What did Trump tap into?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theel4life
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 171
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
Moving from a Democratic darling to a Democratic pariah because she went up against the leadership and their military industrial complex donors doesn't exactly scream opportunist to me.
The wingnut welfare state pays very well, and there are few roles as lucrative as "Democrat who saw the light". I guarantee she's making more money now than she ever has in her life and more than ever could have hope to as a Representative.
 
Moving from a Democratic darling to a Democratic pariah because she went up against the leadership and their military industrial complex donors doesn't exactly scream opportunist to me.

She is a military veteran, connects well with people, comes from a political family in Hawaii and was starting to make a national name for herself. If she was an opportunist, she would have kept her head down and almost certainly have been a senator and have an outside shot at the presidency. She gave all that up by pushing an anti-war or at least an anti-big war agenda.
Um, you skipped a few steps there. Her tension with the Democrats wasn't over anti-war. It was about her insistence that Obama label Islam an enemy of the United States. It was her friendship with Assad. It was her opposition to gay marriage. And all of that started bubbling up around the time Modi was elected in India, and we know she has a fondness for him. What happened was that she drank the Hindu nationalist kool-aid. It wasn't her positions against war.
 
Speaking directly to the OP question:
Trump tapped into the blatant racism which has always been in the hearts and minds of about 50% of the country.

The traditional Republican “base” has always been evangelicals, rich folks and large corporations, gun-lovers, gay-bashers and anti abortion radicals..
And the good old boy, garden variety, rebel flag waving racists.

But almost all of those rich, gun loving, gay/abortion hating evangelicals ARE ALSO RACISTS to a certain extent.

Trump tapped into the racist in all of them, and it started with his birtherism of Obama back in 2008. Had McCain won, or had Romney won in 2012, we wouldn’t be here right now, and neither would trump.
But McCain and Romney didn’t tap into the racist nature of half of Americans. Trump did it, got lucky in opposing a flawed Dem candidate in 2016 and the rest is history.

Nobody will ever convince me that all of this trumping maga nonsense doesn’t boil all the way down to simple racism
 
Speaking directly to the OP question:
Trump tapped into the blatant racism which has always been in the hearts and minds of about 50% of the country.

The traditional Republican “base” has always been evangelicals, rich folks and large corporations, gun-lovers, gay-bashers and anti abortion radicals..
And the good old boy, garden variety, rebel flag waving racists.

But almost all of those rich, gun loving, gay/abortion hating evangelicals ARE ALSO RACISTS to a certain extent.

Trump tapped into the racist in all of them, and it started with his birtherism of Obama back in 2008. Had McCain won, or had Romney won in 2012, we wouldn’t be here right now, and neither would trump.
But McCain and Romney didn’t tap into the racist nature of half of Americans. Trump did it, got lucky in opposing a flawed Dem candidate in 2016 and the rest is history.

Nobody will ever convince me that all of this trumping maga nonsense doesn’t boil all the way down to simple racism
All this with one exception. It's elitism. Racism is the primary and easiest manifestation to see but that's the same driver behind all the biases. It's inherent in the Protestant work ethic that defines a mindset honored by lukewarm or even nonbelievers.
 
I’ve asked some of my Pub friends who claim not to like Trump, but parrot all of his talking points and keep voting for him anyway, what it would take to vote for a Dem.

A couple have said they could get behind someone like Tulsi Gabbard. So someone who trashes other Dems, takes Pub positions against her own party, and is a Fox News darling. They don’t want a Dem…they want a Pub with a (D) beside her name to feel better about themselves by claiming they don’t like Trump.
Why is it a surprise that in order for a Republican to vote for a Democrat, the Democrat would have to be centrist like Manchin or Gabbard?

What if I turned that around on you. What would it take for you to vote Republican? I assume you would only consider voting for the most centrist Republicans like Cheney or Kinzinger or whoever else.

My point is, typically people vote for the candidate from their party and it would take an extenuating circumstance for them to vote across the aisle
 
Why is it a surprise that in order for a Republican to vote for a Democrat, the Democrat would have to be centrist like Manchin or Gabbard?

What if I turned that around on you. What would it take for you to vote Republican? I assume you would only consider voting for the most centrist Republicans like Cheney or Kinzinger or whoever else.

My point is, typically people vote for the candidate from their party and it would take an extenuating circumstance for them to vote across the aisle
1. Manchin is something resembling a centrist. Gabbard is a bought-and-paid Russian asset.

