Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

instead it's about Sanders(?) supporters blocking a Trump rally (in IL) that Trump then cancelled to avoid a possible violent confrontation between large numbers of opposing supporters.

I've seen nothing in the press saying the protesters were affiliated with Sanders.

I said Sanders with a (?) because it was not a known known (I try not to present speculation as fact).. Since then I saw interviews of some protester and even a reporter who was following the Trump campaign who got arrested himself for going outside the venue and filming Chicago's finest clubbing a protestor. 

He reported that the Trump appearance had been announced a few weeks ago and since then pretty much every campus interest group (too many to list) loosely coordinated their protest (I'm sure Bernie was well represented in that mix). Protestors ranged from BLM to Moveon and even Mexican supporters, but I haven't seen a official list just reports that there are many different protest groups.. Many infiltrated inside the venue and formed separate cliques inside in different areas of the hall, each with their different protest signs and chants... and they say Trump isn't a unifier? He unified all those protestors against him.  8) While BLM actually shut down a Bernie meeting this year, so these different groups are equal opportunity haters of free speech.

I saw one protestor interviewed on camera and when he was asked why he was protesting he declined to answer? Why in the world would an actual protestor pass up an opportunity on national TV to promote his cause?

Trump has alienated and attacked a lot of people with his rhetoric. It is not surprising that people would show up to protest.  A hispanic man was holding a sign saying "I am not a rapist" while Trump supports swarmed around him like wasps.
The reason Trump is taking a drubbing on it is because he's been making statements inciting violence at his rallies - I saw a segment of clips where he is saying things like a person protesting should be beat up and have to be carried out - if not for the PC crowd they could bust faces....
There's a pretty amazing coalition of people uniting against Trump now,  across the political spectrum. If only Germany had this in the late 1930s.  ;D

Thanks for the oblique nazi reference. Isn't calling someone Hitler the end of any political argument?

Opinions vary about who was the fascist shutting down free speech.

Trump is a motor mouth, making a stream of unfiltered comments, often on both sides of same issues, so it's all too easy to assemble sound bites proving almost anything you want. What is unquestionable is that Trump is under attack from all the other candidates, and even his own party's(?) hierarchy (some feel he is not a true republican). The other party is increasingly willing to attack him too, as he marches toward the candidacy.  It may be settled in a few days if Trump does well in OH and FL.  So they are running out of time to stop him. 

I didn't vote for Trump last week, but I find the Carson endorsement more significant than Christie's.  Christie's embrace of the Donald looked like a SNL caricature of himself hugging Obama last time around (blatantly self-serving politics). Carson working with Trump could soften some of his hard edges and help flesh out (some) policy.  Trump clearly could use some help with other areas of policy.

This morning on one of the sunday talk shows (I don't watch but was scanning through), one tried to play gotcha with Trump about the reversal of his adversarial relationship with Ben Carson, turning into a mutual admiration society. Both men admitted that the former enmity was "just politics", so the gotcha question was why believe Trump now (good question)?  But the real answer no politician will ever admit to is that it is all Kabuki theater because voters would never elect them if they didn't say what the voters want to hear. Implicit is that the typical voters do not have the common sense and judgement to realize when they are being manipulated.

All politicians stoop to some degree of artifice, and while Carson seemed somewhat above the fray, even he admitted to playing the game.

If you think you have found the one candidate who is telling the truth, good luck with that. I expect some candidates believe their own "truth" in a well practiced art of self-delusion.  Trump probably believes all his several truths, and Bernie probably believes the fantasy he is spewing.

Perhaps this is why we have relatively low voter participation compared to other countries. The fly over people aren't that stupid. If Trump with all his flaws gets more people to re-engage in the voting process that can't be all bad, despite his visible flaws. It should raise the IQ of the voting pool.   

JR

PS: For some real media entertainment, I saw a clip of a liberal reporter interviewing Charles Evers, brother of the slain civil rights worker (Medgar Evers), who came out in support of Trump against Hillary. The reporter was beside herself and kept asking him how could he possibly support Trump..?  I thought news reportage was supposed to be objective. "Just the facts ma-am". 

