Donald Trump and the Media
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.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.
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...
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
El Nino meets the Blob
What Happens When Two Weather Phenomena Collide"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.
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 LincolnTrump 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.
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"
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.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
0Donald 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 .
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.
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 ~
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.
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!
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.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.
GAGood 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.
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=socialThanks, 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.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?
Wow, that was a good smack down, wilderness.
Diplomatic!
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!
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.
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.
GAGA, 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....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"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.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.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?
GAYes, 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.
Here is what I don't understand; maybe you can help me. Do you think that Trump, as a presidential candidate has personified "reasonable discussion"? Do you, personally, find it offensive and unreasonable for us to say these things about Trump, even though they are no worse than what he says on a regular basis, on national television, while claiming to be the best man for job of President of the United States? I find it puzzling that you find Credence's points to not "be part of any reasonable discussion that I would see as profitable to either of us" when the discussion is about someone who regularly engages in extreme and offensive dialogue and never backs down or apologizes for any of it. And this man wants to be President. We're just people on an internet forum.
"Loser!"
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” (re Megyn Kelly)
“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" (re Carly Fiorina)
“You haven’t been called, go back to Univision.” (to Latino reporter)
“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” (re John McCain)
Seems a bit contradictory, but maybe you can explain how Credence is held to a higher standard than Trump, a guy who wants to be our leader (pardon me while I gag on the word, "leader").Hello PrettyPanther, I am more than willing to try to help you understand my responses.
As I consider both your and Cred's responses, the misunderstanding could possibly be my own fault, although my opinion is that both you and Cred read what you expected to hear in my comments, not what I was actually saying.
None of my comments were intended as a defense of Mr. Trump, or as witness to the whole of his comments.
My comments were all addressed to points about Trump supporters. The primary point being that I think Credence2's initial declaration that they were;
"...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...."
... was beneath him.
That description sounded so denigrating, and the very act of stating it so elitist sounding, that I was moved to try to help a buddy back from the abyss of bombastic rhetoric. (I think we all know how that affects the credibility of a position)
I also believe that my quick 15-minute Google search proved him to be wrong in the contention that "it is well documented" that his supporters are as he described.
From what I could find his "well documented" proof consisted of multiple sources quoting the same phrase drawn from one study. A study which qualified that statement with the term "slightly," and restricted it to about 1/3 of his supporters. So who are the other 2/3s? What I found were multiple explanations. All of which caused me the same concern that I initially spoke of. That being how seriously upset Americans must be with our political system if what I would think of as normally sensible people would continue to support Trump even as the nonsense continues to pour forth from his podium.
The fact that those 2/3s are still with him and willing to endure his (pick a pejorative), statements is a much bigger concern than Trump's chances of surviving the primaries. As I see it.
That was the point of my comments. Never were they a defense of Trump. So I hope that explanation helps.
As for part 2;
"...I find it puzzling that you find Credence's points to not "be part of any reasonable discussion that I would see as profitable to either of us"
It shouldn't be so puzzling to a forum veteran like yourself. The old canard about the credibility of the first person to bring Hitler or the Nazis into a conversation should ring a bell. As should the perception of someone's position when they resort to claims of racism and bigotry when neither were part of the conversation prior to that introduction.
Although I might agree that the comparison to Wallace may be somewhat valid relative to tapping into primal, (negative), human feelings, I completely disagree with his contention, (by use of the comparison), that the overt racism of Wallace's example compares to Trump's positions. I would have been less opposed had his intention been to point to the dangers of the base gut reactions of Isolationism and Xenophobia. But his choices of bigotry and racism as commonalities were not conducive to rational discussion.
And to your last point - about holding Credence2, (and I would include you too), to a higher standard than Trump... That is easy, I think both of you are more authentic than Trump. Would you really expect to be judged sub-par to him?
ps. I hope this has helped you understand that it was never my intention to defend Trump. That is why I did not address any of the comments made about him.
GAIn regard to the first comment that you put in italics:
I don't want to contribute to misunderstanding, so Ok, from the articles it appears that 20 percent of Trump supporters have a college degree. That is somewhat representative of society as a whole. One of your articles had graphics maps that show where much of the Trump support or animus toward the left is found. We all know where the GOP's most staunch supports reside on a regional basis. Trump says the outrageous things, they support Trump so they must give a credibility to the things that he is saying.
