I am kind of this opinion as well, we are literally stuck between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. At least in previous elections, there seemed to be options. Now I think most people are just struggling to understand how the hell they ended up with these two options. I feel Trump got into the nomination due to the Republicans trying to be less of a laughing stock for their past three decades of always courting the Southern and Midwestern hard-Conservative Christian votes and formerly disaffected Republicans flocked to his banner. Alternate-right, Libertarians, more middle-of-the-aisle Republicans and disaffected Democrats and even the Democrats who wish to merely "revenge-vote" on Bernie's behalf also poured into the Trump camp. Despite what a lot of folks are saying, I think Hillary has really left a sour taste in everyone's mouth; the DNC made damned certain the vapidest, most unlikable candidate got to the Democrat finish line but were so transparent on any sort of damage control that literally people would rather elect a blowhard guy who used to host The Apprentice. I certainly won't pretend Cruz or Sanders were saints, but one was the tried-and-true Republican vote-dog of the 80's and 90's [talk about the Bible, insist on showing that your family prays, etc.] and Bernie was literally dashed on the shoreline by his own party because he talked about stuff that made people uncomfortable in his own party and perhaps beyond. I'm not one of those uninformed who thinks this is the stupidest electoral candidates for Presidency we've ever had, but it has to be close.
Again, I'm going to say no because that's not why the movement started. That aside, just because one movement is suspect doesn't make the other good. The alt-right is downright paranoid at times, and as far I can see doesn't have an identity. I'm not an alt-righter, and I'm not sure what to think of how it's blossomed. Trump didn't run on an alt-right platform from the start, but he adopted it quickly because why wouldn't you take on a load of disenfranchised voters who wanted the establishment out? The racism stuff is there, but latched on later, and it really seems like those responsible for the movement don't care to understand it. They scream racism and sexism at everyone who disagrees with them, not just the alt-right. If you actually care to find out about a movement you don't look for a straw man. I find the Trump campaign so fascinating for a number of reasons (not because I might be voting for him, more like choosing syphilis over aids) and I would love to read an in depth work of his campaign, but finding a good source won't be likely. I'll be surprised if they're not all like that book Audrey linked. That's not meaningful research, it's just garbage. The Trump phenomenon has been, for better or worse, an important historical event in American politics. The alt-right is part of it, but is one of many. - We had a democratic candidate who was clearly anti-establishment almost win those primaries as well. - I can't think of a candidate who has ever been so negatively portrayed by the media and be so successful. Not to mention purposely seeking negative press. Politicians are always slandered by one side or the other, not like Trump. - He is completely unqualified for office from an experience standpoint. That is not wholly unprecedented. - Have we ever had someone so reviled by the party they were running for win the presidency nomination? - In the primaries Trump won over a large portion of fanatically devout Christian voters. For anyone who predicted that I'm calling bullshit. - It has exposed the flaws in the traditional approach to the political dichotomy in this country in ways that will reverberate for years to come. - Trump has stood on several issues that are literally the opposite of what the republican establishment stands for. Oh, and I know I may have been exaggerating in some earlier posts, but the rage between the two candidates really is unusual. Even for 'murica. Trump now has 8 women accusing him and is screaming that the election is rigged to "poison the minds of the electorate." In the speech I was referencing in another post he boasted about being unshackled from the party he was nominated for, called the whole system corrupt, talked a lot about how he's been cheated, and that's just a start. This is not political bravado as usual. I remember the Romney speech and disagree with some of what he said. I always liked Romney. I know a lot of people don't find his charisma contagious because he's so clean cut matter of fact '70s. Maybe that's why he lost. He's presidential, but not inspiring. A good part of the reason I can't stand Hillary isn't just the scandals. I just cannot stand listening to her speak. It is like hearing two bags of cats slammed together right next to your ear. The flagrant pandering, lying, and scandals behind it only make it worse. She is a savvy politician to be sure, but she's about as charming as finding a dead animal stuffed in your mailbox.
