The GOP and the Country, Post-Trump

[Standing Wolf]

I trace a large measure of the increased incivility in political discourse in America to the advent of "talk radio", which really came into its own in the '80s...because it teaches its listeners that it's acceptable/desirable to rant, be emotional and engage in baiting and insults, and it reinforces those divisive, antisocial tendencies by making the listener feel like part of an "in the know", politically savvy clique.

As more and more members of the general public have come to accept such conduct as "normal", there has been a corresponding ramping up of such explosive, often childish rhetoric among seekers after political office, their critics and their supporters - first at the local level, and more and more, of late, at the national.

The voting public has always expected its candidates, pundits and media commentators to tell them what they wanted to hear - but, with few exceptions, they wanted those views, however strongly held, expressed in moderate, measured, thoughtful tones. It wanted them to both say the right things, and to be able to say them with some degree of objectivity and self-control. "Statesman" and "Moderate" were signs of high praise, and they described an earned reputation. Obviously, that day has passed. As others have noted, the full flower of this trend is the current Republican front-runner in the Presidential race.

I hear folks say that Trump's ascendance signals the end of the Republican Party, but I'm really not interested in addressing that, per se. My question, rather, is whether Trump's example has forever - or for the foreseeable future, at least - poisoned every public debate over political and social issues in America...not just for the Republicans, but for every party, faction and cause.

No, obviously Trump didn't bring us to this place single-handed; things were far from being all gentlemanly conduct and the formal rules of debate before his advent. However, the fact of just how uncommonly, embarrassing bombastic and cartoonish his presentation truly is, combined with the unprecedented success that he has had in spite/because of it, makes him unique...or at least unprecedented. Will the American public expect at least one candidate, if not most or all of them, to be as entertaining and unpredictable? Post-Trump, will a Mitt Romney or a John Kerry even have a prayer of gaining widespread public support from either party?

If we liken the Trump candidacy and how it has been conducted to a night of hard drinking, will the American public wake up tomorrow, when Trump is gone, vowing "never to do that again"...or thinking, "That was fun, let's do it again next weekend"?

[Cigar]

No one I know approves of the GOP behavior

[Green Arrow]

I'm not buying into the Trump fearmongering. Trump will largely preserve the status quo. He may move us quicker into an open corporate oligarchy, but that's the path we're already on and will continue on regardless of the candidate.

America has been through much worse. We survived. That's kind of our thing.

[The Xl]

I'm not buying into the Trump fearmongering. Trump will largely preserve the status quo. He may move us quicker into an open corporate oligarchy, but that's the path we're already on and will continue on regardless of the candidate.

America has been through much worse. We survived. That's kind of our thing.

Trump is clearly at odds with the establishment. The guy blamed Bush for Iraq, implied the Saudis were behind 911, and is killing their trade policy. It's fine not to like the guy, but he's shining a light on many issues that the status quo wouldn't appreciate.

[Mac-7]

I trace a large measure of the increased incivility in political discourse in America to the advent of "talk radio", which really came into its own in the '80s...because it teaches its listeners that it's acceptable/desirable to rant, be emotional and engage in baiting and insults, and it reinforces those divisive, antisocial tendencies by making the listener feel like part of an "in the know", politically savvy clique.



It is unfair and inaccurate to blame conservative talk radio for the anger conservative voters have toward the wasgington political class.

The harm that has been done to average Americans by the politicians in washington is real not imagined.

its only normal that informed and thinking people woud be angry about it.

And conservative talk radio is the only mass media that addresses that anger.

If liberals could pull the plug on talk radio tomorrow the public would still be at odds with the ruling class.

The calm and carefully modulated LIBERAL tone of NPR feeding its listeners lies that the ruling elite want them to hear will not placate conservatives who see through those lies.

Hence the failure of the establishment in government, academia, mass liberal news media and the corporations that fund them to kill conservative talk radio.

Its still here because the problems America faces are still here.

[zelmo1234]

Here is a dirty little secret on politics? It has always been a dirty business. In the past we have had knock down drag out fights in our politics, Insults are nothing new

Blaine, Blaine, James G Blaine, continental Liar from the state of Maine was a Campaign slogan for Cleveland.

Jackson actually had an election stolen from him by congress.

There was a moderate time of nice politics in the USA, but the politicians used that time of trust to lie to the people and run up so much debt that we are doomed to have to pay for it. This has the people fed up with their government.

