Are you sure he was serious? It seems clear to me that the second two sentences are meant to show how the silly the idea is: that if you don’t get exactly what you want you should do the opposite extreme. If he’s serious I don’t know what point he was making with those two extra examples…!

Because you’re falling into a bit of a confirmation bias error.

I’m not saying that Trump doesn’t bear all the hallmarks of being a fascist authoritarian leader by his words. Not at all. And the Hitler mentions in that 1922 Times article are chilling and familiar.

But here’s what the “This is how the Nazis started!” stuff miss, and miss heavily.

Weimar-era Germany was an enormously closed society. It was white, and it was native-born. By Kristallnacht, the population of Germany was about 1-2% non-European white. Meaning that this was a very homogenized society.

And the Weimar Republic as a government was a weak and untested system that collapsed under its first big trial, and sadly rather spectacularly.

Now, compare that to America, where we’re somewhere between 60-65% white and native born. We are not a homogenized society, not by any means.

And we have a government which has, for better than 200 years, shown judicial and legislative checks to executive power.

I’m not saying that the Trump/Hitler comparisons are utterly invalid because they clearly have some merit.

However, I am saying that he’ll fare much worse than any other fascist leader at carrying out his agenda, because he’ll ultimately fail comparatively quickly. With that said, I’m OK with not giving him that chance.

And did you explain to him that it won’t be the establishment who’ll be punished?

Yeah. “My order of preference from most to least desirable: 1. Scorpions 2. Voting Trump 3. The Wild 4. Voting Hillary.”

I have a 3.5-day weekend with the ladyface starting tomorrow. I’m going to forget that the next debate is even happening.

I don’t know how to relate, but I should give it a shot.

Or at least get him to just write in Cthulhu. But yeah, I’m checking out.

Well stated. While I don’t agree with every aspect of your post, this is a party line I could respect at least; it’s sort of Eisenhower Republican, with a healthy dose of common sense, humanity, and pragmatism. As long as building up family and community is inclusive–no reason why same-sex families can’t fill the bill as well as more “traditional” ones, for instance–I could get on board in general. But the flaw here, as I’m sure you see, is that this is a rational, thoughtful, approach. Reason and thought, like nuance and subtlety, seem incompatible with our political process. Hell, it’s hard enough to get people to actually think through even the wildest claims by candidates.

And I’m not sure about exactly how to deal with the jobs thing. I’m not convinced immigration is the big issue; globalization is, and I don’t think you can do much about that in a liberal capitalism system where it’s not only natural but required to seek out the lowest labor costs wherever they may be. You’d have to artificially inflate wages by subsidizing them to get companies not to move jobs elsewhere.

The anti-Trump ads have started here in Missouri (a winner-takes-all-state that votes on the same day as FL). I doubt the effectiveness at negative ads this late in the game. Trump is too famous. Between the massive amount of coverage he has received this year already and the celebrity he had even before this election, how many voters remain open-minded about Trump? It’s too late to define him as a con-man for voters who already believe he’s a “winner.” These ads will just confirm for them that he’s opposed by the establishment.*

When I hear about late-deciders in other primaries going for Rubio, I assume those people were mostly undecided because they knew they didn’t like Trump, but they hadn’t decided which non-Trump candidate to pick.

  • About half of my opinions on politics boil down to “confirmation bias is a helluva drug.” Pundits, campaign managers and candidates who don’t account for it are missing one of the primary drivers of human decisionmaking.

Trump is benefiting from the anti-intellectual cloture that has been fostered by the far right for over a decade now.
The truth doesn’t matter, because those voters are convinced that the media lies. So when the media points out, “Hey, Donald trump totally scammed thousands of middle class Americans out of tens of thousands of dollars each,” those supporters can just ignore it as some sort of attempt to deceive them.

This makes him largely invulnerable to losing his voters.

Here’s trump’s basic game plan, that he repeats over and over again:

  1. Say crazy shit, and get free publicity.
  2. Offer some mealy mouthed excuse, walking back what you said.
  3. Claim that the media is out to get you when they publicize the crazy shit, and point to your excuse as “evidence”.

This happened with the KKK thing recently. Trump was able to kind of sort of disavow the KKK support, while also not REALLY disavowing it, which allowed him to keep the hard core racists in his ranks, while simultaneously convincing his other supporters (the less hard core racists) that he disavowed the support and that the media is just making stuff up.

This has happened a million times now, every time he says crazy shit.

An incredible series of inane explanations why liberal, progressive, and indeed even gay Muslim voters are choosing Trump. Boggles the mind. Makes Stockholm Syndrome seem tame.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out

So the speech Romney is giving today will call Trump “a ‘phony’ and a ‘fraud’ who’d threaten America’s future.”

An attack from the last election’s loser RINO ought to bump Trumps numbers with the GOP base by a good five points or so.

We’re now in full 1964 Goldwater mode. I can’t wait to see what Hillary’s equivalent of the daisy commercial will be. Maybe “Do you really want your children growing up seeing this combover every day?”

I’m a patriotic socialist, but my strong-borders patriotism wins over my socialism if I have to choose. As Donald says, we either have a country or we don’t.

Patriotic socialist sounds an awful lot like national socialism.

If you noticed, in the Nevada election Trump won 46% of the Hispanic vote and the reason is because the legal Hispanic voters also have to compete with the illegal immigrants for jobs.

It’s amazing that so many people repeat obvious lies from Trump.

No Virginia, Trump most definitely did not win 46% “of the hispanic vote”.

I’m also amazed at the folks who complain about drone strikes, but then support a guy who openly plans to attack the families of terrorists.

Yeah, who came up with this brilliant idea? It would do Trump more damage if Romney endorsed him as a friend of capital and big finance than if he denounced him.

Yeah, doesn’t it? Amazingly like.

If only.

I wonder what Romney’s game plan is here. Looking at excerpts from his speech, he still doesn’t seem to be endorsing anyone, and if he was really interested in affecting change he would have done that well before Super Tuesday (not that I think it’d have much impact, but he seems to think he’s some sort of elder statesman of the Republican party).

Maybe he’s planning on sweeping into a brokered convention to save the day as the nominee.

I just don’t get why anyone thinks the American public in 2016 cares about what Mitt Romney says. Is he all of a sudden the elder statesman of the Republican party? Though to be honest, I don’t know who would qualify for that title.

Elder Statesman? No idea, but if you want elder spokesman, I’ll offer you Roger Ailes and the Koch brothers.

In 2012, Romney made some campaign errors and ended up looking bad compared to Obama.

But compared to the republican field in 2016? Compared to folks like Trump or Cruz?
The guy’s like some golden god.

Funny piece about Christie’s wordless screaming:

No, no, Craig, those are the Elder spokesmen, who are the dark mouthpieces of the eldritch horrors at the end of whose strings we all twist. . .