Trump (Part 2)

[claig]

More on the meaning of Trump, the Trumpsters and Trumpism

Having said that, this thread is not about the election, but the result.
There is little point in discussing the alternative here (which was done extensively in threads previous to nov 8).
What is being discussed here is how Trump will act. So, I'm not sure how Hillary's policies are relevant here anymore.

I think this thread is delusional rather than controversial.

"Many have the completely opposite opinion."

Hmm.

If so it is poorly articulated or to the point of being indiscernable.

The political class like to talk about post truth politics, which is hollowly laughed out of town merely by looking at the supposed precedents. Truthful there were not.

Maybe though we live in post insult politics. Post politically correct due to the undeniable damage it caused to our society.

And on the many, well it appears to be an ever increasingly shrill but shrinking minority.

Spin, that is one way of shutting down argument, rather than discuss.

This is an example of your posts:

"Squashy if your only critique is to compare something to dystopian bastardry then you really need to be self aware enough to wonder whether said critique is itself smug dystopian bastardry."

"Frankly anyone comparing a US president to a dictator really really doesn't understand US politics."

People did reply to those statements (I did to the last, certainly).

Not sure how demanding you can be of other pps.

'I'm now wondering whether they had anything to say, whether they had any argument against him that was either persuasive or effective. '

Spinflight, I don't think they had anything that could win against "take our country back and make it great again". There is no answer that the status quo can offer against that which is why racist was all they could shout, exactly what they did to Farage and UKIP. It worked in the UK because it was a different electoral system and UKIP didn't have the money or the sheer guts that Trump had to go direct to people on social media and huge rallies, but if Banks throws money at it and with Bannon and Trump offering support, absolutely anything could happen.

UKIP didn't have some polished policies, but as we have seen with Trump, policy detail doesn't matter, all the people care about is to trust that things will really be changed. they trust Trump even though they don't really know what he will do.

'do the media and their followers actually believe that name calling and silly innuendo is the debate? '

That is all they have got. It's propaganda and they used it here against Farage and it worked because they outbullied him, but they couldn't outbully Trump because he is bully-in-chief with the hide of a rhino and an insult and a quip to fire back with. Trump was prepared to go where Farage didn't dare, to insult beyond the bounds of what was considered polite and that is why he smashed the Establishment's glass ceiling that kept populists down

'In other words is there actually a section of the population who see political correctness as an end in itself? Politics therefore being a simple game of the most politically correct being the correct candidate, and the less virtuous being almost literally the devil? '

Political correctness is brainwashing, spellbinding, but Trump blew it wide apart and the spell has lost its power.

'I do now wonder whether identity politics has so entrained its adherents that they are no longer able to discern the subtleties of politics'

I think that is its purpose, the Democrats use that to control minds, but Trump drove a coach and horses through it and "broke the chains".

The lyrics in "The Trump Train" shows how Trump broke the chains

Scott Adams, Dilbert creator, predicted Trump would win from the beginning because of his hypnotist magician quality to break the spells, cut the Gordian knot and instinctively reach the people at a deeper level than just words.

'The interesting thing here for me is that policies don't matter,'

That is what Arron Bnks has been saying. "Facts don't matter, it is emtion that counts" and trust is the top among those, can-do, get the job done, sort things out and trust, and that is Trump.

'The absurdity of course is that labelling a group for vilification only works if it is a small group'

Yes, Hillary called the people "Deplorables" and millions thought she meant them. We all know the elites are not on our side, but when they openly show their disdain, then they are bound to lose. Trump said they are "stupid" and "don't care about you" and everyone knew it was true.

Spinflight, I don't think they had anything that could win against "take our country back and make it great again". There is no answer that the status quo can offer against that

There is no explanation for that either.

What does it mean? When was it great? What makes it great? Why is it not great now? Compared to what?

It's a nice soundbite, that's all.

UKIP didn't have some polished policies, but as we have seen with Trump, policy detail doesn't matter, all the people care about is to trust that things will really be changed. they trust Trump even though they don't really know what he will do.

Madness.

Do you even realise how that sounds?

In fact, how is there supposed to be an intelligent discussion with such statements?

People have, time and time again, shown how screwed up that point of view is.
Trust despite all evidence to the contrary.

Spin, what do you say to that?

And of course the biggest con trick that the media pulls is convincing those trapped by identity politics and political correctness that they are the majority.

Hence the tears and cognitive dissonance when people stubbornly vote the wrong way.

Maybe though we live in post insult politics. Post politically correct due to the undeniable damage it caused to our society

Spinflight - I was just about to say exactly this! We moved from modernity, to postmodernism ('post-truth'), to now. It's not a regression because we will incorporate what we learned about postmodernism (relativism) into our future. We are indeed at a post- postmodernism, post-Frankfurt School (for those who like labels) time in our society's development.

