Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If I'm correct about that, the implications are pretty far-reaching. There is clearly a battle for control of the party right now, going in three directions: Moderate, conservative and populist/nationalist. A narrowing of the breadth of the platform would, theoretically, attract more people.Okay - now, each of the "major" parties has a relatively long list of issues that might be considered their "platform".If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.
His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.
This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.
Trump is not a conservative. He is a nationalist and a populist.
HIs platform is about defending and advancing American interests.
Which is long overdue and badly needed.
THAT is considered "anti-establishment and a positive attribute. "
Would it be safe to say that Trump's list is shorter (certainly not a bad thing) and more focused, with everything else secondary, tertiary, or irrelevant?
.
I couldn't say, I don't follow everything Trump says, mostly the stuff I care about, ie Immigration and Trade.
I haven't "heard" him focus much on other issues, but that could be because I didn't care that much about other issues and thus didn't listen or at least care enough to retain the information.
But I'm willing to accept your premise for purposes of discussion.
However, the risk here is that the messenger is so unattractive outside of his base that he could do damage to the idea of populism/nationalism on a wider, long term scale. I'd argue that has already happened to a significant degree.
I admittedly don't have a dog in this hunt, but the nature of the party that remains after this mess is important to the country, which needs two strong opposing parties.
.
Trump is not a danger to the concept of nationalism.
If anything has been weakening American Nationalism it has been generations of anti-american lib propaganda.
The American Left will demonize anyone who challenges the Leftist Agenda and/or Political Correctness, and the bigger the threat the more the push back.
And Trump is the biggest threat for a long time.
That is the real source of his "unattractiveness".
Populism? Is a method, not really an ideology.
Every person running for president thinks they are qualified to be the most powerful person in the world.
A Presidential Candidate, by definition, has a tremendous ego.
Some just hide it better.
Feather in his cap.
That did not address my point.
Lord have friggin' mercy! Do you have to be hit over the head with it in order to understand it? I guess you do. Let me get my big blue crayon so I can spell it out for you....
I revised my earlier remark "Feather in an egomaniac's cap" to "Feather in his cap" to communicate to you that the fact of Trump's being an egomaniac isn't the point.
You asked:
What reason would he have for [running for President, unless he actually cared?
My answer, spelled out:
A reason Trump (or anyone else) might run for President is to put another feather, the ultimate feather, in his cap. The size of Trump's ego has long been understood, and with an ego as big as his, which strikes me as one that's far larger than that of his competitors, it's not at all implausible that Trump would run for President to satisfy his ego.
Back in 2004 Trump gave us plenty of clues about just how big an ego he has. Nothing has changed since then. Consider some of his remarks:
Suffice to say that the illusory things that man has believed/said, does believe/say, and will believe/say about himself have no bounds, at least none that I can find.
- June 2015: Trump claimed he would be "the greatest jobs president that God has ever created."
- September 2015: "We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning."
- “It turned out to be, probably, by everybody’s count, the biggest-selling business book of all time. There’s never been a business book that’s sold like ‘Trump: The Art of the Deal.'”
- In whose opinion other than Donald Trumps? His book is neither on anyone else's qualitative list of "best business books" or quantitatively determined list of "top selling business books," let alone its being the one that sold like none before it or since.
- The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books - TIME
- The 12 best business books of all time
- Top 50 Best Selling Management Books of All Time
- Is Donald Trump's 'Art of the Deal' the best-selling business book of all time?
- The 100 Best Business Books of All Time: More on The 100 Best Archives
- 15 Best Business Books Of 2015
- Top 10 Influential Business Books of All Time
- 7 Incredibly Successful Business Books: Where's Donald Trump on the List?
Simpletons have a simple, black/white view of things. Trump's primary problem is that he is running as a Republican, which allows simpletons to hate. If a politician is a Republican, he/she is automatically accused of hating women, minorities, the poor, and wearing white after Labor Day. It's just what simpletons do.So because he said stuff about individual women, he "hates" women?He's not changing his mind. He's never had anything against gays or blacks or legal immigrants or poor people, welfare recipients, disabled..On the Today show, Trump says transsexuals should be permitted to use whatever bathroom they want to use.
Now this is the first time I've heard of him making any statement on that topic. He may have said something about it in the past. I don't know.
What I do know is his position and that of the GOP overall aren't at all the same things. I also know the man has had diametrically opposed positions or behaviors on multiple topics, sometimes all in one day. So the question in my mind is this, "how long will it be before he has a new position on the matter of transsexuals and restrooms?"
