News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lisab
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the unexpected persistence of Donald Trump's popularity in the lead-up to the Iowa caucus, with many questioning the reasons behind his support. Key points include the perception among conservatives that they feel marginalized and oppressed by the current political climate and media representation. Trump's appeal is attributed to his outsider status, charisma, and willingness to voice controversial opinions that resonate with voters frustrated by traditional politicians. Participants express concern that Trump's candidacy may undermine the GOP's image, likening the nomination process to a reality show. There is a recognition that Trump's rhetoric channels widespread anger and dissatisfaction, particularly regarding issues like immigration and economic decline. The conversation also touches on the broader political landscape, comparing Trump's rise to that of Bernie Sanders on the left, highlighting a growing discontent with the political establishment across the spectrum.
  • #251
russ_watters said:
ThinkProgress is not a news organization, it is a think tank. It isn't comparable to Fox News.
Not a think tank either, not in the traditional meaning of the term. Brookings, Heritage ... they endow chairs for scholars who publish and write in depth treatises on various topics.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #253
russ_watters said:
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.

Including those who continue to support Trump after Trump refuses to openly condemn Duke and the KKK (Trump claims to not know about Duke, though there is evidence he does know about Duke's supremacists views)? Do you allow for compartmentalization for those who allow for the consistent hatred Trump spews out?
 
  • #254
jim hardy said:
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."

jim, you are raising arguments about the wisdom of accepting Cuban refugees in the 1970s. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument posed of "banning all Muslims from entering the US". Hence why I refer to your argument as irrelevant.
 
  • #255
more accurately, about vetting tens of thousands of mideastern refugees who happen to be largely muslim.

We should have vetted those Cubans too.
 
Last edited:
  • #256
Donald Trump says he would lower standard for libel laws: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ken-libel-laws-amid-feuds-with-reporters.html

It seems he has a problem with the media's reporting on him.

Also on the note of Donald Trump: Donald Trump tweets Mussolini quote, fully aware of its origins: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-mussolini-retweet-gawker-232519997.html

It terrifies me that he might be president. To put a spin on a famous Carl Sagan quote, just because Trump isn't a politician, it doesn't make him a better presidential candidate. Bozo wasn't a politician, either.

If Trump runs against Hillary, she need only point out the fact that he supported her for years.
 
  • #257
mheslep said:
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 Corinthian?
I didn't imply that Rubio's dealings with Corinthian were comparable to Trump's connection with Trump University. Rubio had brought up the matter during the last debate, and I was noting that Rubio himself had questionable dealings.

Marco Rubio Went to Bat for Corinthian Colleges
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...rco-rubio-goes-to-bat-for-corinthian-colleges
The Florida senator sent a letter last summer to the Department of Education asking it to "demonstrate leniency" with the now-shuttered for-profit college network.
"While I commend the Department's desire to protect our nation's students from fraudulent and malicious activity by any institution of higher education, regardless of tax status, I believe the Department can and should demonstrate leniency as long as Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to expeditiously and earnestly cooperate by providing the documents requested."

U.S. Department of Education Fines Corinthian Colleges $30 million for Misrepresentation
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releas...inthian-colleges-30-million-misrepresentation

I would call Rubio calling for 'leniency' in an investigation being questionable, especially when the government determined that the institution mad misrepresentations. In that sense, Corinthian University resembles some similarity to Trump University, which also made misrepresentations. It would seem to be a conflict of interest on the part of Rubio. He should be calling for a fair/impartial hearing or investigation, which it should be.

russ_watters said:
ThinkProgress is not a news organization, it is a think tank. It isn't comparable to Fox News.
Apparently TP is a news organization, or perhaps more accurately, and media project (news journal). TP claims, "ThinkProgress is editorially independent. All editorial decisions are made by the editors of ThinkProgress. Editorial decisions are not influenced by those who financially support the site, either through advertising or contributions to our parent organization."

TP claims to "produce critical reporting on Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike."

TP provides sources/citations. It's actually probably more credible than FOX.

Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
 
  • #258
Astronuc said:
...Apparently TP is a news organization, ...
No need to speculate. TP is a view point advocacy shop:

"ThinkProgress is progressive. We believe the best way to advance progressive values..."
 
  • #259
mheslep said:
TP is a view point advocacy shop:

A look at their directors tells me they're leftish.
Wendy Abrams
Anna Burger
Peter Edelman
Judith Feder
Christie Hefner
Harold Ickes
Ron Klain
Molly McUsic
Hilary Rosen

but, probably a nice counterpoise to rightish American Thinker.
 
