View Full Version : The Donald is dropping out...
What?! Could this really happen? What would it mean for the GOP?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/insiders-to-trump-drop-out-226689
He's given no indication that he plans to drop out. But if he did, a new candidate would need to be chosen by the Republican National Committee. The Clinton campaign would then need to pivot from decrying the awfulness of Trump to the much more difficult task of concealing the awfulness of Clinton.
What a country we are this year. It's a little disconcerting......:(
Chicken lady
8-5-16, 8:51am
It would be cool if he dropped out and there wasn't time to name a replacement. I'd like to see how many people would vote libertarian or green because they no longer felt they had anything to lose....
While he certainly gives the appearance of a man desperately trying to get out of this race I'll believe it when I see it. My impression that he's trying to quit without quitting may just be my normalcy bias of what actions would indicate someone was trying to intentionally not win the election. Perhaps it's actually that he's so remarkably self-centered that he really honestly doesn't have the ability to realize how his words and actions will be perceived.
At this point it doesn't much matter one way or the other. If he stays in he looks poised to lose badly. If he drops out his replacement will lose badly because his rabid supporters will insist that he was pushed out by the Republican establishment. Either way I think it's probably time to make more popcorn. The show isn't over yet.
Ultralight
8-5-16, 11:15am
I've been to eight county fairs and one goat rodeo but this election sure does beat all!
Ultralight
8-5-16, 11:22am
With every mistake The Donald makes I just think:
"How did the GOP let this happen?"
iris lilies
8-5-16, 11:52am
Except he is nt dropping out.
Ultralight
8-5-16, 11:53am
Except he is nt dropping out.
You are committing to this prediction?
The Harvard Republican Club would be happy:
https://medium.com/@HarvardGOP/harvard-republican-club-refuses-to-endorse-donald-trump-9f08e8bb5b21#.1nu8lbl0o
Dear Members and Alumni,
In every presidential election since 1888, the members and Executive Board of the Harvard Republican Club have gathered to discuss, debate, and eventually endorse the standard-bearer of our party. But for the first time in 128 years, we, the oldest College Republicans chapter in the nation, will not be endorsing the Republican nominee.
Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.
If enacted, Donald Trump’s platform would endanger our security both at home and abroad. Domestically, his protectionist trade policies and draconian immigration restrictions would enlarge our federal deficit, raise prices for consumers, and throw our economy back into recession. Trump’s global outlook, steeped in isolationism, is considerably out-of-step with the traditional Republican stance as well. The flippancy with which he is willing to abdicate the United States’ responsibility to lead is alarming. Calling for the US’ withdrawal from NATO and actively endorsing nuclear proliferation, Donald Trump’s foreign policy would wreak havoc on the established world order which has held aggressive foreign powers in check since World War II.
Perhaps most importantly, however, Donald Trump simply does not possess the temperament and character necessary to lead the United States through an increasingly perilous world. The last week should have made obvious to all what has been obvious to most for more than a year. In response to any slight –perceived or real– Donald Trump lashes out viciously and irresponsibly. In Trump’s eyes, disagreement with his actions or his policies warrants incessant name calling and derision: stupid, lying, fat, ugly, weak, failing, idiot –and that’s just his “fellow” Republicans.
He isn’t eschewing political correctness. He is eschewing basic human decency.
Donald Trump, despite spending more than a year on the campaign trail, has either refused or been unable to educate himself on issues that matter most to Americans like us. He speaks only in platitudes, about greatness, success, and winning. Time and time again, Trump has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge on critical matters, meandering from position to position over the course of the election. When confronted about these frequent reversals, Trump lies in a manner more brazen and shameless than anything politics has ever seen.
Millions of people across the country are feeling despondent. Their hours have been cut, wages slashed, jobs even shipped overseas. But Donald Trump doesn’t have a plan to fix that. He has a plan to exploit that.
Donald Trump is a threat to the survival of the Republic. His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy. He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children.
President Reagan called on us to maintain this, our shining city on a hill. He called on us to maintain freedom abroad by keeping a strong presence in the world. He called on us to maintain liberty at home by upholding the democratic process and respecting our opponents. He called on us to maintain decency in our hearts by loving our neighbor.
