I think Trump’s candidacy is a positive thing simply because it’s getting people interested in politics.
I disagree. An engaged and interested public is the cornerstone of democracy. We need the public to be engaged to keep the politicians under control. I could cite TTIP from the U.K. POV.
Suppose he calls for American Muslim-born babies to be made available to Christian families in forced closed adoptions. Then when there’s an extreme reaction, he walks it back to exempt Muslim families where the parents are citizens or military members.* This would get even more people interested in politics! Would that be better yet?
I don’t see why getting people interested in politics is either good or bad. It depends why they are interested. If they are more interested because of increasing bigotry, that’s not good.
*EDITED: I added this sentence to make the hypothetical more realistic.
Yeah, but most people don’t care about politics unless they are upset about something. Apathy is a sign of contentment.
Sure, I’d love an involved, intelligent electorate, but that’s not what we have. What we have is a country where there are about fifty more interesting things for the average person to do than vote, and when voting becomes the most important thing on their schedule, that’s usually a sign of trouble.
All the Trump inspired “terror” will probably look like a slow weekend in Baltimore or Chiraq.
I’m glad someone used the bottle analogy, because anything that brings racists out into the open is positive. They need to have their views debated in public, not to feel like they are an oppressed minority who act as if they can’t speak freely. That just bottles up the rage until there’s an explosion.
What Trump is doing is allowing these folks to let off some steam in a harmless way. In the way they should: through the democratic process.
I hope you’re right. I’ll never forget the “Second amendment solutions” quote from Michele Bachmann. We (Some of us in US) seem to be getting really impatient with democracy, in a really rude way. I think it’s unprecedented in the mass media age. Like “If I don’t get my white president, and all my guns, and you gotta lose too!!!.. then I’m gonna sabotage this party… Phooey!”
positive in one sense; it does show that its not just a bunch of conservative pundits upset with political correctness. I’m a Bill Maher Democrat in that sense; I believe gays and lesbians should have equal rights but the kind of atmosphere that makes the denial of a gay wedding cake national news, or elevates Bruce Jenner to some high moral ground is something not only Republicans can be upset about. Even tho conservative and moderate Dems (like me) will mostly vote for Clinton, it will at least move her in the general to pay attention to the fact a libertarianesque sentiment exists. Positive in also that it will elect Hillary, who would’ve been 1000x better than Obama, and will undo some of the bad he’s done (like dishonouring Israel and making America look wishy washy). I like most of what O has done with ACA, stem cell, gay marriage, environment, but dislike a lot of his foreign policy and hate most things he says (chiming in on George Zimmerman’s innocence or guilt was unpresidential, aside from his lack of American exceptionalism and lack of public honor for Israel).
Trump’s presence is negative in that it has lowered the discourse on immigration. Illegals do the jobs Americans won’t. The last thing we need is to just toss 10 million people out, both for our economy and morality. Bad in that a guy can lie about a lot of substantive stuff and move up in the polls. Trump has also given the far-left an easy foil to poo-poo Radical Islam, at least for the moment.
I think that “illegals do the jobs Americans won’t” actually lowers the discourse. Illegals do the jobs for prices Americans won’t accept. Before mass immigration from Mexico, Americans did all the jobs. Not to say that every job was held by an Americans, but that any given job had plenty of Americans doing it. Now many jobs have only immigrants doing them, and that’s because they’ll take less money. And to the extent that legal immigrants compete with Americans, that’s fine. But it’s time to empty out these illegal workplaces and send these people home. We also need to get more serious about identity theft as a means to obtain employment illegally. It should be standard procedure to flag unusual activity and inform the owners or next of kin of odd use of SS numbers, such as people supposedly having jobs in two states, or children or dead people having jobs.
Of course, that would be sensible populism that Trump could use.
But I do think you’re right that Trump’s rise is also in part a rejection of political correctness. We should be able to talk about anything in politics if it matters. We can disagree on what to do about certain groups bringing higher rates of this or that social ill, but it shouldn’t be taboo to discuss it.
Not that ridiculous. If he wins the nomination then a bunch of the sane republicans will stay home. If he loses the nomination then his crazies will stay home. If he runs independent even better (for the democrats). And in future, since he’s legitimised all of his offensive opinions, even if he doesn’t run again in 4 years time there will still be a braying mass of loons that the Rebublicans have to pander to which drives away swing voters.
His crazies aren’t voters anyway so it doesn’t really change anything if they stay home.
You got a shred of evidence for that?
Only the numerous articles posted in this thread and the Trump campaign thread that his voters aren’t likely to turn out and that many don’t normally vote.
I’m a liberal Democrat and I voted ‘Positive’ because (a) it’s bad for the Republican party and (b) it’s good for the lulz.
Well, it has been bad for the GOP, no doubt about that. Although possibly good in the long run. We need to figure out what our identity will be. Personally, I’d like to be the intellectual party and let the Democrats go back to being the party of the poor. We’re losing too many voters we should be winning over issues that have nothing to do with the policies the federal government has the most influence on: taxes, spending, regulations, trade, immigration, foreign policy. We should not be losing elections because of gays, creationism, tribalism(real America vs. their America), abortion, and climate change.
Maybe Trump will be positive in the long run by forcing my favored party to have that internal fight and come out of it a better party.
That’s what the conventional wisdom is, but the CW has been wrong every step of the way about the Trump campaign.
True, but actual voting tends to clarify things nicely. The CW also says Trump can’t win the election, yet the polls say he’s capable of it. What I’ll be watching for in Iowa is if Trump actually increases turnout. If he does, that’s a warning sign, because any voter who will caucus for Trump will certainly do the much easier task of just voting on election day.
Well then I’m sure you can provide a cite since I’ve never seen a poll that showed Trump has a realistic chance against Clinton. Links please?
She leads in the RCP average by 6, with less than 50% of the vote.
There are a couple of earlier polls that show Trump leading, and remember that registered voter polls historically give a 3 point benefit to the Democrats, so her actual lead is closer to 3.
Definitely a positive thing, in general. I don’t really fit well into the American political spectrum (I like to use ‘neoreactionary communist’ as a self identifier- far left on economics and foreign policy, hard right on a few cultural issues like abortion, immigration etc.).
I don’t see myself voting for any Republican, ever, but the Donald is probably the Republican I dislike the least, because of his moderate stands on economics and foreign policy and also his unwillingness to toe the line of establishment conventional wisdom.
This implies that the Republican base is thoughtful and acquainted with reason, or might become so at any time in the future. The fact is, they won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t lie to them, then they are enraged when their candidates fail to deliver on those hollow promises. They have been the party of anti-intellectualism for so long, they can no longer distinguish reality from right-wing fantasy, and when those concepts collide, it results in a melt down that produces a lot of heat, but no light. The Republican Party is in a death spiral, with no hope of recovery.