deskthority

seebart wrote:

photekq wrote: Note how the violence is not being created by Trump supporters.

Note how indirectly it is very much so. See this at any other rally of any other candidate? Ever?

As an actual moderate, I'm always pissed off with the loonies who'll protest against something actively vile but undermine their point by attacking the police and losing their shit altogether.

Every extremist welcomes their ill considered opponents. Someone's got to set fire to the Reichstag…

Provoke enough and the reaction is sure to follow, this has been part of Trumps strategy from the beginning and it worked. Problem being that these no-so-random "little outbursts" may increase in magnitude in the next five months...

Marinus van der Lubbe was a ballsy Dutch communist unemployed bricklayer Mu, I mean pulling that in 1933 you know he was not afraid in any way. I'd love to see that dude deal with the trumpet guy.

Yeah. I brought in the sneaky Godwin to make the bigger point: guys like Trumpy (especially those with Charlie Chaplin moustaches and armbands…) cheer on the violence they provoke in their enemies. Because it's the ultimate excuse to seize ever more power. Immensely dangerous stuff, escalation.

seebart wrote: Note how indirectly it is very much so. See this at any other rally of any other candidate? Ever?

You're right. I don't see it anywhere else. However, I don't think the blame lies on Trump & his supporters.

There's no party/candidate that doesn't have opposition. You might argue that Trump has the most opposition, but I would ask you to look towards Hillary; she has just as much of it. However, it's only those opposing Trump that resort to violence and cheap attempts to disrupt and silence Trump events.

It's not Trump & his supporters that are uncivilised. It's their opposition.

Trump does no more provoking than any of his opposing candidates. He just strays further from typical American politics of late, so he's more polarising.

OK we can agree to disagree photekq. I'd say Trump provokes emotional reactions (with his supporters and opposition) way more than any other candidate. Polarising is simply a more elegant word for it.

I don't disagree at all that he provokes people, but I think that all candidates do this to a near equal degree. I don't think Trump is a special case in that respect.

Right, so how come we don't see this violence at the Clinton / Sanders rallies? Just a different crowd?

Trump's definitely someplace else. Even batshit crazy rightwing Cruz wouldn't be gathering this kind of naked hatred. If you don't hear those dogwhistles Donald's forever blowing, you need a hearing test. He's as bare faced and smug about it as this gets.

It starts with the fact that he's not a politician. There is nothing politician about this guy. Loud-mouthed business celebrity with no restraint. But that seems to work quite well sofar.

I don't hold the "not a politician" thing against him, so much. America's got a pretty awful stable of career politicians to choose from. I can think of many celebrities I'd rather see elected than the shitshow of candidates the Republicans were picking from this year.

The trouble with Trump is that he's using language and images like he's running for Pegida or one of the many goose stepping, far right parties doing so well globally just now. This stuff is all about strife and suffering. Just what America, and therefore the world, really needs…

I tell you Pegida is a scruffy little bunch of fascists not too be underestimated though. There is a dangerous political vacuum that makes room for these new parties or rather combinations in quite a few European countries right now. Pretty scary what's going on in Poland and Hungary for example.

Yeah, sad to see how many people are full of hate. Hate towards the wrong people. Unfortunately the mass is dumb and very often kicking down instead of up.

Exactly.

That's one of the many (dubious but amusing) definitions of left vs. right wing I've heard. Lefties want to punish those above them in society. Right wingers want to punish those below.

This is interesting, not sure how realisitc though?

Why Bernie’s Bros Might Go for Trump

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ump-213915

Yeah, some of Bernie's supporters are arseholes. I don't think they'll matter in the end. But they just might.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... ers-voter/

Also, don't forget Gary Johnson. This year's Ralph Nader:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay ... d-clinton/

If it's a close election, whoever's vote he's stealing least will be the winner. Which was what happened in 2000. Mind, I don't think it'll be a close election. (Anyone about to scream: POLLS! The trend of the polls is what matters, not the outliers. Give it time.)

photekq wrote:
I don't think the blame lies on Trump & his supporters.

Trump does no more provoking than any of his opposing candidates. He just strays further from typical American politics of late, so he's more polarising.

photekq wrote:
I don't disagree at all that he provokes people, but I think that all candidates do this to a near equal degree. I don't think Trump is a special case in that respect.

Now those statements are just patently false and ridiculous.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... cker/?_r=0

photekq wrote:

seebart wrote: Note how indirectly it is very much so. See this at any other rally of any other candidate? Ever?

You're right. I don't see it anywhere else. However, I don't think the blame lies on Trump & his supporters.

There's no party/candidate that doesn't have opposition. You might argue that Trump has the most opposition, but I would ask you to look towards Hillary; she has just as much of it. However, it's only those opposing Trump that resort to violence and cheap attempts to disrupt and silence Trump events.

It's not Trump & his supporters that are uncivilised. It's their opposition.

