Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

he says that a lot. "it's very, very true." it's a rhetorical figure that seems to suggest he's worried about quite the opposite.

I think it was Tom Scharpling who pointed out a particular aspect of Trump's stupidity some time ago, the thing where he's clearly reading something representing his own opinion off a teleprompter or cue cards and punctuates it with, "That's true."

I think he's just a dumb idiot who barely understands English.

well it does often sound as if he literally just made up what he just said out of thin air (or it was whispered to him two minutes ago) so he seeks to reassure himself with phrases like, "that's very true," "that's true," "you wouldn't believe this," etc.

Oh god, I just realized that Trump is a bellowing Chauncey Gardner.

"people keep telling me"

"i hear this all the time"

he has a common rhetorical trick where he kind of outsources his authority to unnamed other folks, experts, just folks, whatever. same reason he re-tweets bullshit from dubious people.

Fifty or more people have complimented his strong, beautiful, completely normal (maybe even bigger than normal) hands.

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/03/22/our-daily-barbarisms-leo-hurwitzs-strange-victory-1948/

Strange Victory is, it seems to me, the essential documentary of our moment. A nearly seventy-year-old film can remind us that, as the narration puts it, “hopelessness is next door to hysteria.” The frustrations, despair, and hatreds that surfaced during Obama’s tenure have crystallized in an American fascist movement of unprecedented breadth. The film reminds us that scapegoating is eternal, sometimes summoned quietly (they’re not like us, she’s a traitor, he knows exactly what he’s doing), sometimes conjured up in full fury. At a moment when America is one ISIS attack away from a Trump or Cruz presidency, it’s good to be reminded how the well-funded Hitler exploited Us vs. Them. Temporizing pundits give every sufficiently funded lunatic the benefit of straight-faced interviews, or even tongue-baths. Right-wing politicians and agitators, keen on power and uncommitted to principle, are ready to fall in line behind a leader if he might win. Forget Godwin’s Law. Facing today’s assault on peace and justice, Strange Victory can rekindle our energies, without a moment to lose.

Temporizing pundits give every sufficiently funded lunatic the benefit of straight-faced interviews

this is the most appalling thing to me; the media treats trump's demagoguery as if it's just another form of democratic deliberation.

is it true tho? fox news went after trump in that one debate more than i've ever seen a news org go after a candidate ever. what should they be doing? refusing to talk to him? badmouthing him to his face? why does anyone think that would turn off his supporters?

He thrives on people treating him very, very badly. It's true.

at what point will we see "gotcha" informational questions to the Yam, ie name the heads of state of these countries? The simpler the better.

is it true tho? fox news went after trump in that one debate more than i've ever seen a news org go after a candidate ever. what should they be doing? refusing to talk to him? badmouthing him to his face? why does anyone think that would turn off his supporters?

― Mordy, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:51 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

maybe they could ask follow up questions asking for specifics for the vague nonsense and bullshit he constantly spews

they do! did you see that wapost interview? but the question is still why you think his supporters would care that the NYT or CNN held trump's feet to the fire.

i feel like blaming the media for not doing enough to stop Trump, or for not letting enough people know about Bernie, is a cop-out that gives way too much power to a very decentralized industry in steep decline.

the point wdn't be to expose him to his committed supporters, but everyone else.

hell i wd only read an interview with him for money! time is precious.

one can understand the structural roots of the problem (="decentralized industry in steep decline") and still lament its effects on discourse and politics!

i think he exposes himself plenty the moment he opens his mouth but i love the idea of asking him easy trivia questions and trying to stump him

ok but isn't the consequence of a decentralized industry in steep decline that more ppl are getting their information from alternative and online sources and closing themselves off in echo chambers? whether network news is aggressive or not just seems like a total non-sequitar.

i was thinking of that too. i bet he couldn't specify any amendments beyond the first two. obviously this would play well to the anti-intellectualism of his "base," but it would repel everyone else.

i hope.

ok but isn't the consequence of a decentralized industry in steep decline that more ppl are getting their information from alternative and online sources and closing themselves off in echo chambers? whether network news is aggressive or not just seems like a total non-sequitar.

