Trump's Base has begun to Desert him

[esmith]

Good, but your response points out why you're the problem.
History won't be kind to you.

And history has already been unkind to me from
Nov 22, 1963 to Jan 20, 1969
Jan 20, 1971 to Jan 20 1981
Jan 20, 1993 to Jan 20, 2001
Jan 20, 2009 to Jan 20, 2017

The current year is 2017. Live in it.

Just responding to your statement that history wont' be kind to me. You forget you said that, or did you not say what you meant to say when you wrote it.

 

[tytlyf]

Just responding to your statement that history wont' be kind to me. You forget you said that, or did you not say what you meant to say when you wrote it.

I'm talking about history books that are yet to be written. It won't be kind to Trump or his supporters. And history will show it was the supporters that were the real problem in America.

Without you, there would be no Trump. And Trump was unfit. Which is why America is hurting today. Just because you're angry at the GOP elitists that you and your ilk continue voting into office.

You control draining the swamp. Stop voting in swamp people and complaining after the fact. It's tiresome hearing it every election.

 

[esmith]

I'm talking about history books that are yet to be written. It won't be kind to Trump or his supporters. And history will show it was the supporters that were the real problem in America.

Without you, there would be no Trump. And Trump was unfit. Which is why America is hurting today. Just because you're angry at the GOP elitists that you and your ilk continue voting into office.

You control draining the swamp. Stop voting in swamp people and complaining after the fact. It's tiresome hearing it every election.

Too bad you will be found wanting in your assessment.
You do realize that the winners write the history books don't you?

 

[tytlyf]

Too bad you will be found wanting in your assessment.
You do realize that the winners write the history books don't you?

Why is who you vote for based on simple words?

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not sure. The first sentence of the article reads: "The lightning-fast ascent and political invincibility of Donald Trump has left many experts baffled and wondering, 'How did we get here?'"

I think this is where it begins and ends. The fact that there's so much confusion, hand-wringing, and bafflement is indicative of how so many segments of our population have grown out of touch with other segments of the population. It's like they're trying to analyze people from Mars and having trouble figuring things out. I think that's a large part of the problem right there. People are acting like it's some huge shock and surprise that there are actually disgruntled people in this country, and rather than try to reach out to them and ask them what's wrong, all they want to do is pigeonhole, categorize, and ridicule. They've already rushed to judgment and made their decision that whole sections of America are "worthless" and "deplorable," and then scratch their heads and wonder "Well, gee, how did we get here?" How, indeed?

Being angry and disgruntled I understand. Pinning one's hopes on an incompetent, inarticulate, dishonest con-man with a bad hair-do, I just don't.

 

[Stevicus]

Being angry and disgruntled I understand. Pinning one's hopes on an incompetent, inarticulate, dishonest con-man with a bad hair-do, I just don't.

What I don't understand is why an incompetent, inarticulate, dishonest con-man with a bad hair-do was the ONLY ONE who understood why people are/were angry and disgruntled, while all the other candidates (and their supporters) are/were so out of touch and clueless about these things.

 

[esmith]

Why is who you vote for based on simple words?

Your above comment was addressed to my comment below, correct? So my question is: What the heck are you saying, is it possible you are addressing some other comment? Sure seems so.

Too bad you will be found wanting in your assessment.
You do realize that the winners write the history books don't you?

 

[tytlyf]

Your above comment was addressed to my comment below, correct? So my question is: What the heck are you saying, is it possible you are addressing some other comment? Sure seems so.

I want you to realize that your GOP deep state problem is based on simple words like "Patriot, Conservative, Freedom, Constitution, Liberty, etc"

These are multi-billionaires telling you these words. Do you really think you can relate to them or are they just taking advantage of people with their PatriotWeb of selling goods and propaganda?

Remember, the republican elitists like Rove, Gingrich and the rest high-level players are there to fool you. They make the bigBUX like Limbaugh and the copycats who've learned to grift the vulnerable like $weet $ister $arah Palin. Where is she these days? Someone made her a millionaire based on 'words' mentioned above.

