Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

2020 Candidate Charisma

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I disagree with the last point there, Flake has been a relatively national figure since Trump came into office and they started their dance.

I've heard him mentioned a lot, but, other than being a prominent anti-Trump Republican, which camp of the party does he belong to ideologically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

I've heard him mentioned a lot, but, other than being a prominent anti-Trump Republican, which camp of the party does he belong to ideologically?

He's like Sasse in that they're both extremely fiscally conservative, but are at least somewhat socially sensitive. They oppose Trump on trade and on his foreign policy towards dictators/autocrats and on Trump's own behavior. They are extremely anti-autocratic. If the president were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich, they would be right of them. They appear like moderates, only because they are so strongly opposed to the Trump administration, Flake especially. They are moral Republicans, but not in the "holier than thou" Closet-Lucifer-style moralism of Ted Cruz or Pat Robertson, who seem to use their faith more as a tool for power more than anything else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

He's like Sasse in that they're both extremely fiscally conservative, but are at least somewhat socially sensitive. They oppose Trump on trade and on his foreign policy towards dictators/autocrats and on Trump's own behavior. They are extremely anti-autocratic. If the president were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich, they would be right of them. They appear like moderates, only because they are so strongly opposed to the Trump administration, Flake especially. They are moral Republicans, but not in the "holier than thou" Closet-Lucifer-style moralism of Ted Cruz or Pat Robertson, who seem to use their faith more as a tool for power more than anything else.  

"Closet-Lucifer Style"
Nice, really nice

Also, Ted Cruz and Pat Robertson are miles apart for Social Conservatism. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

"Closet-Lucifer Style"
Nice, really nice

Also, Ted Cruz and Pat Robertson are miles apart for Social Conservatism. 

 

Admittedly, it was more poetic and concise than one of my typical rants I used to love giving on such figures, you have to give it that. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

"Closet-Lucifer Style"
Nice, really nice

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Admittedly, it was more poetic and concise than one of my typical rants I used to love giving on such figures, you have to give it that. :P

It isn’t  that original. Conservative John Boehner called him “Lucifer in the flesh”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

It is that original. Conservative John Boehner called him “Lucifer in the flesh”

Boehner also believes in a theory I personally believe, too - that Trump entered the 2015 Republican Primaries as PR stunt and to help distract from his tanking reality show career and upcoming lawsuits about his fraudulent college, not at all intending to win at all, and ended up gaining far more fraction than he truly expected - even surprising himself - but his ego, narcissism, and arrogance prevented him from backing out of a job he didn't REALLY want and wasn't REALLY prepared for. In fact, Boehner claims Trump promised Melania at the start of his campaign that is all for show and she'd never have to live in the White House - which is why, Boehner, says, Melania looks so miserable and avoids being seen with Trump so often since he was elected. It all makes sense, in a way, if you think about it.

*Awaits junior high-calibre blow-off with no thought or content from @ThePotatoWalrus for this statement*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Boehner also believes in a theory I personally believe, too - that Trump entered the 2015 Republican Primaries as PR stunt and to help distract from his tanking reality show career and upcoming lawsuits about his fraudulent college, not at all intending to win at all, and ended up gaining far more fraction than he truly expected - even surprising himself - but his ego, narcissism, and arrogance prevented him from backing out of a job he didn't REALLY want and wasn't REALLY prepared for. In fact, Boehner claims Trump promised Melania at the start of his campaign that is all for show and she'd never have to live in the White House - which is why, Boehner, says, Melania looks so miserable and avoids being seen with Trump so often since he was elected. It all makes sense, in a way, if you think about it.

*Awaits junior high-calibre blow-off with no thought or content from @ThePotatoWalrus for this statement*

I can totally buy this

14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Thanks!

