-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 06, 2019, 09:59:34 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Summer of Trump
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Summer of Trump  (Read 12723 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 03, 2016, 05:22:34 AM »

It's interesting that in, say, the 1930s or 1940s America or indeed just about most places in the developed world now, Bernie Sanders would be considered to be a moderate. But because the left in the US has been disenfranchised, marginalized, silenced, and essentially barred from political power, Sanders gets called (and even wrongly calls himself!) a socialist. In fact, he merely represents the policies that were espoused by New Deal Democrats - policies that largely prevented disaster in the country, created a middle class, and established a system of historically unparalleled development. I'm not saying there weren't a lot of things wrong with it but that's what it was and in those days the New Deal Democrats were challenged by an actual leftist movement, with whose ideologies Bernie Sanders has very little in common.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 03, 2016, 05:34:50 AM »

It's interesting that in, say, the 1930s or 1940s America or indeed just about most places in the developed world now, Bernie Sanders would be considered to be a moderate. But because the left in the US has been disenfranchised, marginalized, silenced, and essentially barred from political power, Sanders gets called (and even wrongly calls himself!) a socialist. In fact, he merely represents the policies that were espoused by New Deal Democrats - policies that largely prevented disaster in the country, created a middle class, and established a system of historically unparalleled development. I'm not saying there weren't a lot of things wrong with it but that's what it was and in those days the New Deal Democrats were challenged by an actual leftist movement, with whose ideologies Bernie Sanders has very little in common.
CSM - you have a very nuanced break-down of the ideology.  Bravo.

But, I think this election cycle, both Sanders and Trump are tapping into this general frustration and rage, that Americans feel with their government being unresponsive to what the people want.  And the double standard for enforcement of laws against government officials.  They are tired of the good-old-boys (and girls) networks and it has been building for the last number of years.  And these are both what I would consider grass-roots candidacies. 

The GOP is in a melt-down mode, some claiming they will vote Democrat before they will vote for Trump.

Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 03, 2016, 06:42:05 AM »

It's interesting that in, say, the 1930s or 1940s America or indeed just about most places in the developed world now, Bernie Sanders would be considered to be a moderate. But because the left in the US has been disenfranchised, marginalized, silenced, and essentially barred from political power, Sanders gets called (and even wrongly calls himself!) a socialist. In fact, he merely represents the policies that were espoused by New Deal Democrats - policies that largely prevented disaster in the country, created a middle class, and established a system of historically unparalleled development. I'm not saying there weren't a lot of things wrong with it but that's what it was and in those days the New Deal Democrats were challenged by an actual leftist movement, with whose ideologies Bernie Sanders has very little in common.
CSM - you have a very nuanced break-down of the ideology.  Bravo.

But, I think this election cycle, both Sanders and Trump are tapping into this general frustration and rage, that Americans feel with their government being unresponsive to what the people want.  And the double standard for enforcement of laws against government officials.  They are tired of the good-old-boys (and girls) networks and it has been building for the last number of years.  And these are both what I would consider grass-roots candidacies.  

The GOP is in a melt-down mode, some claiming they will vote Democrat before they will vote for Trump.



I agree with a great deal of this. The only point that I might depart from is your assertion that both Sanders and Trump are grass-roots candidacies. Sanders, while representing a good amount of grass-roots concerns, has been part of the political class for about 25 years. Trump, while not a career politician, was born into a life of luxury and has spent a good amount of his adult life as a member of the country's elite ownership class and he, therefore, espouses the same values and ideologies of most members of the political class. I think that the GOP opposes him not so much because he differs from them but, rather, because he could ultimately destroy the party.

In a genuinely democratic system you would see people like farmers and labour organizers running for President and having the capacity to win elections.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 06:50:02 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2016, 06:53:51 AM »

It's interesting that in, say, the 1930s or 1940s America or indeed just about most places in the developed world now, Bernie Sanders would be considered to be a moderate. But because the left in the US has been disenfranchised, marginalized, silenced, and essentially barred from political power, Sanders gets called (and even wrongly calls himself!) a socialist. In fact, he merely represents the policies that were espoused by New Deal Democrats - policies that largely prevented disaster in the country, created a middle class, and established a system of historically unparalleled development. I'm not saying there weren't a lot of things wrong with it but that's what it was and in those days the New Deal Democrats were challenged by an actual leftist movement, with whose ideologies Bernie Sanders has very little in common.
CSM - you have a very nuanced break-down of the ideology.  Bravo.

But, I think this election cycle, both Sanders and Trump are tapping into this general frustration and rage, that Americans feel with their government being unresponsive to what the people want.  And the double standard for enforcement of laws against government officials.  They are tired of the good-old-boys (and girls) networks and it has been building for the last number of years.  And these are both what I would consider grass-roots candidacies.  