But of course the bigger issue is that nobody, not Republicans, not Democrats, can rely on what Trump says at any point in time. The man has time and again shown that he is as likely to change his mind as a teenager is to change boyfriends/girlfriends. That, of course, is one of the two biggest issues I have with Trump.
He's just not a bigot.The only group he's against are illegal immigrants and Thought Police (who happen to be feminist so they accuse him of "misogyny").
Oh he's absolutely a bigot. Not so much on race, beyond the "black guys counting my money" thing, but misogyny --- absolutely. What was that he said about Carly Fiorina? And Megyn Kelly? And Rosie O'Donnell?
Then there's the disabled --- hard to believe you actually typed that considering...
Technically it's not so much "bigotry" as "arrested development".
The bottom line with this year's election is, it looks like we get a crap shoot with Trump or just plain crap with Hillary.
You can be a total jerk and dislike a person with a characteristic, while simultaneously not hating all people with that characteristic. That would be like being accused of hating all white people because you don't like <fill in favorite white villain here>.Simpletons have a simple, black/white view of things. Trump's primary problem is that he is running as a Republican, which allows simpletons to hate. If a politician is a Republican, he/she is automatically accused of hating women, minorities, the poor, and wearing white after Labor Day. It's just what simpletons do.So because he said stuff about individual women, he "hates" women?He's not changing his mind. He's never had anything against gays or blacks or legal immigrants or poor people, welfare recipients, disabled..On the Today show, Trump says transsexuals should be permitted to use whatever bathroom they want to use.
Now this is the first time I've heard of him making any statement on that topic. He may have said something about it in the past. I don't know.
What I do know is his position and that of the GOP overall aren't at all the same things. I also know the man has had diametrically opposed positions or behaviors on multiple topics, sometimes all in one day. So the question in my mind is this, "how long will it be before he has a new position on the matter of transsexuals and restrooms?"
But of course the bigger issue is that nobody, not Republicans, not Democrats, can rely on what Trump says at any point in time. The man has time and again shown that he is as likely to change his mind as a teenager is to change boyfriends/girlfriends. That, of course, is one of the two biggest issues I have with Trump.
He's just not a bigot.The only group he's against are illegal immigrants and Thought Police (who happen to be feminist so they accuse him of "misogyny").
Oh he's absolutely a bigot. Not so much on race, beyond the "black guys counting my money" thing, but misogyny --- absolutely. What was that he said about Carly Fiorina? And Megyn Kelly? And Rosie O'Donnell?
Then there's the disabled --- hard to believe you actually typed that considering...
Technically it's not so much "bigotry" as "arrested development".
The bottom line with this year's election is, it looks like we get a crap shoot with Trump or just plain crap with Hillary.
Actually it's drawn entirely from his own quotes, both during and before his"Republican" politicking. It's called "history". It's even drawn from a visual, as above. Doesn't even need sound.
News reports today indicate there is a recording of Trump advisors telling Republican leadership that Trump has been projecting positions to gain support specifically for the first phase of his campaign, but will change as the campaign advances. His rally speeches and interview positions have been a scam. His whole life has been as a moderate or liberal Rockefeller-type Republican. He is far more liberal than the establishment or Rhino Republicans he attacks to gain fan support.
On the Today show, Trump says transsexuals should be permitted to use whatever bathroom they want to use.
Now this is the first time I've heard of him making any statement on that topic. He may have said something about it in the past. I don't know.
What I do know is his position and that of the GOP overall aren't at all the same things. I also know the man has had diametrically opposed positions or behaviors on multiple topics, sometimes all in one day. So the question in my mind is this, "how long will it be before he has a new position on the matter of transsexuals and restrooms?"
But of course the bigger issue is that nobody, not Republicans, not Democrats, can rely on what Trump says at any point in time. The man has time and again shown that he is as likely to change his mind as a teenager is to change boyfriends/girlfriends. That, of course, is one of the two biggest issues I have with Trump.
You can be a total jerk and dislike a person with a characteristic, while simultaneously not hating all people with that characteristic. That would be like being accused of hating all white people because you don't like <fill in favorite white villain here>.Simpletons have a simple, black/white view of things. Trump's primary problem is that he is running as a Republican, which allows simpletons to hate. If a politician is a Republican, he/she is automatically accused of hating women, minorities, the poor, and wearing white after Labor Day. It's just what simpletons do.So because he said stuff about individual women, he "hates" women?He's not changing his mind. He's never had anything against gays or blacks or legal immigrants or poor people, welfare recipients, disabled..
