Veteran readers know that making predictions about the future is not a thing I love to do. Very little of political science is predictive, and the processes of politics are too complex for the conditions of something like an election to be replicated across time. But having gone all-in on predicting Trump will get his lunch handed to him in November, I'm surprised at how rapidly the wheels are coming off his campaign all of one week into the general election period. Like any good Third World strongman-bully / man-child, Trump is already setting up the stab-in-back legend of his own defeat, telling audiences he's "afraid the election is going to be rigged." So clearly he has a pretty firm sense of what's coming. Who are we to disagree with him. Because of the tantalizing possibility that I could look like a smart person in the future if I put a few things in writing now, here are four predictions I'm willing to bet my life savings ($57.38) on in the 99 remaining days until we put this grotesque carnival to an end.
1. The first one's easy: Trump is going to show up to one debate with Clinton and then refuse to do any more. He played this game throughout the primary process, making a big show of agreeing to or refusing to show up to various debates depending on his infantile whims.
Primary debates are not only a dime a dozen but are comparatively rinky-dink, unstructured affairs. The general election debates organized by the CPD are planned well in advance and the organization feels like it has sufficient clout to resist interference (although it does iron out debate details in consultation with the campaigns to try to make sure everyone is placated). Insisting on date and venue changes isn't going to fly. After the humiliating experience of having to try to answer real questions without a script on live TV once, he's going to demand all kinds of concessions to show up to additional debates. They will be rejected out of hand, and he'll insist that he can't do any more debates because it's "unfair" or something.
2. When the outlook is particularly bleak Trump will attempt to replace Mike Pence. Playing off the popularity of his lame reality TV series, he'll do some big, cheesy "You're fired!" publicity stunt and replace him with whoever exists in the political-entertainment universe that is willing to get on board with (and attach their name to) the worst presidential campaign in American history. Now that the nomination is official and ballot deadlines have passed it isn't even technically possible for him to replace a running mate (Even a person on the ticket who died between now and Election Day would appear on the ballot in most states) but don't pretend like that will stop him.
3. When he really starts flailing around once he becomes a pure laughingstock, he's going to go full racist.
buy veklury online pmilv.com/wp-content/languages/new/cheap/veklury.html no prescription
"He already is," you say. No, this is still soft racism by right-wing standards. He's using coded language for the most part.
When the memories of the adulation he received during the primaries have long since faded, he's going to use at least one racial slur on camera. I'd bet my house on it if I had one.
4. This might go without saying, but when he comes to grips with how badly he's going to lose he will insist that he was never really serious about running and that he never really wanted to be president anyway.
buy clomid online pmilv.com/wp-content/languages/new/cheap/clomid.html no prescription
The presidency and the American people are beneath him, he'll announce, and he has better and more important things to do than to lead a nation of ingrates like pearls before swine.
One way or another I'll bump this after the election. I won't duck out of the line of fire like a certain candidate is going to.
Icarus says:
"Even a person on the ticket who died between now and Election Day would appear on the ballot in most states"
and in the year 2016 shouldn't we kinda have a less outdated process for such a scenario?
jon says:
He'll still get 160+ Electoral Votes, but only about a hundred when the Electoral College votes. Cruz will get at least forty. That party is going to implode (but still run the House, because of gerrymandered advantage.)
rustonite says:
@Icarus no, not really. presidential elections are not things that can turn on a dime. It takes weeks to print ballots and program voting machines, not to mention certifying signatures and whatnot for a nomination. This is why the Constitution has a provision for it- if the president-elect dies before being nominated, the vice-president-elect takes over. If the vice-president-elect dies, then the Senate chooses a replacement. It's not perfect, but given the constraints of time and space, it's the best we're likely to do. It's just one of the imperfections of a presidential system, and why parliamentary systems are better.
gakster29 says:
This post made me sad that I got the Kreskin reference despite the fact I'm under 30.
Net Denizen says:
He's already supposedly told people he would delegate all his duties to the VP, so you've already sort of gotten one correct without trying!
canuckistani says:
Do you think he'll go racist? I am leaning more toward him just calling Clinton a bitch on live tv, and going the personal-attack-informed-by-misogyny route since he is so focused on her as someone critiqiung him in public. he already compared her to a mosquito, calls her crooked, encourages the 'lock her up' chant, etc. I guess what's most sad is that we all expect he'll do one or the other, and it's just a matter of waiting to see which route he takes and when.
