Is the Donald Trump Circus Show Our Own Fault?

[Dave2112]

Ok, guys, serious topic time. Now, this isn't a political debate, it's more a discussion about the state of us as a culture. I don't really want it to get too political, I've already had enough just trying to talk politics with the shallow pool at the TMF's section for that. Same old talking points and very few with actual political knowledge.

No, what I'm talking about is the social implication of this thing Donald Trump is doing and calling it a political campaign. First off, no one who takes politics seriously or even has a grade-school level of political savvy is considering his "run" as anything but a publicity stunt to drum up ratings for his failing TV show. When cornered on real issues by seasoned journalists (not his Fox "News" cohorts), he's like a deer in the headlights and asks for the next question. He's shown that he doesn't know if the Constitution mentions right to privacy, changes his story every day on the alleged "team" he's sent to Hawaii to investigate the President's birthplace, and never once has mentioned anything even close to a policy stand.

Not to mention the lies about his actual worth (which isn't close to what most people would think Trump is actually worth), his cover-up answers when pressed about his many bankruptcies (I was the Chairman of the Board, I didn't actually run anything, it wasn't ME!) and his absolute refusal to answer any question about his 2000 "run" (a similar publicity stunt) where he ran on the Reform Party platform...which was the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party. At the time, he wrote a book where he states that the country needs to raise taxes on the rich, create a universal health-care system and strengthen unions...all things he now opposes while he runs as a Teabagger...the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.

In short...once NBC announces it's fall schedule on May 16th and Celebrity Apprentice is on that list...all of this will be over. He'll drop out under an excuse of being too invested in his "birther" stand and maybe having "found out" things that are just too terrible to be involved in politics anymore. Some shit like that. Anyone who thinks this is serious or, even worse, would vote for this asshole should immediately have that counted as an instant "fail" on any future intelligence test.

So, Dave...what's your point?

Well...there was a time, not too long ago, where a guy like Trump, as recognizable a name as he is, would NEVER even be taken seriously by the media or any party. Any real whack-job candidates back in the 60's or 70's were almost always part of some ultra-liberal fringe of the Democratic Party. Now, the true crazies (Michelle Bachmann, Trump, Newt Gingrich, etc.) are part of the party that once would have shunned them outright. And all the Republican Party has is reality-show-level lunatics running, and they're polling near the top of their party!

So, how did this happen? Have we, as a culture, become SO celebrity obsessed that we'll even destroy the sanctity of a serious thing like a presidential election? We've got comic-book characters like Sarah Palin, Bachmann and especially Trump making a mockery of one of the founding pieces of democracy we have as Americans.

And a large chunk of people are loving it.

It shows how uninformed a large portion of the voting public really are. Now, we all know that people like this just pander to whatever the lowest common denominator is because they don't have a political leg to stand on against real political figures. (I would just DIE to see a live Obama-Trump-Bachmann debate with actual questions that'll be fact-checked...), but why is that slice of "lowest common denominator" getting so much bigger?

We're a growing culture of young voters who know more about what Kim Kardashian wore to her birthday party than who the Speaker of the House is. There are (quite sadly) more people in that demographic that watch Jersey Shore than a presidential debate.

Are we in this Kardashian Kulture of "famous for being famous" responsible for the corruption of legitimate politics? And what does this say for the actual damage Donald Trump is probably doing to the legitimacy of future electoral cycles? When people are obsessed with the quote of the moment, the viral video of the week and the latest escapades of talentless douchebags and whores...what does this say about how sleazy politics can be taken as gospel truth by so many (far more than you used to be able to lie to)? Have we become so easy to fool, so willing to have our lines of reality and fantasy blurred that we, as a culture, are no longer capable of responsibly steering our democracy?

Long post...but complicated topic.

 

[Mash]

Have we, as a culture, become SO celebrity obsessed that we'll even destroy the sanctity of a serious thing like a presidential election?

Now, I'm no expert in politics, which is why I'm avoiding the rest of the post before I say something that makes me look stupid...but I can answer that particular question with a simple, "Yes."

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

The real question is...was there ever any sanctity in a presidential election? Also, does our vote even count anymore?

 

[jts963]

I agree with most of what you say but the fault is not entirely and probably not even primarily that of the Great Unwashed Masses of America. The corporatocracy has much to answer for.

The media giants have long promoted heat over light in so-called political discussions because controversy sells (or so they continually us -- and themselves). Sensationalism over actual news and fact checking (how else could the publicity seeking douchebags keep coming back interview after interview with bigger lies and almost never getting called on them?) Our so-called watchdog media by and large let us get blatantly lied into the invasion and occupation of Iraq with only the "fringe lefty" media calling bullshit on the whole mess.

