2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Ben E Lou]

My wife despises HRC and has always voted R for President no matter what (even Mitt.) She has stated categorically that she will vote for Hilary if Trump is the nominee. Several of her friends here in NC are in a similar place. I don't think they are unusual in that. Then there are the usual R voters who would simply stay home rather than voting for Trump or Clinton. I think he has no chance to win the general. But I think he is one or two more San Bernardino type incidents inside the U.S. from securing the nomination. Apart from something like that, I think the party brass will figure out a way to stop him.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by AlexB

No acknowledgement of any mass shooting problem, no effort to try and either stop the 'sicko' getting a gun or treatment, no acknowledgement that the vast majority of the rest of the developed world manages just fine without guns in schools.

Politics in the US seem to be heading as quickly as possibly towards making Idiocracy a documentary instead of a comedy ...

One of the things I like about Bernie Sanders is that he seems interested in talking about real issues and offering solutions, I might not agree 100% with all of his stances (although I do on most) but I respect that approach.

Surely there's enough rational folk in the US for this bandwagon to stop?

I still have faith in people and believe that at some point he'll run into a brick wall - but its downright scary that he's doing as well as he is, I put a LOT of this purely down to the media attention he's being given ... they're taking him seriously and giving him more coverage than anyone else.

[albionmoonlight]

Trump is behind in Iowa and leading in NH (but not by a commanding margin). And the Establishment does not like him.

If his name was Donald Smith instead of Donald Trump, he would not be seen as the de facto nominee at this point. He's pumped up because he gets ratings.

[revrew]

If Trump loses in Iowa (and right now it looks like he will), it will suddenly shake things up - everywhere. Now, I don't project the Iowa winner (Cruz) will overtake Trump in N.H., but it will put a dent in Trump's lead and his teflon armor.

At this point, it looks like the REAL race for the nom will be in South Carolina. A dinged up Trump will be fighting both the Cruz surge from Iowa and the breath of fresh air the establishment candidate will be feeling (after placing well in N.H. and, presumably, a few of the moderates drop out to pave the way).

If Trump wins Iowa, I think he steamrolls to the nom. If Trump prevails in S.C., it may be hard to derail him. But those are both BIG ifs.

If the establishment candidate prevails in S.C., or even finishes at #2 and finds a way to coalesce the GOP moderates, we could be looking at a dogfight all the way to convention.

But I still see Cruz doing well in the "SEC primary," so if Cruz wins Iowa, then rides that momentum to a S.C. victory, then goes strong into the SEC primary, ... well, that's the best shot the GOP has of toppling Trump.

[JPhillips]

Let's not blame this all on the media. There's a lot of the GOP base that absolutely loves what Trump is selling. They may have help from the media in hearing the message, but they were receptive to it without being told to be so by reporters.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by revrew

But I still see Cruz doing well in the "SEC primary," so if Cruz wins Iowa, then rides that momentum to a S.C. victory, then goes strong into the SEC primary, ... well, that's the best shot the GOP has of toppling Trump.

Is Cruz toppling Trump the same thing as the GOP toppling Trump?

[Solecismic]

Trump seems like a phenomena to me. Not really what they want as a leader, but that the reaction to Trump is somewhat their reaction to a Democratic party that has spent the last decade or so not only telling them their concerns are invalid, but that they are truly bad people for having those concerns about our country.

I still feel this won't translate into votes down the road. Even for people who have been involved in the past. What Ben was saying about his wife rings very true.

People know Trump's reactionary, shallow messages are inappropriate coming from the Oval Office. But they feel the Democrats have been indulging in similar behavior for a long time now, and, what's more, if they're called on it, then there's an endless volley of hate speech about what a bad person they are. Politics is all identity and hate these days, and Trump seems like the only guy on "their" side who is willing to give back as much as he gets.

I don't think Trump can survive a setback in this race, and there will be setbacks. As Jeb Bush is learning, spending a fortune on ads these days doesn't really move the needle. We have reached national Ad-Block mentally when it comes to these nattering, often hateful political advertisements.