 

[lassoharp]

Interesting article.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parenting-style-predicts-whether-you-support-donald-trump/


And beyond the pop psychology there seems to be this: (quote form the article)

"What's bringing all these different people together, new research shows, is a shared type of personality"

And, if you recall, with his boycott of the Republican debate, he in one move, made some progress in  dividing allegiance among a certain sector of RW supporters - mainly working class white males who paid attention to Fox news and hated Liberals.  Suddenly you had these people reacting to Fox as if they were now their enemies.  It took RW Think Tank groups many years and many billions of dollars to shape public opinion and create that allegiance from that sector and Trump seems to have thrown a lightning bolt into that foundation in one move, however obnoxiously arrogant and rebellious it was.  Of course that sector still hates Liberals (and many others . . ) but it's still a remarkable shift in such a relatively short amount of time.

Please don't think my comments are condoning Trump's hate mongering fanaticism.  I'm just looking objectively at bigger forces that seem to be at work. 

 

[DaveP]

Interesting article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parenting-style-predicts-whether-you-support-donald-trump/

I read the article and there is probably some truth in it, but I'm not sure I like the use of the word Authoritarian to describe parents who just want their kids to behave reasonably.  Authoritarian conjures up visions of some tinpot dictator, maybe that's what they want  people to see Trump as?

Maybe a better description would be "people that play by the rules"?  That would fit in with blocking illegal immigration and getting jobs back to the USA.

I guess that the media are desperate to identify a demographic so that someone can get some ads out, sorry I'm just being cynical :-\

DaveP

 

[lassoharp]

I read the article and there is probably some truth in it, but I'm not sure I like the use of the word Authoritarian to describe parents who just want their kids to behave reasonably.  Authoritarian conjures up visions of some tinpot dictator, maybe that's what they want  people to see Trump as?

Maybe a better description would be "people that play by the rules"?  That would fit in with blocking illegal immigration and getting jobs back to the USA.

I guess that the media are desperate to identify a demographic so that someone can get some ads out, sorry I'm just being cynical :-\

I think there was genuine media fascination over the apparent odd mix of supporters.  I would imagine there was also some interest in "secret formulas" by  political strategists who only cared about what works and what doesn't.

"Plays by the rules" is a good and accurate description I would agree, and as you hinted at, that could easily include non supporters.  I think the demographic they pinpointed also includes those who dislike change - Seekers of security who fear it on some level.

What I didn't like was how they tried to hang the hat on upbringing, as if it were acting alone.  50/50 Nature to Nurture seems more in line with a universe that knows better than to put all its eggs into one basket.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Interesting article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parenting-style-predicts-whether-you-support-donald-trump/

I read the article and there is probably some truth in it, but I'm not sure I like the use of the word Authoritarian to describe parents who just want their kids to behave reasonably.  Authoritarian conjures up visions of some tinpot dictator, maybe that's what they want  people to see Trump as?

Maybe a better description would be "people that play by the rules"?  That would fit in with blocking illegal immigration and getting jobs back to the USA.

I guess that the media are desperate to identify a demographic so that someone can get some ads out, sorry I'm just being cynical :-\

DaveP

Psychobabble...

The guy who crafted the poll in the article is a former progressive political consultant... It smells like a way to paint Trump supporters with a pejorative label (authoritarian).

When is it ever not good for a child to be respectful toward (his) elders; display good manners, be obedient, or behave ?

Likewise when is it ever not good for a child to develop independence, be curious, be self-reliant, or be considerate?

A quick glance at that list makes me feel a little like a Trump supporter, but is the kid 3 years old or 30? Is the kid a high achiever, or a drain on the gene pool. 

This may be more about the kids than the parent but I suspect all those kids protesting in Chicago didn't win high marks for respecting elders, good manners, obedience, or being well behaved. No matter how their parents feel about it. 
 
JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I read the article and there is probably some truth in it, but I'm not sure I like the use of the word Authoritarian to describe parents who just want their kids to behave reasonably.  Authoritarian conjures up visions of some tinpot dictator, maybe that's what they want  people to see Trump as?

Maybe a better description would be "people that play by the rules"?  That would fit in with blocking illegal immigration and getting jobs back to the USA.