The GOP is in a melt-down mode, some claiming they will vote Democrat before they will vote for Trump.
I agree with a great deal of this. The only point that I might depart from is your assertion that both Sanders and Trump are grass-roots candidacies. Sanders, while representing a good amount of grass-roots concerns, has been part of the political class for about 25 years. Trump, while not a career politician, was born into a life of luxury and has spent a good amount of his adult life as a member of the country's elite ownership class and he, therefore, espouses the same values and ideologies of most members of the political class. I think that the GOP opposes him not so much because he differs from them but, rather, because he could ultimately destroy the party.
CSM - by "grass roots" I mean those who are disenfranchised within their own parties who are looking, outside their party affiliations to find a candidate, who is more in line with personal ideology.  And the attempt to create a new political model from the "grassroots up."  

Trump, in self-funding is creating a new model, that is unheard of and which has created fear for mainstream lobbying hacks and PACS, is more like a purge.   And for Sanders, as well with the Demmies.

The grassroots thing has nothing to do with born into relative wealth.  It is more the bottom-up movement for change for responsiveness in government. Even if it is funded from the top-down, it resonates with citizens who feel ignored by government.

But, I am getting very annoyed with this education-shaming being attributed to Trump supporters. It is just a distractor and a mistake.  Even persons with low literacy level can become quite informed by listening to and watching varied media.  Everyone learns differently and it is offensive.      Wink
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 06:55:13 AM by filledeplage » Logged
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2016, 07:01:22 AM »

Cool
As a Brit observer, can I just say that anyone who votes for Trump is a complete moron - period.

If my choice is between Trump and Bernie Sanders, then call me Mr. Moron.  


That's like choosing Mike over Brian in terms of artistic credibility IMO.

I'm with you on this...


+1

Comparing Bernie Sanders to Brian Wilson, even in an exaggerated analogy is downright laughable.  

Let's face it, every candidate is full of sh*t.  The only one that I think really had any credibility was Ben Carson (even if his religious beliefs rubbed me the wrong way) , and he just dropped out.  



Okay, care to explain why Sanders - a man who has always been consistent with his views - is full of sh*t?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 07:02:51 AM by Come And See Her..... » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2016, 07:04:31 AM »

The whole angry vibe around trump's campaign against non-supporters is most concerning. Plus what little has leaked about actual policy is far right big government plans.
Logged

And production aside, Id so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2016, 07:04:59 AM »

I think you may be using a definition of grassroots that I have never encountered before except for when you call it a "bottom-up movement." But surely Trump does not come from the bottom since he resides amongst the top tier of society, even higher up than most politicians. As a top-tier member of the ownership class, Trump, in fact, represents the class of society who have really been in power over the last five decades or so. So if people are upset about American life right now, and they should be, they should be aiming their criticisms far more towards people like Trump. It's a true testament to the power of propaganda that people feel that the ownership class (they people who have already been structuring society for decades) can get us out of the mess that we are in.

I agree with your point that "persons with low literacy level can become quite informed by listening to and watching varied media" just as I believe that many people regardless of their literacy level can become grossly misinformed by listening to and watching varied media.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2016, 07:11:26 AM »

Cool
As a Brit observer, can I just say that anyone who votes for Trump is a complete moron - period.

If my choice is between Trump and Bernie Sanders, then call me Mr. Moron.  


That's like choosing Mike over Brian in terms of artistic credibility IMO.

I'm with you on this...


+1

Comparing Bernie Sanders to Brian Wilson, even in an exaggerated analogy is downright laughable.  

Let's face it, every candidate is full of sh*t.  The only one that I think really had any credibility was Ben Carson (even if his religious beliefs rubbed me the wrong way) , and he just dropped out.  



Okay, care to explain why Sanders - a man who has always been consistent with his views - is full of sh*t?

He supports government handouts and the anti police BLM movement. 

I know I shouldn't voice my political views in the Sandbox as my views tend to lean more to the right than to the left. 
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2016, 07:13:06 AM »

I think you may be using a definition of grassroots that I have never encountered before except for when you call it a "bottom-up movement." But surely Trump does not come from the bottom since he resides amongst the top tier of society, even higher up than most politicians. As a top-tier member of the ownership class, Trump, in fact, represents the class of society who have really been in power over the last five decades or so. So if people are upset about American life right now, and they should be, they should be aiming their criticisms far more towards people like Trump. It's a true testament to the power of propaganda that people feel that the ownership class (they people who have already been structuring society for decades) can get us out of the mess that we are in.

I agree with your point that "persons with low literacy level can become quite informed by listening to and watching varied media" just as I believe that many people regardless of their literacy level can become grossly misinformed by listening to and watching varied media.
Trump is part of the problem, just he is try to run for president instead of buying one this time....
Logged

And production aside, Id so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2016, 07:15:11 AM »

He supports government handouts and the anti police BLM movement. 

Personally I'm glad he supports the BLM movement. But apart from that, wouldn't you say that rather than supporting government handouts that he is supporting policies that address the inherent inequalities in an unfettered capitalist system?

Quote
I know I shouldn't voice my political views in the Sandbox as my views tend to lean more to the right than to the left. 

