Did you all miss Andrew Sullivan?


Just in case you didn’t get enough of a gay Catholic man scribbling apologetics for the conservative establishment, he is trying to stage some kind of comeback as a pundit (although, actually, he seemed to pop up all the time anyway — it’s like he was on Maher all the time, which may be a misapprehension on my part, since I so rarely watch Maher). Anyway, the existence of Donald Trump has driven him to pontificate, and you will not be surprised to learn that Trump Is All Liberals’ Fault, and that the solution is for Democrats To Unite With The Good Republican Party.

No, I don’t think so. Just as he was wrong about the Iraq War, we all have to realize that he is still wrong about everything.

Comments

  1. moarscienceplz says

    the solution is for Democrats To Unite With The Good Republican Party.

    Sure thing, Andrew. As soon as I find a Good Republican.
    Has Hell frozen over yet?

  2. Ben says

    No, I did not miss the poster child of obtuse pseudo intellectualism. I’m not much more impressed with this column than his flogging of Trig Trutherism.

  3. freemage says

    I’ve seen this song a few times before–Trump is now being painted as the ‘natural reaction’ to the paranoid delusions that have been fostered by the right-wing noise machine among working-class white Christians. It’s all very “See what you made me do?!?”

  4. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The Good Republican Party ceased to exist in 1980, when the Reagan/fundementalist Xian groups took over.
    The Good Republican Party contained people like Governors George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and Senator Packwood.

  5. kc9oq says

    There’s an interesting article at HuffPost that describes who’s responsible for Trump [spoiler alert: it’s the GOP] and how the party got that way.

  6. says

    Actually, I found the article insightful and largely right on the main point, that being Drumpf is an extinction level event in our constitutional Republic and everyone needs to combat him. And further, we need to reign in the excesses of democracy.

    That Sullivan goes a bit too far blaming liberals, while ignoring the GOP race/bigot baiting is largely beside the point. It’s rather morally suspect that you decided to focus on that.

  7. cityofdis says

    I found Andrew Sullivan’s article enormously thoughtful and considered. I suggest people read it before they mock it (why do liberals think that mockery is at all persuasive to people who aren’t liberals?*).

    None of what PZ Myers and the link he provided is accurate of Sullivan’s argument. Sullivan is not arguing that Trump is the product of liberals. He is not arguing that liberals align themselves with Republicans. On this last point, I’ll quote him directly:

    “And if [Republican elites] fail in Indiana or Cleveland, as they likely will, they need, quite simply, to disown their party’s candidate. They should resist any temptation to loyally back the nominee or to sit this election out. They must take the fight to Trump at every opportunity, unite with Democrats and Independents against him, and be prepared to sacrifice one election in order to save their party and their country.”

    He is arguing that the Republican establishment forfeit the election to Hillary Clinton. That is very different from the assertion that his argument is that “the solution is for Democrats To Unite With The Good Republican Party.” That is, frankly, a very shameful characterization. And it’s shameful because it is categorically untrue and comes from a movement that prides itself on its objectivity and devotion to reality.

    Do you believe that Trump amounts to an unprecedented existential threat? Do you believe that he represents America’s closest brush with dictatorship? Do you believe that he is a potential tyrant he is more dangerous than your average Republican? Then stop mocking your allies.

    I find it unbelievable that there are segments of America’s liberal commentariat that are STILL unable to look past partisan divides to the bigger picture. I used to think that visceral aversion to empiricism was a uniquely conservative quality; routinely I have been proven wrong this election cycle, as evidenced by PZ Myers’ (and other commenters) reflexive dismissal of Andrew Sullivan’s extraordinary piece without even having read it, based on characterizations that are demonstrably incorrect (also, calling Hillary Clinton a “conservative” Democrat**).

    Some of the most thoughtful, and indeed poignant, critiques of the current Republican Party — and Donald Trump — have come from self-described conservatives: David Frum, Norm Ornstein, Ross Douthat, and now Andrew Sullivan (George Will is still a colossal idiot). It morally behooves you not to regard these people as enemies tantamount to the real threat: Trump and his enablers.

    It is paramount to the health of this country and its people that Hillary be elected in November. Please don’t demonize self-described conservatives who believe this, and in fact openly argue for it, for the sheer sake that they are self-described conservatives.

    *http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/liberals-smug-condescending
    **http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

  8. mywall says

    Trump is winning the Republican race because he is the best candidate running. He is the person who best represents the values of the party. If you find those values offensive, divisive or just plain ugly then it’s up to you to find a better party.

    The only reason there has ever be been to join a conservative movement is because you hate human beings and want them to suffer. Trump knows this and he plays top his audience.

  9. Vivec says

    @8

    Please don’t demonize self-described conservatives who believe this, and in fact openly argue for it, for the sheer sake that they are self-described conservatives.

    Nah. If you willingly align yourself with a political ideology that somehow consistently spits out politicians that want to deny me and others basic human rights, you deserve mockery and demonization.

  10. Vivec says

    Analogy-wise: the Phelps clan and I probably have similar opinions on the legality of free speech.

    That we can both recognize that it’s a protected right, and probably would be on the same side when it comes under attack, doesn’t mean I can’t also make fun of them for being a clan of religious goons probably guilty of generations of child abuse.

  11. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Andrew Sullivan was gone from punditry for some period of time?

    Did you all miss Andrew Sullivan?

    Well, dammit, I missed his absence… and miss it.

  12. mywall says

    Do you believe that Trump amounts to an unprecedented existential threat? Do you believe that he represents America’s closest brush with dictatorship? Do you believe that he is a potential tyrant he is more dangerous than your average Republican? Then stop mocking your allies.

    Look, everyone knows this tactic. The plan is to replace Trump with an “acceptable” candidate who’s racist and sexist and homophobic but talks about it a little bit less in their speeches. If that’s your aim, then you are not an ally to anyone; you can stop using that lie.

  13. cityofdis says

    Andrew Sullivan isn’t trying to deny you basic human rights. That’s utterly preposterous.

    Ignoring that, he makes the argument that Trump is dangerous enough to warrant a collaborative effort against him. It is telling that you can possibly disagree with that because it involves “collaboration.”

  14. cityofdis says

    @mywall

    I am not a Republican. I am a firm Democrat and will always vote Democratic.

    That doesn’t mean I cannot value the discourse of people who do not share my political ethos.

    Andrew Sullivan made a very thoughtful and considered argument against Trump. It is unreal that you antagonize him for it and misrepresent his argument entirely. That isn’t rational.