He would be ashamed of Donald Trump. We are too.
This fall, we will instead focus our efforts on reclaiming the Republican Party from those who have done it considerable harm, campaigning for candidates who will uphold the conservative principles that have defined the Republican Party for generations. We will work to ensure both chambers of Congress remain in Republican hands, continuing to protect against executive overreach regardless of who wins the election this November.
We call on our party’s elected leaders to renounce their support of Donald Trump, and urge our fellow College Republicans to join us in condemning and withholding their endorsement from this dangerous man. The conservative movement in America should not and will not go quietly into the night.
A longtime student of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
De Tocqueville believed in the United States. Americans are a decent people. We work hard, protect our own, and look out for one another in times of need, regardless of the color of our skin, the God we worship, or our party registration. Donald Trump may not believe in that America, but we do. And that America will never cease to be great.
The Harvard Republican Club
iris lilies
8-5-16, 12:17pm
You are committing to this prediction?
If you remember, my prediction is that Trump will indeed drop out, but that is after he's been elected. After 2-3 years of finding that he cannot do anything he damned well pleases in the White Bouse, he will quit. He will become a quitter. Only in Donald terms it will be something like "I was a success! A BIG success! The Wall, it os practically built, all theyve gotta do now is build it. And Get .mexico to fund it. Yeah, thats all that is left, my work is dne here!"
but i. Reality Hillary will win because the tide tirned 4-6 years ago and the majority of coters are Democrats. It is that simple and there will never be another Republican President.
Except he is nt dropping out.
I don't think he will drop out. His great practical joke on the Republicans must run its course.
Ultralight
8-5-16, 12:27pm
It is that simple and there will never be another Republican President.
LOL!
With every mistake The Donald makes I just think:
"How did the GOP let this happen?"
I blame the open primary system. Lots of people who never participated in the GOP candidate selection process before jumped in this year. I also blame the GOP candidates and hierarchy for not working out a smaller list of candidates earlier to allow the reasonable majority of GOP voters to coalesce around. The media had a role in providing Trump so much air time early on especially; perhaps confirming the adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Finally, I have to assign some responsibility to the majority of rank and file traditional Republicans, who didn't turn out in large enough numbers during the primaries.
This should have been a nightmare year for the Democrats, but the GOP allowed this erratic, obnoxious fellow to hijack one of our county's great institutions. One can almost envy the Clinton machine's ability to intimidate strong potential candidates from entering the race and utilization of the party's infrastructure in areas like scheduling debates, superdelegates, etc., to prevent their fringe candidate from gaining the nomination.
With every mistake The Donald makes I just think:
"How did the GOP let this happen?"
The GOP *made* this happen - it was inevitable.
If you dig around, you'll find my accounts of my participation in the last presidential election cycle as a delegate, running from the local caucus up to the convention.
It was my take-away then that the Republican Party "leadership" was completely divorced from the people, and had no real attachment to the principles of the party, or to winning elections - that they were more focused on retaining *control* of the party, the funding, the influence-peddling, the back-room candidate selection. They turned away an entire generation or two of excited 50 year-old-and-younger voters last time.
Dinosaurs, stumbling to their demise.
Donald Trump jumped onto this weakness, and hijacked the party nomination. The party itself is toast. And given how they are acting during their death throes, it is unlikely I will ever vote for a Republican for any position ever again - I presume I am not alone in my thinking.
Good riddance.
I'm hoping this cycle's Sanders run and the treatment of his supporters by the mainstream Democratic Party will have the same effect on the Democrats...
I don't think he will drop out. His great practical joke on the Republicans must run its course.
This is all about the Donald. And when the Donald has decided he doesn't want to do it anymore I expect he'll blame his supporters for not supporting enough and walk.
Teacher Terry
8-5-16, 1:11pm
A friend of mine watches Morning Joe and it is a talk/news show and people were saying the REpub's were trying to figure out a legal way to get rid of Trump and run someone else which I thought was interesting.
A friend of mine watches Morning Joe and it is a talk/news show and people were saying the REpub's were trying to figure out a legal way to get rid of Trump and run someone else which I thought was interesting.