In all seriousness though, I think Cruz is divorced from Robertson's "holier than thou" approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Boehner also believes in a theory I personally believe, too - that Trump entered the 2015 Republican Primaries as PR stunt and to help distract from his tanking reality show career and upcoming lawsuits about his fraudulent college, not at all intending to win at all, and ended up gaining far more fraction than he truly expected - even surprising himself - but his ego, narcissism, and arrogance prevented him from backing out of a job he didn't REALLY want and wasn't REALLY prepared for. In fact, Boehner claims Trump promised Melania at the start of his campaign that is all for show and she'd never have to live in the White House - which is why, Boehner, says, Melania looks so miserable and avoids being seen with Trump so often since he was elected. It all makes sense, in a way, if you think about it.

*Awaits junior high-calibre blow-off with no thought or content from @ThePotatoWalrus for this statement*

I've heard of that too. Although, Trump doesn't like to appear as a "loser," which makes that theory kind of weak. It's possible that he saw it as a Win-Win. I do think he probably promised Melania she wouldn't have to live in the White House anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I can totally buy this

In all seriousness though, I think Cruz is divorced from Robertson's "holier than thou" approach.

I'm more inclined to believe that Robertson legitimately thinks he's doing the Lord's work than Cruz. I think Cruz would convert to Islam to advance his political career if the demographic favored that conversion. We haven't seen a politician seeping with Cruz's ambition since LBJ. I think if LBJ were alive today, he would be a Republican and operate just as Cruz does, including using Christianity as a primary tool for personal political advancement and defense. 

Matthew 6:6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. 6But when you pray, go into yourinner room, shut your door, and pray to yourFather, who is unseen. And your Father, whosees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Jesus clearly doesn't like showboating. 

I forgot where it is, but it is implied that Satan would appear like a man of faith. This is where I think Cruz gets all the Lucifer comments from people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine

Seems implausible to me. Consider the time and money Trump put into his campaign. Consider the highly inflammatory comments he made at the *start*, and the intense backlash he received because of it - yet, he remained in the race. IMHO, he was studying and preparing for a run for decades. His run shows the hallmarks of a high level of political skill and instinct, not a bumbling fool who happened to luck out by defeating 16 highly skilled opponents (top Governors, Senators, and so on) and then the Clinton machine.

If you thought Trump had such a huge ego and arrogance, why would he be *surprised* by his success? It doesn't make sense. Instead, his ego led him to think he *could* win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched a fair amount of footage including Melania Trump. She generally appears poised and confident. Often she appears happy. You are probably watching cherry-picked footage if it displays her as 'miserable'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@Patine

Seems implausible to me. Consider the time and money Trump put into his campaign. Consider the highly inflammatory comments he made at the *start*, and the intense backlash he received because of it - yet, he remained in the race. IMHO, he was studying and preparing for a run for decades. His run shows the hallmarks of a high level of political skill and instinct, not a bumbling fool who happened to luck out by defeating 16 highly skilled opponents (top Governors, Senators, and so on) and then the Clinton machine.

If you thought Trump had such a huge ego and arrogance, why would he be *surprised* by his success? It doesn't make sense. Instead, his ego led him to think he *could* win.

I think it was moreso the zeitgeist that allowed Trump to win, not his specific message or skill. A huge chunk of the American populace wanted an outsider to come into Washington and "clean up," but there was no strong consensus on what qualities or platform such an outsider would have, except for being markedly different than a career politician, but having a veneer and façade of leadership (accomplished by confidence and a business background, not true political acumen or leadership in the way of statesmanship). His big advantage is that he filled a niche - the charismatic, confident political outsider - that had been screamed out for by many since Clinton was in office, more or less, with increasing demand, and all he had to do was "act the part."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to separate Trump's being a political outsider from his message during the campaign, which was all about being a political outsider. He didn't just fill the role (Fiorina and Carson also tried to fill it, but failed), he did it extremely well. So well that he wrapped up the Republican nomination before Clinton wrapped up the Democratic one, despite Clinton's only meaningful opposition being a geriatric socialist from Vermont (and I say this liking Sanders' persona).