Second italic:
The GOP party has chosen to ignore concerns of minorities and the poor, and of course they, with the exception of Trump, will never express these sentiments openly. The fact that Trump offends so many, Jews, Hispanics, Muslims, Women, and still, he is the frontrunner representing the party has to be sending a message. Blacks have been insulted as part of the Jeb Bush campaign, add that on to Romney's dependent '47% and what conclusion can you come to? Why doesn't the party go for a more moderate candidate? You always talk about 'moderate GOP', where are they?
I am concerned about the fact that 2/3rds are with him still and enduring his statements. These people choose to embrace a divisive candidate and his divisive solutions as inconsequential to the whole? You are right, it is a bigger concern as it tells me of deep sentiments that are driving the Trump phenomenon. He may well survive the primaries and get the nomination. My mistake was believing that reasonable people would dismiss this man as an unqualified blowhard, but I was wrong.
Next italic: Around my use of Nazi, when we talk about style: authoritarianism, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Trump in pointing fingers at others is using the same playbook all tyrants have ever used, low on facts and high on sensationalist rhetoric.
I cherish our conversations, but Trump is no moderate by any stretch of the imagination. The idea of trying to make him appear as an 'everyman' is in error. When we speak of the French Revolution, he is the first one that I would send to the guillotine. He is one of the Dantons' or Robespierres' that danced along the trapeze wire between the fearful aristocrats and the peasants popular anger in an attempt to placate them both. This prove unsuccessful with them finding their end at the gallows.
What is Trump's foundation for Isolationism and Xenophobia? Does it apply to everyone, everywhere?
That is the problem, anybody is more authentic than Trump. That is why he is not presidential material and why Panther and I had to make the point.Geesh Cred, I don't know whether to offer you a ladder so you can reach some of the higher fruit, or scuba gear so you can take a look beneath the surface.
But just to set a baseline, I will concede that maybe a third of Trump supporters could fit your previous description, so let's just get them out of the discussion because there is no way to speak rationally to their actions.
I am not sure your thought that Trump supporters, by their support, give credibility to the outrageous things he says is an accurate assumption. Let me grab the illegal immigration issue to illustrate my point...
A lot of people think we have to get our immigration policies and our borders under control. I am one of them, and I bet you are too. But we probably disagree on how.
Consider how many years we have heard our political leaders claim they are going to fix things and get our house in order. Anyone done it yet? How many half-baked, or unworkable, or just band-aid solutions have we heard offered? Any fixes yet?
You may not have seen it, but there was a perfect example of this in one of the recent Republican debates. Rubio and Cruz were asked to explain their immigration policies. Prior to their answers, both had videos of their previous statements/positions shown. Even so, both still said they didn't really say that! Don't believe your lying eyes, believe what I am telling you now! My point is that the American voter has been hearing that kind of stuff about immigration solutions for too many years from too many politicians - from both parties.
So along comes Trump, and he is going to fix the illegal immigration problem. He is going to build a wall. An insurmountable wall. Now he has the attention of all those frustrated American voters. Finally, someone is going to take the bull by the horns and get the job done! At least that might be their first reaction. So they support him. Even if they have to ignore a few details in the process. Details like a "wall" being the dumbest and most indefensible, (in my opinion), solution of all. Wouldn't that wall need a guard tower or quick-response team every hundred yards or so? Why don't we just emulate China or N. Korea and completely militarize our borders?
I have faith that when it comes to crunch time, (the vote), sensible folks are going to pull away... "Hey, I want the problem fixed, but I can't really support that dumb idea." That would be the "sensible" Trump supporter I have spoken of. Folks that fall under the spell of the bull-horn shouting instigator, but come to their senses before they march to burn down a neighborhood.
Now, as for the GOP, I think the Republican party has abandoned mainstream conservatives and their values in favor of far right fundamentalists and evangelicals. My hope would be that sensible folks, (like yourself), will see the lengthening distance between mainstream conservatives and the base of the GOP. Conservative is not a bad word, and there are still a lot of moderate conservatives, ( I think), but there just isn't a place for them in the GOP anymore.
Ha! You never heard me call Trump a moderate. And it wasn't his Isolationist or Xenophobic reactions I was referring to, it was of those third of his supporters that I previously kicked out of this conversation.
