We should have expected the rise of Trump.

[Glen Contrarian]

Anyone with half a clue about Trump's positions would know that they would have been repugnant to Reagan, Bush 41, and Goldwater. Someone running on such a platform even ten years ago would have been laughed and pilloried and exiled to the political fringe wilderness.

But not today. Why?

The secret lay in demographics and human nature. In 2006, the Republicans in Congress voted almost in toto to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act...yet after the election of Barack Obama, all of a sudden the GOP's support for the VRA dissipated like so much cigarette smoke. After Obama was elected, "We want our country back" was often heard in GOP rallies.

Most of us probably thought this was a one-off, the reaction of a vocal few. But we were wrong. We should have seen that the time was right for the rise of a true demagogue.

Looking back through history, one of the surest ways to start a civil war was for one group - whether racial, ethnic, religious, political, whatever - to be dominant for many generations, and then for that group to begin to believe that its dominance was threatened by what had once been a less-powerful (or even subservient) group. Perhaps the best example are the wars between the once-dominant Catholics and the (upstart at the time) protestants over the centuries. The rule is almost always the same - when the powerful group feels threatened, its members will close ranks and circle the wagons, and begin to take an ever harder line to protect their power.

And that's what we see today with the rise of Trump, whose xenophobic, even racist language would have been unthinkable even a decade ago, but once Obama was elected, suddenly, such language was not just accepted, but cheered. And it's not just in America - look at Europe, where the backlash against minorities has been simmering for two decades, and now Germany, France, and Greece are seeing the rise and resurgence of far-right political parties.

So what's next? Hard to say. It's almost certain that the Right will continue to become yet more xenophobic, but hopefully we as a people and a culture are educated enough, wise enough to step back from the brink of real, large-scale violence. Other nations weathering this same kind of demographic change may not be so fortunate.

 

[Thrilla]

well, that's one take on it..... a more common sense take would be the rise of the Donald is because many people are disenfranchised by mealy mouthed politicians promising the same old bull****, in the same old fashion... and he's something entirely new and a bit refreshing.

I think how Donald speaks is far more important that the substance of his words ( to those whom support him).

the Donald being elected won't lead to disaster... it will only lead to the left being butthurt over not getting a socialist elected, but still having a president that shoots for historically democratic party policies.

about hte only thing hte left should be opposed to, concerning trump, is his position on illegal immigration.... that's really the only thing he differs greatly on with the left.
well, that and not having a D next to his name on the ballot.

from an outsiders position ( not a member of either major party) .. it's mindboggling to me that the Dems are opposing him and the Reps are supporting him.... according to his policy positions, it should be the other way around.
that says to me that policy position don't really matter as much as people pretend they do.... party affiliation and manner of speech seems to be far more important to the masses right now.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The popularity of both Trump and Sanders is related to the very same problem - the average voter feeling like the average politician doesn't give a crap about their lives. It has nothing to do with race, or money, or any of the talking points from either party.

It has to do with pissed off voters taking back their country from lying politicians, regardless of their color or political party.

 

[fmw]

The only reason Trump is popular is because he isn't one of "them". I'm surprised the electorate has finally had its fill of establishment politics and somewhat proud of it. I hope it makes a difference.

 

[Chomsky]

Anyone with half a clue about Trump's positions would know that they would have been repugnant to Reagan, Bush 41, and Goldwater. Someone running on such a platform even ten years ago would have been laughed and pilloried and exiled to the political fringe wilderness.

But not today. Why?

The secret lay in demographics and human nature. In 2006, the Republicans in Congress voted almost in toto to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act...yet after the election of Barack Obama, all of a sudden the GOP's support for the VRA dissipated like so much cigarette smoke. After Obama was elected, "We want our country back" was often heard in GOP rallies.

Most of us probably thought this was a one-off, the reaction of a vocal few. But we were wrong. We should have seen that the time was right for the rise of a true demagogue.

Looking back through history, one of the surest ways to start a civil war was for one group - whether racial, ethnic, religious, political, whatever - to be dominant for many generations, and then for that group to begin to believe that its dominance was threatened by what had once been a less-powerful (or even subservient) group. Perhaps the best example are the wars between the once-dominant Catholics and the (upstart at the time) protestants over the centuries. The rule is almost always the same - when the powerful group feels threatened, its members will close ranks and circle the wagons, and begin to take an ever harder line to protect their power.

