Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Reading the comments, it seems like there's a general consensus that Cruz is far from the Republican equivalent to Clinton, and that this seems to assume that Republican and Democrat voters think alike.
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
My personal stance on Clinton aside, if you assume that Clinton is very left-wing (which many Republicans, and even Clinton supporters, do), what is exactly your problem with the argument? Take in mind that there are many Republican voters who feel that for example, Clinton's stance on abortion, is as morally repugnant as you think that Cruz's attitude towards homosexuality is.
I think a better equivalent would be Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Scot Walker.
Edit: Oh and for the Dem scenario to be more equivalent I'd suggest the celebrity make derogatory remarks about Jews and Asians not "not really being minorities", and threaten to turn over all the Cuban exiles to the Castro's.
edited 2nd Aug '16 12:21:12 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.I'm here to point out that Trump just held a rally at a high school in my neighborhood today. I didn't go because of Marching Band, but I would really want to protest.
The sad thing is that the kids in my school who support him don't actually think he means what he says. They actually think that he will be helpful.
@Amber
Saw that the other day and was thinking of posting it. I think it is sort of right to the extent that I probably would vote for Sean Pean over Ted Cruz, so there broad argument is basically right that people would probably vote for an unpalitable candidate on their side of the political spectrum to an unpalatable candidate on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
One problem though is that while Clinton has tended in a more liberal direction for the last eight years (and I think probably was always more liberal than Bill), she's not as liberal as Ted Cruz is conservative. And so while conservatives may hate her as much as liberals (well, everyone) hate Ted Cruz, the comparison breaks down there. Maybe Romney would be a better comparison or Dubya.
Edit- Semi-
on this.
The other big problem- and I think bigger problem is the likelihood of Sean Penn/a liberal equivalent of Trump being chosen or even existing. I think that like a lot of Sanders supporters, the author takes Clinton's relative unpopularity with young voters as well as the lack of candidates running in the primary for evidence that a) young voters have rejected the Party and b) there is a dearth of candidates.
I'm not sure of all of the factors that lead to the few candidates running in this election, and Clinton being perceived as a shoe-in probably had a lot to do with it. But there's lots of other candidates the Party could offer (basically every other politician who spoke at the DNC).
I'd also throw it out there that since Clinton won over the more leftwing outsider Sanders, she'd also win over a leftwing outsider Penn- who differs from Sanders in total lack of political experience and being an all around horrible person.
Edit 2- Jack also raises a good point. The Trump comparison doesn't only require lack of political experience and being an unpalatable person. It also requires making a lot of offensive comments (just from a leftwing perspective). I can't see that person getting anywhere politically.
edited 2nd Aug '16 12:27:34 PM by Hodor2
Well, as close as it comes in the mainstream.
Does remind me of something though. For the article's imagined scenario to work, you'd have to have Penn/"Liberal Trump" running against like half a dozen party luminaries in the primary and winning- because in Trump's situation, he was against that many opponents and still won.
I don't see it happening.
One other thought- a lot of Trump's success (IMO anyway and this seems like a popular analysis) is because he feeds people the red meat (racism) they've been promised by the Republican Party for years but have only gotten hints of (dog-whistles).
I don't think it really works to compare this to the idea that Democratic politicians only pay lip service to liberal policies, because liberal is not the opposite of racist (well, it shouldn't be) and like even if true, I don't see how that leads voters to trust a random celebrity.
I lied. One other thought- So one other reason I don't think the Liberal Trump could happen is because liberals/Democrats place a big emphasis on public service, whether in politics or community activism. Republicans don't as much and have a preference for private industry leaders. And I think this factor has a lot to do with Trump's success. While there are lots of liberal celebrities, some of who are involved in activism, it's hard for me to picture one of them doing better in a primary than any politician.
edited 2nd Aug '16 12:45:29 PM by Hodor2
Many Trump voters are economically left-wing though, so I could imagine these same people voting for the Sean Penn as described in the article. And it's exactly the economy that many voters feel that the Democrats have become too right-wing on. Also, remember that only a tiny subpart of the US population votes in primaries, so if Sean Penn manages to gather as much enthousiasm as Trump did, why not?
Trump won the primaries in part because there were so many candidates competing against him, not in spite of it. The whole Repuclican primary season is a classic example of Divided We Fall, where the classically conservative Republicans spent more time tearing down each other, all assuming that Trump's appeal was just a phase. Unlike the Democrats, where the choice since almost the beginning was between Clinton and Sanders, the Republicans consistently failed to provide a "conventional" alternative to Trump's extremism.
