In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?

[CuriousEyes]

I think it depends on how much stock you place in the Wikileaks/Russian involvement theories...

Which are more than likely credible, of course.

[TheGlyphstone]

I guess. Though 'Russia is conducting international espionage' is less a conspiracy theory IMO and more 'Durrrrr really? this is news to someone?".

[ReijiTabibito]

A vaguely interesting read:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

I'm not sure if Poe's Law is in effect here, but if it's not, I can say that there is truth that rings in what the writer is saying, from my own personal experience.

[TheGlyphstone]

Cracked's articles regarding Trump and the election have been surprisingly insightful overall, really. They gleefully make fun of Trump himself at every opportunity, but the articles where Trump's supporters and followers are discussed are much heavier on actual analysis and understanding of the phenomenon that's put him where he is. They still have to frame it in a 'funny' manner, because it's a comedy website, but the articles themselves are pretty on-point.

[ReijiTabibito]

I grew up on the fringe of a...I guess technically it would be a large town, going by Wikipedia's settlement hierarchy.  The population in-town was either around 50k or 80k if you included the nearby Big State University.  Now, my particular house was outside of city limits, so I grew up going to school with a lot of the folks that Wong described in the article - these were people who, by the time I was in high school, were having to get up at 4AM to go feed the cows, check the tractor, make a run around the fields to see if there's any major problems with the crops.  These were not bad people, these were people who simply wanted to get up, get on with their day, and make sure their family was taken care of.

(I lucked out, because my father was one of the local doctors, so I always had the cool stuff over at our house.  'Cool stuff' being things like the latest video game system - as opposed to a secondhand model from the previous generation - a big-screen TV, multiple computers; though in the defense of my friends, they always had a bigger yard than I did.)

I had - not a significant portion, but we did have minority students at our school, I got to see them a lot because they were usually in the advanced courses along with YT - a similar experience to the writer when dealing with minorities in-town.  No one was ever mean to them, denied them a job, told them they couldn't hang out for a BS reason, or whatever inaccurate illustration the elites that Wong mocks (quite rightly) come up with this week.  And yet to hear the elites speak, you would think that small-town America would be a blight zone for minorities, a place to be avoided at all costs because it's still the 50s and the KKK can come and put a burning cross on your lawn.

(Side note.  In the future, whenever you hear about people railing against 'traditional America,' see how many times they invoke the images of the early half of the 20th century.  Multiple generations of Americans have been born and raised - and another is in the process of being raised - since those days.  I did, and the results were surprising.)

In the end, to me, it comes down to empathy.  Are you willing to go out of your comfort zone and see what it really is like for the people who don't live next door to you; are you willing to care about their problems; are you willing to allow people whose point of view, whose values, whose way of life is different from your own?  More and more I see the ego-driven, self-centered mentality of 'I got mine, everything's OK' coming to characterize our culture.

[gaggedLouise]

Cracked's articles regarding Trump and the election have been surprisingly insightful overall, really. They gleefully make fun of Trump himself at every opportunity, but the articles where Trump's supporters and followers are discussed are much heavier on actual analysis and understanding of the phenomenon that's put him where he is. They still have to frame it in a 'funny' manner, because it's a comedy website, but the articles themselves are pretty on-point.

Just saw Bruce Springsteen getting interviewed on the BBC and he was quite clear that Trump "is a conman" but that many people who have lost their jobs and their careers - in the manufacturing industry or in banks and commerce -  over the last twenty-five years and are feeling left behind by the cart of urban progress, and who are often tired and pissed, those people feel that Trump is speaking to them on some level. That he manages to sound as if he understands them and has a solution for them.

[ReijiTabibito]

I mentioned previously that the Republican Party was hoping the Trump is a black swan, and I noted that his success in this election, even if he's crashing and burning at the last possible moment, means that he's not.  That idea is predicated on a single assumption - that there is something exceptional about Trump, that his ability to seemingly weather any storm and fail to lose any significant number of supporters is unique to him.  It's not.  There will always be another Trump.   Trump's success is less about Trump and more about the people who support him.  These are people with legit grievances and concerns about their country, about the fact that we hear all the damn time about how things are supposed to be getting better and for these people they're not - that was a major theme in that Cracked article that was quoted a few posts back.

