jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (80 posts)

Donald Trump and the Media

  1. brimancandy profile image83
    brimancandyposted 11 months ago

    Does anyone else think that Donald Trump has been getting an unfair amount of attention as compared to the rest of the people who are running for president? It's almost like we are watching an episode of the presidential apprentice. I am sick of hearing about him .

    Between his retarded comments and the bengazi broken record, I think the media needs to talk about someone else. Or something else...how about a new way to boil an egg. lets hear that.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      Ah now!  There's an interesting train of thought.....to stop an egg getting all cracked up you pierce a very tiny hole in the blunt end, before lowering it into the boiling water.   Allows expanding air to escape and relieves the pressure.   Just like your question here.  Good one.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 11 months ago in reply to this

      It will be difficult to get Trump from the scene as he has a bullhorn in the place of his mouth. I think  it will  turn out that this is all a big publicity stunt in preparation for the next season of Celebrity Apprentice, certainly can't hurt the ratings...

    3. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      Off topic, yet how I see it. Both are phenomena and are like weather - chaotic. As weather we may look to Edward Lorenz introducing calculus to explain why models of weather do not achieve prediction. Or, in fact chaos does exist. Essentially there were two different undulating curves - predicted and actual, that never arrived at the same point.

      Okay . . . boring . . . the point is for fun or curiosity take a peek at what happens when two weather phenomena meet or collide. Perhaps political strategist understand this? I dun'no . . . but it is kinda interesting to ponder. Is Trump El Nino? Or, is Clinton? That would mean the other is the Blob big_smile

      El Nino meets the Blob

      What Happens When Two Weather Phenomena Collide

      1. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        "The Blob," ... isn't that the stuff that a whale is covered with, under the skin?  Oh no, that's "Blubber,"   but the thought fits, I think.
        4 weeks ago is a long time in politics.   
        In my book, the worst politician is the one who claims to be a christian, but isn't really, in order to attract the vote of others who claim to be christian but are not, really.
        It seems you have thousands upon thousands of these sort of politician in the United States, and some of them are masquerading as pastors.

    4. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      Within any political system of government there are two sides radically different from the other. The middle is found in the election. In our cases lately it is the lesser of two evils as the radical arms of each side make it difficult to discern that middle. Radicalism is the impetus for change as it exposes the injustices and provokes change even though it usually does not garner control. Trump is such a catalyst for change as is Bernie on the other side. As the saying goes the squeaky wheel gets the oil and Trump squeaks the loudest. This will get the attention and scrutiny the news organizations that crave selling advertising and access for them to continue the cycle. It serves nothing but the system and is a disservice to those it espouses to serve.

      "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."  Abraham Lincoln

    5. CCgirl profile image81
      CCgirlposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Trump is nothing but a racist playing on Americans fears.  We have become so "Politically Correct" that no one feels comfortable speaking their mind any more so he does it for them.  He has made disgusting comments about women, Hispanics, Arabs etc and fanned the flames to an already serious issue, racism.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

        So, CC, have you heard the latest, this guy that is supposed to get China, Russia and North Korea to stand down on the sheer force of his mere presence but is scared of a Fox News commentator, a Ms Kelley.

        As a result, he says he will not participate in the upcoming GOP debates.

        This is not celebrity apprentice where he sings the songs and writes the script. Perhaps, this is all an elaborate publicity stunt for the next season of this program.

        If he can't handle a debate scenario under conditions of 'friendly fire' (Fox News).....

        Trump claims that he sees Fox profiteering from his presence on the debate floor. He hides behind his mother skirts with elaborate excuses.

        If he can't handle Megan, how is going to handle Ms Clinton or Bernie Sanders, let alone Putin or Chancellor Merkel of Germany?

        What message is he sending the supporters of the GOP? That he can bail out whenever it is convenient, while the other candidates must continue to stand and be vetted by the American people?

        He says that he would not break loose for a third party candidacy, after what he pulls here, how good is his word?