It remains to be seen but I believe we should be moving in a better direction. After the terrible candidates that each side has in this election, only some very special people are going to bring back trust. It remains to be seen if those people will actually step up to for the job.

[Mac-7]

Here is a dirty little secret on politics? It has always been a dirty business. In the past we have had knock down drag out fights in our politics, Insults are nothing new

Blaine, Blaine, James G Blaine, continental Liar from the state of Maine was a Campaign slogan for Cleveland.

Jackson actually had an election stolen from him by congress.

There was a moderate time of nice politics in the USA, but the politicians used that time of trust to lie to the people and run up so much debt that we are doomed to have to pay for it. This has the people fed up with their government.

It remains to be seen but I believe we should be moving in a better direction. After the terrible candidates that each side has in this election, only some very special people are going to bring back trust. It remains to be seen if those people will actually step up to for the job.

Whats so bad about Trump?

He does use bad language.

but thats nothing compared to the way America has been treated by the professional politicians for the past 30 years.

[FindersKeepers]

I trace a large measure of the increased incivility in political discourse in America to the advent of "talk radio", which really came into its own in the '80s...because it teaches its listeners that it's acceptable/desirable to rant, be emotional and engage in baiting and insults, and it reinforces those divisive, antisocial tendencies by making the listener feel like part of an "in the know", politically savvy clique.

It may well have started there. I didn't listen to it, so I can't say.

I've never experienced the rhetoric (coming from a presidential candidate) on the level it is now -- until Trump.

But, we've been building toward this and the first time I noticed truly CRUEL rhetoric toward a candidate (VP) came from the Democratic side -- toward Sarah Palin. Palin was never a good choice, but the attacks were vicious. They even spilled over into her private life -- attacked her children -- and attacked her for not aborting a "defective" Downs Syndrome child.

Yes, it was building, but after that -- all bets were off.



The voting public has always expected its candidates, pundits and media commentators to tell them what they wanted to hear - but, with few exceptions, they wanted those views, however strongly held, expressed in moderate, measured, thoughtful tones. It wanted them to both say the right things, and to be able to say them with some degree of objectivity and self-control. "Statesman" and "Moderate" were signs of high praise, and they described an earned reputation. Obviously, that day has passed. As others have noted, the full flower of this trend is the current Republican front-runner in the Presidential race.

Those days have passed, I think you're right. And, it's sad to see them go. Perhaps we were just in a "honeymoon" period, following the First World War, because there were certainly some raucous campaigns preceding that era. If you're interested in nasty campaigns, read up on the Jackson vs. Adams run-up to the 1828 election. But even our honeymoon period wasn't free from this sort of thing -- the Johnson/Goldwater campaign gives Trump a run for his money.

There's nothing new under the sun. :wink:


I hear folks say that Trump's ascendance signals the end of the Republican Party, but I'm really not interested in addressing that, per se. My question, rather, is whether Trump's example has forever - or for the foreseeable future, at least - poisoned every public debate over political and social issues in America...not just for the Republicans, but for every party, faction and cause.

I don't think so -- for the reasons I cited. We will continue to see vile campaigns mixed with more reasonable ones. Just a flip of the coin.

However, I think all political campaigns (and treatment of elected officials) moving forward, will be subject to viciousness, not because of Trump or Limbaugh, but because we, as a society, have lost all respect for positions of authority. It started in the public school system in the 70s and now it extends to law enforcement officers and all people in positions of authority. There simply is no more respect.

This has a long and sordid history, but, as far as I can tell, the real "trigger" was ushered in with the hippie era. All the nice stuff -- flowers and love and acceptance of those different from us -- came with the idea that no one was beholden to "the MAN."

Our society is a product of our society.



If we liken the Trump candidacy and how it has been conducted to a night of hard drinking, will the American public wake up tomorrow, when Trump is gone, vowing "never to do that again"...or thinking, "That was fun, let's do it again next weekend"?

Trump is just a symptom, so I vote for "let's do it again next weekend."

Folks should be paying more attention to how Trump was able to rise rather than Trump, himself, in my opinion.

The reason he's rising -- and causing dems to claim they will defect to vote for him -- is because society has taken up the "shaming" mantle and cast it upon many, many innocent citizens. Those citizens, who have been accused of clinging to "guns and bibles" or demeaned for honoring their confederate ancestors, or told they should be ashamed of their "white privileged" are pissed. They would be pissed in any era, but it just so happens they're pissed in the era of Trump.

