is it really possible that Donald trump could be president????? [Part 3]

[Lweji]

Continuing the thread, and in reply to the two last posts of thread 2

Today 08:15 OhYouBadBadKitten

I don't think it is about Trump taking risks, its more that he is a narcisstic sociopath. He feels untouchable in what he says and has no regard for the consequences.

Today 06:53 fourmummy

To be fair, voters know that all political rhetoric mostly comes to nothing (rhetoric = argumentation and persuasion, elevated to an art from in Ancient Greece). Why do you imagine Labour want to introduce votes for 16 year olds? They know that people don't become "more conservative" as they get older-they become wiser to the political process and its lies rhetoric. So what's different with Trump? Why hasn't his unbelievably unlikeable public and private persona sunk him?

Answer=risk

He is not a ready-rolled, ready-prepped and ready-to-go politician (think Blair's son parachuted into a constituency; MIliband brothers, Clintons). These are not risking much because they were cast in the role when they were made. We know that this is the case with, certainly, Clinton (numerous interviews with aides attest to this; ditto for the others). Voters are doing a risk assessment of his risks and have decided that he is worth something. It's not as simple as suggesting that if someone votes for him then they must be racist or sexist, as I've seen journos assert. Voters are effectively doing a risk assessment and deciding that given the enormous costs both to him (energy, health, time away from family, reputation, financial, career, historical implications, ) and to his voters (risk of being viewed as sexist, racist, intolerant, asshole), the benefits must outweigh these costs. Very unwise to dismiss ordinary voters as simplistically sexist and racists, as many, many journalists have (shortsightedly) done. Even non-experts are very good at performing cost/benefit analyses

As I said I don't see anything of what he says as taking a risk. Because he is saying what many people want to hear.
As for personal cost, he is clearly someone who enjoys the power, the limelight, the adoration. All that is missing for him is the ultimate power, particularly as he sees other true billionaires taking central stage.
But he doesn't have the heart to be Gates.
So, he's going for the highest office, and on the back of American voters most primal fears.

But...
He's not averse to risk. He's built his empire on it. He's had four bankruptcies. Anyone should be worried about the way he manages risk.

'It's very amusing.
From "nuclear climate change" to supporting fracking and blaming the Chinese for the concept of climate change hoax. And fighting windmills too. '

That is what we love about Trump. the more they knock him, the more we like him. The more they attack him, the higher his polls go. They are flummoxed, some are bemused and Blair is "anxious". Marvellous!

It's not an attack on him.
It's a collection of stupid things he's said.

I think that Berlusconi was the nearest thing to Trump. They are both billionaires, both populists, both not politically correct and both say some vulgar and outrageous things.

And should we assume that Trump shares Berlusconi's approach to the giving of false testimony in court and tax fraud - to say nothing of the creative use of the appeal process to outrun the statute of limitations to get court convictions for bribery set aside, and the creative use of the power to pass new laws to get other convictions overturned?

It's not an attack on him.
It's a collection of stupid things he's said.

Maybe Trump's attacking himself by saying utterly stupid things and making himself sound utterly stupid. I strongly suspect his supporters are indeed mad enough to think that.

Or maybe he just is stupid.

AugustaFinkNottle

I suspect you are correct in relation to the relationship with justice. Should Trump ever enter office.

I don't think one need worry too much about how claig will vote in the Presidential elections, as I rather think he/she is not a US voter - could be mistaken of course - but he/she expended an awful lot of energy last year promoting the unlamented non-MP Farage in a manner indicating someone with a stake in UK politics. I can't see an outsider having that much interest (least of all in bloody Farage!). With a US election, on the other hand, pretty much the whole world is likely to have an interest, although most of it doesn't have a vote.

Anyway I've believed for a long time that claig is just someone with a wicked sense of humour (occasionally revealed in brilliant one-line asides) rather than one who genuinely advocates the "make it up as you go along" school of politics. Or possibly an Anarchist. No-one else would support a candidate because he's a liar and a charlatan who will either rip up every international agreement going and piss off the entire rest of the globe, or will do something completely different that we don't even know about yet. At least you have to hope not...