He's just not a bigot.The only group he's against are illegal immigrants and Thought Police (who happen to be feminist so they accuse him of "misogyny").
Oh he's absolutely a bigot. Not so much on race, beyond the "black guys counting my money" thing, but misogyny --- absolutely. What was that he said about Carly Fiorina? And Megyn Kelly? And Rosie O'Donnell?
Then there's the disabled --- hard to believe you actually typed that considering...
Technically it's not so much "bigotry" as "arrested development".
The bottom line with this year's election is, it looks like we get a crap shoot with Trump or just plain crap with Hillary.
Actually it's drawn entirely from his own quotes, both during and before his"Republican" politicking. It's called "history". It's even drawn from a visual, as above. Doesn't even need sound.
"On the Today show, Trump says transsexuals should be permitted to use whatever bathroom they want to use."
Of course he does.
He's running for the General now, trying to move to the center.
If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.
His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.
This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.
Generally we call that "just making it up" or "throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks".
...e.
Megan Kelly was a moderate who took sides and targeted Trump. Trump was right to fight back.
Carly Fiorina was a competing candidate. Trump was very harsh with her.
Rosie O'Donnell is a rabid far left partisan. She deserves far worse than she got.
They were all people who opposed Trump, and he focused on them individually because of their individual actions.
Oh, you don't like that he didn't address them seriously and honestly on matter of policy in a civil and polite manner?
Sorry, as a leftist you have no credibility to complain about that.
Wwwhhooooosssshhh.
How convenient it must be to plug in your own points because you can't deal with the ones actually made.
Are you afraid?
You mentioned three women who Trump attacked, "on the basis of gender".
Yet they were not just random women that were innocently walking along that he ambushed.
THey were individuals who were his enemies.
He has real reasons to attack them.
Is he playing hard ball? Yes.
Megan Kelly betrayed her professional responsibility to be an impartial MODERATOR. She deserved what she got.
Rosie O'Donnell is a vile person. She deserves what ever he said about her.
I can't believe you're STILL willing to play dumb on this.
Let's break it down into simplistic analogies.
Did Rump attack any of his male rivals on the basis of what he looks like?
Did Rump attack any other moderator or interviewer on the basis of his bodily functions?
Did Rump suggest that if he wasn't his father, he might be dating his son?
Let us know when this starts to sink in. If ever.
/offtopic
The first two, yes.
He's made fun of Rubio's hair and being sweaty and short. He called Jeb Bush, low energy.
Let me know when this starts to sink in. If ever.
Those are not sexual attributes.
Guess this isn't sinking in, and will never.
It cracks me up when Trumper's whine about lies. Trump is a habitual pathological liar. His campaign is based on lying and talking point lies. His lies are endless. From Trump steaks and vodka to Muslims dancing in the streets of New Jersey and hijackers flying their families and wives home befor the 9/11 attack and his being against the Iraq war before it started.News reports today indicate there is a recording of Trump advisors telling Republican leadership that Trump has been projecting positions to gain support specifically for the first phase of his campaign, but will change as the campaign advances. His rally speeches and interview positions have been a scam. His whole life has been as a moderate or liberal Rockefeller-type Republican. He is far more liberal than the establishment or Rhino Republicans he attacks to gain fan support.
If that was true, we would see you and you leftist friends in the media easing up on your relentless lies.
Which we aren't and won't see.
No one denies that Trump uses stereotypes. They all do to one degree or another. The big leap is to then insist that he hates all the people that match those stereotypes. Does Hillary hate Wall Street power brokers because she lambastes "Wall Street", or does her cozy relationship with them belie her criticism?You can be a total jerk and dislike a person with a characteristic, while simultaneously not hating all people with that characteristic. That would be like being accused of hating all white people because you don't like <fill in favorite white villain here>.Simpletons have a simple, black/white view of things. Trump's primary problem is that he is running as a Republican, which allows simpletons to hate. If a politician is a Republican, he/she is automatically accused of hating women, minorities, the poor, and wearing white after Labor Day. It's just what simpletons do.So because he said stuff about individual women, he "hates" women?Oh he's absolutely a bigot. Not so much on race, beyond the "black guys counting my money" thing, but misogyny --- absolutely. What was that he said about Carly Fiorina? And Megyn Kelly? And Rosie O'Donnell?
