[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[xyloscissor]

One was a community organizer in Chicago while the other inherited a fortune from his father, neither of those things scream out great presidential material.

Obama stuck to his promise to be pretty far left, lets see if Trump can stay to the right as he promised. I think he will and other than that I don't think we can hold either one to unobtainable promises.

 

[eran0004]

How is not about polarization? He went from the most approved president of all time to the least approved. It was a swing from positive to negative and a vast majority of people that supported him stopped doing so based on his actions.

Because polarisation is about dividing a group of people. In simplified terms: you have a big group who really loves you and another big group who really hates you and very few people somewhere in between. These two big groups causes a lot of friction in society since they have extremely different opinions.

In Bush's case he went from being almost unanimously approved to being almost unanimously disapproved. That is a change in public opinion, over time and not a case of polarisation. The people went from one pole to the other but they were not divided by the two poles.

While I agree Trump isn't popular, I think it's largely due to a media portrayal that is less than truthful. He's an ass, that's not even something I think even the most harden Trump supporter could argue, but in terms of not being able to do the job of President, I think people are way to quick to judge someone that hasn't even started the process of governing yet.

I watched several of the debates and he never once came across to me as well prepared, not for the debate and not for his policy. He spent most of the time attacking opponents and very little time talking about his own plans and more importantly why his plans would work. The typical response to "what's your plan on...?" was "it's going to be beautiful, we're going to do such a good job and Clinton should go to jail."

Obama did run on such a platform, and that's why he won. He ran on the platform that he was going to end the wars, not tax the middle class, stop the "revolving door of lobbyist in Washington", and form a single payer health plan. This was something the presidents prior to him weren't promising and Obama failed on every single one of them. This is exactly why so many millennials voted for him, they didn't see him as the same candidate their parents voted for.

Populism and anti-establishment is not about proposing new policies, it's about offering simple fixes for complex problems, playing on people's emotions (often their fears) and attacking the ruling elite and the intellectual elite.

Trump isn't unique, he's full of himself and is making promises that he can't keep...just like every other president.

He is also a human, just like any other president before him. That doesn't make the other differences go away. I say "his X is different than others" and you say "no because his Y is the same". It's like saying:

"A bus is different from a car because it's much bigger and can transport more people."

"No, because they both have wheels and an engine, so there is no difference."

"But it isn't the wheels and the engine that makes them different. It's the size and the seating capacity."

"But look at the wheels! They both have wheels! There is no difference between a car and a bus and that is a fact! Stop it already!"

Politicians are always going to be the same no matter how "anti-establishment" they claim to be.

But would those who voted for him just to teach the establishment a lesson still support him when it turns out that he's no better, or even worse?

So I just learned that for some reason Iran's 70's coup was in the same herald of light as three elected dictators...

Good for you. You should read more about Iran, because just like the other three dictators I mentioned he had a tremendous support from the people, which is what allowed the revolution to happen.

Unlike those countries, the US has an armed population that isn't afraid to fight oppression if need be. If anyone was going to attempted to form and authoritarian rule over the US, their first thing would be to disarm the population and that will never happen.

Sure, or you can get the population on your side and make them use their weapons against the enemy and then you have a civil war followed (if successful) by a revolution.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Good for you. You should read more about Iran, because just like the other three dictators I mentioned he had a tremendous support from the people, which is what allowed the revolution to happen.

Not sure how foreign sarcasm is to you, but he had support because the person before him wasn't any better. If the U.S. had left well enough alone rather than having an oil baron in their back pocket from the OPEC region, then we might not have a massive enemy into days world or even back then. So no the circumstances are different in to his rise, just no better in the end when compared to the others you mentioned. None of which Trump seems to be heading toward in the slightest. So we're back to inane thought again...

I'm just curious what outlet do you get your info from, or what causes you to form such deep fringe thoughts, to where no big of discussion can help you actually think critically about the situation, other than what you already believe it as no matter what we say?

 

[xyloscissor]

The statistical likelihood of the U.S. having a revolution at this time has to be very near zero and to claim it's much more likely to happen because of Trump? That is really stretching it, the man hasn't even served a day in office yet.

Boy us americans must really be misunderstood by the outside world.

 

[eran0004]

Not sure how foreign sarcasm is to you, but he had support because the person before him wasn't any better.

