News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[jw6661]

Is it me, or does matt damon and rubio talk and look alike. I think Matt damon runs in 2024.

 

[mheslep]

Yes the Bush family, where members of the family has been in the White House in 20 of the last 35 years ...

Three terms ending 26 and 8 years ago. So much for old history irrelevant to this thread. I could also post photos of, say, the Roosevelt clan that held the Presidency for five terms and few more photos of Keynes, but that would also waste everyone's time and perhaps have readers curious about why I'm derailing a PF thread on Trump popularity with my obsession with the irrelevant past.

Barack Obama is and has been the President of the US for nearly two terms, and for a time during his first term he enjoyed a Democratic majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. The economic and foreign policy of the US is now most properly called Obamanomics and the Obama Doctrine. Many of these policies and his devisive tone boiled over the Republican pot and led to large Republican majorities in Congress. The "betrayal" cited frequently by some Trump leaning Republican voters is, as I said, and what 30s on google will show, frustration with the Congress's failure to check Obama policies. Examples here.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/12/top-10-gop-betrayals-in-2015
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/706463

 

[Astronuc]

Al Sharpton: Trump is the white Don King
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sharpton-trump-is-the-white-don-king-219601

“The best way I can describe Donald Trump to friends is to say if Don King had been born white he’d be Donald Trump,” says Sharpton with a broadening smile. “Both of them are great self-promoters and great at just continuing to talk even if you’re not talking back at ’em.”

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The economic and foreign policy of the US is now most properly called Obamanomics and the Obama Doctrine.

*cough* 'Obamanomics' is the new paradigm shift? Like Keynesianism -> Neoliberalism -> Obamanomics?

I didn't know that, so I had to check Financial Times, but sadly there is no exact definition of this new paradigm shift:

Obamanomics is a neologism which seeks to define the economic philosophy of the Obama administration. The portmanteau has obvious historical references to "Reaganomics", which is commonly used to define the policies of President Reagan in the 1980s.

Less obvious, however, is agreement on what Obamanomics actually means. To conservatives, the term is used negatively to describe an increasing role for the state. Democrats, meanwhile, cite health care reform and cap-and-trade as positive examples of Obamanomics.

The reason why the term is difficult to define is because the Obama administration was thrust headfirst into the financial crisis and recession. Emergency measures are being confused with a new economic philosophy.

So, I checked empirical data for a clue:

Bretton Woods and downhill Reaganomics is clearly visible, but where is ground breaking Obamanomics? Is it that tiny mound in 2012/2013? Where Obama raised the two top tax rates from 35% to 39.6% and from 33% to 36%?

Maybe Obamanomics focus on corporate tax to get the "trickle-up" effect?

With all due respect — I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it doesn't make sense that Republican voters turn their backs on the Republican establishment because of "all the bad things" Obama does in "his devisive tone".

Charles Murray's central truth of Trumpism still holds.

 

[russ_watters]

Poorly titled and not very informative first graph aside, I think "Obamanomics" is more about spending than taxes. "Tax and spend" was pretty much abandoned after Dukakis was open about it and lost to Reagan. After that, the Democrats realized that taxes (except on the nebulous "rich") are unpopular, so it basically turned to "spend and spend".

 

[DiracPool]

The problem now after the Nevada win is that the pool of Trump competitors is down to practically nothing. So he may get the nomination simply through attrition. That's pretty scary and sad. All we have left is Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio. I'd probably vote Kasich first, Rubio second, and I wouldn't show up for the polls for Cruz. I kind of like Rubio, but he does seem to be something of an automaton; his deliveries seem scripted and passionless, like a Stepford wife. Cruz is a joke, IMO. Kasich is probably the only competitor left to face Trump.

Trump is wholly unqualified to be president, again, in my opinion. Trump is a symbol of American capitalism, a winner take all, zero-sum game mentality. International politics is a different game. I feel much more comfortable with a candidate that has been brought up in the political system and that has experience in governmental politics, not exclusively business politics, as cheesy as it may seem. I don't want an arrogant bully in the whitehouse.

 

[p1l0t]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

 

[jim hardy]

Trump is a symbol of American capitalism, a winner take all, zero-sum game mentality. International politics is a different game. I feel much more comfortable with a candidate that has been brought up in the political system and that has experience in governmental politics, not exclusively business politics, as cheesy as it may seem. I don't want an arrogant bully in the whitehouse.

Eric Hoffer observed

The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.

In Our Time (1976), "Money," p. 37

Spare me the reformers who want to redesign society. I want a practical man of action who gets things done.