J. Dryden says:
Great minds, etc.–I noted to someone yesterday that "You don't complain that the system is rigged if you think you're going to win."
I think his people took one look at Clinton's post-convention bounce, and looked at the map and their paucity of ground-troops, campaign funds, etc., and told him in no uncertain terms that victory was unlikely to the point of being laughable.
Do we want to create side-bets–like whether Paul Manafort will finish the campaign as its manager, given that the media have finally noticed that most of his paychecks have a watermark in Cyrillic?
Or should we take odds on WHICH racial slur Trump will end up using?
My big bet is based on my pet theory–that we'll find out down the road that Trump is actually in the it's-getting-serious stages of untreated syphilis. Think about how much of his appearance and behavior that explains, and then tell me I'm crazy. (Note: Not an invitation for a medical lecture; I know this isn't true, but it's cruel and fun and that's enough.)
One of Trump's (many, many) problems all along has been that he does not regard any pursuit other than that of wealth to be virtuous. Which means that he was bound to scorn the military at some point. And that's a big fucking 3rd rail–that's the rock that McCarthy's ship crashed up against. I'd like to believe that Mr. Khan's speech was Trump's "Have you no sense of decency" moment–I believe that such a moment IS going to happen, and that now, now when the conventions are over and there are no other options, no other candidates to make the situation blurry, or for Trump to hide behind, the collective realization has begun to sink in that not even the prospect of a Hillary "That BITCH" Clinton presidency is enough to make us willing to stomach this man in a position of power over us.
Overly optimistic of me, perhaps. But it's nice to come here and be reminded that I'm not alone.
Bitter Scribe says:
I can't see him dumping Pence, because that would mean admitting he was wrong about something.
It's slightly more possible that Pence will grow a spine and bail, although I really don't see that happening either.
Paul says:
On a serious note, my fear is that the exact opposite of 2000 will happen. Gore stepped aside gracefully after having the election stolen from him, ostensibly for the good of the country (because he has yet to invent time travel, or because somehow things would have been worse?) Gore could have refused to concede and instigated a constitutional crisis the likes of which the country has never seen.
What happens if Trump loses and decides to take the "IT'S RIGGED!" to the bloodiest conclusion? Of course, the measured and respectable gentleman he is, he's obviously just tie it up in the courts as long as possible. But then what? Does he declare that the certified results are, in effect, a coup, and stir his rabid band of assholes to attempt a violent return to what they see as legitimate rule (himself remaining, of course, above the fray)?
Maybe Russia will send peacekeepers.
duquesne_pdx says:
@canuckistani
He'll do both! Racist and sexist FTW.
NC_Nate says:
#2 seems the least likely to me, but if it did happen, oh man would that be rich
Skipper says:
You may not like to predict the future, but that's the only choice you have. Predicting the past is sooo boring.
Part of me (a big part) wants to believe everything you predict, but there is a small part of me that rebels. Every two weeks since June of 2015, we've had a "Trump has gone too far this time — he's finished" moment. And still he charges ahead. I think we've already passed the "have you no sense of decency" point and left it in the dust. This isn't 1954. We've had 30 years now of hate speech spewing from the right wing on a 24/7/365 basis. Americans are inured to it. When a poisonous hag like Ann Coulter can be treated as a political commentator and can actually sell books, we've already gone over the falls on a sense of decency.
As far as "debates" (and we all know they're no really debates, don't we), Trump has the Gish Gallop on his side. That's his stock in trade. Hillary, on the other hand, is not good on her feet. She's smart, but she's no Bill and she's no Obama. She has to be meticulously coached and prepped, and there's no way to prep for a Gish Gallop. The way you prep someone for a "debate" like this is to anticipate everything the other person is going to bring up, but no one — not even Trump — knows what he's going to bring up until he opens the anus that passes for a mouth.
People compare Trump to Hitler, but that's not apt. He's no Hitler. Hitler had a plan — admittedly a sick, twisted, and murderous plan, but he had a plan. Trump is just a richer version of a used-car salesman. He will say anything that pops into his head in order to con his audience.