  15. Vivec says

    Andrew Sullivan isn’t trying to deny you basic human rights. That’s utterly preposterous.

    Reading comprehension, do you have it?

    Lets try again.

    Willingly aligning yourself with a political ideology that consistently supports denying people like me human rights makes you worthy of ridicule.

    If Sullivan is actually really cool and a conservative in name only, good for him. I’ll stop mocking/demonizing him (for being a conservative) when he stops being a conservative.

    Ignoring that, he makes the argument that Trump is dangerous enough to warrant a collaborative effort against him. It is telling that you can possibly disagree with that because it involves “collaboration.”

    I never said anything about being unwilling to collaborate with him. I can collaborate him and make fun of him for belonging to a fucking stupid, consistently bigoted political ideology at the same time. If he can’t handle being mocked, sucks for him.

  16. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    t is unreal that you antagonize him for it and misrepresent his argument entirely. That isn’t rational.

    Considering Drumpf is only saying directly, instead of using Political Dog Whistles, what the rethugs have been saying since 1980, any rational thought/analysis of what the rethugs have been doing for 35 years must include this. Drumpf is the end product of the hatred the rethugs have be projecting for that period of time.

  17. Ben says

    Actually, I did read that entire article. Just because his conclusion about Trump is correct, doesn’t mean he is correct about other things. For example: 1) Hillary Clinton should not placate Republican positions to justify their ditching Trump. They should admit that the Democratic platform is superior to Trump. 2) It is ridiculous to equivocate a run of the mill New Deal Democrat like Sanders to Trump. 3) Anyone who claims that the main problem with American politics today is that elites don’t have enough power over the system is thoroughly clueless. 4) For someone who loves to quote Plato, he seems to overlook the fact that The Republic is far more Socialist than anything Sanders advocates. 5) Democrats should not help defeat Trump in the primary, as all of the alternatives would also be just as disastrous. Trump may be Mussolini, but Cruz is Nehemiah Scudder.

    I’m sure I could find other things, but the entire article is an excellent exhibit in the empty eloquence typical of Sullivan.

  18. Vivec says

    “Don’t pick on conservatives because some of them agree with you on this particular issue” is complete fucking nonsense. You’re a fair target as long as you’re a conservative.

  19. mywall says

    @cityofdis
    I merely state the the eventual republican candidate, Trump or otherwise, will be a republican. That means that supporting republican attempts to replace Trump with a “better” candidate its directly equivalent to supporting racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. That is the core ideology of the party and it will be the ideology of their candidate.

  20. cityofdis says

    @mywall (I don’t know how to quote)

    I disagree. I think Trump is uniquely dangerous.

    Bush was awful. Bush Sr. was awful. Reagan was awful. Kasich would be just as awful. Cruz would be worse. Rubio would be worse.

    All are indeed supportive of racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic policies. All would be destructive to the country.

    But Trump is oh so much worse. He is the closest we have ever come to a fascist takeover. He would precipitate all sorts of crises. If Cruz or Kasich become president, I know we will suffer, but I am confident that we would survive. I don’t think that’s the case for Trump. He terrifies me, and he should terrify you too.

  21. mywall says

    @cityofdis
    I’m an optimist. I think if Trump gets nominated then that’s the perfect time to offer an alternative. No half measures. No compromises. Run with an election platform of full scale awesomeness. The part of the republican that only supports moderate shittyness would have nowhere else to go.

  22. says

    Well then, Andrew’s a denier of evolution as well, because you can almost draw a straight line from Reagan’s fingers-crossed, six-gun diplomacy to Bush Sr’s triumphal, opportunistic militarism and finally to Bush Jr’s 9/11-fuelled catastrophic corporate imperialism and soft Christo-fascism, which was the spooge the GOP backroom had been grinding towards during the Clinton era (an era marked by plenty of unilateral military punching-down, it must be said, but not nearly enough for the GOP thugs who’d end up wrangling Dubya). Crucially for Trump, along with Bush Jr’s iron-fist haymakers came a dogma of proud ignorance, open support for simplistic fundamentalist moralising, contempt for anyone with an education and the elevation of “my country, right or wrong” to a hysterical, unquestionable mantra. It was that atmosphere that allowed contemptible morons like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin to gain the traction that they did with the GOP base, creating a climate of entitlement, stupidity and thoughtless bravado that made the rise of Trump (a perfect storm of all of those attributes) almost inevitable. Trump is the logical product of a process of dumbing-down and arming-up that’s been going on for 35+ years.

    Pointing the finger at Democrats for the endless succession of failures of their opponents is a laughable & thoughtless attempt at denying the obvious; then again, most of Sullivan’s critiques of progressives are.

  23. Vivec says

    But Trump is oh so much worse.

    Sorry, I have a pretty hard time buying that a political nobody with a history of changing whatever view he has to get votes is worse than somebody with a consistent political career of awfulness, and I definitely don’t think a trump presidency will be this awful fascist dystopia unlike what we’d get under a Cruz or Carson.

    I’m not saying trump is good, but I am saying that he’ll probably be a shitty one term president we can probably recover from just as handily as we’ve recovered from every other shitty conservative.

  24. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If Cruz or Kasich become president, I know we will suffer, but I am confident that we would survive. I don’t think that’s the case for Trump. He terrifies me, and he should terrify you too.

    Lynna OM on the Political Madness thread has DOCUMENTED the religious/racist that both Drumpf and Cruz will support, and it ain’t purty for anybody not white, male, straight and cis. No Rethuglican will be nice. Nobody other than the straight cis will survive any rethuglican administration. Period. Nobody is showing, with evidence, otherwise. It is all hopeful (probably delusional) thinking.

  25. gijoel says

    Considering how much worse Ted Cruz is, I think most Americans will take their chances with Hilary.

  26. brucegee1962 says

    I agree with cityofdis and John Smith. I read Sullivan’s article and applauded it. To me, this is equivalent to the moment in an alien invasion movie when the Russians and Chinese show up and say that it’s time to put aside the old rivalries and unite together against the greater threat. It’s like the scene in the monster movie where the scientist who created the beast, and has been saying all through the movie that it’s just misunderstood, finally shows up to join the survivors and grabs a gun to make a last stand against his creation.

    Over the next few months, we may see a trickle of hangdog conservatives like Sullivan shuffle onto the Dem side of the fence, trying to psych themselves up to do something they never in a million years could have imagined and pull the lever for Hillary. Our job, if we want to make that trickle into a flood, should be to make that task, loathsome to them, as easy as possible. If we point and laugh too much, or worse, lock our arms against them, then they may just say screw it and help the monster get in. Mocking their chagrin when, as Sullivan points out, our whole system is at risk from this demagogue is the height of crassness.

