@catbeasy,
catbeasy wrote:
.Trumps whole bent has been towards using negative emotional appeals like the two bit dictators who want to scare the hell out of people to keep them in line. He creates a world of disaster and then offers himself as the only solution.
Emotional appeals, whether negative or positive are commonplace in politics across the political spectrum. Certainly "Hope and Change" implied a coming disaster every bit as much as any of Trump's rhetoric. In fact the change we actually got was a highly administratively regulated economy, with sclerotic growth and low levels of enterprise and job creation; increased racial discord, in part directly traceable to some of Obama's rhetoric and actions; highly politicized administrative organs of government, including the IRS and the Justice department among others; a foreign policy that unnerved our allies, emboldened our rivals and led to disasters in several parts of the world. The evidence suggests that part of Trump's success is that he pointed out some potentially disastrous elements of our present situation that resonated powerfully with existing public impressions, and proposed specific corrective actions for them. That's a far cry from "creating a disaster".
catbeasy wrote:
The other politicians do this as well, but Trump does it vacuously. He says nothing but hyperbole. Statements that are so general in their position, its difficult to even discuss what he means by them. Oh, but his followers know what he 'really' means! And just like other 'rulers' he can take back what he said without repercussion. Folks still slavishly follow him because the cognitive dissonance that would ensue from admitting he is just another politician would blow their brains out..
In what way is Trump's rhetoric "vacuous" that wasn't matched by Obama? From a red line in Syria to hope and change, "If you like your doctor, you can keep him ... ; to a reset with Russia, and a shift to the Far East, it was all empty talk, devoid of accurate meaning or content.
Trump may well prove to have been as vacuous as his predecessor, however he isn't yet in office and we don't know yet. So far it appears he means to do what he said. We shall soon see the degree to which he carries it out, and the results that obtain.
catbeasy wrote:
Despite his constant assertions to the contrary, Trump is just like the other politicians in his use of rhetoric. Only his rhetoric is stupid, dull, childish, and inflammatory. The other difference is that he has absolutely no ideas of his own on how to run a country - something that others see as a benefit because 'he's not part of the establishment.'
I'll agree that Trump is indeed much like other politicians in many ways. His rhetorical style is certainly different from others, often dull and sometimes inflamatory. However the assertion that he has no ideas of his own is obviously contrary to the facts. Additionally it would be very hard to argue that Obama has effectively "run the country" or inspired our people to greater unity and harmony. Indeed he has done the oposite, though I'll readily concede his manner of speaking and delivering empty words does convey more pretense of thoughtfulness than do Trump's calls for action.
catbeasy wrote:
He's every bit part of that establishment as Hillary. In fact, even more so because there is only one party: the business party and Trump is much closer to that than Hillary..
Both are indeed establishment figures. One could argue that Trump is a self-propelled huckster who has built a substantial (but not giant) business empire, while the Clintons have made their fortunes by selling access to the power and influence of elected public office. I believe the recent campaign amply illustrated the vacuity of Hilary's plan and program which consited mostly of vague, non specific pandering to various groups, while Trump appears to have created his own new group by striking resonant chords with a frustrated public.
