Who is the next Donald Trump?

[Hoosierhawkeye]

So, I follow what you're saying, but I don't buy it. Everyone wants to bucket the Trump era into epic, far-reaching theories.

Rush Limbaugh was the most listened to host on radio, and by far the most influential conservative radio host, by 1990. From the point Rush became dominant Republicans have nominated:
GHW Bush
Bob Dole
GW Bush
John McCain
Mitt Romney

Now, I haven't listened to 30 seconds of Rush in the last 15 years. But I used to listen plenty, and the Rush Limbaugh that captured the imaginations of conservatives had almost nothing in common with the scattershot lunacy of Trump, unless you consider Mitt Romney no different from Trump, in which case...good day sir.

Here is the thing, it takes time for some things to take full affect and show themselves. At first Limbaugh was likely a side distraction that was influential but didn't cover how people thought. Later on he became more and more the voice of the Republican party.

And I would also point out that Limbaugh might have changed since then. Guy always called Michelle Obama "Moochelle". That isn't making intellectual arguments in the least.

The fact that you characterize Alex (presumably?) Jones as a voice that conservatives rally around again kind of gives away your game. 90% of Republican voters would only know of Alex Jones vis a vis the way he's been elevated by the mainstream media, if at all. Republicans haven't exactly been "9/11 was an inside job" fanatics.

You can cherry pick lunatics anywhere and try to assign them to the other "team", but that doesn't make it a relevant way to look at the world.

Then I suppose a presidential candidate going on the show of Alex Jones and saying he has a great reputation . . . that sort of thing should kill his candidacy shouldn't it??

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-praises-9-11-truther-alex-jones/index.html

I just disagree with your (and really everybody's) attempts to synthesize Trump into a standard framework, or make sweeping hysterical conclusions about what it means for the future.

I think you have to. Trump has been such a radical departure from the norm and his hold on the party so complete that I don't think you can just presume that he's an isolated incident anymore.

Republicans used to believe in free trade and did not trust Russia. They wanted presidents who where tough on Russia and tough on North Korea.

In about 4 years Donald Trump has converted the Republican party into supporting tariffs and pushing for closer relations with Russia and North Korea. Republicans switched their entire ideology to fit with Trump. They also consider any criticism of Trump to be a betrayal, no matter what Trump does. The Republicans could have easily joined with Democrats and undone the tariff's that their pre-trump ideology hated so much. But they would not dare disobey him like that.

Republican House and Senate candidates used to say they would be a conservative voice in Washington. In the 2018 mid-terms they said they would be a voice for Donald Trump. The senate race in Indiana was certifiably insane. There where 3 main candidates in the Republican primary and every single ad was about loyalty and obedience to Trump. Then we got to the general election and the incumbent Democrat ran ads quoting Reagan about peace through strength and saying he wasn't going to allow "socialists to take over our healthcare". The Republican again ran ads talking about all the times that the Democratic candidate disobeyed Donald Trump.

Republicans no longer support an ideology anymore, they support a cult of personality around Donald Trump. That doesn't just change, especially if he wins again in 2024. It will only run deeper and deeper. If we still have an election in 2028 it will likely include someone just like Trump if not one of his children.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Are you saying the Democrats are going to take that approach? If so, good luck.

If you're saying the Republican voters are going to reject her over it, you're falling into the same trap of "all Trump voters are hardcore racists." Go ahead and believe that if you want, it's what so many people want to believe.

Trump's job approval just hit 51%. I guess 51% of the country is now hard core racists.

I get it. It's the most comforting way to deal with losing. I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton won, and Republicans did the same thing substituting "communist" for "racist". It's natural to want to blame it on "they" being intractable and irredeemable deviants.

But just because it's comfortable, doesn't make it accurate. And it doesn't lead to good decision-making. I believe we see the fruits of that in a Democratic primary hell bent on nominating someone so outside the mainstream that even Trump will be able to beat them. Instead of giving credit that a significant amount of Trump voters are doing so for (to them) rational reasons and self interest, and making a case for those people's votes, they've written those people off as KKK members and raced leftward with impunity.

