Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?

[Gaoics79]

The idea that the Republican leadership is going to sunder their party and slit their collective throats to stop Trump strikes me as improbable. Even if you believe Trump spells disaster for the party, shooting yourself in the head to cure brain cancer is - unwise.

The idea that they'd take such a disastrous move to put someone like Cruz in Trump's place seems even more ridiculous. Cruz is scarcely more electable than Trump (according to traditional metrics), is probably more hated by the party establishment, except he has no magic shield around him and is vulnerable to conventional attack. With Trump, at least there's always the chance that he'll use his sorcery to do in the general election what he's done so successfully in the primaries and continue making fools of the pundit class. With Cruz, he'll be poison with everyone but die hard evangelical nutjobs and with the number of enemies he's made, his own colleagues will probably throw him in front of a train.

Trump is the nominee, end of story.

[Wayward Son]

Still depends on how lucky the Republicans feel (to paraphrase Dirty Harry .

The lessons of history suggest, instead, that significant damage to party reputations is done by unsuccessful presidencies, not unsuccessful presidential candidates. Unsuccessful presidents like Herbert Hoover and Carter shaped their parties’ reputations for decades after (see, for example, attempts to compare Obama to Carter). But Trump’s approach and lack of real party roots probably make him more like an even worse president, Andrew Johnson, whose myopia and racism brought down more than just his party. Republicans stand a smaller chance of electoral loss if they nominate Trump than if he launches a third-party bid. But nominating Trump might be the outcome that should worry party leaders the most. Trump winning the nomination, and then winning the presidency — as unlikely as that may be — probably represents the greatest long-term risk to the Republican Party.

His winning could be worse than splitting the party.

[Pyrtolin]

How Trump moves in the general election will also have a big effect. It's pretty clear that he'll do whatever it seems like it takes to get the most votes, whether it's openly pandering to every divisive tacting the GOP has used to condition and control its base over the past half century or completely repudiating it to scoop up disaffected voters on the left. His current adherents are pretty much a lost cause. IF he can get them to act out fascist salutes and pledges, there's now way that most of them are going to be willing to own up to the fact that they were taken in enough to do anything but continue to rationalize every single thing he asks them to do until well after the campaign is over and they wake up with a hangover, and a massive case of whiplash.

The way he trolls the media is a thing of horrifying beauty though:
"I talk to me self. I have a great brain. I say a lot of things." And the free press flows, because no one wants to admit they've been trolled.

I'm surprised he didn't quote Rick Astley. I'll bet he's saving that for the general where it's going to score them most points with the young internet crowd.

(That's a prediction I will 100% stand behind, honestly. It just fits perfectly. At some point, during some rally or press conference we will hear some variant "I'm never going to give you up, I'm never going to let you down," etc... come out of his mouth.)

[Fenring]

In previous discussions we've had about politicians we outlined two distinct types of politician: the chameleon and the principled politicians. The discussion was interesting because some people here saw merit in the chameleon type, since shifting one's position to fit what the people want could be construed as good representation rather than merely being a liar. In Trump's case he seems quite willing to say whatever will gain him votes, and although some people are surprised that his types of comments do get him votes the fact remains that he's zeroed in on some demographics to whom his rhetoric is appealing. The typical response is to blame him for these views, but in lieu of our conversation here wouldn't it make more sense to just label him as a classic chameleon and to congratulate him for being apparently responsive to how many Americans feel? The fact that some of his statements may be offensive seems to me beside the point if they do, in fact, mirror the sentiments of many Americans. If the job of a chameleon is to represent what the people feel, and if the people feel offensive things, then isn't an offensive-sounding candidate an example of good representation?

As Pyr mentioned, in a general he might even shift his focus more towards the center to attract voters who didn't get their favorite in the primaries (Bernie or Hillary supporters). This is just the sort of thing he'd do, and by then whoever voted for him in the primaries won't suddenly go out and vote Democrat just because he shifts center for votes. So he'll have their votes plus however more he can sway.

[Pyrtolin]

On strategy itself, he's a wizard- I'll give him that entirely.

It's the second part that's less clear- there's a difference between understanding and shifting to support what people want and need, even if you personally believe differently and in playing to those wants and needs without actually intending to work toward them.

