General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElephant in the room
Has anyone else in the DU world of politics noticed one major fallacy about Donald Trumps run for President. It is not being discussed in the MSM, or in newspapers, national magazines, or even here on DU. I am talking about Trump's lack of knowledge about how the government actually works. Ok, yes I will admit, during campaigns, many politicians say things like "we will do this" and "I will promise that", but mostly the rhetoric is just that...spoken rhetoric. Trump is different, Trump truly does not understand the workings of government. Government is not a big business. Its not run by 1 guy at the top calling the shots, like Trumps businesses. What Trump is not admitting is he needs to work with Congress and Supreme Court. In his first announcement of his run, Trump basically alienated himself from all major players in congress, and yet seems to think, they are going to bend down and kiss his ring.
Why have we not seen anyone in the media address this issue?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)RW loons love him for his ignorance. The rest of the Repub establishment figures that he will be easy to manipulate because of his ignorance. Media just loves the circus and ratings he generates. They do not want to see him go down, not for a while anyway.
mucifer
(23,374 posts)They don't want people who understand politics. They want a benevolent dictator. Problem is there is no such thing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There are people on this board who believe their candidate will change things with the wave of a hand, and who remain angry with Obama for not having the capacity to rule by decree.
It's a failing of some voters. They need to take a civics class--or ten.
this is a primary cause of progressive obama derangement syndrome
blm
(112,920 posts)Voter's ignorance is a boon to GOP and corpmedia plays along.
MADem
(135,425 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)and knows full well "how it works"; unlike in 2008.
And his supporters know that about him too.
Neither the candidate, nor the supporters, have ever said it would be a cake-walk.
Far from it.
So you may as well stop riding that worn out hobby-horse.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Great sales technique, there!
Personal and denigrating--the winning technique to sell a candidate!
Keep up the great job--you do your favorite proud....
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)There you were, teetering on the fence, undecided, and went and turned you off to Bernie
by pointing out the obvious.
my bad.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am not "teetering on the fence" at all--I am just pointing out how your positive approach to your candidate's virtues is just so apparent to anyone who comes in contact with you!
Your joy is just irrepressible--so enthusiastic!
Do keep it up--it's a winning strategy!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Yes, I'm a Bernie enthusiast ... and damn proud of it.
You started this exchange with a patronizing post, about how you
think "some don't understand how government works ... who believe
their candidate will change things with the wave of a hand, and who
remain angry with Obama for not having the capacity to rule by decree ...
.. They need to take a civics class--or ten"
I can only assume this ^ is your idea of a "winning strategy", so excuse
me if I can't take you very seriously.
On edit: if your post I cite here was meant to refer to only Trump supporters,
and not Bernie supporter, then I retract all of my responses to it, and apologize.
Otherwise, I'll let them stand.
MADem
(135,425 posts)YOU, don't be so eager to cram it on your foot, then!
Unless you're unclear as to the meaning of the term "SOME." See, it doesn't mean the same thing as "YOU" or "That one over there" or "That specific individual."
I'm not basing my view that "some" don't understand how our government works on the individuals they purport to support. I'm basing it on reading DU and a variety of other web commentary sites for over a decade and realizing that a lot of people who like to "opine" about politics on the internet do NOT frigging get how our government works.
That's why "some" people whine about Obama not bringing home (insert pet legislation) while not one word is said about how CONGRESS failed to act. That's just one example. A more recent example has to do with crying about superdelegates and demanding that "the will of the people" be heard--llike it's some kind of MASSIVE abrogation for a party to pick their candidate.
Many people posting here were alive when this was what a primary season looked like:
Parties have always weighed in, and they always will--that's why they're parties. People who don't like the system are free to move on to another process with another party where things are maybe done differently, but to expect the party that does all the hard work to cede control to dilettantes who make a lot of noise but don't show up to the polls (Be Clean For Gene/Howard Dean's Orange Hats) is an unlikely expectation--to put it kindly. You want clout in the party, you've got to WORK in the party--not just be a demanding voter who might show up once at the polls to vote for someone who strikes one's fancy. And of course, in those open primaries, it NEVER (cough) happens that voters cross party lines to give weaker candidates a boost in order to put the fix in for a preferred candidate...naaah, that would NEVER happen!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)and I'm certainly no exception. Personally, I've gone back and forth on the issue of whether it
makes any sense to be highly active in party politics. I understand the case for it, which you
make well btw, and I even find it very convincing .. to a point. Just like with a nation, when a
party behaves in ways that are utterly antithetical to it's basic claims to legitimacy, then at that
point, authoritarian demands for slavish "party loyalty" can and should be answered with "Hell no!
