YMix wrote:
I'd like to see that evidence.
Google "Trump anti-establishment" and the articles from every quarter are endless.
Google "Trump establishment candidate", I could only find Alex Jones types, who I disregard when it comes to partisan politics.
I don't know what kind of candidate Trump is. So far, he's really light on specific details and heavy on bloviating about what a great man he is. Plus, he could be lying his ass off anyway.
So on the specifics, this is a weird argument.
obama made outlandish promises he had no hope of keeping and not one MSM outlet ever grilled him on it, at all. Ever. So it's strange now they think they can do it to Trump.
obama was a completely unknown entity when he ran and so you would ask someone like that how they intended to things. Someone like Trump has been a public figure over 30 years and a long long long track record of accomplishments, like them or no, and so many of us aren't worried about his ability to do what he says.
The lying is hard to believe. It's hard to imagine someone that public with no discernible reason to put on an elaborate ruse doing just that. I'm not buying the lying argument.
The concern is realpolitic.
obama was crushed by realpolitic in the most painfully embarrassing way, no other reason that being completely a green executive. He never stood a chance.
Trump OTOH, like Clinton, is not as susceptible to what
obama was. HRC would have had us in grey smocks within a month. And not because she is anything great, she isn't, but she at least knew where the bathrooms were and wasn't dazzled by corporate jets and CEOs on speed dial. obama had never been in that sphere.
Not so with Trump. No dazzling that guy, been there done that, he knows all the power players, already has relations and opinions of them been rubbing shoulders with them his whole life.
So
obama was b!tslapped by realpolitic right out of the gate, literally. The traditional idea of beating realpolitic is to outjudo the thing, OR overcome it with force of personality. The Trump possibility would be the latter.
The point is that a candidate the establishment doesn't like does not equal an anti-establishment candidate. That's basic logic.
I don't know. I think if the establishment hates you, you very well could be antiestablishment. We disagree there.