Donald Trump’s history of sexist remarks continues, this time with something he said in a new Rolling Stone piece as reporter Paul Solataroff followed The Donald around on the campaign trail. Relaxing on his plane and watching the news with his staff and Solataroff, Trump provided a running commentary, including these remarks about Carly Fiorina, who, like Trump, is a Republican Presidential candidate:
His staffers at the conference table howl and hoot; their man, though, is just getting warm. When the anchor throws to Carly Fiorina for her reaction to Trump’s momentum, Trump’s expression sours in schoolboy disgust as the camera bores in on Fiorina. “Look at that face!” he cries. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” The laughter grows halting and faint behind him. “I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”
Since then Trump has backpedaled a bit, claiming that what he meant was Fiorina’s “persona” and not her looks. But who can believe that?
I needn’t belabor the sexism pervading not only that remark, but Trump’s whole campaign, which is continuous with his adult history of attacking women for their looks. It’s amazing to me that any woman (or rational person) would support him after seeing him repeatedly judge half of our species not by what’s in their heads, but by the appearance of the front of their heads.
I would bet big money that Trump won’t wind up as the Republican Presidential candidate a year from November, but he’s getting away with bigotry that wouldn’t stand in a regular politician. Indeed some people actually like the kind of stuff he says. (On the evening news, they interviewed two women about that crack, and neither of them found it particularly objectionable.) Part of me wants Trump to be the GOP’s final choice, as I doubt that he can beat any of the viable Democratic candidates, but most of me simply wants America to wake up, listen to his bigotry against women, Hispanics, and anyone who he sees as a threat—and then write him off as a nincompoop. He remains the Republican front-runner, closely followed by Ben Carson: all a sad commentary on my country.
The saddest thing about this whole debacle is that he’s leading in the polls.
Think about that for a minute, and then weep for our country.
Now, think about what will be required of anybody who hopes to usurp him from his frontrunner spot, and weep some more.
b&
As a retired teacher who tried his best, I think we owe the sorry situation to the lack of quality in public school education.
I’ve been saying that for a very long time. It was just luck that I enjoyed the exceptional public school education I did, when I did, and I doubt we’d be in this mess if that quality of education had been the same for everyone. Here’s to Springbrook High School, also alma mater of Louis Black.
Yes — and much of the decline in education can be traced right back to Reagan’s darling, California’s 1978 Prop 13.
It is no coincidence that those who most benefit from an uneducated citizenry are also the ones who are public education’s worst enemies.
b&
In fairness, Ronnie the rat was not the governor when Prop. 13 was passed. The current governor, Jerry Brown was the governor at the time.
Yes, but Ronnie latched onto it and used it to propel himself into the White House.
I seem to remember Governor Moonbeam being opposed to it, but I was a bit young to be paying more than cursory attention to politics.
b&
I lived in California at the time Proposition 13 was passed and then Governor Jerry Brown was very much against it and predicted it would be disastrous for Californian public schools, and from what I’ve read decades later it indeed has been. But then it has been a longtime goal of the radical right to destroy public education and leave the vast majority of Americans with no formal education at all or only mis-education in religious schools.
There is another side of the coin about Prop 13. Older people in my neighborhood were being forced out of their homes where they had lived for thirty and forty years because the real estate taxes had become so high they could not remain in them unless something was done to keep taxes from forcing them out.
I grant you that public schools are terrible, especially here in Oakland, Ca, but that isn’t the fault of Prop 123.
Exactly!
“lack of quality in public school education.”
Nah. Trump is probably popular amongst the college-educated, too.
Education doesn’t fix whatever is wrong with people who like Trump.
How about federally subsidized brain transplants ? Would those help ?
By this do you mean insufficient effort by teachers (IIRC 80% are women in public schools) – in their inescapable, legally-imposed “in loco parentis” role as proxy parents – to inculcate civility and good manners in their students? From my own considerable experience, I aver that teachers make a monumental effort in this regard.
(We’re not seeing this behavior out of women much on a national basis. I’d be a little more sympathetic to Fiorina vis-à-vis Trump, if she would only keep her snarky digs at Hillary Clinton to herself. But she apparently can’t help herself. As the mom says to the child in “The Mom Song,” “It must be your father’s DNA.”)
Do you have a specific opinion about the quality of parenting, and the quality of the collective character of the citizenry, in this Land of hubristic “American Exceptionalism? Maybe Romneyesque omniscient male politicos, religiosos, and capitalist Masters of Mankind need to take direct charge of classrooms and show teachers how it’s done.
I definitely have an opinion regarding the quality of parenting. This varies from place to place, depending on local circumstances. In Oakland, CA, the quality of parenting many students get is terrible, if it even exists. There are cities nearby where the quality of parenting is considerably better, and classroom management is better. In Oakland, the foreign students in ESL stand out as being well-behaved. We can now no longer expel students here unless a student’s acts are heinous (murder ?) and as a result the studejnts have taken over the classes. That is why, at that point, I retired.
