It seems like Trump and his Trainers have decided that Taylor Swift is somehow a threat to Trump. I'm not sure I understand what they hope to accomplish.
Given her previous support of Biden, it seems likely that she'd support Biden again, or at least the DFL candidate. I don't recall her ever being as political as other artists/pop stars. I don't recall her ever "attacking" Trump either.
What is strange is why this is a think. Swift is unlikely to ever support Trump, so what's the upside to Trump to go after her? The only think I can think of is that someone in the Trump camp sees how much press she's getting right now, and decided that they wanted to get some of that spotlight.
Swift appeals to a broad demographic, one I'm not in, and that broad demographic polls as leaning more towards Biden than Trump. Yet the number is not 100% Biden. I guess I wonder what potential positive results the Trump folks hope to get, and what the risk is that this'll drive people who haven't already made up their mind about Trump away.
I'm not, by any definition, a Swift fan. She's written some good songs, has a reasonably good voice (no auto tune), and plays at least an instrument or two. Here image is built less on serialization than many female pop stars, and while her politics are no a secret, she's definitely not as outspoken as she could be.
In short, it's just one more example of the Trump camp engaging is something that appears to provide little positive to their campaign, while risking more negative results. Trump polls lower among the women who make up a big chuck of Swift's fan base that almost any other group, it seems like the better strategy is to court them, than it is to piss them off.
But clearly Trump is playing 6 D chess, while everyone else is playing checkers and we must simply trust that everything (or most everything) he does is intentional, calculated, and designed to win the election.
12 comments:
I have no idea of what you speak, except for hints of some Swift/Trump thing of some sort about which I've heard next to nothing. Don't much care, either. Don't know how many "Trainers" really give a flying rat's patoot, either. I'm surprised you felt compelled to produce a post about whatever the hell this is.
Because I've seen too many people talking about it, and how this is some kind of DNC plot to help Biden. The reality is that I've seen Trump do stupid stuff like this before, and it doesn't seem out of character. The fact that it's getting so much traction, Matt Walsh weighed in, indicates some level of stupidity on the part of those pushing the narrative.
FYI, I literally Googled Trumpp Swift and found multiple articles on the topic.
As I spend considerable time on YouTube (don't have cable anymore), I noticed one video suggesting Trump said he was more popular than Swift and I wondered if this was what provoked all this hoopla. I didn't watch the video...because I couldn't care less...but I thought to myself, "at least he didn't do the John Lennon thing and say he was more popular than Christ". Unlike the Beatles, I don't think Trump has the same level of worldwide appeal, which was so vast that the hyperbole of Lennon's comment shouldn't have been matched with the degree of vitriol he then received. I thought it was a stupid thing for him to say, though it was in line with his character, but he was still young and full of himself, so that was very Trump-like. I would suppose Swift does have fans outside the US, so Trump's statement would still be a stretch. It seems to me another case of making a big deal out of something which should be laughed off for the throw-away line it is.
Art, as I said it was a big enough deal that Matt Walsh as well as other conservatives devoted space to it. I figure if they thought it was worthwhile, then it wouldn't hurt for me to post about it.
Of course if Trump did say that he was more popular than Swift he is either seriously deluded or just joking around.
I'd put my money on the latter. Do you have a link to Walsh's piece? I'd be interested to read/hear it, but not so much that I'll take the time to find it. It's clearly too insignificant except as ammo for those who seek to disparage Trump.
Of course you would, because that's your default when Trump says anything that makes himself look bad.
All you need to do is check Walsh's social media from late January, it resulted in some fairly long comment threads.
The problem with your ammo theory, is it's based on the assumption that whoever said it wasn't being serious. If It was a serious comment, then it IS evidence of problems. If it wasn't serious, then it just looks like a stupid, bad attempt at a joke. Neither case makes Trump look good or presidential.
He looks presidential enough by virtue of his competence in office. What he looks like is a regular guy, which is fine with many people who are no longer impressed with those who "looked presidential" but failed to be as good at the job. You just put way too much stock in the dumbass things he says, as if it carries more weight than his proven ability to be beneficially effective in the job. It suggests a desperate scraping of the barrel in search of ammo of your own to shore up your dislike for the guy. That's fine. You do you. Post what you like. I'm just stating I think it's much ado about nothing, and no amount of conservative commentary changes that.
As has been said by some comedians about their jokes, "They can't all be gems."
Of course I put stock in the things he says. He's been/running for president. If he regularly says things that demonstrate a lack of familiarity with reality (much like Biden), or course I pay attention. Especially since it's not particularly hard to think before you say some "dumb ass" thing.
