is it really possible that Donald trump could be president????? [Part 3]

[Lweji]

Continuing the thread, and in reply to the two last posts of thread 2

Today 08:15 OhYouBadBadKitten

I don't think it is about Trump taking risks, its more that he is a narcisstic sociopath. He feels untouchable in what he says and has no regard for the consequences.

Today 06:53 fourmummy

To be fair, voters know that all political rhetoric mostly comes to nothing (rhetoric = argumentation and persuasion, elevated to an art from in Ancient Greece). Why do you imagine Labour want to introduce votes for 16 year olds? They know that people don't become "more conservative" as they get older-they become wiser to the political process and its lies rhetoric. So what's different with Trump? Why hasn't his unbelievably unlikeable public and private persona sunk him?

Answer=risk

He is not a ready-rolled, ready-prepped and ready-to-go politician (think Blair's son parachuted into a constituency; MIliband brothers, Clintons). These are not risking much because they were cast in the role when they were made. We know that this is the case with, certainly, Clinton (numerous interviews with aides attest to this; ditto for the others). Voters are doing a risk assessment of his risks and have decided that he is worth something. It's not as simple as suggesting that if someone votes for him then they must be racist or sexist, as I've seen journos assert. Voters are effectively doing a risk assessment and deciding that given the enormous costs both to him (energy, health, time away from family, reputation, financial, career, historical implications, ) and to his voters (risk of being viewed as sexist, racist, intolerant, asshole), the benefits must outweigh these costs. Very unwise to dismiss ordinary voters as simplistically sexist and racists, as many, many journalists have (shortsightedly) done. Even non-experts are very good at performing cost/benefit analyses

As I said I don't see anything of what he says as taking a risk. Because he is saying what many people want to hear.
As for personal cost, he is clearly someone who enjoys the power, the limelight, the adoration. All that is missing for him is the ultimate power, particularly as he sees other true billionaires taking central stage.
But he doesn't have the heart to be Gates.
So, he's going for the highest office, and on the back of American voters most primal fears.

But...
He's not averse to risk. He's built his empire on it. He's had four bankruptcies. Anyone should be worried about the way he manages risk.

'I suspect it's just Obama sticking his nose in unasked. He's another Democrat who has frosty relations with UK Tories'

I don't think Cameron is realy a Tory, he is more of a Blairite, nanny state, Big Society sugar tax liberal intervionist type. He is probably closer to Obama than to Trump.

"PM will wheel out Obama to make the case for staying in the EU despite fears 'lecture' from President could backfire

David Cameron has invited the President to visit Britain to bolster his case
...
David Cameron has invited the American president to visit Britain this spring to bolster the case for EU membership before the in-out referendum"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445092/PM-wheel-Obama-make-case-staying-EU-despite-fears-lecture-President-backfire.html

I don't think they want to make it too obvious that help is needed, but despearte times call for desperate measures and Obama has to help out before all is lost for the European elites.

'I remember Hannan in the Torygraph rooting for Obama in 2008; several Tories did.'

I am surprised about Hannan, but am not surprised about the rest of the modernisers. You often find Tories who worked on the Democrat campaign and a Sir who is a Tory is opposed to Trump and prefers Hillary. There is no real left-right divide among lots of them, they are all in it together. Very few of them will actually like Trump because he is not a globalist and they all have to be.

If you don't elect Sanders, can we have him please ?

Hahaha, oh HELL no, because if he doesn't get the Presidency I want him back in the Senate helping Elizabeth Warren make Wall Street verrrrrrry uncomfortable.

Oooh, BigChocFrenzy also, going way back, I was re-reading and this caught my eye:

The Republican base (which Senators and Congresspersons dare not ignore) absolutely hate her.

You're correct in saying that the Republican base hate her BUT, caveat, it's not so much the truth anymore than Senators and Congresspersons dare not ignore their base. With the Citizens United Supreme Court decision making it much easier for corporations to contribute to individual campaigns, legislators are feeling ever more torn between their base and their, for lack of a better term, "sponsors". Some of them are so blatant about ignoring the will of the people in favour of corporate interests I swear they ought to be made to wear jackets emblazoned with the logos of the companies that pay them.

Let's take guns as an example. The rest of the world (rightly) freaks out about all the shit that goes down over here with guns - mass shootings, domestic-violence murders, all of that. In 2014, the last year tabulated, roughly 31% of US households reported/admitted to owning at least one gun. The NRA (National Rifle Association) is the biggest anti-gun-control lobbying organization we have and they count, roughly, 6-7% of gun owners as members. In a 2015 survey, the question was asked: Do you support laws imposing stricter regulation of the sale of guns, including more stringent background checks? (That's not verbatim but it's the general idea) Out of all gun owners, 83% either agreed or strongly agree, and even among NRA members, 74% agreed. For non-gun-owners, the percentage in agreement was even higher, approaching 90%. Despite all this, despite the overwhelming majority of the people wanting these measures put into place, every attempt at getting them through Congress has failed and it is directly due to NRA lobbying.

