trump will get more votes as an independent than he will as a republican because it will smash the partisan gridlock that sees 90% of the country vote based on letter rather than policy. that said, he's still unlikely to win - it's just the difference between getting 20% as a republican and 30% as an independent. the republicans do not have a monopoly on stupidity.

the biggest problem in the united states is the two-party system and the consensus-leading-to-gridlock that results. trump might be a frightening, lunatic fringe dipshit, but if he can break that system up then he's doing the world an invaluable service

if he can pull that base out of the spectrum, and leave a more moderate republican party behind, it should also help to pull the democrats a little to the left.

i mean, what you want is a four party system that has three serious parties that meet in the center and one to mop up the fringe and keep them out of the system. you need to get to three before you can get to four. but, it's clear where a trump-led "tea party" type party would sit.

while we're at it, why not convince bernie sanders to run as an independent? if trump opens up the spectrum, sanders very quickly becomes more competitive.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-dumped-from-republican-event-after-attack-on-fox-moderator-megyn-kelly-1.3184230

i'm a politically engaged left-of-center voter and the debate more or less ruled out a vote for the liberals this election cycle, and perhaps ever again. i haven't seen a single attack ad. i don't even own a tv. and i'm somewhat of a fan of his father. but justin trudeau demonstrated very clearly - crystal clearly - that he's somewhat of an airhead. this media narrative that trudeau held his own is exposing a lot of the media bias; it's a preposterous analysis. his responses were consistently ridiculous, and bordering on a parody of the legacy of the canadian liberal party. he didn't just look weak. he bluntly looked unelectable.

you're probably right that not many people watched this - on thursday. however, something that has changed in the internet era is that voters can go back and watch the debate whenever they want. they just have to look it up on youtube. by the end of the cycle, i would expect this to result in record penetration. the internet era is not the tv era, and voters will be more informed from this moment forwards than they have been since the 50s, when the tv stole their brains.

and, i'm rather convinced that it *was* decisive and will have a dramatic influence. not because anybody really pulled ahead. the other three parties held their ground, and really only appealed to their base (although the ndp base is expanding). but, because a lot of people on the educated left are going to react by striking trudeau off the list for good - and that quite plausibly may include the entire liberal party, as well.

simply put, he came off as an idiot. whatever criticisms you may want to level at past liberal candidates, this is the first time in my life that i've seen the liberal party run by a man that is clearly a fool. traditional liberal voters will see this. and, that will be decisive.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/07/it-was-a-very-good-debate-and-it-likely-didnt-change-a-thing/

Patrick
Were we watching the same debate? Polls peg Trudeau as the clear winner. Mulcair seemed seemed sedated and had trouble defending his party's misleading $15/hr minimum wage hike. He also had trouble defending his pipeline stance against Elizabeth May, and he seemed to be more concerned with the leader of the third party than attacking the Prime Minister's record.

Trudeau, while he stuttered a little bit (they all did, except for May), made his points and had the closest thing to a knockout punch of the night. "9. My number is nine." A respectable answer, and a clear one, if you pay any attention to the role of the courts in our country.

deathtokoalas
that number nine response made me burst out laughing. it was a ridiculous response that glossed over a complex issue in absurd language. i don't really want to get into it, but it just made him sound like he didn't really understand the ruling.

i really don't find anything misleading about the ads, it's pretty clear to me what a "federal minimum wage" is. but, it's 2015. people walk around with internet access in their pockets. it's a five second google job to clarify it. you can't fool people like that anymore, even if you're trying to.

his response to the pipeline stance is what i mean when i say that mulcair is appealing directly to liberals in a way that trudeau isn't. canadian liberals *love* that non-commited, middle point that balances extremes. we want centrism. moderation. the way he presented himself in the middle of the spectrum suggested he was the logical alternative - as opposed to the conservatives that want all the pipelines and the greens that want none. and, you'll notice he did that line several times and whenever he did he ignored the liberals. it was strong framing; masterful, even. if i was mulcair, i'd be pushing for may in the debates just so he can do that as much as he can. that's the message that the liberal party used to succeed in getting out, and that mulcair is blatantly winning the battle on.

i mean, it takes him a little outside the base. mulcair is definitely going to bleed on the left; he's not a leftist. the greens will benefit from that. rather, he's aiming dead center, at the liberal base. and, i see every reason to expect him to steal a large amount of it.

looking back at the beach boys, they strike me largely as pro-american propaganda. and, i think that is the central point in their vast overratedness. this is in some ways a silly, simple song. but it is in some ways a fairly profound social commentary, deep satire, and rather interesting in a time capsule sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMl0v5fmSmk

brian wilson was servin’ usa.
paul mccartney was backin’ the ussr.

did i hear a little lennon drop from the ukrainian fm? all we are sayyyying...is...

guess they don't want to end up back in the ussr.

truth is this guy even looks like he's in the mafia.

there's two sides to this. wherever you have class, you have socialism. but what is perhaps more significant is that the american elite has a long history of what could be called vulgar marxism.

