Post New

The following interhange about Trump, with its spot-on assessment, is in today's NYTimes' Tuesday "Conversation" between Republication Bret Stephens and Democrat Gail Collins. And it speaks directly to the ironclad sense of gloating superiority maintained by several on this board.

"Gail: Amazing we've gotten this far (in this conversation) without mentioning that the man we all regard as the very, very likely Republican nominee for president is facing multitudinous criminal indictments in Georgia, New York, Florida and Washington.

Bret: Ninety-one counts in all. You could almost take 'em down and pass 'em around like bottles of beer on the wall.

Gail: So far, many of his supporters seem pretty eager to accept his claims that everything is just an anti-Trump political conspiracy. Can that last? It's still about a year until the Republican presidential nominating convention in Milwaukee. I can't help feeling that something will come up that even his fans will find impossible to ignore.

Bret: "Gail, the truest thing Trump ever said is that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his base would stick with him. The proper way to understand his appeal isn't by studying normal voter behavior. It's by studying cults. In a cult, the leader is always, simultaneously, a savior of his people and a victim of a vast and shadowy conspiracy. Unfortunately, all of these prosecutions, however merited, do more to reinforce than undermine the thinking of his followers."

For the "cult of personality" to work, Trump has to be out on the campaign trail with his followers. His legal battles may consume enough of his time that this does not happen and the cult starts to dissipate. It is certainly a high risk time for our country.
Alan

The proper way to understand his appeal isn't by studying normal voter behavior. It's by studying cults.

I think that's wrong. Or at best, it's woefully incomplete.

The proper way to understand his appeal is to recognize that most Republicans, and certainly most of Trump's base, dislikes Democrats. They abhor what they perceive to be Democratic policies, values, and priorities. They believe Democrats have corrupt motives and malicious intent. They believe that Democrats similarly hate their values, interests, culture and choices. They believe Democrats cannot be trusted with power, and that if they gain power they will use it corruptly and to accomplish bad ends.

They don't believe that these indictments are revealing anything about Trump. They believe these indictments reveal how awful Democrats are.

It's not a cult - it's just basic in-group vs. out-group. The Democrats (the out-group to Republicans) have taken an action that will hurt a prominent member of their in-group. So the in-group rallies around them. Plus, since the action is one that should carry a stigma, it increases enormously the salience of rallying around the in-group member as a demonstration of in-group loyalty - in the absence of the attack, people might have different reasons for supporting different members of the in-group, but in the fact of the attack only in-group loyalty can justify that support.

I think Democrats are fooling themselves if they believe that their own reactions would be significantly different. I know we'd like to believe that we would act differently - but I kind of doubt it. Had Whitewater managed to come up with indictable offenses, rather than a sex scandal, it's hard to see Democrats throwing Bill Clinton over the side, either. Had the Attorney General of Arkansas in 1998 been a Republican, and brought a perjury indictment against Bill Clinton, you would see most Democrats lambasting that as a politically motivated unjustified persecution as well.

Gail: 'I can't help feeling that something will come up that even his fans will find impossible to ignore.'

What matters is the last republican standing who will be the candidate running against Biden.
Many voters might be disappointed who it will be, but the American people most certainly do not want another four years of Biden.

There is a lot of disappointment, anger, and now animosity towards Trump from FOX.
FOX's anticipated ratings for the debate (I believe) will not be what they expected and hope for.
Trump was to be the 'star' candidate sort to speak, drawing a lot of attention and viewers.

FoxNews animosity has even extended to tell 'Trump surrogates they are
no longer welcomed at first debate:'
'Donald Trump Jr., had said Monday that he would be attending the showdown as a surrogate for his father. His fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle had also planned to attend.'
This added swipe will surely anger more people whether they are Trump fans or not.

Adding to FOXNews animosity is Tucker Carson will be interviewing Donald Trump.

This added swipe will surely anger more people whether they are Trump fans or not.

Why? If he chooses not to participate, then he's choosing not to participate. Why would his campaign team be allowed to have access to the "spin room" media section if his campaign has declined to participate in the event? I mean, I can see why they would want to have that - all of the perks of being in the debate without him actually having to do the work of being in the debate. But why would they, much less the general GOP electorate, believe that Trump is entitled to have his people actively participate (as opposed to just spectating from the audience) if he chose not to show up?

Albaby

{I think Democrats are fooling themselves if they believe that their own reactions would be significantly different. I know we'd like to believe that we would act differently - but I kind of doubt it. Had Whitewater managed to come up with indictable offenses, rather than a sex scandal, it's hard to see Democrats throwing Bill Clinton over the side, either.} Albaby

I can only speak for myself, but I believe if someone breaks the law they should be punished.

Take a look at the Al Frankel case...he took an inappropriate photo and he got the boot.

Or Andrew M. Cuomo, once the sexual harassment allegations came public most Democrats abandoned him.

Most Democrats believes that if Hunter Biden broke the law, he should be punished, and every Republican believes that Donald Trump should be above the law. (Sounds rather Cultish to me!)

Since 1968 Democrat Admins have had 3 criminal indictments, 1 conviction, 1 prison sentence.

Since 1968 Republican Admins Have had 120 criminal indictments, 89 convictions, 34 prison sentences.

