TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[82_28]

Yes, that too. Savant, I have seen young people follow down the path to this shit he espouses (whether fake or not). One must take this shit seriously because it is "a thing" right now. TRUMP is seriously dangerous.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Why are young people following down that path? Why is it a "thing" right now? (rhetorical questions)

There is a root cause (or, various 'root' causes) facilitating this temptation by the young (and non-young) to even consider a word coming out of that orange neanderthal's mouth. TRUMP is not the root cause.

TRUMP is an inevitable result of certain machinations in place.

All that said, TRUMP is ultimately little more than a tool, and as Nordic and a few others have pointed out previously, will only remain in a 'spotlight' for as long as it may be a benefit to the few (or until he no longer fits the narrative)....

Unless: one may speculate that TRUMP is a true 'wild card', that he represents an unplanned/unanticipated 'phenomenon' , and (his campaign/popularity) may soon be un-manageable, with heretofore unforeseen consequences.

I for one doubt such a thing can occur at the national scale, and even if true, the phenomenon can be expunged when deemed appropriate.

[82_28]

No. I'm telling you this is a whole new ballgame and on a relatively much larger scale. Again I hope and I think it will all just blow over. Talk to Twyla about her sister who got sucked into the Colorado KKK surge all the way from Illinois. Racist fucks exist everywhere but inside Denver or inside Seattle do not hold much sway, just for examples. But they are insidious and have recruiters and shit. I know this for a fact. Granted my experience goes all the way back to the 90s. I don't know how they do it now.

[Iamwhomiam]

No. I'm telling you this is a whole new ballgame and on a relatively much larger scale. Again I hope and I think it will all just blow over.

From an old storm a new wave approaches; hear the rage of the howling wind? Sadly, it will not gently pass by without causing havoc.

[MacCruiskeen]

Is the world really going to have to endure another 330 days of this pro wrestling spectacle?

ıpıɐz uɐɹɯı ‏@i_zzzzzz

Please wake me up in 2096 when the presidential candidates are just two different cloud load balancing algorithms

"badass women"

[Wombaticus Rex]

Personally, I'd appreciate a bit more professional wrestling in politics, shit. At least I actually enjoy professional wrestling!

Lena Dunham announcing she'll be "campaigning" for Hillary is too perfect. Swear to fuck, liberals put in more work to discredit themselves than anyone collecting Koch money in 2015.

What alarms me more than anything -- from the sane, responsible adult perspective I strive to maintain for at least a few hours per week -- is the fact that US politics is simply a culture war based on scoring points. Infrastructure maintenance and legislation barely figure into it. All foreign actors have to do is keep escalating the rhetoric: they don't even need agents inside our borders to subvert the system anymore.

When psyops become indistinguishable from organic stupidity...

[MacCruiskeen]

Lena Dunham announcing she'll be "campaigning" for Hillary is too perfect. Swear to fuck, liberals put in more work to discredit themselves than anyone collecting Koch money in 2015.

Well, it seems that that's what the word "feminist" is being made to signify in 2015: any insufferably spoilt and entitled American millionaire who happens to sport a vagina.

A victory for Hillary is a victory for feminism.

(Not fond of the green-ink-for-sarcasm thing, but considering current sensitivities it's best to avoid any possible misunderstandings.)

Back on-topic:

A victory for Trump is a victory for all men everywhere.

[Elvis]

A victory for Hillary is a victory for feminism.

+

A victory for Trump is a victory for all men everywhere.

= DREAM TICKET!

[Elvis]

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CWT7O7qWIAAZ24j.mp4

[Iamwhomiam]

Who will trim the fringe from the Republican Party?

By Rachel Maddow, Commentary
Published 6:07 pm, Tuesday, December 15, 2015

In the three years since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., one of the more inexplicable aspects of its aftermath has been the persistence of the insane conspiracy theory that the killings never really happened.

Sandy Hook "truthers" contend that the incident was either faked in its entirety, or, if it was real, was committed by the government for some sort of political effect.

I'm an optimist about the basic decency of the American people, so I prefer to think that the Newtown "false flag" myth is too repulsive and cruel to persist organically on its own merits. As far as I can tell, the main reason it's still with us today is because it has been embraced by America's industrial-size factory farm of conspiracy theories: the radio show and Web empire of Alex Jones.

Jones says, "Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake, with actors, in my view manufactured. I couldn't believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids."

On the morning of Dec. 2, Jones hosted an extended, live interview with Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump. After about 30 minutes of mutual compliments, and Jones telling Trump that "about 90 percent" of his listeners support him, the presidential candidate wrapped things up by telling Jones, "Your reputation is amazing."

That same day, after that interview, 14 people were killed and 21 others were injured in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. Within hours of that news breaking, Jones and his website — predictably — were hosting discussions of how San Bernardino, like Newtown, like the Boston Marathon bombing, and of course like 9/11, was a hoax. Either it didn't happen, or if it did, it was perpetuated by the government to bring about who knows, gun control, maybe? Mind control? Something about aliens? Concentration camps?

