Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

Pretty much, yeah. For the American far right "authenticity" means "doesn't bother to hide their bigotry". His policy positions don't matter, the people that like him do so because he panders to them exceptionally well.

[smjjames]

Lil' bit hard when it seems like basically no one supporting him actually says they appreciate his policy positions (assuming you can really figure out what the hell those are, anyway). It's all authenticity and saying it like it is and businessman (i.e. shitty politician) and whatnot.

E: Though, yeah, sure, it's a possibility. Maybe that's what's actually going on. I'd just be a little surprised to find out it were true. Actually knowing trump's policy positions is a degree of competence I don't exactly expect from our electorate... gods know I only know the most vague brushes of it.

That's because he hasn't given out any detailed policy positions, aside from the immigration thing which isn't particularily well detailed either.

Part of it is because he would rather be flexible rather than have some 10 point plan that you don't deviate from and I get that. But he hasn't gone into any detail on what he would do for issue x or situation y. Sure, he talks about bringing jobs and companies back to the US, but he hasn't said anything about the HOW.

Granted, it's pretty early for the really detailed policy, but he's been all rhetoric and very little substance.

I know FOX needled Trump unfairly (the first question for example, come freaking on! ), but he is the frontrunner and I hope CNN challenges him to actually give details on what he'd do.

[Flying Dice]

Which is doubly amusing because the (arguably) greatest success of the GOP in the past few decades was Gingrich's Contract With America. Regardless of whether you think The Heritage Foundation and their proxies are scum or not, their plan for that election cycle revolved around a detailed and thorough documentation of policies and goals which they attempted to follow through on. Even though they had only mixed success getting a lot of those bills passed, it was the first time in a long time where Republicans won the House, and it was achieved through the exact opposite of the vacuous rhetoric that's in vogue today.

[smjjames]

Speaking of amusing, I was looking at CNN and saw this gem (in a good way) by Donald Trump:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/donald-trump-china-hamburger-mcdonalds/index.html

I would love to see that, lol! Gotta love his humor sometimes, right? Even if he is a jerk.

[SirQuiamus]

On the subject of honest/deceptive vampiric toy dogs: Was the reason why Berlusconi won so many elections and emerged rose-scented from so many shitstorms precisely the fact that he was unapologetically shitty and honestly dishonest? Voters interpreted his blatant shittiness as a lack of duplicity – there was no flipside to him, or rather, he had two reverse sides without any politically correct facade at all. It would be very reassuring to have a politician who's perfectly consistent in his behaviour, in telling untruths, for example: Just believe the exact opposite of what he says, and you'll always know the truth – it's foolproof! What could possibly go wrong? "I'll vote for him because then I'll at least know what I'm getting, and that can never be a bad thing in politics, can it?"

This kind of voting strategy would value predictability over everything else – it's essentially a clever ruse to avoid getting duped by the system, naturally appealing to people who feel powerless and "betrayed" by the democratic process. If you think that the sole purpose of the election system is to deceive you and betray your expectations, then simply getting what you asked for – whatever that may be – means you have already succeeded at gaming the system. "I've been bamboozled by the system so many times, but this time it'll be different! I'll vote for the guy who promises sweet, impossible nothings with a straight face, and that'll show 'em who has all the power in a democracy – me!"

But it would be naive to assume that this could adequately explain the popularity of Berlusconi or Mr Storm Trumper Donald-I-wish-I-could-just-stop-thinking-about-him-Trump. More likely it's just a rationalization for assholes being drawn to other assholes, and people being generally prone to wishful thinking and misplaced trust. Believing in a fraud feels just as good as oft-times better than the real thing, and it's damn hard to give up that placebo even when confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary.

[Playergamer]

Uh, the problem with your arguments right now is that, tl;dr, it's overly complex, more so then most people are. The only reasons anyone's pinned down so far, among the surprisingly wide demographic of Trump voters, as being "common" is that he isn't a politician and can't be bought.

[WealthyRadish]

Speaking of amusing, I was looking at CNN and saw this gem (in a good way) by Donald Trump:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/donald-trump-china-hamburger-mcdonalds/index.html

I would love to see that, lol! Gotta love his humor sometimes, right? Even if he is a jerk.

