Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

woody,

it's hard not to associate the candidates with the worst of their supporters- trump with white nationalists and clinton with the violent people you document. otoh- i haven't heard clinton being asked about whether she disavows such supporters only to avoid the question. i don't think reporters bother to ask her because we all know what she would say.

do you have any doubt about what she'd say? and how it would differ from the way trump has handled such questions?

but this is small[ish] ball. the issues are bigger than this, unfortunately.

I like the classy way Hillary praised KKK Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd as her "mentor."

"The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd defended the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[1]

"My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white ni**ers. I’ve seen a lot of white ni**ers in my time; I’m going to use that word. “We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”

"Oh, but that's not fair," one might say. "It's guilt by association."

And besides, it's not as if the Clintons are apologists for a KKK member and tried to excuse his leadership role in a white nationalist terror organization merely to advance their political interests. Only a crumbum like Trump would stoop so low.

"He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan and what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. Any maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done. And he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There certainly are no perfect politicians.”

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

woody,

it's hard not to associate the candidates with the worst of their supporters- trump with white nationalists and clinton with the violent people you document. otoh- i haven't heard clinton being asked about whether she disavows such supporters only to avoid the question. i don't think reporters bother to ask her because we all know what she would say.

do you have any doubt about what she'd say? and how it would differ from the way trump has handled such questions?

but this is small[ish] ball. the issues are bigger than this, unfortunately.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Sure, Santa. Clinton supporters have shown so much forbearance and good cheer to their fellow Americans across the aisle.

The fair play, the presumption of good intent, the bonhomie. Loving your neighbor is what your cohort does best.

Bloomfield police: Man beaten with crowbar for wearing Trump shirt

A 62-year-old male was assaulted in a Friendly's parking lot for wearing a Donald Trump T-shirt, Bloomfield police reported Tuesday. The victim was walking on West Passaic Avenue in Bloomfield at 5:41 p.m. Wednesday when a male in an older gray compact vehicle questioned him about his shirt of the Republican presidential candidate. The suspect directed profanities at the victim as he continued to follow the victim. The suspect followed the victim to the restaurant at 1243 Broad St. The suspect then approached the victim armed with a crowbar. An altercation occurred, with the suspect striking the victim several times, police said. The victim sustained injuries to his forearms, hands and thighs. He was treated at the scene. The suspect fled prior to police arrival, according to authorities.

And even here at iTulip, you Santa, are nothing if not respectful, thoughtful, and always, always argue to the facts. Why even now in this very conversation you do your side credit by evidencing such respect for me and your opposition, as do all Clinton supporters.

Ugly, bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally

Protests outside a Donald Trump rally in downtown San Jose spun out of control Thursday night when some demonstrators attacked the candidate’s supporters.



Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning the hats and snapping selfies with the charred remains. Several people were caught on camera punching Trump supporters. At least one attacker was arrested, according to CNN, although police did not release much information.

It hardly feels as if we are at odds.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Who knows, while installing signs for Trump, a Clinton supporter might decide to drive over me as a means of expressing his distaste for the carried interest loophole? Or maybe I might mistakenly wander into a neighborhood where Democrats dominate and get my skull fractured by someone desirous of a $15 minimum wage increase? Or perhaps I'll canvass the wrong door and be doused with gasoline and set aflame by a Clinton supporter concerned about the fiscal impact of a cut to the estate tax? Maybe I'll be shot to death by a Democrat expressing her opposition to the Second Amendment? Anything could happen now since good and well meaning folk of liberal bent have determined that Trump is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler (or Jack Kemp, shudder the thought), and so really who could blame them? It's a free country, right?

Your concerns are noted. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind taking a nanosecond to note mine as I've only repeated them about a dozen or so times and it seems I'm still having trouble making myself understood through the blinding rage that grips folks anxiously looking forward to Trump's "destruction." First things first. Upend the status quo in whatever way possible, then defeat Clinton. From there all things flow. I made that choice in spite of my personal policy preferences and in full knowledge of Trump's many defects. It's my little strategery, you see.