        This is not about his money but character and integrity, both which seems to be lacking in Donald Trump.

        My friends have got it right, "Trump is Ridiculous"

        1. CCgirl profile image81
          CCgirlposted 10 months ago in reply to this

          That man is an absolute joke. The fact that he has even gone this far is absolutely amazing to me. He's so tough but he can't handle  A news commentator? The fact that he has so many followers is frightening

    6. LauraD093 profile image84
      LauraD093posted 10 months ago in reply to this

      I agree he hasn't had to run a campaign the media has been doing it for him-every day all news stations have something referring to him and he is also blowing up Facebook as well which is a social network not a podium.

  2. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    Donald Trump was created by you ALL !     Flailing in your politically originated false rhetoric's , right and left , be proud !     You have created this mess of  your elections by your erections in a media  that is morally blinded by pure  profiteering .     

    You elected Obama  as a false profit , un-vetted , untested .   Any how ,  out of fantasizing about a King  like you have with trump ,    There is no such thing as an election anymore , there are only coronations !  The Bush's  , the Clintons ,You have  returned us  to the kings , the queens .   To Camelot ! 

    We need a revolution .
    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12815622.jpg

    1. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      You mean like the Oregon occupation because of an unconstitutional federal land grab?  I hear from friends that the media isn't covering that well...even lying.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Here In America, if an individual(s) has a Grievance, Due Process is available at the proper venue of jurisdiction to pursue what you believe to be "JUSTICE & Equity" ~ It's the ONLY Option in a civilized society like the United States of AMERICA ~

        The ARMED Intentional Take-OVER of Federal Land which in fact belongs to ALL of us in an attempt to Coerce our government to "DEED" land or "Give" land or "Grant Access" to land to Private Citizens is Un-acceptable, Unlawful, Immoral, & ILLEGAL ~

        As for Crazy Bigoted TRUMP, I'll be commenting more on his "Impossible DREAMs" in the future ~

    2. brimancandy profile image83
      brimancandyposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      I assume you are referring to the media. It does seem to be an over glorified soap opera of betrayal and a huge pack of potential losers. It's a bad news buffet.

  3. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 10 months ago

    Trump is drawing attention to himself, fighting bias media and staying clear of the GOP cockfight arena that doesn't cover the important issues. Plus, he will hold a rally focusing on wounded vets which is a strategically sound plan.

    Trump is anti-establishment.....and they are terrified of him.

    At the debate back in August, Republican establishment mouthpiece Megyn Kelly sucker-punched Donald Trump with outrageous questions taken totally out of context. The debt was a joke and she was not playing fair. She has bias toward Trump and that is just plain wrong in a debt. 

    Fox business network's  Neil and Maria did an awesome job with their debate, they were fair. 

    All of the candidates have a right to a fair unbiased professionally moderated presidential debt.   Even the ones we don't like. 

    Megyn, showed her true colors.

    Have a wonderful day!   smile

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

      I got to hand it to you Ms. Colorfulone, you've got guts coming in here attempting to defend him.

      Got to go check on a rumor that Trump is going to have Sarah Palin stand in for him during the debates.

      This guy, Trump, is a comedian's dream, the gift that keeps on giving.

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12852213.jpg

        smile   Be strong, and creative!

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Hello Creedence2, I would offer a different perspective to Colorfulone's comment. And that would be that no "guts" are needed to voice support for someone or something that resonates with your own perspectives.

        You say Trump is a comedian's dream, which seems to indicate that he is too silly to be taken seriously. But looking deeper asks the question of why he has such an enduring, (to this point), base of support. Do you also see all those hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters as silly as you see Trump to be?

        Can you imagine the seriousness of some of the frustrations the American voter must be holding if they are willing to support such contra-establishment statements and behaviors?

        Of course I too shake my head at some of Mr. Trump's statements, but when he gained rather than lost support, I began worrying instead. Has our decades and generations of politics-as-usual pushed the American voter towards a fever similar to that of the French Revolution? Good sense be damned, something is gonna change?

