logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Donald Trump? Really?, Why lurk when you can post, it says...
Julian
post Jan 21 2016, 07:23 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



So I've been away from ad.gif for a while now - more due to a hardening of the internet usage policy at my work than any great disillusionment with ad.gif itself, or what it has become (though I do have some niggles, like everyone I suppose).

So now I'm prompted to come back and ask a slew of related questions?

  • What's the deal with Donald Trump?
  • Why is he the current front runner in the race for the Republican candidacy?
  • Will he win the GOP nomination?
  • If he does, does he have any chance of winning the Presidency?


To answer my own questions:

  • What's the deal with Donald Trump?


I have no idea. Genuinely, I can foresee no sane planet upon which he, based on what he has described as his policy aspirations, would be elected to run a whelk stall, much less the world's largest military and economy. He makes George W Bush look eloquent and wise, and makes Ronald Reagan look like a left-wing Democrat.

  • Why is he the current front runner in the race for the Republican candidacy?


I read an interesting thing today in the Wikipedia article about cynicism which rang true - that political cynicism has risen as news media has reported more about the power-struggles of politics than the facts of news events. There is, especially on 24-hour news networks of all stripes, a need to fill schedules, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to analyse the motives behind everything, particularly in terms of "what are they trying to get by saying that" and "who are they trying to do down by saying that". Subtext has become so important to the media that the political rhetoric itself has, in the mainstream, often become more about timing and "spin" than about the content itself - how many political speeches have you heard (or heard the 10-second excerpts of on the headlines) where the actual words are just a series of anodyne aspirations, given a highly polished delivery so as not to upset any possible audience more than they are already going to be by the substance itself. That's one factor that has turned us off "mainstream politicians".

Also, the polarisation of opinion has deepened political cynicism. Not just the rise of left-leaning or right-leaning networks, but the universality of the trope that, to make good television with the appearance of impartial journalism, you have to have (at least) two contrary viewpoints and they have to be argued about on camera by people who hold them. Everything is presented as an argument, even when the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly with one side.

So we, the audience, either become polarised ourselves, to the point of becoming blinkered (or simply not exposed) to any unfiltered opposing view, and automatically hostile to it if it ever does encroach on our consciousness. Or, we become hopeless for any real solution ever arising from the endless, fruitless argument that we switch off altogether, reasoning that "they're all the same".

That's true across the world, and it explains why some unusual governments and electoral successes are happening all over the place - the rise of neo-fascism and neo-communism in continental Europe, the election (with the biggest party mandate of any British political leader in our history) of unashamed left-wing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (he's actually got views that would have been considered only slightly to the left of the mainstream within the British Conservative party 50 years ago; but the frame of the debate has moved rightwards, as it has in the USA).

So Trump, who appears to say what he genuinely thinks at all times (as Corbyn mostly does, though I doubt the two would agree on anything much) is a breath of fresh air.

And, the Tea Party had an uneasy alliance with the Republican establishment last time out; Sarah Palin's outsider status played well with them, but with almost nobody else. (I mention her because her rather rambling and incoherent endorsement of Trump's candidacy is what prompted me to post.) I have a hunch that the failure of that ticket to damage Obama led to a resolve to back someone who wasn't 'tainted' by the mainstream Washington parties, and Trump (who doesn't need wealthy backers, as he's rich enough in his own right* to buy the nomination, if not the Presidency itself).

He's also a diligent and mostly prompt social media presence. If you send him a Tweet with a genuine question (or even a facetious or rude one), he (or more likely one of his team) will reply. He' also, I read, as diligent with his postbag, sometimes reply longhand rather than using a form letter and Microsoft Word. So, anyone who contacts him in that way will feel a real connection of some kind, and somehow that he is a more genuine person.

As a result, he can say almost anything and someone, somewhere will agree with him, especially in an electorate as big as the USA.

I can see a lot of reasons why he's popular. I can't personally support him, because I think he's dangerously crackpot a lot of the time, and he doesn't seem to have much of a clue how the Constitution of the United States works, and the limits of the office he hopes to fill. But he isn't the first such candidate and I doubt he'll be the last.

