Opinion: The Case for Trump

[Metro Jacksonville]

Opinion: The Case for Trump





Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-jul-opinion-the-case-for-trump

[peestandingup]

You kinda touched on this but I think it needs more attention, and that's Trump's linguistic abilities. Many times people will just read headlines or little snippets of something he said & then form an opinion based on that. This is a mistake.

For one, because its usually missing context (which is always a mistake). And two, because people aren't realizing exactly what he's trying to accomplish. It seems obvious to me that what he's doing is setting the bar super high (like with any negotiations), then eventually coming down to a reality which he thinks can actually be done & where he wants to be.

I mean, he wrote an entire book on this from a business perspective & he's applying that to politics now. All he's doing is priming the pump, getting the disenfranchised on board first (which is a huge number), then shifting to the middle to pick up the rest. It seems to be working. So much so that he ended up getting more primary votes than any Rep in history, and utterly destroyed many prominent candidates in the process. So much so that they're still butthurt over it, while not even bothering to show up at the Convention, claiming it was because of some principled moral high ground. Bullshit. They're mad because they played the game so long, thought they were owed something, got complacent & then got steamrolled by an outsider. Plus, he's leading in almost every poll now against Hillary (this will obviously be up & down).

Anyways, that's why I always laugh at the knee jerk reactions of "Omg, he's a racist bigot sexist monster!" They're completely missing the point & what he's doing. Its also funny since he was never called these things throughout his entire career until he decided to run for President, even though he's been in the public spotlight for decades, been all over the world & knows literally thousands of people. So I may not like it, but I at least understand what's happening. One thing about him, he knows how to win. How this plays out during an actual Trump presidency is anyone's guess though.

Anyways, here's more of Trump's linguistic skills: https://youtu.be/55NxKENplG4  And keep in mind this video was done all the way back in October.

[finehoe]

I mean, he wrote an entire book on this from a business perspective & he's applying that to politics now.

You mean this one?  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

[TheCat]

He is successful. It's not smoke and mirrors. Whether he conned his way to the top or not...hes at the top.

I mean, he wrote an entire book on this from a business perspective & he's applying that to politics now. All he's doing is priming the pump, getting the disenfranchised on board first (which is a huge number), then shifting to the middle to pick up the rest. It seems to be working. So much so that he ended up getting more primary votes than any Rep in history, and utterly destroyed many prominent candidates in the process. So much so that they're still butthurt over it, while not even bothering to show up at the Convention, claiming it was because of some principled moral high ground. Bullshit. They're mad because they played the game so long, thought they were owed something, got complacent & then got steamrolled by an outsider. Plus, he's leading in almost every poll now against Hillary (this will obviously be up & down).

Yeah, I'm sure you would have the same thinking if a non-white person running for office used the same kind of hateful racial language to get his nomination. Can you imagine the outcry if any political nominee said anything even kinda explicit against non-minority Americans? What I've seen repeatedly amongst the repubs in my circles is a willingness to let the racism slide because "it's a political tactic. He's not really racist." That's lame and shows a total lack of principal.

[ben says]

The whole idea that you run a country like a business is one of the single fucking dumbest things to have developed in politics over the past generation.  Thanks for that, W.

+1.

Honestly, can't think of a SINGLE reason to vote for Trump. Not one.

And 'not liking Hillary' is not enough for me.

[peestandingup]

What I've seen repeatedly amongst the repubs in my circles is a willingness to let the racism slide because "it's a political tactic. He's not really racist." That's lame and shows a total lack of principal.

Can you quote any actual racist things Trump has said? Just curious.

[Adam White]

Anyways, that's why I always laugh at the knee jerk reactions of "Omg, he's a racist bigot sexist monster!" They're completely missing the point & what he's doing.

Actually, I am not so sure he's a bigot. But the point I seem to have to keep making is that anyone who is willing to do and say the things he does simply to garner votes is just as bad (if not worse) than someone who says and does things because he believes it.

[ben says]

Its less than he's an actual racist, and more than he's exploring preexisting racist tendencies of many voters. It's opportunism, which may be worse in this case.

[TheCat]

Pee, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about what is a racist statement and what isn't.

If you would like to splice his words, tweets (and retweets) and his overall campaign strategy to demonstrate how he's not pandering to a certain segment of the American population by exploiting racists sentiments, go for it. I'm all eyes.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well written Spuwho.  And you were able to do it without any, 'because Hillary'....

I agree with many points made, especially regarding the political chip game.  I find that to be more true than not and Trump expressed that exact comment when debating the rest of the GOP.   And to PSU's comment regarding context, of course it's left out.  It's tough to sensationalize things that are grounded in common sense, it's also much easier to sensationalize topics when you leave out key modifiers such as 'illegal' when referring to immigrants and 'radical' when referring to Muslims.