        I find it reasonable to think that whether Liberal or Conservative, a consensus exists that our current political system is in desperate need of change. And I don't think just a different member of the cadre is the answer.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

          Good point.  My vote, several years ago, went to Ross Perot for that very reason.  A useless vote, and I knew that then, but a small statement along the lines you mention - that something is badly broken and more of the same won't fix it.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            So you were the one.

            GA

        2. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 10 months ago in reply to this

          I just heard the whistle blow!  Trump shined the light on this. 

          Rupert Murdoch the founder of Fox News is co-chair of Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) that lobbies for open borders. etc.  (Sen. Marco Rubio,  Gang of Eight immigration bill)

          Megyn is just a paid for talking-head.

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … ium=social

        3. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

          Thanks, GA

          I certainly want those that have a different perspective to come and express this to the public in this broadcast forum and not hide behind excuses.

          The fact as to why he seems to have an enduring base of support is just for the mass of GOP that responds to his dog whistles and code words and secretly subscribes to them. Who is giving him his largest margin of support?
          Non college educated white guys and southern white males, we know where most of their sentiments lie..... They have always believed these outrageous things, it is just now there is a legitimate megaphone so that it can be shouted from the treetops.

          But, I remember Ross Perot and the 'frustration vote' associated with why he did relatively well for a third party candidate.

          Well, me and others like me are not expressing our frustration through a candidate like Trump, so there are quite a few differences between minority/liberal coalition that elects and reelects Obama and the people who support Trump. So, we are at odds. Our frustration with the "system" as it  is is answered through Bernie Sanders.

          Cmon, Obama's presidency was not the cause of all of this 'muck' now rising to the surface. Is it the gun people and the 'take back America' folks?

          The only man that really wants to shake the system up is Bernie Sanders, Trump is just 'business as usual' in something other than the standard package.

          His ditching the debates is just a sign of cowardice, his narcissism not be assaulted on national television. He is anything but presidential material, but the conservatives with their hidden anxieties and fears will entertain anyone at this point and that is most unfortunate.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            I haven't really followed Sanders much, but you say he wants to "shake up the system".  On the domestic front, what has he proposed outside of more re-distribution of wealth and more interference in contractual matters between two consenting parties?

            1. colorfulone profile image87
              colorfuloneposted 10 months ago in reply to this

              Wow, that was a good smack down, wilderness. 
              Diplomatic!  smile 

              ADDED:

              I think Trump my have just won the nomination.  Checkmate!

              First of all, the media is going to be covering Trump and whether this historic move was a good one or not. So, this will give him nonstop media coverage going all the way into the Iowa caucus vote.

              Then, tomorrow without Trump being at the debate, Cruz becomes the punching bag of the debate.  Trump is a self-actualized person who can think 10 steps ahead of the media.  Brilliant!

              In a conservative poll by Fox, 85% voted that they will not watch the debt without Trump, but will watch Trump's Town Hall meeting for the Vets, which he will donate all proceeds to Veterans.  That's honorable! 

              http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12852408.jpg
              Bingo!

              ADDED:

              Ronald Reagan probably got a lot of stuff when he Skipped the same debate prior to the Iowa primary, 1980's. I am loving how this is unfolding...Now!  If, Mr Trump has the same kind of Victory as Mr Reagan then ...We may just have a chance of building The Wall. 

              If the Republicans don't get their act together - we're going to have a criminal in the White House -- or even worse --- a Socialist.

          2. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            Hey Cred, my initial response was not intended as a defense of Trump, but....

            Holy Cow!
            "...Non college educated white guys and southern white males, we know where most of their sentiments lie..... They have always believed these outrageous things..."

            "... just for the mass of GOP that responds to his dog whistles and code words and secretly subscribes to them...."


            Damn glad I don't hold such a perspective. Sounds like you might be a big fan of the UK's early Peerage and Ministers set-up. (the time when the masses just couldn't be trusted to handle such important affairs as government)

            "...His ditching the debates is just a sign of cowardice, his narcissism not be assaulted on national television."