  • #260
WWGD said:
Including those who continue to support Trump after Trump refuses to openly condemn Duke and the KKK (Trump claims to not know about Duke, though there is evidence he does know about Duke's supremacists views)?
Trump answered "I don't know" to a question he should have been unequivocal about? String him up! :rolleyes: Please, this is just silly.

But sure, if I don't judge Obama supporters racists for similar and worse infractions, I won't judge Trump supporters as racists for this.
 
  • #262
russ_watters said:
Trump answered "I don't know" to a question he should have been unequivocal about? String him up! :rolleyes: Please, this is just silly.

But sure, if I don't judge Obama supporters racists for similar and worse infractions, I won't judge Trump supporters as racists for this.

But Trump's vile is serial, just general hateful speech, whether you agree with him or not. And there is no reason to not condemn both. EDIT: I still somehow expect Trump to say " Gotcha! " and reveal his cndidacy is a joke ( I mean, officially) some day, but I am not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
  • #263
WWGD said:
But Trump's vile is serial, just general hateful speech, whether you agree with him or not. And there is no reason to not condemn both. EDIT: I still somehow expect Trump to say " Gotcha! " and reveal his cndidacy is a joke ( I mean, officially) some day, but I am not holding my breath.

No, it's really not if you would actually listen to what is being said rather than forming an opinion based solely on click bait articles.

I'll refer you to a comment that my BLACK friend made earlier today: "Looking at the clip it was obvious that Jake Tapper was trying to corner Trump and Trump's ego would not let him bend to Tapper's poor attempt at an ambush. This happens with Bernie Sanders all the time but Sanders isn't savvy enough to give the media a total "FU" like Trump does regularly. Everyone knows Trump doesn't advocate white supremacists doing his bidding, but somehow he is being held responsible for a small contingent of folks that have always been in the GOP ever since southern dems switched out in the late 60s early 70s. Where was the media when the McCain Palin ticket had supremacist groups at political rallies??"
 
  • #264
Rick21383 said:
No, it's really not if you would actually listen to what is being said rather than forming an opinion based solely on click bait articles.

I'll refer you to a comment that my BLACK friend made earlier today: "Looking at the clip it was obvious that Jake Tapper was trying to corner Trump and Trump's ego would not let him bend to Tapper's poor attempt at an ambush. This happens with Bernie Sanders all the time but Sanders isn't savvy enough to give the media a total "FU" like Trump does regularly. Everyone knows Trump doesn't advocate white supremacists doing his bidding,..."

It is not clear to me just what it is he advocates, though, yes, it is true that the press has set a circus. And even if he does not explicitly advocate hatred, his speech often does have this effect, and he cannot relinquish this responsibility. News are entertainment, and high ratings are necessary.
 
  • #265
WWGD said:
But Trump's vile is serial, just general hateful speech, whether you agree with him or not.
And "I don't know" is a prime example of hateful speech? Really? Meh, why bother evaluating it, just throw it on the pile and assume that a big pile carries weight, right?
I still somehow expect Trump to say " Gotcha! " and reveal his cndidacy is a joke ( I mean, officially) some day, but I am not holding my breath.
I dont. Even though I say he's not a real person, what i mean is i think he's a permanent caricature of himself, so there never is a point where he would exit and say "gotcha".
 
Last edited:
  • #266
LOL

 
  • #267
Disclaimers: 1) I didn't read the 14 pages of back and forth on this subject, so I'm not responding to any post, but instead to the original question. 2) I am not "for" Trump, and will probably not vote for him tomorrow as I don't think his temperament is suited to that required of POTUS.

That said:

First, a LOT of conservatives are willing to draw a parallel to Reagan with how Trump's wiliness in handling himself in the glare of the spotlight and against others is heads and shoulders beyond any other candidate in either party. The television media saw that and use it to pump up their ratings...just review the questions proposed by moderators in any of the debates...they throw out a hand grenade and the candidates obligingly jump on it for TV ratings. Let's call it: "Glam".

Second, a LOT of conservatives want corresponding actions by their candidates in office...to date with the current crop of candidates there is little and none to be seen. Trump does not care about a future career in politics, so he can say what he likes, and since he's free of the GOP machine, his followers see him as the best bet to push their agenda. Call it: "Independent".

Third, a LOT of conservatives see Trump as willing to say what no other candidate will; to wit: we see a multi-generational welfare system taking trillions with no appreciable gains nor end in sight. Call it "Frustrated".

Fourth, we see a broken immigration system that allows tens of millions of people to enter with no documentation, no identification, have various communities flout the national law with impunity (e.g. sanctuary cities), and take jobs (yes, that is a core belief) from citizens. And every solution (except complete capitulation) is terminally undermined by liberals and their politicians who defund, cat-call "Nazi", hide illegals, support illegals, etc. Call it "Disenchanted".