First things first. We need to get our own house in order"
Ironically, the kind of dedicated sustained involvement in party politics is part of what Bernie is
strongly encouraging his supporters to consider doing: at every level. This can only help the
Democratic party with new blood, which is sorely needed judging from the Dem's shallow bench
this Primary season. And if Bernie makes it to the White House, that's exactly what it's going
to take to get anything done inside the DC bubble.
This is just one of the reasons I'm so enthusiastic about Bernie's candidacy is that, win or lose,
it can only help the Democratic party (and maybe the nation) to become truer to it's own claims
to legitimacy, and to more accurately reflect the actual best interests of We the People, rather
than a few hundred billionaires and a handful of establishment insiders and party hacks.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Those libertarians who are showing up at his rallies may applaud enthusiastically, but they may end up pulling the lever for Rand. They share common cause with Sanders from at least one POV, as this libertarian feller makes clear: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/is-bernie-sanders-the-rand-paul-of-the-left/
They might not show up when needed, though. They aren't reliable voters--they have no track record.
Party politics are are different kettle of fish, though--they're more about a platform than a person. The base is known, they know they'll show up with just a little GOTV, and they know that they'll vote the party line. Sure, there's identity politics in the mix, but those reliable, party line Democrats, year in, year out, even when they "hold their nose," are voting for a set of ideals, a bigger thing than the individual on the ballot.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)is one of the main reasons Sanders is obviously the best Democratic nominee for the Party.
He's drawing in disaffected voters, who had totally given up on politics as usual, he's
appealing to the youth demographic who haven't ever been much interested in electoral
politics, he's getting strong support from many independents who don't vote anyone's party-line,
and yes, he's unboutedly also getting the attention of some self-identified "Libertarians" who may
vote for him in Nov, due mostly to Rand Paul's abysmal showing in the polls.
I'm glad you pointed this out, because it's just one more good reason Bernie represents a golden
opportunity for the Democratic Party to dramatically expand its base. As such, Bernie is the Dems
best shot -- by far -- at winning the WH in Nov. 2016. So thank you for the reminder.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Howard Dean got big crowds too. A lot of those "young voters" either slept through election day, didn't bother registering, or "whatever, man."
And Libertarians and Rand Paul fans do attend Sanders' speeches, in appreciable numbers. I don't think he should count on their votes.
And more to the point, look who he's NOT drawing. You don't go into a community that is thirty percent black and think you're resonating when your audience isn't even ONE percent black. No black people in Greenville could be bothered to show up, even though they're almost a third of the population? They're not interested? Or, the most scurrilous yet oft-repeated charge I've read here--they're "low information voters?" I don't think that's the case--I think he's JUST not resonating, despite the new spokeswoman.
And no one's gonna win without the black and latino vote. That combined demographic holds the keys to the treasure house.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)It's happening. Being attacked by BLM on M$M, creating clips to re-run 24/7 on
the evening nooz, certainly didn't help matters, but Bernie & supporters are mostly
undaunted, doing the work needed to get the word out despite that.
We just don't know yet, if it will happen fast enough. Guess we will see.
BTW - Bernie Sanders is no Howard Dean, as others have noticed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/politics/similarities-aside-bernie-sanders-isnt-rerunning-howard-deans-2004-race.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)BLM is not Sanders' "black problem." BLM is the LEAST of his worries.
That's just the element his supporters keep pointing to--angrily--as though a couple of girls in Seattle somehow 'ruined it' for him with the black people.
Bravenak tried to tell people here what his problem was, back when she was a Sanders supporter. The "crew" here would not tolerate any criticism, and they alerted on her until they got rid of her, and they lost her voice and her support, too. Talk about stupid.