 

[esmith]

I want you to realize that your GOP deep state problem is based on simple words like "Patriot, Conservative, Freedom, Constitution, Liberty, etc"

These are multi-billionaires telling you these words. Do you really think you can relate to them or are they just taking advantage of people with their PatriotWeb of selling goods and propaganda?

Remember, the republican elitists like Rove, Gingrich and the rest high-level players are there to fool you. They make the bigBUX like Limbaugh and the copycats who've learned to grift the vulnerable like $weet $ister $arah Palin. Where is she these days? Someone made her a millionaire based on 'words' mentioned above.

Nothing you have said in the last few post in response to what I have said makes zero sense. You are rambling with your own agenda, so until you decide to follow the conversation I'm done.
Matter of fact you act just like many liberals/progressives that get ask a question but either can not or will not answer the question. All they do is spout their agenda which has nothing to do with the question asked.

 

[tytlyf]

Nothing you have said in the last few post in response to what I have said makes zero sense. You are rambling with your own agenda, so until you decide to follow the conversation I'm done.
Matter of fact you act just like many liberals/progressives that get ask a question but either can not or will not answer the question. All they do is spout their agenda which has nothing to do with the question asked.

That's fine, but you never asked me a question. I always answer questions as I'm a humanist and only tell the truth. I have nothing to hide.

It's as simple as the following:

Democrats support small businesses
Republicans support huge businesses

If you don't know this you need to do more research. The 70 and up crowd shouldn't be dictating the future of America. Thankfully, the game is over. I told you that a year or 2 ago. You didn't listen.

 

[Falvlun]

What I don't understand is why an incompetent, inarticulate, dishonest con-man with a bad hair-do was the ONLY ONE who understood why people are/were angry and disgruntled, while all the other candidates (and their supporters) are/were so out of touch and clueless about these things.

That's really a stretch. The other candidates didn't have easy to digest sound bites, perhaps. But they certainly talked about immigration reform, healthcare reform, infrastructure spending, jobs creation, wage increase, etc. Some of them actually had well-thought out plans and policies to back them up. The fact that more people voted for a different candidate also speaks to the idea that Trump was obviously not the only candidate that "got" what people wanted.

And even if billy bob down at the tavern seems to understand* my frustrations, that doesn't mean we should be voting for old Billy to run the country.

*the fact that people think that Trump, of all people, understands their plight is just downright delusional. This really speaks to the con-man aspect of my description. He was textbook slimy used car salesmen and people willfully blinded themselves to it. That makes no sense, however you try to spin it.

 

[Stevicus]

That's really a stretch. The other candidates didn't have easy to digest sound bites, perhaps. But they certainly talked about immigration reform, healthcare reform, infrastructure spending, jobs creation, wage increase, etc. Some of them actually had well-thought out plans and policies to back them up. The fact that more people voted for a different candidate also speaks to the idea that Trump was obviously not the only candidate that "got" what people wanted.

And even if billy bob down at the tavern seems to understand* my frustrations, that doesn't mean we should be voting for old Billy to run the country.

*the fact that people think that Trump, of all people, understands their plight is just downright delusional. This really speaks to the con-man aspect of my description. He was textbook slimy used car salesmen and people willfully blinded themselves to it. That makes no sense, however you try to spin it.

Any one of the candidates could have done the same thing as Trump did. But now that we're in the aftermath, we have all these people still wondering and not understanding how it happened. Just like the article that was linked upthread which asked: "How did we get here?" It's one of those questions that, if you have to ask, you'll never understand. The main trouble with that article is that it delved into pop psychology and didn't really look at the larger picture. It's like they're saying that people have gone individually and independently insane, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of affairs in America today.

As far as what "makes no sense," that's pretty subjective. All politicians are textbook slimy used car salesmen in one form or another, so why people choose one slimeball over another might bear some examination. If it doesn't make any sense, one thing to keep in mind is that politics was never supposed to make any sense. It's all about manipulation, deception, and power. The rest is just theater and bunkum for the masses.