Cruz would win this in a runaway if he hadn't basically made enemies out of the entire Senate. In the end, I think this comes down to Cruz and Rubio. Rubio will appeal to more people, but the bad taste from two straight losing elections that were determined by perceived cross-party appeal lingers. On the other hand, you nominate Cruz and people like me end up doing what I'll also do if Trump gets the nomination - stay home or throw my vote away on a third party (I'll vote because local races are more important).

[JPhillips]

Or there's a sizable minority of the GOP that really hates immigrants and Muslims.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Trump seems like a phenomena to me. Not really what they want as a leader, but that the reaction to Trump is somewhat their reaction to a Democratic party that has spent the last decade or so not only telling them their concerns are invalid, but that they are truly bad people for having those concerns about our country.

God you are so butt-hurt.

After comparing Democrats to Trump, are you still going to self-righteously claim to be unbiased? Looking forward to that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

People know Trump's reactionary, shallow messages are inappropriate coming from the Oval Office. But they feel the Democrats have been indulging in similar behavior for a long time now, and, what's more, if they're called on it, then there's an endless volley of hate speech about what a bad person they are. Politics is all identity and hate these days, and Trump seems like the only guy on "their" side who is willing to give back as much as he gets.

I'd love to see actual equivalent examples here. I mean, you never provide them, but I'd love to see what you think is equivalent.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Or there's a sizable minority of the GOP that really hates immigrants and Muslims.

I don't think I could illustrate my point about Democrats any better than that. You genuinely believe anyone who doesn't agree with you about the issues is just a bad person. There's no room for discussion about it. It's all hate.

[JPhillips]

Bullshit.

Your contention is that some or most of Trump's voters are merely protesting the Democrats and will drop Trump and support a more reasonable candidate before the voting starts. This won't be discussed and their won't be a leader for this movement, but many of them have had this plan all along.

My contention is that most of Trump's supporters agree with what he's saying, which includes the idea that immigrants and Muslims are going to destroy American/Western civilization.

I'm very comfortable taking Trump's supporters at their word.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Is Cruz toppling Trump the same thing as the GOP toppling Trump?

Hee-hee, good point. I'm not sure what the GOP establishment can do right now. Until they decide between Bush, Christie, and Rubio, they're up a creek.

Of course, what is the GOP? In Iowa, 23-30% of the GOP is establishment, and those numbers are dwindling. The Tea Party, the Stormtrumpers, the religious conservatives ... it's a mish-mash of both overlapping and infighting groups right now.

[JPhillips]

Or read Bush staffer Michael Gerson say basically the same thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mepage%2Fstory

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My contention is that most of Trump's supporters agree with what he's saying, which includes the idea that immigrants and Muslims are going to destroy American/Western civilization.

I'm very comfortable taking Trump's supporters at their word.

Indeed. Isn't this "Trump supporters really don't mean what they say and are just lashing out" the same sort of condescension that people like you, Solecismic, decry the Democrats for doing?

[nol]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

My wife despises HRC and has always voted R for President no matter what (even Mitt.) She has stated categorically that she will vote for Hilary if Trump is the nominee. Several of her friends here in NC are in a similar place. I don't think they are unusual in that. Then there are the usual R voters who would simply stay home rather than voting for Trump or Clinton.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was getting at with my comment on the previous page. I think Trump would find himself doing better with female Republican voters if he'd just directed some standard veiled sexism at Megyn Kelly rather than going with the third-grade standby of "whoa she must be on her period," and doing so would not exactly be compromising any core values.

If I polled all the female Republicans I know on what the three biggest issues are to them, I can just about guarantee abortion (overturning Roe v. Wade) would be the runaway number one. I'd assume Trump was previously pro-choice and has somewhat recently 'evolved' his position on that issue, which would be more than enough to get their vote, but I'm sure he's been enough of a pig to the point that a substantial proportion of them would just stay home if it were Trump v. Clinton.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My contention is that most of Trump's supporters agree with what he's saying, which includes the idea that immigrants and Muslims are going to destroy American/Western civilization.

