Sanders Versus Trump Would Be Fun
Could the next presidential election be one where both sides get the candidate who inspires the most passion among the base? It would have seemed almost ridiculous to suggest as recently as last month, but the possibility that America could be given the choice of Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders doesn't seem so far-fetched nowadays. If these are the choices the two major parties coalesce behind, it'll certainly be one of the most unique presidential elections ever.
Of course, it's still way too early to assign any sort of probability for this particular matchup ever coming to pass. We're only in the dog days of August, and Iowa won't kick off the primary voting until next February. We've got a lot of debates to go, and a lot of campaigning remains before we get to that point. But, putting probabilities aside, it's certainly now within the realm of possibility.
The case for Trump becoming the Republican nominee is the easiest to make. He's leading in all the polls, and he has yet to be bested by any other Republican candidate, or even tarnished badly enough by his own off-the-cuff comments that the Republican base starts flocking to someone else. He does seem to be stuck right now at about 25 percent support from the Republican voters, but that is better than twice as good as any other Republican candidate is now doing. If he starts climbing up into the 30s in the polls, he may become unstoppable. With so many other candidates in the field, Trump could easily win primaries with only one-third of the voters' support. What seemed outlandish when he announced his campaign has now solidified into reality: Trump is unquestionably the frontrunner of the Republican Party.
Making the case for Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic primaries is harder, of course, because Hillary Clinton is still far and away the Democratic frontrunner. But Bernie's fortunes have been on the rise, while Clinton's have shrunk somewhat. Again, we're just talking possibilities and not probabilities, and it is entirely within the realm of the possible that Clinton gets so bogged down by scandal that Bernie starts equaling her poll numbers nationwide. If Joe Biden jumps in the race, it might actually help Sanders, since the mainstream "we want someone who's electable" Democrats would then have two clear choices -- and they might wind up splitting their votes between Clinton and Biden. If so, Sanders would have to win only a three-way race, rather than a head-to-head contest with Clinton. So there is more than one route for Sanders to actually claim the Democratic nomination.
Again, this is indeed nothing but the wildest speculation. I fully admit that. Call it a thought exercise, not a prediction of what's going to happen. I pose the question of a possible Trump-versus-Sanders matchup not because I think it's the most likely outcome, but rather because it would certainly be the most interesting one.
For once, the centrists and "serious people" in both parties would be left out in the cold. For once, the American public would get to choose between the most exciting candidates on both sides. The old argument of "Well, this candidate's interesting, but he'd never win the general election" wouldn't work, because if the non-centrist candidate won in both parties, then the centrists would be the ones eventually holding their noses and voting for a candidate they really didn't approve of. Normally, this is what happens to the fervent base of both parties, when they have to choose between what they perceive as the lesser of two evils. The tables would indeed be turned -- and if they were turned in both parties during the same election cycle then there simply wouldn't be some "safe" alternative to choose.
American presidential elections have, in recent times, been contests between a Republican who disappoints a large fraction of their own base (who then inevitably labels the candidate a "RINO," or "Republican In Name Only") and a Democrat who equally disappoints a large slice of their own base's voters (who usually gets called a "DINO"). When was the last time a true believer was nominated by either party? Republicans would answer that with "Ronald Reagan," which explains why they have all but deified him. He won big victories twice, after all. But they also remember the disastrous campaign of Barry Goldwater, which is why they normally choose someone a little less pure (who can appeal to enough independents to win). On the Democratic side, the same caution is shown as they remember the crushing defeat of George McGovern. But what if McGovern had run against Goldwater? Now that would have been an interesting contest!
The Donald Trump phenomenon, of course, isn't really about being the most pure conservative out there. The analogy's not perfect. Trump is truly a politician who defies pigeonholing. His breaking ranks with conservatives on certain issues hasn't hurt him one bit, at least so far. His fans love his brash style so much they don't really care if they don't agree with everything he says. Bernie Sanders is closer to the idea of a party purist, since on pretty much every single issue, he's been out there fighting for years for things that other Democrats have just recently gotten on board with (such as gay rights or reining in Wall Street, to give just two examples). While Trump is mostly all about style, Sanders is mostly all about substance.
The interesting thing is that both men get slapped with the "populist" label on a regular basis. Now, "populist" is one way the inside-the-Beltway crowd has of demeaning those they deem "not serious enough" (by their measure, of course). It's a term with a very fluid meaning in Washington -- it almost has to be, to encompass both a liberal Vermonter and a billionaire New Yorker. I say the term is demeaning because it is regularly used that way -- the same way the national news reporters show their barely-disguised disdain for all those people in "flyover country" who actually determine elections (see, by way of example, just about any recent coverage of the Iowa State Fair). Calling a politician a "populist" is a more-polite way for pundits to say "only the hicks and rubes are fooled by this guy."
Well, maybe (just maybe) all those hicks and rubes are so fed up with "safe" or "centrist" or "electable" choices this time around that both parties decide it's time for an actual interesting candidate. If there was no safe choice (sorry, Jeb; sorry, Hillary) for the voters, then they'd have to weigh the populism of the right (which is now almost entirely nativist and xenophobic, thanks to Trump) with the populism of the left (which Bernie Sanders would define as "Democratic socialism," of course).
The bigwigs in both parties would be horrified -- that almost goes without saying. The parties' overlords (on both sides) would have virtually no influence over either man. Trump is, well... Donald Trump. And Bernie Sanders doesn't sound like he'd be willing to "tone down" issues he's been fighting his entire life for. The party hacks and overpaid consultants wouldn't know what to do with themselves -- on either side of the aisle.
