Let’s talk about the geography of the players in the Trump scandal. Which nation they come from.
Cohen - Long Island
Manafort - Connecticut
Pecker - Bronx
Weisselburg - Brooklyn
The Trump boys - Queens, NYC
Mueller - NYC
Comey - Yonkers
Seeing a common theme?
Now the issue of party will be raised. A valid retort. To which I offer the response of: Are you kidding? Is a “republican” from NYC a republican? There are certainly no conservatives among this group. Melancton Smith was probably the last conservative to come out of that area.
American Nations very clearly tells us about these people. Trump is a perfect example of a New Netherlander. To a “t”.
These people were slightly different from the citizens of Yankeedom, but the latter has basically absorbed the former.
All of this drama is due to a small group of people who were born within 150 miles of each other.
Let’s talk about the geography of the players in the Trump scandal. Which nation they come from.
This is ridiculous–particularly when narrowing it to one “scandal.” Sure, let’s leave out Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Steve King, Jerry Falwell Jr., et. al. Isn’t it problematic for your thesis that both he and his (mainly orthodox conservative) policies are so profoundly unpopular in “Yankeedom” and “New Netherland,” while they’re more popular in, say, the “Deep South” and “Greater Appalachia”?
The much more important geography of Trump’s political success involves the entire GOP at the state and federal level (including the Texas congressional delegation), and the rightwing base that nominated Trump, helped get him elected, and defends and enables and adores him passionately.
All of this drama is due to a small group of people who were born within 150 miles of each other.
No, it’s due to the large percentage of Republicans and self-identified conservatives around the country who are his base–and like this.
Rather than finding some roundabout way to blame “liberals” and “Democrats” and people from states and regions you don’t think of highly, wouldn’t it make more sense to ask, like, say:
What is it about the GOP and the contemporary conservative movement that made it so susceptible to a friendly takeover by such a toxic ■■■■■■■■
What the hell is wrong with us?
Why are we so easily conned by such a terrible person?
Personally, I’d say the Republican party had a hostile takeover. The old republican party that many of us loved is no longer. That is Trump’s party now. And Trumpism is the primary ideology of the new party.
But aside from some unorthodox views on trade, what does that mean, exactly? In practice, Trump is traditional movement conservatism–regressive tax cuts, deregulation, military spending, nationalism, social conservatism, culture wars, etc.–only harder, with more of the coarse spectacle and that talk radio/pro-wrestling style that the American right really likes.
Well, in theory the GOP use to give at least lip service to fiscal conservatism and smaller government. Now, they’ve abandoned even giving lip service to it.
Hey, I’ll give Sneaky some credit and some style points for at least doing it in a more interesting way than most people.
But if Trump sinks and (more importantly) when he’ll have to be shoved down the memory hole (which is inevitable), we’re not allowing any of this displacement or evasion. Style points or not, all of the lifeboats are going to the seafloor with Trump and the rest of the GOP.