All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.

Harry S Truman, Letter to his sister, Nov. 14, 1947

 

[Evo]

Spare me the reformers who want to redesign society. I want a practical man of action who gets things done.

Does this mean you are for Trump?

 

[p1l0t]

Looks like it's Trump vs Clinton.. MAYBE Sanders but even that's looking like a long shot.

 

[jim hardy]

Does this mean you are for Trump?

aye

 

[Evo]

aye

Oh dear.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ump-wont-be-president-says-barack-obama-video

 

[russ_watters]

aye

As far as I've seen, you are the only one in these discussions to be an actual Trump supporter. So, could you respond in more detail to Lisa's query in this thread?

(I understand if you don't want to for fear of getting ganged-up on...)

 

[Dotini]

As far as I've seen, you are the only one in these discussions to be an actual Trump supporter.

Jim is not entirely alone.

Although I'm not a Trump supporter through donation, campaigning or participation in precinct, district and county caucuses like I have with other candidates in the past, I understand why he is so popular. He has been fashioned by nature to better deal with the troubles people sincerely believe themselves in. I would vote for him in preference to Clinton. But as it happens, I live in the most liberal district in the known world, the 7th of Washington, and I normally cast my vote for a Libertarian without fear of it making much difference. If I thought my vote would make a statewide difference, it would go to Trump over the putative candidate Clinton.

 

[p1l0t]

Maybe it's fear of Russia. Overall Obama has actually been quite successful militarily but he did have two major losses both against Russia recently. Putin likes Trump and Trump likes Putin. With terrorism waning and Russia becoming again our biggest advisory on the world stage people seem more happy to make a deal with the devil than face a real enemy. Or maybe I shouldn't say it like that, maybe it is the right thing to do have proper diplomatic relations with a respectable world power...

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/why-donald-trump-presidency-would-be-good-russia/ri8642

 

[jim hardy]

you asked why...

It's pretty simple,
im rather lowbrow

my basic premise is

Our two party system is just a two headed eagle atop a finance/insurance industry body
see PBS's Frontline "Obama's Deal", http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/

i want an outsider

I'd way prefer somebody like one of the Kennedy boys with some classical education and a lot of common sense and enough money to be independent

but of the current offerings i see no others who appear unbeholden.

He doesn't speak like an intellectual and that puts off a lot of people.

All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.
– Harry S Truman, Letter to his sister, Nov. 14, 1947

Our evening news has begun carrying two anti-Trump ads every evening.
The sentiment in my circles is "If the politicians hate him that bad, he's the one for me."

Call it paybacks for repealing Glass-Steagal .

 

[CalcNerd]

Well, last nights debate was a circus. I kind of liked that Rubio and Cruz jumped into the gutter to go after Donald. They both tagged teamed him and won. However while they won the skirmish, that tirade may have cost them the war. But that may help Kasich, whom I might like most. Glad to see Rubio do better. In my mind Rubio is the best of a bad lot (of the three front runners anyway). However Donald has already pointed out that Rubio is a choke artist when flustered, something we all have seen (of course a Rubio supporter might argue that he is formulating his response).
.
Last night's debate turned into a name calling sandlot fight. And two esteemed congressmen were beating up on the sandlot bully. But they became sandlot bullies in the process. And whatever crap they tossed at Donald, they went to the manure pile to get it. And it takes awhile to wash off that stench! I am pretty sure Canadian Cruz is the POS Donald claims he is (my own research certainly indicates as much), but that is also a case of "pot, kettle, Black." Rubio only drug Donald down, he didn't actually help raise himself up. I think Kasich was helped the most by this mud wrestling match.
.
Back to Trump. Since he isn't a professional politician who has a previous constituency base that he owes an allegiance to, he can be flexible on lots of issues that would doom any hard core right winger (such as the rest of the field). He gets the disgruntled vote and it is a LARGE vote. His so called personal beliefs have changed (evolved) into his current election stance. But he certainly has the ability to change his mind (a flip-flopper if he weren't a Republican). I suspect he will say and do whatever will get him elected and be his OWN man (well be the Donald Trump, he always has been). He is a wheeler Dealer with a Teddy Roosevelt strategy of carrying a big stick (and unlike Teddy, using it while screaming loudly!). I am not sure that philosophy works on the world stage. That last guy who stood toe to toe with a foreign leader, punched him out (GW vs Saddam). Before 2003, America HAD NEVER struck the first blow (or at least formulated a story to provide that impression!).
.
I've almost come to the conclusion that our best congressmen are the ONEs that do NOTHING. In that case both Rubio and Cruz are two of the best. If you think about that, what does congress do? They make laws (admittedly, congress also makes the budget). We probably have too many obscure or obtrusive laws that are on the books now. We could use less bureaucracy, not more (Republicans seem to preach this). However, nearly every politician is a liar errr lawyer, a profession that thrives on the legal system. If it were easy, they couldn't charge hundreds of dollars an hour.
.
Sorry for the Rant. I'll put my soapbox away.