*Am I right in thinking he isn't self-made, inheriting the beginnings of his property empire from his dad? And that his money has come almost entirely from property investments and speculation, so is a direct beneficiary of the financialised economy we grumble about (because it doesn't invest in actual jobs for real people) and the FED-enabled booms - sorry, "economic recovery" - that is running up the national debt. So his not-a-hypocrit image is not entirely without flaws, I'd say.

  • Will he win the GOP nomination?


As things stand, I can't see any real reason why not. None of the other candidates have really caught my attention, except to rule themselves out. Mind you, that's as much to do with the filters of the British media (though, having been caught out before, I'm, trying to use US media sources, watch whole debates rather than the headlines/talking points, etc. this time around)

  • If he does, does he have any chance of winning the Presidency?


I sincerely hope not. Really and truly. I really, sincerely, hope he is not the next POTUS. He reminds me a little too much of Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone, (even more of his character in Spawn) and I don't think there are any psychics (or defected Generals of Hell's Army) to come to our rescue.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 48)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Mar 15 2016, 05:01 PM
Post #41


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Mar 15 2016, 08:59 AM) *
I had the same exact thought the other day, I don't think there's any truth to it and I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories but I could just picture that on an SNL skit, with Hillary or Bill calling Trump and thanking him for a job well done.


Political machinations are so common I'm not sure they could even be called conspiracy theories.
Not that I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. Mine are just a little different.
For example, I think the best way to switch the public's focus when something important reaches their ears is to distract them with something more interesting and different. Maybe it's the Italian in me. Cui bono is always at the front of my mind.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Mar 15 2016, 05:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Mar 15 2016, 07:48 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Mar 15 2016, 06:31 AM) *
Edited to add: The only fly in the ointment is Trump's ego. That's the elephant in the room against said theory. But it's pretty clear now (after the purposeful release of this letter) that Clinton hopes he will win.


That's a mighty big fly. smile.gif

Most polls have shown all of the other contenders doing better against Hillary than Trump. To Trump's point, he hadn't even started on Hillary yet. So, not sure. Trump does say several more recent polls show him ahead of her.

The reality is that he is very much the Republican Hillary...the one who might cause large amounts of his party to not vote, and bring out lots of voters on the other side. That seems to cancel out (something the Republicans certainly wouldn't want). The difference is that Trump is also bringing new voters in. How that all works out? Who knows....


QUOTE(net2007 @ Mar 15 2016, 08:59 AM) *
If Trump wins in both Florida and Ohio today the race is over unless something unforseen happens, like him getting struck by lightning for example.


Ha! That would just empower him! Probably lead him to citing comparisons to Moses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Mar 16 2016, 12:02 AM
Post #43


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 15 2016, 02:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Mar 15 2016, 06:31 AM) *
Edited to add: The only fly in the ointment is Trump's ego. That's the elephant in the room against said theory. But it's pretty clear now (after the purposeful release of this letter) that Clinton hopes he will win.


That's a mighty big fly. smile.gif

Most polls have shown all of the other contenders doing better against Hillary than Trump. To Trump's point, he hadn't even started on Hillary yet. So, not sure. Trump does say several more recent polls show him ahead of her.

The reality is that he is very much the Republican Hillary...the one who might cause large amounts of his party to not vote, and bring out lots of voters on the other side. That seems to cancel out (something the Republicans certainly wouldn't want). The difference is that Trump is also bringing new voters in. How that all works out? Who knows....


Wow, Trump really dominated in Florida. I was not expecting him to do that well against Rubio. Trump 45.5 percent, Rubio 27.6 percent.
I thought it would at least be close (I voted Rubio, though I prefer Kasich I was hoping for a contested convention where Kasich would have a chance). Hillary really dominated in Florida too (and Ohio, by the look of things).
Looks like Trump is no kidding going to be the Republican candidate in this election.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Mar 16 2016, 12:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Mar 16 2016, 05:50 AM
Post #44


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Mar 15 2016, 08:02 PM) *
Wow, Trump really dominated in Florida. I was not expecting him to do that well against Rubio. Trump 45.5 percent, Rubio 27.6 percent.
I thought it would at least be close (I voted Rubio, though I prefer Kasich I was hoping for a contested convention where Kasich would have a chance). Hillary really dominated in Florida too (and Ohio, by the look of things).
Looks like Trump is no kidding going to be the Republican candidate in this election.

