Trump phenomena explained

tjones said:
How sad is it when a reality TV guy is your "only option" for President of the USA?
Click to expand...

I'm not sad at all. I'm extremely happy that we have Trump as an option. Although I do agree, it would be great if we could have more than one non-establishment Republican to choose from. Hopefully this will change the Republican Party so that in the future we'll have better candidates who more closely fit what we voters are looking for in a presidential candidate.
 
tjones said:
How sad is it when a reality TV guy is your "only option" for President of the USA?
Click to expand...

Is it more sad if you feel like you have NO options? That's about where I'm at.
Can't vote for Hillary - If anybody needs ask why - they haven't been following along for 20 years.

Can't vote for Bernie - Although I think he's the only consistent, honest candidate, and I even agree with his stances on foreign intervention, prison for profit, the drug war, the NSA, and a few others, he's economically illiterate, semi anti-gun, economically illiterate, thinks that more government is the solution to everything, especially to problems caused by too much government, he's economically illiterate, wants to raise taxes, increase spending, and further bankrupt the country, and if I didn't already mention, he's economically illiterate.
It literally pains me to be able to come up with many more positives for a socialist, than it does all the other candidates combined. Oh, I know... he's a 'democratic' socialist... As long as the majority decides you're entitled to what's mine, it suddenly becomes moral and virtuous.

Ted Cruz - wants to sell our land to oil barons. Enough said

Rubio - Establishment RINO, inexperienced, open borders, Loves NSA spying, and wants to spend ANOTHER $1T on military expenditures. He can't wait to send another generation of young Americans to war in the Mid-East. If the Bush family had a Hispanic nephew....

Trump - Big government Progressive (capital 'p') combine Bernie and Hillary reasons, add ego problems. Nope


Who's left? 2% Kasich and speak quietly Carson - Yesterday's news 24 hours from now.

I think Jim Webb, whom many of you have never heard of, would have been a great leader. He dropped out very early in the Democrat primary.

So who does a guy hope for? How do you come up with the lesser of the evils, when they all hold positions you find detestable and hold uncompromising beliefs on?
 
Last edited:
MTGomer said:
Is it more sad if you feel like you have NO options? That's about where I'm at.
Can't vote for Hillary - If anybody needs ask why - they haven't been following along for 20 years.

Can't vote for Bernie - Although I think he's the only consistent, honest candidate, and I even agree with his stances on foreign intervention, prison for profit, the drug war, the NSA, and a few others, he's economically illiterate, semi anti-gun, economically illiterate, thinks that more government is the solution to everything, especially to problems caused by too much government, he's economically illiterate, wants to raise taxes, increase spending, and further bankrupt the country, and if I didn't already mention, he's economically illiterate.
It literally pains me to be able to come up with many more positives for a socialist, than it does all the other candidates combined. Oh, I know... he's a 'democratic' socialist... As long as the majority decides you're entitled to what's mine, it suddenly becomes moral and virtuous.

Ted Cruz - wants to sell our land to oil barons. Enough said

Rubio - Establishment RINO, inexperienced, open borders, Loves NSA spying, and wants to spend ANOTHER $1T on military expenditures. He can't wait to send another generation of young Americans to war in the Mid-East. If the Bush family had a Hispanic nephew....

Trump - Big government Progressive (capital 'p') combine Bernie and Hillary reasons, add ego problems. Nope


Who's left? 2% Kasich and speak quietly Carson - Yesterday's news 24 hours from now.

I think Jim Webb, whom many of you have never heard of, would have been a great leader. He dropped out very early in the Democrat primary.

So who does a guy hope for? How do you come up with the lesser of the evils, when they all hold positions you find detestable and hold uncompromising beliefs on?
Click to expand...


It's not a perfect world, is it?:W:
 
It's really too bad that Kasich has no chance. My gut tells me that he is the most qualified guy up there with a proven track record. Is he perfect? No but not a one is and I really feel he could get things done. I guess I find myself more of a moderate these days and if a good idea is put forward I don't care whether it has an R or D attached to it.
 
Eliezer Yudkowski shared this essay written by a friend on his facebook page. It's long, but I think it is very on-point about the Trump phenomena. It makes a good point about how we seek strength in our leaders, yet our system of acquiring information (the media) is nearly designed to silence and punish those thoughts and positions that are strong and grounded,sometimes boring, and sometimes not politically correct. It applies to both sides of the isle.

Donald Trump has come, and he is your punishment.

You gaze in incomprehension and dismay; how could those strange alien creatures, Trump's followers, be drawn to such obvious lies?

Well, that is something I find very easy to understand; so I will endeavor to explain it. Trump's appeal has nothing to do with some long-repressed hatred of Muslims that a presidential candidate has dared to speak openly - or any such nonsense. No, that is not what is happening here at all.

