If you really want to defeat Trump, try a different strategy

[Audie]

Looks lush!

It is my favourite place in the world.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is my favourite place in the world.

It might be mine if it were within bicycling range.

 

[Audie]

It might be mine if it were within bicycling range.

If you can make it across the Bering Strait ice, the rest is
relatively easy!

You will also love biking the Hua Shan trail!

 

[Stevicus]

This is how you got trump and you can't solve a problem the same way you created it.

In any case it is an international problem now. International efforts are required.

Given the recent xenophobia over supposed "foreign influence" on elections, any kind of international efforts would likely be coldly received by Americans.

 

[Stevicus]

I feel comfortable saying that he has this thing in the bag. Trump is an uncouth, mean-spirited, delusional narcissist hated by the media. So was Richard Nixon in 1972, and he won re-election that year in the biggest landslide in American history. Like Nixon's, Trump's appeal among his base is foolproof. Even the slightest accomplishment can be presented as evidence of his deal-making savvy. Every promise he has failed to keep — on health care, trade, immigration, The Wall — can be answered away by invoking the specter of his enemies. Unlike Nixon or any president in recent memory, he has the benefit of being able to count the leadership of both parties among the latter. The GOP is fine with this arrangement. Mitch McConnell really will allow Trump to badmouth him in front of the American people if it means not having a Democrat in the White House.

Why Trump will win in 2020

More than anything else, I suspect that the Democrats just don't know how to deal with Trump.

All of the tactics that should of normally worked, didn't.

Interesting article. The writer suggested that the Democrats just don't have the horses to do it. They sold out a long time ago. As the writer summed up:

President Obama ran as a moderate in 2008 and very largely governed as one. His administration was a continuation of the “Third Way” Dick Morris-approved triangulation that had been successful for Bill Clinton. He was friendly to Wall Street, hawkish on terrorism, reasonably tough on immigration, pliable on social issues.

Being friendly to Wall Street was their biggest mistake. A lot of Democrats thought of Obama as nothing more than "Bush Lite." If both Democrats and Republicans equally become the "Party of Wall Street," then what real difference do they offer?

As for the tactics that should have normally worked but didn't - that's a sign of just how out of touch and fossilized the Democratic elite have truly become. The same can largely be said of the Republican elite. Both parties took their traditional voting blocs too much for granted.

 

[Stevicus]

It is "Donald and the Swamp". They are on the same side. "The Swamp" is corruption, as in using your office to benefit yourself or those you are associated with. What Donald did was bring in the Swamp Monsters, people from big industry and those beholden to them that will financially benefit from deregulation and privatization. He brought in DeVos who is famous for replacing public schools with private schools that put profit before education. Trump brought in Pruitt who has been a long time lackey for the fossil fuel industry, even going as far as copying and pasting letters from oil companies and making them policy. Trump is giving every indication that he will benefit your country if you help him financially, such as the recent dealings with China. You have cabinet members galore getting luxury trips to wherever they want on the taxpayer's coin.

That's corruption. That's the Swamp.

Well, then, everyone on Wall Street and their supporters (which includes many Democrats) should be happy with Trump, shouldn't they? They love corrupt presidents, just like they loved Reagan who was also very friendly to big business. Reagan is still one of the more beloved presidents we've ever had.

I would say that "The Swamp" refers to entrenched corruption which has gone on for far longer than Trump has been in office. If you accepted corruption before, then you must accept it now. And if you decide that you will not accept it now, then you have to condemn and denigrate all that which came before - and that's the trap that the anti-Trump camp has found itself in.

They want to get rid of Trump without directly challenging the corrupted principles and institutions that led to Trump's election in the first place. They have set themselves the task of wanting to eliminate the "mad cow" occupying the same pen as many of their "sacred cows," and this is the box they have put themselves in. If they want to get rid of the "mad cow," then they're going to have to kill all or some of the "sacred cows," and they can't bring themselves to do that. That's why their strategy needs to be rethought.

The Swamp was never civil servants working in federal agencies.

You think so? I strongly disagree. In fact, it's the lifetime bureaucrats and civil servants who are the bigger problem than temporary cabinet heads or political office holders - most of whom don't really stick around that long to cause too much trouble. J. Edgar Hoover was a mere civil servant. He saw presidents, politicians, and attorneys general as temporary visitors to Washington, whereas he was a permanent resident.

Going after the DOJ because they are investigating you and your friends . . . that's Swamp Monster activity.

