Observing from the outside....

[SavedByGrace1981]

2 minutes ago, HisFirst said:

Hi SBG,

That was a very clear, well put outline if your view of the US political parties and I have a question.

If Trump is outside of the "establishment", how did he get to the position of running and even Prez?

Money talks? (no matter who you are?)

Excellent question!

Before I give you my answer, a little background.  It's my opinion (and the opinion of many) that Trump is outside of the Establishment, but it is by no means a unanimous opinion.  Even on this board, you'll find those that might say it's an act on his part, or something along that line.  In the past (they'll argue) he wasn't anti-establishment; he's not now.

But although one can argue (and I won't here) that in the past he was not anti-establishment (remember, he's a billionaire).  Like I wrote earlier, most billionaires are (by default) establishment.   Regardless of the past, I believe that now his anti-establishment creds are valid.  Thus, the vitriol against him.

So how did he get to be the R nominee and Prez?  

The best way to begin to answer that question is say that there is a large portion of voters in this country who feel disenfranchised.  I consider myself one of those.  Our concerns are not even addressed by one of the 'parties' (Ds); and they are given lip-service by the other (Rs).  Once the Rs achieve office, our concerns are ignored.  Our numbers - percentage wise - are probably 20 to 30 percent.  That is what forms the so-called Trump 'base.'

Trump decided to run as a Republican.  He likely could have just as easily run as a democrat, but Hillary already had that nomination sewn up.  The R party was more in disarray.  It started out with 17 declared candidates.

Many saw Trump's candidacy as a joke, but one by one he picked off each primary contender.  Most of the time an outsider like Trump is denied the nomination simply because the money required is all dried up.  Trump however is a billionaire, so money was not a problem.  Once he had enough delegates to secure the R nomination, it was his.

In the general election, Clinton and the Ds were overconfident and didn't take Trump seriously.  One of the democrat party's major constituencies - the working class and labor unions - abandoned the Ds this time around, and it provided just enough in certain key states to give Trump the victory.

So that's the 'Reader's Digest'/ Cliff Notes version of the last election.  It gives you the basics, but it's a lot more complex in reality.  People will be studying it for years.

But I hope it answers your original question as to why there seems to be more turmoil this time around.

Unfortunately, there is a large element of the establishment that - if it doesn't get its way - is perfectly content to just burn the house to the ground.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Steve_S said:

In the US anybody can run for president and, furthermore, basically anybody can run for president in either party. He had media exposure because he was already famous, so when he announced, there was mass coverage of it. He said what some would consider to be some very controversial things during his announcement, which caused it to basically be the only thing in the news for a couple of days.

Also, money talks, yes. He had enough liquidity to functionally finance the entire primary/caucus portion of his campaign. Even so, he still spent less than most other candidates during that period and far, far less than some others that didn't last nearly as long. He ran a different kind of campaign than anybody has ever ran here, directly appealing to voters through social media, personally posting his thoughts, not canned political statements that were ran through 5 or 10 advisors and public relations employees. Above all else, though, he did not play the political correctness game. I think it's likely that this, at the core of his candidacy, was responsible for his initial rise. He did not look or sound like a politician and in the current environment here, that was not a bad thing for him.

that is an excellent analysis.  I would add that he was very accessible for the media.   Unlike Hillary and other candidates who didn't go on the morning shows very much, Trump never turned down an invite.   Trump was good at using the media.  He still is.  Trump got infinitely more coverage and spent far less for it than the other candidates who paid out the nose for air time.   He literally got Billions in free air time over the other candidates because everyone was talking about Trump.  He ran just a couple of  commercials, not many at all.

Someone  asked me if I really believed that Trump could make the Mexicans end up paying for the wall.   I said "Yes, because he has gotten more air time than just about all of the other candidates combined and he basically got the media to pay for it."  Trump dominated the headlines and he was the guy the media loved to hate.   Some of the coverage was favorable to Trump, some of it was not, but at the end of the day, they were talking about Trump, Trump, Trump.  It was all Trump, all of the time.

[Steve_S]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

that is an excellent analysis.  I would add that he, was very accessible for the media.   Unlike Hillary and other candidates who didn't go on the morning shows very much, Trump never turned down an invite.   Trump was good at using the media.  He still is.  Trump got infinitely more coverage and spent far less for it than the other candidates who paid out the nose for air time.   He literally got Billions in free air time over the other candidates because everyone was talking about Trump.  He ran just a couple of  commercials, not many at all.

I agree. His ability to get what equated to virtually free advertising was very helpful. Even in their attempts to cover him negatively, they were still presenting his policy ideas and much of the time, in their negative presentation, particularly during the primary season, probably sold them in ways that helped him even more than had they just reported on them in a non-biased fashion. CNN and MSNBC coming at you hard during an early primary campaign is not going to hurt you with the republican base. If anything, it could help endear you to it.

I have always thought that, if their goal was to do damage to him, the best approach the media could take to him would be to ignore him. I still think that now. They have been working their current strategy for approaching two years and it has done nothing but make him president. They are stuck in the old mentality, though, that you take out a republican by attacking him relentlessly until he caves, which has been their modus operandi for decades. Trump is no generic republican and his stewardship of the republican party will probably, at least partially, ensure that over time this strategy will not functionally work in the same way that it has in the past. There are old guard guys who are still around and will be around that are not going to change. However, there are younger guys and even some of the old guard guys who are willing to change who are probably taking notes.

[Churchmouse]

12 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Is the US in chaos ATM or is this the normal settling of the dust ?

I really don't remember so much commotion, although I remember the opposition against Obama which stayed throughout the 8 years, but this  Trump "commotion" really seems to have no end.

Just observation from miles away.

I've pretty much given up on politics here. One side President Trump is the devil and the other a saint. What I think is neither side will get over themselves, but that's just me. President Trump is a man and as such will make errors that doesn't need groups of people to fight each other to prove anything.  He is his own spokesman on twitter and in these rallys that are so important to some to chastise and defend. What does any of this have to do with God?

What is going on is that both parties are entrenched in their traditional roles as far as who they are known to support, which was set down a very long time ago by the political establishment to which some call them elitists. Some will clam that the elitists are only on the Democratic side, but believe me, they are alive and well on both sides.  they are the ones who pander to the different intrastate groups as they promise them support of their perspective parties, if they will side with them.

The right caters to the those who stand for traditional moral and capitalistic views and the left caters to what they call the disfranchised, but the thing is, the left or the right isn't there to solve anything. They are there to dangle the desires of each of these factions as bait in front of them, without ever actually accomplishing anything for these factions. In this way these political parties retain the support they need to stay viable, without actually accomplishing anything, other than moving the state of the U.S. back and forth like a football on a field. This has been going on for a very long time and the people in charge have become very comfortable in their seats of power. If you look at it, most of the big social leaps and bounds have not come from the politicians. They have come from the Supreme court who pretty much owes nothing to anyone, since they have lifetime appointments after they get in.

President Trump came from outside the political mainstream and pretty much has broken every form of conventional wisdom as far as how politics should, by the standards of the day, should have been played out. If you look at the Republican primaries, all those who were endorsed by that party was swept aside by President Trump calling them out and that upset a lot of people, because without the person getting the candidacy owing aligence to the goals of the party, those in charge can't be the go to guys for these special interest groups. The chain of command is broken and it sends an earthquake through their cozy little world.

As far as the left goes, they are the ones who use dangle the bait of victimhood, deservance and denile in front of them. They cater to the lowest form of character flaws Greed, hedonism and self interest, while claiming that those who are less fortunate in our society are not in any way responsible for their situation and set the Democratic party as their one true savior for the dredger that the left paints their world as being. This pretty much means that those who listen to them fail to appreciate the value of what they do have, for the promises that the left will get them if they embrace the Democratic party.

That being said, the Democratic party seeks out those who are afflicted by Satan into being Homosexual, Transvestite, transgender and they promise them complete and total equality in a world that they can't control, so instead of giving that to them, they try to force it down the throats of those of better moral character, which never works. These people are tolerated, which is not equality in any form or fashion and it's completely obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed with ideology. That's where the hatred and anger comes from because of the simmering attitude of forced compliance to a situation that is unnatural because it isn't given by it's own accord. To sum things up on the left they assure that these deviants are victimized twice. Once by the devil as it was his influence that turned them the way they are and the Democratic party who promise them something they won't be able to provide. It doesn't really work for these unfortunate people, but it works out in spade for the Democratic party, since they have another aggrieved group to capitalize on.

What you see here today, is what happens when the food chain is cut off at the source for both of these parties. They can't control President Trump so they can't tweak him in any way. What he is is what he is and he has crossed the political boundaries that the elites have set down to control their constituents. Trump is for America and not just the Democratic party or the Democratic party. He has put an emphisis on everyone, including the rish and the poor and that removes the foundations in which either party rests on.

If he helps the inner city and the minorities they won't need the Democratic Party any more, because they will have access to what the left has traditional told them was denied them by the Republicans. If President Trump brings back prosperity for the middle class, they won't need the Republican party, because with the rise out of poverty by those who are proclaimed the underprivileged, the welfare state will shrink down to a more acceptable level and there will be more revenue to feed the kitty.