You could probably extend this to say that most of the "Trump is a cancer to true conservatism" sentiment from the establishment is coming from people who also agree but fear that Trump is exposing too much of the id behind many of their traditional talking points, which may prevent them from going back to that well in the future.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My contention is that most of Trump's supporters agree with what he's saying, which includes the idea that immigrants and Muslims are going to destroy American/Western civilization.

Jim is acquainted with Jon...right?

[albionmoonlight]

I know that I will die alone and wrong on this hill, but I still think that Christie has a much better chance than the 5% or so he's getting in the betting markets. If he wins NH (very possible), and Rubio and Bush underperform in Iowa/NH, then I think it quickly becomes a Trump/Cruz/Christie race.

Rubio seems to at least consider him a mild threat at this point: https://politicalwire.com/2016/01/07...christie-hard/

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I know that I will die alone and wrong on this hill, but I still think that Christie has a much better chance than the 5% or so he's getting in the betting markets. If he wins NH (very possible), and Rubio and Bush underperform in Iowa/NH, then I think it quickly becomes a Trump/Cruz/Christie race.

I certainly think you have something here.

I kind of suspect that the "GOP Establishment" is going to coalesce around whomever of those 3 does best in NH and there will be immense pressure on two of them to drop out so the third can go after Trump & Cruz.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Or read Bush staffer Michael Gerson say basically the same thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mepage%2Fstory

I wonder if Gerson has really looked at what the other GOP candidates are saying when he says that Trump's the one that will rip out the Republican Party's core of universal humanity, as laid down by Lincoln.

Or, more simply put, Trump's not the only one in the clown car talking about people as if they're subhuman.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think I could illustrate my point about Democrats any better than that. You genuinely believe anyone who doesn't agree with you about the issues is just a bad person. There's no room for discussion about it. It's all hate.

He said "sizable minority of the GOP" and you translated that to "anyone who disagrees". Please tell me you're smart enough to understand the difference, or are you just trolling?

[albionmoonlight]

Another point in Christie's favor: His policy history is more moderate than most. But this primary does not seem to be about policy. One thing that he has that both Jeb and Rubio lack is a tough-guy persona. He can take the machismo from Trump and Cruz and throw back at them as good as they give him.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Or, more simply put, Trump's not the only one in the clown car talking about people as if they're subhuman.

Damn. That's a pretty extreme imagination of party politics there, flere. Sorry to hear you feel this way.

[bhlloy]

I think Christie could easily win, even with bridgegate. Rubio has a decent shot. I know the Republicans don't want to hear it after Romney and McCain, but against a Hilary a moderate really does make the most sense again.

Trump and Cruz would be a comfortable win for the Dems. Just IMO

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Jim is acquainted with Jon...right?

Most of us, Jon included, are relatively anonymous. I know Jon has a blog, but I've never visited it so I don't know if it identifies him.

I think people reinvent themselves to a certain extent online when they are anonymous, and I wonder if Jon's reaction to the MSM and to the prevailing opinions on forums like this is to write, well, what he writes (I've tired of it myself, and he's among the handful I have on ignore - and, thankfully, it still fits in the hand - because of persistent name-calling).

I also question whether Trump is racist. I won't vote for him because he has yet to indicate anything he'd do as president that would help the current situation. He's had about six months when everything he says or writes is headline material, and I don't see any realistic policy statement.

But, on the other hand, what he has said may be unpleasant and misogynistic and definitely unhelpful, but it doesn't amount to hate. Dumb policy, like banning Muslim immigration until we can "figure things out" is just reactionary. It's meant to counter Hillary's statement that she wants 60,000 refugees immediately, without any kind of vetting. It's effective because it plays on people's fears. As policy it's as shallow as thinking banning legal gun purchases will reduce violence.