GAYeah, I am with you about the need to address the immigration issue. Can you really be a sensible supporter of Trump when you know that the solution he presents is so impractical that he just as well be Cruz or Rubio with non-answers relative to credibility? He certainly has said a lot of 'dumb' things, i.e U.S. gives Iran $150 millions as part of the negotiated deal last summer.
Then you have a lot more faith than I do. I see a very great possibility of Trump being the GOP nominee. As you speak of the chasm between mainstream conservatives and reactionaries. As a springwell of moderation, there is no place for you in today's GOP?
So maybe moderates are voting Trump as there are no alternatives made available? But what about Bush, Rubio, Christy, Fiona, etc? These are relatively moderate candidates where are your voices? So moderate conservatives out of necessity are going to hitch their star to a reactionary party and agenda? Perhaps, it is the lessor of two evils, Trump over Clinton or Sanders... So how about all these relatively moderate voices that you say make up the majority of Trumps support, use those voices to promote a more politically acceptable candidate?
How do you come to the conclusion that it is just a 'third"? With all the talk of authoritarianism, age and demographic breakdown, would seem to me that a larger percentage is under the spell of the 'Donald'
Can moderates get excited about Trump when he comes off as an idiot yet provide him so much support? Is it the same phenomenon that we saw with Sarah Palin? You told me yourself, as a moderate, that Trump's solution at least in one contentious area is ridiculous.Pardon me for interrupting your conversation, but from what little I have seen of "...Bush, Rubio, Christy, Fiona,..." they seem anything but moderate. The level of religiosity in the United States is itself not moderate.
There seems to be a dependence upon individuals who are willing to step up onto a stage, and present an acceptable Hollywood-style image to the general public. Then, if they look good, sound good, say all the right things, in the right manner, cause a laugh or two and pause for the applause....and make promises which sound attractive but they are just beyond any reasonable chance of achieving.......they might get selected to stand for Office.
It's this tendency to pile all the responsibility and hopes onto an individual, expecting him/her to do everything the country needs to get back on top....yet without the ongoing support of the Majority.
Well, you have heard the saying, "We will get the leader we deserve." If the general public of the United States of America does not get its collective head straight on its shoulders, that will certainly apply. It's ominous when you realise the strong influence America's dealings have upon the rest of the world.
IMHOGreetings jonnycomelately, glad to have you jump in.
Your comment is accurate - welcome to the American political candidate selection process. Except I would counter that where you see expectations that the candidate be capable of doing everything necessary for the office, I would say American voters are looking for candidates that will pursue actions that reflect their values. whether that be problem solving, policy initiatives, growth initiatives, or future planning for the direction of our country.
We want a leader to set the course, our Congress will handle the details.
GAGood Sir, thank you for your courtesy and interesting points of view. I am naturally fairly ignorant of your country's internal politics, which inevitably reflect predominant culture(s). It's useful to hear all opinions which help me to understand.
Of course you are welcome jonnycomelately, but I think you might be more familiar with the internal process than you think. Just think of it as a horse of a different color - but still a horse.
I am just finishing a very detailed biography of Churchill, (The End of Glory, 700+ pages), that focuses on his political life, (and British politics), from his early years of the WWI era, to his ending years as your War Prime Minister during WWII.
Your politicians and their political maneuverings are just as stinky as our American ones are. Beneath the covers of public personas, the politicians of both institutions display a disdain for "common folk's" ability to handle their own government affairs.
Just think of it like comparing a game of soccer, (your football), to a game of American football. Both games have the same goals, they just use different rules and processes to get there.
GA
You are losing me here.
First... I think this is the comment you are responding to;
No, I am not a Trump supporter, and I don't know whether my described "sensible" Trump supporters are moderates either. But I am talking about that "sensible" voter initially hitching up to Trump's wagon out of frustration more than ideological agreement.
Yes, I do have faith in the American voters. I do not see the possibility of Trump getting the nomination - regardless of the picture as it stands now. And you are right again, in that I do not see a place for moderates in the GOP election process.
To your point about moderates supporting Bush, et al., that was my initial point. Aren't they just more of the same-same that has frustrated the voters to begin with? I might possibly see Christy as a moderate choice for honest change, but to me, the others are just more of the same in different clothes.