Regarding the issue of what student infraction warrants long-term suspension versus in-school suspension, the NY Times editorial board considers a student’s cussing out a teacher a “garden variety” type of infraction. Is the prospect of such an experience supposed to be a “carrot” to prompt one to enter teaching? How many times does the Times expect a teacher to bear up under that?
Let a subordinate cuss out the NYT publisher – or any other inhabitant of any other corporate executive suite – and see what happens.
Good point about the Times.
I’d blame the 24/7 news cycle of constant insanity and, unfortunately, the Internet, so that now many if not most people have no “manners” what we used to call it. All the nasty little demons even amongst us thoughtful, polite folk have been loosed upon the world, so when a “winner” (hah!) like Trump arrives, there are no standards or filters to make reality happen. Even HuffPox declared him “entertainment”! No, really, we are doomed. And we apparently deserve it.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Perfect. 🙂
Illustrations at http://bit.ly/1ERdyFM
Trump is a sexist, xenophobic, narcissistic, egomaniac blowhard, but other that that, many think he is a good guy.
He appears to have poor impulse control, and I wonder if he should even be allowed to come near the button that launches nuclear weapons.
No, he shouldn’t, but I wouldn’t personally worry about him starting WWIII in a fit of pique. I’m sure there’re many more layers to actually launching a nuclear attack than pressing a button…and that will include humans who, in all honesty, would likely shoot him before letting him do something that spectacularly stupid.
Now, a long, drawn-out pissing match that spirals out of control…yeah, that might well be something to worry about.
b&
Scary thought!!!!!!
They think he’s a good guy because he’s sexist and xenophobic. I live in Texas, and I know people here who would love to see him build that wall along the border.
…and, as I keep warning, we should be especially wary of charismatic xenophobic can’t-possibly-win minority candidates who promise to solve all our problems with voodoo economics. Because Hitler — and, no, I’m not exaggerating. At this stage in their respective political careers, you’d be hard pressed to differentiate between the two, save Hitler hadn’t enjoyed Trump’s personal financial success. But even their substantive policy positions aren’t all that far apart…strong support for corporations, very much anti-immigration and blames migrants for many of our problems, support for social safety nets, talks up education….
b&
And Berlusconi. Don’t be Italy, America!
Ben, there’s a lot of truth in your comment. I’ve read that history (Germany between the wars); and Hitler was much like the Trumpster: Blow-hard, right-wing, racist, promising the moon economically*, saying only real (‘Muricans) like me can straighten this mess out.
Because of the times and German history, Hitler could be a bit more explicit in bashing/blaming the Jews for Germany’s woes.
Hitler was elected (well, more or less; if you ignore the rampant murder and intimidation of the brownshirts) by the Germans. This is the lesson I always try to send people: Well-educated, intelligent people can elect disastrous leaders.
Just look back to the 2000 election of Jesse Ventura in my state of Minnesota (admittedly a very unusual election in a generally politically unusual state). He looked good on paper; but (surprise!) turned out to be a whining control freak with zero negotiation skills in office. Sound familiar?
Is there a cure for the Teabaggers? I don’t think so. They are mostly lower-middle class and working-class white folk who are very religious. The GOP has hoodwinked them into thinking the GOP is better for them economically. They can’t be very strong on critical thinking. And they will turn out for the Trumpster. “Hey, that could be me!”
(* I got a good laugh out of Michelle Bachman promising to lower oil prices a couple of elections back!)
Jest wond’ring: in media parlance one hears “working [private servant] class” and [“institutional”?]”investor class.” One never hears “non-working class.” By “work” is meant actually doing something; “laboring,” moving some physical object from point A to point B. (A woman giving birth is “in labor,” not “management,” though as a mother she’ll certainly manage and invest time and energy in a most meaningful way, eh?)
One also hears uttered “the professional class.” E.g., attorneys, bankers. They do something, they work, but they’re not considered “working class.”
Isn’t the “investor” class the “non-working” class? They don’t work – they invest. Any sweating they endure, qua investor, is not from labor, manual or otherwise. To further muddy the waters, is it OK to call the working class the “non-investing” class, or the “non-elite” class?
Many “workers” – teachers for example – invest, but they’re not considered part of the “investor class.” Some consider teachers “professional,” some don’t. But I doubt that most people think of teachers as being part of “the professional class,” if for no other reason than that they don’t make a “professional salary.” (Are low-paid Ph.D. adjunct professors considered part of “the professional class”?) Lines of demarcation are fuzzy and overlapping.