I guess that the media are desperate to identify a demographic so that someone can get some ads out, sorry I'm just being cynical :-\

I think there was genuine media fascination over the apparent odd mix of supporters.  I would imagine there was also some interest in "secret formulas" by  political strategists who only cared about what works and what doesn't.

"Plays by the rules" is a good and accurate description I would agree, and as you hinted at, that could easily include non supporters.  I think the demographic they pinpointed also includes those who dislike change - Seekers of security who fear it on some level.

What I didn't like was how they tried to hang the hat on upbringing, as if it were acting alone.  50/50 Nature to Nurture seems more in line with a universe that knows better than to put all its eggs into one basket.

One unifying theme among Trump supporters is they seem to like that he promises to blow up the old politics as usual. Every candidate says that they are outsiders and will change things in Washington. They always say it and never do it. Trump just seems a tiny bit more believable than the other's.

Not so much for me... true he says he's the man to tear it all down because he's worked the levers from the other side as a businessman (crony capitalist) and knows how it all works.....  but why again would he blow up the levers of power, once he gets his hands on them?? Because he said he would? Now that's rich... 

I am apprehensive about how this could turn out but it is sure interesting to watch.

JR 

 

[lassoharp]

One unifying theme among Trump supporters is they seem to like that he promises to blow up the old politics as usual. Every candidate says that they are outsiders and will change things in Washington. They always say it and never do it. Trump just seems a tiny bit more believable than the other's.

Not so much for me... true he says he's the man to tear it all down because he's worked the levers from the other side as a businessman (crony capitalist) and knows how it all works.....  but why again would he blow up the levers of power, once he gets his hands on them?? Because he said he would? Now that's rich... 

I think he's giving people a "license to ill" which is already blowing up in all our faces.  I suppose that appeals to people with a lot of pent up anger who want to find a target.

btw John, do you have a feel for who Trump's VP nominee might be at this point?

 

[JohnRoberts]

One unifying theme among Trump supporters is they seem to like that he promises to blow up the old politics as usual. Every candidate says that they are outsiders and will change things in Washington. They always say it and never do it. Trump just seems a tiny bit more believable than the other's.

Not so much for me... true he says he's the man to tear it all down because he's worked the levers from the other side as a businessman (crony capitalist) and knows how it all works.....  but why again would he blow up the levers of power, once he gets his hands on them?? Because he said he would? Now that's rich... 

I think he's giving people a "license to ill" which is already blowing up in all our faces.  I suppose that appeals to people with a lot of pent up anger who want to find a target.

btw John, do you have a feel for who Trump's VP nominee might be at this point?

I saw a proforma ticket with Gary Busey as VP...  http://buseyforamerica.com/

Sorry hard to be serious... to early and he has more deals to make..

JR

 

[DaveP]

I like to be fair and give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and just for the record, I don't actually relish the role of defending Trump, but some things are not right here.

As far as I can tell, no Trump supporters have ever invaded or protested at a Democrat rally, but the various left wing factions have decided that it is perfectly legitimate to disrupt Trump meetings, so breaching his supporters First Amendment rights.

I have noticed the same thing happening in the UK, all the usual left wing groups come out on a mission against whatever they decide is "Fascist".  What annoys me, is that they have the arrogance to be the self appointed judge and jury politically, in much the way that IS is on religious matters.  To those of us who grew up in the aftermath of Hitler's war, there is a world of difference between the two men, but many have judged him to be Hitler incarnate.

The fact that millions of their fellow Americans have voted for him, because they perceive him as being capable of reversing US decline, is lost on the protesters and they care little for his supporters frustrations.  I find the denial of populist opinions arrogant and patronising, these people may be "low information voters" but they have the same voting rights as everyone else and they have a right to peaceful uninterrupted meetings.

In fact, if anyone is behaving like fascist black shirts, its the protesters, yet they claim it is Trump's fault for inciting them!  The fact that their protests are likely to have the opposite effect seems to have eluded them.  Americans do not like being pushed around and being denied their rights (The British know this first hand from 1775) so I expect Trumps supporters to turn out in force to spite them.

