I Figured Out the Appeal of Trump

[iLander]

As I watched the debate last night, it occurred to me why people like Trump;

Because they want to be Donald Trump.

I can see it. You (the collective you, no one specific to this forum) want to be the rich guy, with the beautiful wife, who tells it like it is and kicks butt everywhere he goes. You want to be worth billions, saying what you think, not taking any crap from anybody. You want to be the guy that straightens out that nonsense in Washington, making heads roll with no problem. Who doesn't want to be that guy?!

But just because you want to be Donald Trump doesn't mean you should vote for him.

Because if you vote for him, your life will not change. You will still not have a lot of money, you will still have a tough job, with a boss that you have to keep taking crap from. You can't say what you think all the time, because you have friends, co-workers, family, that don't approve. Your income won't change, your life won't improve. But his life sure will.

And after a while, of your same old life, you'll realize that he used you. Used your vote to make a rich guy into a rich and powerful guy. The same way he used his employees, contractors, wives. Used their goods and services, their lives, paid them if he felt like it. Some people lost the businesses they built for their whole lives, their families had to go without. But Trump kept riding around in limousines, eating at fancy restaurants. You'll realize why Trump has had over 4,000 lawsuits over the last 10 years. Because he's a narcissist and a jerk who uses poor (in his mind, everyone else is poor) people.

You'll see rich people getting even more tax breaks, you'll see other countries dissing the US even more than they already do. You may even see a war somewhere, because someone offended him. You'll see young people coming home in body bags, or with mangled limbs. But, hey, rich guy feels better, he showed them.

You might wish you hadn't voted for the rich, jerky guy, who doesn't think about anyone but himself. Who never even had a single one of his products made in USA. Made in USA costs 20% more than made in China (true fact; shipping from China costs $$$). I guess he couldn't absorb that cost in his $78 ties, wholesale $4.00.

And suddenly, that lady in the pantsuit doesn't seem so bad. She probably wouldn't have gotten us into a war. She offered free college for the kids. She was going to push this country into developing clean energy. She had years of experience dealing with other countries, and years in the Senate. Guess that email thing wasn't that big of a deal. Colin Powell had a private server too, and he's a good guy.

So give that a little thought; why you like Trump. You can never be him. Maybe you shouldn't vote for him either.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I loved when Hillary straight up called him out for not paying workers and he actually said he should be admired for figuring out loopholes like that, and it's just good business and that's why he's so successful.

Yeah, he's going to look out for the average person.

 

[Calliecake]

I loved when Hillary straight up called him out for not paying workers and he actually said he should be admired for figuring out loopholes like that, and it's just good business and that's why he's so successful.

Yeah, he's going to look out for the average person.

I thought the exact same thing. The only person Trump will ever look out for is Trump.

 

[iLander]

Very true. Another rich white guy, in a long line of rich white guys, who keep people/wages/jobs down.

I would at least like to try someone of another gender this time around.

 

[asscherisme]

Aggg, I can't believe how close he is to getting elected. I don't get it!! I find it difficult to watch him and keep thinking "textbook narcassist" whenever I see him speak.

 

[Gypsy]

Aggg, I can't believe how close he is to getting elected. I don't get it!! I find it difficult to watch him and keep thinking "textbook narcassist" whenever I see him speak.

This, but especially the part in bold.

 

[E B]

Bingo, bingo, bingo. He's leading bigly (YUGELY!) with...white males without college degrees. 76 percent to Clinton's 16 percent as of two days ago.

I know 'privilege' is a trigger word for some around here, but I do hope those who are voting Trump for a single issue (that, let's be honest, you shouldn't hold your breath for), or because "it'll be fun to see what happens" realize the utter privilege of being able to feel that way about his or her vote. That you don't feel you need to worry much, if at all, about the consequences of a President Trump.

 

[redwood66]

Because if you vote for him, your life will not change. You will still not have a lot of money, you will still have a tough job, with a boss that you have to keep taking crap from. You can't say what you think all the time, because you have friends, co-workers, family, that don't approve. Your income won't change, your life won't improve. But his life sure will.

If I vote for Hillary my life will be the same. Do you really think any of them make that much difference in your life personally? Nothing is magically going to change. Cast a vote and hope for the best.

And this has nothing to do with supporting Trump.

 

[momhappy]

^I agree, redwood. A vote for Hillary is much the same. What will change with her in charge? Not. a. darn. thing. (okay, maybe a few things, but nothing that will probably rock our worlds).