Your martyr fantasy aside, I don't think any of us supporting a $15 an hour minimum wage will douse you with gasoline. Most of us use as little traditional energy as possible. Neither will you be shot by a Democrat. We don't own guns but we have Republican friends and some of them let us shoot their guns, rifles if you will. An AR-15 is like a great sports car, it does not belong in the hands of the untrained. But most of us don't care that you have guns. We would however like it if you and your friends at the NRA allowed some minimal background checks.

There is no "blinding rage" on our side. We're concerned. We see Trump supporters as angry children. It's not easy to understand but we're responsible adults and when our children are making friends with people like The Donald and the NRA we will voice our opinion and we will not condone your tantrums. The rage is yours, now go to your room and when you can own it we'll talk.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

here's today's column from maureen dowd- hillary is the republican candidate:

As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, “the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee.”

The day Maureen Dowd writes her last column will be a sad day for journalism. I don't agree with her quote above as Trump currently has almost no foreign advisors so we can't know which group he'd choose. We do know he's leaning hard right. He is clueless when it comes to FP, "I watch the shows...", he told Chuck Todd. He understands nothing about foreign policy. Her hawkish foreign policy is not my favorite attribute but worse than Cheney? Unlikely.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

here's today's column from maureen dowd- hillary is the republican candidate:

As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, “the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee.”

She can't help it. It's in her nature.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

And this little gem:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/470657/-

Notice the source

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

here's today's column from maureen dowd- hillary is the republican candidate:

As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, “the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee.”

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

except for certain concerns, i too would vote for trump if i thought he really would tear up the status quo. however i'm not at all convinced of that, especially looking at his list of potential supreme court appointees as well as his proposed tax policies. it appears he is now retracting all his radical policies in favor of republican reagan boiler plate. he now looks very status quo to me. my concerns revolve around the fact that i don't trust his judgement or his ability to restrain his impulses, and i'm amazed at his ignorance of world affairs.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Okay DC. I'm not running for anything. I have no platform and wrote no story so don't feel any sense of "ownership" over a particular this or that article, as you seem to think I should. And to be clear, I have no "guy." I've made a political calculus to support one candidate - not my first or fifth choice, but the choice that's been proffered - to send a message to both parties, avenge Bernie's loss, punish the DNC and do all those other things I've spoken about since it became to clear to me the DNC rigged the primaries and the media became adjuncts of the Clinton campaign. And once the Wikileaks emails confirmed what I already believed was true, it was an easy move to make.

I appreciate your advice to the Trump campaign and to me. Perhaps I've made myself misunderstood and not wanting to give the wrong impression, I hope you understand that I have no influence in the Trump campaign and neither operate under official capacity or as an informal adviser. As of yesterday, I 1) made a donation, 2) bought signs, 3) worked with friends to place them in the areas the local Trump people requested. Then we had a late lunch and early cocktails and I picked up the tab. If HRC wins this may be enough to put me up against the wall or at least kick off a nasty audit and I'll have to deal with that when the time comes. Expressing an unpopular political opinion has already cost me a lifelong friendship and I admit that I feel the pain of the loss still, so if my small bit of suffering gives succor to the "love your neighbor, unless we disagree, then murder the bastard" wing of American politics, it's my privilege.

Who knows, while installing signs for Trump, a Clinton supporter might decide to drive over me as a means of expressing his distaste for the carried interest loophole? Or maybe I might mistakenly wander into a neighborhood where Democrats dominate and get my skull fractured by someone desirous of a $15 minimum wage increase? Or perhaps I'll canvass the wrong door and be doused with gasoline and set aflame by a Clinton supporter concerned about the fiscal impact of a cut to the estate tax? Maybe I'll be shot to death by a Democrat expressing her opposition to the Second Amendment? Anything could happen now since good and well meaning folk of liberal bent have determined that Trump is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler (or Jack Kemp, shudder the thought), and so really who could blame them? It's a free country, right?

