Donald Trump

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I'd agree with a lot of that. What I might be suggesting is more along the lines of putting something on the tracks, so that when the train meets it, it derails itself. Or flicking a signal switch so that it ends up in a siding. Neither of these require much momentum. Do the Democrats have anyone that has the ability to a) operate this way and b) fully exploit this through the media? I'm not so sure they do but it would sure be interesting to witness what would happen if they did. What might be fair to suggest is that the Clinton strategy of 'they go low, we go high' is not so great in a game whose rules appear to have changed. Be interesting to see what comes about in, and after, the mid-terms but yes It seems that the Dems may unwittingly be fuelling Trump's train and don't know what to do about it.

I think what works is a Democrat who can expose all of Trump's "manhood" as pathetically urban and New Yorkish. I guy who actually has one wife and cares about his 3 kids. A guy who actually hunts and fishes. A guy who grew up decidedly middle class -- the son of a teacher. A law-and-order former Attorney General. A guy who is a man's man but happens to be a Democrat. A blue who can get elected and is very well supported in a dark red state. Pro-choice but pro-coal. A guy whose broader focus besides running his state is on rooting out dark money contributions in politics.

Meaning Governor Steve Bullock of Montana.

 

[arfurclue]

I think what works is a Democrat who can expose all of Trump's "manhood" as pathetically urban and New Yorkish. I guy who actually has one wife and cares about his 3 kids. A guy who actually hunts and fishes. A guy who grew up decidedly middle class -- the son of a teacher. A law-and-order former Attorney General. A guy who is a man's man but happens to be a Democrat. A blue who can get elected and is very well supported in a dark red state. Pro-choice but pro-coal. A guy whose broader focus besides running his state is on rooting out dark money contributions in politics.

Meaning Governor Steve Bullock of Montana.

So like a guy that could help trip up Trump's image of 'manhood,' of 'being a winner,' of 'being a master,' of 'being non-elitist' - whilst coming across as the real deal himself?

 

[west didsblue]

So like a guy that could help trip up Trump's image of 'manhood,' of 'being a winner,' of 'being a master,' of 'being non-elitist' - whilst coming across as the real deal himself?

I think Stormy's already tripped up Trump's "manhood" image!

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So like a guy that could help trip up Trump's image of 'manhood,' of 'being a winner,' of 'being a master,' of 'being non-elitist' - whilst coming across as the real deal himself?

That's the thought. I think he'd greatly appeal to the mountain/midwest/non-urban heartland voter.

In a debate, I'd say to him -- "Tell you what, Mr. President -- let's go dove-shooting and have a contest. Whomever bags fewer birds walks away from the election." I'd be kidding, but it would underscore his weakness and my strength.

It echoes Patton and his "me and my tank vs Rommel and his would decide the fate of the war" schtick.

 

[arfurclue]

That's the thought. I think he'd greatly appeal to the mountain/midwest/non-urban heartland voter.

The thought that sprung to mind after writing that was 'less 'holier than thou' than Clinton and more 'grounded' than Trump.' Not anti-rich yet doesn't alienate the poor, type thing?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The thought that sprung to mind after writing that was 'less 'holier than thou' than Clinton and more 'grounded' than Trump.' Not anti-rich yet doesn't alienate the poor, type thing?

He's a middle class Montanan who made good. He didn't inherit anything from his dad or his spouse, unlike both Trump and Clinton. The point is he isn't any kind of "elite" and his regular life -- family, the outdoors -- is much like the average American's life (especially Trump supporters'). America wants a regular Joe, or an idealist. He isn't the latter, but he is the former.

 

[arfurclue]

He's a middle class Montanan who made good. He didn't inherit anything from his dad or his spouse, unlike both Trump and Clinton. The point is he isn't any kind of "elite" and his regular life -- family, the outdoors -- is much like the average American's life (especially Trump supporters'). America wants a regular Joe, or an idealist. He isn't the latter, but he is the former.

A President that could truly represent it's people - including those that reached high office and those that live life as 'regular Joe's?' Now there's a thought to behold. Especially if it's more than just a polished image. Like the sound of that myself.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

A President that could truly represent it's people - including those that reached high office and those that live life as 'regular Joe's?' Now there's a thought to behold. Especially if it's more than just a polished image. Like the sound of that myself.

Admittedly a pretty puffy piece -- but this is a good overview of the man:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-steve-bullock-2020_us_5b9979a1e4b0511db3e8ddd1

I forgot to note a fairly common-sense perspective on gun control ("common sense" in an American way I mean).

 

[arfurclue]

Yeah that's mostly nonsense. The one thing that I agree with though is that Trump is the parody of the average American.

Or that Trump is what some Americans think Americans are and should be. Brash, cocky, arrogant, forceful, outwardly successful, bombastic, patriotic, etc.

It's a bit Plato's caveish this, but Trump is the shadow of the American Dream. It's not the reality of what it was, just an darkened and slightly magnified version of it for people who aren't able to see the truth/substance/reality of the concept.

Like this a lot. Can i suggest that a lust for power is part of this shadow - a lust that brings with it a mentality of 'win at all costs?' 'Our policies might might fuck up the planet but who gives a shit - we got to own the libs and laugh at the snowflakes and that's what's important. We won!!!' Within this perhaps there might be a way of reacting that says 'I am above this win at alls cost thing - never known it within myself. Therefore, I am holier than thou and so should surely be elected, as I look down upon you plebs from my ivory towers.' Another option might be to acknowledge any lust within - and let go of it - so as to open to a power beyond this. A more 'grounded*' power perhaps - that brings a more balanced capitalism. And, to borrow/bastardise what you have written elsewhere, as each rises, so do all...no longer a need to piss on another's parade to 'prove' how much higher you are.

*if 'grounded' conjures up images of hippies, can I suggest that hippies might be those that have only a image of being connected with earth rather than knowing it?

 

[Damocles]

Can we stop with the euphemisms and call them what they are -- lies? "He lies and does not care that he lies, nor what the consequences are."

The reason he's been predicted to burn out in a fiery mess is that, historically, one can only lie so much before people stop believing you, and most people don't like nor trust people they believe lie frequently.

That this hasn't happened reveals a lot, as I have detailed often: the depth of the pain felt by the disenfranchised who support him, their desperation, the cognitive dissonance they are willing to overlook in order to feel some strength again, the weakness of their options, and the fact that some (some, I said) of his supporters are amoral, evil or uneducated.

It's not a euphemism. I'm not talking about the truth value of what he says, I'm talking about his rhetorical ability.

You seem to have already drawn many conclusions on Trump and Trump supporters. I'm not interested in drawing easy conclusions on such a wide and disparate group of people. I don't have the data and if I did then I'd be selling it for millions rather than posting about it on Bluemoon!