2. Liz Cheney is literally about as conservative as it gets. She hates fascism, which is why she's adamantly opposing Trump, but she's a true died-in-the-wool conservative.

What in the bloody hell are you, if you think of Gabbard as a centrist Democrat and Liz Cheney as a centrist Republican?
 
1. Manchin is something resembling a centrist. Gabbard is a bought-and-paid Russian asset.

2. Liz Cheney is literally about as conservative as it gets. She hates fascism, which is why she's adamantly opposing Trump, but she's a true died-in-the-wool conservative.

What in the bloody hell are you, if you think of Gabbard as a centrist Democrat and Liz Cheney as a centrist Republican?
Gabbard and Cheney are labeled that way because neither of them is afraid to call their own party out publicly. So they take a lot of criticism from their own side of the aisle and are high-profile in that sense.

I mostly agree with you that Cheney is conservative (despite her significant TDS), so I’ll concede that you’re right about her. But Gabbard is definitely still left of center, IMO.
 
Right. And therein lies the problem. For decades, democrats got criticized for being the dove party. Republicans are still the pro-military party, and folks in the military tend to run conservative. And yet, gtyellowjacket is claiming that too much military funding is, somehow, a reason that people are leaving the democrat party and voting for Trump. What in the ever-loving fuck?
 
Why is it a surprise that in order for a Republican to vote for a Democrat, the Democrat would have to be centrist like Manchin or Gabbard?

What if I turned that around on you. What would it take for you to vote Republican? I assume you would only consider voting for the most centrist Republicans like Cheney or Kinzinger or whoever else.

My point is, typically people vote for the candidate from their party and it would take an extenuating circumstance for them to vote across the aisle
It’s more akin to saying “I’d vote for a Republican for president if they nominated Pete Buttigieg.”

Gabbard and Manchin are right-wingers, full stop. Same as Kinzinger and Cheney.
 
Think about the absurdity of this comment - particularly in an era where republicans are claiming that dems are soft on state supported terrorism (see Israel vs Hamas):

Tulsi Gabbard: "When it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk, [but] when it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove."

Neat soundbyte.

Now tell me what war, in the 21st century, that the US got involved in - is about regime change, but not about terrorism?
 
It’s more akin to saying “I’d vote for a Republican for president if they nominated Pete Buttigieg.”

Gabbard and Manchin are right-wingers, full stop. Same as Kinzinger and Cheney.
I’ve told you this before but you have a very warped view of where people sit on the spectrum. Likely because you are admittedly so far left.

Joe Manchin is about as moderate as it gets in American politics.
 
It’s more akin to saying “I’d vote for a Republican for president if they nominated Pete Buttigieg.”

Gabbard and Manchin are right-wingers, full stop. Same as Kinzinger and Cheney.
Gabbard is and, then again, she also isn’t. Like Jill Stein, she is whoever, and whatever, the Russians need her to be.
 
Have you thought that you view him as a moderate due you your own warped view of the political spectrum?
Yeah I’ve thought about it. But then I remembered he’s a Democrat and was always the swing vote in a 50/50 Senate or whatever it was when he had so much power - evidence that he’s right in the dead center of American politics.
 
Yeah I’ve thought about it. But then I remembered he’s a Democrat and was always the swing vote in a 50/50 Senate or whatever it was when he had so much power - evidence that he’s right in the dead center of American politics.
Now, saying he’s right in the middle of American politics is closer to the truth, but I’m of the belief that Manchin (and Gabbard) are right-wing even for American politics.

Taking any sort of wider perspective reveals that Manchin is decidedly right-wing. Not sure I follow how being a tie breaking vote in a 50/50 Senate makes anyone more or less moderate.

He has his own ideological goals, none of which are left wing.
 
Think about the absurdity of this comment - particularly in an era where republicans are claiming that dems are soft on state supported terrorism (see Israel vs Hamas):

Tulsi Gabbard: "When it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk, [but] when it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove."

Neat soundbyte.

Now tell me what war, in the 21st century, that the US got involved in - is about regime change, but not about terrorism?
2nd Iraq war. Afghanistan for the 15 or so years after Al Qaeda was neutered there.
 
Gabbard is and, then again, she also isn’t. Like Jill Stein, she is whoever, and whatever, the Russians need her to be.
I think anyone who is committed to an ideology of religious extremism is pretty right wing. That was always her, even when she was a Dem in Congress.

She did an alright job of hiding it by pretending to be in favor of left wing causes. We now see that all of that has gone out the window, but her religious extremism has remained at the core of her ideology.
 
Back
Top