That's where Trump is a wildcard. If his pandering ends up putting him in the first category (particularly if he ties the success fortunes of the US to his self esteem and reputation) then he could end up being a pretty impressive President, despite the damage he played into on the way up. On the other hand if he keeps gaming the system to get what he wants for himself without caring about his historical legacy, then he'll wreak havoc. I'm not willing to risk Trump B enough to bet on Trump A. But can bet that he's suddenly going to start projecting Trump A in the general in order to win it.

[Fenring]

It's the second part that's less clear- there's a difference between understanding and shifting to support what people want and need, even if you personally believe differently and in playing to those wants and needs without actually intending to work toward them.

That's the thing about a chameleon, you never know what you're going to get. They can claim down the line that people want something else and they'll support that, which would just be an excuse to do whatever they please. But tell me, since Hillary was put forward as a prototypical Democrat chameleon - does anyone legitimately expect her to follow through on the shifts towards the left she made to co-opt Sanders supporters? She began months ago to spout rhetoric about changing the minimum wage and taking on Wall Street. What are the chances, would you say, that she'll actually do these things, especially 'taking on' Wall Street? I'll make a prediction right now that if she becomes President nothing significant changes with regard to a) campaign finance, b) lobbying, and c) too big to fail. I'll even predict that she makes no significant attempt to change these things. If I'm right about this then I still don't particularly see the difference between her and Trump other than their aesthetic style of presentation.

[Pyrtolin]

Some yes, some no, which is why I pick Sanders over her in the primary. Her track record shows that she will meaningfully shift on civil rights, employment, and  commercial private sector issues. But that same record makes any foreign policy or financial sector promises suspect. She isn't likely to make them much worse, but, without evidence of action, they're not credible shifts.

Trump, as he stands now is not credible for any shift he makes. There's no way to even begin to sort it out, and it may never be possible to, even if he makes a decent show of it at first.

[NobleHunter]

I'm pretty confident that Clinton can be trusted to govern so that she is well-remembered by history. Which includes trying to control what is permitted to become history, but it places boundaries on she'll actually do. I think she's more interested in being seen to have been a "Good President" rather than proving an ideology (Cruz, less-so Sanders) or accruing the benefits of having been President (Trump???).

It's mind-boggling to think that Trump could pivot or reframe himself during the general election, but his whole run is mind-boggling. I think his ceiling in the general election is higher than Cruz's though.

[Wayward Son]

I'll make a prediction right now that if she becomes President nothing significant changes with regard to a) campaign finance, b) lobbying, and c) too big to fail. I'll even predict that she makes no significant attempt to change these things. If I'm right about this then I still don't particularly see the difference between her and Trump other than their aesthetic style of presentation.

The problem is that no one is a perfect principled politician or a chameleon.  Even the principled politician has to listen and respond to the will of the people and the exigencies of national and international events.   And the chameleon needs to keep satisfied those who elected him, if only to have a chance at re-election or to prevent from being removed from office.

So while Clinton and Trump may be both chameleons, they each have a side that they are aligned with, and need to keep somewhat satisfied.

So while Clinton may not make any changes to campaign finance or banks that are too big to fail, she will have more sympathy for reproductive rights and limiting the power of the powerful, while Trump will have more sympathy for the rights of the unborn and increasing the power of the powerful.  And so will the staff that they appoint.  And don't forget the Supreme Court appointment that is pending for the next President (unless the Senate sees who it will be and **** in their pants ).

So even if they are the same as politicians, the results of them in office won't be the same.

[Fenring]

Good points, WS. The argument being made was that Trump's promises may be vacuous, and I was just pointing out that I think the same is true for Hillary. You're right that they nevertheless can be expected to at the very least keep their base satisfied, although in Trump's case I find it difficult to predict what sort of steps he'd take to do that. Pyr also made a good point that Hillary may be reliable in some areas and unreliable in others, but my general point is that I think this notion that Trump makes empty promises and it therefore not trustworthy is overblown. I basically think that of all politicians anyhow, with a notable exception being Sanders (another notable exception was Ron Paul, who I believed 100% meant every word he said).

[Pyrtolin]

It's not that Trumps promises are vacuous, but that he might be willing to allow active harm to happen in order to serve his self interest if it doesn't happen to align with the common good. It's similar to the problem that true believers in damaging policies have, at that point. I'm even careful of true believers taht I agree with on that matter, because dedication to a cause to the point of being unwilling to compromise can do more harm than good in some cases, even if the cause is good. Someone willing to shift at least a little in light of sentiment and evidence is a much better person to to build robust solutions.