Which is really why it's so fun to speculate about. America would, for once, get two candidates who refused to put on their party's usual muzzle. Issues the candidates champion simply couldn't be ignored by the mainstream media (they way they normally do for "populist candidates"). This is already happening over on the Republican side, mostly due to Trump's oversized personality. Trump overstates the case -- Republicans talked about immigration long before he entered the ring, after all -- but he does have a point. Because Trump's campaign is centered around "building a wall" (and all the rest of it), the entire Republican field has to measure their responses from the positions Trump is staking out.
Of course it also almost goes without saying that the populist base on both sides would be delighted with such a contest. Both sides would believe -- deeply -- that the other candidate couldn't possibly win, and that their candidate was an absolute shoo-in. Both would prematurely measure the Oval Office for new drapes, in other words. Both sides would be absolutely convinced of victory: "Are you kidding me? Do you really in your wildest nightmares actually see [Sanders/Trump] getting elected president?!? Ain't gonna happen!" The word "clown" would get tossed around with abandon by both sides, as well.
The outcome of such a contest is impossible to predict, but I'd bet that whoever got beat wouldn't get beat by as big a margin as the winner's supporters predict. What's harder to predict is whether voter turnout would go up or down. I can see a scenario where all the centrists (including a large number of independents) got so disgusted by the choices offered that they all stayed home and refused to vote. Hey, welcome to the world of the true believers, where every four years the choice is to hold your nose and vote for someone who you know is going to disappoint you -- or watch the other team win. Especially with Trump as a major party nominee, a whole lot of people would just throw up their hands and say "this is ridiculous, the choice is between a socialist and a carnival barker." But I also wonder if the opposite might happen. If "the other guy" is seen as so apocalyptically catastrophic that America would be downright unlivable if he won, then a lot of centrists might vote out of sheer terror of the other guy winning. This could actually drive voter turnout to new highs. A vote cast in fear counts exactly the same as a vote cast with rampant enthusiasm, after all. And both Trump and Sanders would certainly give rise to an enormous amount of fear from their opponents.
Again, this is just a lazy thought exercise for an August afternoon. I make absolutely no claim that this is likely to happen. But it has now entered the realm of possibility, and it certainly is fun to think about. For once, the fervent base of both parties might get to pick their favorite candidate. For once, the RINOs and DINOs and the party bigwigs would be stymied. If it happened on an equal basis ("Sanders versus Bush" or "Trump versus Clinton" would be an entirely different situation), then we might get the most entertaining and interesting presidential race in a long, long time.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Could the next presidential election be one where both sides get the candidate who inspires the most passion among the base?
Whatever.
The pertinent question is: could the next presidential election put America on a fast track to oblivion?
Do Americans even care how they are viewed from abroad? And, if not, why not?
When considering the Trump campaign, when did 'interesting' become a substitute for ignorant?
Trump overstates the case -- Republicans talked about immigration long before he entered the ring, after all -- but he does have a point.
Really? What is Donald Trump's point?
But it has now entered the realm of possibility, and it certainly is fun to think about ... If it happened on an equal basis, then we might get the most entertaining and interesting presidential race in a long, long time.
Chris, it sure sounds like this is a scenario you would be happy to see play out. Please say it ain't so and that you would, indeed, be horrified by such a presidential race that is more about entertainment than about leadership, statesmanship and how to meet the critical challenges of the day, let alone deal with the existential threats facing mankind.
Sanders versus Trump would be fun.
I can't believe how far America has fallen in such a relatively short time.
Just a few short years ago, after the US had successfully arrested the global downward economic spiral and prevented a second Great Depression, I never would have thought or could have believed that America might be incapable of successfully managing its inevitable decline as China and others rise up. Now, sadly, it's hard to imagine anything else.
"Sanders versus Bush" or "Trump versus Clinton" would be an entirely different situation ...
Yeah? How so?
Elizabeth: While Bernie may be viewed by "the establishment" as equally extreme as Trump that's really not a fair assessment. Bernie Sanders may be a long shot but he has a genuine track record of service and is a perfectly valid candidate.
As Chris noted, he is "all-substance" while Trump is "all-style".
Trump pays no price for lack of fealty to republican orthodoxy because there IS no real orthodoxy anymore -- no intellectual honesty or consistency to their positions. They are about misdirected anger, resentment and hatred of Obama and Democrats. Trump is their perfect bully -- the man they all wish they could be: someone rich who can beat up on anybody and get away with it.
Sanders, meanwhile, is consistent and specific and clear. He has yet to stake out a position I disagree with. You may not like his views but he isn't a joke, he isn't a charletan and he isn't an idiot.
I also like Hillary, btw. I could go either way.
But it would be interesting if it was a Sanders/Trump campaign. I certainly hope it would scare Dems into voting because Trump would be an apocalyptically bad choice. But so many of us are sick to death of out-of-touch beltway types playing their games (the pols, the pundits, the major media, the lobbyists) as though it is all about them and the rest of the country is simply audience; disposable units of consumption and cannon-fodder for their wars. And over the last few years so many curtains have been swept open and we've seen all the ways we're being manipulated and used and then thrown away. Granted lots of people still don't fully grasp that but many do grasp the "game is rigged" concept and they feel it to be true.
So people are very, very ready to appreciate honesty. On the left we want constructive solutions. On the right, they want an explosive, cathartic expulsion by force of everyone/everything they don't like. But both sides share a whole lot of dissatisfaction -- we just diagnose the problems differently and therefore seek different solutions.