Fifth, we are ANGRY that people live for years on unemployment insurance instead of taking whatever work is available (see illegal immigration issue). Call it "Tired".

Sixth, We see our values (pillars of our civilization) being derided and sneered at by a liberal press and media. To wit: Religion is the basis for morality, yet is seen as antiquated; where heterosexuality and monogamy are second place to homosexuality and infidelity, where raising children is now the province of the government. A government that determines what they can say, what they can eat, and (coming soon!) what they can think. Call it: "Disgusted".

I could go on, but Trump hits these nerves like no other candidate and feeds off of them, so supporters of Trump see his Glam and Independence, and are Frustrated, Disenchanted, Tired, and Disgusted. I think that is a fairly good summary of why he garners so much support. Can Trump win a national election? IMHO, no, he can't get past a 40% "angry" base and the Dems will scoop up everyone else...unless there is a 3rd party candidate.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #268
lisab said:
If so, can you 'splain it all to me? No one expected Trump to last.

Most thought that he'd be gone faster than a toupee in a hurricane.

Yet here we are, just weeks from the Iowa caucus -- AND HE'S STILL HERE. Real Clear Politics has Trump and Cruz tied in Iowa (27% each, but it remains to be seen whose supporters will actually turn out to vote). We're all aware that opinion polls and votes are different - but that's OK, because I'm specifically asking about Trump's popularity.

My question is to people who follow US politics: How do you explain Trump's support? What's going on there? The pundits struggle to explain it, which you probably already know if you follow US politics. No denying it: there are people out there who really LOVE the guy. Why? I'm especially interested in what PF conservatives think.


Please read this next part before posting!


All PFers who follow the Current Events forum should know by now how we feel about posting opinions here: you can post your opinion as long as you clearly understand that other people - good, kind, generous, honest, lovely people - may hold the opposite opinion. Adamantly.

So in this thread I'm asking for your opinion - yes you! you good, kind, generous, honest, lovely person, and I ask that you maintain respect for all of us good, kind, generous, honest, lovely people who are posting alongside you.
I think because he is not part of the "establishment." That would mean people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.
 
  • #269
russ_watters said:
And "I don't know" is a prime example of hateful speech? Really? Meh, why bother evaluating it, just throw it on the pile and assume that a big pile carries weight, right?

I dont. Even though I say he's not a real person, he's a permanent caricature of himself, so there never is a point where he would exit and say "gotcha".

Well, by itself it is not a big deal, but in a context of general bile against anyone who disagrees with him adds up to his refusal to condemn.
DFingles said:
Disclaimers: 1) I didn't read the 14 pages of back and forth on this subject, so I'm not responding to any post, but instead to the original question. 2) I am not "for" Trump, and will probably not vote for him tomorrow as I don't think his temperament is suited to that required of POTUS.

That said:

First, a LOT of conservatives are willing to draw a parallel to Reagan with how Trump's wiliness in handling himself in the glare of the spotlight and against others is heads and shoulders beyond any other candidate in either party. The television media saw that and use it to pump up their ratings...just review the questions proposed by moderators in any of the debates...they throw out a hand grenade and the candidates obligingly jump on it for TV ratings. Let's call it: "Glam".

Second, a LOT of conservatives want corresponding actions by their candidates in office...to date with the current crop of candidates there is little and none to be seen. Trump does not care about a future career in politics, so he can say what he likes, and since he's free of the GOP machine, his followers see him as the best bet to push their agenda. Call it: "Independent".

Third, a LOT of conservatives see Trump as willing to say what no other candidate will; to wit: we see a multi-generational welfare system taking trillions with no appreciable gains nor end in sight. Call it "Frustrated".

Fourth, we see a broken immigration system that allows tens of millions of people to enter with no documentation, no identification, have various communities flout the national law with impunity (e.g. sanctuary cities), and take jobs (yes, that is a core belief) from citizens. And every solution (except complete capitulation) is terminally undermined by liberals and their politicians who defund, cat-call "Nazi", hide illegals, support illegals, etc. Call it "Disenchanted".

Fifth, we are ANGRY that people live for years on unemployment insurance instead of taking whatever work is available (see illegal immigration issue). Call it "Tired".

Sixth, We see our values (pillars of our civilization) being derided and sneered at by a liberal press and media. To wit: Religion is the basis for morality, yet is seen as antiquated; where heterosexuality and monogamy are second place to homosexuality and infidelity, where raising children is now the province of the government. A government that determines what they can say, what they can eat, and (coming soon!) what they can think. Call it: "Disgusted".

