Donald Trump

[iNow]

I completely take your point, but want to clarify: Trump actually HAS attracted new support into the party, specifically people who didn't previously vote, a number of independents, and related others.

 

The challenge is that they needed to broaden their tent to win in the general at the executive level (they've been crushing democrats at the state and congressional level for years, it's just the presidency they keep losing). They also needed to do a better job at attracting women and minorities and the better educated, a task at which they clearly have once again failed.

 

I am confident you know all of this already, but am feeling particularly pedantic for some reason right now and wanted to highlight that they did attract new people and new supporters, just not enough of them nor the groups they actually needed to win the white house from a strategic perspective.

 

At this point, like all other elections, it becomes a basic numbers game. Who actually gets off their ass and shows up come election day and who's got the most animated motivated voters...

[Ten oz]

I completely take your point, but want to clarify: Trump actually HAS attracted new support into the party, specifically people who didn't previously vote, a number of independents, and related others.

 

The challenge is that they needed to broaden their tent to win in the general at the executive level (they've been crushing democrats at the state and congressional level for years, it's just the presidency they keep losing). They also needed to do a better job at attracting women and minorities and the better educated, a task at which they clearly have once again failed.

 

I am confident you know all of this already, but am feeling particularly pedantic for some reason right now and wanted to highlight that they did attract new people and new supporters, just not enough of them nor the groups they actually needed to win the white house from a strategic perspective.

 

At this point, like all other elections, it becomes a basic numbers game. Who actually gets off their ass and shows up come election day and who's got the most animated motivated voters...

Trump has recieved 40% of the vote in the GOP primary and millions less votes than Clinton. By the time we get through NJ and CA both Clinton and Sanders will have received more votes than Trump. A look at all various primary states shows that Trump has not received more votes than the Democrat in any of the states traditionally won by Democrats. To the extent Trump has brought anrgy white males who previously didn't vote into the fold it hasn't been enough to change the trend anywhere. Trumps best performing state to date was NY and Clinton received double the popular votes there as did Trump and Sanders 50% more than Trump. No reason to assume the Trump has a positive impact on the electoral college. Also mentioning how well the GOP do in mid-term only adds confusion to this. General elections and mid-terms are very different.

 

Trump's success to date, in my opinion, is a self reinforcing thing. Believing he may have a chance legitimizes him and then gives him a chance. Trump's supporters feed on the idea that he is this super tough guy that everyone is affraid of. His numbers are actually weak. Weaker than previous GOP nominees and the more the world convinces itself otherwise the stronger he gets. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. In my opinion progressive would do best to ignore Trump for now. Let Trump fight with the GOP establishment for now. Progressives should just focus on the issues and finishing up the primary. No reason to give Trump more exposure.

[iNow]

Agreed (though, should point out that NY is not really the best example since they have a closed primary; it doesn't represent independent voters and where they're likely to sway... but that point is minor in comparison to the larger thrust of your post on which we align).

[Hendrick Laursen]

Trump will lead the US backwards.

That's all.

[StringJunky]

Trump will lead the US backwards.

That's all.

No. He will lead from the back.

 

"Forward!" He cried, from the rear, as the front rank died. - P. Floyd

[Ten oz]

I view the GOP allowing (failing to stop) Trump to seize their nominations 2 ways:

 

First, this will force change in the party. The GOP has pandered to bigots and low information votes with the Southern strategy since the 60's. The demographics of the country has changed enough that they must change course or risk being a permanent minority party. They must shift away from divisive race and religious policies and embrace libertarian ones in hopes of attracting a younger and more diverse crop of voters. Ultimately the GOP only cares about money! The race baiting and Jesus stuff is always just a charade to win votes. Once in power they focus on taxes and huge gov't contracts. The GOP needs a new charade.

 

Secondly, The far right is apocalyptic; the end is nigh. There know that when the GOP was last in power they did a terrible job. They also know that despite their complaints things are better today under that Kenyan. They can't win on truth or facts and are angry that the world isn't just doing what they want it too. So they have decided that it is easier to go down talking trash and venting their fustrations than to lose giving it an honest effort. It is the "I can't have it my way so you are all ugly and fat" appraocch. They are conceding the election in exchange for the chance to through a tantrum. After the GOP lost in 2012 party officials said then the party needed to become more diverse and inclusive; well Trump is the far right saying to the GOP "you can't break up with us cuz' we're break up with you first". Childish, angry, cowardly, and self destructive.

[Phi for All]

Yes Magazine had a great article pointing out how Trump is ruining democracy in the US with his unchecked use of logical fallacies. As we all know here on the forums, when a poster starts using strawmen, ad hominems, hasty generalizations and other fallacies, you no longer have a discourse. It's not an argument anymore, it's a circus where the lion-tamer makes everyone jump through meaningless, flaming hoops.

 

If this becomes a legitimate way to win the presidency, how will it affect future candidacies? Without reasoned debate about the problems we face, how can representative democracy pretend to be at all effective anymore? With the media giving him even more free air time every time he does it, isn't this behavior going to eventually replace meaningful political election processes?