"The difference between Democrats and Republicans: We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the
cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity
than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference." ~ John F. Kennedy

FoxNews animosity has even extended to tell 'Trump surrogates they are
no longer welcomed at first debate:'

And they shouldn't be, really. If Trump can't be bothered to show up, then his surrogates and people attached to his campaign don't just get to be there to potentially distract things, either.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe if someone breaks the law they should be punished.

I don't, and I doubt you do either.

It is almost impossible to live in modern society without breaking the law constantly. Trivial things, like violating copyright protection by posting too long an excerpt of a news article, or sending someone a copy of a song that you didn't purchase a second time, or using a work computer to look up the weather for your weekend trip. Slightly more consequential things, like going over the speed limit or a rolling stop. Teenagers that commit minor acts of vandalism, adults who share streaming passwords or fudge a bit on their taxes. Even more consequentially, otherwise lawful and upright citizens who commit first offenses where no one gets hurt (they get pulled over for a slightly-over-the-limit DUI, they accidentally fail to scan an item at the self-checkout, they get into a bar fight after too much to drink on a Saturday night) often are given the chance, through thoughtful and appropriate conversations with police and prosecutors, to avoid the formalities of a criminal conviction. If everyone who breaks the law received the full measure of punishment for breaking the law, there would be few outside the jails.

Prosecutorial discretion is among the most powerful forces in the criminal justice system.

Bill Clinton received a civil contempt charge in 1998 from a conservative federal judge after her determination that he perjured himself in an Arkansas deposition. If George W. Bush's US Attorney for Arkansas in 2000 had decided to go ahead and press criminal charges against Clinton, Democrats would have gone ballistic</b over that. In a counterfactual where it was Clinton (not Gore) who had narrowly lost in 2000 and was likely to run again in 2004, many Democrats would almost certainly have rallied behind Clinton against what they would have perceived as a politically motivated charge brought in circumstances where prosecutorial discretion would be called for. Or if Gore were running against Bush in 2004, and Florida had a Democratic governor and secretary of state, and Gore had made the statements that Trump had made, Democrats would be livid if a rural conservative Republican prosecutor had tried to bring Gore up on charges.

I'm not claiming that these underlying actions are not violations of law - or even that they don't warrant being prosecuted. Just that a very large number of Democrats would react similarly if die-hard Republicans prosecuted their political leaders. It's not some deep mystery that confounds all understanding. No one minds if their own in-group decides to move away from a political leader because of a screw-up. But people will find a way to ratinalize if the out-group goes after a political leader that the in-group still likes, especially if going after that political leader will actually have electoral consequences (which neither Frankel nor Cuomo did).

Most Democrats believes that if Hunter Biden broke the law - vsg

-------------------

"if"????? Is there genuine doubt about that? There certainly is a lot of discussion about what the punishment should be but the gun crime and two counts of tax avoidance themselves are open and shut. And Hunter was even prepared to plead guilty under the plea agreement that fell apart.

I suppose if the prosecution drags this out long enough to the point that the statute of limitations makes the crimes unable to be prosecuted, then that is equivalent to not breaking the law.

Why? If he chooses not to participate, then he's choosing not to participate. Why would his campaign team be allowed to have access to the "spin room" media section if his campaign has declined to participate in the event?

I understand your point.
I was thinking in terms of lost viewers not tuning in to watch the debate with the absence of
a Trump whoever not being there. Ratings are important to any network.

I usually do not watch debates as such. I am more interested in the pros/cons and the dissecting of comments made from both sides afterwards.

"if"????? Is there genuine doubt about that? There certainly is a lot of discussion about what the punishment should be but the gun crime and two counts of tax avoidance themselves are open and shut. And Hunter was even prepared to plead guilty under the plea agreement that fell apart.

Not only that, but new State Department memos are out that showed that Joe Biden was also operating outside of Obama admin policy with respect to Shokin...

I was thinking in terms of lost viewers not tuning in to watch the debate with the absence of
a Trump whoever not being there. Ratings are important to any network.

I mean - maybe? I imagine nearly all of those viewers are already lost, given that Trump's not going to be there. They either won't turn in because the debate won't have the main attraction (Trump mixing it up with his opponents), or they'll watch the Trump-Tucker show. They're not tuning in just to watch the spin room.

Trump's campaign is trying to get access to the viewers who do watch the debate, so that they can try to mitigate some of the consequences of Trump's decision not to participate. They want to be able to influence that audience. It's not surprising that Fox wants no part in that, and it's kind of childish that the campaign is complaining about it.

I think you lost your way with that argument. Sure, we all violate some law all the time, even if unintentionally. That's not the point. The broader point is that Dems do NOT rally around (in general) a "disgraced" Dem. I personally thought that the Al Franken thing was an overreaction (apparently he didn't touch the woman, he just made a crass photo). But that is an example of Dems not rallying around one of their in-group.

If Joe Biden were suddenly found to have conspired to fix the 2020 election, for example, he'd almost certainly lose the 2024 election because no one would show up to vote for him (and no self-respecting Dem would vote for a piece of corrupt filth like Trump, so no point in showing up at all). So I really can only explain the Trump phenomenon with the term "cult". It's more than just in-group/out-group. To be part of an in-group, you have to have some shared values.** I very much doubt that the conservative posters on this board share values such as cheating, anti-democratic behavior (i.e. trying to steal a legitimate election and/or stage a coup), and violation of other laws (like the secrets laws), but they still support Trump. Which implies -to me- a cult-like warping of their thinking. Not that they would drink poisoned kool-aid if instructed, but at least some of the Trump cult would gun-down congressmen (no one on this board, of course). Will they abandon him if he is convicted? If not, then I think "cult" is correct.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cult&sourceid=chro...