@J. Dryden, as far as checks with Cyrillic on them, the word is out there — admittedly from the Breitbart corner — that John Podesta has a few of those checks too. As much as I disdain Breitbart, there's probably a kernel of truth there. The Hillary crowd should open that can of worms with extreme caution. But I do like the untreated syphilis conjecture. It would, indeed, explain an awful lot.
On a different note, what I've been wondering about lately is just who you have to piss off and what you have to do to be assigned to Trump's Secret Service detail. Who in their right mind would take a bullet for that oversized piece of human plankton? If gunfire were to break out, I can see his minders using him as a human shield.
Talisker says:
A couple of long-shot but interesting scenarios:
1) At some point, Trump loses it on camera. Not just racial slurs or cuss words, but a full-on crying, shrieking, toddler-up-past-bedtime tantrum.
2) Trump physically assaults Clinton during their pre-debate handshake. Either a "friendly" thump on the shoulder that goes too far, or just an attempt to punch her.
At this point, I rule nothing out as too childish or offensive for him to do.
Delbort says:
He'll then look a reporter straight in the eye and announce he's never even met Hillary Clinton, he meets people every day, he doesn't remember every single one, who are you talking about?
catbirdman says:
Love this and love you all. My bold prediction is that Trump calls for insurrection some time during October. Buy then the writing will be completely obscuring the wall and he will be desperate for a way out that makes him feel like a bold agent of change rather than a laughingstock getting trounced by a girl. Were that to happen things could get dicey. I just can't picture Orange Julius Caesar quietly accepting the McGovernesque drubbing that seems so likely under any scenario in which America holds an election in the manner we're all accustomed to.
Timurid says:
Trump needs more than 70% of the white vote to win. He has to do much better than Romney's already historic numbers in 2012 and achieve something unprecedented in national politics in the post-Civil Rights era.
The only way something like that happens is if there's a disaster that causes widespread hysteria and panic specifically among white Americans. The one event that could do that would be a mass casualty terror attack against white civilians by someone doing it in the name of black/nonwhite Americans. Such an event is obviously highly unlikely, but after Dallas and Baton Rouge, with a new meme now loose in the crazysphere, it's just a tiny bit less unlikely. There's no organized group with the desire and ability to do such a thing, but lone wolves or lone wolf packs can still be very deadly (Oklahoma City, Oslo, Orlando, Nice, etc.). If the Russians, ISIS or some other shadowy foreign masterminds are really going all out to get President Trump, they should be working to organize the false flag version of this scenario ASAP.
tl;dr Trump is completely screwed unless he can hit all 666 numbers in the Devil's Powerball.
Liberal Lawyer says:
Re: the whole "the election is rigged" gambit…One possibility is that Trump is laying the groundwork to discredit the results of the election. A fabulously anti-democratic ploy. But there's a more sinister – if outlandish – possibility that's been creeping into my mind. What if there's a plan for hackers to disrupt election day itself? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/could-russian-hackers-spoil-election-day-n619321
If this were the case, then the gambit goes as follows. Trump waves his arms NOW about the election being rigged. This leads Hillary and the media to ridicule him and confirm that the election is not rigged. Russian hackers disrupt the US election. Hillary is no longer in a strong position to claim that the election was rigged because she's been arguing against that proposition for 3 months.
It's an insane theory, and it's only indicative of the insane times we're living through that I would even entertain proposing it.
Laie says:
It's not over before it's over. I'm concerned, I really am.
a) Clinton's lost to Obama when he was a young upstart, she almost lost to the unlikely Sanders… I won't put it beyond her to somehow mess this up.
b) Trump may be underreported in the polls.
c) quite a few people will vote Trump (or Jill Stein or not at all) in the belief that it doesn't matter, that their state will fall to Clinton in any event. In conjunction with b) this may prove disastrous. After Brexit the news was full of people who voted Leave in order to stick it to The Man, or whatever, and were devastated in hindsight.
Major Kong says:
Sadly somewhere around 40% of the electorate would vote for a serial killer if he were the Republican nominee.
"What's a few dead hitchhikers as long as I get my tax cut?"
Timurid says:
@Major Kong
When they find that cabin in the Pine Barrens that the Donald built out of the bones of dead hookers, we'll get to test your theory…
Well. Mostly says:
Pence could come down with A mysterious illness – out he goes, Trump having generously accepted his resignation. AKA you're fired. Second chance of Christie?