I have several theories on claig. I have mentioned my best guess in other threads.

It's difficult to say, on one hand, it seems like a joke, but then he/she/it gets annoyed and sensitive about criticism and jokes.

Asking for purely unrelated reasons, I swear, really, but does Mumsnet have anything like a "twit filter"? Like 'hide thread' only on a smaller scale?

Claig is actually Donald Trump's mum...and I claim my $10

' I can't see an outsider having that much interest (least of all in bloody Farage!)'

Even I have lost interest in Farage.

"does Mumsnet have anything like a "twit filter"? Like 'hide thread' only on a smaller scale?"

We have been asking for a "hide poster" feature FOR YEARS. Sadly, MNHQ doesn't want to do it.

Bloody hell, I'm watching 'Trump; can he really win' Psychopath springs to mind.

BirthdayBetty, it is a Channel 4 Matt Frei documentary. Take with a very large rock of salt. Some documentaries do tend to portray Trump as a psycopath when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Can he really win?

Without a doubt.

This is Matt's 2nd 1 hour documentary on Trump. Expect more as Trump gets closer and closer. However, take them all with a large rock of salt.

Claig has eccentric views and seriously bad taste in politicians.
She's seems an eclectic anarchist.
This can be disconcerting to those superior souls who believe their own vote is sensible & reasoned rather than emotional.

There are millions like her in Europe & the USA who have been seduced by Trump, Le Pen and their ilk.
We shouldn't shriek "unclean" and clutch gin pearls to our collective Mumsnet hoiked bosom.

It's self-defeating to attack the ordinary supporters and push them away, further into the arms of extremists.
Let's address what makes them so desperate, such easy prey for the demagogues:
it's mainly the obscenely unfair socioeconomic system that has screwed the 90% and keeps on screwing.

Her idol is nasty and spouts hate; Claig isn't and doesn't.
She doesn't make snide personal attacks on other posters either, so we should grant her the same courtesy.

Trump will probably become the GOP nominee, because the alternatives are
a) just as bad (Cruz)
b) have far far fewer primary votes (Kasich)
He would never beat Sanders. He is most unlikely to beat Clinton.

'She's seems an eclectic anarchist.'

"eclectic populist", anti-elitist would be a better description. I don't like anarchy which is why I am not a fan of the Labour front bench.

I like the song "Anarchy in the UK", it was a classic, but I don't want to see it enacted by a Labour misgovernment.

I think I have to disagree with you on one thing at least, BigChoc.
If people keep supporting people who spout hate and define their main policies around hate and divisiveness, that suggests something about the way they think.

Then, there's the way arguments are presented. It's annoying when pps are as slippery and demagogic and liberal with the truth as the candidates they support.
And are only "joking" when pushed about statements, such as "I'm correct 99% of the time".

Nobody makes purely rational choices when voting, but it's depressing to see someone supporting a candidate who they know basically bullshits about everything and hope the candidate will be the one who is truthful. It is depressing to see support for candidates who prey on people's fear and do elicit feelings or actions of hate in relation to other people.
In this case the pp doesn't vote (maybe), but is spouting support in a website. It's only fair and responsible that such enduring, relentless, blind, almost bullyish, support is challenged and challenged vigorously.
This thread has been tame, possibly because the pp has been challenged on it quite early on, but other threads have been swamped by propaganda bullshit and any meaningful and interesting discussion drowned by that pp.

I'll have to say, though, that it's difficult to judge how to challenge. For one, humour seems ok for the pp to use, as is insulting other candidates and politicians, but then it's not ok. Then it looks like it's a serious discussion, but it's quickly thrown about by "humour".
Very much like Trump himself, actually. Too thick and too thin skinned alternately, but only as convenient.

And, btw, you can't accuse one pp of seriously bad taste on candidates and then accuse other pps of pearl clutching.

