Trump should run as an Independent

[NightHawkeye]

...no, it's not based on any sort of narrative. It's based on policy, facts, and reason.

People need to stop equating opposition to Trump to "not thinking for themselves" or "just buying into a democrat narrative".

Neither Trump's policies, nor the people he surrounds himself with, represent moderation in any sense of the word.

He's voiced support for judges who've made it their mission to defy SCOTUS rulings based on religious preferences and nothing more. He's appointed people who've voiced intent to re-ignite the failed "war on drugs", He's appointed people who have pushed or nationwide school voucher systems, as well as claiming they wanted to use the public school system to "advance the kingdom of God" (again, to pander to religious voters). He's appointed people to Environmental positions who are climate change deniers. (even though the environment was something that used to be common ground for both parties). He's voiced support for military expansionism. He's pushed for protectionist (and sometimes bordering on isolationist) trade policies...

None of that represents "middle of the road" or "moderate"

Groups like the Tea Party and people who tote around AR-15's and Confederate Flags and demonstrations don't pledge their overwhelming support for moderate "middle of the road" candidates.

Hi Rob,

It is true that extremists often don't seem to realize just how far off the rails they've gone. That can happen when the frame of reference is not tied to anything solid. It has happened repeatedly throughout history and resulted in numerous wars and other atrocities. Entire populations become convinced of their own superiority, infallibility or righteousness and then attempt to bludgeon others. It's a sobering realization which ought to drive people to check their own frame of reference.

Those on the right have a number of useful and extremely stable frames of reference; the constitution, the Bible, the Bill of Rights - all of these have remained unchanged for very long periods of time.

What solid reference frames does the 'left' have for self-reflection and understanding just how extreme their political movement might have become?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Those on the right have a number of useful and extremely stable frames of reference; the constitution, the Bible, the Bill of Rights - all of these have remained unchanged for very long periods of time.

What solid reference frames does the 'left' have for self-reflection and understanding just how extreme their political movement might have become?

I don't know what point of reference the left uses...that would be for them to respond.

I was merely critiquing the assertion that "Trump has moved the party more toward the middle of the road".

As far as the things you list...the Bible is a non-starter in terms of a political stability reference point. There's a reason why the founders didn't want religion and government intermingling. In terms of a stable, I'd take issue with that assertion as well. Unless you consider 50+ versions and re-translations being implemented between 1800 and present day as being "unchanged"?
List of English Bible translations - Wikipedia
(sort by year)

To put that in perspective, there have been more versions of the Bible released from 1776 till now there have been presidents. Each having a substantial number of adherents claiming their version is "the most accurate version".

...but I digress.

As far as the other things you list, I fail to see how Trump is moving toward those things either.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I don't know what point of reference the left uses...that would be for them to respond.

The term 'Progressive' offers a clue. It's constantly moving. The reference frame is not stable. Those viewing the world from the progressive framework naturally think the right is moving to an extreme, but that's not really what's happening.

The term 'conservative' offers another clue. By definition, it means not changing. It's a relatively stable reference frame. Add to that the Constitution, the Bible, and the Bill of Rights, all of which have been bulwarks of the 'Right" for many years and it becomes abundantly clear which side is moving to an extreme and which side is holding to time tested standards which underpin our modern civilized society.

I was merely critiquing the assertion that "Trump has moved the party more toward the middle of the road".

He has. Trump himself has long been a 'liberal', though apparently more in the classical liberal sense. Because of that Trump was able to pull off voters who have voted for Democrats for years. Classical liberalism has much in common with modern conservatism so it's a good match.

As far as the things you list...the Bible is a non-starter in terms of a political stability reference point.

Incorrect.

It should be noted though that many of the recent versions of the Bible are to make it more "politically correct". Not absolutely stable perhaps, but far more stable than the political axioms of the moment.

As far as the other things you list, I fail to see how Trump is moving toward those things either.

I never said that Trump stood for the Constitution or Bill of Rights. What I said was that many on the 'right' are firmly anchored to both. Trump is generally to the 'left' of much of his base, hence the characterization of his having led more 'middle-of-the-road'. Compared with Obama and the elite Republican establishment, that looks pretty good to his voters.