That's what I mean by saying that the base is no longer quite so necessary to legislators as it once was; once they're in they just have to do the bare minimum to keep getting re-elected. Term limits for legislators, similar to the term limit for the presidency, are starting to look VERY good.

Bernie Sanders projected to win today in Washington State (where he is sweeping it) and Alaska

That's interesting about the NRA. I'd read that most Americans wanted some checks before guns can be bought and I was wondering why it seems so impossible politically. Even the Brady law, iirc signed by Reagan after the assassination attempt, which left his aide in a wheelchair, are gone.

I was reading about a Republican Senator who said maybe Obama's nominee for Supreme Court could be considered and he was immediately threatened with someone opposing him in his Senate primary.
I suppose even though it is the emotional issue of abortion that always comes up when discussing the court, in fact very few cases would have anything to do with abortion, or same sex marriage. Corporate interests would feel threatened in many ways by a more liberal Supreme Court

< sulks at the Mean Americans who won't let us have Sanders - we'd love him and elect him >

Ah thanks for the info, claig I thought primaries were only on Tuesdays. Saturday is more sensible to maximise # voters.
Any Republican primaries today too ?

I think it is only three Democrat caucuses today - Alaska, Washington State and Hawaii. The next Republican elections are in a couple of weeks time in Wisconsin.

Sanders got the endorsement of Senator Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She is really good and I think she will definitely be President one day. Unlike most of the Democrats, she has the courage to be interviewed on Fox News and comes across really well.

oh, I see Brady law was 1993, so must have been Clinton signing. I thought I remembered Reagan softening on gun control after the assassination attempt.
However, Brady and his wife campaigned strongly and the law was passed 12 years later. Illustrates how powerful the NRA are - they invested millions to delay the law and then weakened it in Congress and the Supreme Court. Apparently it has hardly has any effect now.

Tulsi Gabbard is impressive: an Iraqi vet who made a very effective campaign ad for Sanders.
Interesting that she quit as DNC vice-chair and had a row with Chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz - who wants superdelegates to "correct" any unwelcome primary voting decisions

Yes, Tulsi has also had the courage to go against the Democrat elite and back Bernie which will put her in good stead with lots of the enthusiastic Democrat supporters of the future. She will be able to bridge the divide between non-establishment and establishment Democrats in the future. She is very impressive, young, confident, energetic and good with the media. From what I have seen of her, she also seems to have common sense so she will be a tough challenger for Republicans in the future.

Just watched her ad for Bernie. It is good except for the near crying bit which looks a bit like spin to me. She is anti the globalist liberal intervionist wars just like Trump. She is a very strong contender for President one day. She is only 34. Very impressive.

For the purposes of balance, a Bernie ad has to be balanced by a Trump ad and this one has Sarah Palin in it as well. Rock'n'roll!

The gun laws here are absolutely ridiculous and I say that as a gun owner - both rifles for deer hunting and handguns for indoor target shooting at a range (all weapons locked in an 800-pound combination-locked safe, disassembled, ammunition in a different locked container). When I originally applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon (at the time I was, of necessity and lack of options, living in an area of Pittsburgh, PA where there was definitely a need for some kind of self-defence), I walked into the Allegheny County Sheriff's office and walked out fifteen minutes and nineteen dollars later, with a card allowing me to carry a concealed handgun just about anywhere I wished. I've maintained the permit, but I think I've carried my Walther...less than ten times total and none in the past ten years. Have never drawn or almost-drawn it out of the holster.

Anyway, like I said earlier, it is ridiculous how easy it is to get almost any kind of gun here - I want it to be hard, I want people to have to get DEEP background checks (the ones now are bare-minimum), mental-health screenings (controversial, but would have stopped several mass-shooters from getting weapons), pass theory and training classes, and have a waiting period of a week or so.

Finally, re: Tulsi Gabbard, I'm not as familar with her as I should be but everything I've heard about her bodes well. Definitely someone to keep an eye on in the future.

I find ads with a single person are far more effective. Maybe that's the difference in attention span between a boomer and Generation YouTube < goady >

Proginoskes That's an amazing glimpse into a different country & culture:

So an ordinary American can feel there is an genuine danger if she doesn't have a gun. I suppose if nearly everyone has one in a certain town or county; if you are hours from police, you'd feel vulnerable without.
That's very strange to us here, where unless you are in the tiny minority who are in the armed forces, or a farmer, you've probably never even touched a gun.
We rely on police to protect us, however imperfectly. Mind you, no choice: handguns are totally illegal; even our Olympic shooters have to practice abroad. Rifle, airgun and shotgun licences are available, but under stringent conditions.

There is certainly fear of violent crime here, but not really of gun crime. Did you chose to have a gun to protect against burglary, mugging, serious assault or specifically gun crime ?
Before the IRA campaign heated up in the 1970s, I'd never seen an armed police officer. So, it was a shock when armed police were suddenly stationed at airports. Even now, that's the only place we'd expect to see an armed cop.

