Hyperventilating Over Trump

The Trump opposition forces are in full swing mode. Now they say his asking rally goers to raise their right hand (as if in a courtroom) and swear to vote for him is an intentional play on the Nazi salute.

Michael Bloomberg has joined the Anti-Trump forces:

"I have known Mr. Trump casually for many years, and we have always been on friendly terms," Bloomberg said in his Monday announcement. "But he has run the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears. Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, appealed to our 'better angels.' Trump appeals to our worst impulses."


Trump responded:

"I guess he disagrees with what I’m saying, but a lot of people agree with what I’m saying," he said.

My view: This is playing right into Trump's hands and will only increase his support with white male uneducated voters.

Hitler comparisons should be not be used as political fodder. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews. Ivanka Trump is married to a conservative Jewish man and converted. Eric Trump is married to a Jewish woman.

Trump really has no policy position because he changes his mind a lot. The only thng we know for sure he will do is build a wall. To accuse him of intending to build concentration camps in the U.S. and kill the occupants, as Hitler did in his home country of Germany, is hyperbolic.

There are many, many reasons to oppose a Trump candidacy. Oppose him because he's unqualified. Not only is he inexperienced, he's lacks even a fundamental understanding of how our legal system, Congress, and the judiciary operate. Oppose him because his views on foreign policy and Muslims and Hispanics are unacceptable. Oppose him because he is the wrong person to choose the replacement of Supreme Court nominees and federal judges. Oppose him because you believe he only cares about Donald, not the country.

The list goes on and on. It's plenty long enough to cause thinking Americans to vote for someone else. It's not necessary to add the hyperbole that he is like Adolf Hitler, and it just furthers his meme that the media picks on him and doesn't give him a fair shake.

We don't need Republican talking points here -- please don't quote the words of people like Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham or John McCain "for the truth of the matter asserted." They are politicians grasping at straws in their too-late attempt to reverse what at this point is irreversible.

Donald Trump will almost certainly be the nominee. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio would be worse for the nation. Let's turn to why Hillary is better than Trump. You can talk about what the Republicans say about Trump, just don't cite them as being right or as support for your personal position that Trump is what they claim.

And remember, you may not call anyone a racist or fascist on this site. No name-calling period. State you opinion as your opinion (not fact) and avoid the name-calling. Use another word that isn't potentially libelous. If you are in doubt as to whether your comment violates our comment rules, save a copy on your own computer. My intent in deleting comments is not to deprive you of your work, but to prevent TalkLeft, which is my site, from being infected with irresponsible, false and/or potentially libelous accusations. I insist on a higher level of discourse.

< Monday Open Thread | Mississippi, Michigan Primaries >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's economic as much as racism (none / 0) (#1)
    by rennies on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    A provocative article in the Guardian (http://gu.com/p/4hc6m/sbl) arguing that a large percentage of Trump supporters are blue collar Reagan democrats who have been left behind by the free trade policies embraced by both parties. "Trump is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims." I think he has appoint. I don't think the rage and frustration of this demographic should be overlooked. And this bodes ill for the Dems on national Election Day.

    How do Sanders and Trump Differ (none / 0) (#2)
    by RickyJim on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    in their messages about "free trade" and its effect on the American worker?

    oh... (none / 0) (#11)
    by linea on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 01:59:58 AM EST
    good point.

    Yeah, So Long As You... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 09:43:43 AM EST
    ... neglect the dollars Trump has made from those agreements.  He could make his products in the US, but does not because of... profits.

    Messages are similar... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    actions and deeds are not...Sanders has been ringing the alarm on the harm caused by free trade agreements for over 20 years, and worked to try and stop them in Congress...while Trump has exploited free trade agreements for personal gain, having his Trump brand kipple manufactured overseas to maximize profits.

    Nor is Sanders... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 09:45:54 AM EST
    ...calling for a wall to keep the Mexican rapists and murders out of the country, the same undocumented workers he has hired, all in the name of... profits.

    It would be much easier to believe Trump if he wasn't exploiting 3rd world labor to line his pockets.


    lol. No one actually "believes" Trump (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    They just want a proxy to punch the republican establishment in the face.

    No one else has even tried on the gloves.


    You Think... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    ... people aren't going to go nuts should he get elected and not build a wall ?

    Some might be voting to smack the GOP, but a lot more are buying into his shtick than not.


    I agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    I think that they are expecting him to build a wall. I mean he's not the first candidate to campaign on that issue. Pat Buchanan comes to mind.

    This (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 05:33:51 PM EST

    My view: This is playing right into Trump's hands and will only increase his support with white male uneducated voters

    Yes.   It is.

