This is honestly what confuses me the most about this whole thing. We're almost a year into this campaign, and I still don't get it. How can anybody look at Trump and not see the narcissistic sociopath? He's scarcely even bothering to pretend he isn't one.
I don't know. There's a few things going on here that makes this depressing but not surprising.
First, I think we can unfortunately blame the internet for creating part of this situation. The new information model our society has created has made it much easier for people to select the coverage they want to hear. And their limited capacity for paying attention limits just how deep they're going to go. I've argued this before, but the people who have a predilection for being politically blind to criticism have the ability to remain that way. Trump has a propaganda wing; and let's be frank, that's what it is: propaganda. If you want to drink the cool aid, there's little stopping you or even to inform you "hey, you're just drinking sugar water."
Second, history has shown us time and time again that people who feel like they are on the bottom and have no hope are most likely to attach themselves to a leader who appears strong. A leader who may not have any policy objectives, but largely agrees with you and preaches some form of revenge. They pick scape goats. They talk about how the current power is against you. And since they're "new", its hard to find concrete evidence. And since they turn themselves into a bit of a religous figure, those keeping the faith don't allow people to question.
Hitler was elected Democratically to power on a platform of hate, retribution, and pride. Trump isn't very different in his core strategy. If you're confused by this, I'm not sure that you're a student of history. The really confusing thing, the puzzle to me, is: "How do you prevent <Trump> from happening to begin with?" What does it take to have an informed electorate that cares enough to look deeply? How can you tell when your political system has become so rigid and disenfranchising that you know they're going to create a power vacuum for <Trump>?
<Trump> being the archetypal populist anger machine, no substance, all bad for your country.
I have a different view of the world. I was raised believing that everyone had the capacity to commit genocide and that only extreme watchfulness and knowledge could combat it. Trump is not a surprise to me.
Q: Anyone have any data on voter turnout? Wondering if Trump is doing better because he's winning over more people or because more people are staying home.
EDIT: holy fudge batman...
Recent turn out:
Pennsylvania 15.8
Illinois 15.3
Massachusetts 12.8
Vermont 12.5
Arizona 11.4
Maryland 10.6
Delaware 10.0
Louisiana 8.9
Connecticut 8.7
Rhode Island 7.8
New York 6.4
That's percent of the voters from the eligble voting populace; People aren't voting in Republican primaries, this is freaking nonrepresentative. People are giving up on the republican party
Not good for Trump's chances in november. We might be looking at a route. NeverTrump might be going the route of simply not voting.
That's some really partisan spid but you forgot to take into account that primaries always have low turnout from the overall population during every election. The Republican turnout during primaries overall has been the highest in over 35 years. It's nice to know that you're not even considering how primary votes work. You're literally believing the stories that the MSM tells you to believe even though their presentation is both flawed and biased.
Essentially your taking a small percentage of voters from a small percentage of voters using data that already has traditionally low numbers to justify "people are just gonna stay home" argument. Screams of desperation.
I hope you were not distracted that easily. But it be your life. Carry on and such.
I know some peeps here will read the blog, and rise to the challenge... but I don't know if any of them will post. I shall await with interest.
Oh, I most certainly did keep reading. It didn't get any better. The entire first part of the article was a misogynistic pile of bullcrap, insisting that Megyn Kelly should thank Donald Trump for being a sexist dick to her. Well, maybe Kelly did make the best out of a bad situation, and used her savvy to capitalize on Trump's mistake. That doesn't change the fact that Trump was being a sexist dick to her. Trump wasn't trying to giver her career boost by being rude to her. He was just being rude to her. Hats off to Kelly though. She's my kind of strong female role-model.
That whole business is followed by large circle drawn in the sand, saying that Trump will get elected, despite high unavailability ratings because...he's Trump. There's also some balderdash about Trump proving he's not racist by hugging ethnicity people on live TV? Admittedly, I've seen stranger reasoning on this thread. The article wraps up by trying to read my mind, and falling flat on its face. Leave the telepathy to Jace and Xavier, dude.
There. I read your article. Now please show that you read our citations.
Will Ted Cruz follow his own advice that he gave to John Kasich and Drop out of the race? I doubt it since he's a habitual liar and a slimy creep.
Yeah. That must be the reason Trump is still running.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Essentially your taking a small percentage of voters from a small percentage of voters using data that already has traditionally low numbers to justify "people are just gonna stay home" argument. Screams of desperation.
