Trump Is Out Of Line, Again

[peacenik]

Trump and his cultish followers have been complaining about Saudi donations to the Clinton foundation. It turns out the Saudi prince has gone on record as having bailed out the bankrupt Trump:



Saudi billionaire Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal said he twice saved US presidential candidate Donald Trump from bankruptcy, describing him as a “bad and ungrateful person”.
In an interview with Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, the prince said he bought Trump’s hotels after they were acquired by the banks which demanded he repay his debts.
The yacht he used to come to Antalya, southwest of Turkey, is one he bought from Trump when he was threatened with bankruptcy.
Earlier, the Saudi prince called on Trump to immediately withdraw from the presidential race describing him as a disgrace to the Republican Party and America.



https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20160825-saudi-prince-says-he-twice-saved-trump-from-bankruptcy/




double standards, much ?

 

[Tommy379]

Blah blah blah

 

[peacenik]

Blah blah blah

Possibly the most intelligent reply I've seen from a right winger on this forum.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

Blah blah blah

Possibly the most intelligent reply I've seen from a right winger on this forum.

LOL. LOL

 

[Mitspa]

You Hillary supporters are doing really well here on the forum ...so far folks would rather drink poison than vote for Hillary ...hehe

 

[seed_time_harvest]

You Hillary supporters are doing really well here on the forum ...so far folks would rather drink poison than vote for Hillary ...hehe

Write In-voters

 

[seed_time_harvest]

You Hillary supporters are doing really well here on the forum ...so far folks would rather drink poison than vote for Hillary ...hehe

Write In-voters

The reason I said write In voters Is because no one voted for Hillary,so you must be talking about those that voted to write-In their vote.

 

[peacenik]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/o...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region



According to recent polls, the image of Donald Trump as a bigot has begun to crystallize, and for good reason: Because it’s true!
A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that 59 percent of likely voters, and 29 percent of likely Republican voters in particular, think that the way Trump talks appeals to bigotry. Republicans were the only anomaly. A majority or plurality of every other demographic measured — Democrats, independents, men, women, white people with and without college degrees, every age group, whites and nonwhites alike — agreed that Trump’s words appeal to bigotry.
But there is one demographic that must be particularly concerning to Trump: college-educated whites.
I know that Trump has boasted that he loves the poorly educated, but there appears to be little love lost between him and those white people with degrees. In fact, as the blog FiveThirtyEight predicted in July, “Trump may become the first Republican in 60 years to lose white college graduates.”
This may in part be due to his particularly abysmal performance among college-educated white women.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll this month found: “Trump enjoys a roughly 40-point lead among white men without college degrees but only a high single-digit lead among college-educated white men. Among white women without college degrees, he leads by low double-digits but trails by nearly 20 points among college-educated white women.”
Not only are these college-educated white women likely to recoil from a man they view as biased toward others, they also probably realize their own place as a historically disadvantaged group and know how very harmful bias can be.
This is surely earth-shattering news for a struggling campaign, so Trump, in a fit of desperation, is throwing anything and everything against the wall to see if it sticks, to shake the bigotry label off of him and make it stick to Hillary Clinton.
He has engaged in fake outreach to African-American voters, feeding his nearly all-white crowds a healthy diet of the most pernicious stereotypes about the horror and unremitting bleakness of black life. He has waffled and grown more ambiguous on his hard line concerning immigrants who are in the country illegally.
Photo