    When this "salute" thing first appeared in the comments here, as a result of hyperventilating at HuffPo I said it was silly.    And not only is it silly it stops people from taking serious legitimate criticism of him and his authoritarian ideas seriously.
    People hear about this "Nazi salute" thing, then they see it and they are like, are you kidding me?  This is ridiculous.

    And it is absolutely playing into Trumps hands and plans.   You only need to look at the fact that after the first dust up he incorporated it into his standard rally speech.

    There are plenty of reasons to worry about his authoritarian ideas.  The stupid pledge is not one.

    I keep (none / 0) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    wanting to post something on this subject but my mind keeps jumping to this

    "The Producers" as a parable for this campaign, works for me.


    echoes of... (none / 0) (#12)
    by linea on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 02:03:12 AM EST
    the obama "terrorist fist-bump" maybe? it's just hard to take somebody seriously after that.

    After watching Trump defy (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    the mainstream media unsuccessfully try to destroy him by quoting what he said. I don't think anyone has any real idea as to who or why his supporters are. But the trade issue may be as close as any other.  As a guy I know  said, tools are  as cheap as I have ever seen but I'm so broke if new cars were selling for a nickel I couldn't buy a hub cap.  

    And the concentration camp shtick is nothing new. The Far Right did it to Obama so the Far Left doing it to Trump is not surprising.... But other Republicans? However, even there it's not new. Romney's dad did a job on Goldwater and the "mainstream" Republicans tried to do the same on Reagan.  And no, I'm not saying Trump is Reagan.

    The interesting part is that if Trump is nominated some more Left leaning Republicans may vote for Hillary. Will they overcome the "Reagan Democrats" voting for Trump?

    If Trump is not nominated his supporters, after watching the job being done on him, are unlikely to support anyone and just stay home. And the Tea Party and Evangelicals as dependable voting blocs are gone. Either way I think it plain to see that the "elites" and hardcore conservative "leaders" have written off this election thinking they can regain control of the party over the next four years.

    That may have been true in years past. But with the coming of age of the Internet and Social Media it is no longer for the main stream media to control the message and smooth things over. We may be witnessing the death of the two party system.

    No, we're not witnessing the death of ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 08:02:31 PM EST
    ... our two-party system. Rather, that system may be about to undergo one of its periodic but significant realignments, the last of which occurred in the late 1960s through the early 1980s as Southern Democrats abandoned the party in droves and switched their allegiance to the GOP.

    The effects of any such realignment won't necessarily been identified right away, and will probably only be noted well in retrospect, as we see election results which are markedly different from the one's we've been seeing over the last 30 years or so.

    (To give you an idea of how that can play out over time, first take a look at the electoral results of the 1976 election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford -- often considered the last hurrah of moderate southern Democrats and moderate Republicans -- and then compare them to what happened in 2008, when Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The regional changes are rather striking.)

    What such a realignment is unlikely to be is nearly instantaneous, as was the birth of the Republican Party in March 1854 amid the sudden collapse and implosion of the Whigs and the nearly open schism between southern and northern Democrats. Rather, we'll see a gradual but steady evolution over the course of one or two decades.



    Perhaps (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    If Trump wins the nomination and if current batch of Repub "leaders" is seen as going all out in their support then, win or lose, things continue as is.

    But, if it appears that the nomination is stolen, or if they don't support him and he loses then you have a large number of people who have no where to go. And a man, Trump, who has the money and organizational skills to turn a movement into a party.

    And the difference is communications. Social Media, the Internet with all its blogs, Twitter, et al has changed the world.


    It's hard for me to see how ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 10:52:20 PM EST
    ... any of the stuff that Romney, et al., said about Trump this past week gets walked back. Those were clearly personal statements about him being a "fraud" and "phony," and have to be considered shots across the bow by any standard. I'd say at the very least, GOP leaders sound almost resigned to letting him lose in November, while they consider their own efforts better spent elsewhere.

    The problem with that (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 10:57:43 PM EST
    Is Romney and the "GOP leaders" have exactly zero influence on their (former) party.  They don't have a freakin clue who they even are.

    They will not "let" him lose.  Or make him lose.  Romney controls one vote.  His own.  Trump does not need their money or their support.   In fact he seem to revel in their revulsion.


    When all is said and done, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    that is, when Trump is the Republican nominee, all of this primary discord will be a distant memory and the Republican party will be one, unhappy party.  Joined together by shared hatreds and a burning desire to win the White House.  Like Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich the Republicans will harmonize their assessment of Trump as a con man and a liar with their pledge to support the Republican nominee.