This ties into a running theme I have about government in the West in general - when government fails to respond to the satisfaction of its citizens to a problem, the citizenry will seize upon anyone who promises a solution to that problem.  The degree of zeal to which people adhere to that someone is largely contingent on A: the government's official response to the problem, and B: how widespread the problem is perceived to be.  This is illustrated in the rise of groups in Europe who are stolidly right-wing over the Islamic immigration crisis.  Germany's response to the rising tide of crime in relation to the increased presence of MidEast immigrants was to basically pledge to allow in more immigrants; some of their other responses have been similar "WTF?" moments.  In fairness to that response, immigration is not the problem.  Immigration has existed for a long, long time, even though having a national system for it is a relatively recent invention.  The problem is the failure of certain cultures to allow themselves to be assimilated into the new nation.  Rather than adopt the culture of the land they are now occupying - the old phrase, when in Rome, do as the Romans do - they are refusing to let go of their culture, and those who are criticizing them for that are now being labeled as '-phobes' because somehow 'every culture has something to teach us and is valuable.'

I actually agree with that statement, even if the 'something to teach us' is how dangerous certain cultures can be.  Just because we can learn something from someone does not automatically make it a positive thing.  I learned about getting drunk and texting your ex from my friend.  Was a good lesson.  Doesn't mean I'm gonna do it.

Twenty years ago, was this a problem?  Sure.  But it wasn't a big one, so people weren't all that willing to reach for the freakshow about it.  Now?  Now it's a yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem and people are willing to do whatever it takes.  Even if that means embracing an ideology that makes the National Socialists look tame.

To borrow the gay saw, they're here, they're not going anywhere, get fixing them.  You want the Trumps of the universe to go away?  Solve the problem.  Don't tell the people who are getting the short end of the stick they're just upset because they're all a 'basket of deplorables' and thus not worth giving the time of day to.  That is devaluement by the group.  You know what else devalued people by the group?

[Sabre]

Trump's success is less about Trump and more about the people who support him.  These are people with legit grievances and concerns about their country, about the fact that we hear all the damn time about how things are supposed to be getting better and for these people they're not - that was a major theme in that Cracked article that was quoted a few posts back.

The assumption however is that the countryside is latching onto Trump because of grievances arising naturally and not because these grievances and concerns are no less directed and manipulated by a minority of ideologues and radicals. Conservative media, political evangelicals, anti-federalist groups, and a hodgepodge of actual racialists, nativists, conspiratorialists, and others on the alt-right fringe, these have all been highly active in the past decade in these very same desolated rural communities in order to turn their personal resentment and concerns into votes for their own interests. It's this memeplex that Trump has latched onto and is currently riding either into the ground or into the White House, and neither outcome will actually help.

[Mithlomwen]

Paul Ryan's warning regarding the GOP losing control of the Senate backfires.

 “If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes chair of the Senate Budget Committee? A guy named Bernie Sanders. You ever heard of him?”

(Apologies if the news link is from a less desirable source.  I'm not really sure anymore which ones are legit.)

[gaggedLouise]

Wonder if the Donald is gonna cut loose and go berserk tonight - after all, Las Vegas is one of the showbiz capitals of America...  :D

[TheGlyphstone]

Wonder if the Donald is gonna cut loose and go berserk tonight - after all, Las Vegas is one of the showbiz capitals of America...  :D

What does he have left to lose?

[Beguile's Mistress]

Considering the plans he has for tonight even the GOP is saying he's off the beam and needs to behave more seriously. 

[gaggedLouise]

Trump saying early in the debate: "From the first day I become president this is what we'll do: we're going to begin building that wall against Mexico" and then find all Mexican druglords dwelling in the USA and smoke them out (more or less). "After that is done, we'll take care of the rest" (all other Mexican and Latino non-legal immigrants).

