Trump

[akiva]

[TheMaster]

I would much rather have Rand Paul in office, but he isn't in the running. I don't have the problems with Trump that you guys seem to have. Sure he says stuff that contradicts earlier statements (all politicians do). Sure he says some really crappy stuff (all politicians do). Sure he has some horrible ideas (all politicians do). That is why we have Congress. A group of people that can say that is a crappy idea and we are not going to do it (even if they don't always say that I.E. Obamacare)

[Elle]

[Elle]

[Elle]

Trump gave a campaign speech in which he attacked the judge presiding over the fraud lawsuit brought against Trump university. This sounds like a joke except it isn't one, it's real. Someone explain to me how a President Trump would not consider himself wholly above the law when Candidate Trump already does! He suggests the judge should be removed and investigated for ruling against him, and observes he is "Mexican". Maybe Trump doesn't want to actually hurt anyone but some of his supporters sure do. Anyway, here's that liberal rag the WSJ reporting:

"To the San Diego crowd, Mr. Trump argued that Judge Curiel should be removed from the case because he is biased against him. The evidence Mr. Trump presented: Rulings against him and the fact that Judge Curial was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama. The Senate confirmed Judge Curiel by a voice vote in September 2012.

An aide in Judge Curiel’s chambers on Friday said the judicial code of conduct prevents him from responding to Mr. Trump.

“We’re in front of a very hostile judge,” Mr. Trump said. “The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he’s given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative.”

Mr. Trump also told the audience, which had previously chanted the Republican standard-bearer’s signature “build that wall” mantra in reference to Mr. Trump’s proposed wall along the Mexican border, that Judge Curiel is “Mexican.”

“What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine,” Mr. Trump said.

Judge Curiel was born in Indiana.

Mr. Trump told the crowd he looks forward to returning to San Diego for the trial in November and asked for an investigation into Judge Curiel for reasons he did not specify.

“I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK? But we’ll come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I’m president and I come back to do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. OK. This is called life, folks.”

[akiva]

Ellle--you say that like you've never tried to intimidate a Federal judge. You're just jealous because Trump is better at it than you.

[Mike]

I will lay money that Elle HAS tried to intimidate a federal judge, but not on any legal issue. I will also guess that she was pretty good at it.

[Elle]

LOL. I am having trouble determining what the actual truth of this matter is. If I did ever do this, however, it was wholly unintentional.

[Elle]

Eight years ago we elect the first black President, and in response the GOP has given us a TOTAL outright racist! And I can't decide whether it's worse that he is clearly motivated in his blatant racism by his desire to prevail in a legal dispute, or that he really believes a judge with Mexican ancestry really cannot rule fairly on a case involving Trump. I am too racist to be treated fairly by those against whom I am racist - that appears to be the argument.

Anyway, the NYT also has a nice piece on conservative/libertarian legal scholars (who all loathe Obama and literally wrote the opposition arguments against Obamacare) who are warning Trump is a threat to our democracy if elected because he has so little respect for the authority of the law or separation of powers.

I cannot even believe this is happening. Seriously, do I need to be scared for my family? I am non-essential, that's for sure. Edited for Language.

[Cazmonster]

Today, I saw a picture of Trump supporters happily pepper spraying protesters. That the pepper spray attackers were not immediately arrested frightens me.

This is not the way the election process is supposed to go.

http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trum ... 1780399845

[Elle]

Yep. And it's on the other side, too - in California some anti-Trump protests turned violent. But he benefits enormously from this polarization because most voters, especially older ones, will fear a group of a angry, violent anti-Trump protestors much more than they'll fear the pro-Trump pepper sprayers. They'll identify more with the latter and it won't matter if Hillary Clinton has discovered the true secrets of all economic and social prosperity because the controversy surrounding Trump will eat all the available oxygen. The media has already proven this and continues to even now. His candidacy is already doing terrible harm to the nation because this return to George Wallace level antics is bring normalized. Negative coverage does not harm him; it helps. He gets to tell his bullshit racist story about the judge and most people don't see the problem. He has Mexican ancestry, omg. Let's investigate this Federal Judge for Mexican wrongdoing already. I can't look at the page over there, where he's glibly holding up the picture of his planned wall, and the Sentry tower looks just like the Auschwitz tower. Seriously, was that some secret protest on the part of the artist?

[Elle]

If you read that Atlantic piece you will also see a comment on the gorilla. Ok, here is Trump showing some kind of thoughtful deliberation. The effect is jarring. Imagine what it would be if he did that on other issues.

I have a minor theory that the reason many people (me included) were so happy with Obama vs. Hillary Clinton the first go-round is that he seemed to engage in meaningful, thoughtful deliberation based on evidence. This was a big change from anti-science Bush. No, autocorrect, that word has nothing to do with aircraft! Anyway, Clinton always seems led by focus group or poll, crafting a message that will work politically. But we don't want that. Evidence of being authentic is preferred to groomed and strategized.