But this yet points up another aspect where many people have been woefully out of touch. The fact that so many people have been falling all over themselves to try to convince others that Trump is somehow "different" from all the other slimy used car salesmen is truly an exercise in thought control.
Even if all the charges and criticisms against Trump are true, it still doesn't justify the idea that this somehow represents a "major disaster" for America - as if all of our past presidents and politicians have been nothing but saints. That's the real lie that's being perpetrated here. The "disaster" was already in place long before Trump's arrival, and those who couldn't see that before are a major part of the problem now. The fact that so many have to ask the questions of "why" and "how" is indicative of those who haven't been paying much attention these past decades. That's the main problem I'm seeing here, and it has very little to do with Trump (or even his supporters).

I honestly don't believe that Trump supporters were as blind or ignorant as some might think. I think it's more a matter that they see other things in life that might temper and influence their overall perspective. For one thing, they see how much the prices are at the store, they see how much their paycheck is, they look at all their other expenses and try to survive for another month without going further into debt. They see boarded up buildings, more homeless in the streets - which are strewn with potholes and in disrepair. They see educational costs going up, bus fares going up, higher sales taxes. They see jobs and opportunities becoming fewer and far between. I've been reading about a recent trend of millennials moving back in with their parents (more than previous generations) because a lot of them just aren't making it out there.

I don't think anyone is necessarily fooled by Trump, but it may be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." They're judging Trump more by his enemies, the same people who are angry with him now and howling to the hills about what a disaster Trump's election and presidency have been. These are the same political elite who have been ruling America and who have driven this country into the ground and to the edge of an abyss. Trump is coming in like a bull in a china shop and ruining their black tie affair. He's like the boorish clod who farts and makes rude noises at the rich snobs' table - and everyone is all outraged and embarrassed by his antics.

I think it's all rather humorous, in its own way. It may not make any sense, but some people might just be enjoying the show just the same.

 

[Falvlun]

Any one of the candidates could have done the same thing as Trump did. But now that we're in the aftermath, we have all these people still wondering and not understanding how it happened. Just like the article that was linked upthread which asked: "How did we get here?" It's one of those questions that, if you have to ask, you'll never understand. The main trouble with that article is that it delved into pop psychology and didn't really look at the larger picture. It's like they're saying that people have gone individually and independently insane, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of affairs in America today.

Yes, any candidate could have made wild promises without any basis in reality or made up derogatory nicknames for their opponents. I'm not sure why such tactics should be applauded, let alone emulated.

I think that your explanation for Trump's rise goes too far in the opposite direction in explaining it solely in term of rational economic discontent. While I think you make a good point, I think you ignore the social maladaptions that heavily contributed to this: the absolute deterioration of political discourse, the rise of partisanship and team-first mentality, declining intellectualism, the low information- or worse, the plain false information-- that many voters relied on, and the tendency for humans to like being told nice things (regardless of their truth or possibility.) These factors undoubtedly also contributed to the rise of Trump.

As far as what "makes no sense," that's pretty subjective. All politicians are textbook slimy used car salesmen in one form or another, so why people choose one slimeball over another might bear some examination.

No, you don't get to re-write history and hide behind the skirts of "everyone is just as bad." Trump is pretty unique in a horrible way. Howard Dean was sidelined for a mistimed yell, for heaven's sake.

Trump dragged the rhetoric to new lows. Trump is thrice divorced and a known cheater, on record as saying vulgar, rapey things. This alone would have disqualified most presidential candidates. He had zero political experience, no military experience, joked that his Vietnam was dodging STDs, made fun of a POW for getting caught, insulted a Gold Star family, literally said he could shoot people and it wouldn't matter, has multiple lawsuits for shady business practices, refused to release his tax returns like everyone else, asked the Russians to hack Americans, could barely string together coherent thoughts in the debates or in interviews, insulted various minority groups, refused to say whether he'd accept the results of the election if he lost, advocated locking up his political opponent, lied about easily verifiable things constantly, and has the worst fashion sense of pretty much anyone.