Just look at the demographic makeup of the two parties in the Senate and House, do you think that's just a coincidence? That doesn't mean the makeup of the party is 100% hard core racists, but it also doesn't suggest that being non-white would be viewed as a positive or even neutral.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I think a lot of us have been hoping that the next R will right the ship. But you make a good argument that that is wishful thinking.

I think this election will also determine if the Republican party is going to be a political party or a cult of personality.

I think if Trump lost this election it could reasonably shake Republicans out of the cult of personality around Trump. If he wins however in their minds he won 2 elections back to back that he wasn't suppose to win and they will continue to think that this is the way to go.

And honestly I hate to sound conspiratorial but that's if we have an election in 2028. Now that Trump knows he can do anything I see no reason as to why he doesn't just commission his loyalists and children into key military commands, declare some national emergency and claim the election can't be held due to threats of terrorism.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I think this election will also determine if the Republican party is going to be a political party or a cult of personality.

I think if Trump lost this election it could reasonably shake Republicans out of the cult of personality around Trump. If he wins however in their minds he won 2 elections back to back that he wasn't suppose to win and they will continue to think that this is the way to go.

And honestly I hate to sound conspiratorial but that's if we have an election in 2028. Now that Trump knows he can do anything I see no reason as to why he doesn't just commission his loyalists and children into key military commands, declare some national emergency and claim the election can't be held due to threats of terrorism.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think there are some things even the GOP won't put up with from Trump. I recall some tariff related issues with Mexico that would have hurt Texas and they were able to get him to back off. Similar to his comments on gun control related matters. They're not totally gone.

Now, whether they would stand up to him if they stand to benefit with respect to elections, that's another thing. Hopefully that's a future that never presents itself.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Does he have any American relative? Apparently that's all you need to satisfy the GOP these days. If that.

If he donates enough money, they will change the Constitution. They've proven that corruption is no problem as long as it pays well.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think there are some things even the GOP won't put up with from Trump. I recall some tariff related issues with Mexico that would have hurt Texas and they were able to get him to back off. Similar to his comments on gun control related matters. They're not totally gone.

Now, whether they would stand up to him if they stand to benefit with respect to elections, that's another thing. Hopefully that's a future that never presents itself.

The thing with Trump is outside of a few core beliefs he's fairly easy for a few people in his administration to manipulate. That's what happened with the guns thing.

 

[seminole97]

“And honestly I hate to sound conspiratorial but that's if we have an election in 2028.”


Accepting any and all bets from anyone who thinks we won’t have an election in 2028.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

After Trump gets re-elected in November, who runs as the new Donald Trump in 2024. Right now I could see Lindsay Graham morphing into that guy but could be someone I am not aware of yet. Surely Pence has his sights on the presidency, but I cannot see Trump supporters going for it-- it is about personality and Pence is no Trump.

Who you got?

Don't be surprised if it is not another Trump. Could easily vote for the trump boys or Ivanka (Ivanka knows how to lead as a woman, and that is a different skill set). Going to be difficult to replace Trump, as he is THE alpha male in this country. The presidency is about leadership, not policy, and this is where democrats completely fail. Too many politicians are policy wonks, and policy is not that important, leadership is. All of the current democrats that are running are focused on policy (which all policy wonks do), and have NO LEADERSHIP qualities, they have absolutely no leadership skills. Since Bill Clinton, there have been no alpha males running in the democratic party.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

FOX will probably give him his own show.

Trump will likely have is own network and run Fox into the ground. Fox has changed since Murdoch left, his kids are LIBERAL, and they are running the network into the ground (just like CNN and all other liberal networks).

 

[INXS83]

I don't think there will be another one. I think Trump is a black swan scenario. I think most of the lessons people think they will learn from his "success" will be ill advised. I don't think anyone can duplicate the unique scenario of Trump in the exact moment in time.

