Why Trump ?

[Upchurch]

Wow, this thread sounds like a left wing summer picnic. Anyone on the other side is a moron.

No, no. Trump is a moron and many from the left and right agree on this. This isn't left vs. right. This is Trump vs. sanity.

 

[Fudbucker]

I want those things too. I am disgusted by how political power is gained and held in this country. I want someone to attack the system. But when I do my risk/reward calculation, I see a guy who knows nothing about the current system - and has no desire to learn anything about the current system - and has no idea how to install a new system. I see a braggart and a bully. And I understand that to overthrow or even influence the current system some tough talk and even some bullying might need to take place. But those tactics should be used judiciously. The iconoclast that hopes to change the course of this country needs many, many tools at his or her disposal. The problem is that those are the only two tools that Trump owns.
When I do my risk/reward calculation i see the chances of Trump making progress as vanishingly small.

Trump himself wouldn't change the political order. Trump could die before being sworn in, Pence could take over, and the estalblished parties would still be shaken to their cores.

The victory of someone like Trump, and the corresponding defeat of an establishment pol like Clinton running against someone like Trump, would be the catalyst for change. The parties would never be the same again. How could Trump win? How could Clinton lose to him? The post mortems would be fascinating.

 

[xjx388]

I'll tell you very simply, "Why Trump?"

1)He is the Republican candidate running against Hillary Clinton. This is enough for most of his supporters.
2)His anti-immigration policy has struck a nerve with a big chunk of Americans
3)His "outsider" status has struck a nerve with a big chunk of Americans
4)His "tough talk" on taking out radical Islamic terrorists is exactly what many people want to hear.

You can call his supporters idiots and morons all you like but the simple fact is that they have too many policy disagreements with Democrats; Trump is on the right side of those issues as far as they are concerned. For example, many of his supporters don't actually think that a wall will be built and Mexico will pay for it, but at least Trump is saying, "hey, we have to secure the border." As opposed to the Democrat side who are perceived as wanting more open borders.

And you can't overstate the Clinton effect enough. People just don't like her.

 

[jimbob]

Gulf War 1 turned out pretty well. A conventional military response to a conventional military invasion, and when it was over we imposed some sanctions and left.

I remember at the time, one reason given for not toppling Saddam, was that Iraq would likely turn into a sectarian bloodbath if that happened. So we dodged a bullet there.

ETA:

Or this.

Gulf War 1 had a strategic end goal which was achieved. The end goal may have been insufficient but there was on.

"Shock and Awe" had no strategic end goal. Tactical success was touted as "mission accomplished."

I still think that toppling Saddam in 1991 could have worked as it was clearly justifiable, which could have made a big difference, and the risk of sectarian conflict was recognised and could have been better prevented if law and order hadn't been allowed to collapse. Of course there were still the final echoes of the Cold War and considerations about Russian concerns about a former client, but again that wouldn't have been worse than the fallout from the second Gulf War.

 

[sunmaster14]

I remember at the time, one reason given for not toppling Saddam, was that Iraq would likely turn into a sectarian bloodbath if that happened. So we dodged a bullet there.

"We" may have dodged a bullet, but the Iraqi Shiites sure didn't. The wiki page says 25,000 to 140,000 killed (mostly civilians), but I've seen elsewhere that the number of civilian dead was about 80,000. This all happened in about one month. The Iraqi Kurds too suffered immensely.

This is a good illustration of the short-sightedness of those who criticize the Iraq War. They think of the Gulf War as the "good" war because they completely ignore the aftermath.

 

[jimbob]

"We" may have dodged a bullet, but the Iraqi Shiites sure didn't. The wiki page says 25,000 to 140,000 killed (mostly civilians), but I've seen elsewhere that the number of civilian dead was about 80,000. This all happened in about one month. The Iraqi Kurds too suffered immensely.

This is a good illustration of the short-sightedness of those who criticize the Iraq War. They think of the Gulf War as the "good" war because they completely ignore the aftermath.