Its like people were looking for the worst caricature of a slimy politician and had the only caveat be that he must have all his sliminess on display for everyone to see.

And instead of being repulsed, people ate it up.

If it doesn't make any sense, one thing to keep in mind is that politics was never supposed to make any sense. It's all about manipulation, deception, and power. The rest is just theater and bunkum for the masses.

I disagree. I think politics is supposed to make sense. I don't see it as solely evil. I see no reason to concede that is how it is or must be. That's how you get people accepting Trump.

But this yet points up another aspect where many people have been woefully out of touch. The fact that so many people have been falling all over themselves to try to convince others that Trump is somehow "different" from all the other slimy used car salesmen is truly an exercise in thought control.
Even if all the charges and criticisms against Trump are true, it still doesn't justify the idea that this somehow represents a "major disaster" for America - as if all of our past presidents and politicians have been nothing but saints. That's the real lie that's being perpetrated here. The "disaster" was already in place long before Trump's arrival, and those who couldn't see that before are a major part of the problem now. The fact that so many have to ask the questions of "why" and "how" is indicative of those who haven't been paying much attention these past decades. That's the main problem I'm seeing here, and it has very little to do with Trump (or even his supporters).

I honestly don't believe that Trump supporters were as blind or ignorant as some might think. I think it's more a matter that they see other things in life that might temper and influence their overall perspective. For one thing, they see how much the prices are at the store, they see how much their paycheck is, they look at all their other expenses and try to survive for another month without going further into debt. They see boarded up buildings, more homeless in the streets - which are strewn with potholes and in disrepair. They see educational costs going up, bus fares going up, higher sales taxes. They see jobs and opportunities becoming fewer and far between. I've been reading about a recent trend of millennials moving back in with their parents (more than previous generations) because a lot of them just aren't making it out there.

I don't think anyone is necessarily fooled by Trump, but it may be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." They're judging Trump more by his enemies, the same people who are angry with him now and howling to the hills about what a disaster Trump's election and presidency have been. These are the same political elite who have been ruling America and who have driven this country into the ground and to the edge of an abyss. Trump is coming in like a bull in a china shop and ruining their black tie affair. He's like the boorish clod who farts and makes rude noises at the rich snobs' table - and everyone is all outraged and embarrassed by his antics.

I think it's all rather humorous, in its own way. It may not make any sense, but some people might just be enjoying the show just the same.

You really haven't solved the main problem.

If people are angry about things, why would they choose an incompetent, inexperienced, dishonest member of the aristocracy to fix it?

Why put your faith in someone who has no knowledge about how to fix things and who has demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy?

You can spout all day about people hurting economically, etc. But if their answer was Trump, then that is fundamentally irrational. He was not a reasonable solution to the problem. They were duped.

Yes, we need to acknowledge the frustration. No, we do not, and should not, validate the decision to elect Trump.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, any candidate could have made wild promises without any basis in reality or made up derogatory nicknames for their opponents.

You mean nicknames like "basket of deplorables"? There have been all kinds of abusive insults hurled at Trump's supporters, too. So, again, this is another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

One promise that Trump made was to get the US out of all these free trade agreements and bring back jobs to America. Any of the candidates could have gone along with that, but they didn't, because they're all bought.

I'm not sure why such tactics should be applauded, let alone emulated.

I wasn't referring to the tactics.

I think that your explanation for Trump's rise goes too far in the opposite direction in explaining it solely in term of rational economic discontent.

Well, at least I'm attempting some sort of explanation, as opposed to those who are still scratching their heads and wondering why.

While I think you make a good point, I think you ignore the social maladaptions that heavily contributed to this: the absolute deterioration of political discourse, the rise of partisanship and team-first mentality, declining intellectualism, the low information- or worse, the plain false information-- that many voters relied on, and the tendency for humans to like being told nice things (regardless of their truth or possibility.) These factors undoubtedly also contributed to the rise of Trump.

