They promise to "go down hard" (in Bannon's case go medieval), yet not one of them actually has the guts to live up to the "tough guy" pledge.

@MistyCee The fact that "crime family" is being so easily thrown about as insults, reverse-insults, and return-insults suggests it's not actually being romanticized. What pops is these Cry-Baby-trump weaklings (in private) seem to resort to calming themselves by telling themselves they are victims and comforting themselves with the worshipping mantra that the daddy of all (self-)victimization, Cry-Baby-trump, "won't let them go down." What's laughable, is he's more interested in creating the image his golf course as a cemetery for the tax advantage (thanks Ivana) than saving the hides of any of these losers.

@MarkPaul
I get that it might suggest that, but I'm not sure it really does.

Robin Hood didn't just supposedly "steal from the rich to give to the poor" as much as he stole from the undeserving and corrupt Prince John and the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham. Same think goes for latter day bank robbers.


Organized Crime can be the "good guys" when they deliver on protection from the corrupt state or even from rival criminal organizations.

I really do think that's a lot of what's going on here, a popular sympathy for someone supposedly fighting against a common foe, and whataboutism and pointing at corruption on the other side works perfectly with it.

@MistyCee At most, that misappropriated popular sympathy is down to the 30% of fans and there are cracks and weakness there as their frontline heroes (the insurrectionists) were left hanging, literally, by that fat slob.

As people who worked closest to that Cry-Baby who were among the crop of "best hires" tell the truth, under oath about what really went on, and those who refuse to go under oath continue to lie, the enamored fantasy of a guy who cares is melting away to showcase a selfish self-absorbed Kim Jung Un type figure whose only really skill and interest is in using people to engage in corruption.

Don't underestimate the 30% for their collective stupidity and laziness, but don't inflate their reach and capabilities.

@MarkPaul Now you're getting way past my general romanticization point and getting into percentages and strategy in terms of what influences what voters.

Frankly, I'd love to see that the hardcore Trumpists base is only 30%, and that the rest of the populace/voters are reachable, but I'm not sure whether they are or aren't and am thinking that the next election (and the one after that, maybe more significantly) isn't so mathematically predictable.


Seems like there's just way too many variables to me, but maybe that's just me.

@MistyCee Well, even romanticization needs to be (and can be) quantified. In other words, if you just consider most of the people who directly worked in the White House and were surrounded by the insurrectionist mechanizations and craziness who were fully on-board until things became too detached from reality (Bill Barr, Mick Mulvaney, the Pence team, Mark Esper, Betsy DeVoss, etc.) all that "love and support" simply became less so. It's entirely reasonable to assume that same deterioration in adoration dropped off from "the base."

For some reason you seem to enjoy the notion that T---p is invincible and that support for his tiresome antics are widespread. Except, he's not and they are not.

@MarkPaul I'm not thinking Trump is invincible, but at the same time I'm not buying that support for his antics is necessarily limited, even say, to 30% of voters.

My guess would be, honestly, that the the percentage of people who came into close contact with Trump and then lost their romantic attraction to Trumpism would be higher then those who didn't see it up close.