Since, y'all seem to have so much trouble understanding why Trump is so popular and riding a groundswell that very likely is going to put him in the Oval Office next January, you may want to familiarize yourself with the work of Jonathan Haidt. It will help you understand what's going on here a bit better. His landmark book on moral judgment, "The Righteous Mind," is excellent. And I mean that in a "The Origin of the Species is an excellent book" sort of way. If you read one book this year, it should be this one.
Then, having expanded your understanding of how human beings make moral judgments and how that effects American politics in particular, you can read this and understand it more clearly instead of just being all "hurr-durr ignorant flyover proles and their gauche egomaniac" about it while you signal your allegiance to your political tribe's echo chamber.
I hate to say it, but I do think Trump has tapped into something not seen since the rise of Obama. While Obama was lifted on the hope of young, idealistic voters in an evolving multicultural America, Trump is lifted on the fears and frustrations of lower-middle class rural and suburban voters who feel that they have been left behind in the new America. I don't know what will come of it, but I think change is in the air. I'm beginning to think we will see Trump vs. Bernie, and the winner may well be Bloomberg. I personally may be okay with that.
How is that ironic, Miles? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, one of the reasons I support Trump is that he has shown from the very beginning the strong potential to utterly destroy the Republican establishment and maybe the entire party itself, regardless of whether he wins or loses. He's already permanently wrecked Jeb's political career, for which we should all be profoundly thankful. He's repeatedly punched Fox News in the face and humiliated them on their own shows, while only getting more popular for doing so. He's got the big Republican donors squandering hundreds of millions of dollars tilting at windmills while he has hardly spent any money at all. And he's got the senior leadership of the whole GOP taking to their fainting couches.
In other words, the Republican party as we've known it has been dealt a death blow by Donald J. Trump.
that guy you like breaks down his view of morality into 5 categories:
(1) care/harm, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) sanctity. Haidt finds in his research that self-described “conservatives” tend to value all five vectors of morality (as he defines them). Liberals, by contrast, place a high value on “care” and “fairness” and a lower value on loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
essentially, the first 2 don't count because we all care and want fairness. his 'conservatives' just add the last 3 dimensions to their 'moral' philosophy.
there's probably some truth to that, except if you support trump you're not really loyal to the republican party any more, you don't respect the authority of the party (or the hastert rule), and let's be honest, conservatives threw out sanctity a long time ago. if you gave a shit about god or religion you would have listened to the pope when he told you to care about immigrants instead of listening to glen beck, who said he would educate the pope on religion or whatever it was he said.
as outlined in the 'free northerner' article you link to, the only reason you would support trump is because you're an angry white guy. and it makes you even more angry when all the decent sensible people brush you off as nothing but an angry white guy. you don't get the attention you think you deserve because you think being an angry white guy somehow makes you special, so you throw your temper tantrums and let us know how it isn't fair, and still nobody gives a shit because you're nothing but an angry white guy.
curtkram, you seem to be proving Haidt's point about liberals not being able to understand the point of view of conservatives. Disappointing, but not surprising.
As for the Free Northerner post I linked, I did so as an illustration, not because I agree with it. It is an example of why some people are supporting Trump. Not all people, and not me. But a sizable fraction are angry as hell, and for good reasons even if you personally may not agree with those reasons.
I know some people have trouble understanding subtleties like that.
I totally understand the point of view of conservatives. It's super easy, and it feels good, to blame others for things that are my fault and just ignore continuing evidence to the contrary. But I'm smart enough not to do that. Trump voters aren't.
