidates earlier in the process next cycle.
- grandalf 10y ago
  There are a lot of insightful comments here, I'll respond to a few: > It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries. True, HRC too makes many, many appeals to populist sentiments. Hers is less of a "National Greatness" populism, mainly because Trump has cornered the market for that in this election. Trump has appealed to all the people who buy American cars because they are American or who think that eating a burrito will give them diarrhea (and assume that all people who routinely eat burritos must be plagued by it constantly), etc. etc. I see this as less of a threat because frankly most of those people are simply old, and they are dying off rapidly. HRC and Obama support gay marriage today because enough of them died off to make homophobia a losing political position. In the next four years, many more will die off, and that element of society that idealizes 1950s America will be much smaller. Though there is a younger generation that is sympathetic to the 1950s narrative... The television show Mad Men has been hugely popular, and its protagonist is essentially a more handsome Donald Trump. He grabs women and kisses them, he's erratic, he's loud, he's a womanizer, a self-saboteur. This television show captured the imagination of millennials because Don Draper is unlike most young men today. It's that same virility and unapologetic machismo that has led Trump voters to rally behind him. How can we go from being a society that loves Don Draper to a society that hates Don Trump? I don't think it's possible, and I think Trump's ideas will be around for a while even in the younger generation, albeit with a different spokesperson. This is why focusing on the surface layer of Trump is a mistake and why we should be addressing the deeper themes that are going to be alive and well no matter what happens in November. We'd previously had a lot of presidents who tried to embody the cowboy aesthetic. GWB, born in Connecticut, talked about how much he loves "cold beer and barbecue", owns a ranch, etc. Chris Matthews claims that the winner is always the one the American people can picture squinting into a sunset. > tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism Totally agree, I believe a vote for Trump or HRC counts as this. > Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. TV news is now predominantly entertainment. This is a problem that goes deeper than Trump. It seems natural that an entertainment industry guy like Trump would want to get in on it now that there's zero need for any journalistic merit.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries Who's "we"? Learned economists/sociologists, or internet randomers? Trump wants to "make america great again", Brexiters want to regain their sovereignty from an unaccountable other; they aren't the same thing. > in effect, for American Fascism Which way do you think the country was going before Trump came along? Greater freedom, accountability and transparency of government? Does prism, Snowden etc not mean anything?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, they're not the same thing. #MAGA is the American populist nationalist movement. Brexit is the British populist nationalist movement. As you have adroitly detected, they are in fact two different countries. But I'm glad you brought Snowden up. Because that gives me the opportunity to remind you that one of Donald Trump's campaign promises is to put Edward Snowden to death.
    - hiringmanager 10y ago
      Also one of Hillary's campaign promises. And basically what Obama has been trying to do. Remember Hillary suggested that we should use a drone to take out Julian Assange. But we should be reminded about Trump taking this position and we should all forget that Obama and Hillary are arguably worse?
      - Natsu 10y ago
        To be fair, I thought it wasn't actually Hillary that suggested that. But yes, Obama has ordered quite a few strikes.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        No, that is a false statement.
        rfrank 10y ago
        No, it isn't.