Maybe now you might understand why super delegates exist in the Democratic Party. While not a perfect solution to harsher political realities, it's better than what had existed during the 1968 election season. Well, if you don't want demagogues running -- and it still might happen. Just not as likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Looks to me that the Republican Party has finally caught up with its tail. Oh well, I'm not surprised.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Mar 16 2016, 05:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 16 2016, 07:21 PM
Post #45


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Mar 15 2016, 08:02 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 15 2016, 02:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Mar 15 2016, 06:31 AM) *
Edited to add: The only fly in the ointment is Trump's ego. That's the elephant in the room against said theory. But it's pretty clear now (after the purposeful release of this letter) that Clinton hopes he will win.


That's a mighty big fly. smile.gif

Most polls have shown all of the other contenders doing better against Hillary than Trump. To Trump's point, he hadn't even started on Hillary yet. So, not sure. Trump does say several more recent polls show him ahead of her.

The reality is that he is very much the Republican Hillary...the one who might cause large amounts of his party to not vote, and bring out lots of voters on the other side. That seems to cancel out (something the Republicans certainly wouldn't want). The difference is that Trump is also bringing new voters in. How that all works out? Who knows....


Wow, Trump really dominated in Florida. I was not expecting him to do that well against Rubio. Trump 45.5 percent, Rubio 27.6 percent.
I thought it would at least be close (I voted Rubio, though I prefer Kasich I was hoping for a contested convention where Kasich would have a chance). Hillary really dominated in Florida too (and Ohio, by the look of things).
Looks like Trump is no kidding going to be the Republican candidate in this election.



well for me it showed how the deep working class anger is.. because of Rubio's working class roots imo he would have picked up most of that vote but they went to Trump instead. and we can be sure these folks across the political spectrum will be out to vote for Trump..

and that could be a problem for HRC who is as establishment as it gets and has the extra burden of being seen as untrustworthy and dishonest...

will be an interesting race...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Mar 16 2016, 09:11 PM
Post #46


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 16 2016, 03:21 PM) *
well for me it showed how the deep working class anger is.. because of Rubio's working class roots imo he would have picked up most of that vote but they went to Trump instead. and we can be sure these folks across the political spectrum will be out to vote for Trump..

and that could be a problem for HRC who is as establishment as it gets and has the extra burden of being seen as untrustworthy and dishonest...

will be an interesting race...

True that, but Drumpf has already been caught in really big whoppers regarding his businesses. Plus these are lies that are very easily exposed.

Hillary's alleged lies? Meh. Nobody cares about email and dead citizens in the ME. After all, we burned through thousands of them during GWB's reign.

But you are right that regular working-class types are ticked off at the 0.1 of 1% sucking up all the bucks. It's just that Drumpf followers aren't very smart regarding the rich. Too much hero worship where it isn't deserved.

There's some speculation that registered Democrats are somehow voting for Drumpf. Ah, folks, maybe a few here and there, but usually you have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the primaries. I suppose some Demos have registered as Repubs to vote for him, but it doesn't look like very many when compared to Clinton and Sanders voters combined.

What's going to be interesting is the Republican convention. I'm expecting a major party split from it. Might not happen, but judging by how tightly power is hung onto, probably so. Splitsville, a new Bull (chit) Moose Party!

Or I could be all wet. Won't be the first time rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Mar 16 2016, 09:51 PM
Post #47


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Mar 15 2016, 07:02 PM) *
Wow, Trump really dominated in Florida. I was not expecting him to do that well against Rubio. Trump 45.5 percent, Rubio 27.6 percent.


I heard that one of the things working against Rubio was all the money other candidates had put into Florida, for attack ads against him ($20M from Bush), before they realized that Rubio wasn't the real problem. But he didn't really get much traction anywhere on Tuesday.

QUOTE
I thought it would at least be close (I voted Rubio, though I prefer Kasich I was hoping for a contested convention where Kasich would have a chance). Hillary really dominated in Florida too (and Ohio, by the look of things).
Looks like Trump is no kidding going to be the Republican candidate in this election.


