Fuck It's Silent in Here 2016

[Bort]

I will say this: if I lived in a battleground state, even I would consider voting. And I hate Hilary with the kind of passion I usually reserve for Snork.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.

I want to copy and paste it into the feed of a handful of conservative friends on FB who are bemoaning Trump's ascension.

[Oleg]

I would probably pay decent money to hear 5 Drumph supporters try to articulate the nuances of free trade agreements.

[SKO]

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.

I want to copy and paste it into the feed of a handful of conservative friends on FB who are bemoaning Trump's ascension.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/newly-elected-gop-chair-texas-capitol/

When the Tribune asked about the content of some of Morrow's social media posts, without using the specific racial slur Morrow had employed, Morrow seized on the omission as an example of corruption within the media.

"You are a perfect example of what the Trump movement is revolting against because you can't even pronounce the word n----- when you are talking about a Facebook post," Morrow said. "What a pathetic excuse for a reporter you are."

That's the head of the GOP in the county where Austin, Texas, the most liberal city in Texas! is. That's him pointing out that nobody can stop Trump because we're all afraid to say the n-word while he cruises to the head of the pack by courting racists, and TJ wants to pretend we're the ones erring by not agreeing to go along with this NAFTA nonsense.

[flannj]

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

Anyone stoking those fires doesn't sound like much of a moderate anything.

[SKO]

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

Anyone stoking those fires doesn't sound like much of a moderate anything.

True, moderate is the wrong word. "Electable Republicans" like Mitt Romney who were willing to take Trump's money back in 2012 and go to fundraisers he hosted and tacitly endorse his support of the birther movement are now shocked that Trump figured out he can just come right and say whatever he wants and get the support of the people other Republicans just winked at in the past.

[SKO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=torCmNfkvuM

Clearly this lady was espousing the virtues of NAFTA. That's gotta be it.

[SKO]

Triple posting douche alert, but I like TJ a lot and he's a good human being. I buy that his conservatism is principled and rooted in an honest belief in the free market and all that, but the refusal of guys like him to admit they share a party with a bunch of racists and authoritarians is exactly why it's not really TJ's party anymore. Clearly it belongs to them.

[Brownie]

Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.

No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.

If you think Trump's supporters aren't largely racist, or that their objection to immigration isn't based more on racial than economic reasons (remember when he condemned all immigrants as rapists?), or that calling for a ban on literally anyone who professes the Islamic faith isn't racist, or the fact that he retweets white supremacist groups, and hired white supremacists to provide security at his rallies isn't racist, there's no point in having this discussion.

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

No one is trying to "bring around Trump supporters". They are radicals, and every rational argument made against him has been denounced by them as an attack by the "lying media" or "lying politicians". They can't be brought around, the only argument is keeping more people from falling into his fold.

That is a total strawman argument. Show me where me and my "moderate Republican friends" have been stoking that fire. Who has been stoking that fire and where has it gotten them? What are the most influential conservative groups out there? National Review? They were always critical of birthers. Weekly Standard? Wall Street Journal? AEI? Heritage? The Kochs?

Have they all been critical of Obama? Yes, because there's much to be critical of.

Trump is winning because of two reasons:

1) Everyone underestimated his ability to organize and run a successful campaign. Most thought he would lose interest (was doing this for some sort of publicity stunt), would implode, and/or would simply not be able to get the vote out among his traditionally non-voting constituents.
2) A crowded field split the vote 10-plus ways.

[InternetApex]

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.

Me too.

Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.

[Canadouche]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

She's attracting the minority voters more than Sanders, of course, but I haven't seen anyone publish numbers on how many people are voting in the Democratic primary this time around, as opposed to in 2008. What I have noticed is that, so far, more Republicans are voting in the primaries than Democrats.

[InternetApex]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

She's attracting the minority voters more than Sanders, of course, but I haven't seen anyone publish numbers on how many people are voting in the Democratic primary this time around, as opposed to in 2008. What I have noticed is that, so far, more Republicans are voting in the primaries than Democrats.

Hot off the press:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/democratic-turnout-down-32-in-super-tuesday-states-compared-to-2008/

[Yeti]

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.

Me too.

Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.

Yup, pwng

[SKO]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

She's attracting the minority voters more than Sanders, of course, but I haven't seen anyone publish numbers on how many people are voting in the Democratic primary this time around, as opposed to in 2008. What I have noticed is that, so far, more Republicans are voting in the primaries than Democrats.

Hot off the press:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/democratic-turnout-down-32-in-super-tuesday-states-compared-to-2008/

Yeah there's no denying that I think the feeling of the majority of democrats I know is "meh, Hillary's going to be the nominee, whatever", I just don't know how that'll translate to turnout in November. It's not really a surprise that caucus turnout is low when most people have accepted the presumptive nominee as a fait accompli since, what, 2013?

[PenFoe]

Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.

No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.

If you think Trump's supporters aren't largely racist, or that their objection to immigration isn't based more on racial than economic reasons (remember when he condemned all immigrants as rapists?), or that calling for a ban on literally anyone who professes the Islamic faith isn't racist, or the fact that he retweets white supremacist groups, and hired white supremacists to provide security at his rallies isn't racist, there's no point in having this discussion.

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

No one is trying to "bring around Trump supporters". They are radicals, and every rational argument made against him has been denounced by them as an attack by the "lying media" or "lying politicians". They can't be brought around, the only argument is keeping more people from falling into his fold.

That is a total strawman argument. Show me where me and my "moderate Republican friends" have been stoking that fire. Who has been stoking that fire and where has it gotten them? What are the most influential conservative groups out there? National Review? They were always critical of birthers. Weekly Standard? Wall Street Journal? AEI? Heritage? The Kochs?

Have they all been critical of Obama? Yes, because there's much to be critical of.

Trump is winning because of two reasons:

1) Everyone underestimated his ability to organize and run a successful campaign. Most thought he would lose interest (was doing this for some sort of publicity stunt), would implode, and/or would simply not be able to get the vote out among his traditionally non-voting constituents.
2) A crowded field split the vote 10-plus ways.

Denial is a helluva drug.  

Sure, the establishment underestimated him, but that's not why the GOP primaries are getting record turnout. Sure, he might lose one-on-one against Cruz or Rubio, but we'll well past that point.  

He's winning because there is a sizable population that believes in him and what he's saying. He's articulating their anger and doing it in a manner that feels liberating after all this time where society has told them they have to be PC about immigrants, gays, Muslims, women, etc.