How long does he think that first step - to build the wall and root out the druglords - is going to take? My bet is it would take most of the coming four.year period, or even more. How much time has it taken, historically, to fight the Mob?  ;) And we're not even talking about his boast that he would make Mexico pay for the wall.

[persephone325]

Trump saying early in the debate: "From the first day I become president this is what we'll do: we're going to begin building that wall against Mexico" and then find all Mexican druglords dwelling in the USA and smoke them out (more or less). "After that is done, we'll take care of the rest" (all other Mexican and Latino non-legal immigrants).

How long does he think that first step - to build the wall and root out the druglords - is going to take? My bet is it would take most of the coming four.year period, or even more. How much time has it taken, historically, to fight the Mob?  ;) And we're not even talking about his boast that he would make Mexico pay for the wall.

I feel like this wall is a very unrealistic goal. Not only for him, but for us Americans. I mean, why give other countries even more of a reason to hate us?

Trump is like the petulant child that always wants to get his way and have the last word. I've never seen anyone interrupt someone more than this guy interrupts Clinton and the mediator.

And, as a woman, I sure as hell don't want some political male figure making decisions about my healthcare and what's best for me. He's not a part of my life, therefore, he should have no fucking say in what kind of healthcare I receive or don't receive.

[Blythe]

Trump saying early in the debate: "From the first day I become president this is what we'll do: we're going to begin building that wall against Mexico" and then find all Mexican druglords dwelling in the USA and smoke them out (more or less). "After that is done, we'll take care of the rest" (all other Mexican and Latino non-legal immigrants).

How long does he think that first step - to build the wall and root out the druglords - is going to take? My bet is it would take most of the coming four.year period, or even more. How much time has it taken, historically, to fight the Mob?  ;) And we're not even talking about his boast that he would make Mexico pay for the wall.

Trump kind of reminds me of the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte, particularly when he talks about drugs/druglords. :/

[Missy]

Trump kind of reminds me of the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte, particularly when he talks about drugs/druglords. :/

I remember making a joke about not voting or trump for that reason.

[CuriousEyes]

/sigh

I feel dirty

[ReijiTabibito]

Trump saying early in the debate: "From the first day I become president this is what we'll do: we're going to begin building that wall against Mexico" and then find all Mexican druglords dwelling in the USA and smoke them out (more or less). "After that is done, we'll take care of the rest" (all other Mexican and Latino non-legal immigrants).

Never mind the insanity of saying you're going to deal with a druglord in Mexico by dealing with them in the US.  One of the most notorious drug-lords in recent American history was Pablo Escobar, who (as far I'm aware of) never set foot in the US, but at the height of his power, shipped around 80% of the cocaine that was smuggled into the United States.  It took a joint Colombian-US task force to track down, capture, and then kill Escobar.

As for the rest...see below.

How much time has it taken, historically, to fight the Mob?  ;)

The drug trade is even worse than the Mob.  Consider The Godfather - you have Don Corleone, and his three sons: Sonny, Fredo, and Michael.  In the early stages of the film, it's pretty clear that Sonny is going to be the one running things for the Corleones once the Don is dead. 

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, GO WATCH IT NOW

When Sonny is killed via mass tommygun death at the road-toll, it's pretty clear that the parties who arranged it - which is eventually revealed to be Don Barzini - wanted the family gone and out of the way.  Killing Sonny made the most sense, as the Don was old, Fredo is largely acknowledged as incapable, and Michael is considered a civilian.

Any of the three could have taken over for the Don.  In the drug trade, it's worse, because a cartel is a pile upon pile of scenarios like that.  While people may make fun of them and depict them as corrupt and ineffective, the Mexican police force - such as the Federales - is actually really good at dealing with the cartels.  Of the 37 Most Wanted druglords in Mexico since their drug war began, 25 of them have been captured and 8 of them have been outright killed, leaving only 4 as still wanted.  And that's been since only 2009 - IE, the entire time Obama has been in office.  That's capturing 3 drug lords and killing 1 every year.  How often do you hear similar results about the Mob?

And, as a woman, I sure as hell don't want some political male figure making decisions about my healthcare and what's best for me. He's not a part of my life, therefore, he should have no fucking say in what kind of healthcare I receive or don't receive.

