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.
I'm inclined to agree with the opinion that independents today are independents in name only, and that those numbers mostly indicate that slightly more independents lean democrat. (As well as democrats being slightly more unified in their distrust of Trump than republicans are unified in their trust in him / distrust in media). Plansix self-identifies as independent, but I don't think I've ever seen him argue for policies that are mainstream republican policies today. I think he's the most glaring example but most posters who self-identify as independents seem to have fairly consistent preferences. I suspect this is caused by the hardlining of differences between democrats and independents having increased significantly over the past ~two decades; when it was Bush senior vs Bill Clinton, they could support either candidate, even Dubya vs Gore they could support either candidate.
But when the tea party revolution happened, and the republicans preaching 'somewhat greater focus on fiscal and personal responsibility but other than that largely being in agreement' became a much less vocal segment of that party. I guess there's also been somewhat of a similar shift in the Democrat party, with 'identity politics' being similarly heralded by some politicians and off-putting to some 'independents', but either way, my impression is that people who identify as independents are a) politically indifferent or b) just haven't adjusted to the new reality. I certainly don't understand how people can look at today's republicans and democrats and go 'you know what, I don't really have a preference', unless they're essentially stating 'I just plainly don't give a shit about politics, period'.
FBI director James Comey has rejected Donald Trump's claim that his predecessor, Barack Obama, ordered a wiretap of his phone before he was elected US president, US media say. Mr Comey reportedly asked the US justice department (DOJ) to publicly reject Saturday's allegation, according to the New York Times and NBC. He is said to have asked for this because the allegation falsely insinuated that the FBI broke the law. The DOJ has not commented.
Don't know if this one specifically has been posted.
Also thoughts on this? It seems like it was issues back when he won the election, but it's odd, trade war with China? I doubt it. Seems like he is going to bend the US over for China.
On March 06 2017 14:34 WolfintheSheep wrote: 38% for Independent is even worse. Dems and Reps are going to vote for their party no matter what.
Knowing there are that many swing voters that you can outright lie to and win their vote? Good luck in future elections.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Given the political climate, the republican and democrat results are somewhat expected, but independents being close to 50/50 is more indicative of the distrust of media.
If I was asked if I trust more the media or Trump and that rhe media was Infowars I would also say Trump. Again, the question is completely meaningless if one doesn't precise what media we talk about, and I see the result as perfectly mechanical: 100% of the demicrats want to make a point against Trump, 100% of conservatives want to make a point for Trump and independents are divided. That says nothing about anything and anyone.
I would be mildly interested to see the same question asked about specific cable news, newspapers, although I'm certain that 90% republicans woukd day they trust more Trump that the NYT just because the later is liberal. Not too fond of those opinion polls.
On March 06 2017 22:43 brian wrote: what a time to be alive, each passing day i more firmly believe that we will see our first successful impeachment.
I agree, but remember it's really effing hard to empeach a potus. It really depends of the GOP and if the party starts thinking its survival is at stake. They won't go for it for any other reason imo.
I'll need hand surgery from facepalming every time i open the news if he lasts four years, though.
On March 06 2017 21:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm inclined to agree with the opinion that independents today are independents in name only, and that those numbers mostly indicate that slightly more independents lean democrat. (As well as democrats being slightly more unified in their distrust of Trump than republicans are unified in their trust in him / distrust in media). Plansix self-identifies as independent, but I don't think I've ever seen him argue for policies that are mainstream republican policies today. I think he's the most glaring example but most posters who self-identify as independents seem to have fairly consistent preferences. I suspect this is caused by the hardlining of differences between democrats and independents having increased significantly over the past ~two decades; when it was Bush senior vs Bill Clinton, they could support either candidate, even Dubya vs Gore they could support either candidate.
But when the tea party revolution happened, and the republicans preaching 'somewhat greater focus on fiscal and personal responsibility but other than that largely being in agreement' became a much less vocal segment of that party. I guess there's also been somewhat of a similar shift in the Democrat party, with 'identity politics' being similarly heralded by some politicians and off-putting to some 'independents', but either way, my impression is that people who identify as independents are a) politically indifferent or b) just haven't adjusted to the new reality. I certainly don't understand how people can look at today's republicans and democrats and go 'you know what, I don't really have a preference', unless they're essentially stating 'I just plainly don't give a shit about politics, period'.