Corporate lobbyists have so much influence over our so-called representatives that they've even been allowed to write some of the laws that "regulate" them. Multinational corporations raking in billions in profits and literally paying less taxes than you or me, if they pay any at all.

And they continually keep most of us distracted with the circus sideshows like Donald Trump and other political clowns that we're expected to take seriously.

 

[jts963]

The real question is...was there ever any sanctity in a presidential election? Also, does our vote even count anymore?

Truth. Our Electoral College is an absolute abomination. A vote for President in Wyoming is worth over three times as much as a vote for President in California. That's no joke and no exaggeration, that's the so-called "democracy" we live under.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Truth. Our Electoral College is an absolute abomination. A vote for President in Wyoming is worth over three times as much as a vote for President in California. That's no joke and no exaggeration, that's the so-called "democracy" we live under.

I have to take issue with this. The Electoral College ensures that low population areas have a say in the election and it forces candidates to take all areas of the country seriously. Without the Electoral College candidates would only have to visit the cities and high population states.

As for Wyoming versus California - Wyoming has 3 votes vs. California's 55. That is hardly the tyranny of the minority. Wyoming has a little influence in comparison to California. Without the Electoral College Wyoming could be completely ignored with a candidate solely caring about the high population areas in California.

As for the state of U.S. politics. As far as candidates go as long as they fit the criteria demanded for the given office they are allowed to run. That is the Constitutional protection for those who wish to run for office. If Trump wants to run he should be allowed. But that is running and not winning.

I would counter the 'fringe teabaggers' charge with the election of President Obama. The man is an absolute joke with no experience whatsoever. So yes, I would have to say where is the common sense in American politics? I am not going to take the fact that he won the office away from him. McCain was a very sad opponent. I think that the GOP knew that they were going to lose no matter who they ran.

OK we did the left to right tit for tat... now an honest answer.

If I were going to hazard a guess as to why so many lackluster candidates run is that the process is so invasive that many people really don't want the hassle. That is going to narrow the field by default.

There are people who are so ideological in their views that they feel the need to run. Those people are just driven and populate the fringes of both parties. There are going to be people running who don't care about the center and don't care about making deals. They are there for a reason. These people are not always national figures. So while to the greater public they may seem lackluster, but that is mainly because they are unknown figures.

Another angle to look at the election of Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. That came totally out of left field. There have been former athletes who have gone political and have been elected. Steve Largent, Jack Kemp and Bill Bradley all went through the process and politicized themselves. However, Ventura was a pro-wrestler, yes he was astute in a political sense, but he did not go through the process. That really opened the field up. Yes, you can say Reagan was an actor who became President, but he was involved in California politics for a long time. Before Ventura no true totally out of left field candidate won on a national stage.

I think after Ventura was elected that opened the door for anyone with a cult of personality supporting them to have a shot. Don't think for a second that machine politics is dead. The machines are all still out there churning out pre-fabbed candidates. However, the choice of whom the public will honestly consider to hold elected office is certainly wider than it has been in the past.

 

[jts963]

I have to take issue with this. The Electoral College ensures that low population areas have a say in the election and it forces candidates to take all areas of the country seriously. Without the Electoral College candidates would only have to visit the cities and high population states.

As for Wyoming versus California - Wyoming has 3 votes vs. California's 55. That is hardly the tyranny of the minority. Wyoming has a little influence in comparison to California. Without the Electoral College Wyoming could be completely ignored with a candidate solely caring about the high population areas in California.

States don't vote for President, people do. The last time I checked, the preamble to the US Constitution began with "We the People", not "We the States" or "We the Political Parties". California has 55 electoral votes spread over 37 million people. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes spread over less than 0.6 million people. That means a vote for President in Wyoming has over three times the impact of a vote for President in California. There is absolutely NOTHING fair or balanced or intelligent or decent or democratic about that. People in low population states get to vote for President just like people in large population states. They shouldn't get disproportionate power thanks to the Electoral College to "make up for" being in states where relatively few people want to live. The Electoral College is an 18th century holdover that should have been tossed out with the equally abominable three fifths rule. It's bad enough that we use the plurality-wins voting system, arguably the worst form of democratic voting there is. The Electoral College makes things orders of magnitude worse.