I don't see why. Many people in the Sandbox express right-wing views.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2016, 07:16:02 AM »

I think you may be using a definition of grassroots that I have never encountered before except for when you call it a "bottom-up movement." But surely Trump does not come from the bottom since he resides amongst the top tier of society, even higher up than most politicians. As a top-tier member of the ownership class, Trump, in fact, represents the class of society who have really been in power over the last five decades or so. So if people are upset about American life right now, and they should be, they should be aiming their criticisms far more towards people like Trump. It's a true testament to the power of propaganda that people feel that the ownership class (they people who have already been structuring society for decades) can get us out of the mess that we are in.

I agree with your point that "persons with low literacy level can become quite informed by listening to and watching varied media" just as I believe that many people regardless of their literacy level can become grossly misinformed by listening to and watching varied media.
Trump is part of the problem, just he is try to run for president instead of buying one this time....

Exactly what I was thinking. He's effectively cutting out the middle man.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2016, 07:20:28 AM »

I think you may be using a definition of grassroots that I have never encountered before except for when you call it a "bottom-up movement." But surely Trump does not come from the bottom since he resides amongst the top tier of society, even higher up than most politicians. As a top-tier member of the ownership class, Trump, in fact, represents the class of society who have really been in power over the last five decades or so. So if people are upset about American life right now, and they should be, they should be aiming their criticisms far more towards people like Trump. It's a true testament to the power of propaganda that people feel that the ownership class (they people who have already been structuring society for decades) can get us out of the mess that we are in.

I agree with your point that "persons with low literacy level can become quite informed by listening to and watching varied media" just as I believe that many people regardless of their literacy level can become grossly misinformed by listening to and watching varied media.
CSM - It is the "bottom-up" and the "unscripted" (never mind unfiltered) by the now-requisite PR firms that are running politics.  This came about in the late 80s when PR firms carved out a niche market in politics.  Trump is not reading a speech.  I noticed he is dialing-it-back from the Super Tuesday speech the other night.

So, for the last 30 or so years candidates are PR-mangaged rather than emanating from what was known as "the kitchen cabinet" in politics, generally very close friends or family who would manage campaigns (who else would put in that time for nothing?)

It is more the nature of being unscripted or belonging to a political-class.  And, yes, often those who have numerous degrees are the ones who don't get it.

But it is changing the political landscape and I have never seen an election cycle with more participation.  The voter turnouts are getting very high, after years of apathy. That cannot be a bad thing,  Wink  
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2016, 07:21:20 AM »

Yes, I'm sure Sanders will go in and correct up the inequities of Capitalism.  

The BLM movement should receive zero support.  This is the same movement that caused millions in property damage in Baltimore last Spring.  Rather than fight racism, they fan the flames.  They support thugs like Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  And they're anti-police.  

No candidate that shows even the smallest amount of support for this movement will ever get my vote, be they Republican, Democrat, or etc.  


  
Logged
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2016, 07:27:02 AM »

Yes, I'm sure Sanders will go in and correct up the inequities of Capitalism.  

The BLM movement should receive zero support.  This is the same movement that caused millions in property damage in Baltimore last Spring.  Rather than fight racism, they fan the flames.  They support thugs like Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  And they're anti-police.  

No candidate that shows even the smallest amount of support for this movement will ever get my vote, be they Republican, Democrat, or etc.  


  

The BLM movement is a consequence of the constant unlawful killings committed by the police, particularly towards African-Americans. That to me is indefensible, at least when there's overwhelming proof that the cops killed someone out of hand
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2016, 07:28:40 AM »

CSM - It is the "bottom-up" and the "unscripted" (never mind unfiltered) by the now-requisite PR firms that are running politics.  This came about in the late 80s when PR firms carved out a niche market in politics.  Trump is not reading a speech.  I noticed he is dialing-it-back from the Super Tuesday speech the other night.

So, for the last 30 or so years candidates are PR-mangaged rather than emanating from what was known as "the kitchen cabinet" in politics, generally very close friends or family who would manage campaigns (who else would put in that time for nothing?)

It is more the nature of being unscripted or belonging to a political-class.  And, yes, often those who have numerous degrees are the ones who don't get it.

But it is changing the political landscape and I have never seen an election cycle with more participation.  The voter turnouts are getting very high, after years of apathy. That cannot be a bad thing,  Wink  

I agree with you completely that PR has played an insidious role in American politics over the last 30 years or so. But that's largely because the President is mostly a product that is being sold by the elite members of the ownership class. The PR issue is merely part of a larger problem which is that American life is being controlled by an extraordinarily small but powerful slice of the population. Trump does not change that at all - he exemplifies it. The fact that he is running his own PR campaign is not surprising. Like I said above, he's effectively cutting out the middle man.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2016, 07:31:26 AM »

Yes, I'm sure Sanders will go in and correct up the inequities of Capitalism.  

Unfortunately no President alone could correct the inequalities of capitalism. That being said, there are plenty of ways to ease up some of the inequalities - it has been done plenty of times quite successfully.

Quote
The BLM movement should receive zero support.  This is the same movement that caused millions in property damage in Baltimore last Spring.  Rather than fight racism, they fan the flames.  They support thugs like Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  And they're anti-police.  

