Wed May 4, 2016, 07:20 PM

TomCADem (16,596 posts)

Tactically, It Should Be A Good Thing That Trump Is Our Opponent, But It Saddens Me...

Note: Re-Posting here since this was not in topic in primaries per : http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511901078

...that such a large segment of the electorate gravitates to his message of hate whether it be against minorities, women, or Muslims. It always seemed like the more hateful his message, the better he did. So, while Trump should seem to be an ideal opponent, since so many folks view him negatively, he just pretty much locked up the Republican nomination.

I guess I should take some satisfaction that the Republican establishment, Fox News, and their money barons have helped create the environment in which Trump thrived by pandering to racism and stoking resentment among white males against diversity and the advancement of women. However, with the nomination of Trump, we as a nation have proven that we are no different from countries where similar right-wing nationalist movements have taken hold.

In Europe, the rise of Neo-Nazi groups has become more and more acceptable and they have become less of pariah. In the U.S., it is becoming increasingly acceptable to scapegoat minorities, women, immigrants and Muslims, with voters rewarding politicians who preach such hate for telling it like it is.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36150807

"Triumph for the extreme right," proclaimed Spain's El Pais newspaper. Britain's Guardian warned of "turmoil" ahead. Italy's Corriere della Sera bemoaned a victory for the "anti-immigrant far right" while Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung called on traditional political parties to "listen to this wake-up call!"

14 replies, 1099 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

14 replies	Author	Time	Post
Tactically, It Should Be A Good Thing That Trump Is Our Opponent, But It Saddens Me... (Original post)	TomCADem	May 2016	OP
I think we're watching our country lurching towards Fascism. Trump will sell it.	Trust Buster	May 2016	#1
Not if all decent people show up to vote for the Democrat. He cant win if they do	Actor	May 2016	#2
Democrats hate each other. I'm not holding my breath on that one.	Trust Buster	May 2016	#4
Well, if you dont care what Trump does, then you dont care.	Actor	May 2016	#6
Fascism or Oligarchy. Hobsons Choice.	Katashi_itto	May 2016	#14
Such a large segment?	Egnever	May 2016	#3
YES, a Large Segment. Remember 2005 Immigration Bill?	TomCADem	May 2016	#7
Votes in congress are not representative of the will of the electorate.	Egnever	May 2016	#8
Sad...	Mike Nelson	May 2016	#5
you should be sad tactically too	Bucky	May 2016	#9
Yet, if Repudiates His Prior Positions, Will He Get Called On It?	TomCADem	May 2016	#10
What matters is getting the most votes.	Bucky	May 2016	#11
So, if Sanders Says It, The Corporate Media Will Expose It?	TomCADem	May 2016	#12
Wow, I was just answering your questions. Didn't need the sarcasm, but thanks.	Bucky	May 2016	#13

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 07:22 PM

Trust Buster (7,299 posts)

1. I think we're watching our country lurching towards Fascism. Trump will sell it.

Reply to this post

Response to Trust Buster (Reply #1)

Wed May 4, 2016, 07:23 PM

Actor (626 posts)

2. Not if all decent people show up to vote for the Democrat. He cant win if they do

Reply to this post

Response to Actor (Reply #2)

Wed May 4, 2016, 07:25 PM

Trust Buster (7,299 posts)

4. Democrats hate each other. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Reply to this post

Response to Trust Buster (Reply #4)

Wed May 4, 2016, 07:28 PM

Actor (626 posts)

6. Well, if you dont care what Trump does, then you dont care.

Reply to this post

Response to Trust Buster (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:52 AM

Katashi_itto (10,175 posts)

14. Fascism or Oligarchy. Hobsons Choice.

Reply to this post

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 07:24 PM

Egnever (21,506 posts)

3. Such a large segment?

This keeps being repeated over and over and it is maddening. It is a small portion of the Republican party not a large portion of the electorate and the other choices they were given were as bad or worse.

If your choices are all garbage you are going to choose garbage. Translating that into a large portion of the electorate preferring trump is nonsense. When given shit to choose from a larger portion chose this dirt bag over the other dirt bags.

Reply to this post

Response to Egnever (Reply #3)

Wed May 4, 2016, 07:53 PM

TomCADem (16,596 posts)

7. YES, a Large Segment. Remember 2005 Immigration Bill?

Trump is hardly an outlier. About ten years ago, Congressional Republicans almost past a bill turning 11 million undocumented immigrants into felons. That was more extreme than anything that Trump has publicly proposed, and Republicans in 2004 were not loudly announcing that this was their intent if elected. Instead, back in 2004, there was a lot of dog whistles and veiled references to illegal immigrants.