Sanders, with all his working man economic policy cure-all/refusal to acknowledge institutional racism is the problem--all by himself. He doesn't resonate with people who KNOW better than he does about the reality of living in non-white skin every moment of their lives. He just doesn't get it, and he doesn't really know how to back up and tack in a new direction. He's stubborn, maybe--doesn't want to admit he's wrong or something. I don't know and I don't really care. The "supporters" of Bernie here are so sure of themselves that there's no point trying to have an intelligent conversation with them about why POC will never migrate to the guy--he just doesn't have it. And without that "it," he's not getting them out to wait in line for four to six hours just to vote.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)No, no DUer would want or expect that Obama could rule by decree. Silly.
Maybe you need to get reading glasses, in lieu of a civics class.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"the business" here from people who think he should be able to wave his hand and give them things like single payer and a D majority on the Hill.
I can read just fine, I'm not the one who needs glasses.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But if he deserved it, I have no problem with criticizing.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Skittles
(152,964 posts)only repuke presidents get everything they want
MADem
(135,425 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)we would be so much happier that way.
But I know we aren't going to change either of our minds, so have a great night.
MADem
(135,425 posts)(they feed at the trough) nothing will change. Pointing out this reality--and not some pipe dreaming shoulda/coulda/woulda stuff-- doesn't merit snark in response.
The next President needs to appoint justices who will push for inclusivity, who will recognize that money is NOT speech (because that means that the poor are muzzled) and then the process may eventually right itself.
I say "MAY" because they'll find another trick, another loophole, to buy elections/gain advantage, and that will have to be closed as well, as well as the next one they dream up....because that's how they play the game.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)If you think that CU, which I view as being the last nail in the coffin of our Democracy, will be over turned before we show that we can over come it... Well, I don't think that you're being very honest with yourself.
And that can only happen if we elect some one who doesn't take advantage of the 'benefits' available to them. But we are going to disagree, aren't we?
MADem
(135,425 posts)If people want to fire up a SUPER PAC in support of a candidate, that candidate can't do diddly about it. In fact, the key is that there be NO coordination between the super PAC and the candidate.
You don't think there are people at Lockheed who won't "reward" Sanders for backing a piece of shit military aviation platform that explodes on the runway?
This whole "I'm purer than thou" game is just that--a game. The money will still come, even if the "pure" candidate says "Well, 'i' don't authorize that..." Of course they don't. They keep their distance, and someone ELSE authorizes it....but the result is the same.
And if he doesn't take the money? He'll get CRUSHED. Money talks. That's assuming by some miracle he got the nomination, mind you--I don't see that as a likely outcome at all but I discuss it for the sake of argument.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)when people answer their own questions.
Leaving me to say for the third time that we are not going to agree, right? Or would agreeing on even that with me be too painful for you?
That's really kind of sad.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Seems a bit pointless to go on, in any event.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)We won't agree is hard to understand?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't quite grasp the over-investment.
In any event, have a nice day.
blm
(112,920 posts)Remember how they all acted mystified at Kerry's, "I voted for it before I voted for against it." statement? Well, that was about the standard process.
Yes, he DID first vote FOR a version of the 87b Iraq defense spending bill that was PAID for by canceling the tax cuts for the richest. When the next version of the bill was for 87b in spending that was NOT offset, but, added to the nation's debt, he voted against THAT.
EVERY senator voted for/against the one version or voted for both if they felt it was important to do so.
Lawmakers vote nearly EVERYDAY for or against the first version of a bill. The media chose to run with the GOP narrative that pandered to the ignorance of the everyday citizen.
Sadly, some here at DU jumped on the GOP's media bandwagon and mocked him for it, too. Some still do.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... they will generally do as they're told.
That's how it always worked for him in NYC and that's how he anticipates it will work in DC.
840high
(17,196 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)What is Congress' rating - last time I checked the integrity and trust rating was lower than a used car salesman. Wouldn't surprise me if Trump and his supporters WANT someone to become a dictator and run roughshod over that inept body . There is no love or trust, I believe , in that branch of the government. He's preaching to the choir who wants change - that is the difference. Reminds one of Rome with the rise of the tyrant and the dictator and the death of the Republic.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)as well as to a friend when discussing Trump. It's really frightening. Perhaps the more important thing that's not being brought up is that if he were to be elected President, he would need to work with Congress, regardless of who controls it.
