He's so at odds with what the GOP has claimed to stand for for the last quarter century that I find it hard to believe that the nomination is a lock for him. However, there's no denying that he has a ton of momentum. If he wins the nomination, will this mark a major idealogical shift for the GOP? They've had a bit of a personality crisis for a while now. For the last few election cycles it seems like they get really excited over anyone who's not business as usual, then just wind up abandoning that person for Boringum McTypicalPolitician.
This is all about anger and less about Trump.....he capitalized on one issue and I don't think people have rerally thought about the rest yet.
This is all about anger and less about Trump.....he capitalized on one issue and I don't think people have rerally thought about the rest yet.
So have Democrats. People don't know what to think in the first place, so all these wtf moments shouldn't be a surprise.
This is all about anger and less about Trump.....he capitalized on one issue and I don't think people have rerally thought about the rest yet.
But the thing is the idea of being a Democrat is a lot broader than being a Republican. When you think of a successful Republican candidate there are some pretty rigid descriptions that are going to go along with that. That's not really true of democrats.
Is it? How so?
Well, for one, race. 90% of the time a Republican candidate is going to be a white guy- maybe a white woman. Not that there aren't ethnic minorities who are Republicans, but it's notable when that's the case.
Then there are certain issues where you are just dead in the water running as a Repub. A Democrat can be anti-gay marriage. In a local election, in a lot of places, they'd be fine not belonging to an organized religion. They're just as likely to be black or jewish or white or asian or whatever.
Such a person may have a better shot in that environment, though, right?Oh, I'd say there are far and away more R politicians who were against gay marriage. Why do you ask?
Do you think there are more D politicians that are against gay marriage than there are R politicians that aren't opposed to it?
Oh, I'd say there are far and away more R politicians who were against gay marriage. Why do you ask?
I didn't. You misread it.
true - the same folks that like bernie sanders will quickly switch to hilary. and MOST repubs will move from cruz to trump, no matter how big a gap, from cruz' conservative life, to trump's liberal life.
My mistake. There's no way I could even answer that.
then why do you think it?
Why do I think what?
that democrats have more flexibility in that regard
Could the Repubs ever go back? Or is the cat out of the bag after this?
In some ways, this could be a boon for the party.
I didn't say that dems have more flexibility in regards to gay marriage. I said there's no issue on which Dem candidates have to toe the party line or risk being DOA. Dem legislators have a stronger record of gay advocacy, but the current dem president ran on anti-gay marriage platform.
doesn't the one mean the other?
No. It means that there are make or break issues for Republicans. There aren't any make or break issues for Democrats. I didn't say that gay marriage was a make or break issue for Republicans. That was a hot-button issue for Dems, but it was still divisive within the party.
For Repubs, abortion used to be a make or break issue but that is changing. Gun control is still make or break. Even in a local election, you probably have to be Christian or a member of some faith.
so how do you figure?
If you feel I'm wrong, then just post what you think they are.
i'm asking how you know you're right
If you feel I'm wrong, then just post what you think they are.
i'm trying to determine that, and hoped you could explain.
I've been pretty thorough in my explanations. You seem to be asking me to provide an example for something of which I just said the LACK of examples proves my point.
is it possible that you're wrong?
Wrong about what?
everything you've claimed in this thread
I've been pretty thorough with my explanations. You've asked a bunch of questions- which I've patiently answered- but you haven't said anything that would even suggest I was wrong about anything. No counterpoints, no evidence, no anecdotes, you haven't said you disagreed with anything. So, what exactly should I believe I'm wrong about?
i can't begin to conceive of how you could make the claim that democrats aren't bound by nonsense in the same manner that republicans are bound by nonsense.
A Democrat can be anti-gay marriage
I didn't say dems had more flexibility on gay marriage
This is all about anger and less about Trump.....he capitalized on one issue and I don't think people have rerally thought about the rest yet.
I agree. I don't think Trump has really thought about much of anything in terms of policy either.
so when you said this:
then you said this:
exactly what do you mean?
When I explained on the previous page and wrote this:
I didn't say that dems have more flexibility in regards to gay marriage. I said there's no issue on which Dem candidates have to toe the party line or risk being DOA. Dem legislators have a stronger record of gay advocacy, but the current dem president ran on anti-gay marriage platform.