            Are you sure about that? Which candidate do you think most pundits, and normal folks, will be talking about from now, through, and after the debate? Do you think any of the debaters wish they could get the coverage he is? Do you really think the debates are anything more than a dogfight?

            ps. C'mon buddy, take my hand. I have never heard you express such condescending elitist attitudes before. Just hand me the Kool-Aid and let's take a walk. There is still hope.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

              GA, I have been indisposed for a while, but I thought that this response is important. Being a good liberal, can't be seen as elitist, now can I?

              Well I am glad that you are not trying to defend Trump. He is indefensible. 
              Hey, are the masses into misogyny, racism and intolerance? If people can support people who spouts things like this, we have not come very far. So, good all American John Q. Public sees him as just standing up to 'political correctness"? What are the words again 'Taking America Back' and "Making America Great Again'? How can anyone not take offense at the assualting tone of Trump, someone who aspires to lead us all. You don't have to be female, minority or Muslim to be offended, all people of GOOD SENSE should be as well. 

              You may not hold the dog whistle perspective about Trump, but many do. But again, moderate Republicans/conservatives are as rare as snow in Florida, 

              The last person I remembered that had a similar MO was George Wallace. You remember the code word in 1968? Wasn't it 'law and order'? Well, there is no moderation in today's GOP, just reaction. George Wallace threw outrageous things out there during his candidacy, who was he attracting? Obviously, Richard Nixon was not strident enough as a conservative and the Dems were supporting civil rights, so who do you think supported Wallace and why?

              Trump got the endorsement of the KKK and White Citizens councils, so did George Wallace, that does not sound 'middle of the road' to me. For many of us, you really cannot support the man, knowing that people dedicated to your non-existence support the same. The people that can, cannot really be our allies in any sense.

              Of course, I am the last guy to not say, one man, one vote. But, I can't help but to note the nature of those votes and what they represent based on the Trump record, thus far. 

              Trump is still as yellow as the day as long. He ditched the debate, because he would have been 'put on the spot' again by 'that woman at Fox' . After listening to  insults on veterans based on his flippant remarks about McCain and the risks of military service in general, he has no interest in Vets. The fund raiser was a diversion to focus people away from the fact that he did not attend. Because the only God Trump worships is Trump, he lost the Evangelical vote and his defeat in Iowa could have been foreseen. 

              This guy is a boastful braggard like Mohammed Ali, the difference is that Trump wants to run the country, not prepare for the next boxing match. Ali, has a heart, Trump doesn't....

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                Welcome back Cred2,

                That was certainly an emotional rant about Trump, but let's stay with the point of my original response concerning your categorization of Trump supporters.

                You started with this;
                "..."...Non college educated white guys and southern white males, we know where most of their sentiments lie..... They have always believed these outrageous things..."

                ... and I bet you are right, Trump probably does have a lot of supporters that might fit that description, which, without the context of your response that contained it doesn't sound so bad, but when you add a little context - "... just for the mass of GOP that responds to his dog whistles and code words and secretly subscribes to them...." - then it is not just a description; it is a denigration. One which I am glad I don't share.

                For instance; although I think he is a Cruz supporter, a first impression of Phil Robertson, (Duck Dynasty fame), might seem to fit your description of a Trump supporter, yet in reality he attended Louisiana Tech University, where he played football, received a master's degree in education and spent several years teaching.

                My  point was I think your "progressive" ideology imbues an "I am better because I embrace progress" mindset that does not serve you well. Especially when evaluating folks with opposing views.

                "Dog whistles and code words?" Where does that come from? Are there code words for being fed-up with generations of politics as usual that have led to the public's dismal approval ratings for Congress and politicians in general? Is addressing issues that many Americans feel strongly about; ISIS, Immigration, etc., without political double talk, the same as whistling to the dumb masses that don't know anything about anything?