I hesitate to compare this, but from the time of Trump's campaign back in 2015/2016, I was posting on TMF that he was following some very scary patterns that I recognized from the National Socialist Worker's Party in Germany (circa 1930). Right after Trump was elected, The Atlantic published an article that seemed to me like the author was reading my posts. Well, fast forward to 1945, and the German people were made to realize what a monster they had installed. Many realized it years earlier, but many engaged in denial and deliberate ignorance until forced (by the Americans) to walk through the "labor" camps and see undeniable evidence with their own eyes. It was a cult of personality that required that drastic an action to break.

Right now Trump supporters are threatening grand jurors for the indictments, and I believe I've read about threats to judges and DAs, not to mention the threats to vote-counting officials in 2020. It is more than in-group. It's a cult of personality, and I almost wish I didn't know so much about the most horrific cult of personality of the 20th century, because this has some echoes of that.



**One interesting example I read about was they staged an experiment in the UK where someone wearing a shirt for a given football club would feign passing out in public. Depending on where he was (i.e. if the club was a local favorite), he would receive help or not. That is in-group. That is "tribe".

(In case the reference was missed because I'm older than many/most here, look up Jim Jones in Guyana.)

And Hunter was even prepared to plead guilty under the plea agreement that fell apart.

Just a quibble. Innocent people often plead guilty because the risk of going to trial is higher than they find acceptable. So they make a plea deal.

From what I know, that likely isn't the case for Hunter. I think he was pleaing-down to make the case go away. Again, from what I know.

But I have no problem if Hunter goes to prison, or is exonerated, or something in between. I let the wheels turn. As long as Joe isn't meddling, let the chips fall where they may. If Joe did meddle, he should not run for another term.

I may not be a typical Dem. Dunno. But most folks I know wouldn't excuse a crime just because they claimed some party affiliation.

I think you lost your way with that argument. Sure, we all violate some law all the time, even if unintentionally. That's not the point. The broader point is that Dems do NOT rally around (in general) a "disgraced" Dem. I personally thought that the Al Franken thing was an overreaction (apparently he didn't touch the woman, he just made a crass photo). But that is an example of Dems not rallying around one of their in-group.

Because he was being defenestrated by the in-group. If Franken had chosen to stay in office, and Democrats had made their piece with it, and then a local Republican prosecutor tried to charge Franken with sexual assault in a way that might jeopardize Democrats' ability to hold that Senate seat? You can bet that Democrats would have rallied behind Franken.

We saw that with l'affaire Clinton - the Bill version. Clinton was clearly "disgraced," and almost certainly committed perjury. But Democrats knew that a successful effort to remove him from office - or even a fairly bipartisan failure to remove him from office - would cost them the 2000 election. Wagons circled, troops rallied, etc.

There's always weak pickings on both sides that get tossed over the edge if it's politically expedient (or if they're willing to go quietly) - but if someone's deeply important to electoral success and the attacks are coming entirely from outside the house, you're not going to see that same response, especially if they're nationally popular with the base.

Trump's campaign is trying to get access to the viewers who do watch the debate, so that they can try to mitigate some of the consequences of Trump's decision not to participate. They want to be able to influence that audience. It's not surprising that Fox wants no part in that, and it's kind of childish that the campaign is complaining about it.

I'm not sure where/how the Tucker/Trump thing will happen. I think it will be a twitter thing or whatever. I don't do twitter or partake with any other blogs except here. I do read some blogs and news outlets though. Mostly because I don't want to be spending my time in front or a computer/TV screen.
I will tune in the TV or read the commentary of the tucker/trump debate.

Perhaps some will remember how I laughed at the PA when Trump announced he would run for President. I said he would be the last person I'd vote for. When it came down to Hillary and Trump, it was an easy choice.
It will be the same this time around. Biden will not get my vote.
So....my mind is already made up who I will vote for.
Biden has done enough damage to America, we don't more or we will cease to exist.

The proper way to understand his appeal is to recognize that most Republicans, and certainly most of Trump's base, dislikes Democrats. They abhor what they perceive to be Democratic policies, values, and priorities. They believe Democrats have corrupt motives and malicious intent. They believe that Democrats similarly hate their values, interests, culture and choices. They believe Democrats cannot be trusted with power, and that if they gain power they will use it corruptly and to accomplish bad ends.

Thanks for this. I've been uneasy with the "cult" take because it doesn't ring true.

They abhor what they perceive to be Democratic policies, values, and priorities.