I really think the primary lesson that will be applicable is that Republicans have soured on the Bush style establishment, coalition building, apologetic, concession-seeking personality. They feel ridiculed and disrespected by Democrats and the media, and they want someone to fight for them. And I'm not talking about just racists and alt right, I'm talking about people who just are standard Christians, business owners, etc.

I do NOT think that means you have to be an unstable idiot randomly swinging a gulf club around trying to hit anything with bright colors. You just have to convince that you're not a pushover.

I think that it would be a big mistake to assume there is anything in policy or principles to lift from Trump. He's really all over the board there, and there's plenty of evidence to the effect that he doesn't really understand or care about the vast majority of it. It really is all about "winning" or getting the better of the other guy, and it doesn't matter all that much what the terms are, as long as you can call it a win.

I think that aura can probably be harnessed by a more traditional Republican. I don't see Lindsey Graham being the guy...he's kind of the opposite of an "alpha."

Lindsey's more 'metro' than alpha.

A good friend of mine, a Dem member of the Iowa House, told me that Lindsey has become one of Trump's staunchest supporters because Trump has proof that Lindsey is gay and has threatened him to toe the line or else. It's fine this day and age for a (D) like Pete B. to be openly gay, but such a revelation would destroy an old (R) Senator from a bible belt state.

 

[INXS83]

After Trump gets re-elected in November, who runs as the new Donald Trump in 2024. Right now I could see Lindsay Graham morphing into that guy but could be someone I am not aware of yet. Surely Pence has his sights on the presidency, but I cannot see Trump supporters going for it-- it is about personality and Pence is no Trump.

Who you got?

No way to predict such a thing. Both Obama and Trump literally came out of nowhere and became POTUS within a relatively short period of time.

I think the future face of the R party is more likely to be Nikki Haley or Mark Meadows rather than any of the Trump offspring or in-laws. Even if you support him, the hubris surrounding Trump and his camp is exhausting.

 

[Nole Lou]

Lindsey's more 'metro' than alpha.

A good friend of mine, a Dem member of the Iowa House, told me that Lindsey has become one of Trump's staunchest supporters because Trump has proof that Lindsey is gay and has threatened him to toe the line or else. It's fine this day and age for a (D) like Pete B. to be openly gay, but such a revelation would destroy an old (R) Senator from a bible belt state.

Yeah, that rumor has been around for a while, I was obliquely referencing it. I doubt Trump has anything on him, gay or not, I'm not impressed that Trump has such an effective deep operations team, based on them making pretty much a clusterf--k of their attempts to be sneaky.

If there's truth around it, it's the fact that if he crossed Trump, Trump would just flat out call him a fairy on Twitter and force Graham to actually address such things head on. No deep info needed.

However, I think the reality is much more simple, whether Graham is gay or not...he's just a spineless opportunist.

 

[Nole Lou]

Don't be surprised if it is not another Trump. Could easily vote for the trump boys or Ivanka (Ivanka knows how to lead as a woman, and that is a different skill set). Going to be difficult to replace Trump, as he is THE alpha male in this country. The presidency is about leadership, not policy, and this is where democrats completely fail. Too many politicians are policy wonks, and policy is not that important, leadership is. All of the current democrats that are running are focused on policy (which all policy wonks do), and have NO LEADERSHIP qualities, they have absolutely no leadership skills. Since Bill Clinton, there have been no alpha males running in the democratic party.

I don't think the Trump boys stand a chance. I expect they'll just become political grifters exploiting the most nutty of Trump's followers or the alt-right.

Ivanka I think actually could have a future, if she isn't totally disabled by scandal and weirdness around her husband.

I think she's actually smart (a lot smarter than Trump or Don Jr.) and I thought it was obvious she was frequently the smartest person in the room back when I watched the apprentice. I think she could potentially leverage her name into some kind of career as a moderate Republican. I don't think its a given, but I think it's possible.