- hiringmanager 10y ago
  Your comment is a lot of projection of why people might support Trump. I'm not a fan of Trump, and my vote would go to Gary Johnson, but I hope Trump wins. Here's why: 1. I'm gay. Hillary Clinton has campaigned against gay marriage here entire career. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (not coincidentally on the day I stopped being a democrat.) Trump doesn't care about homosexuality (literally when asked what he would do if he found out an employee was gay he said "it makes no difference"). While HRC supporters like to portray him as anti-gay and wanting to overturn the decision legalizing gay marriage, that's not honest. He correctly disagrees with the basis on which the decision was made, which is different from disagreeing on the outcome. (There really is no power for government to regulate marriage, especially at the federal level.) So, I hope Trump wins because Hillary is the anti-gay bigot between the two. I'm not even going to get into the allegations of racism because that boy-who-cried wolf has been going on since Obama got elected and merely disagreeing with him makes you a "racist" now. 2. The claim that Trump represents "american facsism" is a misrepresentation of Fascism. Fascism is an economic system whereby the economy is privately owned but controlled dictatorially by a central government. That means Obamacare ("private" insurance companies, total control over the government) and the GM takeover are examples of American Fascism. The total surveillance society we have under Obama and W and would continue under Hillary is fascist. To portray this as "liberalism" vs "fascsim" is wrong, and more right if you reverse the roles. (at least Trump is a bit economically liberal.) 3. You guys seem to grab "code phrases" and repeat them as mantras. The one you used is "existential threat to democracy". Remember in 2000 when Gore lost the election and we had 8 years of W as a result? Remember the massive scandal about voting fraud and how widespread it was? That's a literal threat to democracy. Like the Snowden revelations it was news for awhile, and there was talk of reform, but nothing was ever done. How can there be a democracy when the votes are not even honestly counted? How about the fact that we cannot audit the software of the counting machines? Isn't that a literal threat to democracy? Much more serious than some obnoxious reality TV star who's slightly more economically liberal than a woman whose entire career has been beset with scandal and allegations of misconduct-- almost all of which were just proven true with email leaks? Who had an investigation by the FBI where the agents say the outcome was predetermined? Isn't that level of corruption a serious existential threat to democracy? You don't have to agree with me, that's fine- MY objection is to this delusion that there is a only one way to look at this and anyone who disagrees is somehow evil. I'ma gay guy who wants to legally marry and I'm not going to vote for someone who has denied me my rights. Tell me that makes me immoral!
- harshreality 10y ago
  > They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean, They don't agree with you. Why should they take the time to internalize what you think a Trump presidency would mean, if you're wrong? Have you followed all the problems related to people losing their jobs because of tweets, and Nobel laureates losing their jobs because of jokes that got blown out of proportion? This is not quite the same as that; Trump's statements are not one-off tweets or jokes. But you assume Trump's statements are literally what he wants to enact. Only #nevertrump actually believes that; everyone else thinks Trump is making statements that are just the right-wing version of Open Borders and Universal Income, and Trump and his supporters actually expect those radical right-wing positions (consider them an initial negotiation position) to be negotiated down to something centrist. They don't want all Muslims banned (well, some Trump supporters do, but not many), nor an economy-damaging trade war with China, nor a literal wall running the entire Mexican border, nor refusal to defend NATO allies. What they do want is some respect for enforcing existing immigration laws (congress made it illegal to immigrate by walking across the border, but the Democrat propaganda seeks to frame Trump as a bad person for suggesting enforcing the law Congress wrote). They want some attention paid to long-term economic consequences of outsourcing so much production, and restructuring the costs of the U.S. playing World Policeperson. They want some indication that the government is aware of the difficulty of "vetting" immigrants from a war-torn region without stable government, and that there are social and political externalities from accepting not-well-vettable immigrants when those war-torn regions are known for terrorism (that we may or may not be funding to try to topple Assad), and when even those who are not "terrorists" have what most Americans would consider an undesirable propensity for supporting things like Sharia law. You and other Thiel-haters reject the principle of charity as it applies both to Trump and to Thiel; you paint a caricature of someone's positions, and go on a witch hunt against anyone who supports those people. When that isn't enough, you go on a witch-hunt against anyone who associates with those people. I consider that dangerous and politically damaging. Obviously everyone has a right to express their opinions, and to choose their associations, but that presumes some level of respect, caution and restraint that is not generally being shown by modern liberals.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    In one breath, you say that the problem with how I view Trump is that I take him at his word. In the next, you accuse me of caricaturing his positions. The problem I have engaging with your argument is that I cannot crawl inside your head to discover what your perceptions of Donald Trump are, and those appear to be the only terms on which you're comfortable discussing Donald Trump. But of course, the bigger problem here is that I'm not here to convince you not to support Donald Trump. I hope you won't. But if you do: fine. Sam Altman does not agree with you. He likens Trump to a dictator. If you're a Trump supporter, you are not the audience to whom my argument is addressed.