They seem to have cartoonish views of Democratic policies, or at least express it that way. Many seem to be confused. I tell em my perspective. That people want their SS and Medicare, and we need to come to grips with the fact that Congress has borrowed, given a poor return, and some of the benefits need to be trimmed. But Grandma wants her SS, even though she may not know it's, gasp, Socialism! (I read arguments it isn't but I use Investopedia for that.) We have to accept that we are bigots and have a normal past where we enslaved people, tossed them off their land, slaughtered them at times, have a segregationist past, were imperialists ( some think we still are), and we used our military to counter capitalists enemies and secure our corporations fertile areas in other countries (hegemony) to make money. We've treated the LGBTQ badly, just like many other countries. And lastly that although we are the strongest economy in the world, other countries manage their economic systems better and their people are happier, and, worst of all, there isn't a clear, viable path to managing it better. We seem to have squandered opportunities and the way just isn't there any more. So our best bet is to just manage it as best we can, and keep up our alliances. We're stuck with the 2A, we have to manage it better. We don't need to focus on abortion, but that's a money maker for Evangelicals, so we need to deal - it won't go away if money is involved. Trump represents pissing in the face of every liberalish person who is seen as the arrogant, east-coast, suit - and they are all flyover country, or rednecks. We're stuck.

...a local Republican prosecutor tried to charge Franken with sexual assault in a way that might jeopardize Democrats' ability to hold that Senate seat? You can bet that Democrats would have rallied behind Franken.

Probably because a photo of him NOT touching her wouldn't qualify as sexual assault. If the photo showed him groping her, or worse, I think he would have been dropped like a bad habit.

And he was a rising star in the Dem party. He was one of the more outspoken and eloquent advocates for UHC. His arguments were clear, concise, and correct. I think he swayed a lot of folks. But he was kicked to the curb (rightly or wrongly).

If Bill had been removed, the VP would have taken over. The black eye from Clinton was already there, so I don't think that would have made much difference.

Trump represents pissing in the face of every liberalish person who is seen as the arrogant, east-coast, suit - and they are all flyover country, or rednecks.

Care to expand on this? It reads like the problem is that those idiots in flyover country (and rednecks everywhere) just hate libs and the only reason Trump is popular is because he doesn't like them either.

Probably because a photo of him NOT touching her wouldn't qualify as sexual assault. If the photo showed him groping her, or worse, I think he would have been dropped like a bad habit.

Battery is if he touches her. Assault is usually defined under state law as threatened unlawful physical violence. If you threaten to touch someone sexually, you can commit assault even if you don't actually make contact. I agree it's a very unlikely charge - but if there were a more credible charge and Franken was the Democrats' nominee for that Senate seat, you can bet that most Democratic voters would want to try to defend Franken rather than, say, lose a critical vote for Universal Health Care.

Yes, he was kicked to the curb - by Democrats. Again, easy to do when you know you'll hold the seat and there's no political cost. The GOP was perfectly willing to strip Steve King (R-IA) of his committee positions after his racist statements hurt the party's national standing, leaving him to twist in the wind and get trounced in his next primary.

That's very different than a national party leader like Trump or Clinton. Clinton gave them a black eye - but not much of one, since he was still enormously popular in 2000 and played a hugely significant role in the party during the next several election cycles. He was considered an incredible asset to the party, up through at least 2012.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/how-bill-cl...

Nothing like would have happened if the Democrats had gone full Nixon on him and supported removing him from office. It's one thing for your opponents to claim that your national leader's a bad guy - but if you admit it yourself, you'll take a much bigger hit from the voters. The 1974 elections were very unkind to the GOP, to say the least. Giving the out-group a major win - helping them score that major win - is a blow to the strength of your political party with few parallels.

Care to expand on this? It reads like the problem is that those idiots in flyover country (and rednecks everywhere) just hate libs and the only reason Trump is popular is because he doesn't like them either.

I'm not the OP, but that is at least partially true. They don't like liberals, and so they vote not-liberal (which in 2016 and 2020 was Trump). I don't want to generalize, so I won't. At least part of his appeal was that he "normalized" racism, as evidence by his being supported by the Daily Stormer and whatever the KKK publishes. He actually accomplished very little, though LM was very honest about her position (which was something like "he gave us the SCOTUS, so I don't care about anything else"). He did tap into a lot of anger and hate in ways that other Republicans didn't (and still don't). Some of it aimed at liberals, but also -and I'm not quite sure why- at democracy itself. Which is the only reason I can see Republicans excusing his attempts to nullify the election results and install himself into power. They are angry/resentful/hateful of the democratic process.

I can only guess, and my best guess would be that they don't like how society is evolving (for whatever reason...gay rights, black POTUSes, abortion rights, or something else), and they'd rather burn it down and install a strongman than continue to live in a democracy where their values are a minority position. Just a WAG that could be completely off-base, but it's the best I an come up with at the moment. I live in AZ, and I know some Trump supporters. I think they are often misinformed, but are otherwise decent folks. So I'm not saying they are all bad, but I still don't get them accepting a wannabe-dictator instead of a democracy that sometimes doesn't go their way.

At least part of his appeal was that he "normalized" racism, as evidence by his being supported by the Daily Stormer and whatever the KKK publishes.

So racism. Okay.

I can only guess, and my best guess would be that they don't like how society is evolving (for whatever reason...gay rights, black POTUSes, abortion rights, or something else), and they'd rather burn it down and install a strongman than continue to live in a democracy where their values are a minority position.

So if you asked the Trump supporters you know in AZ, do you really think they'd tell you that "This whole United States thing has run its course; time for a dictator"?

He actually accomplished very little, though LM was very honest about her position (which was something like "he gave us the SCOTUS, so I don't care about anything else")

Very false assumption.