Does that mean that, as a man, I can say I won't want some political female figure making decisions about my healthcare and what's best for me?  And that Hillary isn't a part of my life, therefore, she should have no say in what sort of healthcare I get?

[TheGlyphstone]

Does that mean that, as a man, I can say I won't want some political female figure making decisions about my healthcare and what's best for me?  And that Hillary isn't a part of my life, therefore, she should have no say in what sort of healthcare I get?

If you want to take the analogy in its intended spirit, rather than by the letter, you'd say Hillary is not allowed to make decisions about your prostate and/or testicles, those being male-exclusive health care issues. But screenings for testicular cancer or prostate exams aren't in any way as much of a political football as their equivalent female-exclusive issues.

[persephone325]

Does that mean that, as a man, I can say I won't want some political female figure making decisions about my healthcare and what's best for me?  And that Hillary isn't a part of my life, therefore, she should have no say in what sort of healthcare I get?

When you have the responsibility of carrying, and caring for, another life inside you for 9 months... Then yes. You can have all the opinions in the world. Until then, no.

If you want to take the analogy in its intended spirit, rather than by the letter, you'd say Hillary is not allowed to make decisions about your prostate and/or testicles, those being male-exclusive health care issues. But screenings for testicular cancer or prostate exams aren't in any way as much of a political football as their equivalent female-exclusive issues.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. The hot button issue has been abortion, funding for planned parenthood, and screenings for breast cancer for women.

[ReijiTabibito]

If you want to take the analogy in its intended spirit, rather than by the letter, you'd say Hillary is not allowed to make decisions about your prostate and/or testicles, those being male-exclusive health care issues. But screenings for testicular cancer or prostate exams aren't in any way as much of a political football as their equivalent female-exclusive issues.

I don't, but some idiot certainly will.  Here's my take on the thing - if I'm going to allow someone other than me make decisions about healthcare for me, then I don't care what second chromosome they have, I just want to know that they're in the know and not an ignoramus when it comes to the issue.

When you have the responsibility of carrying, and caring for, another life inside you for 9 months... Then yes. You can have all the opinions in the world. Until then, no.

Isn't that technically sexist?  Never mind.  Move along, nothing to see here, absolutely nothing.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. The hot button issue has been abortion, funding for planned parenthood, and screenings for breast cancer for women.

The lattermost should not even be an issue.  How is that even a thing?

[TheGlyphstone]

I think it's because Planned Parenthood is one of the most prominent places that supplies/offers cheap breast cancer screenings. Could be wrong on that though.

[persephone325]

I don't, but some idiot certainly will.  Here's my take on the thing - if I'm going to allow someone other than me make decisions about healthcare for me, then I don't care what second chromosome they have, I just want to know that they're in the know and not an ignoramus when it comes to the issue.

Isn't that technically sexist?  Never mind.  Move along, nothing to see here, absolutely nothing.


The lattermost should not even be an issue.  How is that even a thing?

*heavy sigh, hangs head*

[TheGlyphstone]

*heavy sigh, hangs head*

Reiji isn't entirely wrong, though. For example, there are male gynecologists, and plenty of women have no issue seeing them. So "only a woman can possibly ever be an authority on female health issues" can't be a universal truth.

[Oniya]

Even a doctor doesn't make decisions for you.  Second opinions are a thing, as is switching doctors.  This is true regardless of the doctor's gender and/or specialty.  Your doctor could recommend a colonoscopy for you on your next appointment.  If you're under 50, with no history of cancer, you probably wouldn't be criticized by anyone for seeking a second opinion, or even refusing the procedure.  Your doctor can not force you to have a colonoscopy.

Someone passing a law that everyone must have an annual colonoscopy would be 'making that decision for you.'

Someone making it impossible for you to get a colonoscopy when you need it would be 'making that decision for you.'

Right now, politicians are attempting to make it difficult or impossible for women to get the medical care that they need - and fun fact:  Planned Parenthood also does STD screenings and cancer screenings for men, too.