The military might yet play a role. There must be more than a few who don't love the thought of going off whereever Trump points. I don't see a tight or complete overlap with soldiers and his rally folks. If word 'leaks out' through retired officers that officers don't want to or won't follow his commands, he has an easy out: our military has been taken over by PC types sympathetic to terrorists. How can he fight without an army short of some McCarthy like purge? Can't. Won't try. Can't keep us safe. Blame goes to the regular list. He's already set it up saying the military has been taken apart by BHO and ineffective leaders who won't cotton torture. Seems to me the military has as much or more skin in the game than any others. Many might be looking at the election and wondering what's in store in a very real way.
Safety Man! says:
Haven't heard anyone say this, but I'd bet that if Ross Perot had run this year, it would already be over. I don't recall the specifics, but I think he had some crazy on him, but still.
Leon says:
Re: #2:
Gary Busey, Gary Busey, Gary BUSEY!!!
Nate says:
@Bitter_Scribe He already bailed on running for governor a second time in Indiana because a large part of the electorate, both republican and democratic hate him. His years of governing here was such a shitshow that his own party was glad to have him be Trump's VP so they could run someone else who wasn't totally going to be blown out by the democratic candidate, John Gregg.
Gromet says:
I like to think the electoral college will be capable of fulfilling its purpose, should the Donald win the election, and reject him outright. I'm fairly sure the Founders (who these Republicans all worship so hard) put the EC in there as a failsafe against the moronic passions of the crowd. If the voters try to put a danger in the executive, the EC blocks it.
But more than that, I like to think Trump doesn't break 40%.
Brian M says:
I think we are focusing too much on TRUMP the Crazzzzzy. The bigger problem is the significant part of the electorate who are eager, even fanatical, to support him.
I think Ed is wrong. I think there is a good portion of the old white electorate who wants to "chuck it all" and vote for the first American Punch Down Revolution.
Gerald McGrew says:
As far as predicting that Trump will call Hillary a "bitch", he's already called her "the devil" this week.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-calls-hillary-clinton-devil/story?id=41056426
Robert says:
I just read the Inc. article about Peter Thiel and his enthusiasm for parabiosis. There was a time when 'amoral billionaire seeks young blood to extend his life' would have been science fiction. How long ago would an accurate account of Trump's picaresque pursuit of the Presidency have been equally far-fetched? Even Sinclair Lewis made 'Buzz' Windrip a Senator.
Skipper says:
@Gromet — the Founders didn't put the EC in there to protect against the mob voting for a lunatic. They didn't envision popular voting for president at all. What they said was that the state should select electors who would vote for president and vice president. They didn't specify how the states should do that. The electors could just as well have been appointed by the legislature or even by the governor himself. They didn't even envision a woman as governor.) This was to be an oligarchy where the "brightest and the best" (aka richest) would get together pick another one of the "brightest and best" to be president. Since these were all "gentlemen" of the same class, it's unlikely a lunatic would be among them. It's also why they said that the president and the vice president couldn't be from the same state — a check and balance to prevent one state's electors from taking over the process.
Pete Gaughan says:
Pence won't back out. Even losing, he's a made man: he has sewed up the optimum Republican Grifter career path and can spend the rest of his days being paid to appear on radio and have other people ghost his books. The only way he can screw that up is by being labeled a "quitter", letting conservatism down.
Philippa says:
@Paul: "Maybe Russia will send peacekeepers." Well thanks, that's the scariest thing I've read today.
canuckistani says:
@Gerlad McGrew – some 10 year old kid beat him to it.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/today_trump_accepted_a_purple_heart_kicked_a_crying_baby_out_allowed_a_kid_to_call_hillary_a_b_tch
Jimcat says:
@ Safety Man:
" I don't recall the specifics, but I think…"
Well go get the specifics and come back and post them for Chrissake!
truth=freedom says:
I'm with @Philippa, @Paul made me consider scary thoughts that wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise.
I'm unconvinced that Trump will think or act on anything but the "stabbed in the back" charge unless he's clearly twenty points down.
If so, then sure, he can go off the rails, and maybe the Libertarians or the Greens will get a huge bump, and the GOP evaporates. I do think nominating Trump risks the future of the GOP anyway, but he has to lose for that to happen, and I'm unconvinced it'll actually happen.