Well, to be fair, the Republicans and the Democrats are just private political clubs, with their own bylaws and such. I don't see any mention of them in the Constitution of either our nation or my state. So I presume they are allowed to make their own rules, and enforce them in a way they see fit.
I'm always curious why we spend public dollars holding primary elections for these clubs...
Dinosaurs, stumbling to their demise.
They have made it difficult to entertain any other view.
I'm hoping this cycle's Sanders run and the treatment of his supporters by the mainstream Democratic Party will have the same effect on the Democrats...
A lovely thought, but I'm afraid that dinosaur may survive the asteroid. Here's hoping the Democratic mammals evolve quickly.
A friend of mine watches Morning Joe and it is a talk/news show and people were saying the REpub's were trying to figure out a legal way to get rid of Trump and run someone else which I thought was interesting.
Not that I'd ever want to dump it - but we are seeing there are downsides to democracy. Funny thing is if there hadn't been such a large field of candidates, we probably would not be where we are right now. The anti-establishment folks were backing one candidate (Trump), while the rest of the votes were split across other choices.
Dropping out would be worse for the brand than losing. You can always blame the voters for sitting on their *hands* if you lose. IL's theory of a few years languishing in the face of what would surely be incredible levels of bureaucracy before throwing in the towel seems most plausible (in the event Trump wins the election, that is).
iris lilies
8-5-16, 2:07pm
Not that I'd ever want to dump it - but we are seeing there are downsides to democracy. Funny thing is if there hadn't been such a large field of candidates, we probably would not be where we are right now. The anti-establishment folks were backing one candidate (Trump), while the rest of the votes were split across other choices.
A case could be made for Cruz and Paul to be "anti- establishment" though of,course they are currently srving in
The Senate.
A case could be made for Cruz and Paul to be "anti- establishment" though of,course they are currently srving in
The Senate.
It would probably be fair to say that Cruz was less popular in the GOP than Trump (until recently).
Miss Cellane
8-5-16, 3:41pm
I blame the open primary system. Lots of people who never participated in the GOP candidate selection process before jumped in this year. I also blame the GOP candidates and hierarchy for not working out a smaller list of candidates earlier to allow the reasonable majority of GOP voters to coalesce around. The media had a role in providing Trump so much air time early on especially; perhaps confirming the adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Finally, I have to assign some responsibility to the majority of rank and file traditional Republicans, who didn't turn out in large enough numbers during the primaries.
This should have been a nightmare year for the Democrats, but the GOP allowed this erratic, obnoxious fellow to hijack one of our county's great institutions. One can almost envy the Clinton machine's ability to intimidate strong potential candidates from entering the race and utilization of the party's infrastructure in areas like scheduling debates, superdelegates, etc., to prevent their fringe candidate from gaining the nomination.
I agree. I veer between, "The Republicans thought Trump would just stop campaigning in a few months," to "The Republicans couldn't get their act together to promote one decent candidate," to "Is the entire leadership of the Republican Party that stupid?"
Yet I have one Facebook acquaintance who is still posting anti-Clinton messages. She is a staunch Republican. I get that a lot of people aren't thrilled with her. But seriously, given a choice, you'd pick Trump just because he is Republican? I admit that as an "undeclared" voter, I always choose the candidate I think will do the most good for the country/state/county/town, or at least the least harm, so I do not understand the need or desire to vote along party lines.
I wonder if (hopefully) he loses (surely he will), if all his followers will revolt somehow? They are pretty much angry people and I just wonder how they'll react.
Every once in a while you hear that maybe this is a big ruse on Trump's part. That almost seems possible, since it's all too outrageous to even believe.
But seriously, given a choice, you'd pick Trump just because he is Republican? I admit that as an "undeclared" voter, I always choose the candidate I think will do the most good for the country/state/county/town, or at least the least harm, so I do not understand the need or desire to vote along party lines.
Given the choice, I'll vote for Gary Johnson, as he's on the ballot in all 50 states.
I wonder if (hopefully) he loses (surely he will), if all his followers will revolt somehow? They are pretty much angry people and I just wonder how they'll react.
At least, that's what the media tells you....
What does "revolt" mean, in this context?
Oh........just smashing store windows, setting things on fire, etc.