                I can see a lot of sensible people agreeing with some of Trump's points and rants. Of course the key word was some. I don't see those same sensible people following their agreement with a Trump vote - in the end. But for now, considering the mish-mash we hear from all the "PC" politicians, I think his support is a much more diversified group than you apparently do.

                GA

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                  "I can see a lot of sensible people agreeing with some of Trump's points and rants."

                  Yes, even the most simplistic thinker can accidentally say something profound.  That occasional right does not come close to mitigating the massive pile of wrong that comes out of Hair Hitler's mouth.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

                    Thanks, Panther, for helping me buttress this argument. Who is not going to applaud a demagogue with a good platitude or two?

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

                  Well, GA We are on different pages here, it is obvious. Panther touched on my perspective very well in the comment below yours. Don't you just love that, "Hair Hitler"?

                  Our concepts of 'reality' are really quite different.

                  Emotional huh? You may be more red than I thought? Perhaps you have a secret admiration for Trump. So, what is the latest, now he accuses Cruz of stealing Iowa from him. He is a bum GA, arrogant and vulgar to the last. This is not Presidential timber, IMHO.

                  Yes, I think that Trump supporters are more than the anti-political, anti-government crowd, good ole Joe type everybody would have me believe.
                  These sort of supporters  are real and are historically documented as having existed and exist, nothing emotional about that.

                  We walk around race, well I am going to march right to the point. If people are not offended by his message and through their continued embrace of the candidate makes those comments acceptable and irrelevant to their support, I have to ask who they are?

                  You walked by my George Wallace and his supporters analogy, how are these kinds of people so different today, all is driven by resentment politics. 1968 morphs into 2016? It is understandable that you walk away, it is easier to ignore the relationships as weakening your position.

                  Being fed up with politics as usual does not justify embrace of a narcissistic fascist as a solution.

                  As a progressive, am I wrong in saying that race baiting and intolerance from the 'man who would be king' is unacceptable from any objective standpoint? Bigotry  as an ingredient in the stew even in the smallest amount means the whole pot is rancid. That is my opinion. "Little bit of this and that" is unacceptable. With Trump, it is a little more than just a little.

                  I am sure that there were plenty of things that Hitler and/or Trump said/says that will make people stand up and cheer. Demagogues have that effect on people.

                  Political double talk? Rounding up 12 million people and sending them back to Mexico in a humane and gentle way, of course. That is a solution? What does that translate to in reality in its execution?

                  Banning all Muslims without qualification from these shores? How many of these people have been allied with the US. in its political objectives? Simplistic platitudes is not a substitute for answers.

                  While, the people are disappointed with the politicians, Trump is certainly not the answer. But, again that is my opinion.

                  I just wonder how 'diversified' is diversified?

                  I don't like Cruz either, as a dangerous conservative. In many ways worse than Trump. But, at least he knows when to speak and when to keep his mouth shut.

                  Going back to my original statement with which you took offense. The demographics and source of his support are well documented, I am not making these up.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I think you are right - we are on different pages.

                    "...Hair Hitler..."
                    "...Perhaps you have a secret admiration for Trump....'
                    "...George Wallace and his supporters..."
                    "...narcissistic fascist..."
                    "...race baiting and intolerance..."
                    "...bigotry..."
                    "...things that Hitler and/or Trump said/says..."


                    These wouldn't be part of any reasonable discussion that I would see as profitable to either of us.

                    But it would be interesting to see your source(s) for this "documented" evidence;
                    "...Going back to my original statement with which you took offense. The demographics and source of his support are well documented..."

                    Maybe this was a seed...
                    "...Third, his support comes from across the full range of Republican identifiers but is slightly higher among those who are less well educated, earn less than $50,000 annually and are slightly older."
                    Realclearpolitics 9/2015

                    ...probably not this one though;
                    "...In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism...

                    ...national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum.

