Donald Trump's Detroit Speech

[Ranger2]

Donald Trump spoke at a Detroit church earlier today, and--dare I say it--sounded presidential. Shying away from his usual bombastic tone, he was calm, conciliatory, and spoke about the need for racial unity in America. He talked about bringing back jobs and rebuilding the city, and the unlimited talent of America's youth.

Still, it's too little, too late. Donald Trump has made enough of an ass of himself that one coherent speech will not change things. I expect later this week, when he's talking to a slightly paler crowd, the Donald Trump we know will be back.

When listening to the speech, I came to the realization the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is not so much their ideas as it is how they see the state of the country.

I admire the fact that Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk. She knows this country's government inside and out. But her speeches--bereft of any real vigor--imply that she thinks the status quo is working. Sure, we can point to the fact that the Dow is reaching new heights and that the official unemployment rate is below 5%. She seems content to ride on Obama's coattails, all the while shouting about how America is already great.

Except it's not. The uber-patriotic rhetoric we heard at the DNC shows that the Democrats are trying to hide the fact that the status quo sucks. Why is it so many college graduates like myself cannot find work in a supposedly booming economy? Why are manufacturing jobs still leaving the country? We still have not recovered from the Great Recession, although frankly I don't call it that anymore. It's the Second Great Depression.

I don't fault President Obama. No president short of FDR took this country from depression to prosperity in two terms, and it took a world war for that. We are better off now than we were in January 2009 in part thanks to his work. But I'm terrified Hillary Clinton is content to say mission accomplished in terms of the economy. Better off than we were eight years ago is still setting the bar at ground level. I think Hillary is ignorant of the fact that the economy still sucks. She may have the knowledge, but the will to act decisively and urgently is not there.

Trump is the opposite. His plans to disband NATO, build a wall, and make America isolationist again would cripple the economy. The plans he unveils are either vague or stupid.

But the only good result of his campaign is that he has at least gotten on the country's radar that not all is well in this country, and things need to change. No, not everything is Obama's fault but to say that the economy is in good shape is hyperbole. It still sucks. If Clinton gets elected, I hope she takes Donald Trump's fiery passion to upturn the status quo with her. If Trump gets elected, well, God help us.

[RydiaLockheart]

I think what Trump may have in mind here is more of a long-term plan for the GOP. It may not work now, but if GOP candidates continue to reach out to minority voters over the next few years, it could have an effect. Obviously the outreach itself has to be decent, but you get the idea.

IIRC, it was the pastor who invited Trump who said that the Democrats do the "outreach" every election season (which could be viewed by some as pandering) and are then like "bye, see you in four years." There's an opening there for an opposing politician if they play their cards right.

[Halberd]

Bringing back those lost jobs would be good (if it can even be done, it will be hard) but I wonder what Trump means when he talks about "making America safe again" and getting rid of crime, especially for African Americans. What is his silver bullet, what does he know that police and politicians who have been trying for decades don't? When and how was America safer than it is now?

He is being supported by Rudy Giuliani who is known for his broken windows approach to policing in New York (google it if you don't know what it is) maybe that is what he means, and I'm unsure whether that would work because I haven't really read much about it yet to form an opinion. I'm hoping Trump can elaborate on his policies a bit more, meanwhile Hillary has long pages of policy on things like mental health, technology, campaign finance and bank reform.

But the only good result of his campaign is that he has at least gotten on the country's radar that not all is well in this country, and things need to change

Agree with this. It kind of struck me in Hillary's alt-right speech she criticized Trump for saying about African Americans: “Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen." Right now," he said, "you walk down the street and get shot.”

Aren't all those things at least partially true (however hyperbolic, especially the last two sentences which are false) Can't you be not racist, not victim blaming or paternalistic but recognize that not everything is alright in African American communities? Recognizing the good is great, but you can't ignore that more work needs to be done.

Trump is the opposite. His plans to disband NATO, build a wall, and make America isolationist again would cripple the economy. The plans he unveils are either vague or stupid.