Schmitt trigger says:
What would be the US equivalent of a Reichstag fire?
Skepticalist says:
Warren Buffett took apart Trump in a speech from one of his Omaha meetings, I understand. I didn't catch it all but it must be around somewhere. A lot of it had to do with Trump's insipid business practices.
Buffett had a "Have you no decency?" moment as well.
schmitt trigger says:
Adolf Hitler, urged President Paul von Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties in order to counter the ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany.[2]
After passing the decree, the government instituted mass arrests of communists, including all of the Communist Party parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival communists gone and their seats empty, the Nazi Party went from being a plurality party to the majority, thus enabling Hitler to consolidate his power.
Chad Woolley says:
Wiki leaks is the wildcard.
If they release something devastating against Clinton at the right time, then that could drive enough away from her to third parties and to Trump to make a difference.
Or maybe she is even disqualified. What happens then? Bernie???
patchwork says:
@schmitt trigger – the Reichstag fire equivalent would be the utter destruction of Dulles International Airport. As a practical matter it wouldn't change much – there are other ways to get in and out of Washington DC, just as there were other places for the Reichstag to meet – but isolating DC from the rest of the country ought to do the trick.
Teddifish says:
You act like the internet will be allowed to continue if he wins.
willofark says:
#2 – Palin would most likely be glad to step in.
John Danley says:
Meg Whitman, Richard Hanna, etc. Everyone who desires to be buried with a modicum of dignity when they die is slowly backing away from the only man willing to pull a mutated gerbil out of Putin's ass and place it directly up his own.
Lit3Bolt says:
I agree that the only way for Trump to lose his base at this point would be to worship Bhaal on live TV, breaking puppies' necks and drinking their blood…and maybe not even then.
mago says:
Re: #4 I think he really didn't. Just f*cking with shit as is his wont.
Noskilz says:
I suspect your $57.38 is safe, although I will admit to being a little doubtful about the VP replacement stunt notion.
Less doubtful Pence might flee once Trump starts to come truly unglued – but that can still probably be counted as a replacement attempt.
But who would it be? Scott Baio?
Delbort says:
@Noskilz
Newt Gingrich has been keeping his jaw limber and his breath fresh for just such an occasion.
Talisker says:
@skipper:
There were (and are) plenty of lunatics in the upper class. But say what you will about the gentry, they're good at keeping up appearances, so the crazies were mostly kept away from visible positions of power.
@patchwork:
Nope. There are other major airports near DC (Reagan/National and Baltimore), plus Air Force bases which could be pressed into service.
Also, airports are big. "Utter destruction" of one is not easy, unless someone gets hold of a nuke, in which case Dulles is the least of our concerns. A more conventional attack wouldn't shut it for long; Brussels airport opened a few days after the recent terrorist bombings.
Anyway, I'll say this for the USA: It got through 9/11, which was orders of magnitude more shocking and destructive than the Reichstag fire, without falling into full-blown dictatorship. The Nazi playbook of "set fire to something and blame the Communists" is unlikely to work in 2016 America.
geoff says:
@Talisker, re: 9/11, well we did get two wars (at the least), indefinite detention (see Juan Padilla and Guantanamo), illegal mass surveillance by the NSA, kidnapping and torture, and my personal favorite, extrajudicial assassination of US citizens (and of course a lot of innocent brown people) by flying death robots. That's not nothin'.
To Ed's point, and while I'm feelin' foily, the Deep State will surely not allow the Giant Evil Baby to gain the Presidency. If any actor were to "hack" the election (if that's even possible) it would be the NSA/DoD. And Hillary's their girl.
All the Russia bashing of late strikes me as a lead up to war– THAT scares me a lot more than a Guy With Stupid Hair and a Penchant for Models.
waspuppet says:
A couple weeks ago, I predicted Trump will not give a concession speech after he loses on Election Night. I stand by that, although it's not as bold a statement as it was then, since it now appears at least possible that Trump will issue some sort of BURN IT ALL DOWN command.
Talisker says:
@geoff:
Yes, I know. My point is that 9/11 didn't extinguish constitutional government in America, whose institutions are more robust than their counterparts in the Weimar Republic.
