Posted on 01/28/2016 8:34:41 AM PST by Isara
Can you picture it yet?
Not just a vague haze of orange hair in the Oval Office, but what Donald Trump would actually do with the White House between 2017 and 2021, maybe even until 2025?
If it's too large a prospect to take in all at once, try taking it in small doses. Imagine the man who has suggested killing the children of suspected terrorists - a war crime - appointing Supreme Court justices. Think about a treasury secretary handpicked by a man who bankrupted and was forced to resign from the only company he ever took public. Take a deep breath and imagine a man who hasn't even bothered to learn how America's nuclear arsenal works - but is quite cavalier about using it - with the launch codes at his fingertips.
You get the idea. There are untold numbers of nightmare scenarios available for what happens if Trump is elected to the office he seeks. That may explain why we try to avoid thinking about it, and why Trump peppers his stump speeches and political books with vague proposals such as "beating China" or "banning Muslims." It keeps supporters focused on a scapegoat rather than examining how downright terrifying his positions are.
The biggest nightmare scenario of all, though, is already unfolding. We're less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses, and not one major political campaign seems to be actively working to prevent a Trump presidency. Some on the left seem to be encouraging his candidacy - and the political world as a whole seems to be sleepwalking towards it.
Trump's Republican rivals are, on the whole, cowed and confused. Fearful of Trump, they still prefer to attack each other, hoping to claw enough percentage points from the anyone-but-Trump bloc to win the easy way. The math is in their favor: There are enough Trump haters in the GOP to defeat him twice over. But unless three of the poll leaders pull out in time, none of them can win. It's a perfect political storm for Trump.
Lately, Trump's rivals - primarily Bush - have unleashed a handful of attacks. Earlier this month, Bush released an ad calling Trump a "jerk" for mocking a disabled reporter - which he is. But Bush spoke like the archetypal 90-lb. weakling trying to kick sand in the beach bully's face.
Ted Cruz, who for a time shared a 'bromance' with Trump, launched a belated broadside against Trump's "New York values," but Trump easily flicked that one aside with a retort about New York's resilience on 9/11.
The most most convincing Trump attack ad comes from a faceless super PAC - and consists of TV clips anyone could have culled months ago. The ad brands Trump a turncoat liberal - which also kind of misses the point.
Plenty of Republicans were once liberals; plenty of others embrace the concept of being "born again." Trump changes his tune and denies his previous statements at every debate; it's no surprise to find he's been doing so for years.
The appealing thing about Trump's candidacy to authoritarian voters is not so much what he says, but the fact that he's saying it in a charismatic and forthright manner. At a very basic level, his is the more confident voice - literally. Studies have shown we tend to subconsciously associate deeper and louder tones in politicians' voices with dominance, Republicans especially. For many, this makes Trump look like the alpha male by default.
His refusal to apologize for any statement whatsoever, and his eagerness for revenge - most recently pulling out of a Fox News debate - are taken by his supporters as sign of strength. In fact, they are signs of cowardice, of a fragile man who fears being seen to be wrong. No rival yet dares hammer away at this point, so the alpha-male image remains - when it could be so easily punctured.
There are limits to that image, of course. Trump has at most a third of the GOP vote. At present, the vast majority of even this partisan primary electorate sees how thin-skinned the man is. If a candidate were to point that out consistently, the Republican majority would rally around them - just as we cheer anyone who takes clear and confident aim at the playground bully.
But with every day that passes without that scenario, there's a slimmer chance of his opponents blunting Trump's momentum. It is entirely possible now that the GOP may sleepwalk into a candidacy that is supported by a mere quarter of the party. Even if half the current roster of candidates were to drop out after Iowa, Trump is still perfectly capable of dividing and conquering the rest.
There's a surprising sense of glee coming from Democrats at the prospect of facing Trump in the general election. Many Democrats would rather face the Trump than Ted Cruz, as if Cruz were the more charismatic one. With polls showing that either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton could beat Trump, the party is being blinded to exactly what the general election could look like. What's more Democrats seem to be missing the point that some of Trump's strongest supporters are blue-collar Democrats.
Democratic leaders who prefer Trump over Cruz are underestimating Trump's chances of victory and ignoring the lessons of history. Here's why.
First of all, Democrats have a track record of underestimating populist celebrities. Former California governor Pat Brown's 1966 re-election battle is a classic example. Brown worked to make sure that his GOP opponent that year was a political outsider. In this case, an actor named Ronald Reagan with a penchant for gaffes. Brown and his press secretary talked up Reagan so much, that his opponent joked that Brown should be on the Reagan campaign payroll. Reagan won, of course, so the strategy didn't work out so well for Brown.
Nearly 40 years later, facing a recall election, Gray Davis, California's then-governor, also failed to appreciate the scale of the threat from another inexperienced political actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. We all know how that ended.