So if you asked the Trump supporters you know in AZ, do you really think they'd tell you that "This whole United States thing has run its course; time for a dictator"?

No, they wouldn't say so. Though I do vividly remember one woman (a clip from the news) saying "if we have to have a dictator, it should be Trump". Very likely an outlier. And even you have said words to the effect of "we've lost our way in this country". SeattlePioneer used to complain he didn't recognize this country anymore.**

However, I also wouldn't say they are dumb. So, if you support trying to subvert the democratic process...what's the alternative other than saying that you're supporting a coup? Supporting installing who you want in an undemocratic way? It's sort of binary. A logical negation of democracy.

And I did say I didn't want to generalize "racism", but there is no denying that it was a factor for many people. Maybe nobody here, maybe not my neighbors. I won't even say "most", but "many".



**Which I totally get...I don't recognize it anymore either. Used to be we could work together and hammer-out compromises; but that is anathema to a lot of people since the "TEA party". Though SP wasn't referring to that; he was uncomfortable with other things.

Very false assumption.

No assumption. That's what you said (probably paraphrased since I don't have an eidetic memory). You said that he gave us a conservative SCOTUS, so that was good enough for you. Or words to that effect. And he did do that, you were correct. With some help from McConnell.

And even you have said words to the effect of "we've lost our way in this country". SeattlePioneer used to complain he didn't recognize this country anymore.*

And you interpret that as "Let's go get a dictator"? Interesting.

And I did say I didn't want to generalize "racism", but there is no denying that it was a factor for many people. Maybe nobody here, maybe not my neighbors. I won't even say "most", but "many".

Hmmm. It's been my experience that the most casual racism comes from those who insist that that minorities are incapable of taking care of themselves and as such the government should be doing more.

So, if you support trying to subvert the democratic process....

I doubt very much that Trump supporters believe this. Most of them believe that what Trump personally did was within permissible avenues of contesting the result of an election. They might be wrong, of course - but that's what every person they find credible has told them.

I suspect they find Democrats' attitudes towards democracy far more troubling that Trump's, which is why the "Deep State" rhetoric and populist framing works so well. For various reasons, Democrats have long been more the "counter-majoritarian" party - believing that institutions like the courts and federal agencies have the capabilities and legitimacy to adopt wide-ranging rules. On a wide range of recent issues with high saliency (Covid, climate change, cultural issues in public education) the GOP has positioned Democrats as the ones arguing that technical experts, rather than political leaders, should be the ones to decide "should" questions in a variety of contexts. That makes it easy for the GOP to argue that it's the Democrats, not DJT, that's a threat to democracy....

Albaby

You said that he gave us a conservative SCOTUS, so that was good enough for you.

So here's an interesting hypothetical....

Think of the worst Democratic politician that could plausibly mount a Presidential campaign. Someone either proven to be corrupt - a Ray Nagin, a Jim Trafficant - or maybe just the shadiest Democrat that's currently in a high office that hasn't been nailed yet. Whoever you think is just the worst high-level officeholder.

Now imagine you have a magic button. You can push the button, and this person will have won the 2016 election, and the SCOTUS will have a liberal majority. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, affirmative action in college admissions is still legal, EPA's authority to cap carbon emissions is still in place, various Clean Water Act and Voting Rights Act protections are still there, etc. But the President - the Democratic President - is a scumbag.

Do you push that magic button? Do you sit there and think of all the women who have suffered, the carbon future of the planet, the protection of minority voters' place in the democratic system....and push that button?

Albaby

And you interpret that as "Let's go get a dictator"? Interesting.

No, I'm interpreting the subsequent actions as "I'd rather have a dictator I choose, than a democratically-elected leader I don't like".

It's been my experience that the most casual racism comes from those who insist that that minorities are incapable of taking care of themselves and as such the government should be doing more.

I think the casual racism here is the failure to recognize that whites (and particularly white males) have long had an advantage in our society; one that was institutional for a very long time. That is being overcome slowly, but there is a reason white incomes (or health/longevity, or any of several metrics) is superior to blacks. And it's not because whites are superior. Blacks in particular have started from a disadvantaged point, and have had to work extra hard to overcome that. Failure to recognize this, in my experience, is the most common casual racism.

Do you push that magic button?

Is the alternative DJT? If so, yes. Democracy is more important than any single issue, and, IMO, DJT is a threat to democracy. If it was almost anyone else, I would answer 'no'. For example, Chris Christie. Not a fan, but I wouldn't push the button.

No, I'm interpreting the subsequent actions as "I'd rather have a dictator I choose, than a democratically-elected leader I don't like".

And what's the difference between that and what I said?

I think the casual racism here is the failure to recognize that whites (and particularly white males) have long had an advantage in our society; one that was institutional for a very long time.

I don't think anyone that understands US history is ignorant of that. However, the country has made huge strides since then.

Failure to recognize this, in my experience, is the most common casual racism.

The blueprint for staying out of poverty in this country is

-To have 2 stable parents at home
-To finish high school
-To wait until marriage before having kids

Are all ethnic groups the same in those regards?

Is the alternative DJT? If so, yes.

And do you at least acknowledge there are people on the other side of the issue that view the democrats in exactly the same way you do Trump?

If it was almost anyone else, I would answer 'no'. For example, Chris Christie. Not a fan, but I wouldn't push the button.

