Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

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.

DaveP

I'm on the fence about that though. Because the word "infiltrate" really does imply that it was a meeting for Trump supporters, in which case it makes little difference in and by itself. If only Trump supporters should have been there then what difference does the meeting make? I feel the same about any political meeting. Why would I go to cheer my candidate if I know it's my candidate? I'd rather see a debate if I'm undecided.

 

[JohnRoberts]

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.

DaveP

I'm on the fence about that though. Because the word "infiltrate" really does imply that it was a meeting for Trump supporters, in which case it makes little difference in and by itself. If only Trump supporters should have been there then what difference does the meeting make? I feel the same about any political meeting. Why would I go to cheer my candidate if I know it's my candidate? I'd rather see a debate if I'm undecided.

I dislike arguing about what other people "think" because that is hard (impossible) to know.

My expectation is that some fraction of people who attend political rallies are undecided or uncertain and trying to learn more about a candidate. Opposition shutting down such opportunities to inform voters inside a ticketed private property venue is unacceptable behavior that the private venue can probably enforce. Of course there are limits to the remedies they can use and when there are too many bad actors inside a venue the only choice is to postpone.

JR

PS: Anybody notice Brussels? They did in Belgium... It looks like the recent capture of the Paris terrorist there and discovery of more members of his local cell, suggests that those still at large may have been doing whatever they could, while they still could , before they got captured too. 

 

[DaveP]

Yes, we noticed, been following the tragic events all day

DaveP

 

[pucho812]

my thoughts on the events in Brussels.

 

[mattiasNYC]

My expectation is that some fraction of people who attend political rallies are undecided or uncertain and trying to learn more about a candidate. Opposition shutting down such opportunities to inform voters inside a ticketed private property venue is unacceptable behavior that the private venue can probably enforce. Of course there are limits to the remedies they can use and when there are too many bad actors inside a venue the only choice is to postpone.

JR

I don't entirely disagree.

PS: Anybody notice Brussels? They did in Belgium... It looks like the recent capture of the Paris terrorist there and discovery of more members of his local cell, suggests that those still at large may have been doing whatever they could, while they still could , before they got captured too.

Yep, caught it on the news. Awful.

 

[thermionic]

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/05/a_grab_bag_of_donald_trump_invective/

 

[DaveP]

I would never have thought that China would have endorsed Trump, but apparently they like him for several different reasons.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35839782

JR said on another thread:-

One important thing to realize is we don't all think alike, and it is very hard to change how people think when their culture reinforces certain belief systems, different from ours. Two different groups can experience the exact same event and draw two dramatically different conclusions about what happened based on their background frame of reference. Some obvious stuff to us isn't obvious at all to significant populations.

Seems as if it applies just as well to this topic.
DaveP

 

[DaveP]

This American writing for the UK Guardian explains very well the demographic that are voting for Trump.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35890784
Whatever else you might think about Trump, he seems to be the only one who had his finger on the pulse of the American poor and dispossessed.  It is telling that the professionals missed this, but an "amateur" outsider got it.

DaveP

 

[living sounds]

This American writing for the UK Guardian explains very well the demographic that are voting for Trump.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35890784
Whatever else you might think about Trump, he seems to be the only one who had his finger on the pulse of the American poor and dispossessed.  It is telling that the professionals missed this, but an "amateur" outsider got it.

DaveP

Good article.  Trumps key voting demographic is the uneducated low income middle-aged male whites. And everything about the economic shifts is true. But if you look who actually adresses these issues (income inequality, de-unionization, tax code favouring the wealthy, lack of health insurance etc.) Bernie Sanders would be their candidate. Instead, Trump uses the demagoge's playbook to scapegoat whoever "Other" he can find to get these people's votes.  Racism and sexism does well with the demographic.

But does anybody here believe the permanent underclass of America will get jobs and security and health care from a backroom-dealing hyper-narcissist trustfund baby business tycoon? Does anybody think he even has any real political ambitions beyond feeding his overblown ego? A guy who obviously has no real grasp of most issues and couldn't care less if they go one way or the other?