I think you're right, though, that being charismatic (celebrity) and a political outsider were very important parts of his campaign - but I would add that he *knew* this, and it was part of why he ran at the time he did and in the way he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, vcczar said:

m more inclined to believe that Robertson legitimately thinks he's doing the Lord's work than Cruz. I think Cruz would convert to Islam to advance his political career if the demographic favored that conversion. We haven't seen a politician seeping with Cruz's ambition since LBJ. I think if LBJ were alive today, he would be a Republican and operate just as Cruz does, including using Christianity as a primary tool for personal political advancement and defense. 

I think you're attributing boatloads of bad faith to Cruz that you not only are not allowed to do in intelligent debate but that undermines civility. Cruz doesn't even use faith and religion that much in his politics. Robertson does. Cruz has often said how the Constitution supersedes personal social conservatism, just like in myself, and his body of work upholds that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I think you're attributing boatloads of bad faith to Cruz that you not only are not allowed to do in intelligent debate but that undermines civility. Cruz doesn't even use faith and religion that much in his politics. Robertson does. Cruz has often said how the Constitution supersedes personal social conservatism, just like in myself, and his body of work upholds that.

I lived in Cruz era Texas from 2013-2017, I had to see him daily on the TV. He definitely exploits religion for personal gain, and I'd say he probably does so more than any other Senator. You are right, he'll use the Constitution more than he does religion, but he'll switch to his "religion trick" when he needs to. He would come off as more sincerely faithful if he just didn't bring it up (at least not as frequently as he does), except when asked personal questions about his faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I lived in Cruz era Texas from 2013-2017, I had to see him daily on the TV. He definitely exploits religion for personal gain, and I'd say he probably does so more than any other Senator. You are right, he'll use the Constitution more than he does religion, but he'll switch to his "religion trick" when he needs to. He would come off as more sincerely faithful if he just didn't bring it up (at least not as frequently as he does), except when asked personal questions about his faith. 

I don't think there is anything wrong with invoking your faith to justify or explain political issues, and I don't think there is much to label him ingenuous about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@Patine

Seems implausible to me. Consider the time and money Trump put into his campaign. Consider the highly inflammatory comments he made at the *start*, and the intense backlash he received because of it - yet, he remained in the race. IMHO, he was studying and preparing for a run for decades. His run shows the hallmarks of a high level of political skill and instinct, not a bumbling fool who happened to luck out by defeating 16 highly skilled opponents (top Governors, Senators, and so on) and then the Clinton machine.

If you thought Trump had such a huge ego and arrogance, why would he be *surprised* by his success? It doesn't make sense. Instead, his ego led him to think he *could* win.

I agree with you in all of this, except for the political skill and instinct part. I think he had people doing that part for him (Bannon, Kushner, Giuliani, etc). I also think he defeated his opponents mainly because there were way more mainstream candidates than there were populists. Fiorina wasn't really that populist; although she was an outsider. Choosing between Trump and Carson would be rather simple for voters. I think if the primary had been Trump vs Rubio after Iowa, then Trump would have probably lost. Had Christie not had his major scandal, I think Christie would have destroyed Trump. Cruz would have probably beat Trump. I think Kasich would have too, one-on-one, but I think that would have been a closer match (Kasich would have veered right). I think Trump would have beat Jeb Bush, one-on-one, I'll give him that. I think anyone with Trump's money and Trump's populism would have beaten 16 candidates that were mostly splitting each other's vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with invoking your faith to justify or explain political issues, and I don't think there is much to label him ingenuous about it.

There's a difference between elaborating that faith helps you make your decisions and facilitates your views from broadcasting your religion in a way that implies that the other candidate is not a person of faith. That isn't Christian; that is Satanic. I've seen Cruz routinely do that and imply that about Democrats, candidate or the party in general. Overwhelming, Democratic politicians are active Christians, just like Republicans. I agree with Boehner Cruz is a "miserable S. O. B." and "Lucifer in the flesh." Part of me doubts Cruz is even really religious at all, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I've had my say about this. I didn't return to the forum to get back into these circular arguments, even if I provoked it this time. Just note, I will not speak kindly on Cruz in any sense. I have zero respect or tolerance for him, and I feel sorry for the people fooled by him. I'd accept a life-term from Trump before I allowed Cruz to serve a single term, and Trump my 3rd least favorite politician (Pence is second).  I don't like anyone that broadcasts their faith (or lack thereof) in an attempt to score points with it, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, etc. I understand some people like politicians to bring up their faith, but they should be turned off from a politician when they operate more like a "pharisee. (see my Mathew 6:6 quote)"