Trump's rival politicians upon the stage are ordinary modern politicians. Which is to say, they are hunted creatures, constantly looking over their shoulders, living every second in fear of the journalists watching them. Each word that spills from their lips is measured, cautious, carefully conformed to what is allowed them, drained of life and meaning.

And the people must have strength.

A hundred thousand years ago, your ancestors watched as would-be leaders fought for control of their tribe, and chose sides. Those who sided with the strong did better than those who sided with the weak, and you are descended from them. It is not a matter of calculation, but of instinct. When you are downtrodden, when your fellows look upon you with disgust, you will feel drawn to a strong leader who promises to upend the tribe. You will be charmed by him, you will cheer him, you will back him in his bid for power. Your instinct will echo the ancient footsteps of those who felt drawn to the eventual winner, who afterward received the scraps from his hand in exchange for their loyalty.

And that hunted creature who lives every second in fear of journalists, always glancing over his shoulders for fear of public opinion - he is not recognized as strong. Not at the core, not in the instinct. The modern politician's lifeless, rehearsed words reek of the servant who lives in constant fear of his master's wrath. One misstep, and the howling packs of journalists will descend in fierce delight, ripping him apart, feasting on the 'gaffe' and ending his ambitions. The modern politician is stooped and afraid of what is above him, that holds the power to punish. When the press demands an apology, he must give it submissively. In older times, a man like that would be too weak to succeed in controlling his tribe; his laughable attempt to seize power would inevitably end in ruin for him and his followers. The voter's instinct sees this and is repulsed; perhaps this vile man might be a useful tool, but to be charmed by him, to follow him instinctively - that will not happen.

The rise of Donald Trump is as simple as that.

Trump does not fear the journalists that every other politician is hunted by. Trump's words are not empty - they are obvious, vile lies, to be sure, and the people know that. What matters is that Trump's words are not censored, cautious, constantly looking around in fear. Every time the oozing journalists try to seize on another of his 'gaffes' - wondering desperately why it is not working, why their poisonous claws have failed them - Trump laughs and the people see that he is not afraid. He shows strength, by his open evil; he shows that he is above anyone's power to reprimand. Seeing Trump's success and not understanding it, some of those cautious men venture a few carefully calculated insults and rudenesses of their own, to try to imitate Trump's mysterious success; but they are not fooling anyone.

Oh, there will be no scraps for Trump's followers, to be sure. This era is not a hundred thousand years earlier, and a nation is not a tribe. Trump will never know his loyal follower's name, he will give them nothing for their loyalty. But we are not dealing now with ambition and calculation, but with instinct. A hundred thousand years ago, you might do well for yourself if your loyalty happened to surge up for strong and promising leaders, and restrain its affections from the weak.

And be it also clear, this is not about some long-concealed hate for Mexicans, or Muslims, or whoever. Perhaps that hatred did exist before Trump, but if so, it was irrelevant to his rise. When a tribe's bellies are empty and the pickings have grown thin, and a strong man rises up to say it is time to fight the tribe that lives across the water - to take their land or perish trying - why, people will cheer enthusiastically, and hate in whatever direction they are pointed. Trump could as easily have told his followers to hate Russians or Chinese, and they would have bayed along the same in their instinctive affection.

Here is the real tragedy: the people in their despair would also have followed an admiral or a general who had proved themselves a leader of men, stern and honorable. They would have followed a strong religious leader who demanded that they renounce hate rather than embrace it. If, that is, the modern press permitted an impression of strength and goodness to coincide.

That oozing mass of journalists would consider it an insult, if some politician acted like they thought themselves better than the rest. They would go hunting errors, to bring down this person who thinks himself the better - and it is impossible that they would find no meat. Now that it is possible to scrutinize a man's entire life, it is impossible to find no single misstep, no departure from what the press has decided is virtue. Let any politician dare to step forth as a man of honor, and the press will bay the hunt and contradict it with a 'gaffe' they spoke twelve years earlier. Did someone hire the wrong babysitter twenty years earlier? Did they fail to say the standard empty words when a disaster struck or some journalist demanded their sympathy? "Ha," the journalist cries in delight, "look at that, a gaffe, a gaffe! He has lost his race, his career is over!" And you - why, you believe them.

What honorable man would even try to serve you, now? You have made the lives of politicians a living hell with their every public instant watched; and double that hell for anyone who ever wanted their words to have integrity. What Franklin Roosevelt would enjoy having every single facet of their lives scrutinized so, for one word that a journalist could consider a gaffe? What General Dwight Eisenhower, what military man of honor, would like to spend their lives saying only things that are empty and safe? In the eighteenth century, perhaps, there were few paths to greatness except to become a great politician; they would have had no choice but to endure any hell if they wanted a place in history. Today an ambitious, competent man can become a CEO and have his own private jet - so why should he instead become one more anonymous face among 435 little representatives, constantly looking over his shoulder for the press? Why bother, when he could be making bilions at a hedge-fund, or founding a company, or just living quietly with his family without being hounded?

