What IS Trump selling?

 What is Trump selling through his MaGA concept/contempt?

Memories. The Past.

What are the rest of us involved in?

Life, reality, progress.

It is in THAT gap between, wherein Trump has weaponized reality against US all.

All "that" IS our lives.

Not the past.

Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) concept taps into nostalgia for a perceived better past. It suggests that this longing for the past can overshadow the realities and challenges of the present and future. Here’s a breakdown:

Trump’s Selling Point: 

Nostalgia – MAGA is centered around a romanticized vision of a past that many see as simpler or better. This focus on “the past” can evoke strong emotional responses and a sense of identity tied to bygone times, which can be potent in political messaging.

The Present and Future – In contrast, being “involved in life, reality, and progress” involves addressing current issues and preparing for the future. This often requires confronting uncomfortable truths and working towards change, which can be more complex and less immediately gratifying than nostalgia.

The Weaponization of Reality – By leveraging a nostalgic view of the past, Trump can create a narrative that frames current realities as problems to be solved by returning to an idealized previous state. This can be seen as a way to weaponize reality, turning it into a battleground between the idealized past and the challenging present.

The Gap – The difference between a nostalgic vision of the past and the reality of the present. This gap can create a disconnect, where solutions based on outdated views might not address current complexities effectively.

By focusing on the past, Trump’s narrative can sideline the more nuanced and necessary engagement with the present and future. This dynamic is a powerful tool in shaping political discourse and public perception.

It is counterintuitive and counterproductive. But it gives Trump and MaGA leadership, power. It leads to an imbalance as power must come from somewhere. Which is where the rest of us come in.

Donald Trump is actually a very poor debater. But he seems to win debates. Why?

That phenomenon is often referred to as "rhetorical manipulation" or "demagoguery." These terms describe tactics that sway audiences not through structured argumentation, facts, or reasoning, but by exploiting emotions, distractions, or other forms of persuasion that deviate from traditional debate norms. Some of the tactics Trump has used in this context include:

• Ad hominem attacks: Attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing their arguments.
• Appeals to emotion: Using fear, anger, or pride to rally support.
• False equivalence: Presenting two unequal things as though they were comparable.
• Gish gallop: Overwhelming the opponent with numerous rapid claims, many of which may be false or misleading, making it difficult for them to respond.

These strategies can allow someone to "win" a debate in the eyes of an audience without adhering to the logical structure typically expected in formal debate.

There is more involved in all this mess we've been led into today. Things that MaGA and Trump are pushing so hard into the Republican Party that they are no longer the once "Grand Old Party", the GOP they once were.

And it began long ago...

Did you know, Rutherford B. Hayes’ decision to remove federal troops from the South in 1877 played a significant role in shaping race relations in America and has lasting implications. When Hayes withdrew the troops, it effectively ended Reconstruction and allowed Southern states to enact Jim Crow laws, which institutionalized racial segregation and disenfranchisement of Black citizens.

This set the stage for nearly a century of oppressive policies, including limited voting rights and economic inequality, that continued to fuel racial tensions well into the 20th century and still resonate today.

The removal of federal protection for ex-slaves led to widespread violence and intimidation, often perpetrated by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which sought to maintain white supremacy. Many of these groups, or the broader movement they represent, have ideological ties to today’s problematic militias, which see themselves as defenders of a particular social order.

Back then, “gun clubs” and paramilitary groups often formed to protect white interests, especially as federal oversight waned. Some of the anti-government militias seen today claim lineage from these 19th-century movements, though modern militias are more fragmented and diverse in their motivations.

Turning out backs on these militias, ignoring their misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment, esp,. in modern times has allowed a counter narrative to grow into a political entity that has set the stage for some very untenable and ridiculous beliefs, infecting a major political party.

1991 interview on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour Chief Justice Warren E. Burger: “The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies — the militias — would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

In short, Hayes' decision to end Reconstruction gave rise to segregationist policies and violent white supremacist groups that evolved into organizations that still influence race relations and militia culture today.

Had Hayes not been president, perhaps today the bigotry and racism would be far, far less apparent. We are a nation of mixed cultures. We can work together. We can be pulled together by our similarities, rather than praise politicians and religious leaders who sell us on division and irritation, fanned into fear and hate, all for their personal agendas and success.

We can do better. Obviously.

Cheers! Sláinte!

On the unnecessary / redundant word "democracy" not being in the US Constitution

This is where an AI can come in handy, saving time and offering references (DO check references an AI gives you to back up its statement as I've found them massively incorrect at times. At other times 100% correct in their contentions, but serving up the wrong like by 100%.Kind of like Wikipedia. Trust but verify. As always in life in general.

This post is by a MAGA conservative, claiming not to be Republican (but in action, definitely IS), who is lost somewhere up Donald Trump's backside, and deep into the toxic/somewhat or completely racist, conservatism served up by the GOP these past few decades, as it descended into a Trump presidency in 2016, and is now attempting to place that insurrectionist back in the White House:

POSTER:

"There is NO Democracy, if you are sure there is then take my Democracy challenge test, it's really easy and comes with Cash awards of $147 for every time you find the word Democracy, First you must announce you are taking the test put it on every social media you can and anywhere else you can THEN take out your copy of the Constitution, don't' have one, there are lots of places you can download a copy for free Next you go through the {federal] Constitution, you can do that as many times as you want, Every Time you find the word put a check next to it when you are done, there is no time limit so when you are sure you found every time Democracy appears then you add up all your finds, tell everyone in all the places you announced your taking the challenge test and claim your prize money.. Pretty simple isn't it so Are you ready, one more thing if your count is ZERO then you have to stop using that word, OK that's all of it When do you want to start?"

