Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[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.