I certainly thought that apart from the issue of Palestine a Trump presidency was more positive globally than a trigger-happy Hilary Clinton itching to have a confrontation
Did he not get a little trigger happy with Iran a few times?
Hilary Clinton is a proven hawk and interventionist who as president would have almost certainly increased and escalated US involvement in military conflicts, and most worrying of all, possibly authorized combat engagement against Russia, obviously with the intention of it being limited.
Utter nonsense. If Clinton had been elected, the U.S. would not have walked away from the nuclear deal with Iran, whereas Trump came very, very close to launching strikes (the bombers were literally in the air when he finally chickened out). Her policy on Russia would almost certainly been a continuation of Obama's because most of the same foreign policy staff would have carried over. Obama's policy was to put sanctions on Russia, but to avoid provoking actual conflict. Clinton might have imposed tougher sanctions, but authorizing armed combat was not on the cards. You're imagining things there.
Sanctions hearing for the Kraken lawyers not going well for them.
https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1414561524757192705
remember, Trump was a registered Democrat
Yeah perhaps I didn't make my point clear. Trump supports policies which he personally doesn't necessarily agree with.
It has proved to be extremely effective. He has won one election which quite frankly he should never have won, and he almost won a second one.
It is not a strategy that he was or is likely to change. Yes I have absolutely no doubt that if he had thought that sending US troops to fight in far away distant lands was going to be a vote winner for him he would have adopted it as a policy.
But that would have required him to change and establish a very different voter base, one which would have appealed to interventionist Democrats or Neocons, so highly unlikely to happen.
Trump's greatest appeal was that he put a clear distance between himself and not only the Democrats but also the ruling Neocon wing of the GOP. Anti-establishment was at the very heart of his appeal.
Utter nonsense.
You then go on to tell me what Trump didn't do.
No he didn't bomb Iran.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear.html
Any attack considered would have been missile or cyber.
Last paragraph :
"A strike on Iran may not play well to his base, which is largely opposed to a deeper American conflict in the Middle East"
The point I’m making is that Trump understands his support base, that’s obvious, and whether he personally agrees with them or not is irrelevant, he is not going to piss them off.
Its not so much that he understands them as he's just a seasoned bullshitter - he says what he thinks people want to hear - whether you're a Proud Boy, Putin or Billy Bush.
People imagine Trump has created a following - that all these 'Trumpists' have been created in his image - but in fact he's created himself in their image - then he's just put his name on them, like he puts his name on anything - such as hotels that he didn't really build and doesn't really own. Those people were always there - the best way I've heard it described was "there was a parade marching though town - Trump stood in front of it and it seemed like the parade was for him."
He doesnt lead he follows, he just does it while standing at the front.
It's not really a new idea, Trump just happens to be very good at it.
Populist:
A person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
A couple of examples are the Christian Right and the Mexican border wall. Trump is clearly not a Christian but that didn’t stop him courting the Christian Right promising to serve their agenda.
Remember Paula 🤣
No I don't scuttler, what did Paula do?
I do remember though when Donald Trump used Twitter to wish everyone a "Happy Good Friday".
Anyone with a basic understanding of Christian teachings knows that Good Friday is the most sombre day in the Christian calendar.
The average Muslim is likely to have a far greater understanding of Christianity than Trump will ever have.
Although to be fair I don't think the Christian Right ever saw Trump as one of them (and why would they?) I think the deal was that he would further their agenda.
Trump supports policies which he personally doesn’t necessarily agree with.
I don't think Trump has any need for any policies in the traditional sense of describing or underlining a world view, other than just how they can serve his immediate needs. I think Trump's success as a Politician was based on the fact that he clearly isn't one.
But that would have required him to change and establish a very different voter base
I think his base would've have followed him regardless. Trump would've have told them to get behind the "Great Patriotic Army" or some such nonsense and they'd have cheered him to the rafters.
Paula White and Donald from para 5 of this - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/us-election-trump-paula-white-house-prayer-b1616014.html
Although to be fair I don’t think the Christian Right ever saw Trump as one of them
Something which got trotted out was Cyrus the Great in the bible where he is supposed to have allowed and even helped the Jews to recover from the harsh treatment under the Babylonian empire when he defeated it.
Thanks scuttler. So she was summoning forces to defeat the demonic powers? Cool, I don't think there's enough of that at political rallies these days.
Although she obviously didn't try hard enough. Did Trump sack her?
Don’t think he bombed Iran but he definitely bombed Iraq and killed an Iranian military guy
Its not so much that he understands them as he’s just a seasoned bullshitter – he says what he thinks people want to hear – whether you’re a Proud Boy, Putin or Billy Bush.... He doesnt lead he follows, he just does it while standing at the front.
