This election has gotten so polarized, with such high stakes as I have never seen. The whole world is watching, if not actually contributing. And the race seems to be in a dead-heat. And the world's volatility, skittishness and violence has been escalating alarmingly. Is it just me, or does this seem to be a recipe for a pre-election assasination attempt on one or the other candidate?
Heh. No. (whaderyoo tryin to sic the Feds on me??) Not my pig, not my farm. My farm has igloos and polar bears.
Things like assassination attempts are always a concern. I don't know if things are more polarized than ever before. The late sixties and early seventies come to mind. The biggest difference that I see is the change in the nature of the polarization. Tension ultimately resulting from competing economic theories and conflicting social needs, are one thing. How much to tax, how much to spend and on what, trade agreements, the size of the military and our choices in using power, are all within the realm of legitimate political differences. But this election is another animal altogether. This is about right and wrong. Are we to be a nation led by a con man who seeks the use of torture, mass murder, carpet bombing, religious tests, a man who openly praises dictators who kill journalists or anyone in their way, and be led by fear and divisiveness? This election is a choice between good and evil, however you care to define those ideas, and nothing less. Trump is a monster. I've never said that about anyone in the US election process in over half a century on this earth. Do we really have a nation ready to be led by a monster? Apparently 40% of this nation is happily in his camp in spite of the objections of the entire free world. That is not a matter of political polarization. That is decency polarization. It is a divide between those who have been brainwashed by greedy and evil people, and those who haven't.
As an outsider from down under, we do get pretty good coverage of the US political situation. The way I see it from "outside" is that there must be a hell of a lot of disgruntled citizens in the US for someone like Trump to have ever gotten this far. Truly, and without any attempt at exaggeration, I see him as mad and as extreme as Hitler.
Anyone familiar with on-ling gambling over the elections? Do the bookies offer point spreads like in ball games? So far, (the last time I checked) the mutual betting odds place Clinton at close to a 2:1 advantage over Trump. (Is the politically correct money betting on Clinton?)
If you look back into the history of America it has done all that by other leaders of America. Look at the Vietnam war and what you have stated was done during that war and a Democrat started it, Kennedy. Of course Nixon did his part as well so the finger pointing goes both ways. America has been lead by con men for decades now and they are just getting more publicity nowadays than they did before. When you are dealing with opponents that do the same thing like torture and kill innocents then you must do the same back to them or you will lose the war. So calling Trump anything negative could be used against many past presidents. I see that you don't condemn the terrorists and dictator leaders for their flagrant methods of terror and fear they spread. There isn't a way to solve the problems that terrorists bring because as you stop one terrorist another will take their place. There isn't any easy answers to this situation.
Bullshit. The "both sides" narrative is the Republican think tank line, a media deception invented by the media operatives of the corporate rightwing authoritarian faction to escape responsibility for the consequences of its past thirty five years of political influence and success. This site calculates the odds as an entertainment, from the wagers offered and taken: https://www.betfairpredicts.com There is no such thing. The use of "politically correct" as a deception for the unwary has had crippling effects on the reasoning of the American right. (Notice that it is never used for the politically motivated censorship and vocabulary abuse of the rightwing media). America has never been led by a man like Trump - neither has any other major industrial power since WWII. No. It's the other way around - if you adopt their way of doing things, you have been defeated. How about: Completely inexperienced, and lacking in basic knowledge of the workings of the job.
This is the best I've been able to come up with too. To wit: Perhaps the only thing Americans hate more than a loud-mouthed boor running their country is an actual politician running their country. Been there done that. I guess.
Nah. You might compare him with Mussolini, sort of, but not Hitler. Two from among the differences: Hitler put his own base together, from years of street level politics and consistent efforts - even his own political Party. Trump just took over the collection of fundies and bigots the Republican Party had pre-assembled for him over decades of pandering and media barrage. Hitler had a core group of loyal supporters and fellow believers in the cause who had stuck with him for a long time, through the good and the bad. Trump doesn't appear to have that.
But will such differences be enough to actually make a difference? Maybe what is necessary for political victory (nowadays) aren't loyal supporters and a solid home base, but just a following of uncommitted in the long-term, but temporarily intensely supportive fans? Some cults survive not because they would have loyal supporters and a solid home base, but as people join, even if for a relatively short time, they are intensely devoted to the cause, making the cult successful, even as membership rapidly changes. Or, a less sinister analogy: The workplace. People are hired by a company, usually not for life, work hard as long as they can, and then when they can't work at the demanded pace anymore, leave or are fired. The company lives on, successfully, even though the factors making it successful, ie. the people, are expendable and replacable. Maybe politics can be done by this model too. Maybe a political option can actually afford to treat its voters as expendable and replacable.
In the governing, they would have to. If the only similarity between Trump and Hitler was that they both got themselves elected, I doubt the comparison would come up. Not if it expects to govern.
It's not clear this is the case. Given the sort of strife (especially psychological and moral) people are willing to endure just so they can keep a job, perhaps the principles of effective governance have changed, also on state level, to the point that people will support even someone who openly doesn't care about them.
