|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2017 08:18 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Maybe. I think it really doesn't matter at that point. The reality is that a lot of people voted for a man that is unqualified, has a horrible and crazily unstable personality, and was by all accounts a thousand times worse than Clinton, whichever way you want to look at it; and they are the first responsibles for what's going on. And I still think that the big story this election is not so much people getting offended by Hillary as people agreeing with Trump's wall, muslim ban, and xenophobic, populistic message. The "progressive" upper middle class elite in the usa they live in a bubble,they don't fully understand what is going on outside their bubble,they think everyone is like them and doing well. That is why it was such a big surprise for them that they lost. They still can not fully grasp it. People did not vote for trump so much,his qualifications where largely irrelevant at that point I think. People voted against a system and a traditional elite,against a direction that the country was going. I will say it again and I can say this a thousand times but most people wont accept it. Current levels of inequality are not sustainable in a western democracy,
Well, if you accept this argument, then you also accept that people voted against the "traditional elite" by electing a member of the absolute upper echelon of the elite (the 1% of the 1%, if you will).
Which really just means people are stupid and easily lied to, which is an answer I'm fine with.
|
On March 06 2017 08:18 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Maybe. I think it really doesn't matter at that point. The reality is that a lot of people voted for a man that is unqualified, has a horrible and crazily unstable personality, and was by all accounts a thousand times worse than Clinton, whichever way you want to look at it; and they are the first responsibles for what's going on. And I still think that the big story this election is not so much people getting offended by Hillary as people agreeing with Trump's wall, muslim ban, and xenophobic, populistic message. The "progressive" upper middle class elite in the usa they live in a bubble,they don't fully understand what is going on outside their bubble,they think everyone is like them and doing well. That is why it was such a big surprise for them that they lost. They still can not fully grasp it. People did not vote for trump so much,his qualifications where largely irrelevant at that point I think. People voted against a system and a traditional elite,against a direction that the country was going. I will say it again and I can say this a thousand times but most people wont accept it. Current levels of inequality are not sustainable in a western democracy,
And as a result of their vote inequality will rise, living standards will drop and next time they go back to voting for the 'traditional elite'.
People wanne change the world? Start small with local candidates who want to reduce inequality with an actual plan and work up from there. You don't vote for a random monkey and hope he produces Shakespeare by accident.
On March 06 2017 08:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:18 pmh wrote:On March 06 2017 06:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Maybe. I think it really doesn't matter at that point. The reality is that a lot of people voted for a man that is unqualified, has a horrible and crazily unstable personality, and was by all accounts a thousand times worse than Clinton, whichever way you want to look at it; and they are the first responsibles for what's going on. And I still think that the big story this election is not so much people getting offended by Hillary as people agreeing with Trump's wall, muslim ban, and xenophobic, populistic message. The "progressive" upper middle class elite in the usa they live in a bubble,they don't fully understand what is going on outside their bubble,they think everyone is like them and doing well. That is why it was such a big surprise for them that they lost. They still can not fully grasp it. People did not vote for trump so much,his qualifications where largely irrelevant at that point I think. People voted against a system and a traditional elite,against a direction that the country was going. I will say it again and I can say this a thousand times but most people wont accept it. Current levels of inequality are not sustainable in a western democracy, Well, if you accept this argument, then you also accept that people voted against the "traditional elite" by electing a member of the absolute upper echelon of the elite (the 1% of the 1%, if you will). Which really just means people are stupid and easily lied to, which is an answer I'm fine with.
And this, very much.
The whole 'drain the swamp' and ''I'm so rich I cant be bought" it just means you cut out the middle man and directly appointed the people you complained about in the first place.
|
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point.
|
On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point.
What was the point then?
|
Maybe next time a 3rd party has a good change,if only sanders would start his own.
Ross Perot was the last 3rd party candidate who did reasonably well I think, maybe next election it is time for a real breakthrough. Just need a credible person with the guts to do it,sanders is the only credible person I can see for now but others could come up.
If trump messes up very badly,there could be a significant 3rd party on the left of the democrats without risking a republican win.
I have to admit that I also do not see how trump is favorable for the rusians,he can not give them the policys they want anyway because there are so many other people who also have a say (like the generals in the administration,congress,the senate,the financial shadow government (just kidding)). If anything he made the situation more unstable and I don't see how that is directly in rusias favor. Maybe the point of the operation was just to mock and mess around a bit,like the usa and rusia did all the time during the cold war.
|
On March 06 2017 08:29 pmh wrote:
Maybe next time a 3rd party has a good change,if only sanders would start his own.
