Trump's Axios interview

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 02:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:You seem to be arguing that mass, continued support for a Trump candidacy amidst his incompetent handling of civic unrest and a pandemic obscures the real identity of the Republican party now, to which it will magically revert once Trump is gone,  And the existence of a fraction of never Trumpers somehow proves the rule rather than the exception.

No, and this utter failure to grasp my actual argument is puzzling to me.  I state, quite simply, that support for Trump can be as utterly simple as opposing the Democratic party's position.  Being married to the ideology of Trump is not required.

Quote:Just as you seem to be arguing that the election of Biden obscures the real radical, crazy and "borderline terrifying" identity of the Democratic party. AOC as Attorney General? Elizabeth Warren Secretary of the Treasury? Ilan Omar as Secretary of State?  Because Pelosi and Biden offer little "pushback" to them in an election year?

Rather than resorting to mockery I might expect you to actually refute the point actually being made.  The politics of the far left have taken deep root in the west coast, a not insignificant segment of the nation's population, at least on a majority of the state level.  Perhaps if you address the point actually being made we can delve deeper into this question?

1. Your "actual argument" is that the mass of Trump voters will suddenly go docile when he is out office.  Perhaps in a few cases support for Trump can be "utterly simple,"* e.g., among Republicans who don't follow the news. But your claim isn't just that some few simply oppose the Dem party positions, but that the current Trumpism of Republican voters en masse is only based on the "presence" of Trump and will disappear when he is gone. Because some few are not "married to the ideology of Trump" seems a very weak warrant for that conclusion.

2. The "point actually being made" is analogous to that made regarding Republicans--that in both cases the parties' mass voting behavior and choice of leadership doesn't reveal who the parties really are. For you, the "fringe" defines each party and its future potential. My "resort to mockery" calls attention to how little broad party support there actually is for some "deep root" of CA "leftism" (whose goals, by the way, deserve a hearing). That does refute the point actually being made until you can explain why in either case people should ignore what the majority of voters in each party do or do not want, will or will not tolerate.

*Even that is doubtful, since everyone who votes for Trump also has to accept the high likelihood of his continued abuse of power if left in office, especially to block investigations into that abuse, in addition to the divisive public misogyny and racism,  and four more years of undermining public institutions, especially the courts. Fox-driven fear of radical leftist Dems--a fear built over almost 3 decades-- is the only thing now keeping voters "not married to the ideology of Trump" in the fold. In voting for Trump now, one is not "simply" rejecting Dem positions but ACCEPTING an unprecedented level of malfeasance which in itself compromises any pure desire for a Republican platform supposedly based upon Constitutionalism and rule of law and carries great future risks for functioning government. That is why so many Republicans who prefer the GOP platform and abhor the Dem's are nevertheless voting Dem. They understand that any endorsement of Trump now, however qualified, is an endorsement of dishonest and bad government--putting party goals above the interest of the nation. CA "leftists" will not scare them away from that Dem vote.