I don't know if Trump will get much farther, but I know this nation is boiling for a catharsis from the thought police. Trump may or may not be that catharsis -- but I would bet dollars to donuts that a catharsis is coming.

This whole situation reminds me of the movie, "Field of Dreams." A large swath of society built this ballpark and now, because they built it, the players are coming.

That's how I see it, my friend.

[PNW]

It is unfair and inaccurate to blame conservative talk radio for the anger conservative voters have toward the wasgington political class.

The harm that has been done to average Americans by the politicians in washington is real not imagined.

its only normal that informed and thinking people woud be angry about it.

And conservative talk radio is the only mass media that addresses that anger.

If liberals could pull the plug on talk radio tomorrow the public would still be at odds with the ruling class.

The calm and carefully modulated LIBERAL tone of NPR feeding its listeners lies that the ruling elite want them to hear will not placate conservatives who see through those lies.

Hence the failure of the establishment in government, academia, mass liberal news media and the corporations that fund them to kill conservative talk radio.

Its still here because the problems America faces are still here.

Talk radio foments the anger, it feeds on it, it creates where it wasn't before and it has proven that time and time again.
Look at the list of the phony outrage you cons have gone through over the last 20 years, you are told to be angry about one topic then another, the list is endless.
The part that should get you angry but doesn't, is why you allow yourselves to be used that way.
All that anger over so many different things and tell me, what has come of any of it?

The further to the right this country goes the worse off we get, that is a simple fact that can not be denied.
Talk radio and conservative media is the vehicle that is driving the nation to the right and thus destroying it.

[Standing Wolf]

But, we've been building toward this and the first time I noticed truly CRUEL rhetoric toward a candidate (VP) came from the Democratic side -- toward Sarah Palin. Palin was never a good choice, but the attacks were vicious. They even spilled over into her private life -- attacked her children -- and attacked her for not aborting a "defective" Downs Syndrome child.

At the time, I remember hearing many Conservatives making that last claim - the problem is, I never heard anyone actually doing the attacking. Yes, Palin was - and continues to be, whenever she pops back up on the media radar for some other unaccountable reason - mercilessly lampooned for her ignorance, her incoherence, and for the disconnect between her support for "traditional values" and the way her family behaves in real life...but "attacked" for not aborting her baby? I hardly think what some obscure, off-kilter blogger might have written - if even that happened - can compare with a Presidential candidate getting up in front of the cameras and insulting and ridiculing minorities, the disabled, etc., etc., time and time again. I believe that was for the most part, if not entirely, the creation of the kind of people who start out saying, "I wonder what the Liberals will say about that", and two minutes later they're deciding it sounds better when they say, "Hey, look at what the Liberals are saying about that!" Sort of like Trump's dancing, post-911 New Jerseyites.

Did you happen to hear Trump's reaction yesterday when someone asked how he felt about the example he was giving young people in his public use of profanity? Rather than attempting to respond seriously to the question, he went on for a couple of minutes in this fake, smarmy voice, saying things like, "Ah, what a perfect young man you are" and accusing him and others of promoting "political correctness". Totally expected, but still embarrassing.




Those days have passed, I think you're right. And, it's sad to see them go. Perhaps we were just in a "honeymoon" period, following the First World War, because there were certainly some raucous campaigns preceding that era. If you're interested in nasty campaigns, read up on the Jackson vs. Adams run-up to the 1828 election. But even our honeymoon period wasn't free from this sort of thing -- the Johnson/Goldwater campaign gives Trump a run for his money.

I have to admit that I never heard LBJ bragging in front of the television cameras about the size of his dick - and from all accounts he had the sort of personality that would have allowed him to do just that.


The reason he's rising -- and causing dems to claim they will defect to vote for him -- is because society has taken up the "shaming" mantle and cast it upon many, many innocent citizens. Those citizens, who have been accused of clinging to "guns and bibles" or demeaned for honoring their confederate ancestors, or told they should be ashamed of their "white privileged" are pissed. They would be pissed in any era, but it just so happens they're pissed in the era of Trump.

FK, society took up the "shaming mantle" long before anyone in a position of public trust thought to cast it over the "guns and bibles" crowd. If you think about it for a minute, I believe you will know what I'm referring to. You know me - I'm as opposed to the idea or practice of "shaming" people because of their personal religious beliefs, their gun ownership, their regional heritage or the color of their skin. I'm a White gun owner, myself, and I sometimes wonder how long it will be before some activists and the media decide that the Arizona flag is a "racist" symbol, too...but there are far more mature and effective responses to those kinds of unfair and undeserved attacks than lashing out like an overtired, foul-mouthed brat.