    Look, when you get out in the world for a while you realize — although the basic policies and aims of the Republican Party as a whole are undoubtably racist and horrible, not every individual Republican is. Some are decent people — maybe once they’ve swallowed their preconceptions and voted the right way once, we might even hold on to a few of them. But pointing at them and mocking them won’t be the way to do it. Or at least, try to keep it to just snickering up your sleeve.

    Oh, one more thing — why are people, on this thread and elsewhere, still bothering to bring up Cruz and Sanders? Like it or not, the election is going to be Trump vs. Clinton. That’s the fight we need to prepare for, not some highly unlikely alternative.

  27. Vivec says

    I just fail to see how this is a particularly exceptional election compared to every other “shitty conservative vs kinda shitty democrat” election we’ve had. The game hasn’t changed exceptionally, and I really, really don’t buy that Trump can make things go more pear shaped than previous downright evil republicans have.

  28. dexitroboper says

    Its not just Trump, it’s the Republican Congress and the laws they would pass and he would not veto and the judges he would appoint and the constitutional issues they would decide.

  29. Hoosier X says

    If the non-crazy conservatives want to convince us that they exist in any non-negligible numbers, they should have coalesced around a non-crazy conservative candidate in the current GOP primary race.
    It’s true that the picking were meager right from the start. But I don’t think that proves that there are multitudes of non-crazy conservatives. Quite the opposite.

  30. Vivec says

    We’ve had bad presidents with bad congresses getting to make bad appointments to the supreme court before. I still fail to see how this is remotely new or game-changing. If anything, it’s odd that we haven’t had more “give a bad person full run of the government or give a moderately bad person partial control of the government” more often.

  31. brucegee1962 says

    Yes, I do think that Trump is a uniquely disastrous threat. Just two things he’s said he would do, mass deportations and straight-up torture, are already taking us down a path that it would be hard to recover from. Add to that the fact that we might not have any allies left, and a real possibility of a declation of war via midnight tweet.

    At least the Bushes may have at least read the Constitution at some point; if Trump has, he surely thinks he’s above it. I wish I could believe that he wouldn’t try to, say, lock up purveyors of speech that got him upset. But do you really think that he wouldn’t at least try?

    And to those who are saying “Eh, he wouldn’t be that bad” — take a step back and listen to yourselves, okay? Do you realize whom you’re defending?

  32. Kreator says

    We’ve had bad presidents with bad congresses getting to make bad appointments to the supreme court before. I still fail to see how this is remotely new or game-changing. If anything, it’s odd that we haven’t had more “give a bad person full run of the government or give a moderately bad person partial control of the government” more often.

    Think globally. A Drumpf victory will not only encourage and empower fascist groups in the USA, it will also probably encourage the accelerated growth of fascist groups all around the world. Many European parliaments already have Nazi minorites that could become majorities, and after they get to power, it is quite likely that they will try to kill innocent people at a faster rate than has ever been seen since Word War 2. A few might even succeed.

  33. unclefrogy says

    I do not care what conservatives do I will be voting for the most liberal progressive candidate that has a chance of being elected president period.
    All of the republicans I have heard would be bad for the country as a whole. If some republican want to vote for who they think would be the best candidate and that candidate just happens to be who I am voting for good but it will not make me change my mind nor soften my stand on the issues I care about and support.
    uncle frogy

  34. Vivec says

    Just two things he’s said he would do, mass deportations and straight-up torture, are already taking us down a path that it would be hard to recover from.

    We already do both of those. Trump might step those up, but I don’t think he’s unique in that.

    Add to that the fact that we might not have any allies left

    Hell of a stretch to call that a “fact”

    a real possibility of a declation of war via midnight tweet.

    Yet again, hell of a stretch calling that a “possibility” beyond the epistemic sense.

    But do you really think that he wouldn’t at least try?

    I think odds are good that he might try, before every court everywhere shoots that down.

    And to those who are saying “Eh, he wouldn’t be that bad” — take a step back and listen to yourselves, okay? Do you realize whom you’re defending?

    Refusing to give into bullshit fearmongering because a reality TV star ran for president =!= Defending him

  35. Vivec says

    Think globally. A Drumpf victory will not only encourage and empower fascist groups in the USA, it will also probably encourage the accelerated growth of fascist groups all around the world.

    Implying our “democratic” leaders don’t do that too? I’m not saying Trump would be great, I’m saying that he’s not some unique threat to world peace.

    Every conservative warhawk is a threat to world peace, and I refuse to acknowledge that Trump is somehow special just because he makes grandiose claims.

  36. cityofdis says

    >Implying our “democratic” leaders don’t do that too?

    No, they don’t. It’s pretty crazy how much he has normalized abhorrent behavior, to the extent that even left-minded individuals like yourself think he’s more of the same. Before Trump, it was unacceptable to call Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers. Before Trump, it was unacceptable to say we should ban Muslims from entering the US (that one still blows my mind). Before Trump, it was unacceptable to explicitly insight your followers to commit violent acts against dissenters. We have never had a presidential nominee so openly cheered for by self-described white supremacists. All of these things were unthinkable less than a year ago.

    You might think that these are meaningless additions compared to your average Republican, but they really aren’t. Mitt Romney never would have incited his supporters into violence. Neither would have John McCain. Or Bush. Categorizing all people who identify “conservative” as horrible people by definition is partisan idiocy unbecoming of any purported liberal movement.

    And automatically dismissing anything Andrew Sullivan might say is behavior born of tribalism. People who relish in free thought, like PZ Myers, really should know better.

    >I just fail to see how this is a particularly exceptional election compared to every other “shitty conservative vs kinda shitty democrat” election we’ve had.

    I take exception to this. Obama has been a tremendous president. We have been very lucky to have him. I expect that Hillary will be wonderful too.

  37. chigau (違う) says

    HTML lesson

    Doing this
    <blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
    Results in this

    paste copied text here

    <b>bold</b>
    bold

    <i>italic</i>
    italic

    <a href=”paste address here”>your cute linkname</a>
    your cutelinkname

    &ne;

  38. Vivec says

    Categorizing all people who identify “conservative” as horrible people by definition is partisan idiocy unbecoming of any purported liberal movement.

    Nah, allying yourself with a bullshit political ideology that is hellbent on making life awful for people like me is either born from idiotic naivete or fucking evil malevolence. Either way, fuck conservatives. If they want me to stop treating them like they support evil bigoted bullshit, they should stop identifying with a political ideology that has “evil bigoted bullshit” as a plank.