Paula,
My comments were not about Sanders.
Paula,
But both sides share a whole lot of dissatisfaction -- we just diagnose the problems differently and therefore seek different solutions.
I think that is not only far too simplistic but mistakenly assumes that each side has an equally valid interpretation and assessment of what the reality of any given situation is, let alone the ability to diagnose problems and contemplate solutions.
One party is anti-Enlightenment and pro-corporate while the other tends toward being bought and paid for by the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, not to mention in the pocket of foreign leaders.
The trick for the average voter is to avoid becoming cynical in the extreme, to the point where cogent and enlightened thinking by individuals of either party go unrecognized and underappreciated.
By the way, Paula, just to be clear ... I think Bernie Sanders is a very serious candidate for president.
Do Americans even care how they are viewed from abroad? And, if not, why not?
Because they're (normal) Americans. It's just what we do in this country. We were separated from most of the world by oceans, Canada and Mexico were no threat, and the Indians died the moment we sneezed at them. Then we were a superpower, and it was a point of pride that we didn't have to care what the rest of the world thought (as long as the USSR didn't actually launch their ICBMs).
Leela: Look, I know there are no car chases but this is important. One of these two men will become president of the world.
Fry: What do we care? We live in the United States.
Leela: The United States is part of the world.
Fry: Wow! I have been gone a long time.
--Futurama, "A Head in the Polls"
In a weapons producing nation under Jesus
In the fabled crucible of the free world
Camera crews search for clues amid the detritus
And entertainment shapes the land the way the hammer shapes the hand
Gleaming faces in the checkout counter at the Church of Fame
The lucky winners cheer Casino Nation
All those not on TV only have themselves to blame and don't quite seem to understand the way the hammer shapes the hand
Out beyond the ethernet the spectrum spreads
DC to daylight, the cowboy mogul rides
Never worry where the gold for all this glory's gonna come from
Get along dogies, it's coming out of your hides
The intentional cultivation of a criminal class
The future lit by brightly burning bridges
Justice fully clothed to hide the heart of glass
That shatters in a thousand Ruby Ridges
And everywhere the good prepare for perpetual war and let their weapons shape the plan the way the hammer shapes the hand
- Jackson Browne
Trump was doing a town hall meeting Wednesday evening and the cable news networks all showed it live. They just completely dropped everything else. It was bizarre. Will they do this every time he spews?
He lied about how many people were in his audience, but he did mention that JEB was holding forth a couple of blocks away and that the few people in attendance were probably sleeping. MSNBC switched to a double screen with JEB's, and sure enough, it looked like people were snoozing.
"Really? What is Donald Trump's point?"
That the Great Wall of Trump will be beautiful and classy.
They have to go!
The Donald seems intent on destroying JEB's campaign. That works for me.
"I don’t know if you saw his recent statement, he said the United States has to prove to Iraq that we have skin in the game. We spent $2 trillion thousands so lives lost, wounded warriors who I love all over the place, and he said we have to prove we have skin in the game. I think it may be one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard. Skin in the game."
Trump speaks in incoherent half sentences, but he's right about JEB.
LizM [4] -
Relax. It's only August, we've got 14 more months of this. It's a time for daydreams and wild speculation, not serious analysis. We'll have plenty of time for that later.
Hey, where are you on the "think Biden's going to run" question?
John From Censornati [12] -
It's the same reason national news networks film every time the president goes anywhere. If there's going to be a catastrophic accident, they want to have film of it for the evening news. Same exact thing with Trump. "Will he blow this time? Who knows?!?"
-CW
Chris,
In case you haven't noticed, I can't take 14 more months of this.
Seriously!
Do you really think it matters if Biden runs or not?
I'll relax when the US Congress fails to disapprove of the JCPOA in numbers great enough to override a presidential veto.
The time for serious analysis is now, my friend.
While Trump is mostly all about style, Sanders is mostly all about substance.
Let's be factually accurate here..
Trump has PLENTY of "substance"... It's just that ya'all don't like it...
Trump's BUILD-A-WALL-AND-THROW-OUT-ALL-THE CRIMINALS platform has just as much substance/style as Sander's FREE-STUFF-FOR-EVERYONE-ALL-THE-TIME-AND-STICK-IT-TO-THE-RICH-TO-PAY-FOR-IT platform...
I am also constrained to point out that Independents will likely go massively for Trump, as Independents are completely against the Big Government/Cradle 2 Grave Welfare that Sanders espouses..
Put another way...
If the election were today and it was Sanders v Trump, Trump would win hands down and twice on Sunday...
Independents just don't buy anymore what the Democrat Party is selling...
Michale
"I'll relax when the US Congress fails to disapprove of the JCPOA in numbers great enough to override a presidential veto."
Nancy Pelosi will deliver.
"I'll relax when the US Congress fails to disapprove of the JCPOA in numbers great enough to override a presidential veto."
Nancy Pelosi will deliver.
I hate to admit it, but I am forced to agree with JFC....
Pelosi has proven time and again the is the epitome of the BY HOOK OR BY CROOK meme....
Michale
Well, getting just enough votes to prevent an override of a presidential veto is NOT the ideal situation for the US to find itself in but, I'll take it.
From what I have read, every Congress Critter who has stated they will vote against the JCPOA will ALSO vote to override Obama's veto..
Of course, that's easy to SAY right now...
Michale
And in the WHAT CAN GO WRONG folder.
The UN has agreed to allow IRAN to inspect it's own sensitive military sites...
Yea... GREAT deal... :^/
Michale
STOP POSTING FALSE NON-SERIOUS COMMENTS ON A VERY, VERY SERIOUS SUBJECT, MICHALE!!!