 

[DaveP]

Good article.  Trumps key voting demographic is the uneducated low income middle-aged male whites. And everything about the economic shifts is true. But if you look who actually addresses these issues (income inequality, de-unionisation, tax code favouring the wealthy, lack of health insurance etc.) Bernie Sanders would be their candidate. Instead, Trump uses the demagogue's playbook to scapegoat whoever "Other" he can find to get these people's votes.  Racism and sexism does well with the demographic.

You are right of course about Sanders, but these used to be Republican voters so they vote for Trump as next best thing I guess.  He does seem to have some support with Women, African Americans and Latinos too, but how they fit in to the demographic we are yet to discover.  It's ironic that they seem more disenchanted with mainstream Republicanism than they do with Democrats.  I think his voters are influenced by celebrity and apparent success, people like to back winners.

DaveP

 

[lassoharp]

but how they fit in to the demographic we are yet to discover.  It's ironic that they seem more disenchanted with mainstream Republicanism than they do with Democrats.

Exactly.  And demographic busting and reordering has been a major theme for this election.  There have also been stories floating around suggesting Trump is working in cahoots with Clinton, helping her win by dividing the Republican party.  I personally don't go too much for jumping in the weed patch over relative truths on the details.  Unfounded rumors or not, changes are stirring and things are getting interesting.

Trump's campaign could get stranded or shipwrecked by the end of July at the rate he's going.  I wouldn't be surprised.  :-X

 

[living sounds]

He does seem to have some support with Women, African Americans and Latinos too, but how they fit in to the demographic we are yet to discover.  It's ironic that they seem more disenchanted with mainstream Republicanism than they do with Democrats.  I think his voters are influenced by celebrity and apparent success, people like to back winners.

Absolutely. The best indicator from the statistics seems to be education, Trump-ing all others.

I think it highly unlikely that Trump really works for Hillary. Not only because he is not the type, but because her career was finished if this could be somehow proven.

To me what his former campaign worker said makes a lot of sense: That he originally just aimed for publicity and never expected to come this far, and now his ego won't allow him to quit.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Trumps key voting demographic is the uneducated low income middle-aged male whites. And everything about the economic shifts is true. But if you look who actually adresses these issues (income inequality, de-unionization, tax code favouring the wealthy, lack of health insurance etc.) Bernie Sanders would be their candidate. Instead, Trump uses the demagoge's playbook to scapegoat whoever "Other" he can find to get these people's votes.  Racism and sexism does well with the demographic.

But does anybody here believe the permanent underclass of America will get jobs and security and health care from a backroom-dealing hyper-narcissist trustfund baby business tycoon? Does anybody think he even has any real political ambitions beyond feeding his overblown ego? A guy who obviously has no real grasp of most issues and couldn't care less if they go one way or the other?

Completely agree.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I won't speculate about what everybody thinks, and it seems every campaign cycle seems worse than before, but the US has a rich history of a couple centuries of nasty politics, it kind of comes hand in hand with free elections as candidates jockey for votes, power, and influence.

This time does seem ever so slightly different with the POTUS injecting himself into both party's primaries. On the left to defend Hillary (saying she won't be indicted, instead of his standard  "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" when he doesn't want to comment), and on the right (?) commenting about Trump unfavorably. 

Perhaps this isn't really new as he has stayed in campaign mode even after becoming a lame duck, and is comfortable attacking republicans. While it does seem below that office, which usually stands above the fray.

I am apprehensive about how this could turn out, but I am getting used to being disappointed by my fellow voters. Glimmers of hope in the mid-term elections then getting soundly spanked in the presidential contests. The practice of politics has changed right before our eyes and I'm not sure for the better, and probably not for the reasons you think i think. 

Later

JR

 

[DaveP]

Racism and Sexism aside, I actually feel sorry for the people we are talking about and there are many parallels with a similar demographic in the UK.