 

[Gypsy]

Your life will change when he starts a war or sets off a nuclear bomb. And you watch droves of children sent to slaughter because he lost control, lost his temper, had a paranoid delusion based on his innate racism, couldn't admit he was wrong about something, he lied bald face to another world leader, or because he completely and utterly lacks empathy.

Look up the definition of sociopath. And look up the DMS diagnostic criteria for narcissist personality disorder.

There is a HUGE difference between the two candidates.

 

[redwood66]

Someone will probably take him out him before that happens and then we will have Pence.

 

[Gypsy]

Someone will probably take him out him before that happens and then we will have Pence.

Really? Assassination? That's the solution?

How about your vote against him now and spare the country that. Because THAT will start a war. What's worse than an international war? A civil war. Great. Let's root for assassination! Not. I can't stand the guy. And even I wouldn't want him assassinated. That's ever a solution. And if you were joking, please don't. I don't find the thought of ANY President being assassinated funny.

 

[redwood66]

Someone will probably take him out him before that happens and then we will have Pence.

Really? Assassination? That's the solution?

How about your vote against him now and spare the country that. Because THAT will start a war. What's worse than an international war? A civil war. Great. Let's root for assassination! Not. I can't stand the guy. And even I wouldn't want him assassinated. That's ever a solution. And if you were joking, please don't. I don't find the thought of ANY President being assassinated funny.

I was kidding G. It takes Congress to start a war. I just don't have the fear of Trump any more than I fear Hillary.

 

[AGBF]

As I watched the debate last night, it occurred to me why people like Trump;

Because they want to be Donald Trump.

Indeed.

When I was in college I majored in both history and political science. In one course a professor compared two black politicians who were popular at the time in Harlem. One was down to earth, a man of the people who acted as if he identified with the struggles of his neighbors and would fight for them because he was on of them. Another was a flamboyant man who drove a sports car and showed off his cash and the fact that he had done well for himself. Both were popular. The professor wanted us to see that each politician could appeal to the black community, one by making them feel he was one of them and would understand and work for them, the other by showing them what they could become if they followed him and his star.

Deb/AGBF

 

[momhappy]

Your life will change when he starts a war or sets off a nuclear bomb. And you watch droves of children sent to slaughter because he lost control, lost his temper, had a paranoid delusion based on his innate racism, couldn't admit he was wrong about something, he lied bald face to another world leader, or because he completely and utterly lacks empathy.

Look up the definition of sociopath. And look up the DMS diagnostic criteria for narcissist personality disorder.

There is a HUGE difference between the two candidates.

I would agree that Trump seems to have issues, but I'm really not comfortable diagnosing him because A) I'm not a doctor and therefore not qualified and B) I've never met the guy.
And I'm sorry, but I vote in support of someone, not against someone. I can't vote against Trump because I don't support Hillary.

 

[iLander]

Because if you vote for him, your life will not change. You will still not have a lot of money, you will still have a tough job, with a boss that you have to keep taking crap from. You can't say what you think all the time, because you have friends, co-workers, family, that don't approve. Your income won't change, your life won't improve. But his life sure will.

If I vote for Hillary my life will be the same. Do you really think any of them make that much difference in your life personally? Nothing is magically going to change. Cast a vote and hope for the best.

And this has nothing to do with supporting Trump.

In my life, Hillary would be good. I could send my child to college for free.

We are currently on Obamacare, because my husband has diabetes, we're no longer employed, and we aren't old enough for medicare. For 30+ years, we were job creators, employing 12 people, paying over half a million in taxes one year. The business came to end, and our insurance exceeded our budget. With Hillary, we would get to keep our insurance.

But if it makes no real difference in your life, why not at least once in your life, vote for a woman?

 

[iLander]

Your life will change when he starts a war or sets off a nuclear bomb. And you watch droves of children sent to slaughter because he lost control, lost his temper, had a paranoid delusion based on his innate racism, couldn't admit he was wrong about something, he lied bald face to another world leader, or because he completely and utterly lacks empathy.

Look up the definition of sociopath. And look up the DMS diagnostic criteria for narcissist personality disorder.

There is a HUGE difference between the two candidates.

I would agree that Trump seems to have issues, but I'm really not comfortable diagnosing him because A) I'm not a doctor and therefore not qualified and B) I've never met the guy.
And I'm sorry, but I vote in support of someone, not against someone. I can't vote against Trump because I don't support Hillary.

I don't have to be a meteorologist to know it's raining. He's extremely self-centered at the very least.