You may have a point here, but all of these maladaptions to which you refer were in place long before Trump's rise. They can't be blamed on Trump. All of this is on his predecessors and the same people who are complaining about Trump now.

No, you don't get to re-write history and hide behind the skirts of "everyone is just as bad." Trump is pretty unique in a horrible way. Howard Dean was sidelined for a mistimed yell, for heaven's sake.

I'm not rewriting history. I'm just stating my opinion, just as you are. Everyone is just as bad.

Trump dragged the rhetoric to new lows.

In your opinion...

Trump is thrice divorced and a known cheater, on record as saying vulgar, rapey things. This alone would have disqualified most presidential candidates.

Being a cheater didn't disqualify Bill Clinton. And I suppose if we put a hidden microphone in a locker room for politicians, I'm sure we'd hear all kinds of choice, vulgar things. I don't see an open-mic gaffe as being anything major, certainly not sinking to "new lows." With all due respect, I think you may be exaggerating this.

He had zero political experience, no military experience, joked that his Vietnam was dodging STDs, made fun of a POW for getting caught, insulted a Gold Star family, literally said he could shoot people and it wouldn't matter, has multiple lawsuits for shady business practices, refused to release his tax returns like everyone else, asked the Russians to hack Americans, could barely string together coherent thoughts in the debates or in interviews, insulted various minority groups, refused to say whether he'd accept the results of the election if he lost, advocated locking up his political opponent, lied about easily verifiable things constantly, and has the worst fashion sense of pretty much anyone.

Well, this is quite a list here, but most of this was known before the election, and his opponents certainly used it against him in the campaign. Obviously, not enough voters considered these issues to be significant enough or anything that much "worse" or "lower" than what other politicians have done.

I would imagine that anyone can trot out a laundry list of faults and mistakes made by any and every politician. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton had plenty. But to prove that one is significantly "worse" than another would require more than just a list.

Its like people were looking for the worst caricature of a slimy politician and had the only caveat be that he must have all his sliminess on display for everyone to see.

And instead of being repulsed, people ate it up.

Or maybe they just looked at him and saw a different person than you did. Isn't that possible? It was similar with people's perceptions of Obama. Some people saw him as great, while others saw him a completely different light. I felt the same way about Reagan. A lot of people (too many) just adored Reagan, while I thought he was the worst president in my lifetime (I still do). What I find absolutely delicious is seeing how some former Reaganites are now coming out against Trump, as if they think that Reagan was better than Trump.

To me, the Clintons were just Reaganites in sheeps' clothing.

Trump seems to come across more like a loud, opinionated truck driver - the kind of guy one might run into on a daily basis. That's the caricature he seemed to be putting forth. The fact that he had zero political experience and came in as an absolute outsider was also likely a big selling point.

The most you can really make stick here is that Trump is more obnoxious than most other politicians, but being obnoxious, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily make a politician that much "worse." Just because other politicians might be more suave or eloquent, it doesn't make their brand of BS stink any less or make their sleaze any "better."

I disagree. I think politics is supposed to make sense. I don't see it as solely evil. I see no reason to concede that is how it is or must be. That's how you get people accepting Trump.

I agree that politics is "supposed to" make sense. Politics is not inherently evil, but part of the problem that I see in this country is that too many people delude themselves with misguided "faith" in the system. We have become a nation of followers. The problem with our politics today is that, if we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people have to be more than just followers.

You really haven't solved the main problem.

Well, if you're asking if I have any ideas for a solution, I can think of a number of possible solutions.

If people are angry about things, why would they choose an incompetent, inexperienced, dishonest member of the aristocracy to fix it?

Well, that's the big question, isn't it? One can just as easily ask why there wasn't a better choice offered. The other GOP candidates were also against Trump, but none of them were able to last. To me, that was an even bigger surprise than his victory over Clinton. The Democrats had Sanders - he might have been a better choice, but it turned out differently.