That is true. I think that's where my point about the differing attitudes between Democrats and Republicans toward non-politicians comes in. Republicans revere them, which gave Trump a big advantage. I think Democrats are skeptical of them. And when I say that, I'm also including Sanders supporters who despite their own skepticism of the Party, would have no time for an outsider who was a dilettante.
![]()
![]()
Well, not in the current situation, but I think it's at least hypothetically possible: imagine the disaffectedness of the left towards Democratic economic stances growing, a winner-take-all-primary just like the Republicans, and a dozen more moderate Democrats running. A crazy leftist getting elected is not that strange if you look at Latin America for instance. But then again, I might just be playing devil's advocate
No they're not, or else they wouldn't be supporting Trump who pretty much is the poster boy right-wing economics. At best, they only tolerate it because he's gonna stick to the "other"
edited 2nd Aug '16 1:12:45 PM by NoName999
Trump's actually economically pretty left-leaning. I would argue he's a Dixiecrat at heart. Basically, he wants hand-outs for white people. This is a big part of why the GOP doesn't like him.
Leviticus 19:34Trump boots a baby out of his rally:
Trump then returned to his non-baby-related remarks, only to hear the baby make more noise.
“They have ripped us to shreds, ripped us absolutely to shreds," Trump said of China, before turning back to the woman with the child.
“Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here," the Republican nominee said to laughter and applause. "That’s all right. Don’t worry. I, I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking. That’s OK. People don’t understand. That’s OK."
My real issue is that the article focuses far too much on the notion of Trump being unqualified over the fact that Trump is overtly racist (and sexist). To create a counterfactual scenario where the Democratic candidate is as bad, they'd either need to also be racist (anti-Semitic most likely) or in fullbore "kill the rich" mode.
The reason Cruz doesn't work as the Clinton analogue, of course, is because he's near as racist, homophobic, and sexist. In such an election, no, Democrats wouldn't turn on their crazy nominee, because the other guy would genuinely be just as bad. It would either be one kind of racism vs another kind of racism, or racism vs classism. Clinton is none of those things by any metric—even the Republicans usually resort to calling her corrupt (which even if true, big deal, I'll take corruption over racism). Additionally, we dislike Cruz because of things he's actually said and done, whereas the right tends to hate Clinton over manufactured scandals.
For the analogue to work it would need to be a comparatively moderate yet still deeply unpopular Republican who has done relatively few awful (from a liberal perspective) things vs our supposed "Trump of the Left", and there's very few moderate Republicans left in the party. Jeb Bush is perhaps the closest you could get, given that much of the hate for him comes from people loathing his brother. And for the leftist in question to be as bad as Trump, they couldn't just be a Sean Penn (or even a Susan Sarandon). They'd need to be a quasi-Communist the same way that Trump is a quasi-fascist, a Hugo Chavez impersonator to his Mussolini impersonator.
In short, the article is bad, not just because of its argument, but because of how badly it structures that argument.
Just for the record, in a Jeb Bush vs Hugo Chavez impersonator race, I'd vote for Bush. Which is more than I can say for most people on the right at the moment.
![]()
Would a hypothetical Jill Stein democratic run be equivalent at all?
I've heard people make offensive remarks about women being too hormonal to be President but Trump is way worse. I'd honestly be afraid of him threatening to bomb a country or assassinate someone for a minor slight.
edited 2nd Aug '16 1:31:30 PM by Kostya
LMAO.
Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John Mc Cain in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily.
With Ryan’s Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House speaker’s underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running “a very good campaign.” Trump said that Ryan has sought his endorsement, but that as of now he is only “giving it very serious consideration.”
“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”
Trump’s refusal to back Ryan represents an extraordinary breach of political decorum and signals that the Republican Party remains divided two weeks after a national convention in Cleveland staged to showcase party unity.
Trump continued, “I don’t know Kelly Ayotte. I know she’s given me no support — zero support — and yet I’m leading her in the polls. I’m doing very well in New Hampshire. We need loyal people in this country. We need fighters in this country. We don’t need weak people. We have enough of them. We need fighters in this country. But Kelly Ayotte has given me zero support, and I’m doing great in New Hampshire.”
Seems Trump is beginning to cash out his chips.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/2/12342600/trump-rigged-clinton-steal-election
A little anxious, but there's no need to be depressed.
edited 2nd Aug '16 2:14:25 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."

Worst try at creating false equivalence ever
.
There's so much wrong with the article I just linked, that I'm not sure I have time to detail it all. Suffice it to say that when you try to equate Democratic dislike of Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum with Republican hatred of Clinton, you have issues. Still, I'm curious to see if others agree with me.
edited 2nd Aug '16 11:40:58 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar