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.

For all the crazy things Trump has said, he seems to have been more on the left than he is now. He simply must have realised that he'd have no chance at nomination on the left and switched to the right. But conservative republican groups are using those previous positions to attack him now, such as his previous stance on abortion.
If Cruz has problems with affairs, Trump doesn't exactly have the moral high ground there either.

The Republican Party has become an empty shell of the chronically hard of thinking, religious nutters and racists. So, much easier to mount a smash & grab raid on them.
Plus of course they don't have super-delegates to UNDemocratically fix any convention when the primary voters go off script.

The only reason Trump is running for the Republican nomination is because that's the party where you find a lot of working-class white Christian men, which is the demographic most likely to have lost jobs (usually factory/manufacturing) to offshoring. They're the ones who have a big beef with "foreigners taking our jobs", who feel that the country is being taken away from them and Trump is the one who's appealing to that anger. If you notice though, he doesn't have a coherent plan for giving these folks their jobs back, or making their lives any easier in other ways - instead he validates and stokes their anger against the "other" which is what's leading to some of the really scary attacks against protesters at his rallies. His "telling it like it is" is letting them feel it's right and proper to be angry at the "others" who "got their jobs" rather than the C-suite executives who decided it was more profitable to move their facilities overseas.

Incidentally, those "Make America Great Again" hats that Trump supporters are buying by the dozen? Made in China. Trump brand suits? Made in Mexico. Trump neckties? Made in China.

Oh my god do not get me STARTED on the superdelegates. Or on the Democratic National Party chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schulz who said that superdelegates are needed so that, and I quote:

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.

So, party leaders shouldn't have to run against grass-roots activists like...Bernie Sanders? I am fed the hell up with the way the Democratic primaries are being run, and once this election is over, I plan on becoming involved in the party on the community level and working to change the way things are done.

those "Make America Great Again" hats that Trump supporters are buying by the dozen? Made in China. Trump brand suits? Made in Mexico. Trump neckties? Made in China.

Yes, because [quote] "I'm a businessman".

No wonder so many people are angry though. Heart-breaking reports of ordinary people having their lives destroyed by the financial crash - like that 80-yr-old - or others suffering continual lowering of living standards and more precarious work.

This is why Trump gets so many votes - too many angry, desperate people
He may fail, but if the rampant vulture capitalists are allowed to keep feeding off the 90%, then a more credible extremist may indeed be elected President in the near future.

That Debbie WS quote is shocking, the voice of the ruling class: "your vote counts - if you vote the way we want"

The way they want is of of course what pleases Wall St. The Democratic leadership stays bought.

Yep. Now, don't get me wrong. If Clinton is indeed designated (I doubt she'll actually be elected - it'll come down to those "unpledged delegates") as the nominee for President, I will be voting for her because the Republican alternatives are just not to be countenanced, and in our Presidential elections, the unfortunate truth is that a write-in vote, or a third-party vote (Jill Stein of the Greens is also running on a pretty agreeable platform) is simply useless. But I'm one of those people who's angry about Wall Street. I'm angry about crony capitalism. I'm enraged about Citizens United and corporate personhood and honestly? Fuck Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in particular.

I agree she is better than any Republican, but she has just been bought by a better class of billionaire.

But Hillary is winning regardless of super delegates, is she not?
Not that I agree with super delegates, or, for that matter, a winner takes it all system, but if she is nominated, it doesn't seem, as the process progresses, that she will be in by anything other than the will of a majority of Democrat voters.

So far, yes, she's ahead. But she was also ahead at this point in 2008, by a 3-1 margin, and even though Barack Obama started off by losing to her in 21 states, she ended up conceding to him on June 7 of that year. The delegate count minus super delegates is only a few hundred, I believe; Sanders is closer than the media would have you believe.

Then again, the media seem to be trying as hard as possible not to mention Sanders at all; he's been PACKING rallies out West and there's hardly been any coverage.

She has about 300 more unpledged delegates.

Just reading that extraordinary slipup by Bill Clinton a few days ago:
"we can put the awful legacy of the last 8 years behind us"

Apparently he meant the Republican obstructionism in Congress, but at least he implied that Obama wasn't much good at circumventing them.
Sounds like he hasn't forgiven Obama for defeating Hillary in 2008, when they both thought she was the anointed one.
His biting criticism then about Obama, was not disowned by her:
. "playing the race card"
. "the biggest fairytale"
. "In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentator and let them run. They’d have only 1 year less experience in national politics.”

I'm constantly amazed how the Clintons have such amazing African American support with disrespectful remarks like that.

It's so frustrating about Sanders. why do the media get to pick who wins? it really feels that way.

'If Cruz has problems with affairs, Trump doesn't exactly have the moral high ground there either.'

Moral highground is not Trump's game, he doesn't claim to be an evangelical Christian. But Lyin' Ted is and Trump says that Lyin' Ted "holds the Bible up in one hand and then puts it down and starts lying" which does not go down well with right-wing evangelical voters.

