[olegru]

kenberg, on 2016-August-02, 08:40, said:

It is time for serious Republicans to deal with this. It is impossible not to see this as a threat.Losing is equated to being rigged, and then " this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government."
If he really said this, or anything remotely like this ...

Well, according Guardian it was not Trump, but somebody named Roger Stone who said it. According Wikipedia he left the Trump campaign on August 8, 2015, so you cannot blame Trump for saying that.

[kenberg]

olegru, on 2016-August-02, 12:56, said:

Well, according Guardian it was not Trump, but somebody named Roger Stone who said it. According Wikipedia he left the Trump campaign on August 8, 2015, so you cannot blame Trump for saying that.

That would be good (by comparison) . Trump says outrageous things but this is really beyond the pale.I see. Trump only said it might be rigged, the fantasy about street violence belongs to Stone. What a group.

This whole thing must be disowned.
It's hard to be saying that it's good that Trump only suggested that he is worried about it all being rigged, while the suggestion for violence is due to to Stone instead, but it is "better" in the sense of l"less awful".

Actually it is only a little less awful.

This has to be dealt with by leading Republicans. I see I was not quite right about who said what, but still it is time to address it. Some things just can't be left to slide.

Thanks for the correction.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-August-02, 09:30, said:

The actual argument is over what we need and want accomplished by government versus other organizations. When someone says we need a smaller government, what they actually mean is that government shouldn't be responsible for many of the things it does.

At the heart, this is true, but it is not the creedo of the right. The right begins the conversation with an idea that the government is the problem and it should be smaller.

It is a point of no start. Starting point has to be: what do we want our government to do? After that decision is reached, the size of the government has been determined, has it not?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-02, 14:02, said:

At the heart, this is true, but it is not the creedo of the right. The right begins the conversation with an idea that the government is the problem and it should be smaller.

It is a point of no start. Starting point has to be: what do we want our government to do? After that decision is reached, the size of the government has been determined, has it not?

I think it really is the same thing. Republicans don't think we should have programs like welfare, national parks, NEA, etc., so all the government departments that manage them are what make it "too big".

They believe that the free market is generally better than government (mis)management, so anything that could reasonably be privatized should be, e.g. NASA and schools.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-August-02, 14:34, said:

I think it really is the same thing. Republicans don't think we should have programs like welfare, national parks, NEA, etc., so all the government departments that manage them are what make it "too big".

They believe that the free market is generally better than government (mis)management, so anything that could reasonably be privatized should be, e.g. NASA and schools.

I think you are confusing a faction of the right wing - Reagan acolytes - as representing all of conservatism. I do not believe this to be accurate about all conservatives but I reserve judgement as I may be wrong.

[kenberg]

I see that Trump has decided not to endorse Ryan or McCain in their own election campaigns. Honestly this has some sort of noir humor in it. They both endorsed him, so they said, in the name of party unity. So much for that plan!

I would like to say that Trump's non-endorsement will help them but, after they embarrassed themselves by endorsing Trump, I think this will simply make them look like easy marks. I can't even say appearances are deceiving. You buy into con man's pitch, you get scammed.

It just keeps getting worse.

[billw55]

Honestly it sounds more and more like he is trying to lose.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2016-August-02, 08:06, said:

Use of the word "leading" annoys me. Elections happen on one day in November. Nobody can be "leading" three months before election day.

In NFL week 9, the Jacksonville Jaguars visit the Kansas City Chiefs. I think that most people will expect KC to win that game. But nobody would say that KC is "leading". That would be silly.

Would it annoy you if an announcer says that KC is leading 7-3 after the first quarter?

[cherdano]

billw55, on 2016-August-03, 06:10, said:

Honestly it sounds more and more like he is trying to lose.

Ok some level, I think he doesn't want to be president. But more importantly, he doesn't want to lose. Sad!
Solution: complain that the election was rigged.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2016-August-03, 06:10, said:

Honestly it sounds more and more like he is trying to lose.

This seems possible. Myself, any possibility of me becoming president would scare the living crap out of me. The responsibility is beyond my imagination and I think no one is really prepared for it. But Trump and I have nothing in common, we seem to be of a different species. So understanding what he is doing or why he is doing it is beyond my imagination. Still, self-sabotage, either intentional or through some deep quirk in the mind, seems possible.

While figuring out Trump is beyond my powers, I can sort of get it as to why Ryan has acted as he has. Republican voters have somehow chosen to nominate Trump, and I can see how a House Speaker, partly through self-interest, partly through party loyalty, might come to act as he has. It seemed mis-guided, and now I think it has come back to bite him deeply, but I at least can make sense of it. It's less clear to me why McCain would go along with it, I imagine he is wondering about this himself.

We have never had this in my lifetime, maybe we have never had it ever. Parties have factions. Eisenhower Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Goldwater Republicans and so on. On the Democratic side there is a lot of space between Sanders and, say, the late Henry Jackson. But nothing like this. The Republicans have nominated someone who is barely a Republican, is at war with leading Republicans, and whose main, maybe only, skill is total belligerence toward anyone who crosses paths with him.

It is bizarre.

