Like when he said he was in favor of not selling guns to people on the no-fly list, but then changed his opinion after the NRA weighed in? Or how he agreed with Feinstein for a “clean bill” to protect Dreamers, only to then change his mind, and disagree with Democratic proposals to fund the wall and make immigration reforms? Or how he sees himself as both a “free trader” and a “fair trader” at the same time? Or how he says he won’t sign a budget bill without his border wall funded, and he keeps signing them anyway?
In a narrow sense, those might not be examples of him changing positions, because he never actually knows what he’s talking about. My cat has more informed positions on issues of the day than Trump does.
Hah! That’s a laugh. Everything that Trump does is an act–a show–of political correctness for his base. Trump is pure political correctness, and nothing else. He has no real values or principles except to promote himself. That’s why, when he gets in over his head on policy issues, and occasionally says something stupid, and has to flip flop on his own words.
I think maybe you’re using a different definition of “political correctness” than the one I’m accustomed to. To me it means saying something that will not offend anyone based on the societal values of the day. Trump says offensive things all the time, although his base seems to agree with him. Because his base is so politically incorrect, and he makes sure there are large numbers of them accompanying him when he speaks, he gets away with it. But he is miles away from politically correct.
The bolding demonstrates that you’re begging the question. You can’t have it both ways. His base has its own political correctness, and Trump panders to it transparently. That’s his “speaking style”: pandering.
Interesting point, but I don’t see that kind of behavioral repetitiveness, and consistency in any normal person or public speaker. To me it’s an intentional thing, even if he is native to this stuff.
Political correctness is referring to when you tailor, change, or are punished for your speech because of a political bloc. It’s a two way street to say the very least.
This is what I find in Wikipedia. Political correctness seems to have a lot to do with not offending particular groups. I don’t think Trump pandering to his base fits this meaning very well. Correct me if I’m wrong (pun intended).
There’s no doubt that Trump panders to his base, but when he speaks now, unlike on the campaign trail, he speaks for all Americans, not just Republicans and not just the subset of Republicans that make up his base. He’s always offending someone; therefore, I’d have to say he’s very much politically incorrect in the way he speaks. But it appeals to some people, oddly enough.
And the Democrats would immediately be portrayed as bigoted against orange people. Trump is given a pass because he has been doing it for years and getting away with it. That appeals to a certain segment of the population, but I don’t think the Dems could pull it off. Remember when Hillary referred to Trump’s base as “deplorables?” She was right, of course, but she shot gerself in the foot with remark. Meanwhile, Trump continued to refer to her as “Crooked Hillary.” It’s grade school namecalling, but he gets away with it because he’s the biggest bully on the block. Well, next to Putin anyway.
Very different though. Reagan had extremely formal acting training, very polished, mannered, and calculated. Trump’s “entertainment” background is a relatively new form of entertainment, reality television, in which he was not really acting at all, he was just being himself.
Trump is a terrible public speaker. He shows his ignorance and contempt for logic (and his audience) with almost every sentence.
Nobody who put thought and planning into having an effective message would use his approach.
Yet it’s perhaps the main reason for his success. He sounds just like some typical jerk you might overhear in a bar anywhere in America, and a large segment of the population love him for that. All his contradictions and narcissism just make him relateable as a real person to them.
It also helps that the things he’s ignorant and bigoted on are common blind spots among the American public. e.g. when he speaks childishly on economics, most of his audience don’t pick up on it.
In that, it reminds me of Bush; You would think having been an alcoholic cokehead would show insufficient judgment and impulse-control to become president but that seemed to help him. I wonder if this is mainly a Protestant, specifically born-again, thing.
Bush successfully became sober, which is not easy to do, and he publicly stated this and people believed him. I didn’t vote for Bush, I voted for Kerry in my first ever election that I was old enough to vote in, but someone’s past addiction should never be held against them if they’ve gotten it together in the years since.
Right, Bush never made brash, ill-considered decision after that. : )
I’m being a little flippant but I do think that Bush being an alcoholic cokehead and his swaggering blunders & delusions are of a piece, along with his type of religiosity.
Normally, I would agree that someone’s past addiction shouldn’t be held against them under two conditions: 1) they’ve engaged in long, painful introspection and changed the parts of themselves that caused them to falter (which involves more than accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior) 2) some positions have so many willing candidates and have such impact, it’s not worth it to take the chance. It’s not like he can say his addictions were coping mechanisms for a difficult childhood or getting PTSD in 'Nam.