The Donald says incendiary things to keep the cameras on himself. He's a reality TV star, brash drama is his go-to mechanism. He floundered in the last debate when they actually started asking substantive economic and foreign policy questions. There's a reason he just keeps repeating the same immigration / religious terrorism rhetoric. It's all he's got, and it gets him the most attention. He's using the sensationalized media to his advantage. He knows TV, and unfortunately, the majority of American voters still get their "facts" from TV.
Is he painting a target on his back? Eh. There is plenty of hate for other obnoxious egomaniac reality TV stars, but it doesn't usually make the leap from social media outrage to actual physical violence. Trump had plenty of haters before this presidential stunt, so it's nothing new to him.
DoctorMetal wrote:I, too, keep swearing I'm gonna stay away from political discussions on these boards. Debates get heated, and there's a strong libertarian, independent, Third party, protest, or whatever (choose your own label) contingent among the crowd that would just beat you down no matter which candidate it was in any of the two major political parties.
Hey, I resemble that remark
I'm not under any illusion that a third party candidate will be elected president any time in the next 25 years. Maybe never. There have been a few good options in the two major parties the last couple election cycles. There are just lots more bad options, and they tend to be better speech-givers, better panderers, and better at raising funds from special interests than the few truly principled candidates who make it to the stage. I (along with millions of others) will not vote for a terrible candidate just to attempt to keep a more terrible candidate out of office. Vanilla bean status quo Romney helped send 2.2+ million votes to third party and write-in candidates in 2012. Someone as polarizing as Trump would hand the election to Clinton 2.0 on a silver platter. I don't really expect it to come to that though. It's still early. Remember when Giuliani was a media favorite? Howard Dean? Rick Perry? Those guys were "undisputed front runners" even later in the election cycle than this, and all failed in the primaries.
IdahoCopper wrote:Read this blog post by Scott Adams, the Dilbert comic author.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1347915293 ... ion-seriesI think it is an extremely accurate assessment of Trump's underlying strategies. The strategy essentially boils down to actually being a leader, instead of limp-wristedly following the polls like every other politician.
Interesting read, and a good explanation of how Trump stays in the spotlight, but I don't think it has anything to do with "actually being a leader." Trump is very talented at staying in front of the camera, but there isn't much substance behind it. Provocative comments on sensational issues are what keep the spotlight on him. We aren't talking about how Trump plans to fix rigged markets, prevent another housing bubble, fix the VA, or anything else that makes a bottom line difference to the middle class. We're talking about whether or not we should ban an entire religion from entering the country, and whether or not we can kick out all the Mexicans. Seriously? These are Donald Trump's bogeymen, the same way the left vilifies "high-powered assault rifles" and the confederate flag to distract and deflect from the real problems. Keep people busy with emotional reactions so they don't notice everything else that is missing, or is the same as their "opponents." Divide and conquer.
Thogey wrote:DoctorMetal wrote:I, too, keep swearing I'm gonna stay away from political discussions on these boards. Debates get heated, and there's a strong libertarian, independent, Third party, protest, or whatever (choose your own label) contingent among the crowd that would just beat you down no matter which candidate it was in any of the two major political parties.
The following is not a put down but reality. I fully include myself in this dynamic.
Political discussion always degenerates into circular logic where nothing gets ironed out because the parties involved see the world in different ways. This you cannot reconcile. (for instance I see deportation and banning muslims as common sense) even my wife cannot change this world view.
It's like arguing with your wife. It all eventually comes back to a disagreement on who said what and what you really meant to say.
If you are smart you capitulate and do sex.
Lots of truth here
The more people receiving from the system via subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, etc., and the more people born into those conditions, the harder it will be to elect somebody who would actually attempt to change it, because those people only know that way of life and see any attempt to reform it as taking away their "rights."
But the same can be said on the other side of the aisle. The more people become conditioned to a perpetual state of war and world policing, an environment where the government records every phone call, text message, and email, and we're supposed to be thankful for that 'protection,' and a society where half of the population increasingly fears anybody who looks, sounds, or practices religion differently, the harder it will be to get out of that bubble.
This is why an increasing number of people are getting sick of both sides, and when the real reform/liberty candidates get pushed off the D and R tickets, end up voting third party or stay home. 2.2+ million votes in 2012, and probably 2-3 times that stayed home. If the Republicans want to win another presidential election, they need a candidate who can attract that disenfranchised vote. Trump, Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Graham, Huckabee, Kasich, Pataki, Rubio, or Santorum definitely won't get it.
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:02 pm