I showed data that was turn out data over the period of 2016 for just the republican primary. You showed me a data point for the entire year for both parties.
I don't expect you to even acknowledge this. You aren't a legitimate partner for discussion. Talking to you = , so I just want you to know this was for someone else.
What are you even trying to say at this point? That when your shenanigans get called out you're gonna ignore the person who proved you completely wrong? Your initial point was thoroughly debunked. Here are your words...
That's percent of the voters from the eligble voting populace; People aren't voting in Republican primaries, this is freaking nonrepresentative. People are giving up on the republican party OMG
Not good for Trump's chances in november. We might be looking at a route. NeverTrump might be going the route of simply not voting.
How can you even come to the conclusion that "people aren't voting in Republican primaries" when Republicn party primary turnout is higher than it's been in 35 years? What are you possibly basing that on? Do you see the red graphic that shows Republican primary turnout at 17.3%? Please tell me. I sincerely want to know. There's defintely someone acting like a brick wall here and it's surely not me but hey go ahead and ignore me. If your argument is gonna be that flimsy then maybe you shouldn't have made it to begin with.
Do you see the red graphic that shows Republican primary turnout at 17.3%?
Did you see the data points for individual states that are all lower than the 17.3%?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Yes. It doesn't mesh with "people aren't voting in Republican primaries" when they clearly are.
We have two conflicting pieces of data. Either one, or both of them, is wrong. This does not mean that the one you championed is automatically correct.
Is there anyone who is not deeply entrenched in either side of this debate who can figure out what exactly is going on here? I seriously would like to know which case is true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Yes. It doesn't mesh with "people aren't voting in Republican primaries" when they clearly are.
We have two conflicting pieces of data. Either one, or both of them, is wrong. This does not mean that the one you championed is automatically correct.
Is there anyone who is not deeply entrenched in either side of this debate who can figure out what exactly is going on here? I seriously would like to know which case is true.
The two numbers may be using different populations for "eligible" voters. For example, the Pew graphic may only be using people registered Republican or Democrat, while the numbers gumOnShoe posted may be from everyone able to vote in the general election. (This is just speculation, of course.)
I wouldn't put too much stock in primary turnout either way. It's very heavily dependent on how competitive the race is perceived to be, not how enthusiastic voters are.
Yes. It doesn't mesh with "people aren't voting in Republican primaries" when they clearly are.
We have two conflicting pieces of data. Either one, or both of them, is wrong. This does not mean that the one you championed is automatically correct.
Is there anyone who is not deeply entrenched in either side of this debate who can figure out what exactly is going on here? I seriously would like to know which case is true.
Here's what I know, the GOP is experience RECORD TURNOUT. Not slightly above average, not pretty good for an election year, I mean record turnout. It's been getting mentioned repeatedly by the media since the very first Caucus in IOWA. Gum made a statement that was fundamentally wrong and is desperately trying to backtrack on it.
Gum tried to take a bunch of states that ALWAYS HAVE LOW VOTER TURNOUT and tried to pretend that these ALWAYS LOW VOTER TURNOUT primary states mean that people are abandoning the Republican party. However even in these states that ALWAYS HAVE LOW VOTER TURNOUT states, the voter participation number are way up. He's presenting patently dishonest arguments which is par the course for those who hate Trump.
What you've stated is actually what dishonesty looks like...
Polling number are up all over the nation among the Republican primaries. All states included except those that voted yestarday. You're arguments have no merit and are based on nothing but hatred.
I tried my darndest to make the image larger, but it just wouldn't work.
I wouldn't put too much stock in primary turnout either way. It's very heavily dependent on how competitive the race is perceived to be, not how enthusiastic voters are.
Yes, this is true. It doesn't change the fact that gum is presenting false statements to try and discredit a candidate.
What you've stated is actually what dishonesty looks like...
Polling number are up all over the nation among the Republican primaries. All states included except those that voted yestarday. You're arguments have no merit and are based on nothing but hatred.
I made most of my arguments before you posted the breitbart article, I updated to try and account for it as well as dig in to some of the other results. I think the only argument you can reasonably make is that people don't normally vote in these primaries because they are so late, but we see Dems voting in higher numbers in the later primaries anyways; so there's certainly some people staying at home.
Thank you for attempting to present data that was relevant.