I reiterate, I am not a Trump supporter, but I do support the peoples rights to vote for whosoever they wish.  I expect Clinton to be elected but I'm not sure she is entirely trustworthy, I would trust Sanders on everything except the practicality of his ideals.

Overall, I am always amazed that the choice out of 300 million Americans is so poor, are these candidates really the best people for the job?  It's the worlds most responsible job, yet it requires practically no training or qualifications, Bizarro World.  What me worry?

DaveP

 

[lassoharp]

are these candidates really the best people for the job?  It's the worlds most responsible job, yet it requires practically no training or qualifications, Bizarro World.  What me worry?

I might joke that most sane people wouldn't want that job.

Just a personal opinion here but I think archtypes, psychology, and stage presence tends to dominate who takes the presidency.  Those are all hidden, occult type factors.  Being competent on the issues seems to play second fiddle to the other things.  Maybe bigger forces at work.  When you look at those things there are some interesting themes.  Obama brought the subject of racism to the foreground during his terms.  Clinton would bring fear of women to the surface.  That theme was played upon relentlessly (and absurdly humorously) way back in '08 when she was competing with Obama for the Democratic  nomination.  Trump seems to be a lightning rod for those who are living in a bubble of confused sentimentality and like to ignore that America was a melting pot of different cultures from the get go.  Sometimes it takes a trainwreck to burst a bubble.  Sanders is like the aging Mother Hen of the egg that has incubated since the 60s and was bound to hatch again.  And, once again violence attracts violence whether it's wearing a tie dye or a badge and a riot helmet.

 

[mattiasNYC]

various left wing factions have decided that it is perfectly legitimate to disrupt Trump meetings, so breaching his supporters First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment protects the people from the government, not from other people. So I don't think your objection is correct.

I have noticed the same thing happening in the UK, all the usual left wing groups come out on a mission against whatever they decide is "Fascist".  What annoys me, is that they have the arrogance to be the self appointed judge and jury politically, in much the way that IS is on religious matters.  To those of us who grew up in the aftermath of Hitler's war, there is a world of difference between the two men, but many have judged him to be Hitler incarnate.

Ok, but first of all politicians on both sides get heckled and their meetings get disturbed. It's not limited to Trump's rallies. Secondly, while I admit there is probably a difference, there are also differences in the rhetoric that is being disputed. I'm sure that if Hillary spoke of Jews or Christians the way Trump speaks of Muslims, heckling would pick up significantly on her rallies as well, don't you think?

And that leads lastly to the fact that while Trump clearly isn't Hitler, it's pretty lazy to just state that and then not take it any further. I'm sure you could go back to the early days of Hitlers political career and find his statements much more moderate. What a lot of people are worried about and thus protesting is the forces Trump is flirting with as well as where this could all lead.

The fact that millions of their fellow Americans have voted for him, because they perceive him as being capable of reversing US decline, is lost on the protesters and they care little for his supporters frustrations. 

I don't think it's lost on them at all. I think it's part of what fuels them. It's the worry that bad policies will be enacted because of public support.

In fact, if anyone is behaving like fascist black shirts, its the protesters, yet they claim it is Trump's fault for inciting them!  The fact that their protests are likely to have the opposite effect seems to have eluded them.  Americans do not like being pushed around and being denied their rights (The British know this first hand from 1775) so I expect Trumps supporters to turn out in force to spite them.

I agree that it's counter-productive.

Overall, I am always amazed that the choice out of 300 million Americans is so poor, are these candidates really the best people for the job?  It's the worlds most responsible job, yet it requires practically no training or qualifications, Bizarro World.  What me worry?

DaveP

America is more or less a capitalist society. The only odd thing about this election is Sanders doing so well with so little. Other than that everyone that wins has hundreds of millions of dollars behind them. You want capitalism and this sort of "democracy" then this is what you get.

 

[DaveP]

The First Amendment protects the people from the government, not from other people. So I don't think your objection is correct.

You are probably technically correct, but I don't think that most Americans would see it that way, if you are denied your freedom to assemble peaceably, it doesn't really matter to the subject who has denied them, they are going to be pretty pissed off  whoever did it.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I like to be fair and give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and just for the record, I don't actually relish the role of defending Trump, but some things are not right here.