Sorry - I was being sarcastic.

The calling of the Marsh Arabs to revolt and then failing to support them was shameful and short-sighted.

It especially stuck in my craw that eventually there was a no-fly zone presumably because bombing someone was "unsporting" whilst Saddam was allowed to use tanks, and control the distribution of food aid.

ETA: This might be about the first time I have agreed with you.

 

[Ladewig]

Trump himself wouldn't change the political order. Trump could die before being sworn in, Pence could take over, and the estalblished parties would still be shaken to their cores.

The victory of someone like Trump, and the corresponding defeat of an establishment pol like Clinton running against someone like Trump, would be the catalyst for change. The parties would never be the same again. How could Trump win? How could Clinton lose to him? The post mortems would be fascinating.

Never be the same?

First, why? This election is filled with so many unprecedented conditions, that making conclusions would be foolish. Would Trump's victory be the result of hundreds of millions of dollars of free press coverage, his having more name recognition than most of his Republican rivals, his running against one of the most reviled candidate in the modern era, his running against a woman, his running after 8 years of Democrats? Yes, it could have been his report with Heartland America, his desire to shake things up, his reputation for being a tough negotiator; but how are we to know?

Second, wouldnt the success or failure of Trump's administration be a much, much more significant factor in how each party might change?

 

[Mumbles]

Given what I saw, Trump became the nominee because:

1) he was "tough" and "real",

2) he was openly racist and islamaphobic,

3) A crowded and unusually weak field.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Remember when Trump launched his candidacy. The establishment's candidate Jeb couldn't surpass 15%. An evangelized Latino anti-establishment born in a foreign country and famous because of his filibustering was having a lot of drive. A black outsider without any experience in politics was having a lot of drive too. Trump with his excellent skills for mass media and instinct for social media must have said "I'm famous, I'm anti-establishment but not a Latino, I'm an inexperienced outsider but not a Negro, and I am way more fun that Jeb -the posing model for Munch's The Scream-, so I can gather the votes of all of them". And he did.

I love oversimplifications Hollywood "inspired in true events" style.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Given what I saw, Trump became the nominee because:

1) he was "tough" and "real",

2) he was openly racist and islamaphobic,

3) A crowded and unusually weak field.

I'm more and more convinced the "tough and real" thing is insignificant. It's just a side effect of 2 and an excuse - no one votes for a "tough and real" candidate unless they agree with them.

It's a bit like the phrase, "it's great to see someone finally having the guts to step up and say [commonly spouted sexist/racist/islamophobic/antisemituc thing]!" It's easier to say than "yeah, I agree with you and I think David Duke put that very eloquently..."

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I read through all three pages of the thread. I saw only a select few posts that actually tried to be rational.

The majority of responses refer to Trump supporters as Islamophobes and racists. Hate to break it to people using the Islamophobe label, but have any of those posters paid attention to the news.... at all? Almost every single news worthy terrorist attack between the San Bernadino, and France attacks have been carried out by - quell surprise - Islamist radicals. In all cases it was either a sympathizer or an outright "soldier" of ISIS. Islamists associated al qaeda carried out one of the deadliest terrorist attacks on American Soil - 15 years ago today mind you - and these groups still want to carry out attacks. Pardon a portion of the electorate for not forgetting that. While I do not like painting broad strokes of people with one brush it's stupid to ignore the one common trait shared by the culprits of the vast majority of terrorist attacks. I got no problem with tolerance and acceptance, but people seem keen on using those also as an excuse to forget what lax security has resulted in

xjx388 said more or less what I was originally going to point out after reading through things here. I'd add though... do people not recall 8 years ago when Obama first campaigned, when everyone was so sick and tired of George Bush? He was going to change the country on the promise of hope and change... that was his promise. People seemed awfully excited at the time for the change from the establishment. I'd say Trump is trying to exploit the same mentality in the country that Obama did. He's a populist candidate. People don't necessarily like him, but they see a risk/reward trade-off over Clinton as a deciding factor. And reality is it's a binary choice if you believe third parties have no potential. The next POTUS will be either Clinton or Trump. For those who do not want Clinton period... there aren't any real choices. Such is the price of a two-party race. If you abstain a vote, and consider this a lesser of two evils choice, someone else will end up contributing to the choice.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'd add though... do people not recall 8 years ago when Obama first campaigned, when everyone was so sick and tired of George Bush? He was going to change the country on the promise of hope and change... that was his promise. People seemed awfully excited at the time for the change from the establishment.