I haven't heard the media say this........have I missed it?
I haven't heard the media say this........have I missed it?
I was referring to your "They are pretty much angry people" comment.
Trends against Trump, and the fools running the GOP:
http://priceonomics.com/why-is-hillary-clinton-the-favorite-because-of/
Given the choice, I'll vote for Gary Johnson, as he's on the ballot in all 50 states.
That is a vote for Hillary.
That is a vote for Hillary.
Nope.
Nope.
Come on, bae! You mean you won't fall for that tired, unimaginative, and inaccurate refrain!?
I was referring to your "They are pretty much angry people" comment.
So who do you think is attracted to Trump?
So who do you think is attracted to Trump?
You are the one that made the claim "they are pretty much angry people" - ball is in your court to demonstrate that claim, perhaps with something more convincing than a handful of astounding clickbait media snippets.
The ones in my county's Republican caucus didn't seem like particularly angry folks, nor are they angry folks in their daily lives. But that's just anecdote, from one county, the most liberal county in the state. Whereas the Bernie folks at the Democratic caucus, and the Hillary folks, all seemed pretty angry at the caucus, though most of them are pleasant enough in real life. Again, anecdote. And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Do you know personally a large number of angry Trump supporters, as a proportion of the whole population of Trump supporters in your community?
Or are you buying into whatever spin is being sold today?
I know a few Trump supporters and I would describe them as fearful rather than angry.
ApatheticNoMore
8-5-16, 9:57pm
A 3rd party won't win. But at least it might save your soul (ie your mind and your principles), and in many states it doesn't matter anyway so there is really no reason NOT to vote 3rd party there. If I vote 3rd party I'm going with Jill Stein as only she (and Trump although he's not trustworthy) are against the TPP and other similar trade agreements. Winner take all voting systems always tend toward 2 parties, you can't change it, unless you change the voting system.
The best word I can find to describe the Trump supporters I know is paranoid. A small sample size, however. I have not totally ruled out voting for a 3rd party.
The Harvard Republican Club would be happy:
The Harvard Republican Club? I can't imagine Republicans are thick on the ground in Cambridge.
The Harvard Republican Club? I can't imagine Republicans are thick on the ground in Cambridge.
Republicans can be found in some of the most surprising places. I even know an admitted one here in San Francisco. (Well, actually he lives in Oakland). Rock solid Trump supporter and the only Canadian I've ever met who thinks the US healthcare system is better than the Canadian one.
Deepak Chopra wrote an article recently that was pretty insightful explaining that the reason Trump has done so well is because he has attracted our "shadow" side. I think he has a point.. he gives people permission to acknowledge the parts of our selves that we normally keep under wraps, with good reason.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-deepak-chopra-donald-trump-is-americas-shadow/
iris lilies
8-6-16, 9:20pm
Deepak Chopra wrote an article recently that was pretty insightful explaining that the reason Trump has done so well is because he has attracted our "shadow" side. I think he has a point.. he gives people permission to acknowledge the parts of our selves that we normally keep under wraps, with good reason.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-deepak-chopra-donald-trump-is-americas-shadow/
Not surprisingly, I think this is pure bunk.
Let's take just one of The Donald's expressions of darkness--his idea that the U.S. should suspend immigration from Muslim countries until better vetting processes are in place to identify those who wish to do ill in this country. That just seems reasonable to me and I am not embarassed to "acknowledge that part of [myself] " and I feel no need to keep it under wraps. It is just freaking common sense. Now, is it a practical expectation that we will get better at vetting? Perhaps not, but I see no reason why we cant at least try.
Deepak Chopra isnt a serious pundit. If he were, I would liken him to all of the big Democratic operatives who did not "hear" those in flyover country and who could not grok why GW Bush would win even one, let alone two terms.
No, instead Chopra is a feel good guy who is pushing the idea that "we are all racists" because that, in the weird world of identity politics, makes people feel good. Also, it is really really EASY to call everyne a racist. It pretty much shuts down discussion. And it is really really easy to analyze Trump's popularity as racism, end discussion.
There are plenty of thorough analyses of The Donald's appeal, but this one is pablum, it is imyellectually lazy.