- cmurf 10y ago
  This is not even about Trump, he is just the most blatantly visible artifact of a movement that enjoys calling people names and delegitimizing. Trump did this in 2008 and again in 2012, he did it with the whole racist birther routine which few Republican leaders denounced - they were perfectly happy to ride the coat tails of delegitimizing a sitting president. Perfectly happy to continue to do it this year by not even holding hearings on his Supreme Court nominee. And then just yesterday McCain proposes delegitimizing Hillary in advance by blocking any of her nominees. I agree with you, I think this is playing with fire. But I have no idea if getting a little bit burned is what's needed, or if it quickly turns into Donald actually trying to get the Speaker of the House removed. "They'll be there...I would think that Ryan wouldn't be there--maybe he would be in a different position," Trump said on The O'Reilly Factor.[1] Does he really think he can do this? i.e. autocrat. Or does he not know how our government works? i.e imbecile. Or is he trolling? i.e. troll as head of state is great! I mean really? People are so deranged with anti-Hillary sentiment they don't really get how unstable a presidency this would be, just like this whole 18 month shit show has been. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/11/donald-trump-speaker-paul-ryan-maybe-different-position-house-leadership-mccain-gop http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/11/donald-trump-speaker-p...
- phaus 10y ago
  >Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. I was hoping his nomination will serve as a wake-up call for the GOP. More specifically, I'm hoping they drop the strict requirement to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian lunatic in order to have a real shot at running as a republican. We need more moderates from both major parties. Partisan politics are destroying us.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    > More specifically, I'm hoping they drop the strict requirement to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian lunatic in order to have a real shot at running as a republican. This is how we got to Trump in the first place. > Partisan politics are destroying us. I absolutely agree, though I don't see how all this demonizing of conservatives is going to help.
- Karrot_Kream 10y ago
  Hear hear. I usually don't post my political views online, but deserves affirmation.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  I disagree that Trump would be such a shoe-in for 2020. The Democrats just need a better candidate. I think with the currently developing scandals (especially sexual assault allegations), and likely many more scandals between 2016 and 2020, they'd need someone even less liked than Hillary for him to have a shot. The bigger threat is indeed whatever media empire he might try to launch after the election. (Scarily, I could picture him doing so whether he wins or loses.)
  - Avenger42 10y ago
    > I disagree that Trump would be such a shoe-in for 2020. The Democrats just need a better candidate. Note that it's almost unheard-of for the sitting president not to run for a second term. (I certainly can't remember a case in my short life.) So either Trump or Clinton will almost certainly be on the ballot in 4 years.
    - woofyman 10y ago
      LBJ didn't run for reelection.
      - WildUtah 10y ago
        Yes, he did. Johnson was forced out of the primaries by Sen. McCarthy.
    - meowface 10y ago
      If Hillary isn't in a relatively strong position by 2020, I suspect she'd be reasonable enough to switch with someone else.
jacquesm 10y ago
Telling people who will vote for a candidate that is 'certain to win' to vote for another candidate that has very little chance of winning benefits the candidate that is 'certain to come second', in fact if enough people do this the candidate that was 'certain to win' could easily lose.

tptacek 10y ago

I think a lot of people are chill about Trump and Trumpism because they're sure Hillary Clinton is going to win. They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean, because nothing is forcing them to. They, too, should reconsider. First: Trump could very well win. The polls before Brexit leaned slightly towards its success, but that depended on how you read them: almost as many polls showed it headed for defeat as success. Brexit took Europe by surprise. It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries. Trump, too, is a part of the popular nationalism movement. Not only that, but there's still 3 weeks of election to go. If you believe Sam Wang, this has been an extremely stable election, and it's unlikely to tip. But if you believe Nate Silver, this has been one of the most volatile elections since we've begun tracking it, and the two previous big swings in opinion took less than a week each. Second: there will be no getting around the tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism. If Trump loses, he'll create his own cable news network, which will have a built-in audience of millions. That network will drag Fox News further to the right. Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. Remember: the GOP may not have believe Trump to be an existential threat to democracy in 2015, but they were sure as shit aware that Trump was a grave threat to their chances at re-taking the White House. His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent.