 

[stevil]

Those on the right have a number of useful and extremely stable frames of reference; the constitution, the Bible, the Bill of Rights - all of these have remained unchanged for very long periods of time.

What solid reference frames does the 'left' have for self-reflection and understanding just how extreme their political movement might have become?

I'm not an American,
But I assume the left "Democrats" also have the constitution and bill of rights and for some "the bible"

 

[NightHawkeye]

I'm not an American,
But I assume the left "Democrats" also have the constitution and bill of rights and for some "the bible"

Not many years ago we heard a lot about "freedom of the press", but not so much any more. Conservative outlets are attacked and individuals are increasingly censored. The more followers a conservative has the more likely that conservative is to be shadow-banned or even outright banned from a platform.

 

[zephcom]

I'm not an American,
But I assume the left "Democrats" also have the constitution and bill of rights and for some "the bible"

Of course they do. The conservatives just believe they are the only ones who should be allowed 'interpret' them. And they are really good with their creative interpretations.

 

[zephcom]

Not many years ago we heard a lot about "freedom of the press", but not so much any more. Conservative outlets are attacked and individuals are increasingly censored. The more followers a conservative has the more likely that conservative is to be shadow-banned or even outright banned from a platform.

Do remember that the freedom of the press is ONLY freedom from GOVERNMENT censorship.

 

[Speedwell]

Hi Rob,

It is true that extremists often don't seem to realize just how far off the rails they've gone. That can happen when the frame of reference is not tied to anything solid. It has happened repeatedly throughout history and resulted in numerous wars and other atrocities. Entire populations become convinced of their own superiority, infallibility or righteousness and then attempt to bludgeon others. It's a sobering realization which ought to drive people to check their own frame of reference.

Sounds a bit like the Christian Right.

Those on the right have a number of useful and extremely stable frames of reference; the constitution, the Bible, the Bill of Rights - all of these have remained unchanged for very long periods of time.

But the Right does not own them, nor the exclusive privilege to dictate what they say and what they mean.

What solid reference frames does the 'left' have for self-reflection and understanding just how extreme their political movement might have become?

As above, and history.

 

[stevil]

Not many years ago we heard a lot about "freedom of the press", but not so much any more. Conservative outlets are attacked and individuals are increasingly censored. The more followers a conservative has the more likely that conservative is to be shadow-banned or even outright banned from a platform.

Are you able to provide references?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Are you able to provide references?

For what?
- All the times liberal publications used to cry "freedom of the press"?
- Conservative news outlets under attack?
- Conservatives being shadow-banned or outright banned?

 

[stevil]

I'm not an American, I don't know what is considered liberal press and I don't know about the issues you are highlighting.

I do recognise that both sides (liberal, conservative) have a distrust of each other, and both sides suspect the other of conspiracy theories. But I am not aware of sites being closed down simply because they are popular and conservative.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I'm not an American, I don't know what is considered liberal press and I don't know about the issues you are highlighting.

Here's some background ...
YouTube Takes Sweeping Action Against 'Hateful' Content; Conservatives Respond

On Wednesday, YouTube announced a sweeping ban on all content it deems "hateful" or "supremacist," resulting in a reported "thousands" of channels being shut down. The announcement came the same day that YouTube demonetized conservative comedian Steven Crowder — one of the most popular independent content creators on the platform.
...
"The move comes after a call by world leaders in Paris last month to curb extremism online.
...
Among those blasting YouTube over ideological bias is outspoken conservative Dana Loesch, who declared the progressives pushing for deplatforming as "the modern day book burners."

"Progressives/socialists are the modern day book burners," she tweeted Wednesday.
...
Among the voices being targeted by YouTube is Steven Crowder, who was demonetized on Wednesday, a day after the company said he had not violated its conduct code.

"... the videos as posted don’t violate our policies," YouTube said Tuesday.
...
"YouTube's statement on [Steven Crowder]: OK, we admit he didn't violate our standards, but people were mad at us ..." Shapiro tweeted Wednesday. "This is essentially YouTube admitting that they exercised the heckler's veto. They can't point to how [Crowder] broke their rules, so they just made up new rules based on the fact that a bunch of people whined to them."