And that's what we see today with the rise of Trump, whose xenophobic, even racist language would have been unthinkable even a decade ago, but once Obama was elected, suddenly, such language was not just accepted, but cheered. And it's not just in America - look at Europe, where the backlash against minorities has been simmering for two decades, and now Germany, France, and Greece are seeing the rise and resurgence of far-right political parties.

So what's next? Hard to say. It's almost certain that the Right will continue to become yet more xenophobic, but hopefully we as a people and a culture are educated enough, wise enough to step back from the brink of real, large-scale violence. Other nations weathering this same kind of demographic change may not be so fortunate.

well, that's one take on it..... a more common sense take would be the rise of the Donald is because many people are disenfranchised by mealy mouthed politicians promising the same old bull****, in the same old fashion... and he's something entirely new and a bit refreshing.

I think how Donald speaks is far more important that the substance of his words ( to those whom support him).

the Donald being elected won't lead to disaster... it will only lead to the left being butthurt over not getting a socialist elected, but still having a president that shoots for historically democratic party policies.

about hte only thing hte left should be opposed to, concerning trump, is his position on illegal immigration.... that's really the only thing he differs greatly on with the left.
well, that and not having a D next to his name on the ballot.

from an outsiders position ( not a member of either major party) .. it's mindboggling to me that the Dems are opposing him and the Reps are supporting him.... according to his policy positions, it should be the other way around.
that says to me that policy position don't really matter as much as people pretend they do.... party affiliation and manner of speech seems to be far more important to the masses right now.

Mr. Trump's campaign reflects both positions in the first two posts, but I do believe it's much more reflected in Thrilla's argument.

Yes, there's strong xenophobia and even more strongly nationalism, but what's going is far more complex in that his campaign is an anti-establishment campaign, and that's why I believe it's resonating with some Dems too, similar to the way Bernie is also an anti-establishment candidate (who sadly IMO has faltered).

 

[Fiddytree]

Trump unites "disenfranchised" Americans by warning them that America's future is bleak and directly points the blame on its upcoming demographics and the social and governmental structures that support them: the current racial and ethnic minorities, religious minorities, women, the disabled, and the educated. Each demographic previously stated is rising in number and importance and they don't like it one bit.

 

[Ontologuy]

It's not about the platform.

It's about the emotional quotient of the man.

There are tons of people who are still greatly suffering economically as a result of the great recession, seeing economic threats from "different" people within the U.S., seeing security threats from "different" people outside the U.S. .. and they're very angry about it.

They're tired of all this losing.

They're not going to pay attention to the detail particulars of a policy.

They're hooked into the emotion of Trump when he presents, an emotion that matches theirs, and they see the presentation of a known personality, who is a known winner, and that's all that they need to support him, to hook up with him to be economic winners again.

It's so emotional.

Many people here at this forum don't get that.

 

[Chomsky]

The popularity of both Trump and Sanders is related to the very same problem - the average voter feeling like the average politician doesn't give a crap about their lives. It has nothing to do with race, or money, or any of the talking points from either party.

It has to do with pissed off voters taking back their country from lying politicians, regardless of their color or political party.

Nationalism is no doubt a part of Mr. Trump's campaign, and I also believe he would do nearly as well without the racial overtones.

But there is a component of his crowd that supports and is drawn to racism.

The point may have just been hit where racism may now have become a drag on his campaign if it continues, and I think that was seen by his being forced to repudiate David Duke.

This repudiation of Duke, along with Trump continuing to grow his support and electorate, would seem to show racism is/was only a minority component of his campaign in comparison to the bigger issue you stated, that being electorate disenfranchisement.

JMO.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Nationalism is no doubt a part of Mr. Trump's campaign, and I also believe he would do nearly as well without the racial overtones.

But there is a component of his crowd that supports and is drawn to racism.

The point may have just been hit where racism may now have become a drag on his campaign if it continues, and I think that was seen by his being forced to repudiate David Duke.

This repudiation of Duke, along with Trump continuing to grow his support and electorate, would seem to show racism is/was only a minority component of his campaign in comparison to the bigger issue you stated, that being electorate disenfranchisement.

JMO.