[Peter1469]

Liberals attack talk radio because it cracked their monopoly on public thought.

Most people that I know who like talk radio say "finally, someone says what I think."


And the liberals unhinge.

[Mac-7]

Talk radio foments the anger, it feeds on it, it creates where it wasn't before and it has proven that time and time again.
Look at the list of the phony outrage you cons have gone through over the last 20 years, you are told to be angry about one topic then another, the list is endless.
The part that should get you angry but doesn't, is why you allow yourselves to be used that way.
All that anger over so many different things and tell me, what has come of any of it?

The further to the right this country goes the worse off we get, that is a simple fact that can not be denied.
Talk radio and conservative media is the vehicle that is driving the nation to the right and thus destroying it.

Spoken like a true liberal.

I agree that if the voters were uninformed or only fed bullshit by the pro government liberal news media that conservatives would be politically less powerful.

Because millions of people would be sitting alone at home thinking they were the only ones who are dissatisfied.

if your goal is a totally leftwing society then that is your defination of happiness.

but its not mine.

[Common Sense]

Liberals attack talk radio because it cracked their monopoly on public thought.

Most people that I know who like talk radio say "finally, someone says what I think."


And the liberals unhinge.

What's unhinged is the type of talk on conservative talk radio. It's highly divisive and hyperbole driven. But you can buy gold and survival gear at the commercial break, so that's cool.

[Peter1469]

What's unhinged is the type of talk on conservative talk radio. It's highly divisive and hyperbole driven. But you can buy gold and survival gear at the commercial break, so that's cool.

I don't like the spastic nature of many of the talk shows.

But that is not the point. It is what they are talking about. And it isn't liberalism and more government control over every aspect of our lives.

That is what pisses liberals off. Big time. :smiley:

[Common Sense]

I don't like the spastic nature of many of the talk shows.

But that is not the point. It is what they are talking about. And it isn't liberalism and more government control over every aspect of our lives.

That is what pisses liberals off. Big time.

Really? I live in a country with a lot of government and beyond tax time and some local bylaws, I don't feel government is involved in every aspect of my life. How are they in yours?

The "spastic nature" is the point. It's that medium that is the message. I honestly think most liberals don't give a rats ass about conservative talk radio. It doesn't really piss us off as much as make us wonder why those audiences are so angry and hysterical. Talk radio fuels that rage and inflates and exaggerates the threat of the big bad government.

[Mac-7]

Really? I live in a country with a lot of government and beyond tax time and some local bylaws, I don't feel government is involved in every aspect of my life. How are they in yours?

The "spastic nature" is the point. It's that medium that is the message. I honestly think most liberals don't give a rats ass about conservative talk radio. It doesn't really piss us off as much as make us wonder why those audiences are so angry and hysterical. Talk radio fuels that rage and inflates and exaggerates the threat of the big bad government.

The difference between a nation of patriot that fought for its freedem or a nation of docile subjects waiting patiently to be given something.

[Common Sense]

The difference between a nation of patriot that fought for its freedem or a nation of docile subjects waiting patiently to be given something.

Pffftt....give me a break.

[Mac-7]

Pffftt....give me a break.

Its your history.

canadians by nature are just not as assertive of their rights as Americans are

[Common Sense]

Its your history.

canadians by nature are just not as assertive of their rights as Americans are

I don't think you could find Canada on a labeled map.

A study out of the UK found that Canada is actually the freest country in the world.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/02/move-over-america-canada-is-the-land-of-the-free/

[Mac-7]

I don't think you could find Canada on a labeled map.

A study out of the UK found that Canada is actually the freest country in the world.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/02/move-over-america-canada-is-the-land-of-the-free/

Underestimating your enemy usually leads to trouble.

Of course you look down on the intelligence of people who do not agree with you.

Thats how liberals are able to exist as liberals.

[Peter1469]

Really? I live in a country with a lot of government and beyond tax time and some local bylaws, I don't feel government is involved in every aspect of my life. How are they in yours?

The "spastic nature" is the point. It's that medium that is the message. I honestly think most liberals don't give a rats ass about conservative talk radio. It doesn't really piss us off as much as make us wonder why those audiences are so angry and hysterical. Talk radio fuels that rage and inflates and exaggerates the threat of the big bad government.
Disagree.