From what I have read, every Congress Critter who has stated they will vote against the JCPOA will ALSO vote to override Obama's veto..
You know, Michale, that there is a difference with a distinction there, right?
It's just what we do in this country. We were separated from most of the world by oceans, Canada and Mexico were no threat ...
Yes, I've heard that nonsense before ... it's not good enough, anymore.
"Trump has PLENTY of "substance"... It's just that ya'all don't like it..."
No, we don't.
From TPM: Suspect Cites Trump As Inspiration In Boston Anti-Hispanic Hate Crime, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-leader-trump-boston-attack
With Sanders vs. Trump, either way, America would finally get the President it deserves.
I don't think it will happen for a number of reasons. But I think it would more accurately reflect the growing frustration with Republocrat/Demicans.
-David
Which???
The the Congress Critters who are voting against the JCPOA will also vote to override Obama's veto?
Or that the UN has agreed to let Iran inspect some of their own sites??
Both are equally and documentably (an old word I just created :D) factual....
VIENNA (AP) -- Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05
"Just the facts, ma'am.."
-Joe Friday
Michale
I think I made myself very clear.
From the AP,
"Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press."
This is a clear example, Michale, of how you cherry pick your news and view it with an uncritical eye. You see only what you want to see and are seemingly unable to detect BS when you read it. Which, given your contributions here on this subject, shouldn't be too surprising.
I predict we're gonna hear about all kinds of reports like this because Congress is all tied up in knots because the IAEA will not let them see what are confidential documents between the IAEA and various countries - including, I might add, the US and Israel.
You can't see that Congress is grasping at straws.
David,
The argument that there is no difference or distinction between today's Republicans and Democrats, whatsoever, is a tired old argument that, if it wins, will ensure that Americans get the presidents they deserve for a very, very long time.
Not good for America and certainly not good for
the rest of us out in the world.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that both parties are contributing to the growing corruption of America's democracy with the approval, er, with the encouragement of the Supreme Court of the United States through the highest law of the land. That is a very serious problem that needs to be rectified. But, it is not a reason to lump all Republicans and Democrats together. In fact, it is a reason to be far more discerning and to acknowledge the real American statesmen at every opportunity.
For example, I'd like to see every FTP column highlight an American politician, regardless of political persuasion, who personifies real leadership, statesmanship and responsible and effective governing. And, there would be no shortage of candidates who represent the other end of the spectrum, as well.
Let me rephrase one part of that:
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that both parties are NOT contributing to the growing corruption of America's democracy with the approval, er, with the encouragement of the Supreme Court of the United States through the highest law of the land. That is, indeed, a very serious problem that needs to be rectified. But, it is not a reason to lump all Republicans and Democrats together. In fact, it is a reason to be far more discerning and to acknowledge the real American statesmen at every opportunity.
Yes, I've heard that nonsense before ... it's not good enough, anymore.
"Not good enough anymore" meaning that it's no longer accurate to describe Americans that way? Meaning that we need a better description of how Americans got that way? Or meaning that it's no longer acceptable for Americans to continue to be that way? Or something else?
Meaning that Americans are destined to be seriously left behind the rest of the world if they continue believing that they don't have to care about what the rest of the world is doing or thinking.
dsws,
America will inevitably decline as other powers such as Chine rise, economically, politically and militarily. That is the way of the world in which we live.
The important thing, though, is how America manages this decline to retain its global leadership role. I still have some faith left that the US will be capable of effectively managing its decline but a lot of things need to get back on track for that to happen.
One thing that needs to change is that the Republican party has to change direction and stop being the party of anti-Enlightenment.
Liz,
This is a clear example, Michale, of how you cherry pick your news and view it with an uncritical eye. You see only what you want to see and are seemingly unable to detect BS when you read it. Which, given your contributions here on this subject, shouldn't be too surprising.
If you have any facts that show the AP report is not factually accurate, by all means...
In lieu of such facts, the reports stand..
Iran will be able to conduct their own inspections under the auspices of the UN..
One thing that needs to change is that the Republican party has to change direction and stop being the party of anti-Enlightenment.
Yea... It's much better to be the Party of Koom-Bye-Yaa....
NOT...
Michale
Michale,
If you have any facts that show the AP report is not factually accurate, by all means...
I recommend that you read all of the information contained within the link below but, please pay particular attention to the response to the AP report you cited here and to the section on access to Parchin.
https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/ArmsControlNow/08-20-2015/The-P5-plus-1-and-Iran-Nuclear-Deal-Alert-August-20
That changes nothing..
Iran is DOING the HE-X testing at Parchin.. So what if the IAEA has direct line of site to the test...
Would you want the fox to guard the hen house, even if you had direct site??
Why take the risk??
Just another example of how the deal favors Iran... You can bet that this report will sway quite a few Democrats to the NO DEAL side of the fence...
You seem to forget that Iran is the bad guy here..
Why are we bending over backwards to accommodate them??
Oh yea, that's right..
Because Obama needs his legacy... :^/
Michale
Paula,
No, we don't.
Well, at least your honest about it.. :D
From TPM: Suspect Cites Trump As Inspiration In Boston Anti-Hispanic Hate Crime, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-leader-trump-boston-attack
Do you want me to cite all the violence and assaults committed by the BLM morons??
If you want to go shot for shot on violence, the Left will lose and lose big time..
Michale
Michale, are you saying that you don't trust the IAEA to do its job properly? Because, if that's what you think, then there is no valid reason to continue discussing this with you.