As far as I can tell, no Trump supporters have ever invaded or protested at a Democrat rally, but the various left wing factions have decided that it is perfectly legitimate to disrupt Trump meetings, so breaching his supporters First Amendment rights.

It has become increasingly popular on college campuses to deny any speech they deem undesirable. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch for the Trump rally on a college campus to be disrupted.  Since this will probably help Trump more than hurt him, one has to ask if he is this shrewd and calculating. (I doubt it.)

Other speakers have been shouted down. Bernie was shut down by some loud Black Lives Matter protestors, but they seem like they hate all the (very white) candidates equally. 

I have noticed the same thing happening in the UK, all the usual left wing groups come out on a mission against whatever they decide is "Fascist".  What annoys me, is that they have the arrogance to be the self appointed judge and jury politically, in much the way that IS is on religious matters.  To those of us who grew up in the aftermath of Hitler's war, there is a world of difference between the two men, but many have judged him to be Hitler incarnate.

Irony, hypocrisy, etc... but these movements are more about anarchy (tearing stuff down), not building a better world. 

The fact that millions of their fellow Americans have voted for him, because they perceive him as being capable of reversing US decline, is lost on the protesters and they care little for his supporters frustrations.  I find the denial of populist opinions arrogant and patronising, these people may be "low information voters" but they have the same voting rights as everyone else and they have a right to peaceful uninterrupted meetings.

In a classic follow the money inspection of who is trying to deny the Trump movement, George Soros and Move-on are actively involved, and the republican party top leadership...  now don't they make some strange bed fellows? One has to ask, what are establishment Republicans and Democrats both afraid of? Hint it isn't policy, IMO it is because he is threatening the actual status quo. Politicians always say they will change Washington, but instead Washington always squeezes them into the same old establishment mold. People believe Trump will actually change things, blow up the old power structure. Of course this does not insure a good outcome, just a different outcome.

In fact, if anyone is behaving like fascist black shirts, its the protesters, yet they claim it is Trump's fault for inciting them!  The fact that their protests are likely to have the opposite effect seems to have eluded them.  Americans do not like being pushed around and being denied their rights (The British know this first hand from 1775) so I expect Trumps supporters to turn out in force to spite them.

just political theater... nothing really new...  in 1968 the democratic convention in Chicago had some nasty demonstrations, since then the police have gotten better at keeping opposing groups some distance apart.  The Trump rally that was disrupted was a ticketed event where protestors gained entry under false pretenses. 

I reiterate, I am not a Trump supporter, but I do support the peoples rights to vote for whosoever they wish.  I expect Clinton to be elected but I'm not sure she is entirely trustworthy, I would trust Sanders on everything except the practicality of his ideals.

;D ;D ;D  I voted against Trump once already this year, but given a choice between only him or Hillary that's pretty easy for me.

Overall, I am always amazed that the choice out of 300 million Americans is so poor, are these candidates really the best people for the job?  It's the worlds most responsible job, yet it requires practically no training or qualifications, Bizarro World.  What me worry?

DaveP

There is some wisdom in large numbers but perhaps not american voters... for one thing only something like 55% of eligible voters turn out to vote.  This could be a huge Trump card, if he gets more new voters to participate in the general election. OTOH if the republican party leadership continue their shenanigans and try to fix the nomination with a brokered convention and last minute rules changes to contravene the primary voters clearly stated will, even less republicans will show up to vote in Nov, not only securing a win for the democrat, but additional losses for republicans in house and senate contests. 

This would be more interesting to watch if I didn't live here and have to suffer the consequences of the several bad outcomes possible. 

JR

 

[rob_gould]

This would be more interesting to watch if I didn't live here and have to suffer the consequences of the several bad outcomes possible. 

JR

Worse for you perhaps, yes.  But it has the potential to be fairly disastrous for all of us!

 

[mattiasNYC]

This would be more interesting to watch if I didn't live here and have to suffer the consequences of the several bad outcomes possible. 

JR

Worse for you perhaps, yes.  But it has the potential to be fairly disastrous for all of us!

