Hmm, this is indeed a bit strange. I don't really understand why Trump cannot be thrown out of the GOP, why the party cannot distance itself from him and why they cannot exclude him already now unstead of waiting until the primaries.

What really stops them from saying: "This guy has views that are not worthy of a GOP member and we will never ever let him continue in the primaries and already now he is not running in our name - in short he is not a candidate for the GOP." As it is now, it looks more like they don't want to say it because they partly sympathize with his ideas. I don't say this must be true but that is certainly the impression that is transported and it is not doing much good. Showing tolerance to extreme guys like Trump is just crazy. One should not do it.

Do you really think it's about ideology? As long as no socialist tendencies are visible, the republicans probably really don't care.
It's only about money and he got plenty thanks to his heritage.

apparently we're xenophobic and racist for welcoming 2 million migrants(no syrians though) within 10 years. big meh.

What stops them is that the Republicans generally agree with him. Take a loot at the other GOP candidates, like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson.

Ben Carson: The Pyramids were built to store grain.

I think it's about decency. I wonder what happened to the GOP which was once a really grand party which I admire quite a lot. But if it cannot defend itself against people like him (or Ted Cruz or Ben Carson), then something is wrong. Then you cannot be just a decent conservative anymore.

It's okay. We will see how it plays out. Probably (as long as he doesn't actually win the presidency) it's just a big show - cheap entertainment.

US party system != EU party system.

There's simply nothing a political party can officially do at this stage. The primary is the official party candidate selection. We are currently in campaigning-for-party-endorsement season. Only at the primary will the official party candidate be selected. Currently no one running for president represents either party.

There's no way to kick someone out of the party for political views, and is illegal/ unconstitutional to limit membership of a public organization based on political views, just like it is for race, gender, sex or religion. Also, any attempt would be massively unpopular and viewed as a deliberate attack on free speech, civil rights, and the constitutional right of Americans to run for political offices. Any party who tried it would lose every election, everywhere, for all time.

A lot of things that are OK in the EU are illegal/unconstitutional in the US when it comes to limiting free speech and political expression or association. One example is banning Nazi symbols - I know some EU countries have done it, but it's flat out illegal suppression of free speech over here.

Or saying 'showing tolerance to extreme guys is crazy' - this is a huge debate in the US, and Trump has not crossed the established line. He would have to actively advocate direct violence to specific people , as in 'I will now go and attack Person X who is at Y_place with my Weapon_Z' before our free speech laws would stop protecting him.

Trump has run every chance he could for a long time. He never wins at the primary, i.e. never gets the official party endorsement. His run now doesn't mean anything, reporters are just giving him airtime because he's so outrageous he gets lots of clicks/views.

US party system != EU party system.

There's simply nothing a political party can officially do at this stage. The primary is the official party candidate selection. We are currently in campaigning-for-party-endorsement season. Only at the primary will the official party candidate be selected. Currently no one running for president represents either party.

There's no way to kick someone out of the party for political views, and it's illegal to limit membership of a public organization on the basis of political views, just like it is for race, gender, sex or religion. Also, any attempt would be massively unpopular and viewed as a deliberate attack on free speech, civil rights, and the constitutional right of Americans to run for political offices. Any party who tried it would lose every election, everywhere, for all time.

A lot of things that are OK in the EU are illegal/unconstitutional in the US when it comes to limiting free speech and political expression or association. One example is banning Nazi symbols - I know some EU countries have done it, but it's flat out illegal suppression of free speech over here.

Trump has run every chance he could for a long time. He never wins at the primary, i.e. never gets the official party endorsement. His run now doesn't mean anything, reporters are just giving him airtime because he's so outrageous he gets lots of clicks/views.

TL;DR People are campaigning for party endorsement now, and they can't be barred from that. The primary is the official party endorsement, no one has it yet. Free speech and civil rights laws forbid barring people from membership on the grounds of political views.

National traits of your country right now, at this minute, or over a longer period of time ? If so. how long ?

It's a bit of a vexed question to be honest, because most countries have changed considerably in recent times. The 20th century was the maddest yet, and the 21st century promises to be even more insane (and indded, evil) still. "Globalization" is on the march. Soon we will all be pretty much the same. Good thing or bad thing ? A bit of both, in my opinion.

Also, you can criticize your own country in regard to where it stands in relation to its own heritage and strengths, or you can criticize it in relation to the (spiritual ?) destination the "global community" is supposedly heading towards. The internet is a globalizing tool. This may or may not be a good thing in the long run, we shall have to see.

One thing I regret (but don't necessarily dislike) about England (my own country) : we mostly speak only English (including me). People from other countires often learn their own language plus at least English, and they speak and write English very well. This is a bad, long-standing national trait of the English.

Although I would say that you cannot be 100% sure I just wish people would emphasize this more often. Speaking up against Donald Trump is probably also highly supported by free speech. Not putting distance between the GOP and Trump seems to be unpopular in the rest of the world - probably because they don't make these distinctions that you mentioned. So, many thanks for the explanations.

Nah, what stops them is that it's illegal to bar membership based on political views - it's one of the protected classes.

Seriously, the field of candidates is always full of nutjobs this early. The only thing that's new is that the media has figured they can make a ton of money by following the more outrageous candidates around and getting lots of viewers.
Happy to help!

I think a lot of people in the EU don't realize how different the political process is here. People in the US basically aren't concerned yet because honestly, none of this stuff matters much.

If you want to find anti-Trump stuff, there's a ton of it. The man's a walking joke. Gawker is probably a place to start? I don't follow mass media anymore, like most people my age in the US, so I'm not sure which networks are lining up behind which candidates this year.

Why is Donald Trump being universally vilified though ? I think his point of view is extreme and offensive and it's certainly not going to help him get elected, but why is he being almost universally vilified for it, given the current state of world politics ? Are we heading towards a position where everyone, without exception, is going to be forced into a "politically correct" straitjacket ? What sort of choice will that give to the general / voting public of any country ? So we end up with what then ? You cannot openly be either Christian or Muslim or Sikh or Buddhist or (insert religion here) - what is this then ? Isn't it a kind of religion itself : the religion of political correctness (whatever that is, underneath all of its veils) ?

Serious answer: that fucking hair piece.

He's a prick and he's an easy target. Some people are sick and offensive but keep a calm demeanor. Trump dares you to hate him and I don't doubt the more people he upsets the bigger thrill he gets.

In internet terms, he's a troll.

There was absolutely no reason for his 'bar Muslims' comment because it's unconstitutional from the outset; as a suggestion it's beyond inane. The reason he said it was to get a rise, which he did. That's why he's a target.

Obsessive martyrdom complex.

If you read Polish history you would know that we had it rough. From backstabbing allies to having the entire country erased from the map for a 100+ years.

However, instead of learning from this and growing as a country we blissfully bathe in our tragic past like a emo high school girl that constantly complains how her life is shit.

So Instead of pulling ourselves together we complain how bad we had it in history as if to gather other peoples sympathy.

To give an example, a few years ago there was a plain accident in which the former president of Poland died with some other important political figure heads while flying to Katyń, a famous historical landmark where the Soviets executed allot of Polish soldiers, politicians etc. It was a big blow. But instead of sorting the thing out the media keeps milking the event to this day. It even went so far as renaming it from the the Smoleńsk Tragedy (the town where the plain fell) to the Smoleńsk Massacre as there are allot of conspiracy theorists claiming that it was a secret Russian attack.

LOOK AT HOW BAD WE HAVE IT!!! PITY US!!!!