Your concerns are noted. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind taking a nanosecond to note mine as I've only repeated them about a dozen or so times and it seems I'm still having trouble making myself understood through the blinding rage that grips folks anxiously looking forward to Trump's "destruction." First things first. Upend the status quo in whatever way possible, then defeat Clinton. From there all things flow. I made that choice in spite of my personal policy preferences and in full knowledge of Trump's many defects. It's my little strategery, you see.

I'm very certain all the folks overflowing his campaign venues share your deep and abiding concerns over the carried interest loophole and other esoterica of tax policy and are confounded by why the Republican nominee might actually adopt some traditional GOP positions. I'm sure the families (whole families taking a Saturday to work a political campaign, the poor misguided loons) and young people I saw at the local Trump HQ have many sleepless nights, tossing and turning in their beds thinking, "why Donald, why lower the top marginal rate to 33%, why?" And if all those folks I encountered at the NRA event aren't just flummoxed over Trump's on again off again support for raising the minimum wage, we'll they're just not paying attention, are they?

What's wrong with these people? Don't they understand? Why don't they care? We're talking about Happy Meals in schools here; conservative Christian universities teaching Mises for ufck's sake!

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

otoh, these policies are VERY popular with the republican donor class.

Bingo. It's just they're not winners. Trump really would have rocked the boat by going with popular policies against the grain of the donor class. He almost did. But then he backpedaled.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Addendum: In terms of the laundry list you mentioned, Trump supports an increased minimum wage, raising the top income tax rates, elimination of the estate tax, a temporary moratorium on new financial regs, an end to deferred taxes on corporate income earned abroad and a one-time 10% tax on cash held overseas, and other proposals - should you have any interest - that are available in his web site.

13 days later he said he'd abolish the federal minimum wage and 'let the states decide,' which is codeword for no more minimum wage at all in the south, given that the deep south tends to have no state minimum wage laws.

Your own link to the top income tax rates has them going down, Woody. It's just an article about how Trump changed his own plan on top rates to bring his planned top rate up from 25% to 33%. That still brings the top rate down from today's 39.6% to 33%, a significant tax cut, not to mention by eliminating top brackets, it makes the whole shebang less progressive.

The elimination on the estate tax is not a good thing--just a give-away to the $11mm plus trustafarian club at Harvard. Moratorium on financial regs sucks.

I don't mind that his website's there.

I'm not telling you who to vote for or what to do.

But I will tell you this:

If you really want your guy to win, and you have any influence and energy left in you, you'd do well to push however you can to convince them to pick a more populist and less elitist policy platform wherever they can...meaning follow the polls. Don't try to convince the majority of people that policies that only help 400 rich guys are good for them. Because that's too hard, and it takes too long, and you need to win in November, not 40 years from now. Maybe in 40 years, after everyone has been sufficiently brainwashed by graduating from Ronald McDonald Charter School, Comcast® High School, and the Truth through Economics, Jesus and Liberty STEM University™ (brought to you by the Koch Brothers Family Foundation), the majority will believe that the minimum wage is bad for them. But until then, it's easier to adjust your sails than try to control the winds.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

There is no large anti-estate tax voting bloc. There is no large financial deregulation voting bloc. There is no 'discounted tax-rates for repatriation of offshore funds' voting bloc.

Abolishing the minimum wage is the political equivalent of sticking a wet fork in the electrical outlet, especially with the working class--you know, the voters he's trying to court.

otoh, these policies are VERY popular with the republican donor class.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...I guess, long story short, it probably doesn't matter what Trump would or would not do if elected. So long as he's promoting such extremely unpopular economic policies, he'll never win...

Well then I suppose liberals have nothing to worry about and the left can go back to marching and chanting with righteous surety that they amount to nothing and squandered the ocean of blood, sweat and tears expended on their behalf over the last century. And the rest of us can say goodbye to our children and grandchildren - daughters included - because HRC is sending them into the fire for the sake of her "legacy." Of this you can be sure.