Really? So they didn't support him because they wanted to be oppressed? Gee, that's really odd.

If the U.S. had left well enough alone rather than having an oil baron in their back pocket from the OPEC region, then we might not have a massive enemy into days world or even back then. So no the circumstances are different in to his rise, just no better in the end when compared to the others you mentioned.

And how about reading things in their proper context:

"The constitution prohibits dictatorship, thus dictatorship can't happen in America."

"If you have the support of the people you can easily overturn the constitution."

That is what we're talking about, and that is what the dictators I mentioned all have in common. The exact details behind their rise to power is completely irrelevant, because the topic is whether or not a constitution is a solid protection against dictatorship.

I'm just curious what outlet do you get your info from, or what causes you to form such deep fringe thoughts, to where no big of discussion can help you actually think critically about the situation, other than what you already believe it as no matter what we say?

The problem is this: I present my reasoning, you and others respond with something completely different instead of pointing out whatever flaws my reasoning may have. When I say that "Trump is different because he is the first president who is populist and anti-establishment" the response is "No, he's just the same as everyone else because he is not the first president who is different" as if that was the point I had made. If you don't agree that he is the first populist and anti-establishment president you have two options:

1. Give an example of some other president who can be considered populist and anti-establishment.
2. Provide reasons why Trump shouldn't be considered populist and anti-establishment.

The statistical likelihood of the U.S. having a revolution at this time has to be very near zero and to claim it's much more likely to happen because of Trump? That is really stretching it, the man hasn't even served a day in office yet.

What statistics do you base that on? Past revolutions?

Trump has no respect for political opponents, many of his supporters have no respect for political opponents, some of his opponents regard the election as illegitimate either due to the popular vote or due to suspected Russian interference, some of his supporters believes that there is a media conspiracy against him, the nation becomes more and more polarised because of Trump's populist rethorics and because of sloppy journalism. I'm not saying that the tensions have reached the breaking point at this time, but it's heading in that direction and sooner or later all it'd take is a little spark before things go boom. With all the guns in circulation there are plenty of potential spark plugs around. If it comes to that, the constitution would offer no protection what so ever.

 

[xyloscissor]

@eran0004

That is laughable rhetoric and nothing more, in fact it's insulting to us. In one swoop you pretty much hate our president, our constitution, our press, am I missing anything? Our intelligence and love for one another and country. Awesome 👍

Hypotheticals and philosophical conversation is all well and good but what you are suggesting is not only wrong, if it was not so far out in left field I would consider it inciteful.

 

[eran0004]

@eran0004

That is laughable rhetoric and nothing more, in fact it's insulting to us. In one swoop you pretty much hate our president, our constitution, our press, am I missing anything? Our intelligence and love for one another and country. Awesome 👍

Hypotheticals and philosophical conversation is all well and good but what you are suggesting is not only wrong, if it was not so far out in left field I would consider it inciteful.

Feel free to point out what is wrong and why.

 

[Tornado]

Oh, now gun control has come up!

I'm just curious what outlet do you get your info from, or what causes you to form such deep fringe thoughts, to where no big of discussion can help you actually think critically about the situation, other than what you already believe it as no matter what we say?

And how that is the case no matter what the topic actually is.

 

[xyloscissor]

Feel free to point out what is wrong and why.

It doesn't matter how I respond to that, your mind is so made up you don't listen. Even when I quote the POTUS duties directly from our law, you do not listen.

There will be no revolution in this country in the next 8 years, I can't state that as fact but the chances are so low. We've lived for what 230 years without one? Here is why, we respect our constitution and place it over the willy nilly want of man, we know how bloody our civil war was, we know how dangerous it is to be armed and we like it that way for reasons I don't think you can ever understand, and....... we speak through the ballot box.

@Tornado

There is a fringe element of the left as we all know, their desire is to systematically dismantle our country and as @Joey D points out gun control is their first step. Ignoring our constitution is working in their favor and creating full on socialism is being tried but failing.

I'm sure you know these things or rather know many of us have that opinion, didn't mean to rant at you

 

[Tornado]

I'm kind of surprised someone who said this:

Holocaust: It was considered morally right because they believed that there was an international Jewish conspiracy and that it was a threat against the goal of building a powerful aryan nation. They also developed ideas that Jews were of a lesser race and thus there was no moral reason to treat them as equals.