The second part of Haidt’s argument is that once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.” Instead, people tend to subconsciously sift the information that they take in: you tend to overvalue evidence that supports your predispositions and dismiss evidence that is inconsistent with it. As a result, “evidence” becomes self-justifying.
it seems to me like you found a source to support the ideology you've chosen for yourself. then you're disappointed because i don't agree with your source, or more appropriate perhaps because i don't care enough about your source to read about it in-depth. i already know your source comes from your desire to provide evidence to justify your ideology, however misinformed that ideology may be. your source told me that.
you claim haidt is equivalent to darwin just to make it sound like he's somewhat relevant. haidt is not darwin. that just goes to show how irrational you'll become to justify your ideology.
i understand you support trump because you're an angry white guy. i understand trump says mean things about people who are different than you, including muslims, illegal immigrants, and women. being an angry white guy, it makes you feel a little more special knowing someone else out there will coddle your fragile ego.
after all these years of 'politically correct' liberals seeking equality for people who are often different from themselves you've found someone to tell you that it's ok to be a selfish bigot. notice i am not saying you are a selfish bigot, just that you want to believe it's ok to be a selfish bigot if you chose to. you've found someone to make you feel special for being an angry white guy. support of trump really is that dumb, and it's not that subtle.
I'm saying that Haidt's work in moral reasoning is genuinely important and has revolutionary implications. And I'm far from the only person saying that. Foreign Policy Magazine lists him as one of the top 100 most influential thinkers in the world today.
Did you read his book before dismissing it and making snide comments about it? Did you bother to notice that Haidt isn't a conservative and actually started out as a member of your political tribe, sharing all your biases?
No. Didn't think so. You just read that Haidt's scientific work on moral reasoning might challenge some of your assumptions about yourself and how open-minded you want to believe you are and got huffy about it.
And you can play your games, calling people Bigots and Racists and Nazis, OH MY!, in order to try and deflect attention away from real problems and signal your allegiance to the status quo, but those puerile tactics are way past their expiration date. You can only cry wolf for so long before nobody cares anymore.
"...once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.” Instead, people tend to subconsciously sift the information that they take in..."
If anything, this whole thread confirms that theory for both sides.
You're absolutely right, tduds. But one side, grabbing just two examples, essentially wants women to go back to being breedstock and laws to be based on mythical creatures, and the other doesn't. So based on that alone I know which side I'll vote for, because the current status quo is in fact better for me than the changes proposed by the other side.
gwharton, hillary clinton is actually listed in the #3 spot of the list where haidt is listed at #98.
if it's true that the list you linked implies your source is credible, then wouldn't that list also support the notion that hillary clinton is a more suitable candidate than the one you support?
once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.”
is essentially the same thing Kuklinski said:
folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data
What's ironic (and sadly amusing) is that you fail to see how by blindly categorizing others (who oppose your PoV) and by failing to address the numerous issues raised about your golden boy, you are a demonstration of the very behavior you criticize others of.
FYI, the belief system doesn't have to be left or right, it can be anything. Talk about lazy thinking ... I truly hope your architecture practice is more rigorous.
perhaps this all came about because a bunch of conservatives realized supply-side economic policy has been horribly bad, and they don't know what to fill those blanks in with. people who work for a living are pissed because of wage stagnation and growing income/wealth disparity. the american dream changed from hard work to hoping you win the lottery, since work isn't going to get you ahead any more.
they can't turn to a belief in more reasonable economic policy because they've heard for years how horrible the 'liberals' are, and any policy that helps people who work for a living would be considered 'socialism' (even though it's typically not). so, they turn to sarah palin or donald trump, who don't really have any vision or and proposal to make things better - they're just pissed off and yell alot. a bunch of disenfranchised former 'conservatives' who have nowhere else to turn feel like yelling and being pissed off is something they can relate to.
Angry talk ("I'm not gonna take it any more!") is popular as it capitalizes on popular dissent, and there sure is a lot to be pissed off about. But WTF does the Don have to be angry about? He's a billionaire and thus immune to all the ills that effect everyman. That people somehow see him as the new savior - just because he reinforces there belief system - is baffling.
I think the proper term for it is incestuous amplification, and it fits right in with Kuklinski / Haidt.
Republicans (read the political party leaders) understand they have a problem with disenfranchised base. In order to win the general election you need both an engaged base and the ability to court the swing vote.