An opinion as frequently stated by non-Americans as it is ignored by Americans... more or less...

 

[JohnRoberts]

This would be more interesting to watch if I didn't live here and have to suffer the consequences of the several bad outcomes possible. 

JR

Worse for you perhaps, yes.  But it has the potential to be fairly disastrous for all of us!

While different people dislike the Donald for different suppositions about what he might do if elected. I read one article this morning comparing him to authoritarian SA strongmen (like Chavez). There is a broader question about the role of the US in the world.

I see Libya as a telling object lesson in how things can turn out with America "leading from behind". The US provided significant munitions and monetary support, but did not directly effect the over-throw of Gaddafi in Libya. Libya is now looking like a failed state and a new base for ISIL to expand into and operate from.

America gets routinely criticized for spending more on military than most of the rest of the world combined, but this protective big brother has allowed many counties to reduce their own military budgets and spend their money on internal needs.  We are now seeing a resurgence of Russian military power coincident with a withdrawal of US military power. China is likewise expanding it's influence into the Pacific region.

I can only say, be careful what you wish for. Bernie Sanders is a conscientious objector. If he were elected president and became commander in chief, how would he instruct the military (turn the other cheek?)?

We are lucky to have oceans on two of our four borders that provide a degree of security, but even N Korea is developing long range missiles and nuclear weapons that "could" reach us (while hopefully we are developing missile shields that can neutralize such weapons). 

IMO the world remains a dangerous place where force is more respected than being nice. If we withdraw that force, others will gladly expand into the vacuum we leave behind (like is already happening). Do you feel lucky?

JR     

 

[DaveP]

It's not often that I get shocked nowadays, but it does happen despite my 66 years.

This was news to me but it makes the Trump meetings seem quite tame by comparison and changes the context somewhat

The 1924 Democrat Convention was dominated by the KKK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention

You are never too old to learn

DaveP

 

[Andy Peters]

The First Amendment protects the people from the government, not from other people. So I don't think your objection is correct.

You are probably technically correct, but I don't think that most Americans would see it that way, if you are denied your freedom to assemble peaceably, it doesn't really matter to the subject who has denied them, they are going to be pretty pissed off  whoever did it.

Whether "most Americans would see it that way" is irrelevant.  The First Amendment's clause about free speech is limited to the government limiting speech. It is not about whether a private individual can claim that some other private individual is limiting his speech at all.

And consider the hypocrisy: when a protester makes enough noise to disrupt Trump's speech, Trump will say that the protest is limiting Trump's "free speech." Yet, when Trump has his private security eject the protester, that is not a violation of free speech? Trump wants it both ways, which if you had been paying attention to him for longer than a month, you'd understand that has always been the case about him.

Dave, I recognize that you're from England, and as such you may not fully appreciate the what is meant by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

 

[DaveP]

Andy, you're right that I don't fully understand about the first amendment for obvious reasons, but I think you are biased against Trump and missing the point.  (not that I'm for him either)

The point is that the protesters did not just protest outside which is their right as you correctly say, but they infiltrated the meeting because they wanted to deny the other people their right to hear him in peace.  I don't think that is fair myself.

And for what its worth, the black guy that got on stage was treated very gently by the two security guards who were almost persuading him rather than using strong arm tactics.  I have been following this thread since it started last July which is 8 months if that makes it any better?

I do realised that you and many others on this forum would be ashamed, angry and embarrassed if he was elected and many of us in Europe would be anxious about the outcome, but there are a lot of people in your country who would not think that Trump wanting it both ways was a bad thing.  That is what very successful business people are like and that is what they want in a leader. I don't like that way of behaving myself and that is why I always ended up working for someone else I guess.

DaveP

 

[pucho812]

Define  assemble peacefully?
The first amendment is designed to protect the citizens, the press and the church from the government.  It does give people the right to  gather and protest but does not protect protesters from other people at a private event. Nor does it give protesters the right to block a public roadway, or damage someone else's private property.  I think you will find most Americans claiming it's their 1st amendment rights to do what they are doing have no understanding what is in the first amendment and what protections it does and does not give.