[RD] The threat to American Democracy

[Arwon]

And as an Australian you care about the USA's problems because?

Don't you guys have your own country to worry about? This is an internal matter, it's not like we tell Aussies how to communicate with their Aboriginals.

Jesus Christ dude

 

[RobAnybody]

I vaguely remember Democrats, including Hillary Clinton amusedly gloating that they welcomed a Trump nomination, because of how easily they were going to beat him. I'll admit that although I was very confident, pretty early on that Trump would get the Republican nomination, I was also pretty confident that Hillary was going to win the presidency.

[Pied Piper Memo]

I think that memo supports @Sommerswerd 's point. Dems welcomed Trump as a Candidate. However, they didn't support him, but rather welcomed him as a candidate (among others, as the Memo shows). They were wrong. I was wrong - I thought he couldn't possibly win in 2016. I think a lot of us underestimated America. Or maybe overestimated?

 

[schlaufuchs]

The memo doesn’t state that they welcomed the possibility of a Trump nomination, but rather that they were actively promoting it as early as 2 months prior to his candidacy announcement.

 

[Gorbles]

And as an Australian you care about the USA's problems because?

Don't you guys have your own country to worry about? This is an internal matter, it's not like we tell Aussies how to communicate with their Aboriginals.

Why post on a web forum? Don't you have your own country to worry about?

 

[Joij21]

Why post on a web forum? Don't you have your own country to worry about?

Oh IDK, it's a catharsis. Gotta unleash the demons that keep talking to me in my head and hope they spiral out and possess someone else. Then I shall have peace!

 

[Sommerswerd]

The memo doesn’t state that they welcomed the possibility of a Trump nomination, but rather that they were actively promoting it as early as 2 months prior to his candidacy announcement.

Thinking back on the 2016 election cycle, what I recall was a general air of smug reassurance that Hillary was inevitable. I remember feeling it myself, and sometimes, unfortunately, often really, being somewhat obnoxious about it, which I regret. The common refrain among so many Democrats, from media, to politicians to the general public was to mock Trump, mock Bernie, basically mock everyone who was daring to stand up to the unbeatable Hillary juggernaut. I myself repeatedly referred to Bernie as a "pied piper" throughout the 2016 campaign, so reading that memo really hit home for me.

The Democrats primary approach in 2016 always felt like it was promoting the idea that everyone opposing Hillary was ridiculous. Trump presented what seemed to be such a prime opportunity for that because he could be pointed to and held up as an example of just how ridiculous the opposition was. In fact I think the very title of our non-RD election thread started back then, "Clown Car" was a direct reflection of this. And the better Trump did in the polls, the sillier the whole Republican party seemed to look in comparison.

I remember feeling at one point early on that this was becoming a strategy and feeling uneasy about it, specifically that in the media's zeal to mock Trump and capitalize on his over-the-top cartoonish buffoonery, they were simultaneously giving him way too much attention and free press, which was in turn, driving up his poll numbers, and consequently turning Trump into the juggernaut. The irony is, that's what they were trying to do, they just didn't realize that it was going to backfire and the Frankenstein monster they were creating was going to end up eating them too, not just their opponents.

It was simultaneously obvious to me, that the Democrats let Bernie run as a Democrat, because they recognized that Hillary running essentially uncontested was boring and they needed someone to do what Obama did in 2008, ie bring excitement to Hillary's campaign, but this time without having a chance to actually pull off what Obama did and beat her. And throughout the campaign I had a distinct feeling that Bernie was fully aware that this was his role and was accepting it for the national fame/notoriety it would give him, which it did. The whole process actually did have the feel of being carefully steered towards Hillary's coronation rather than an actual election. It made the whole "crooked Hillary" and Trumps constant refrain of the election being "rigged" a much easier sell to his supporters.

So the contents of the memo you posted does seem to accurately reflect what was going on, generally. Its a read which, if it were posted in The Onion, I would be second guessing whether it was actually a joke or not. In fact, reading it, I vaguely remember somthing like that being leaked during the campaign IIRC. So while I don't have the source of your memo, I find it credible, based solely on the sheer believability of the content, both in terms of my observations during the campaign and my own anecdotal experiences. In other words, even if that memo was something someone made up, it doesn't really matter, because it was obvious that they were promoting/feeling/doing stuff like what is stated in the memo. As I've said before, the 2016 election gave me a lot to reflect on and an opportunity to do some soul-searching and offering of mea culpas.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There's one part of the early sentiment that you're forgetting, but it dovetails with what you've laid out here.