Liberals hate talk radio because of the topics. Smaller and limited government. Less freebies. More personal responsibility.

[Mac-7]

Disagree.

Liberals hate talk radio because of the topics. Smaller and limited government. Less freebies. More personal responsibility.

Liberals used to control the dialog when there were only 3 major networks plus the socialist public broadcasting channel.

Now the thought nazis have lost their monopoly and it really disturbs them

[suds00]

the gop may not be killing America as we know it,but they're trying.

[Green Arrow]

the gop may not be killing America as we know it,but they're trying.

I disagree. That is more baseless rhetoric.

[PNW]

Disagree.

Liberals hate talk radio because of the topics. Smaller and limited government. Less freebies. More personal responsibility.
Public school failure.

[PNW]

the gop may not be killing America as we know it,but they're trying.
No, they are succeeding, have been for the last 40 years, saint ronnie was the beginning of the end for the USA.

[FindersKeepers]

At the time, I remember hearing many Conservatives making that last claim - the problem is, I never heard anyone actually doing the attacking.

As far as I know - it actually happened - although they claimed it was an attempt at humor. It started here - and then got out of hand, just as all character assignation of that type seems to.


Barone was speaking at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, to the 121st annual meeting of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, which calls itself the nation’s oldest higher-education association.


“The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby," Barone said, according to accounts by attendees. "They wanted her to kill that child. ... I'm talking about my media colleagues with whom I've worked for 35 years.”
Barone, a popular speaker on the paid lecture circuit, is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and principal coauthor of “The Almanac of American Politics."


About 500 people were in the room, and some walked out.
Barone did not dispute the accounts of his remarks. Asked about the comments, Barone said in an e-mail that he "was attempting to be humorous and, as many in public do, went over the line."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/barone-media-wanted-palin-abortion-015527#ixzz42Y3wW1eW (http://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/barone-media-wanted-palin-abortion-015527#ixzz42Y3wW1eW)





Did you happen to hear Trump's reaction yesterday when someone asked how he felt about the example he was giving young people in his public use of profanity? Rather than attempting to respond seriously to the question, he went on for a couple of minutes in this fake, smarmy voice, saying things like, "Ah, what a perfect young man you are" and accusing him and others of promoting "political correctness". Totally expected, but still embarrassing.

Yes, it's too bad Trump is where he is -- but, as I said -- I believe there's a good reason for that.



I have to admit that I never heard LBJ bragging in front of the television cameras about the size of his dick - and from all accounts he had the sort of personality that would have allowed him to do just that.

True - that was unheard of back then. Now...not so much. I guess perhaps all those rap video with guys grabbing their "junk" has made us all immune.



FK, society took up the "shaming mantle" long before anyone in a position of public trust thought to cast it over the "guns and bibles" crowd. If you think about it for a minute, I believe you will know what I'm referring to. You know me - I'm as opposed to the idea or practice of "shaming" people because of their personal religious beliefs, their gun ownership, their regional heritage or the color of their skin. I'm a White gun owner, myself, and I sometimes wonder how long it will be before some activists and the media decide that the Arizona flag is a "racist" symbol, too...but there are far more mature and effective responses to those kinds of unfair and undeserved attacks than lashing out like an overtired, foul-mouthed brat.

I'm with you on the shaming thing. There was a time in our country when Christians shamed those who were not. But, look what happened. They created a mass of people just like me who turned totally against religion and flipped them the proverbial finger. Now, they're a whimpering mess of "you guy's aren't being fair to us."

I'm just saying that Trump supporters did not rise in a vacuum.

The liberals "built it" and "the Trump supporters came."

Nothing is permanent and nothing is beyond repair. This is just one more chapter in our nation's saga.

[OGIS]

I trace a large measure of the increased incivility in political discourse in America to the advent of "talk radio", which really came into its own in the '80s...because it teaches its listeners that it's acceptable/desirable to rant, be emotional and engage in baiting and insults, and it reinforces those divisive, antisocial tendencies by making the listener feel like part of an "in the know", politically savvy clique.

As more and more members of the general public have come to accept such conduct as "normal", there has been a corresponding ramping up of such explosive, often childish rhetoric among seekers after political office, their critics and their supporters - first at the local level, and more and more, of late, at the national.