I disagree. I say it is about xenophobia and race. Why? Take away Trump's many xenophobic and racist proclamations and platform planks, and what would you have? Not much. He was not much more than a flash in the political pan until he said the Mexicans were sending us rapists and drug dealers, that he was going to build a wall, and force the Mexicans to pay for it. Once he said that, it was on. It was as if every WASP who was feeling threatened by the ever-growing non-WASP population (and the not-so-white guy in the White House) suddenly thought, "Hey, I'm not the only one who feels this way!"

And before anyone starts accusing me of painting conservatives with a broad brush, we have to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are not bad people - they're good, everyday salt-of-the-earth types who see the nation changing into something different from what it was in their youth, and their anxiety - their fear - is easy pickings for a demagogue like Trump. If there's a common thread among demagogues, it's that they are able to play upon the fears of enough people - and able to intimidate enough of the rest - to take and keep power.

Again, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I never really thought that was a serious possibility. Until now. Our only real hope is that we are educated enough as a nation to be able to keep from going over that brink, past that particular point of no return.

 

[AlbqOwl]

So far all of you have some or all of the truth I think.

I don't agree that Trump is racist. He is absolutely and unashamedly politically incorrect, but that is not the same thing as racism. To say that most illegal immigrants are Mexican and some of them do bad things is absolutely the truth, but it is not an aspersion on the Mexican 'race' or people. It is telling the truth about Mexicans who cross our border illegally. That is extremely refreshing to people who are sick and tired of the verbal gymnastics used to avoid saying it.

When he said ban all Muslims entering the country until we could figure out who the hell we were letting in--okay, he should have said people from countries where terrorism breeds or emanates--but the fact is all of those people wanting to come here are pretty much all Muslim. And it is not an aspersion against peaceful Muslims to say so. He is just telling it like it is and a lot of people can appreciate somebody who finally has the balls to say it instead of ***** footing around the problem.

Further when he says he will build the wall or stop China, Mexico, et al from taking unfair advantage of us, that he will make us strong again economically and militarily and make us great again, he makes us believe he will do his damndest to do that. And his colossal ego is reassuring because he isn't a person who likes to lose, to fail. He doesn't apologize for being rich or successful or making deals with both sides as a businessman and that's okay for those of us who understand what he is saying. He is rich so he doesn't need more riches but he sure knows what creates them.

Having said all that, am I a Trump fan? No, not really. But if he is elected, I can get behind him with enthusiasm to put somebody like him in the White House instead of just another liberal Democrat that will mess things up worse than they already are or a gutless Republican who talks a good game but goes along to get along once he gets elected.

 

[Port & Starboard]

I disagree. I say it is about xenophobia and race. Why? Take away Trump's many xenophobic and racist proclamations and platform planks, and what would you have? Not much. He was not much more than a flash in the political pan until he said the Mexicans were sending us rapists and drug dealers, that he was going to build a wall, and force the Mexicans to pay for it. Once he said that, it was on. It was as if every WASP who was feeling threatened by the ever-growing non-WASP population (and the not-so-white guy in the White House) suddenly thought, "Hey, I'm not the only one who feels this way!"

And before anyone starts accusing me of painting conservatives with a broad brush, we have to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are not bad people - they're good, everyday salt-of-the-earth types who see the nation changing into something different from what it was in their youth, and their anxiety - their fear - is easy pickings for a demagogue like Trump. If there's a common thread among demagogues, it's that they are able to play upon the fears of enough people - and able to intimidate enough of the rest - to take and keep power.

Again, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I never really thought that was a serious possibility. Until now. Our only real hope is that we are educated enough as a nation to be able to keep from going over that brink, past that particular point of no return.

Make an argument that makes sense before you impose all your foolish assumptions and presumptions.

 

[Fiddytree]

Mr. Trump's campaign reflects both positions in the first two posts, but I do believe it's much more reflected in Thrilla's argument.

Yes, there's strong xenophobia and even more strongly nationalism, but what's going is far more complex in that his campaign is an anti-establishment campaign, and that's why I believe it's resonating with some Dems too, similar to the way Bernie is also an anti-establishment candidate (who sadly IMO has faltered).

Indeed, it is all of those things. Economic slow-down or decay, political malaise, and so forth are the underpinnings of any protest candidate. But it is not enough to suggest that they are pissed off, but it is most important to ask what are they pissed off about. In this sense, Trump's campaign (and his previous allures to campaigning in the last several years) show us what is in the air.