    Obama has been a tremendous president.

    I’m sure all those innocent people killed by Obama-sanctioned drone strikes would agree if they could. Their families would too, right?

  39. Vivec says

    Before Trump, it was unacceptable to call Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

    So like did that whole “super predators” thing not happen? Or, going further back, did operation wetback not happen?

    Before Trump, it was unacceptable to say we should ban Muslims from entering the US (that one still blows my mind).

    By presidential candidates, maybe. But you’re either lying or ignorant if you think right wing pundits haven’t been calling for just that for the last 15 years.

    Before Trump, it was unacceptable to explicitly insight your followers to commit violent acts against dissenters.

    That is horrifically, laughably, horrendously untrue. I don’t know what else to say. Pick up a history book? World leaders having their followers commit violence against dissenters is ludicrously common.

    We have never had a presidential nominee so openly cheered for by self-described white supremacists.

    Jefferson fucking Davis rings a fucking bell.

  40. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Jefferson fucking Davis rings a fucking bell.

    So does Strom Thurmond or George Wallace.

  41. cityofdis says

    So like did that whole “super predators” thing not happen? Or, going further back, did operation wetback not happen?

    By presidential candidates, maybe. But you’re either lying or ignorant if you think right wing pundits haven’t been calling for just that for the last 15 years.

    That is horrifically, laughably, horrendously untrue. I don’t know what else to say. Pick up a history book? World leaders having their followers commit violence against dissenters is ludicrously common.

    Jefferson fucking Davis rings a fucking bell.

    I suppose I should have qualified it as “recent history.” These are things that are, of course, only recently unacceptable. And it speaks to history traditionally marching in the direction of liberalism.

    As evidence, I present you Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George Bush. Their politics might have been odious, but they still shunned Trumpian impulses.

  42. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    As evidence, I present you Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George Bush. Their politics might have been odious, but they still shunned Trumpian impulses.

    Did they veto legislation? Or, did it never come up?

  43. chigau (違う) says

    Nerd and Vivec
    Have you considered that cityofdis might be one of tender years,
    who has been consciously aware of only one president?
    ’cause I’m gettin that vibe

  44. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nerd and Vivec
    Have you considered that cityofdis might be one of tender years,
    who has been consciously aware of only one president?
    ’cause I’m gettin that vibe

    You might be right. But I’m getting the vibes of a concern troll type 1, being the cynic I am.

    Cityofdis, when was the first election, you participated in? What is your political experience.

    I first voted in 1972, and have in every general election, both national and local, since.

  45. mywall says

    I reckon there’s a good reason republicans object to mockery as much as they do. They under

  46. Vivec says

    I suppose I should have qualified it as “recent history.” These are things that are, of course, only recently unacceptable. And it speaks to history traditionally marching in the direction of liberalism.

    What is your cutoff point for “recent”?

    The super-predators line was said during my lifespan. Operation wetback happened within my parents’ lifespan. Right wing pundits have been calling for all sorts of awful things to be done to Muslims since the minute after the towers fell.

    Also, you really cant cite Trump’s anti-muslim sentiment as being unique when Bush fucking invaded Iraq. Invading and destabilizing muslim countries “trumps” saying mean things to win votes 100% of the time.

  47. says

    Ooo! A modern Socrates is on the loose in the comments today. If only they could find gadflies of their own caliber to intellectually spar with. They got their logical thinker pants on and they’re ready to rumble!

    Responding to a point: I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I mock because tears of disappointment make my chai tea latte all salty.

  48. mywall says

    As I was saying. Republicans understand their policies and they know what the effects are. Mockery gets to them because of their guilt.

    The one thing I don’t get I’d why they choose to continue being shitty people.

  49. cityofdis says

    You might be right. But I’m getting the vibes of a concern troll type 1, being the cynic I am.
    Cityofdis, when was the first election, you participated in? What is your political experience.
    I first voted in 1972, and have in every general election, both national and local, since.

    2012. I understand that my posts probably come off as concern trolling. That is not my intent. I will try to do better.

    <What is your cutoff point for “recent”?
    The super-predators line was said during my lifespan. Operation wetback happened within my parents’ lifespan. Right wing pundits have been calling for all sorts of awful things to be done to Muslims since the minute after the towers fell.
    Also, you really cant cite Trump’s anti-muslim sentiment as being unique when Bush fucking invaded Iraq. Invading and destabilizing muslim countries “trumps” saying mean things to win votes 100% of the time.

    “Recent” would probably be around 1980 or so. Maybe earlier. Around the time that openly advocating for segregation become publicly toxic, which of course wasn’t uniform across the country.

    And you are blowing Hillary’s “super-predator” line totally out of proportion. She uttered it once in the midst of an enormous crime wave that no one realized had already peaked; she never directed it toward any ethnic group (though people implicitly linked it to inner city black kids); and she has since apologized. It is totally incomparable to Trump’s many bigoted statements that specifically target ethnic and religious minorities and you know it.

    Bush visited a mosque a week after 9/11. This is not insignificant. He was specifically trying to quell any prejudice that might befall Muslim citizens. If Trump were president he would have inflamed those prejudices. He already has.

  50. Vivec says

    And you are blowing Hillary’s “super-predator” line totally out of proportion. She uttered it once in the midst of an enormous crime wave that no one realized had already peaked; she never directed it toward any ethnic group (though people implicitly linked it to inner city black kids); and she has since apologized. It is totally incomparable to Trump’s many bigoted statements that specifically target ethnic and religious minorities and you know it.

    Literally fuck off with this race blind bullshit.

    You don’t get to say shit about super-predators and then act like you didn’t mean black youth, when you’re an affluent white woman in a system that routinely puts away black youth for minor offenses. Black people (and people of color in general) are horrificially overrepresented in prison poulations and disproportionately the target of profiling and brutality.

    That she apologized doesn’t change that it was acceptable at the time and more importantly STILL HAS MAINSTREAM PEOPLE DEFENDING THAT STATEMENT INCLUDING FUCKING EX-PRESIDENTS

    Bush visited a mosque a week after 9/11.

    Yeah, and then he invaded Iraq, destabilized the region, and both directly and indirectly led to the deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims. Pardon me for not being “Wowed” by his minor act of outreach.

    Congrats, you’ve gone from spreading fearmongering bullshit to defending imperialist scum and promoting race-blind bullshit. You’re entirely unqualified for this discussion.