The NY Times has been harping a lot lately about “Populism” in general for the last couple of years, and recently with regard to those succumbing to the Trump “charisma.” As if Populism is a problem, but “Elitism” is not especially as regards income inequality)? I take it those two terms are opposites?
I very much like your term and definition for the non-working class.
GOPers will confuse the name with “welfare queens”, making it all the more poignant!
It’s not uncommon to hear of the “idle classes” — mostly the ultra-rich who inherited their wealth and, as you describe, live off the “investments.” Modern royalty, really. Just as useless, just as parasitic.
b&
I’m not so sure that would be an altogether bad idea, as el proximo Presidente del Mexico, Donaldo Trumpez explica…. Something has to be done about the idiot, drug-crazed Americans infiltrating all the best places down there. It’s not like we’re sending the best and the brightest, you know. 😉
Aside from all the obviously sexist things he’s been saying, how much is he in denial about his own looks??
It probably registers with him that men can get by despite their appearance, while women cannot. It’s historically true and not so wrong today, practically speaking.
Like the gender-based wage gap, proven unrelated to child-rearing and such, these discrepancies are real, and the entitled of the two polar opposites on the discrepancy list make all the use of it they can. Trump does it shamelessly. He believes he’s entitled to be entitled, because he’s worthy, because he’s a man, and that his attitude is why he’s stinking rich.
“Them that’s got shall get.
Them that’s not shall lose.
So the bible says, and it still is news…
Mama may have.
And Papa may have.
But gawd bless the child that’s got his own…”
Even our songs promote wealth for men and beauty for women, even while castigating women who get by on their looks or use their “sex” to get ahead in life.
We’re dealing with a sick human culture, overall.
Nrcissists always consider themselves smarter and more beautiful than most. So, he probably thinks he’s pretty hot.
with especially praise-worthy hair.
He does think he’s good looking, and he thinks his hair looks good – I’ve heard him say so in all seriousness on more than one occasion.
Yes — it bodes ill that the Dunning-Kruger is so strong in him.
b&
I’ve worked closely with narcissists like this. It’s amusing to listen to them talk about themselves. Often they encounter other narcissists and engage in all our narcissist warfare. It’s quite the site.
Grab the popcorn and enjoy the fireworks — but only after you’ve first retreated to a safe distance.
b&
Does this site happen to be Free Thought Blogs? 😉
No, these are narcissists in meat space. Corporations are lousy with them.
Indeed! My first thought was ‘gee – has this guy ever looked in the mirror at his own face?’ Apparently he thinks its fine for a man to be horribly ugly with a ridiculous hair-do and still be president.
Replying to most of the comments in this thread, not just Merilee’s–I never quite understand how playing the lookism card back at males (tempting as it is) does anything to help women’s victimization by it.
+1
Men of balls. Russia has Putin. USA the same?
So I’m not the only one who sees the similarity.
He’s more like Berlusconi who expresses his manliness with trophy wives and sex parties. Putin shows his manliness by being a tough guy.
Agreed.
According to Chris Matthews, Trump’s support among Republican women has recently surged, and exceeds his support among Republican men. Many Republican women are apparently misogynists, which isn’t surprising.
Trump has a point when he says no one complains when people make fun of his hair, but as far as I know none have his opponents have done so (in public and on the record).
But Trump’s hair is his own fault, while Carly’s face isn’t hers.
Yes, it is and for the same reason…cosmetic surgery.
I am NO fan of Fiorina’s, but don’t think she’s particularly unattractive.
How is that even relevant?
Exactly!
I don’t like her politics; but who gives a damn what she looks like?!
Trump does — and that’s why this is particularly significant.
Fiorina isn’t a blushing teenaged beauty queen, but she is of above-average physical appearance. But Trump’s comments would make you think she was the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
That tells you an awful lot about what sort of a perverted world Trump lives in.
Now, personally, I can’t forgive Fiorina for the way she drove once-mighty HP into the ground and shudder at the thought that she might get the chance to do the same to the entire country…but that would be the case for me were she either the beauty queen or the hunchback. For Trump, all that matters is that she doesn’t meet some impossible standard of physical attractiveness on a scale where she’s already above average.
What makes you think he’s going to take any woman seriously, treat any woman with respect?
As final evidence…Megyn Kelly. Could compete in a beauty pageant, and one of the least-idiotic shills at Fox. And even she’s too ugly for Trump to respect. Like, what the fuck? What the hell planet is this asshole on?
b&
Full agreement, Ben, full agreement.
I am appalled by his misogyny. What an asshole he is. And this is his public face! Can you imagine what his private asshattery and megalomania look like?!
Because Trump.
Trump brought it up. And while he doesn’t go against the personal looks of the men he’s running against, he certainly is brazen about the woman.
Right. How is it that “Carly’s [as opposed to anyone else’s] face” was mentioned in the first place?