The racist thing feels a lot like SNL takes on past Republicans. We perceive Gerald Ford was some sort of clutz because Chevy Chase made us laugh. In reality Ford was an All-American football player who may well have been our most athletic president. When we think of Sarah Palin, we think of Tina Fey. When we think of W, we think of Will Ferrell's confused expression. His father "wouldn't be prudent." That's not to say Palin was an expert (or even average) with her knowledge of foreign policy, or Bush 43 was a genius or Bush 41 was highly knowledgeable about Prudence.

I see a lot of the Democratic side of the anti-Trump stuff as just setting up this strawman of racism and hatred and setting fire to the red half of the country. Just take the worst imaginable stereotype of the opposite side and let loose. It may make you happy to feel so superior to others, but why be surprised, then, when the result is this enormous mountain of partisanship?

He said "sizable minority of the GOP" and you translated that to "anyone who disagrees". Please tell me you're smart enough to understand the difference, or are you just trolling?

Sizable minority in that context would mean the sizable minority who says it will vote for Trump, which in the context of his response (to my contention that Trump's appeal has a lot to do with people feeling their concerns are being miscast as racism) means those he disagrees with (he says it means they really are racists).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think I could illustrate my point about Democrats any better than that. You genuinely believe anyone who doesn't agree with you about the issues is just a bad person. There's no room for discussion about it. It's all hate.

Personally I don't think that most such people 'hate' muslims or immigrants - they're scared of change and that it might affect their way of life and ideals.

I can understand that - however I think those fears are largely misplaced and in a worst case could actually cause the end product they fear - for instance creating an 'us and them' with another sector of the world (whether a nation, religion or whatever) will naturally cause division and negative sentiment between them as has frequently been seen in the past.

As is usually the case the cure for such things is education and tolerance ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

The line "You know what a gun-free zone is for a sicko? That's bait." is horrific.

Why, because it's unvarnished reality?

I hadn't seen the comment frankly so thanks for the headsup about it but once again, Trump speaks & pushes himself closer to securing my vote.

I still keep waiting for him to screw up but somehow he has avoided doing so thus far.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I also question whether Trump is racist. I won't vote for him because he has yet to indicate anything he'd do as president that would help the current situation. He's had about six months when everything he says or writes is headline material, and I don't see any realistic policy statement.

My take on Trump is that he's realized how shallow a proportion of society is with regards to their politics and that by staying in the media he gains huge name recognition regardless of what he says or how outrageous it might be ... while he swallows the bulk of the promotional coverage he retains his position of dominance.

If he loses one of the races then I expect his rhetoric will become even more extreme as he becomes increasingly desperate to remain relevant and get attention ...

As policy it's as shallow as thinking banning legal gun purchases will reduce violence.

Personally I think restricting specific gun purchases in some situations is a sensible approach and that appears to be what is being approached presently - while I live in America and accept gun ownership as the norm, I do think there should be sensible restrictions in place in this regard for the safety of all.

I see sensible checks and preventing ownership to people who are known to be unstable in some manner to be reasonable in the same way that drunk drivers aren't allowed licenses.

No it won't prevent all violence and I don't think anyone pretends that, however in the same way removing licenses from drunk drivers doesn't remove all car accidents it helps ..

I see a lot of the Democratic side of the anti-Trump stuff as just setting up this strawman of racism and hatred and setting fire to the red half of the country. Just take the worst imaginable stereotype of the opposite side and let loose. It may make you happy to feel so superior to others, but why be surprised, then, when the result is this enormous mountain of partisanship?

I think Trump is providing a huge amount of ammunition to the Democrats in this regard and frankly it'd be silly of them not to point out the shallow nature of his announcements and such ... I feel Trump while gaining attention and the support of a specific sector of the Republican base is also alienating a lot of others.

The more the democrats can fan that flame the less Republicans will turn out during the election if Trump is nominated (which I think unlikely - but feasible).

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Personally I don't think that most such people 'hate' muslims or immigrants - they're scared of change and that it might affect their way of life and ideals.