 

[Nole Lou]

The thing with Trump is outside of a few core beliefs he's fairly easy for a few people in his administration to manipulate. That's what happened with the guns thing.

It's happened with virtually everything in my mind...some to the good (judges, tax cuts) and some to the bad (trade, spending) if you're a traditional Republican. I don't think he has virtually any core beliefs, beyond a vague anti-interventionist bent. I don't even think he has any real core beliefs on immigration, other than an old man's vague discomfort with brown people. I think he'd gladly embrace a path to citizenship and permanent DACA if he could get something he could reasonably claim as a wall and do a victory lap.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

It's happened with virtually everything in my mind...some to the good (judges, tax cuts) and some to the bad (trade, spending) if you're a traditional Republican. I don't think he has virtually any core beliefs, beyond a vague anti-interventionist bent. I don't even think he has any real core beliefs on immigration, other than an old man's vague discomfort with brown people. I think he'd gladly embrace a path to citizenship and permanent DACA if he could get something he could reasonably claim as a wall and do a victory lap.

Ehh the wall was always a core belief, so was the muslim ban, and so where tariff's. I also agree that he has a anti-interventionalist core belief.

Outside of that he hires who he's told to hire within probably some limitations, he appoints who he's told to appoint, and he signs the laws that he's told to sign.

 

[Uwe.Blab]

So, I follow what you're saying, but I don't buy it. Everyone wants to bucket the Trump era into epic, far-reaching theories.

Rush Limbaugh was the most listened to host on radio, and by far the most influential conservative radio host, by 1990. From the point Rush became dominant Republicans have nominated:
GHW Bush
Bob Dole
GW Bush
John McCain
Mitt Romney

Now, I haven't listened to 30 seconds of Rush in the last 15 years. But I used to listen plenty, and the Rush Limbaugh that captured the imaginations of conservatives had almost nothing in common with the scattershot lunacy of Trump, unless you consider Mitt Romney no different from Trump, in which case...good day sir.

The fact that you characterize Alex (presumably?) Jones as a voice that conservatives rally around again kind of gives away your game. 90% of Republican voters would only know of Alex Jones vis a vis the way he's been elevated by the mainstream media, if at all. Republicans haven't exactly been "9/11 was an inside job" fanatics.

You can cherry pick lunatics anywhere and try to assign them to the other "team", but that doesn't make it a relevant way to look at the world.

All that said, you and I actually look at the world pretty similarly, we're on the same page on probably about 90% of what we think, and I respect your opinions. And I don't think any more highly of Trump than you do, believe me.

I just disagree with your (and really everybody's) attempts to synthesize Trump into a standard framework, or make sweeping hysterical conclusions about what it means for the future.

You think Mitt Romney is more popular with the Republican base than Trump???

Trump is HIGHLY popular with actual republican voters, and they will want someone very much like him to be the nominee next time around. Pence aint going to cut it.

 

[sober_teacher]

After Trump gets re-elected in November, who runs as the new Donald Trump in 2024. Right now I could see Lindsay Graham morphing into that guy but could be someone I am not aware of yet. Surely Pence has his sights on the presidency, but I cannot see Trump supporters going for it-- it is about personality and Pence is no Trump.

Who you got?

I really don't think there will be another person who will be able to duplicate that cult of personality that Trump has. Think of the several Trumplike figures that ran in 2018 and almost all lost in the midterms. Trump has gotten away with so many gaffes/snafus, etc that historically killed any other politician.

As another said, I think Trump is one of a kind. Other GOPers will become POTUS in the future, but I can't see them copying Trump's playbook.

 

[Uwe.Blab]

Are you saying the Democrats are going to take that approach? If so, good luck.

If you're saying the Republican voters are going to reject her over it, you're falling into the same trap of "all Trump voters are hardcore racists." Go ahead and believe that if you want, it's what so many people want to believe.

Trump's job approval just hit 51%. I guess 51% of the country is now hard core racists.