The problem is that we instinctively object to someone dissing a person from an underrepresented group, such as minorities or women at the pinnacle of politics. Dissing someone at the top (white men) can be done with less risk of seeming unjust.
I think Steven’s point is the key one though: the issue is how presidential candidates behave, not how the public behaves. I’m not voting to hire some random person on the street, so whether they are a sexist who insults Fiorina’s looks or Trump’s hair is irrelevant. Trump’s sexism is relevant because he’s up for the job of President.
Yes, that was my point. I can imagine what Trump might say about Angela Merkel.
Right on.
W was bad enough, and Reagan.
Can the US stand a clown like Trump? I wonder.
“have” => “of”
No matter what Trump does, people keep on liking him. The latest CNN/ORC poll has him at 32% amongst Republicans.
He makes comments all the time that would see others lose support.
They like what they call his willingness to tell the truth. So far, that truth is limited to “Believe me, things will be better with me in charge.” He has few actual answers, and the answers he does have wouldn’t work.
BobTerrace’s comment above is spot on imo!
I think that something else may be going on here.
Trump is running as a Republican who:
1. Wants to repair our infrastructure.
2. Wants to protect social security and
3. Wants to tax the rich.
These positions are actually popular with the Republican base but loathed by the very wealthy. But Trump doesn’t need wealthy donors.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/trump-in-a-box/
Thank you. WEIT readers whom of the Republican Candidates would you support? Everyone of them would be a sorry excuse for a president.
That’s rather like asking which Sith Lord is your favorite, no?
b&
Or if you’d rather be enslaved by chimps or robots.
Robots.
You mean, like George Bush Jr., the robot chimp?
b&
Vader, of course.
And if you made me choose (and ignoring the many local candidates I probably know nothing about), probably Kasich or Christie.
None
If I had to vote Republican, it would probably be Kasich. I think he’s a fairly decent person.
Nothing is more important to me than faith, family & friends. (Kasich- Aug 2015)
Yeah, he’s a Republican. You know who else always used to talk about faith a lot? Clinton…Obama…all of them.
Kasich though I’d rather not vote R.
Note: *I* am not backing Trump because I doubt if he could achieve any of those goals that I mentioned; also he’d get us into more wars.
Only Nixon could go to China.
Perhaps having an awful human being as a credible candidate, or even President (gasp), is what it takes to get some of these things addressed?
I didn’t watch the debate, but reading the accounts afterward I had this very strange sensation of finding myself siding with this loathsome creature more often than the other candidates. Mostly because of the ways he flouts GOP orthodoxy. That orthodoxy is, currently, completely suffocating and 100% toxic to any kind of reasonable governance. I find the GOP orthodoxy so toxic, in fact, that even a candidate that is MUCH worse on topics A,B, and C, but which breaks the deadlock on D,E, and F starts to sound like an improvement.
I’d never vote for the guy but a challenge to the rotten GOP status-quo, even one as ugly as this, is something that I can’t help but half cheer.
I rather enjoy how he stirs things up. He’s no more embarrassing than any of them.
Remember the 2000 election of Jesse Ventura in my state of Minnesota. He looked good on paper; but (surprise!) turned out to be a whining control freak with zero negotiation skills in office.
Sound familiar?
In some fairness, the politicians in both parties sabotaged him. It would have been impossible for him to work with them (see Obama’s inability to work with the Rethuglicans in Congress).
I stand behind the whining and the no negotiation skills.
Most of what I heard him say was whining about how the media done ‘im wrong.
I wasn’t in MN in 2000; but have been since early 2002. I got a good dose of Jesse. Most of what I hear people say about him is, “well, he lowered the tab fees.”
sub
Here in Canada we have our own share of half-wits – never doubt it. However at this point in the American presidential run many of your friends north of the boarder are shaking our heads. How do some of these limited half-wits reach a such level in society that they are encouraged to run for the highest office in the land? Anyhow good luck with the actual election and hoping calmer heads prevail.
Is Stephen Harper any better then most of the
Rethuglican candidates?
Yes because he won’t touch abortion laws, privatize the universal health care system (at least not openly admit to it), push a religious agenda (even though he’s an evangelical and says stupid things like “God Bless Canada”), make comments about “legitimate rape” or make comments about how women look.
He’s a PITA but he isn’t stupid.
That’s not really fair to the short-fingered vulgarian … he gives points for gigundous hooters, too.
Trump for Prez!
As a solid left-winger, I think it may be a great result for humanity. Not necessarily for America, but “humanity” is larger than America.
I am not surprised that the two women mentioned in this article did not find Trump’s comments about women objectionable. I just saw Straight Outta Compton, in which women are called bitches and whores. Then I discussed it with a Black, female, PhD candidate, and when I mentioned the attitude towards women that Dr. Dre has had and the incident in which he had to settle out of court for bashing a woman repeatedly (she settled for a large, undisclosed amount), and the depiction of women in that movies as “bitches and whores,” she got defensive and seemed to condone Dr. Dre’s past behavior. I was flabbergasted by her defensive reaction.