1) Immigration, 2)color, and 3) religion.

It's not just illegal immigration though, is it? It's the character of the people who come across illegally that he raises his ire at. Rather than being desperate men and women seeking a better life in an illegal fashion, that's not enough to state that America has the right to determine who is able to come into the country and become a citizen and that we must do more to respect those who are taking the time and resources to do so legally. One has to demonize all who seek to work here both legally and illegally. Criminality, rape, and murder. That's what they are redesigned as.

But it's not merely those who are illegal either, is it? No. Lawful visitors and workers visit scorn from the man and his supporters. Being Muslim and a foreigner (usually colored) is enough to proclaim America needs protection from you. Despite widespread evidence that an overwhelming, overwhelming majority of muslims are good people, all are blanketed with the same charge. One must ban their presence and perhaps even keep a very close eye (through government technological bureaucracy) of those who exist inside our borders.

4) Being disabled. It's not enough to get into a long historical spat between yourself and a reporter, because one must mock his created existence. When it is not mocking, one must raise the menace of the disabled trope instead. When it comes to gun control, it is not enough to say gun control is ineffective if not unconstitutional, one must point the finger at another societal menace instead. Thus over 60 million Americans then become the prospective violent menace to society, and what's worse is, it's an invisible threat. It is they who are, in his words, "going to do things that people will not even believe are possible."

5) Women in power. Trump either does not like to face women in power or he is showing us through his campaign that his campaign persona isn't impressed with the concept. Whether it is a woman in the media, a woman who is a former business executive, or a woman who is a political powerhouse, he isn't willing to treat them with respect. He demeans them for biochemistry, indicating that they don't have the temperament for power and influence, or that they are meant to be evaluated on the basis of whether or not they look good attached to another man.

America's demographics and needs are changing. What Trump's campaign has shown us from the start is indeed does he proclaim that the system is broken, that politicians are corrupted crooks, and the economy works against the working and middle class. But why it works against the working and middle classes is where Trump's explanation is most important and why it is at its most vile.

America's minorities and power minorities know what is going on and have known for many months. Trump capitalizes on uncertainty, social isolation, and increasing political radicalization in both parties to provide several answers to societal ills--solutions that have been either met with acclaim or have been dismissed with the usual apologetic groveling of his supporters.

 

[Chomsky]

I disagree. I say it is about xenophobia and race. Why? Take away Trump's many xenophobic and racist proclamations and platform planks, and what would you have? Not much. He was not much more than a flash in the political pan until he said the Mexicans were sending us rapists and drug dealers, that he was going to build a wall, and force the Mexicans to pay for it. Once he said that, it was on. It was as if every WASP who was feeling threatened by the ever-growing non-WASP population (and the not-so-white guy in the White House) suddenly thought, "Hey, I'm not the only one who feels this way!"

And before anyone starts accusing me of painting conservatives with a broad brush, we have to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are not bad people - they're good, everyday salt-of-the-earth types who see the nation changing into something different from what it was in their youth, and their anxiety - their fear - is easy pickings for a demagogue like Trump. If there's a common thread among demagogues, it's that they are able to play upon the fears of enough people - and able to intimidate enough of the rest - to take and keep power.

Again, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I never really thought that was a serious possibility. Until now. Our only real hope is that we are educated enough as a nation to be able to keep from going over that brink, past that particular point of no return.

Fair enough, and yes we do disagree (at least to some degree).

There is a racial component to Trump's campaign, and there definitely is an even larger nationalism component, which I believe is the largest component.

But while the broken immigration system here is typically exemplified by Mexicans illegally entering, I do not think the majority of anger here is racism against Mexicans per se, as it is against the illegal immigration itself, the effect it's having upon the country, and the government and political parties that allow & condone it.

The Mexicans just happen to be the ethnicity involved, IMO.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Make an argument that makes sense before you impose all your foolish assumptions and presumptions.

Go learn some history first - including that watershed moment when Nixon adopted his "Southern Strategy" - and learn how the parties became so partisan...and then get back to me.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Fair enough, and yes we do disagree (at least to some degree).

There is a racial component to Trump's campaign, and there definitely is an even larger nationalism component, which I believe is the largest component.