Ross Perot was the last 3rd party candidate who did reasonably well I think, maybe next election it is time for a real breakthrough. Just need a credible person with the guts to do it,sanders is the only credible person I can see for now but others could come up.
If trump messes up very badly,there could be a 3rd party on the left of the democrats without risking a republican win.
Not a chance. There is a solid base on both sides that would vote for anyone so long as there is a D or R next to their name.
|
On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then?
To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already).
|
note: i'm not responding to anyone cuz I've chosen specifically to disengage with the discussion for a bit. didn't look like there was anything truly worth responding to anyways.
|
On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already).
I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won?
Trump would sit by the sidelines and constantly insinuate that Hillary rigged the election (and his loyalists would believe it), Republicans and Democrats would still be in deadlock, no one would forget the reasons why Hillary isn't well-loved, and in general it would look like ugly either way.
Keep in mind - a friendlier "deal" for Russia was probably not going to happen. There is just too much resistance to that in the US.
One way or another, though, Trump winning is still a bonus. A gift that keeps on giving.
|
On March 06 2017 08:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Trump would sit by the sidelines and constantly insinuate that Hillary rigged the election (and his loyalists would believe her), Republicans and Democrats would still be in deadlock, no one would forget the reasons why Hillary isn't well-loved, and in general it would look like ugly either way. Keep in mind - a friendlier "deal" for Russia was probably not going to happen. There is just too much resistance to that in the US.
Yeah but I don't think the number of his loyalists would have increased... they're the same people who believed his Obama birther nonsense, and that lie didn't bog down Obama when he was in office... it was Congress that bogged him down.
|
On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won?
Trump would basically be their pocket troll, to disrupt any and everything Clinton wanted to do. As has been shown, he'll repeat practically anything without having the vaguest clue what he's talking about. So it would have been easy to feed him whatever they wanted to have on every American news outlet.
Him being president is probably more problematic for them than it would have been for him to lose. Certainly would be less attention paid to their influencing.
|
Wasn't the whole meeting Flynn got in trouble with about removing sanctions on Russia?
|
On March 06 2017 08:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Trump would sit by the sidelines and constantly insinuate that Hillary rigged the election (and his loyalists would believe it), Republicans and Democrats would still be in deadlock, no one would forget the reasons why Hillary isn't well-loved, and in general it would look like ugly either way. Keep in mind - a friendlier "deal" for Russia was probably not going to happen. There is just too much resistance to that in the US.
Yeah, that's the problem /sarcasm
I think, purely hypothesizing, that what Russia hoped to gain from Trump was gained before he even ran for President. Years before.
I think Trump's no-tax-returns and strange Russian-favoritism puts his "Birther" movement in a new light. I honestly think Trump was paid to be a political agitator. Taking loans, maybe some Russian bank did him a favor with the caveat that he use his clown act to feed the right-wing American masses some crazy bullshit, a job that suits a con-man like a glove. Just to stir America's pot of deplorables, and create more general apathy.
I don't think he is a "Manchurian Candidate". But I do think he has Russian money, and that has obviously influenced his politics to a degree that should be unacceptable to everyone -- regardless of which country his conflicted interests lie with, and regardless of your politics.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 06 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Him being president is probably more problematic for them than it would have been for him to lose. Certainly would be less attention paid to their influencing.
I don't think it's too much of a problem really. They have the Senate bogged down in procedures long enough to make Trump sign off to make it legal. That, or we're so far away from actually looking at how to do anything about Russia specifically that it will be years before we actually get there - and frankly it would be surprising if the sentiment weren't more along the lines of, "we should let it go, it's been years" by then.
|
On March 06 2017 09:03 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Trump would sit by the sidelines and constantly insinuate that Hillary rigged the election (and his loyalists would believe it), Republicans and Democrats would still be in deadlock, no one would forget the reasons why Hillary isn't well-loved, and in general it would look like ugly either way. Keep in mind - a friendlier "deal" for Russia was probably not going to happen. There is just too much resistance to that in the US. Yeah, that's the problem /sarcasm I think, purely hypothesizing, that what Russia hoped to gain from Trump was gained before he even ran for President. Years before. I think Trump's no-tax-returns and strange Russian-favoritism puts his "Birther" movement in a new light. I honestly think Trump was paid to be a political agitator. Taking loans, maybe some Russian bank did him a favor with the caveat that he use his clown act to feed the right-wing American masses some crazy bullshit, a job that suits a con-man like a glove. I don't think he is a "Manchurian Candidate". But I do think he has Russian money, and that has obviously influenced his politics to a degree that should be unacceptable to everyone -- regardless of which country his conflicted interests lie with, and regardless of your politics.
