Trump supporters: How are you punishing the Establishment?

[Mac1958]

Still working on trying to figure this out, and I may or may not ever get there. Here's one that just popped into my little brain:

For 2016, the Republican ticket is not going to be about conservatism vs. liberalism, it's going to be about anti-establishment vs. both The GOP Establishment AND liberalism. Okay. (But let me know if I'm wrong there)

Could a Trump supporter explain how running an authoritarian non-conservative is punishing the GOP Establishment? What is the end goal here? Do you want to end up with a conservative GOP? If so, how do you get there from here?
.

 

[Mac1958]

To get a little more specific here (okay, and to bump the thread, guilty), as I understand it the reason you're mad at the establishment is that you would elect people who say they're conservative, but then don't act as conservative as you want them to when they're in office. Okay, I do get that.

So it appears to be about frustration over elected Republican officials not being conservative enough.

So in response, you run a guy who would certainly be considered a RINO if it were not for his (insert adjective here, I'm out of them) behavior.

That's the disconnect that I'm asking about.
.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The establishment is allowing the world into our country and the white base can't let that happen. So they want trump to reverse it so they hold onto power. They also want to give all the wealth to the super rich corporations as they think helping the worker or the poor is communism...


So trump is their guy.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perhaps there is a general ennui regarding the perpetual 'lw' and 'rw' categorizations and people like a candidate who is all over the map; i.e;, not so easily categorized that way. The appeal is understandable, even if we cannot sympathize with the object.
It is very tiring to see that dualistic thinking reigns so strongly. The incapacity for people in the U.S. to understand nuance and profound alternatives is confusing, given the history of their predecessors. Perhaps there is too much information in quantity and too little in substance, a variation of 'the more things change, the more they remain the same'. 'Spin' can mean not only turning the importance of an issue, but just presenting it over and over until everyone is desensitized. Meaningless subjects are examined with excruciating repetition, yet never with resolution.
It is clear that in politics, what worked is not working.
It is clear in finance and economics that a new age is here that requires different approaches.
It is clear that past forms of employment must be replaced.
It is clear that science and technology have confronted us with realities never before recognized.
No candidate currently on offer addresses more than facile issues. Sanders is the most different, and that is said not in defense or recommendation of him. Not many of us are really behind him. He is only thinkable because of the apparent alternatives.
There is no easy solution as long as we are trying to confront so many problems that are presented as unrelated. What is catastrophic is that people will only look at proposed easy solutions. Each person must look within him/her self. Dualism is illusion, and it is at the heart of both individual and collective misery.

 

[cnm]

It's a rino-ectomy, cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[Toro]

They are more interested in punishing their own leaders than winning an election. They are more interested in tearing things down than building things up. So they nominated the guy most offensive to their leaders, a guy who is going to get smoked in the election. Then, they'll blame their leaders for not supporting him enough, even though he's clearly an unqualified buffoon.

 

[Snouter]

We need to define "conservatism" and "the establishment."

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I see little to like about Trump, other than his stand on illegal immigration and Muslim immigration, and of course so far it's all just rhetoric. I'll believe we will increase the security of our borders, and increase deportations WHEN it actually happens.
However, I know what I'll get with another illegal loving Dimocrat, so it will be easy for me to vote for Trump if he is the major party nominee.


Union Representing 16,000 Border Agents Endorses Trump

Union Representing 16,000 Border Agents Endorses Trump

 

[Norman]

Still working on trying to figure this out, and I may or may not ever get there. Here's one that just popped into my little brain:

For 2016, the Republican ticket is not going to be about conservatism vs. liberalism, it's going to be about anti-establishment vs. both The GOP Establishment AND liberalism. Okay. (But let me know if I'm wrong there)

Could a Trump supporter explain how running an authoritarian non-conservative is punishing the GOP Establishment? What is the end goal here? Do you want to end up with a conservative GOP? If so, how do you get there from here?
.

Because he is NOT GOP establishment, but comes from outside politics?

Trump is not authoritarian...

 

[cnm]

Trump is not authoritarian...

Dead right, he's used to running his enterprises by consensus.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Still working on trying to figure this out, and I may or may not ever get there. Here's one that just popped into my little brain:

For 2016, the Republican ticket is not going to be about conservatism vs. liberalism, it's going to be about anti-establishment vs. both The GOP Establishment AND liberalism. Okay. (But let me know if I'm wrong there)

Could a Trump supporter explain how running an authoritarian non-conservative is punishing the GOP Establishment? What is the end goal here? Do you want to end up with a conservative GOP? If so, how do you get there from here?
.

