What really motivates Tea Partiers who support Trump?
I wonder just how many of his alleged huge bandwagon are really paid shills?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
My 2 bits.
which we despise and cannot stop. -- john
.
If Trump sincerely subscribes to a "rising tide lifts all boats" he could be a very good thing for this country at a time when it needs it.
The impromptu lecture and discussion at that table was a turning point in my life on that subject.
On the other hand, I shared a flight and got to shake Colonel West's hand.
Edit:sp
making America great again. Just ANSWER
THE DAMN QUESTIONS!!!!!
and to ... well, you know. . is he really a-moral, in terms of
business principles? -- j
.
As stated somewhere else if he goes by "A rising tide lifts all boats" we'd be in good shape. With 200+ companies he could only benefit from running the nation as a business, bringing its debt under control, cultivating a sound business environment, reducing the size of government and reigning in taxes.
I'm certain Rockefeller, Edison, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Vanderbilt, etc all cared if what they did to amass their fortunes was liked by others. I suspect many of those didn't much mind if their business actions were legal either.
My point though was that you shouldn't hold against Trump those things he did which were legal just because you find them distasteful. None of us are in his position, we don't have his money nor his responsibilities. The law being the measure, he acted within it to make his fortune.
@JDG: Why should he not be proud of his own accomplishments? Also, he didn't say thats how our system is supposed to work, he's said that how it does work and he took used the system to his advantage.
CORRECTION: "Is it illegal? No."
Sorry.
your best within the law, as he apparently has done.
the only part which concerns me is eminent domain, but
I don't know the particular situations.
it's his purchase of influence -- contributing to politicians
to further his purposes, for example -- which makes me
say "amoral" in this context. . at least he appears to be
a fine family man, and a good father. . a fine indication of value. -- j
.
But will he hold up? Will he eventually present a serious and concrete plan of action? Until another candidate shows the willingness to really break with the political status quo, and demonstrates the capacity to be able to tell Washingtonians to go F...k themselves AND not care (Trump can do this where it's political suicide for the others) until then, I remain for radical change in lieu of what we have today and the tragedy that it could continue.
Democrats make sure you are too poor to rob.
From the perspective of the person being held up, not a whole lot of difference.
So now following an earlier suggestion I put in these terms.
Humanoid Party AKA Government Party AKA Coalition of the Left = Republicans as the right wing of the left and Democrats as the left wing of the left with one or two broken feathers the non-RINOs who are still however firmly attached.
They rolled out the drums for Napoleon, they rolled out the drums for Hitler, for Mao, for Stalin. It means, "We are tired of being the fall guy, we are not getting a good deal, we are being screwed, our so-called leaders are not on our side." Along comes a charismatic figure, and he promises to fix all that. He is believable, he is on our side, he'll make us be winners. We want to win, for a change." And that is how Napoleon, and Hitler and all the rest convinced even some of the brightest, to follow them. The failure of the current leaders have given birth to Donald Trump.
He's a businessman, and he's good at what he does.... not your drinkin' bud. We've elected "drinking buds" as president before, maybe it's time we change that paradigm and elext someone who is not your "best buddy" but someone who will do the job and get 'er done. Because how did electing your "happy go lucky drinking bud" work out for the country? Or the guy who is the "Local Friendly Community Organizer"?
That's the way I run my businesses... In an interview, do you hire your semi-qualified pal, or the best qualified candidate for the job? Hell, I may think someone's personality SUCKS, we may be as different as Air and Rock, but if they're the best qualified person for that job, who will get the BEST reesults for our company... I can get over personality.
I CANNOT get over incompetence or dishonesty.
I've told employers "I'll work for free for 2 weeks. You like what you see, you hire me and pay me back. You don't, I'll leave, no hard feelings."
Know how many times I had to walk? I can count them on less than one hand... :-)
.
& "skilled diplomat, adept at bringing together conflicting elements for the best possible outcome." is NOT trump
long enough to have flipped the scale -- he takes the self-actualization
for granted and messes with the other rungs on the ladder
for entertainment. . he has lost his fear of failure. -- j
.
.
Characteristics of self-actualizers:
1. They perceive reality efficiently and can tolerate uncertainty;
2. Accept themselves and others for what they are;
3. Spontaneous in thought and action;
4. Problem-centered (not self-centered);
5. Unusual sense of humor;
6. Able to look at life objectively;
7. Highly creative;
8. Resistant to enculturation, but not purposely unconventional;
9. Concerned for the welfare of humanity;
10. Capable of deep appreciation of basic life-experience;
11. Establish deep satisfying interpersonal relationships with a few people;
12. Peak experiences;
13. Need for privacy;
14. Democratic attitudes;
15. Strong moral/ethical standards.
I don't see Trump having most of those characteristics?
self-actualization is subjective and even Hitler was there.
I feel that I got there, personally, when I found that there was
more joy in my life than I could express, and I could
do most of what I pleased with people who pleased me.
it took longer to lose my fear of failure.
The Donald is there, as he perceives things, in my humble opinion.
and he sure is having fun with the levels below -- the love of others
and the basics of shelter, clothing and food. -- j
.
The loss of fear of failure is important, as is the reason an individual got there Is it actually no longer fearing failure (a self limiting problem) or immunization from failure because of circumstances?
And I agree its, very subjective. I also am not sure Hitler was there in that he was driven by his own power and not concerned with humanity as a whole. (interesting link https://sites.google.com/site/adolfhi...
"Here's another fine mess you got me into ..."
the second is Oliver Hardy speaking to Stan Laurel. The first I'll have to go look up.
I am perfectly fine after we have allowed a Community DIS organizer to hold the reins for 8 years to try and see what a successful businessman can do. At this point, 14 months out from the election, all I will say is "Any one but Hillary or some other left wing lunatic". I will totally support which ever one gets the nod to go up against the democrat nominee and it might be a good idea for others here to adopt a similar posture.
I don't want to call Trump's persona honest, because he's just as slippery as the rest of the political crowd. I do think that he's an open book, unashamed of his well-recorded history. He admits to cozying up to any political figure of any stripe when it served his purposes, and readily admits that he's one of those wealthy figures who routinely buy politicians. He does whatever is necessary to get the job done, and isn't so tied to rigid ideology that he can't walk away from a bad deal.
While highly principled men and women with rock-solid principles may be admirable, there is the element of tyranny in their role as leaders. Americans have traditionally been problem solvers, willing to be flexible in how to address a problem, and have been frustrated in political figures fixated on rigid principle, preventing common-sense solutions. Most Americans support limited-case abortion, but up to now their only political choice has been between absolutists, who either claim to stand for no abortion under any circumstances, or abortion on-demand up to the day of birth. Trump's outcome-focused, get the job done attitude appeals to those frustrated with absolutists on both sides.
The problem which many on this site have pointed out is that both parties are moving us in the direction of a statist government. You can elect a Republican House and Senate and they are so afraid of being blamed for "shutting down the government" that they fund Obama's programs. What's the point?
It was looking very much like we were going to get to choose between Bush and Clinton. Again. I think both parties have had it with that -- which is one of the reasons that Bernie is doing so well on the left. At least he admits he's a socialist.
Is Trump a conservative? No, but he has been successful and he knows you have to make money to spend it. That's a hell of a lot more than most politicians. At this point I'd like to see something different. While he's been compared to Barack Obama because they are good at saying things that get crowds excited, what did Barack Obama do before getting into politics? What multi-billion dollar enterprise did he build and run?
Of course I would rather have Rand Paul. And if he get's any traction he's my man, but at the moment I see Trump as the Bush repellent. And it seems to be working.
Lack of ethics and integrity is the main reason we are staring into the abyss with the GOP and Democrats pushing us into it.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "WASTED VOTE". Maybe in the old Soviet Union or China, but not here. Unless you buy into that lie, an allow yourself to be told who to vote for, so the annointed will (once again) win. And the whole "vote for evil" - well, that's good propoganda, but he may be the best candidate to pick from. Or... he may really be the best choice, when push comes to shove.
If I feel Trump - or Fiorina, or Paul, or even (galt forbid) Looney Tunes is the best candidate running, then that's who gets my vote. Because if enough people have the guts and integrity not to vote as others tell them to, but vote for who THEY feel is the best presidential candidate, based on their research, we may get out of the "pre-ordained presidency" which is literally destroying this country.
(I feel like a certain politician from decades past... "Let me make one thing perfectly clear...")
It's simple. If you vote for who, in your best research, is the best candidate, regardless of who someone else tells you to vote for, then your vote is NOT wasted. If EVERYONE did this, rather than fall for the "lesser of 2 evils" or "you're wasting your vote" coercive lines, then even IF "my" candidate didn't win, it would still be the choice of "we the people".
Where I was going with that was I need to determine, for myself, who I felt was the best presidential candidate (or write in) for the position, and THAT'S who would get my support, my vote, and my backing. Someone who would blatantly lie, change positions (eg Flip-Flop), or do something against a certain document they swore (or will swear) to protect and defend... are instant disqualifiers for me. If you say something - I expect you to stand behind it, whether you're a political figure, an employee (or employer), a friend, a business, whatever.
Head in the stars? Maybe. But I prefer these things (especially in a leader) called Honesty and Integrity. That is NOT for sale to the highest liar, er, bidder. If you ain't got it, then you ain't got my back... and I won't have yours.
I have been outspoken ( I hope) in saying that voting for the GOP or the Dems is a wasted vote because I think no one with ethics (honesty and integrity) will be allowed by the party to represent the party. I think the process is rigged and that is based on the past selection of GOP candidates that so obviously did not have a history of support for the things that the GOP promises to deliver to true conservatives: more individual liberty and less government.
In 3 words, freedom for all.
As the saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a duck." The current flock of GOP candidates are all quacks, with one possible exception: Rand Paul. Therefore, it is a near certainty that Paul will not represent the GOP as candidate for president. (Unless all other GOP officeholders and potential candidates are somehow disqualified on the eve of the election.)
Try this one to start a verbal fight. Is Christian Democrat an oxymoron?
the Answer is not if i you can multi task or compartmentalize. Works on RINOs too.
What makes you think all of the candidates left on voting day will NOT be pre-ordained. It's a one party system with two faces. Supporting that system is evil.
And how do you support voting one way and having your vote given to someone you didn't want under the winner take all rules?
Tsk tsk tsk. Check your premises. There are more choices than candidate one or candidate two.
Personally, I like the Tea Party ideals more than any other political movement short of the Constitutionalists. I just can't see supporting Trump, however, as consistent with the Tea Party or Constitution Party except solely as a vote against the Republican Party as a whole.
I'll tell you this much, I think we'd be a lot better off with Trump as president than Hillary.
Seriously - look at Rubio, Hukabee, Christie, et al... They're POLITICIANS who think they deserve the office because of their POLITICAL successes. Trump is the only one (save Fiorina) who can honestly say "I'm NOT a politician, I'm a businessperson, and I'll run the government as a business, not my personal entitlement".
Do you want yet another one-party anointed moocher... or do you want to see change... not Oscumma change, but change back to where we should never have left a century and change ago?
1. Trump is an opportunist. Without question! He has been polishing this message for a very long time, and he knows exactly what he needs to say to rile people in the face of white washed politicians who have been focus grouped, groomed, and over rehearsed to sound like all of the other whitewashed, focus grouped, groomed, and over rehearsed politicians.
Right or wrong, it is the same source of appeal that Bernie Sanders is enjoying from the other side of the political spectrum.
At the end of the day, the people are told who they are "ALLOWED" to vote for, by the establishment, and we will have white wash A vs white wash B... When it was Bush Vs Gore, the first time, both sides screamed about how evil the other was.... When the rubber hit the road, Bush did EXACTLY what Gore said he would do in the first 100 days, and likely, Gore would have done exactly what Bush did during his tenure.
The point is that there are no real differences among the major party candidates, EXCEPT for Trump and Sanders.
On a short side note, it would not surprise me to learn, some day, in a decade or two, that Trump did what he did in order to get the masses to watch the Republicans, because I am positive that if he were not in the debate, NOBODY would have watched it.
Ciao, CZ
It was a fluke (had to borrow a truck to get to a jobsite, and they left the radio on the local "talking heads" station), as I usually don't listen to him. But that made it jump out all the more.
tea partiers see an "out" with him -- they voted against
the D.C. mob last November 4th, and it didn't work.
the mob is still screwing us over. . The Donald offers
another choice previously unavailable -- a person
free from the shackles of the D.C. money sources
who just might be able to run this nation like a successful
entrepreneurial business. . sure, he's surprising in
some of the things he says, but we badly need an option
which isn't just another version of the status quo. -- j
.
As to what motivates TP's (if true, there are serious doubts) toward trump...anger, frustration, lack of critical thinking and have fallen for the ole Heligan Dialectic trick...create a problem, appeal to our baser needs, get you to yell about it...then, out of the blue, comes someone that claims to be able to fix it all. Can you say?...GOTCHA? that's exactly what they intended. Remember...trump is related to hiltery. Aside form that, he wants to make America a great COMPANY, not a great Country.