I get it and it's not good. Trump's appeal is pretty much how the Wolf of Wall Street made millions. It's why The Secret was a runaway best seller. It's this commercial below packaged for politics. It's combining bombast with outsized aspirations that success can come easy if you only believe / buy, into some special knowledge that elites have been keeping away from you. It plays upon entrenched fears and plays upon victimhood that you're not the one at fault but outside forces are. While at the same time it plays upon Jungian views of masculinity that buying into this proves you're tough and strong and you're standing up to an effeminate and culture that through political correctness has emasculated you.
Sorry, but he has got to be the biggest embarrassment to America in quite a long time: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/02/media/donald-trump-katy-tur/index.html
Liberal citizens actually coined the "anti-establishment" concept in the '50s, but liberal officials more keenly understood their roles as advocates and intermediaries between conservative colleagues and the fringes of their own group. They employed logic and precedent in the courts and principled horse-trading in the legislative process to create common administrative ground on behalf of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, ambitious and unmarried women and non-Western immigrants.
Someone should start a thread on the relative merits of our Presidential candidates. That would helpful.
You tailor your approach to the type of opposition you encounter. The movement that eventually culminated to the civil rights movement fought against traditionalism and against relatively reasonable people, who you could appeal to rationally. Sad to say, the enemy today is not quite worth it. They're far more insidious. They're quite two-faced running elections campaigns full of promises to the working class but once in office work to undermine them. They will present themselves on a moral high-ground towards any criticism and use labels on their opponents to stop any honest debate about topics they fanatically consider sacred. And it's not like they are a constructive lot. Their policies have led to anarchy, destruction of culture and general misery among the people unlike the traditionalists the civil rights movement who mostly still espoused a civilized way of life. The left today is not the type you appeal to but take down using a heavy hand.
Thanks for the advice, Rommel. Gonna head down to my local Bed Bath & Beyond to buy a laundry bag and then hit up my local adult bookstore to fill it up with replica phalluses, so I can put this into practice next time I see some anonymous Internet shitbird clowning eugenics on an NBA message board.
You have a point that most politicians have acted two faced and not always in the direct interest of their constituents. That is an inherent risk in republican government (emphasis on small "r'). What undercuts your argument though is that you are supporting someone who has acted so much against the interests of the working class and outrightly defrauded them. Further you're supporting someone who's primary debate tactic is to use simplistic labels against his opponents (crooked Hillary, Lyin Ted, Low-Energy Jeb) and rather than honest debate tactics threatens to jail his opponents. This is why Trump is running essentially a con job on his supporters.
The biggest con job. I haven't been saying this since the end of the primaries- I've been saying it since the beginning- 2 obviously unqualified candidates that I could not believe anyone would vote for- Trump and Carson. The primary debates bore this out. I didn't agree with Cruz, or Rubio, or Bush, or Fiorina, or Paul- but geez, at least I had respect for them and could see them as viable candidates. Not those first two, I kept thinking, when the hell is America going to wake up to this clown show? And then he becomes the nominee. Just... there's nothing more to say on it.
Actually, as a politician, he's not acted against the working class, because he's never been a politician until now. As a businessman, he's stiffed some people, allegedly. While I don't condone that practice, it's far different from saying he ran for office on working class policies and didn't deliver; and on that basis, I want him over the establishment who has done that. What you do as a businessman does not immediately translate to how you do as a politician. You have different goals. As a businessman, you want to make money. As a politician, you want to change destiny. The rubric for success is different. If stiffing people as a businessman works to maximize profit, it certainly won't as a politician considering your constituents' satisfaction is your aim this time round. Yeah, he's insulting but he actually gives reasons why. In contrast, liberals call people racist when they're losing arguments.