How about Ron DeSantis, or Matt Gaetz?

You get to pick the winner of the 2016 elections - either a morally corrupt Democrat scoundrel, or current-day Ron DeSantis. The composition of the SCOTUS for at least a generation going forward (and several generations of past precedent), including the possibility of ever having carbon regulation, gun control, and universal health care, hang in the balance.

What do you choose?

<either a morally corrupt Democrat scoundrel, or current-day Ron DeSantis.>

Who would be the morally corrupt Democrat scoundrel? Just an imaginary figure?

In a party where universal human rights and non-discrimination are central, scoundrels are difficult to find.

In a party where hate and bigotry are cornerstones (southern strategy?) it's far easier.

And do you at least acknowledge there are people on the other side of the issue that view the democrats in exactly the same way you do Trump?

Sure. But that is smearing an entire party. Such a broad brush is almost never accurate. I don't view Reps as dictator-loving sociopaths. That is Trump. I saw it in his campaign in 2016, I saw it in his presidency, and I see it now. That's entirely different than the Dems as a party, much less specific pols like Biden (Joe).

What do you choose?

I probably would not push the button. DeSantis has said Trump lost, and he's accepted the result as valid. I may vehemently disagree with everything about him, but if he respects the democratic process, than I have to accept his hypothetical victory. Because I respect it, too. The process is more important than any issue.

No assumption. That's what you said (probably paraphrased since I don't have an eidetic memory

Then you should have gone back to reread your lie.


'LM was very honest about her position (which was something like "he gave us the SCOTUS, so I don't care about anything else").'

'I don't care about anything else?' Lie assumption.

Who would be the morally corrupt Democrat scoundrel? Just an imaginary figure?

No, you could pick a real-life one if you wanted. Maybe a Ray Nagin, or Kwame Kilpatrick both of whom were convicted of a number of felony frauds? Or if you want to rush to judgment, maybe someone who's simply been accused of it, like TJ Cox?

Albaby

LurkerMom: 'I don't care about anything else?' Lie assumption.

Actually, you kinda' did say that: "Yeah, like I'm shaking in my boots. Shrug. Win or lose Trump delivered what he promised me in his first term, a Conservative Supreme Court. I can't ask for more."

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=222875905

I may vehemently disagree with everything about him, but if he respects the democratic process, than I have to accept his hypothetical victory. Because I respect it, too. The process is more important than any issue.

I think you misunderstand my question. It's not respecting his "hypothetical" victory. You have a magic button that goes back in time and picks who will have won the 2016 election - either a corrupt Democrat or Ron DeSantis. The button doesn't overturn the 2016 election - the button changes who really won the election, either a corrupt Democrat or DeSantis.

The composition of SCOTUS hangs in the balance - assume that DeSantis would have picked the same justice nominees that Trump ended up picking, and that the corrupt Democrat would pick solidly liberal choices.

Do you push the button?

Actually, you kinda' did say that: "Yeah, like I'm shaking in my boots. Shrug. Win or lose Trump delivered what he promised me in his first term, a Conservative Supreme Court. I can't ask for more."

OMG! LOL! You're keeping dossier of me and who else? LOL!

Interpret however you want, you're still wrong.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

albaby1: No, you could pick a real-life one if you wanted. Maybe a Ray Nagin, or Kwame Kilpatrick both of whom were convicted of a number of felony frauds? Or if you want to rush to judgment, maybe someone who's simply been accused of it, like TJ Cox?

None of those democrats would have ever had a shot at the White House. Sorry, but this thread is silly. And although I agree with most of your posts, the republican party has clearly become a cult.

For example: in a cult, followers are expected to act as if the leader would like their actions. On January 6, although president Trump never specifically told his followers to breach the Capitol, he did tell them to stop the steal or they would lose their democracy. So the cult stormed the Capitol to block the counting of the electoral votes, precisely what the cult believed he wanted done. Many of them who were charged said so in court. And Trump confirmed this in his video message to them on January 6: "We love you. You're very special." That's a cult, and he's the cult leader.

In court we'll see just how high up the chain of command these events were planned and executed.

A new CBS News/You Guv poll found that 71% of Trump supporters trust what the former president says more than they believe their own friends and family. That's a cult.

And no, I don't believe that most republicans "have corrupt motives and malicious intent," I simply disagree with most of their policy positions.

The sole exception is Donald Trump, who I believe cares about no one but himself and is a real threat to democracy, democratic institutions, and to the rule of law.

No. DeSantis respects the process. If he wins, he wins. Because I also respect the process, and value it over any single candidate or issue.

Interpret however you want, you're still wrong.

We can only go by what you write. If it lacks clarity, that isn't our fault.

That's a cult, and he's the cult leader.

...

And no, I don't believe that most republicans "have corrupt motives and malicious intent," I simply disagree with most of their policy positions.

Well said. I might tweak a bit by differentiating between voters and politicians (i.e. I think many politicians do have corrupt motives, and the data show that Reps have a lot more convictions since 1968 than do Dems). But basically, you nailed it.

trump staff also informed they cannot join post-debate publicity spin. well-inspired arrogance.

in the end :
trump is too much a weakling to stand before those whose main agenda also happens to be confrontation.
although foxnews ratings getting destroyed, its just a matter of time before they are back on the train.