The Republican coalition also includes an activist religious bloc that makes many would be conservatives or libertarians shy away from identifying as Republicans. It's pretty schizophrenic to be the party of limited government and self determination while being steadfast on issues like abortion and sexuality. Similarly for Democrats, issues like abortion are so polarizing that there are definitely people that generally favor their economic policies but shy away from the label because of its unified stance on social issues.
On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote: How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief.
Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
On March 06 2017 12:37 Tachion wrote:
On March 06 2017 12:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote: How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief.
Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries.
Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops."
Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won.
And he lost all that charm after the primary?
Somehow, yes.
So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton?
People focus a lot on how Hillary lost the general, but equally important is how he he actually won the primary. To quote The New Yorker
If Republican voters hadn’t been so disillusioned by their usual leaders, Trump would have remained a fringe candidate. Instead, aided by some prominent right-wing media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, the New York businessman was able to present himself as the heir to the Tea Party revolution, which many activists felt had been quashed or betrayed. He was also able to tap into many Republicans’ anger, some of it tinged with racism, about President Obama and his policies; into broader fears of terrorism and economic decline; and into a general disgust with professional politicians, some of which was brought about by the G.O.P.’s own obstructionism.
Contented countries don’t produce politicians like Trump. For many years now, a majority of Americans have told pollsters that they believe the nation is on the wrong track. A decade and a half marked by foreign wars, terrorist threats, recession, slow growth, political gridlock, culture wars, and (for many voters) declining incomes have further undermined faith in the political system, creating space for insurgent candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Of course, if you are going to run as a populist outsider, you need a message that fires up voters. It was here that Trump’s instinctive grasp of the darker reaches of the Republican psyche came to the fore. Having spent years listening to talk radio, he knew that the issue of illegal immigration divided the grassroots of the Party from its leadership in Washington. In promising to deport millions of undocumented workers and build a wall across the southern border, he established his conservative bone fides and differentiated himself from the other candidates.
In responding to fears of terrorism, Trump made a similar calculation. When he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and a registry system for Muslims who already live here, he must have known that the media and most of his Republican rivals would react with outrage. But Trump perhaps sensed that his illiberal proposals would prove popular with ordinary G.O.P. voters, and he turned out to be right, especially after the gun massacre in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Finally, Trump ignored some Republican economic orthodoxy, which, for decades, had been promulgated by free-market economists, rich donors, and corporate-funded think tanks. On Social Security, long a target of conservative reformers, he came out against cuts in benefits or a rise in the retirement age. On taxes, he took a standard Republican line, releasing a reform plan that would bestow huge gains on wealthy households, but he hasn’t talked about it very much. Instead, he has promised to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—such as roads, airports, schools, and hospitals—saying that much of what we have got is “Third World.” His pledge to rebuild isn’t very credible—he doesn’t say where the money would come from—but it aligns him more closely with Democrats than with many Republicans.
Trump’s biggest heresy was to abandon free trade. Claiming that NAFTA and other trade agreements have cost countless jobs, he threatened to impose hefty tariffs on countries such as China, which export a lot of cheap goods to the United States. In his speech last night, Trump made clear that he will try to use this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. “She doesn’t understand trade,” he said, adding that NAFTA, which her husband signed, was “perhaps the single worst trade deal in history.” But it isn’t just previous Democratic and Republican Administrations that Trump has challenged. He has also criticized American corporations for shifting jobs to foreign countries, and has threatened to punish them. “We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we are going to save our jobs,” he said at Trump Tower. If U.S. companies insist on moving them overseas, he went on, “there will be consequences, and there will be very serious consequences.”
As with his tax and spending promises, Trump’s tough talk on trade and offshoring doesn’t withstand close inspection. (How would he bring the jobs back?) It does, however, give him something to say to Republican voters who have seen factories close down, jobs lost, and wages stagnate. And it further distinguishes him from other Republican politicians.
And that, in the end, is Trump’s greatest strength. Despite having demonstrated political cunning in the course of dispatching his sixteen rivals, he has managed to convince many Republican voters that he isn’t a politician at all.
"how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton."
"how did this idiot win a primary" - fears of terrorism/distrust of institutions, economic insecurity (populism), illegal immigration and the porous southern border, packed primary field defraying the conservative vote, desire for a more confrontational response to media slander ... among others.
