Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

Democrats unsure Hillary Clinton can beat Donald Trump in general election
By Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times
Sunday, January 3, 2016

Democratic Party activists are conflicted over whether Hillary Clinton can take on Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in the general election, with some fearing she provides too much ammunition for the flamboyant businessman’s style of attack.

While Mr. Trump is leading the national polls and calling the shots in what’s become a circuslike GOP primary season, Mrs. Clinton tops a sedentary Democratic race with two other opponents respectfully nipping at her without doing much damage — and party stalwarts are happy to have it that way.

“I hear a lot of people saying, ‘You know, I’ve watched the Democratic debates and the Republican debates, and they’re so different. I’m sure glad I’m on the Democratic side and they’re talking about the issues. They don’t always agree with one another, but they explain why,’” said David Allen, a Democratic Party leader in Barnstead, New Hampshire. “Democrats have resolved themselves to not go into a circus and tear one another down.”

But Mr. Allen said he does worry about how the eventual Democratic nominee will stand up to the sort of withering barbs Mr. Trump has dished out to his own side.

“We’re going to start to have to look at how the [Democratic] candidates play against Donald Trump, because he’s certainly holding onto his lead in the Republican Party, and he has certainly played the Republican candidates in a way that has hurt some of his opposition, and I think people are going to start asking, ‘All right, who’s going to stand up under his type of campaigning?’” Mr. Allen said. “If Bernie [Sanders] is the candidate, Trump will play up how un-American socialism is, and if Hillary gets it, he will dig up everything in the past 40 years and use it — and won’t mince words in using it.”

Other activists say there’s a sense that, while it’s Mrs. Clinton’s turn to run, there’s no swell of on-the-ground enthusiasm for her to carry the party’s banner into the general election.

“I don’t think the [Democratic primary] race has generated all that much intensity,” said Ron Romine, chairman of the Spartanburg, South Carolina, Democrats, who is neutral in the race. “I don’t feel like anywhere in the state there’s all that much passion. The usual suspects will go out and vote, but there’s not an intensity that you might think there should be with the first woman.

Hillary is so familiar, she’s been around forever. She has her supporters, and they’re going to go out and vote for her, so there’s not a whole lot to parse out,” he said. “You either like her or you’re not enthusiastic.”

Mr. Trump already has started taking aim at Mrs. Clinton, just as some activists had feared.

At a rally in South Carolina on Wednesday, the billionaire real estate mogul declared “war” on the Clintons as he explained why he wouldn’t attack Mrs. Clinton as “low-energy” — the term he used to devastate his GOP rival, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

“I just don’t like to use the same thing twice on one of my enemies, because I consider them enemies,” Mr. Trump said. “We view this as war. Don’t we view this as war? It’s war, it’s war!”

Bothered by Mrs. Clinton’s accusation that he has a “penchant for sexism,” Mr. Trump continued to attack her husband, former President Bill Clinton, saying he was “one of the great abusers [of women] of the world.”

The Clinton camp this week said they would “stand up” to Mr. Trump. Deputy Communications Director Christina Reynolds said in a statement that “Hillary Clinton will stand up to him, as she has from the beginning,” citing Mr. Trump’s “demeaning” remarks about “women, immigrants, Asian-Americans, Muslims, the disabled or hard-working Americans,” adding that he has “pushed around nearly all of his fellow Republicans.”

Mrs. Clinton’s own supporters seem unfazed by the threat of Mr. Trump.

“I expected that to come up no matter who the [Republican] candidate was [and] the Bill Clinton past — I’m not the least bit surprised,” said Bonnie Chehames, who is campaigning for Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire. “I can’t imagine Trump beating Hillary Clinton, and I don’t care what the polls say. The Republican Party will be fractured if Trump’s nominated, and that’s good for the Democrats.”

She also said Mr. Trump’s candidacy has helped Mrs. Clinton by taking press attention away from her during the primary season.

“The media isn’t really poking at her with negative comments. If Donald Trump were not the media superstar darling that he is, I’m sure that wouldn’t be the case,” Mrs. Chehames said.