I don't support rioting and violence no matter who is carrying it out. That said, if you actively and purposefully repress a particular segment of the population, often by coercive violence, it's going to have results like that. You can't keep someone's neck under your boot for decades and then cry foul when they start punching at your legs.
Logged
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2016, 08:08:13 AM »

The BLM movement should receive zero support.  This is the same movement that caused millions in property damage in Baltimore last Spring.  Rather than fight racism, they fan the flames.  They support thugs like Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  And they're anti-police.  

No candidate that shows even the smallest amount of support for this movement will ever get my vote, be they Republican, Democrat, or etc.  

These people don't want an end to racism any more than conservatives want an end to abortion. How could they continue receiving political points if their whole reason to exist is predicated on a boogeyman?

If people really wanted racism to end they'd stop talking about it. Racism is not based in any scientific fact. And good on the ol' BLM losers for making one of the more racially tolerant generations (millennials) question their own tolerance. BLM are agent provocateurs, not civil rights activists. Black Americans already have civil rights; white criminals don't speak for white Americans, therefore black criminals shouldn't speak for black Americans. Sometimes a black guy committing a crime is just that - a black guy committing a crime. There's nothing to overcome anymore. They're "equal" under the law. Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of results - the sooner people who can't see past the color of their own skin realize that, maybe they'll stop disrupting productive Western society and become productive themselves. Fat chance, but racists of all colors were never known for their determination beyond their desire to blame others for their own failures.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2016, 08:23:57 AM »

If people really wanted racism to end they'd stop talking about it.

There were many years were there was very little open discussion about racism: the age of rampant racism. The only reason why we are a more tolerant generation is thanks to dutiful efforts by activists who brought these issues to the forefront and that involved a tremendous amount of communication. I have no doubt that many racists or misogynists or what-have-you from days-gone-by would have expressed the sentiment that things would have been much better if these up-starts just kept silent. The difference now though is you have a whole generation of people who are unaware of the tremendous effort it took to get to the stage that we are at now and therefore unknowingly offer as a solution the kind of society that kept these social groups disenfranchised in the first place.

Quote
white criminals don't speak for white Americans, therefore black criminals shouldn't speak for black Americans

The difference is that America is actively invested in creating black criminals in a way that they are not invested in creating white criminals. So the analogy doesn't hold, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 11:04:03 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2016, 08:26:33 AM »

Yes, I'm sure Sanders will go in and correct up the inequities of Capitalism.  

The BLM movement should receive zero support.  This is the same movement that caused millions in property damage in Baltimore last Spring.  Rather than fight racism, they fan the flames.  They support thugs like Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  And they're anti-police.  

No candidate that shows even the smallest amount of support for this movement will ever get my vote, be they Republican, Democrat, or etc.  


  

The BLM movement is a consequence of the constant unlawful killings committed by the police, particularly towards African-Americans. That to me is indefensible, at least when there's overwhelming proof that the cops killed someone out of hand

I've not seen such proof that the police acted unlawfully in most of these cases. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2016, 10:52:00 AM »

The BLM movement should receive zero support.  This is the same movement that caused millions in property damage in Baltimore last Spring.  Rather than fight racism, they fan the flames.  They support thugs like Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  And they're anti-police.  

No candidate that shows even the smallest amount of support for this movement will ever get my vote, be they Republican, Democrat, or etc.  

These people don't want an end to racism any more than conservatives want an end to abortion. How could they continue receiving political points if their whole reason to exist is predicated on a boogeyman?

If people really wanted racism to end they'd stop talking about it. Racism is not based in any scientific fact. And good on the ol' BLM losers for making one of the more racially tolerant generations (millennials) question their own tolerance. BLM are agent provocateurs, not civil rights activists. Black Americans already have civil rights; white criminals don't speak for white Americans, therefore black criminals shouldn't speak for black Americans. Sometimes a black guy committing a crime is just that - a black guy committing a crime. There's nothing to overcome anymore. They're "equal" under the law. Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of results - the sooner people who can't see past the color of their own skin realize that, maybe they'll stop disrupting productive Western society and become productive themselves. Fat chance, but racists of all colors were never known for their determination beyond their desire to blame others for their own failures.
TRBB, I'm trying to figure out what you actually consider to be reality. Do you think that if people stopped talking about racism it would cease to exist? If so, do you think it was initially caused by people talking about it?
History is full of groups of people depicting other groups of people in dehumanizing ways, and it's very easy to see why: it's a lot easier to war against an enemy that you don't have empathy for. So whether it's Irish v. English, Germans v. Poles, US v. USSR, US v. Japan and on and on... there's a link of the tendency of humans to point out the good qualities of themselves and highlight the bad of the "other" whatever the other may be. And I think a lot of racism falls into this category of thinking. And I hear humans doing it in one form or another virtually every day.
I can't imagine how one could believe eradicating it is as simple as not discussing it.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2016, 04:28:30 AM »

CSM - It is the "bottom-up" and the "unscripted" (never mind unfiltered) by the now-requisite PR firms that are running politics.  This came about in the late 80s when PR firms carved out a niche market in politics.  Trump is not reading a speech.  I noticed he is dialing-it-back from the Super Tuesday speech the other night.