...what was not clear to you? What part did you find confusing?
the fact that you're trying to claim all things at once
::) Then that's your issue. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. You're not being clear with your questions or responses, you won't specify what your issues are and you haven't made any counterpoints at all, much less reasonable ones.
i'm telling you that you've been suckered by the dnc. that's what i'm saying.
No, you're asking a bunch of pointless questions and confusing that with making a point. At any point, you could have said "I disagree with this and here's why". For some reason, you think you've posted something profound when you've barely gone to the trouble of stating a position.
he knows. i'm beginning to think he's playing a "negative attention" game w the media, and he's so far beating them.
if that's the case, it would mean he's going to be prepared with a serious platform upon taking the nomination (as the plan might go), when it would become more difficult for the media to downplay him.
wishful thinking on my part, i know.
you realized too late that you couldn't back yourself up, and now you are mad
Possibly, but I doubt he has actually taken the time to think through all of the major policy issues he will be facing.
the way i see it, he's either serious or he isn't. it has to be one or the other.
Or he is trying to improve his brand and make more money, which he is very good at. I'm rolling with Option C. :)
meaning that he's not serious about being president
LOL yeah, you're hard-hitting questions and insights had me up against the ropes ::)
Yeah. True.
Or he is trying to improve his brand and make more money, which he is very good at. I'm rolling with Option C. :)
yes, if he isn't serious then i doubt he's too concerned about it.
No way does he want to have to actually put in the work it takes to be president on a day-to-day basis. Having to follow rules. Having to build consensus. That's not the kind of person he is.
i can see his egotistical self wanting title of "leader of the free world", though.. and i can see how his actions could work toward that (despite seeming just the opposite at first glance)..
but it's either on or off. either he's making a serious move for it or he's not, and only time will tell. deep down, though, i think you're probably right.
Oh I agree he'd love to have the title. I just don't see him having the traits necessary to make it happen.
what about obama? what does obama have that trump doesn't?
A cult-like following?
A cult-like following?
The ability to read a great speech from a teleprompter. An economic meltdown helping pave the way. The MSM in his back pocket.
have to admit trump has made some ground in that department.
yes, this is why it struck me that trump may be using negative attention as a way to gain ground, because he knows anything other than that will only get him ignored.
Meh. I haven't seen it. A lot of people love the fact he is giving the establishment a big "f you," but that's a far cry from the devotion showed by Obama's followers. Talk to a Trump supporter and an Obamabot. Not much of a comparison. I doubt we will see an educated commentator in the MSM comparing Trump to Jesus Christ.
I'm sure Trump knows that all press is essentially good press for him and his branding.
But the thing is the idea of being a Democrat is a lot broader than being a Republican. When you think of a successful Republican candidate there are some pretty rigid descriptions that are going to go along with that. That's not really true of democrats.
It's broader because they're "progressive" and edgy. The stereotype of a republican hasn't ever changed in my lifetime. Stuffy white dude in a suit. For the record, I vote republican and am okay with Trump because maybe this is the compromise the party needs in order to pick up the fringe voters.
"The MSM in his back pocket. "
Trump has FOX News in his back pocket. He's mean to them, and they worship him. Think about Megyn kelly getting a 2 week suspension for upsetting poor donald lol... the #1 voice (essentially tied with Bill O'Lielly) on the #1 cable news network) - and trump just shit all over her. he can make a period joke and SHE was the one getting suspeneded for it.
So yes, trump has the MSM in his pocket.
So, Trump has his cult on lock, the nomination on lock and there's not much about his campaign or positions that are recognizable as Republican. Some Repub names are fleeing the ship while others have accepted that they have to endorse him under duress.
The quesstion is "how will a trump presidency change the republican party"? Social conservatism is dead as a political force. I think that's a given. Are people really responding to Trump because he's fiscally conservative?
I don't think so. I think he's an ideal instagram/social media generation candidate.
On what basis do you conclude "social conservatism is dead as a political force"?
That was actually a mistake on my part. I meant to write evangelical conservatism instead of social conservatism.
It will be the first time since the democratic and republican party's ideological flip-flop that culminated in the 60s, yes.