 

[jim hardy]

We could use less bureaucracy, not more (Republicans seem to preach this).

yeah , we keep electing from the same pool of folks expecting different results

 

[StatGuy2000]

you asked why...

It's pretty simple,
im rather lowbrow

my basic premise is

Our two party system is just a two headed eagle atop a finance/insurance industry body
see PBS's Frontline "Obama's Deal", http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/

i want an outsider

I'd way prefer somebody like one of the Kennedy boys with some classical education and a lot of common sense and enough money to be independent

but of the current offerings i see no others who appear unbeholden.

He doesn't speak like an intellectual and that puts off a lot of people.

Our evening news has begun carrying two anti-Trump ads every evening.
The sentiment in my circles is "If the politicians hate him that bad, he's the one for me."

Call it paybacks for repealing Glass-Steagal .

Trump may be "unbeholden", but his policies (at least those he semi-coherently articulated) range from absurd to dangerous. If you're angry about repealing Glass-Steagal, why not vote for or support Bernie Sanders, whose platform is to reinstate it? And he's been consistent in his support for this.

 

[jim hardy]

If you're angry about repealing Glass-Steagal, why not vote for or support Bernie Sanders, whose platform is to reinstate it?

Actually i had as last line in my post
"If Republican establishment dirty-tricks Trump out of the running i plan to vote Sanders."

shoulda left it in, maybe

 

[p1l0t]

 

[Rick21383]

I kind of liked that Rubio and Cruz jumped into the gutter to go after Donald. They both tagged teamed him and won.

I would disagree with this. Rubio got some nice jabs in and Cruz is finished. Despite getting tag teamed and Rubio admittedly coming on strong in the beginning, Trump still won that debate overall.

Trump took a few hits early on from Rubio. Rubio said Trump has no healthcare plan besides the stuff about the "lines," and just repeats himself. Trump started to say the state border stuff again and Rubio used the Christie zings against him. Rubio was after him about hiring illegal polish immigrants (38 years ago) and that his clothing lines are made in Mexico and China. He also said if Trump hadn't inherited $200 million he would be a watch salesman. Basically Rubio just unleashed it all at once and had some woman shrieking in the audience after each one to make it hard for Trump to get a word into respond.

After that Rubio didn't even talk for like half an hour. Trump said how Rubio had some shady dealings selling a house to a lobbyist, that he's a sweaty choke artist (he looked like he'd just come out of a swimming pool) so how could he go up against world leaders. Cruz doesn't realize that his "I'm the most conservative!" talking points just make him look ridiculous. So it was more "I'll be an obstructionist, unlike the dealmaker over here! I will let people die in the streets because I don't want socialized medicine!" etc. Cruz was after Trump about financing Democrats and Trump said he gave money to Cruz too. Cruz also tried a "gotcha" about Trump supporting overthrowing Gaddafi on a video.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Actually i had as last line in my post
"If Republican establishment dirty-tricks Trump out of the running i plan to vote Sanders."

shoulda left it in, maybe

OK then. Let's presume that Trump actually becomes the Republican nominee, and Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee. Who would you vote for then?

Second question: what are your thoughts to the following remarks and statements from Trump:

1. "Build a giant wall on the Mexico-US border and have Mexico pay for it".
2. "Mexican migrants are criminals and rapists".
3. "Abolish birth-right citizenship" (btw, birth-right citizenship is enshrined into the US Constitution)
4. "Deport all illegal migrants and their US born children" (the children being US citizens)
5. "Have a (temporary) ban on all Muslims"

Third question (related to the second): Do none of the above statements (which are only partially paraphrased) bother you at all?

 

[mheslep]

The sentiment in my circles is "If the politicians hate him that bad, he's the one for me."

Not just the politicians.