Even has much of a problem with Trump. I mean, what could Trump even do when he totally overthrows the US Constitution that you could call negative if even Hitler can skate because of a loophole?

 

[eran0004]

It doesn't matter how I respond to that, your mind is so made up you don't listen. Even when I quote the POTUS duties directly from our law, you do not listen.

I listened and responded: The POTUS duties and the influence that the POTUS has in politics is not the same thing. The POTUS duties you listed are what the POTUS can do on his own. But the POTUS doesn't stop there, because he also influences the policy that his party pursues so although it's technically not the POTUS who cast the votes in congress it doesn't mean that he has no influence on what happens there.

There will be no revolution in this country in the next 8 years, I can't state that as fact but the chances are so low. We've lived for what 230 years without one? Here is why, we respect our constitution and place it over the willy nilly want of man, we know how bloody our civil war was, we know how dangerous it is to be armed and we like it that way for reasons I don't think you can ever understand, and....... we speak through the ballot box.

Hopefully you're right, but the trend is worrying. A polarised society is not a good thing. A polarised society with guns is even worse.

 

[xyloscissor]

I think you just proved what I was saying to be correct, the president doesn't have the power to levy tax does he? Technically we all have an influence on our congress because we vote them in 💡

We've always been polarised, we live in a two party system 💡

Here we go with the guns, that shows very clearly to me that you have no respect for our constitution.

Maybe this site can help you understand how The United States was founded and how it operates today. http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html

 

[Famine]

Give an example of some other president who can be considered populist and anti-establishment.

Define what you consider 'establishment'.

 

[polysmut]

Here we go with the guns, that shows very clearly to me that you have no respect for our constitution.

Does that mean that a State in the US with gun control laws also has no respect for the Constitution?

 

[Tornado]

That's what the last Supreme Court case on the matter suggested, yes.

 

[xyloscissor]

Does that mean that a State in the US with gun control laws also has no respect for the Constitution?

That is a double edge but I'd say yes, it's a very sticky subject the powers of state but I don't read the constitution as allowing a state to disarm it's citizens at all.

 

[eran0004]

Define what you consider 'establishment'.

This is a good definition:

Trump’s central message, repeated over and over, is that the establishment is rigged, broken, and corrupt, and filled with rules and ideas that are un-American and enacted by incompetents. By the “establishment”, I am using the word in two senses. First, I mean the established values of the cosmopolitan class, which can be characterized in terms of (academic) political correctness. The progressive left version of political correctness is the idea that many of society’s ills stem from injustices based in hierarchies based on sex/gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation and that we must work to change those inequities. The Trump campaign has, as a central message, the idea that this kind of political correctness has gone way too far and needs to be pushed back.

The second meaning of the term “establishment” is in regards to the current political establishment regarding rules of decorum, party alignment, ideology, and the need to play along at least somewhat with the existing structures and expectations of governance. Trump, of course, frequently embraces being an outsider and has regularly promoted the claim that what is needed is someone who has business sense, rather than the knowledge (and constraints and commitments) of a Washington insider. And, true to form, he has run an extremely unconventional campaign, in terms of organization, key players, and messaging. But even more striking has been the way the candidate himself has repeatedly behaved in a blatantly anti-establishment fashion (for classic examples, see here, here and here). From the perspective of a traditional establishment politician or from the view of a politically correct cosmopolitan, these represent dramatic departures from what is justifiable. However, these actions not only did not hurt Trump with his supporters, but often strengthened his support. Why? Because they embodied the anti-establishment movement that Trump was tapping into with the cultural traditionalists.

 

[Famine]

This is a good definition:

There's two definitions there. One of them is a ludicrous use of the word (how can 'the establishment' mean 'values'?) and the other uses the word as part of its own definition - but is more reasonable at least.

So can I assume that by 'establishment' you mean the latter definition of 'the current rules and structures of government'?

 

[eran0004]

There's two definitions there. One of them is a ludicrous use of the word (how can 'the establishment' mean 'values'?) and the other uses the word as part of its own definition - but is more reasonable at least.