 

[iLander]

Bingo, bingo, bingo. He's leading bigly (YUGELY!) with...white males without college degrees. 76 percent to Clinton's 16 percent as of two days ago.

I know 'privilege' is a trigger word for some around here, but I do hope those who are voting Trump for a single issue (that, let's be honest, you shouldn't hold your breath for), or because "it'll be fun to see what happens" realize the utter privilege of being able to feel that way about his or her vote. That you don't feel you need to worry much, if at all, about the consequences of a President Trump.

Remember "strateegery"? The last president that couldn't even manage to speak English got us into a war.

 

[iLander]

^I agree, redwood. A vote for Hillary is much the same. What will change with her in charge? Not. a. darn. thing. (okay, maybe a few things, but nothing that will probably rock our worlds).

See my reply above. It will truly rock my world. And that of many other people, actually.

 

[momhappy]

Because if you vote for him, your life will not change. You will still not have a lot of money, you will still have a tough job, with a boss that you have to keep taking crap from. You can't say what you think all the time, because you have friends, co-workers, family, that don't approve. Your income won't change, your life won't improve. But his life sure will.

If I vote for Hillary my life will be the same. Do you really think any of them make that much difference in your life personally? Nothing is magically going to change. Cast a vote and hope for the best.

And this has nothing to do with supporting Trump.

In my life, Hillary would be good. I could send my child to college for free.

We are currently on Obamacare, because my husband has diabetes, we're no longer employed, and we aren't old enough for medicare. For 30+ years, we were job creators, employing 12 people, paying over half a million in taxes one year. The business came to end, and our insurance exceeded our budget. With Hillary, we would get to keep our insurance.

But if it makes no real difference in your life, why not at least once in your life, vote for a woman?

I doubt free college will happen. The details of her plan are fuzzy at best. It was simply a move on her part to get Bernie supporters...It's all just fluff and said to get someone elected (much like building a wall)

 

[redwood66]

NO. I will not vote for someone just because she is a woman. There must be more substance than that. I have not said who I am voting for so don't assume it is Trump. It is exactly the free stuff that she wants to give that will keep me from voting for her or any democrat that uses that promise to get votes. It is never free. Obamacare has made my monthly premium double and I don't even have it.

 

[Gypsy]

Someone will probably take him out him before that happens and then we will have Pence.

Really? Assassination? That's the solution?

How about your vote against him now and spare the country that. Because THAT will start a war. What's worse than an international war? A civil war. Great. Let's root for assassination! Not. I can't stand the guy. And even I wouldn't want him assassinated. That's ever a solution. And if you were joking, please don't. I don't find the thought of ANY President being assassinated funny.

I was kidding G. It takes Congress to start a war.

I am going to have to debate that point.

It takes Congress to formally DECLARE a war and FUND a war. That is true. But it only takes a President who is willing to ignore that to START a war or a "campaign" or an "offensive" or whatever other creative label the spin doctors put on it to involve us in one.

The President can unilaterally under take actions that, while not formerly DECLARED by Congress as a war, nonetheless effectively committing us to war. They have done so in the past and continue to do so. And there is a LOT of precedent for it. It is terrifying.

Here is one article that explains this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the-previous-declarations-of-war/279246/

Would you be surprised to hear that TECHNICALLY we have not been in ANY wars since the last World War?

So what about Vietnam, you ask? And Korea? And Iraq, and Afghanistan?

"The United States Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. All of our wars in the Middle East have been authorized using other means, which rather goes to the heart of the nature of those different conflicts. U.S. entry into World War I and World War II took place through joint congressional resolutions stating "a state of war exists between the Government of Country X and the Government and People of the United States," where country X was, variously, Germany, Japan, Italy, and so on...

"Where is Korea?" the commenters, below, cry. That is a good and tricky question. The Korean War was not authorized by Congress. President Truman committed American troops in Korea in 1950 under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate, citing resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council in 1950. This precedent -- the constitutionality of which has been debated -- has been cited by subsequent presidents as justification for using military force without congressional authorization, as in Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 1990 under George H.W. Bush, and Haiti and Bosnia under President Clinton in 1994. According to a 1995 article in the American Journal of International Law, "Presidents and their advisers point to more than two hundred incidents in which Presidents have used force abroad without first obtaining congressional approval."

The Law Library of Congress, part of the Library of Congress, has a solid fact sheet on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and some of the military actions that have led to reports to Congress under it, even if there was not advance authorization. One key point from it to keep in mind: "U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch."