Gallop Daily Tracking: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188936/trump-negative-image.aspx

 

[CalcNerd]

StatGuy2000: While Trump made ALL of those comments, that is just Rhetoric. Once you can accept the fact the Trump is lying SOS just a bit south of Cruz, who is running on popularity (not principle, he doesn't have much more that any of the rest). You realize he is different.
.
I suspect Trump feels he just needs to win the nomination now. He will say or do things later to qualify himself as opposed to the commie/socialist left wingers. But he knows that Cruz (and probably Rubio) are farther right that most republicans. And Cruz and Rubio are congressmen, some who were directly responsible for the higher interest the US has to pay ie Cruz is directly responsible for the ding on Uncle Sam's AAA bond rating. If you were to calculate that on our 20 trillion dollar debt, he might actually have wasted more US currency than anyone American EVER! (Certainly tops the list of Canadians burning US Greenbacks!)
.
I suspect Donald knows that whomever wins the republican nomination will WIN all the republican votes in final election as no self respecting republican will ever vote for Hilleary or Bernie. He then needs to pander to the undecided middle.

 

[StatGuy2000]

StatGuy2000: While Trump made ALL of those comments, that is just Rhetoric. Once you can accept the fact the Trump is lying SOS just a bit south of Cruz, who is running on popularity (not principle, he doesn't have much more that any of the rest). You realize he is different.
.
I suspect Trump feels he just needs to win the nomination now. He will say or do things later to qualify himself as opposed to the commie/socialist left wingers. But he knows that Cruz (and probably Rubio) are farther right that most republicans. And Cruz and Rubio are congressmen, some who were directly responsible for the higher interest the US has to pay ie Cruz is directly responsible for the ding on Uncle Sam's AAA bond rating. If you were to calculate that on our 20 trillion dollar debt, he might actually have wasted more US currency than anyone American EVER! (Certainly tops the list of Canadians burning US Greenbacks!)
.
I suspect Donald knows that whomever wins the republican nomination will WIN all the republican votes in final election as no self respecting republican will ever vote for Hilleary or Bernie. He then needs to pander to the undecided middle.

I recognize your suspicion that all of the Trump remarks I've seen are rhetoric, the danger is assuming that they are just that, rhetoric (after all, people dismissed Hitler's rhetoric during the 1920s and 1930s as just rhetoric prior to his gaining power).

Also, you are assuming that if Trump wins the nomination that all registered Republicans will actually show up at the ballot box. It may well be possible that those Republicans who despise Trump may choose not to vote at all, rather than choosing to vote for either Republican or Democratic candidate.

 

[mheslep]

I recognize your suspicion that all of the Trump remarks I've seen are rhetoric, the danger is assuming that they are just that, rhetoric (after all, people dismissed Hitler's rhetoric during the 1920s and 1930s as just rhetoric prior to his gaining power).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

For instance: Sanders promotes nationalism. Sanders identifies as a socialist. Therefore, Sanders is a national socialist, as was Hitler.

 

[mheslep]

Cruz is finished

Cruz plus seven in Texas. Cruz pulled ahead of Trump in Texas last month and has held it. 178 delegates from Texas. Should Cruz lose there, yes he's done.

 

[mheslep]

With all due respect — I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it doesn't make sense that Republican voters turn their backs on the Republican establishment because of "all the bad things" Obama does in "his devisive tone".

Charles Murray's central truth of Trumpism still holds.

Why not try it, actually being respectful by not repeatedly mistating my comments and ignoring the references describing in detail why some Republicans are angry at the R. establisment . The quoted phrase "all the bad things" is, as you know, your invention.

 

[jim hardy]

Second question: what are your thoughts to the following remarks and statements from Trump:

1. "Build a giant wall on the Mexico-US border and have Mexico pay for it".
2. "Mexican migrants are criminals and rapists".
3. "Abolish birth-right citizenship" (btw, birth-right citizenship is enshrined into the US Constitution)
4. "Deport all illegal migrants and their US born children" (the children being US citizens)
5. "Have a (temporary) ban on all Muslims"

i usually ignore such rhetoric because it's intended to deceive, which is to lie.

but
1. Why not ? The best way to not fix a problem is to pretend it's not there. Wall of China was not a sign language message for alien observers
2. That's deceit by intent , you know darn well what he actually said and its context.
3. What's your opinion the "birth tourism industry" ?
4. In principle, fine by me. Let them come legally, as they should have in the first place. Practically, a one strike and you're out of here policy would please me.
5. Had you lived through the Mariel Boat Lift you'd understand the need to know
edit - control
who's coming in.

Third question (related to the second): Do none of the above statements (which are only partially paraphrased) bother you at all?

