is it really possible that Donald trump could be president????? [Part 2]

[claig]

From now on the race becomes winner take all. If Trump wins Florida on March 15, it is probably all over.

'The Republican Party now has 14 days to stop Trump'

www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11144812/super-tuesday-results-donald-trump-wins

To be fair claig usually starts her own threads and isn't a disruptive poster.

Thanks, TinySombrero

Anyway, I'll leave you to talk to yourself again.

Tiny - claig shows up on every thread about politics and dominates it with hundreds of posts.

That is what happened with the 1st Trump thread (before this one) which someone else has started.

'claig shows up on every thread about politics'

No I don't. I am on one Trump thread and var123 even asked me why I wasn't posting on EU Referendum threads, which I have done a few posts on. I find the Trump phenomenon more interesting and I think it wil change the world. If I didn't post on this thread, then it would have died ages ago because most posters think Trump is a "racist" and that is the end of it.

I agree with "Cameron's Brain", Steve Hilton, that "there is actually something very profound going on in the United States" and that "Of course, I understand that Trump’s rhetoric sometimes causes real offence. But he’s not a bigot or a racist or a madman"

"Anyway, I'll leave you to talk to yourself again."

OK, have a nice day.

I'm sorry if you feel attacked. That was not my intention.

My intention is to get you to see that the baseless allegations and conspiracy theory stuff you post is not good for debate or analysis. It's outrageous and frustrating because you don't get why it's outrageous, either. No doubt it makes sense in your head but there is a discussion to be had, which is not happening because we are busy replying to the far-fetched, outrageous stuff you post as true.

'I'm sorry if you feel attacked. That was not my intention. '

No problem. Thanks for saying that.

Talking about "elites" is not conspiracy stuff. Even BBC Newsnight had to have a segent on "what are these elites?" because they know that everyone is talking about it. I have watched all the debates, listen to Ben Carson and Trump and Fox analysts and CNN analysts and Trump insiders and political commentators who know US politics like the back of their hand, so I have learned a little about what the Trump phenomenon is really all about and what a challenge it poses to the elite. It is not conspiracy, it is mainstream.

"Why I support Trump and resent the elites trying to destroy him"

nypost.com/2016/03/05/why-i-support-trump-and-resent-the-elites-trying-to-destroy-him/

In their attempt to stop Trump, the elites use all the tricks and stratages they can.

Human beings have not changed, politics is a dirty game just like it was under the Borgias in Italy. The battle for power is fought with the same tenacity as it has always been because the outcome is so important. They used soin and lies and hypocrisy and tricks under the Borgias, and they are still doing it now, only now they have far more resources and far more knowledge and far more money and the stakes are far higher.

Claig is entitled to start her own threads and make as many posts on them as she wishes, provided she keeps within MN rules - which she does.
Some of her views seem in a different universe to the one I live in, but then I'm baffled by several other people on MN. I enjoy her US threads.

I'd object if she flooded threads other people started, but on her own threads it's not fair to try rationing her posting.
Let's criticise the views, not the poster. Otherwise it might be hurtful and we don't know her personal situation.

'and we don't know her personal situation'

Thanks, BigChoc, I am OK, I can handle it, I just prefer to debate the issues rather than fending off insults etc. because then the thread just becomes boring for everyone else.

I do post a lot on Trump, but most of the posts are in reply to what others have asked me. But I do also post links to articles that I think are interesting and that act as prompts for discussion of issues.

I find the Trump phenomenon fascinating and I have never seen anything like it, but I will try to cut down my posts about it, but it may be difficult

This news report is pretty damning - shows the chronological escalation in Trump's rhetoric and the corresponding violent escalation of his supporters at the rallies.

The Guardian has a very interesting Analysis of why some Trump and Bernie supporters may crossover.

They found a surprising amount of similarity between the 2 groups of supporters and concluded the major difference was age - Trump has mostly old white folk; Bernie has the young'uns.
Obviously a v broad generalisation. I suspect additional differences in personal psychological makeup, religion and family voting patterns.

This Trump / Bern phenonenon is similar to that in the UK, where those who are losing out in the economy may split between supporting red UKIP and Corbyn Labour.

If we look back to Europe in the 1930s, we can see how previously prosperous voters / families can react in visceral fury when they think they have lost that prosperity. Some voted for anyone who promised to tear down the system and give them a fresh start.

My OH is a socialist-leaning American from the southern States & he's supported Bernie for a while.

The consternation and despair Trump has caused his Republican friends is profound & if he wins the nomination they are either not going to vote or possibly even protest vote. They're pretty anti Ted Cruz too.

I also have red-neck Republican cousins who are pro-gun, pro-armed forces, anti-abortion, pro-Christian...etc. And watching them 'try' and support Trump has been interesting but even they are struggling with him as a candidate, especially now some of the GOP big-hitters like McCain & Romney have spoken against his nomination. Trump deriding McCain for having been a Vietnam POW did not play well.