In the year 2000, the entire world saw Al Gore win the popular vote for US President. Thanks entirely to the Electoral College, he did not become President. So much for being "the greatest democracy in the world". And no, I won't be moving to Canada or anyplace else so don't even go there.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

States don't vote for President, people do. The last time I checked, the preamble to the US Constitution began with "We the People", not "We the States" or "We the Political Parties". California has 55 electoral votes spread over 37 million people. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes spread over less than 0.6 million people. That means a vote for President in Wyoming has over three times the impact of a vote for President in California. There is absolutely NOTHING fair or balanced or intelligent or decent or democratic about that. Low population areas get to vote for President just like large population areas. They shouldn't get disproportionate power thanks to the Electoral College to "make up for" being areas where relatively few people want to live. The Electoral College is an 18th century holdover that should have been tossed out with the equally abominable three fifths rule. It's bad enough that we use the plurality-wins voting system, arguably the worst form of democratic voting there is. The Electoral College makes things orders of magnitude worse.

In the year 2000, the entire world saw Al Gore win the popular vote for US President. Thanks entirely to the Electoral College, he did not become President. So much for being "the greatest democracy in the world". And no, I won't be moving to Canada or anyplace else so don't even go there.

So basically you are just complaining about Al Gore not being elected president? Would you care about the Electoral College at all if he had won?

I live in Massachusetts. The state recently signed a law stating that despite the vote of the people of Massachusetts our electoral votes will go to whomever wins the national vote. Basically all the liberals like you who are still on this tantrum of Gore v. Bush passed this law in Mass. I am going to laugh so hard when a Republican wins in a future election and all those Massachusetts' votes go to him. :lol

Look the system works and has worked for over two centuries. It is not unfair despite your manifest protestations.

And... are you are honestly telling me that Wyoming has more influence than California in Presidential politics?

 

[jts963]

So basically you are just complaining about Al Gore not being elected president? Would you care about the Electoral College at all if he had won?

So basically you're just trying to turn this into party politics, so stop. Yes, I was against the Electoral College long before Y2K. It is an abomination.

Deal with the issue, not some anti-liberal prejudice you can't keep from bubbling up.

Look the system works and has worked for over two centuries. It is not unfair despite your manifest protestations.

And... are you are honestly telling me that Wyoming has more influence than California in Presidential politics?

I said a voter in Wyoming has more influence than a voter in California, not that Wyoming has more influence than California. States don't vote for President, people do. Seriously, did you even take a civics class?

And the system hasn't "worked" for over two centuries. The year 2000 isn't the only time it failed.

 

[Mash]

Well, I certainly wouldn't endorse a particular government setup because it 'worked'. I mean hell, Nazi Germany 'worked' pretty damn well.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

So basically you're just trying to turn this into party politics, so stop. Yes, I was against the Electoral College long before Y2K. It is an abomination.

Ah yes, of course. Quite convenient.

Deal with the issue, not some anti-liberal prejudice you can't keep from bubbling up.

Yes political liberals drive me insane. Not the social liberals, I get along quite well with them.

I said a voter in Wyoming has more influence than a voter in California, not that Wyoming has more influence than California.
States don't vote for President, people do. Seriously, did you even take a civics class?

Yes states do. That is why we have the Electoral College! (You accuse me of not taking a civics class. :rolleyes ) There is also a little something called States' Rights. The states are a very important factor in national politics. You just want to change the system. The voter of a state tells the state who they want to be President. The state then tallies up all the votes of the population then casts its votes. It is how it works. The United States has never been a democracy in the manner that you think. It has always been a representative republic.

And the system hasn't "worked" for over two centuries. The year 2000 isn't the only time it failed.

It has never failed. :stickout

 

[jts963]

So basically you're just trying to turn this into party politics, so stop. Yes, I was against the Electoral College long before Y2K. It is an abomination.

Ah yes, of course. Quite convenient.

If you're going to accuse me of lying, there's really no point in continuing this conversation. "Convenience" aside, I'm far from the only American who wishes the Electoral College was gone.

Yes political liberals drive me insane. Not the social liberals, I get along quite well with them.

Now this is convenient! It's OK for social conservatives to be political conservatives but social liberals ought to "know their place" and not get involved in politics. Yes, I can see why you have no problem with an undemocratic election system. :stickout

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Now this is convenient! It's OK for social conservatives to be political conservatives but social liberals ought to "know their place" and not get involved in politics.

Damn straight! :yes:

Yes, I can see why you have no problem with an undemocratic election system. :stickout

I have no opposition to having discussions like this. We have opposing points of view on this, no problem with that. Frankly, it is good for people see both points of view brought up and hammered out. That way informed decisions can be made on the subject. We've done our civic duty.