I wouldn't say that an ordinary American would feel endangered if she didn't have a gun. Living where I do now, I don't hesitate to go for a walk anywhere in town in the middle of the night if the whim takes me. However, in the neighbourhood where I lived when I had the gun, I was a single woman living alone with two small children, in an area that was notorious for open-air drug dealing and shootings, some gang-related, some not. Stores were robbed at gunpoint, and every few months there would be a rash of rapes. The only circumstance in which I would have drawn that gun would be if someone had a gun or a knife pointed at me - I can handle myself pretty well as far as hand-to-hand, unarmed self-defence is concerned, having spent a lot of time brawling as a somewhat wild-child teenager (not to mention years of playing rugby). If I had drawn the gun it would definitely have been under exigent circumstances. I tried as hard as possible to just avoid walking through the neighbourhood at night - and never with the kids, we'd just pile in the car and drive a bit if a grocery trip was absolutely necessary. And yes, the MINUTE I was financially able I moved out of that place into a perfectly-normal, plain old neighbourhood, and from that point never carried the gun again.

And to illustrate HOW bad it was, I grew up in Cincinnati, Ohio. There's a neighbourhood on the edge of downtown called Over-The-Rhine that was for some years running judged the most dangerous in America by some magazine or another. In my early 20s I lived just on the edge of OTR and downtown and walked to the club and back four nights a week, alone and the only time anyone accosted me, it was a drunk from the same club who was trying to get my number. So, me calling a neighbourhood dangerous...that's saying something.

The Ted Cruz thing is beginning to get huge. I don't think Cruz can survive it. There are reports of 3 more women being involved and reports on who some of the original 5 are and if true it is stunning. I don't think the Establishment will be able to keep it quiet.

What is terrible is that I know exactly what progin is talking about. I've lived here in north jersey for 10 years now. I've had clients in some rough neighborhoods. I've also been clueless at times. Ive seen 3 drive by shootings and one shooting where a girl (no older than 25) thrown out of a car and shot repeatidly with an automatic weapon.

British people have no clue about the crime here in the US. It's horrendous in certain parts and yes people living in rough parts feel the need to carry. DH and I don't carry. He pays security who carry.

There are some fascinating US voter groupings like Yellow Dog Democrats (Southerners with bitter feelings about the Civil War, who would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican) - but I think many such Southern racists have now found their home in the GOP.

I am a Southerner and a lifelong Democrat and I just want to point out that this is not really an accurate description of what yellow dog Democrat means today. It means someone who always votes for the Democrat against a Republican. It actually gained its currency in the 1928 presidential election when some Democrats in the South declared their intention to vote against the Democratic nominee Al Smith (who was a Catholic).

demdogs.com/dogdems.htm

The Ted Cruz 3 more women report turns out to have been a twitter prank and is false.

Very well written article on Trump and the Cruz thing, amusing in parts. Trump is just toying with the whole Establishment and media and is outmanoeuvring all of the professionals.

"Trumped again: The diabolical GOP frontrunner slimes Cruz, shames Fox & controls the news cycle

Did Trump plant the Enquirer's sleazy Cruz story? Who knows? It served his cruel, clownish genius either way"
...
We keep being told that Trump’s evident viciousness and venality, and his lack of anything resembling a coherent ideology or a policy agenda, will eventually bite him in the ass. We’re still waiting, while the asses of others continue to get bitten.
...
What mattered, in the Trumpian calculus, was not the content of the Enquirer article but the fact that it left Ted Cruz, the pompous, Princeton-educated firebrand who presents himself as the most virtuous conservative in the land, looking ridiculous. On a day when Cruz no doubt yearned to ramp up the tough talk about persecuting American Muslims and bombing ISIS backwards in time, he had to face the cameras, quivering with rage and looking even more like Eddie Munster than usual, to denounce a scurrilous tabloid story for being scurrilous and tabloid-ish. It was almost the definition of a no-win situation, and you can’t say Cruz didn’t deserve it."

www.salon.com/2016/03/26/trumped_again_the_diabolical_gop_front_runner_slimes_cruz_shames_fox_and_controls_the_news_cycle/

I have observed in the UK and US:

Piousness in Politicians is Proportional to Poking

I know Claig dislikes the Tory "modernisers," but until Cameron et al abandoned social conservatism, every Tory administration was plagued by umpteen sexual scandals.
Such behaviour is no longer seen as scandalous for the Tories, because the element of hypocrisy is gone.

BigChoc, you are right. It only really counts if it is hypocrisy.

The mainstream media are not talking much about the Cruz affair and Cruz was on TV just now denying it is true and he looked convincing, so it may be the case that there is nothing in it. It really only matters if it is about lying or hypocrisy.

There is no concrete evidence so far, but apparently a lot of historic suspicion about his behaviour.
(maybe just others sharing my suspicions of pious politicians)
I read that 2 of the 5 women have totally denied affairs with him, the other 3 have said nothing - maybe just don't want the publicity involved in a denial though.
The question is: will this affect his vote in the next primaries ?
(in France, it would boost his ratings )