The actual early sentiment was that Clinton was a lock for the Dems, but also that Jeb was a lock for the Republicans. With that, there was the further feeling, "Can't we have somebody from outside these two political families that have dominated US politics for the past thirty years?" Well, there was a somebody, and he powerfully tapped that desire for novelty. Yes, the press fed into it, in part because they were bored to tears with the prospect of Jeb-Hil.

The rest, as they say, was misery.

 

[El_Machinae]

I held it as statistically plausible that Trump was actually acting as an ally to Clinton, by wooing the noxious aspects of the (R), he could then paint (R) with that core representing the whole.
I didn't give it strong odds, but I gave it odds.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I held it as statistically plausible that Trump was actually acting as an ally to Clinton, by wooing the noxious aspects of the (R), he could then paint (R) with that core representing the whole.
I didn't give it strong odds, but I gave it odds.

The Clintons and the Trumps were certainly friendly acquaintances, if not outright friends in the past. The "not really a Republican" allegation follows Trump around even to this day. The notion that the showman was putting on a show to help his old pals certainly wasn't the craziest conspiracy I've heard, and you're not the only one who I heard say it.

As you say though... very low odds. More likely that Trump is just an odious sleazebag, con man, who was grasping for continued relevance through birtherism, got triggered into running by Obama mocking him in response, was carried to victory by cynical politics and a ratings thirsty media, and developed Dictatorial aspirations along the way.

 

[Lexicus]

What the exactly are rich white male interests? As opposed to rich Persian Jew interests or rich Asian interests?

Do rich people spend lots of time looking at things thru a racial lens?

What a fudging dumb post, rich Persian Jews don't control the US political system
Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. The_J

 

[Gori the Grey]

More likely that Trump is just an odious sleazebag, con man, who was grasping for continued relevance through birtherism, got triggered into running by Obama mocking him in response, was carried to victory by cynical politics and a ratings thirsty media, and developed Dictatorial aspirations along the way.

Every word in that sentence is wrong.

Well, a lot of the words are correct (odious sleazebag, con man), but two truths about Trump unstated (or half-stated) in this formulation mean that the true parts aren't in the proper relation to one another. The two unstated elements are narcissism and racism.

Remember that Trump announced a run for president in 2000, and talked with Oprah about the possibility in 1988. He has long wanted to and thought he could be president, long before Obama mocked him (that's the narcissism); so it wasn't the Correspondent's Dinner ribbing that "triggered" Trump into running. The racism is what fueled the birtherism. His racism wouldn't let him accept that a black man was president, so he tried to discredit Obama through claiming that he was foreign born.

His narcissism also means that Trump would have been "dictatorial" at any stage of his life, i.e. thinking that he in his wonderfulness should unilaterally make decisions, and that they would be the best decisions.

So, Trump is an odious, racist, narcissistic sleaze bag and con man, whose racism prompted first birtherism and then a run for president; when a thirsty media (and a racist population that had, like him, not been able to abide a black man as president) propelled him to the presidency, the dictatorial side of him, concomitant with his narcissism, was revealed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Every word in that sentence is wrong.

Well, a lot of the words are correct (odious sleazebag, con man), but two truths about Trump unstated (or half-stated) in this formulation mean that the true parts aren't in the proper relation to one another. The two unstated elements are narcissism and racism.

Remember that Trump announced a run for president in 2000, and talked with Oprah about the possibility in 1988. He has long wanted to and thought he could be president, long before Obama mocked him (that's the narcissism); so it wasn't the Correspondent's Dinner ribbing that "triggered" Trump into running. The racism is what fueled the birtherism. His racism wouldn't let him accept that a black man was president, so he tried to discredit Obama through claiming that he was foreign born.

His narcissism also means that Trump would have been "dictatorial" at any stage of his life, i.e. thinking that he in his wonderfulness should unilaterally make decisions, and that they would be the best decisions.

So, Trump is an odious, racist, narcissistic sleaze bag and con man, whose racism prompted first birtherism and then a run for president; when a thirsty media (and a racist population that had, like him, not been able to abide a black man as president) propelled him to the presidency, the dictatorial side of him, concomitant with his narcissism, was revealed.

I think I like your version better. More thorough/precise.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There's more that I have to add, as well, since I've been mulling my own post over since I made it.