And I acknowledge that you've run out of ways to backtrack on your statements. Your argument shifted form "nobody is voting in Republican primaries" (which dishonestly included the entire population of the entire states and not just Republican voters), then you shifted it to, oh well it only includes people from the most recent states. A point that again dishonestly doesn't take into account the voting trends of the entire state being generally low. You weren't interested in honesty in the first place and I look forward to rebutting the next hit piece argument that you present.
Gum tried to take a bunch of states that ALWAYS HAVE LOW VOTER TURNOUT and tried to pretend that these ALWAYS LOW VOTER TURNOUT primary states mean that people are abandoning the Republican party. However even in these states that ALWAYS HAVE LOW VOTER TURNOUT states, the voter participation number are way up.
He's presenting patently dishonest arguments which is par the course for those who hate Trump.
This statement cannot be proven, whereas the reverse is patently true as Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort admitted last week that Trump is just an act.
Also still waiting to see who is being misleading or hostile...
Quick change of pace, I read the following article on HuffPost about the prospects of a Trump presidency, specifically in the light of how new Presidents have formed relationships with the military.
What do you guys think? Would the military follow Trump's orders if he were elected President? What are some best case/worst case scenarios for how that could play out?
Quick change of pace, I read the following article on HuffPost about the prospects of a Trump presidency, specifically in the light of how new Presidents have formed relationships with the military.
What do you guys think? Would the military follow Trump's orders if he were elected President? What are some best case/worst case scenarios for how that could play out?
They would have to. As a soldier you don't have the choice to disobey the commander n' chief. Short of orders that are blatantly and extremely in violation of American law it would be dereliction of duties not to obey the orders of the president no matter what your personal opinions of that president may be.
This is honestly what confuses me the most about this whole thing. We're almost a year into this campaign, and I still don't get it. How can anybody look at Trump and not see the narcissistic sociopath? He's scarcely even bothering to pretend he isn't one.
I don't know. There's a few things going on here that makes this depressing but not surprising.
First, I think we can unfortunately blame the internet for creating part of this situation. The new information model our society has created has made it much easier for people to select the coverage they want to hear. And their limited capacity for paying attention limits just how deep they're going to go. I've argued this before, but the people who have a predilection for being politically blind to criticism have the ability to remain that way. Trump has a propaganda wing; and let's be frank, that's what it is: propaganda. If you want to drink the cool aid, there's little stopping you or even to inform you "hey, you're just drinking sugar water."
Second, history has shown us time and time again that people who feel like they are on the bottom and have no hope are most likely to attach themselves to a leader who appears strong. A leader who may not have any policy objectives, but largely agrees with you and preaches some form of revenge. They pick scape goats. They talk about how the current power is against you. And since they're "new", its hard to find concrete evidence. And since they turn themselves into a bit of a religous figure, those keeping the faith don't allow people to question.
The internet has played a large role in polarizing politics, but it really doesn't tell the full story in why Trump has become so popular.
Several years ago there was a severe financial crisis. Despite trillions of dollars in QE programs, zero to near-zero percent interest rates, and a huge stimulus, the economic recovery since 2008 has been very tepid *at best*. There are a lot of Americans with little to no savings and are just barely getting by each month. The economic crash greatly affected a lot of working class Americans. They lost their homes, their jobs, and/or their retirement. A lot of people are frustrated that the economy is supposedly "fixed" and yet wages are stagnant, a lot of people are still unemployed or underemployed, and they don't see a "brighter future". Ordinarily, voting out the party in power is supposed to be the way to fix this "problem", except the GOP has been in power in Congress for the past few years and nothing has changed either. Thus, vote anxiety is being directed not at the parties themselves, but at the establishment.
The other important thing to point out is that Trump's platform isn't unique. Pat Buchanan ran a primary challenge in 1992 against Bush Sr. Buchanan was in many ways similar to Trump; he despised the establishment, he was very opposed to trade deals, he loathed neoconservatives for their warmongering, and he had a huge emphasis on immigration. It was an "America first" ideology that Trump borrows a lot from. The main difference between the two is that Buchanan was far more religious and socially conservative and Trump is quite secular. Other than that, the two are very similar.
Pat Buchanan was the canary in the coal mine. He had a very impressive turnout in the NH primary that year and although Bush Sr. easily won the GOP nomination (despise losing re-election), what Buchanan did was successfully create the anti-globalist, America first ideology that resonated with a lot of working class Americans. It petered down after Buchanan's run in 1992, but it always remained under the surface. The dot-com and housing bubbles provided enough phantom prosperity to keep those people silent while the bubble economy went on for several years. Now those bubbles have long since burst and those people are just flat out angry because they're on the short end of the stick compared to more affluent Americans. Trump took what Buchanan started and fully unlocked that "angry" demographic to hugely successful results.