The"just barely a Republican" is not the big issue. Sanders is just barely a Democrat, and Eisenhower, if I recall it correctly, was courted by both parties in 1952. But there is a difference here.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2016-August-03, 06:12, said:

Would it annoy you if an announcer says that KC is leading 7-3 after the first quarter?

Of course not. The game has started. By the same token, in an election I will accept the term "leading" when actual votes have been counted.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps there is hope for us all. From Yahoo news 8/3/2016:

Quote

Backlash in Kansas ousts at least 11 conservative lawmakers

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A top Senate leader and at least 10 other conservative Kansas legislators have lost their seats as moderate Republicans made GOP primary races a referendum on education funding and the state's persistent budget woes.

Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce was among the lawmakers ousted amid a backlash against Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and his allies.

[cherdano]

olegru, on 2016-August-02, 12:56, said:

Well, according Guardian it was not Trump, but somebody named Roger Stone who said it. According Wikipedia he left the Trump campaign on August 8, 2015, so you cannot blame Trump for saying that.

1. Trump himself said:
"I’m telling you, November 8th, we’d better be careful because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”
2. Roger Stone is a long-time advisor. He is acting as a surrogate, trying to help Trump. If the Trump campaign wouldn't want him to say things like that, a quick phone call would be enough.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-03, 08:17, said:

Perhaps there is hope for us all. From Yahoo news 8/3/2016:

While this is only a start, it is a start. There must be quite few Republicans who are getting seriously put off by the extreme wing of their party. Not every Republican wants to abolish the Federal Reserve or teach Creationism in the public schools.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2016-August-03, 08:23, said:

2. Roger Stone is a long-time advisor. He is acting as a surrogate, trying to help Trump. If the Trump campaign wouldn't want him to say things like that, a quick phone call would be enough.

What makes you think he would do what he recommends?

Every time Trump opens his mouth, I think he entered the race on a lark, never expecting or wanting to win. It's like "The Producers", where they tried to create a flop, but it was unexpectedly a smash hit.

The party establishment is stuck with him, so they have to support him. But he's under no such obligation back to them, is he? He can keep trying to sabotage his campaign. This just increases the value of his brand -- I can easily imagine "The Campaign Apprentice" next year (all his bankruptcies were no barrier to "The Apprentice", so losing the POTUS race shouldn't be an impediment).

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-August-03, 08:28, said:

While this is only a start, it is a start. There must be quite few Republicans who are getting seriously put off by the extreme wing of their party. Not every Republican wants to abolish the Federal Reserve or teach Creationism in the public schools.

In order to find a degree is sanity, it is also important to turn off the television sets - or at least change channels - in large enough numbers until broadcasters get the point that entertainment and news are not the same things.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-August-03, 09:12, said:

What makes you think he would do what he recommends?

Every time Trump opens his mouth, I think he entered the race on a lark, never expecting or wanting to win. It's like "The Producers", where they tried to create a flop, but it was unexpectedly a smash hit.

The party establishment is stuck with him, so they have to support him. But he's under no such obligation back to them, is he? He can keep trying to sabotage his campaign. This just increases the value of his brand -- I can easily imagine "The Campaign Apprentice" next year (all his bankruptcies were no barrier to "The Apprentice", so losing the POTUS race shouldn't be an impediment).

The comparison with The Producers had not occurred to me but I like it. Which is not to say I liked the movie. I am probably the only person on this planet (except for Becky) who never found Zero Mostel to be funny in anything but I do like the comparison.

I think what it all comes down to is that we have a huge disaster on our hands. Huge disasters are disastrous, and there is no way to completely avoid that. But many Republican leaders have been placing their hands over their eyes, if I don't see it then it isn't happening. Perhaps, just perhaps, this evasion is coming to an end. I can't foresee how this will go but it is now time for people in positions of power and responsibility to deal with it. They really cannot fool themselves or anyone else that this is just the usual give and take of politics.


If there is still someone out there who can stand to read one more article about DT, here is something from this morning

https://www.washingt...73a2_story.html

[Winstonm]

Interesting. Three of the first six stories on Yahoo News concern what the Republicans will do if Trump drops out.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2016-August-03, 08:28, said:

While this is only a start, it is a start. There must be quite few Republicans who are getting seriously put off by the extreme wing of their party. Not every Republican wants to abolish the Federal Reserve or teach Creationism in the public schools.

Indeed. I have wondered before now if the R party will split. I used to think maybe the tea party would form a new far right party (not calling it that of course), but now it seems more likely for the other half to form its own party in between the D and the far right. With Clinton so unpopular, this would have been a good time to poach voters from the right half of the Ds, and maybe pull in a few righties who can't stand Trump as well. A missed opportunity.

Note to rational republicans: Trump losing is not going get your party back for you.

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2016-August-03, 09:12, said:

What makes you think he would do what he recommends?

(I assume "he" refers to Roger Stones.)
I think the psychology of surrogates is always that they want to please the campaign. They wouldn't act as surrogates if they don't think the campaign has a chance to win. And a campaign that might win is a campaign that might be in charge of needing many bodies to fill government jobs.
Meanwhile, what's in it for Roger Stones to be a surrogate unless he sees himself as a team player for team Trump? This kind of ***** won't help him anywhere except within that team.