Trump: The catalyst.

I suppose asking this lot to put aside the likes and dislikes of Trump might be pushing the envelope to the breaking point, but having said that, there is no question the political arena of the U.S. has been altered massively. That alteration is well outside the controlled environment that is the norm, to say the least. Here's a few, off the top, that I come up with.

First, and the most obvious, is political correctness. Some think he's a fool for some of his comments and, in some cases, I tend to agree. Overall, however, it has been deliberate and effective. If one looks at Ron Paul's efforts, or more recently, Carson's, Carli's et al, the media has largely ignored them and that tactic has been effective in marginalizing and finally, ending their efforts.

Largely unknown outside the N.Y. area, Trump has used political incorrectness to get himself known. With no backing from the usual donators of the Establishment, he has completely flummoxed both party's elites by using 'outrageous' statements to gain resonance with the general public. It has been worth millions in campaign value especially when compared to Jeb Bush's massive financial backing with zero results.

This will change future elections and opens the door for potential candidates outside the political mechanism to consider running for higher offices in the future.

The second point was touched in the first. The Main Steam Media. He has broken the bonds of the MSM, simply put. They CAN be manipulated and taken advantage of much the same way as they have of previous candidates for decades. That precedent has been set. Another potential point future candidates will consider and may encourage their participation in the process.

Third is the reaction of his opponents. All of them, except perhaps Carson, have responded, at times, with equally, if not more outrageous claims about Trump. Trump's tactics and his results have thrown the 'politically astute' candidates off their game plan, at least to some extent, and made equally, if not worse, responses about Trump.

The most important, in my view, I've left for last. Trump, and to lesser extent Sanders, has shown there is more than sufficient grass root support for a third and even fourth party to be established in the next election cycle. Another game changer, to say the least.

P.S. I would add that this election will mark the self-inflicted downfall of both political parties. Especially the Republican. The use of super-delegates by the Democrat party, it's dependence on the MSM, has opened the eyes of many 'democrats' and sets them up for their version of an alternative party, as well.

Overall, despite the likely chaos, politically, this will result in, I see all of it a good thing.

Thank you, Mr. Trump.

I prostrate myself for the inevitable backlash knowing I've pointed out aspects that needed pointing out.

Have at it.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Largely unknown outside the N.Y. area, Trump has used political incorrectness to get himself known.

Uhh.. what?

With no backing from the usual donators of the Establishment, he has completely flummoxed both party's elites by using 'outrageous' statements to gain resonance with the general public.

Technically, since he is one of the usual establishment donors, that's not true.

This will change future elections and opens the door for potential candidates outside the political mechanism to consider running for higher offices in the future.

Only if they too are billionaires who can afford to launch their own campaigns.

The most important, in my view, I've left for last. Trump, and to lesser extent Sanders, has shown there is more than sufficient grass root support for a third and even fourth party to be established in the next election cycle. Another game changer, to say the least.

I understand that you're a Trump supporter and you're pushing a narrative but Sanders has raised more than $100 million from more than 4 million donors. Sanders is definitely running more on grassroots support than Trump.

a reply to: theantediluvian


When I say unknown outside the N.Y. area, that's where his money and reputation was made. Politically, he had/s zero exposure outside the region and his views unknown.


I sure had zero idea about the man before his announced candidacy and that, I'm sure, holds true for most of his supporters outside his natural region. Beside, the comment was intended to place him in a similar position as those outside the
usual political exposure and money supply. Therefore his shtick is how he achieved his exposure, unlike previous outsiders of the machine.


A donator to the N.Y. Establishment/political machine, IE Hillary is the price one pays for successful business in that long-held Democrat/Union/Mafia region. He has stated as much himself. You 'try' to position him as a member of that Establishment when every single indication is that that establishment has been attacking him on a non-stop basis. That makes you statement 'untrue' not mine.


It's almost laughable you maintain that Left position when so many have dismissed it and are supporting him.


