You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] tcp ago 

You may have a point, but let's admit to ourselves that Trump is far from trustworthy despite the excitement his promises and platform generate.

Also, it's not clear what propels presidential candidates (from the establishment or elsewhere) into the forefront. If you look at comparative advantages over someone like Rand or Ron Paul, it would look like this:
Trump: Media Coverage plus his own brand / cult of personality
Rubio, Cruz, etc: Media Coverage

Jeb Bush seems to have shown that you can't make someone unelectable, electable. However, it seems easy to make someone electable, unelectable.

0
0

[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct ago  (edited ago)

You're overthinking this. Trump is absolutely establishment, but he's a different establishment. Regan wasn't political establishment - he was media establishment. Eisenhower wasn't political establishment, he was military establishment. Trump is corporate establishment.

Now, think about your reasoning on his motives:

He wants media coverage of his brand, right? Half right. He wants good media coverage of his brand. And the best way to do that is to not suck. More accurately, do a better job than the last 3 predecessors. Granted, that's not a very high bar, but it's worth voting for.

Trump 2016!

0
0

[–] tcp ago  (edited ago)

It's not that he wants it as much as that he inexplicably has it despite all the talk of the establishment at large planning to turn on him. I don't know what making America great again means to Trump, but I wish we had someone who understood the importance of limited, constitutional government. Also, admitting that he is part of the corporate establishment can be taken very negatively. The glaring anti-competitive, government-protected examples of the corporatocracy that we have in the US are enough to show that this "arm" of the establishment doesn't need to be any stronger. So, it sounds like we might be getting screwed in various ways, even if he is going to set the bar a bit higher.

Strangely, he has already build a type of empire, so I don't see what the effort towards "public service" is all about. Also, why are we excited to give a businessman a pulpit or let him use the office for personal gain in any way? He may be the best of the worst (that are left as choices), but if people keep saying they want an outsider, couldn't we have found someone, anyone who was a true public servant and be much better off?

Sure, I'll give Trump a shot, but I don't know why we can only ever dream of better days unless we accept that the establishment can't be beat. This may be looking at the landscape incorrectly, but I feel the electoral college had a genuine purpose once. Intelligent representatives would vote in the interests of the people. People, in general, are too dumb to vote for themselves. They vote for who the media props up with lies. They may also vote based on identity such as gender or to accomplish short-sighted goals. If you injected integrity, intelligence, and the desire to enrich society back into the electoral college, we actually have a shot at making American great again. I appreciate that Trump is trying to build something, but I don't know why he needs the presidency to do it, and I hope it has nothing to do with cannibalistic corporations getting ready for another feeding frenzy.