 

[idiot756]

I'd take Bozo The Clown over Barack Obama. As long as a Republican wins in 2012 and repeals the evil that is Obamacare and its "individual mandate", I don't care who it is. And that's all I have to say on this thread.

 

[Abadon XXX1]

To quote the simpsons: "We acquired a considerable debt thanks to President Trump."

 

[Breygon]

Well, I certainly wouldn't endorse a particular government setup because it 'worked'. I mean hell, Nazi Germany 'worked' pretty damn well.

is that one of those godwins?

but, true; the Soviet Union lasted from 1917 till ~'93, the Taliban were 'going good' untill we (US & allies) came along and toppled them, same for Saddam. The Empire of Japan lasted from eras unknown 'till 1945.

Badguy governments tend to work as well as there good counterparts...


for the record, I don't think I've ever had much faith in America, or especially her people...

 

[Dave2112]

Any chance of getting this back on track? I really didn't want this to become a political debate...the point is how celebrity obsessed we are that people would actually take a douche like Trump seriously. If you wanna go on a rant about how liberals destroy the universe, please start another thread.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Any chance of getting this back on track? I really didn't want this to become a political debate...the point is how celebrity obsessed we are that people would actually take a douche like Trump seriously. If you wanna go on a rant about how liberals destroy the universe, please start another thread.

No, we are not that celebrity obsessed to the point where anyone can just get elected on star power alone. As I pointed out earlier in my response to you. I stated that the field has been widened as of late because the populace is more willing to give non-traditional candidates a chance. In addition, the political parties are willing to back these people.

However, I will say that the parties are still in control of who gets elected. Candidates still need to work with the party system. I seriously doubt that Oprah Winfrey could win a state or national election election by herself without the backing of the democratic party. Nor could any celebrity run on their star power alone. Al Franken needed the democrats in Minnesota to win.

Donald Trump, may be a douche in your eyes, but he is a private sector success, no matter what you think of him. People will look at that and value that in his favor. He is not just coming in with no experience in politics. He never ran for office but that doesn't mean that he is lacking political skills. It isn't like say William Shatner running for office and people voting for him because he played Captain Kirk and a bunch of other popular roles on TV. The people are not that blind. There is still an assessment. One needs political saavy, not just star power. Donald Trump was popular way before The Apprentice. I don't believe that Trump could beat Romney or Huckabee in the GOP primary. Trump doesn't have the political organization that Romney has or the red state appeal of a Huckabee. If Trump comes out pro-abortion he can flush his chances down the toilet like Giuliani did. It takes more than just media skills to win. Plus, Trump has not been vetted in a political campaign. Honestly, I do believe that this is just a media boost for Trump. I can't see him being serious about this.

 

[Dave2112]

See, the problem is...Trump WAS pro-choice the last time he toyed with this. People seem to have a short memory. He was pro-universal health care...pro-tax-the-rich and ran strongly as a liberal-minded fella.

Donald Trump is not nearly as business savvy as you'd think. How exactly do you bankrupt a casino? 4 times? And then claim (his words) that he had nothing to do with, he was ONLY the CEO and Chairman of the Board. Also, he does not have nearly as much money as people think. He would need backing, like most would. It costs roughly 100 million to run any kind of serious presidential campaign, something Donald simply does not have. He would get chewed alive in the first five minutes of any debate as well. He could never survive being called out on running on every single issue from the opposite side those years ago.

But, frm the point of the topic, the celebrity issue...here's an interesting stat. When people are polled with a LIST of the announced GOP candidates (or hopefuls), Trump scores high. This is based on name recognition alone. Know why?

Because when asked who they favor for the GOP WITHOUT being given a list of names first...Trump does not even make some polls.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

See, the problem is...Trump WAS pro-choice the last time he toyed with this. People seem to have a short memory. He was pro-universal health care...pro-tax-the-rich and ran strongly as a liberal-minded fella.

I've never really payed attention to his political aspirations. If all that is true then he won't make it through the primary. I'm not a Trump supporter so I'm not going to carry any water for him.

As for his previous bankruptcies, that is true. However, going Chapter 11 isn't as bad as it is played out to be. Many people take advantage of the laws to re-organize their companies. I'm not saying its right. It is just a fact of business. It doesn't really have the stigma it used to have.