I get it. It's the most comforting way to deal with losing. I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton won, and Republicans did the same thing substituting "communist" for "racist". It's natural to want to blame it on "they" being intractable and irredeemable deviants.

But just because it's comfortable, doesn't make it accurate. And it doesn't lead to good decision-making. I believe we see the fruits of that in a Democratic primary hell bent on nominating someone so outside the mainstream that even Trump will be able to beat them. Instead of giving credit that a significant amount of Trump voters are doing so for (to them) rational reasons and self interest, and making a case for those people's votes, they've written those people off as KKK members and raced leftward with impunity.

You know what? Take the race thing out of it. 17 other mostly standard and reliable conservatives were taken out because the republican base enjoyed and appreciated Trump's....personality and temperament (putting it nicely here).

We all recognize it-- who will duplicate it?

 

[Nole Lou]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think there are some things even the GOP won't put up with from Trump. I recall some tariff related issues with Mexico that would have hurt Texas and they were able to get him to back off. Similar to his comments on gun control related matters. They're not totally gone.

Now, whether they would stand up to him if they stand to benefit with respect to elections, that's another thing. Hopefully that's a future that never presents itself.

This talk about not leaving is so silly, just stupid fear mongering. If you're old enough, people said the same thing about Clinton. There were conspiracies about Hillary running after him, with him as VP, and when she won, she would resign a day later for him to finish her term, because technically you can't serve more than two consecutive terms.

For all the hand wringing about what Trump's loyalty from Republicans means about the Republican party, it's really, very very simple. They're getting more out of him that a traditional Republican likes than things that they don't, and that they'd get from the alternative.

Republicans have been quite outspoken about disagreeing with him on foreign policy moves and trade and many of his worst statements. But they aren't about to throw a guy over that delivers them 78% of what they like in favor of a Democrat that delivers 0%.

And all the handwringing about Trump ending the Republic, of assuming dictatorial powers, etc...most Republicans see that for what it is, social media nonsense.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Does he have any American relative? Apparently that's all you need to satisfy the GOP these days. If that.

I'm sure one of the many russian mafia members who occupy trump's various buildings may be a relative of some sorts, if not by blood.

 

[Uwe.Blab]

This talk about not leaving is so silly, just stupid fear mongering. If you're old enough, people said the same thing about Clinton. There were conspiracies about Hillary running after him, with him as VP, and when she won, she would resign a day later for him to finish her term, because technically you can't serve more than two consecutive terms.

For all the hand wringing about what Trump's loyalty from Republicans means about the Republican party, it's really, very very simple. They're getting more out of him that a traditional Republican likes than things that they don't, and that they'd get from the alternative.

Republicans have been quite outspoken about disagreeing with him on foreign policy moves and trade and many of his worst statements. But they aren't about to throw a guy over that delivers them 78% of what they like in favor of a Democrat that delivers 0%.

And all the handwringing about Trump ending the Republic, of assuming dictatorial powers, etc...most Republicans see that for what it is, social media nonsense.

You are confused. The republicans CAN'T throw him over or they will be replaced with someone who supports (and as previously noted, obeys) him. Replaced by voters, not rumors or statements. Republican politicians are tied to Trump or they get voted out. At the very least, they absolutely FEAR getting voted out by the actual people on the ground voting.

Am I going to be the first to tell you? You have no party, friend.

 

[seminole97]

What kind of odds are you giving out? I might be interested in that action.

I’d take any odds.
Free money.

 

[Nole Lou]

You think Mitt Romney is more popular with the Republican base than Trump???

Trump is HIGHLY popular with actual republican voters, and they will want someone very much like him to be the nominee next time around. Pence ain't going to cut it.

No, Trump answered something that middle class Republicans weren't seeing from GWB and Romney, and the presidential candidate version of McCain. I actually think there was a time McCain could fit that bill, but not the guy who ran.