'Trump is running for the Republican nomination is because that's the party where you find a lot of working-class white Christian men, which is the demographic most likely to have lost jobs (usually factory/manufacturing) to offshoring. They're the ones who have a big beef with "foreigners taking our jobs", who feel that the country is being taken away from them'

Not really, because these people are blue-collar workers like the Reagan Democrats which is why Trump is getting support from Democrats and independents in open primaries. Unemployment among African-Americans is 59%, jobs have been lost across all communities. Firms like Pfizer are moving to China, Carrier is moving to Mexico, Nabisco is setting up a big plant in Mexico and Ford is setting up big there. It is not just white working class Christian men losing their jobs. Trump won over lots of Democrat voters in Ohio where Kasich is a representative of the Clinton, Obama, Republican elite style belief in free trade deals like NAFTA etc. The "foreigners taking our jobs" is not as a replacement to the well-paid Pfizer type jobs that are being lost but for low-skilled jobs.

Hillary can't protect workers from losing jobs due to these globalist Wall Street type free trade deals (even though she is now pretending she will do something about it) because she is just like all the rest of the political class who have to do as they are told. Things will only get worse, jobs will only be lost as the globalists' dream of globalisation intensifies. Many of the Republican elite say they would rather vote for Hillary than Trump because she is aligned with their globalist beliefs and Trump isn't since he is America First. Trump, being a non-politician and a maverick who is not "bought and paid for" like the political class, has the possibility of changing everything and putting America First if the Establishment fail to stop him.

'Just reading that extraordinary slipup by Bill Clinton a few days ago:
"we can put the awful legacy of the last 8 years behind us" '

Some analysts are saying that it is a deliberate move by the Clintons. Obama has been unpopular over his 8 years which is why the Republicans control the House and the Senate. Clinton knows that Obama was unpopular so she has to try and move away from his legacy but she is tied to it as she was part of it and some analysts are saying she will have to make the break from Obama after she gets nominated. But they are saying that she has to be very careful that she doesn't piss Obama off because of her email scandal etc. As Trump said during December at a rally, the reason Hillary is being so nice to Obama is "because she wants to stay out of the clink".

Sorry Pfizer is moving to Ireland, not China.

these people are blue-collar workers like the Reagan Democrats

Except that Reagan was a Republican, I clearly remember his two terms in office and if there was any such thing as a Reagan Democrat, which I doubt, they've kept themselves well hidden. There are small, single-percentage amounts of registered Democrats voting Republican in open primaries but it's just as likely that they're doing "strategic voting" under the thinking that Trump as a candidate will be less of a problem than Cruz for the Democrats to beat in November -- which is true IMO.

Most of the Democrats I know who are roughly in our socioeconomic circumstances (husb is a uni professor, we'd be considered middle-middle class most places but in our particular area we're UMC) who are against Clinton have a big problem with her support of NAFTA and other globalization efforts as well as the TransPacific Partnership and the Keystone Pipeline as well.

My husb in particular (who is not nearly as lefty as me) says that the primary problem he has with her is that she is not actually very liberal and in fact is right of center - she may as well be a Republican except for her pro-choice views. He calls her a "war hawk" and takes great issue with her previous comments on black youth as "super predators" who "have to be brought to heel" and her support for Bill Clinton's mandatory minimum sentencing, and his repeal of Glass-Steagall, the act which regulated Wall Street.

Just reading that extraordinary slipup by Bill Clinton a few days ago: "we can put the awful legacy of the last 8 years behind us"

God yes. That's like the second time he has stuck his foot in his mouth. It's entirely possible that what he's trying to say is "Hillary has bipartisan support in Congress so her term won't be spent fighting to get every little thing passed." but even if that's the case, boy did he phrase it poorly.

OhYouBadKitten It's not even that the media get to pick who wins, it's that the "party elite" i.e. Debbie W-S and the rest of her crew are SUPPOSED to pick who wins via the superdelegate route. What they're freaking out about now is that many of the superdelegates are elected officials - legislators at the State and Federal levels - and if Sanders gets more (or even many) delegates via the popular vote, they may feel it beneficial to their re-election to go with the will of the people instead of the Party, and switch their support to Sanders. The media just feeds into it because the DNC has been presenting Clinton as the Anointed One since before the primaries even began and Sanders has thrown a wrench in the works; if the media wants prime coverage and 'scoops' and access to candidates they have to play along to some degree.

'if there was any such thing as a Reagan Democrat, which I doubt

"A Reagan Democrat is a traditionally Democratic voter in the United States, referring especially to white working-class Northerners or Midwesterners who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in either or both the 1980 and 1984 elections.