The woman he beat up, Dee Barnes, wrote a well-worth-reading article about this on Gawker. Not exactly a respectable journalistic organ, I know, but sometimes they do get things right.
She must have been experiencing some major cognitive dissonance.
Trump is a Democrat’s dream! 32% is his upside, and every day he opens his mouth he increases the chance of a democrat sweep in 2016. And the only way the Republican’s can counter him is to attack his platform, which is kind of hard since it is really the Republican platform with honesty. This is no time to dump Trump!
Even if Trump loses the nomination (which I still expect is likely), he may help. The other candidates feel pressure to keep up. Let them get that racist sexist Trumpiness smeared all over themselves, please, and let our media for once show that they can remember, by the time the general election nears, what the candidates said in the primary.
Well, I’m sure the DNC is recording and cataloging all the video of all the GOP candidates for future use in ads.
A video montage of the stupidities of any of the candidates would be very effective.
Krugman has opined that as crazy as Trump sounds, on substantive issues he’s a bit saner than the other GOP candidates.
…Trump somewhat saner than the others…ain’t saying a whole lot.
That bar is so low that its laying on the ground.
I think he’s probably mercenary about a lot of positions and just doesn’t care strongly about most of the domestic social policies dems and the GOP fight over (abortion, health care, social security, etc.) Which puts his far closer to the middle than most of the other GOP candidates. However, that is not my main problem with him. My main problem is that I think he would be a terrible leader. I can see him alienating members of Congress from both parties. I *can’t* see him understanding enough about legislation to even know whether its good or bad. I can’t see him caring about how many people are covered by health insurance, or how the country could reduce its deficit, or help bring about a more peaceful middle east without loss of significant American lives. I can’t see him sincerely championing any policy causes except deregulating business and lowering taxes on the super-wealthy. Every other cause would just be a bargaining chip to him, to buy or sell with Congress. Which also makes his government legacy not as conservative as the other candidates, but much more unpredictable.
Remember Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, 2001-2005.
A very Trump-like personality (with more tattoos). Disaster dealing with the MN legislature (and anyone else, especially the press).
Trump would be similar; but worse.
No doubt you’re right. I think Krugman’s point isn’t that Trump is so sane, but that the others are so crazy, even though they have a veneer of respectability that Trump doesn’t have.
He is the only GOP candidate, that I know of, who has ever claimed to want to raise taxes on the super wealthy. And he claimed to want to take a big chunk too.
Of course, I agree with you that he is mercenary with his positions so who knows what he really thinks about anything, or even if he thinks. However, if he does have any kind of actual beliefs, beyond Trump promotion which is clearly core, I think what he has said over the years is a better marker of what he really thinks than what he says in the campaign. Also, what he says unscripted… for example, he said we should accept more Syrian refugees, which is a moderate position, but then changed his tune when he realized/remembered that the GOP he is pandering to would just as soon nuke them all as welcome them here.
Of course, I also agree that even if he’s a moderate deep down, and again who knows really, he’d probably suck at implementing any of it. But which is worse, a moderate who sucks at making things happen in government or a GOP ideologue who doesn’t?
I can’t see him amassing the wealth he has without the many bankruptcies he’s used to avoid paying back loans to banks and other investors.
What happens when he tries to balance the American economy with bankruptcy, though? The Constitution forbids it! If he isn’t aware of that, he could wreak real damage — a la Greece!
If Trump won the election and tried to default on the national debt…I suspect he’d catch a bullet even easier than he would if he tried to launch a nuclear attack in a fit of pique.
There is precedent….
b&
Once a Private Corporate Tyrant, Always a Private Corporate Tyrant. (With apologies to the U.S. Marine Corps)
I just really hope it won’t be another Clinton-Bush. The United States deserves better than that.
Do we? I wonder.
The common wisdom has it that a person with difficulties in life needs to hit “rock bottom” to turn things around. Somehow hitting the bottom allows them to sweep away unproductive ways of thinking and improve their situation.
How far does Trump have to get before we hit rock bottom as a country? GOP nominee? President? Could this be a wakeup call to the people in this country with the power to change things?.
I think I’m just trying to see the silver lining in all of this
You know why that common wisdom is so popular, don’t you?
If somebody makes a turnaround, whatever the lowest point happens to be is, in retrospect, labeled as “rock bottom.” And if the person doesn’t actually make a turnaround, nobody thinks to identify death itself as a “rock bottom” from which said person recovered. Therefore, every turnaround has a “rock bottom,” and the only question is where that bottom actually lies.