I'm done with this debate. I don't want to have a stroke arguing about the anthropomorphized brain tumor of the US Senate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

There's a difference between elaborating that faith helps you make your decisions and facilitates your views from broadcasting your religion in a way that implies that the other candidate is not a person of faith. That isn't Christian; that is Satanic. I've seen Cruz routinely do that and imply that about Democrats, candidate or the party in general. Overwhelming, Democratic politicians are active Christians, just like Republicans. I agree with Boehner Cruz is a "miserable S. O. B." and "Lucifer in the flesh." Part of me doubts Cruz is even really religious at all, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I've had my say about this. I didn't return to the forum to get back into these circular arguments, even if I provoked it this time. Just note, I will not speak kindly on Cruz in any sense. I have zero respect or tolerance for him, and I feel sorry for the people fooled by him. I'd accept a life-term from Trump before I allowed Cruz to serve a single term, and Trump my 3rd least favorite politician (Pence is second).  I don't like anyone that broadcasts their faith (or lack thereof) in an attempt to score points with it, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, etc. I understand some people like politicians to bring up their faith, but they should be turned off from a politician when they operate more like a "pharisee. (see my Mathew 6:6 quote)"

I'm done with this debate. I don't want to have a stroke arguing about the anthropomorphized brain tumor of the US Senate. 

That's unfortunate, even I wouldn't call Bernie or Warren a tumor or Satan as catastrophic I'd believe they be. It's unfortunate that such incivility can exist and pervade people's minds on the leaders of our nation. I think that the language used here is bombastic and totally uncalled for. Even as I have my own personal punching bags in politics, I'd never ascribe to them such evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vcczar said:

There's a difference between elaborating that faith helps you make your decisions and facilitates your views from broadcasting your religion in a way that implies that the other candidate is not a person of faith. That isn't Christian; that is Satanic. I've seen Cruz routinely do that and imply that about Democrats, candidate or the party in general. Overwhelming, Democratic politicians are active Christians, just like Republicans. I agree with Boehner Cruz is a "miserable S. O. B." and "Lucifer in the flesh." Part of me doubts Cruz is even really religious at all, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I've had my say about this. I didn't return to the forum to get back into these circular arguments, even if I provoked it this time. Just note, I will not speak kindly on Cruz in any sense. I have zero respect or tolerance for him, and I feel sorry for the people fooled by him. I'd accept a life-term from Trump before I allowed Cruz to serve a single term, and Trump my 3rd least favorite politician (Pence is second).  I don't like anyone that broadcasts their faith (or lack thereof) in an attempt to score points with it, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, etc. I understand some people like politicians to bring up their faith, but they should be turned off from a politician when they operate more like a "pharisee. (see my Mathew 6:6 quote)"

I'm done with this debate. I don't want to have a stroke arguing about the anthropomorphized brain tumor of the US Senate. 

 

28 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

That's unfortunate, even I wouldn't call Bernie or Warren a tumor or Satan as catastrophic I'd believe they be. It's unfortunate that such incivility can exist and pervade people's minds on the leaders of our nation. I think that the language used here is bombastic and totally uncalled for. Even as I have my own personal punching bags in politics, I'd never ascribe to them such evil.

Forgive me if I don't wade into this quagmire like I know I certainly would have a couple months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

"I think anyone with Trump's money and Trump's populism would have beaten 16 candidates that were mostly splitting each other's vote."

Yes, I agree that his personal funds gave him flexibility and resources the other candidates didn't have (even Bush, who raised a huge amount and spent much more than Trump), and that his populism helped him. But, he chose a populist message, so it was part of his strategy, and other candidates could have tried a populist tack (and some did) but didn't or didn't as successfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...