Not a question that can be answered, mind-but How? How did this idiot inspire such devotion? Is it just that he’s the precise kind of jigsaw puzzle piece that fit into their minds and philosophies? It smacks of Frankenstein, like he’s been built in some Republican laboratory for this purpose.
Trump is the Alpha Asshole. He is the living embodiment of being (or appearing to be) massively successful by indulging every worst instinct of humanity, and his followers really, really want to be able to do the same.
And because they really, really want to be able to do the same, they won’t ever look beyond that narrative to realize that the way Trump became successful by indulging every worst instinct of humanity was by screwing people like them - or, literally, them - out of their money.
Donald Trump is a salesman, and a great one. He can read a person, or a crowd, and conform his personality to gain their trust and loyalty. That’s what salesmen do, whether it’s skyscrapers or used cars. It gets caricatured in fiction, and it’s easy to poke fun at; but in real life, sometimes it works. People who call Trump an idiot because of all his failed businesses are missing the point. He does not care what his companies do, he only cares what he can convince people they will do. At that, he’s a success.
:: bows ::
Eh…he convinced a lot of rubes of that. But he was already something of a joke in NY real estate circles in the 80s and 90s. There’s even a joke in “Scrooged” (released in 1988) comparing a sewer to Trump Tower.
Rather than a great salesman, he’s a used car salesman with a leg up from the money he inherited from Daddums. Inherited wealth affords a lot of things, including the ability to trick people into thinking your poor record still means something by virtue of not having squandered it all.
Trump is the dark reality of politics. Not just politics, but democracy.
His one skill is marketing. He can market himself like no one else. He sucks at everything else he does. He sucks at anything that makes a person a great leader. He’s not intelligent, he has no loyalty to anyone but himself, nor integrity or tact. He’s a terrible statesman, can’t compromise, and makes shitty decisions. He is petty, cannot bear even the tiniest insult without backlash. He’s incapable of accepting information that he doesn’t like.
One promise made by the right early on during his 2016 campaign, people who knew he was a sack of shit in a suit, was that even though he had no leadership qualifications, he’d surround himself with skilled people who’d guide him correctly. He’d essentially be a puppet to better people. (Yes, this was supposed to reassure people.) But even that was untrue. He surrounded himself with unqualified sycophants and cronies, and even when one of them had some good advice he’d dismiss it if it wasn’t something he wanted to hear. (These hearings are making this clear.)
But it turns out that in a democracy, where popularity is all you need to get votes, and votes are all you need to get into office, that skill in marketing and branding he has is really the only skill a person needs. It is the unavoidable flaw in the best system humans have come up with for governance. There is no way to put a check on that without compromising democracy. So this sort of thing can happen.
The only way to remedy the situation is to make sure there are consequences. Yes, you can con your way into office, but we can ensure that what you actually do once you’re in office is of consequence. If you convince people that you are the best person to steer the ship, and then intentionally aim it at a rock, that should matter. If Trump is prosecuted and brings down others with him, that might send a message that this strategy of backing anyone who can get votes is not one you should take.
This is a crossroads for the US, and possibly for democracy in the world. We need to show that this flaw isn’t a fatal one. We need to show that you can’t get away with what he did, and what his enablers did.
Mark Meadows is set up to be the fall guy, according to Rolling Stone.
Apologies for the offensive language but Trump was the first to realize, either by design or by accident, that in the current political climate you could indeed go full re**rd.
In the past Republican politicians would limit their rhetoric. They would throw out a few dog whistles, spin the facts a bit to support their narrative, make a few rhetorical promises that were unlikely to actually be achievable, but they wouldn’t stray too far away from decorum or reality because they knew if they made it too obvious they’d get called on it and lose voters.
Trump didn’t give a damn about decorum or reality. Completely lacking any sense of shame he would just say whatever absurd thing that would get the most cheers from his crowds. As a result his rhetoric went off the deep end into outright racism and baldfaced lies. But ironically this made him seem more honest and authentic to his fans since even though none of what he said was actually grounded in actual reality, it matched their view of reality.