                    Politicomagazine 1/2016

                    nor this one;
                    "...but Trump is the only candidate of either party whose support among “authoritarians” was statistically significant in this survey of 1,800 registered voters across all demographics. And none of the usual variables — education, income, gender, age, ideology or religiosity — was significant among likely Trump voters. "
                    WashingtonPost Opinion 1/2016

                    Of course you could pick whichever contradiction, here, that best suits your perspective;
                    "...He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. "

                    "...His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm."

                    "...Perhaps above all else, the data shows that Mr. Trump has broad support in the G.O.P., spanning all major demographic groups. He leads among Republican women and among people in well-educated and affluent areas. He even holds a nominal lead among Republican respondents that Civis estimated are Hispanic, based on their names and where they live."
                      NYTimes Opinion 123/2015

                    ...as you can see, and as is typical for a NY Times piece, this one gives what you want to hear with one paragraph, and then takes it away with the next.

                    ...of course this one too is an opinion piece, but it does provide a different, (yet familiar sounding), ring;
                    "...So who is the Trump supporter, if not the conservative base? I'd argue it's mostly disaffected moderates who no longer strictly identify with either party. They think the political system is rigged. They think politicians are corrupt. They want a total collapse of the ruling political class.

                    While Trump probably gets more support from the right, running as a Republican, he attracts from the left as well.

                    Two of his most ardent supporters, African-American sisters from North Carolina named Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, are leading a "Stump for Trump" movement and appeared on CNN to talk him up. According to their website, they are Democrats."

                    ChicagoTribune 8/2015

                    ...about the White Supremacists and KKK endorsements - how about this nugget from 2008 ....
                    Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama" - Esquire, 2008  - Is this any more credible than the blurbs about Trump's unwanted support from these groups?

                    GA

  4. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 10 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12852578.jpg
    CNN will host Trump’s counter-programming to FOX GOP Debate

    “Bye,bye!” Fox News / Trump makes politics fun to follow!

    ADDED: "Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has allegedly turned to Ivanka and Melania Trump for help salvaging Thursday’s presidential debate."  lol
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/roger-ailes- … K5p9od4.99

  5. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago

    The one weird trait that predicts whether you are a Trump supporter

    "Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations."

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ … z3zE8pCvtR

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Do we want a the personification of authoritarianism running things here in America. Have we all so soon forgotten the blood bath that was the 20th century, predicated on those great tyrants of the past that take the same tack as Trump does today. I read that Politico Article and it was right-on.

      He reminds me more of Il Duce, Mussolini, than Hitler if one really looks closely.

      I see authoritarian and their heroes in a negative light, not as the typical man in the street.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        I am very low on the authoritarianism scale, and I despise Donald Trump.  I don't think it's unfair to call him names, given his name-calling proclivities.  I find it highly amusing that people think it's unreasonable to do so.  I won't apologize.  Apparently, some people like people who never apologize or admit they're wrong because it shows strength.  Some people like the "blunt talk" because it is "refreshing."  GA, do you find Credence and I to be refreshing and strong?  LOL.  big_smile

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

          "... Some people like the "blunt talk" because it is "refreshing."  GA, do you find Credence and I to be refreshing and strong?  LOL.  big_smile"

          Blunt talk and name calling are two different things. I am all for blunt talk. I am much more comfortable in discussions where pretty euphemisms and dancing around touchy or controversial points are accepted as a waste of time and ignored.

          On the other hand, what is gained by name calling? "Hair Hitler?" Was it your intention to make a point, or be cute? Were you looking for High-5s from like-minded buddies, or affirmations like, "Yeah, you sure told him!"

          Perhaps it is to my own detriment, but to my mind, someone only needs to resort to name calling when the foundation of their point has crumbled under them.

          ps. To preempt the posters that will point out my frequent use of "idiots and chuckleheads" - I view those as descriptors not name calling. LOL smile

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            My point in using the "Hair Hitler" moniker was to make a joke.  I guess it didn't work.  smile  Nothing is gained from it, except laughter, which is sorely needed when you look at our joke of a political system.  Again, just my opinion, and just my way of dealing with the ridiculousness of Hair Hitler being the front runner for the GOP nomination.