Or it could be said that rival "swamp monsters" are maliciously and dishonestly using the DOJ in order to undemocratically remove a sitting president. You can spin it any number of ways.

Did you ever see Clinton or Obama going after the DOJ or the FBI like Trump has? Nope. Benghazi investigations went on for 4 years, and Obama didn't threaten to fire everyone in sight because of it. The Clinton email investigation went on for 2 years, and the Obama White House barely made a peep.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. Attempting to extol the supposed virtues of Obama or Clinton doesn't really prove anything about Trump, and it only invites counter criticism of those two individuals which leads to having to defend against that criticism. It's a dead-end line of argumentation which should be abandoned.

Donald is the Swamp.

And who was the Swamp before that? Or are you suggesting that there was no swamp before Donald? That's pretty much the tactic used by the anti-Trump camp now, and it's reached a dead end. So, as I said in my OP, either they should change to a different tactic or give it up completely.

 

[Lyndon]

the swamp is big business interests running everything, That's why Donald is swamp monster numero uno. Hillary was a swamp monster too, Bernie was not.

 

[Stevicus]

the swamp is big business interests running everything, That's why Donald is swamp monster numero uno. Hillary was a swamp monster too, Bernie was not.

I agree about Bernie, but this is precisely my point. All of what we're seeing here is an internal power struggle within the swamp. Trump is the newcomer, the outsider going up against the old guard - and they don't like competition. That's also why they're mad at the Russians, since the Russians figured out how to beat them at their own game.

That's the elephant in the room that a lot of people are missing. The only reason we're dealing with Trump and the Russians right now is precisely because of the existence of "the swamp" which never should have been allowed to flourish or expand as it did.

The idea of big business running everything is the primary "sacred cow" that all parties (including most in the anti-Trump camp) want to preserve at all costs. And this is what hobbles them in their efforts to remove Trump.

Big business is the enemy. Corporate America is the evil empire. The fact that most Democrats seem unwilling to go along with that idea is their misfortune. Until they do, they're just blowing smoke. Conservative Republicans often call Democrats "commies" and get away with it, but if only they were commies. Then, at least, they might have a backbone which they so sorely need.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Given the recent xenophobia over supposed "foreign influence" on elections, any kind of international efforts would likely be coldly received by Americans.

We're trying to stop the third world war here. The Americans must learn to like cold.

 

[Stevicus]

We're trying to stop the third world war here. The Americans must learn to like cold.

I suppose so. That's all the more reason to be careful and prudent, or else we could end up with something like this happening:

I suppose we have to ask ourselves: Is there any hot spot, world crisis, or geopolitical anomaly which is sooooo important as to risk something like this happening to our country?

 

[idav]

I can see that a lot of people here and elsewhere want to drive Trump out of office, and towards that end, I've seen endless debates and discussions over the issue.

The case at hand is "The Donald vs. The Swamp." Some might refer to "The Swamp" as the "Deep State," but it really doesn't matter what one calls it. Those who are attacking Trump and calling for his removal from office are also finding themselves in the unenviable position of having to defend the ways and means of "The Swamp," and this is a mistake. (Using terms like "false equivalence" to an excessive degree, as if it's some kind of crutch to bolster a weak argument, isn't really working.)

The latest example was from another thread (Even in Europe the truth about Trump is out in bold print), where an article written by an Ivy Leaguer opined that Trump had "attacked the integrity of the Justice Department," as if we're supposed to believe that the DOJ had any integrity to begin with. Why should anyone care if Trump attacks "The Swamp," and why would someone go out of their way to defend it?

The thing is, throughout most of my life (which began in the 1960s), I've seen and sensed strong dissatisfaction with our government and the various administrations we've had. Vietnam, Pentagon Papers, Watergate - along with noticeable fears among the general public about what other things our government might be involved in. This, coupled with widespread angst, a stagnating economy, a deteriorating industrial base, fears of war and other geopolitical instability, environmental problems, insurmountable debts, trade deficits, and so on.

Meanwhile, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the middle class is struggling to keep what it has and stay above water (hopefully).

A lot of people blame the government for this. Or at the very least, many would suggest that those who make the decisions which affect this country and the lives of our citizenry have clearly made some bad choices, based on the results of what we've been seeing during all these past decades of angst, dissent, and political polarization. This is part of the reason why many among the Great Unwashed feel a strong sense of disgust and antipathy with "The Swamp," the elite, the establishment, the "deep state" - or whatever term one wants to use.