They are going to want someone who "fights" and "wins". What Trump winning the primary proves is that they don't care nearly that much about policy as as Republicans have assumed. It's really Clinton all over again, who ran quite far to the middle compared to where Democrats had been...and guess what, Democratic voters didn't really care.

The "fighting" and "winning", in my opinion, doesn't have to look exactly like Trump's...I'd propose that most Republicans would rather it didn't look exactly like that.

 

[Nole Lou]

You are confused. The republicans CAN'T throw him over or they will be replaced with someone who supports (and as previously noted, obeys) him. Replaced by voters, not rumors or statements. Republican politicians are tied to Trump or they get voted out. At the very least, they absolutely FEAR getting voted out by the actual people on the ground voting.

Am I going to be the first to tell you? You have no party, friend.

Oh, I've been without a party for some time.

But I have no idea what you mean by "throw over" Trump. Trump is popular, he delivers mostly what Republicans want, and nobody but social media hacks actually believe he's an existential danger to the republic. For most Republicans, he's actually done about 85% less damage than they feared he might.

 

[Nole Lou]

You are confused. The republicans CAN'T throw him over or they will be replaced with someone who supports (and as previously noted, obeys) him. Replaced by voters, not rumors or statements. Republican politicians are tied to Trump or they get voted out. At the very least, they absolutely FEAR getting voted out by the actual people on the ground voting.

Am I going to be the first to tell you? You have no party, friend.

Unless you're buying into the "he's never leaving he's going to make himself king" premise, then I have nothing for you. You're in the same category of people telling me Obama was about to institute sharia law or that Clinton wasn't going to leave.

 

[ctghawk]

Unless you're buying into the "he's never leaving he's going to make himself king" premise, then I have nothing for you. You're in the same category of people telling me Obama was about to institute sharia law or that Clinton wasn't going to leave.

You're nailing it every time. Well done.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You are confused. The republicans CAN'T throw him over or they will be replaced with someone who supports (and as previously noted, obeys) him. Replaced by voters, not rumors or statements. Republican politicians are tied to Trump or they get voted out. At the very least, they absolutely FEAR getting voted out by the actual people on the ground voting.

Am I going to be the first to tell you? You have no party, friend.

Every day Trump seems more and more like Stalin.

Except in intelligence and self control, of course.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Trump will likely have is own network and run Fox into the ground. Fox has changed since Murdoch left, his kids are LIBERAL, and they are running the network into the ground (just like CNN and all other liberal networks).

You mean they aren't as fascist any more?

Is it worth checking them out, or would I lose brain cells?

 

[Nole Lou]

The real "lessons of these times" is actually bigger than Trump, because we're seeing it with Bernie as well.

- Voters are sick and tired of being force fed establishment politicians ordained from their "betters"
- They don't actually philosophically care about policy, almost at all.
- Social media has made people feel empowered that they actually have some impact, and that their thoughts/voices/instincts/beliefs are equally valid to anyone elses (which is strongly related to...)
- An absolute destruction of any voice of authority, be it from the media, from party elites, academia, economists...nobody is an authority to anyone any more
- People want to believe THEY are being fought for, not the elites or establishment

Those are real things, and a lot to be reckoned with. But Trump didn't CAUSE that, any more than Bernie CAUSED that.

If not for the crazy rise of Trump, the fact that the Democrats look likely to nominate an avowed socialist, with virtually no accomplishments to his name, who is barely a Democrat if you squint, who holds views that are deeply, deeply unpopular even among democrats, because he looks them in their eyes and says he's fighting for THEM instead of the elites, would be a historic American political science phenomenon.

I don't think the premise that Bernie or Trump changed anything, or are actually pushing their parties right or left, actually holds much water. I think we're just finding out the electorate is weird and capricious and bitter, and all of a sudden feels like they matter.

It's very shaky seas right now for politicians. I do think that adults will eventually return to the room, but they're going to have to recalibrate their messaging for sure.