Then there's the disabled --- hard to believe you actually typed that considering...
Technically it's not so much "bigotry" as "arrested development".
The bottom line with this year's election is, it looks like we get a crap shoot with Trump or just plain crap with Hillary.
Actually it's drawn entirely from his own quotes, both during and before his"Republican" politicking. It's called "history". It's even drawn from a visual, as above. Doesn't even need sound.
Sure. But if you did that the basis would be personal -- "he or she, personally by name, did X".
Serge Kovaleski, mocked in the video above, simply took issue with Rump's made-up story of a nonexistent TV report (in other words exposed him as a liar). That had nothing to do with his congenital joint disorder.
Carly Fiorina may either express policy differences with, or criticism of, Donald Rump, but that's her personal opinion -- it has nothing to do with what she looks like, and by implying it does he simply fuels this fake gender double standard, in lieu of thinking of a rational point on his own. Same thing with tweeting the cheesecake photo of Megyn Kelly, as if that has something to do with her calling him out on things he's actually said. Again, the fake gender double standard because he can't man up to find a rational point.
Then there's "black guys counting my money. I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day". That's pretty much a blanket judgment on two types of people, specifying no one in particular.
Wwwhhooooosssshhh.
How convenient it must be to plug in your own points because you can't deal with the ones actually made.
Are you afraid?
You mentioned three women who Trump attacked, "on the basis of gender".
Yet they were not just random women that were innocently walking along that he ambushed.
THey were individuals who were his enemies.
He has real reasons to attack them.
Is he playing hard ball? Yes.
Megan Kelly betrayed her professional responsibility to be an impartial MODERATOR. She deserved what she got.
Rosie O'Donnell is a vile person. She deserves what ever he said about her.
I can't believe you're STILL willing to play dumb on this.
Let's break it down into simplistic analogies.
Did Rump attack any of his male rivals on the basis of what he looks like?
Did Rump attack any other moderator or interviewer on the basis of his bodily functions?
Did Rump suggest that if he wasn't his father, he might be dating his son?
Let us know when this starts to sink in. If ever.
/offtopic
The first two, yes.
He's made fun of Rubio's hair and being sweaty and short. He called Jeb Bush, low energy.
Let me know when this starts to sink in. If ever.
Those are not sexual attributes.
Guess this isn't sinking in, and will never.
You didn't ask for sexual attributes. YOu said, "looks like" and "bodily functions".
NOw that I demonstrated that you were wrong, now you want to change the question.
And you complain about Trump not addressing people honestly and seriously on issues.
You libs have perfected that art of shouting people down who try to stay on topic, or keep the debate civil.
Trump is the answer to you.
If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.
His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.
This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.
Trump is not a conservative. He is a nationalist and a populist.
HIs platform is about defending and advancing American interests.
Which is long overdue and badly needed.
THAT is considered "anti-establishment and a positive attribute. "
Now (finally) you're more accurate, though still off topic.
The topic is related to your second line, what his platform is -- "platform" or empty "platitudes"?
Considering how often and how readily his own "platform" contradicts itself, it seems the latter prevails.
Here's another way to look at it:
I went to a concert once in an arena that had this huge revolving turntable stage. So at one point the Grateful Dead are facing you. A few minutes later the same Grateful Dead are facing away from you.
The end effect was that nobody really got a concert -- they got snippets of one that was then literally turned away. The arena didn't try that again.
Here's another way to look at it:
Let's say an apple represents a political position.
If you have one apple, you have one apple. If you then trade the apple in for an orange, how many apples do you have?
Maybe more to the point --- if you keep trading apples and oranges back and forth and can't decide which one you want, then which one can you expect to eat?
Every person running for president thinks they are qualified to be the most powerful person in the world.
A Presidential Candidate, by definition, has a tremendous ego.
Some just hide it better.
Feather in his cap.
That did not address my point.
XXXXXXXX
Let me get my big blue crayon so I can spell it out for you....
I revised my earlier remark "Feather in an egomaniac's cap" to "Feather in his cap" to communicate to you that Trump's being an egomaniac isn't the point.
You asked:
What reason would he have for [running for President, unless he actually cared?
My answer, spelled out:
A reason Trump (or anyone else) might run for President is to put another feather, the ultimate feather, in his cap. The size of Trump's ego has long been understood, and with an ego as big as his, which strikes me as one that's far larger than that of his competitors, it's not at all implausible that Trump would run for President to satisfy his ego.