So can I assume that by 'establishment' you mean the latter definition of 'the current rules and structures of government'?

Both definitions, but for increased clarity we can call the first one "establishment values".

 

[xyloscissor]

Both definitions, but for increased clarity we can call the first one "establishment values".

Am I to understand you are afraid that Trump doesn't respect the establishment as you've just defined? If so why are you so easy to dismiss our first establishment?

Trump is not far off of the latter

Let's go with this, the preamble is more important anyway and I'm not sure you'll even read the rest.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Is it ok to accept this as establishment?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Oh, amendment II for @S_Bridge

 

[eran0004]

Am I to understand you are afraid that Trump doesn't respect the establishment as you've just defined? If so why are you so easy to dismiss our first establishment?

Trump is not far off of the latter

No, that would not be correct. This is just to clarify what "anti-establishment" refers to, which is not about "being different" from the establishment, it means that you are actively against the establishment.

What do you mean by "our first establishment"?

 

[xyloscissor]

Sorry I edited it in, but you are making less sense by the moment. Our country was established, get this now, by our constitution. I am asking you if you think Trump is against the words I just posted above. 👍

 

[Famine]

Both definitions, but for increased clarity we can call the first one "establishment values".

The problem with the definition as quoted is that it asserts that establishment values are political correctness and broadly left-leaning politics, which is both wrong and wrong. Both the Democrat Party and Republican Party are fiscally conservative (right of centre) and socially authoritarian (something often lazily termed as right-wing), and 'political correctness' is a fairly vapid and meaningless phrase which hasn't even been in use all that long - at best the 1970s, but really a terribly millennial thing - so hardly establishment values of a 220-year old nation.

However, if we are exceptionally kind to the definition and say that the current establishment values are left-leaning, politically correct and metropolitan (which they aren't anyway), they themselves must have been anti-establishment when mooted, as the current establishment values of the time were not left-leaning, politically correct and metropolitan. By the definition that having a platform contrary to the current dogma is anti-establishment, anyone who campaigns from the other party to the sitting executive and/or legislative branch is 'anti-establishment', so that's not a helpful definition for your position that it's uniquely Trump.

Perhaps we need a longer-term definition for 'establishment values' then? Luckily, the USA has a document detailing its values from its inception - the Constitution. Was Trump's platform against the Constitution? I don't think that it was - though I'm pretty sure that both HR Clinton and Obama had platforms that included goals to challenge, ignore or repeal some of it.


That moves us on to 'the current rules and structures of government'. Again, the Constitution is at the core of that argument, so we've already partially covered that above. I don't think Trump wanted to challenge the structure - legislative, judicial, executive - of government, but his comments about 'draining the swamp' certainly suggest a populist challenge against the gravy train of career politics, so you're almost certainly looking at rules being challenged. I'd say that, on this front, Trump is anti-establishment.

Is that uniquely Trump? Well...

These are not just policy failures. They are failures of a broken politics – a politics that rewards self-interest over the common interest and the short-term over the long-term, that puts our government at the service of the powerful. A politics that creates a state-of-the-art system for doling out favors and shuts out the voice of the American people.

So, we come together not only to replace this President and his party – and not only to offer policies that will undo the damage they have wrought. Today, we pledge a return to core moral principles like stewardship, service to others, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all – values that emanate from the integrity and optimism of our Founders and generations of Americans since.

...

Americans have been promised change before. And too often we have been disappointed. We believe we must change not just our policies, but our politics as well. We cannot keep doing the same things and expect to get different results.

...

We will shine a light on government spending and Washington lobbying – so that every American is empowered to be a watchdog and a whistle blower. We are the party of inclusion and respect differences of perspective and belief. And so, even when we disagree, we will work together to move this country forward. There can be no Republican or Democratic ideas, only policies that are smart and right and fair and good for America – and those that aren't.

I like the first sentence of the last paragraph particularly, given what the speaker did to whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

Nevertheless, that speech is heavy on attacking the current rules of government in a really quite impressively similar manner to Trump's swamp-draining, eight short years later. But then Obama's entire 2008 platform was based on Hope and Change - and that 'Change' was what he promised to do to the government.

I'd say that, on this front, Obama was anti-establishment too. So that's not uniquely Trump either.