 

The media aren't going to kill the orange goose, so what can be done to show that Trump's quasi-arguments aren't really answering anything? For most of these fallacies, the damage is done once the words are out there, but at the very least we need a way to show voters how these pitiful attempts at reason are short-circuiting any kind of grown-up discussion of the issues. His base doesn't seem to care, and they seem proud that their master is able to confuse and rattle the opposition, even if he's doing it in a schoolyard bully, neener-neener sort of way. They take the fact that Trump leaves so many people sputtering to mean he's brilliant, rather than meaning he's irrational and you can't have a substantive dialogue with him.

[iNow]

The bigger issue IMO is the effect this is already having on down-ballot candidates. They're following the same playbook and often with great success. For example, here in Texas we just had a guy (Robert Morrow) win who self-identified as "Trump on steroids" and sent deeply insulting obscene tweets as his core approach.

[Phi for All]

The bigger issue IMO is the effect this is already having on down-ballot candidates. They're following the same playbook and often with great success. For example, here in Texas we just had a guy (Robert Morrow) win who self-identified as "Trump on steroids" and sent deeply insulting obscene tweets as his core approach.

 

I should have seen that one coming after so many anti-Trumpets suddenly jumped on board after the NRA endorsement. There's bound to be a rash of politicians who now think emulating or even outdoing him is the wisest decision.

 

I have to point out the hypocrisy in one of the latest moves. The PGA wants to move their tournament away from a Trump resort to one in Mexico City because sponsors don't want to compete with the Trump brand or expose themselves to political ramifications. If you can't make money, it sounds like a wise business move on the PGA's part, but the Donald is calling it stupid, saying the PGA is only interested in money (?!?!), and making his signature cowardly threats like, "I hope they have kidnapping insurance". It's OK for his resorts to make money, but he's going to criticize anyone else's attempts to do so. He's not even a good capitalist.

[Raider5678]

I was convinced he was being paid by the GOP to take the temperature of America, see what the hot buttons are, and be as outrageous about it as possible. I never thought he'd be taken this seriously as a candidate, mostly because of his denigration of women, and the fact that he LIES so much, and BIG LIES too. I couldn't imagine even Republicans supporting him after a debate with Sanders or Clinton pointed out all the LIES.

 

Now, I don't know. He claims the USA is #1 on education per pupil by a factor of 4, and while intellectuals look this up and realize he's LYING, conservatives nod their heads and don't check. He gets to LIE and say he opposed the Iraq war, when anyone (except conservatives) can check to see he was as rabid as anyone else in the Republican Party to go to war.

 

I think he appeals to some because he supposedly understands bidness. These folks say we need to get a bidnessman in there, that's what we need! Bush II was a bidnessman, and did some very proctologically unsound things to this country, but I guess that was so long ago, they've forgotten.

 

Bush II lied his ass off too. Whoppers like Trump, not little white lies or exaggerations or stretching the truth.

 

To tell the truth, I can't imagine Trump as an American President. I really think I'd have to move, for health reasons. Trump makes me sick.

Can you point out some of his lies? Like big ones that actually matter. I usually end up missing the point.

[Phi for All]

Can you point out some of his lies? Like big ones that actually matter. I usually end up missing the point.

 

Rather than rehash the big lies he's told so you can pretend they don't actually matter, I would suggest you work on the "missing the point" part. I'll give you a hint, it's all about confirmation bias. You've decided he's OK and that you're going to vote for him, so you want to dismiss the reality of what virtually everybody (including conservative outlets like FOX News) is saying about his lies.

 

It's readily apparent, if you're following the news at all, that the D hates to have his words in the past used against him in the present. It's one thing to say your views have changed over the years, or that new evidence brought to light has changed your opinion, but it's an outright lie to say you opposed the Iraq war when there is video footage of you at the time claiming differently. The same goes with his statement about Japan becoming a nuclear nation, then later claiming Clinton is a liar for saying he did. That's an example of the Trump double-down, where he lies, then not only denies it but lies again by calling his opponent a liar for mentioning it.

 

The D is willing to go to any lengths not to be contradicted, which is a horrible attitude for a statesman. He plays so loosey-goosey with the truth that none of our allies are expressing any confidence in him (Russia and North Korea love him though). The fact is, if the D becomes POTUS, it will most definitely strengthen both Russia and China, since the US will cease to be a trustworthy asset, encouraging European countries to do less in tandem with the US. The dollar is threatened as well, since he's hinted that defaulting on loans is perfectly acceptable, but then lied and said he didn't.

 

He undermines confidence with his bullshit salesman manipulations and his passing acquaintance with the truth.

[iNow]

Can you point out some of his lies? Like big ones that actually matter. I usually end up missing the point.

The point is easy to miss when seeking it with closed eyes, cupped ears, and blind acceptance.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/

Trump has "perfected the outrageous untruth as a campaign tool," said Michael LaBossiere, a philosophy professor at Florida A&M University who studies theories of knowledge. "He makes a clearly false or even absurdly false claim, which draws the attention of the media. He then rides that wave until it comes time to call up another one."

 

PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements on our Truth-O-Meter, where we’ve rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, out of 77 statements checked. No other politician has as many statements rated so far down on the dial.