'There is no explanation for that either.

What does it mean? When was it great? What makes it great? Why is it not great now? Compared to what?'

Lweji, "facts don't matter" "we are sick of experts", it is emotion that counts, everyone thinks differently about what was "great", there is no objective answer, but everyone agrees that things aren''t "great" now and that is why Trump won. He offered hope that things could be made "great again" and that is what people want to hear, that someone clever, a businessman will get things done instead of the "very, very stupid people" who have messed things up and promise more of the same.

He offered hope that things could be made "great again" and that is what people want to hear,

Yes, and that is the con.

There was no substance to either the Brexit or the Trump campaign, despite what Spin wants to spin.

It's all based on a feeling that change can be good. Regardless of what the change is and who's leading it.

There hasn't been a response to Brexit because there was no substance to it.
And Trump will have no substance to back up all his promises either. No matter how loud you shout how great it will be.

You are forgetting lweji that I don't see politics in terms good vs evil, Hillary vs the devil. Politically correct vs fascist.

Yes clearly Trump was more trusted and his message resonated.

What does it mean? When was it great? What makes it great? Why is it not great now? Compared to what?

Exactly - there is no answer and Trump knows that very well. The gullible hear it and think 'oh wow, that means he's going to fix things the way I want, what a hero he is'.

'Yes, and that is the con.'

That is the magician's trick that Scott Adams said Trump was a master at, a master hypnotits, he had a magic wand, a Harry Potter wand, and waved it and promised to make things "great again" and considering how bad things are now, people jumped at the chance. It is communication without Blair's hand gestures or platitudinous speeches written for him by a wonk, it is simple, direct and what the people want.

It sounds like "going back to the good old days".

'It's all based on a feeling that change can be good. Regardless of what the change is and who's leading it. '

It is to do with trust that they are on our side. That is why I lost trust in Cameron and preferred Farage. I was in the minority overall, but with the correct campaign and sales person, like Trump, it could easily defeat the alternative because no one trusts our political class or our media.

As Trump told CNN's Andersen Cooper

"the people don't trust you. The people don't trust the media"

People have lost faith and trust in the system because there has been too much spin, wars and lies and that is why people are turning to anti-politicians, outsiders, mavericks, anti establishment populists because they are not part of the team of liars who lost the people's trust.

There's certainly something around here that has no substance...

Now as you assert it could be great matters of international politics, or just throwing this out here, maybe you don't understand the substance and therefore are reduced to name calling?

I really don't know how to help you here. Your perception of politics has been crushed. All I can tell you is that it was never a case of good versus evil.

You are forgetting lweji that I don't see politics in terms good vs evil, Hillary vs the devil. Politically correct vs fascist.

I don't think anyone discussing it here sees it that way.

In fact, there was quite a lot of the opposite: Hillary as the devil. Politically correct to mean evil. Trump to be the only good option.

It still doesn't mean that Trump's proposals and demeanour can't be compared to fascism. Or challenged in their nastiness. Because for the most part, during the campaign and now he's been nasty, confrontational and appealing to the worst part of his voters. Many of whom are happy to see their worst instincts validated.

Saying "crooked Hillary" is campaigning by insults.
Saying that Trump's policies makes us think of fascism is criticising.
Very different.

Vagina waving!

I've been called a few names over the course of these threads, but I have tried to avoid calling Claig any insulting names. I do object to her self-appointing herself as the "voice of the people".
She is not my voice.
She is not the voice of the people.
She is not the voice of all leavers (come on, lurking leavers - is this who you want speaking for you?)
She is not even the voice of all Trump supporters.

I have tried to discuss Trump's policies (vague and improbable as they are) but I also think his rhetoric, behaviour and business concerns are relevant to the discussion.

I will never apologise for pointing out the flawed logic, double standards and disinformation prevalent in this thread. If that makes me shrill, so be it.

Now as you assert it could be great matters of international politics, or just throwing this out here, maybe you don't understand the substance and therefore are reduced to name calling?

I really don't know how to help you here. Your perception of politics has been crushed. All I can tell you is that it was never a case of good versus evil.

You are the one name calling and throwing sand in this respect.

How is "nuke them", or saying he'll get rid of ISIS in two weeks, substance?
How is saying that he'll make the best deals, any substance? With nothing to back it up?
How is saying that climate change is a con by the Chinese any substance?

Please.

"All I can tell you is that it was never a case of good versus evil"
Yes, and it was never a case of "people versus the elites" either.

I really don't know how to help you here. Your perception of politics has been crushed. All I can tell you is that it was never a case of good versus evil.

I can't be helped because I never said it was "a case of good versus evil".

You don't seem to understand my perception of politics.
It hasn't been crushed at all.