This is (probably) not true. The first part is but not the second.
In a straight democracy, yes, that is the issue;iIn a republic that has allowed the parties to harness and utilize the problems of democracy, it is an issue; but that doesn’t have to be the end. More democracy - the solution that everyone wants to jump to - is just going to take us from being lead by Donald Trump to being lead by someone like Robespierre, for the reasons you give. But strengthening the republic and the republican process against party control, I believe, can and should move things back in the right direction.
Amendments to mandate competitive districts, illegalized gerrymandering, etc. would help. Open primaries will help. Removing first past the post will help. Introducing sortition into the process and layers of voting and review will help. Ensuring that people have direct, human access and understanding of the people that they vote for will help. The last requires layers and time, but that can be made a part of the system.
The electoral college was the beginning of a decent system. When everyone sat in a room and really tried to think this through, that direction was the clear and obvious winner to them, all as expert political thinkers who had come through a war fomented by radicals and who had seen partisans dumping burning tar onto their political foes, murdering them.
Making senators be elected not by the people, directly, was in there for a reason.
More democracy does not fight corruption. A man tried to illegally perform a coup against his own country and yet he would still win the vote in Nevada.
Vote buying was undone, in the past, by introducing secrecy. Making campaign finances public has not prevented corruption. Making donors secret to the politicians could do that. Banning campaigning except according to a set of standardized rules might help. Not selecting candidates from parties, but instead by sortition might help.
Sitting down and really doing the work, and accepting a loss in direct democracy, is the answer. Along that path, there are many choices and, given enough time and energy, maybe the bulwarks will prove insufficient to prevent populists from finding a way to rise to the top. But at that date, you just sit down, do the work, and figure out stricter measures, again.
I hope you’re right. Maybe pairing those reforms with prosecuting bad actors can serve to right the ship, so to speak.
At the moment, whether I’m right or not, I’m not aware of a single person in office who is fighting for any of this.
The voters on the left need to make it a priority. If they don’t, their representatives aren’t going to. You need to be willing to vote them out, if they’re not talking election reform.
I think it’s the most important thing facing us. Not even Roe v Wade is as important. If your election system isn’t working, you can’t get the right people in office to pass laws to protect women’s rights, or to appoint judges who don’t have extreme agendas. Focusing on any other issue is like remodeling your house when the foundation is cracked and falling apart.
I’ve recently been re-watching The Boys and the obvious parallels between Trump and Homelander get starker and starker. Trump really could laser someone on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn’t lose any popularity.
Spoilers for the show so be aware.
Homelander is much more sympathetic character though, to me at least. His backstory is somewhat tragic, rather than simply being raised as a spoiled and entitled rich kid.
Oh for sure. They’re both wearing a padded suit to look bigger and tougher, but one is metaphorical. Or something.
From that article "“Mark is gonna get pulverized…and it’s really sad,” predicts one of Trump’s current legal advisers. Sad? Really? Meadows wasn’t tricked into anything. He acted with wide open eyes. I hope he goes to jail or is, at least, ruined financially and professionally. He’ll probably go to work for Fox.
The only sad thing is that many more won’t be going down with him.
I think Trump’s lawyers are engaging in a classic case of misdirection, or perhaps better described as whistling past the graveyard. No one holds more bargaining chips to exchange for a reduced sentence than Mark Meadows. He’s the lynch pin that can take down Trump himself.
Mark Meadows doesn’t strike me as a Manafort. But then, Manafort was afraid of things other than just going to prison.
I think Meadows is going to sing like a bird. And if necessary, testify against Trump.
Trump is the poor man’s idea of a rich man, the weak man’s idea of a strong man, and the dumb man’s idea of a smart man.
I’m pessimistic about any reform happening and it seems only Georgia is willing to prosecute, the DOJ and New York have fucked us.
The Manhattan DA, yes, but the NY AG is still at work. I have some hope on that front.