Look, the GOP had it coming: It's got a huge base of middle-class Americans and a wealthy elite that has gradually disenfranchised itself from the base.
Most people are reading Trump wrong. He's hitting all the right notes, at least the notes that the middle class wants to hear.
Many people interpret his promises as racism, but what he is really saying is "look, give me your vote and I'll make sure that ECONOMICALLY we got back to your grandfather's time. A time when one salary was enough to pay for a house, vacations, college, car, et cetera. And deporting people who will work for ten cents an hour and cost the economy an enormous amount of money is a step toward that goal, not The Goal".
I'm as left wing as it gets, but what The Donald is saying makes way too much sense to me. At least a heck of a lot more sense than what The Establishment's candidates seem to be articulating.
Are you hearing this Republican Party?
And you are wanting to sabotage this phenomenon?
I'm almost convinced that Republicans simply do not care about winning presidential elections.
Or he is trying to improve his brand and make more money, which he is very good at. I'm rolling with Option C. :)
So, Trump decided to play ball with the GOP big boys and endorse Paul Ryan. I find this hilarious. Some conservative media are starting to call him out, but so many of his supporters are claiming everything he does is logical and brilliant. It's so weird to think of a president acting like this.
Most people are reading Trump wrong. He's hitting all the right notes, at least the notes that the middle class wants to hear.
Many people interpret his promises as racism, but what he is really saying is "look, give me your vote and I'll make sure that ECONOMICALLY we got back to your grandfather's time. A time when one salary was enough to pay for a house, vacations, college, car, et cetera. And deporting people who will work for ten cents an hour and cost the economy an enormous amount of money is a step toward that goal, not The Goal".
I'm as left wing as it gets, but what The Donald is saying makes way too much sense to me. At least a heck of a lot more sense than what The Establishment's candidates seem to be articulating.
For instance, why on earth is the press giving Obama a free pass on the illegal immigrant issue is beyond me. Here's a guy that ran part of his campaign on legalizing millions of illegal aliens, then he gets a second term and proceeds to carry on one of the largest low-key deportation waves in recorded history. The Hispanic community should be calling for a lynching on this guy. Instead, they're either eerily quiet or attacking The Donald full blast.
Meanwhile, places like Jersey City have become Little Calcuttas in a span of 5 years, literally overcome with visa-holding cheap employees who see nothing wrong in not taking a shower in two weeks.
This post always stood out to me. I remember it all these months later, for better or worse.
Good memory - looks like he was spot on.
There was definitely and undercurrent the mainstream media chose to ignore, or just didn't believe existed.
Excellent posts. The media spent it's time working hand in hand with Clinton and the DNC during this whole thing, they are a victim of both deep ignorance of those outside of their very small bubbles/echo chambers and that they worked to directly to construct a false narrative and spin it. Same with the polling, all worked hand in glove. They believed their own lies and false reality...hence the shock. If they talked to people outside of their purview they would have seen this coming.
Now they all just sound like a bunch of losers who still don't get it. Who still push the "Sexism won the election for Trump!" or "Racist white won it!" and they couldn't be any more wrong.
I know a lot of people (specifically conservatives) look at some of the stuff revealed in the Wikileaks dump and say that it was proof the fix was in, but I don't really buy that. For the most part, that's how politics works. Donna Brazile feeding questions to Hillary's camp was just plain unethical, but politicians and journalists who cover politics generally develop relationships. The fact that there was quid pro quo for Hillary wasn't an outlier. The fact that we had access to a big chunk of her email correspondence was.Very good post, I agree that this is the way politics works. I'm sure this is the way politics works but that doesn't meant it's the way it should work. Bernie would have likely beat trump, Hillary was a seriously flawed candidate and the establishment pushed her through anyway. Donald was seriously flawed as well but I think he got a pass bc he wasn't a politician and was held to different standards as a result.
That being said, there really is a tale of two Americas going on here. I think it's inaccurate to say that one is "very small" and a construct of lies, but the other does get ignored habitually. I remember a few years back when there was a controversy over the show "Duck Dynasty". I was not only surprised to hear that this show existed, but that it was one of the most popular shows on television. A large part of its appeal was the conservative values it displayed.