― Mordy, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:03 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

mainstream media produces all kinds of "moments" that resonate through other, more niche platforms

I am pretty sure that everyone who has been exposed to the Trump phenomenon has already decided whether they find him repellent or attractive and that the calculus going on for people who are undecided have little to nothing to do with him and everything to do with what they think of his Republican/Democratic rivals.

Like, maybe I'm wrong in thinking that running your rallies like fascist othering parties is going to engender a strong reaction in people who see it but I don't think the problem here is that people don't know what Trump's all about; the problem is that people are so distrustful of those who represent The Establishment that they're willing to put up with all kinds of Trump-fueled nonsense for a shot at something different. IMO you're looking at a bunch of people who have decided that the devil they know is unacceptable and are evaluating whether the horrifying carnival act down the road will really be that bad or if it will shake things up enough that a few good things fall out of it. I think this is an insane, nonsensical component when applied to Trump but when you remember that this country is also made up of venal racists, it makes more sense (even as it becomes more depressing).

THAT BEING SAID, I don't think everyone in this country has forgotten the lessons of World War II and I don't think a majority of voters are willing to vote for for a fascist, so I don't think there's any serious chance of Trump becoming President. If they manage to back-door Ryan into the nomination, I will be more concerned about the Democrats losing the election and losing ground in the Senate/House.

if they go with anyone other than trump at the convention, they're already sacrificing the presidency in a feeble attempt to save the downticket senate/house races.

what's bugging me is that i couldn't imagine a world in which this moron would be a major party nominee. and that appears to be happening! so i'm necessarily questioning other things that i believed wholeheartedly... like that a plurality of morons could overturn the apple cart entirely.

If they manage to back-door Ryan into the nomination, I will be more concerned about the Democrats losing the election and losing ground in the Senate/House.

You mean Paul "Mitt Romney's VP pick"/"almost a real boy" Ryan? Yeah, there's no universe in which he beats Clinton.

whatever happens, the GOP will have to change in order to resolve its establishment vs freedom caucus vs trump dilemma, or be rendered fractured and irrelevant. and when one major party changes to such a degree, the other tends to adapt and change as well, correct?

just a preference for a certain type of chicken sandwich that is strong enough to overrule all principles.

most likely scenario imo is trump becomes the nominee and the rest of the GOP falls in line. i don't expect convention dealing and paul ryan is definitely not going to the nominee

i am as reluctant to evaluate Yam as a dope any more than It's Pat as brilliant. Or Clinton as astute, or Kasich as reasonable.

You mean Paul "Mitt Romney's VP pick"/"almost a real boy" Ryan? Yeah, there's no universe in which he beats Clinton.

it's not even about paul ryan (although i agree, he's certainly no ideal). if the convention ends with the GOP denying trump the nomination (this is assuming he continues to dramatically outpace cruz and kasich in delegates), it wouldn't matter if ronald reagan descended from the heavens riding a flying golden lion, they'd be doomed in the presidential race

GOP establishment's gonna get behind Trump for the most part, and then the party's gonna get crushed in the election, and the war between the rank and file and the "establishment" will revert to prior status - the establishment saying "see? we told you he was a loser!" and the base saying "you sold us out!" Rinse and repeat.

You mean Paul "Mitt Romney's VP pick"/"almost a real boy" Ryan? Yeah, there's no universe in which he beats Clinton.

"more concerned" does not necessarily mean I am actually concerned; more that if the Republican party manages to finagle someone like Ryan into being their nominee, I can see a scenario where voters reward them for not being stupid enough to continue backing Trump. This doesn't mean that I think that scenario will actually happen.

GOP establishment's gonna get behind Trump for the most part, and then the party's gonna get crushed in the election, and the war between the rank and file and the "establishment" will revert to prior status - the establishment saying "see? we told you he was a loser!" and the base saying "you sold us out!" Rinse and repeat.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:37 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yup

The "get behind Trump" phase during and after the convention is gonna be hilarious.

"THAT BEING SAID, I don't think everyone in this country has forgotten the lessons of World War II and I don't think a majority of voters are willing to vote for for a fascist, so I don't think there's any serious chance of Trump becoming President."

I imagine Trump supporters think this is a melodramatic exaggeration and aren't actually processing the real similarities, same way they dismiss when Trump is called an asshole as just a name rather than looking at the striking similarities of him to a literal anus that spews actual shit.