So, for the last 30 or so years candidates are PR-mangaged rather than emanating from what was known as "the kitchen cabinet" in politics, generally very close friends or family who would manage campaigns (who else would put in that time for nothing?)

It is more the nature of being unscripted or belonging to a political-class.  And, yes, often those who have numerous degrees are the ones who don't get it.

But it is changing the political landscape and I have never seen an election cycle with more participation.  The voter turnouts are getting very high, after years of apathy. That cannot be a bad thing,  Wink  

I agree with you completely that PR has played an insidious role in American politics over the last 30 years or so. But that's largely because the President is mostly a product that is being sold by the elite members of the ownership class. The PR issue is merely part of a larger problem which is that American life is being controlled by an extraordinarily small but powerful slice of the population. Trump does not change that at all - he exemplifies it. The fact that he is running his own PR campaign is not surprising. Like I said above, he's effectively cutting out the middle man.
CSM -  The thing that is not being looked at is the non-obvious.  The PR are the feeder system for the lobbyists.  So, from the bottom up of the campaign, there is the middle man who is also the gateway to the inbred kind of corruption that comes with this industry. The system has gone from lobbyists having to ingratiate themselves with the elected officials and work-for-access, to one, where via the PR sphere, it is part of the electoral process, because it is sort of a crossover industry.  

The PR people are the ones who run the ground-game, instead of the mostly volunteer model that did the hiring ad hoc of media ads, and learning the process as part of being a candidate.  There is a "middle man" (doing the PR and event coordination) for sure, with Trump but it is less obvious and more like the old-style ground game of getting out the vote, and local stand-out events, and local debates.  

If nothing else comes from this purge with both major parties, cutting some of this PR stuff out would be a major benefit in my book.  People are sick and tired of a PR packaged-script that represents the special interests and not the will of the people.   Wink      
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 04:57:36 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2016, 06:16:42 AM »

CSM - It is the "bottom-up" and the "unscripted" (never mind unfiltered) by the now-requisite PR firms that are running politics.  This came about in the late 80s when PR firms carved out a niche market in politics.  Trump is not reading a speech.  I noticed he is dialing-it-back from the Super Tuesday speech the other night.

So, for the last 30 or so years candidates are PR-mangaged rather than emanating from what was known as "the kitchen cabinet" in politics, generally very close friends or family who would manage campaigns (who else would put in that time for nothing?)

It is more the nature of being unscripted or belonging to a political-class.  And, yes, often those who have numerous degrees are the ones who don't get it.

But it is changing the political landscape and I have never seen an election cycle with more participation.  The voter turnouts are getting very high, after years of apathy. That cannot be a bad thing,  Wink  

I agree with you completely that PR has played an insidious role in American politics over the last 30 years or so. But that's largely because the President is mostly a product that is being sold by the elite members of the ownership class. The PR issue is merely part of a larger problem which is that American life is being controlled by an extraordinarily small but powerful slice of the population. Trump does not change that at all - he exemplifies it. The fact that he is running his own PR campaign is not surprising. Like I said above, he's effectively cutting out the middle man.
CSM -  The thing that is not being looked at is the non-obvious.  The PR are the feeder system for the lobbyists.  So, from the bottom up of the campaign, there is the middle man who is also the gateway to the inbred kind of corruption that comes with this industry. The system has gone from lobbyists having to ingratiate themselves with the elected officials and work-for-access, to one, where via the PR sphere, it is part of the electoral process, because it is sort of a crossover industry.  

The PR people are the ones who run the ground-game, instead of the mostly volunteer model that did the hiring ad hoc of media ads, and learning the process as part of being a candidate.  There is a "middle man" (doing the PR and event coordination) for sure, with Trump but it is less obvious and more like the old-style ground game of getting out the vote, and local stand-out events, and local debates.  

If nothing else comes from this purge with both major parties, cutting some of this PR stuff out would be a major benefit in my book.  People are sick and tired of a PR packaged-script that represents the special interests and not the will of the people.   Wink      

I agree with a lot of that. All I will add is that I think the most significant problem is that everything is being controlled by a small elite percentage of the population, including what happens in the political sphere. The issues that you mention are indeed part of that but they are part of this much larger problem. With that in mind, Trump perpetuates this problem. While I agree that people are sick not only of "a PR packaged-script that represents the special interests and not the will of the people" but of a whole system that represents special interests (in this case, the interests of the small elite sectors of society), I would also say that Trump is precisely the sort of candidate who represents these special interests. To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard Trump say anything all that different from what now constitutes mainstream political thought. Maybe he says it in a way that's a bit more entertaining and therefore people like it more. But for the most part he's just echoing status quo opinion.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2016, 06:51:40 AM »

CSM - It is the "bottom-up" and the "unscripted" (never mind unfiltered) by the now-requisite PR firms that are running politics.  This came about in the late 80s when PR firms carved out a niche market in politics.  Trump is not reading a speech.  I noticed he is dialing-it-back from the Super Tuesday speech the other night.

So, for the last 30 or so years candidates are PR-mangaged rather than emanating from what was known as "the kitchen cabinet" in politics, generally very close friends or family who would manage campaigns (who else would put in that time for nothing?)