Yeah, from what I've read it looks like he was more of a political hitman than a Manchurian. The money connection looks pretty clear.
The whole selling a mansion for more 2x what you paid for it to a front for a Russian billionaire, then he never visits it and plans to just tear it down doesn't look great.
On March 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Him being president is probably more problematic for them than it would have been for him to lose. Certainly would be less attention paid to their influencing. I don't think it's too much of a problem really. They have the Senate bogged down in procedures long enough to make Trump sign off to make it legal. That, or we're so far away from actually looking at how to do anything about Russia specifically that it will be years before we actually get there - and frankly it would be surprising if the sentiment weren't more along the lines of, "we should let it go, it's been years" by then.
I don't think Republicans have 4 years of dealing with Trump's stupidity in them. Sooner or later he'll say or do something (or enough somethings) that they see it will be easier for them to cut and run then to try to rationalize and justify his actions.
Comically enough that Trump is habitually golfing after ripping Obama for golfing has some of his supporters realizing how full of shit he is.
|
Also N. Korea appears to have test fired another missile.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 06 2017 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Him being president is probably more problematic for them than it would have been for him to lose. Certainly would be less attention paid to their influencing. I don't think it's too much of a problem really. They have the Senate bogged down in procedures long enough to make Trump sign off to make it legal. That, or we're so far away from actually looking at how to do anything about Russia specifically that it will be years before we actually get there - and frankly it would be surprising if the sentiment weren't more along the lines of, "we should let it go, it's been years" by then. I don't think Republicans have 4 years of dealing with Trump's stupidity in them. Sooner or later he'll say or do something (or enough somethings) that they see it will be easier for them to cut and run then to try to rationalize and justify his actions. Comically enough that Trump is habitually golfing after ripping Obama for golfing has some of his supporters realizing how full of shit he is.
They would have probably cut him loose a long time ago, if not for this one little tidbit: he has an important base of support that they need to be on their side. And the Republicans themselves are not very popular. Cutting him loose would deal a painful blow to the party. So they will most likely keep this up as long as it takes to survive. It won't be pretty.
|
On March 06 2017 09:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Him being president is probably more problematic for them than it would have been for him to lose. Certainly would be less attention paid to their influencing. I don't think it's too much of a problem really. They have the Senate bogged down in procedures long enough to make Trump sign off to make it legal. That, or we're so far away from actually looking at how to do anything about Russia specifically that it will be years before we actually get there - and frankly it would be surprising if the sentiment weren't more along the lines of, "we should let it go, it's been years" by then. I don't think Republicans have 4 years of dealing with Trump's stupidity in them. Sooner or later he'll say or do something (or enough somethings) that they see it will be easier for them to cut and run then to try to rationalize and justify his actions. Comically enough that Trump is habitually golfing after ripping Obama for golfing has some of his supporters realizing how full of shit he is. They would have probably cut him loose a long time ago, if not for this one little tidbit: he has an important base of support that they need to be on their side. And the Republicans themselves are not very popular. Cutting him loose would deal a painful blow to the party. So they will most likely keep this up as long as it takes to survive. It won't be pretty.
People are fickle and if there's anything America loves, it's the epic and complete destruction of celebrities. You're right that it won't be led by DC, but there are plenty of Republicans rabid to fan the flames of his destruction once his base starts to become dissatisfied.
Usually the "cooler heads" of the party are there to circle the wagons and unite behind their figurehead, but Trump's got no one, once his base starts to smolder, the party loyalists will be there with bellows and gas instead of hoses.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In the meantime, we can enjoy as the ruling party struggles to maintain the illusion of consensus - both at home and abroad - and the Democrats still continue to presume that they can wait this out, changing nothing, and have a happy ending for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