I'm sure the spooks don't want Trump as President, but their capacity to stop him is limited. They are not all-powerful puppet masters. A large scale effort to rig the vote is correspondingly likely to be found out. Sneaky tricks like revealing dirty secrets about the candidate are more plausible… but when it comes to Trump, the stuff he says openly is so deranged, revealing skeletons in his closet becomes almost superfluous.
The people running Homeland Security are bureaucrats, not Bond villains. Like the rest of us, they will probably have to hope Trump doesn't win, and prepare to ride out the consequences if he does.
Not really. Nobody has anything to gain from a large-scale war between Russia and NATO. That doesn't exclude the scary possibility of blundering into one by accident (cf. Serbia, 1914). But for now what we're seeing is one part propaganda and posturing; and one part Russia aggressively expanding its "sphere of influence" in Ukraine, which NATO doesn't like but won't go to war over.
Jimcat says:
@Chad Woolley:
"If they release something devastating against Clinton…"
There is no such thing. The Republican Party, a powerful domestic terrorist organization, has been trying to manufacture some such thing for decades. If they can't make anything stick, I doubt that Wikileaks could find anything that could be spun into a game changer.
Asbestos says:
He'll whip it out, sure enough.
RosiesDad says:
And as of this morning, people in the GOP and media are calling on the RNC to remove Trump from the candidacy. How does that happen?
Skepticalist says:
Pissing off the Army: Real dumb.
Jimcat says:
@RosiesDad:
In theory, it happens however the RNC wants it to happen. They say, "We no longer support Donald Trump as our candidate for President of the United States." They stop giving him money or running ads on his behalf. Republican elected or party officials, when speaking on the record, say that they do not endorse Trump.
In reality, it doesn't happen. Repudiating their candidate at this stage would anger a large faction of Republican voters and show the GOP to be a party in disarray and confusion. They would lose support for the other candidates on the Republican ballot. And because of state ballot rules, it would be too late to submit another person as the "true" Republican candidate for President.
In short, it's a good slogan to shout, but dumping Trump would do the party more harm than good, even at this stage.
geoff says:
@Talisker, well I DID say I was feeling (tin)foily, i.e. conspiratorial earlier. Though there's certainly an argument to be made that the Court's 2000 decision to install GWB as President and warrantless wiretapping alone were indications of the end of constitutional government. Better minds than mine have pointed to the 1947 National Security Act as the beginning of the end. (Also, Roswell. Kidding!!)
But you lost me on Ukraine, which was of course part of the USSR until its collapse in 1991. Russia's "sphere of influence" has included most of Ukraine for hundreds of years. The recent revolution there certainly had US fingerprints on it. (Nuland: "Yats is our guy".) All the framing of Russia as an aggressor when in fact NATO is conducting military exercises in Poland and the Baltics (also part of the USSR until '91) and placing anti-missile missiles in Romania makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/06/nato-launches-largest-war-game-in-eastern-europe-since-cold-war-anaconda-2016
(Thanks for answering! I'm not tryin' to be a jerk ; ) )
Khaled says:
@geoff:
Ukraine is not part of the "Russian Empire" any more than Mexico and/or Latin America is part of the US Empire. The Soviets did occupy Ukraine and it has been under Russian "influence" for centuries, but it is a sovereign country and most Ukrainians would like to not be occupied by Russia, thank-you-very-much. Put it another way: Poland has been occupied on and off for it's history and the international community would flip shit if it was occupied by Russia and declared part of Russia, or if Hungary occupied Slovakia because "it used to be part of greater Hungary for centuries, cuz". Borders come and go in Central and Eastern Europe, but to claim that Ukraine being involved in a proxy war with Russia in eastern Ukraine, along with the annexation of Crimea, is somehow the US's fault beggars belief.
NATO does not want a shooting war with a country with nuclear weapons, and instead is content to crash the Russian economy, which worked before during the 80s (cheap oil prices bankrupted the Soviets which helped usher in the end of the USSR). Considering the US had nuclear weapons in Turkey for dozens of years, any military installations in Romania are not a "clear act of aggression" and neither is "war games" in the Baltics when the Russians are clearly involved in subverting governments in neighboring countries.
Talisker says:
@geoff:
While both the USA and Russia have tried to meddle in Ukraine, Russia is the one with boots on the ground. Russia has de facto annexed Crimea, and sent troops into eastern Ukraine to fight on the side of pro-Russian elements in their conflict with Kiev. I'm pretty comfortable characterising that as aggression.