No. Obama, other than being a non-white presidential candidate, was still very much an establishment candidate. People were eager for a change away from Bush, not the more general "establishment".

 

[Mumbles]

The majority of responses refer to Trump supporters as Islamophobes and racists.

That's mostly because Trumps messege this entire time has been:

"I'm great! Look at me! My poll numbers are great. I'm great! Those guys are losers!"

"Mexicans are rapists! I'll build a wall! It'll be great! Mexico will pay for it!We're getting killed by China! Putin's great! Beat up Black Lives Matter people, I'll pay ya!" and a bunch of other clearly white nationalist crap.

xjx388 said more or less what I was originally going to point out after reading through things here. I'd add though... do people not recall 8 years ago when Obama first campaigned, when everyone was so sick and tired of George Bush? He was going to change the country on the promise of hope and change... that was his promise.

Hmmm...I seem to recall actual detailed plans on infrastructure, energy, job growth, health care, war, and of course, killing Osama Bin Laden. And of course, Obama was a very skilled public speaker, nearly unshakable when the economy collapsed, and had the advantage of McCain picking the nearly witless Sarah Palin as his VP.

Trump, to be blunt, is Sarah Palin mixed with David Duke.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No. Obama, other than being a non-white presidential candidate, was still very much an establishment candidate. People were eager for a change away from Bush, not the more general "establishment".

You might have thought that but a large portion of the electorate thought he was more than just a change from Bush

 

[jimbob]

You might have thought that but a large portion of the electorate thought he was more than just a change from Bush

And he was, Obamacare is a vast improvement on what went before. It didn't go as far as Obama wanted, which would have been far better still, but it has the virtue of actually improving medical care for millions.

 

[yodaluver28]

I'll tell you very simply, "Why Trump?"
1)He is the Republican candidate running against Hillary Clinton. This is enough for most of his supporters.

And that's utterly pathetic given how much more qualified, intelligent, educated, experienced, open, and prepared she is than him. He's has no knowledge, no preparation, secretive, a horrifying temperament, and is actually proud of his abject ignorance of pretty much everything.

2)His anti-immigration policy has struck a nerve with a big chunk of Americans

Studies show that the primary indicator of a Trump supporter is living in an exclusively white neighborhood and having very little, if any, contact with racial and religious minorities and immigrants. Those who live in diverse neighborhoods, including immigrants of various backgrounds, are the least likely to be Trump supporters. That says it all IMO. Trump supporters are basically white people terrified of people they've never met, know nothing about, and only see on Fox News stories designed to demonize them. Kind of like how it was Fox News watchers in Alabama who were terrified of Ebola when there was an infected doctor being treated in NYC. It wasn't New Yorkers freaking out. New Yorkers, despite having suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, are far more likely to welcome refugees than people in places who've never experienced terrorism and probably never will.

3)His "outsider" status has struck a nerve with a big chunk of Americans

How on Earth is an alleged billionaire who's spent decades buying politicians all across the country so he can exploit and steal from the working classes an outsider?

4)His "tough talk" on taking out radical Islamic terrorists is exactly what many people want to hear.