It is more the nature of being unscripted or belonging to a political-class.  And, yes, often those who have numerous degrees are the ones who don't get it.

But it is changing the political landscape and I have never seen an election cycle with more participation.  The voter turnouts are getting very high, after years of apathy. That cannot be a bad thing,  Wink  

I agree with you completely that PR has played an insidious role in American politics over the last 30 years or so. But that's largely because the President is mostly a product that is being sold by the elite members of the ownership class. The PR issue is merely part of a larger problem which is that American life is being controlled by an extraordinarily small but powerful slice of the population. Trump does not change that at all - he exemplifies it. The fact that he is running his own PR campaign is not surprising. Like I said above, he's effectively cutting out the middle man.
CSM -  The thing that is not being looked at is the non-obvious.  The PR are the feeder system for the lobbyists.  So, from the bottom up of the campaign, there is the middle man who is also the gateway to the inbred kind of corruption that comes with this industry. The system has gone from lobbyists having to ingratiate themselves with the elected officials and work-for-access, to one, where via the PR sphere, it is part of the electoral process, because it is sort of a crossover industry.  

The PR people are the ones who run the ground-game, instead of the mostly volunteer model that did the hiring ad hoc of media ads, and learning the process as part of being a candidate.  There is a "middle man" (doing the PR and event coordination) for sure, with Trump but it is less obvious and more like the old-style ground game of getting out the vote, and local stand-out events, and local debates.  

If nothing else comes from this purge with both major parties, cutting some of this PR stuff out would be a major benefit in my book.  People are sick and tired of a PR packaged-script that represents the special interests and not the will of the people.   Wink      

I agree with a lot of that. All I will add is that I think the most significant problem is that everything is being controlled by a small elite percentage of the population, including what happens in the political sphere. The issues that you mention are indeed part of that but they are part of this much larger problem. With that in mind, Trump perpetuates this problem. While I agree that people are sick not only of "a PR packaged-script that represents the special interests and not the will of the people" but of a whole system that represents special interests (in this case, the interests of the small elite sectors of society), I would also say that Trump is precisely the sort of candidate who represents these special interests. To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard Trump say anything all that different from what now constitutes mainstream political thought. Maybe he says it in a way that's a bit more entertaining and therefore people like it more. But for the most part he's just echoing status quo opinion.
CSM - I have little knowledge of whatever holdings Trump has. I can't count his money. But, I tend to think of whatever he has as sort of a diversified, live portfolio such as real estate or industry where there are brick and mortar business and not virtual "bit coin" type industries or at least those that voters can identify with. People go to Trump hotels on vacation, or buy income property to collect rents as an investment.  They might stay in a Trump property so they have a frame of reference. They can see that he employed builders, hotel administrators, chefs, housekeeping, drivers, etc. 

That said, Trump is tapping into "visuals" from the media that are universal, by now.  One biggie is "the fence" - and Americans have that as a twofer. 

First, is the obvious porosity of the US border and the argument that "a country to be identified as such requires borders," in the same way that people who own a house, also have a plot plan of their land.  They can transfer what they know about property ownership to the land mass that is the United States. That resonates with citizen/voters.  There is no ideology learning curve.  Trump is speaking their language.

Second, is the second media visual of "drug tunnels" which have permitted the transport of substances that has taken the lives of millions. No one needs a 101 on that. That is the second border issue.  He has tapped into that feeling of being violated, in the same way they might feel with a home-invasion.   

So, the table has been set for Trump to jump right in and connect the dots to these visceral emotions of voters in a way that transcends any kind of propaganda that is scripted by the PR firms. 

Trump has tapped into rage in the same way that Sanders has, with similar fiscal visuals of banks being bailed out, while citizen/voter's friends have lost their homes, without being bailed out. Everyone knows someone who lost their home due to foreclosure.  Voters don't want to hear ideology.  They are sick of it. He yells about it in the same way a frustrated citizenry yells when they know they are powerless against both porous borders/drug infiltration and banks who were able to re-organize, while others became homeless. 

The third issue for Trump is the whole VA crisis, where it is common knowledge that vets have died, waiting for appointments in the VA system, created to care for them, and offers the solution of a medical card for Vets that has to be accepted anywhere.  People get that and don't need a roadmap. 

The top-heavy politically connected administration of the VA, is freaking out because they have been on a gravy-train for decades and don't want to lose their sinecure.  Sanders and Trump are articulating (even if polar opposite in liberal-conservative positions) many issues which have gotten under the skin of the American citizens and which has reached the boiling-over point.   Wink
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2016, 07:22:37 AM »

CSM - I have little knowledge of whatever holdings Trump has. I can't count his money. But, I tend to think of whatever he has as sort of a diversified, live portfolio such as real estate or industry where there are brick and mortar business and not virtual "bit coin" type industries or at least those that voters can identify with. People go to Trump hotels on vacation, or buy income property to collect rents as an investment.  They might stay in a Trump property so they have a frame of reference. They can see that he employed builders, hotel administrators, chefs, housekeeping, drivers, etc. 

