I completely disagree.When it comes to his rise from one of many Republican candidates to the only alternative to Ted Cruz, I don't think an urge to practicality played much role. We had Kasich, we had Jeb Bush, we had Marco Rubio, and Carly Fiorina, all of whom had much stronger claims to practicality.
The political zeitgeist was that the politicians you listed did not represent practicality. Rather, they represented "business as usual." Hence, their message did not resonate with people that were essentially desperate for change - likely radical change. Radical change does not always necessarily mean bad.
Mind you, I am not attempting to justify the underlying reasons that caused people to rationalize Trump would steer the business of politics in a more suitable direction. I'm attempting to practice the principle of intellectual charity with those I may not entirely agree with.
I think you're correct here. And, in my mind, ultimately that can only be a sign of desperation. Which is one of a handful of reasons why the democratic party has been such a turn-off of late. At least for me. The message from the mouths of desperados is to be scrutinized with an abundance of caution.But for the sake of internal battles, many Democrats have been eager to equate Trump with racism, anti-Semitism and Putinism, and they have distorted the picture in the national election in an effort to do this. As a result, instead of focusing on the places and people who are hurting, Dems are fighting over how radical to be. "Piercing their tongue," as one pundit put it in response to the anti-Kavanaugh swarms.
Well, I have no doubt which end of the spectrum has been more dedicated to spreading fear in the last 25 years.
I don't think one side has a monopoly over the other when it comes to spreading a culture of fear. Fear mongering tactics go back to Machiavelli. And, it works, to be honest, with or without the confirming data. Why? Because when "your guy" says you should be very afraid, the most common response is to believe your guy simply because he's YOUR GUY. The same guy that's in your confirmation bias bubble.Its effectiveness is limited, though, relative to actual information, strategizing and implementation. Turnouts have been so low that firing up the base has been a viable strategy, especially in the primaries, relative to trying to appeal to reason and problem solving.
The turnout has been low because the left has been in power for most of the decade. They are just now being aroused to do something about all this "evil and injustice" when ironically a lot of these same evils have been going on under the care of their chosen administration (ie see my posts on the neglect of immigrant children by the Obama Admin).
I'm surprised.Sorry, I don't understand this.
It's been about 9 (?) since Obama's promised an end to military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We're still involved.
Our citizens do not understand what it means to be at war unless a formal declaration of war has been declared against us. But if the community you live in with your wife and children experienced the every day reality of foreign military occupiers in your neck of the woods, or drone strikes killing the neighbor you just spoke to last week, the first hand flesh and blood experience would likely convince you a war was taking place that with real casualties connected to it.
We were at war with "other people" for the entire 8 years of Obama's presidency.
Look at the final drone casualty tallies courtesy of "The Drone President"
542 Total drone strikes
3,797 estimated killed
324 estimated civilians
https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data
What were those people in your eyes, casualties of politics, or casualties of a war? If China drone striked my neighborhood because they believed a threat to their national security resided there, I'd think we were at war.
Anti deportation of long time residents. sorry.. that was confusing.Anti-immigration or anti-deportation?
I don't mean to be flip. I fully believe the stories you refer to are a reasonably accurate view of things there. But you should have some awareness that Los Angeles liberalism is heavily social and environmental, and much less a matter of economic concern for the less privileged. Bill Clinton cemented California's Democrat status for national elections by endorsing free trade, but it was already moving that way as a reaction to the Evangelical Right. So when you observe racist liberals (perhaps sometimes due to implicit racism, but overt seems quite likely to be part of the mix) I don't find it strange at all.
That's interesting. I'll have to give this some more thought.
Nope.. small town in TexasEven so I would bet your boss came from a big city or from West Texas rather than from Waco, Brownsville, Beaumont or other smaller places in East Texas.
I'll refresh my recollection.the discussion about Galileo some time back, and your awareness of emotional intelligence.
Thanks