This pretty much sums up his "political genius". He throws stuff out there at rallies and sees what the crowd reacts to. Anything that doesn't get big cheers gets dropped and the stuff that works gets retained. That's how the "build the wall" and "lock her up" slogans came about - they weren't really policy decisions, just lines he threw out at rallies that got big applause. Yes, he is very good at doing that, but it doesn't mean he understands his base, just that he's a very accomplished bullshitter.
For 4 years he was the most powerful politician on Earth, having never held an elected position before, 'very accomplished' is a fair description.
And yes of course he understands his base, if it was simply as easy as throwing out a few slogans and waiting to see what gets the greatest applause everyone would be doing it.
My understanding is that being President of the United States is a very sought after job, not having integrity doesn't bar you from holding office. There's a lot of competition.
Personally I always thought the very idea of Donald Trump being US president ludicrous. I thought it before he won the election, I thought whilst he was president, and I still think it now.
It doesn't matter how long the passage of time it will always, like Boris Johnson becoming prime minister, sound totally ridiculous.
But he did win a US presidential election, he almost did it a second time, and it's not yet completely certain that he won't again in the future.
If you think he doesn't understand his base you are deluding yourself. Although I can understand why some people refuse to give him any credit for anything. Which has obviously worked in his favour in the past.
But he did win a US presidential election, he almost did it a second time
No, he got fairly comprehensively thumped the second time, it wasn't close. Usually, a president's approval ratings lift during the "honeymoon" period of their first few months because moderate voters accept the election result and put the partisan stuff from the election behind them. Trump never really got approval ratings above 50% because his only trick is to antagonize his opponents, not to actually propose any policies to win new supporters. For most of his presidency, his approval ratings were in the low to mid 40s, despite a healthy economy (that he inherited from Obama).
A sitting president has an inherent advantage in a reelection campaign - TV coverage of everything he does and says, Air Force One to fly him around to open factories and hand out medals, etc. Yet, Donald Trump blew all that with campaign strategy of antagonizing the people whose votes he needed. Politically, he was one of the most unsuccessful and incompetent politicians ever seen. He was so politically incompetent that Joe Biden just had to sit at home an remind everyone that he wasn't Donald Trump, and then he collected the largest tally of votes in history. Trump did not "almost" win reelection, he got utterly thumped through his own stupidity.
If you think he doesn’t understand his base you are deluding yourself.
I don't think Trump has a base or supporters, I think he has an audience, and that's as far as that relationship has ever gone.
Trump did not “almost” win reelection, he got utterly thumped through his own stupidity.
Okay I can see that this is going nowhere, you are clearly not going to accept under any circumstances there is anything that Trump might have done well, including achieving an impressive electoral result.
He was/is a terrible man therefore anything associated with him, including electoral performance, must be terrible. Life is always easier when things are kept simple.
In 2020 received 0.8% less votes than he did on 2016, I call that close.
In 2020 he also increased his vote by an extra 11 million compared to 2016 which suggests that he managed to hold on to his base vote.
The obvious difference between 2016 and 2020 was that the opposing candidate was different. Hilary Clinton was deeply unpopular with many Democrats, undoubtedly many stayed at home. You can't with any certainty predict what will happen in 2024.
Trump is dangerous because not only is he popular with a solid base vote but because established politicians are unpopular. No amount of hating Trump will change that.
Trump is dangerous because not only is he popular with a solid base vote but because established politicians are unpopular.
Yes. The key thing with Trump is despite the claims about him being some political chess grandmaster knowing what the audience wants and carefully feeding it if you look at his history, including unsuccessful presidental bids, its clear he isnt. He is the same one trick pony he was years ago.
What changed was a mix of higher media presence due to the apprentice and seemingly a change in the preferences of people so he now appealed to many.
He is a symptom and not the cause.
Without the pandemic there would have been a very good chance of him winning in 2020.
in truth republicans hold onto their base regardless along with gerrymandering the **** out everywhere. The elephant on the badge would have polled just as well as Trump.
What klunk says, plus don't forget that the most impressive thing about his victory of 2016 is that he won with 3 million less votes.
Factor in that voter registration in the US is ridiculously low and gerrymandering leaves the political map of the US looking like the West Bank. Add in voter suppression and the imbalance of the Senate then the country could better be described as a developing / regressing democracy.
