LOL that has to be the silliest part of the Trump candidacy IMO.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4761
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
LOL that has to be the silliest part of the Trump candidacy IMO. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In his big foreign policy speech Monday, Donald Trump coined a new nickname for his Democratic opponent: “America’s Angela Merkel.” “In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be America’s Angela Merkel,” he said at the event in Youngstown, Ohio. “And you know what a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany and the people of Germany. Crime has risen to levels that no one thought they would ever, ever see. It is a catastrophe.” Trump was clearly trying to make a point about the European refugee crisis, arguing that Clinton’s policy toward refugees was approaching the scale of Germany’s. In 2015, Germany took in just over 1 million refugees from the Middle East and Africa, a policy which has divided the country’s residents and created a complex political situation there. But those listening to Trump’s comments from across the Atlantic in Berlin noted the comparison with both a bit of confusion and a certain amount of amusement-- because while it’s true that the refugee crisis in Germany has presented a new political challenge for Merkel, she’s still relatively popular and overall remains one of the most influential, well-regarded leaders in Europe. And what’s more, many Americans probably have no idea--or only the vaguest idea--who Merkel actually is. “It struck me when I heard these comments of Trump,” said Peter Matuschek, chief political analyst for the German polling firm Forsa. “[Merkel] still is enjoying approval rates that [former Chancellor Helmut] Kohl had never dreamed of.” Trump’s comments Monday about the German leader were only the latest in a string of criticism he’s thrown Merkel’s way: the GOP nominee has previously claimed that Merkel is “ruining Germany,” that she is a “catastrophic leader” and even that she’ll “be out if they don’t have a revolution.” “I don’t know what happened to her,” Trump said back in January. “She was doing well, maybe she got power-hungry, maybe she thought she was invincible ... the German people are saying we’ve had it, we’ve had it.” It’s certainly true that the refugee crisis has put Merkel--who has typically had sky-high approval ratings--in one of the toughest spots of her political career. Her approval ratings have bounced up and down over the last year as the refugee crisis and various related terrorist attacks hit the headlines; that was especially true after reports of women being sexually assaulted in Cologne on New Year’s Eve this year, attacks that were largely believed to be perpetrated by refugees and recent migrants. A new poll out from the German TV station ARD found that two-thirds of Germans disapproved of Merkel’s handling of the refugee crisis, compared with 34 percent who were in favor. As for her overall approval rating in the poll, part of a series called DeutschlandTrend, Merkel was at 47 percent approval--higher than in February after the New Year’s Eve attacks, but far lower than the 74 percent approval rating she had in April of 2015 before the refugee crisis heated up. (By comparison, an August CBS News poll had Trump’s favorability rating at 36 percent among U.S. voters; Clinton’s was at 46 percent.) “I would say the beginning was the New Year’s Eve incident in Cologne. That was a point where people were looking at this whole thing differently,” said Jan Philipp Burgard, a German journalist and political scientist who covered the 2008 and 2012 U.S. elections for ARD. In his speech, Trump specifically referred to that incident. “In Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve, we have seen the reports of sexual violence and assault, far greater than anybody knows,” Trump said Monday. He’d previously claimed that there were “hundreds and hundreds of rapes” during that night, which is an exaggeration of the actual reported numbers. Still, Merkel is viewed internationally as perhaps the strongest and most visible leader in Europe--something that does not go overlooked when it comes to her political fortunes at home. Merkel is still strongly favored to win a fourth term next year when Germany holds its next national elections. According to a Forsa poll from late July, 46 percent of German citizens named Merkel as their pick for chancellor if the position were elected directly--down from the mid-50s last year, but still more than 30 points higher than any of her potential opponents. The leader of the second-biggest party in Germany, the Social Democratic Party’s Sigmar Gabriel, took only 15 percent in the same poll. “Her approval rates are still very high, especially compared to the other politicians,” Matuschek said. “Although there has been some dissatisfaction in her rank and file with the refugee issue, of course when people decide to vote they do not only evaluate one policy field but the whole picture.” (For reference, Forsa also asked Germans how they felt about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban last month. Just 10 percent said they were in favor of something similar--and 87 percent of those surveyed were against it.) If Trump was hoping the new nickname would stick to Clinton the way “Crooked Hillary” or “Lyin’ Ted” did, he might have a tougher time with this one just because of how relatively unknown Merkel is in the U.S. In a Pew Research Center survey in 2012, American respondents were asked to identify Merkel’s title out of a list of several options; two-thirds couldn’t say. Of those who did have an answer, twenty-two percent were correctly able to name her as the leader of Germany; 4 percent thought she was the leader of France, 5 percent said she headed the International Monetary Fund and 4 percent thought she was in charge of NATO. (Those numbers may have gone up in the last four years, but it’s probably fair to say that Merkel is still relatively unknown among average U.S. voters.) Still, that lack of more than a basic knowledge among American voters about Merkel and what’s happening in Germany could potentially work to Trump’s advantage, some said. “I think that for Americans there’s certainly admiration but also a little bit of puzzlement about what Angela Merkel has undertaken with letting refugees come in with no upper limit into Germany,” said Sudha David-Wilp, a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. “Donald Trump is using that sort of grey-zone of lack of information--because we really don’t know what the outcome will be in Germany, there are arguments for and arguments against it.” It’s unclear how sustained Trump’s use of the new moniker will be--he hasn’t seemed attached to “Crooked Hillary,” expressing some regret at one point that he’d already used “Lyin’” for Cruz (In fact in June, he launched LyingCrookedHillary.com). But he clearly intended to test it out beyond the confines of his speech: the GOP mogul’s new branding continued with subsequent campaign emails bearing the “Merkel” nickname, all pertaining to the refugee issue. “America’s Merkel Plans 620,000 Refugees,” one read. “When Will America’s Merkel Answer Questions On Her Radical Refugee Plans?” said another. Merkel, for her part, is staying above the U.S. election fray and refraining from commenting on Trump. “I don’t want to wade into the American debate,” she said during a July news conference when asked about Trump. “I’m following it with interest. I’ll just wait for the vote result.” Source Well, that's an interesting one to be sure. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