After the economy fell a lot of people lost a lot of their power to control their environment. Once that happened things became scarce and when that happens to those who have been able to control their lives are filled with fear and they begin to look around at those who are taking away from the economy instead of giving in to it. The fear that came over these average citizens was the same fear the political parties harnessed to their own cause, because it wasn't just the wage earners who saw storm clouds on the horizon, but those on welfare as well, because their is less revenue to provide for their needs, as well.

President Obama did what he thought would work for the people according to the philosophy of the left, but in doing so he sniffled the country and he was  unwilling to admit to that because by the very nature of being an idealog it was inconceivable to him that what he was doing wasn't working.  According to his ideals, that must mean there were outside forced stopping things from working and that meant his policies were being artificially obstructed. That meant the Republicans. This is the mindset the left has endorsed, because many of them are just as idealist as President Obama and they looked to a Hilary Clinton presidency to prove them right, but that didn't happen.

The left looked so intently for Hillary to win and prove them right that paying attention to the country as a whole and what the countries attitude was during this time was being ignored. That is why it was such a shock that President Obama won. If you are a student of history you can look at the attitude of the German people after they lost the first world war. They too thought that they had been stabbed in the back and you can read the history of what happened after that. The same chaos as here and the media and political pundits are out in droves because they mirror the political parties they serve.

The only person that is actually doing anything for America as a whole id President Trump, but since he has rejected the traditional roles in politics he is getting inundated by those who see him as a threat to their cushy little jobs. That's what is happening in America and I don't think it will end very soon and when it does, it won't be pretty.

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Churchmouse

[missmuffet]

12 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Is the US in chaos ATM or is this the normal settling of the dust ?

I really don't remember so much commotion, although I remember the opposition against Obama which stayed throughout the 8 years, but this  Trump "commotion" really seems to have no end.

Just observation from miles away.

I think that the U.S. is in a chaotic state right now. A lot worse than when Obama was President. Your observation is right.

[missmuffet]

3 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Hi SBG,

That was a very clear, well put outline of your view of the US political parties and I have a question.

If Trump is outside of the "establishment", how did he get to the position of running and even Prez?

Money talks? (no matter who you are?)

Now that is darn good question if you ask me

[SavedByGrace1981]

4 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Hi SBG,

That was a very clear, well put outline of your view of the US political parties and I have a question.

If Trump is outside of the "establishment", how did he get to the position of running and even Prez?

Money talks? (no matter who you are?)

 

16 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

Now that is darn good question if you ask me

I agree.  And I answered the question.

How would YOU answer the question?

Blessings,

-Ed

[missmuffet]

25 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

 

I agree.  And I answered the question.

How would YOU answer the question?

Blessings,

-Ed

Well when Trump first started campaigning it was a big laugh. Everyone thought it was a big joke. Then many became very serious about him running for President. I really do not know how that happened and it left me scratching my head. Of all the crude things he said and did I just could not imagine him as our next President. But then the other candidates starting dropping out and then it was only him and Hilary. A couple of bad choices. Many held their noses while they voted for one or the other. Trump winning the election was a big surprise for America...why? I did not have a clue.

[HisFirst]

So, am I hearing right that you don't have to be politically active and a representative of parliament in local or federal government?

You can literally run if you have the monetary means by  self support or outside support?

 

[SavedByGrace1981]

5 hours ago, HisFirst said:

So, am I hearing right that you don't have to be politically active and a representative of parliament in local or federal government?

You can literally run if you have the monetary means by  self support or outside support?

 

Basically, yes.

Mr. Trump had previously held no political office.  (Of all the past presidents, I can think of only 2 - Grant and Eisenhower - who achieved that office without ever having held previous political office).

But in practical terms, other things have to 'fall into place' as well.  During our 1992 election cycle, a different billionaire (Ross Perot) ran for president. Obviously he had the monetary means; he had the name recognition; but he was not successful (in part because he ran as a 3rd party candidate). 

Perot committed some major 'faux pas' during his campaign, as did Trump - yet in Perot's case they were fatal to his candidacy. The reasons for that are many, but one chief reason would be that for Trump 'the times were right.'

I appreciate the opportunity to share with someone from outside the country my opinion of what is going on.  I appreciate your curiosity, as well.

I'll just close by saying this situation - having a president that is literally despised by such a large segment of what I call 'the establishment' - is a new one to us as Americans.  No one - as recently as 2 years ago - would have or could have predicted this outcome.  So trying to predict how it will turn out is probably a fools errand.

Please pray for our country.

Blessings,

-Ed