But that's the question that should be asked: What would they vote against all the other candidates who ran? Why didn't the major parties offer something better? Why do we keep getting the same crap, election after election? These are the questions that we should be asking ourselves.

Why put your faith in someone who has no knowledge about how to fix things and who has demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy?

I don't know. Since it was the all-knowledgeable, all-seeing "experts" who broke these things in the first place, maybe people think he can't do any worse.

You can spout all day about people hurting economically, etc.

It's not "spouting." It's the only actual reality going on out there in the real world. Other than that, we can get back to your list of times Trump has been obnoxious - which I'm not denying. But it doesn't really change anything either way.

But if their answer was Trump, then that is fundamentally irrational. He was not a reasonable solution to the problem. They were duped.

Oh, of course they were. Perhaps even Trump himself might have been duped. But the thing about Trump is that he came across as an ordinary Joe. Or maybe some kind of loud, outspoken basketball coach. The image is far from a perfect one, but that may make it more "real" in people's eyes.

Yes, we need to acknowledge the frustration. No, we do not, and should not, validate the decision to elect Trump.

I never said anything about validation. However it happened, he's the President, and that's what we have. But the bottom line to all of this, as I see it, is that we will survive. This too shall pass. We survived Nixon and Reagan. We can survive Trump. Regardless of however anyone feels about this, I actually think America will endure. This is not the end of the world. The sky is not falling.

On a more practical level, I think the Democrats would be wise to reach out more to the disgruntled and disaffected voters out there - and there are indications that they're doing exactly that. If they play their cards right, they could make a major turnaround and recapture both houses of Congress in the midterms.

 

[tytlyf]

You mean nicknames like "basket of deplorables"? .

To be fair, she was referring to the conservative base. Calling people deplorables could be an accurate statement. She wasn't trying to sway Trump supporters to vote for her. They weren't changing their support.

But the deplorable line is minimal compared to what I've heard conservative entertainers refer to democrats for decades.

 

[columbus]

You mean nicknames like "basket of deplorables"? There have been all kinds of abusive insults hurled at Trump's supporters, too. So, again, this is another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

This is the kind of false equivalency worthy of @Revoltingest.
Hillary used that term one time and then apologized!

That is in stark contrast to the level of discourse Trump spouted daily for the entire election. Do you remember what he said about Heidi Cruz?
There is no pot/kettle thing here.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the kind of false equivalency worthy of @Revoltingest

You should really learn what the false equivalency fallacy is before tossing it about like confetti.
To use such a cry, while eschewing any analysis is simply argumentative masturbation.

And don't whine about my spanking you for this faux pas.
You're the one who called me to this pointless thread.

 

[columbus]

You should really learn what the false equivalency fallacy is before tossing it about like confetti.
To use such a cry, while eschewing any analysis is simply argumentative masturbation.

I don't need to explain that statement to most of the RF members who followed the discussion of the presidential election.

And don't whine about my spanking you for this faux pas.

Ooh...
Will you use the special riding crop you asked me for?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't need to explain that statement to most of the RF members who followed the discussion of the presidential election.

Don't need to....or can't?
If you disagree about some view I take, then have at it.
But you don't inspire conversation when you merely
spout vapid shiboleths of the left.

 

[Stevicus]

This is the kind of false equivalency worthy of @Revoltingest.
Hillary used that term one time and then apologized!

I don't think "false equivalency" is a particularly valid argument here. I think a lot of people around here are using the term "false equivalency" as a crutch in an attempt to support specious arguments.

That is in stark contrast to the level of discourse Trump spouted daily for the entire election. Do you remember what he said about Heidi Cruz?

Cruz said a lot of things about Trump, too. They're both equally guilty of being jerks.

There is no pot/kettle thing here.

I disagree, but why is it so important to challenge this particular point anyway? If you want to say that Trump is a horrible person, that's one thing, but why go the extra step of defending other horrible people in US politics? I don't think it's necessary to compromise one's principles just for the sake of attacking Trump. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.