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

america has been willing to read socialist ideas and learn from them, but more often than not it has been to find ways to uphold the dominance of what is really still the landholding class.

what hillary is saying is that she's not qualified to answer the question and she'll follow the recommendation of the review that she put in place. in a technical sense, it's a correct position. sanders is really not qualified to take a position before the review completes, either. it's fact-based reasoning.

i mean, suppose she says she opposes it and then the review she put in place confirms it, or vice versa. then, why did she put the review in place if she was going to ignore it?

the purpose of the review is to establish the facts.

now, that said, there's certainly some politics in this. did we need a review to determine the facts? and is the review process fair and unbiased?

but, she could hardly take a position on a fact-finding review process that she set up before it finishes.

but, what if trump runs as an independent?

jeff4justice3
+deathtokoalas Exactly. Not to mention what about all the 2 party system goons in the local statewide races. This seems unprincipled of Sanders.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice to me, the issue is how unelectable clinton is.

he doesn't want to pull a ralph nader - and let's realize that trump will be worse than bush. world war three probably already started. but, he's going to blow the whole thing to pieces. that part of it sits well with me. it would be irresponsible to get trump elected by running as a third party candidate; i agree.

the part that doesn't sit well with me is comparing hillary to gore. gore was actually relatively progressive. look at what clinton did in libya. she seems obsessed with imperial concepts of militarism; she's not really running for president, she's more running for empress. and, on that level clinton & trump are two sides of the same coin.

the democratic nominee has to be really, really, really bad for this kind of logic to work out, for us to fully conclude that it really doesn't matter. it's never been this bad. but, clinton really is this bad.

and, i supported her in 2008 based on what she did as first lady.

it's not the same person.

jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas Pull a Nader? So if you moved to my hometown where Republicans win by around 80% just so you could vote for the winner? If gay marriage was still un-ruled by SCOTUS and you lived in Alabama where it was likely to lose as the ballot would you vote for the antigay side just to be on the winning team?

Also, Nader (or Perot as the Republicans like to cite) were not around in the internet age.

It's time for people to stop staying in the abuser/victim game and move on past the failed 2 party system. otherwise unprincipled voters will keep electing unprincipled elected officials.

The right to vote for women, an end to legal racial segregation, gay marriage, a black President, marijuana becoming legal were all previously seemingly impossible.

The 2 party system will crumble as soon as people get the courage to stop indulging in self-defeating thinking.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, it's a bad example. i actually don't really support gay marriage; what i support is the abolition of marriage.

this is all culture war nonsense. i'm more concerned about serious issues: environment, foreign policy, health care, trade. and, when you lined the candidates up previously, there was an actual difference on the serious stuff. clinton actually reduced military spending to ensure more money was available for social security, for example. no republican would have done that. that's a concrete, real difference.

the problem, today, is that none of the mainstream democrats would do that, either - every single one of them, including the current president, would happily cut social security to increase military spending. and, so i do agree with you....now. i wouldn't have agreed with you twenty years ago, when the choice was bush v. gore. there was a clearly defined lesser evil there.

clinton v. trump isn't even a question of a lesser evil, it's a question of a lesser crazy - and there isn't one.

what the united states really needs is a three-party system to ensure that the democrats have some pressure from the left.

but, that doesn't make sanders' choice any easier. if he runs then the republicans will probably win. and he knows that. i'm convinced clinton is actually that bad. sanders may be a bit more optimistic about a clinton presidency.

but, if you end up with a potential four-way race, that whole calculus is out the window.

jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas Then don't get married but no need to force that on gays who decide they want to or should. Anyway, I won't be joining you on any votes for the failed 2 party system. Good luck.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, i wouldn't vote against it. but, i'm not going to go out of my way to vote for it, either. it's just not an actual issue of substance.

marriage is an inherently oppressive patriarchal system of enforced male dominance, and only truly makes sense in an implied system of religious fundamentalism. this is archaic and should be abolished in favour of more specific contracts about property. if two people want to buy a house together, that should not affect whether or not they want to buy a car together. nor anything about their kids - although those arrangements should be put down in writing beforehand.

i don't know why gay people want to get married. i don't know why they want to join the army, either.

i would, however, actively vote for the idea of abolishing all of the legal aspects of marriage, reducing it to a legally meaningless ceremony that religious people have total control over (and consequently abolishing all insurance benefits). but, that only makes sense in the context of a universal health care system - so you wouldn't need to get married to get your partner covered.

up here in canada, the issue was actually dealt with by a supreme court ruling. with the stroke of a pen, gay people could get married anywhere in the country. nobody really cared one way or another. it has not been a political issue here since 2004, if it ever was at all.

jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas "not an actual issue of substance" if you're loved was was in the hospital and you could not access them... or if you were unable to have social security benefits... or if your country tried to give you different tax assessment laws... or if you were unable to sponsor a partner from another country. Nonsense.

Statism altogether is an inherently oppressive patriarchal system of enforced male dominance. Nonetheless, while things are the way they are people should be treated with equal rights. We should not need government permission in these matters - but for now, government does impose itself on these matters.

Yeah, the military industrial complex sucks and is part of the evil empire. But that does not mean any self-preserving gay person would not want to see an end to DADT.

Also, marriage equality has been ruled to be legal by the Supreme Court here too since last year.

The anti-gays always care and always try ways to undermine court rulings pertaining to equality.

People cared enough to write things like "What Stephen Harper won’t tell you about same-sex marriage" as recent as 2015.

Anyway, gays can marry now so I don't have any further need to convince you to care about the issue now.

And you're mind seems made up about the 2 party system.

We've both made our points.

Peace be with you.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, no. my argument was not in favour of two-party systems, but in favour of three-party systems. i was, after all, asking him if he would run if the race opened up. i expanded on the point by explaining his argument, while disagreeing with him - the truth is that hillary clinton really ought to be running for the republicans.

i think you seem to be looking at voting as some kind of moral act, rather than a pragmatic means of achieving a goal - or, as it may be in the modern era, of minimizing damage. an intelligent person can not vote purely based on "principles". there needs to be a lot of compromise, or it's just a self-defeating waste of time.

so, if hillary does win and sanders does not run (and i was an american) i would have to support a third party, or perhaps not bother at all. which is what i was getting across in posing the question.

but, i think you're on to something about the gay marriage: if all the people that support gay marriage supported universal health care instead, you wouldn't even need to talk about gay marriage. and, conversely, reducing the issues to things like whether gay people can get married neutralizes large swaths of issues that threaten certain financial interests.