So, as that politician that wants to be sure you understand says; "Let me be perfectly clear."
I am not a Trump supporter.
I am not at all sure his supporters are moderates. (at least the 2/3s I am willing to address)
The 1/3 I spoke of was the segment of supporters that I consider might fit your initial description of all Trump supporters.
Just because a solution may turn out to be ridiculous when finally examined doesn't mean it can't attract attention when voiced in a broad context. ie. I think the wall is a dumb idea. But that is only my opinion, I have no special knowledge or expertise to validate that opinion. What if I am wrong? What if a deeper and serious consideration deemed a wall to be the only real solution? And that means I have to consider the same possibility regarding my opinions of other "Trump" solutions.
Trump seems to be an easy target. If so, why is he still holding support? Like the thought of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants, I have the same problem considering the majority of Trump supporters to be as illogical and backward as you infer.
GA
Ring in anytime, Johnny, you are always welcome with some fresh perspectives.
Yes, all the names that we consider moderate are relative to the worse, IMHO, Trump and Cruz.
A certain of amount of 'religiousity' is the norm in America, and this is probably a bit different than what is found in Britain and Europe, generally. The problem is that much of it is hypocrisy and is used as a smokescreen by politicians.
You, looking in from the outside, certain can see a lot of ugly undercurrents and anxieties in american society that leave us with an assortment of clowns for candidates.No, I did not mean to say that YOU are a Trump supporter.
It seems to me that a 'sensible' voter would not side with a guy with this fellows' detriments. Trump blurts out anything, never substantiated and yet it is a reflex action to my frustration with the system?
While I am not happy about the state of immigration right now, after hearing his solutions, I never considered that Trump had any real understanding of the magnitude of the issue and problem. I don't have that frustration reaction, why do they? The flaws in Trump's solutions is clearly on its face.
The moderate choice for conservatives, Christy, has virtually no support. If you are not sure that the 2/3rds of his supporters are moderates and by the definition of a moderate, I doubt that they are. What is left, they are certainly not liberal? Reactionaries, hard right conservatives, the unreasonable, intractable people that I have been discussing seems the more likely composition.
The party no longer reflects the views of the moderate conservative. I don't find ultra conservative reactionaries types 'sensible' to me. So, there is no one there to 'come to their senses' presenting candidates that will have a chance in the general election.
Trump says what he will do, but as you alluded to earlier, the details are not always available. Without the details, he is no different from the rest. Yep, he is going to get Mexico to pay for the wall. He has a track record of ignorance and bluster that any 'sensible' person can see. No one wants to make decisions in the panic mode.I still disagree that the bulk of Trump's supporters are "... Reactionaries, hard right conservatives, the unreasonable, intractable people ..." and I think some of the New Hampshire Exit polls' comments affirm what I have been saying.
Regarding both Sanders' and Trump's success in the state, a couple common refrains heard from voters were "anti-establishment" and "political outsider."
Also, when asked what issues were most important to their candidate determination; Sanders' supporters cited income inequality, and Trump supporters cited immigration and terrorism issues.
Further, I heard several supposedly politically knowledgeable "pundits" evaluate these comments as indicating voter anger and frustration with the current political scene. - from both sides of the aisle, as the driving force behind their choice of candidate to support.
Instead of restating my thoughts on Trump's supporters, let's take a look at Sanders' supporters depth of understanding of his proposals.
Even if you accept his self-described socialist label in its mildest form, (ie. Democratic Socialist), he is still espousing policies that are unsupportable financially without major increases in government spending and control. Could his support from the youth vote be due to their lack of understanding of these details? Their naivete concerning the impact of increased taxes and government control on their lives?
What about free college for everyone, sounds great but what does it mean? A nation of BA degrees in liberal arts? Give a thought to a class of college grads; how many do you think are focused enough to choose a career-specific major and path of serious class study vs. how many are going to take a generalist path of History or Political Science or Ancient Egypt studies, complete with the nonsensical courses we have all shaken our heads over; basket weaving 101, Municipal Litter Impact 101, etc. etc.
Folks mention BA degrees flipping burgers in today's economy, but is that so different from the glut of MBA degrees of 20 years ago when the MBA holders were just glad to get a job in the mail room?
