02-08-2017, 05:28 PM
(02-08-2017, 04:46 PM)David Horn Wrote:(02-07-2017, 04:53 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:(02-07-2017, 04:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.
... or not. He's still leading a minority charge, and part of the minority has stated their interest in him and his ideas are all about themselves, their lives and, most importantly, their jobs. He still has to deliver on something that is highly unlikely to happen.
Whereas all people on the other side are motivated solely by a higher purpose? It's always a minority that is active. It is a minority actively opposing him. It is a minority actively supporting him. That's how politics works, always has.
If he succeeds, or if his election was the catalyst for a coalition that opposes him and goes on to succeed itself, that could be the social moment. Or, it could be something else, in which case Trump's election and subsequent success or failure is not terribly important.
Did you have a point other than virtue-signalling again?
My only point is the limited base he leads is not supported by other, less dedicated supporters with a similar bent. Their loyalty is fungible, so another bright shining star can pull away enough support to leave the Trumpster with too little political support to maintain discipline, to say nothing of getting reelected.
There is a lot of instability at play right now. All the bravado and brash Tweets are hiding it, but it's still there. The regular GOPpers are not going to commit political suicide if things start going bad. We haven't seen a crisis response from this team yet, but a crisis is almost certain to occur. We'll know a lot more then.
Please define what you consider his "limited base", and what "other, less dedicated supporters" are supposed to look like.
Quote:I'm not sure what would push the country far enough to try ACW 2.0, but we're not even close at the moment.
Yeah, I've long been skeptical of the ACW 2.0 thesis, too. I don't think it impossible, but there are a lot of intervening steps that would have to take place between here and there.
Who would be the sides? Over what issue? How many of the people running their mouths now would actually be willing to pick up a rifle and kill other people over said issue(s)? What would the (desired) end-state be?