No. DeSantis respects the process. If he wins, he wins. Because I also respect the process, and value it over any single candidate or issue.

I'll try once more, since I don't think I'm explaining the hypothetical well.

This isn't about overturning or undoing DeSantis' win. It's about who you would want to win.

Would you be willing to vote for a corrupt Democrat over a non-corrupt but hard right-wing Republican, if you had the deciding vote? A Ray Nagin vs. a Ron DeSantis? In a time-travel-y kind of scenario where your deciding vote would affect who is President in the 2016 election, with three SCOTUS seats on the line?

Many Trump supporters have explained their choice as being worth it on that basis. That Trump is a flawed man, but better a flawed Republican than any Democrat.

In the abstract, that's probably correct. For most of the base voters in either party, the country is almost certainly better off (in terms of what they think is good for the country) having a bad (even corrupt) representative from their own party than a straitlaced (even righteous) representative from the other party.

So - knowing what we know now about the composition and decisions that were made by the SCOTUS, if choosing the winner of the 2016 election were up to your vote, would you choose a corrupt Democrat or a Ron DeSantis?

Albaby

albaby1: So - knowing what we know now about the composition and decisions that were made by the SCOTUS, if choosing the winner of the 2016 election were up to your vote, would you choose a corrupt Democrat or a Ron DeSantis?

Still silly.

You're limiting the destructive nature of a corrupt president to three supreme court justices. Trump's corruption extended beyond the supreme court. And in a second term, Trump would replace democracy with a fascist state and destroy most of the departments, agencies, and institutions of government.

No, I do not want a corrupt president regardless of party.

But ask me again after the supreme court broadly overturns the Chevron deference in its next session.

the republican party has clearly become a cult.

Nope, 'cult' is just another buzz word dems came up with thinking it has some sort of impact.
Outside the dem manufactured cliche of words it ranks near bottom of the barrel.
Overused, boring and eye roll hearing it over and over and over and over and over............

Nope, 'cult' is just another buzz word dems came up with thinking it has some sort of impact.

This is what a cult looks like: https://genius.com/William-yes-we-can-lyrics

LurkerMom: Nope, 'cult' is just another buzz word dems came up with thinking it has some sort of impact.

Well, no, cults are real and not a buzz wors invented by "dems" for impact. Study Jones Town. Or NXIVM, led by Keith Raniere. Or the Manson Family. Or the Branch Davidians. Or the Children of God. Or the Rajneeshees.

Hands down though, Trump is the most successful cult leader in modern times.

And of course most people will say, "No, the idea that I'm in a 'cult' is laughable." But that's a crucial element of cultism. When people are being brainwashed, they think they're making their own decisions, they think they're doing God's work, they think they're saving the country. And they think they've made a conscious decision to do all the things they do all on their own.

How many people have claimed Trump was chosen by God? Trump himself said he was the "chosen one".

Fox News, other broadcasters, and radio talk-show hosts reinforce the cult, telling cultists that everything is black-and-white, all-or-nothing, good-versus-evil, promoting an authoritarian view of reality that is mostly fear-based. And there's a deliberate focus on denying facts in order to protect the image of the leader (Trump asking for election help in order for Ukraine to get weapons was a "perfect call," and Trump asking Russia to hack Clinton and the DNC was "just a joke").

Now that's not to say that everyone who voted for Trump is in the cult but, rather, that those who blindly believe everything he says -- "Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening" -- who think he's some kind of savior or a gift from God, whose loyalty is both unquestionable and irrational, well, they're in the cult.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that no other president or former president has branded merchandise outside of campaign season. No one else has ever sold hats, shirts, MAGA and Trump flags, EFTs, commemorative coins, lawn signs, built gold statues of their cult hero, held rallies after losing an election, had boat armadas or trucks painted with their faces, and on and on.

So call it what it is: the cult of a wannabe fascist. And a majority of republican voters are in the cult.

From the OP post: "The proper way to understand his appeal isn't by studying normal voter behavior. It's by studying cults."

Something is different in American politics. Used to be, being caught in an extramarital affair would doom a US Presidential candidate (John Edwards in 2008, Newt Gingrich in 1998, Gary Hart in 1987). In 2023, a jury's conclusion that a leading US Presidential candidate is a sexual offender had no effect on his campaign's popularity.

But labeling it a cult is a dead end. The word is loaded and has different meanings. Studying abnormal voter behavior might be a start, and Populism has a long history. Some voters are supporting a punitively aggressive candidate they admit is deeply morally flawed. Why do some voters want to pick fights at any cost and for no reason? Odds are they've been fed some bad information. At times, they are endangering peoples lives just for a bit of fun. Irrational behavior. "Reasoned voices are hard to find" is one conclusion. "That way madness lies" is another.

==== links ====
Different Cults on the Right and Left, February 3, 2022
Meanwhile, over in the GOP, French writes that 'the right's cult is different.' Sure, it's beholden to Trump, 'it's deeper. ' It's a cult of a certain type of personality, one that is relentlessly, personally, and often punitively aggressive. The aggression is mandatory. The ideology is malleable.'
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/na...