Mr. Trump is not the only presidential candidate to flirt with this particular strand of the American fringe. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and his father before him have made frequent appearances in that wild territory for years. But aside from an outsize media fascination with each of them, neither Paul has ever been anything other than an asterisk in presidential politics.

Trump is a different punctuation mark entirely.

Now, the guy trading compliments with Jones is the Republican Party's likely nominee — the candidate who is all but lapping the rest of the field in recent polling.

It's one of those situations in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts: It may not be that crazy that Trump is embracing Jones, and it may not be that crazy that Trump is leading the Republican presidential field. But to have the leader of the Republican presidential field embracing someone like Jones? That's nuts. That's something new.

In this new political reality, it's time to figure out what it will mean to follow the leader of the Republican Party.

Acceptable affiliations and positions in that party are now effectively being set by a candidate who still maintains that President Obama is secretly foreign, who apparently seriously intends to hang a "No Muslims Allowed" sign on all U.S. borders and who finds "amazing" America's foremost trafficker in the almost-too-disgusting-to-repeat lie that the grieving families of all those little 5- and 6-year-old boys and girls in Newtown faked their children's deaths for some nefarious political cause. Amazing indeed.

Iowa and New Hampshire are just weeks away — the time has passed for either surprise or denial about the rise of Trump as the GOP's likely 2016 nominee. It's time to face the fact that Republican voters are far enough into this process that they know what they're getting with Trump, and they've decided that they like it, more and more all the time.

What I'm genuinely perplexed by, though, is how it's going to change the Republican Party — how it's going to change what counts as normal and acceptable in that party — to have Trump as its standard-bearer.

When Popular Mechanics published its seminal debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., wrote the forward to that book. In his 2008 presidential campaign, McCain was happy to set straight his own supporters who called then-Sen. Barack Obama "an Arab" and more besides.

Mitt Romney was not exactly a profile in courage against the nuttier elements of the 2012-era GOP base — who can forget his bizarre Trump-endorses-Romney extravaganza in Las Vegas, complete with a gold-embossed, Trump-branded podium and a big bank of American flags?

But when pressed on Trump's signature hang-up about Obama's birth certificate, Romney was straightforward and clear: "There's no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S."

Leadership has its burdens. Among them is the necessity of correcting and redirecting the well-meaning folks on your own side who are attracted to dangerous conspiracy theories.

There will always be someone out there cooking this stuff up and selling it to the unhinged and gullible. But that just makes it a workaday responsibility of political leaders to make sure this stuff doesn't get mainstreamed. I'm not saying we've always been great at that, but at the level of presidential nominees, we've at least recently had the benefit of candidates who see it as their responsibility to try.

Who will take on that role in the 2016-era Republican Party if and when it decides that the wild-eyed conspiratorial fringe isn't just welcome on the edges of their party anymore; it's in charge? Who can?

http://tinyurl.com/njq9trw

[Grizzly]

dangerous conspiracy theories, the unhinged and gullible ...lol

Fuck Maddow ...

[backtoiam]

Yes, and fuck that piece of smear by association propaganda. It collected everything but the trash and smeared it all together. Welcome to the Nation of ISIS, we hope you have a good time.

[Iamwhomiam]

Yeah, I thought you'd find it amusing.

Not ISIS funny, but still...

Please note she said "Insane conspiracy theory," (proposing that no children were killed at Sandy Hook) And I agree it is insane to believe this.

Do you really think it matters to those with the power to initiate and follow though such a scenario as that which took place at Sandy Hook, whether a few kids died; that they would go to pains of staging dozens of deaths and all that goes with perpetually maintaining that storyline through crisis actors?

Why not just kill them and create true terror and save yourself the trouble of maintaining a complex false narrative?

Also, taking her words out of context loses the meaning of what's being said, Grizzly.

"There will always be someone out there cooking this stuff up and selling it to the unhinged and gullible." And that is most certainly true.

It's terrible to smear Alex Jones, backtoiam? Or Trump for thinking Alex's great?

Can't say I disagree with much of anything Maddow's written there.

I said before the end of the Republican Party is at hand; Donald is its death knell.

Maddow's not condemning all conspiracy theorists, just the insane one's pushing false narratives with utter disregard for the harm their foolish claims can cause real victims.

[stickdog99]

Show us please, right now, IAWIA, why you think the Farooks are obviously guilty of mass murder.

I want to see your evidence and critical reasoning at work. Don't delay waiting for the next corporate news cycle to help you. Let us all understand your train of reasoning now.

[Iamwhomiam]

You are off topic, stickdog. Ask your question in the appropriate thread and I'll answer your questions there later.

This thread, like Maddow's piece, is about Trump.

Sorry, 82.