…of course, the fallacy comes in assuming that every decline ends in a turnaround….
b&
I don’t think that every decline ends in a turnaround but I do think that for many people, losing some of the things that one holds dear can allow one to refocus ones life.
But back to Trump. The talking heads on TV are assuring us that though he could win the GOP nomination he could never be president. I remember everyone saying the same thing about Reagan. On the plus side his worst qualities are probably not unique to him. I suspect many of the men in power have the same qualities, they’re just more polished and guarded. From the things Trump has said over the years is even possible that he’s a closet liberal and all of the nonsense he spouts is a carefully calculated plan. He’s certainly a closet atheist. How the religious nut jobs are not able to see through his “my favorite book is the Bible” crap I have no idea
“Could this be a wakeup call to the people in this country with the power to change things?.”
What sort of things do you think need to be changed?Chances are, it’s different from the list that supporters of Trump would have.
Question: How many people who voted for Bush decided they had really screwed up and so voted for Obama?
There are likely to be new Supreme court appointments. Lets get people that are sympathetic to seculars in there. The president
is critical.
You can kinda understand The Donald’s obsession with looks can’t ya, him being the beau ideal of male pulchritude, and all?
Mixed emotions. He is revealing the timidity of his opponents.
I think Trump appeals to Americans who still live in the past. A time when America was without question the big boy on the block. America could do what it wanted when and where it wanted. America sneezed and the rest of us caught colds. The age of the bellicose, arrogant and ignorant after WWII.
There are still many of those type of Americans in the country (I call them Uhmurukuns) but that all powerful America exists only in their imaginations. Trump knows very well that this long ago America appeals to his base. They wish to return to that time and Trump tells them he can take them.
He can’t and if he was ever elected POTUS he would find out very quickly he couldn’t. So would his base.
BTW I am not anti American but anti Uhmurukun.
I am hoping there are too many Americans to let this buffoon stay in the race much longer. He reminds me somewhat of Rob Ford, the former mayor of Toronto Ontario.
I think this is an excellent point.
This is basically the stance of all conservatives in the US (at those that are not super-wealthy; the super-wealthy have other concerns).
They are the Teabaggers:
They wish for those (never-happened) halcyon days of the 1950s, when American was King and could throw its weight around whenever and wherever it wanted to. Those days of a simple, evil-empire foe to oppose. Those days of economic prosperity (when our factories were the only ones left standing after WWII), those days of cheap and abundant oil (when we could strong arm (or bribe) the producing nations to sell it to us cheaply.
Those days when women and people with higher melanin concentrations in their skin knew their place and didn’t dispute the obvious right of white, older, propertied males to decide everything and control everything.
Back when you could add “God” to the US currency and the Pledge of Allegiance. Back when you could freely and publicly demean people of other races and religions.
You know, the good old days.
Oh, and by the way, they seem to forget that the CEOs in those day only made 40X what the lowest-paid worker made (and did really well on that!)
And they forget that the top marginal income tax rate in the US was >90%.
The GOP have thoroughly bamboozled them.
Good points! And that lack of extreme wealth inequality could be what made for “the good ole days.”
Cue the theme song from “All in the Family.”
Don’t forget how you got to hate “commies” too and everything that was “godless”.
Good comparison, re: Trump and Rob Ford.
I recently watched the movie “Evita” for the first time. It nags at my subconscious, as though trying to tell me that Trump envisions himself as a male version of Eva Peron.
Gee, didn’t anyone hear that Ann Coulter thinks his immigration policy is the greatest thing since the Magna Carta?
Amazing! The Republican Party of Eisenhower and Dirksen has come to this.
I don’t think Trump can recite a verse from the entire bible. That’s a step forward for the GOP.
Sure he can, but only by accident via his massive ego: “I am the way, the truth and the light…”
Just as a side note, Trump’s daughter, Ivanna, (apologize if I misspelled her name) supports him. Saw this in an interview on CNBC just before his announcement.
Imagine what he’d do if she claimed she didn’t support him… I imagine his vindictiveness would know no end.
Yep. Donald Trust Fund Trump.
I think a large part of the problem is that it’s September 2015 and the election isn’t until November 2016. I know this is obvious, but really, why do that? How long do you expect the public to pay attention to an election campaign? No wonder all they want is a bit of fun. If the election was this year many would be looking at Trump and instead of guffawing, they’d be thinking “Do we really want to bomb Mexico? Do really want the rest of the world laughing at us again for 8 years? Etc.?” Instead they’re getting entertained and desensitized.
From here in Europe I look at this and think here we go again. A Trump Palin ticket would would have a very good chance of beating dull old Hilary or duller older anyone else. And we’ve seen how weak the Republicans are whern dealing with him. They’ll be lining up to lick his boots very soon.