You won't believe anything that the IAEA has to say when it releases its report detailing the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. So, where is the sense in continuing any discussion about it.
As for the rest of the JCPOA, you are equally close-minded and not only do you only see things you want to see but, you see many things that are not there at all. How can we discuss the Iran nuclear agreement under those conditions?
The USA is still #1 ...
... in incarceration rate. And maybe in Gini coefficient.
We're definitely in relative decline, and certainly the advantage in sheer size will go to China, India, and Brazil. (Why do people so often include Russia with those countries when listing them?) I don't think it's inevitable, though. The vast majority of the resources available to humanity are unclaimed by anyone, and there's no way of knowing whose robots will get to them first, under what financial arrangements.
It is certainly not inevitable that the US will retain its global leadership role, relative decline or no.
That is something that is definitely in question and will be so long as too many of your national leaders and all three branches of government fail to act in the best interests of the nation.
Michale, are you saying that you don't trust the IAEA to do its job properly? Because, if that's what you think, then there is no valid reason to continue discussing this with you.
Pretty much...
Look how "good" of a job the UN and the IAEA did in Iraq...
How could ANYONE trust them??
As for the rest of the JCPOA, you are equally close-minded and not only do you only see things you want to see but, you see many things that are not there at all. How can we discuss the Iran nuclear agreement under those conditions?
How can we discuss the merits of the the Republican Party when ya'all have the attitude about them??
:D
That is something that is definitely in question and will be so long as too many of your national leaders and all three branches of government fail to act in the best interests of the nation.
We'll do just fine once we get rid of Democrat (so-called) "leaders"....
We had the same type of "decline" at the end of the Carter Administration..
We bounced back then...
We'll bounce back again...
Michale
Look how "good" of a job the UN and the IAEA did in Iraq...
In reality, the IAEA was right about the presence, or lack thereof, of WMD in Iraq while the US was wrong.
Michale,
Here is further proof that my assertion about the need to use your critical thinking skills will help to separate fact from fiction and lead to a more reliable analysis of news reports:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogv6vAZKXonjHpfsX57ekoW6Og38431UFwdcjKPmjr1YUATsF0aPyQAgobGp5I5FEIQ7XYTLB2t60MWA%3D%3D
Time will tell whose critical thinking needs an overhaul.. :D
Michale
I mean, for the most part, ya'all's "critical thinking" is always aligned with what Obama wants..
Strange how that always is, eh? :D
I mean, how "critical" can it be when it's based on nothing but Party Loyalty??
Michale
That's not a very good demonstration of critical thinking, Michale. :)
Chris Weigant: thank you so much for the BEST post I've read about the GOP Clown Circus and the Dems' and MSM's refusal to take Bernie Sanders seriously. Thanks for your concise take on "populism" too. I can see a ton of ppl smiling IF their voices were heard and we could vote for either of these two candidates.
I'm so sick of this "they won't nominate him" crap. We the people are speaking up. I want the Dems to listen and pay attention. We are sick of being excluded.
Bernie vs Trump would be absolutely revolutionary and historical. On so many levels. Let the games begin!
PS Hey Chris, you’re using WordPress. Pls update or replace theme with Responsive capabilities. Not cool for phones, cos most of your readers are mobile. The type is tiny, fixed minimal width, site looks like it was created in 1995. YOUR words deserve better.
And I had to scroll way way down my large monitor to leave a reply. Usually comment forms precede previous comments, right beneath your body text. Some might leave, not knowing how to comment.
Login for comments includes one of the Tools in the Dashboard. Installing Gears. What is that about?
As I guessed, you haven’t updated to Bille, WP 4.3, although it only came out yesterday or so. Out of date sites can be hacked. Plus it would just be more fun and pleasurable reading a hot, modern, and professional layout (simple, clean and minimal cos you are not into fancy bells and whistles) to match your brilliant posts. Go for it. Your readers will appreciate it!
I mean, for the most part, ya'all's "critical thinking" is always aligned with what Obama wants..Strange how that always is, eh? :D
So, you think it's strange that Republican stances typically tend toward an unenlightened point of view whereas Democrats - like President Obama, for example - are more likely to espouse and support polices and strategies that are visionary and represent positive change if implemented?
And, of course, the opinions of many of us here tend towards the enlightened end of the spectrum, so, there you go ...
Yeah, I guess that is kind of strange. What do you think should be done about it? :)
Michale,
Here is yet another letter of support for the Iran nuclear deal endorsed by 70 non-proliferation experts.
I'm guessing there may be a couple or three signatories to it who would even impress you!
http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Nonpro_Specialist_statement_on_Iran_Deal_Aug_2015.pdf
So, you think it's strange that Republican stances typically tend toward an unenlightened point of view whereas Democrats - like President Obama, for example - are more likely to espouse and support polices and strategies that are visionary and represent positive change if implemented?
No..
I think it's strange that someone of your obvious intelligence would think that...
Michale
:D
Liz,
"Enlightened"???
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/08/18/hillary-strikes-right-tone-with-black-lives-matter/#comment-62929
I think not....
Michale
Here is yet another letter of support for the Iran nuclear deal endorsed by 70 non-proliferation experts.
I'm guessing there may be a couple or three signatories to it who would even impress you!
The ONLY thing that "impresses" me is the FACT that the Obama Administration has given international legitimacy, prestige and accolades to a country that executes gay people. To a country that is THE sponsor of terrorism...
If THAT is the "enlightenment" you are referring to, I would rather stay in the dark...