[Fenring]

It's not that Trumps promises are vacuous, but that he might be willing to allow active harm to happen in order to serve his self interest if it doesn't happen to align with the common good.

What, what? What is the 'common good'? Is this a defined thing that can be surgically separated from self-interest? I'm not even against having a discussion about defining what the common good might be, or even just 'the good', which is more general, but absent a hard definition how to do declare a given action for or against the common good?

But even more to the point, how would this make Trump any different from any other politician, such as for instance George W Bush or even Obama? It seems to me that politicians pursue their chosen agenda and this results in...well, some result. Some people seem pleased with the result and some are offended by it, pretty much invariably. Is 'net pleasure' at the result what you're calling the common good, or is it some abstract that exists aside from anyone's opinion on it, in which case public opinion is irrelevant when considering that matter?

[Pyrtolin]

What, what? What is the 'common good'? Is this a defined thing that can be surgically separated from self-interest? I'm not even against having a discussion about defining what the common good might be, or even just 'the good', which is more general, but absent a hard definition how to do declare a given action for or against the common good?

What's good for the population or country as a whole, as opposed to, what benefits the particular individual in power, without regard to the effects on the country.

There's a wide difference between someone having a different vision on what's good for the country and working toward it and someone that doesn't actually care, so long as they come out more wealthy and perhaps having ground a few choice axes with their power.

Surely you could agree that if Trump gets into office and starts cutting diplomatic ties with and threatening to apply military force against any country that doesn't sign an exclusive contract to only allow Trump Bottled Water to be sold within its boundaries, that he's using the office to serve his own whims and not giving a fig about any semblance of the common good?

[AI Wessex]

There's an honest discussion in here somewhere about the difference in effective governance when contrasting different kinds of leadership and control.  Trump might be closer to a personal trainer who will force march you through an exercise regimen that, if it doesn't kill you, will allow you to reach your goals.  I don't think Trump aspires to that kind of public service, but his strongarm authoritarianism will be viewed as something like that by many of his adherents.  Even now, people who support him (and other conservatives) don't realize the harm they do themselves or accept it if they think it's in pursuit of some higher purpose.

I can't fathom what they think they're accomplishing, but our history of war, in particular, is a series of personal sacrifices for the vision of a larger good.  That analogy is perhaps too apt, as Trump's supporters are among the most militant and dedicated rogues in our society.  That Trump and they lack any sort of discipline or reasoned approach to their "solutions" is also no surprise.  It's also no wonder that Sarah Palin likes him so much.  He's even roguer then she is.

[Fenring]

What's good for the population or country as a whole, as opposed to, what benefits the particular individual in power, without regard to the effects on the country.

Yeah? And since when did individuals in power package self-interested goals as anything other than for the good of the country? And how do you determine when something is 'meant' for the good of the country when half the country thinks it's going to sink the country and the other half think it's salvation?

Surely you could agree that if Trump gets into office and starts cutting diplomatic ties with and threatening to apply military force against any country that doesn't sign an exclusive contract to only allow Trump Bottled Water to be sold within its boundaries, that he's using the office to serve his own whims and not giving a fig about any semblance of the common good?

Are you speaking about breaking diplomatic ties because Trump has said he'd do this, or because it's a random example of something bad? Because on the record he was least willing to break diplomatic ties out of pretty much all of the GOP candidates. As far as bottled water goes, I assume you're referring more generally to disfavorable trade contracts negotiated under duress? Well this happens all the time anyhow and private interests always benefit, so the "what if" aspect of this hypothetical seems to be nullified by the fact that it's already a reality.

More broadly I would suggest that personal glory is probably a larger motivator for extreme action in a President than personal gain, and so I would entertain the notion of a President screwing things up just to have made a mark on history. In Trump's case this could potentially happen, but amusingly if he becomes President he will have already accomplished that before issuing his first order. The personal gain angle to me seems more accurately framed as being one where the President assists private interests to acquire gains for themselves, rather than him personally reaping the reward. Down the line ex-Presidents will be taken care of anyhow, one way or another. From this standpoint I'd consider it far more dangerous to have someone in office who has a strong interest in assisting those private parties in amassing windfalls, especially those beholden to Wall Street and the military industrial complex. A President doing something dumb for personal glory pales compared to the harm wrought by the standard corruption already in the system, in my opinion.