The only thing I can think of is that the gop didn't want him, so there must be something about him that will shake up the system

thing is, he's a deal maker, so the establishment will stfu and work with him to get what it wants and the country loses more freedom while the government grabs more power.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Trump is not authoritarian...

Dead right, he's used to running his enterprises by consensus.

there's a difference between being an authoritarian and a boss.

not a whole lot, but there is some significant differences.

 

[candycorn]

They are more interested in punishing their own leaders than winning an election. They are more interested in tearing things down than building things up. So they nominated the guy most offensive to their leaders, a guy who is going to get smoked in the election. Then, they'll blame their leaders for not supporting him enough, even though he's clearly an unqualified buffoon.

Hope u don't mind but as it is 100% truthful....

Your post deserves to be repeated:

They are more interested in punishing their own leaders than winning an election. They are more interested in tearing things down than building things up. So they nominated the guy most offensive to their leaders, a guy who is going to get smoked in the election. Then, they'll blame their leaders for not supporting him enough, even though he's clearly an unqualified buffoon.

Heard a line tonight about the old baseball manager named Billy Martin that may apply to most conservatives here....

"He was happiest when he was miserable."

If some of these people didn't have a thing to bitch about I think they would lose their minds

 

[JoeB131]

To get a little more specific here (okay, and to bump the thread, guilty), as I understand it the reason you're mad at the establishment is that you would elect people who say they're conservative, but then don't act as conservative as you want them to when they're in office. Okay, I do get that.

So it appears to be about frustration over elected Republican officials not being conservative enough.

So in response, you run a guy who would certainly be considered a RINO if it were not for his (insert adjective here, I'm out of them) behavior.

That's the disconnect that I'm asking about.

Well, I can see how you are a little confused.

Trump is the end result of 40 years of getting White Males to vote against their own economic interests by playing on their racial, sexual and religious fears.

The problem is the Establishment has been trying to steer the ship away from the shoals of being a White Identity Party, Trump doubled and tripled down. And he did manage to tap into some genuine concerns about jobs and wages being driven down by undocumented workers and foreign competition.

Trump has reduced the GOP to it's lowest common denominator.

 

[gipper]

For some like me, it is a vote against Hillary. I don't want WWIII.

 

[JoeB131]

They are more interested in punishing their own leaders than winning an election. They are more interested in tearing things down than building things up. So they nominated the guy most offensive to their leaders, a guy who is going to get smoked in the election. Then, they'll blame their leaders for not supporting him enough, even though he's clearly an unqualified buffoon.

You might be HALF right.

I think you keep ignoring that Trump IS tapping into GENUINE concerns and issues that the GOP base has.

The establishment has enthusiastically pursued policies that have screwed the working class to benefit the rich. And they do it by talking about abortion and gays and immigration and guns. It's an act of misdirection that David Copperfield would envy.

Every few years, a populist who actually talks about the economic interests of the working class while standing up for social conservative issues emerges - Buchanan in 1996, Huckabee in 2008, Santorum in 2012 - and the Establishment has ruthlessly crushed them, rather running LOSERS than actually letting the great unwashed have the steering wheel.

Trump simply had the resources, the media savvy and the inability of the establishment to get its act together to overcome the usual establishment objections.

Again, if Trump weren't a racist asshole, I'd probably consider voting for him just for his stance on "Free Trade".

I wouldn't put his winning outside the realm of possibility. If the economy continues to flag, Hillary could lose.

The thing is, much like Franz Von Papen in 1932, Establishment Republicans think they can control Trump. .

 

[cnm]

there's a difference between being an authoritarian and a boss

The two are not the same at all, I agree. The Donald is both an authoritarian and a boss.

 

[Two Thumbs]

there's a difference between being an authoritarian and a boss

The two are not the same at all, I agree. The Donald is both an authoritarian and a boss.

authoritarian

[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh n, uh-thor-]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed toindividual freedom:
authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, orpractice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinateto the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person ora small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of anotheror of others:
an authoritarian parent.
noun
4.
a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.



that sounds more like obama and hillary.

trump hasn't held a political office, so there's no proof.

unless you can list some freedoms he wants to take.

 

[The VOR]

For some like me, it is a vote against Hillary. I don't want WWIII.

 

[gipper]

For some like me, it is a vote against Hillary. I don't want WWIII.

It is news to libs that Cankles is a warmonger.

Sadly, they are completely uninformed or brainwashed.