Contrariwise, the Baltic states have stable, democratically elected governments which have chosen to join NATO. You can make a realpolitik argument that it's none of the USA's business what Russia does in Estonia, but the Estonians themselves have other ideas. They do not want to be part of a Russian sphere of influence, and I don't blame them. Similar arguments apply to Poland, Romania, and the rest of Eastern Europe.
I mean, where does it stop? Does Germany have to hand back East Berlin if Putin asks for it? Does Norway have to give up its decades-long membership of NATO, because it has a land border with Russia? Does the modern Turkish government get to dictate policy to Greece or Israel, because they were part of the Ottoman Empire for several hundred years?
No worries. :-)
geoff says:
@Khaled, large parts of Mexico are definitely part of the United States' empire: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and (Alta) California for starters.
The Monroe Doctrine? US-backed regime change or straight up military intervention in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Grenada, Panama, Honduras (thanks Hill!), Guatemala, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Chile for starters? Of course the U.S. is an empire, and the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America are all parts of it.
(OMG I'M TURNIN' CHOMSKYITE!!)
Emerson Dameron says:
@Paul:
I could see him going full Coleman:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2008/12/30/2008-cocksucker-of-the-year-norm-coleman/
…if he weren't such a puffed-up, half-assed coward w/r/t legal matters.
My biggest concern is that some even slightly more shrewd fuhrer will appear to fill the post-election Trump-shaped void and not fuck it up as badly as he has.
His minions aren't going away or giving up, and they're a lot more dangerous than Trump himself.
Emerson Dameron says:
My long-term prediction is that losing to Trump will be the best thing that ever happened to Ted Cruz.
Even I have some grudging respect for the guy now.
wnsrfr says:
I'm going with Trump withdrawing from the race due to health reasons. Maybe bone spurs again, or diet-pill induced psychosis?
Seriously, probably a previously "undiscovered cardiac ailment" that makes him unable to continue and requires him to withdraw from the race…
mothra says:
I predict Trump wins and we will all be staring at each other, mouths agape come Nov. 9th.
geoff says:
@Talisker, yeah, realpolitik, and honestly a bit of isolationism mixed in there too. Hate to agree with the Giant Evil Baby, but why is the defense of Latvia (or Ukraine for that matter) any of the U.S.'s business? NATO lost its raison d'etre twenty-five years ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The EU is more populous and wealthy than the U.S. They need to take care of themselves. And we'll see what happens with Brexit, but for the time being they have two nuclear-armed member states.
Before the fall, U.S. troops were stationed in West Germany as a "tripwire" to guarantee U.S. involvement in case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Now we have U.S. troops advanced all the way up to the borders of Russia itself? Whether intentional or not, this seems like a good way to provoke a war the west is unlikely to win.
And thanks for replying : ) (Pease respond again if you like, but I have jacked this thread quite enough already.)
Tim says:
#2: You've given me renewed hope that Caitlyn Jenner still has a chance.
Maaya says:
I predict that Trump will call Hillary the C word. He would be able to get away with Bitch. "Hey, it's a neutral terms these days. All the kids call each other bitch."
Also that if/when he receives a security briefing, within hours – maybe minutes – he will tweet something that massively compromises our national security. Something highly classified.
Because he won't be able to resist showing off.
Art says:
I was contemplating the Trump and his odds ans somewhere between the revulsion at even the non-zero chance he wins and his staggering defeat It occurred to me, like a bolt from the blue, what might happen.
The defining characteristic of the Tea Party is disappointment and a sense of betrayal. They vote and organize and yet their racists, religious fanatic, homophobic agenda never goes anywhere. Trump is their 'Great White Hope' and possibly the last GWH ever again. I read that at the beginning of the Obama term White Christians made up 51% of the population. At the end, 45%. This is their last shot.
Despite dodging and weaving, and assertions that it is rigged he claims he knows how the system works and would win big despite that. When his candidacy starts circling the drain blame will rain down upon The Donald from his hardest-core supporters. A Tea Bagger will attempt to kill The Donald. The RNC right-wing will not be shocked or disappointed. With Trump out of the way they get Pence, a solid social conservative and religious fanatic. He is the candidate Cruz wishes he could be. Cruz is a manipulator but Pence has learned to fake sincerity.