  51. Vivec says

    By the way, while I think that most US presidents could probably fall under “imperialist scum” or “racist fuckshit even given the temporal context”, Bush was pretty fucking awful even by those standards. He’s right up there with Andrew Jackson, FDR, or Truman in terms of horrific actions and imperialism.

  52. Vivec says

    I have no idea how you can possibly think that Trump is more of the same when world leaders are signaling to Obama that they are very afraid that he might be elected. That is unprecedented.

    You have failed to demonstrate any way in which he is at all notable when compared to both the other republican candidates or republicans of the past.

    That he is a vocal bigot and warhawk is noteworthy, sure, but we have had both open bigots and warhawks running for as long as we’ve been a country. He’s just a flashier version of the same conservative nonsense we’ve always had.

  53. cityofdis says

    Congrats, you’ve gone from spreading fearmongering bullshit to defending imperialist scum and promoting race-blind bullshit. You’re entirely unqualified for this discussion.

    I don’t think that I have done those things. I don’t think it is fearmongering to say that Trump is dangerous. I don’t think I am “defending imperialist scum” by saying that Bush is better than Trump. I don’t think that I am promoting “race-blind bullshit” when I say that Hillary’s “super-predator” comment is not as bad as the many horrific things that Trump has said and continues to say.

    I don’t think that these are unpopular or “disqualifying” opinions. But maybe I’m wrong.

  54. cityofdis says

    You have failed to demonstrate any way in which he is at all notable when compared to both the other republican candidates or republicans of the past.
    That he is a vocal bigot and warhawk is noteworthy, sure, but we have had both open bigots and warhawks running for as long as we’ve been a country. He’s just a flashier version of the same conservative nonsense we’ve always had.

    The world’s leaders overwhelmingly disagree with you. It is arrogant to think that you know more than them.

  55. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    . I have no idea how you can possibly think that Trump is more of the same when world leaders are signaling to Obama that they are very afraid that he might be elected. That is unprecedented.

    Nope, not at all. Read some history. Xenophobia, racism, and homophobia goes back to the founding of this country. It is nothing new. Except Drumpf is broadcasting it, instead of staying polite by speaking in Political Dog Whistles. That is his popularity. He doesn’t pretend to be polite to those he considers second/third/fourth/last class citizens. Just what the bigots want to hear.

  56. Vivec says

    I don’t think it is fearmongering to say that Trump is dangerous.

    I agree, Trump is dangerous. So is every other conservative warhawk that has ever run for president.

    What is fearmongering bullshit is holding Trump up as some kind of unique special kind of evil who is capable of tearing up the constitution and deploying the private trump secret police the day he gets elected.

    I don’t think I am “defending imperialist scum” by saying that Bush is better than Trump.

    Excusing the horrific, evil acts Bush has done by adding that he visited a mosque is literally that, no matter why you make those excuses.

    I don’t think that I am promoting “race-blind bullshit” when I say that Hillary’s “super-predator” comment is not as bad as the many horrific things that Trump has said and continues to say.

    Condescendingly acting like an affluent white woman couldn’t possibly be referring to black youths when she describes a demographic of “super predators” in a nation with a racist police force that disproportionately targets people of color is promoting color blind bullshit, no matter why you make that claim.

    But maybe I’m wrong.

    Damn fucking straight you are.

  57. Vivec says

    The world’s leaders overwhelmingly disagree with you. It is arrogant to think that you know more than them.

    Argument to authority, dipshit. I know a lot more than a lot of world leaders on specific issues. Them being world leaders doesn’t make them magically right about everything.

    Demonstrate these qualities that world leaders are privy to that makes trump such a unique threat to them or shut the fuck up.

  58. Vivec says

    Case in point: every religious world leader has tangibly worse standards of evidence for belief than I do, or else they wouldn’t believe in magic. Is it arrogant to claim that Christian President X is just as much of a poor epistemology as Average Christian dude Y?

    No, because being a world leader doesn’t magically make you more right than an average dipshit with the same opinion. Either world leaders are privy to some specific traits that make trump uniquely dangerous (that you have failed to demonstrate up to this point), or they’re making irrational assumptions based on the fact that Trump uses more dog whistles than Cruz does.

  59. cityofdis says

    who is capable of tearing up the constitution and deploying the private trump secret police the day he gets elected.

    He seems willing.

    Excusing the horrific, evil acts Bush has done by adding that he visited a mosque is literally that, no matter why you make those excuses.

    I didn’t excuse anything, and I never would. I don’t think you understood my point.

    Condescendingly acting like an affluent white woman couldn’t possibly be referring to black youths when she describes a demographic of “super predators” in a nation with a racist police force that disproportionately targets people of color is promoting color blind bullshit, no matter why you make that claim.

    I’m obviously not going to convince you otherwise, but I will say this: black people have overwhelmingly supported her this cycle, so I don’t think they view her comment as the apex of racial animus that you do.

    Demonstrate these qualities that world leaders are privy to that makes trump such a unique threat to them or shut the fuck up.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/trump-view-from-south-korea-japan/
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-trade-idUSKCN0WQ0WG

    Those are unique to Trump.

    Something that has frequently come up is the idea that it is dangerous for someone with Trump’s temperament and ignorance to be in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Do you disagree with that? Is Trump not exceptional in this regard?

  60. Vivec says

    He seems willing.

    Willing =!= Able. I’m willing to wipe out all corrupt politicians with a wave of my magic fairy wand, but that doesn’t make it a possibility.

    I didn’t excuse anything, and I never would. I don’t think you understood my point.

    Then don’t respond to someone pointing out Bush’s horrific acts of imperialism with “well he visited a mosque”

    I’m obviously not going to convince you otherwise, but I will say this: black people have overwhelmingly supported her this cycle, so I don’t think they view her comment as the apex of racial animus that you do.

    Because, as we all know, the fact that a lot of people support something means that it’s correct, and the fact that a lot of people of color support something means that it can’t be racist!

    It’s glad to know that, by that standard, the pro-slavery standpoint of the bible doesn’t exist. I mean, look at all those black christians! Clearly they don’t think it’s a horrific pro-slavery document, so it must objectively not be, right?

    Keep your race blind bullshit and blatant appeals to authority/majority to yourself.

  61. Vivec says

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/trump-view-from-south-korea-japan/
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-trade-idUSKCN0WQ0WG

    Already refuted. Trump being a warhawk is not a unique trait. Him being an open, vocal warhawk is not a unique trait.