The voting public has always expected its candidates, pundits and media commentators to tell them what they wanted to hear - but, with few exceptions, they wanted those views, however strongly held, expressed in moderate, measured, thoughtful tones. It wanted them to both say the right things, and to be able to say them with some degree of objectivity and self-control. "Statesman" and "Moderate" were signs of high praise, and they described an earned reputation. Obviously, that day has passed. As others have noted, the full flower of this trend is the current Republican front-runner in the Presidential race.

I hear folks say that Trump's ascendance signals the end of the Republican Party, but I'm really not interested in addressing that, per se. My question, rather, is whether Trump's example has forever - or for the foreseeable future, at least - poisoned every public debate over political and social issues in America...not just for the Republicans, but for every party, faction and cause.

No, obviously Trump didn't bring us to this place single-handed; things were far from being all gentlemanly conduct and the formal rules of debate before his advent. However, the fact of just how uncommonly, embarrassing bombastic and cartoonish his presentation truly is, combined with the unprecedented success that he has had in spite/because of it, makes him unique...or at least unprecedented. Will the American public expect at least one candidate, if not most or all of them, to be as entertaining and unpredictable? Post-Trump, will a Mitt Romney or a John Kerry even have a prayer of gaining widespread public support from either party?

If we liken the Trump candidacy and how it has been conducted to a night of hard drinking, will the American public wake up tomorrow, when Trump is gone, vowing "never to do that again"...or thinking, "That was fun, let's do it again next weekend"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

[OGIS]

I trace a large measure of the increased incivility in political discourse in America to the advent of "talk radio", which really came into its own in the '80s...because it teaches its listeners that it's acceptable/desirable to rant, be emotional and engage in baiting and insults, and it reinforces those divisive, antisocial tendencies by making the listener feel like part of an "in the know", politically savvy clique.

As more and more members of the general public have come to accept such conduct as "normal", there has been a corresponding ramping up of such explosive, often childish rhetoric among seekers after political office, their critics and their supporters - first at the local level, and more and more, of late, at the national.

The voting public has always expected its candidates, pundits and media commentators to tell them what they wanted to hear - but, with few exceptions, they wanted those views, however strongly held, expressed in moderate, measured, thoughtful tones. It wanted them to both say the right things, and to be able to say them with some degree of objectivity and self-control. "Statesman" and "Moderate" were signs of high praise, and they described an earned reputation. Obviously, that day has passed. As others have noted, the full flower of this trend is the current Republican front-runner in the Presidential race.

I hear folks say that Trump's ascendance signals the end of the Republican Party, but I'm really not interested in addressing that, per se. My question, rather, is whether Trump's example has forever - or for the foreseeable future, at least - poisoned every public debate over political and social issues in America...not just for the Republicans, but for every party, faction and cause.

No, obviously Trump didn't bring us to this place single-handed; things were far from being all gentlemanly conduct and the formal rules of debate before his advent. However, the fact of just how uncommonly, embarrassing bombastic and cartoonish his presentation truly is, combined with the unprecedented success that he has had in spite/because of it, makes him unique...or at least unprecedented. Will the American public expect at least one candidate, if not most or all of them, to be as entertaining and unpredictable? Post-Trump, will a Mitt Romney or a John Kerry even have a prayer of gaining widespread public support from either party?

If we liken the Trump candidacy and how it has been conducted to a night of hard drinking, will the American public wake up tomorrow, when Trump is gone, vowing "never to do that again"...or thinking, "That was fun, let's do it again next weekend"?

Good analysis. The talk show effect is right on. But I also think you can blame the Internet. When arguing on the Internet, people say stuff, and say it in ways, that they would never say face to face, or even on talk radio. I think a certain amount of that crassness has migrated to public political discourse.

[OGIS]

I'm not buying into the Trump fearmongering. Trump will largely preserve the status quo. He may move us quicker into an open corporate oligarchy, but that's the path we're already on and will continue on regardless of the candidate.

America has been through much worse. We survived. That's kind of our thing.

Ask yourself this question: Just how "tight" is Trump with his fellow billionaires? In the range between being "part of the club" and being "the "crass upstart jacka$$ that they dis and exclude" just where lies Donald Trump? Just where is Trump on the "old boy scale"?

Even gazzillonaires and Ancient Money often act from emotion and spite. Things might not be quite as clear cut as you suggest.

[Mac-7]

Good analysis. The talk show effect is right on. But I also think you can blame the Internet. When arguing on the Internet, people say stuff, and say it in ways, that they would never say face to face, or even on talk radio. I think a certain amount of that crassness has migrated to public political discourse.