I think that the only basis you have for saying Trump's anti-establishment position is different or special is that he is anti-establishment from the outside - he's never been a governor (GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan), senator (Obama) or a congressman (GHW Bush). But then neither was Eisenhower, and he was so anti-establishment that he ended McCarthyism, built the interstate network and expanded social security, and spoke against bloated military spending despite being a career military man and a five star general...

 

[xyloscissor]

Perhaps we can pick some arbitrary point in time of corruption and call that the acceptable establishment?

I'll give an overly simple example of the sorts of things that Trump is tired of seeing, it's just an example or metaphor. Lets say the congress decides they need a bill stating farmers can only transport 20 pigs a day across state lines, they can do that. Now some "establishment" type is in the power of the swing vote and decides he/she will only sign the bill if it includes a provision to make yellow cheese from Alaska the only cheese allowed across state lines. That bill is going to wind up on his desk one way or another.

Is it not fair to say he's tired of something as simple as a rider or some pork barrel? A very simple explanation and maybe not so good but if that is the sort of "establishment" he is speaking of, more power to him to say it's not business as usual.

 

[Touring Mars]

One reason why Trump might appear more 'anti-establishment' than he actually is lies in the comparison between himself and his opponents - firstly from within the GOP and latterly from Hillary Clinton - but in Clinton he was gifted an opponent that could practically be found under 'Establishment' in the dictionary. I believe that several GOP candidates might have been considered as 'anti-establishment' in comparison to HRC, but arguably it was only Trump who firmly asserted himself as being both a GOP outsider and a vehement critic of Clinton with the actual capability of hammering home the message - in other words, Clinton probably would have beaten a weaker opponent, but in the end she got trounced by Trump not because he positioned himself as particularly anti-establishment per se, but because he successfully portrayed Clinton as the embodiment of 'the establishment'.

 

[Famine]

I believe that several GOP candidates might have been considered as 'anti-establishment' in comparison to HRC

Like Ted Cruz, who just a week ago proposed an Amendment to the Constitution to set term limits on Congress.

Oddly, the Republicans tried that before too, in 1994. It didn't get the required two-thirds majority vote at the time.

 

[mustafur]

Obama was anti estabishment with his wording but the party rallied behind him, and his term pretty much reflected a moderate party line term far from what he promised.

Trump on the other hand was anti estabishment with his wording and the party really still struggles with his appointment today, i guess we will see how that goes once he has actually done something but it's more of a change then Obama in that regard.

At the end of the day we really need something to go off to get any more information at this point.

The term establishment atleast for me is republocrat politics, where a large some of politicians on both sides are bought off by the same donors creating an "establishment standard".

Even following the consitution at this point to the tee would be against this establishment given how many admendments have been side stepped with this line of politics.

 

[Joey D]

Because polarisation is about dividing a group of people. In simplified terms: you have a big group who really loves you and another big group who really hates you and very few people somewhere in between. These two big groups causes a lot of friction in society since they have extremely different opinions.

In Bush's case he went from being almost unanimously approved to being almost unanimously disapproved. That is a change in public opinion, over time and not a case of polarisation. The people went from one pole to the other but they were not divided by the two poles.

I'm still not seeing it, but there's obviously no convincing you that going from the most approved of president, to the least approved president is polarizing.

I watched several of the debates and he never once came across to me as well prepared, not for the debate and not for his policy. He spent most of the time attacking opponents and very little time talking about his own plans and more importantly why his plans would work. The typical response to "what's your plan on...?" was "it's going to be beautiful, we're going to do such a good job and Clinton should go to jail."

If you watched the debates then you must also agree that Hillary also had no idea what the hell she was on about and was more less just doing what Trump was doing. The debates were like watching two elementary school kids arguing, if one of them called the other a "stupid doo-doo head that smells bad" or broke out the age old "my dad could beat up your dad", it really wouldn't have surprised me.

Neither candidate was worth anything and going into the election it was pretty clear the only thing they were preaching for votes was that they "weren't the other guy".

Populism and anti-establishment is not about proposing new policies, it's about offering simple fixes for complex problems, playing on people's emotions (often their fears) and attacking the ruling elite and the intellectual elite.