And the article besides minor gripes hits the major theme rather well. Disillusionment with leaders. Run the same moderate face with conservative running mate and all the conservative platform that who knows if it will be fought for (Bush McCain Romney). How's that small government pledge working out for everybody? Basically in a functioning political discourse and cultural backdrop, somebody like Trump would be deservedly impossible. Who needs the blowhard, seriously? Or like Decius & Co's formulation flight 93 election, only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise ... puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying.
On March 06 2017 14:05 LuckyFool wrote:
On March 06 2017 14:03 Nevuk wrote:
On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote: If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star.
No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them.
You are forgetting Fox News. The numbers would be almost identically flipped imo but I don't like the poll because "the media" is too broad.
Or a question centered on 'how truthful do you find MSNBC/ABC/CNN/NYT/WaPo' 'how truthful do you find Trump.' Because making a comparison between a serial liar and narrative-driven establishments obscures their shared weakness.
Here is a third answer to "how did this idiot won that election": because you supported (and I assume voted for) him? The blame might be shared with the DNC, the establishment, everything you want, it goes primarily to the people who actively supported a total clown. I insist because the main focus should really be, in which moral and intellectual disarray is part of America that we enthusiastically chose that? It's a deeper and more interesting question than both Clinton's lack of charisma or the wave of populist resentment towards the elites.
To your second point, it's equally stupid to put MSNBC and the NYT in the same question. It's like asking people how they find restaurants in New York and include both Mc Donald and Chef's Table in the question as if we talked about the same thing.
Listen, if you want to talk blame, consider why someone voted for Trump as being important to the actual vote for Trump. "It goes primarily to the people who actively supported a total clown." It is absolutely "intellectual disarray," as you put it, to debate the decision to vote without asking questions about the choice. And you are the reason this topic will continue surfacing. You're essentially saying the only reaction should be shock (we enthusiastically chose that? Must be vague moral and intellectual issues).
On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote: How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief.
Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
On March 06 2017 12:37 Tachion wrote:
On March 06 2017 12:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries.
Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops."
Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won.
And he lost all that charm after the primary?
Somehow, yes.
So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton?
People focus a lot on how Hillary lost the general, but equally important is how he he actually won the primary. To quote The New Yorker
If Republican voters hadn’t been so disillusioned by their usual leaders, Trump would have remained a fringe candidate. Instead, aided by some prominent right-wing media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, the New York businessman was able to present himself as the heir to the Tea Party revolution, which many activists felt had been quashed or betrayed. He was also able to tap into many Republicans’ anger, some of it tinged with racism, about President Obama and his policies; into broader fears of terrorism and economic decline; and into a general disgust with professional politicians, some of which was brought about by the G.O.P.’s own obstructionism.
Contented countries don’t produce politicians like Trump. For many years now, a majority of Americans have told pollsters that they believe the nation is on the wrong track. A decade and a half marked by foreign wars, terrorist threats, recession, slow growth, political gridlock, culture wars, and (for many voters) declining incomes have further undermined faith in the political system, creating space for insurgent candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Of course, if you are going to run as a populist outsider, you need a message that fires up voters. It was here that Trump’s instinctive grasp of the darker reaches of the Republican psyche came to the fore. Having spent years listening to talk radio, he knew that the issue of illegal immigration divided the grassroots of the Party from its leadership in Washington. In promising to deport millions of undocumented workers and build a wall across the southern border, he established his conservative bone fides and differentiated himself from the other candidates.
In responding to fears of terrorism, Trump made a similar calculation. When he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and a registry system for Muslims who already live here, he must have known that the media and most of his Republican rivals would react with outrage. But Trump perhaps sensed that his illiberal proposals would prove popular with ordinary G.O.P. voters, and he turned out to be right, especially after the gun massacre in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Finally, Trump ignored some Republican economic orthodoxy, which, for decades, had been promulgated by free-market economists, rich donors, and corporate-funded think tanks. On Social Security, long a target of conservative reformers, he came out against cuts in benefits or a rise in the retirement age. On taxes, he took a standard Republican line, releasing a reform plan that would bestow huge gains on wealthy households, but he hasn’t talked about it very much. Instead, he has promised to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—such as roads, airports, schools, and hospitals—saying that much of what we have got is “Third World.” His pledge to rebuild isn’t very credible—he doesn’t say where the money would come from—but it aligns him more closely with Democrats than with many Republicans.
