Time is not on their side, and I suspect History is not on their side either.
Until people start actually voting for (a) third party, I am afraid that rather than being a last squeeze, we will be getting candidates like this more often, not less.
Older people almost always have disproportionately higher turnout in elections.
It is entirely possible to support someone's form of leadership without entirely supporting all of the person's ideas.
That's why I specifically said Trump's vile brand of leadership. It's OK to agree or disagree with his ideas, but leadership is far more than having good or bad ideas. Leadership is ultimately about people and having a selfless, coherent vision for the people you represent.
Simply dismissing the concerns of tens of millions of americans as "racist and sexist" is not helpful and in fact perpetuates the problem. I am not a Trump supporter, or a Thiel supporter, but it's not self-evidently bad that a person with some means chose to work with the guy in charge to try to make a difference. This kind of lazy dismissal is part of the problem.
Lastly, both houses of congress passed additional sanctions against Russian with super majorities, beyond veto proof and Trump refuses to enact them. We are living in a constitutional crisis and for some reason every move Trump makes seems to benefit Russia.
This is not normal. This is not OK.
I have zero faith that our current president cares about anything beyond himself and his image. Zero.
And I’m not alone. A shocking number of conservative writers and thinkers believe Trump represents a fundamental threat to democracy. Behind closed doors, even many of his ardent public supporters have no respect or faith in him.
I still think that in terms of damage done Nixon was the worst we've had and Bush comes in second. Trump is dangerous in my opinion, but nothing so far comes close to what Bush did. It's strange that you make dislike of Bush sound unreasonable. It's perfectly reasonable.
No. That is the fault of mass media corporations (and now, also thinly-veiled "grassroots" organizations). It's quite simple to pick and choose quotes from individuals that can be construed as offensive ("superpredators", anyone? The list goes on), craft a narrative, and put them on the national stage. This is what these organizations do, at the expense of other issues. You will not find a more powerful, more influential reason for the division this country is experiencing. It is these organizations and those who profit from them the most that are most responsible.
Thiel is moving to Los Angeles, not Louisiana. The amount of PR he’s gotten over his branding decision surrounding this move is mind blowing.
Secondly for Thiel, there's the whole question of why on earth he would go on national TV to support Trump when he is completely outside the general demographic that Trump caters to. Trump's biggest supporters were some combination of baby-boomers (and to some extent their children), gun owners and Christians. Some of the ultra-rich may have been his biggest financial supporters and the ones that stand to gain the most from his presidency - but they are only a sliver of his actual voter base and an even smaller percentage of the American populous. By speaking out the way he did - he essentially put a spotlight on himself as someone willing to sacrifice the welfare of the people if it helps his own bottom line. He could have supported Trump indirectly and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. I would say the way Thiel supported Trump was especially absurd.
The dude is a walking billboard for the 7 deadly sins.
Oh come on. I am far from a Trump supporter but this is ludicrous. How many people has he killed?
Trump is a horny old silver-spoon doofus with a knack for telling people what they want to hear. I can't stand him but Stalin he ain't.
I am pretty unsympathetic to any argument that starts with "he meant to say...". I can see what he said, in black and white. I'm going to address that. He can post what "he meant to say" separately.
I had no idea he was talking about this. How could anyone guess that. If true then he has failed to communicate so completely that I am inclined to ignore everything else.
If you have a coherent argument which embodies what "he meant to say" then let's hear it. Shifting the goalposts on past arguments, however, is not allowed.
Not sure how much clearer it can be. Sorry I substituted the word virtues for sins. I gave a cursory glance to a google search for 7 deadly sins and found [1] which led me to [2]
You just lose people with this hysterical hyperbole
People on the left strenuously objected to the invasion of Iraq as a criminal waste of human life, and for commentators on the right to say they were defending freedom (including the freedom to criticise their ongoing war) was a specious argument, to put it mildly.
thus further proving the headline