And I, like many others, prefer the off the cuff responses rather than a delayed, well-crafted response because that's how our brain works.  We all have an immediate response to stimuli and then as that initial reaction passes and we have time to process, our response changes as well usually not to far from the immediate, but typically tempered.  But I appreciate the lack of a filter and then the realization or needed moderation because I can relate to that. 

So while my personal feelings about a Trump presidency are based around my preference of more 'anything but Hillary' rather than any actual facts, I have been doing some research on the RNC Platform and have to say that I'm not exactly impressed.   They are in agreement with the Obama administration regarding how corporate tax is structured, even citing the commission report from 2010.  But many of the social policies that I've hit on so far have been more tea-partyi-esque  and less centered than I would prefer.   There is a serious divide in the approach I'd like to see regarding mass transit (more options for everyone) and how their platform feels about it, essentially that the Fed has no business getting involved in mass transit and that it should all be handled at the state/local level.

And that is just after the first 14 pages of a 66 page document, so there's plenty more work to go on my end until I feel better about my current decision. 

[Tacachale]

Thanks for the well thought out piece, spuwho. You make a good point that striking compromises with congress is going to be a requirement for a successful presidency this term, regardless of who's elected. That was one reason I never cared for Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz; they are people who'd rather stick to their guns and lose than compromise their beliefs. It's an admirable trait in some respects, but it's not going to make a very effective president.

[MusicMan]

Spuwho, nice job. I think you did the best anyone can do.

That being said, I am completely sick of Donald Trump. I have not seen one coherent piece of serious journalism that begins to sway my vote in his direction. Nothing really changes this simple fact:

Donald Trump has spent every day of his professional life enriching his own person. And his self proclaimed number one qualification for office, his personal wealth, is pretty dubious considering he will not release his tax returns. No person ever elected President of the US has refused to do this, and Trump will not be the first.

His "I alone can solve this mess" mantra is frightening considering he has never attempted anything like this in his life before. His statements: "Everyone in Washington is a loser, dumb and weak" should be a warning bell to all.

Please remember what the last Republican President promised us:  "The Irag War will be cheap, easy, quick. We will be greeted as Liberators. We will be repayed with oil revenue."  This promise was the cornerstone of a foreign policy debacle that has haunted us ever since, and will continue to well into the future.

Trump has done the same, promise "I can fix everything, quickly, easily, and get others to pay for it." 

Most importantly, Trump has never said that progress on the big issues requires compromise, diligence, and sacrifice.

Vote for this idiot at your own peril.

[finehoe]

Thanks for the well thought out piece, spuwho. You make a good point that striking compromises with congress is going to be a requirement for a successful presidency this term, regardless of who's elected. That was one reason I never cared for Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz; they are people who'd rather stick to their guns and lose than compromise their beliefs. It's an admirable trait in some respects, but it's not going to make a very effective president.

Obama compromised with Republicans often during his first term, and often to liberals' dismay. As the GOP became more intractable though, that willingness to negotiate waned. House Republicans in particular have thrown a wrench in the president's agenda, blocking votes on popular bills that already cleared the Senate with bipartisan support.

The divide only widened after 2012, with Tea Party–aligned GOPers hijacking the party and pushing it further away from the center. In the resulting chaos, Republicans on multiple occasions couldn't even agree among themselves about what they wanted to achieve.  I don't see any reasons why this would change.

[peestandingup]

Actually, I am not so sure he's a bigot. But the point I seem to have to keep making is that anyone who is willing to do and say the things he does simply to garner votes is just as bad (if not worse) than someone who says and does things because he believes it.

Soooo, pretty much like every candidate in history then?? Tell me how the left doesn't try to use scare tactics regarding social issues, poverty & welfare, etc & I'll buy you dinner.

Pee, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about what is a racist statement and what isn't.

If you would like to splice his words, tweets (and retweets) and his overall campaign strategy to demonstrate how he's not pandering to a certain segment of the American population by exploiting racists sentiments, go for it. I'm all eyes.

Nah, bro. I just think if you're gonna accuse someone of something as serious as being a racist, then you should probably have something to back it up. I'm silly like that I guess.

[Adam White]

Actually, I am not so sure he's a bigot. But the point I seem to have to keep making is that anyone who is willing to do and say the things he does simply to garner votes is just as bad (if not worse) than someone who says and does things because he believes it.

Soooo, pretty much like every candidate in history then?? Tell me how the left doesn't try to use scare tactics regarding social issues, poverty & welfare, etc & I'll buy you dinner

Scare tactics? I'm talking about deliberately inflammatory language. I don't recall Sanders engaging in dog whistle politics (or worse).