What is scary to me is the number of Republican establishment folks that are coming out and saying “If Trump wins the nomination, Republicans have to get out and vote for him, even though he doesn’t follow our ideals and will likely run this country in to the ground. If you don’t vote for him, it’s like voting for Hillary”. Is the cross-party hate so extreme that you would rather have TRUMP over Hillary, just because she’s a Democrat? Or do you honestly feel like Trump embodies your values closer than Hillary? If it’s the former, you’re just continuing the politics that allowed Trump to get in the position he’s in today. If it’s the latter, god help us all. Either way, I am so tired of the 2-party system that I have 0 desire to participate it in these days.
War is one of the few issues a President can affect directly beyond rhetoric, and I’ve been trying to decide who I prefer on that between Trump and Clinton.
Trump has been anti-war in the past and questioned Israel, but he’s also been pretty bombastic about the Middle East. It’s hard to tell.
Clinton seems like a diehard neocon who thinks she’s smarter than she is, and may think careful foreign action and manipulation can bring positive change instead of just blowback like it always does.
I think I’d almost prefer Trump because it’s out in the open. But if Republicans retain control of Congress, then there would be some built-in resistance to whatever Hillary proposes, even if it aligns with what the GOP wants.
We’re probably doomed either way.
You have people invested so deeply in the tribalism on both sides that they’re almost compelled to do that. If their political leaders don’t follow suit, there’s a chance they get left behind in the next election cycle.
Oghier
6125
I do not believe the Republican establishment will ever get wholly behind Trump. It’s against the economic interests of too many of their donors. If he is serious about reversing our nation’s course on free trade and immigration, corporate profitability is seriously impacted. If you’re a Fortune 500 CEO or major shareholder, odds are that Clinton’s centrist approach (more Obama) presents much, much less risk.
The base despises Clinton. The donor class may be less prone to Whitewater-Foster-Email-Benghazi-fueled rage. What that would mean in a general… F if I know.
Miramon
6126
After years of doubled and redoubled tribalism and lies parbroiling their brains these people honestly think that Democrat means evil. So they may agree that Trump is a buffoon and a bad guy and No True Scotsman, but at least he’s not a liberal. Because liberals want to destroy their way of life, and thus pose an existential threat, whereas a monster like Trump is just not the best choice.
That was among the better ones, rivaling the Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann ones.
I don’t think you can call it overblown when Trump himself pretty much channels the architects of fascism in every speech he makes, from the rhetoric to the implied policy implications. We’re talking academic, technical fascism here, not some sort of “he’s Hitler with bad (worse) hair” trope. A solid rhetorical and content analysis of Trump pretty much points straight towards classic fascism.
And every single thing Oghier point out in his excellent post…also fits in with the how fascism has historically appealed to people. Identification of the threat as coming from the “other,” fear of economic displacement, nativism, belief in strong solutions from strong leaders…these are all part of the historical, technical chronicle of fascism.
Well, then it’s nice that Tim James is on board with voting for him then.
I wonder how much of that impression is blood-colored glasses though. Clinton was in favor of going into Iraq… as were most Democrats back in 2002. She was SecState for the Libya thing, and did not advocate for “boots on the ground”, but rather for the Europe-led, US-assisted intervention that happened. With Syria, she wanted more direct assistance for the rebels, but again was against a US presence in-country. In Afghanistan, she advocated for more troops, but supported Obama’s timeline for bugging out.
In general she seems to be more “interventionist” than Obama, but far from “Neocon” territory.
Ha ha, voting!
It’s more of a rationalization tactic to try to find something reassuring between these two awful choices.
I get the feeling I’ll soon be wishing for the pretty chill Obama presidency where not much happened.
No, I agree there is a connection between the Trump style of politics and fascism, and that there is an authoritarian quality to him. That doesn’t mean those things can’t be overstated or used to cast his supporters as nothing more than fearful sheep.
Well, she puts a more humanitarian spin on it, but is there a real difference between what she’s advocating and what the Bush administration was pushing? They’re both trying to save souls at the point of a spear.
So I guess this helps Cruz a bit?
I also see there’s another debate. Enough already! If I was Trump I’d really think about skipping the debates at this point.
In terms of results, probably not much. However, the rationale for going to war still matters to the survivors (all the dead probably don’t give a ****, of course).
I’m sure my folks will be glad they no longer need to reconcile their latent racism against their desire to vote for the most Christian person still running.
Well, not as much at least. Cruz isn’t as brown as Carson.
Except he’s not really out. He’s just not attending the next debate, or planning any campaign events. And he doesn’t see “a path forward.” But he’s not suspending his campaign! Tune in to his speech Friday so he can clarify what he means. Or not.
I’m glad to see that he died as he lived, in a giant ball of confusion.
I guess putting some lines on the field might help. When I hear “Neocon”, I think of Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith and their ilk – folks who wanted to use US might to go in and create new, friendlier governments at the point of a spear “for their own good”.
I know the term goes back a half-century, and sure, you could say that by removing Gaddafi or throwing in with the Syrian rebels we were engaging in “Neocon” activity… but I think you have to look at those events kinda sideways to impose Neoconservative motives to the Obama administration. If you cast your net that widely, then anytime the US does anything pro-democracy outside its own borders, it’s a Neocon plot.
Isn’t that what the administration tried to do in Libya and again in Syria? They thought they could use US military power to create friendlier, more American, governments.