Maybe you believe a truly good man would tough out the hell you heap on him, if he were noble enough to truly wish to serve his country. Well, have a look at the Republican lineup and see how that strategy has worked out for you. If only terrible candidates apply to your job posting, it means that the best people do not find your job posting attractive. Either the truly good men left you to your fate in disgust, or, if they did try to serve their countries, some journalist deemed them 'unelectable' the first time they spoke their minds.

Who then are these hunted men upon the stage, the cast of this parade of clowns? They are lawyers who wanted to be more than lawyers, and who didn't find the life of a politician too appalling. They are the little big men who did not give up on their Congressional careers in disgust when they found how little real power they had to make changes. They are those who, for all the paltry respect of other little big men and their scraps of fame, found that preferable to going back and being an ordinary lawyer. They lied and spoke empty words and lied some more and now they are trying to embiggen themselves a little more.

But the people must have strength; and in the depths of their despair they will not feel drawn to a weak man who wants a little more attention. The people could have been drawn to a military commander who was tough and honorable, to a priest who was noble and upright, or to a proven and competent businessman; but you made that impossible.

Yes, make no mistake of it, you did this to yourself, you were the author of your own destruction. It is you who believed the oozing mass of journalists that told you who was 'electable' and what was a 'gaffe'. You joined in their howling wolfpacks and feasted in satisfaction upon the downfall of any politician who made one mistake, and created the living hell that drove any would-be Abraham Lincolns away to greener pastures. Every time you sneered along with an accusation of moral hypocrisy, every time you delighted in discovering some delicious imperfection, you ensured that only one remaining kind of leader could be perceived as strong. For an open, laughing liar does not fear accusations of hypocrisy, and outright evil need not apologize for its moral imperfections.

Donald Trump has come, and he is your punishment.

-- David Monroe
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here is another view on Trump, someone sent me today:



This is very interesting and makes me look at Trump a little differently now. To a certain extent Ben Carson also fits this mold.

Trump Is Not a Liberal or Conservative...He’s A Pragmatist!

We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation was jocund, ranging from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics. At one point reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.

I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative...he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending, globalism to the detriment of American interests and wellbeing, denial of what the real problems are and weak, ineffective, milquetoast leadership that amounts to a Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff...appeasement- oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn’t a conservative problem; it isn’t a liberal problem; it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach, not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy isn’t a liberal or conservative problem; it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed, because the Democrats and the Republicans know only one way to fix things. Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work; they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of it's currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability, and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn’t work, you don’t continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15-hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl’s Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix it. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: 1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; 2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who own them via donations; 3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and 4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts that people don’t give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrat and Republican ideologues, and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now. And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that the solution to fix it is not about a party but is about the willingness and boldness to get it done.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives and who have always played it safe, not willing to risk failure.
 
Has the establishment on either side worked for us over the last 20 years?

Is it possible that the best thing for the party establishments that don't care what the common man has to say is to see us bounce them for the next 4 years to send a clear message that we might actually matter?

Trump and Sanders are far from perfect by any measure but it's time to send a message to the money grubbers that if we don't count then we'll take our votes somewhere else.

The Republicans are so out of touch that their party is completely broken so why not just send them the final message that they need to figure it out? In reality the Dems aren't that far ahead based on the options they're giving us. The current President was basically elected as an unknown since the establishment candidates were so awful in 2008 and the Republican party had no one remotely close to electable.
 
Ben Lamb said:
Whoops.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jerry-delemus-arrested-bundy-ranch
Click to expand...

DeLemus told Reuters at the time that he wanted to tell Trump "the whole story” of the Oregon occupation, adding that he expected the story would "arouse" the real estate mogul and inspire him to head West. The standoff lasted for 41 days and resulted in several arrests and the death of one militant in a confrontation with police. Trump never visited the refuge, but did say that he would have acted to end the standoff because “you cannot let people take over federal property."

Sounds like it worked out for a good plug for Trump to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wyoelkfan15
Why do you hunt - Kids?
2
Replies
32
Views
712
EastTNHunter
EastTNHunter
David58
Need your help, guys and gals - when do I say goodbye?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Hammsolo
Hammsolo
sneakem
Colorado Muzzleloader
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
sneakem
sneakem
F
FWP being systematically dismantled
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
4K
MTLabrador
MTLabrador
seeth07
Family Traditions
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
seeth07
seeth07

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,989
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474

Share this page

Back
Top