DERP in the VIRP

More turmoil in the Virgin Island Republican Party erupted Tuesday as the GOP chair there announced the disqualification of six delegates that had been selected to represent the territory at the Republican convention and the elevation of new delegates in their place.

since HRC has not rarely acted like a political nitwit in the last 3 months, you Bring Yam On pundits are walking the line here.

maybe they could ask follow up questions asking for specifics for the vague nonsense and bullshit he constantly spews

Trump's been on my TV constantly for the last six months, so I'll second mordy's point above: he gets asked follow-ups all the time, which he responds to with more "believe me, believe me"s and "it's gonna be great"s. It's pointless. You're better to ask for details once, move on, and leave it anyone listening to figure out that nothing was actually said.

everyone in this country who personally remembers the lessons of World War II is over 75

book larnin' and the History Channel aint quite the same

No, you have to spoon feed that point to the audience listening "So you're saying you don't actually have a detailed plan to achieve ______?"

xpost

I imagine Trump supporters think this is a melodramatic exaggeration and aren't actually processing the real similarities, same way they dismiss when Trump is called an asshole as just a name rather than looking at the striking similarities of him to a literal anus that spews actual shit.

I imagine that Trump supporters are not a majority of voters. I don't think he's going to win more than 60% of the Republican vote, let alone a majority of independents and Democrats, and if he does it will be due to suppressed Republican voter turnout due to their party nominating a blatantly obvious walking talking bag of shit as their nominee rather than someone who can play the part of a reasonable human being that can spin their loathsome positions into reasonable-sounding sound bites.

I don't think he's going to win more than 60% of the Republican vote,

from NYT, yesterday:

http://i.imgur.com/SdN731J.jpg

looks more like 82%, and that's before republican voters are told over and over for months that bernie sanders/hillary clinton is the devil and the world will explode if they don't vote for trump

Trump's been on my TV constantly for the last six months, so I'll second mordy's point above: he gets asked follow-ups all the time, which he responds to with more "believe me, believe me"s and "it's gonna be great"s. It's pointless. You're better to ask for details once, move on, and leave it anyone listening to figure out that nothing was actually said.

― clemenza, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:52 PM (7 minutes ago)

I don't agree at all. I think Trump or whoever it is gets the upper hand. Why not stand for something? Why not say our news organization doesn't tolerate evasive answers, contradictions, and lies? Why not spell it out right explicitly and vehemently right when it happens?

support /= vote though, i think on the enthusiasm scale trump won't really bring them running to the polls

yeah, i can't prove you wrong on that, because i can't find a similar poll from 2012 or 2008 that measured "enthusiastic support / support with reservations / support only because nominee" among mccain/romney/obama voters to see how that translated to actual turnout

but my guess is that the vast majority of people fall in line with whichever person has the D or the R by their name, even the people who aren't enthusiastic

moreso on the R side I think, their tribal affiliations are a bit stronger

they're also on drugs or killing themselves

(xpost) They do. You're talking to a brick wall.

Why not say our news organization doesn't tolerate evasive answers, contradictions, and lies?

If you actually said this, I think you'd look self-righteous and silly. Ask the question, ask a follow-up definitely, but a certain point, you have to trust that people can see through nonsense. It's not like Trump's fooling the whole country or anything--maybe 40% of his party ("of his party" not exactly accurate) believes everything he says, the other 60% doesn't, a large part of that 60% is scrambling around to prevent him from getting the nomination, and most of the rest of the country sees him as the buffoon he is. I don't think asking the same question six times instead of two is going to move those numbers much.

I agree with Dr. Morbius about the inadvisability of taking Trump's loss to Hillary (or to Bernie, who imo has less than a 10% chance of being nominated) as a foregone to conclusion. Yes, Donald has made himself odious to anyone with a recent family history of immigration from Latin America and he will not be getting many minority votes of any kind, but his reduction of every issue to terms so simple they are pure fantasies is a powerful weapon.

Think how often you indulge in a fantasy life and how strong that tug is. Trump is creating a mass shared fantasy and giving millions of people permission to join in. It isn't enough to point out that one must be fairly weak-minded to enter that dream world. Given a choice between a reality you already know feels like crap and a golden dream where solving your problems is as easy as pie, a hell of a lot of people will choose to toss reality aside and buy a fistful of lottery tickets.