Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I hadn't even reached the one minute mark when I started to wonder, "Why am I inflicting this torture upon myself?"
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
This is ****ing awful.
It's also equally as annoying and as insufferable as it's close relative; the far (alt) right.
Yep.
Red
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but, basically, I have no idea what any of this means, let alone how it relates to anything I've said in this thread.....
Red
Well-Known Member
Good idea, but I'm not sure how soon I'd get around to reading it right now. I'll check out the ebook...
Red
Well-Known Member
I agree and this has been at the heart of my concern and alarm at the rise of Trumpism from the start. I realized, or felt I did, that the United States was absolutely ripe for the appearance of a strong man demagogue who could play on the anxieties and anger developing in a society experiencing culture wars, economic dislocation, and the feeling among some that the US was in a period of decline. Without drawing too close a comparison, I felt conditions in 2016 America were to a degree similar to Germany in the 1930's. Therefore, no surprise that someone would appear with enough cynicism of human nature to manipulate the fear and anger of a significant number of Americans, identify scapegoats upon which that anger and fear could be directed, and self identify to the masses as the strong man who could solve all these developments that were signaling the decline of America, and particularly white America.
And my other concern early on is exactly what you have brought up here. Namely, who was going to realize what was going on while it was going on? How many of the folks attracted to Trump would have enough understanding of history to know conditions were ripe for Trump? Or to realize Trump was using their largely unconscious fears and anxieties to make a grab for power? Too few to prevent him from launching the political movement he has, as far as I was concerned.
I guess one could argue that all politicians are cynical of human nature. Because they use the tools of marketing to sell themselves, and negative marketing to diminish their rivals. And marketing candidates requires the understanding that people are not always conscious of their fears, etc., but one can use marketing ploys to appeal to their unconscious fears, desires, etc. in order to gain power. The demagogue is especially aware of how to use people's fears. As an example, although illegal immigrants commit far fewer crimes then native born Americans, and although the number of illegals crossing the border is at a low, Trump's message is that it's an absolute flood, and they are coming here to kill us. Using fear as the number one selling point for his candidacy. And because it is so hard for people to see these things clearly, or to understand when conditions in a society are what they are in 2016 America, somebody like Trump may use this to his advantage.
Good people, disaffected by the status quo, and bigoted people, encouraged by someone who seems to give voice to their bigotry, will both be attracted to Trump.
With these concerns in mind, it was not difficult for me to conclude Trump, by far, had much greater potential to damage our democracy then Clinton did. He appeals to the darker instincts of human nature. That is the bottom line. I see little good, and much harm, developing out of movements and leaders who appeal to our baser instincts.
You seemed to be implying politicians should pander to certain voting blocks instead standing on principal. You attack Trump stance on illegal migration an attached it to the voting block. Why should this matter? Why to demonize him for cutting off a voting block instead of the wrongness in his stance?
Let it rest on its own merits not some pandering want.
I do not get you young pups afraid of border security. Maybe we have come to complacent in ate North American isolation security. It is a nice perk. I grew out of The Great Generation an I learnt a bit from them not wanting to enter WWII prior to Pearl Harbor. Believe it or not we had similar anti police the world views back then it just was not called that as it was more or less full out warfare instead control. See, we have so much overpowering capacity now an it is not sheer brute strength again brute strength. WWII changed all this with the Germans advancing tech faster than most an even us with the tanks.
That was a turning point in history as we became a superpower an entered are industrial revolution. Point is we never as a society wanted to police the world. We still do not. My opinion is that we should so shoot me for it.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I think the even more remarkable thing is that conditions have become ripe for a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you took the facts from her email case and put a different name on the file I have no doubt that the vast majority of the people who are currently defending and/or voting for this person would instead believe that this person belongs in prison.
Did you see the notes released yesterday from her FBI interview? She repeatedly claimed that she was unaware of the rules regarding her email, even though she had signed several documents verifying that she was. If not for her political power they would have thrown the book at her.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's much closer to the far left than it is to the alt right. The major parties are competing for the nativistic populists votes, not the Libertarians.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You can be relieved right now. Trump can't win. The election is already over. Bernie lost the presidency to Clinton.
Red
Well-Known Member
Well, if you're talking to young pups, you're sure not talking to me
As for your first paragraph, I don't know what you're talking about. I think you're attributing to me positions that have nothing to do with me. My basic stance is not that complicated at all.
Bottom line for me is I have no use for candidates that spend an inordinate amount of time delivering divisive rhetoric and placing the focus on appeals to people's baser instincts. That elicits an immediate "no thanks, next!" response from your's truly. Pretty simple when you come down to it. I'm pretty long winded at times, may seem to use a lot of words to say very little, judge that as you will, but, in the last analysis, emphasizing fear, creating scapegoats, and posing as a strong man savior is going to make me walk away from that without a second thought, and not look back.
Red
Well-Known Member
No, I take the same stance as Gameface. If she's elected, and winds up being impeached, I'll still be glad Trump lost. Why? I'll repeat myself:
Bottom line for me is I have no use for candidates that spend an inordinate amount of time delivering divisive rhetoric and placing the focus on appeals to people's baser instincts. That elicits an immediate "no thanks, next!" response from your's truly. Pretty simple when you come down to it. I'm pretty long winded at times, may seem to use a lot of words to say very little, judge that as you will, but, in the last analysis, emphasizing fear, creating scapegoats, and posing as a strong man savior is going to make me walk away from that without a second thought, and not look back.
In fact, I suspect, should Clinton be elected, that her's will be a term best described as a living Hell. Trump will be the head of a new far right media empire, probably with Roger Ailes running things, and the hounds will be at her heels daily. We're a divided nation, and when the Republicans don't win the White House, they stop playing politics(the art of compromise) and just wait for the next election. But it will be far worse now. Trump has helped legitimize the hate mongers and they will not be going anywhere. And if Trump plays the "rigged election" card, forget about it where civil and smooth transitions are concerned. Better hope for a real landslide.....