- #36
krater
- 93
- 31
Bernie would never garner an equal voice in the race as Trump were Bernie absent his funding base. It's certainly arguable that this is untrue but evidence strongly supports it.
Trump has done very well replacing the substance of his message with funding. Absent the dollars backing him I think you would find very little support for him as a presidential candidate. His wealth and public image (which he continues to prop up through funding) have basically granted him a pulpit from which he could substantively replace his whole message with the slogan "FREE BEER TOMMORROW! TRUMP '16!" He approaches the political process no differently than a reality TV show (with which he has ample prior experience, also contributed to the wealth and image he's running on) and in spite of a marked failure for his campaign to stand up positively to any real scrutiny he continues to charge forward.
Do you need further proof that in the US electorate process money == power?
Isn't it pretty obvious that Trump is taking a very business-like approach to the campaign that sets him apart from most others? He's more than capable to run as an independant but he chooses a party because it comes with financial backing as well as a ready-made constituancy. He makes broad inflammatory comments because he knows that the free publicity pays off in a way that so far seems to negate any bad press it gets him; opportunity cost is still working in his favor. He appeals to the lowest common denominator because he knows that's a reliable model for maximum effect with minimal investment. I could cite the very article you linked above as a solid proof of how absent his pre-existing wealth and image he would probably have no relavant basis for a political campaign; the only reason he isn't currently going out of pocket is because he formulated himself as a republican candidate. It has nothing to do with any previous track record of politics.
Trump has done very well replacing the substance of his message with funding. Absent the dollars backing him I think you would find very little support for him as a presidential candidate. His wealth and public image (which he continues to prop up through funding) have basically granted him a pulpit from which he could substantively replace his whole message with the slogan "FREE BEER TOMMORROW! TRUMP '16!" He approaches the political process no differently than a reality TV show (with which he has ample prior experience, also contributed to the wealth and image he's running on) and in spite of a marked failure for his campaign to stand up positively to any real scrutiny he continues to charge forward.
Do you need further proof that in the US electorate process money == power?
Isn't it pretty obvious that Trump is taking a very business-like approach to the campaign that sets him apart from most others? He's more than capable to run as an independant but he chooses a party because it comes with financial backing as well as a ready-made constituancy. He makes broad inflammatory comments because he knows that the free publicity pays off in a way that so far seems to negate any bad press it gets him; opportunity cost is still working in his favor. He appeals to the lowest common denominator because he knows that's a reliable model for maximum effect with minimal investment. I could cite the very article you linked above as a solid proof of how absent his pre-existing wealth and image he would probably have no relavant basis for a political campaign; the only reason he isn't currently going out of pocket is because he formulated himself as a republican candidate. It has nothing to do with any previous track record of politics.
ie Kind of like on "Let's Make a Deal" where I got a goat (Hillary), and I hear a pig squealing behind Monte's option to take Curtain #3.