That said, Trump is tapping into "visuals" from the media that are universal, by now.  One biggie is "the fence" - and Americans have that as a twofer. 

First, is the obvious porosity of the US border and the argument that "a country to be identified as such requires borders," in the same way that people who own a house, also have a plot plan of their land.  They can transfer what they know about property ownership to the land mass that is the United States. That resonates with citizen/voters.  There is no ideology learning curve.  Trump is speaking their language.

Second, is the second media visual of "drug tunnels" which have permitted the transport of substances that has taken the lives of millions. No one needs a 101 on that. That is the second border issue.  He has tapped into that feeling of being violated, in the same way they might feel with a home-invasion.   

So, the table has been set for Trump to jump right in and connect the dots to these visceral emotions of voters in a way that transcends any kind of propaganda that is scripted by the PR firms. 

Trump has tapped into rage in the same way that Sanders has, with similar fiscal visuals of banks being bailed out, while citizen/voter's friends have lost their homes, without being bailed out. Everyone knows someone who lost their home due to foreclosure.  Voters don't want to hear ideology.  They are sick of it. He yells about it in the same way a frustrated citizenry yells when they know they are powerless against both porous borders/drug infiltration and banks who were able to re-organize, while others became homeless. 

The third issue for Trump is the whole VA crisis, where it is common knowledge that vets have died, waiting for appointments in the VA system, created to care for them, and offers the solution of a medical card for Vets that has to be accepted anywhere.  People get that and don't need a roadmap. 

The top-heavy politically connected administration of the VA, is freaking out because they have been on a gravy-train for decades and don't want to lose their sinecure.  Sanders and Trump are articulating (even if polar opposite in liberal-conservative positions) many issues which have gotten under the skin of the American citizens and which has reached the boiling-over point.   Wink

Where you see Trump (whom I do not see as being conservative) as tapping into rage as Sanders has, I see him exploiting it. The American population is a heavily propagandized one. 90% of the mainstream media that people see is controlled by six corporations and much of that mainstream information gets filtered into non-mainstream sources to the extent that the internet now is largely a junkyard of misinformation that has been gleaned from the central propaganda systems. Trump, along with most of the other mainstream political figures, tap into this atmosphere quite nicely.

As far as the issue of Mexico and the VA scandal goes, Trump is entirely aligned with the GOP on this. Again, he may talk about these issues differently but what he says is pure status quo.

Let's look at one of these issues though: Mexico. In the case of Mexico, the United States has for quite some time been participating in policies that are directly leading to the destruction and impoverishment of the country. The largely US imposed NAFTA programs worked to destroy Mexican agriculture, imposed a profit-driven corporate model on the country which directly led to the destruction of Mexican industry, exploitative lower wages for workers (jobs were created but were much cheaper) and the destruction of the labour movement there. The implementation of these programs is precisely what led to the migration of Mexicans to the United States, which began just as these policies were beginning to take effect. And furthermore, it is worth noting that because of lax American gun laws, roughly 70% of weapons used by Mexican drug cartels are U.S. and so the U.S. is largely empowering that system as well.

Now if there anything resembling real journalism in the US and if there was solid access to information even outside the mainstream press, this particular narrative that I've just described would be crucial in considering the issue of Mexican migration. There is, in fact, an easy way to end the issue: stop exploiting Mexico and end the destructive policies that are impoverishing the country. To his credit, Trump has talked about dismantling NAFTA but gives no real indication that he's interesting in repairing what has happened to Mexico as a result of these policies. But I do think that Trump, along with most other mainstream politicians, does take advantage of a mostly misinformed public when it comes to this particular issue. Yes, people are angry about things and rightly so but it does no good to perpetuate a false narrative that gives people the wrong impression as to who or what they should be directed their anger towards.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2016, 12:38:37 PM »

CSM - I have little knowledge of whatever holdings Trump has. I can't count his money. But, I tend to think of whatever he has as sort of a diversified, live portfolio such as real estate or industry where there are brick and mortar business and not virtual "bit coin" type industries or at least those that voters can identify with. People go to Trump hotels on vacation, or buy income property to collect rents as an investment.  They might stay in a Trump property so they have a frame of reference. They can see that he employed builders, hotel administrators, chefs, housekeeping, drivers, etc.  

That said, Trump is tapping into "visuals" from the media that are universal, by now.  One biggie is "the fence" - and Americans have that as a twofer.  

First, is the obvious porosity of the US border and the argument that "a country to be identified as such requires borders," in the same way that people who own a house, also have a plot plan of their land.  They can transfer what they know about property ownership to the land mass that is the United States. That resonates with citizen/voters.  There is no ideology learning curve.  Trump is speaking their language.

Second, is the second media visual of "drug tunnels" which have permitted the transport of substances that has taken the lives of millions. No one needs a 101 on that. That is the second border issue.  He has tapped into that feeling of being violated, in the same way they might feel with a home-invasion.    

So, the table has been set for Trump to jump right in and connect the dots to these visceral emotions of voters in a way that transcends any kind of propaganda that is scripted by the PR firms.  