I can understand that - however I think those fears are largely misplaced and in a worst case could actually cause the end product they fear - for instance creating an 'us and them' with another sector of the world (whether a nation, religion or whatever) will naturally cause division and negative sentiment between them as has frequently been seen in the past.

As is usually the case the cure for such things is education and tolerance ...

I tend to agree with your estimate of the effects of such a policy. We're not at war with a religion. By seemingly declaring one, Trump would lose much of his ability to engage with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who oppose violence.

When you want to govern through reactionary means, you lose sight of the goalposts. While we need to reinforce the notion that America stands for freedom, liberty and equality (and so sharia cannot be a part of our system of governance), none of it makes sense if we try and turn this into a religious test.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Sizable minority in that context would mean the sizable minority who says it will vote for Trump, which in the context of his response (to my contention that Trump's appeal has a lot to do with people feeling their concerns are being miscast as racism) means those he disagrees with (he says it means they really are racists).

Even if he meant everyone who will vote for Trump is a racist, that still doesn't fit your statement. I can't speak for JPhillips, but I'm pretty sure he disagrees with more people than just Trump voters. My point is that "Anyone who votes for Trump" is very different than "anyone who disagrees with Democrats".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Sizable minority in that context would mean the sizable minority who says it will vote for Trump, which in the context of his response (to my contention that Trump's appeal has a lot to do with people feeling their concerns are being miscast as racism) means those he disagrees with (he says it means they really are racists).

Muslims and immigrants are going to destroy America!

That's racist.

I only think that because you think it's racist.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Personally I don't think that most such people 'hate' muslims or immigrants - they're scared of change and that it might affect their way of life and ideals.

I can understand that - however I think those fears are largely misplaced and in a worst case could actually cause the end product they fear - for instance creating an 'us and them' with another sector of the world (whether a nation, religion or whatever) will naturally cause division and negative sentiment between them as has frequently been seen in the past.

As is usually the case the cure for such things is education and tolerance ...

I'm not fearful of change. I'm fearful of disregarding our current laws. If we have a policy to bring in x number of refugees per year, then stick to it or attempt to reform it. Dont just throw out numbers above and beyond what we currently do for displaced foreigners. Remember the difference between immigrants and refugees. The former has an expectation to integrate with our core western beliefs and the later doesn't. So refugees imports are very prone to opening up free transport to radicals.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Damn. That's a pretty extreme imagination of party politics there, flere. Sorry to hear you feel this way.

Is it really, though? Most of the GOP Presidential candidates, and especially the leaders, have had pretty tough things to say about immigration and refugees which, when translated into actual policy, essentially treats them as 2nd-class humans.

I'm willing to admit that my assessment is colored to an extent by antipathy, but again, I'm going back to the article posted, written by Gerson, who is making the points:

1. The GOP was established by Lincoln.
2. One of the principles upon which the GOP was established, credit to Lincoln, is this ideal of universal equality & humanity.
3. If Trump wins, he rips this ideal out of the GOP.

My point, simply, is that Trump's not the only potential nominee who does this (if it can be said to be done, anyway) if he's (or she's) elected.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed. Folks like Cruz, Rubio, Christie, and even Bush have said some really abhorrent things about Muslim Syrian refugees (I highlight Muslim, because I believe Bush mentioned he'd be fine with the refugees if they were Christian - which is highly bigoted and Trump-ish)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

My take on Trump is that he's realized how shallow a proportion of society is with regards to their politics and that by staying in the media he gains huge name recognition regardless of what he says or how outrageous it might be ... while he swallows the bulk of the promotional coverage he retains his position of dominance.

If he loses one of the races then I expect his rhetoric will become even more extreme as he becomes increasingly desperate to remain relevant and get attention ...

I agree with this. He has a high volatility rating and would self-destruct if he starts to lose.