Is America Governed by a Cult?, February 8, 2020
Several books suggest that President Trump is a cult leader. Is he really?
"My conclusion is that Trump supporters are not in a cult'though there may be some who have given themselves over to celebrity worship."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-land...

cult noun
1: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.
2: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Trump's sexual assault verdict marks a rare moment of accountability. And women are noticing
"Despite the jury's view that Trump is a sexual offender, millions of women would likely still vote for him given the chance in 2024, to maintain the country's social, economic or racial order, Williams said. More than half of white women voted for Trump in 2020. 'There are people that like Trump's brand of masculinity. They like the bravado, they like the confidence, they like a certain type of patriotism, they like the performance of a certain kind of virility,' Williams said. 'So when these episodes of sexual misconduct come out, I think people are willing to give it a pass.'"
https://apnews.com/article/trump-sex-assault-verdi...

Trump is now a legally defined sexual predator ' will it affect his 2024 bid?
Verdict was dire for the Republican frontrunner, but more shocking than that was how unshockable the US has become.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/10/tr...

Lock them up! Punitive aggression and populism as political vigilantism
"Populist leaders and movements are incredibly diverse, but one factor that most share is the tendency to pick fights. Populists often stir up conflict and use aggressive rhetoric that would destroy the reputation of mainstream politicos. Furthermore, many of these fights have little material benefit for base-level supporters, and often actively harm them. "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...

Would you be willing to vote for a corrupt Democrat over a non-corrupt but hard right-wing Republican, if you had the deciding vote?

That would depend "how corrupt" and/or abhorrent. If it was Strom Thurmond before his conversion to the Republican Party, absolutely not. He was an unabashed racist. I would probably not vote that year if it were Thurmond vs DeSantis. I don't know Nagin, so can't really comment. Never heard of him.

But I do get your point that if BOTH candidates are seriously flawed, I'd probably lean towards the Dem candidate. If I didn't abstain altogether.

Well, no, cults are real and not a buzz wors invented by "dems" for impact. Study Jones Town. Or NXIVM, led by Keith Raniere. Or the Manson Family. Or the Branch Davidians. Or the Children of God. Or the Rajneeshees.

Bring up all the past examples you want.
The dems are trying their best to associate the word cult to republicans or Trump supporters. The word cult is becoming a joke just as Hillary with the word deplorable.
Do you recall posters at the PA started to sign off with their username with the word Deployable making fun of Hillary?

lizgdal
Interesting post, thank you.

(In case the reference was missed because I'm older than many/most here, look up Jim Jones in Guyana.)

I see it every now and them on Imgur, so it's still around.

Then you should have gone back to reread your lie.

'LM was very honest about her position (which was something like "he gave us the SCOTUS, so I don't care about anything else").'

'I don't care about anything else?' Lie assumption.


But that IS what you said. I was struck by it, and it stayed with me. I know you'll sling snotty putdowns at me, but that doesn't change what you said.

Nope, 'cult' is just another buzz word dems came up with thinking it has some sort of impact.

Go back and read my post. The assessment didn't come from a Democrat, but from the Republican Brett Stephens.

Cult of personality-
A situation where a leader has been falsely idolized and made into a national or group icon and is revered as a result.Intense devotion to a particular person."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/cult-of-personali...

Trump very precisely meets the parameters of a cult leader. MAGA schwag portrays him as everything from a gladiator, to tank commander, to Disciple of Jesus. In fact, he's an narcissistic amoral coward, rapist, and all-around fraud.

Al,

Your "magic button" choice, if you will excuse me, is a reductio ad absurdum.

fd

Your "magic button" choice, if you will excuse me, is a reductio ad absurdum.

Not at all. It merely illustrates that it's not entirely unreasonable for people to support a bad candidate - even a really bad candidate - when electing that bad candidate will be better than the alternative, from their perspective. For many people within the base of either party, even the very worst candidate from their party will be better than an average candidate from the other party. Because while it matters who the President is, it also matters a lot what party the President is from. The latter is far more determinative of appointments (especially to the judiciary), Executive policies and priorities, and a host of other things big and small.

Trump's three SCOTUS appointments were consequential beyond description. In hindsight, for someone who is a strong progressive, there is probably no Democrat bad enough that it would be worth ever have been worth having a Republican win in 2016 rather than that Democrat. Had a Democrat - any Democrat - won in 2016, the things that progressives care deeply about would be far more protected and achievable than they are today: voting rights for minorities, fighting climate change, student loan forgiveness, abortion and other reproductive rights, environmental protections under the CWA, and a host of other issues would face a completely different environment than they do now.

Albaby

Albaby

I think that there are some R's I might vote for over D's where competence is at play. IE, Liz Cheney would get my vote, probably, over Al Sharpton.

But again, that ballot is an absurd reality to contemplate.

fd

But again, that ballot is an absurd reality to contemplate.

So was the idea of a President Trump, at one time.

The point of the thought experiment is to focus on how important partisan control of the Executive is - and especially things like SCOTUS appointments that can have an effect for generations - if your values and preferences accord with those of the major party alignments. So that you can imagine what a member of the Democratic base might do if they were faced with an absurd reality on their side of the ballot.

For someone in the base of the GOP, they probably believe that the Trump years were good for the country - even taking the bad with the good - just based on the seismic change that he enabled in the Supreme Court. And that person is probably right, from their perspective. That doesn't mean they like the bad consequences of his Presidency, just that having Trump being President made the country better (for their definition of better) than if a Democrat had won.

Albaby

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.