[Pyrtolin]

As far as bottled water goes, I assume you're referring more generally to disfavorable trade contracts negotiated under duress?

No, I mean using thew power of the office to pad his bottom line by ramping up the profits of his holdings. I was not being general- I was being very specific as to actions intended to profit himself and only himself regardless of the cost to others.

The rest of your response seems to suggest that you actually get the general idea, so it feels like you're just being contrarian at the point. There's a difference between trying to use the office for the good of the country as you see it even if we might disagree on what that is, and using it for personal gain without any regard at all for the good of the whole.

Trump, in one form or another represents the absolute greatest risk of that because thus far hes demonstrated an outright willingness to put self-aggrandizement over any other ethical concern. He doesn't seem to care who gets hurt, so long as he wins. Continuing that attitude can easily be extremely destructive so long as he doesn't, once he's president, associate future acclaim with personal victory. If he cares about how he's remembered, then that care could temper him. If he just wants power, money, glory, or what have you without regard to what he destroys in getting it, then he could tear the whole system down.

[Fenring]

The rest of your response seems to suggest that you actually get the general idea, so it feels like you're just being contrarian at the point. There's a difference between trying to use the office for the good of the country as you see it even if we might disagree on what that is, and using it for personal gain without any regard at all for the good of the whole.

I'm not just being contrarian. You posited a scenario where Trump literally sells out the country for his own personal profit, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you might have meant selling out the country for profit in general. I don't take seriously the threat of a President trying to earn a buck on the side using his position; it's too easily caught and punished, and besides, that's small potatoes and not worth it. The real money is to be made on a larger scale by multinationals, and they reward far better than a person could earn by himself with petty corruption ambitions. A mining or munitions contract can be worth billions to these companies, and those candidates who will be aiming to supply it to them are the ones to watch out for. On this particular topic I actually trust Trump more than most of the other candidates who are guaranteed bought and paid for. There are other scores on which I don't trust him, mind you.

[Pyrtolin]

So again, you get the gist of the example I used to illustrate the point, but are arguing because you don't like the example, not because you didn't get the point. That's being contrarian, or, at best, arguing the example. If you get the difference between being completely self-serving and the expense of the public good and actually trying to act in service of what one sees as the public good, then it's a bit fussy to nitpick because you think there's a better example.

[Fenring]

So again, you get the gist of the example I used to illustrate the point, but are arguing because you don't like the example, not because you didn't get the point. That's being contrarian, or, at best, arguing the example. If you get the difference between being completely self-serving and the expense of the public good and actually trying to act in service of what one sees as the public good, then it's a bit fussy to nitpick because you think there's a better example.

No, I understand why you think I'm being contrarian but you don't understand why I'm not. Take Dick Cheney during W's presidency, for example. Granted he was only the VP but in the case of that presidency that was only a technicality. You have a foreign policy that heavily favored private interests such as Halliburton, who were awarded contracts for billions in Iraq after the invasion. Now you might think I'm splitting hairs in separating that type of profit from some adventure for purely personal profit, except that I legitimately think many people like Cheney do, in fact, believe that having large multinationals reap windfalls is actually good for America, because they classify 'good for America' as being that which leads to power and control. It also creates jobs in 'aggressive' sectors. So this is a tactical consideration for them, rather than a moral one. There is greed in there too, absolutely; but it's not just greed - it's the desire to see their power bloc win while making sure they're the ones to have their pockets lined in the process. It's extremely hard to paint such a doctrine as being for 'the good of America' or not, since in their eyes it's definitely good for America in some real sense. Without specifying precisely what this so-called 'good for America' is you fall down the rabbit hole of having to consider all kinds of divergent opinions of what that is, including ones that eschew Judeo-Christian morality in favor of realpolitik.

