buddy wrote: 
  

NFL says Trump is full of it...

 oldviolin wrote: 
FWIW ... I usually understand your comments.  Your explanations to those who don't do confirm my first take.

 kcar wrote: 
Great summation on how such an ignorant ass can rise to pseudo ascendancy and create the perfect maybe the only circumstance that would allow the way past its prime coronation of someone as out of touch and disliked as Clinton.  If I were cynical, I might even suggest this was all to plan.  Of course I am not that cynical.

 Steely_D wrote: 
I think Trump supporters feel rooked by the political establishment and want to elect someone who promises to turn that establishment upside-down and get things done for those left behind. 

But Trump isn't one of them, at least if we're talking about white men without a college degree (Trump's base). Trump inherited a fortune from his father, from whom he learned the real estate business. Trump went to college (I think he implies that the went to Wharton Business School of UPenn, but IIRC he did not). 

And Trump clearly has no actual plans about how to help his base in terms of creating new jobs. Many of the manufacturing jobs the base lost aren't coming back, due partly to manufacturing shifting overseas but also due to manufacturing shifting production away from unskilled or semi-skilled labor. That's the amazing thing: Trump's supporters have some right to feel rooked but they've backed a guy who will seriously stiff them if he wins. They should be forcing Trump to spell out exactly how he will help them economically. 

Trump talks about building the Wall and deporting illegal immigrants but most experts agree that the Wall won't be built and won't keep immigrants out. Deportation of 11-odd million illegals would be prohibitively lengthy and expensive.

As for the gridlock argument: politicians and voters opposing Trump will fight just as hard or harder to prevent him from making progress. Trump is creating a major groundswell of cross-party opposition to him. Trump supporters aren't the only ones who can do gridlock. A Trump presidency would cause something close to civil war.

Last point: conservatism is largely a reaction against change and a defense of vested interests profiting from the status quo. It's hard to unseat people and interest groups in power, and groups desiring change often can't find enough common ground on the direction change should take in order to win.  

But conservatism in America is under challenge because it rejects the notion that government should create laws and programs to help people (such as OBamacare, jobs-creation programs, college-subsidy plans) at a time when more people, even conservatives, want the federal government to help them. Trump's promises to his supporters are effectively vague promises of government intervention in the economy to create more lower-skilled and blue-collar jobs. The GOP is also clinging to a vision of America that's white- and male-dominated, despite demographic trends counter to that conservative vision.  

Conservatism is a fight against change but it still has to change with the times, albeit in smaller and different ways than liberalism. The GOP has yet not figured out to change with the times and so let Trump take it over. I don't think Trump is a true conservative. He's trying to sell a party of one, namely himself as king. But he is promising (unrealistically) a return to the past on many issues. 

The GOP could help itself by promising greater cooperation and coordination between business and government to make sure people are sufficiently trained and educated to get good jobs that will stay in the US (something like Germany's Mittelstand arrangement), but that's almost something in the Democratic bailiwick.  

 oldviolin wrote: 
Which is why they want him in office. Although we're supposed to elect thinkers, visionaries, statesmen - people seem to have become so ingrained with the thought that they should elect one of "them," (someone just like them to represent their interests) he becomes their choice.

But like I said before: when we don't elect him, half the nation will still do everything they can to prevent Hillary from making and progress - just like they disrespected and squandered Obama.

As an aside:
That's why conservatism is attractive: you know what you're getting into.
Visionaries suggest many different futures, and folks can't agree on which one, so the conservatives keep the majority vote.
If a forward-thinker could get an idea that everyone could agree on (imagine Musk and the Tesla) then folks would move towards the future. 
 

 oldviolin wrote: 
I was wondering what you were saying, but I understand now and agree with you. 

Trump is tapping into the fear and anger of people who suffered badly through the Great Recession and haven't seen much recovery. His one big demographic base is whites without a college education, especially males within that group. Jobs normally available to them haven't come back and their wages are stagnating or declining. 

I think Trump is also enjoying a backlash against political correctness and greater acceptance of once-marginalized groups—gays, transgenders, minorities complaining of police maltreatment. His political success is also one big middle finger to the sanitized and over-staged process of major political campaigns. There is a widespread feeling that the American Dream is a broken lie created to get people to be complacent and buy stuff to measure their success. His supporters feel economically and socially left behind. 

Trump's run for President before. IIRC he didn't previously run on the same message that America is broken and needs to be cleaned up, but he's been brilliant this year at tracking the national mood of various groups and voicing their anger and riding the next wave in his reality-show celebrity. His success is a product and reflection of our times, but he's made the most of (perhaps coincidentally) being in sync with the national mood. 

I'm just not sure that his primary-season tactics will work during the general election. His outrageous comments seem more and more desperate and as I keep saying, more driven by mental instability. He's flailing. Part of his struggles may be due to his lack of campaign funds. 

 oldviolin wrote: 
Feedback. You can have negative loops or positive loops. A leader can bring out the best or the worst of what's there.

 kcar wrote: 
You sort of missed my usually vague point I think. If the ground weren't fertile for a Donald Trump, there would be no Donald Trump running for the Presidency. There is a vein marbled through our society and what it funnels is fear and uncertainty. It wasn't a switch. Trump didn't propagate all that. His viable candidacy is a product of it. JMHO

 oldviolin wrote: 

The only good thing about Trump right now is that he's become so disgusting, outrageousness and unacceptable that people vaguely like him might say "My God, I'm not that bad am I? I don't want to be that awful." Maybe the GOP will realize that he's uttering the worst of its dog-whistling intolerance and start on a course of radical change.