So people respond well to that off the cuff authenticity they feel from Trump, except I don't know why people think it's any less staged! He's obviously capable of deliberation. He knows the evidence for climate change when it hits his golf course. But on the campaign trail he's all emotion. His feelings have all the fake veneer to me that Bill Clinton's did. But people buy it and prefer it to Obama's image as a cool-headed thinker. Why is this? Do people really need that feeling to make a connection? Why do they not feel like he's just acting? Even his critics seem to take for granted that his Feelings are authentic. I look at him, I don't know, maybe as a woman sizing him up in some way, and I think everything about him is phony. Call that a survival instinct or whatever, but how is it that one of the most gullible people (me) thinks his emotional displays have all the honesty of a four year old whose drama prevents going to bed on time, but the world finds him raw and authentic?

[Elle]

"Mr. Dickerson asked Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, if a Muslim judge would be similarly biased because of Mr. Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. “It’s possible, yes,” Mr. Trump said. “Yeah. That would be possible. Absolutely.”

When Mr. Dickerson said there was a tradition in the United States, a nation of immigrants, against judging people based on heritage, Mr. Trump replied, “I’m not talking about tradition, I’m talking about common sense, O.K.?”"

[akiva]

[Elle]

It's an awful situation. The level of lying we collectively are accepting from him is astonishing. Yeah yeah, they all lie, but no - where other politicians have stretched the truth, he surpasses even the Sarah Palin's of the world in the total fabrication of whoppers. Most of the media is not even yet calling him out for these things. Certain people have done an outstanding job; in general no. The overwhelming coverage he receives should be focused on factual information, which isn't the kind of publicity that helps him. Instead it focuses on the controversy itself, which only helps him more.

I have listened to a large number of his speeches now and interestingly they often begin with some germs of truth that bother people a lot but that nobody else is honestly acknowledging. One of the earliest examples of this I encountered (first speech of his I heard, actually) was the controversy over his using the phrase "anchor babies". I had heard about the controversy - not any of the other bullshit he was saying, but just this controversy about whether his remarks were acceptable - so finally I had to pay attention to see for myself. In the speech he was responding to the complaints with a germ of truth, which is that our immigration policy really does allow people to establish a foothold by having children here who are citizens. A lot of local and state-level controversies are caused by this, when children have access to things that the parents don't legally have, and people realize this costs money and also places a strain on the services available. Everyone in his audience knows this and probably has personal experience of it in some fashion.

But instead of moving from there to the question of what is good for the community as a whole, including all the children who really ARE citizens now, or what a reasonable policy to address all these concerns would be, he immediately starts distorting and generalizing and appealing to xenophobia. He doesn't have to have any specific plan because his audience has no clue what would make for a good plan either! Just - get em out! Build that wall! And so now they chant Build That Wall at high school sports games, which is lovely and really improving the culture all around. He basically opens up a fear in people who feel threatened by something, and instead of channeling it into a constructive concern about the political community we all share, he immediately amplifies and distorts the fear by being dishonest in various ways. It's extremely effective and it comes across as very honest to his supporters because they know that their own fears and concerns are real, so when it taps into that perhaps it feels like he's totally authentic.

I don't know; I am very worried that he can succeed especially if anything occurs to stir up that feeling of being threatened. The 25% on either side aren't budging, but there's a group in the middle (like white women!) that can be swayed either way. White women I believe supported Romney (?) and right now they mostly can't stand Trump, but what happens if something makes that group of voter feel particularly threatened? They might be willing to vote for a person they dislike a lot if they see him as better able to provide security. Stuff like that worries me.

[Elle]

You know what though? Psychologically the fact that he's truly a narcissist, imo, and cannot handle personal criticism at all is going to be a great gift to Hillary. Because she will not be thwarted in the slightest by his attempts to criticize her, and she can bring a little of the sarcasm that goes over better nowadays than it used to. Trump cannot stop himself from talking about the wrongs done to him in this civil suit against Trump University, as a defense of his critique of the Judge's supposed ethnic bias. He thinks he can make people feel bad for him by complaining about a dishonest, rigged court system, but that is a miscalculation. People don't feel bad for HIM, they feel bad for themselves and he makes them feel like that is ok and some (random, crazy) solution is out there deliverable by Trump. But when the focus turns to Trump's own personal problems, that's not going to fly. People only care that the system is rigged because it seems to be rigged against them. But complaining that a Judge is too sympathetic to Mexicans because you're mad about being sued is not a good look; I think that will be transparent even to potential Trump supporters. The news media, which cannot seem to do its job when it comes to serious issues, senses a little actual blood in the water here and even Fox is pushing back at him on it.

[Elle]

I use Facebook minimally, when I need to get in touch with certain relatives and friends who use it constantly. I did so and not only did it piss me off in the usual way by suggesting a wide array of possible friends who only could have been identified if Facebook tracks and spies on you in ways I consider wildly inappropriate (like... HOW, even? My husband has never been on Facebook and yet Facebook shows me stuff from his work-only contacts, with whom I have no other connection), but I discovered that Facebook is NOT the place you want to roam during an election year. Oddly, there are people who know my family and yet will post stuff about how Democrats are "takers" who hate the traditional family and God and country and suchlike nonsense. Huh, come again? Wait let me rephrase: there are people who COME from my family, by blood, who post this sort of thing. Were you people raised by wolves or by some of the most righteous, just, patriotic, industrious people on earth, despite being Democrats, apparently. Where were you?

[akiva]

[Mike]

I know people with gay relatives... gay children even... who post anti-gay political material on Facebook.

[Elle]