So no, I'm not just being contrarian. I legitimately think you're on shaky ground suggesting that profiteering and scheming can cleanly be separated from working for the common good. This is especially true to whatever extent world power functions as a zero-sum game, where it essentially becomes necessary to make a judgement call about whether or not to pursue maximum power for your nation at the expense of someone else. Power typically works best when centralized, and therefore having a solid core of powerful corporations whose power dwarfs the common man involved in the decision-making process (see: oligarchy) is more conducive to the nation being successful in exercising raw power. Whether this is a morally good thing is sadly unrelated to whether it's effective, and therefore America can prosper as a result of very greedy actions. Their mistake, of course, comes when they go too far and break the illusion enough to wake up the middle class and the poor by neglecting them. Enter: Trump and Sanders.

So yeah, I guess the specifics of the examples matter.

[Pyrtolin]

The can't always. My point was only to illustrate the extreme poles, particularly in relevance to being completely unable to predict where a specific candidate happens to fall because he doesn't have enough of a track record to measure him by, not to somehow suggest that most activity didn't take place somewhere between them. So yes, arguing the example is a bit absurd when the example was presented to articulate an abstract ideal, not a real position.

[AI Wessex]

More of the "It's Nothing New" from the wayback machine, this time about the 1964 election and the first and last speaker is none other than Jackie Robinson:

“During my life, I have had a few nightmares which happened to me while I was wide awake,” Robinson wrote in 1967. “One of them was the National Republican Convention in San Francisco, which produced the greatest disaster the Republican Party has ever known—Nominee Barry Goldwater.” Robinson, a loyal Republican who campaigned for Richard Nixon in 1960, was shocked and saddened by the racism and lack of civility he witnessed at the 1964 convention. As the historian Leah Wright Rigueur describes in The Loneliness of the Black Republican, black delegates were verbally assaulted and threatened with violence by Goldwater supporters. William Young, a Pennsylvania delegate, had his suit set on fire and was told to “keep in your own place” by his assailant. “They call you ‘*censored*,’ push you and step on your feet,” New Jersey delegate George Fleming told the Associated Press. “I had to leave to keep my self-respect.”
...
“A new breed of Republicans has taken over the GOP,” Robinson wrote just after Goldwater claimed his party’s nomination. “It is a new breed which is seeking to sell to Americans a doctrine which is as old as mankind—the doctrine of racial division, the doctrine of racial prejudice, the doctrine of white supremacy.” He continued, “If I could couch in one single sentence the way I felt, watching this controlled steam-roller operation roll into high gear, I would put it this way, I would say that I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

[Pete at Home]

So you ok with that kind of holocast trivialization, as long as it's against the Republicans?

You think there arent Hillary-friendly meetings of Seattle Black Lives matter that dont use racial expletives for Jews?

[Pete at Home]

Which is worse:

A presidential candidate who proposes an ethnic cleansing campaign since he personally loathes the target.

A presidential candidate who proposes an ethnic cleansing campaign since he personally knows the target is unpopular among the voters he is courting.

A secretary of state who supports an ethnic cleansing campaign as retribution since others of the target's "kind" had gotten away with ethnic cleansing in a different country.

A sitting president who supports an ethnic cleansing xampaign, because it's the only convenient war to distract the constituents from news stories about where the president has been putting his penis.

[AI Wessex]

So you ok with that kind of holocast trivialization, as long as it's against the Republicans?

You think there arent Hillary-friendly meetings of Seattle Black Lives matter that dont use racial expletives for Jews?

This is a contemporaneous set of remarks by a well-respected observer with other commentary; you should read the whole article before you go into a spitting rage.  The thread that binds much of the Party's membership today was set in motion in the 1964 election, so the vivid way it describes Republicans back then is unfortunately consistent with some of the themes the Party exhibits now.  I can tell you from personal experience that I watched the election cycle closely even though I was still in Jr HS, and with my family and relatives was anxious about the sentiments and attitudes that Goldwater stirred up in his campaign.  Our biggest concern was that he was inciting aggressive action against the Soviet Union, with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust that would have been far worse for all of humanity than the holocaust of WWII. 

There is a legitimate discussion in here if you could climb down from your high perch of outrage and vitriol and talk sensibly. 

[Pete at Home]

"Our biggest concern was that he was inciting aggressive action against the Soviet Union, with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust that would have been far worse for all of humanity than the holocaust of WWII. "

What does that have to do with the writer feeling like a *Jew* in Nazi Germant?