But, frm the point of the topic, the celebrity issue...here's an interesting stat. When people are polled with a LIST of the announced GOP candidates (or hopefuls), Trump scores high. This is based on name recognition alone. Know why?

Yes, name recognition will get you places. The name is associated with the image. However, the campaign hasn't started yet and that is when it matters. Everybody loved Colin Powell too and you know how well that turned out for the GOP. OMG a black general and a republican. How can he lose! Aside from that people did not know what he actually stood for. Name recognition is a foot in the door, but it is no guarantee. Even before Colin Powell endorsed Obama his views if brought into the light would not have resonated well with certain sectors of the party. So in actuality it would have been difficult for him to actually win in the primary.

Because when asked who they favor for the GOP WITHOUT being given a list of names first...Trump does not even make some polls.

That is true because nobody knows if he is running or not. He is not actually in the current crop of GOP contenders. So people are not going to associate him with that list. When his name is put in the mix he will poll high because he does have a mystique, however that veneer is only going to get him so far. Once people really find out what his views are his numbers will drop.

 

[Dave2112]

You make a lot of good points, many of which I agree with. (By the way, thank you at least for an intelligent conversation...I was just about to give up on talking politics in other places because of the crap).

Anyhoo...the one thing I do disagree with you on is the whole "once his name is in the mix" thing. I really do not see this as a legitimate campaign. This is Donald Trump doing what Trump does best...market himself way beyond his actual value or business acumen.

I agree with you that filing Chapter 11 is sometimes done as a back-door to restructure a business. But, that's not what happened in Trump's casinos. They went broke, lost almost a billion dollars all told. Trump is NOT worth the billion dollars he claims...this can be checked (although I admit I haven't done it, others have and he's really not THAT high up on the list of US Rich Folk this days.) Billionaires do not go on reality shows for income.

All of that aside...even IF Trump were everything he claims, there's more to running a country than running a business...Ross Perot found that out. And Trump is turning even his own party off with all the birther shit for news attention.

All in all, I predict that Trump will find a reason to back out of the race once his show is picked back up by NBC. He CAN'T run for President and be on a show like that...breaks the rules, y'know. He'll come up with an excuse. That's MY prediction, anyway...and I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Time will tell.

 

[Breygon]

... This is Donald Trump doing what Trump does best...market himself way beyond his actual value or business acumen.

what does he have to market? He must have (had) some marketable value somewhere, or else he wouldn't be able to do this.

Admittedly, I don't pay much attention to him. All I really know him for is a bad toupee/hairstyle, a hidiously exagerated accent, and most famous line; "ye'r fired".

 

[desk]

He runs... May win... The guy in there now has worse economic numbers then Bush... Beatable!

 

[Dave2112]

Beatable, maybe. (And that's a BIG "maybe" the way the GOP seems to be alienating even their own base with almost everything they do these days.) But not by Trump...or any of the current crop for that matter. These circus-act right-wingers only poll well (and in limited areas like Iowa) now because it's early. (And, by the way, I'm not lumping all Republicans into a catch-all "psycho-right-winger" description, only the real whack-jobs in there now.)

Remember when polls came out this early in previous elections? At this time in previous elections, Joe Liebermann led polls that eventual Democratic candidate John Kerry wasn't even on (2004 election), Hillary Clinton led an unknown Barack Obama by almost 30 points (2008 election), Rudy Guilianni (sp?) was the "clear GOP candidate" who eventually lost the nomination to a then-low-rated John McCain (2008) and once upon a time, Jesse Jackson led all Democratic polls while a little-known governor named Bill Clinton was just making a name in small circles (1992).

One other thing to think of. Historically speaking, the opposing party generally does not put forth their strongest candidates against an incumbent president. This is why we had guys like John Kerry, Walter Mondale and Bob Dole. Any serious lifetime politician who is considering a serious run usually waits for a year with a wide-open field.

 

[Bator]

I know that I,m not from the states and this isn,t my place but didn,t you have Ronald Reagen who was an actor for president, have Arnold the governator, Jesse Ventura and now Al Franken? I don,t know how well respected Donald Trump is to the voting public but how could he relate to the working poor? Besides, we have our own Federal election coming up on Monday, one decent guy out of three up here and he doesn,t have a chance. I,m voting for him anyway, I always lose my vote by going for the person who wants to tax the wealthiest, largest, and richest companies, it never works and now there is hardly a middle class anymore. I,ve been accused of being a lefty but I truly believe that all governments are corrupt and could care less about the ordinary citizen. I also can,t stand lifetime politicians, they should only be allowed to serve for two terms at most.