Still, support for Mrs. Clinton as the Democrats’ champion in the general election remains lukewarm, especially among supporters of Mr. Sanders, her chief rival, who cite many of the same criticisms as Mr. Trump in arguing against her nomination.

“I just don’t trust her,” said Jason Frerichs, the Democratic Party leader in Montgomery County, Iowa. “I’m a progressive; that’s my value, and that’s what I want. I don’t need an ideological purity test, I just don’t trust her. She’s pivoted on too many issues important to me. I’m 38 [and] earn $45,000 a year. How can she understand what my life is like? She’s a millionaire. She’s a career politician. I just don’t see much excitement for her outside the baby boomers, who think it’s her time.”

Mr. Frerichs, who is caucusing for Mr. Sanders, said he understands Mr. Trump’s followers and believes Mrs. Clinton will struggle against him because she can’t match his charisma and doesn’t invoke any emotional connection or ties with her supporters.

“Bernie’s popular for the same reason why Donald Trump is popular: People are sick and tired of the same old politicians,” he said.

He said he would vote for Mrs. Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination, but he refuses to campaign for her.

“I think we would see a low voter turnout with Democrats [in the general election]. She just doesn’t fire up the base,” Mr. Frerichs said. “Now, I could be wrong, and many women could come out just because she’s a woman, but most of the young women I see are caucusing for Bernie.”
 
Trump Supporters Appear To Be Misinformed, Not Uninformed
Trump Supporters Appear To Be Misinformed, Not Uninformed

Donald Trump has a consistently loose relationship with the truth. So much so, in fact, that the fact-checking website PolitiFact rolled his numerous misstatements into one big “lie of the year.” But all the fact-checking in the world hasn’t pushed Trump toward a more evidence-based campaign, and his http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary or even increased in some polls. What explains Trump’s ability to seemingly overcome conventional political wisdom?

One way to understand Trump’s longevity is to look more closely at his supporters. Trump’s backers tend to be whiter, slightly older and less educated than the average Republican voter. But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power.

...

 
Military Strategist Explains Why Donald Trump Leads—And How He Will Fail
Military Strategist Explains Why Trump Leads—And Will Fail

No matter how much you dislike Donald Trump and his effect on the Republican presidential primary race—and there are many, many good reasons to do so—you have to spare a little grudging admiration for the sheer madcap genius of Trump’s ability to disrupt, unsettle, and exploit the primary system.

We can better understand what Trump has done successfully, as well as his ultimate limitations as a candidate and why he would be such a terrible president, using the ideas of military strategic theorist John Boyd. Trump has been, thus far, the true Boyd candidate in this race, yet he is already exhibiting symptoms of precisely the flaws that Boyd saw as fatal in combatants.
 
Trump is a verifiable genius when it comes to finances. In every other facet, he is a goddamned moron.
according to the interweb, after inheriting all that money back in the 80's his rate of financial growth has been inline with the S&P 500. IOW, he could have just invested in the S&P and be just as wealthy.
 
The dark side of the Trump phenomenon is on full display at NRO tonight. Literally hundreds of pro-Trump Nazis and white supremacists have descended on the comments sections of multiple articles and completely swamped them with anti Hispanic, Black, Jew, and Muslim vitriol. Jonah Goldberg has asked the moderators not to delete the content in order to preserve and archive it. It's the largest, most organized display of pure hate that I've ever seen online.

Here's one example:

When Worlds Collide: Unassimilable Muslim Migrants Crash Europe’s Fantasy Islam
 
The dark side of the Trump phenomenon is on full display at NRO tonight. Literally hundreds of pro-Trump Nazis and white supremacists have descended on the comments sections of multiple articles and completely swamped them with anti Hispanic, Black, Jew, and Muslim vitriol. Jonah Goldberg has asked the moderators not to delete the content in order to preserve and archive it. It's the largest, most organized display of pure hate that I've ever seen online.

Here's one example:

When Worlds Collide: Unassimilable Muslim Migrants Crash Europe’s Fantasy Islam
Isn't there a law in the states that doesn't allow convicted felons the right to vote? People that openly display hate should also fall under the same category imo
 
From the interweb:

An interesting analogy

You've been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately so you hire a guy. A pro. You don't care if the guy smells, you need those raccoons gone pronto and he's the guy to do it! You don't care if the guy swears, you don't care if he's an alcoholic, you don't care how many times he's been married, you don't care if he voted for Obama, you don't care if he has plumber's crack...you simply want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed! He's the guy. He's the best. Period.