    We had a president that nuked a country attempting to surrender twice, explicitly targetting civilian centers. Trump is not even a blip on the fucking radar in comparison. He’s a blowhard parroting the same pro-war bullshit every warhawk conservative has said since fucking forever.

  62. Vivec says

    In response to the “kill isis families” thing – our current real life president is responsible for hundreds of innocent civilians killed as collateral damage in drone strikes.

    If you’re going to hype trump’s pro-war bullshit as the biggest deal of the century, surely you’re going to hold Obama to the same standard and declare him a real life terrible person, right?

  63. cityofdis says

    this is getting to be too much. i need to study. i’m sorry to have inflamed you so much. i didn’t mean to be such a dissenter. i didn’t realize that calling trump more dangerous than your average republican was going to be a controversial position. i thought most liberals were on the same page here but i guess the pharyngula comments section is different.

    please vote hillary all downballot democrats in november. there is much more that unites us than divides us.

  64. says

    Sullivan is not incapable of making reasonable points. I used to read his blog from time to time, and his support for Obama in 2008 was genuine and well reasoned. He even (very) grudgingly praised the British National Health Service for taking good care of his parents.

    Yet, just when he starts to draw you in, he’ll remind you of one of three things — his undying love for Margaret Thatcher and what she did for (actually, to) Britain, his continuing passion for the religious tradition that completely denies his right to worship as an openly sexually active gay man, and his passionate hatred for everything Clinton.

    I haven’t read the article — too long, and I should be in bed already — but I’m sure that in amongst the length digressions into the Classics, he makes some reasonable points.

    I will grant him this much. Sullivan is the type of old-fashioned conservative with whom you could at least have a reasoned discussion about pressing problem with some hope of achieving a modicum of compromise and common ground, if not for the same reasons. But, as a Thatcherite, he used to be about as far right as British mainstream politics went. The fact that people consider him to be a reasonable and moderate conservative voice in America today is testament to just how far right mainstream national American politics has traveled over the course of his adulthood.

    Sullivan is not really a moderate conservative at heart, it’s just that the Republican Party has abandoned him, and the closest place he can call home at the moment is among the conservative Democrats, who are probably closer to him ideology than the crazies in the Tea Party.

  65. says

    i didn’t realize that calling trump more dangerous than your average republican was going to be a controversial position.

    I haven’t read all of the back and forth, so I don’t know if your characterization is fair, but my take on Trump is that the danger comes from his unpredictability. We simply do not know what he would do. I actually think he would be an ineffective president. He would rail and he would rant against the establishment for not giving him what he wants, and he would probably enable the continued rightward drift of American politics, but I think you underestimate the checks and balances in the system that would prevent him from turning full on fascist dictator. I also think you underestimate Trump’s ability to listen to his “good people” and pull back from the brink. Yeah, there are a lot of crazies on his campaign advisory team, but when push comes to shove, I suspect his picks for the cabinet positions would be more mainstream Republican than some fear. (No, Sarah Palin wouldn’t be in it.)

    Cruz, on the other hand, is a man on a mission. He knows exactly what he wants, and has the allies in the House (anyway) to apply pressure on the Republican leadership to get it. He won’t get everything, but even compromise legislation between right wing Republicans and far right Republicans will be putting the foot on the gas toward total right wing dominance of all parts of national policy. He will fill his administration with people of the type that will have the American public yearning for the good old days of Bush the Younger, and I shudder to think what the Supreme Court have done by the time he’s through (and long, long after).

    So while Trump is a wildcard, and there is some slight risk of a major disaster happening, I believe a Cruz administration is far more likely to do long lasting harm to this nation. Fortunately, I don’t believe either of them has any chance of winning short of a major calamity with the Democratic ticket, which is always possible, but highly unlikely at this stage.

  66. Dunc says

    i didn’t realize that calling trump more dangerous than your average republican was going to be a controversial position.

    I guess you aren’t aware of quite how badly “your average republican” is generally viewed around these parts…

  67. unclefrogy says

    I heard an interview of Sullivan on the radio this afternoon. I did not expect to hear out loud what I heard. The basic point of his understanding is Trump is a danger because there is “too much democracy” I knew conservatives did not not really believe democracy was a good thing but I never expected to hear one of their fellows say it out loud.
    there is one thing that is shared between Trump and Cruz. It is why the Republican establishment fear Trump and why they hate Cruz. Neither of them can be controlled.
    Cruz is on a mission he is “chosen” and I suspect Trump has some old scores he might want to settle.
    I think Cruz might be more dangerous because he “believes” .
    Trump has made his entire life be about making the deal. He will make a deal with anyone That he is bad at it is problematic. the deal was shit but he came out OK
    Clearly he will say anything to get elected
    I do not believe very much of what he says so I do not know what he would actually do if elected. I have a much clearer idea of what Cruz addmin. would look like and that ain’t pretty.
    What ever is “wrong” with the country it sure as hell is not the result of too much democracy!
    uncle frogy

  68. =8)-DX says

    Every sentence of Sullivan’s piece just oozes with elitism, entitlement, white supremacy as well as factually incorrect and out-of-the-butt opinions concerning democracy. A whole plethora of issues were just casually mentioned in a positive light that should be marks of shame for any democratic nation.

    And wow, how wonderfully “regulated” democracy in the US was when only white male landowners could vote! Gosh those white male landowners who drafted the constitution were sure clever to add in checks and balances to ensure that they were the ones in power preventing the country from devolving into mob rule!

    Bloody authoritarian, I’d spill my beer if I had one.

  69. Derek Vandivere says

    we all have to realize that he is still wrong about everything.

    So you’re against same-sex marriage, for weed being illegal, and don’t think Trump is an asshole?

  70. Derek Vandivere says

    #67 / Vivec:

    You seem to be drawing a moral equivalence between a comment Clinton made back in the 90s and has since refuted and comments Trump has made in the past months and still stands by. And also between collateral damage from drone strikes and directly targeting families of terrorists.

    Is that your intent?

  71. Vivec says

    You seem to be drawing a moral equivalence between a comment Clinton made back in the 90s and has since refuted and comments Trump has made in the past months and still stands by.

    First, apologized for =!= Refuted, it was a racist comment no matter if she apologized for it.

    Secondly, yes, I am. A racist comment is a racist comment is a racist comment, and her bullshit racist comment still has defenders. It’s nonsensical to claim that the shit Trump says is new or unprecedented when there are still people defending the super-predators line.

    And also between collateral damage from drone strikes and directly targeting families of terrorists.