There is a joke in politics that says Barry Goldwater didn't lose the election in 1964, but rather the votes were counted 16 years later. In many ways, this is true for Pat Buchanan. He didn't really lose the GOP primary in 1992 but the votes just got counted until 24 years later.
Quick change of pace, I read the following article on HuffPost about the prospects of a Trump presidency, specifically in the light of how new Presidents have formed relationships with the military.
What do you guys think? Would the military follow Trump's orders if he were elected President? What are some best case/worst case scenarios for how that could play out?
They would have to. As a soldier you don't have the choice to disobey the commander n' chief. Short of orders that are blatantly and extremely in violation of American law it would be dereliction of duties not to obey the orders of the president no matter what your personal opinions of that president may be.
There is following orders and 'following orders'. The military has a lot of political power and they know how to push back against an administration they do not agree with. eg. the president cannot forbid a general from testifying in front of Congress. The president can fire a general but that has political consequences. It really depends on how much political blowback a president is willing to tolerate.
Why Donald Trump Is Probably Two States From Victory
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn APRIL 26, 2016
By sweeping five states on Tuesday, he pulled only a few hundred Republican delegates short of the 1,237 he needs to win without a contested convention.
He has long been favored in the polls in two of the remaining primary states, New Jersey and West Virginia. That leaves Indiana and California as the crucial prizes that would put Mr. Trump over the top — and while he was once thought to be vulnerable in both states, polls have shown him with a modest lead.
What’s clear is that there isn’t much time for a Cruz comeback. His weak showing on Tuesday might make it even less clear to Republican voters that he is the principal anti-Trump option. The vote in Indiana is in just six days, and early voting is already underway.
If Mr. Trump wins Indiana, a merely modest win in California could be enough to give him 1,237 delegates.
Quick change of pace, I read the following article on HuffPost about the prospects of a Trump presidency, specifically in the light of how new Presidents have formed relationships with the military.
What do you guys think? Would the military follow Trump's orders if he were elected President? What are some best case/worst case scenarios for how that could play out?
They would have to. As a soldier you don't have the choice to disobey the commander n' chief. Short of orders that are blatantly and extremely in violation of American law it would be dereliction of duties not to obey the orders of the president no matter what your personal opinions of that president may be.
There is following orders and 'following orders'. The military has a lot of political power and they know how to push back against an administration they do not agree with. eg. the president cannot forbid a general from testifying in front of Congress. The president can fire a general but that has political consequences. It really depends on how much political blowback a president is willing to tolerate.
Trump has not been very respectful of veterans.
I concur with the points you made about generals and their political options. Soldiers almost always follow orders, but exceptions abound.
The candidate that soldiers and vets support the MOST has not been respectful to them? Perchance you are confusing Hillary with Trump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today. The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air Force is about one-third smaller than 1991.
Why do you think we need to have the same level of military as we did at the end of the cold war? Who, exactly, are we going to fight that requires that level of buildup? This sounds like a proposal for throwing money away from a man who understands nothing about the world. And it comes after complaining that NATO allies aren't spending enough money on their own militaries, and that he's going to make them pick up the slack. What benefit is that if we end up wildly increasing our own spending anyway? And then, near the end, he complains that the biggest problem out there is that there are too many powerful weapons.
I can't believe someone could watch or read this speech and think to themselves, "yes, this makes sense to me. I should post a link to this."
I'm going to assume the answer is no, as that seems to be his MO, despite the fact that I reciprocated and read one of his articles. Jello is kind of like a broken vending machine. You'll never know what you'll get out of him, if anything at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The resemblance seemed uncanny, though I always got the impression that Gilt had a much stronger personal ideology than Trump.
The more you know
That's some really partisan spid but you forgot to take into account that primaries always have low turnout from the overall population during every election. The Republican turnout during primaries overall has been the highest in over 35 years. It's nice to know that you're not even considering how primary votes work. You're literally believing the stories that the MSM tells you to believe even though their presentation is both flawed and biased.
Essentially your taking a small percentage of voters from a small percentage of voters using data that already has traditionally low numbers to justify "people are just gonna stay home" argument. Screams of desperation.