How beneficial is a liberal Arts or Generalist BA degree in today and tomorrow's economy? Beneficial enough to justify me and you paying for someone to take basket weaving and Litter courses to get enough credits for a BA in Migratory Bird Studies?
I submit that for serious students that are purpose-focused, (not just college- ambitious), there are already a ton of resources available to get them into and through their college degrees.
Could this compare to Trump supporters that hear what they want to hear regarding immigration control - but stop short of considering the details involved?
Hmm... I think more thought on driving forces and less reliance on ideological labels will give a better understanding of who either candidate's supporters are.
Just sayin'
GA
Ok, GA, but what about all that data that you mined that clearly stated that Trump supporters are authoritarian?
We looked at the age issue, I would like to think that those under 45 years of age are not, as a mass, ignorant or naive.
I can't speak to Sanders ideas that would frighten conservatives as 'socialist'. As for the college tuition and such, there is going to be much debate.
It is a lot more palatable to report to exit polls explanations that are innocuous and do not look at deeper motivations behind Trump's rise, which I thought we were doing amid the mass of all the research that you pointed me to.
I certainly can criticize Trump's geriatic supporters for being naive about Trump even more so, as they should know better.
Can you really say that Sanders proposals are unfathomable? His support, at least in New Hamshire was overwhelming in virtually every demographic, relative to Clinton. So, it is not just the kids that are 'feelin the Bern'. That is not true with Trump, as you evidence points out. Sanders is showing "record" support and that 'Bern" will not be easily extinguished.
So, it might be proposed that there are more people upset about income inequity over a broader portion of the electorate than terrorism and immigration?
We will agree to disagree, as I say typical Trump voters are of a identifiable sort. While Sanders appeal is much more universal. As the GOP says, the more people that vote the more successful Democrats and the Left will be, that should be of a concern to them.... Right now the masses represents a tsunami of discontent that will drive them to the polls in record numbers this year, let's see how well the conservatives fare under such circumstances
Hello GA,
I have a bad habit of bopping in and posting and not being able to reply for a few days. Hope you don't mind the delay. I just can't hang out here as much as I have in the past.
I actually never thought you were defending Trump. I thought you were defending Trump supporters, which I find even worse than defending Trump. I believe Trump is a rich guy playing a game, and anyone who buys into that and casts a vote for him is, in my opinion, either 1) cynical and careless with their vote (because they don't really believe he means what he says but they like his chutzpah) or 2) bigoted and hateful (because they agree with most of his outrageous statements and are happy to see someone verbalizing how they truly feel). At this point, Trump's position on the issues doesn't matter a whit, because his behavior should be considered unacceptable for a President. One must assume that he would behave this way as President, or admit he is putting on a show. Either way, why would you support a guy like that?
Just my opinion, of course. I understand you took issue with Credence's characterization of Trump voters and one could argue the demographics ad nauseum. My point, in laying out a few of the nasty things Trump has said, is to point out that anyone who will vote for a person who says those things for President of the United States is not being a responsible citizen. I just don't see how you can defend that, but again, it's just my opinion....and there you are, a case study of the concept behind Baskin-Robbins' commercial success; a flavor for everyone.
ps. yes, you are right, I was defending, (in certain ways), a segment of Trump supporters. But not the smaller segment that I think would fit Credence2's description.
GA
GA, Thanks for taking the time to take our issues seriously which your researched articles.
Ok, I know that RealClear Politics is a conservative mouthpiece, but I will work with the article, all the same. I have participated in YouGov polls.
"First, Trump’s support is not particularly ideological. In recent YouGov polls, 20 percent of his supporters describe themselves as “liberal” or “moderate,” with 65 percent saying they are “conservative” and only 13 percent labeling themselves as “very conservative.” Less than a third of his supporters say they are involved with the Tea Party movement. Their views put them on the right side of the American electorate, but they cover the Republican mainstream"
-------------------
For not being particularly ideological, I think that almost 80% conservative support says otherwise.
"In terms of demographics, Trump’s supporters are a bit older, less educated and earn less than the average Republican. Slightly over half are women. About half are between 45 and 64 years of age, with another 34 percent over 65 years old and less than 2 percent younger than 30. One half of his voters have a high school education or less"
-------------------------
You have to wonder though, that 84 percent of Trump supporters are over 45? I would find the lack of support of those below 30 and those aged 30-45, to such a great extent, disturbing. What is that telling us?