    Dead innocents killed for the sake of a bullshit war on terror are still dead innocents killed for the sake of a bullshit war on terror, whether the actual target or not. If you can’t drone strike terrorists without wiping out the three families that live next door to them, don’t drone strike terrorists.

    Knowing that people will die as a consequence of striking your intended target and doing it anyways is, while not exactly equivalent to just shooting those innocents yourself, still morally abhorrent. Thus, Trump’s stance is not unique among warhawk conservatives, nor even that far from our current actions.

  72. says

    Do you believe that he is a potential tyrant he is more dangerous than your average Republican?

    No, actually I don’t. I actually think out of all of the Republican candidates to run in the primaries he is the least dangerous one – and I believe that fact reflects the will of the average Republican.

    At the moment the “next runner up” is a theocrat whose major political platform appears to be checking people’s genitals before allowing them to go to the toilet.

    The one after that is a sexist douche, and the ones after that were either complete loons, or another corporatist Bush.

    Out of all of them Trump is the least warlike, and probably the least sexist and racist too. The major difference is he says outright, what the other Republicans dance around.

    Lets be serious here – when Republicans respond to police shootings of black teenagers, it is generally with a quest to find how they were “No angels”.

    You can’t say the party isn’t racist, when it sounds happy that black kids got killed.

    And as for sexism, isn’t that about half of what ‘family values’ really amounts to? That and homophobia?

    And let’s not even get into how much bullshit around rape has been pushed by the Republican Party.

    IMO on abortion, Trump just said honestly what pro-deathers think should happen, but don’t want to admit because it is politically inconvenient. And yes, I say pro-deathers, because they certainly aren’t pro the life of the mother, or the born child.

    Trump is basically the Republican Party laid bare, and the moderate end of the party at that.

    And that is the major problem with this idea of the “good Republicans” – it just means the Republicans who put hateful things into polite language.

    The fact that the Republican Party has reached this point should be cause for a massive realignment within it – similar to what happened with the Democratic Party after it dumped the Dixiecrats, but this won’t happen unless they lose and lose huge in terms of seats in the Senate and Congress.

    The presidency – quite frankly unless Clinton actually gets indicted it should be a cake-walk for the Democratic Party. Even if she gets indicted, chances are she’d still win given that the Republican side of the race is being dominated by a guy who operated a diploma mill.

    But it is those other races that are the really important ones, and they seem to be getting overlooked.

  73. MassMomentumEnergy says

    Nightmare scenario: Hillary gets the nomination during the convention, then the day afterwards Comey indicts not only for the mishandling of classified information that is public knowledge and would put anyone else in club fed by now, but also for influence peddling as Secretary of State.

    Not even the fear of Trump can overcome that.

    She doesn’t seem the type to quit for the betterment of the party and country. I don’t think the Democratic Party can take backsies post convention. She has to admit guilt to get a pardon, but even if she overcame the taint of that to become president, impeachment hearings would happen seconds after inauguration.

    This election season is one for the ages and it looks to be getting even crazier.

  74. MassMomentumEnergy says

    That should probably read “Comey recommends indictment or leaks the report and quits his post in protest of Lynch burying the findings.”

  75. Nomad says

    Has anyone else noticed Sullivan’s use of dogwhistles? I was stunned. Even as he’s talking about various things that he seems to be implying he accepts as good, such as gay rights, he’s loading his excessive verbiage up with dog whistles seemingly intended to signal that he doesn’t really approve of them.

    full license is established to do “whatever one wants,”

    Is how right religious people who don’t approve of gay people talk. In this context, license means only one thing. SEXUAL license. In other words, the ability to do things with your naughty bits that God doesn’t want you to. He’s mocking these gains in equal rights and he’s blaming them for the rise of Donald Trump. He’s not just blaming Democrats, he’s blaming the entire god damned progressive movement. He’s blaming the fact that we don’t live in the 1950s anymore.

    As to the part wherein he cries crocodile tears for poor white people who have been supporting conservative economic policies for decades that made their situation worse yet who blame their economic position on the “elites” (such a lovely weasel word that can mean anything one wants it to) rather then the party that put them in that position, what am I supposed to say? Gee, I’m sorry they believed that cutting taxes on the rich would somehow help them out? I’m sorry nobody tried to tell them that all that was bullshit. Nobody except those gosh darned elites on the democratic side, but since we’ve decided that they’re to blame we mustn’t talk about that.

    What’s that, they’re tired of being called racist, homophobic bigots? Then maybe they could STOP BEING RACIST AND HOMOPHOBIC. No, apparently I’m not allowed to say that, because….

    The Black Lives Matter left stoked the fires still further; so did the gay left, for whom the word magnanimity seems unknown, even in the wake of stunning successes.

    That’s right, because I’m not being magnanimous if I say that.

    Fuck you, Sullivan. Go back to your conservative masters and eat the cookie you earned for penning this tripe. The ink on the Obergefell decision wasn’t even dry before conservatives were coming up with new ways to fuck over LGBT people. What would have had LGBT people do in response to that? Say “oh, well, I’ll let you enshrine the ability to discriminate against me in law because at least I can get married now, so long as I can find a clerk willing to do their job”? Am I supposed to be magnanimous about a lesbian woman being kicked out of a woman’s bathroom because she was judged not to look feminine enough?

    It’s a sad thing that stunning successes means “starting to gain some measure of equality” in the conservative world.

  76. Nick Gotts says

    The treatment of cityofdis by both Vivec and Nerd was both irrational and unpleasant: cityofdis was making arguable points in a rational manner and was unfairly abused in response. It’s quite possible both to reject and condemn the vile bigotry of the Republican Party as a whole and the atrocities carried out by both Bush and the current administration (Obama and Clinton); and to recognise the unique danger which Trump poses, both to what remains of American democracy, and to the entire world. The open endorsement of violence against opponents, the shift from dog-whistling racism to its open proclamation, from refusing to call torture what it is and refusing to prosecute it to promising to step it up, from pretending you are only targeting actual terrorists to boasting that you will kill their families – it is simply dishonest to pretend that these are not a radical shift in the direction of fascism, and to argue that it is nothing new because Thurmond or Wallace said similar thing decades ago (and of course, never got near the Presidency), or, FFS, because Jefferson Davis. Srsly?