Trump has tapped into rage in the same way that Sanders has, with similar fiscal visuals of banks being bailed out, while citizen/voter's friends have lost their homes, without being bailed out. Everyone knows someone who lost their home due to foreclosure.  Voters don't want to hear ideology.  They are sick of it. He yells about it in the same way a frustrated citizenry yells when they know they are powerless against both porous borders/drug infiltration and banks who were able to re-organize, while others became homeless.  

The third issue for Trump is the whole VA crisis, where it is common knowledge that vets have died, waiting for appointments in the VA system, created to care for them, and offers the solution of a medical card for Vets that has to be accepted anywhere.  People get that and don't need a roadmap.  

The top-heavy politically connected administration of the VA, is freaking out because they have been on a gravy-train for decades and don't want to lose their sinecure.  Sanders and Trump are articulating (even if polar opposite in liberal-conservative positions) many issues which have gotten under the skin of the American citizens and which has reached the boiling-over point.   Wink

Where you see Trump (whom I do not see as being conservative) as tapping into rage as Sanders has, I see him exploiting it. The American population is a heavily propagandized one. 90% of the mainstream media that people see is controlled by six corporations and much of that mainstream information gets filtered into non-mainstream sources to the extent that the internet now is largely a junkyard of misinformation that has been gleaned from the central propaganda systems. Trump, along with most of the other mainstream political figures, tap into this atmosphere quite nicely.

As far as the issue of Mexico and the VA scandal goes, Trump is entirely aligned with the GOP on this. Again, he may talk about these issues differently but what he says is pure status quo.

Let's look at one of these issues though: Mexico. In the case of Mexico, the United States has for quite some time been participating in policies that are directly leading to the destruction and impoverishment of the country. The largely US imposed NAFTA programs worked to destroy Mexican agriculture, imposed a profit-driven corporate model on the country which directly led to the destruction of Mexican industry, exploitative lower wages for workers (jobs were created but were much cheaper) and the destruction of the labour movement there. The implementation of these programs is precisely what led to the migration of Mexicans to the United States, which began just as these policies were beginning to take effect. And furthermore, it is worth noting that because of lax American gun laws, roughly 70% of weapons used by Mexican drug cartels are U.S. and so the U.S. is largely empowering that system as well.

Now if there anything resembling real journalism in the US and if there was solid access to information even outside the mainstream press, this particular narrative that I've just described would be crucial in considering the issue of Mexican migration. There is, in fact, an easy way to end the issue: stop exploiting Mexico and end the destructive policies that are impoverishing the country. To his credit, Trump has talked about dismantling NAFTA but gives no real indication that he's interesting in repairing what has happened to Mexico as a result of these policies. But I do think that Trump, along with most other mainstream politicians, does take advantage of a mostly misinformed public when it comes to this particular issue. Yes, people are angry about things and rightly so but it does no good to perpetuate a false narrative that gives people the wrong impression as to who or what they should be directed their anger towards.
CSM - I know less about NAFTA than you.  What I do know is that there are both Mexicans and Canadians who border-cross with permission, to work every day in the US as commuters.
 
What is problematic is the wholesale unchecked border crossing, flowing into the US.  One of the cornerstones of US immigration is the concept of "admitting and inspecting" and so, as in my grandparents cases, they came through Ellis Island, were quarantined, until cleared for health purposes, have papers processed, and were free to begin their lives.  It was a process of accounting for those who came into the country.  Some sections in Mexico are extremely dangerous.  A young woman mayor was assassinated on the first day of office, not even a month ago.  I cannot speak to the economic issues, but am shocked at the violence connected to the cartels infiltrating the US.  

Health is a big issue. Zika is becoming a huge problem coming through South and Central America.  What is also problematic are convicted felons who have been deported and return to what are called "sanctuary cities" to escape prosecution.  I know of no country that would permit people to just decide to move to a new one, unchecked by any government authority.  The US is very generous but we are in debt and cannot afford that much longer.  

The VA health care positions of the candidates are interesting ones.  Trump is one who is advocating providing insurance cards to all veterans whereby they could access medical care at hospitals of their choosing. I can get onboard with that position.  That is not a GOP position.  That is not a Democrat position.  Both parties are vested in the keeping the unacceptable status quo. This would permit vets to access better levels of care, and not be "warehoused" in a VA hospital without care.  One of my parents died in the VA system.  You can rest assured that few elected officials would choose medical care at a VA facility.

If mainstream candidates who go-along-to-get along are elected it will be the same-old-same-old.  The country needs to be shaken up.  Only new people in power who have no or few ties to the old structure of power will be able to do that without push-back from lobbyists or powerful groups.  

Both Sanders and Trump are effectively tapping into the collective rage of the US.  Trump is a capitalist, first.  At some point, he was allied to the Democrats.  People change parties all the time, to run for office or move to establish residency to qualify to run for office.  Bernie calls himself a socialist.  Some find that troubling.  

The US cannot fix everyone's problems or fight everyone's battles.   JMHO  Wink
      
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 12:41:41 PM by filledeplage » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.27 seconds with 21 queries.