Good point on 2015/2016! (I am saying this solely because Colbert made a similar point, see source below, so I was preconditioned to grok it. =D)
One thing to consider… no which party wins an election, the same small clique of people keep raking the money in. And would be especially the owners of the few media mega-conglomerates.
I think of all that cash raised by the major parties… where does that dough eventually wind up?
Christ, did that one get gabrled.
“A Trump Palin ticket would would have a very good chance of beating dull old Hilary or duller older anyone else.”
I guess you’re right, seeing as how we live in the era of Infotainment. American anti-intellectualism (re: Hofstadter and Jacoby) is alive and well.
So, because of reasons (an interview with Musk), I caught on to the fact that Colbert has finished his transition to The Late Show.
Colbert went after the whole pack, but especially Trump in his first show. (Re their selling of campaign junk, ‘why do we need to buy Trump’s, it isn’t as if his name isn’t plastered all over US’ – shows hotel names and what not.)
Seems Colbert has weathered the transition well, despite premier nerves. (The new (?) data transmission chain failed, and nearly felled, the first show. Seems someone ‘forgot’ to test…) He remains sharp against politics. In fact Colbert is thriving what I could see.
OT, but Musk made a joke about Colbert’s showing a prototype mounted snake robot for recharging Teslas and its tentative sensing and mating the charging port. ‘At least for the prototype, I wouldn’t recommend going after something you dropped close to it.’ Colbert smiled immensely, but didn’t pursue the … er, opening.
Musk was very optimistic about the future. I found that encouraging, but at the same time, his products and vision seem to focus on the ultra-wealthy. Interesting man nonetheless.
It is strange seeing Colbert in this new role however. Time will tell. As you point out, it is refreshing to see someone of his stature taking on the establishment. I wonder how far he can go…surely not as far as the Colbert Report.
Just about all of the important innovations in automobiles start at the high-end and, if successful, eventually end up in the lower price market segments. Tesla is counting on building and selling a $35K car in a couple of years. They’ve invested $5B in a battery “gigafactory” to bring costs down.
…and the really exciting thing right now is that there’re rumblings of new battery technologies that would be substantially cheaper than Tesla’s lithium ion. They’ve got to be a bit nervous about painting themselves into a corner and, I’m sure, are looking for ways to ensure that their manufacturing facilities remain adaptable…but we’re definitely reaching a point where, first, the only thing that can take out Tesla would be something significantly better than Tesla; and, second, Tesla is itself poised to make significant inroads into the established auto industry.
Save for initial purchase price and range, electric vehicles stomp all over their petroleum-burning alternates. Purchase price is already pretty much a non-issue; you can get a mint condition Leaf for under $15,000. And, in practical terms, range is also a non-issue for the majority of drivers — even with that Leaf, you’d start every day with at least 80 miles of range, and few people drive more than that in a single day except for road trips…and many people are in the habit of renting cars for those road trips anyway, making even that a moot point.
In under a decade, maybe even by the end of this decade, electric vehicles will substantially outperform petroleum-burning vehicles in every way you might wish to compare the two, including cost and range. And then who’ll want to spend more for a petroleum-burning car that’s clearly inferior?
b&
Did Musk happen to offer any pearls of marital happiness wisdom?
Seeing that Trump is leading in the Polls of those in the GOP Clown Car, speaks volumes about the mentality of the average Republican Supporter. Incidentally over here the word Trump is euphanism for a Fart, so you could say The Doanald is a walking Fart, I could imagine the fun the Headline Writers over here would have if Senor Trump was standing in our Elections, mind you he would never get past the Selection Process.lol
Consider that Ben Carson is now running second and Carly is moving up fast if you think that the Donald leading is bad.
I don’t have big money so I can’t take Jerry up on that bet. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and say I think Trump very well might get the Republican nomination. I don’t see anything that can take it from him. He doesn’t need any establishment money to keep going. His support comes from a party base who simply love it when he insults people and struts around like Benito Mussolini. He is exactly what they are looking for.
He’s a monster that the Republican Party has created by nurturing an extremist right wing base for decades. He ain’t going away.
Good news, such as it is, is that this will keep Republicans away from controlling the executive branch. And it will hasten the demise of the Republican Party.
At [Election – 14 months] for the 2012 GOP primary, there were 11 candidates. Romney was the first to declare in Spring 2011, so he was technically leading then but only because he was the only major hat in the ring. In summer 2011 other people started entering the race, and the lead changed to Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich. In January 2012 Santorum won the first state, Romney won the second, Gingrich the third. Then in about mid-January Romney started to actually clinch things, though it wasn’t entirely clear he would be the candidate until March.
So, I don’t think the polls in September 2015 mean all that much. I don’t think there will be as much lead-trading this time as there was last time (there has already been significantly less for the ‘summer the year before’ period), but I also don’t think there will be *no* trade of the lead. That would be quite surprising, IMO.