TAForObvReasons 10y ago
> His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent. IMHO The forces against Trump acted too late. In a field with 17 candidates, one of whom appeals to a significant percentage of the base, the outlier will usually win. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC forces out weaker candidates earlier in the process next cycle.
grandalf 10y ago
There are a lot of insightful comments here, I'll respond to a few: > It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries. True, HRC too makes many, many appeals to populist sentiments. Hers is less of a "National Greatness" populism, mainly because Trump has cornered the market for that in this election. Trump has appealed to all the people who buy American cars because they are American or who think that eating a burrito will give them diarrhea (and assume that all people who routinely eat burritos must be plagued by it constantly), etc. etc. I see this as less of a threat because frankly most of those people are simply old, and they are dying off rapidly. HRC and Obama support gay marriage today because enough of them died off to make homophobia a losing political position. In the next four years, many more will die off, and that element of society that idealizes 1950s America will be much smaller. Though there is a younger generation that is sympathetic to the 1950s narrative... The television show Mad Men has been hugely popular, and its protagonist is essentially a more handsome Donald Trump. He grabs women and kisses them, he's erratic, he's loud, he's a womanizer, a self-saboteur. This television show captured the imagination of millennials because Don Draper is unlike most young men today. It's that same virility and unapologetic machismo that has led Trump voters to rally behind him. How can we go from being a society that loves Don Draper to a society that hates Don Trump? I don't think it's possible, and I think Trump's ideas will be around for a while even in the younger generation, albeit with a different spokesperson. This is why focusing on the surface layer of Trump is a mistake and why we should be addressing the deeper themes that are going to be alive and well no matter what happens in November. We'd previously had a lot of presidents who tried to embody the cowboy aesthetic. GWB, born in Connecticut, talked about how much he loves "cold beer and barbecue", owns a ranch, etc. Chris Matthews claims that the winner is always the one the American people can picture squinting into a sunset. > tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism Totally agree, I believe a vote for Trump or HRC counts as this. > Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. TV news is now predominantly entertainment. This is a problem that goes deeper than Trump. It seems natural that an entertainment industry guy like Trump would want to get in on it now that there's zero need for any journalistic merit.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
Chris2048 10y ago
> It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries Who's "we"? Learned economists/sociologists, or internet randomers? Trump wants to "make america great again", Brexiters want to regain their sovereignty from an unaccountable other; they aren't the same thing. > in effect, for American Fascism Which way do you think the country was going before Trump came along? Greater freedom, accountability and transparency of government? Does prism, Snowden etc not mean anything?
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, they're not the same thing. #MAGA is the American populist nationalist movement. Brexit is the British populist nationalist movement. As you have adroitly detected, they are in fact two different countries. But I'm glad you brought Snowden up. Because that gives me the opportunity to remind you that one of Donald Trump's campaign promises is to put Edward Snowden to death.
  - hiringmanager 10y ago
    Also one of Hillary's campaign promises. And basically what Obama has been trying to do. Remember Hillary suggested that we should use a drone to take out Julian Assange. But we should be reminded about Trump taking this position and we should all forget that Obama and Hillary are arguably worse?
    - Natsu 10y ago
      To be fair, I thought it wasn't actually Hillary that suggested that. But yes, Obama has ordered quite a few strikes.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, that is a false statement.