No, I am overjoyed such discussion is coming out of the closet.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.marketplace.org/2016/02/26/world/trump-university

Started in 2005, Trump University now faces three separate lawsuits alleging that students who paid as much as $35,000 for its real estate investing courses got little for their money.
. . . .
Back in 2008, near the bottom of the real estate market, Robert Strupp saw ads for Trump University in the Baltimore Sun. The ads offered free seminars on how to make money buying homes facing foreclosure.

Much of the two-hour course, he said, was spent encouraging people to sign up for more expensive CDs and “elite” courses with their credit cards.

If he runs the country, like he ran the four companies that ended up in bankruptcy, well . . . he'll walk away with $billions in his bank accounts and leave the debt burden for taxpayers.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

Rubio apparently brought the matter up in last night's debate.

 

[meBigGuy]

Sanders is the only "anti-corporation ala ralph nader" candidate. Trump will be a corporate puppet just like the rest.

 

[Astronuc]

Let's see where this goes - Rubio Attacked Trump For Running a ‘Fake School.’ But There’s Just One Problem.
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2016/02/26/3754140/rubio-trump-for-profit-college/

Although students paid thousands of dollars for Trump seminars, Rubio’s hands are not clean either, since he has supported a for-profit college chain that has hurt far more students than Trump University has. Corinthian Colleges, which actually offered degrees and was regionally accredited, damaged far more students’ lives.

Although 80,000 people attended Trump University’s free introductory seminars, only 9,200 paid the $1,495 for three-day seminars and as few as 800 people paid thousands of dollars for the university’s monitorship and workshop packages, according to the Washington Post. But as many as 350,000 students who borrowed to attend Corinthian Colleges’ schools could benefit from student loan forgiveness from the federal government for being victims of fraud from the college chain.

But

Instead of encouraging the government to investigate the for-profit college chain, Rubio asked for leniency in a letter to the U.S. Department of Education in the summer of 2014.
. . . .
Rubio has also accepted $27,600 in contributions from Corinthian Colleges throughout the past five years, Bloomberg reported. The last donation for $2,700 was filed on April 30 of last year.

Last year, Corinthian Colleges shut down its remaining 28 campuses, leaving 16,000 students without a college, shortly after the Department of Education fined the company $30 million for falsifying job-placement rates. For example, a student whose field of study was accounting was counted as having found a job in her field when in reality she was doing food service at Taco Bell.

So Rubio, as well as the Don, has some questionable dealings.

 

[russ_watters]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

For instance: Sanders promotes nationalism. Sanders identifies as a socialist. Therefore, Sanders is a national socialist, as was Hitler.

[I know this was just making a point about the absurdity, I'm just quoting for others]

Guys:
1. You need to be respectful of other people and their views. It is not acceptable to insult people based on their views. I submit that if you have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people,, you should examine that problem in a mirror. To that end, it is worth pointing out that while people are getting all hot and bothered, the Trump supporter they are piling-on has been completely respectful here.
2. This reductio ad Hitlerum (I actually didn't know it had a name - thanks for that) is not an acceptable debate tactic. And if you actually believe it, and aren't just posting it to be edgy, you probably shouldn't be posting in this thread at all.

 

[Dotini]

Here's an insightful article into the thinking of Trump supporters:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/
What Do Donald Trump Voters Actually Want?

30 of the billionaire real-estate developer’s backers offer individual explanations for their support.

 

[p1l0t]

[I know this was just making a point about the absurdity, I'm just quoting for others]

Guys:
1. You need to be respectful of other people and their views. It is not acceptable to insult people based on their views. I submit that if you have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people,, you should examine that problem in a mirror. To that end, it is worth pointing out that while people are getting all hot and bothered, the Trump supporter they are piling-on has been completely respectful here.
2. This reductio ad Hitlerum (I actually didn't know it had a name - thanks for that) is not an acceptable debate tactic. And if you actually believe it, and aren't just posting it to be edgy, you probably shouldn't be posting in this thread at all.

Yeah every first world country in the world seems to be some kind of hybrid between socialism and capatialism. Nothing is so black and white as much as it would make things easier to understand. I don't think Sanders is going to beat Clinton (sorry) even though it's a closer race than the GOP race. It would be an interesting race between Bernie and the Donald though because it would be the closest feel to a real debate over capitalism versus socialism that we could have. And for the record I'm not 100% against either. Certain things are better done as a community, and others are better left to cut-throught competition, IMHO.

 

[jim hardy]

That from Atlantic ? I'm surprised.

Maybe they've been reading Eric Hoffer - '..it really annoys intellectuals that men of action make the world go 'round without their help.'