Maybe not so shallow themselves, but angry enough to accept a shallow approach to difficult issues.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Personally I think restricting specific gun purchases in some situations is a sensible approach and that appears to be what is being approached presently - while I live in America and accept gun ownership as the norm, I do think there should be sensible restrictions in place in this regard for the safety of all.

I see sensible checks and preventing ownership to people who are known to be unstable in some manner to be reasonable in the same way that drunk drivers aren't allowed licenses.

No it won't prevent all violence and I don't think anyone pretends that, however in the same way removing licenses from drunk drivers doesn't remove all car accidents it helps ..

The difference is, though, that criminals tend to obtain guns illegally, so they can't be traced.

While I support removal of loopholes in background checks, I just don't see it making much of a difference.

Regarding the police shooting in Philadelphia... The mayor started talking about gun control in response. Well, the gun was stolen from the police, so how is that relevant?

We have a serious problem in that people are resorting to violence in response to religious or political differences. If guns aren't available, other weapons are easily found.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think Trump is providing a huge amount of ammunition to the Democrats in this regard and frankly it'd be silly of them not to point out the shallow nature of his announcements and such ... I feel Trump while gaining attention and the support of a specific sector of the Republican base is also alienating a lot of others.

The more the democrats can fan that flame the less Republicans will turn out during the election if Trump is nominated (which I think unlikely - but feasible).

Yes, this is true. Democrats should (and are) run against Trump right now. But I think they make a mistake if they frame that as running against Trump's supporters. Because they shouldn't want to give Trump's supporters motivation to join the rest of the Republicans should an establishment candidate win. This is why Cruz and Rubio are so careful not to take Trump on in ways that could be perceived as an attack on those who support him.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Muslims and immigrants are going to destroy America!

That's racist.

I only think that because you think it's racist.

Sounds racist to me. You have the opportunity to (further) lower Trump in my estimate. I thought Trump's "destroy America" comment was specifically limited to the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, as in those who support ISIS. Has he ever said this about the religion in general?

Again, just to be clear myself, I don't think a religious test on immigration does anything but make the situation worse.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We have a serious problem in that people are resorting to violence in response to religious or political differences. If guns aren't available, other weapons are easily found.

Don't forget misogyny! And/or bad tempers!

Gunman vowed to ‘punish’ sorority before shooting | New York Post

Sorority Girl Shot and Killed After Dispute over Sexually Explicit Comments : People.com

[aston217]

Originally Posted by nol

I think it would just be a conversation about rhetoric. Imagine where Trump would be polling if he had the exact same policy proposals but just turned the rhetoric down a notch some places along the way.

Yeah, he wouldn't be as appealing, probably. Which is what makes it so fascinating. To many, his rhetoric is absolutely disgusting. But there appears to be a *stunning* number of people who adore it.

Is this real life? Is this America? What's going on?

If an establishment moderate like Rubio or Bush wins the nomination, those people that stand for Trump's message won't go away. They'll just become less loud. We, as a country, can go back to pretending that they aren't such a large part of us. So I wonder is, is that a good thing?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why, because it's unvarnished reality

No, because the problem isn't the gun-free zone, it's the acceptance/assumption that a 'sicko' will have a gun and will use it in this circumstance.

It's backwards thinking: not in as much as he is wrong (he's quite probably right) but in that there is the acceptance that society is at that point without trying to do anything to protect the root problem, which is not the gun, but that the 'sicko' should not have one in the first place.

If you take a step back, forget gun ownership, forget race, forget violence, taking everything in an ideal world, should the US be in a position where people with guns are needed to protect schools and schoolchildren?

If the answer is yes, I honestly don't know what to say other than I'm both sad and sorry for the country. If the answer is no, surely the target should be to try and improve society rather than get into an arms race?

League of Nations/NATO might not have been perfect, but surely is infinitely better than millions dying in wars? At least try to make things better at source?

Plus the language isn't great, and as others have said, while Trump highlights fears, where are the solutions?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Personally I don't think that most such people 'hate' muslims or immigrants - they're scared of change and that it might affect their way of life and ideals.