Populism and anti-establishment thinking have nothing to do with proposing simple fixes. Populism is telling people what they want to hear (or at least think what they want to hear) and anti-establishment thinking is showing how much you're unlike the norm. Obama did both, one of his main messages during his campaign was that he was going to end the war in Iraq because frankly most of America was tired of the cost, both financially and with human life, of the war. He also showed that he was going to go against the grain and attempt to be more like Europe with universal healthcare coverage. He failed on both and were just empty promises.

The only person during this election cycle who was truly anti-establishment was Bernie Sanders and his half-baked ideas.

He is also a human, just like any other president before him. That doesn't make the other differences go away. I say "his X is different than others" and you say "no because his Y is the same".

Trump is a liar, full of himself, thinks he's right, puts his cronies in power with him, and hates all the last guy's policies. I see no difference with Trump then I did with Obama, he's just saying a bunch of meaningless things to get some of the country on his side and will never actually go through with any of it. The likelihood of there ever being a wall is super low, planned parenthood will no be dissolved, Muslims won't be banned from entering the US, and so on. Just like Obama never managed to take our guns like he said.

If you think Trump is somehow special or different, then you really don't know anything about US politics. The only thing different he's doing is using social media to address the people directly instead of tiptoeing through whatever channels.

But would those who voted for him just to teach the establishment a lesson still support him when it turns out that he's no better, or even worse?

Some will, most won't. Same with Obama, those who thought he'd be different than Bush voted for him the first time around, the second time around many people saw through his BS, but Romney wasn't exactly a better choice so once again they voted for the "lesser of two evils". It was also important to note the black community, who statistically doesn't vote in elections, voted for Obama which is a sizable chunk of our population in more urban areas and definitely helped him win states with large electoral vote counts.

The problem is this: I present my reasoning, you and others respond with something completely different instead of pointing out whatever flaws my reasoning may have. When I say that "Trump is different because he is the first president who is populist and anti-establishment" the response is "No, he's just the same as everyone else because he is not the first president who is different" as if that was the point I had made. If you don't agree that he is the first populist and anti-establishment president you have two options:

1. Give an example of some other president who can be considered populist and anti-establishment.
2. Provide reasons why Trump shouldn't be considered populist and anti-establishment.

We have given you examples of another president, you just choose to ignore it.

Trump has no respect for political opponents, many of his supporters have no respect for political opponents, some of his opponents regard the election as illegitimate either due to the popular vote or due to suspected Russian interference, some of his supporters believes that there is a media conspiracy against him, the nation becomes more and more polarised because of Trump's populist rethorics and because of sloppy journalism. I'm not saying that the tensions have reached the breaking point at this time, but it's heading in that direction and sooner or later all it'd take is a little spark before things go boom. With all the guns in circulation there are plenty of potential spark plugs around. If it comes to that, the constitution would offer no protection what so ever.

Why should Trump respect other political opponents when they don't respect him? And really why should any Trump supporters have any respect for Trump's political opponents when they often brand Trump's supporters are inbreed rednecks who love God, cheap beer, NASCAR, guns, being racist, and good old fashioned 'Murican Freedom? I didn't vote for Trump, but I get lumped in with Trump supporters because I thought Hillary Clinton was one of the worst candidates to ever attempt to run for president. I can assure you while I love cheap beer, guns, and freedom, I'm not a redneck, a racist, a believer of God, or even really fond of NASCAR...I do own a pickup truck though so I'm sure that puts me in some category.

Also, it's not really a media conspiracy against Trump, it's most of a blatantly obvious dislike of him fueled by questionable reporting and extreme bias. If you can't see that, then you're ignoring what's being said and only hearing what you want to hear. Clinton was the media's darling and CNN did everything they could to skew everything they reported about the election in her favor. If Wolf Blitzer would have come out and said "you know Trump is literally the love child of Hitler and Satan and Clinton is Jesus reincarnated to bring peace on Earth" I wouldn't have been shocked in the slightest.

 

[PeterJB]

The people that keep labelling Trump as a racist, sexist Nazi would probably have no answer if you asked them which of his policies they don't particularly like. Most of them struggle to even source what it is that makes him one of those labels...

 

[Northstar]

Most of them struggle to even source what it is that makes him one of those labels...

I'm beginning to thing some don't even know what those labels mean, let alone what makes those labels fit Trump.