 

[ThorneStockton]

This talk about not leaving is so silly, just stupid fear mongering. If you're old enough, people said the same thing about Clinton. There were conspiracies about Hillary running after him, with him as VP, and when she won, she would resign a day later for him to finish her term, because technically you can't serve more than two consecutive terms.

For all the hand wringing about what Trump's loyalty from Republicans means about the Republican party, it's really, very very simple. They're getting more out of him that a traditional Republican likes than things that they don't, and that they'd get from the alternative.

Republicans have been quite outspoken about disagreeing with him on foreign policy moves and trade and many of his worst statements. But they aren't about to throw a guy over that delivers them 78% of what they like in favor of a Democrat that delivers 0%.

And all the handwringing about Trump ending the Republic, of assuming dictatorial powers, etc...most Republicans see that for what it is, social media nonsense.

We may be operating on different understanding of reality or taking certain things for granted. I realize that Republicans shouted about Democrats undoing the 2016 election with impeachment, but if Trump was convicted, the presidency doesn't go to Hillary. Pence would have become president, same if there were enough responsible adults in the cabinet and they used the 25th amendment.

Similar for the 2020 elections, if Republicans wanted to run someone other than Trump as their nominee, they could have chosen another Republican, it wouldn't need to be a Democrat.

The hand wringing about Trump's loyalty from Republicans is because it is so odd. Yes, he's done more Republican things than a Democrat would. But he's also done some very non-Republican things, that a Republican wouldn't do, these have already been pointed out. He also combines that with a personality/behavior that is crass/reprehensible/disgusting (choose your adjective) that all decent humans should detest regardless of political party.

That calculus is hard to reconcile, which is why there are terms like "cult of personality" to try to understand what has happened and why so many people love or merely accept this vile person.

There are some Republicans that may make a statement that goes against Trump which may be good enough for you to meet a "quite outspoken" threshold but the ones who are truly outspoken typically only manage to do so on their way out.

I don't expect Trump to "not leave" but I don't think it's as silly of a concept as it was just a few years ago. He's demonstrated he is not like any other politician who may be feel constrained how others have previously.

 

[noleclone2]

If you really think about it from a total party upheaval, Russian connections, and impossible promises to an emerging cult stand point, I think it may be Bernie Sanders.

<ducks>

 

[naturalmwa]

The new Trump can’t be a politician, it must be an outsider. I’d look to the world of fake wrestling for the type of character the MAGAs would go for.

 

[lucas80]

Too bad she was born in India. And, of course, she's a Muslim.

She isn't a muslim. She's a hindu. Just an FYI. She was born in India, though. That's a fact.

 

[Nole Lou]

We may be operating on different understanding of reality or taking certain things for granted. I realize that Republicans shouted about Democrats undoing the 2016 election with impeachment, but if Trump was convicted, the presidency doesn't go to Hillary. Pence would have become president, same if there were enough responsible adults in the cabinet and they used the 25th amendment.

Similar for the 2020 elections, if Republicans wanted to run someone other than Trump as their nominee, they could have chosen another Republican, it wouldn't need to be a Democrat.

The hand wringing about Trump's loyalty from Republicans is because it is so odd. Yes, he's done more Republican things than a Democrat would. But he's also done some very non-Republican things, that a Republican wouldn't do, these have already been pointed out. He also combines that with a personality/behavior that is crass/reprehensible/disgusting (choose your adjective) that all decent humans should detest regardless of political party.

That calculus is hard to reconcile, which is why there are terms like "cult of personality" to try to understand what has happened and why so many people love or merely accept this vile person.

There are some Republicans that may make a statement that goes against Trump which may be good enough for you to meet a "quite outspoken" threshold but the ones who are truly outspoken typically only manage to do so on their way out.

I don't expect Trump to "not leave" but I don't think it's as silly of a concept as it was just a few years ago. He's demonstrated he is not like any other politician who may be feel constrained how others have previously.

Which is literally what Republicans said about Clinton, every step of the way. He also did many, many things that Democrats didn't like, and he was a scoundrel.