RESPONSE:

Saying there IS no "democracy" is so ignorant as to be shocking.

We'll skip the grammar and spelling issues...

Wow, the ignorance involved there is embarrassing and explains a lot of the issues our conservative Americans have stumbled repeatedly into, while being urged to do so by their political leaders. 

And sadly sometimes, by their religious leaders.

This post is based on a false premise: that the word "democracy" HAS to appear in the US Constitution for the United States to be a "democratic" country.

Democracy is not just a word, it's a concept and a practice that can take different forms and expressions. Democracy is a form of government where power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives. A constitutional democracy is a system of government in which the people’s representatives are both limited and empowered by a written or unwritten constitution that protects the rights of everyone in the country.

The United States is a constitutional democracy, or a constitutional republic, where the people elect their public officials and the Constitution limits the powers of the government and guarantees the civil liberties of the people.

The Constitution DOES NOT HAVE TO USE THE WORD "democracy" to embody its principles and values. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the constitutions of many other countries that are considered democratic, such as Canada, Germany, India, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Examples of how the United States practices democracy, is in holding regular elections, allowing freedom of speech and assembly, having an independent judiciary, and respecting the rule of law. Democracy is not a static or perfect system, but a DYNAMIC and EVOLVING one that requires constant participation and improvement from the people. 

On that last issue, you will find many conservatives balking at the consideration of the Constitution being a "living" document. My argument on the fact that it is is simple. The Framers themselves amended the Constitution. End of argument. THEY even changed it. We have later on. It's a living document. End of debate. Truly.

He needs to explain why he thinks the word democracy is so important, and what he thinks democracy means in practice?

The toxic right wing have long used this creed as their dog whistle for rebellion, that this country is a Republic, not a Democracy. When all along it's a moot point, but they're spelled differently so...must be a conspiracy. Or something. Nope, just words, used as needed and not overly so. Otherwise the US Constitution would be a five volume set. And then it would actually be even a greater nightmare.

One gets the feeling, that he's clueless. That they're clueless. But then, that also explains MAGA and the toxic conservatism being practiced these past few decades by the once "Grand Old Party", but now just a sad faux Republican Party.

Of course he came back, apparently not having read the response above or understanding it:

POSTER:

"Oh you poorly educated kid [I'm 68, he's 75]. Have you even read the constitution federal or state seems not. How about the federalist papers? It has a pretty good explanation of why a democracy was passed over. Not chosen as a good type of government for this new unique country. So go study up then come back. In the meantime you’re just another uneducated lefty useful idiot they love that kind the DNC only exists because of them. I’ll wait while you get educated on American history and its creation but don’t take too long I could drop and check out forever any minute now a lot I knew that were younger than me are already long gone"

So that required a response...

RESPONSE:

Sigh...ever going to read a book not written by seditionists?
Good god you're still orgasming over your belief you have some massive knowledge.
You do. Inflated by toxic conservative beliefs of utter nonsense. No sense.

Look...
The constitution does not have to explicitly mention the word “democracy” in order to embody democratic principles and values. In fact, many scholars and experts agree that the United States is a constitutional democracy, a form of government in which the people are sovereign and the rights of individuals and minorities are protected. But you'd prefer an autocrat apparently.

The constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and representation that aim to prevent tyranny and ensure popular sovereignty. The constitution also guarantees certain fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law, that are essential for a democratic society. The constitution can also be amended to reflect the changing needs and preferences of the people, as it has been 27 times since its ratification in 1788.

The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, that were and this is important, TO PERSUADE THE STATES TO RATIFY the Constitution. That is different than how many try to use them for selfish purposes and incorrectly. Have you ever written an article or a position paper on a topic, then talked later to someone about it, especially if they understand your position and more so if they agree? You speak differently, for good reason. You probably haven't written such a paper, or understand what I'm talking about here. But trust me, the two are the same, but very different. 

These papers explained the rationale and benefits of the proposed system of government, as well as address some of the criticisms and concerns raised by the opponents of the constitution, known as the Anti-Federalists. Who today might be called, MAGA Republicans. 

The Federalist Papers do NOT reject democracy, but rather argue for a republic, a representative form of DEMOCRACY as opposed to a DIRECT democracy, where the people vote on every issue, which would be nuts. The authors of the Federalist Papers believed that a republic would be more stable, effective, and RESPECTFUL of the rights and interests of the people than a direct democracy, which they feared would be prone to Factionalism, Corruption, and Mob rule. Which conservatives have now given us ANYWAY if you're paying ANY ATTENTION AT ALL to how broken the Republican Party now is.

Therefore, the constitution and the Federalist Papers DO NOT contradict the idea of democracy, but rather support and enhance it. They provide a framework and a foundation for a constitutional DEMOCRACY that has endured for over two centuries and inspired many other nations around the world.

But you just want to say, "NO NO NO I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I'M RIGHT AND YOUR NOT!"

Uh huh...

To be clear about my MAGA = Anti-Federalists of Jefferson's time, they had similarities. However the Anti-Federalists were more intelligent and productive, thus:

The Anti-Federalists were more concerned with the protection of civil liberties and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, while the MAGA Republicans are more likely to support measures that restrict voting rights, civil rights, and immigration.

The Anti-Federalists were more influenced by the ideals of the American Revolution and the principles of republicanism, while the MAGA Republicans are more loyal to the personality and agenda of former President Trump.

The Anti-Federalists were more sympathetic to the French Revolution and its democratic aspirations, while the MAGA Republicans are more hostile to the European Union and other multilateral institutions.

Well, that's it, so far..