"If YouTube is now going to police insulting speech -- not violent speech, not incitement, not actual fake news -- because a[n] ... activist masquerading as a journalist complains about being insulted, they're a joke," wrote Shapiro.​

The only problem with Steven Crowder is that his voice is effective. He's likable. He's hilariously funny. He presents both sides of the arguments and he mocks the left ... mercilessly. No wonder they banned him.

 

[stevil]

Here's some background ...
YouTube Takes Sweeping Action Against 'Hateful' Content; Conservatives Respond

​

The only problem with Steven Crowder is that his voice is effective. He's likable. He's hilariously funny. He presents both sides of the arguments and he mocks the left ... mercilessly. No wonder they banned him.

I don't know who Steven Crowder is, I'll check him out.
Looking at Wiki it says that Facebook investigated him and decided not to shut him down, but they did demonetise him. It seems he is using gay slurs and being very derogatory to gays in general.
Do you think if Crowder stopped with gay slurs that he could get monetised again?
Conservatives don't need to use gay slurs do they?

If Facebook is closing down channels or posters based on political ideology then I agree that would be a problem.

If they are closing down based on "hateful" content then that is fair enough
If right wing channels/posters are affected much more than left wing then is it that right wing channels are spouting more hateful messages?
Is there a way to compare the slurs, taunts, hateful messages of the left and the right? to see if one side is being treated unfairly by Facebook?

 

[zephcom]

Here's some background ...
YouTube Takes Sweeping Action Against 'Hateful' Content; Conservatives Respond

On Wednesday, YouTube announced a sweeping ban on all content it deems "hateful" or "supremacist," resulting in a reported "thousands" of channels being shut down. The announcement came the same day that YouTube demonetized conservative comedian Steven Crowder — one of the most popular independent content creators on the platform.
...
"The move comes after a call by world leaders in Paris last month to curb extremism online.
...
Among those blasting YouTube over ideological bias is outspoken conservative Dana Loesch, who declared the progressives pushing for deplatforming as "the modern day book burners."

"Progressives/socialists are the modern day book burners," she tweeted Wednesday.
...
Among the voices being targeted by YouTube is Steven Crowder, who was demonetized on Wednesday, a day after the company said he had not violated its conduct code.

"... the videos as posted don’t violate our policies," YouTube said Tuesday.
...
"YouTube's statement on [Steven Crowder]: OK, we admit he didn't violate our standards, but people were mad at us ..." Shapiro tweeted Wednesday. "This is essentially YouTube admitting that they exercised the heckler's veto. They can't point to how [Crowder] broke their rules, so they just made up new rules based on the fact that a bunch of people whined to them."

"If YouTube is now going to police insulting speech -- not violent speech, not incitement, not actual fake news -- because a[n] ... activist masquerading as a

Here's some background ...
YouTube Takes Sweeping Action Against 'Hateful' Content; Conservatives Respond

On Wednesday, YouTube announced a sweeping ban on all content it deems "hateful" or "supremacist," resulting in a reported "thousands" of channels being shut down. The announcement came the same day that YouTube demonetized conservative comedian Steven Crowder — one of the most popular independent content creators on the platform.
...
"The move comes after a call by world leaders in Paris last month to curb extremism online.
...
Among those blasting YouTube over ideological bias is outspoken conservative Dana Loesch, who declared the progressives pushing for deplatforming as "the modern day book burners."

"Progressives/socialists are the modern day book burners," she tweeted Wednesday.
...
Among the voices being targeted by YouTube is Steven Crowder, who was demonetized on Wednesday, a day after the company said he had not violated its conduct code.

"... the videos as posted don’t violate our policies," YouTube said Tuesday.
...
"YouTube's statement on [Steven Crowder]: OK, we admit he didn't violate our standards, but people were mad at us ..." Shapiro tweeted Wednesday. "This is essentially YouTube admitting that they exercised the heckler's veto. They can't point to how [Crowder] broke their rules, so they just made up new rules based on the fact that a bunch of people whined to them."

"If YouTube is now going to police insulting speech -- not violent speech, not incitement, not actual fake news -- because a[n] ... activist masquerading as a journalist complains about being insulted, they're a joke," wrote Shapiro.​

The only problem with Steven Crowder is that his voice is effective. He's likable. He's hilariously funny. He presents both sides of the arguments and he mocks the left ... mercilessly. No wonder they banned him.

journalist complains about being insulted, they're a joke," wrote Shapiro.​

The only problem with Steven Crowder is that his voice is effective. He's likable. He's hilariously funny. He presents both sides of the arguments and he mocks the left ... mercilessly. No wonder they banned him.