There may be distinctly American elements to Trump's diseased character and mindset—bigotry, alpha-male obnoxiousness, thin-skinned nastiness—but Trump is a monster of his own creation. He's not showing strength at this point: this guy is mentally ill and melting down in public. If you were in the same room as a guy behaving like Trump right now, you'd run out of the building and across the street. 
 

 kcar wrote: 

It's almost like the country is seeing it's reflection in the mirror...

Still the lead story on NYT.com as of 10:20pm Eastern time. It was the third story of the NBC Nightly News broadcast this evening. NOT old news. 

Donald Trump is an emotionally crippled and mentally ill man. 

Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire

Anti-Trump Masterpost

from the Houston Chronicle

These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.

 kurtster wrote: 
Ye-aaaahno. That speech is still the lead story on NYT.com this morning. 

The more Trump reveals himself, the uglier he looks. People need to know what a sleazy, arrogant, selfish and unprepared candidate he is.

Sorry: two Muslim parents talking about their fallen soldier son and their love of America is powerful. The father pulling out his copy of the Constitution and offering to loan it to Trump is compelling. 

Trump supporters would dearly love to gloss over and ignore Donald's failings and keep the focus on his outrageous statements. The more voters can see the true Trump, the more they'll realize he'd be a disaster as President.  

so this is where the small hands thing started.. 

 kcar wrote: 
No disrespect to the parents, but old news if you watched the convention.

The conventions are over, its hammer time now and the race to the bottom or debates, whichever happens first.

g'nite.

You guys might want to open a different thread about journalism. 

Back to Trump: this father hit the nail on the head. Like so many bullies, Donald Trump is also a self-centered coward:

The first link takes you to a video clip:

Fallen Soldier’s Father Denounces Trump

Khizr Khan, whose son, Capt. Humayun Khan, died in Iraq serving in the Army, said Donald J. Trump "sacrificed nothing and no one."

In Tribute to Son, Khizr Khan Offered Citizenship Lesson at Convention

 kurtster wrote: 
I gave the rest of your post a valiant effort but don't want to spend my Friday night diagramming sentences so I literally have no idea what you said
 
But this part, I think I get, at least I get it enough to say you're wrong. There is no way any newspaper editorial department gave 2 shits what the advertising department wanted, back in the days when every house took a paper. Even Hearst papers, editorial was outrageous, sure, but that was to boost readership/sell ads. Like I said, there were separate sections for certain types of adverts, but even in the fluffiest Home Improvement section, editorial is mostly concerned with producing enough column inches to match the amount of advertising sold. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Maybe, though I would prefer skeptical (or how about disillusioned) after all the years.  I was more stating a scenario, than my actual views.  I no longer read a paper anymore anyways.  Its not worth the cost for the small amount of content which unless very local, is dated.  The Macy's example was just an example of how things used to work, decades ago, even in big papers.  And its not that an editor would run something by an advertiser before hand or should, they would already know and simply self censor.  Again, the preceding is a scenario, an observation, not necessarily a belief of mine.  Where you can insert my personal belief is where I say its how it used to work decades ago and the use of the word should.  I'll give you that, but not the example I offered.  The example is ludicrous on its face, but as an example of a scenario, its valid to make a point.  To not consider scenarios is just plain stupid to be honest.  I thinks that it is a function of wisdom gained by observation and experience over time.

Yeah, I didn't get in on the beginning, but I saw the opening statement before it took off.  A few years ago, I made a statement that in my mind, The Fourth Estate was officially dead to me as I was raised to understand it, with its Constitutional and legal protections, designed to keep it able to work for the people's interests.  What I cited then was the case of Bernie Madoff.  I cited Mort Zuckerman, the publisher, too.  He invested in something that was too good to be true and kept it quiet, rather than investigate it.  The wiki page leaves much of the nature of his investments out.  So right or wrong for the reason, that's when I formally gave up on the integrity of our beloved Fourth Estate and became wary of it from then on.

I can also state when and why I gave up on PBS.  Keeping it as brief as possible, I watched MacNeil/Lehrer since it was a half an hour all the way through until David Gergen was replaced by David Brooks for the counter to Mark Shields as Gergen left to join the Clinton Administration to provide some much needed help.  Brooks turned out to be anything but a legitimate representative for the "repub" side of the equation to Shields.  I sensed where PBS intended to go on from there.  I used to live for Friday evenings with Gergen and Shields.

But that's just me.  I'll continue to risk being called a lot of names using scenarios, just as SteelyD risked a lot using scenarios to make a point.  Project on me what you will.  If it bothers me I'll say something, as I sometimes do.  Otherwise, oh well ...  I'm here to argue (in the literary sense), but not fight.  There is a big difference between the two as I see it.  Others see that as one and the same.  FWIW, its hard to argue with anyone if you're not willing to see both sides.  It becomes a fight when you stop considering the other side, again as I see it.

ymwv ...