His repeated refrain, supposedly to the black and Hispanic voters, is: “What the hell do you have to lose? Give me a chance.” But in fact, he’s talking past blacks and Hispanics, two groups he has previously shown little interest in. He is instead speaking directly to the educated white voters who recoil at the thought of supporting a bigot. Blacks and Hispanics are mere pawns in this appeal.
Furthermore, he wants to move the withering light of examination away from himself, his history, his disturbing coziness with white nationalists, and focus that light on the history of racial and ethnic alliances in the opposite political party.
This is all a rather clever distraction, but it is a distraction nonetheless.
The fact remains that there is a disturbing racial undertone to the Trump campaign that goes far beyond the tired narrative of economic anxiety and distress among white people in the flyover states who feel ignored by conventional politicians.
That may be one component, but so is this: One of the most effective narratives of Trump’s campaign has been driven by racial isolationism, and racial isolationists appear to be the very ones drawn to that message. This is not partisan theory, but empirical fact.
The draft of a major working paper published this month by the Gallup senior economist Jonathan Rothwell found: “His supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue-collar occupations, but they earn relative high household incomes, and living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support. There is stronger evidence that racial isolation and less strictly economic measures of social status, namely health and intergenerational mobility, are robustly predictive of more favorable views toward Trump, and these factors predict support for him but not other Republican presidential candidates.”
Specifically on this racial isolation point, Rothwell put it this way: “This analysis provides clear evidence that those who view Trump favorably are disproportionately living in racially and culturally isolated ZIP codes and commuting zones. Excluding other factors, constant support for Trump is highly elevated in areas with few college graduates, far from the Mexican border, and in neighborhoods that stand out within the commuting zone for being white, segregated enclaves, with little exposure to blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.”
He continued: “This is consistent with contact theory, which has already received considerable empirical support in the literature in a variety of analogous contexts. Limited interactions with racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and college graduates may contribute to prejudicial stereotypes, political and cultural misunderstandings, and a general fear of rejection and not-belonging.”




Racial isolation is the common thread here. It is what would allow his supporters to so uncritically accept the corrosive mythologies he creates about minorities. But it is this same racial isolation that will make minorities and college-educated white voters avoid Trump like the plague.

Further proof that Trump is pathetic. It is utterly amazing that anyone can support such a hater and bigot.

 

[Mitspa]

Trumps numbers with blacks have been on a steady climb and he has received endorsements from real civil rights leaders that make the charge of racism seem very silly. The fact that Hillary is having to fight to keep black folks on the plantation is a very bad sign for her and great news for Trump .

 

[Utah]

You Hillary supporters are doing really well here on the forum ...so far folks would rather drink poison than vote for Hillary ...hehe

They're drinking the poison every day. That's why they're liberals.

 

[jennymae]

You Hillary supporters are doing really well here on the forum ...so far folks would rather drink poison than vote for Hillary ...hehe

Durn, Mitspa, I still need to borrow your binolaculars, because I don't see any of those Hillary folks.

I don't support neither of them because they are both liberals.

 

[Desdichado]

Trumps numbers with blacks have been on a steady climb and he has received endorsements from real civil rights leaders that make the charge of racism seem very silly. The fact that Hillary is having to fight to keep black folks on the plantation is a very bad sign for her and great news for Trump .

Really, neither candidate has a substantial minority draw on a personal level. Hillary's minority appeal has little to do with her and everything to do with the Democratic label. She will not receive nearly the same enthusiasm as Obama from the broad minority coalition because she's a friend of Bobby Byrd and panders with hot sauce.

 

[Desdichado]

Almost everything about Clinton is laughable. As goofy as Trump is, she's a walking parody of everything wrong with our current system.

From the "open secret" style lying, to the shark-like politician smile, to the failed attempts at hiding her epic elitism behind comically transparent trips to Chipotle.

It's gallows humor on a national level.

 

[jennymae]

Sometimes I'm wondering, how could the parties let those two slip through the primaries? Maybe they thought the third term rule would apply? The Republican party thought they could get away with any candidate, and the Democrats thought it didn't matter because they'd lose anyways.

 

[kaylagrl]

Well I see y'all are still at it. Not much has changed. Stopping buy to say "hey" to all my CC friends. Keep up the good fight.

 

[Desdichado]

Sometimes I'm wondering, how could the parties let those two slip through the primaries? Maybe they thought the third term rule would apply? The Republican party thought they could get away with any candidate, and the Democrats thought it didn't matter because they'd lose anyways.

Again, I maintain that Trump is the Republicans fault from two ends- jinning up anti-establishment rhetoric without sustaining it rhetorically. I personally think that boils down to the lack of philosophical consistency on the Right. No William F. Buckley's around to really keep the tables and direct thought/rhetoric. Due to the decline of Christian influence and generations of materialism things once actually agreed upon are points of contention particularly among millennials and Gen X-ers. It's hard to telegraph success to an audience that defines success in different ways, but determines your base. It's even harder to grow the base.

With this void we were left looking for someone who can define success however vaguely and shows a willingness to go out and achieve said success. A hyper confident man comes out claiming that the one thing he excels at is results. In retrospect, what happened next should've been all too predictable. I think it would've happened regardless of the number of candidates or what they did/said. Trump, as they say, "tapped in to something."

