I can't see Trump as any personification of order personally. Not in political terms as he's such a completely different kettle of fish from anybody else who precedes him. I tend to believe that populism is driven by that disenfranchisement added to literally anybody saying something different. It's not a complexity issue for me; I mean, lots of Trump's policies are complex and require shades of grey and lots of Clinton's policies were overly simplistic crap designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of her base. That type of diversity in complexity is natural for every politician just because they have to have policies on almost every issue imaginable and you can't have well considered opinions on everything.
Oh I understand that blood in the streets is still a possibility and I imagine that gun banning would be a red line for many Americans. But the point is that years previously, historically, we'd already be at that point. People think we're pretty intolerant of each other's opinions now but we're the most tolerant that our species has ever been in the recorded history of our species and our red lines are further away from the centre than anybody else ever.
I think what you said in a later post is where we agree but we've crossed wires. I've referred to Trump as chaotic because he's different from the norm of politicians and that's what people want and where Bernie can succeed. You seem to have interpreted it as his message being chaotic and I'd agree that his message is overall simple and linear.
I get the feeling that we'd argue about this but looking at previous videos of Trump, he could be as wordy and thoughtful as the next person. He was a long term Democrat and seemed to enjoy debates. He has adapted his style since then to be much more boiled down, easier for headlines and tweets. It would be pretty cheeky to call it a "just the facts" approach but you know what I'm getting at; he presents distilled politics in an easily digestible format. That's in message but not presentation.
Where he stands out rhetorically is in his delivery, which is absolutely top notch, untouchable compared to anything I've seen outside of The Rock in WWE. He has a way of endearing pseudo-cynicism with a hint of humour and self deprecation which is incredibly charismatic. I genuinely believe that Trump is one of the few, like Obama and Clinton before him, who can pretty much drag his audience to wherever he needs them to go because they connect to his oratory style so fervently. He's got that Piers Morgan like ability to say things that can be viewed simultaneously as perfectly serious but tongue in cheek. Humour with a hint of self deprecation is a highly effective way of disarming an audience and Trump's got it down to a science. He's a natural in front of his audience rallies and it's no surprise that this seems to me where he's the most comfortable, the most open and has the most fun. It's why he pulls crowds and got a large amount of people voting for him. It's also why the more coverage he gets whether negative or not, the more voters he'll get around.
Trump is a political virus. He feeds off the exposure to others. The only way for the Dems to beat him in a one on one is to get someone who can stand up to him in that type of environment, which for me is Sanders because pretty much everybody else has been rocked fairly easily, or by starving him of oxygen and not covering every word that he says and showing tons of speeches that he does.
I cannot imagine American society picking the second one so it's got to be the first.
Well, before I recall you told us before that he's "just a politician like any other, just a bit more of a c**t!"
Incidentally re: "the more voters hell get around him" the more coverage he gets -- interestingly, the mainstream press -- even Fox -- isn't covering his rallies the way they used to, because the the prose ex-the delivery that's quoted later gets more clicks and views.
I think this is where the disconnect lies -- when you separate his style from what he actually says, by quoting him in print as opposed to listening to him -- the message is often appalling morally, or an outright forgery of the truth. Isn't best when the governor is both charismatic AND reasonably truthful? Don't the governed actually deserve that?
Apparently, some don't care, to your point: a lovely quote from one of his supporters at the Cruz rally today -- "It doesn't really matter what he says, we'll support it." How do you defeat that? It's a Terminator. You're a computer guy right? No wonder you stand back in admiration! :)
You are trying to explain why those who follow him do so. I already get that I think. What he is doing may be unlike any politician you've ever seen, but his rhetorical style is very much like countless evangelical television preachers I have seen over and over on TV here. I don't know if you are familiar with the ilk as we are, but I can marvel at their fluid prose and at the same time be angered and repulsed by their greed, by the brazen amorality that enables them to fleece the desperate and adoring, all while wearing the cloak of religion.
I see this as no different. It's just a political cloak. And it is telling you've compared him to The Rock -- whose prose is, like Trump's, part of an act (Trump was on WWE too as you know) -- and not Kennedy or Theodore Roosevelt or even Ronald Reagan. Ironically, maybe the Rock runs for President -- there's certainly been chatter about it. That would be perfect. Who would you vote for then once you've paid to do so?
The only wrestler I'd ever vote for would be Kevin Nash, personally.