Her idol is nasty and spouts hate; Claig isn't and doesn't.
She doesn't make snide personal attacks on other posters either, so we should grant her the same courtesy

Yes, this, absolutely. You can have a debate (of sorts) with someone who responds reasonably honestly and politely to points raised (which claig does). It's a far cry from the brexit threads where there is no appetite for honest engagement.

Personally I won't join in this part of the debate because claig's position is more akin to religious faith than political opinion, and there is little point in debating faith-based positions because they are not held rationally. But let's give credit where it's due.

I suppose it could be applied what is said about Cruz, for example. He's not loud and brash and offensive as ad Trump in the delivery. But his ideas are just as bad or worse.

Very interesting analysis by the Chief Economist and Chief Investment Officer of Saxo Bank. He says we are witnessing the end of the Social Contract, which was set up after the French Revolution.

The people are no longer accepting what has been going on, where workers' pay relative to GDP is at the lowest ever and corporate profits relative to GDP are at the highest ever. He says it is Main Street vs Wall Street and that Main Street is going to win because both are part of the same system and there is no other way. He says we are moving towards something better.

He says it is not about logic, it is about the people giving the middle finger to the Establishment and that everything anti-establishment is now good and that is why Trump has risen, because he is everything they are not.

"Hillary Clinton cannot win US election: Libertarian

Steen Jakobsen, chief economist at Danish investment bank Saxo Bank, believes the "social contract" — the agreement between the ruled and the rulers — is now broken, and this can be seen in the rise of Donald Trump.

Jakobsen says we may have reached a nadir in terms of political ambitions, investments, capital expenditure, employment, inflation and growth. He sees this as the end of "planned economies" that were adopted after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In a recent research note, he said the ratio between employee compensation to gross domestic product in the U.S. is the lowest in history and corporate profits are at their highest-ever point. This, he believes, is a key reason why U.S. citizens now want anything but the traditional establishment.

"Hillary Clinton cannot win the U.S. election. She is the epitome of the establishment class, of the elitist order," he said. "Trump, on the other hand, is so far away from being a politician that he represents chaos in a world of order, and this is what U.S. voters want."

www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/hillary-clinton-cannot-win-us-election-economist.html

I think what we are seeing is nothing short of revolutionary.

We are seeing the Republican elite under attack from Trump and all desperately trying to cling to power and their lucrative lobbying contracts, we are seeing Establishment Wall Street Hillary under attack from Bernie and his people, we are seeing the mainstream media under attack from social and alternative media, we are seeing the political class and their Davos bosses under attack worldwide from populist and left wing movements, and the final shoe to fall will probably be when the bankers and the economy has to be realigned to serve the people and not the crooked elites.

That will mean a completely new social contract and lots of puppet politicians will be swept out of power in elections as their masters lose power worldwide.

What is interesting about Trump is that he essentially represents a capitalist, business, populist rebellion as opposed to the left wing end of capitalism, post capitalism type movements that are in the majority across the world.

Capitalism is going to have to change and adapt and the fat cats and elites are going to lose, but it may end up being capitalist Trumpism that defeats post-capitalist socialism.

Claim I would agree with him in that Hilary is the establishment and people are completely fed up of them, they are fed up of them telling lies, lining their own pockets, smiling whilst stabbing you in the back, scratching each other's bsck, deciding what's best for us even though no one wants their polices etc. Etc.

I think it's time the apple cart was upset and we moved to a different era in politics - we need to move away from the false smiles and the spin. I don't think people like trump is an answer long term but I think he will fill the gap in the interim period.

Claig not claim

Claig I think so many of us are angry at the current system that a few bigwigs are sufficiently intelligent / nervous to advocate change for self-preservation: The Pitchforks are coming for us Plutocrats

lweji I challenge vigorously the views not the person expressing them.
e.g. on the umpteen abortion threads.
I agree with you wrt deeply held beliefs about politics, religion, conspiracies and "what is a woman".... belief is emotional, not based on evidence or logic.

I haven't clicked on any Brexit threads - the economic prospects are too scary, but those on the right advocating Brexit seem willing to accept any price to (they think) keep out immigrants.