The Donald will be widely eulogized and the RNC will move on with the candidate their hard-core social conservatives wanted. Pence will give Hillary a run for her money riding the mythologised and martyred Trump.
Talisker says:
@Maaya: That would be funny, but AIUI the candidate security briefings don't contain highly classified information. Each candidate gets one or two meetings, and is told in general terms about important security issues. After the election, the President-elect gets the same daily briefings as the outgoing President does.
@Art: If Trump dies or withdraws, then AIUI the RNC can replace him with whoever it wants, not necessarily Pence. Cruz would demand the top spot. Romney would put himself forward as the "moderate" candidate. Amusing hijinks would ensue.
I'm sure the RNC would prefer that scenario to Trump staying in the race. But I don't see Trump quitting voluntarily, unless he's literally unable to get out of a hospital bed, and maybe not even then. He's enjoying the attention too much. He's unlikely to be assassinated; the Secret Service are very professional, and getting past them would not be easy.
@geoff:
Yeah, it's a threadjacking, but what the hell. It's Ed's blog, if he doesn't like it he can tell us.
You gotta be kidding me. What happened in the 19th century can stay in the 19th century.
Two wrongs don't make a right. For example, the US blockade of Cuba is idiotic (something Obama is belatedly correcting). But I note the USA is not fighting a war to annex half of Cuba, which would be the rough equivalent of what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Yeah, that's the point of view of a 19th century imperialist. These are our subject peoples, those are yours, we can carve up the map into spheres of influence and everyone's happy (except the subject peoples, but who gives a crap about them).
The alternative point of view is that democracies should stick together. Otherwise Russia might get greedy; Latvia today, Poland tomorrow, and Germany next week. I hate to go all Godwin, but in the 1930s what happened in Eastern Europe turned out to be very much American business, and it remains so today.
The EU is not a military alliance and was never intended to be. There are EU members not in NATO (Finland, Austria, Ireland) and vice versa (Norway, Turkey, Canada). And US military spending is so high because the Pentagon is the most insanely wasteful organisation on Earth. If US taxpayers want to fund boondoggles like the F-35 that's their business, but other NATO members are not obliged to follow suit.
NATO is a defensive alliance, and no sane person fears an attack from it. There are plenty of small countries bordering NATO who are not concerned about American military exercises. So Russia, with its much bigger army and thousands of nuclear weapons, has no reason to be worried, except that it suits Russian politicians to stir up nationalist paranoia. Arguably, that is a good reason *not* to allow those same politicians to do as they please in neighbouring countries.
Vinny says:
Ed, the more you write sane logical arguments for why Trump will not be the next president, the more nervous I get. We have been transported into an alternate universe. A bizzarro universe if you will, where people I know who call themselves Catholics, and go to church every Sunday and sing in the choir, will vote for a man who is hateful, greedy, uncaring, has no empathy, is racist, thinks abortion is ok, disrespects the Eucharist by calling it a "cracker", and attacks the Pope.
Dan says:
@Robert: Pretty sure parabiosis for the rich as an immortality treatment was done in 1969. See Norman Spinrad's Bug Jack Barron.
April says:
My tinfoil hat is still on. Yes, I think Trump will fuck this up himself, in any of the previously stated ways. But if not, the ruling group (whoever they are) will NOT allow him to win, because they can't control him.
Talisker says:
Correction to my earlier way-off-topic post: To be fair, if you're a tinpot dictator in the process of committing genocide, you do have something to fear from NATO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
The Serbs and Russians are both Eastern Orthodox Slavs, so the Russians were displeased about the NATO bombing in 1999. It accounts for some of Russia's anti-NATO paranoia, but Russia itself has nothing to fear (what with owning several thousand nukes).
Matt says:
@Paul:
TBH this is one of the *better* outcomes – it results in the most vehement of Trumpkins ultimately either in the ground or in prison . Letting them fester in-place is arguably worse, because every vote they cast from "Village Dog-Catcher" on up will be for more mini-Trumps…
6th Column says:
From my reading of the Federalist Papers, there were letters between the Founders stating quite specifically that the Electoral College was inserted to prevent a "demagogue" from obtaining office by inflaming the passions of the common man. The electors are not actually required to vote for the man their state majority selected.