Today, Trump is a lot more outspoken about his hate, and it really supercharges his supporters. Think about it. Trump has been erratic on most issues, except for being anti-immigrant. If he is elected, he will have a mandate to go after immigrants, Muslims, etc., just as far right parties in Europe have risen to prominence. The U.S. is not any different. I have no doubt that if he is elected, the bill that was defeated in 2006 would likely be reintroduced and unlike Dubya who drew a lot of Hispanic votes, Trump would owe them no loyalty whatsoever.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/15/nation/na-felons15

Illegal Immigration Could Be a Felony

WASHINGTON — Under immigration legislation being considered in the House, living illegally in the United States would no longer be a violation of civil immigration law. It would be a federal crime.

But making the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants into felons could deal a fatal blow to the proposed guest-worker program that is a cornerstone of President Bush's immigration overhaul, because immigrants who have committed crimes are not eligible for legal status in the United States.

The move, spearheaded by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), is part of a push by House Republicans to set the tone for the debate over revising immigration laws that will continue into 2006. The measure could come up as soon as today.

House Republicans want tough border security and enforcement provisions in place before discussion of a guest-worker program. Their clash with pro-business Republicans has created tensions within the party and with the administration that the House bill could intensify.

Reply to this post

Response to TomCADem (Reply #7)

Wed May 4, 2016, 08:49 PM

Egnever (21,506 posts)

8. Votes in congress are not representative of the will of the electorate.

They should be but we all know they are not.

And as usual this particular piece of garbage passed the house on party lines and died a quick death in the senate. The house has been passing all sorts of nonsense that never goes anywhere that does not mean the political will is there.

Millions took to the streets in response to this bill and it died the quick death it deserved. Made it pretty obvious that people did not support it and the publics over all outlook on immigration has only softened since then despite the small minority of trump idiots out there.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigrants.aspx

Two in three U.S. adults favor a plan to allow immigrants who are living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country and become citizens if they meet certain requirements over time. Far fewer support allowing those immigrants to remain in the U.S. to work for a limited period of time (14%), or to deport all of these immigrants back to their home countries (19%). U.S. adults' views have been largely stable over the past decade.

Amazingly 33% of the electorate just about covers all of trumps support in the primaries. What he has now is all he gets and it is not nearly enough to win the general.

Reply to this post

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 07:25 PM

Mike Nelson (7,762 posts)

5. Sad...

...they started as what would now be called Democrats. They should have ended with Hoover. Asking Ike to become a Republican gave them a second chance... but when JFK/LBJ threw out the trash, the Republicans picked them up - now, they're stuck with them.

Reply to this post

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 09:01 PM

Bucky (49,643 posts)

9. you should be sad tactically too

Trump will be surprisingly strong in NOvember. After the convention, watch him pivot to a stronger populist message and close the polling gap with Clinton.

This one will be a squeaker.

Reply to this post

Response to Bucky (Reply #9)

Wed May 4, 2016, 09:14 PM

TomCADem (16,596 posts)

10. Yet, if Repudiates His Prior Positions, Will He Get Called On It?

In which case, what difference does it make if it is Clinton or Sanders if Trump is going to get a free pass on the issues?

Reply to this post

Response to TomCADem (Reply #10)

Wed May 4, 2016, 09:27 PM

Bucky (49,643 posts)

11. What matters is getting the most votes.

but perhaps I'm being too vague.

My impression is that Clinton is less adept at that in the general election cause she loses too many votes among liberal independents and even within the party base. It's unfair of course, since most of her negatives are a result of bogus Republican smears for the last 30 years. But there you have the reality nonetheless.

The difference, to answer your question: Sanders has more credibility calling out Trump on reform issues and on Trump's flipflopping as he pivots to center (compare his low unfavorables to her 50+% unfavorables). Clinton has flipped enough herself to make such attacks count for much with Trump. Sanders's consistency over the past 3 decades in public service gives him strong bona fides.

Since Sanders is not going to get the nomination, it's critical for Clinton to keep him and his supporters involved and placated. Her smartest move would be to put Warren on the ticket with her. Franken might be a second best choice, but by a long measure. Warren could uniquely re-energize the base and possibly give Clinton some of Bernie's fundraising magic, which she desperately needs.

Reply to this post

Response to Bucky (Reply #11)

Wed May 4, 2016, 10:22 PM

TomCADem (16,596 posts)

12. So, if Sanders Says It, The Corporate Media Will Expose It?

I thought the issue with Bernie is that the media has been ignoring him, because it is so corporate, which is why he trailing Hillary in the popular vote and delegates even though he has the superior platform and is the superior candidate.

Given Bernie's problems with the media in the Democratic primary, how will Bernie suddenly break through the corporatist blockade on leftist thought in a campaign against Donald Trump who sucks all the air out of the room to begin with? Sure Bernie is credible, but will people even listen given that it is only because of a heavily biased media that folks are voting against their own interests and voting for Hillary over Bernie?

As for Bernie not getting the nomination, there are always the superdelegates.

Reply to this post

Response to TomCADem (Reply #12)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:47 AM

Bucky (49,643 posts)

13. Wow, I was just answering your questions. Didn't need the sarcasm, but thanks.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)