That moment when you think you're reading the Onion, but it turns out to be real life.

[smjjames]

Uh, the problem with your arguments right now is that, tl;dr, it's overly complex, more so then most people are. The only reasons anyone's pinned down so far, among the surprisingly wide demographic of Trump voters, as being "common" is that he isn't a politician and can't be bought.

Except it's more complex than just being an outsider to Washington and anti-establishment. Both Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina aren't politicians (well okay, Fiorina is a non-politician in the sense that she hasn't served in public office, but she has worked in politics since 2006 according to wiki. Carson didn't do any of that.), but you don't see people flocking to them.

Carson has to prove that he can't be manipulated or bought though.

[wobbly]

Yeah I don't know. I'm more on the side of it being very simple rather then complex. To the racist ( & I know a fair few) the 1 politician prepared to be publicly obnoxious on race issues is the 1 honest person in a world full of cowards & liars.

Edit: & yes I know plenty of other politicians are obnoxious on race issues, but if you listen to how they say it they word it carefully. Donald just doesn't give an f'. As nasty as it is, a lot of other people have that same view, a lot of people wish they could be so direct in saying it, & when a public figure is that forthright they admire it. Mistake speaking your mind for "the truth"

[RedKing]

More like, if you have to choose between deadly vampire shih tzus, better to pick the one that has easily visible fangs. Supposition is that they're already poison arrow frogs and baboons, they're just hiding in a monkey suit, and so it's better to pick the one without the suit.

And yeah, RK's in NC. Probably best not to suggest he's in SC, because they're not particularly fond of each other.

WHAT??!? Who said that? Where is he? I'll moider dat palmetto-hugging bum, I'll moider him!

Nah, I like to tease SC, but frankly I can't talk shit anymore -- their state government is more sane than ours.

[smjjames]

More like, if you have to choose between deadly vampire shih tzus, better to pick the one that has easily visible fangs. Supposition is that they're already poison arrow frogs and baboons, they're just hiding in a monkey suit, and so it's better to pick the one without the suit.

And yeah, RK's in NC. Probably best not to suggest he's in SC, because they're not particularly fond of each other.

WHAT??!? Who said that? Where is he? I'll moider dat palmetto-hugging bum, I'll moider him!

Nah, I like to tease SC, but frankly I can't talk shit anymore -- their state government is more sane than ours.

That'd be me, lol, and I'm from California.

I knew you were from the Carolinas, just wasn't sure which one.

[Sadegh]

I've really only seen it used in the term cuckservative as a way to say cockservative without actually saying cock.

No, the term "cuckservative" is really more meant to refer to conservatives who are deemed by members of the alt-right to be making concessions to groups whose interests are at odds with their own, thus being metaphorically cuckolded in the process.

My point is that Donald Trump is probably only running to drum up publicity for himself and so his supporters, a number of whom have alt-right tendencies, are in fact getting cucked themselves.

[mainiac]

There is a nearly perfect correlation between cynicism and getting duped after all.

[RedKing]

I keep seeing this assertion that it's all a publicity stunt, but to what end?

I think it well may have been a publicity stunt early on, but when he actually struck a chord and started getting traction in the polls, I think it stopped being a game and became a serious idea for him.


I do have to wonder at what point the fact that he has put forward NO policy specifics (beyond his much-touted immigration paper) is going to hurt him. Perot at least had a bunch of charts and graphs. Trump just has himself repeatedly saying "I'm gonna do such a great job with X, I'm really going to fix that problem." But for most of his base, they're either unconcerned with policy specifics (because details are boring and lame), or just don't give a flying fuck and are supporting him as a giant monkeywrench in the works of the modern political machine.

I can somewhat appreciate the latter sentiment. I think people supporting him with the former sentiment should do us all a favor and die. Or at the very least, withdraw from the voting population. These are the people who vote for someone based on their looks or "whether they'd have a beer with them" rather than ideas and actions.

[Sadegh]

My impression is that Trump thinks all publicity is good publicity.