**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Grand scheme of things. I am a big supporter after all. Most of what he does is quality. That specifically I posted because it's unique.

Something that can shine a light here -- relates to why I hypothesize Boost said what he said -- is that Trump supporters tend to not take him literally yet Trump non-supporters do. I'd like to take credit for that idea, but I'm not the first come up with it. Relating to the wall, non-supporters tend to think that anything other than Mexico expressly paying for it is a campaign oathbreaking, but supporters never saw it that way. We were ready from the very beginning (though I didn't support him at that time) to rationalize who's paying for it through any means necessary as long as Trump actually got the damn thing built. Or at the very least he would have to make very substantial improvements regarding illegals, but not getting an actual solid wall up would lose him a lot of support.

There are many promises that Trump has to keep in order for his base to not abandon him. A literal and simplistic reading of what he says doesn't shine a light on what those are, though.

[Poopadoop]

There are many promises that Trump has to keep in order for his base to not abandon him. A literal and simplistic reading of what he says doesn't shine a light on what those are, though.

That's just giving him an out, which supports the idea that you've gone beyond being a supporter to being a fanatic. If he builds the wall but the US pays for it, then at least he built the wall. If he doesn't build it but tightens the border by other means he's built a metaphorical wall (I've heard you use this argument before). So basically, anything he does that appears to be tough on immigration is 'keeping his promise'. But that's not how promises work. You don't promise your wife a new car for her birthday, give her an old beater instead, and say you kept your promise of buying her a car.

Let's look at his other two big promises, the ones everyone was chanting at his rallies. "Lock her up." Nothing.

"Drain the Swamp." If draining the swamp means getting rid of corruption, he's failing that one bigly. You don't replace lobbysists and Wall Street types with other lobbyists and Wall Street types and someone from Exxon and call that draining the swamp.

[wufwugy]

That's just giving him an out, which supports the idea that you've gone beyond being a supporter to being a fanatic. If he builds the wall but the US pays for it, then at least he built the wall. If he doesn't build it but tightens the border by other means he's built a metaphorical wall (I've heard you use this argument before). So basically, anything he does that appears to be tough on immigration is 'keeping his promise'. But that's not how promises work. You don't promise your wife a new car for her birthday, give her an old beater instead, and say you kept your promise of buying her a car.

There's a backstop. It will be very obvious to his supporters if and when he betrays them. As much as I would like to be able to quantify what that would be, I can't. Look at it this way: Trump and conservatives are speaking a different language. From the beginning, conservatives who jumped on his wagon immediately knew what he was talking about, and nobody in the media, except those at the center of conservatism, like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, had any clue about it.

Let's look at his other two big promises, the ones everyone was chanting at his rallies. "Lock her up." Nothing.

"Drain the Swamp." If draining the swamp means getting rid of corruption, he's failing that one bigly. You don't replace lobbysists and Wall Street types with other lobbyists and Wall Street types and someone from Exxon and call that draining the swamp.

I disagree on the drain the swamp stuff. I think his picks are very drainy of the swampy. But I also think that what left-leaning people think of as the swamp is different than what right-leaning people do, so it may not appear drainy to you yet it does to me.

On the "lock her up" stuff, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Conservatives are pretty serious on the president not interfering with the judiciary. "Lock her up" during the campaign is more of an energizing red meat thing. I don't know what will happen after inauguration. Could be nothing. His supporters are split on what they think he should actually do, but they are not split in that they want her locked up. Wants and reality are often different, and it is openly recognized to possibly be that way in this case.