The fact that Goldwater could have baited the USSR into global annihilation has zero to do with Jews in Nazi Garmany.  I think that Clinton is more likely than trump to trigger Nuclear war with Putin, but i dont go around saying that I feel like a Jews in Nazi Germany.

" is is a contemporaneous set of remarks by a well-respected observer "

To be sure.  But that bit about Jew in Nazi Germany was stupid. You should have omitted it because it's. Outrageous.  I know the aujthor is a goof guy, but we all say stupid crap from time to time. 

" before you go into a spitting rage"

I am not Jewish, so holocaust trivializations just make me facepalm. Please dont project emotions on me.  That's offensive.  Not splitting rage annoyin, just poo on my shoe annoying. No apology expected, just please desist.

[AI Wessex]

I am not Jewish, so holocaust trivializations just make me facepalm.

That's funny coming from you, as you make Nazi and Hitler references more often here than anyone else.  I would even say it's one of your trademark go-to lines of argument, almost as much as your gratuitous sexual imagery.

Robinson's reference to Nazism is not as far-fetched as, for example, Cruz and Huckabee likening Obama to Hitler and his policies to Nazism.  These days likening the President (or Bush before him) to Hitler is a crowd-pleasing way to show disdain and rabble-rouse.  Back then WWII was still fresh in the lives and memories of all adults who voted in the 1964 election.  No President before that year had been compared to Hitler, no President's policies had been compared to Nazi socialism.  Robinson was reacting to the fear incited by the racism stirred up by Goldwater's arch-conservatism and viscerally was saying out loud what Jews and many other American adults feared in his saber-rattling militant attitude toward the Soviet Union.  In the 1964 election the only states that Goldwater carried were Arizona (his home state) and 5 deep south states that had been targeted by the Civil Rights Act, and less than 40% of the popular vote nationally. 

Like I said, because my family was Jewish we had the direct experience of Hitler and Nazism, and the creation of the state of Israel in our daily thoughts.  Robinson had something to be afraid of, too, given his experiences as the first black Major League baseball player.  I can't say whether he truly believed Goldwater could have become a Nazi-esque leader, but his "principled" stands for his own interpretation of the Constitution were deeply troubling to a great many people.  Those principles, btw, are the genesis of hard-core conservative opposition to "liberal" policies today.  Robinson did have plenty of reason to fear that Goldwater would speak for the goals of the most racist elements in society, as he had voted against the CRA and declared that the SC ruling in Brown v BoE was an abuse of power and should not be considered the law of the land.

But we (my family and most Jews) didn't think Goldwater would revitalize Nazism (though the KKK and other far right fringe groups declared their support for him) nearly as much as he would push the world over the nuclear brink against the soviets. In that way Robinson's own fears of Goldwater's extreme and unyielding views echoed those of many Americans.

FWIW, I didn't cite that article because of the single Nazi reference that you find so inappropriate, but rather because that year's convention was in its way a harbinger of today's mood among those Republicans who in their own way are fighting to defend racist and bigoted attitudes and are tossing around irresponsible militarist threatening language, all of which is worrying the mainstream majority of the American populace.  It's unfortunate that both leading Republican candidates share that sort of following, though from different slivers of their Party's voters.  If either one of them becomes the GOP nominee, which seems overwhelmingly likely now, I would hope they beat Goldwater's record for the lowest percentage of the popular vote received in any general election between two candidates.

[Pyrtolin]

"Our biggest concern was that he was inciting aggressive action against the Soviet Union, with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust that would have been far worse for all of humanity than the holocaust of WWII. "

What does that have to do with the writer feeling like a *Jew* in Nazi Germant?

Directly? The comparison is loose. The way he played to white supremacism and racial bias along with it (The origination of the Southern Strategy, which Trump has pulled fully into the open by not covering up his appeals to it)? That's what makes the parallel. It's not the militarism alone, it's harnessing the prejudice and sense of cultural and economic superiority of white people against blacks and other racial minorities that the Goldwater and every other Republican campaign afterwards has employed along with ti that was and is a clear variation on the same theme.

But if course he was easy enough to ignore instead of taking seriously at the time, never mind now. Trump is starting to bring some people out of denial about it, but he still manages to command huge audience of people conditioned over a couple generations to respond to supremacism, and the GOP is powerless to stop him because he's doing it so openly that their subtle cues come across as the underhanded manipulation that they always have been.