Oh, I most certainly did keep reading. It didn't get any better. The entire first part of the article was a misogynistic pile of bullcrap, insisting that Megyn Kelly should thank Donald Trump for being a sexist dick to her. Well, maybe Kelly did make the best out of a bad situation, and used her savvy to capitalize on Trump's mistake. That doesn't change the fact that Trump was being a sexist dick to her. Trump wasn't trying to giver her career boost by being rude to her. He was just being rude to her. Hats off to Kelly though. She's my kind of strong female role-model.
That whole business is followed by large circle drawn in the sand, saying that Trump will get elected, despite high unavailability ratings because...he's Trump. There's also some balderdash about Trump proving he's not racist by hugging ethnicity people on live TV? Admittedly, I've seen stranger reasoning on this thread. The article wraps up by trying to read my mind, and falling flat on its face. Leave the telepathy to Jace and Xavier, dude.
There. I read your article. Now please show that you read our citations.
Yeah. That must be the reason Trump is still running.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
What are you even trying to say at this point? That when your shenanigans get called out you're gonna ignore the person who proved you completely wrong? Your initial point was thoroughly debunked. Here are your words...
How can you even come to the conclusion that "people aren't voting in Republican primaries" when Republicn party primary turnout is higher than it's been in 35 years? What are you possibly basing that on? Do you see the red graphic that shows Republican primary turnout at 17.3%? Please tell me. I sincerely want to know. There's defintely someone acting like a brick wall here and it's surely not me but hey go ahead and ignore me. If your argument is gonna be that flimsy then maybe you shouldn't have made it to begin with.
Did you see the data points for individual states that are all lower than the 17.3%?
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Yes. It doesn't mesh with "people aren't voting in Republican primaries" when they clearly are.
We have two conflicting pieces of data. Either one, or both of them, is wrong. This does not mean that the one you championed is automatically correct.
Is there anyone who is not deeply entrenched in either side of this debate who can figure out what exactly is going on here? I seriously would like to know which case is true.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Here's what I know, the GOP is experience RECORD TURNOUT. Not slightly above average, not pretty good for an election year, I mean record turnout. It's been getting mentioned repeatedly by the media since the very first Caucus in IOWA. Gum made a statement that was fundamentally wrong and is desperately trying to backtrack on it.
Caucus turnout: Robust, record-setting and surprising
Not metaphorically since Iowa. Literally, the GOP turnout has been setting records for turnout. And it's been like this all throughout the GOP caucus...
The Big 2016 Story Out of the Nevada GOP Caucus? Turnout.
Will High Tide Of Primary Voter Turnout Float Republicans In November?
Reason for record Republican voter turnout?: Trump
Exclusive Data Analysis: GOP Primary Turnout Up 8.7 Million Votes, More Than 60 Percent in 2016 Versus 2012
Gum tried to take a bunch of states that ALWAYS HAVE LOW VOTER TURNOUT and tried to pretend that these ALWAYS LOW VOTER TURNOUT primary states mean that people are abandoning the Republican party. However even in these states that ALWAYS HAVE LOW VOTER TURNOUT states, the voter participation number are way up. He's presenting patently dishonest arguments which is par the course for those who hate Trump.
What you've stated is actually what dishonesty looks like...
Polling number are up all over the nation among the Republican primaries. All states included except those that voted yestarday. You're arguments have no merit and are based on nothing but hatred.
I tried my darndest to make the image larger, but it just wouldn't work.
Yes, this is true. It doesn't change the fact that gum is presenting false statements to try and discredit a candidate.
And I acknowledge that you've run out of ways to backtrack on your statements. Your argument shifted form "nobody is voting in Republican primaries" (which dishonestly included the entire population of the entire states and not just Republican voters), then you shifted it to, oh well it only includes people from the most recent states. A point that again dishonestly doesn't take into account the voting trends of the entire state being generally low. You weren't interested in honesty in the first place and I look forward to rebutting the next hit piece argument that you present.
This statement cannot be proven, whereas the reverse is patently true as Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort admitted last week that Trump is just an act.
Also still waiting to see who is being misleading or hostile...
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/trump-at-war/
What do you guys think? Would the military follow Trump's orders if he were elected President? What are some best case/worst case scenarios for how that could play out?
The internet has played a large role in polarizing politics, but it really doesn't tell the full story in why Trump has become so popular.