      - rfrank 10y ago
        No, it isn't.
hiringmanager 10y ago
Your comment is a lot of projection of why people might support Trump. I'm not a fan of Trump, and my vote would go to Gary Johnson, but I hope Trump wins. Here's why: 1. I'm gay. Hillary Clinton has campaigned against gay marriage here entire career. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (not coincidentally on the day I stopped being a democrat.) Trump doesn't care about homosexuality (literally when asked what he would do if he found out an employee was gay he said "it makes no difference"). While HRC supporters like to portray him as anti-gay and wanting to overturn the decision legalizing gay marriage, that's not honest. He correctly disagrees with the basis on which the decision was made, which is different from disagreeing on the outcome. (There really is no power for government to regulate marriage, especially at the federal level.) So, I hope Trump wins because Hillary is the anti-gay bigot between the two. I'm not even going to get into the allegations of racism because that boy-who-cried wolf has been going on since Obama got elected and merely disagreeing with him makes you a "racist" now. 2. The claim that Trump represents "american facsism" is a misrepresentation of Fascism. Fascism is an economic system whereby the economy is privately owned but controlled dictatorially by a central government. That means Obamacare ("private" insurance companies, total control over the government) and the GM takeover are examples of American Fascism. The total surveillance society we have under Obama and W and would continue under Hillary is fascist. To portray this as "liberalism" vs "fascsim" is wrong, and more right if you reverse the roles. (at least Trump is a bit economically liberal.) 3. You guys seem to grab "code phrases" and repeat them as mantras. The one you used is "existential threat to democracy". Remember in 2000 when Gore lost the election and we had 8 years of W as a result? Remember the massive scandal about voting fraud and how widespread it was? That's a literal threat to democracy. Like the Snowden revelations it was news for awhile, and there was talk of reform, but nothing was ever done. How can there be a democracy when the votes are not even honestly counted? How about the fact that we cannot audit the software of the counting machines? Isn't that a literal threat to democracy? Much more serious than some obnoxious reality TV star who's slightly more economically liberal than a woman whose entire career has been beset with scandal and allegations of misconduct-- almost all of which were just proven true with email leaks? Who had an investigation by the FBI where the agents say the outcome was predetermined? Isn't that level of corruption a serious existential threat to democracy? You don't have to agree with me, that's fine- MY objection is to this delusion that there is a only one way to look at this and anyone who disagrees is somehow evil. I'ma gay guy who wants to legally marry and I'm not going to vote for someone who has denied me my rights. Tell me that makes me immoral!
harshreality 10y ago
> They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean, They don't agree with you. Why should they take the time to internalize what you think a Trump presidency would mean, if you're wrong? Have you followed all the problems related to people losing their jobs because of tweets, and Nobel laureates losing their jobs because of jokes that got blown out of proportion? This is not quite the same as that; Trump's statements are not one-off tweets or jokes. But you assume Trump's statements are literally what he wants to enact. Only #nevertrump actually believes that; everyone else thinks Trump is making statements that are just the right-wing version of Open Borders and Universal Income, and Trump and his supporters actually expect those radical right-wing positions (consider them an initial negotiation position) to be negotiated down to something centrist. They don't want all Muslims banned (well, some Trump supporters do, but not many), nor an economy-damaging trade war with China, nor a literal wall running the entire Mexican border, nor refusal to defend NATO allies. What they do want is some respect for enforcing existing immigration laws (congress made it illegal to immigrate by walking across the border, but the Democrat propaganda seeks to frame Trump as a bad person for suggesting enforcing the law Congress wrote). They want some attention paid to long-term economic consequences of outsourcing so much production, and restructuring the costs of the U.S. playing World Policeperson. They want some indication that the government is aware of the difficulty of "vetting" immigrants from a war-torn region without stable government, and that there are social and political externalities from accepting not-well-vettable immigrants when those war-torn regions are known for terrorism (that we may or may not be funding to try to topple Assad), and when even those who are not "terrorists" have what most Americans would consider an undesirable propensity for supporting things like Sharia law. You and other Thiel-haters reject the principle of charity as it applies both to Trump and to Thiel; you paint a caricature of someone's positions, and go on a witch hunt against anyone who supports those people. When that isn't enough, you go on a witch-hunt against anyone who associates with those people. I consider that dangerous and politically damaging. Obviously everyone has a right to express their opinions, and to choose their associations, but that presumes some level of respect, caution and restraint that is not generally being shown by modern liberals.