The void.

On the Democrat side, I think it's owed to the power of the Clinton machine and no extremely dangerous obstacles. I mean, if Bernie Sanders had the looks and elocution of Marco Rubio, Hillary would've gotten toasted again. But without that kind of star-power cryptonite, long-standing (not to mention criminal) levels of influence prevailed.

At the end of the day, the reason why we have what we have is that most of America is adrift with all the power and influence but none of the faith and civic virtue necessary to choose decent leaders among them.

While our nation is under judgement and lapses into tyranny we can thank the Lord sees His own in a different light. He will protect us and sustain those who love Him and labor in His name.

 

[jennymae]

You may can be onto something. There is no philosophical consistency on the Right, and it hasn't been for some time now. The Left is as bad. There's no direction, and to be honest, the voters offers no steering speed either. We're sort of victims of our own lack of knowledge and by that we are choosing our leaders.

 

[Desdichado]

You may can be onto something. There is no philosophical consistency on the Right, and it hasn't been for some time now. The Left is as bad. There's no direction, and to be honest, the voters offers no steering speed either. We're sort of victims of our own lack of knowledge and by that we are choosing our leaders.

There was always contention among conservatives about the deepest areas of political philosophy, but during the birth of the New Right we were able to take all of these and at the very least show points of consistency. Particularly in how they all interacted with Communism, the criticisms of which were differing but still inter-related.

Between the 1950's and the 1980's there were numerous symposium-style books published about this sort of unity and diversity of thought and scholars from all corners of the movement would weigh in. We have similar texts today of course, but they hardly ever go deeper than "No IRS! Yay!"

There is nobody really leading the movement and our main philosophical opponent on the Left, Cultural Marxism, changes the dynamic considerably. New groups are arising to combat them and they are still developing. There are questions as to whether they can truly be integrated like the old subsets of conservatism.

While modern liberalism suffers a similar malady, it does not affect the Democratic Party as much as the Republican Party. Since the triumph of the New Right, the Republican Party is a partisan reflection of the conservative philosophical coalition as it exists in the movement (the ideas were already centralized and filtered via the movement the partisan organization itself serves mainly as a conduit).

The Democratic Party on the other hand is coalitional at the partisan level. While there are still objective standards, there is an understanding that a Democratic candidate can differ from these different groups on some policy concerns. At the end of the day, they're on the same team and the different coalition groups will wield their own independent power and influence to try the keep the candidates in line.

It must be added that it's easy to move the line on truths agreed upon when many in your party don't believe in transcendent truths.

From a bare-knuckle political standpoint I do rather admire how Democrats set up their house.

 

[Desdichado]

That is how things stand now, but I think we are seeing some change.

Republicans will likely become more coalitional at the partisan level due to demographic changes and mutilation of American conservatism. It's been going that way for over a decade.

Millennial Democrats being moral absolutists in their own bizarre way want to change the Democratic Party to reflect a philosophical (they would probably say intersectional) coalition. They're attempting to take the concerns of the differing coalitions and broaden them into something more consistent.

Add to this, there is the overwhelming trend that candidates are become more powerful than parties themselves. This, I hypothesize will lend more strength to the philosophical coalition view of things.

Both parties will then, from a structural viewpoint, look more similar in the coming decades. Unless there is some sort of cultural shift I'm not adding into the equation.

Always include your X factor

 

[jennymae]

Yes, I agree, and to extract something from your posts, I'd like to emphasize the analysis of what you expect to take place within the Republican party. As you say, the Democratic party is merely a loose convention of people, groups etc not forcing their candidate to fit every single sub organizations twisted way of seeing the world. This strategy has paid off ever since 2008, and probably made Bill Clinton possible, even though ole Bush didn't get the significance of the economical aspect, and by that paved the way for William Jefferson Clinton, quite a presidential name, by the way.

The Republicans, on the other hand, is forced by sub groups which do not comprehend politics, but keep telling everybody they are the only ones comprehending it. These people are major republican obstacles. You don't win the general by consultating every single organization contacting you, promising them that your politic will be reflecting their political "insight".

Republicans might should acknowledge that they cant make everybody happy, but they can make enough people happy to win the general. Even though that means some extremists are leaving the party. The strategy of this general appears to be a "make most folks mad" strategy.