His "tough talk" are the rantings of an ignoramus who has no clue how Islam works, how extremism works, how terrorism works, how military action works, how diplomacy with allies works, or how national security works. Watching Die Hard movies doesn't qualify you to "take on Islamic terrorists". Need I remind that it was Barack Obama who ordered the raid that took out Bin Laden, after seeking Hillary Clinton's advice? Need I remind that ISIS is currently in full-on retreat in Syria, Iraq, and Libya thanks to US and allied airstrikes in support of Kurdish militias and other rebels on the ground? Donald Trump's election would be a boon to ISIS recruitment, they themselves say so. They're about as afraid of Trump as they were afraid of Bush Jr.

You can call his supporters idiots and morons all you like but the simple fact is that they have too many policy disagreements with Democrats; Trump is on the right side of those issues as far as they are concerned.

Yes, those issues are racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and violence against anyone they don't like. I'm not being hyperbolic either. Just read his supporters Twitter feeds, comments on Breitbart (the alt-right website of his own campaign manager; which is as explicit an endorsement of content as I can imagine), and the ravings of crowds at his rallies. There's nothing else they care about. Only anger, hatred, and making people they hate pay for perceived slights against them. Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays, uppity women who don't know their place, etc. That's his core and his base. That's who he's playing to.

Sure, a lot of Republicans aren't on board with that and maybe don't even know about it. But they will vote for him just because the R is next to his name so, they will still be morally responsible for whatever he unleashes if he wins. What few policies he's actually discussed are absurd and extremely unpopular.

For example, many of his supporters don't actually think that a wall will be built and Mexico will pay for it, but at least Trump is saying, "hey, we have to secure the border." As opposed to the Democrat side who are perceived as wanting more open borders.

Hard core Trump supporters want the wall, demand it, and will be enraged when they don't get it. They started threatening him when it seemed that he was softening on the issue. Why else did he give that angry rally in Arizona after his trip to Mexico? To reel the rabid racists back in.

The ones smart enough to know it's impossible should be smart enough to know that the borders are far more secure than they were eight years ago. Border patrols are up, immigration is down, and deportation of illegals who've committed criminal crimes are up significantly. In other words, Obama is doing and Clinton wants to do precisely what the 'sane' Trump supporters say they want. The fact that it isn't good enough for them proves that they're either ignorant of what Obama and Clinton's policies actually are and how well Obama's have been working (and if they confine themselves to the right wing echo chamber, that's certainly possible) or they're lying about their motives for supporting Trump.

And you can't overstate the Clinton effect enough. People just don't like her.

SOME people just don't like her after spending a quarter of a century steeping themselves in the lies of the right wing hate media machine.

 

[logger]

During Obama's two campaigns, Republicans didn't like him because we were all racists. Now with Trump it's "he's a racist", And so are all his supporters. It's truly pointless.

The dems pull this card every year, obviously it works.

You cannot reason or compromise with people who believe this!

 

[acbytesla]

During Obama's two campaigns, Republicans didn't like him because we were all racists. Now with Trump it's the same thing.

The dems pull this card every year, obviously it works.

You cannot reason or compromise with people who believe this!

I don't think all Republicans were racist then or now. But there is no doubt that the GOP has since the civil rights act played to the both the xenophobic and racist elements of America. It's simply a fact. The KKK doesn't come out and endorse Democrats but they do Republicans. You don't see Confederate flags at rallys for Democrats, you do for Republicans.

 

[logger]

I don't think all Republicans were racist then or now. But there is no doubt that the GOP has since the civil rights act played to the both the xenophobic and racist elements of America. It's simply a fact. The KKK doesn't come out and endorse Democrats but they do Republicans. You don't see Confederate flags at rallys for Democrats, you do for Republicans.

But you do see many many Muslims who believe in sharia that support democrats. You do see many socialists and communist that support democrats. Point is both parties have objectionable people who support them.

Trump hasn't proposed anything that will help "white supremacy". He has supported closing the border which I'm sure they would love that, but Trumps reasons and mine are not their's. A country like ours cannot have open borders, security and economics won't allow it. That is not a racial view.

 

[phiwum]

But you do see many many Muslims who believe in sharia that support democrats.

Really? Any citations at hand?