I could go on, but Trump hits these nerves like no other candidate and feeds off of them, so supporters of Trump see his Glam and Independence, and are Frustrated, Disenchanted, Tired, and Disgusted. I think that is a fairly good summary of why he garners so much support. Can Trump win a national election? IMHO, no, he can't get past a 40% "angry" base and the Dems will scoop up everyone else...unless there is a 3rd party candidate.

Your 4,5 seem to be contradicting each other, and it would be nice if you documented some of your claims better than "we see" , etc. , since I, and I believe many disagree with what you said. Religion a basis for morality has been tore to shreds in hundreds of places, let alone the fact that Trump is not religious. And maybe after the church cleans up its pedophilic mess, it will be hard to see it as the standart of morality. And I think you are off re the homosexuality issue, because there is a high level of approval of gay marriage and general gay rights across the political spectrum.
The best explanation I have seen so far was in Dotini's link, which overlaps with what you said to some degree. There is no conclusive evidence that illegal immigrants are taking away jobs, nor that their net economic contribution is negative. Not that something should not be done, but on top of everything, Trump is scapegoating, or at least not supporting his claims to this effect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
  • #270
WWGD said:
Well, by itself it is not a big deal, but in a context of general bile against anyone who disagrees with him adds up to his refusal to condemn.

Your 4,5 seem to be contradicting each other, and it would be nice if you documented some of your claims better than "we see" , etc. , since I, and I believe many disagree with what you said. Religion a basis for morality has been tore to shreds in hundreds of places, let alone the fact that Trump is not religious. And maybe after the church cleans up its pedophilic mess, it will be hard to see it as the standart of morality. And I think you are off re the homosexuality issue, because there is a high level of approval of gay marriage and general gay rights across the political spectrum.
The best explanation I have seen so far was in Dotini's link, which overlaps with what you said to some degree. There is no conclusive evidence that illegal immigrants are taking away jobs, nor that their net economic contribution is negative. Not that something should not be done, but on top of everything, Trump is scapegoating, or at least not supporting his claims to this effect.
To respond...4 and 5 are closely related, because the belief is that one (illegal immigration) begets the other. There are 11 million or so illegals, and 11 million or so on unemployment. Are they 1 for 1 match-ups? No, and no one is saying that. The conservatives believe the Democratic Party frowns on manual labor so it's OK that illegals do "that" work, while citizens go to college and are white collar workers. Conservatives believe that all jobs and careers can be honorable and productive, and should be reserved for citizens and legal residents. When workers are few, there are 3 legal choices: raise wages; automate; or quit. Illegal workers subvert that logic, keep wages low, and lock workers into perpetual economic slavery.
And no, religion as the basis of morality has not been shredded, it is alive, well, and the pre-eminent reason for morality. Anything else is just a temporary fad with no consequences, leading to eventual breakdown of civility, lawfulness, and civilization. Saying religion is corrupted because of a few errant workers is equivalent to shutting down all educational institutions because some alumni committed murder at some time in the past 200 years...it's nonsensical.
Conservatives don't care if you're homosexual...what you do in your house between adults is none of our business. It IS a problem when you wish to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. The recent gay marriage issue comes to mind. SCOTUS created law by allowing two homosexuals to marry, but didn't say why it should stop at 2, nor the species, nor any other possible combination. We USED to have a good reason...only one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is the single best combination that provides the best support for women and children...There's about 10,000 years of empirical evidence to support this, but no, NOW we are so much smarter (sarcasm) that we can forego millennia of evidence and just strike out willy-nilly.
The road to hell is smooth, and easy to walk down...but becomes incredibly steep and difficult when trying to backtrack.
 
  • #271
DFingles said:
To respond...4 and 5 are closely related, because the belief is that one (illegal immigration) begets the other. There are 11 million or so illegals, and 11 million or so on unemployment. Are they 1 for 1 match-ups? No, and no one is saying that. The conservatives believe the Democratic Party frowns on manual labor so it's OK that illegals do "that" work, while citizens go to college and are white collar workers. Conservatives believe that all jobs and careers can be honorable and productive, and should be reserved for citizens and legal residents. When workers are few, there are 3 legal choices: raise wages; automate; or quit. Illegal workers subvert that logic, keep wages low, and lock workers into perpetual economic slavery.
And no, religion as the basis of morality has not been shredded, it is alive, well, and the pre-eminent reason for morality. Anything else is just a temporary fad with no consequences, leading to eventual breakdown of civility, lawfulness, and civilization. Saying religion is corrupted because of a few errant workers is equivalent to shutting down all educational institutions because some alumni committed murder at some time in the past 200 years...it's nonsensical.
Conservatives don't care if you're homosexual...what you do in your house between adults is none of our business. It IS a problem when you wish to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. The recent gay marriage issue comes to mind. SCOTUS created law by allowing two homosexuals to marry, but didn't say why it should stop at 2, nor the species, nor any other possible combination. We USED to have a good reason...only one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is the single best combination that provides the best support for women and children...There's about 10,000 years of empirical evidence to support this, but no, NOW we are so much smarter (sarcasm) that we can forego millennia of evidence and just strike out willy-nilly.
The road to hell is smooth, and easy to walk down...but becomes incredibly steep and difficult when trying to backtrack.

