He has billions of dollars. It made sense that the Clintons would and did use the office of the presidency to make a fortune because they had a lot of room for growth in 1990. Trump has all the access they do already, and has to take tremendous opportunity and personal costs to just run. Even if for a "social experiment" he could have just sponsored someone.

Trump's appeal is as follows:

Our standard politicians are feckless and personally unimpressive (see Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz) which is especially contrary to the Republican image of tough choices and hard work. They have all also been making promises about the economic situation of the average person, as well as, in the Republican case, promises both explicit and implied about domestic and international security and illegal immigration, that they don't (or can't) keep. We also generally believe that our politicians are regularly and easily bought.

In terms of image for many Republicans, Trump is a solid (over) correction to all the above. He's too rich to be easily bribed. He's obviously even comically tough and confident as many Americans understand that. His background seems economically promising to many people. And he's so direct and genuine about his promises especially in respect to illegal immigration, which undeniably impacts many of the working class, that I think most supporters suspect that even if he doesn't quite "build a wall" he'll have to finally actually do something.

Also, and I don't think this understanding is universal, either with his supporters over with Americans in general, but many of us understand that his rhetoric is purposefully and sometimes even humorously hyperbolic and don't take him as gravely as many seem to. "I could probably shoot a guy in the street and not lose support" is not literal.

I do understand that many people would like some grace and dignity to the office of the President, but we haven't had that kind of presidency since the Nixon era. And those presidents that most approximate that ideal in the last 50 years have been crucified and exaggerated about anyway. Like it or not, our presidential campaigns more closely resemble reality television than a highly formalized political ritual.

Last edited by iwpoe (10/17/2016 12:45 pm)

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I suspect he won't govern awfully. He will be pretty moderate (or would if he wasn't going to lose). But as a candidate he is shocking. 

I'm not so optimistic. I think he would govern like he does in the business world - with pure self-interest in mind. Personal self-interest. He'll easily let the business (country) and employees (population) go bankrupt, if he can gain by it or lose less by it.

A way to make his term moderate is to assign able-bodied handlers to him. No advisors. He does not listen to advisors anyway.

I don't know. I still I have a feeling if Trump ends as presidents, things will end up like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yo5rhl9_zw

iwpoe wrote:

The idea that he doesn't operate with advisors is implausible- both because he has noticeably responded to advisors during the campaign (especially Paul Manafort) and because his business operations are orders of magnitude too large and complicated for him to run successfully singlehandedly.

Of course he has people you could call advisors, but they are more like people who report numbers and bring papers to sign. And some are more like handlers to postpone the disaster that he is.

If your point is that business world a la "[Not paying taxes] makes me smart" and personal life a la "Grab them by the *****" easily translates to international politics, please vote him in and see for yourself.

Edit: In the third debate he happened to operate under the funny misconception that Putin had said nice things about him while Putin had no respect for Clinton. In reality, Putin wasn't nice to Trump. You know the word I'm talking about, right? If Trump has advisors, somebody better set him straight.

Last edited by seigneur (10/23/2016 5:44 am)

I don't fault Trump for taking legally permitted tax deductions after going a billion dollars in the hole one year.

I wouldn't trust him to follow advisers, though. His advisers, for instance, recommended that he submit to internal opposition research before launching his campaign / entering the general election, and he refused, repeatedly, which is why Republicans who supported him now look like fools as his history is unearthed and why even his closest aides are not prepared for what will come out.

You can also bet that he has received some advice about how to, say, appeal to a general electorate, but he doesn't follow it. He just keeps incensing the same base, which at ~38% of the electorate is not enough to win the presidency.

When I'm thinking about the Supreme Court or listening to Hillary Clinton lie, I feel like I understand what pushes intelligent people to support Trump. When I watch Trump debate or tweet about stupid stuff while Clinton is vulnerable, though, that feeling just evaporates.