During the 1980 election a dramatic number of voters in the U.S., disillusioned with the economic 'malaise' of the 1970s and the presidency of Jimmy Carter (even more than, four years earlier, moderate Republican Gerald Ford), supported former California governor (and former Democrat) Ronald Reagan"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

Yes, Hillary is all those things your DH says. But if Bernie doesn't become the nominee, which looks likely, then Hillary will do all those things which your DH says, but Trump won't since Trump is not a "war hawk" and is against NAFTA and the TPP etc. Bernie agrees with Trump on those issues but none of the other potential candidates do.

claig Huh. I learned something new today, thanks for that! I had no idea they were actually a Thing that Is. Fascinating reading!

I can see your concern about typical Reagan Democrats going for Trump in the general election, but as much as he shouts about jobs going overseas etc. and rails against NAFTA/TPP, what will trip him up between the primary and November is that he doesn't have any kind of coherent plan that will work. Kind of like how he's decided that the US is going to build a wall on our southern border and Mexico's going to pay for it; I believe the response from former Mexican president Vicente Fox was, "Mexico's not going to pay for any fucking wall!", he thinks that he's going to just be able to tell Vladimir Putin what to do and Putin will go ahead and do that thing because he is The TRUMP. All of his plans are predicated on the assumption that he can just tell people, nations, corporations what to do and they'll do it. He has no idea how to work with Congress to get laws passed, his specialty is pissing people off and should he end up in the Oval Office he is going to be really surprised at the amount of resistance he'll get. Not to mention, the more resistance he gets, the madder he'll get which means the more people he'll piss off and he will get NOTHING done.

'what will trip him up between the primary and November is that he doesn't have any kind of coherent plan that will work'

Yes that is a very good point, he is short on detail and all of the elite's think tanks, whizzkids, wonks and gurus have been deliberately shut out by Trump because he intends to go against their existing policies which is why they are terrified of him. But my guess is that it won't matter because people have had enough of politics and business as usual and they will want real change.

I think the reason Vicente Fox used four letter words is because he is getting desperate and that is a sign of his desperation. He knows that Trump will get Mexico to pay and that Trump will go after the drug smuggling elites in Mexico as well and some will be going to jail.

'he thinks that he's going to just be able to tell Vladimir Putin what to do and Putin will go ahead and do that thing because he is The TRUMP'

No, I think that Trump is a dealmaker who is a resonable guy and who makes fair deals that are suitable to both parties. He thinks he will be able to come up with a deal that Putin finds OK. That is why the world's elite are terrified that Trump has ignored all their think tanks, teenage whizzkids and wonks; they know that Trump will decide what the deals are and they won't be anything like what is happening now.

'All of his plans are predicated on the assumption that he can just tell people, nations, corporations what to do and they'll do it.'

Yes you are right, but I think that Trump is also right because the power of the United States is enormous and nations and corporations will have to fall in line. That is why the EU bureaucratic class and world political class are desperate and are begging the Republican elite to stop Trump. They know that Trump means business.

'He has no idea how to work with Congress to get laws passed, his specialty is pissing people off and should he end up in the Oval Office he is going to be really surprised at the amount of resistance he'll get'

Yes, but he is a dealmaker who makes compromises and he will surround himself with experienced politicians like Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions and many others who will oil the wheels. Trump has got on with Democrat Harry Reid and lots of other Democrats in the past and he will do so again which is one reason that Ted Cruz says that Trump is not a real conservative who will do deals with the Democrats.

'Not to mention, the more resistance he gets, the madder he'll get'

I think he will be successful, Mexico will have to cough up for the wall and Trump will stop companies moving abroad, bring jobs back, increase wages, end illegal immigration, transform Obamacare and tear up the global elite's globalist free trade deals so that America is number one again. After that I don't think there will be much resistance and all of the politically correct Republicans like Nikki Haley will be swept out of power and replaced with Trumpites. I think as former Governor of Arizona, Mike Huckabee, said this is a "peaceful revolution", a peaceful "overthrw of the government before our eyes" and it will be successful because it will benefit ordinary people.

Marco Rubio, the darling of the Republican Establishment, has already almost had his entire political career destroyed by Trump. There is no chance that he could ever get elected as Governor of Florida after how Trump took him apart and after how he reacted in insulting Trump.

However, there were rumours that there may be offers to make him VP under Cruz but apparently he has turned that down. But whatever happens, Rubio and the entire Republican Establishment, plotting against Trump, have been discredited and won't be popular with the people again.

In Trump's famous words at Trump rallies in front of tens of thousands of Trumpites

Rubio "couldn't get elected dogcatcher"

and that wiill be the same for lots of Establishment Republicans after Trump has finished with them.

As left wing Max Keiser, who has endorsed Trump says, Trump is the biggest threat the globalists and bankers have ever faced. He threatens their entire game worldwide which is why the political class around the world are in meltdown over Trump.

As Stacy Herbert says in this video where Max and Stacy discuss the Trump phenomenon

"it has certainly been a joy watching the world melt down about Trump"

Trump-addicted America