Am not defending Trump as a Presidential candidate here, that would be a different discussion.
Isn't the vetting process for refugees positively Orwellian already? I've read that it's a rigorous process requiring at least two years and reams of paperwork. Maybe we should just sort them out using the old test from witch trial days, where you throw them, trussed, into a body of water. If they survive, they're evil and should be denied entry. If they sink, oh well.
ETA: Historically, refugees haven't been responsible for terrorism anyway, have they?
Most of us are the descendants of refugees, after all.
iris lilies
8-6-16, 11:41pm
Isn't the vetting process for refugees positively Orwellian already? I've read that it's a rigorous process requiring at least two years and reams of paperwork. Maybe we should just sort them out using the old test from witch trial days, where you throw them, trussed, into a body of water. If they survive, they're evil and should be denied entry. If they sink, oh well.
It likely depends on the immigration program hw onerous the paperwork is.
Immigration officials are not going to be able to see into the hearts and minds of incoming people, but could we at least talk about the process. Is there already in place a screening process for violent jihadists? When very high percentages of Muslims in certain countries believe sharia law should be the dominate law of their resident country, perhaps us pausing to consider our invotation to enter is a prudent action.
hyperbole about witch trials? Ok. Whatever.
I think hyperbole is justified here because, as a nation, we've become irrational about terrorism--seeing terrorists everywhere, when they are a tiny, tiny minority among Muslims and other groups (often home-grown anti-government types). So as usual, we're going to "shut the whole thang down," when due diligence would suffice. It's "the sky is falling" syndrome, as I see it.
It likely depends on the immigration program hw onerous the paperwork is.
Is there already in place a screening process for violent jihadists? When very high percentages of Muslims in certain countries believe sharia law should be the dominate law of their resident country, perhaps us pausing to consider our invotation to enter is a prudent action.
I agree completely. After all, imagine how much better this country would be if we'd kept out all the damn sharia christians. But now we seem to be stuck with them.
iris lilies
8-7-16, 1:16am
I agree completely. After all, imagine how much better this country would be if we'd kept out all the damn sharia christians. But now we seem to be stuck with them.
We've grown our own fundamentalist Christians, and we are growing our own Islamic Jihadists, it is harder to stop the citizens already here.
I agree completely. After all, imagine how much better this country would be if we'd kept out all the damn sharia christians. But now we seem to be stuck with them.
I blame it all on the Puritans, personally. Good, Christian, apparently joyless folk with a murderous bent. I think they're indirectly responsible for much of the fear, xenophobia, and narrow-mindedness we see in--for example--many of the Donald's disciples. They are indeed the equivalent of fundamentalist, Sharia Muslims. IMO, all fundamentalist religions should be looked at with a wary eye.
I blame it all on the Puritans, personally. Good, Christian, apparently joyless folk with a murderous bent. I think they're indirectly responsible for much of the fear, xenophobia, and narrow-mindedness we see in--for example--many of the Donald's disciples. They are indeed the equivalent of fundamentalist, Sharia Muslims. IMO, all fundamentalist religions should be looked at with a wary eye.
Useful people, those Puritans. They’ve given us three centuries of prefab cultural slander, useful for almost any occasion. I’ve heard the pro-life camp referred to that way for wanting to limit abortion and the pro-choice camp referred to that way for wanting to force dissenting institutions to conform. University campuses seem full of latter-day puritans, sniffing out wrong thinking and shunning or banishing heterodoxy from their midst. As our tolerance for congenial intolerance or intolerance for uncongenial tolerance increases, It seems we are all puritans, just with differing theologies.
I suppose the real attraction of branding someone as an heir to the Puritans is that it sort of automatically allows the accuser to signal his own virtue as a bold freethinker.