My suggestion would be, for those who wish to remove The Donald from office, would be to stop defending The Swamp. As difficult as this might be, it might mean having to let go of one's attachments or fondness towards Obama or Hillary or any other Swamp denizens and supporters. It might mean having to question and reject the so-called "integrity" of the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and the other agencies and branches of government. A lot of people are too obsessed with form and structure, thinking that our freedom depends on the continued existence and faith in these various government agencies and institutions. Freedom rests in the hearts and minds of a freedom-loving people. It's not in the military or the poisoned bowl of alphabet soup which constitutes our government.

The one who defeats Trump would have to be just as much a political outsider and one who hates The Swamp as much as many Americans do. Someone who won't defend the policies of the establishment these past decades. It should be someone from the streets or from the sticks, no Ivy Leaguers or other products of pampered insularity.

The thing I see can happen is people become the thing they hate. People need to remain prudent to not resort to the filthy unconstitutional level of that of the POTUS. However bullies don’t really play by rules so it’s tough to find recourse. The most the common folk can do is vote wisely and if people want a fascist authoritarian regime then they have the right to vote for Trump.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I suppose so. That's all the more reason to be careful and prudent, or else we could end up with something like this happening:

I suppose we have to ask ourselves: Is there any hot spot, world crisis, or geopolitical anomaly which is sooooo important as to risk something like this happening to our country?

Can't you put it into your own words?

 

[sayak83]

I can see that a lot of people here and elsewhere want to drive Trump out of office, and towards that end, I've seen endless debates and discussions over the issue.

The case at hand is "The Donald vs. The Swamp." Some might refer to "The Swamp" as the "Deep State," but it really doesn't matter what one calls it. Those who are attacking Trump and calling for his removal from office are also finding themselves in the unenviable position of having to defend the ways and means of "The Swamp," and this is a mistake. (Using terms like "false equivalence" to an excessive degree, as if it's some kind of crutch to bolster a weak argument, isn't really working.)

The latest example was from another thread (Even in Europe the truth about Trump is out in bold print), where an article written by an Ivy Leaguer opined that Trump had "attacked the integrity of the Justice Department," as if we're supposed to believe that the DOJ had any integrity to begin with. Why should anyone care if Trump attacks "The Swamp," and why would someone go out of their way to defend it?

The thing is, throughout most of my life (which began in the 1960s), I've seen and sensed strong dissatisfaction with our government and the various administrations we've had. Vietnam, Pentagon Papers, Watergate - along with noticeable fears among the general public about what other things our government might be involved in. This, coupled with widespread angst, a stagnating economy, a deteriorating industrial base, fears of war and other geopolitical instability, environmental problems, insurmountable debts, trade deficits, and so on.

Meanwhile, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the middle class is struggling to keep what it has and stay above water (hopefully).

A lot of people blame the government for this. Or at the very least, many would suggest that those who make the decisions which affect this country and the lives of our citizenry have clearly made some bad choices, based on the results of what we've been seeing during all these past decades of angst, dissent, and political polarization. This is part of the reason why many among the Great Unwashed feel a strong sense of disgust and antipathy with "The Swamp," the elite, the establishment, the "deep state" - or whatever term one wants to use.

My suggestion would be, for those who wish to remove The Donald from office, would be to stop defending The Swamp. As difficult as this might be, it might mean having to let go of one's attachments or fondness towards Obama or Hillary or any other Swamp denizens and supporters. It might mean having to question and reject the so-called "integrity" of the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and the other agencies and branches of government. A lot of people are too obsessed with form and structure, thinking that our freedom depends on the continued existence and faith in these various government agencies and institutions. Freedom rests in the hearts and minds of a freedom-loving people. It's not in the military or the poisoned bowl of alphabet soup which constitutes our government.

The one who defeats Trump would have to be just as much a political outsider and one who hates The Swamp as much as many Americans do. Someone who won't defend the policies of the establishment these past decades. It should be someone from the streets or from the sticks, no Ivy Leaguers or other products of pampered insularity.

But we like the establishment and hate the private wall street corporate sector. For us the swamp is the private banking and unscrupulous financial sector that is trying to take over the pristine waters of our Deep State establishments that safeguards the constitution and the nation. Trump is the epitome of the monster villain from this swamp, being part of the unscrupulous real estate industry that drove the financial crises of 2008. FBI, DOJ, EPA, CIA , Hillary etc. are the heroic establishment that is fighting against this encroachment of the corporate villains into the core of the State.

That's how the story goes on this side of the river. So you have no hope in hell.

 

[Stevicus]

Can't you put it into your own words?

No, I just use the same words that everyone else uses.