Second, all GOP candidates pivot to the center during a general election, without exception - and Trump does this better than most. Remember the Trump we saw hosting Saturday Night Live back in November? The grinning, Manhattan cocktail party-ready- Trump perfectly willing to dance around to Hotline Bling in a stylish suit? That's the Trump we could see this fall, all smiles and soft focus and charisma - an endlessly appealing magnet for TV producers, no matter what his policies are.
If he tries to back away from his proposed ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., there would of course be plenty willing to remind the world of his hate-fueled rhetoric. But how much does that actually matter?
Remember, Trump doesn't need to convince everybody. He just needs the same 50.1% of the electorate that voted for George W. Bush in 2004. We know how adept Trump is at gaslighting, or the art of making us believe our memories must be faulty. Only now he would have a whole party machine and billions of dollars in ad money - his own and the party's - on his side.
Finally, Democrats don't have a great track record of defending themselves in the face of smear campaigns - and Trump's rough-and-ready style makes the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry look positively genteel. He has already begun to deploy his misogynistic arsenal against Hillary Clinton, calling her "disgusting" for going to the bathroom, and then accusing her of "playing the woman card". Can you imagine what he would do with Bernie Sanders' age and socialist leanings, should Sanders be the nominee? There could well be a voter backlash against him going too far, but do you really want to put the fate of the country in a presumed voter backlash in favor of civility?
And if you don't think Trump could display a softer centrist-friendly side on TV and attack vigorously and shockingly on Twitter at the same time, you're still underestimating his Machiavellian media skills. This is not a candidate to be wished for lightly. Whomever says there's no such thing as bad publicity may soon be provided with the ultimate, horrific example of that phrase.
So what can be done? How does America awaken from its Trump-induced torpor? It isn't enough to acknowledge that the man is a threat; we must outline that threat. We need to imagine the unpalatable image of President Trump in full. We have to decide exactly what that means, because he isn't providing specifics.
With Trump in the White House, a Republican-controlled Congress would be able to pass into law any legislation it wants: Abolishing departments, ending environmental protection, re-instituting torture, sending troops against ISIS, banning Muslims from U.S. entry and observing Muslim citizens, establishing Trump's Deportation Force, building the boondoggle of a "big, beautiful wall" while attempting to coerce an ally into paying for it.
What decisions would a Supreme Court with Trump nominees on the bench render? Would Trump let TV generals run the Pentagon? It's time we all asked ourselves if that's the America we want.
Only then can we reach the point in the dream where we wake up screaming. Once we're awake, we can set aside our differences and start organizing against Trump across the aisle.
If you prefer, look at it this way: We've come back in our time machines from the future Trump presidency. It's January 2016 again. Let's change history.
“Trump just let the Media know who their daddy is.”
Refusing to attend may be an act of courage scheduling an event using veterans as props in competition is perfidy.
Donald Trump is OPEN AND NOTORIOUS for his support of America's military veterans.
1985: Donald Trump Donates $1 Million to NYC Vietnam Vets--
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3389774/posts
Enough with the fox outrage, Darancette.
Who do you think is hurt more by a show in competition Fox or the GOP? If he wants to give money to veterans then do it not have some ego fest starting his own 3rd party.
Who do you think is hurt more by a show in competition Fox or the GOP? If he wants to give money to veterans then do it not have some ego fest starting his own 3rd party.
Who do you think is hurt more by a show in competition Fox or the GOP? If he wants to give money to veterans then do it not have some ego fest starting his own 3rd party.
Establishment.......
I notice you didn’t address the issue of Trump’s CONSTANT HISTORICAL SUPPORT of America’s military veterans.
I notice you didn’t address the issue of Trump’s CONSTANT HISTORICAL SUPPORT of America’s military veterans.
I notice you didn’t address the issue of Trump’s CONSTANT HISTORICAL SUPPORT of America’s military veterans.
I have visited that city as well, very cool. My favorite western has become Lonesome Dove, amazing performances all around. Always been a little cowboy like my whole life. Don’t care for big cities or big city type people.
Catastrophizing hysterical uninformed keyboardists fantasize that a president can act unilaterally and alone on all matters — and that there are no such things as checks and balances. Obama has tried; even he can’t do nearly as much as he planned.
Trump and I are even on the supporting veterans score I’m even a veteran. So what is he going to do, have a bank of telephones manned by his big name supporters and show videos like an NPR begathon? Better he just give the cash spent on this goat rope to “Wounded Warriors” directly”.
Is this another post from the bottom of the barrel? Where do people find this nonsense?
I’m getting weary of this claim that anyone who supports Trump is looking for an authoritarian. It’s such an egregious assumption that reeks of an ‘authoritarian’ who is fearful of losing his/her position.
To all those so deathly afraid of Trump, we can do a go fund me page and get some blankets and binkies!
One last thought - this whole tripe about ‘ego’ is laughable. I’d like these mindless writers to point just ONE candidate that doesn’t have an ego!
Amen, FR sister.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.