Keep in mind Trump had to to tow the line to the liberal approved societal narratives as a businessman. While he said things in the past that contradict his further positions I would bet it’s a way to maintain the best image for his brand. Can you imagine what it would be like if Trump came out against abortion as a business man? Look how much attack Chik Fil a has received for being against gay marriage for instance.
If you google you’ll find that since Trump has run for president his business has been heavily suffering largely due to his platforms.
There is also an order of magnitude on his flip flops. He accused Romney of being to mean to illegals for instance. But yeah, the speed at which he does it is a big deal. He can do it in a single speech or in the usual retractions by his campaign after he says something bone headed. The thing is, willingness to modify a position can be an intellectual strength, but Trump genuinely gives the impression that he does it because he doesn’t actually know anything about the issue and then later went and read a couple articles to find out what it was only to realize later he said something idiotic. And not on obscure issues either. Things like taxation, minimum wage, Iran, the supreme court. Literally he’ll get asked something, have no f-ing clue what the person is asking about, make up something stupid and make assertions while in total ignorance, go read an article, then try to retract his firmly asserted stupidity while claiming he was still correct both times. The way he does it shows total incompetence. The way a good politician like Hilary does it, she’s intelligently playing the political game. That’s the difference.
So You’re saying Trump was always like this on the inside, and merely suppressed his true feelings and put on a more moderate-liberal facade for several decades to be more marketable? How is that more plausible to you than deciding to appeal to people’s fears and prejudices to gain votes and support?
I thought some of you might find this interesting. Politics and Religion.
Some history here about bigotry and why some of his rhetoric REALLY doesn’t play well with people like me. The NYT has run a similar piece recently. The “Utah may go Democrat” story has really been making the internet. Honestly, I think the liberal press may be getting their hopes up, or trying to sway it. I’m not so sure LDS people will really vote for Hillary either. I hear a lot of Gary Johnson talk.
So You’re saying Trump was always like this on the inside, and merely suppressed his true feelings and put on a more moderate-liberal facade for several decades to be more marketable?[/quote]
Yes or not hurt his market share is more accurate.
I think the US is full of prominent figures who hold anti-liberal views but do not profess them publicly due to fear of backlash especially to their bottom line.
Ever seen the attacks carried out on Trump supporters? Even myself, some random dude told me to go fuck myself while I was wearing my Trump walking down the street.
You’re late to the party.
We’ve been discussing the topics he’s built his campaign around for several weeks now. I don’t believe the “fears” revolving the issues to be unwarranted.
Not a Bernie supporter but let’s be fair: Bernie reiterated many times throughout his campaign that he liked Hillary, has worked with her in the past, and would continue to do so. Hell they spent the first two debates basically agreeing with each other. A lot of the “she’s a corrupt wall street shill lets burn her at the stake” vitriol came from his supporters who greatly extrapolated a lot of Bernie’s gripes with the “establishment.” HE never said those things.
Has he changed his positions or has he made an alliance? They’re different things you know.
Alliances by definition are not about ideological purity. In fact, a political party is not about ideological purity. To borrow a phrase, " An organized representative institution can give weight to our will in ways we could not accomplish on our own. Working with others gives us power, but at the cost of constant, calculated compromise. No two people will agree on everything…No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party"
I do not see any material way his has flip-flopped his stated positions. I did see you move the goal posts on your question though.
You don’t see him making a deal with a politician bought by big corporations to be a flip flop because he compromised? His tag line was to take money out of politics.
By the way Bernie left the democrat party after he was knocked out and we back to being an independent.
Yes, I am aware of that as well. That actually strengthens my position rather than yours. But again the fundamental thing is that alliances are not flip flops and political parties are not and cannot be ideologically pure if they are to be effective.
I carry no water for Hillary and her worries about the “vast right wing” conspiracy, but that’s of a different degree and type than the weirdo tin-foil hat stuff Trump traffics in. Clinton has a persecution complex, Trump claims a rival’s father was in on the JFK assassination. It’s not even close. One is driven by narcicissm, the other by derangement. Derangement needs to stay away from the nuclear codes.
Second, I disagree that Trump is only stupid, not malicious. His track record in business - less scrutinized than a public service record - is filled with depravity. Stiffing creditors, refusing to pay bills, lawsuits at every turn - he’s been a mean-spirited jackass and played the part of bully: I’ve got the money and the upper hand, you don’t, so I’m going to take full advantage of you.
Couple that with his tissue paper thin skin and near instantaneous tantrums when someone disagrees with him. He’s ready to boil over at any point and just start throwing haymakers with tear-filled eyes at the slightest perceived insult.
He’s not some affable dummy - he’s a vicious crybaby who also happens to be an idiot. And he’s no less malicious than Clinton.
As for safeguards around him to prevent misuse of the nuclear weapons - great, but the fact that Trump would even give an illegal order is the problem.
You said it yourself - both are unfit for office. If that’s truly the case, you shouldn’t vote for either.