Deepak Chopra wrote an article recently that was pretty insightful explaining that the reason Trump has done so well is because he has attracted our "shadow" side. I think he has a point.. he gives people permission to acknowledge the parts of our selves that we normally keep under wraps, with good reason.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-deepak-chopra-donald-trump-is-americas-shadow/
I'm not sure I believe the argument that Trump is an expression of the darkness of our souls or that Clinton signals our descent into gutless cynicism. Politics is just a thin film covering a far grander cultural project, and as such doesn't merit such atavistic fooforaw. I like what Kevin Williamson wrote recently:
"There are many good, intelligent, decent people in politics, but it is not an enterprise that usually brings out the best in us. Government is only a necessary evil — at best. Politics thrives on convincing us that things are worse than they are, telling us that we must live in fear of violence and misery if we do not elevate the members of a very special caste of people who do very little resembling real work. The contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton is not only unworthy of us as Americans — it is unworthy of us as a species. We contain within us greatness and the seeds of greatness, and the belief that the affairs of this free, dynamic, prosperous, good, unprecedented republic of 319 million souls rests on the choice between Enfeebled Psychotic Miscreant A and Enfeebled Psychotic Miscreant B is a superstition, one that we should leave behind. To the extent that there is some truth underpinning that superstition, the situation is that much worse.
These people do not represent the best of us. Even the best of them do not represent the best of us. They can do some good, mainly by protecting property and the freedom to trade, organizing the occasional public good here and there, while otherwise staying out of the way."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438745/2016-olympics-human-achievement-excellence-american-politics
Useful people, those Puritans. They’ve given us three centuries of prefab cultural slander, useful for almost any occasion. I’ve heard the pro-life camp referred to that way for wanting to limit abortion and the pro-choice camp referred to that way for wanting to force dissenting institutions to conform. University campuses seem full of latter-day puritans, sniffing out wrong thinking and shunning or banishing heterodoxy from their midst. As our tolerance for congenial intolerance or intolerance for uncongenial tolerance increases, It seems we are all puritans, just with differing theologies.
I suppose the real attraction of branding someone as an heir to the Puritans is that it sort of automatically allows the accuser to signal his own virtue as a bold freethinker.
I admit--they are pretty handy. But don't take the slander personally, Cotton. ;) That was the point I was trying to make, but you made it better. Most of us whose families have been here awhile carry the stain of Puritanism, and it bleeds over into our collective politics.
Most of us whose families have been here awhile carry the stain of Puritanism
I don't believe in blood guilt.
Lately, Trump reminds me of ex-governor of Texas, Rick Perry, when he ran for president: digging his own grave with his mouth. I think it's true that Trump's ego won't allow him to back down or bow out, but he's already protecting his ego in the event of his defeat, putting out the story that the elections are "rigged." And he DID state that his supporters wouldn't tolerate his losing the nomination; so it wouldn't be inconsistent for him to encourage discontent, suspicion, and worse in the event of defeat. I read an editorial recently where the journalist asked "Can you imagine Trump making a gracious concession speech? I can't."
I don't believe in blood guilt.
I was thinking more of epigenetics, but OK.
IL and LDAHL:
I would never be an apologist for Deepak Chopra--he lost a lot of credibility with me when he went Hollywood with his red sparky glasses and partnership with Oprah, but I have read several of his books and he's smart. (Smart marketer, too, but smart nonetheless).
I agree that he's unqualified as a political pundit, but he does carry some cred with psychology, and I do believe, from what I've seen in Trump supporters, is that he ignites a certain permission to admit things that we are better off recognizing in ourselves and dealing with, rather then feeling validated by them. He's said things that appeal to our fear of "others"--he's been the supreme playground bully who we can all feel safe behind. PC is tedious, to be sure, but the alternative is a giving in to raw feelings that spread like a cancer. I do believe Trump is better at taking the veil off those feelings than Hillary.
............. I read an editorial recently where the journalist asked "Can you imagine Trump making a gracious concession speech? I can't."
I can picture him saying flippantly, "Oh, I never really wanted it anyway. Now I'm going to go back to being really good at what I do best.......making money."
What?! Could this really happen?
I wish!
What would it mean for the GOP?
Salvation.
PC is tedious, to be sure, but the alternative is a giving in to raw feelings that spread like a cancer.
I have trouble accepting the premise that political correctness is the only alternative to savagery.
I might even argue that the urge to impose a self-righteous orthodoxy on the speech, thought and action of others is one of those dark urges you're talking about.
A lot of the violence around Trump events has been perpetrated by anti-Trump forces. Painting Trump as some sort of dark, demonic force only corrupts the debate further.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.