    Something that has frequently come up is the idea that it is dangerous for someone with Trump’s temperament and ignorance to be in charge of our nuclear arsenal. – cityofdis@64

    Exactly. Despite Vivec’s dismissal of this danger @36, Trump is an emotionally labile narcissist, who will if President interpret any international confrontation as a threat to his enormous but fragile ego. He could easily get into such a confrontation with Putin or Xi (whose country he has just accused of “raping” America) that neither side feels able to back down from – especially since his economic nostrums will obviously not work, and he’ll be looking for foreign distractions. Just because we’ve had 70 years without a nuclear war, doesn’t mean the danger has gone away. There were two close shaves in 1983 under Reagan – the closest parallel in invincible ignorance we’ve had to a President Trump (google “Stanislav Petrov” and “Able Archer”), and one under Bill Clinton in 1995 (“Norwegian rocket incident” – fortunately Yeltsin was sober at the time). If anyone claims to believe Hillary Clinton would be anything like as dangerous as Trump in such a crisis, or even that the vile theocrat Cruz* would have been, they’re either a fool or a liar.

    Now to Sullivan. He is right about the degree of danger Trump poses, largely wrong about how we got here, and about what should be done from this point. His article is also internally contradictory:

    And when all the barriers to equality, formal and informal, have been removed; when everyone is equal; when elites are despised and full license is established to do “whatever one wants,” you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy. There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise.

    The very rich come under attack, as inequality becomes increasingly intolerable.

    but:

    Many contend, of course, that American democracy is actually in retreat, close to being destroyed by the vastly more unequal economy of the last quarter-century and the ability of the very rich to purchase political influence.

    So, Andrew, how have all barriers to equality been removed, if as you admit, there has been a vast increase in economic inequality? (Sullivan goes on to claim that the influence of money on politics has been greatly exaggerated, but focuses only on Presidential contests, ignoring everything else.)

    It’s a period in which we have become far more aware of the historic injustices that still haunt African-Americans and yet we treat the desperate plight of today’s white working ­class as an afterthought.

    By any measure, of course, the plight of the black working class is far worse than that of their white counterparts. And it is of course Sullivan’s conservative cronies who have worked assiduously at directing the justified ire of the latter at the former rather than their real enemies and oppressors. Also, it turns out that Trump’s supporters are not, as a whole, economically disadvantaged. The median household income of Trump voters in the primaries so far is around $72,000, considerably above the national median of $56,000, and the median for both Clinton and Sanders voters of $61,000 (richer people are more likely to vote, hence even their voters come in at above the national median).

    Much of the newly energized left has come to see the white working class not as allies but primarily as bigots, misogynists, racists, and homophobes, thereby condemning those often at the near-bottom rung of the economy to the bottom rung of the culture as well.

    This is simply a lie: the “newly energized left” is mostly supporting Sanders, whose supporters are overwhelmingly white, and predominantly male.

    And so current poll numbers are only reassuring if you ignore the potential impact of sudden, external events — an economic downturn or a terror attack in a major city in the months before November. I have no doubt, for example, that Trump is sincere in his desire to “cut the head off” ISIS, whatever that can possibly mean. But it remains a fact that the interests of ISIS and the Trump campaign are now perfectly aligned. Fear is always the would-be tyrant’s greatest ally.

    Here Sullivan is absolutely right. The stupid complacency of many Democrats is both infuriating and alarming.

    It seems shocking to argue that we need elites in this democratic age — especially with vast inequalities of wealth and elite failures all around us.

    It’s not “shocking” at all, just routine establishment-right-wingery.

    And so those Democrats who are gleefully predicting a Clinton landslide in November need to both check their complacency and understand that the Trump question really isn’t a cause for partisan Schadenfreude anymore. It’s much more dangerous than that. Those still backing the demagogue of the left, Bernie Sanders, might want to reflect that their critique of Clinton’s experience and expertise — and their facile conflation of that with corruption — is only playing into Trump’s hands.

    The comparison of Sanders with Trump is of course dishonest – and I’d have been campaigning for him if I was an American – but Sullivan has a real point with regard to his very limited administrative experience; and his proposals (for dealing with the banks, for example) have been disappointingly vague. It’s an indictment of the left within the Democratic Party – such as it is – that it could produce no better candidate. This is a year when such a candidate might have won both nominantion and election.

    More to the point, those Republicans desperately trying to use the long-standing rules of their own nominating process to thwart this monster deserve our passionate support, not our disdain. This is not the moment to remind them that they partly brought this on themselves.

    Actually, it’s exactly the moment for that, and they thoroughly deserve our disdain – as do their abettors, such as that bladderheaded conservative gay Catholic commentator – what was his name?… oh yes, Andrew Sullivan. As others have said, if Republicans want to join the fight to keep Trump out, fine, but there should be no concessions to them at all for doing so and in particular, no let-up in the struggle to maximise Democratic (and particularly, liberal/progressive) gains in Congress.

    And if they fail in Indiana or Cleveland, as they likely will, they need, quite simply, to disown their party’s candidate. They should resist any temptation to loyally back the nominee or to sit this election out. They must take the fight to Trump at every opportunity, unite with Democrats and Independents against him, and be prepared to sacrifice one election in order to save their party and their country.

    And will you be denouncing those who don’t, Andrew? And if, as will almost certainly be the case, that is the majority of the party, will you be leaving it?

    *Contrary to what many people believe, Cruz’s version of theocracy is not of the “bring on the Rapture” variety. He’s a postmillenialist dominionist – Christians have to establish their rule on earth and transfer wealth to the “righteous” before Jesus comes back.

  77. Derek Vandivere says

    #80 / Nomad: Are you aware that he’s gay himself and had been making a case for legalizing gay marriage from the conservative side since years before Obergefell?

  78. Vivec says

    @82
    Good. Maybe he should stop allying himself with a political ideology that has consistently opposed gay rights, rather than being complicit in it.

    Also, @81, eat my whole ass. I’m not going to pretend a reality tv star and shitty CEO making speeches like some kind of 4chan poster is somehow going to cock up worse than Bush or Reagan, or manage to have worse human rights abuses than Jefferson or Truman, without evidence.

    Nor am I going to be nice to someone promoting racially blind bullshit or defending imperialist scum like dubya. So, you know, if you agree wholeheartedly with cityofdis, feel free to go fuck yourself.

  79. Derek Vandivere says

    Vivec, I was going to let it drop, but your worldview is just ridiculously simplistic.

  80. Vivec says

    Better simplistic than Chicken Little crowing about how the world will literally end if a racist reality tv star becomes president.

  81. Nomad says

    #82

    Yes, I’m aware he’s gay. This is the first time I’ve seen a gay man blowing the anti-gay dog whistle.

    I stand by what I said. He threw gay rights under the bus and tried to blame LGBT activists for Donald Trump, because they just made those poor, bigoted white people feel so uncomfortable.