120 years ago, the Labour party was formed to support the working labouring classes which I guess is broadly equivalent to the blue collar appeal of the Democrats.  But in the 1990's the Labour party started to switch to appealing to university graduates and intellectuals with political correctness and pretty well ignored the needs and aspirations of their former electorate.  This coincided with a decline in traditional manufacturing and the consequent decline in union membership.  This left the "uneducated" classes with only right wing parties to vote for as they were the only ones addressing their problems.

It is not an identical scene in the USA, but Trump (a former democrat) has identified this demographic and played their tune.  I don't expect him to get elected, but if he causes the other parties to pause for thought, then what has happened will not be entirely in vain.  I think parties should be inclusive as much as possible and no class of people should be left out because of lack of education.

When I started my thread on "2016", I said IS would become the main issue, which it is starting to be.  I noticed that Obama has finally said it is his top priority ( I think he is late to the game myself).  From what I gather, Sanders is a non-interventionist.  That is fine if you can put up with the results when others like the Russians do the job for you.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

Trumps key voting demographic is the uneducated low income middle-aged male whites. And everything about the economic shifts is true. But if you look who actually adresses these issues (income inequality, de-unionization, tax code favouring the wealthy, lack of health insurance etc.) Bernie Sanders would be their candidate. Instead, Trump uses the demagoge's playbook to scapegoat whoever "Other" he can find to get these people's votes.  Racism and sexism does well with the demographic.

Trump makes his supporters feel better about themselves by insulting others... that seems key to his success (and is a familiar tactic in human history). Even if you are out of work, sick, and poor - at least you aren't a part of any of these other groups Trump insults.

This time does seem ever so slightly different with the POTUS injecting himself into both party's primaries. On the left to defend Hillary (saying she won't be indicted, instead of his standard  "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" when he doesn't want to comment), and on the right (?) commenting about Trump unfavorably.
Perhaps this isn't really new as he has stayed in campaign mode even after becoming a lame duck, and is comfortable attacking republicans. While it does seem below that office, which usually stands above the fray.

I'd like to stay above your mudslinging but want to clarify that despite the Republican misinformation out there, a lame duck session is not a sitting President's  second term - it is generally considered the three months from the November election to swearing in (January). 

 

[JohnRoberts]

When I started my thread on "2016", I said IS would become the main issue, which it is starting to be.  I noticed that Obama has finally said it is his top priority ( I think he is late to the game myself). 

Saying it is his top priority while doing the wave with Castro in a baseball stadium in Cuba, seems a contradiction.

President Obama has tried to frame terror attacks as a symptom of modern times that we must learn to live with. There is a difference between just containing ISIL and defeating them.. Obama has admitted not getting the optics right (politics), not understanding how seriously the american citizens (voters) are taking this. So he has adjusted up his messaging rhetoric. Any progress on the ground in the ME is unfortunately due to Putin propping up Assad.

In argentina Obama said and I need to quote this

[W]e defeat them in part by saying, you are not strong; you are weak.  We send a message to those who might be inspired by them to say, you are not going to change our values of liberty and openness and the respect of all people.

Then he criticized Cruz at that same press conference in Argentina.

From what I gather, Sanders is a non-interventionist.  That is fine if you can put up with the results when others like the Russians do the job for you.

DaveP

Bernie is (was?) a CO (conscientious objector) so it is unclear how he would handle many things related to defending our country as commander in chief.  Hopefully we shouldn't have to find out.  I suspect the democratic establishment will hand pick a replacement for Hillary of she gets into legal trouble, just like the republican establishment is trying to prevent Trump from becoming their candidate and pick his replacement.

Actually kind of ugly to see the sausage being made and this will turn off a lot of young people and new comers to politics.

JR

@dmp I stand corrected, yes he is not a lame duck yet, but he is no longer running for office.  FWIW I am very critical of administration policy while I try to avoid the pure emotional political appeals, but I understand how his supporters see even policy criticism as an attack, disrespect, or mud slinging. I guess that's all relative. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

Racism and Sexism aside, I actually feel sorry for the people we are talking about and there are many parallels with a similar demographic in the UK.