DC, have you ever been in a campaign? Maybe played sports in high school or college? If you haven't, it's one thing to be realistic about the odds. But get on the field thinking you have no chance, take counsel of your fears and expect the worst, well you might as well stayed home and watched it on TV. I've dabbled in defeatism, I must admit, but the older I get the more it just pisses me off.

I am working toward a Trump victory and it's the end I keep in mind. And should it happen that Trump loses and the status quo wins I will have made my best effort and taken my last shot for the kids. I'll be at peace with that even though I know all around me a (civil) war may be under way. And when my great grandchildren ask me what I did in "the war" I can tell them "the best I could" and know that I'm telling them the truth.

What are you going to tell yours?


-----
Addendum: In terms of the laundry list you mentioned, Trump supports an increased minimum wage, raising the top income tax rates, elimination of the estate tax, a temporary moratorium on new financial regs, an end to deferred taxes on corporate income earned abroad and a one-time 10% tax on cash held overseas, and other proposals - should you have any interest - that are available in his web site.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Rule #1. Never write in the AM before the second cup of coffee. Forgive the omissions and grammatical stumbling.

I think these are fair points. That said, I'm of the opinion that what you and DC consider backsliding on the part of Trump is nothing more than a nod to the trads in the old GOP who must still be mollified if he is to have their support. Once elected, much of that I expect will be jettisoned.

Woody, totally regardless of what Trump actually believes or what he'd actually do, which I admit I know nothing about, the one thing I do know is this:

It's extremely difficult to mollify the old GOP trads and win a national election simultaneously. The policies they want are stinkers. They don't poll well. Not even amongst their own.

For the 15% or so of the electorate that votes on policy issues, by mollifying them, Trump just lost the split hard.

And for the 20% or so behind them who vote on single issues, he lost the split hard again.

There is no large anti-estate tax voting bloc. There is no large financial deregulation voting bloc. There is no 'discounted tax-rates for repatriation of offshore funds' voting bloc.

Abolishing the minimum wage is the political equivalent of sticking a wet fork in the electrical outlet, especially with the working class--you know, the voters he's trying to court. Even grandma and grandpa Greyhair Apolitical want you to leave their payments the hell alone.

At this point, the damage has been done.

Somewhere around here I wrote about the 2012 election and how if Romney and Ryan simply dropped their plans to voucherize Medicare and start a war with Iran, they very well may have won. Those two policies were BIG stinkers. Only maybe 20% of the GOP, 5% of independents and 1% of Democrats wanted it. Medicare especially drew them the ire of the AARP. Turns out grandpa doesn't want to give up his 65+ health insurance in exchange for a coupon for one free knee replacement.*

Well, if you think those policies are stinkers, only 2% of the electorate (2!) thinks abolishing the minimum wage is a good idea. Just 2%. There is almost nothing this unpopular. Coming out publicly in favor of abolishing the minimum wage is the policy equivalent of wiping your ass with the American flag on camera.

I guess, long story short, it probably doesn't matter what Trump would or would not do if elected. So long as he's promoting such extremely unpopular economic policies, he'll never win.

After all, even politicians who deep down truly believe in abolishing the minimum wage have the brains never to say something like that out loud.

It's one thing to take the position, "I think the wage should stay where it is." You can plausibly defend that from the other side that says, "I want it to go up." But saying, "I want to abolish the wage," just makes the 12 million people making it, and the 40 million more making $14 or less, tremble at the possibilities. At least the fifth or so of them who are paying attention.

And like you said, the demographics aren't going to break his way either this time around with how bad he's losing hispanic voters.

And if you're on the wrong side of the demographic break, AND you pick the most unpopular policy positions possible, you don't win elections. They are a popularity contest, after all.





*Within 12 months of when you pay full price for your first knee replacement. Terms and conditions may apply. May not be used in combination with other offers, on weekends, holidays, or at other times at our discretion. Void where prohibited.