Hoffer's "True Believer" is a study of mass movements. I found it prescient with respect to Obama's first campaign, which set the stage for this Trump 'popular revolt' . A great read for today's times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

 

[p1l0t]

That from Atlantic ? I'm surprised.

Maybe they've been reading Eric Hoffer - '..it really annoys intellectuals that men of action make the world go 'round without their help.'

Hoffer's "True Believer" is a study of mass movements. I found it prescient with respect to Obama's first campaign, which set the stage for this Trump 'popular revolt' . A great read for today's times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

That explains why the two-party system is so wildly 'successful,' at staying in power anyway. All people want to do is undermine 'the bad guy' but they want to bet on a winning horse too. Funny thing is the two-party regime will stay in power forever as long as people keep buying into the big fight between red and blue.

 

[StatGuy2000]

i usually ignore such rhetoric because it's intended to deceive, which is to lie.

but
1. Why not ? The best way to not fix a problem is to pretend it's not there. Wall of China was not a sign language message for alien observers

You know that the Great Wall of China ultimately failed in its intended purpose (i.e. keep out nomadic invaders), right? After all, it failed to keep out the Mongols (the Yuan dynasty) or the Manchus (i.e. the Ching dynasty). What makes you think that building a wall between the US and Mexico will fix any problem? (# of illegal immigrants have largely stayed constant, and those from Mexico have fallen) It will likely create more problems -- ruin our relations with Mexico, harm our economy by sharply curtailing trade with Mexico (who is an important trade partner), etc.

2. That's deceit by intent , you know darn well what he actually said and its context.

Look at what he said in the context of all other comments, and frankly Trump's comments are frankly racist and xenophobic.

3. What's your opinion the "birth tourism industry" ?

Do you really want to go there with this argument? Unless if you're a Native American, at some stage, all Americans are descended from immigrants. I see from the picture from your profile that you are a white Caucasian -- which means you're descended from an immigrant from Europe. Which means at some stage, your ancestor was born to immigrants. How far back do you want to take this argument about ending birth-right citizenship?

And btw, this argument about ending birthright citizenship is especially ironic given that Donald Trump is the grandson of a certain Frederick Trump, who arrived to the US from Germany, reportedly leaving Germany to avoid paying taxes and avoid military service (a "draft dodger" as they would say today). See more details of his life here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/trump-canada-yukon-1.3235254

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump

4. In principle, fine by me. Let them come legally, as they should have in the first place. Practically, a one strike and you're out of here policy would please me.

So you support deporting born as US citizens then? Because that is in effect what Trump is proposing.

5. Had you lived through the Mariel Boat Lift you'd understand the need to know
edit - control
who's coming in.

You are making an irrelevant argument here. What is actually being proposed is a religious test on who gets to come into the US or gets to immigrate to the US, which goes against everything that the original Founding Fathers of the US had believed, and goes against everything that the US has stood for.

 

[russ_watters]

You know that the Great Wall of China ultimately failed in its intended purpose (i.e. keep out nomadic invaders), right?

But it did work a whole lot better than the welcome mat they tried first.

What makes you think that building a wall between the US and Mexico will fix any problem?

Walls are tougher to get through than fences.

Look at what he said in the context of all other comments, and frankly Trump's comments are frankly racist and xenophobic.

Why don't you post the actual, full quote, with a citation, and we'll be able to judge.

Do you really want to go there with this argument? Unless if you're a Native American, at some stage, all Americans are descended from immigrants. I see from the picture from your profile that you are a white Caucasian -- which means you're descended from an immigrant from Europe. Which means at some stage, your ancestor was born to immigrants. How far back do you want to take this argument about ending birth-right citizenship?

You are completely - I mean totally - missing the point of Trump's statement and the issue he's discussing. Trump wants to end the practice of automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-challenges-birthright-citizenship/

Either you cut the quote so far that it became false or you invented it and didn't understand the issue.

The irony here is that while Trump's positions are said to be irrational, what they create in fervent Trump opponents is in many cases substantially worse.

So, building on my last post:
3. Quotes that aren't actually quotes are not acceptable.

You are making an irrelevant argument here. What is actually being proposed is a religious test on who gets to come into the US or gets to immigrate to the US, which goes against everything that the original Founding Fathers of the US had believed, and goes against everything that the US has stood for.

"Everything"? Seriously? Hyperbolic much?
4. Hyperbole is not acceptable.

 

[StatGuy2000]

[I know this was just making a point about the absurdity, I'm just quoting for others]

Guys:
1. You need to be respectful of other people and their views. It is not acceptable to insult people based on their views. I submit that if you have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people,, you should examine that problem in a mirror. To that end, it is worth pointing out that while people are getting all hot and bothered, the Trump supporter they are piling-on has been completely respectful here.
2. This reductio ad Hitlerum (I actually didn't know it had a name - thanks for that) is not an acceptable debate tactic. And if you actually believe it, and aren't just posting it to be edgy, you probably shouldn't be posting in this thread at all.

russ, if you are directing this caution at me, I would like to note that I have at all times been respectful in my commentary in this thread. At no time have I resorted to name calling or abusive language -- what I am doing is questioning the rationale and arguments posed by various people on the issue of Trump and his political views.

I would also reject at it's face that just because I have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people, that somehow this indicates a problem with me (or anyone else for that matter). For example, consider that according to a 2009 Pew Research poll, 31% of the US public surveyed believed in Young Earth Creationism (i.e. the religious belief that the universe, the Earth and all life was created directly by God in a short time frame, approximately 6000 to 10000 years ago).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#United_States

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

Now you and I both know that there is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of Young Earth Creationism, and that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection. So the fact that 31% of those surveyed in a Pew poll, which is a large percentage of the US public by any measure (which despite the usual caveat to the extent to which this poll is representative of the US population, also largely agrees with many other polls that looked at this question) is an indication that there is a fundamental problem with science literacy in the US, not a reflection of those who accept the theory of evolution.

I think a similar analogy can be made of those who believe in things which are not necessarily justified by the facts and evidence at hand, regardless of how many people hold that belief.

 

[StatGuy2000]

But it did work a whole lot better than the welcome mat they tried first.

Walls are tougher to get through than fences.

Yes, but you need to justify the supposed benefits of a wall with the costs involved in (a) constructing said wall, and (b) the impact such a wall would have on trade (as I've stated earlier, Mexico is a major trading partner with the US), and (c) the impact on diplomatic relations with Mexico, which is crucial on a variety of fronts, including tackling, say, drug trafficking, which is not restricted to what happens on the border.

I should also point out that there are various Native American groups, like the Pima, Tohono O'oodham, and Yaqui peoples, who are indigenous to both the southwestern US and northern Mexico, and who have land claims in both areas. Consider the impact that building such a wall would have on the lives of these people. What about the environmental impact of building such a wall, say on the Rio Grande river, or on the wildlife?

These are all things that are ignored by those proponents of building said giant wall.

Why don't you post the actual, full quote, with a citation, and we'll be able to judge.

Here is the full quote about Mexico (as I've heard it live on TV and reprinted here courtesy of the Washington Post article):

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015

You are completely - I mean totally - missing the point of Trump's statement and the issue he's discussing. Trump wants to end the practice of automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-challenges-birthright-citizenship/

If you actually read the entire article on Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship, the majority of constitutional scholars the 14th Amendment grants US citizenship to all who are born on US soil. To change this would require a constitutional amendment, which as the article states is not easy to accomplish (it would have to pass both houses of Congress, be signed into law by the President, and would have to be ratified in 2/3rds of all states). Given the divisive nature of immigration and citizenship, this is most likely a non-starter.

"Everything"? Seriously? Hyperbolic much?
4. Hyperbole is not acceptable.

I don't know about you, but I was taught by my American father and by my own education about American history that the US has stood for religious freedom and for welcoming onto its shores people of a wide range of religious views or no religious views. Pennsylvania specifically was founded by Quaker William Penn as a haven for all those facing potential religious persecution during the 17th and 18th centuries (this includes Protestants from Catholic countries, Jews, minority Protestant groups like the Anabaptists, Catholics in Protestant countries, etc.)

By insisting that we ban Muslims, we are singling out one religious group over the actions of a minority within that group. As far as I can see, that is un-American. If you want to call that hyperbole, well fine. But remember, it is Trump who was quoted as arguing for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/

 

[russ_watters]

russ, if you are directing this caution at me...

I'm directing it at everyone, but in particular I deleted a post that was entirely reducto ad Hitlerum. You'll know if it was yours or not.

I would like to note that I have at all times been respectful in my commentary in this thread.

Respect isn't enough, but if you want judgement of them, the first few posts were fine (respect-wise), but in post #239 you start to display an edge/attitude.

I would also reject at it's face that just because I have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people, that somehow this indicates a problem with me (or anyone else for that matter). For example, consider that according to a 2009 Pew Research poll, 31% of the US public surveyed believed in Young Earth Creationism (i.e. the religious belief that the universe, the Earth and all life was created directly by God in a short time frame, approximately 6000 to 10000 years ago).