- tptacek 10y ago
  In one breath, you say that the problem with how I view Trump is that I take him at his word. In the next, you accuse me of caricaturing his positions. The problem I have engaging with your argument is that I cannot crawl inside your head to discover what your perceptions of Donald Trump are, and those appear to be the only terms on which you're comfortable discussing Donald Trump. But of course, the bigger problem here is that I'm not here to convince you not to support Donald Trump. I hope you won't. But if you do: fine. Sam Altman does not agree with you. He likens Trump to a dictator. If you're a Trump supporter, you are not the audience to whom my argument is addressed.
cmurf 10y ago
This is not even about Trump, he is just the most blatantly visible artifact of a movement that enjoys calling people names and delegitimizing. Trump did this in 2008 and again in 2012, he did it with the whole racist birther routine which few Republican leaders denounced - they were perfectly happy to ride the coat tails of delegitimizing a sitting president. Perfectly happy to continue to do it this year by not even holding hearings on his Supreme Court nominee. And then just yesterday McCain proposes delegitimizing Hillary in advance by blocking any of her nominees. I agree with you, I think this is playing with fire. But I have no idea if getting a little bit burned is what's needed, or if it quickly turns into Donald actually trying to get the Speaker of the House removed. "They'll be there...I would think that Ryan wouldn't be there--maybe he would be in a different position," Trump said on The O'Reilly Factor.[1] Does he really think he can do this? i.e. autocrat. Or does he not know how our government works? i.e imbecile. Or is he trolling? i.e. troll as head of state is great! I mean really? People are so deranged with anti-Hillary sentiment they don't really get how unstable a presidency this would be, just like this whole 18 month shit show has been. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/11/donald-trump-speaker-paul-ryan-maybe-different-position-house-leadership-mccain-gop http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/11/donald-trump-speaker-p...
phaus 10y ago
>Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. I was hoping his nomination will serve as a wake-up call for the GOP. More specifically, I'm hoping they drop the strict requirement to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian lunatic in order to have a real shot at running as a republican. We need more moderates from both major parties. Partisan politics are destroying us.
- weberc2 10y ago
  > More specifically, I'm hoping they drop the strict requirement to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian lunatic in order to have a real shot at running as a republican. This is how we got to Trump in the first place. > Partisan politics are destroying us. I absolutely agree, though I don't see how all this demonizing of conservatives is going to help.
Karrot_Kream 10y ago
Hear hear. I usually don't post my political views online, but deserves affirmation.
rudolf0 10y ago
I disagree that Trump would be such a shoe-in for 2020. The Democrats just need a better candidate. I think with the currently developing scandals (especially sexual assault allegations), and likely many more scandals between 2016 and 2020, they'd need someone even less liked than Hillary for him to have a shot. The bigger threat is indeed whatever media empire he might try to launch after the election. (Scarily, I could picture him doing so whether he wins or loses.)
- Avenger42 10y ago
  > I disagree that Trump would be such a shoe-in for 2020. The Democrats just need a better candidate. Note that it's almost unheard-of for the sitting president not to run for a second term. (I certainly can't remember a case in my short life.) So either Trump or Clinton will almost certainly be on the ballot in 4 years.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    LBJ didn't run for reelection.
    - WildUtah 10y ago
      Yes, he did. Johnson was forced out of the primaries by Sen. McCarthy.
  - meowface 10y ago
    If Hillary isn't in a relatively strong position by 2020, I suspect she'd be reasonable enough to switch with someone else.

jacquesm 10y ago

Telling people who will vote for a candidate that is 'certain to win' to vote for another candidate that has very little chance of winning benefits the candidate that is 'certain to come second', in fact if enough people do this the candidate that was 'certain to win' could easily lose.