And the Democrats used the exact same calculus the Republicans are using now..he's popular, and he mostly delivers, and what he's accused of is not ultimately a threat to the United States and doesn't rise to overturning an election.

It doesn't have to be more than that. I know people desperately want it to be more than that, and they did back then too.

 

[lucas80]

Little Don will attempt to take on the role. He's a grifter at heart, so it's a given the Trump's will try and keep grifting.
Littler Don, and nobody is actually going to be able to replicate what Don did. It takes a special combination of factors like narcissism, lack of shame or humility, force of will, and complete ability to create a narrative and facts of his own making.

 

[ctghawk]

She isn't a muslim. She's a hindu. Just an FYI. She was born in India, though. That's a fact.

Am pretty sure she is a Sikh, and born in South Carolina.

 

[naturalmwa]

That could just as easily describe the Dems.

 

[Flie]

What would you like to bet on that?

Rules don't apply to the God King Trump. He does as he wishes, rubs all of our faces in it, and then wonders why everybody doesn't adore him.

 

[Nole Lou]

Here is the thing, it takes time for some things to take full affect and show themselves. At first Limbaugh was likely a side distraction that was influential but didn't cover how people thought. Later on he became more and more the voice of the Republican party.

And I would also point out that Limbaugh might have changed since then. Guy always called Michelle Obama "Moochelle". That isn't making intellectual arguments in the least.



Then I suppose a presidential candidate going on the show of Alex Jones and saying he has a great reputation . . . that sort of thing should kill his candidacy shouldn't it??

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-praises-9-11-truther-alex-jones/index.html



I think you have to. Trump has been such a radical departure from the norm and his hold on the party so complete that I don't think you can just presume that he's an isolated incident anymore.

Republicans used to believe in free trade and did not trust Russia. They wanted presidents who where tough on Russia and tough on North Korea.

In about 4 years Donald Trump has converted the Republican party into supporting tariffs and pushing for closer relations with Russia and North Korea. Republicans switched their entire ideology to fit with Trump. They also consider any criticism of Trump to be a betrayal, no matter what Trump does. The Republicans could have easily joined with Democrats and undone the tariff's that their pre-trump ideology hated so much. But they would not dare disobey him like that.

Republican House and Senate candidates used to say they would be a conservative voice in Washington. In the 2018 mid-terms they said they would be a voice for Donald Trump. The senate race in Indiana was certifiably insane. There where 3 main candidates in the Republican primary and every single ad was about loyalty and obedience to Trump. Then we got to the general election and the incumbent Democrat ran ads quoting Reagan about peace through strength and saying he wasn't going to allow "socialists to take over our healthcare". The Republican again ran ads talking about all the times that the Democratic candidate disobeyed Donald Trump.

Republicans no longer support an ideology anymore, they support a cult of personality around Donald Trump. That doesn't just change, especially if he wins again in 2024. It will only run deeper and deeper. If we still have an election in 2028 it will likely include someone just like Trump if not one of his children.

So, like I said, we believe a lot of the same things, but we just don't come to the same conclusions.

I've said it before, I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans hated Russia, and Democrats hated the FBI and CIA. It's as crazy to me to see progressives' faith in the FBI and intelligence communities all of a sudden, once it's turned on Trump.

Everybody's just trying to figure out how to win.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Which is literally what Republicans said about Clinton, every step of the way. He also did many, many things that Democrats didn't like, and he was a scoundrel.

And the Democrats used the exact same calculus the Republicans are using now..he's popular, and he mostly delivers, and what he's accused of is not ultimately a threat to the United States and doesn't rise to overturning an election.

It doesn't have to be more than that. I know people desperately want it to be more than that, and they did back then too.

Could you explain your logic with respect to your Clinton comparison? Just because Republicans had worries about Clinton that went unfounded why does it necessitate that Democrats concerns about Trump must also be unfounded?

Is there no room for context, nuances, any conceivable differences that make the calculation - different - rather than an easy to dismiss equivalence?