natesilver: The good argument is just that it’s only August, the polls have been volatile, Clinton’s numbers might still be a little inflated from her convention, and sometimes the polls aren’t as accurate anyway as they were from 2004 to 2012. Source | ||
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On August 18 2016 00:19 ticklishmusic wrote: On the bright side, bringing on Breitbart means that we can reject both Trump and Breitbart at the polls. this is actually a nice upside | ||
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Is that the Breitbart guy who took over and told him to use it? I sometimes check their page for shitz and giggles and read a couple headlines/stories about Merkel ruining Germany/Europe and whatnot. Wouldn't be surprised if they just aren't aware how much the average guy doesn't give a fuck about foreign countries when it comes to politics since they themselves are obviously pretty involved. | ||
Dan HH
Romania9017 Posts
Donald Trump’s Lack of Respect for Science Is Alarming The U.S. presidential election shows how far the political conversation has degenerated from the nation's founding principles of truth and evidence “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.” —Richard Feynman Four years ago in these pages, writer Shawn Otto warned our readers of the danger of a growing antiscience current in American politics. “By turning public opinion away from the antiauthoritarian principles of the nation's founders,” Otto wrote, “the new science denialism is creating an existential crisis like few the country has faced before.” Otto wrote those words in the heat of a presidential election race that now seems quaint by comparison to the one the nation now finds itself in. As if to prove his point, one of the two major party candidates for the highest office in the land has repeatedly and resoundingly demonstrated a disregard, if not outright contempt, for science. Donald Trump also has shown an authoritarian tendency to base policy arguments on questionable assertions of fact and a cult of personality. Americans have long prided themselves on their ability to see the world for what it is, as opposed to what someone says it is or what most people happen to believe. In one of the most powerful lines in American literature, Huck Finn says: “It warn't so. I tried it.” A respect for evidence is not just a part of the national character. It goes to the heart of the country's particular brand of democratic government. When the founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, scientist and inventor, wrote arguably the most important line in the Declaration of Independence—“We hold these truths to be self-evident”—they were asserting the fledgling nation's grounding in the primacy of reason based on evidence. Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it. For more than 170 years we have documented, for better and for worse, the rise of science and technology and their impact on the nation and the world. We have strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true. It won't come as a surprise to anyone who pays even superficial attention to politics that over the past few decades facts have become an undervalued commodity. Many politicians are hostile to science, on both sides of the political aisle. The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has a routine practice of meddling in petty science-funding matters to score political points. Science has not played nearly as prominent a role as it should in informing debates over the labeling of genetically modified foods, end of life care and energy policy, among many issues. The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up. In October, as we did four years previously, we will assemble answers from the campaigns of the Democratic and Republican nominees on the public policy questions that touch on science, technology and public health and then publish them online. We will support ScienceDebate.org's efforts to persuade moderators to ask important science-related questions during the presidential debates. We encourage the nation's political leaders to demonstrate a respect for scientific truths in word and deed. And we urge the people who vote to hold them to that standard. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-s-lack-of-respect-for-science-is-alarming/ | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 18 2016 00:25 Plansix wrote: I don’t think Trump realizes that the majority of the US population is not that scared of Muslims or refugees. The amusing part is that a lot of the people who are most scared are the ones least at risk. | ||
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
“I don’t know what happened to her,” Trump said back in January. “She was doing well, maybe she got power-hungry, maybe she thought she was invincible ... the German people are saying we’ve had it, we’ve had it.” TIL: Merkel, and Hillary by proxy, is going to be the next Hitler. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 18 2016 00:47 JinDesu wrote: TIL: Merkel, and Hillary by proxy, is going to be the next Hitler. By allowing a large flow of immigrants, no less. | ||
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On August 18 2016 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: By allowing a large flow of immigrants, no less. And when we allow them(Merkel+Hillary) to do what they do, this will all lead to communism! | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Dan HH
Romania9017 Posts
On August 18 2016 00:54 mahrgell wrote: And when we allow them(Merkel+Hillary) to do what they do, this will all lead to communism! You joke but when Sanders was still in the race I've seen several alt-right articles and hundreds of reddit comments that were dead serious about socialist = nazi because nazi is short for national socialism. http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/12/right-wing-media-smear-sanders-with-historicall/208565 | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43796 Posts
On August 18 2016 00:54 mahrgell wrote: And when we allow them(Merkel+Hillary) to do what they do, this will all lead to communism! Thanks Obama ![]() | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41988 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 18 2016 01:04 Dan HH wrote: You joke but when Sanders was still in the race I've seen several alt-right articles and hundreds of reddit comments that were dead serious about socialist = nazi because nazi is short for national socialism. http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/12/right-wing-media-smear-sanders-with-historicall/208565 We have this as well: + Show Spoiler + ![]() | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43796 Posts
On August 18 2016 00:43 Dan HH wrote: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-s-lack-of-respect-for-science-is-alarming/ If you're pro-science and pro- common sense, you simply cannot vote for Trump. Simple as that. "toubled"? >.> | ||
| ||