Which is exactly what Obama did and Bush did and Clinton did. They just didnt talk about it.
The thing about Trump is that his arguments don’t have to make sense. It is not his intention to appeal to logic, rationality, or debate. He charges his words with emotion. He promises justice to people who feel held down by the current system. He appeals to the sense of moral right and wrong among his supporters with no concern for legality or feasibility. To the people outside of this circle, what Trump says is completely absurd. But to those who share his moral world view, he’s speaking truth to power, and will defeat their enemies by righteous virtue and force of will. By cloaking himself in morality, anyone who disagrees with or criticizes him is therefore immoral and tacitly complicit with the enemy, and therefore must be shouted down as such. At the end of the day, Trump is more interested in self-aggrandizement than improving the world or the lives of the people who support him.
Donald Trump is the dark reflection of social justice.
You're projecting. Trump doesn't make arguments. Trump doesn't talk about morality. Trump talks almost exclusively about what he's done and what he wants to do.
In this context, saying someone 'charges his words with emotions', is the same thing as saying he's passionate and good at connecting with people.
If self-aggrandizement is Trump's goal, fantastic - a great way for him to achieve that would be through improving the lives of his countrymen in order to earn their respect and adoration.
Nobody knows his stances because he has no serious stances. That's the whole principle behind this type of populism, he just makes vague statements which he thinks will resonate with his target demographic (Take care of veterans, GET TOUGH on ISIS, "Build up that wall!" etc).
It's utterly ludicrous to see Trump and his followers attack "croney capitalism" and corruption when that's exactly what Trumps "self made" empire is based on. I'd think it was funny if it wasn't so depressing.
But these things won't significantly impact his popularity, it's the Berlusconi effect, where he can do just about anything and be however corrupt he wants and still garner support by being perceived as a virile maverick with entrepreneurial spirit (money and power don't hurt either). These people are sociopaths and only look out for their own interests, in other circumstances they could just as easily be mob bosses as businessmen or politicians.
Let's just hope all the columnists are right in that he's still unlikely to become the Republican candidate and even less president.
I mean look at this shit and tell me we're not living in some sort of nightmarish satirical cartoon dimension:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FJqLAleEnKw
Trump has been far from vague. He released a detailed tax plan. He made his foreign policy intentions clear. And, 'We're going to build a wall' is by no means a vague statement.
In fact, Trump keeps getting in trouble for how explicit he is with many of his positions. When Trump simply came out in support of some of Obama's existing terrorism policies, the mainstream media called him a Nazi who plans to exterminate Muslims, because politicians aren't supposed to be honest when it comes to stuff like that.
The point is that since Trump isn't taking donations, he owes no one, and he takes orders from nobody. Career politicians rely on that exchange, or their career is over.
I've already pointed out that (interestingly) Trump's corporation would probably be one of the few to benefit from less corruption and a fair tax code. 1. The tourism industry is already very competitive. 2. Tourism relies extremely heavily on economic prosperity. In bad times, most people don't take trips.
___________
Most of the candidates, Democrat and Republican, have come out in support of a second occupation of Iraq. Trump is one of the very few to have come out against it, and he's quite outspoken on that point. Where the media now claims it was a mistake to end the occupation, Trump hollers Obama is a weak leader for not bringing the soldiers home on the first day of his presidency.
If the election ends up Hillary vs Trump, pro-war vs anti-war sentiment could become the deciding factor. Of course, mainstream America has basically always been pro war. But mainstream America often doesn't represent the majority and does not always win.