"they can't turn to a belief in more reasonable economic policy because they've heard for years how horrible the 'liberals' are, and any policy that helps people who work for a living would be considered 'socialism' (even though it's typically not). So, they turn to Sarah Palin or Donald Trump, who don't really have any vision or and proposal to make things better"
This is exactly why Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. To energize and ensure the base that their Anger is justified and making a difference. The problem though they realized in that last election is that type of person (all anger, little substance ect.) while it resonates with the base extremely repels moderate voters.
So adapt the strategy. have trump run or at least don't oppose him for a while. He is able to gin up that base but the party as a whole has a way to jettison that personality. The disenfranchised base will vote republican no matter what. Trump supporter are not very likely to filp democratic. Trumps primary opponent gets to take an adversarial position which makes them appear more moderate by comparison to trump.
Once they eventually remove Trump they have the ability to win the election.
If this orange ass mothafucka wins I'm pretty sure full blown ww3 will follow. How could he possibly use restraint after all his shit talking. He's Like a loud drunk longisland douchbag at a bar...
Trump and Bernie are pretty much the only candidates who HAVEN'T said they're going to start WW3. Everybody else seems to think starting a war with Russia sounds like a splendid idea. Pure insanity.
The game is not a big hot war but a really expensive cold one and a bunch of threatening brush fires to drive it. Whoever 'wins' is going to have to dance to the tune of the Financial-Industrial-Military-Congressional-Complex.
Trump has a list of 5 issues on his site, none regarding war (unless you count brinkmanship with China). The best one is Make Mexico Pay For The Wall.
Results in Iowa are in and it looks like the Trump is an also-ran. Huge turnout, but not so much for him. Can't wait to see how he spins this, he'll probably say something like "how stupid are the people of Iowa?"
Trump is going to lose Iowa and then plummet from there. Watch this. Its going to be like watching a rider peel off from the front of the pack of a bike race.
All of the Press will be talking about Cruz winning, and Rubio's strong third. Trumps media spin machine can't handle being the third story.
And now the real election begins. Maybe. not quite yet. Could be too soon for the break. It's definitely a sport here and the republicans are playing the trump pawn. I wouldn't be surprised if trump hangs around for some more attention or to be trotted for comparison and to highlight how reasonable the viable candidates are to appeal to moderate / swing voters.
There probably aren't enough white people left in the Democratic party to get Bernie past Hillary in the primaries. Minorities are going overwhelmingly for Hillary. And she's got the aging female Baby Boomer and Cat Lady vote locked up too. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
Good for Bernie for doing so well in Iowa, though.
The GOP caucuses in Iowa went pretty much exactly like everyone thought they were going to, with the exception of Rubio doing better than expected. Iowa turned out to be more or less a dead heat for Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, with Cruz taking one additional delegate.
I wouldn't be too quick to trumpet that as the end of Trump's campaign. Iowa isn't a very good indicator of where the nomination is going to go. Just ask Reagan, Huckabee, Santorum, and Bill Clinton about how influential Iowa's results are. And Trump is on track to utterly dominate New Hampshire and North Carolina.
A more interesting story out of the Iowa caucuses are the shenanigans on both sides. Hillary wins ALL of the coin flips in closely-contested, tied-up caucuses? The Cruz campaign told voters that Carson had dropped out? Rubio gets huge gains at the last minute, all in a handful of caucus locations where the vote counting was being done automatically by Microsoft (a big Rubio supporter), the difference being almost exactly the percentage Trump under-performed the polls by?
Maybe there are innocent explanations for all that. Maybe not. One thing is clear though: anti-establish candidates won big, in both parties. And the establishment elites are getting desperate.
The bigger story coming out of Iowa is voter turnout. Apparently the Democratic turnout was 30% lower than 2008 (there was no Dem caucus in 2012 because Obama was unopposed), while the Republican turnout was more than 50% higher than 2012 or 2008.
gwharton, the only thing that matters is that either bernie sanders or hillary clinton get elected. doesn't matter which. the rest is just spectacle for the news networks.
Hillary getting elected will be horrible for your life if you are middle class (which as an architect you probably are), since the continued rapacious looting of the country by unaccountable elites will continue and accelerate with her in the White House.
Bernie might actually slow that down a little bit. Trump too, but more so if he uses executive powers to go after banksters, et al.
^ gotta call BS on that stupid statement about the middle class. There's not a single Conservative running for President who gives a rats ass about the middle class. Turning both the Presidency and the Congress over the the GOP will result only in further looting of the country by the 0.1%
babs: if you listen to what Trump is actually saying instead of just harumphing about EVIL RETHUGLIKKKANS OUT TO KILL BABIES AND ENSLAVE WOMBS, you'll find you are wrong about that. Trump has outlined a set of clear policies which are very much to the benefit of the American middle and working classes. And coincidentally also against the interests of the elite money class. That's one reason why they hate him so much.
Bernie is interested in the welfare of the middle and working classes too. I've listened to what Bernie is saying, and I respect him for saying it even if I don't think it would do much good, that his policies are a quaint anachronism out of synch with modern-day America, and he personally wouldn't be capable of accomplishing it in any event. I don't mischaracterize him like you are doing to Trump.
Hillary, on the other hand, is just a pure, corrupt tool of the oligarchy. Nothing more and nothing less.
Agreed that Hillary is a disastrous choice. She's got so many CEO dicks in her mouth it's amazing that she can actually get a word out.
Disagree that only the GOP will loot the middle class. Both Dems and Repubs make a living skull-fucking the public on behalf of their benefactors.
Better to vote for the person you think is best rather than the perceived lesser of evils. If Bernie is out I'll vote for Jill Stein. But I don't think that's likely because Bernie is going to crush the lying corporate slut.
Trumps "stand" on the issues is a joke. Read them here, all five of them. My favorite is Make Mexico Pay For The Wall. Trump is not a contender - that he got this far is only because the media has happily used him for entertainment and that there are some really stupid people who think he is 'refreshing'. In Trump's fantasy world he'd issue an executive order making himself king. Then he'd issue an edict making himself emperor. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, douchebag.
z1111: do you think raising the minimum wage will affect anything at all beyond increasing unemployment rates if international labor arbitrage continues at present levels? That's a red herring designed to distract you from the fact that our nation's labor supply is currently experience a glut at every level, and yet we're still importing millions more people every year, increasing already substantial downward pressure on all wage levels.
Miles: Why do you think Trump can't make Mexico pay to build the wall? It seems like an ambitious goal, but not an impossible one. I can think of several scenarios under which that's not just possible, but even likely.
gwahrton, serious question: Let's assume Trump did more for the middle class than Hilary. His tax proposal does give that appearance, though I don't know enough about it to know if it would actually work.
It seems that Hilary has pretty good respect on the world stage. How would President Trump affect that respect?
Architects for TRUMP
Since, y'all seem to have so much trouble understanding why Trump is so popular and riding a groundswell that very likely is going to put him in the Oval Office next January, you may want to familiarize yourself with the work of Jonathan Haidt. It will help you understand what's going on here a bit better. His landmark book on moral judgment, "The Righteous Mind," is excellent. And I mean that in a "The Origin of the Species is an excellent book" sort of way. If you read one book this year, it should be this one.
Then, having expanded your understanding of how human beings make moral judgments and how that effects American politics in particular, you can read this and understand it more clearly instead of just being all "hurr-durr ignorant flyover proles and their gauche egomaniac" about it while you signal your allegiance to your political tribe's echo chamber.
while you signal your allegiance to your political tribe's echo chamber.
Thanks for that deliciously ironic display!
I hate to say it, but I do think Trump has tapped into something not seen since the rise of Obama. While Obama was lifted on the hope of young, idealistic voters in an evolving multicultural America, Trump is lifted on the fears and frustrations of lower-middle class rural and suburban voters who feel that they have been left behind in the new America. I don't know what will come of it, but I think change is in the air. I'm beginning to think we will see Trump vs. Bernie, and the winner may well be Bloomberg. I personally may be okay with that.
How is that ironic, Miles? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, one of the reasons I support Trump is that he has shown from the very beginning the strong potential to utterly destroy the Republican establishment and maybe the entire party itself, regardless of whether he wins or loses. He's already permanently wrecked Jeb's political career, for which we should all be profoundly thankful. He's repeatedly punched Fox News in the face and humiliated them on their own shows, while only getting more popular for doing so. He's got the big Republican donors squandering hundreds of millions of dollars tilting at windmills while he has hardly spent any money at all. And he's got the senior leadership of the whole GOP taking to their fainting couches.
In other words, the Republican party as we've known it has been dealt a death blow by Donald J. Trump.
that guy you like breaks down his view of morality into 5 categories:
(1) care/harm, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) sanctity. Haidt finds in his research that self-described “conservatives” tend to value all five vectors of morality (as he defines them). Liberals, by contrast, place a high value on “care” and “fairness” and a lower value on loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
essentially, the first 2 don't count because we all care and want fairness. his 'conservatives' just add the last 3 dimensions to their 'moral' philosophy.
there's probably some truth to that, except if you support trump you're not really loyal to the republican party any more, you don't respect the authority of the party (or the hastert rule), and let's be honest, conservatives threw out sanctity a long time ago. if you gave a shit about god or religion you would have listened to the pope when he told you to care about immigrants instead of listening to glen beck, who said he would educate the pope on religion or whatever it was he said.
as outlined in the 'free northerner' article you link to, the only reason you would support trump is because you're an angry white guy. and it makes you even more angry when all the decent sensible people brush you off as nothing but an angry white guy. you don't get the attention you think you deserve because you think being an angry white guy somehow makes you special, so you throw your temper tantrums and let us know how it isn't fair, and still nobody gives a shit because you're nothing but an angry white guy.
curtkram, you seem to be proving Haidt's point about liberals not being able to understand the point of view of conservatives. Disappointing, but not surprising.
As for the Free Northerner post I linked, I did so as an illustration, not because I agree with it. It is an example of why some people are supporting Trump. Not all people, and not me. But a sizable fraction are angry as hell, and for good reasons even if you personally may not agree with those reasons.
I know some people have trouble understanding subtleties like that.
gwharton, curtkram is dancing circles around you.
I totally understand the point of view of conservatives. It's super easy, and it feels good, to blame others for things that are my fault and just ignore continuing evidence to the contrary. But I'm smart enough not to do that. Trump voters aren't.
i understand you're an angry white guy.
from the volokh article you linked:
The second part of Haidt’s argument is that once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.” Instead, people tend to subconsciously sift the information that they take in: you tend to overvalue evidence that supports your predispositions and dismiss evidence that is inconsistent with it. As a result, “evidence” becomes self-justifying.
it seems to me like you found a source to support the ideology you've chosen for yourself. then you're disappointed because i don't agree with your source, or more appropriate perhaps because i don't care enough about your source to read about it in-depth. i already know your source comes from your desire to provide evidence to justify your ideology, however misinformed that ideology may be. your source told me that.
you claim haidt is equivalent to darwin just to make it sound like he's somewhat relevant. haidt is not darwin. that just goes to show how irrational you'll become to justify your ideology.
i understand you support trump because you're an angry white guy. i understand trump says mean things about people who are different than you, including muslims, illegal immigrants, and women. being an angry white guy, it makes you feel a little more special knowing someone else out there will coddle your fragile ego.
after all these years of 'politically correct' liberals seeking equality for people who are often different from themselves you've found someone to tell you that it's ok to be a selfish bigot. notice i am not saying you are a selfish bigot, just that you want to believe it's ok to be a selfish bigot if you chose to. you've found someone to make you feel special for being an angry white guy. support of trump really is that dumb, and it's not that subtle.
I'm saying that Haidt's work in moral reasoning is genuinely important and has revolutionary implications. And I'm far from the only person saying that. Foreign Policy Magazine lists him as one of the top 100 most influential thinkers in the world today.
Did you read his book before dismissing it and making snide comments about it? Did you bother to notice that Haidt isn't a conservative and actually started out as a member of your political tribe, sharing all your biases?
No. Didn't think so. You just read that Haidt's scientific work on moral reasoning might challenge some of your assumptions about yourself and how open-minded you want to believe you are and got huffy about it.
And you can play your games, calling people Bigots and Racists and Nazis, OH MY!, in order to try and deflect attention away from real problems and signal your allegiance to the status quo, but those puerile tactics are way past their expiration date. You can only cry wolf for so long before nobody cares anymore.
"...once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.” Instead, people tend to subconsciously sift the information that they take in..."
If anything, this whole thread confirms that theory for both sides.
You're absolutely right, tduds. But one side, grabbing just two examples, essentially wants women to go back to being breedstock and laws to be based on mythical creatures, and the other doesn't. So based on that alone I know which side I'll vote for, because the current status quo is in fact better for me than the changes proposed by the other side.
gwharton, hillary clinton is actually listed in the #3 spot of the list where haidt is listed at #98.
if it's true that the list you linked implies your source is credible, then wouldn't that list also support the notion that hillary clinton is a more suitable candidate than the one you support?
Nevermind the argument that "He isn't afraid to say what's on his mind" doesn't change the fact that whats on his mind is reprehensible and bigoted.
gwharton, what Haidt said:
once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.”
is essentially the same thing Kuklinski said:
folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data
What's ironic (and sadly amusing) is that you fail to see how by blindly categorizing others (who oppose your PoV) and by failing to address the numerous issues raised about your golden boy, you are a demonstration of the very behavior you criticize others of.
FYI, the belief system doesn't have to be left or right, it can be anything. Talk about lazy thinking ... I truly hope your architecture practice is more rigorous.
perhaps this all came about because a bunch of conservatives realized supply-side economic policy has been horribly bad, and they don't know what to fill those blanks in with. people who work for a living are pissed because of wage stagnation and growing income/wealth disparity. the american dream changed from hard work to hoping you win the lottery, since work isn't going to get you ahead any more.
they can't turn to a belief in more reasonable economic policy because they've heard for years how horrible the 'liberals' are, and any policy that helps people who work for a living would be considered 'socialism' (even though it's typically not). so, they turn to sarah palin or donald trump, who don't really have any vision or and proposal to make things better - they're just pissed off and yell alot. a bunch of disenfranchised former 'conservatives' who have nowhere else to turn feel like yelling and being pissed off is something they can relate to.
^ I think that's totally true.
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/no_trump_isnt_the_next_hitler_but_his_real_historical_comparison_is_still_scary/
Angry talk ("I'm not gonna take it any more!") is popular as it capitalizes on popular dissent, and there sure is a lot to be pissed off about. But WTF does the Don have to be angry about? He's a billionaire and thus immune to all the ills that effect everyman. That people somehow see him as the new savior - just because he reinforces there belief system - is baffling.
I think the proper term for it is incestuous amplification, and it fits right in with Kuklinski / Haidt.
He's not angry, he just figured out a new way to feed his insatiable need for constant attention and adoration.
Republicans (read the political party leaders) understand they have a problem with disenfranchised base. In order to win the general election you need both an engaged base and the ability to court the swing vote.
"they can't turn to a belief in more reasonable economic policy because they've heard for years how horrible the 'liberals' are, and any policy that helps people who work for a living would be considered 'socialism' (even though it's typically not). So, they turn to Sarah Palin or Donald Trump, who don't really have any vision or and proposal to make things better"
This is exactly why Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. To energize and ensure the base that their Anger is justified and making a difference. The problem though they realized in that last election is that type of person (all anger, little substance ect.) while it resonates with the base extremely repels moderate voters.
So adapt the strategy. have trump run or at least don't oppose him for a while. He is able to gin up that base but the party as a whole has a way to jettison that personality. The disenfranchised base will vote republican no matter what. Trump supporter are not very likely to filp democratic. Trumps primary opponent gets to take an adversarial position which makes them appear more moderate by comparison to trump.
Once they eventually remove Trump they have the ability to win the election.
7 pages already, let the guy love his ass and ride it all the way to the fair....
If this orange ass mothafucka wins I'm pretty sure full blown ww3 will follow. How could he possibly use restraint after all his shit talking. He's Like a loud drunk longisland douchbag at a bar...
^ And the other republican candidates look like REASONABLY RESPONSIBLE Gentlemen.
Trump and Bernie are pretty much the only candidates who HAVEN'T said they're going to start WW3. Everybody else seems to think starting a war with Russia sounds like a splendid idea. Pure insanity.
++ gruen
The game is not a big hot war but a really expensive cold one and a bunch of threatening brush fires to drive it. Whoever 'wins' is going to have to dance to the tune of the Financial-Industrial-Military-Congressional-Complex.
Trump has a list of 5 issues on his site, none regarding war (unless you count brinkmanship with China). The best one is Make Mexico Pay For The Wall.
Results in Iowa are in and it looks like the Trump is an also-ran. Huge turnout, but not so much for him. Can't wait to see how he spins this, he'll probably say something like "how stupid are the people of Iowa?"
Oh - wait, he already did.
In other news Hillary - with 100% name recognition - is barely edging Bernie, who nobody had even heard of a couple months ago.
Polls aren't votes. Trump can eat a dick.
Trump is going to lose Iowa and then plummet from there. Watch this. Its going to be like watching a rider peel off from the front of the pack of a bike race.
All of the Press will be talking about Cruz winning, and Rubio's strong third. Trumps media spin machine can't handle being the third story.
And now the real election begins. Maybe. not quite yet. Could be too soon for the break. It's definitely a sport here and the republicans are playing the trump pawn. I wouldn't be surprised if trump hangs around for some more attention or to be trotted for comparison and to highlight how reasonable the viable candidates are to appeal to moderate / swing voters.
Loser.
...
Not so fast, davvid. He's still got Sarah Palin, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, and gwharton behind him. And let's not forget Tila Tequila.
Miles, You're right. I'll celebrate when either Bernie or Hill take them all down.
Hillary? More of the same with a vengeance. She can't pee without calling Blankfein first.
If I have to I'll vote for her in the general. But Bernie has my vote in the primary. Cant wait to cast it.
There probably aren't enough white people left in the Democratic party to get Bernie past Hillary in the primaries. Minorities are going overwhelmingly for Hillary. And she's got the aging female Baby Boomer and Cat Lady vote locked up too. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
Good for Bernie for doing so well in Iowa, though.
The GOP caucuses in Iowa went pretty much exactly like everyone thought they were going to, with the exception of Rubio doing better than expected. Iowa turned out to be more or less a dead heat for Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, with Cruz taking one additional delegate.
I wouldn't be too quick to trumpet that as the end of Trump's campaign. Iowa isn't a very good indicator of where the nomination is going to go. Just ask Reagan, Huckabee, Santorum, and Bill Clinton about how influential Iowa's results are. And Trump is on track to utterly dominate New Hampshire and North Carolina.
A more interesting story out of the Iowa caucuses are the shenanigans on both sides. Hillary wins ALL of the coin flips in closely-contested, tied-up caucuses? The Cruz campaign told voters that Carson had dropped out? Rubio gets huge gains at the last minute, all in a handful of caucus locations where the vote counting was being done automatically by Microsoft (a big Rubio supporter), the difference being almost exactly the percentage Trump under-performed the polls by?
Maybe there are innocent explanations for all that. Maybe not. One thing is clear though: anti-establish candidates won big, in both parties. And the establishment elites are getting desperate.
The bigger story coming out of Iowa is voter turnout. Apparently the Democratic turnout was 30% lower than 2008 (there was no Dem caucus in 2012 because Obama was unopposed), while the Republican turnout was more than 50% higher than 2012 or 2008.
gwharton, the only thing that matters is that either bernie sanders or hillary clinton get elected. doesn't matter which. the rest is just spectacle for the news networks.
#trumpyourcat
Why is that the only thing that matters? That seems like a very odd thing to say.
because if hillary or bernie get elected, it won't be so bad for my life and our country compared to someone else getting elected.
as miles suggests, they're all puppets anyway, and a less than ideal president isn't going to be that effective with a dysfunctional congress anyway.
Hillary getting elected will be horrible for your life if you are middle class (which as an architect you probably are), since the continued rapacious looting of the country by unaccountable elites will continue and accelerate with her in the White House.
Bernie might actually slow that down a little bit. Trump too, but more so if he uses executive powers to go after banksters, et al.
^ gotta call BS on that stupid statement about the middle class. There's not a single Conservative running for President who gives a rats ass about the middle class. Turning both the Presidency and the Congress over the the GOP will result only in further looting of the country by the 0.1%
babs: if you listen to what Trump is actually saying instead of just harumphing about EVIL RETHUGLIKKKANS OUT TO KILL BABIES AND ENSLAVE WOMBS, you'll find you are wrong about that. Trump has outlined a set of clear policies which are very much to the benefit of the American middle and working classes. And coincidentally also against the interests of the elite money class. That's one reason why they hate him so much.
Bernie is interested in the welfare of the middle and working classes too. I've listened to what Bernie is saying, and I respect him for saying it even if I don't think it would do much good, that his policies are a quaint anachronism out of synch with modern-day America, and he personally wouldn't be capable of accomplishing it in any event. I don't mischaracterize him like you are doing to Trump.
Hillary, on the other hand, is just a pure, corrupt tool of the oligarchy. Nothing more and nothing less.
Donald Trump says he will not raise the minimum wage.
Agreed that Hillary is a disastrous choice. She's got so many CEO dicks in her mouth it's amazing that she can actually get a word out.
Disagree that only the GOP will loot the middle class. Both Dems and Repubs make a living skull-fucking the public on behalf of their benefactors.
Better to vote for the person you think is best rather than the perceived lesser of evils. If Bernie is out I'll vote for Jill Stein. But I don't think that's likely because Bernie is going to crush the lying corporate slut.
Trumps "stand" on the issues is a joke. Read them here, all five of them. My favorite is Make Mexico Pay For The Wall. Trump is not a contender - that he got this far is only because the media has happily used him for entertainment and that there are some really stupid people who think he is 'refreshing'. In Trump's fantasy world he'd issue an executive order making himself king. Then he'd issue an edict making himself emperor. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, douchebag.
z1111: do you think raising the minimum wage will affect anything at all beyond increasing unemployment rates if international labor arbitrage continues at present levels? That's a red herring designed to distract you from the fact that our nation's labor supply is currently experience a glut at every level, and yet we're still importing millions more people every year, increasing already substantial downward pressure on all wage levels.
Miles: Why do you think Trump can't make Mexico pay to build the wall? It seems like an ambitious goal, but not an impossible one. I can think of several scenarios under which that's not just possible, but even likely.
^ If it's ten times as likely as Trump winning it will never happen. In probability it's right up there with a Zombie outbreak.
gwahrton, serious question: Let's assume Trump did more for the middle class than Hilary. His tax proposal does give that appearance, though I don't know enough about it to know if it would actually work.
It seems that Hilary has pretty good respect on the world stage. How would President Trump affect that respect?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.