120 years ago, the Labour party was formed to support the working labouring classes which I guess is broadly equivalent to the blue collar appeal of the Democrats.  But in the 1990's the Labour party started to switch to appealing to university graduates and intellectuals with political correctness and pretty well ignored the needs and aspirations of their former electorate.  This coincided with a decline in traditional manufacturing and the consequent decline in union membership.  This left the "uneducated" classes with only right wing parties to vote for as they were the only ones addressing their problems.

It is not an identical scene in the USA, but Trump (a former democrat) has identified this demographic and played their tune. 

I think the difference is that in the US, more so than large parts of Europe, the tune sung is usually "Pull yourself up - it's your own fault if you don't succeed", whereas in Europe it's more common to advocate Socialist-inspired policies to help those in need (including the unemployed previously blue collar workers).

Political correctness is just a nonsensical term half of the time. In this context I'm willing to bet not too many people complained about PC when the UK integrated more tightly with the rest of western Europe, thereby increasing labour competition. I mention it because these days the complaints over PC seem to focus mainly on the cultural issue. In that sense I suppose it's a similarity to the US, with its root in a pretty traditional blaming of "them" whenever the economy sucks and people are losing jobs and not progressing, or even regressing.

Interestingly I think there's been a similar path in Sweden where the Social Democrats kept one type of rhetoric but where their policies began catering less and less to the actual working class their rhetoric said they defended.

 

[mattiasNYC]

When I started my thread on "2016", I said IS would become the main issue, which it is starting to be.  I noticed that Obama has finally said it is his top priority ( I think he is late to the game myself). 

Saying it is his top priority while doing the wave with Castro in a baseball stadium in Cuba, seems a contradiction.

Isn't that a bit of a low blow though? Seems to me similar to complaints about Bush golfing while there's a hurricane wreaking havoc. Can't one safely assume that the POTUS is capable of delegating work according to priorities and "do more than one thing at a time"?

(Yes, I know he didn't literally play golf that time, but he "prioritized" other things.... though there's always "Now watch this drive.", speaking of terrorism)

President Obama has tried to frame terror attacks as a symptom of modern times that we must learn to live with. There is a difference between just containing ISIL and defeating them..

Isn't that somewhat true though? I think it's true to the extent that we can never be 100% safe from potential attacks. But I don't recall Obama even implying that a group like ISIS is something we have to live with. ISIS is a bit different than your average organization engaging in terrorism.

In argentina Obama said and I need to quote this

[W]e defeat them in part by saying, you are not strong; you are weak.  We send a message to those who might be inspired by them to say, you are not going to change our values of liberty and openness and the respect of all people.

Then he criticized Cruz at that same press conference in Argentina.

I don't know what he said about Cruz, but the irony in the above is that the US government/state perpetually tries to keep secrets, the opposite of "openness", as well as push the limits of what it does with regards to spying on its population and punishing people without due process. Obama seems about as guilty of that as his predecessors.

From what I gather, Sanders is a non-interventionist.  That is fine if you can put up with the results when others like the Russians do the job for you.

What would you guess the results could be? I haven't given it much thought to be honest.

 

[living sounds]

This left the "uneducated" classes with only right wing parties to vote for as they were the only ones addressing their problems.

Yes, but was it really "their" problems or rather what people perceive to be their problems? I'm not intimitely familliar with the more recent UK history, but I don't think conservatives addressed issues like the unfair tax code, social services, health care, education etc. actually in favour of working people, did they? My guess surely would be they used tough-on-crime, anti-drugs, anti-foreigner, anti-freeloader etc. tactics...

One key difference between conservatives and these (neo-)fashists a la Trump is that the latter actually incorporate left-leaning ideas into their platforms and rethoric as bait. Conservatives are much more ideologically rigid, principled. Demagoges say whatever gets them elected.