Michale
The argument that there is no difference or distinction between today's Republicans and Democrats
Liz- I don't believe that.
There is a frustration, however, that something bigger is broken. That there is a corruption that needs to be fixed and that neither side (other than the Bernie's and Elizabeth Warrens) really wants to fix it.
The Democratic Party ignores this at their own peril. The Republican Party too.
Chris is right that the difference between Bernie and The Donald is not that they are both "radical". What the media misses is why they are both popular. They are both popular because they both come across as "honest".
The Donald comes across as honest because he's not being "politically correct". He is actually talking about the issues that the Republican base cares about - getting rid of the Mexicans. Bernie comes across as honest because he's the only candidate speaking about corruption in an honest way.
All the other candidates are trying to "message" us.
I will vote for Hillary if she wins the primary. But meanwhile I'm going to fight for what I believe in.
-David
The Donald comes across as honest because he's not being "politically correct". He is actually talking about the issues that the Republican base cares about - getting rid of the Mexicans.
NO ONE... Not ONE single person on the Right is talking about "getting rid of Mexicans".....
That's the problem with those on the Left.. They simply can't even FRAME the debate correctly...
Michale
Not ONE single person on the Right is talking about "getting rid of Mexicans".
They're not talking about it, but this is what they mean.
At least it's what all the Republicans I know mean. The honest ones will come right out and say it.
-David
Sorry if that was too politically incorrect for you, Michale. But it is what it is.
They're not talking about it, but this is what they mean.
No, that is NOT what they mean..
That is what the Left WANTS them to mean so the Left can make the Right out to be bigoted... It's the epitome of a Straw Man argument..
The Right has ALWAYS talked about ILLEGAL immigrants..
Criminals...
NO ONE has ever said word one about LEGAL immigrants with the possible exception of limiting visas for the purposes of American employment...
Let's talk about the REAL issue, if you want to discuss this issue..
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS...
Criminals..
But no one can talk about that because there is no defense of illegal immigrants. Criminals...
But it is what it is.
No, it's how you WISH it would be...
It's not how it is at all...
Michale
Tell ya what...
Every Weigantian should travel down to the southern border and pick out 3 illegal immigrants...
Take them home, house them, clothe them and feed them.. Provide for them ALL food, lodging and medical... ALL at your own expense...
Ya'all are COMPLETELY responsible for the actions and activities of these illegal immigrants... Anything they do or don't do?? It's YOUR fault....
What??? No takers???
Hmmmmmm strange..
Given ya'all's position on illegal immigrants, I would think ya'all would JUMP at the chance to help these poor poor people...
Ahhhh I see...
Ya'all would prefer that everyone ELSE foot the bill....
Unless ya'all aren't willing to personally foot the bill, ya'all have absolutely NO RIGHT to ask anyone else to....
Michale
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/democratic-blues-121561.html#.VddenfZVikp
Like I said...
This country survived the Carter incompetence...
We'll survive the Obama incompetence...
Michale
David,
I know you don't believe that. :)
And, I hear what you're saying about frustration over the corruption that is threatening the survival of the republic. That's me showing the influences of reading too many of Gary Hart's blog posts. Heh.
Seriously, you might want to check out Matters of Principle ... corruption and the future of the republic is a common theme on his blog. I just have one problem with all of it ... he doesn't seem to spend a lot time - nor do his regular commenters - on what the solutions are.
You should join the conversation there ...
http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=1183
Of course, if you agree with David Simon (see his The Audacity of Despair blog, his latest post and comments, therein) then nothing will be done about this very serious problem until there is a substantial change in the makeup of the Supreme Court ... short of poisoning Justice Alito and pushing Scalia under a bus. :)
Which is the best argument that could possibly be made in favour of Democratic presidents for the foreseeable future.
Some might leave, not knowing how to comment.
We wouldn't want them around here, anyway ...
I'm kidding. :)
Many of us don't adapt well to change, though.
Let's talk about the REAL issue, if you want to discuss this issue..
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS...
Criminals..
But no one can talk about that because there is no defense of illegal immigrants. Criminals...
I rest my case....
Michale
jennylens,
As I am wont to do...
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Michale
Of course, if you agree with David Simon (see his The Audacity of Despair blog, his latest post and comments, therein) then nothing will be done about this very serious problem until there is a substantial change in the makeup of the Supreme Court ... short of poisoning Justice Alito and pushing Scalia under a bus. :)
Just for the record, I wish to be clear that I am most decidedly NOT in favour of knocking off a couple of Supremes, under any circumstances, at any time. I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious, here ...
then nothing will be done about this very serious problem until there is a substantial change in the makeup of the Supreme Court ... short of poisoning Justice Alito and pushing Scalia under a bus. :)
Ahhh yes... The "tolerance" of the Left in all it's glory and splendor...
Don't agree with someone??
Kill them....
:^/
Remind me of the difference between Right and Left again??
I seem to have forgotten...
Michale
Oh, c'mon Michale, I did say "short of" ... geesh.
But, it does go to show that one of the biggest impact jobs the POTUS has is deciding who to nominate to the Supreme Court, if that opportunity arises.
The increasing corruption in the US political system won't seemingly be corrected until there is a big change in the makeup of the SC such that the Citizen's United decision might be mitigated or undone and/or a constitutional amendment can be passed. And, good luck with the latter.
Oh, c'mon Michale, I did say "short of" ... geesh.
I was referring to the original person who said that. I know you would never stoop to such antics..
<I.The increasing corruption in the US political system won't seemingly be corrected until there is a big change in the makeup of the SC such that the Citizen's United decision might be mitigated or undone and/or a constitutional amendment can be passed. And, good luck with the latter.