    Trump has yet to poll above 50% anywhere. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 03:23:54 AM EST
    Tonight in Michigan, he got 36%. Again, that means 64% of that state's Republican voters are still not sold on him. He's benefiting from a fractured opposition. These pluralities are fine right now, and will benefit him greatly in winner-take-all Florida and Ohio if the opposition fails to start coalescing around one particular candidate.

    But Trump needs to start cracking 50% pretty soon, or else his inability to expand his base of support and start uniting the GOP is going to lead to some significant problems for him later on. He has the inside track right now, but if his internal Republican opposition digs in its heels, he could end up being the most polarizing nominee of a major party since George McGovern, and cleave the GOP in two in the process. He won't even come close in November without the party squarely behind him.



    Setting aside the fact (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 08:48:25 AM EST
    That he got 48% I'm Mississippi last night, of all the silly tropes around Trump this has got to be the silliest.

    No Donald, he does not need to get 50% if he WINS with 40.  Or 30.  Or freakin 20.

    He won 3 of 4 last night.

    The other stupid part of that statement is, yes 60 whatever percent voted against Donald.  Guess what 80 or 90 percent voted against all the others.

    In the head to head polls Donald almost always win as well.


    Oh (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    And the party will be behind him.

    I know you're not fond of my pokes at (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 09:04:24 AM EST
    the inevitable, but I do enjoy your pokes at the Pompatus of the Pacific.

    I don't mind them (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 09:08:10 AM EST
    Deep down I know they are poking for the sake of poking.   I can relate to that.

    Even appreciate it.   It keeps us on our toes.   Please don't fly south to join the others.   Jondee is not up to doing it alone


    True, but they are spending millions (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 08:57:15 AM EST
    in attack ads in the hope, if nothing else, of getting to the convention without Trump having the necessary delegates. Then, in their minds and the minds of the Trump/Cruz/all of the rest supporters, they can pick who they want.

    Trump does seem to enjoy their attacks but his response is about all he can do.  He is "circling the wagons" while denying they can hurt him, a typical "leader" response when attacked by a force he cannot control.

    A Trump supporter would argue that the money being spent to attack him would be better saved to be spent attacking Hillary.


    I just said that 50% thing (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 09:16:57 AM EST
    Was the silliest Trump trope.  But the "brokered convention" has got to be at least second.

    For a moment let's imagine Donald goes to the convention with, let's be conservative, 40% or less of the delegates.  Then all the fat cats who have been trying and failing to beat him nominate, let's say, smilin Mitt.

    What do you think would happen next?

    Let's remember that the following Donald is attracting just happens to be the most heavily armed in America.

    The Clevekand police are stocking up on riot gear.

    I admit I don't have a clue what would happen but I do not believe I have led a pure enough life to deserve to witness such a thing.


    I think it is impossible to over estimate (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 04:54:26 PM EST
    the arrogance of the fat cats of both parties.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    No one is attempting to get anybody run out of the primary on our side. Just because the GOP is raving mad doesn't mean everybody is.

    Eric Trump's Wife Isn't Jewish (none / 0) (#7)
    by RickyJim on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    The Jewish Wedding that Wasn't

    On Nov. 8, Eric Trump, 30, son of Donald, and brother of IVANKA TRUMP, 33, wed TV producer Lara Yunaska under what the NY Post called a "crystal chuppah". The "chuppah photo" in the Post merely showed a wedding awning made out of crystals, like those hung on a chandelier, and I have little doubt that the photo caption writer took it upon him or herself to call it a "chuppah."

    However, because of the so-called `chuppah', a lot of the Jewish media is assuming she's Jewish and some have called it a "Jewish wedding." Well, a "Jewish" wedding needs a cantor or rabbi. However, presiding over this wedding was a `civilian', publisher JARED KUSHNER, 33, the Modern Orthodox husband of Ivanka (who converted to Judaism). Bottom line: I checked out Yunaska's family tree via family history sites---Lutheran on her father's side--also Christian on her mother's side. So--not a Jewish wedding, not a chuppah; and not a Jewish bride. Amusing sidelight: Eric does bear a remarkable resemblance to Jewish actor JONAH HILL, when Hill is moderately slimmed-down.


    ugg (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by linea on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 02:15:40 AM EST
    i'm not a fan of this policing of who is a "true jew." i find it vulgar. the wiki for Adam Levine goes so far as to state, "Levine considers himself Jewish." which is rather insulting. particularely when you consider the fact that he would be welcomed in any Reform congregation in the county.  

    And all they have accomplished (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 09, 2016 at 08:23:54 AM EST
    Is convincing voters to double down on voting for Trump.

    When Billionaires diss Billionaires the Republican voter chooses the craziest one to support :)