Trump’s biggest heresy was to abandon free trade. Claiming that NAFTA and other trade agreements have cost countless jobs, he threatened to impose hefty tariffs on countries such as China, which export a lot of cheap goods to the United States. In his speech last night, Trump made clear that he will try to use this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. “She doesn’t understand trade,” he said, adding that NAFTA, which her husband signed, was “perhaps the single worst trade deal in history.” But it isn’t just previous Democratic and Republican Administrations that Trump has challenged. He has also criticized American corporations for shifting jobs to foreign countries, and has threatened to punish them. “We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we are going to save our jobs,” he said at Trump Tower. If U.S. companies insist on moving them overseas, he went on, “there will be consequences, and there will be very serious consequences.”
As with his tax and spending promises, Trump’s tough talk on trade and offshoring doesn’t withstand close inspection. (How would he bring the jobs back?) It does, however, give him something to say to Republican voters who have seen factories close down, jobs lost, and wages stagnate. And it further distinguishes him from other Republican politicians.
And that, in the end, is Trump’s greatest strength. Despite having demonstrated political cunning in the course of dispatching his sixteen rivals, he has managed to convince many Republican voters that he isn’t a politician at all.
"how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton."
"how did this idiot win a primary" - fears of terrorism/distrust of institutions, economic insecurity (populism), illegal immigration and the porous southern border, packed primary field defraying the conservative vote, desire for a more confrontational response to media slander ... among others.
And the article besides minor gripes hits the major theme rather well. Disillusionment with leaders. Run the same moderate face with conservative running mate and all the conservative platform that who knows if it will be fought for (Bush McCain Romney). How's that small government pledge working out for everybody? Basically in a functioning political discourse and cultural backdrop, somebody like Trump would be deservedly impossible. Who needs the blowhard, seriously? Or like Decius & Co's formulation flight 93 election, only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise ... puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying.
On March 06 2017 14:05 LuckyFool wrote:
On March 06 2017 14:03 Nevuk wrote:
On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote: If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star.
No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them.
You are forgetting Fox News. The numbers would be almost identically flipped imo but I don't like the poll because "the media" is too broad.
Or a question centered on 'how truthful do you find MSNBC/ABC/CNN/NYT/WaPo' 'how truthful do you find Trump.' Because making a comparison between a serial liar and narrative-driven establishments obscures their shared weakness.
Here is a third answer to "how did this idiot won that election": because you supported (and I assume voted for) him? The blame might be shared with the DNC, the establishment, everything you want, it goes primarily to the people who actively supported a total clown. I insist because the main focus should really be, in which moral and intellectual disarray is part of America that we enthusiastically chose that? It's a deeper and more interesting question than both Clinton's lack of charisma or the wave of populist resentment towards the elites.
To your second point, it's equally stupid to put MSNBC and the NYT in the same question. It's like asking people how they find restaurants in New York and include both Mc Donald and Chef's Table in the question as if we talked about the same thing.
Listen, if you want to talk blame, consider why someone voted for Trump as being important to the actual vote for Trump. "It goes primarily to the people who actively supported a total clown." It is absolutely "intellectual disarray," as you put it, to debate the decision to vote without asking questions about the choice. And you are the reason this topic will continue surfacing. You're essentially saying the only reaction should be shock (we enthusiastically chose that? Must be vague moral and intellectual issues).
No joke. People should start by considering why evangelicals and Christian conservatives flocked to someone like Trump.
On March 06 2017 22:43 brian wrote: what a time to be alive, each passing day i more firmly believe that we will see our first successful impeachment.
He'll need to do something actually impeachable. So far, the discussion has only been on things you don't like (not impeach worthy), an antagonistic relationship with the press (easy press access isn't a constitutional right, it's just usually a good idea), and various attempts to allege scandals to put a cloud over his administration. The closest you have as of this date is hoping that he actually paid off the Russians and there's enough proof he did it.
On March 06 2017 22:43 brian wrote: what a time to be alive, each passing day i more firmly believe that we will see our first successful impeachment.
He'll need to do something actually impeachable. So far, the discussion has only been on things you don't like (not impeach worthy), an antagonistic relationship with the press (easy press access isn't a constitutional right, it's just usually a good idea), and various attempts to allege scandals to put a cloud over his administration. The closest you have as of this date is hoping that he actually paid off the Russians and there's enough proof he did it.
i fully understand all of this. yes, this is 'all we have so far.' it's also only 40-50 some odd days into the presidency.
Trump has a weird way of sucking all the attention onto himself at the expense of everything else. I look at the news these days and see any number of things (e.g. NK missile launch) that would be headlines if not for the fact that Trump and his alleged Russia connections suck up all the attention.
FBI director James Comey has rejected Donald Trump's claim that his predecessor, Barack Obama, ordered a wiretap of his phone before he was elected US president, US media say. Mr Comey reportedly asked the US justice department (DOJ) to publicly reject Saturday's allegation, according to the New York Times and NBC. He is said to have asked for this because the allegation falsely insinuated that the FBI broke the law. The DOJ has not commented.
Don't know if this one specifically has been posted.
With Comey's confirmation, IMO this might be Trump's low point so far. Just making up a lie that no one even believes - he has done that a lot, but this one has higher stakes than all the others.
On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote: How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief.
Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
On March 06 2017 12:37 Tachion wrote:
On March 06 2017 12:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries.
Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops."
Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won.
And he lost all that charm after the primary?
Somehow, yes.
So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton?
People focus a lot on how Hillary lost the general, but equally important is how he he actually won the primary. To quote The New Yorker
If Republican voters hadn’t been so disillusioned by their usual leaders, Trump would have remained a fringe candidate. Instead, aided by some prominent right-wing media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, the New York businessman was able to present himself as the heir to the Tea Party revolution, which many activists felt had been quashed or betrayed. He was also able to tap into many Republicans’ anger, some of it tinged with racism, about President Obama and his policies; into broader fears of terrorism and economic decline; and into a general disgust with professional politicians, some of which was brought about by the G.O.P.’s own obstructionism.
Contented countries don’t produce politicians like Trump. For many years now, a majority of Americans have told pollsters that they believe the nation is on the wrong track. A decade and a half marked by foreign wars, terrorist threats, recession, slow growth, political gridlock, culture wars, and (for many voters) declining incomes have further undermined faith in the political system, creating space for insurgent candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Of course, if you are going to run as a populist outsider, you need a message that fires up voters. It was here that Trump’s instinctive grasp of the darker reaches of the Republican psyche came to the fore. Having spent years listening to talk radio, he knew that the issue of illegal immigration divided the grassroots of the Party from its leadership in Washington. In promising to deport millions of undocumented workers and build a wall across the southern border, he established his conservative bone fides and differentiated himself from the other candidates.
In responding to fears of terrorism, Trump made a similar calculation. When he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and a registry system for Muslims who already live here, he must have known that the media and most of his Republican rivals would react with outrage. But Trump perhaps sensed that his illiberal proposals would prove popular with ordinary G.O.P. voters, and he turned out to be right, especially after the gun massacre in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Finally, Trump ignored some Republican economic orthodoxy, which, for decades, had been promulgated by free-market economists, rich donors, and corporate-funded think tanks. On Social Security, long a target of conservative reformers, he came out against cuts in benefits or a rise in the retirement age. On taxes, he took a standard Republican line, releasing a reform plan that would bestow huge gains on wealthy households, but he hasn’t talked about it very much. Instead, he has promised to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—such as roads, airports, schools, and hospitals—saying that much of what we have got is “Third World.” His pledge to rebuild isn’t very credible—he doesn’t say where the money would come from—but it aligns him more closely with Democrats than with many Republicans.
Trump’s biggest heresy was to abandon free trade. Claiming that NAFTA and other trade agreements have cost countless jobs, he threatened to impose hefty tariffs on countries such as China, which export a lot of cheap goods to the United States. In his speech last night, Trump made clear that he will try to use this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. “She doesn’t understand trade,” he said, adding that NAFTA, which her husband signed, was “perhaps the single worst trade deal in history.” But it isn’t just previous Democratic and Republican Administrations that Trump has challenged. He has also criticized American corporations for shifting jobs to foreign countries, and has threatened to punish them. “We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we are going to save our jobs,” he said at Trump Tower. If U.S. companies insist on moving them overseas, he went on, “there will be consequences, and there will be very serious consequences.”
As with his tax and spending promises, Trump’s tough talk on trade and offshoring doesn’t withstand close inspection. (How would he bring the jobs back?) It does, however, give him something to say to Republican voters who have seen factories close down, jobs lost, and wages stagnate. And it further distinguishes him from other Republican politicians.
