Divisiveness: Divide and conquer. Who is the conquered? Who is the conqueror? Is this a 1% vs 99% thing? Msm hypes the divisiveness. Who controls the msm?
My guess is a racist president is the divisive thing, and he hopes to divide decent people from his base. It's not the job of the media to unite the nation. And why is the president still holding campaign rallies? Elections are inherently divisive.
Not sure if that's true. Perhaps it's more a product of Canada's three party system, but ideally the winning party does so by pleasing both sides with centre-leaning policies.
Because he feels beholden to those that voted for him? Because he is frightened to hear opinion that does not validate him? Because he was advised to do this by one of his advisers? Because he hopes he can whip up a mob to intimidate his opponents?
Because he has a deep-seated need for adulation - and he gets that at his rallies. At his rallies there are no advisers telling him to not tweet nasty things, no FOX News showing him plummeting poll numbers, and no reports disputing his carefully-cultivated image of the world. Just thousands of people who adore him.
The ones who benefit by pushing blame everybody, both sides did it, all involved should move to the center and compromise, etc. The people behind the current Republican Party ascendancy, which built its power on fifty years of cycling calculated, overt, well-funded and professionally marketed "divisiveness", followed by organized blame-spreading, coverup, and historical revision of the consequences. Ronald Reagan's financial backing - their heirs (partly a new generation). W&Cheney's financial backing - including financing the "intellectual" and other propaganda efforts. The ones who backed Fox for years while it was losing money, deliberately and purposefully establishing a propaganda beachhead. The faction behind Limbaugh and Posse's domination of radio in the 90s, Fox's domination of TV in the 00s, Breitbart's domination of internet influence in the 10s. The folks who organized and funded the "Tea Party" coverup of W's disastrous Republican tenure - divisiveness employed brazenly, if you need a child-obvious illustration. The people who backed Newt Gingrich, David Brooks, etc, and still do - (imagine the backstage media influence it takes to rerun Newt Gingrich and Bill Kristol in prime time on your TV after all these years, or get Hugh Hewitt and Peggy Noonan their own shows on MSNBC after expanding Joe Scarborough's hours, or see to it that every major mass media news outlet frames every major political issue in the same terms (Republican Party favoring, as much as can be without overt falsehood)). The faction of power and money that most benefits by undermining reason. That's "who". Obviously. Why do you ask?
I wake up every morning ready to post, "You guys won't believe what I dreamed last night - Donald Trump was elected President." Then I see the news and I ask myself, "What's Saturday Night Live doing on in the morning?"
I had a further thought. Trump has just been forced by his military advisers to perform a U-turn on his policy towards engagement in Afghanistan. I suspect this rally, with its focus once again on the Mexican wall, is an exercise in distraction, to prevent the faithful from losing faith. Trump strikes me as narcissistic and needy, sure, but there are signs that he has a very acute sense of how to manipulate his followers.
Perhaps. But given that his approval numbers keep dropping, he's not doing a very good job at that. He may be able to keep a small core of his most vocal supporters happy, but the rest are leaving in droves.
Not really. Unless you think Hugh Hewitt was carried into his job on a wave of public demand and adulation, the Fox bimbos would lose their cleavage if they read unbiased news reports, and the media devoted an entire summer to the ins and outs of bureaucratic regulations regarding email server systems administration because there wasn't anything more lurid and publicly entertaining available from thrice-married TV star and supposed billionaire Atlanta casino bankrupt's mob and Russian connections.
His core support has been running around 34% for two years, same as the Republican Party. They may get less vocal, start up a "Real Trumpism Tea Party" that is, like, independent! and stuff, and isn't really for Trump but just what he stands for, y'know, against everybody else, like, the corrupt duopoly and the establishment on both sides. That would maintain the risk of working against Trump, especially for Republicans - that same third of the country is their voting base as well.