But while the broken immigration system here is typically exemplified by Mexicans illegally entering, I do not think the majority of anger here is racism against Mexicans per se, as it is against the illegal immigration itself, the effect it's having upon the country, and the government and political parties that allow & condone it.

The Mexicans just happen to be the ethnicity involved, IMO.

No, it's not against Mexicans per se...but against everyone that presents a threat to the longtime dominance of WASPs. Again, I point you to how even in 2006 the GOP Congressmen voted almost in lockstep to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act...yet not long after Obama was elected the first time, all of a sudden they were doing their worst to try to tear it down. Look at the strength of the birther movement - even this past August only 29% of Republicans said that Obama was certainly born in the USA.

To be sure, it's not a matter of malicious intent by the overwhelming majority of the GOP and the conservatives - it's a reaction to their anxiety, their fear that America's becoming something they never knew. They are reacting out of fear, and Trump was the first serious candidate to seize upon that fear.

 

[clownboy]

Nationalism is no doubt a part of Mr. Trump's campaign, and I also believe he would do nearly as well without the racial overtones.

But there is a component of his crowd that supports and is drawn to racism.

The point may have just been hit where racism may now have become a drag on his campaign if it continues, and I think that was seen by his being forced to repudiate David Duke.

This repudiation of Duke, along with Trump continuing to grow his support and electorate, would seem to show racism is/was only a minority component of his campaign in comparison to the bigger issue you stated, that being electorate disenfranchisement.

JMO.

Here's the problem - NONE of those "racial overtones" have come from Trump himself, they have all come from his opposition mischaracterizing what he's said. They do so deliberately because they can't paint him with anything else legitimate.

Here's a hint, talking about Mexico and Mexicans - it's not racial.

 

[Chomsky]

Indeed, it is all of those things. Economic slow-down or decay, political malaise, and so forth are the underpinnings of any protest candidate. But it is not enough to suggest that they are pissed off, but it is most important to ask what are they pissed off about. In this sense, Trump's campaign (and his previous allures to campaigning in the last several years) show us what is in the air.

1) Immigration, 2)color, and 3) religion.

It's not just illegal immigration though, is it? It's the character of the people who come across illegally that he raises his ire at. Rather than being desperate men and women seeking a better life in an illegal fashion, that's not enough to state that America has the right to determine who is able to come into the country and become a citizen and that we must do more to respect those who are taking the time and resources to do so legally. One has to demonize all who seek to work here both legally and illegally. Criminality, rape, and murder. That's what they are redesigned as.

But it's not merely those who are illegal either, is it? No. Lawful visitors and workers visit scorn from the man and his supporters. Being Muslim and a foreigner (usually colored) is enough to proclaim America needs protection from you. Despite widespread evidence that an overwhelming, overwhelming majority of muslims are good people, all are blanketed with the same charge. One must ban their presence and perhaps even keep a very close eye (through government technological bureaucracy) of those who exist inside our borders.

4) Being disabled. It's not enough to get into a long historical spat between yourself and a reporter, because one must mock his created existence. When it is not mocking, one must raise the menace of the disabled trope instead. When it comes to gun control, it is not enough to say gun control is ineffective if not unconstitutional, one must point the finger at another societal menace instead. Thus over 60 million Americans then become the prospective violent menace to society, and what's worse is, it's an invisible threat. It is they who are, in his words, "going to do things that people will not even believe are possible."

America's demographics and needs are changing. What Trump's campaign has shown us from the start is indeed does he proclaim that the system is broken, that politicians are corrupted crooks, and the economy works against the working and middle class. But why it works against the working and middle classes is where Trump's explanation is most important and why it is at its most vile.

America's minorities and power minorities know what is going on and have known for many months. Trump capitalizes on uncertainty, social isolation, and increasing political radicalization in both parties to provide several answers to societal ills--solutions that have been either met with acclaim or have been dismissed with the usual apologetic groveling of his supporters.

Yes, you are right in that it's more than illegal immigration:

There is some blind xenophobia.

There's more values-phobia.

--

But I do believe the illegal immigration is issue probably the largest, and as I stated earlier it's much more complex than purely racial.

The point I've been attempting to make is not to deny these racial and xenophobic components, but to bring forth that they are part of a more complex basket of concerns, and I believe for many if not most Trumpers they are not the primary driving force.

Edit - I must add: I believe you are mischaracterizing all Trump supporters in your relatively extreme portrayal of them above. What you are describing above seems to be focused on the most racist & xenophobic of the lot.