            I can't take Trump seriously; I can't take Trump supporters seriously; and I can't take defenders of Trump supporters seriously.  My personal character flaw.

            But, you know, I'm one of those "idiots and chuckleheads."  LOL.  By the way "Hair Hitler" is a perfect descriptor:  Donald Trump's hair has been a joke for decades, and his penchant for attracting authoritarians is a documented fact, so the term fits.  big_smile

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

              Hey PrettyPanther, I can certainly agree with your assessment that the joke didn't work. I can't think of any "Hitler" jokes that did.

              But I can't agree with your self-determination of being an idiot or chucklehead. I reserve those characterizations for a special type of commenters.

              I also think you should take Trump and his supporters very seriously. I agree that our political establishment is a mess. One that desperately needs cleaning up. And that is why I entered this conversation speaking for and about Trump's supporters and his staying power.

              If Trump had only lasted a short time after his initial pronouncements, which I agree were socially outrageous, then I would also agree with you and Cred2 about his candidacy being a joke or ridiculous. But the fact that he is still in the race, and leading the Republican slate takes us way past the joke and ridiculous stage. We have a serious problem when public angst is so deep that positions and personalities like Trump's gain the public support he enjoys.

              Perhaps a historical comparison might illustrate my point;
              In the years leading up to our entry into WWII, (1939 - 1942), the American public strongly held a very definate Isolationist position. It was Europe's war, not ours. We would not allow our nation and its blood treasure to be drawn into a conflict an ocean away.

              FDR knew that politically he could not get the support to join with England to defeat Hitler. But he also knew that Europe, (ie. Britain), could not defeat Hitler without our help. So he did what he had to do. He offered Churchill, (England), words of hope that we would help save their chestnuts as a stiffener to their resolve. He also devised the American Lend/Lease War Materials program as a publicly acceptable way to help Britain, (and later Russia also), without having to commit our own blood treasure of young Americans.

              Both moves worked. Hitler was defeated. History leaves no doubt of the alternate outcome that would have evolved without our help and involvement. Britain isn't speaking German due to FDR's efforts.

              But what if FDR had submitted to the American public's demand for strictly Isolationist policies regarding Hitler's war efforts......... What if we ignore the bone deep voter anger that is allowing Trump to remain center stage?

              I understand that this may have been a very stark analogy, but I do see dangers in the similarity of the severity of the damage that could occur if we just ignore these events.

              GA

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                Hey PrettyPanther, I can certainly agree with your assessment that the joke didn't work. I can't think of any "Hitler" jokes that did.  Aw, GA, I thought you were fed up with all that political correctness stuff.  Mel Brooks and the creator of Hogan's Heroes probably  disagree about Hitler jokes. 

                As for the rest, Trump's supporters have always been here.  They just didn't have Trump to support.  By that, I mean their anger and authoritarian tendencies were more subtly manifested by candidates who spoke in prettier language about the same issues as Trump.  The difference is now they have a guy who talks openly about what they've always believed and felt.

                I won't dismiss your concerns, except to say I believe Trump will fade once the GOP field narrows to just two or three candidates.  I can't remember the stats I saw this morning, but most of the people who are supporting "not Trump" will remain "not Trump,", which means once it is Trump vs. Cruz or Trump vs. Rubio or Trump vs. Kasich, the sum total of the "not Trumps" will exceed Trump supporters.  (Sorry, I know that isn't well written.)

                Lastly, when I say I don't take Trump supporters seriously, I mean I don't consider them to be movers and shakers, or intellectual powerhouses, or captains of the future.  They're the typical 25-35% of people who are pissed off because the world is changing and they don't like it.  Credence is right; they're the ones who would have followed Wallace back in the day.  They're the ones who opposed Social Security and the New Deal.  They'll still be here in the next election cycle.  They never go away.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                  I understand your perspective.

                  GA

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                    Ok, thank you for the dialogue.  A couple of questions.