Kasich is living proof that people don't really care much about your record, or your plans, or maybe most importantly your ability to get people to work together to solve problems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Mar 19 2016, 03:20 AM
Post #48


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,231
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Trump protesters turn lights off

This was hilarious as well, I spend so much time critisizing Trump that I should mention there're reasons he has appeal, the way he handles that situation is priceless.

I realized something else recently when debating in the PC forum. I'll quote it from before...

"Say what you want about Trump, personally I think he's too arrogant and goes too far, but with all that said his appeal is that he doesn't care whether or not others think what he says is inapproriate, he just doesn't, and the reason that's working for him is because people are fed up with oversensitivity from the left, and how it's used as a political tactic to screw politicians, or media figures over who they don't like, and that's the truth of it."

To me Trump's sucsess is evidence that Political Correctness is prevalent on the left, I tend to believe that sometimes PC isn't about sensitivity, it's often used as a smear tactic. When someone like Trump comes along who gains strength the more that this tactic is used I think this scares the liberals who do misuse PC. Take some of the Trump protesters for example, it's a spin when people put all that responsibility on Trump, they're their to cause problems, they flip off the crowds and resort to doing things like turning off the lights, and running towards him at a close distance to do God knows what... Protester rushes Trump This one is actually alarming.

If they're bothered by ones lack of sensitivity, they need to be fixing that as a problem with them first and formost. I don't think Trump has the mentality to be president, and Im thinking he'll lose in a general election, he could also be damaging the Republican party for years to come, but he's been effective in pointing out that our govenment is (without question) corrupt, and he's doing it to both sides.

Edited to add another one....

Trump protesters removed (a liberal who converted explains why on this one) "Do not let them intimidate you, they will say anything, they will do anything to maintain power" Is part of what he said. He was emotional, teary eyed, and seemed genuine.

I think it's important to be objective, at times even with those who we dont favor. When I look at some of these campaign speeches, for those who are aware of what's happening, some of these speeches can be intoxicating. Id support him based on some of the things he says being 100% accurate, but there're problems for me. He gets too agressive with some of the things he says, I understand being assertive when necessary but I've seen him do it when it's not. The flip flopping he does is also an issue for me, him not being likely to win in a general election is another reason.

You never know exactly what Trump is going to do or say, I've said at least 10 times here that I don't think he'll win in a general election, but there is an outside chance. Hillary is the wrong candidate for the left, she lies and not occasionally, she has a track record of it. With Trump she'll have a hard time being slick, he'll probably attempt to do the same thing with Hillary that he's done with everyone else, he's going to hit her hard.

I think he'll have a much more difficult time when the general election rolls around though. Unlike the primary polls, the national polls are against him, Hillary and Trump both have bad favorability ratings, but she's several points ahead of him as far as that goes, It'll be much more difficult to win those people over.

This post has been edited by net2007: Mar 19 2016, 03:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Apr 12 2016, 05:05 PM
Post #49


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Samantha Bee explains how Democrats came to have Super Delegates in their primary process:

http://digg.com/video/what-are-superdelegates-samantha-bee

She also brings forth the problem Republicans have with Trump, which is that they don't have any process short of a scorched earth tactic that will stop him from nabbing the nomination. It's basically all the Democrats had in 1968 too, and exactly why the Party invented Super Delegates.

Her historical rundown on how parties nominate candidates brought out another important point: There is nothing stopping parties from using non-democratic means of selection. It was done for a long time by small committees.

So get accustomed to Trump being the nomination, and if not, a major split in the Republican Party: Trump's people go away into third party land, along with Trump, and the rest stay with Cruz. Another possibility is that the Party will fix itself before the convention, but I highly doubt it can move that fast. It took Democrats a number of years to get there, and it's the party known for making bold moves quickly, such as greater coverage in healthcare insurance. Also consumer protection, along with many others. It's just not very easy to change entrenched practices no matter where you are politically.

Does this mean that primaries aren't very meaningful in the Republican Part? Yep, just as they weren't meaningful in the Democratic Party during the 1968 season. The nominee, Hubert H. Humphrey, had not run in a single primary all season long. He was appointed during the convention, and then Chicago had messy riots. I'm wondering if 2016 will be a rerun of that scene, hope not, but then again, you've got a lot of pistol-packing mamas and poppas. Not unarmed college students.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 18th, 2018 - 05:06 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.