Accepting as fact that the USA is a democracy the like that which we have in Europe (or many other, including 'developing' nations) is a critical mistake. Trump and the Republicans in general are so far from representing the will of the people in any reasonable shape or form
In 2020 he also increased his vote by an extra 11 million compared to 2016 which suggests that he managed to hold on to his base vote.
No, what happened is that there were a lot of disenchanted people who gave up on voting but liked Trump's America First posturing. Many of those voters had been Democratic voters, but they did not like the globalist direction the Democratic party has gone in. So, he stole a bunch of voters who had once been Democratic supporters.
However, he also antagonized an even larger group of moderate Republican voters - people with college degrees and white-collar jobs. Those people switched from voting Republican to voting Democratic in the Presidential race, but still voted Republican in the Congressional races.
In 2016, he was able to present himself as a successful business mogul who could make deals and was interested in solving problems. It didn't take long for moderates to notice that he was lousy at making deals and seemed more interested in race baiting than governing. The Republican party got utterly thumped in the 2018 mid-term elections because Trump was so offensive to moderate voters.
The 2020 election had the highest turnout in history. Part of that was Trump motivating his base voters to turn out, but what was fatal for him was that his offensiveness also motivated moderates to turn out to vote against him. Every moderate who switched a vote from Republican to Democrat was worth two base voters. Convincing moderates to switch parties is not the work of a political genius. FFS, he lost in Georgia and then did everything he could to lose both Senate seats in Georgia out of spite. He's a political moron.
+1 Ernie
Trump is dangerous because not only is he popular with a solid base vote but because established politicians are unpopular. No amount of hating Trump will change that.
And yet, otherwise intelligent people still yet underestimate populism. Not only that, but they also hold a dream that the masses shall tire of it anytime soon when history shows it to behave like a virus.
for both republicans and democrats it's getting the nomination that counts, assuming both sides bases vote as expected the election is then decided by a very few floating voters in the battleground states. All the Orange Idiot had to do was show some semblance of competence and compassion over COVID and he would have been a shoe in.
Trump is dangerous because not only is he popular with a solid base vote but because established politicians are unpopular. No amount of hating Trump will change that.
I don't disagree with any of that, and I still think Trump is a dangerous and volatile presence in US politics that isn't going to go away any time soon. I disagree with you about your assessment of him using "normal" political analysis. I think his 2016 success was based on the fact that he wasn't (and still isn't) anything other than just Trump.
Trying to ascribe to him any deeper political motivation other than he wants to be president because he feels it's rightfully his job for as long as he wants it, and shouldn't have to suffer losing, is a fool's errand, and masks how to defeat him should he try to run again. As thols2 points out, Biden did it by basically saying "Hey everybody, I'm not Trump" and not setting out anything other than that.
Trying to ascribe to him any deeper political motivation other than he wants to be president
I'm not sure where you got that from but I'm sorry if that was the impression I gave.
No of course Trump isn't motivated by political conviction, hence my comment that he will pursue policies which he doesn't necessarily agree with because he knows that it will give him popular support.
And his policies, the border wall, banning of Muslims entering the US, aggressive attitude to China, isolationism, Second Amendment, climate change denial, etc etc, were absolutely vital and central to his successful bid to become US president.
Not enough people voted for Trump due to his great hairstyle and tiny hands to tilt the election in his favour, it needed a bit more.
But whilst Trump isn't motivated by political conviction he is clearly motivated by narcissism and ego, that was the driving force behind his bid to be US president.
It would a mistake however to dismiss Trump as a one-off never to be repeated aberration. He still has a massive influence within the Republican Party, and the deeply flawed US democratic model could quite realistically throw up another US president just as obnoxious, or even worse, than Trump.
Which is just one more reason why the rest of the world needs to minimise US influence and also minimise dependency on the US.
I don't think anyone is dismissing Trump as a one time aberration, we are all well aware of the threat that he continues to pose.
That's why I commented on the fragility of the US constitution and political processes. I've just watched that N.Y. Times film covering the timeline of the Capitol riot.
I think for most Americans those scenes would have been impossible to conceive a decade ago and the idea that something like that could happen without any consequences would have been laughable.
The reason we have traditionally turned a blind eye to the shortcomings of the United States is because they helped save us from the Germans (twice) and the Soviets.
Alliances, (like the European union) provide security. With an emerging China and a malevolent Russia I don't think isolating ourselves from America is a particularly great idea.
Trumps base is so disparate, all kinds voted for him, 2 years ago I cycled down the east coast from Maine to Key West, I met so many people who thought he was an embarrassment but were Republicans. You had old people living in small towns who believed him when he told them he would bring the jobs back, you have religious fanatics, racists and xenophobes and people who just wanted something different.
