Say, here about the nonstop coverage of the Trump protesters? Isn't this what you left wingers want, 24/7 coverage of Trump? IF not, then why stage violent protests at his rallies?
Say, here about the nonstop coverage of the Trump protesters? Isn't this what you left wingers want, 24/7 coverage of Trump? IF not, then why stage violent protests at his rallies?
Why?
To make the whole thing ffing funnier than it already is.
You can't have enough Drumpf threads.
Really!
I'm just waiting for people to start singing the theme to Goldfinger to finally ram the nail into the coffin of 'this is too good to be true'.
"The Donald" loves the limelight, he loves attention, he loves the sound of his own voice. "The Donald's" campaign is one big reality TV show. "The Donald" is the political equivalent of Howard Stern, anything for a photo op. "The Donald" even gives passive encouragement to the violence against those who disagree with him, as well as reporters who cover his events. I agree with some of Trump's ideas, but will never vote for him. He is an embarrassment.
It's a small wonder Obama's approval rating is at an all time high, considering the behavior of many of the other candidates.
Originally posted by shavixmir Yeah... way more important than the Vietnam war, Watergate, The Iran-contra scandal, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo...
Drumpf is way more important than any of that....
*Insert rolling eyes*
The Vietnam war was was not a political story. Nor were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The re-alignment of the party system and the disintegration of the Republican party as the voters ignore the establishment and nominate a wild insurgent is far more significant a political story than Iran-Contra. Perhaps one could make an argument for Watergate being more significant, but that's it.
Originally posted by sh76 The Vietnam war was was not a political story. Nor were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The re-alignment of the party system and the disintegration of the Republican party as the voters ignore the establishment and nominate a wild insurgent is far more significant a political story than Iran-Contra. Perhaps one could make an argument for Watergate being more significant, but that's it.
I doubt it will be deemed more "significant" in the long run than either Iran-Contra or Watergate. I do not think the Republican party will disintegrate like the Whigs did; much more likely is that after Trump is badly defeated in November (should he get the nomination which is not a certainty) the rules will be adjusted to make such an event far less likely in the future (I suspect we'll see more closed primaries on the GOP side in 2020).
Moreover, the Presidential nomination process shouldn't be overestimated as a sign of a political party's strength - the Republicans still hold both houses of Congress and a solid majority of State legislatures and governorships. Now if that changes in November than perhaps the Trump story will reach the political significance of say Southern realignment in the 1980s but I'd be surprised if that happens.
Originally posted by no1marauder I doubt it will be deemed more "significant" in the long run than either Iran-Contra or Watergate. I do not think the Republican party will disintegrate like the Whigs did; much more likely is that after Trump is badly defeated in November (should he get the nomination which is not a certainty) the rules will be adjusted to make such an event far less li ...[text shortened]... ical significance of say Southern realignment in the 1980s but I'd be surprised if that happens.
I that's what happens, then fine. But the story is about its potential. If Trump does get elected President or if the Republic party does fundamentally shift in the wake of this, it will be a seismic shift in American politics.
Iran-Contra turns out to have not done much to the political landscape as I see no evidence that Reagan's popularity or historical legacy was damaged by it much, if at all.
Originally posted by sh76 I that's what happens, then fine. But the story is about its potential. If Trump does get elected President or if the Republic party does fundamentally shift in the wake of this, it will be a seismic shift in American politics.
Iran-Contra turns out to have not done much to the political landscape as I see no evidence that Reagan's popularity or historical legacy was damaged by it much, if at all.
But I thought that "hope and change" was a seismic shift. 😲
Originally posted by sh76 The Vietnam war was was not a political story. Nor were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The re-alignment of the party system and the disintegration of the Republican party as the voters ignore the establishment and nominate a wild insurgent is far more significant a political story than Iran-Contra. Perhaps one could make an argument for Watergate being more significant, but that's it.
Those wars weren't political stories?
So, no politics involved what-so-ever????
No more Trump threads
12 Mar '16 06:093 edits
Back to Top