As far as I know no mainstream economist really agrees him. His economic advisers are all wall street billionaires who have donated lots of money to him and all but one have any real economic experience.

While Hillary's plans for the economy may not be impressive the alternative is probably much worse as you say.

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/3/16 08:18 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I think what Trump may have in mind here is more of a long-term plan for the GOP. It may not work now, but if GOP candidates continue to reach out to minority voters over the next few years, it could have an effect. Obviously the outreach itself has to be decent, but you get the idea.

That was in big bold letters in the 2012 post mortem the party did on why they lost. "Minority voters don't feel like we're on their side, we need to fix that". So of course they went ahead and took the guy who's opening salvo was "I'm going to build a wall to stop rapists and criminals from coming over the border because the government of Mexico sends them to make us weak", and has continued this sort of divisive dumbassery all the way since. This has always been the problem, the GOP has had this image (and rightly so) of barely simmering contempt for anyone with a shade other then "pale" in their skin tone and that game is over. Trump may wind up losing the South and the Mid-west and there's a real fear in GOP circles that he may spell the beginning of a very real dynasty of doom for the GOP in those areas as the white population continues to decrease. If they keep relying on old angry less educated whites to show up to the polls....well, I'm sure there's room in the dust heap of history next to the Whig Party. Get smart, or be gone. That's really where it's at for them now.

IIRC, it was the pastor who invited Trump who said that the Democrats do the "outreach" every election season (which could be viewed by some as pandering) and are then like "bye, see you in four years." There's an opening there for an opposing politician if they play their cards right.

Sure there is, but this also bespeaks to the problem with the GOP as well that I just pointed out. The fact that the Dems CAN do that sort of thing and call it "outreach" and get away with it speaks to the fact of how badly the GOP is viewed as not in their corner. Personally? I don't think the average voter gives too much of a fuck about policy or ideology. They want somebody who's going to insure they have a comfortable life, good money, food on the table, the house paid for, and criminals not breaking into their house or business and otherwise carrying off their shit. In short, they vote for self interest. When parties start cutting off swaths of the electorate at the door (and the GOP does with minorities of color, with the LGBT community certainly, etc) then the other side really doesn't have to work much harder then to say "I recognize your right to exist....not like those fuckers" and boom you've got another ballot checked off for you.

[RydiaLockheart]

At 9/3/16 11:26 PM, Halberd wrote: Agree with this. It kind of struck me in Hillary's alt-right speech she criticized Trump for saying about African Americans: “Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen." Right now," he said, "you walk down the street and get shot.”

Aren't all those things at least partially true (however hyperbolic, especially the last two sentences which are false) Can't you be not racist, not victim blaming or paternalistic but recognize that not everything is alright in African American communities? Recognizing the good is great, but you can't ignore that more work needs to be done.

In Chicago, the last one certainly IS the case.

The thing is, all those things ARE a problem. I dunno about the level of crime versus previous years, but in some cities, it certainly has spiked compared to recent years.

What baffled me about the DNC convention is it was basically a feel-good circlejerk about how well things are going when for a lot of folks, they are anything but. This is certainly the case in a lot of black communities, and the no homes/no ownership issue is something that affects everyone. Dodd-Frank is likely only aggravating that problem. I was lucky enough to buy my house just before it took effect, and the problem is that compared to the housing bubble, the pendulum will swing the other way and now a lot of people who would have been otherwise qualified for houses and are responsible will not be able to buy them. A lot of those people will be minorities. And that legislation is on the Obama administration and the Dem-controlled Congress.

Meanwhile, you have people of all races in distressed cities who were likely looking at that convention and were like "Are you kidding me?" Enter Donald Trump, who at least acknowledges things are not all right. His message has resonated because people feel like he's actually listening. Is he? Who knows, but compared to Clinton's aloofness, it's easy to see why there's a dissonance.

[Feoric]

At 9/3/16 08:18 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I think what Trump may have in mind here is more of a long-term plan for the GOP.

Donald Trump is completely incapable of planning for anything long-term and he clearly does not give a shit about the GOP.