He is still dangerous but I believe his influence is waning.
And his policies, the border wall, banning of Muslims entering the US, aggressive attitude to China, isolationism, Second Amendment, climate change denial, etc etc, were absolutely vital and central to his successful bid to become US president.
But none of these were his policies, they're Steve Bannon's, and he was sacked. Bannon rose briefly to power on the back of Trump's success and then realised like many other Americans on the right did, that Trump's not really Their Man. The danger is what comes after him.
It would a mistake however to dismiss Trump as a one-off never to be repeated aberration.
I don't think anyone on this thread has TBH, but at the same time, things aren't the same as they were in 2016 when many Americans fell for his "Successful Businessman Goes to Washington to Sort out the Politicians" schtick, which turned out to be empty promises, and a failed and embarrassing 1st term. While many undoubtedly voted for him again in 2020; he was the incumbent, and still had the voice of Facebook, Twitter etc behind him, and none of those things are true anymore.
But none of these were his policies,
Yes they were his policies, they were very clearly his policies. If you are suggesting they were someone elses idea then that is another issue and frankly irrelevant, the important thing is that they were his policies.
Andrew Fisher wrote the 2017 Labour Party election manifesto, would you suggest that the policies in the Labour manifesto weren't Jeremy Corbyn's policies?
If you are suggesting they were someone elses idea then that is another issue and frankly irrelevant,
No, it's entirely the point, and not irrelevant. The point is Trump couldn't care less what "his policies" are/were That they may align with a particular party or group is entirely co-incidental, and subject to change at any point should they become no longer useful. For Trump, being Trump the Real Estate businessman and Trump the President are entirely the same thing, only with bigger toys. You can't compare Trump with any other politician, he isn't one, and doesn't share that outlook.
The point is Trump couldn’t care less what “his policies”
We are just going round in circles, I've lost count how many times I have repeated that Trump had policies which he himself didn't necessarily believe in. I have no idea why you choose to ignore that.
And yes Trump wasn't a politician, which is precisely why he appealed to so many in his base support. He even drove the point home that time when before a huge rally and he started to dismantle the autocue from the lectern, his adoring supporters loved it.
I don't know why you keep attributing opinions to me which I have never expressed nick. Perhaps it's just an irresistible urge to disagree with me?
Edit: It was a teleprompter, whatever the difference is.
I met so many people who thought he was an embarrassment but were Republicans.
I think I've said it before in this thread, but I have family and friends here who hated what Trump represented but still voted for him because he was the Rep candidate. They never vote Dem so they would vote Rep regardless of how much they disliked the candidate. They believe the Rep rhetoric that the Dems are bad for the economy, and that's it. Everything else is superfluous to what they are concerned with. It's a baffling idea.
Everything else is superfluous to what they are concerned with. It’s a baffling idea.
I guess it depends on how much you fear the other side. Admittedly it is odd considering the majority of the democrats would be considered slightly right wing anywhere with a sensible political compass but there has been years of conditioning.
One reason why Trump got support to begin with was because of the chance to stuff the judicial system with a bunch of right wing judges (again hard to comprehend in any sensible system) which is one of the few things he achieved not just at the supreme court level but lower down which means the legal system is swung rightwards for probably a generation.
Trump came clean about (some of) his dishonesty and receives adulation for it from his fans.
Populism and performance. All Forever Trumpists really care about deep down is that he’s ‘on their side’. Their ‘Us vs Them’ pleasure-centres are getting lubed up and tickled with each and every of his cheeky oh so naughty utterances. Their amygdalas are aching for his performance. Now he plays the oppressed victim, for just long enough to buy some stage presence and then *boom* he’s back into the clownish man-baby mob-boss act, mincing along their mesolimbic pathways delivering visions of ‘Our’ victory and vengeance over ‘Them’.
He could say literally anything and they’d love him for it. He knows this. Fake news. Real news. Alternative ‘news’. #itsallthesame
Trump had policies which he himself didn’t necessarily believe in. I have no idea why you choose to ignore that.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm disagreeing with it.
I don’t know why you keep attributing opinions to me which I have never expressed
I've no idea what this even means.
This is pretty mad:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/donald-trump-election-coup-new-book-excerpt/index.html
That book looks fun. Confirms a lot of what was being talked about on here at the time.
I wonder what would happen if the Kremlin got hacked wiki leaks style
Just read that article @kimbers, it just confirms what was widely rumoured. I wonder if the Brexit interference will get leaked at some point!?
@eskay - not in the UK press, I expect NY Times / Washington Post / Der Spiegel are more likely to cover it