From Politico:
"And in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political scientist Marc Hetherington found that authoritarianism mattered more than income, ideology, gender, age and education in predicting whether voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. But Hetherington has also found, based on 14 years of polling, that authoritarians have steadily moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party over time. He hypothesizes that the trend began decades ago, as Democrats embraced civil rights, gay rights, employment protections and other political positions valuing freedom and equality."
----------------------
Trump support=authoritarianism, right?
The people that are described above are Republicans in reality, what is it about freedom and equality that authoritarians have a problem with? I certainly don't want these kinds of people running things...
All of the principles of the Dem party progressives are what drove away DINOs that were not in step with the changes and who reflected the attitude of resentment from their GOP brethren. Was this all part of the initial attraction of the "Southern Strategy" for these folks? These might also be described as the 'Reagan Democrats' or the Obama resistant group in Pennsylvania and Appalachia/West Virginia during the 2008 campaign.
As for the two African American women from North Carolina, I am sure that if I looked hard enough that I could find 2 spanish dabloons lying side by side, but in all honesty that would not be easy to come by. The magazine Essence, that focuses on the interests of African American women, did not give Trump so ringing an endorsement.
OK, on the last point in your note, I will give you a pass on that one.
"...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."
------------------
I am sure that that 'broad support' is found among those who count themselves among the GOP, even the relatively small amount of Hispanic voters who give allegiance to the GOP.
"...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.
----------------------------
GA, Trump is intimately connected to the ruling political class which is not that much different than the economic ruling class, who wants everyone to believe that he is one of them. My point is that Trump attracts much more than just a disaffected electorate. The articles you provided indicate that certain sorts are attracted to Trump and his style, which are the antithesis of the ideals of our political system. I don't need a 'strong man' as a sounding board for anger and resentment. I have not given up on the idea of inclusion and compromise within the political sphere, obviously the authoritarians have. If you look at his business dealings in the past few years, Trump is just as corrupt as the political system he denigrates. Your RealClear politics article point to the predominance of Trump support among conservatives and GOP.Hey Cred, welcome back from the edge. And you make good counterpoints where I can see some common ground.
Like this one...
"...You have to wonder though, that 84 percent of Trump supporters are over 45? I would find the lack of support of those below 30 and those aged 30-45, to such a great extent, disturbing. What is that telling us?"
Speaking of conservatives, (and specifically Republicans), I think the point is that his supporter demographics are those of folks that are more comfortable with their status quo than they are with change. Especially as it challenges their established perceptions. I don't think that is a good thing.
GASo, this is the guy that is supposed to shake up the current political system?
My hypothesis for why the drive for change is led by geriatrics is not so much maintaining the the status quo more than it is the status quo ante.
Young people are not interested in change that will take them into the past, but that is the only change palatable to older people.
Look at Sanders, he is cleaning up all of the youth vote, having Ms. Clinton running scared. From the standpoint of younger voters, who is the more credible deliverer of change, Trump or Sanders?
You are right, it is not a good thing and it does not speak well of Trump and his supporters.Hey Credence2, remember this conversation?
Well, with S. Carolina and Nevada behind us now, I think we both might have been wrong.
I don't think there are enough of the Trump supporters/voters, that fit your description, to give him the vote/caucus percentages that he received. And apparently all those "sensible" Trump supporters that I thought would fall away from him at the voting booth were misunderstood, (by me), also.
Now what? I know it is still early, but the pundits are already talking about only one or two more state victories being enough to give Trump an almost insurmountable delegate lead.
Plus, on top of all that... Trump appears to have moderated some of his statements, replacing initial headline-grabbing rhetoric with messages that are a bit more nuanced. (just enough to be a noticeable change, as I see it).
These new developments leave me scratching my heard and muttering one of my favorite lines; "What the hell?"
GADon't be too hard on yourself, moderation is not a virtue for the new GOP. I guess it is not over until 'the fat lady sings'. It is still early and one can lose favor at the flick of a dime. Trump's lead is more than reflecting a plurality, he overwhelms in each contest he is involved in. The party regulars are going to have difficulty not taking him seriously. His handlers have manage to muzzle him a bit, to the extent possible. There is still a long way to go, and I am sure that he will 'put his foot in it again'. But, as he is made of teflon, it may not have any effect on his poll numbers. Nothing he says has hurt him so far.