I don't know what you are intending to say about that group, but I am sure that you will have trouble relating to them if you judge them harshly/completely as people based on that issue alone. People are complicated and most compartmentalize.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I don't know what you are intending to say about that group, but I am sure that you will have trouble relating to them if you judge them harshly/completely as people based on that issue alone. People are complicated and most compartmentalize.

My statement was in direct response to your quote as follows:

"I submit that if you have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people, you should examine that problem in a mirror."

I took your quote to mean that if I have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people, then somehow that implies that my own views are either mistaken or extremist and that the views of said fraction is somehow "mainstream", "correct" or "acceptable".

My response regarding evolution was intended to be a counter-example to my interpretation of your quote. Essentially, it is not unheard of for a large percentage of people to believe in things that are patently false. That doesn't mean that these said people are somehow stupid, incapable of thinking, or morally reprehensible -- I don't ascribe moral judgment, just that their particular belief in specific issues are mistaken or are not based on the facts.

People are indeed complicated and multifaceted -- that we both agree on.

 

[russ_watters]

My statement was in direct response to your quote as follows:

"I submit that if you have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people, you should examine that problem in a mirror."

I took your quote to mean that if I have a big problem with the views of a big fraction of the country's people, then somehow that implies that my own views are either mistaken or extremist and that the views of said fraction is somehow "mainstream", "correct" or "acceptable".

Nope, that's not at all what I meant. People are judging Trump supporters as crazy, stupid, racist, xenophobic, etc. based on a limited sample of often misrepresented positions. To put a finer point on it, people are judging others as irrational based on their own irrational thinking. That's what I - and more to the point, our rules - have a problem with.

That doesn't mean that these said people are somehow stupid, incapable of thinking, or morally reprehensible -- I don't ascribe moral judgment, just that their particular belief in specific issues are mistaken or are not based on the facts.

That's good. We should be fine then. Just make sure you remind yourself of that if you are ever tempted to post personal/inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[jim hardy]

You are making an irrelevant argument here.

Irrelevant h#ll . Devalue and dismiss is a logical fallacy .

Within 3 months of Mariel Miami had a crime wave of unprecedented proportions.
Four of my five neighbors were burglarized.
More than a dozen people where i work had burglaries and/or home invasion robberies.

Two of my Cuban immigrant friends who took their boats down there to get family were ordered to "take these guys too"
Castro emptied his jails and insane asylums .
Immigration at Key West was completely unprepared. My friend Leo told them about one of his passengers "This is a bad guy, You ought not let him in." Immigration guy said he had no choice, this was a deal made between Carter and Castro..

The world is run by alpha males who pounce on weakness . Carter tried to be a nice guy and got walked on.

"Guess who's coming to dinner.."
Like one of our allies says : "Never Again."

 

[mheslep]

Let's see where this goes - Rubio Attacked Trump For Running a ‘Fake School.’ But There’s Just One Problem.
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2016/02/26/3754140/rubio-trump-for-profit-college/But
So Rubio, as well as the Don, has some questionable dealings.

I don't see it after reading the references. The hard left TP is a questionable source.

 

[Astronuc]

The hard left TP is a questionable source.

TP is no more questionable than Fox News, which is allowed. TP also cites articles/sources from Washington Post, US News and Bloomberg.

If one would prefer - a statement from NY State Attorney General
http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/...niversity-michael-sexton-defrauding-consumers

A WP article on the matter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hy-the-n-y-attorney-general-called-it-a-scam/

A NY Times article on the matter
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/donald-trump-marco-rubio-trump-university.html

 

[russ_watters]

TP is no more questionable than Fox News, which is allowed.

ThinkProgress is not a news organization, it is a think tank. It isn't comparable to Fox News.

 

[mheslep]

Astronuc - I took your post to be about *Rubio*, his connection to Corrinthian, which you called "questionable dealings" and implied were comparable to Trump's, in the context of his debate attack on Trump's so called "fake" school. Why then provide a series of further references that do not mention Rubio and Corrithian?

TP self-identifies as a *progressive* advocacy site; it's a tabloid. Advocacy is fine. FN has some on-air tabloid like characters, but online it is mostly a wire-service repeating, professional news organization with a bias.

What TP has done in this article, is take the stink of Trump's school (and it does stink) and smear it on Rubio. The letter that Rubio sent to Ed about an unrelated business does not justify the comparison in my view.