Well you certainly answered one question: You took my post point by point and placed all the blame on the side you disagree with. No way that any of this mess can be caused by your side. That's the mind set (On both sides) that got us to where we are now. I also notice you didn't even attempt to answer the last question of how do we fix what's wrong because you were so caught up in your side's rhetoric. Is it because you don't want to fix what's wrong or because you're only able to look at issues through your party of choice's prism?
As much as I don't like giving them pageviews and all, I thought Breitbart's primer on the Alt-Right was really good.
Huh. I thought my response to you was one of my more objective posts on the matter. Was anything I said factually incorrect? It's super convenient for you to decry mudslinging now when it is devastating your side's presidential nominee. Mudslinging has been more effective than "the issues" since...forever? The right is equally as bad (thinking of George Bush I might say worse --whisper campaign and swiftboating) as the left in that regard. Suddenly running to the moral high-ground when your side is losing is disingenuous. The Russian stuff wasn't really steeped in my side's rhetoric either as I validated a Republican criticism of Obama. Your analysis that Obama is spoiling for a fight with Russia just honestly doesn't fit with anything I've seen. You're asking how we can fix what's wrong, but that question is way too vague. Fix what? Can we even agree on what the problems are? You mentioned the racial divide. So let's stick with that for a second. Do we even really agree on the problem here? Is the problem that the United States treats people of color by and large unfairly in a myriad of ways? Or do you think people should stop complaining about non-existent racial issues? When you say that both sides are to blame for how we got here, what do you mean in regard to the left's culpability for the racial divide? Short term, I will say that the best way to begin healing the racial divide is to vote against Donald Trump. To think that electing someone who has said and proposed all the things he has in regard to race would begin to heal the rift in the country is delusional.
I don't know about fixing, but we could start by not legitimizing views that don't merit any. The Yale protesters did not represent disenfranchised minorities anymore than the Jezebel feminists represent women. Almost anything ending in an -ism has been rendered meaningless. The last time there was partisanship on this level it was about something of substance. This is the part where I blame media again. I'll blame academia too, and it gets so nasty and self feeding. Take that story from New Mexico about whether public high schools should provide ethnic studies classes. If we could trust you not to fuck it up beyond all recognition, few people would have a problem with it. Then, there really is the profiling and old America nonsense, but the media's constant portrayal of the worst people they can find as 'institutionalized' is demagoguery at it's worst. Don't get me started on communism and climate change. There's a general desire to slam every counterpoint with a deflection or a hateful buzzword, and on it goes. I think the vote against Trump to 'say no to racism' says a lot more about what's causing the problem than how to solve it. Hillary of course has played all this up, which I can't totally fault her for because it is such an effective strategy. It would be nice to have a president that didn't think Trump supporters were a basket of deplorables and Bernie supporters (almost half the democratic party) were idiots. The way Trump pandered to the alt right in the primaries was a great strategy at the time, but has certainly hurt him in the general election. Even so, the race was a dead heat until all of his assault stuff emerged.
A little levity is never a bad thing and given the alt right's influence on Trump's election the memes are relevant. It's amazing that internet trolls have played such a substantial role in planting a Trojan horse in the republican party, and whipping the media into such a frenzy. Every day there's more stories pouring out about the terror behind Trump supporters, which are mostly the same Americans who voted last election and the one before that. A troll wants to be fed, and it would appear everyone forgot the internet's cardinal rule.
Trump is now accusing Hillary of being hopped up on drugs during the debate and calling for a drug test before the next one. This is the weirdest election of my life, and I remember when Carter was elected.
I saw it mentioned somewhere else, and they called him "The Projectionist". Some people are wildly postulating that he's actually on drugs and this is a preemptive blow-hardy attempt at pushing it back to them, as if them not doing drug testing would be the same as being guilty of doing it. This way he doesn't have to say no, and appears to come from the moral high ground. Meanwhile he wants SNL to be canned after last night's episode, is lashing out at Baldwin for doing a shitty job, and is claiming that SNL is rigging the election. The dude is a train wreck.
I believe he's down 11 points nationally. He will probably say anything at all regardless of truth or decency. He has nothing to lose. And at this point for the last debate, you more than likely won't even hear anything of substance. And when he loses, he probably won't even concede.
I really, really, REALLY can't wait for the moment when he loses. I can only imagine him going off, calling Hillary a cunt or some shit like that. The final, epic meltdown of a bullying kid who didn't get his way, but on the international stage. And if he won't let it go, the following shit-storm and constant attacks while Hillary is in office, from his new media network that he's spinning up. It's going to be nuts... as in nuttier than it already is.
I find this all incredibly entertaining, now that Trump is basically throwing it to Clinton so I can breath a sigh of relief and just enjoy it for what it is. It's like watching your favorite team in a blowout win over their rivals, and the other team keeps throwing pick 6s. It's an epic implosion and it feels so satisfying. I'd give it 60/40 odds that his "concession speech" is a rallying cry to stand up against the government, then we'll see some crazies take it way too far. The media will spin it like it'll be scary, gun sales will skyrocket, and a few backwoods hillbillies are gonna get arrested for making terroristic threats online.
Hillary is like watching your favorite team? Gun sales have already been sky rocketing, Sep. sales set record numbers. This election has been a cultural clash at odds in the US that can no longer share the same boat. The optimist in me says that this is the climax, and afterwards the social advocates are going to go back to reasonable talking points, and the alt righters are going to stop sensationalizing every nutty protest and attack on western culture. Realistically though, it probably will just get worse. What would be awesome is if after Trump's concession speech (aside from the part where Hillary immediately succumbs to health problems) a few bumfuck hillbilly towns secede from union, and after 50 constitutional drafts the media tries to take seriously over the next year finally gives up. She's leading him by about 5 on average, so easily 80%+ likely to win. She was leading by that much right after sex scandal emerged.
Trump's businesses losing money over the campaign. Looks like long term damage to his businesses due to the brand he's earned from the election, and I can't say I'm surprised. It doesn't really fit with the idea that he's running to push a brand. There's a reason most businesses avoid controversy and often immediately concede to SJW protests, rather than let the pool fill up with piss. He might well establish a successful media offshoot, or find some other way to monetize the success he's had thus far. Still, in a country this polarized running to promote a brand really only makes sense if you aren't already filthy rich.
I would imagine that when/if Trump loses, he will suddenly and finally be silent. At least until his book tour starts. I am curious when the hatred and vitriol for Hillary started. To be honest, she seems a bit out of sorts: a woman at that level, especially with her history would be an odd fish no matter what. And aside from the email and Benghazi scandals (both of which seem to be insubstantial from a criminal standpoint), what the fuck has she actually done to deserve the hate? Trump? I get it: asshole, racist, misogynist, bad businessman, etc. You can point to evidence supporting those criticisms. Hillary's corruption seems to have survived a fuck ton of scrutiny without much in the way of results, and that seems to be the biggest criticism. I do think she plays the game in an old school, "house of cards" way that doesn't stand up to modern reporting and attention, but Jesus I don't get the hate.
If you haven't heard yet, someone firebombed a GOP office in North Carolina and spray painted "Nazi Republicans get out of town or else" on an adjacent building. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/north-carolina-gop-office-vandalized/ Quite honestly, I'm more afraid of what the left might do if Trump wins as opposed to what the right will do if Hillary wins. The largest majority of violence this election has come from the left even though the media has pushed the "Violent Trump supporters" narrative as hard as they can.
Honestly, I'm reminded of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax Is firebombing really a province of our more liberal minded friends? That seems a more conservative activity given the number of firebombings inflicted on mosques, abortion clinics, minority churches etc.