On the billionaire point you make, I agree. Still there are no shortage of individuals that are outside the usual machine and chaps like Sanders that might now see less barriers to a potential run. I'd agree that remains to be seen. It is a potential, however, that I take hope in. Any outsider is better than this septic collection we'd otherwise be stuck with.


I'd also agree Sanders is running with more grass root support, financially. Of course, Trump doesn't need it, so he's not going to get as much, either.

From a non American it appears that trump is being used by those pulling the strings in order to get Clinton into office.

Looking at the Republican nominations there is no personality or history. Clinton has this in abundance with all the dodgy dealings she has been implicated in.
Trump fits the bill in order to divide up support for the republicans and overshadow those such as Rubio and Cruz. With all that he is saying the media are having to pay attention (aldo his donations to tv company's also help...leaked letters of his cushy relationships say it all).
Therefore when he comes up against clinton she will look progressive and a saint compared to trump. He may have support but not the strategic support that Shillary has.

originally posted by: InMyShell
From a non American it appears that trump is being used by those pulling the strings in order to get Clinton into office.

Looking at the Republican nominations there is no personality or history. Clinton has this in abundance with all the dodgy dealings she has been implicated in.
Trump fits the bill in order to divide up support for the republicans and overshadow those such as Rubio and Cruz. With all that he is saying the media are having to pay attention (aldo his donations to tv company's also help...leaked letters of his cushy relationships say it all).
Therefore when he comes up against clinton she will look progressive and a saint compared to trump. He may have support but not the strategic support that Shillary has.

Cruz and Rubio would just be another Mitt Romney. They are largely unknown and both are boring.

Trump IS the only shot we have at defeating Hillary. He polls super well, he has a chance.

Trump and Sanders are the only two candidates worth supporting.
All the others are political robots who just want to serve the needs of the ones stuffing their pockets.
I feel like Trump and Sanders actually care about the well being of the country and the people in it.

a reply to: InMyShell


I'd add to the previous poster a couple other points. First, this theory has been floated for a while now.

Why would a billionaire, often labelled a narcissist, allow himself to be put in a position of shill or just being used? No logic in it whatsoever. He has plenty of money, is egotistical enough to never be someone else's butt boy.

As more individuals who have known him for extended periods come to light, without exception, he's being described a good guy. Despite efforts to the contrary.

Your point on 'history' is no longer valid, from what I can see. 'History' is now laden with failures to act as mandated or outright criminal activity. It has no weight in this election....

a reply to: nwtrucker

At first I was going to say that Trump flushed the politician's rule book down the toilet. But then it occurred to me that there is a lot more finesse to what Donald Trump is doing. I believe the following quote is more appropriate:

“Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.”
Bruce Lee

-dex

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Sanders is the only candidate that actually cares about the people. Trump is just eternally angry; and the people happen to be angry too. The only problem is;Trump and his supporters are angry for different reasons.

Trump is a billionaire, his supporters are not.

Trump outsource to China, his supporters hate that fact.

Trump hires illegal immigrants, his supporters want to put a stop to that.

The only common factor they have is anger and Donald knows that; that's how he uses the people so easily. He exploits your anger, by claiming he is just as angry as you about the same things, but it is false.

It's a waste pointing these things out though. When you are fooled by a con-man, you never see it until the end; especially on this level.

If by "catalyst" you mean the spark or reaction that begins the slow burn destruction, then yes.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
When I say unknown outside the N.Y. area, that's where his money and reputation was made. Politically, he had/s zero exposure outside the region and his views unknown.

Trump has weighed in on political issues for years. Since 2000 he has put out feelers to run during every single election, and I think he tried once before that too. Trump is the highest profile billionaire in the US and that's saying something considering we've turned all of them into celebrities.

I sure had zero idea about the man before his announced candidacy and that, I'm sure, holds true for most of his supporters outside his natural region. Beside, the comment was intended to place him in a similar position as those outside the
usual political exposure and money supply. Therefore his shtick is how he achieved his exposure, unlike previous outsiders of the machine.