And that, in the end, is Trump’s greatest strength. Despite having demonstrated political cunning in the course of dispatching his sixteen rivals, he has managed to convince many Republican voters that he isn’t a politician at all.
"how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton."
"how did this idiot win a primary" - fears of terrorism/distrust of institutions, economic insecurity (populism), illegal immigration and the porous southern border, packed primary field defraying the conservative vote, desire for a more confrontational response to media slander ... among others.
And the article besides minor gripes hits the major theme rather well. Disillusionment with leaders. Run the same moderate face with conservative running mate and all the conservative platform that who knows if it will be fought for (Bush McCain Romney). How's that small government pledge working out for everybody? Basically in a functioning political discourse and cultural backdrop, somebody like Trump would be deservedly impossible. Who needs the blowhard, seriously? Or like Decius & Co's formulation flight 93 election, only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise ... puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying.
On March 06 2017 14:05 LuckyFool wrote:
On March 06 2017 14:03 Nevuk wrote:
On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote: If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star.
No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them.
You are forgetting Fox News. The numbers would be almost identically flipped imo but I don't like the poll because "the media" is too broad.
Or a question centered on 'how truthful do you find MSNBC/ABC/CNN/NYT/WaPo' 'how truthful do you find Trump.' Because making a comparison between a serial liar and narrative-driven establishments obscures their shared weakness.
Here is a third answer to "how did this idiot won that election": because you supported (and I assume voted for) him? The blame might be shared with the DNC, the establishment, everything you want, it goes primarily to the people who actively supported a total clown. I insist because the main focus should really be, in which moral and intellectual disarray is part of America that we enthusiastically chose that? It's a deeper and more interesting question than both Clinton's lack of charisma or the wave of populist resentment towards the elites.
To your second point, it's equally stupid to put MSNBC and the NYT in the same question. It's like asking people how they find restaurants in New York and include both Mc Donald and Chef's Table in the question as if we talked about the same thing.
Listen, if you want to talk blame, consider why someone voted for Trump as being important to the actual vote for Trump. "It goes primarily to the people who actively supported a total clown." It is absolutely "intellectual disarray," as you put it, to debate the decision to vote without asking questions about the choice. And you are the reason this topic will continue surfacing. You're essentially saying the only reaction should be shock (we enthusiastically chose that? Must be vague moral and intellectual issues).
No joke. People should start by considering why evangelicals and Christian conservatives flocked to someone like Trump.
I'll consider a few possibilities: - Because, by definition, evangelicals have a predisposition to believe in almost anything; - They lack the appropriate rational mechanisms to solving cognitive dissonance through careful reasoning; - Unlike most Europeans, they lack the collective memory of what an authoritarian looks like and are unable to discern the fascist in Donald Trump; - They lack the understanding of basic economics and thus believe in Trump's economic promises despite them going against what everyone they've previously voted has defended.
Sorry, this might be my most offensive post yet, but what's happening in the US boggles my mind.
On March 06 2017 22:03 ShoCkeyy wrote: Also thoughts on this? It seems like it was issues back when he won the election, but it's odd, trade war with China? I doubt it. Seems like he is going to bend the US over for China.
Well it's sort of old news. We all basically concluded that Trump doesn't really have too many principled stands on FP. Though to be fair, things appear to be mostly proceeding status quo on the foreign front, at least for now, if you ignore the fact that the perception of the US abroad looks like a complete disaster.
FBI director James Comey has rejected Donald Trump's claim that his predecessor, Barack Obama, ordered a wiretap of his phone before he was elected US president, US media say. Mr Comey reportedly asked the US justice department (DOJ) to publicly reject Saturday's allegation, according to the New York Times and NBC. He is said to have asked for this because the allegation falsely insinuated that the FBI broke the law. The DOJ has not commented.
Don't know if this one specifically has been posted.
With Comey's confirmation, IMO this might be Trump's low point so far. Just making up a lie that no one even believes - he has done that a lot, but this one has higher stakes than all the others.
I don't think he made it up entirely. It came from Breitbart, and he believed it so much that he made his administration spend the weekend substantiating and rationalizing it. It's a huge mess, and maybe he'll now hold back a bit more on kneejerk tweeting his thoughts on every outrageous article that he reads, but he probably won't.
EPT