I didn't hear many complaints about the SCOTUS when they upheld TrainWreckCare and gay marriage... :D
Michale
I didn't hear many complaints about the SCOTUS when they upheld TrainWreckCare and gay marriage... :D
Well, at least not from ya'all... :D
Michale
I was referring to the original person who said that. I know you would never stoop to such antics..
Oh ... no, no, no Michale. The original person never said that.
I was just asking what could be done to fix the corruption of the political system. And, then, in answer to my query the joke was made that you'd have to have a complete change in the make-up of the Supreme Court before you could have any fix to the corruption of the political system.
Michale, have you COMPLETELY lost your sense of humour? If so, it's going to be a terribly long year and a half for you.
And, no, you didn't hear any complaints from us about the SCOTUS when they upheld Obamacare and gay marriage. That's because we don't support EVERYTHING or criticize EVERYTHING - we are more discerning than that. That's essentially the difference between critical thinkers and those who cannot think critically. We can tell the difference between a SCOTUS decision that is good for the country and one that will do the country a great deal of harm.
Typically, these days, and generally speaking, what is good for the country is espoused by Democrats while Republican thinking has the potential for doing great harm. That's just the way it happens to be at the moment and has been for a very, very long time now.
This is the Republican record over the course of the last many, many years when it comes to the economy, foreign policy and, they are largely responsible for the incredible increase in political dysfunction of late.
Let me rephrase part of that:
That's because we don't support EVERYTHING or oppose EVERYTHING - we are more discerning than that. That's essentially the difference between critical thinkers and those who cannot think critically. We can tell the difference between a SCOTUS decision that is good for the country and one that will do the country a great deal of harm.
For example, Michale, you oppose the Court's decisions on Obamacare but you support the Court's decision on gay marriage. Right?
We can tell the difference between a SCOTUS decision that is good for the country and one that will do the country a great deal of harm.
Either this SCOTUS is bad for the US or it is not..
If it IS bad for this country, then how do you explain the "good" (at least in ya'alls eyes) it has made...
Basically what you are saying is that the SCOTUS is good when it makes the decisions you agree with and it is bad when it makes the decisions you don't agree with..
This is the Republican record over the course of the last many, many years when it comes to the economy, foreign policy and, they are largely responsible for the incredible increase in political dysfunction of late.
Yea.. And Democrats are completely blameless... :^/
This exact kind of blind ideological faith??
THAT is the problem..
THAT is the dysfunction....
Michale
For example, Michale, you oppose the Court's decisions on Obamacare but you support the Court's decision on gay marriage. Right?
Absolutely not...
I oppose both decisions...
Michale
Let me rephrase that one more time:
That's because we don't support EVERYTHING or criticize EVERYTHING - we are more discerning than that. That's essentially the difference between critical thinkers and those who cannot think critically. We can tell the difference between a SCOTUS decision that we think is good for the country and one that we think will do the country a great deal of harm.
But, but ... I thought you were a supporter of gay rights!
What about all your comments in support of gay rights in Iran!? ... ???
So, you are saying that you don't think critically?
I am confused.
I am the only one here who DOES think critically...
The thought process for practically everyone here is, "What's best for the Democrat Party?" and moves on from THAT point...
Whereas MY thought process starts at, "What's best for the country?" and then move on from there...
I can point to DOZENS of instances where ya'all support issues that are demonstrably detrimental to this country and the world at large...
But the thinking around here is PARTY UBER ALLES
I *HAVE* no Party so such thinking is alien to me...
Michale
But, but ... I thought you were a supporter of gay rights!
What about all your comments in support of gay rights in Iran!? ... ???
I never claimed support for "gay rights."
Just the opposite, as a matter of fact..
My position on gays vis a vis Iran is that YA'ALL should oppose the deal with Iran *BECAUSE* ya'all are such supporters of "gay rights"..
The fact that ya'all STILL support Iran simply proves the assertions I made in comment #81...
PARTY UBER ALLES
Michale
I can point to DOZENS of instances where ya'all support issues that are demonstrably detrimental to this country and the world at large...
Point to just one of them ...
Point to just one of them ...
Iran Deal
Illegal Immigrants
Black Lives Matter
Hillary Clinton
Marijuana Legalization
Anti-Voter ID
Oh.. Sorry.. You said just one...
My bust... :D
Michale
Now, to be fair, there are likely an issue or two that ya'all oppose Obama and the Democrat Party on..
The point is, though, it happens so rarely and infrequently that none immediately come to mind...
I CAN say though, with complete conviction, that no one (with one exception) here ever volunteers such dissatisfaction and getting anyone here to concede said dissatisfaction it is worse than pulling teeth..
Michale
In other words.....
People around here are ALWAYS saying "GOP SUCKS!!!".. Which is often true....
People around here saying "OBAMA SUCKS!!" or "DEMOCRATS SUCK!!"????
Never happens.. Even when it IS true.....
Michale
I think the problem is that the Republicans of today, and especially the Republican party since the election of Barack Obama, have do so much to harm the country that it is hard to think of one thing they have done to benefit the country.
What have the Republicans in congress done since January 2009 that has helped - not hurt - the country?
I'm still reeling from all that they did to stymie progress on the economy during the most difficult economic times the country has faced in generations ... and, all in the name of denying Obama any victory even if it meant denying the country an opportunity to recover faster from the Great Recession.
The Iran nuclear deal, by the way, is an example of how diplomacy can work - if the Republicans in congress allow it some time to work, or not work as the case may be.