                    When people blame President Obama for not measuring up to the "promises" he has made, I begin to think of all those "advisers" that I believe become part of the the administration.   They don't get there through a democratic process, right?  They get appointed by the President himself, right?

                    1. Does your President have freedom of choice and decision over who gets to be an adviser?   2. Are there ways in which individuals of influence can edge their way into positions of considerable power, even without full agreement of the President? 

                    Question 1 - if the answer is a definite Yes, then all blame must be laid at the President's feet.
                    Question 2 - if the answer is a definite yes, then maybe we should apportioning the blame accordingly.

                    With regards to that expertise which advisers are supposed to possess, how do we know whether their qualifications are authentic?  What is the nature of their biases?  If any one of them was known to "me," would I be accepting their philosophical background?  Such biases and philosophical stand-points might be very much outside the interests of the General Public.  All because an undemocratic process is entrenched in Parliament.

  6. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 10 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12865452.jpg

    I like this meme!   Hypo___ sized double standards exist.
    (not that I support Trump, just saying)
    Anyone but Hillary!

    1. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Woah!   Trump picked up the coveted Jimmy Carter endorsement according to CBS News.  What's with that?

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Colorfulone, that is half-ass of the story. Between two scoundrels, Cruz and Trump, Trump offends the least. That is hardly an endorsement of Trump, just the best choice between 2 bad options.

        There is no way Carter would get within smell range of either of these guys!!!

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

          Much like Sanders and Clinton, isn't it?  Between the two scoundrels he offends the least, but that's hardly an endorsement.  Just the best of two bad options.

          Not sure which of the two party's would fit where, though. smile  Neither one is a decent option for governing the country.  On a 5 point scale they both rate about a -10.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

            As you pine toward the right, I guess that depends on your point of view? The options are not acceptable to you.  But of course, I find a vacuum between the ears of those leading GOP contenders right now.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

              I'd have to disagree.  You don't get to where any of the cnadidates are (particularly Trump) by being stupid.  Uncaring, obnoxious, self-absorbed, cruel, egotistical - these might apply to any or all of them, but not stupid.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, It gotta be stupid to let people know that you are all those things and yet expect to be elected inspite of it.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                  And yet...it could very well work.  Trump is pandering to the anger and discontent of the people, expressing just what they feel and in a manner they can identify with.  That you (and I) disagree and find it disgusting doesn't mean that he will lose. 

                  Indeed, I would predict that if it comes down to Clinton vs Trump we will not have a female president, for she has let people know those same things about her without giving the impression that she has any connection at all with the voters.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

      You have always been good at making the case that apples are the same as hand grenades....

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        No, just playing Mr. Tatterhead.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Well, I don't know about "good at...."  lol

        It's easy to make comparisons; it's harder to make logical comparisons.

  7. Perspycacious profile image74
    Perspycaciousposted 10 months ago

    Let's also see some new talented faces in the halls of the Congress, especially capable women.  Capable?  Yes, capable of keeping the men in line such as the capable congresswoman from the State of Washington and the retiring one from Maine with the wintry name of Snow who followed in the tradition of a female who drew votes for the office of president in a previous Republican convention Senator Margaret Chase Smith.

  8. Perspycacious profile image74
    Perspycaciousposted 10 months ago

    People perk up to what they are most interested in, and the media is in business to give that to them, plain and simple.

  9. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Get Used to Trump being around ,  get used to Sanders being around , Why ?   The American voter is in full revolution mode .     He is the new Reagan in that sense , although RR was a far better unifier ,   Trump doesn't have to court the imbedded system  ,one iota !      In that sense I will vote for him in a minute , IS HE my first choice as a pick , no .     But what Trump is not is  business as usual , and given that alone at least half  of  the imbedded members of congress and senate should all resign immediately !    Or they will lose their  jobs with trump firing  them , I can only hope !

    Donald Trump to congress ;  "YOU ARE FIRED "!

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Well, sure. Let's just fire one whole branch of our government. Then he can fire the Supreme Court. And be Supreme Leader. That's what this country needs. An idiot for a dictator.

 
working