Trump has been on both sides of every issue, he leans a bit more right this election cycle though. He's always been a pretty liberal guy, which is why I think a lot of his supporters will be upset if he wins. He is not currently running on the positions he would hold as President, which is why it makes it so hard to oppose him on policy.

a reply to: FelisOrion


Yes, yes Sanders cares for the people. A career politician. he's done wonders over these decades, hasn't he? Yeah, right.

Sorry, we've heard this song and dance before. He isn't believed by enough people. If his is honest, his own party is nuking him with super-delegates. If he is honest-and not just politically slick as I have him gauged- then his own party would stick it to him as a President.(Likely true for Trump as well, the difference being Trump has his own power-money- and has given every indicator of backing down to no one.

Sanders looks like a fill-in to give the impression of 'competition' that assures Hillary's nomination.

I will take a Trump-Hillary fight any day of the week.

a reply to: Aazadan


You make the same points it seems. Yes. Inside the N.Y. region and perhaps with those more attentive than the average citizen. But, over, I really had no interest in Trump, he's issues or political leanings until this evolution started.

I safely assume a similar state of affairs for most others, as well.

As far as his track record goes, I concur. I mitigate that with, 'so what'? It's were he's at now that is the priority.

I don't, didn't see rhetoric about Reagan having been a new-deal Democrat
that almost joined the Communist Party either.

Cruz has gone 'all in' backing Monsanto and that's going to cost him millions of supporters. Rubio is looking like a substitute 'also ran' filling in for Bush.

originally posted by: HoldMyBeer
If by "catalyst" you mean the spark or reaction that begins the slow burn destruction, then yes.

You know what? Perhaps a slow burn of destruction is better than this current state of affairs.

The flight of the Phoenix....

a reply to: FelisOrion

I can assure you that I am not fooled by any of these candidates.
Maybe it is you who has been fooled by the 'conman' media?
Or maybe you want to continue the cycle of corrupt politicians ruining your country and making it harder and harder to get by.
I admit that I do't know exactly what happens if Trump wins, but I honestly feel he is the best chance to break the cycle of abuse towards the middle class.
Time will tell I guess.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o


My sentiments, exactly. A chance, a hope....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
As far as his track record goes, I concur. I mitigate that with, 'so what'? It's were he's at now that is the priority.

I disagree. I think this logic is reasonable in the general election but in the primary candidates frequently lie and try to position themselves to extremes because being a moderate isn't a winning strategy. So the only way in which a candidate can truly be judged during this time in my opinion is historical precedent. Trump fails that test in my opinion, though I also think it's something that doesn't completely damn him because all that really matters is what he says in the general, in particular his campaign promises that bind him to governing in a particular fashion.

a reply to: Aazadan



Really? It worked for Reagan. (I say again).

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Really? It worked for Reagan. (I say again).

I have no response to that, history books are bad at recording primaries, particularly the feel of the campaign/day to day events and I'm too young to have experienced it. I'm not sure how much individual experience from those who did go through it can really judge it either because time alters perception of events.

a reply to: Aazadan


Agreed. History books are bad at recording beyond dates and casualty numbers.

I qualified the statement to myself in that Reagan did have a 'track record' with California and about the only thing I can see that would or even could be called 'conservative' was balancing Ca.'s budget.

Even that is mitigated by the fact the Democrat party had a large percentage of fiscal conservatives in their ranks, in the day, so even that is hard to call conservative....more like....sanity....LOL.

Rush tends to position Cruz as the 'closest' thing to a 'Reagan' we've seen. I'd argue that the phenomena of Trump and the response is far closer to Reagan than Cruz. (I thought Trump's comments on Rubio's departure was both accurate and kind.)

I do agree there's no measuring what Trump will do, if elected. The same can be argued for any of the candidates.

Off topic, but I begin to suspect that the end of the Republican Party, as we have known it, is upon us. It's either a brokered convention which kicks out Trump and supplants him with a Party choice candidate and that will result in a permanent split into a third party OR Trump prevails and the party goes with the flow, so to speak.


We shall see.