As an example, I have been coming to the point where I may be voting for him now that it's looking like an HRC-Trump general, and several of my friends are also considering Trump. Not to make this personal, but while far from perfect I dont see us fitting your description above, and I'm sure there's many more like us.

I will admit Bernie was my first choice, and I reserve my vote until November since I may withold it from Trump depending on the rest of his campaign.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Most of us probably thought this was a one-off, the reaction of a vocal few. But we were wrong. We should have seen that the time was right for the rise of a true demagogue.

No, I knew this was coming as soon as I heard about the Tea Party. I knew that 2016 was going to be a ****show (I knew it'd skip the 2012 election because they wouldn't have enough power yet), and that the Republican party would quickly become unelectable at the presidential level.

 

[Renae]

well, that's one take on it..... a more common sense take would be the rise of the Donald is because many people are disenfranchised by mealy mouthed politicians promising the same old bull****, in the same old fashion... and he's something entirely new and a bit refreshing.

I think how Donald speaks is far more important that the substance of his words ( to those whom support him).

the Donald being elected won't lead to disaster... it will only lead to the left being butthurt over not getting a socialist elected, but still having a president that shoots for historically democratic party policies.

about hte only thing hte left should be opposed to, concerning trump, is his position on illegal immigration.... that's really the only thing he differs greatly on with the left.
well, that and not having a D next to his name on the ballot.

from an outsiders position ( not a member of either major party) .. it's mindboggling to me that the Dems are opposing him and the Reps are supporting him.... according to his policy positions, it should be the other way around.
that says to me that policy position don't really matter as much as people pretend they do.... party affiliation and manner of speech seems to be far more important to the masses right now.

All the people I know for Trump, care about one thing:
"He will do what he says".

The GOP has one too many times said "Elect us, we'll Do (insert whatever)"
We elect them.
"We cannot do (inserted what) yet, we need the House/Senate/WH"
And it just goes on and on and on...

 

[Thrilla]

All the people I know for Trump, care about one thing:
"He will do what he says".

The GOP has one too many times said "Elect us, we'll Do (insert whatever)"
We elect them.
"We cannot do (inserted what) yet, we need the House/Senate/WH"
And it just goes on and on and on...

yeah, i hear that a bit too.


it's delusional to think he'll do what he says... he need congress and the courts on board to get stuff done, like any other President ... well, unless he intends to preside like Obama and issue laws disguised as executive orders.


that's why I don't get too worried about a Trump or Sanders presidency....there are 2 other branches of government that tend to get in the way of radical agendas, for the most part.

 

[Chomsky]

yeah, i hear that a bit too.


it's delusional to think he'll do what he says... he need congress and the courts on board to get stuff done, like any other President ... well, unless he intends to preside like Obama and issue laws disguised as executive orders.


that's why I don't get too worried about a Trump or Sanders presidency....there are 2 other branches of government that tend to get in the way of radical agendas, for the most part.

Exactly!

 

[Fiddytree]

yeah, i hear that a bit too.


it's delusional to think he'll do what he says... he need congress and the courts on board to get stuff done, like any other President ... well, unless he intends to preside like Obama and issue laws disguised as executive orders.


that's why I don't get too worried about a Trump or Sanders presidency....there are 2 other branches of government that tend to get in the way of radical agendas, for the most part.

I largely agree, however, I think that Trump provides the scarier alternative here. Trump's coalition is reliant on being uncommitted to any appreciation for Constitutionality or sense of government allegiance. This is a guy who called for an entire religious community to be shafted. When that man is going to run for election, he has to deliver results. He's going to use executive orders to push those "fringe issues" in order to either get results or galvanize people to re-elect him. He has no party coalition.

 

[Thrilla]

Make an argument that makes sense before you impose all your foolish assumptions and presumptions.

when you start with a forgone conclusion that all Republicans/Conservative are racist... the habit is to then form an argument round that conclusion.... whether or not it makes sense is not the point, the point is to drive home the opinion that it's all about racism.

that's Glen playbook in a nutshell.... without fail, he will argue the same no matter what Republican or Conservative he's talking about, or if he just talking in general.