[StringJunky]

The point is easy to miss when seeking it with closed eyes, cupped ears, and blind acceptance.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/

Any news is good news; this guy is viral.

[iNow]

Any news is good news; this guy is viral.

Yes, much like ebola, rabies, dengue, and smallpox. I agree.

[StringJunky]

Yes, much like ebola, rabies, dengue, and smallpox. I agree.

You gottit. It's sad. I only hope the Democrats win. The Republicans are beyond a joke this time around. G W Bush looks like George Washington or Abe Lincoln atm in terms of notable presidents. You need Obama again. What a shower.

Edited June 5, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I'd vote for Gary Busey before I'd vote for Donald Trump.

[John Cuthber]

A newspaper is suggesting the voters should choose the late Ronald Reagan, rather than Trump.

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/3169220/ronald-reagan-endorsed-over-donald-trump-san-diego-newspaper-urges-voters-to-write-in-dead-president-rather-than-vote-for-trump/

 

I tend to agree.

[Phi for All]

What do you think of CNN's chyron fact-check tactic?

 

If it's successful with Trump, it should be used to inform viewers about all the candidate's statements. I don't want to see anyone running for POTUS getting away with outright lies just because so many people still look to the news for their information and don't question what is said on news shows. I think this might go a long way towards restoring some semblance of confidence in the media.

[iNow]

A step in the right direction, just wish they'd do it for more than his claim he never said Japan should have nukes.

[Raider5678]

The point is easy to miss when seeking it with closed eyes, cupped ears, and blind acceptance. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

I would also like to point out, that I don't like any of the candidates.

It seems your simply accepting every thing Hillary says without looking it up. You simple nod your head in agreement.

For years, I have found every political candidate lies lies lies lies. Usually they're big too.

 

Edit:

And I can't vote yet.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

It seems your simply accepting every thing Hillary says without looking it up. You simple nod your head in agreement.

 

No. Politifact also has the same treatment of Clinton. If you don't think the lies are that important, then take a look at how they both stack up in the True/Mostly True/Half True categories. It's a much better gauge of how much you can trust what they've been saying.

 

And I can't vote yet.

 

But your dad is voting Trump?

[Raider5678]

No. Politifact also has the same treatment of Clinton. If you don't think the lies are that important, then take a look at how they both stack up in the True/Mostly True/Half True categories. It's a much better gauge of how much you can trust what they've been saying.

 

 

 

But your dad is voting Trump?

If you add up the numbers, you can't try Hillary half the time. As for trump, believe the oppiste of what he says lol. Either way, they still lie. If your wondering, I count half true as half false. Would you believe something half true? Probably not.

 

Also, yes. My dads voting for Donald trump.

But I'm wiling to bet your parents were democrats.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

If you add up the numbers, you can't try Hillary half the time. As for trump, believe the oppiste of what he says lol. Either way, they still lie. If your wondering, I count half true as half false. Would you believe something half true? Probably not.

 

Also, yes. My dads voting for Donald trump.

But I'm wiling to bet your parents were democrats.

Personally, I'm not sure what my parents are registered as if anything. The only votes I know for a fact that my father has cast are for independents and third party candidates, and our Representative was a Republican and I'm pretty sure they both voted for him at some point.

 

They didn't talk to my sister and I much about partisan politics, and my dad is a journalist who feels that it's important for him to try to stay above the fray, so to speak.

 

That said, they raised me to have certain values, and to behave in a certain way towards other people, and that informs a lot of my political views, so when politics come up, I tend to agree with them about a lot of things. But not everything, and that is important. Just because someone is your parent does not mean they are any smarter or wiser than any other random person, and what their political opinion is should have little if anything to do with how you come to your own opinions about things.

 

I was lucky enough to grow up in a household where we were largely encouraged to come to our own conclusions about things without being told by our parents what the correct political views to have were, and I'm grateful for that because not everyone gets that as a kid, and I think the fact that they don't leads to a great deal of the "sportification" of politics, where many people support or revile certain people and political groups because that was how they were raised rather for any particularly articulable reason or belief on their own part.

[iNow]

It seems your simply accepting every thing Hillary says without looking it up. You simple nod your head in agreement.

Using the handy quote feature offered by the software of this forum, kindly please quote EXACTLY what I have said that causes you to suggest I am "simply accepting everything Hillary says without looking it up" and simply "nodding my head in agreement."

 

That's quite a charge. If you think you're right, prove it.

 

Also, FYI - you meant you're above.

[John Cuthber]

If you add up the numbers, you can't try Hillary half the time. As for trump, believe the oppiste of what he says lol. Either way, they still lie. If your wondering, I count half true as half false. Would you believe something half true? Probably not.

 

Also, yes. My dads voting for Donald trump.

But I'm wiling to bet your parents were democrats.

Well, Hillary tells the truth 59.5 % of the time or more. Trunp mainly lies.

Never mind Hillary for the minute.

Why does Trump seem to need to lie so much?

Could it be that, if he told the truth- that his policies (as far as they exist) would only benefit the rich and powerful- very few people would support him.