So I am sorry to break it to you. But if Bush, Truman and Clinton found a way to drag us to war and "ignore" Congress, do you think the TRUMP will bow down to them and keep us out of war?

NO. A vote for Trump is a vote for war.

At least Clinton may hesitate and avoid by coming up diplomatic solutions. Do you really think Trump understands or is capable of "diplomatic solutions."

SO I am sorry abstaining from voting or voting for Trump is a vote for War and the "Nuclear Option" being back on the table, for the FIRST TIME, since that damned wall came down and the Cold War Ended.

 

[redwood66]

Bingo, bingo, bingo. He's leading bigly (YUGELY!) with...white males without college degrees. 76 percent to Clinton's 16 percent as of two days ago.

I know 'privilege' is a trigger word for some around here, but I do hope those who are voting Trump for a single issue (that, let's be honest, you shouldn't hold your breath for), or because "it'll be fun to see what happens" realize the utter privilege of being able to feel that way about his or her vote. That you don't feel you need to worry much, if at all, about the consequences of a President Trump.

Remember "strateegery"? The last president that couldn't even manage to speak English got us into a war.

Not actually what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategery

 

[iLander]

Someone will probably take him out him before that happens and then we will have Pence.

Really? Assassination? That's the solution?

How about your vote against him now and spare the country that. Because THAT will start a war. What's worse than an international war? A civil war. Great. Let's root for assassination! Not. I can't stand the guy. And even I wouldn't want him assassinated. That's ever a solution. And if you were joking, please don't. I don't find the thought of ANY President being assassinated funny.

I was kidding G. It takes Congress to start a war. I just don't have the fear of Trump any more than I fear Hillary.

It does not take Congress to start a "police action" which would put troops on the ground in another country. And what if that country doesn't take kindly to our troops on their ground and shoots them all? Congress would have no choice but to start a war, because the public outcry would be huge.

And everyone will have forgotten how to it all started.

With Hillary's experience as Secretary of State, I'm not worried about a police action started by a person with a huge ego. She has diplomacy experience.

 

[momhappy]

Your life will change when he starts a war or sets off a nuclear bomb. And you watch droves of children sent to slaughter because he lost control, lost his temper, had a paranoid delusion based on his innate racism, couldn't admit he was wrong about something, he lied bald face to another world leader, or because he completely and utterly lacks empathy.

Look up the definition of sociopath. And look up the DMS diagnostic criteria for narcissist personality disorder.

There is a HUGE difference between the two candidates.

I would agree that Trump seems to have issues, but I'm really not comfortable diagnosing him because A) I'm not a doctor and therefore not qualified and B) I've never met the guy.
And I'm sorry, but I vote in support of someone, not against someone. I can't vote against Trump because I don't support Hillary.

I don't have to be a meteorologist to know it's raining. He's extremely self-centered at the very least.

Sure, I would agree that he's self-centered and even take it a step further and say he's arrogant, pompous, and rude....but that's much different than labeling someone a sociopath, etc.

 

[redwood66]

Someone will probably take him out him before that happens and then we will have Pence.

Really? Assassination? That's the solution?

How about your vote against him now and spare the country that. Because THAT will start a war. What's worse than an international war? A civil war. Great. Let's root for assassination! Not. I can't stand the guy. And even I wouldn't want him assassinated. That's ever a solution. And if you were joking, please don't. I don't find the thought of ANY President being assassinated funny.

I was kidding G. It takes Congress to start a war.

I am going to have to debate that point.

It takes Congress to formally DECLARE a war and FUND a war. That is true. But it only takes a President who is willing to ignore that to START a war or a "campaign" or an "offensive" or whatever other creative label the spin doctors put on it to involve us in one.

The President can unilaterally under take actions that, while not formerly DECLARED by Congress as a war, nonetheless effectively committing us to war. They have done so in the past and continue to do so. And there is a LOT of precedent for it. It is terrifying.

Here is one article that explains this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the-previous-declarations-of-war/279246/

Would you be surprised to hear that TECHNICALLY we have not been in ANY wars since the last World War?

So what about Vietnam, you ask? And Korea? And Iraq, and Afghanistan?

"The United States Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. All of our wars in the Middle East have been authorized using other means, which rather goes to the heart of the nature of those different conflicts. U.S. entry into World War I and World War II took place through joint congressional resolutions stating "a state of war exists between the Government of Country X and the Government and People of the United States," where country X was, variously, Germany, Japan, Italy, and so on...