Birtherism was racist, of course, but it was also our first glimpse into one dimension of Trump's authoritarian streak. One premise of Trump's attack was that there was some authority out there who, if it could be proved Obama wasn't born in the US, could remove him from office. This is the same "authority out there" to which he adverts when he claims that the 2020 election should be done over. This gesturing toward rules that don't actually exist, just "how things oughta be," can operate to authoritarian effect (when the authoritarian puts himself in office through those rules he's suddenly asserted exist). This line of thinking was functional in what he wanted Pence to do on Jan 6.

I'm not saying this well, but it's something I've been trying to get said about Trump for a long time. When he was president, and had as much actual political power as anyone on earth, he would gesture toward these "how it oughta be" rules.

In the end, it just makes your core point (and mine) in this thread: don't support (don't even wish for) the person you think of as the worst candidate on the opposing side. Just support your own candidates.

 

[RobAnybody]

In the end, it just makes your core point (and mine) in this thread: don't support (don't even wish for) the person you think of as the worst candidate on the opposing side. Just support your own candidates.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but due to the way primaries are set up in most states, there's not a lot that can be done to influence "who your opponent will be". Hoping "the worst one wins" so you can face them is OK (even if in hindsight you were totally wrong). Supporting that candidate in any way, is not (IMO).

 

[Takhisis]

The democratic republics are stable because they are run by Free Masons, Rosacrucions, Illuminati, Theosophists, or any combination of the aforementioned in a sort of "balance of power" agreement. Supported by the muscle of various mafias of course!

OK, I'm going to tune out of whatever frequency you're broadcasting in for a bit.

 

[Takhisis]

I vaguely remember Democrats, including Hillary Clinton amusedly gloating that they welcomed a Trump nomination, because of how easily they were going to beat him. I'll admit that although I was very confident, pretty early on that Trump would get the Republican nomination, I was also pretty confident that Hillary was going to win the presidency. Election night was a pretty cold wet-fish-slap across the face for me, along with a lot of others.

I don't remember Democrats actively fundraising for Trump with the notion being that he would be easier for Hillary to beat, however the media was certainly giving Trump a lot of free press, and I suspect some of it was based on a cynical notion that showcasing Trump would increase the likelihood that he would get the nomination, while simultaneously thinking he had no chance to actually beat Hillary. I recognize and will acknowledge that this is a self-serving outlook on my part. I'm essentially saying that there were lots of folks in the media, particularly the liberal/Democratic-leaning media, who mistakenly thought the same thing I did.

Well, a lot's been said since you posted that, but yes, the boredom of yet another iteration of Clinton-Bush did lead to promoting the joke candidate. People made the mistake of not taking Donald Trump at face value and trying to think other things of him. Sure, he was using his campaign as a method to make himself a lot of money by lending it money and then bagging contributors' money as ‘repayments’, but he simply was an irritated supremacist dickhead who wanted to prove to everybody that he could make it there and then rule like a king.

Everybody thought he was a shoe-in for defeat and a more interesting one than a bland Romney type anyway; I for one expected the Republicans to cheat (and they did, destroying ballots) and also knew that the districts were already gerrymandered enough that having a strong and better-distributed minority as was happening in Britain contemporarily could lead to a string of victories. And it did.

 

[Narz]

What a fudging dumb post, rich Persian Jews don't control the US political system

Your mom.

Those in power could give a **** about their skin color. They care about themselves and their families. Obama, Harris, Trump or Biden they don't gaf. Race isn't on their minds except as it can be used to manipulate the plebs.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. The_J

 

[Farm Boy]

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but due to the way primaries are set up in most states, there's not a lot that can be done to influence "who your opponent will be". Hoping "the worst one wins" so you can face them is OK (even if in hindsight you were totally wrong). Supporting that candidate in any way, is not (IMO).

These people govern. I hope they don't govern as badly as possible. That sucks.

 

[Gori the Grey]

By the way, I think we may be in a similar be-careful-what-you-wish-for situation right now. In our hope that Trump never again occupy the Oval Office, we're favoring Anybody-But-Trump. The most likely contender is DeSantis. In Trump's case, we were sometimes saved from the evils he proposed by his lack of carry-through: his laziness, incompetence and stupidity. We shouldn't really be favoring the prospect of a more competent evil person (though I have to confess I still am).

 

[danjuno]

DeSantis is all of the demagoguery with less of the incompetence. This country is beyond saving if he is elected.