Your country has already amply demonstrated how easy it is to go to war as virtually the only option to solve serious problems. It is high time that diplomacy be given an equal opportunity to prove that it too can be a valuable tool in the tool box, to used a tired old phrase.
I think the problem is that the Republicans of today, and especially the Republican party since the election of Barack Obama, have do so much to harm the country that it is hard to think of one thing they have done to benefit the country.
That's your opinion and I respect that..
But the facts are that Democrats were in control of the country for the majority of the Obama Administration..
And the results are clear to see..
Economy Toilet
Race Relations Toilet
American Prestige and Honor Toilet
I'm still reeling from all that they did to stymie progress on the economy during the most difficult economic times the country has faced in generations ... and, all in the name of denying Obama any victory even if it meant denying the country an opportunity to recover faster from the Great Recession.
Things are crap-tastic with what Obama got away with.. Can you imagine how mired in sheet we would be if Obama had done everything he wanted to do un-opposed..
EVERYTHING that Obama and the Democrats have done, the American people were unequivocally against..
THAT little factoid says it all...
Michale
But the facts are that Democrats were in control of the country for the majority of the Obama Administration..
When it comes to what the Republicans were able to do to harm the economy over the last several years since the financial crisis and what the Democrats tried so hard to do - and were successful to a great degree - in arresting the economic death spiral and moving forward to recovery, you are simply ignoring recent history.
The Iran nuclear deal, by the way, is an example of how diplomacy can work - if the Republicans in congress allow it some time to work, or not work as the case may be.
How many innocent people will have to die before you realize that diplomacy doesn't work??
Chamberlain used diplomacy with Hitler..
We know how well THAT worked out...
Clinton used diplomacy with North Korea...
We know how well THAT worked out...
But it's going to be different THIS time, right?? :^/
There comes a time when diplomacy crosses the line into appeasement..
The Iran deal crossed that line a long time ago...
The simple fact that Iran's terrorist activities are left COMPLETELY intact with a hundred billion dollar influx of capital proves that beyond ANY doubt...
Michale
When it comes to what the Republicans were able to do to harm the economy over the last several years since the financial crisis and what the Democrats tried so hard to do - and were successful to a great degree - in arresting the economic death spiral and moving forward to recovery, you are simply ignoring recent history.
No... I am ignoring your spin of recent history...
The fact is, this economy could be well on the way to a REAL recovery...
But Obama squandered all his time and energy on a DEMOCRAT boondongle that the American people DID NOT want.. STILL doesn't want...
The American people asked for jobs.. BEGGED for jobs..
Obama and the Democrats gave them TrainWreckCare...
Michale
These facts simply cannot be denied...
Michale
The *ONLY* reason that Trump is so popular is because Obama and the Democrats have been so incompetent...
Michale
And, yet, you do it all the time.
... ignore the facts, I mean.
On an essentially unrelated note, can you explain to me why it is that everyone thinks Biden would choose Elizabeth Warren as his running mate just because they had a serious sit down at Biden's residence to discuss all things political?
If Biden is the Democrat nominee - and, THAT is a HUUUUUUUUUUGE if - then he is just as likely to choose a Republican as a Democrat for his running mate.
On an essentially unrelated note, can you explain to me why it is that everyone thinks Biden would choose Elizabeth Warren as his running mate just because they had a serious sit down at Biden's residence to discuss all things political?
Why else would Biden be talking to Warren in a surprise meeting??
There is a theory out there that Obama is engineering a Putin/Medeyev type maneuver using Biden.. Obama will appease the extreme Left/Women vote by having Biden pick Warren for his VP...
Outlandish, but fun to think about.. :D
I think what's more likely is Biden wanted to Sherman Warren and see if he could get her support...
If Warren can turn her supporters on to Biden and, given Hillary's penchant for seeking out doggie-doo to step in, Hillary goes ker-plunk, Biden has a real shot at the nomination..
Michale
then he is just as likely to choose a Republican as a Democrat for his running mate.
Ya know... I can honestly and truly see Joe doing something like that..
Country before Party....
I can also see the Democrat Party crucify him for it..
Much as the GOP did to McCain for thinking about choosing Lieberman...
Such is the problem with PARTY UBER ALLES thinking...
Michale
If nominated in 2008, Biden had said that he would seriously consider Chuck Hagel for his running mate and Richard Lugar for Secretary of State. I'm not sure that either of those Republicans are even considered today as such by the Republican Party.
And, say what you want about Chuck Hagel but, I never thought that Obama's appointment of Hagel as Secretary of Defense was a very good fit. I think he would have made a far better vice president to Biden's president.
Are there any Republicans out there who you think would be a good choice to team up with Biden on a hybrid or fusion ticket?
Are there any Republicans out there who you think would be a good choice to team up with Biden on a hybrid or fusion ticket?
Walker/Biden :D
Michale
Actually, I have kinda soured on Walker.. His responses to Trump indicate he is just another 2 (or more) faced politician who will say what he thinks people want to hear, just to get elected...
Michale
That's not a serious ticket, Michale.
OK I'll bite...
What would be a serious ticket, choosing from one Dem and one GOP...
Michale
Well, how about Biden/Schwarzenegger?
Well, how about Biden/Schwarzenegger?
Unconstitutional...
Other than that, not bad.. :D
Michale
Darn.
Heh
Agreed...
Biden/Schwarzeneggar would be a FUN ticket!! :D
Michale
Biden/Schwarzeneggar would be a FUN ticket!! :D
An E-Ride, to be sure... :D
Michale
Indeed.