Do remember that the freedom of the press is ONLY freedom from GOVERNMENT censorship. No where in the Constitution does it prohibit private corporations or private people from censoring anyone they desire.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Perot had a chance at being elected until he announced that he was quitting his candidacy in mid-season.

He tried to restart it later and was on the ballots on Election Day, but by then he was thought by most people unsuited for the challenge of the presidency because of that quitting-but-maybe-not move.

I remember that, it was weird.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Do you think if Crowder stopped with gay slurs that he could get monetised again?

No, he actually wasn't. He was simply stating his accuser's self-description. Big difference.

If it's how one actually describes oneself, then it's not a slur.

If Facebook is closing down channels or posters based on political ideology then I agree that would be a problem.

They do. It is.

If they are closing down based on "hateful" content then that is fair enough

Maybe. Maybe it depends on how one defines "hate".

The SPLC for example has long ignored hate coming from certain sectors of society.

If right wing channels/posters are affected much more than left wing then is it that right wing channels are spouting more hateful messages?

No.

That was proven on Reddit recently when the Trump sub-forum was "quarantined". Members of that forum documented hundreds of far more egregious incidents on leftist forums and that was ignored.

Is there a way to compare the slurs, taunts, hateful messages of the left and the right? to see if one side is being treated unfairly by Facebook?

It's been done ad nauseum ... but when one side sees only the other side's hatred while blithely ignoring their own, what can you do.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Trump is generally to the 'left' of much of his base, hence the characterization of his having led more 'middle-of-the-road'.

Being to the left of some of his fringe supporters isn't that hard to do...even Rush Limbaugh is to "the left" of those guys marching around with KKK garb in Charlottesville...

That doesn't mean he's moving the party more toward the middle...it's common for candidates to be more moderate than their most fringe supporters (on both the left and the right).

If you look at the stances of the GOP in 2004, 2008, 2012...and then compare it to where the GOP was at for 2016 (and present day), the party hasn't moved more toward the center, it's moved further right.

...the evidence of that is the fact that Trump's support base have smeared the candidates from each of those prior years as "sellouts" and "RINOs" for not being conservative enough.

Bush, McCain, and Romney all went from clinching republican primaries, to being labeled "Not real republicans" or "sellouts" in the matter of a decade.

 

[NightHawkeye]

...the evidence of that is the fact that Trump's support base have smeared the candidates from each of those prior years as "sellouts" and "RINOs" for not being conservative enough.

Bush, McCain, and Romney all went from clinching republican primaries, to being labeled "Not real republicans" or "sellouts" in the matter of a decade.

In the case of Bush, it has become clear that he was, as many Republicans claimed, very closely aligned with the Clintons ... so Republicans making such charges have been proven correct.

Do we really need to say any more about McCain?

As for Romney, however 'nice' the man may be personally, he wouldn't even take on Obama in one-to-one debate. It was an apparent lack of conviction to principles.

The question becomes, did the Republican base leave the GOP or did the GOP leave the Republican base? I would suggest the latter occurred. The Republican base has been disaffected since Reagan. That's why Ross Perot ran. That's why the charges of RINO have been so frequent. That's why the TEA party happened. That's why John Boehner and Paul Ryan were driven from office. That's why Trump won the nomination without any apparent support from the Republican party infrastructure.

That's why some, even now, as is apparent with the OP, suggest that Trump go third party.

 

[Albion]

That doesn't mean he's moving the party more toward the middle...it's common for candidates to be more moderate than their most fringe supporters (on both the left and the right).

Well, of course that's true if you put it this way. No matter who the candidate may be, there is certain to be someone who is further to the extreme and also supports that candidate over the other choices.

We have a two-party system, you know, so the choices are limited. But to suggest that candidate X or Officeholder X is himself a clone of that supporter is a disreputable thing to do.

 

[Speedwell]

The Republican base has been disaffected since Reagan.

The Republican base was undergoing considerable change in that era, with the addition of Southern Democrats. In fact, the GOP seems to have become the party of Southern Democrats.