 

[Stevicus]

But we like the establishment and hate the private wall street corporate sector. For us the swamp is the private banking and unscrupulous financial sector that is trying to take over the pristine waters of our Deep State establishments that safeguards the constitution and the nation. Trump is the epitome of the monster villain from this swamp, being part of the unscrupulous real estate industry that drove the financial crises of 2008. FBI, DOJ, EPA, CIA , Hillary etc. are the heroic establishment that is fighting against this encroachment of the corporate villains into the core of the State.

That's how the story goes on this side of the river. So you have no hope in hell.

So, sarcasm aside, you're saying it's a struggle of "scum vs. scum"? That's what I would suspect. That's why I'm reluctant to believe all the anti-Trump rhetoric, since it appears that a multitude of wealthy and powerful people from both public and private sectors are falling all over themselves to try to convince everyone that Trump is "dangerous." It's all a sham, a put on.

 

[Stevicus]

The thing I see can happen is people become the thing they hate. People need to remain prudent to not resort to the filthy unconstitutional level of that of the POTUS. However bullies don’t really play by rules so it’s tough to find recourse. The most the common folk can do is vote wisely and if people want a fascist authoritarian regime then they have the right to vote for Trump.

It depends on how you define "bully." One man's "bully" is another man's "freedom fighter" - or something like that.

What I see happening is that a plethora of cyber-bullies are falling all over themselves and going out of their way to beat people over the head with the idea that Trump is "dangerous," "deplorable," "despicable," etc. And they go after anyone who disagrees with that with venomous, reckless abandon. I've encountered that here. This is bullying, and this is precisely the tactic that is backfiring.

Trouble is, it's the only tactic in the establishment's repertoire. They're a one-trick pony, and that's where they fail.

 

[tytlyf]

Well for starters he didn't have to completely nosedive into dismantling the entire healthcare system creating the obvious problems that we have now. You gotta pass it to see what's in it...

He didn't dismantle the entire healthcare system. He improved it. You know, things like pre-existing conditions being covered? I understand your media has lied to you for a decade about the ACA. That's not my problem. The reason the republicans hate the ACA is because Big Pharma profits are taking a 'nosedive.'
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/

His involvement in expensive shovelware business ventures that went nowhere except incurring huge losses.
Solyndra anyone?

It's completely normal to fund startups to move towards a cleaner and more efficient earth. In the long run, it's worth it.
After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

The doubling of the national debt while under his watch.

Obama isn't solely responsible. This would have happened with any president inheriting the 2nd worst recession in history. #'s would be different if it weren't for the republican administration prior to Obama.
Trump solely blames Obama for doubling of debt

Sad thing is I liked many of his ambitions, but the way it was implemented made things so much worse and difficult that you can't see this as anything else but a mess.

Nonsense, that's just talking points like the rest. I bet you think the economy was doing worse every year under Obama.

 

[sayak83]

So, sarcasm aside, you're saying it's a struggle of "scum vs. scum"? That's what I would suspect. That's why I'm reluctant to believe all the anti-Trump rhetoric, since it appears that a multitude of wealthy and powerful people from both public and private sectors are falling all over themselves to try to convince everyone that Trump is "dangerous." It's all a sham, a put on.

Can you explain why you consider FBI, DOJ, EPA etc. scum? The people who work there are not multimillionaires. Most are career specialists. Much better than rabble rousing politicians and unscrupulous bankers, no?

 

[tytlyf]

Can you explain why you consider FBI, DOJ, EPA etc. scum?

He takes Trumps expert opinion on the topic..

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I would say that "The Swamp" refers to entrenched corruption which has gone on for far longer than Trump has been in office. If you accepted corruption before, then you must accept it now. And if you decide that you will not accept it now, then you have to condemn and denigrate all that which came before - and that's the trap that the anti-Trump camp has found itself in.

Trump is currently doing his best to undo all of the anti-corruption protections that the Obama administration put in place. Dems didn't accept corruption. They fought against it, and Trump is trying to undo that.

You think so? I strongly disagree. In fact, it's the lifetime bureaucrats and civil servants who are the bigger problem than temporary cabinet heads or political office holders - most of whom don't really stick around that long to cause too much trouble. J. Edgar Hoover was a mere civil servant. He saw presidents, politicians, and attorneys general as temporary visitors to Washington, whereas he was a permanent resident.

Hoover is dead, last I checked. The FBI doesn't operate like that any more, and I think you know that. They only reason you are denigrating the FBI is because they are investigating Trump.