Back in 2004 Trump gave us plenty of clues about just how big an ego he has. Nothing has changed since then. Consider some of his remarks:
Suffice to say that the illusory things that man has believed/said, does believe/say, and will believe/say about himself have no bounds, at least none that I can find.
- June 2015: Trump claimed he would be "the greatest jobs president that God has ever created."
- September 2015: "We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning."
- “It turned out to be, probably, by everybody’s count, the biggest-selling business book of all time. There’s never been a business book that’s sold like ‘Trump: The Art of the Deal.'”
- In whose opinion other than Donald Trumps? His book is neither on anyone else's qualitative list of "best business books" or quantitatively determined list of "top selling business books," let alone its being the one that sold like none before it or since.
- The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books - TIME
- The 12 best business books of all time
- Top 50 Best Selling Management Books of All Time
- Is Donald Trump's 'Art of the Deal' the best-selling business book of all time?
- The 100 Best Business Books of All Time: More on The 100 Best Archives
- 15 Best Business Books Of 2015
- Top 10 Influential Business Books of All Time
- 7 Incredibly Successful Business Books: Where's Donald Trump on the List?
REal simple here. THe OP is what I said. HE attempts to make his point with an example that doesn't show what he claims.
Duke? THat's another one where there was no reversal.
Fine well you can bury your head in the sand and pretend it never happened. That's what Rump does when it turns out he should have said something different.
Dismissed.
You are not angry with Trump because he is NOT taking a stand against Trannies in women's restrooms.
YOu are angry because he has seriously challenged Political Correctness, which you lefties rely on to avoid having to defend your political positions and policies on just their merits.
Which you generally CAN'T do because they are generally bad for America and Americans.
I'm not "angry" about either. I don't actually give a flying fart about bathrooms --- actually I think it's hilarious that some of y'all are melting down over it. And in keeping with that I've made a total of no posts whatsoever on it.
This thread is about Donald Rump (not bathrooms) and his ever-shifting positions.
Weird how you don't get that.
You're not angry, and yet you can't even type his name correctly and you claim he didn't repudiate David Duke?
Declining to join in the hero-worship of a madman and declining to deny factual history is not "anger". It's reality.
Pogo that is hilarious that you are calling Trump a narcissist in light of who is sitting in the Oval right now. Of course Trummp is a narcissist, anyone who would want that job is.
Red:The issue and point of my OP isn't whether he's for or against LGBT folks. It's also not whether you or I are for or against them. The issue is that Trump's position today is as likely as not to not be his position at sometime within the foreseeable future.
And it's a fair question, fueled by much history. Such as repudiating David Duke one day, and then the next day not being able to figure out who he is. Rump just makes it up as he goes along. He has no plan for anything except how to attract attention. If somebody gives him blowback for the present comment he'll just deny having said it. Perhaps try to blame a "lousy earpiece".
He has no principles. He just blurts out whatever he thinks will win him attention and adulation from the gullible in the moment.
How many times does one has to repudiate David Duke before you libs stop asking about him?
It's almost as though, you don't care about the answer and are just using the question to smear someone unfairly...
Unequivocally and unambiguously once during the 2016 Presidential campaign would be sufficient.
I don't like and should not need to infer what a Presidential candidate means when they say something. When a candidate is asked a question answerable by "yes" or "no," I expect them to say "yes" or "no." If after doing so, they want to qualify their response, fine, but still if the preponderance of their stance corresponds to yes, they need so say "yes." If it's mostly no, they need to say "no."
Why should we whose votes they solicit need to figure out which way they lean or what they "really meant?" Is it expecting too much of them to just be clear? I think it is not and unquestionably clear is not what Trump was re: repudiating David Duke's endorsement.
Donald Trump and David Duke: For the record
"
NBC’s Matt Lauer: “When you say the [Reform] party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?”
Trump: “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party.”
—remarks on NBC’s “Today Show,” Feb. 14, 2000"
"2015
Bloomberg’s John Heilemann: “How do you feel about the David Duke quasi-endorsement?”
Trump: “I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement."
Correct. I know those quotes --- I posted them myself a couple of months ago.
Why did I post them?
Because on February 28 he said this:
I don't know anything about David Duke. okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know.Again ---- whatever works in the moment. The actual content is just an inconvenience that you can run to Twitter and change retroactively if it backfires or if somebody does something outrageous like record what you just said.
"I don't know, did he endorse me or what's going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about. …
"I don't know any -- honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I have ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him."