That's why Trump. Yes he's a bit of an ass, yes he's an egomaniac, but you don't care. The country is a mess because politicians suck, the Republican Party is two-faced & gutless, illegal's are everywhere. You want it all fixed!

You don't care that Trump is crude, you don't care that he insults people, you don't care that he had been friendly with Hillary, you don't care that he has changed positions, you don't care that he's been married 3 times, you don't care that he fights with Megyn Kelly and Rosie O'Donnell, you don't care that he doesn't know the name of some Muslin terrorist,...this country is weak, bankrupt, our enemies are making fun of us, we are being invaded by illegal's, we are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hamid is a special group with special rights to a point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in; “AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED” and Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.

You're sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and sick of illegal's. You just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but doesn’t have lobbyist money holding him, he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him, all you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he's also not a politician, he's not a cowardly politician. And he says he'll fix it.

You don't care if the guy has bad hair.
You just want those raccoons gone.
Out of your house.
Now.
 
Nothing wrong with freedom of speech. Imo don't like the idea of hate filled votes is all I'm saying. David Duke comes too mind o_O
 
Nothing wrong with freedom of speech. Imo don't like the idea of hate filled votes is all I'm saying. David Duke comes too mind o_O

Heh, have you ever followed a US presidential election? By November there won't be any voters who aren't filled with hate.
 
We have this thing in the US called freedom of speech, at least when outside college campuses.

Outside the US, unless you're in a liberal bastion of ccourse, many countries never grasped the concept of countering bad ideas with better ones. They went straight to the thought police state instead. If it isn't banned, it's prescribed.
 
Outside the US, unless you're in a liberal bastion of ccourse, many countries never grasped the concept of countering bad ideas with better ones. They went straight to the thought police state instead. If it isn't banned, it's prescribed.

I think almost all liberal democracies placed a high value on free speech, and the concept was widely accepted, but they wrongly assumed that it would always have universal support. They didn't envision the possibility that one day many of their fellow countrymen would fail to grasp the value of countering bad ideas with better ones, so they neglected to enshrine an ironclad 1A equivalent in their respective constitutions.

The result of their omission has been a whittling away of free speech rights all over the British Commonwealth, France, etc. Canada, under the Constitution Act or the British North America Act, actually had stronger free speech protections than what they got with Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the Charter has provisions for restrictions of speech the state deems unacceptable, e.g. hate speech, and Canadians can be (and have been) hauled before a Human Rights Tribunal because someone complained that someone said something that hurt their feelings. These Human Rights Tribunals are nothing more than kangaroo courts that use government appointees (SJWs) to adjudicate cases and impose sentences. Under Steven Harper, these Rights Tribunals lost much of their power when real courts struck down hate speech provisions but I expect that will change with the new Liberal government.
 
Last edited:
I think almost all liberal democracies placed a high value on free speech, and the concept was widely accepted, but they wrongly assumed that it would always have universal support. They didn't envision the possibility that one day many of their fellow countrymen would fail to grasp the value of countering bad ideas with better ones, so they neglected to enshrine an ironclad 1A equivalent in their respective constitutions.

The result of their omission has been a whittling away of free speech rights all over the British Commonwealth, France, etc. Canada, under the Constitution Act or the British North America Act, actually had stronger free speech protections than what they got with Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the Charter has provisions for restrictions of speech the state deems unacceptable, e.g. hate speech, and Canadians can be (and have been) hauled before a Human Rights Tribunal because someone complained that someone said something that hurt their feelings. These Human Rights Tribunals are nothing more than kangaroo courts that use government appointees (SJWs) to adjudicate cases and impose sentences. Under Steven Harper, these Rights Tribunals lost much of their power when real courts struck down hate speech provisions but I expect that will change with the new Liberal government.

Well stated - sounds similar to the countries north of the Alps in Europe. Maybe all of Europe.
 
Back
Top