Trump is alot of things... a megalomaniac, a bit misogynistic, a corrupt businessman, a manipulative asshole, a loudmouth,...and definitely full of himself.

but the list of things he isn't is , racist, xenophobic, and fascist.... the very labels folks like Glen continually try to hang on him.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Anyone with half a clue about Trump's positions would know that they would have been repugnant to Reagan, Bush 41, and Goldwater. Someone running on such a platform even ten years ago would have been laughed and pilloried and exiled to the political fringe wilderness.

But not today. Why?

The secret lay in demographics and human nature. In 2006, the Republicans in Congress voted almost in toto to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act...yet after the election of Barack Obama, all of a sudden the GOP's support for the VRA dissipated like so much cigarette smoke. After Obama was elected, "We want our country back" was often heard in GOP rallies.

Most of us probably thought this was a one-off, the reaction of a vocal few. But we were wrong. We should have seen that the time was right for the rise of a true demagogue.

Looking back through history, one of the surest ways to start a civil war was for one group - whether racial, ethnic, religious, political, whatever - to be dominant for many generations, and then for that group to begin to believe that its dominance was threatened by what had once been a less-powerful (or even subservient) group. Perhaps the best example are the wars between the once-dominant Catholics and the (upstart at the time) protestants over the centuries. The rule is almost always the same - when the powerful group feels threatened, its members will close ranks and circle the wagons, and begin to take an ever harder line to protect their power.

And that's what we see today with the rise of Trump, whose xenophobic, even racist language would have been unthinkable even a decade ago, but once Obama was elected, suddenly, such language was not just accepted, but cheered. And it's not just in America - look at Europe, where the backlash against minorities has been simmering for two decades, and now Germany, France, and Greece are seeing the rise and resurgence of far-right political parties.

So what's next? Hard to say. It's almost certain that the Right will continue to become yet more xenophobic, but hopefully we as a people and a culture are educated enough, wise enough to step back from the brink of real, large-scale violence. Other nations weathering this same kind of demographic change may not be so fortunate.

Shortly after Trump announced I posted that based on the wide field and unrest in the populace that Trump had a good chance to win the Republican nomination. Now so many people are surpised.

As I said then, the unrest/anger/angst was far more powerful than anyone imagined, and that the vote for him would be an anti establishment vote. Listening last night to an hour long CBC presentation with interviews from his rabid supporters I doubt any of them even know about the VRA or would understand its implication. Most of them actually say they doubt he will do half the things he is saying he will do. They know all about his financial troubles, his married life and all the dirt....and they do not care.

This is ALL about the decades long boy's club game of one-upmanship and 'gotcha' being played by congress and whoever is president. The backlash is at is most strongest now because of seven years of bull**** games between Obama and congress, alleged "shutdowns' that were no more than a paid vacation for civil servants, a war of words and a president brandishing the word "Enemies" when referring to his fellow Americans who happened to be of another party.

 

[Thrilla]

I largely agree, however, I think that Trump provides the scarier alternative here. Trump's coalition is reliant on being uncommitted to any appreciation for Constitutionality or sense of government allegiance. This is a guy who called for an entire religious community to be shafted. When that man is going to run for election, he has to deliver results. He's going to use executive orders to push those "fringe issues" in order to either get results or galvanize people to re-elect him.

meh, every conadatiate has their agneada, and their targets for thier ire...... Trump is no differnt from any of them.

Hillary has ..well.. Republicans.
Bernie has rich people and white people
Trump has illegal immigrants and Muslim refugees
Cruz has ... ****, i dunno..I don't pay attention to that asshole at all.

but anyways, the arguments constitutionality are really silly at this point.... it's evident that very few politicians are interested in , or respect, the Constitution.... hell, neither major party is interested in the document from where i sit.

Sanders, to me, represent the scarier alternative... for a number of reasons.
1st, his constant braying about a political revolution.
2nd, him being an avowed Socialist.
3rd, i'm part of the group that he intensely dislikes... I'm a white 1%er and I stand to be punished by him accordingly.

I'm not on Trumps list of enemies, so it makes sense I wouldn't see him as the scarier alternative.

at the end of the day, neither is a good alternative to the other ... both absolutely suck balls, and it's a national embarrassment they are in the hunt...... but neither will be able to rule with an iron fist and do what they want to do, so there's that.

I think executive orders needs ot be done away with entirely... but as folks always support them when their president issues them, and oppose them only when the other guy makes them, not much will change.