Several years ago there was a severe financial crisis. Despite trillions of dollars in QE programs, zero to near-zero percent interest rates, and a huge stimulus, the economic recovery since 2008 has been very tepid *at best*. There are a lot of Americans with little to no savings and are just barely getting by each month. The economic crash greatly affected a lot of working class Americans. They lost their homes, their jobs, and/or their retirement. A lot of people are frustrated that the economy is supposedly "fixed" and yet wages are stagnant, a lot of people are still unemployed or underemployed, and they don't see a "brighter future". Ordinarily, voting out the party in power is supposed to be the way to fix this "problem", except the GOP has been in power in Congress for the past few years and nothing has changed either. Thus, vote anxiety is being directed not at the parties themselves, but at the establishment.
The other important thing to point out is that Trump's platform isn't unique. Pat Buchanan ran a primary challenge in 1992 against Bush Sr. Buchanan was in many ways similar to Trump; he despised the establishment, he was very opposed to trade deals, he loathed neoconservatives for their warmongering, and he had a huge emphasis on immigration. It was an "America first" ideology that Trump borrows a lot from. The main difference between the two is that Buchanan was far more religious and socially conservative and Trump is quite secular. Other than that, the two are very similar.
Pat Buchanan was the canary in the coal mine. He had a very impressive turnout in the NH primary that year and although Bush Sr. easily won the GOP nomination (despise losing re-election), what Buchanan did was successfully create the anti-globalist, America first ideology that resonated with a lot of working class Americans. It petered down after Buchanan's run in 1992, but it always remained under the surface. The dot-com and housing bubbles provided enough phantom prosperity to keep those people silent while the bubble economy went on for several years. Now those bubbles have long since burst and those people are just flat out angry because they're on the short end of the stick compared to more affluent Americans. Trump took what Buchanan started and fully unlocked that "angry" demographic to hugely successful results.
There is a joke in politics that says Barry Goldwater didn't lose the election in 1964, but rather the votes were counted 16 years later. In many ways, this is true for Pat Buchanan. He didn't really lose the GOP primary in 1992 but the votes just got counted until 24 years later.
There is following orders and 'following orders'. The military has a lot of political power and they know how to push back against an administration they do not agree with. eg. the president cannot forbid a general from testifying in front of Congress. The president can fire a general but that has political consequences. It really depends on how much political blowback a president is willing to tolerate.
Trump has not been very respectful of veterans.
(Jump to 27:50, as the event begins then for some odd reason).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8RqLN3Qao
Why Donald Trump Is Probably Two States From Victory
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn APRIL 26, 2016
By sweeping five states on Tuesday, he pulled only a few hundred Republican delegates short of the 1,237 he needs to win without a contested convention.
He has long been favored in the polls in two of the remaining primary states, New Jersey and West Virginia. That leaves Indiana and California as the crucial prizes that would put Mr. Trump over the top — and while he was once thought to be vulnerable in both states, polls have shown him with a modest lead.
What’s clear is that there isn’t much time for a Cruz comeback. His weak showing on Tuesday might make it even less clear to Republican voters that he is the principal anti-Trump option. The vote in Indiana is in just six days, and early voting is already underway.
If Mr. Trump wins Indiana, a merely modest win in California could be enough to give him 1,237 delegates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/upshot/why-donald-trump-is-probably-two-states-from-victory.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
Quite the pickle for the current status quo--Rs and Ds alike. Senor Trump is surging big league. Will it be enough?
I wonder if The Don will end up with greater than 4 million MORE votes than Cruz. Share your best guess. Don't be shy.
The candidate that soldiers and vets support the MOST has not been respectful to them? Perchance you are confusing Hillary with Trump.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why do you think we need to have the same level of military as we did at the end of the cold war? Who, exactly, are we going to fight that requires that level of buildup? This sounds like a proposal for throwing money away from a man who understands nothing about the world. And it comes after complaining that NATO allies aren't spending enough money on their own militaries, and that he's going to make them pick up the slack. What benefit is that if we end up wildly increasing our own spending anyway? And then, near the end, he complains that the biggest problem out there is that there are too many powerful weapons.
I can't believe someone could watch or read this speech and think to themselves, "yes, this makes sense to me. I should post a link to this."
I'm going to assume the answer is no, as that seems to be his MO, despite the fact that I reciprocated and read one of his articles. Jello is kind of like a broken vending machine. You'll never know what you'll get out of him, if anything at all.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit