Trump's new campaign and the building to a Republican civil war

[Sir Adrian]

Not a thing in America's system. A 3rd party vote is basically throwing away your vote here.

Systems can change. As a moderate, I would have nobody to vote with in the US. Literally nobody. And I'm fairly certain a lot of people are in the same boat as me and would relish a *center-right and *center-left party. Not to mention that historically bi-partisan systems have never worked, ever, and it's pretty evident that it's not working now either considering the widening political gap.


*center in the american sense. In reality the only left-wing party in America are the communists.

Why? Most of american rednecks support Trump. And most of american population.

Because most people do not support him, even among the republican electorate. Because he is compromised and probably going to jail. Because DeSantis is a much better candidate with a proven record of good management abilities, so the republicans will go for him over Trump, because the only reason Trump won in 2016 was Hillary Clinton and the only reason he ran in 2020 was that he was the incumbent.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/polit...iel/index.html

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Sunday that she expects 2024 GOP presidential contenders will have to sign a pledge to back the party’s ultimate nominee in order to participate in primary debates.
“We haven’t put the criteria out, but I expect a pledge will be part of it. It was part of 2016. I think it’s kind of a no-brainer, right? If you’re going to be on the Republican National Committee debate stage asking voters to support you, you should say, ‘I’m going to support the voters and who they choose as the nominee,’” McDaniel told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” in her first interview since winning a contentious race for a fourth term as RNC chairwoman.

The Republicans think loyalty oaths to the party will save them. What they don't realize is that the promises of someone like Trump, someone who is completely honorless, are worth nothing. He will simply declare he never signed it, everyone who says they saw him do so is a deep state operative, the footage of him doing so is fake news, and that will be that.

[conon394]

Because DeSantis is a much better candidate with a proven record of good management abilities

Wow you buried that joke hard but thanks for the morning laugh

[fkizz]

I hope America will not allow Trump to be elected, otherwise Ukraine will end, as will our hopes for a free Russia, without Putin.

From what can be seen from 2015 campaign, he won by giving vote to the forgotten/voiceless one's opinion, who were left behind or not given a voice in society (democracy is suposed to voice everyone, at least that's the theory sold to people).

By such point, depends on what such non mainstream opinion says or believes. Putin has been working very well on this type of ignored and left behind public, westerners prefer to keep ignoring them until they vanish into irrelevance, if this type of public has an organic opinion change on Ukraine, then Trump will have no choice but to defend the same pro-Ukraine points, otherwise he won't get votes.

If Trump is talking about a more diplomatic/appeasement aproach on Putin, it's because a relevantly large number of potential voters have such ideas. If this type of demographic is abandoned, someone else will pick it up. If it is not abandoned, and properly worked with, whatever politicians (Trump or not) trying to get votes out of them will have to conform to supporting Ukraine.

It's fairly simple in theory, but not sure about practice.

This aside, it's difficult to imagine Trump's bravado allowing him to openly bow down to Putin in such a timing.
2015 Putin had very different image internationally, diplomatically and among the average westerners. The 2015 Putin's image has changed by big margin since 2022, average westerner doesn't find sense in invasion of Ukraine.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...rs-mob/673437/

Let us begin with the obvious thing that just happened: This morning, Donald Trump threatened to summon a mob—for the second time in two years—to his defense. The former president of the United States and a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the White House in 2024, facing a possible indictment in New York, claimed to know the exact day on which he would be arrested and then called on his supporters to “protest.” Trump and his cult know what a call for “protest” means: The last time he rallied his faithful supporters this way, they stormed the U.S. Capitol, which resulted in death and destruction and many, many prison sentences.

Spokespeople from the former president’s office have already walked back Trump’s statement, noting that they have not been told of any specific date for an indictment or an arrest. Indeed, any attempt to book Trump is unlikely to happen as soon as Tuesday, for many reasons. But that’s not the point. Trump’s message today to the American people has already come through loud and clear: “I am too dangerous to arrest.”

Despite my political feelings about Donald Trump, I am agnostic on whether he should be indicted and arrested for possible financial violations involved in the payoff to the porn star Stormy Daniels. Personally, I have no doubt that he broke the law, and part of me is now growling that if you can get Al Capone for tax evasion instead of murder, file the tax case already. But as my colleague David Frum noted, juries tend to be forgiving of personal misdeeds by political leaders (shown, for example, by the 2011 acquittal of former Democratic Senator John Edwards), and the hush-money scandal is not the strongest possible case against Trump.
That said, Trump himself today upped the ante by saying, in effect, that it doesn’t matter what’s in the indictment. Instead, he is warning all of us, point-blank, that he will violate the law if he wants to, and if you don’t like it, you can take it up with the mob that he can summon at will. This is pure authoritarianism, the flex of a would-be American caudillo who is betting that our fear of his goons is greater than our commitment to the rule of law. Once someone like Trump issues that kind of challenge, it doesn’t matter if the indictment is for murder, campaign-finance violations, or mopery with intent to gawk: The issue is whether our legal institutions can be bullied into paralysis.

Trump thinks his MAGAs will rise up, get their guns, and fight a civil war for him. Many will die, many more will be maimed, and even more than that will go to prison, but that's a price Trump is willing to pay.

Any volunteers? Before you raise your hand, remember when Trump said he’ll pay your legal fees and get you out of jail if you do his bidding? Well over 1000 have been arrested for 1-6, with hundreds going to prison, some for decades, and he didn't issue a single pardon for them when he had the power too and hasn't paid a cent of their legal fees.

[conon394]

From what can be seen from 2015 campaign, he won by giving vote to the forgotten/voiceless one's opinion, who were left behind or not given a voice in society (democracy is suposed to voice everyone, at least that's the theory sold to people).

What are forgotten groups you speak of that Trump gave voice too? I am perplexed.

[Coughdrop addict]

What are forgotten groups you speak of that Trump gave voice too? I am perplexed.

Neo-Nazis, fascists, racists, misogynists, people who fantasize about putting Hispanics and LGBTQ+ in death camps, people who fantasize about going on a mass shooting, billionaires who want to destroy the United States for their own profit, and Russian assets.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/des...p-rumors-swirl

Allow me to translate the right-wing speak:

"Soros" is short for "Jewish plots to take over the world." It's a knowing wink at the large Neo-Nazi and various other fascists groups the right needs to win elections.

"Weaponized" means "When Republicans are not treated as if they were above the law."

[alhoon]

In the social media post in which Trump claimed he would be arrested, he urged his supporters, "Protest, take our nation back!"

Just to be clear, whether you agree with Trump or not, that is a clear cut call to violence. Some may think that Trump is right and this is a witch hunt and all.
Still, if there are protests and people get wounded and die, the blood is in Trump's hands, very very clearly. This is a legitimate, full blown call to violence. Nothing subtle about it that could be twisted as "he didn't try to incite violence" like the Jan 6 coup attempt.

[Cyclops]

So how much cash can Trump milk this time around? It's a simple business model, but quite effective apparently: start trouble, avoid consequences through political contacts, beg for cash.

Bit like the banks running themselves into the ground, and then getting bailed out. Keeps happening, it's almost as though the decades long roll back of financial regulation has created a class of irresponsible wealthy people happy to crash society for personal profit.

[fkizz]

Well, I gotta reframe my former view on the issue as naive. Things are off to go irrational now, even if Trump isn't believable to be the cause of all good and all evil anymore. (as once he was the saviour and anti christ simultaneously, according to group of people point of view)
Expect irrationality, not sure how a balanced debate can be had now.

[The spartan]

Things are off to go irrational now, even if Trump isn't believable to be the cause of all good and all evil anymore. (as once he was the saviour and anti christ simultaneously, according to group of people point of view)

This is by no means a new view. Obama was viewed in incredibly similar terms, we just oft forget. Difference is that Trump is actually being charged with a crime.

[fkizz]

This is by no means a new view. Obama was viewed in incredibly similar terms, we just oft forget. Difference is that Trump is actually being charged with a crime.

Gotta agree Obama went through the same, except he was more controlable and predictable than Trump.

Still, after 8 years of special prosecutors and investigations, what happens is that in election season he gets considered guilty of having had sex with a popular sex symbol? People will consider the priority of the charge of such felony to be highly politically motivated, even if it isn't, timing just favours that angle.

[Cyclops]

Trump lucked into once with solid evangelical help last time.

This time round they might be wholehearted, with Stormy and the attempted lynching of Pence in the narrative.

I think Trump was lucky to face a recycled Clinton in 16 frankly, Democrats got a corpse past him last time, maybe they could win with a dog candidate in 24? Mr Cuddles 4 president.

[Sir Adrian]

This is by no means a new view. Obama was viewed in incredibly similar terms, we just oft forget. Difference is that Trump is actually being charged with a crime.

This is just not true.

[Ferdiad]

This is by no means a new view. Obama was viewed in incredibly similar terms, we just oft forget. Difference is that Trump is actually being charged with a crime.

Obama was viewed by the republcians(falsely) like that, unlike Trump where his behavious was far more widely panned.

[Gigantus]

... in election season he gets considered guilty of having had sex with a popular sex symbol...

You do know that it is about campaign finance violation, right? Eg paying off the model from campaign funds to avoid having a scandal on his hands (which may have influenced voters) 2 weeks before elections. Nothing would have happened if he had used private funds.....But then hints are at a laundry list of charges, not just one.

And it's not election season yet, either. But then he started his nomination campaign early with exactly that narrative in mind. One might think that the sole purpose of his election bid is to get presidential immunity and then to really mess with the system to avoid further prosecution?

[The spartan]

This is just not true.

Do you not recall US politics from 2009-2016? Obama has been called all kinds of things by opponents from "being a foreigner" to "anti-christ" while being viewed embarrassingly "benevolent" by his supporters. He both literally won a Nobel Peace Price and has a meme called "Thanks, Obama" (blaming him for any small thing) named after him. Polarizing politicians are nothing new.

[Sir Adrian]

Obama was called all kinds of things by a relatively small but vocal section of the republican party, which is par for the course as the opposition party needs to show its electorate that is opposing the current incumbent - let's not forget what the democrats called Bush (my favorite remains the heehaw president). Trump on the other hand was universally divisive and was either the purest white or ebony black.

You cannot compare the two.

[alhoon]

You cannot compare the two.

Well, you can compare the two as you just did. And after comparison you find Trump was more divisive and polarizing as a figure. After all, Obama didn't go out of his way to be divisive.

[Sir Adrian]

Well, you can compare the two as you just did. And after comparison you find Trump was more divisive and polarizing as a figure. After all, Obama didn't go out of his way to be divisive.

Please go back and read the original comment I was replaying to. Spartan said Obama was view in similar irrational terms as Trump, which is just not true. You cannot compare public opinion of Obama with public opinion of Trump because they are not even in the same postal code in terms of anything.