What is different this time around, I think, is that the insane-base has gained enough control to break free of normal establishment manipulation. The two leading-by-a-mile candidates (Trump and Carson) fit the bill… neither is a politician and both are wackos. The base sees themselves in that kind of candidate. The establishment could probably oust Carson through normal money-constraints. But Trump doesn’t need the money. The establishment has little leverage on him.
“I think Trump very well might get the Republican nomination.”
Naw. If that were ever a legitimate threat, the people who really run the party–the Koch brothers, e.g., various corporate titans, Wall Street, etc.–would step in and derail him.
The Koch bros. Have favorites in this race. Their money hasn’t kept their favorite wholey owned subsidiary, Scott Walker, from tanking with Republican extremist voters.
The way they and the various titans your describe operate is by controlling the money game. It works pretty well for your average Republican politician who needs money and media access. It doesn’t make much difference with Benito Trump who gets all the attention he needs from free media and doesn’t really need their cash or endorsement. This is not your daddy’s Republican electorate. They have begun to break free from the establishment they have been trained (by the same establishment) to despise. It is a dangerous irony and a chaotic political situation.
Perfect last paragraph, Jerry. I could not have said it better myself!!
The fact that Trump and Carson are doing so well on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side shows how troubled and deeply divided this country is regardless of whether any of these candidates receive their party’s nomination. The right views (at least in this election cycle) the main problems facing the country in cultural and national security terms. The left is primarily concerned with economic inequality. Of course, the economic elite that rules this country (the 1%) is quite happy that the right wing masses concentrate on non-economic issues. Throughout American history, the elite has learned that secret police or suppression of freedom of speech is not necessary to maintain control. The masses (in recent history, mostly the white working class) will self-enslave themselves as they mistakenly take out their anger on the “other”, e.g. immigrants, gays, or Moslems. And as their economic condition continues to deteriorate, the disaffected, not able to understand what is the real cause of their plight, will more likely turn to the “man on the white horse.” Demagogues such as Trump, pulling other GOP candidates even more to the right, is a symptom of the rise of right wing extremism in this country. If unchecked, democracy can be endangered. The country has survived extremism several times in the past. Only time will tell if we will remain so lucky.
Just a few moments ago, I came across an article by Amanda Marcotte, who writes for AlterNet. I have read a lot of her stuff and agree with most of it. In this article, she discusses how the Kim Davis incident is a symptom of right wing religious extremism and how it intersects with the political extremists running for the Republican nomination. She comments on how candidates such as the loathsome Mike Huckabee are threats to democracy.
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/11/kim_davis_is_the_new_face_of_the_religious_right_angry_marginalized_and_increasingly_desperate_partner/
‘Have you no sense of decency, sir?’
Trump: No
Trump: “Decency is for losers”
she is pretty scary looking though.
Would you care to comment on other candidates’ physical appearance?
Or perhaps your own?
Trump has me in 2 minds.
Firstly he is obviously an ass of the highest order. I think that a chunk of this is playing to the lowest common denominator but he is definitely a poster-child for money being unable to buy class.
Secondly is that in many ways he is more honest than the rest of the field. Not beholden to hidden doners and is *relatively* sensible on some of the substantive stuff compared to the others.
What he has done is to bring many of the lunatics out of the woodwork, and while I think that this is ultimately very helpful it is not a pretty site. Trump is a lifelong showman, self-publicist and bullshitter. The other candidates are trying to meet him on his ground and the results have been fairly spectacular so far (Huckabee, for example, has come out with stuff that should sink him if it comes to his nomination). Trump as a stalking horse candidate it the only GOP conspiracy theory that I may put some weight to!
In the end he may well be the candidate that the US deserves.
Lifelong bullshitter. Part of my two minds about Trump is the fact that it’s very hard for me to take anything he says as serious. So while what he says is, often, hair raising, it also seems fairly likely to be just more bullshit.
If Ted Cruz or Scott Walker said that as president they were going to deport 11 million immigrants, I’d fully expect that on day one that they would be working all the levers at their disposal to make it happen. When Trump says he is gong to deport 1l million immigrants I think he maybe he’ll try to do it, but I think it’s at least as likely that he’ll simply forget all about it, or just change his position unceremoniously (as he does almost daily now) and move onto something else.
I guess, for me, growing up with ideologues (of the fundamentalist kind), I can’t help but be more frightened of ideologues and True Believers than I am of opportunists. Opportunists won’t burn the building down with everyone, including themselves, inside. Ideologues will. And while I’m very unsure what, if anything, Trump really believes in, I’m pretty sure that he’s 100% opportunist.
Ditto. Your last paragraph says it all. I am deeply disappointed in my fellow citizens that support Trump, and am buoyed somewhat by the fact that many of them don’t actually vote.