News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[WWGD]

Trump refuses to condemn endorsements from KKK:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ays-he-knows-nothing-about-white-supremacists

 

[WWGD]

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?

 

[StatGuy2000]

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.

 

[jim hardy]

more accurately, about vetting tens of thousands of mideastern refugees who happen to be largely muslim.

We should have vetted those Cubans too.

 

[axmls]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

...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..."

 

[jim hardy]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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! 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.

 

[Dotini]

I enjoyed this column by David Stockman. I think you will, too.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-donald-the-good-and-bad-of-it/

 

[WWGD]

Trump answered "I don't know" to a question he should have been unequivocal about? String him up! 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.

 

[Rick21383]

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??"

 

[WWGD]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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".

 

[Rick21383]

LOL

 

[DFingles]

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.

 

[StandardsGuy]

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.

 

[WWGD]

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.

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.

 

[DFingles]

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.