Trump does no more provoking than any of his opposing candidates. He just strays further from typical American politics of late, so he's more polarising.

I find it ironic that trump gets all the flack for being racist and xenophobic and so on and so on yet you dot see his supporters doing this kind of crap.

Don't get me wrong i am no lover of trump and wold not vote for him but anyone that pisses off the regressive left is good in my book, i consider myself a liberal but some people who claim to be left are terrible.

Attacks by Trump supporters have been documented Andrew and photekq:

http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/d ... lly-again/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-suppo ... ly-attack/

I'm not saying the others are bambi-like passive hippies but come on...

Whoops. That didn't go so well. Back to his regularly scheduled Hillary bashing…

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKCN0YG1SJ
Apparently Britain has views about Trump too.

elecplus wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKCN0YG1SJ
Apparently Britain has views about Trump too.

Well put those two together in any situation and it's all about the hair.

Speaking of Pegida:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/m ... ers-kinder

Stay classy.

Muirium wrote: Speaking of Pegida:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/m ... ers-kinder

Stay classy.

Jeez, they got nothing better to go on about than Kinderschokolade. In Pegida's warped reality that's probably how they think they can reach out to voters. Fuck yeah let's go back to 1970 when it looked like this:
Hmm...seems quite a few american authors are not "down" with Trump:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WRITERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST DONALD TRUMP

http://lithub.com/an-open-letter-to-the ... an-people/

seebart wrote:

Spoiler:

kinderschokolade-2.jpeg

My German is pretty non-existent but does that label say "plus" milk "minus" chocolate?

fohat wrote:

seebart wrote:

Spoiler:

kinderschokolade-2.jpeg

My German is pretty non-existent but does that label say "plus" milk "minus" chocolate?

Yes it does, that was valid marketing in 1970's Germany. Really makes sense right?!?

That was a time of the harsh, high minded, self-denying, relentless social democracy that made the Bundesrepublik great. Pity young Germans aren't quite into the same…

seebart wrote: Right, so how come we don't see this violence at the Clinton / Sanders rallies? Just a different crowd?

That's my take on it at least. But it's entirely subjective, really.

photekq wrote: It's not Trump & his supporters that are uncivilised. It's their opposition.

---

Right, Trump supporters have attacked people too. However, most of these attacks have been on people intruding upon Trump rallies though, and the number of attacking/protesting Trump supporters pales in comparison to the number of people attacking/protesting Trump. Protesting inside a Trump rally is like going into a Hillary rally while wearing a MAGA hat - you're asking for trouble. What do these idiots expect, really?

fohat wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... cker/?_r=0

Now that's a bad look. I'm not sure what to think of that, and it's certainly a questionable move by Trump. I suppose the important question is : Is he helping his supporter out of a legal rut, or is he helping his supporter out of a legal rut because he committed violence towards the opposition? That's not something I know the answer to. Regardless, it's a questionable move. No doubt about that.

I told myself I wouldn't come back to this thread until my exams are all over, but here I am. Back to work now..

Trump is dancing a fine line between just being a fascist† who makes bigoted statements full of violent metaphors about women/nonwhites/religious minorities, and actively inciting violence against those groups. He clearly wants the support of white nationalists, and they’re having a great party with his candidacy. But he can’t come right out and say that the Nazis and KKK were heroes.

His whole campaign revolves around what Josh Marshall used to call the “bitch slap theory of politics”, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the ... r-violence http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the ... f-the-will

By the way, he decided not to cover the rally attacker’s legal bills after all, after getting a bunch of flak about it.

† Or maybe “belligerent nativist populist authoritarian strongman” if you want to mince words.

seebart wrote: It starts with the fact that he's not a politician. There is nothing politician about this guy. Loud-mouthed business celebrity with no restraint. But that seems to work quite well sofar.

Yeah, you're right. He's doing a much better job at advertising himself than most politicians

seebart wrote: I tell you Pegida is a scruffy little bunch of fascists not too be underestimated though. There is a dangerous political vacuum that makes room for these new parties or rather combinations in quite a few European countries right now. Pretty scary what's going on in Poland and Hungary for example.

Pegida might be idiotic, but come on.. They're not bloody fascists. Personally, I find the attitudes of the EU Commission towards these "far-right" (they aren't) parties far more scary than the parties themselves. Juncker has quite literally said the equivalent of : "The will of the people and democracy does not matter to us, so long as the people disagree with us".

From a German perspective that tends to look slighty different I guess. The real goal of Pegida is to make far-right nationalism socially acceptable in Germany by your average middle class voter. The refugee situation, Merkels passiveness on many levels, the economic situation all play into their efforts. But because they are a bunch of internally discordant leisure politicians they cannot get it together sofar. Frauke Petry has taken the helm for them with mixed results, she may appear to be a modern smart foreward thinking woman, in reality she's quite the fascist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauke_Petry