Trump

[merman]

Wrong how? Her being McCain’s running mate was rather a long time ago. Not only did they lose but his choice as her for VP was a significant factor in his loss.

You would think after she effectively lost the election for them, to a black man no less, that she would find it hard to stay in national politics. But perversely her inability to win is part of her appeal. Perversely as it shows how unhealthy Republican politics has become. The Tea Party appeals to people who were once doing well as white middle class Americans, living the American Dream, part of the Baby Boom generation.

The problem is their incomes and standard of living has stagnated for decades, while they can see other people have done well. It doesn’t matter that the people doing well (Blacks, Latinos, countries like China) have just been catching up and still lag badly behind. American whites feel like victims. They like Palin as she was also a victim of the Kenyan/Muslim that stole the election. And it’s that victimhood that Trump taps into, by blaming foreigners, Muslims, liberals for the problems in America.

The worst aspect of it is that if anyone is to blame for the problems in America it’s people like Trump. Maybe he is just as much a product of the system as a cause, but it is a system that benefits him at the expense of ordinary Americans, with low taxes leading to a lack of investment in education and healthcare, making them only available to those with money.

I don’t disagree with her being a poisoned chalice, except Trump is toxic enough on his own really. His whole schtick is a massive turnoff to most voters, i.e. almost all Democrats and independents as well as many Republicans. Palin does not help him but she could hardly do him more damage than he is already doing himself.

And it's the Baby Boomers who are now facing huge medical bills for the ailments of old age. Voting for the Republicans is a vote for WORSE healthcare and a LOWER standard of living.

[pogo]

To be fair no-one running for president now is offering to fix the US healthcare system. There are three main approaches on offer.

Clinton is basically more of the same: she is the continuity candidate so if you like Obamacare vote for her.

Sanders is proposing single payer. Single payer is what almost everyone else has, whether state owned as here or state funded but with lots of private provision as in Canada. The problem is Sanders’s proposal is not realistic. His sums do not add up, he is not explaining to voters what single payer actually involves, and there is no way he could get it passed anyway with the current Congress.

Republicans are all promising to repeal Obamacare but have not proposed anything realistic to replace it. They might find this politically impossible too, as Obamacare, though limited and unpopular, works. Millions of people have gained healthcare through Obamacare, and might revolt if suddenly told they would lose it again. But there is no realistic other system to replace it.

Chances are whoever is elected Obamacare is here to stay. It is either too expensive or too politically difficult to change it now. Any change will have to be incremental, at least until there is the political consensus and will to push on with single payer.

[k345y]

American HC ... WGAF tbh?
We got a struggle on our own system without the idealogical pish that the Americans spout in to theirs.

[gumboot]

If you had Trump for president of the UK, he'd fix it by building a wall.

[KlaxonCow]

Well, in fairness, it kind of worked for the Romans, didn't it?

[PFVA]

The idea seems to be quite popular in several of the EU countries. It's not in the South because people don't like to have to go thru a wall to get to the beaches, otherwise ...

[(o)(o)]

Is it any coincidence that Trump is named after a...

[pogo]

[gravy]

Interesting piece on BBC news about GOP seniors coming round to the idea of Trump mostly becuase he's seen as an uncompromising idealogue that believes the nut nut tea party bullshit he spouts.

Trump's more understandable; greedy, power hungry and ultimately likely to be pragmatic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35388292

Edit: more detail here, great summation:

http://theweek.com/articles/600496/how- ... nald-trump

Should we back the guy who wants to be liked and doesn't really care that much about policy specifics, or should we back the guy who doesn't care what we think and is adamant about getting his way to the point of encouraging a politically futile government shutdown in 2013? Not a tough call

[pogo]

Yes, a few sites have been reporting that. Carson has faded but Cruz and Trump are still going strong, and many in the GOP are resigning themselves to the possibility that one or other will be the candidate. And of the two they much prefer Trump. Cruz has two problems. One he really is extremist, which will be hard to finesse when he has to appeal to centrist/independent voters. Also he is intensely disliked in Washington, for the extremist stance he took and also his way of working which pissed many people off.

Trump is in many ways less extreme. He has donated to Democrats before, supported mainstream Republicans, and taken very centrist stances on some policies. He has not had the chance to make enemies in Washington. This makes him seem more electable, and more likely to work with Republicans in Congress if elected. They should be careful though; it is unclear how he would govern if elected. Relying on his own money and his own skill as self-publicisist he has no organisation, no backers, so no-one to tell him what to do, provide ideas and staff, after the election.

Still think he can’t win in November. Unless the Democrats do something really stupid and choose Sanders. That too looks unlikely but Sanders is doing better by the day, and it does not look impossible now. And just yesterday Michael Bloomberg suggested he might enter the race as a third candidate, if Sanders and Trump are the choices of the other two parties. There’s no way he can win but he could help Trump by drawing support from Sanders. I.e. Sanders and Bloomberg could hand the election to Trump.

[Portland]

[pogo]

Now he’s boycotting the next debate? Why? As it’s by Fox News. But aren’t they as right-wing as any of the candidates? Yes, but they also good at debates. Too good for Trump.

The first Fox debate was notable for asking some tough questions. To all of the candidates, but the ones to Trump seemed to particularly annoy him, as they called him on his sexism. Even better it was Megyn Kelly who put the question, and Trump really does not like to be challenged like that by a woman. He really is a sexist, misogynistic fool.

After the debate he turned on Kelly, accusing her of being not at her best. You know, the wrong time of month, though he put it rather more crudely, saying “there was blood coming out of her wherever”. No wonder many think he will be a nightmare, especially against Clinton, with women making up half of the electorate.

So he was threatening to skip this Fox debate altogether, asking his Twitter followers whether he should. He might still have attended, but Fox released the following snarky press release.

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president – a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.

You could not make this up. Seems they are happy to have a debate without him, though he could still change his mind I guess.

[pogo]

sexist, misogynistic fool.

And racist with it. As noted he is a genius at using Twitter for self-promotion, but part of that is retweeting people he agrees with. And who does he retweet most? Racists.

http://www.getlittlebird.com/blog/data- ... t-accounts

These are people using, or following people using, the #WhiteGenocide tag. That‘s the tag people use to associate themselves with the white supremacist attempt to roll back civil rights to a time when Blacks and Hispanics knew their places and whites were in charge. It’s much harder to be a racist in the US now, so they instead turn it round to say that whites are under threat. Which is patent nonsense but it gives them an excuse use aggressive, even violent tactics to “defend” themselves.

This should not be surprising. Trumps main themes, of building a wall to keep out Mexicans, singling out Muslims, closing down trade with China, are all meant to appeal to racist whites. They only make sense as a platform like that. It’s just surprising how overt and unashamed it is. Any other candidate would do much more to hide it. As with his misogynism it will cost him dearly in the general election, this time with non-white voters.

[PFVA]

I have always thought he is nuts, really nuts.

To get rid of him they will need some kind of big scandal, and i'm sure they are looking for one. Accusing him of sexism maybe a good start however didn't work out when they tried it against Arnold in governatorial race.

[gumboot]

This should not be surprising. Trumps main themes, of building a wall to keep out Mexicans, singling out Muslims, closing down trade with China, are all meant to appeal to racist whites. They only make sense as a platform like that. It’s just surprising how overt and unashamed it is.

It is occasionally startling how incautious Americans are with their racist language compared to Britons. That's not to say that they're necessarily more racist. Just more open about it.