No, like actually worthless. We all know that he has his little cult of worshipers, but there's absolutely no substance or value when it comes to Trump and pretty much anyone that matters can tell that.
Donald trump is.. <iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7xxgRUyzgs0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/odz3c68JE1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Trumps positions of universal health care are more centrist than anything Cruz is saying. Cruz is more extreme than trump. Also your short game long game explanation is incredibly wonky considering the only game right now is getting the nomination. Cruz can long game his way out of a job.
How can you trust anything Trump says? He's on every side of every issue. Citing anything he's given as a solid position is pretty laughable IMO. You might as well be talking about which direction a weather vane is pointing.
Rachel Maddow recently did a dissertation on what something like what a potential brokered convention for the GOP might resemble here... FULL DISCLOSURE: for the uninitiated, Maddow is the most shrilliest of liberal femi-Nazi shrills, so avert your eyes accordingly...and if you're a Ron/Rand Paul supporter, more than enlightening...check in on about the 10 minute mark.... RACHEL MADDOW 3/19/2016 Romney announces vote for Cruz as anti-Trump stratagem
Trump is not a centrist. It is a mistake to think because he has some positions that are considered liberal that he is in fact a liberal or a moderate. Trump is an authoritarian fascist. He believes that the president should be a strongman type at the head of a powerful regime. Candidates like that will occasionally have ideas that tick a check box in "your" political sphere, but it doesn't mean they are a moderate, and certainly not a centrist. Cruz may be extreme on social issues that the right loves, but Trump's stated extremism goes so far that military leaders have had to denounce him and say they would refuse his orders. His approach to every issue is to literally take the most extreme, strongman solution possible. Immigration? Build a wall, deport everyone Healthcare? Healthcare for everyone Terrorists? Torture them and kill their families ISIS? Bomb them to hell and back, innocent civilians be damned Here's an interesting article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-textbook-example-of-an-ideological-moderate/ Basically, trump is an "ideological moderate" because has views that check boxes in both left and right orthodoxy, but he is taking the extreme views in each of those camps. I'd also point out that is true of most dictators/strongman types throughout history. Look the world over and you will find regimes that will kill people for being gay, yet guarantee healthcare. Regimes with ironclad immigration rules and no income tax. Regimes with public transportation and a strong national military.
To me that is an "extreme" centrist. His is certainly left of Cruz. How big of a deal is a wall at the end of the day? He says 15 others say 35 billion. So what? You think americans will really freak out over 3-7 billion a year spent on border security? Most americans want a wall. That is a good politician, which is the point of this discussion. His views on abortions would even be easy to backtrack. Most of it has been anti planned parenthood doing abortions and he has said great things about the other stuff they do. Little Maro was pegged as a choker. Bush he nailed as weak. He portrays politicians in ways we haven't really seen before. Dude is a tactician. I totally agree with Nook.
Donald Trump has charisma which everyone else in the field lacks, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton is not terribly charismatic and Ted Cruz lacks any real charisma. Donald Trump has excellent instincts and can respond very quickly. Ted Cruz has this ability too, but his complete lack of charisma hurts the message. Hillary Clinton has poor political instincts. Donald can feed off a crowd and respond with his instincts in a way that very few people can. Now, does that mean he will be a good President? No. Does that mean that he has the type of support staff and long growing grass roots abilities that Sanders and Clinton have? Absolutely not, I don't think Trump has the discipline to do that.... he is too impulsive. Trump is a lot like Huey Long in his ability to get certain people to completely buy what he is selling. He has an ego so large that he believes that he can talk down anyone, and can get people to believe what he is saying. Logic is irrelevant, because those that like him REALLY like him, and believe in him, whatever that ultimately is. Donald Trump doesn't believe in anything expect Donald Trump. There is no real "Trump Doctrine", it changes according to events and how Trump decides to go about it. Trump doesn't really care about abortion or poor people or immigrants or the birther movement or anything else. He cares about himself and the chess game of what he can do, to get people to believe in him and the awesome power associated with that. Don't be lulled into thinking Trump isn't sharp, only Cruz is sharper in this election cycle. Trump knows what he is doing. He knows how to exploit situations and how to keep himself relevant.
It's amazing to me that someone who said he would force the military to violate international laws, carry out targeted murders of innocent civilians and institute torture (real torture in his words, not water boarding) provoking rebukes from military leaders who said they would refuse his orders and then gave one of those "oh they'll listen to me, trust me" cryptic "I'm a strongman" type threats is somehow being called a centrist or moderate here. Think about how extreme a position he has taken with regards to that issue alone. Ted Cruz looks like Jimmy Carter compared to Trump when it comes to the military power issue. I know he is claiming to be non-interventionist at this point, but that position does go with anything he's said. He's absolute power guy.
People generally like bombing people, generally dislike long ass wars where deaths mount up. He has said Iraq was stupid, that he won't go to war, but he is talking tough. Between the three of them, Trump seems least to mount a holy war unless some foreign leaders talks about his wig. I think people are confusing "skilled politician" with "skilled public servant".
Rage in a Cage Cocks in a Box Slags in a Bag Burns in an Urn Dirt in a Yurt Half-Brainers in a Container Uggo Hair in Tupperware
He says the Iraq War was stupid today, but supported it at the time. I don't know if he'll launch a "holy war" literally from a religious perspective, but his view on what we need to do to stop ISIS is more extreme than Ted Cruz. I mean come on man, military leaders have said they won't obey orders he has said he would give because they are too extreme. Are you a Trump supporter?
Much appreciation for the detailed response! So I guess that begs a bit of a follow-up question: If delegates are allowed to break their assignments and vote for whoever they see fit (after X # of ballots are taken), doesn't that essentially throw "democracy" right out of the window?? Wouldn't it make more sense (and be more fair) to ask the voters directly who they wanted as their nominee rather than delegates?
How do you do that without redoing the primary? Unless you do a plurality first past the pole system, how could you do this any differently?
It couldn't be. Also, if you just do a plurality, you run into a situation where the majority of voters are upset with the outcome anyway so it's not really any different. As it stands, the majority have voted for anti-Trump candidates, so allowing the anti-Trump delegates to get together and pick someone other than Trump is the best way of giving the people what they want and respecting "democracy"
The party mechanism is the problem, here, to me. I don't see how democracy is server basically prima facie...especially if there is a wholly party-related set of rules that allows the delegates (part of an antiquated function of a national government long ago removed by constraints of distance and communication)... Ron Paul's supporters basically upended the whole thing for a long time during the 2012 primary season...essentially doing an end-around on the "process"... securing the votes of many of the delegates after elections where they did not win the "popular" vote...
It is not that easy to get yourself on the national ballot in all 50 states and to run an organization to give one candidate a shot. For that reason, there are huge clubs meant to enable this (and other elected offices, of course). These clubs can make their own rules, naturally. And, as per democracy, if one single person (e.g. Bloomberg, if he had been really dumb or high or navel-gazy) can absolutely run for president, if he/she can get on the ballot, etc, etc, etc. The 'clubs' which we call parties are just good at this sort of thing, having built the mechanisms, followings and even their own media outlets. I just don't want to hear anyone saying the GOP is messing with "democracy" -- they're not, any more than a book club messes with democracy when the host of a poker game chooses to serve salsa out of a bottle and insist the wheel is a low hand. House rules.
"Idiots doing idiot things because they're idiots." - Sterling Archer My current feelings about Trump supporters.