I believed that Sanders had a momentum that could not be stopped and that this momentum would gain him the victory in Nevada. Black voters in Nevada was primarily responsible for giving Clinton her victory there. The Hispanics went with Bernie. I get irritated as we, as a people, cling so much to misplaced loyalty. If this is a harbinger, trend, it could prove a danger to the Sanders campaign. The next state, South Carolina, is where the black vote will figure prominently in the outcome.
In my opinion, Sanders is more the real deal than Hillary Clinton. I thought that the 'Bern' in New Hampshire and Iowa was a brush fire that could not be extinguished, I was wrong. But again, it is relatively early. I was surprised in
2008, I might be surprised again.
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."
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/roger-ailes- … K5p9od4.99- PrettyPantherposted 8 years ago0
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/ … z3zE8pCvtRDo 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.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.
"... Some people like the "blunt talk" because it is "refreshing." GA, do you find Credence and I to be refreshing and strong? LOL.
"
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
GAMy point in using the "Hair Hitler" moniker was to make a joke. I guess it didn't work.
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.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.
GAHey 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.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.Yes, I do believe that the President is given a broad berth to appoint those to his cabinet (advisors etc) that he believes are qualified. In those areas within the purview of the Executive Branch, the buck stops with the President.
There are many on the President's cabinet that wield a great deal of power, depending upon the cabinet dept. i.e. Dept of State is going to be more influencial than Department of Commerce. But, all serve at the President's pleasure. J. Edgar Hoover, as head of the FBI was not the favorite of Kennedys' and even had problems with Richard Nixon. The Attorney General is over the FBI, and at the request of either this officer or the President, the head of the FBI can be removed. Hoover was never removed because it was politically unpalatable to take action against a man who have served in the position for so long.
The reality is that there are still variables that the President does not control, and it is rare that any President, past or present can keep all campaign promises. He is not a king and has to worked with other branches of Government that put a restraint on his power. Most of us have to be satified that an earnest attempt is being made by the President to address his promises and live up to them, all the same.
The President that does not properly vet his advisor staff is just undermining himself and the success of his/her administration. It is the President whose job is to balance political ramifications of his appointments, controlling for ideological and political goals being commensurate with his own.I wonder who Trump would select as his advisers. Have them all sit around a card table, playing Whist, and see who gets the most tricks?
I like this meme! Hypo___ sized double standards exist.
(not that I support Trump, just saying)
Anyone but Hillary!Woah! Trump picked up the coveted Jimmy Carter endorsement according to CBS News. What's with that?
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!!!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. Neither one is a decent option for governing the country. On a 5 point scale they both rate about a -10.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.
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.
Wilderness, It gotta be stupid to let people know that you are all those things and yet expect to be elected inspite of it.
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.
You have always been good at making the case that apples are the same as hand grenades....
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.
People perk up to what they are most interested in, and the media is in business to give that to them, plain and simple.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
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 "!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.
Related Discussions
- 24
How in the HELL does Donald Trump lead in the Republican primary polls?
by Josh Ratzburg 8 years ago
How in the HELL does Donald Trump lead in the Republican primary polls?People who support him have to be trolling, right?
- 43
How Do You Think Donald Trump Will Exit The Presidential Race?
by John Coviello 7 years ago
How Do You Think Donald Trump Will Exit The Presidential Race?I have to wonder with Donald Trump slipping in the polls, if he is going to stay in the race for the Republican nomination to run for President? Not sure if his ego will allow him to be in 2nd place and eventually lose. If he...
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 9 months ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 32
Has Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin Restarted the Nuclear Arms Race?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
I lived through the fear of nuclear war between the old Soviet Union and America. I remember practicing what to do in elementary school in case of an attack. I remember the television commercials advertising bomb shelters. I remember the Missile Crisis.And now, Vladimir Putin...
- 17
In what ways are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump alike?
by Stacie L 8 years ago
In what ways are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump alike?These two candidates are not the status quo politicians. How are they alike?
- 27
Presidential Material
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
Why would Donald Trump be THE BEST candidate for president in America? What qualities will Mr. Trump bring to the table to make America great once again? Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air to many Americans; he says what others are thinking but are loathe to do so because of political...