"Where is Korea?" the commenters, below, cry. That is a good and tricky question. The Korean War was not authorized by Congress. President Truman committed American troops in Korea in 1950 under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate, citing resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council in 1950. This precedent -- the constitutionality of which has been debated -- has been cited by subsequent presidents as justification for using military force without congressional authorization, as in Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 1990 under George H.W. Bush, and Haiti and Bosnia under President Clinton in 1994. According to a 1995 article in the American Journal of International Law, "Presidents and their advisers point to more than two hundred incidents in which Presidents have used force abroad without first obtaining congressional approval."

The Law Library of Congress, part of the Library of Congress, has a solid fact sheet on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and some of the military actions that have led to reports to Congress under it, even if there was not advance authorization. One key point from it to keep in mind: "U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch."


So I am sorry to break it to you. But if Bush, Truman and Clinton found a way to drag us to war and "ignore" Congress, do you think the TRUMP will bow down to them and keep us out of war?

NO. A vote for Trump is a vote for war.

At least Clinton may hesitate and avoid by coming up diplomatic solutions. Do you really think Trump understands or is capable of "diplomatic solutions."

SO I am sorry abstaining from voting or voting for Trump is a vote for War and the "Nuclear Option" being back on the table, for the FIRST TIME, since that damned wall came down and the Cold War Ended.

Thank you for taking the time to post the info G. I do appreciate all your passion but I cannot be as passionate about these choices we have before us.

 

[Gypsy]

NO. I will not vote for someone just because she is a woman. There must be more substance than that.

I agree with this. I hate the "vote your ovaries" argument.

How is this even a viable argument? How would you like it if you found out men were saying "vote your balls, Pick Trump cause he has a pair."

Right. Cause our biology is what qualifies us for the highest public office of the land.

 

[iLander]

Bingo, bingo, bingo. He's leading bigly (YUGELY!) with...white males without college degrees. 76 percent to Clinton's 16 percent as of two days ago.

I know 'privilege' is a trigger word for some around here, but I do hope those who are voting Trump for a single issue (that, let's be honest, you shouldn't hold your breath for), or because "it'll be fun to see what happens" realize the utter privilege of being able to feel that way about his or her vote. That you don't feel you need to worry much, if at all, about the consequences of a President Trump.

Remember "strateegery"? The last president that couldn't even manage to speak English got us into a war.

Not actually what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategery

Used it as a general reference to his inability to speak. Here are some quotes:

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." September 2000, explaining his energy policies at an event in Michigan.

"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" January 2000, during a campaign event in South Carolina.

"They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too." Sept. 26, 2001, in Langley, Va. Bush was referring to the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.

"There's no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail." Oct. 4, 2001, in Washington. Bush was remarking on a back-to-work plan after the terrorist attacks.
"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber." April 10, 2002, at the White House, as Bush urged Senate passage of a broad ban on cloning.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again." Sept. 17, 2002, in Nashville, Tenn.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Aug. 5, 2004, at the signing ceremony for a defense spending bill.

"Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." Sept. 6, 2004, at a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo.

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job." Sept. 20, 2005, in Gulfport, Miss.

I could go on . . .

 

[redwood66]

Great speakers can make terrible politicians and presidents.

 

[Gypsy]

]

I doubt free college will happen. The details of her plan are fuzzy at best. It was simply a move on her part to get Bernie supporters...It's all just fluff and said to get someone elected (much like building a wall)

I agree with this too.

EVEN if she did manage to get free tuition passed (impossible that anyone could pull that rabbit out of the hat with our current Congress IMO), it would ONLY apply to State and Federally funded institutions at best. And would result in two things, IMO, larger than sustainable class sizes, and, UNLESS it is coupled with ADDITIONAL funding for good teachers, a lower bar set on the requirements for teachers.

It will make Private colleges even more "elitist" than they already are. And probably cause the best and brightest of teachers to flee to them for more money and more manageable class loads.

PLUS, only HALF of the expenses incurred by students in college are due to tuition. The rest is books, housing, food, etc. That doesn't go away. And will still make it cost prohibitive for many students without student loans.

Where they NEED to start is by reforming current student loan laws. They are OBSCENE currently.

And then from there, come up with a SANE program that will help students get a REAL and WORTHWHILE education that manages costs and still ensures that our Public Colleges are properly funded and staffed.

And that will take a lot of thinking than any two second "sound bite" in a debate will be able to promise.