However, they are so vehemently anti-Clinton that they'd vote for the anti-Christ.

bigchoc I agree with what you say about people having the right to post where and however often they like, but tbh it gets a bit "spammy" after three consecutive posts of mostly cut and paste, and tends to derail any serious conversation.

Re the Bernie/Trump crossover, there is undoubtedly some ,but I don't think it's anywhere near as large as some would like to make out. I saw an interesting analysis of voting in hypothetical Trump-Clinton or Trump-Sanders match-ups. In both cases, less educated voters came out modestly in favour of Trump, but more educated voters were very largely in favour of Clinton and Sanders. Interestingly, this general observation (better educated voters vote Democrat) was even more pronounced in favour of Sanders than of Clinton. I will see if I can find a link.

If the election is a shoo-in for the Democrats, as most expect, then the few % who would be Bern / Trump crossover would be irrelevant.
However, in a close election, they might become significant if added to Bernie voters who'd vote green or just stay home rather than vote for Hillary.

Hillary has a v high negative rating, which could push Republicans who dislike Trump to still vote the party ticket, as well as demotivating some on the left of the Democratic party to vote - they might prefer an outrageously rightwing President who'll galvanise the left vote in 2020 rather than Hillary's milder version of neoliberalism / neocon.

Whatever the result, those angry voters "left behind" economically need to have their concerns adressed before a much more capable demagogue arises in the future.

I don't think there's such a thing as a shoo-in in American presidential elections, where a handful of states decide the outcome.

And turn out is a concern, definitely. The problem is that the most reliably democratic-voting demographics, ie black and Hispanic people, are also those which habitually record relatively low turnouts. It would be difficult for the Republicans to win even with a good candidate; but it's not impossible for them to win even with a poor one.

The low turnout issue doesn't only affect Clinton: there are democrats and independents who would not turn out for Sanders. However, they are much less vocal than the Bernie supporters (mostly men) who would prefer a racist demagogue over a female president.

Article "Beware fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming" shows a few zillionaires may be getting concerned about a horrendous political explosion in the future.

I refused to ever vote for Mrs Thatcher - and I was a voter from 1974.
Sometimes a woman politician can just be too nasty, rather than voters being sexist.

My whole take on the Trump nomination run has been that he has had a lot of people against him. The media has been unfair at best with their coverage by releasing half truths or incomplete statements leading others think the worst.

I'm not a trump supporter but I think he has been given a rough ride. The man has demonstrated he is quick on his feet and he has said some of the things we all want to say but can't because we, as non black people, are accused of being racist. It's incredibly frustrating and turns people towards candidates such as Trump.

The demonstrations at his rally's are upsetting because America has always prided itself on free speech. The racial tension is terrible. We deal with it all the time with employees who don't perform during the probation period. We have had 7 EEOC cases at one time. All employees were black saying that our policies discriminated against them. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with this as an employer. We can have one set of rules for one group and another set for one demographic. Ironically the managers at our facility are black and ex marines. They are Trump supporters because they are fed up. When trump came out with 'all lives matter' he struck a chord with people such as my black managers. I had to ask one of my black managers to take down the slogan as we don't accept politics coming into the workplace. I was shocked he put it up but when I think about it it's not shocking at all. He is having a very hard time getting ahead. His kids are in a school where there is racial tension. It's wrong and the policies in place at schools do not help at all.

he has said some of the things we all want to say but can't because we, as non black people, are accused of being racist.

What kind of things do you want to say but can't?

'black lives matter'. There needs to be a conversation about policing in this country but making it a racial issue doesn't help anyone. It's divisive and puts people's back up.

Living in a nice part of the country I've seen what police have to deal with and think on the whole they do an impossible job. People such as Al Sharpton are quick to defend black people unfairly treated by the police. Well there are plenty more people treated badly by the police. I have never seen Al Sharpton publiclly support a white or Hispanic person mistreated by the police.

Sometimes a woman politician can just be too nasty, rather than voters being sexist.

I have no doubt that is true, but of you read some of the stuff written about Clinton by Sanders (and Trump) supporters then it's clear that misogyny plays a role. As it did in the vilification of Thatcher (whose politics, I should make clear, I absolutely didn't and don't agree with).

I like Sanders but he really needs to distance himself from some of his supporters.

OK we get it Claig. To not vote for Trump is a vote to keep being let down by the political class. Trump will make everything better and he will do what he says he's going to do, I'm sure ....Just stop going on please.. let someone else voice a view. ?

Yes but bigchoc this thread is a follow on from a thread she did not start.

I personally find the flooding disruptive and it blocks up other debate with other posters. Every trump thread turns ends up focused on Claig and her opinions on what trump really means.

wilting, you can ignore my posts. I cut and paste articles that I think throw greater light on the Trump phenomenon. I post what Camille Paglia, what Jack Welch, what Judge Jeanine Pirro, and what lots of political commentators think because i think they express aspects better than any of us can.

I am not blocking debate with anyone. If you have a point then go ahead and post it. I have replied to some of your posts asking me things, but if you prefer me not to, I won't reply.

There have been previous threads where you were specifically asked not to flood and then you went in and did exactly that.