People here have disingenuously pointed to that (the need to work with Congress) as a supposed flaw of Bernie Sanders, because he's been a registered Independent, totally overlooking the fact that he always caucused with the Democrats. If he is elected, along with a very Republican controlled Congress, there are enough Tea Party nutcases who would happily work with him to destroy everything possible. But a lot of what might get passed would be challenged, and the Supreme Court would probably spend most of its time on fast-tracked cases.
And the first time he had a chance to nominate someone to the Supreme Court would be the most amazing circus ever. He wouldn't look for someone with some sort of a reasonable track record and career in law. He'd go for some genuine nut-case, and possibly not even anyone with a law degree.
If it weren't that we'd all have to live with his craziness, it could be fun to watch.
RR2
(87 posts)pRick Scott....Florida, ok so that's three.
Gov. Rick Scott agrees to pay $700,000 to end public records lawsuit
TALLAHASSEE Gov. Rick Scott has agreed to pay a Tallahassee lawyer $700,000 in taxpayer money to settle seven public records lawsuits alleging he and members of his staff violated state law when they created email accounts to shield their communications from state public records laws and then withheld the documents.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/gov-rick-scott-agrees-to-pay-700000-to-end-public-records-lawsuit/2240461
Gov. Rick Scott vetoes $461M in budget, angering Republicans
"I go through the budget and I try to find out what's best for citizens. This is their money. It's not government money," Scott said. "They're paying taxes, and I'm going to do my best to make sure that money is spent wisely."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/gov-rick-scott-signs-state-budget-in-private-with-little-notice/2234704
?w=546&h=546
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's tons of promises coming from Republican candidates demonstrating they don't know how the government works either.
Their voters like it, because "manly" or something.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)A President Trump will abolish Congress and the SCOTUS to rule by himself.
Ford_Prefect
(7,822 posts)The important assumption here is the Republican trope that the present government is a bad thing and needs to go away. Therefore the better a candidate does attacking "broken" government and institutions, the louder and more incoherent he sings Tea Party anthems, the more passionately he demands that it all be pulled down, the more credible he appears to that extremist movement on the right wing referred to as the Republican Party by MSM talking heads.
Trump is running as the idiocracy candidate and captures that ethos perfectly. If he seemed to know how government actually works he would appear to be enough of an insider that "they" would not believe he can fix what is wrong (whatever that is). He exists in a kind of media made bubble where nothing he says has the context of reality to interfere with how it sounds. He's never been elected to anything and never served under the responsibility to tax payers and voters so he has no past, only the idealized future he keeps promising. He can say almost anything at all without fear his past will compromise him.
One section of the media expects he will run out of steam to be superseded by a more conventional candidate. They can't get enough out of egging him on and don't really care about the potential outcome. We have seen how Palin ran much the same as a candidate.
I don't see how in the larger scheme of things Trump gets from where he is now to the White House. But stranger things have already happened. In 2000 many voted for a village idiot. If the same fools now voted for a full on jack-ass out of spite for the status quo it would not surprise me. The bullshit that true believers profess as faith has never surprised me. My prayer for them is may god bless and keep them far away from all of the rest of us.
napi21
(45,806 posts)change the constitution, or force Mexico to pay for a fence, but it SOUNDS GOOD!
I know, I live in Red Georgia, but I was really surprised at how many people support Trump! My neighbor said "I hope he wins! I think he'd make a good Prez." Many of my very educated friends (some engineers & MBAs) support Trump. I don't want to fight with my friends so when they say they really like what he's saying I usually respond "REALLY?"
I'm convinced most voters don't THINK about the logic or mechanics of what promises are made on the campaign trail. The support Trump is getting proves that.
spanone
(135,635 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)As far as the MSM not discussing this specific issue... I'm just as baffled.
Paige
BigDemVoter
(4,149 posts)And the idea that we need somebody with an MBA to "run the country like a business" needs to be completely debunked. The country is NOT a business and doesn't operate as such.
Furthermore, I am reminded more and more of how the media coddled that sorry Fuck Bucket, GWB, with ridiculous questions and how they accepted even more asinine responses.