I guess libs dont think any of their policies could have something to do with the peoples anger?

[OGIS]

Trump is clearly at odds with the establishment. The guy blamed Bush for Iraq, implied the Saudis were behind 911, and is killing their trade policy. It's fine not to like the guy, but he's shining a light on many issues that the status quo wouldn't appreciate.

Starting at 1:30. Watch the facial expression of the woman shown on his left. As he talks and she increasingly realizes that he is straying off the reservation, the slowly developing "deer in the headlights" look, complete with nervous smiles and nodding her head both ways like a bobblehead, is simply Pure Gold in my book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTJD6GP6b4E

[PNW]

I guess libs dont think any of their policies could have something to do with the peoples anger?
I guess cons don't think think any of their policies could have something to do with peoples anger?

[MisterVeritis]

I guess cons don't think think any of their policies could have something to do with peoples anger?
What conservative policies do you believe are in play?

[OGIS]

Good analysis. The talk show effect is right on. But I also think you can blame the Internet. When arguing on the Internet, people say stuff, and say it in ways, that they would never say face to face, or even on talk radio. I think a certain amount of that crassness has migrated to public political discourse.


I guess libs dont think any of their policies could have something to do with the peoples anger?


I guess cons don't think think any of their policies could have something to do with peoples anger?

What has changed is not the amount of anger, but the way it is expressed. And this applies to both sides.

[PNW]

What has changed is not the amount of anger, but the way it is expressed. And this applies to both sides.
To a point yes, but far more so with the media controlled right.
Look at their web sites, turn on talk radio and then read the same words right here, they are by and large empty vessels that the right uses, very effectively.

[OGIS]

To a point yes, but far more so with the media controlled right.
Look at their web sites, turn on talk radio and then read the same words right here, they are by and large empty vessels that the right uses, very effectively.

Agreed. Some of them might as well be chatbots with canned responses. I'm thinking of one guy in particular, but there are a couple of others that are a tad more complex.

The pat phrases remind me of that Depak Chopra random wisdom generator (which is, of course, simply several lists of verbs, adjectives, and nouns that are permuted and combined).

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

"Orderliness unfolds through positive knowledge"
"Interdependence corresponds to infinite timelessness"
"The world transcends the flow of observations"
"Awareness depends on irrational self-knowledge"

Just substitute words like "deluded" and "liberal." Voila! Instant wisdom! Or in this case, Instant Conservative Rant.

[Mac-7]

I guess cons don't think think any of their policies could have something to do with peoples anger?

You are attacking conservatives who listen to conservative talk radio.

it stands to reason the listeners are angry at liberalism gone wild.

[Subdermal]

Talk radio foments the anger, it feeds on it, it creates where it wasn't before and it has proven that time and time again.
Look at the list of the phony outrage you cons have gone through over the last 20 years, you are told to be angry about one topic then another, the list is endless.
The part that should get you angry but doesn't, is why you allow yourselves to be used that way.
All that anger over so many different things and tell me, what has come of any of it?

The further to the right this country goes the worse off we get, that is a simple fact that can not be denied.
Talk radio and conservative media is the vehicle that is driving the nation to the right and thus destroying it.

:biglaugh:

Yeah. It's like OWS, sit-ins and the Black Panthers never existed.

Obtuse poster apparently has never compared the percentage of the time Conservatives had full control of Washington DC, as compared to Liberals.

[Mac-7]

What has changed is not the amount of anger, but the way it is expressed. And this applies to both sides.

No, the amount of anger on the republican side is much greater.

But it is not post Trump.

Its post Clinton with NAFTA and open trade with China, post Bush and the endless wars, post Obama and ObamaCare/executive amnesty, and post 2010 RINO congress.

[Standing Wolf]

You are attacking conservatives who listen to conservative talk radio.

it stands to reason the listeners are angry at liberalism gone wild.

And a good and rational response to getting angry is supporting an ignorant, socially retarded egomaniac with a potty-mouth who wouldn't know the truth if it crawled under his comb-over and bit him?

[Mac-7]

And a good and rational response to getting angry is supporting an ignorant, socially retarded egomaniac with a potty-mouth who wouldn't know the truth if it crawled under his comb-over and bit him?

I voted for Cruz but it looks like Trump will win the nomination.

In which case he will get my full support when he goes up against clinton.