But, let's take this particular "dumbass" thing. Trump is going to need more votes in 2024, than he got in 2020 if he wants to win. Why would he do or say anything that might convince people not to vote for him, especially something that isn't related to policy.
Again, I get it. Nothing Trump does, no matter how stupid, unpresidential, or offensive is ever going to be enough to cancel out your opinions of his spectacular first term. Again, I get it, anyone who doesn't share your enthusiasm or who has different criteria for choosing a candidate than you is responsible for every bad thing that happens if Trump doesn't save us, and is stupid as well.
It's a way to look at life and politics, it's just the complete opposite of persuasive.
Art,
If we're going to (rightly) address Biden when he says stupid crap, then we should have no problem doing the same thing to any other president or candidate.
I get that, and I'm prepared to do so. But unlike you, I'm not going to pretend all stupid crap is equal or deserving of equal concern. How does Trump's assertion he's more popular than Swift (assuming that's all he said) provoke anyone to withhold their vote who wasn't looking for whatever can be found to rationalize the withholding they were going to do anyway? Do you really think that's changed anyone's mind one way or the other? And do you really think it's as serious a stupid thing to say as that which is typically Dem platform without Biden saying his unique form of stupid crap? Give me a freakin' break with this shit!
You accuse me of supporting Trump no matter what, when the reality of my position is that he's not done anything thus far which justifies withholding my support. Indeed, even if I would have thrown my vote to DeSantis, it's not because of what Trump's done, but because I saw DeSantis as being even better.
My criteria doesn't include weighing every fart and burp which emanates from Trump's orifices as if each one actually matters. I'm not looking to find reasons to vote for him, but simply recognizing there are more in his favor than not. What's more, I don't need to justify my support by doing so beyond simply stating the truth that there are indeed more reasons to support him than to oppose him. That should be persuasive enough for anybody, despite the fact that I'm not trying to persuade in the first place, but simply stating your focus on anything negative is quite a leftist way of regarding this particular candidate.
You seem to want to pretend I ignore Trump's negatives. I don't and I'm not simply because I'm not criticizing them with the fervor you do. At this stage of the game, with Haley having no possibility of unseating him as the front runner for the nomination, Trump's negatives could be twice as many as there are and he'd still be better for America than any Democrat...Biden or whomever. That's all which matters at this time and for as long as the left continues to be what they are now.
In general the problem with these sorts of assertions by Trump, asserting something that is clearly false and irrelevant, is that the call into question his sense of proportion and self control. If you worked with someone who regularly made ridiculously false statements and believed that they were correct, would that not lower your opinion of them? Would that not raise questions about their capability? In the case of POTUS, we have one of the most powerful people on earth. Someone who's every word is listened to by millions. When Biden starts into one of the lies he tells regularly, or starts speaking gibberish, isn't it reasonable that people around the world see that and form opinions on the US? POTUS speaks for all of the 330,000,000 people in the US, and isn't it reasonable to expect POTUS to not say stupid things? (As distinct from obvious mistakes)
The problem with how you assess Trump and why you support him is that your standard is subjective. You weigh different things per your own individual, personal, subjective criteria and you almost always find a positive in everything he does. Or at least not enough negative (even in aggregate) to counter the positive you see. While this is correct for you to do, you then apply your subjective criteria to others and bitch when others have different subjective criteria than you do. The difference between us is that I am more than willing to let you make your own personal choice in who you support, based on your subjective criteria. While you are less charitable with those who don't share your fervor.
The best example I can see is that I believe that Trump adding 8 trillion in debt (more per year than anyone in recent history) is an objectively bad thing. I believe that him promising to get to a balanced budget and lower the debt, while engaging in record spending, is objectively bad for the countries future generations. I believe that his failure to address this fact, and to produce a specific detailed plan that would (at a minimum) get us back to no yearly deficits. Let alone get us back to where we were before he added 8 trillion to the debt. Is a major failure on his part. Partly because of Trumps actions, we are closer then ever to having debt interest (the only mandatory spending required) eclipse all other spending.
I see you jumping on Biden when he does or says something stupid, while not applying the same standard to Trump. Which would be fine, if you didn't insist that everyone else support Trump as you do, and blame those who choose differently for all sorts of mayhem.
Your logic that the left is soooooooooo bad that anyone (no matter how bad they might be) is better opens the door to you supporting anyone regardless of their character? Again, that's fine for you if that's your subjective standard. But that doesn't obligate the rest of us to join you, or obligate you to tell those who disagree who stupid/idiotic they are or that they don't have the best interests of the country at heart as much as you do.
Maybe the answer is to chill out, dial back the name calling and condescension, show a little grace (not fake Dan grace, but real grace), and let people make up their own minds. I know that's a radical approach, but give it a try.
Post a Comment