Explaining the Trump Phenomenon

[320 Years of History]

BTW, TheOldSchool , I thought Wong's article was interesting to read. TY for pointing it out.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump supporters largely are not idiots. They do root for vague ideals from a vaguely remembered past. Big government threw farmers (and the railroad I worked for) plenty of welfare in the 19th century using the Army to commit genociede and giving away the conquored lands and all.

After the equilibrium was reached when the spoils dried up the New Deal saved us from a Socialist Revolution the WWII eliminated the competition for 30 years creating a very difficult to reclaim "glory days"

If we could get a candidate like Donald without the hate but with the humor he would own this election.

Not with his ignorant policies and terrible background.

rdean, as much as I know you love to bash Trump -- heck, I regrettably take a small bit of joy in deriding him -- but I don't think doing so is fitting in this thread. Particularly as the OP has asked us to refrain from derailing his thread and the article the OP posted to serve as the foil and rubric for discussion is only obliquely about Trump and very clearly about the lines of thought and emotion that have allowed Trump to obtain to the place he has on the national political stage.

 

[SYTFE]

My psychic powers tell me that you're going to get some very high quality responses in this thread.

Did you read the article?

I did, just now. I'm gonna think about it a bit. It was interesting, but somehow slightly insulting to rural Americans in a way.

He also contradicts himself with the intro, if we've been conditioned that the rural guy is the 'good guy' and the rich city slicker is the 'bad guy,' then doesn't that contradict rural support for Trump? Trump is the embodiment of everything rural America is against.

Red:
Maybe that was Wong's intent. I'm not inclined to think it was. Indeed, I'd have to contrive through a whole lot of hoops to even get a taint of the article's being a jeer aimed toward rural Americans.

Yeah, I don't think he did anything intentionally. I just think rural Americans deserve a lot more credit than the tiny little box he put them in.

Blue:
Thank you! I don't get how the man can for some 50 years been "all NYC Boy" and now, we're supposed to construe that he's "all about the little guy from the sticks." I don't buy that for a minute. I can't understand why anyone would.

Exactly. The entire foundation of his article doesn't hold up. I think I understand what he was getting at, but Trump's success can not be explained with his example.

 

[320 Years of History]

My psychic powers tell me that you're going to get some very high quality responses in this thread.

Did you read the article?

I did, just now. I'm gonna think about it a bit. It was interesting, but somehow slightly insulting to rural Americans in a way.

He also contradicts himself with the intro, if we've been conditioned that the rural guy is the 'good guy' and the rich city slicker is the 'bad guy,' then doesn't that contradict rural support for Trump? Trump is the embodiment of everything rural America is against.

Red:
Maybe that was Wong's intent. I'm not inclined to think it was. Indeed, I'd have to contrive through a whole lot of hoops to even get a taint of the article's being a jeer aimed toward rural Americans.

Yeah, I don't think he did anything intentionally. I just think rural Americans deserve a lot more credit than the tiny little box he put them in.

Blue:
Thank you! I don't get how the man can for some 50 years been "all NYC Boy" and now, we're supposed to construe that he's "all about the little guy from the sticks." I don't buy that for a minute. I can't understand why anyone would.

Exactly. The entire foundation of his article doesn't hold up. I think I understand what he was getting at, but Trump's success can not be explained with his example.

Pink:
Actually, I think Wong is right about how and why it is that Trump appeals to small town Americans. The thing I find disturbing, however, is that folks in "Trump country" do think as one must for Wong to be right about how one thinks. I'm okay with those sentiments as emotions folks have; it's that those emotions form into what those folks think is sound thoughts that I find disturbing.

To the extent Wong actually believes it, thinks it, too, well, I find that strange and unacceptable as well, all the more so given he writes well enough to be enjoyable to read. That combination of irrational lines of thinking and literary eloquence is, in my mind, dangerous.

 

[cnelsen]

Never started a CDZ thread before. I post this thread with 100% sincerity. I found this article just now using StumbleUpon. It's written by a writer on a site that usually only cares about comedy, but it attempts to explain the rural appeal of Trump to people from urban areas, by an author who was raised in a rural area. I was pretty moved by it.

Since it's the CDZ, I will bitch and whine to mods if you troll my virgin CDZ thread . I'm actually interested in reading honest responses.

Here it is (don't get pissed about the title if you're a Trump supporter, it's intended to catch liberals eyes. The rest is genuine.):

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

It is a rather funny essay.

In pure political terms however, Trump is a TV star and all of this TV audience has come out to vote for him.

That is what hijacked the GOP.

The GOP was the weaker of the 2 major parties and therefore it was easier for Trump to hijack it, which he did.

Trump has a few good ideas: (1) slow down immigration; (2) allow people their gun rights; (3) slap tariffs on China.

Trump however has really bad composure and delivery. He is a simpleton rich frat boy and although his Trump Towers idea was bold and became successful, his other ideas for investments were rash and ill advised.

He suffers from a huge flaw of not being able to take or follow advice so he would be a very bad chief executive.

All big business CEO's have proved to be ill equipped to be leaders of states and the Nation.

On November 8th we will all get to see how badly he has hurt the GOP.

If Hillary wins everything -- White House, Senate, and House Of Reps -- then Trump will have proved to be the worst thing for the GOP since Nixon.

I am a Trump supporter who has never seen his TV shows. I was for him on the day after he announced. It wasn't that he had said something even remotely anti-immigration (which would have been enough to get me to vote for the first time since 2004), but, after the usual squeals of outrage from the amen corner, he DID NOT APOLOGIZE. That meant everything. Here, finally, was a candidate with balls, who wasn't licking the hand of Adelson/Soros. That set him apart from anyone since Pat Buchanan ran in 2000.

On top of that, add "Trump has a few good ideas: (1) slow down immigration; (2) allow people their gun rights; (3) slap tariffs on China." the media elite, well, what can you say? Bring back tar and feathering? What should be done with someone like the oily snarky Robbie "Keep Soros Happy" Mook? How much more blatant can the treason be?

 

[cnelsen]

"If we could get a candidate like Donald without the hate but with the humor he would own this election."

The media can portray anything or anyone any way that it wants to. Trump does not hate, and he is not a Racist. He is for America. If you are a foreigner or a foreign interest you will not be the priority, like you have been under the Liberals. That has been distorted into hate and Racism since the media works for the Clinton campaign.

You think that. Others think that. Some may not even care if it's so or not. I, however, cannot tell with any sufficient degree of certainty that Trump does not hate and that he is not a racist. That I cannot tell is a problem, a big one. Mind you, though, my thinking the man's a racist, were he to show somehow that he's truly not, would be one step, one of many he needs to take, in the right direction. It'd be a start, but a start is not enough to earn my vote, most especially when the start is being made by a 70 year old instead of a 17 or seven year old.

Um, when did you stop beating your wife?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There's no "Trump phenomenon." This is a term that globalists use to pretend that national identity and a refutation of the fascists is unbelievable. What has happened has been a long time coming.

 

[TheOldSchool]

There's no "Trump phenomenon." This is a term that globalists use to pretend that national identity and a refutation of the fascists is unbelievable.

Did you read the article?

 

[TheOldSchool]

There's no "Trump phenomenon." This is a term that globalists use to pretend that national identity and a refutation of the fascists is unbelievable.

Did you read the article?

I don't do the did you stuff. You either got something to say or you don't.

Well if you didn't read the article and have no interest then please excuse yourself

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thread moved. This isn't CDZ material