Your claims are pure speculation. Countries/areas with low level of religious belief are no less moral than those with high level of belief. You may even say the opposite is the case given that the religious South has a much higher rate of violent crime than most parts of the more secular North (which is no bastion of sainthood, though) :
http://www.businessinsider.com/south-has-more-violent-crime-fbi-statistics-show-2013-9
And the problem with the Church is an institutional one, not a matter of " a few bad apples" , an unwillingness of the Church as a whole to come clean and punish those responsible. That erodes the Church _as an institution_. And my point is that there is no reasonable evidence that "foreigners take national's' jobs" ; feel free to find some and convince me otherwise EDIT https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=are illegals taking our jobs for a variety of opinions on this.
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
  • #272
John Oliver has just done a brilliant, hiliarious episode on Last Week Tonight about Donald Trump:

 
  • #273
WWGD said:
And my point is that there is no reasonable evidence that "foreigners take national's' jobs" ; feel free to find some and convince me otherwise EDIT https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=are illegals taking our jobs for a variety of opinions on this.

Your link is to a google search. Was there a specific page we were supposed to click on?
anyway...

  • Applying the standard textbook model to illegal immigration shows that illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. As before, this “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
  • The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.
  • Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.
 
  • #275
Bile ?
Bile? Most of what i see is directed from the GOP good old boy network toward Trump. Networks are glad to air it..
Trump just throws it back in their face.

I liked this synopsis of the campaign environment, by one Jeff Nyquist:

The formula is: Trump's supporters are Vichy Republicans who deserve summary execution. This is justified because: (1) Trump is a Nazi. (2) Trump wants to have a New Holocaust with illegal aliens in the gas chambers of the New Auschwitz. Logically, the good conservatives must hang Trump as was done to the surviving Nazi leaders at Nuremberg, if only to preempt his crimes.

This is real insanity. And it is an insanity that has prevailed -- and will likely prevail despite Mr. Trump's best efforts. Just as last week's debate was "insane," with Dr. Carson humorously begging to be attacked, the aftermath will prove even more egregious and aberrant. This contemptible episode of political theater, with blatant lies and scandal pouring from both sides, verifies Carl Jung's thesis in The Undiscovered Self, that modernity represents a slow descent into literal madness via classic shadow-projection (accusing one's rival of one's own wickedness). Not knowing themselves, or their context, modern men can have no dignity, no seriousness, no contact with the source of their being, and therefore, a looser and looser connection with reality. With the madness comes anger, and at the end of anger is pure unadulterated violence.

The TV ads here in Northeast Arkansas are increasingly hyperbolic and desperate. I never saw a campaign season like this.
 
  • #276
jim hardy said:
Bile ?
Bile? Most of what i see is directed from the GOP good old boy network toward Trump. Networks are glad to air it..
Trump just throws it back in their face.

I liked this synopsis of the campaign environment, by one Jeff Nyquist:
The TV ads here in Northeast Arkansas are increasingly hyperbolic and desperate. I never saw a campaign season like this.

I have no interest in defending any candidate, but your quote is a caricature of , at least, my position. Many very careful and specific arguments have been made and documented, no need to refer to subconscious reactions to explain these positions. His way of talking about Mexicans coming in as rapists , his threats of bombing and making others submit to his will are all very well documented.
 
  • #277
WWGD said:
Well, by itself it is not a big deal, but in a context of general bile against anyone who disagrees with him adds up to his refusal to condemn.
Well, x plus nothing is still just x. People are treating it like a big deal and putting it on the pile when it really doesn't add anything.
 
  • #278
Astronuc said:
Apparently TP is a news organization, or perhaps more accurately, and media project (news journal).
Who/what they are is described well enough in their wiki pages:
"ThinkProgress is an American political news blog. It is a project of the Center for American Progress, a progressivepublic policy research and advocacy organization."
TP claims, "ThinkProgress is editorially independent. All editorial decisions are made by the editors of ThinkProgress. Editorial decisions are not influenced by those who financially support the site, either through advertising or contributions to our parent organization."
That's nice, but I think you are missing my point. As a blog of an advocacy site, they are up-front about their bias (which is nice, I guess), but the point is that they have no duty to journalistic ethics or balance because of what they are. It's fine to criticize FoxNews when they are inaccurate or biased because they are violating a principle they claim to hold. An advocacy site doesn't have such a mandate. To put it plainly, they are the opposite of unbiased: they exist only to forward their bias.

We tend to allow publications by advocacy organizations, but only barely. They aren't news organizations and aren't on the same footing, regardless of if they are accurate or not.
 
  • #279
StatGuy2000 said:
"Mexican migrants are criminals and rapists"

[separate post]
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.”
Thank you for the actual quote and I'll say again for future reference: it is not acceptable to post things in quotes that aren't quotes. When you do that, you are posting your interpretation/opinion as fact, when it isn't.

So, what's the difference between the two "quotes"? The first one contains no qualifiers. It implies all Mexican immigrants are criminals/rapists. The actual quote doesn't. The actual quote isn't great, but what you posted is much worse: it is inaccurate/an exaggeration.
 
  • #280
I like Trump because I think he is a bull in a china shop. IMO our political system is dysfunctional and I think Trump is the best candidate to destroy the current order. No, I don't think it's intentional on his part.

I think he will step on enough toes in Washington that both parties will unite to tear him down, then fix the some of the problems so they don't have to put up with his ilk again. O.K. it's more of a hope than a prediction.

Hope and change baby, hope and change.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #281
Jeff Rosenbury said:
I like Trump because I think he is a bull in a china shop. IMO our political system is dysfunctional and I think Trump is the best candidate to destroy the current order. No, I don't think it's intentional on his part.

I think he will step on enough toes in Washington that both parties will unite to tear him down, then fix the some of the problems so they don't have to put up with his ilk again. O.K. it's more of a hope than a prediction.

Hope and change baby, hope and change.

The only problem is that this is our china shop, and "messing up the system" is hardly what I'd consider a good platform, especially when it's coming from someone who has flip-flopped on his views harder than anyone I've ever seen--just in time to run for the Republican nomination. Bozo the Clown would also destroy the current order, but no one's rushing to elect him.
 
  • #282
axmls said:
The only problem is that this is our china shop, and "messing up the system" is hardly what I'd consider a good platform, especially when it's coming from someone who has flip-flopped on his views harder than anyone I've ever seen--just in time to run for the Republican nomination. Bozo the Clown would also destroy the current order, but no one's rushing to elect him.
Sorry, I didn't know Bozo was running. Perhaps I should vote for him instead?

BTW, I don't feel it's my china shop. Perhaps that's part of the problem?
 
  • #283
Though I wouldn't vote for Trump for that reason, I think there is merit in the "bull in a China shop idea":
Parties die. The Whigs died because they could not bring themselves to stand against the Democratic Party that overwhelmingly supported or, at least, tolerated slavery in the South and its extension into the territories, thereby threatening the North. So a new Republican Party very quickly arose to replace it. Now the national GOP establishment’s failure to listen to the people is on the verge of giving us Donald Trump. If it does, it deserves to be replaced by a party that puts the Constitution first and politics second.

It is (almost) time for an American Constitution Party.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...y-elections-2016-third-party-column/81102918/

I'm not exactly sure what he means by a "Constitution Party", but the idea of the Republican Party imploding and being reborn as something else certainly appeals to me. And I get the impression most people on PF dislike their parties and might support implosion and rebuilding into something better. I don't think it can happen in the course of nine months, but it would be great/historic!
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #284
WWGD said:
no need to refer to subconscious reactions to explain these positions.

?
How else to understand such aberrant behavior ? Mere honest mention of issues provokes irrational, virulent ad-hominem invective, rife with mis-quotes and exaggeration..

Small wonder so many plain folks are embracing this sentiment
Trump_Lion.jpg
see post 267

question was 'Do you understand why is Trump so popular. "
I do.
"Lying politician" having become the redundancy it is
somebody who breaks step from the platitudes and whose body language conveys openness is going to appeal to lots of folks.

That's why Trump is so popular. I think it is that simple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Jaeusm, russ_watters, CalcNerd and 1 other person
  • #285
jim hardy said:
?
How else to understand such aberrant behavior ? Mere honest mention of issues provokes irrational, virulent ad-hominem invective, rife with mis-quotes and exaggeration..

Small wonder so many plain folks are embracing this sentiment
View attachment 96660see post 267

question was 'Do you understand why is Trump so popular. "
I do.
"Lying politician" having become the redundancy it is
somebody who breaks step from the platitudes and whose body language conveys openness is going to appeal to lots of folks.

That's why Trump is so popular. I think it is that simple.

So Trump does not lie? I don't endorse the status quo, I just don't think Trump is really better. Different is necessary but not sufficient. And when Trump starts saying what he's said, he gets the same in kind. Press is unfair? Only want ratings? No kidding. Need to find better ways of dealing with it. And re over the top, it was your quote above that referred to comparisons with Hitler.
 
  • #286
WWGD said:
And re over the top, it was your quote above that referred to comparisons with Hitler.
All i know is what i read in the news.


Opinion: The problem with comparing Trump to Hitler
11/30/15 07:09 PM

3 save share group 110
By http://www.msnbc.com/byline/matthew-rozsa
Pundits and candidates alike are now accusing Donald Trump of being a fascist or neo-Nazi. Some are even comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
 
  • #287
jim hardy said:
Bile ?
Bile?
Yes, bile. Some scatological language, some bile.

Trump rallies in NH:
.."You can tell them to go f**k themselves! Because they let you down, and they left!"
We're going to knock the sh!t out of ISIS
...I would bomb the sh!t out of them..
She [crowd member] said he's [Ted Cruz] a p&ssy
“We can’t have a guy who stands in the middle of the Senate floor and every other senator thinks he’s a whack job, right? You have to make deals.
“And Ted can’t get along with anybody. He’s a nasty person.”

...You're not going to raise that f$ckin' price...

Dec 2015 rally on Clinton
...She got schl*nged...

2011 speech in Las Vegas, on China
...Listen you m@therf*ckers, we're going to tax you 25 percent...

On former POW McCain:
...I like people who weren't captured...

2006 about Rosie O'Donnell:
...I'd look her right in the fat ugly face of hers...
http://www.examiner.com/article/don...-rally-you-can-tell-them-to-go-f-k-themselves
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-disgusting/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/04/trump_to_china_listen_you_moth.html
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/trump-calls-ted-cruz-whack-job-36514010
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/tru...-as-feud-deepens-one-week-before-iowa-caucus/
 
  • #288
jim hardy said:
Bile ?
Bile? Most of what i see is directed from the GOP good old boy network toward Trump. Networks are glad to air it..
Trump just throws it back in their face.

I liked this synopsis of the campaign environment, by one Jeff Nyquist:
The TV ads here in Northeast Arkansas are increasingly hyperbolic and desperate. I never saw a campaign season like this.

Your quote, of a Trump defender also makes references to Hitler and WW2. But, as many have said, Trump may bring about the downfall of the two rotting parties, and maybe their rebirth in a stronger form.
 
  • #289
And mud was slung ... :sleep:
 
  • #290
russ_watters said:
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:

What about tourists? More Chinese are traveling to the US specifically to give birth. http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/08/news/china-birth-tourism/
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #291
Regarding the issues, particularly matters like 'bring jobs home or back to America', how exactly would Trump propose to do that.

I heard Chris Collins tonight talk about jobs that China stole. China didn't steal jobs, they simply convinced US corporations to use their much less expensive labor and materials. How would Trump convince US companies to bring jobs back to the US? Tax breaks? No corporate taxes? Reduce minimum wage to levels equivalent to China? Rescind ACA? Curtail or eliminate SS and Medicare/Medicaid?

How will he make America great?

Collins mentioned that Trump will form the best Cabinet ever. With whom? Wheelers and dealers? Negotiators?

I really like to know how he will make Christianity great again. Wave his hands?

I'm curious about the thinking of Trump supporters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
  • #292
Astronuc said:
Regarding the issues, particularly matters like 'bring jobs home or back to America', how exactly would Trump propose to do that.

I heard Chris Collins tonight talk about jobs that China stole. China didn't steal jobs, they simply convinced US corporations to use their much less expensive labor and materials. How would Trump convince US companies to bring jobs back to the US? Tax breaks? No corporate taxes?
Primarily by reducing or eliminating corporate taxes. Ours are among the highest in the world and the cause-effect relationship is very clear:
Pfizer http://fortune.com/fortune500/pfizer-56/ 1.25% says its proposed merger, which it announced on Monday, will take its tax rate down from 23.5% to between 17% to 18% by the first full year after closing, which will likely be in 2017. Based on Pfizer’s math, the drug company will save about $1.2 billion in taxes that year. Not bad. (Allergan, because it is already based in Ireland, won’t see much of a difference in its tax bill.) But at least one expert thinks Pfizer’s actual savings in the first year after its combination with Allergan http://fortune.com/company/agn/ 2.00% could be nearly triple that, or $3.3 billion a year.
http://fortune.com/2015/11/24/pfizer-allergan-taxes/

High corporate taxes encourage American companies to move overseas.

Ironically, Chinese labor comes here to work in big pharma (and pay taxes)...I suppose they'll also follow the company to Ireland.
 
  • #293
russ_watters said:
Ours are among the highest in the world and the cause-effect relationship is very clear:
While the tax rates are high - http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2014

Companies apparently find ways to reduce tax liability and in some cases get tax rebates and pay very low rates already.
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php
 
  • #294
Astronuc said:
While the tax rates are high - http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2014

Companies apparently find ways to reduce tax liability and in some cases get tax rebates and pay very low rates already.
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php
Agreed: our tax system is a joke, and the same issue there applies to personal income taxes (too many loopholes/deductions). You can reduce or eliminate the loopholes/deductions and substantially reduce the rate with no change in revenue. Then reduce the rate more to tip the playing field back in our direction.
 
  • #295
Or just flat out remove corporate and personal income tax. That will require a reevaluation of how we view what the role of government ought to be. I think there are a few departments that we can remove (education, IRS, interior) just to name a few.
 
  • #296
mheslep said:
Yes, bile. Some scatological language, some bile.

Per your links
It doesn't exactly scream "presidential gravitas," but the crowd ate it up.

With the Granite State primary set for this Tuesday, most polls have Trump in the lead by double digits.

Like it or not he has struck a chord. Seven states yesterday ?
Myself i think it's partly because we have so many 24 hour news outlets all marketing discontent. Fox, Comedy Central, Hannity, Chomsky, countless bloggers . We're reaping the resentment they sow .

Is it healthy for the country ? I really don't know. Anger was Dante's fifth circle, four more to go...

Buckle up - it could be a wild ride !
 
  • #297
jim hardy said:
Per your links...

Like it or not he has struck a chord. Seven states yesterday ?
Myself i think it's partly because we have so many 24 hour news outlets all marketing discontent. Fox, Comedy Central, Hannity, Chomsky, countless bloggers . We're reaping the resentment they sow .

Is it healthy for the country ? I really don't know. Anger was Dante's fifth circle, four more to go...

Buckle up - it could be a wild ride !
Yes, Trump has strong support. Yes Trump is winning states in this many-candidate primary campaign, though not a single case of winning half the vote. I think I understand the anger driving Trump support. What I don't understand is why anyone would deny Trump's tone, his bile.

Edit: BTW, IMO Clinton's rhetoric, not Trump's, is in first place for the most divisive, most demagogic.
“They’re doing everything they can to stop black people, Latinos, poor people, young people, people with disabilities from voting,” she said. “It’s a blast from the Jim Crow past, and we’re going to fight it.”
 
Last edited:
  • #298
Astronuc said:
Regarding the issues, particularly matters like 'bring jobs home or back to America', how exactly would Trump propose to do that.

I heard Chris Collins tonight talk about jobs that China stole. China didn't steal jobs, they simply convinced US corporations to use their much less expensive labor and materials. How would Trump convince US companies to bring jobs back to the US? Tax breaks? No corporate taxes? Reduce minimum wage to levels equivalent to China? Rescind ACA? Curtail or eliminate SS and Medicare/Medicaid?

How will he make America great?

Collins mentioned that Trump will form the best Cabinet ever. With whom? Wheelers and dealers? Negotiators?

I really like to know how he will make Christianity great again. Wave his hands?
Examine what the campaign has actually published. Trump has been vague on many topics, but trade and jobs are areas where he's published some detail.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform
  • Attack China via the WTO and other means open to the executive on the basis or currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and protectionist subsidies, lax environmental standards relative to the US.
  • Lower the corporate tax to 15% (from the current 35%). The US currently has the highest rate in the OECD and G7. The Simpson Bowles commission organized by (and ignored by) Obama recommended a reduction to ~27%, and a zero marginal rate on corporate income from foreign sources.
Trump would also replace the ACA, which the CBO indicates reduces employment.
I'm curious about the thinking of Trump supporters.
I'm thinking their perception of condescension by the establishment weighs large in the their thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #299
Astronuc said:
Companies apparently find ways to reduce tax liability and in some cases get tax rebates and pay very low rates already.
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php
The CTJ link you cite states *some* well connected and large firms, not all, not even most, are able to take advantage of the loopholes.
 
  • #300
Have you seen this video of Christy's reaction to Trump's victory speech?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/chris-christies-facial-expressions-during-donald-trumps-speech-were-easily-the-best-part/ar-BBqdOF6?li=BBnbcA1

Not sure what if he did the right thing in supporting Trump?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top