Don't people have a right to be scared? You're talking about a part of the world that treats women as if they're pets. Criminalizes homosexuality. Has copious amounts of terrorist attacks. Not exactly fond of democracy, free speech, free press, and on and on.

I don't think it's insane that people would not want their current quality of life to transform more toward the quality of life in those other countries/cultures.

[Edward64]

I wonder how come there's been no dirt exposed on Trump?

There's got to be some which leads me to believe that the other candidates don't want to get into that war with Trump. I can understand some that may have a lot to lose but it doesn't seem that Jeb and lower tiered candidates should have any concerns.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politi...owa/index.html

Trump added: "You cannot put somebody in there, folks, that's going to go in and he's immediately sued by the Democrats because they're saying he was born in Canada, he's not allowed to run for president. ... These lawsuits take two or three or four years."

As he did earlier this week, Trump offered Cruz some free legal advice.

"I say to Ted, as a Republican because I think it's very important, you gotta get it straightened out," Trump said, urging Cruz to seek a "declaratory judgment" from a judge so there's no doubt about his eligibility.

The real-estate mogul also pointed to Arizona Sen. John McCain, who also faced questions about his eligibility to be president. Trump said although the 2008 GOP presidential nominee was born in the Panama Canal Zone, his circumstances were distinct from Cruz's.

"The difference is his two parents were both in the military," Trump said. "What are you gonna do? Say, 'Mom and dad, you should have taken me back home to be born, I can't run for president?' He was born in a military base and I understand that."

McCain himself commented on the issue earlier this week, calling Cruz's eligibility a legitimate question.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Plus the language isn't great, and as others have said, while Trump highlights fears, where are the solutions?

Trump highlighted reality, if fears/concerns are part of that then so be it.

That's an unappreciated part of his whole appeal really, he's saying what a lot of us truly in our most honest part believes.

I'm not inclined toward stepping foot (consciously) in a "gun free zone" because the reality is ... it isn't one. It just means that law-abiding people aren't armed.

Where was the guy, some school official of some sort, the other day (I saw the story in passing somewhere) who got in politically correct trouble for saying (paraphrasing) that anyone who thought there weren't any guns in the school was kidding themselves. OMG, the horrorz of his statement.

Thing is, he's exactly right. My kid is in one of the more rarified hothouse high school environments you could draw up & I have exactly zero doubt there are guns on that campus every day. I don't even know the kids THAT well and I'd wager a fiver that I could name 10 names in 10 minutes and a search would turn up at least two guns between them. And that's on a 2/3rds liberal increasingly touchy-feely campus.

People who seek comfort in denial are particularly put off by that sort of candor. It's one of the reasons (among many, granted) that Trump makes so many people uncomfortable. When he's at his most blunt, he's also at his most appealing, he speaks truths that make the squeamish flinch .. and I'm a fan of that.

[PilotMan]

Re: The Muslim woman who was tossed out of the Trump rally.

As someone with a degrees in Psychology and Sociology, I have real, genuine concerns about the way fear is being peddled in this campaign. The scapegoating of specific groups is dangerous. The group psychology of mobs is leading us to places that have no no business in politics or any leader of this country. Just look at the things that people said to her and the way she was treated as she was kicked out. We see people every day wearing traditional Muslim garb. This escalation has to be reigned in.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Re: The Muslim woman who was tossed out of the Trump rally.

As someone with a degrees in Psychology and Sociology, I have real, genuine concerns about the way fear is being peddled in this campaign. The scapegoating of specific groups is dangerous. The group psychology of mobs is leading us to places that have no no business in politics or any leader of this country. Just look at the things that people said to her and the way she was treated as she was kicked out. We see people every day wearing traditional Muslim garb. This escalation has to be reigned in.

I blame the liberals.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Trump highlighted reality, if fears/concerns are part of that then so be it.

That's an unappreciated part of his whole appeal really, he's saying what a lot of us truly in our most honest part believes.

I'm not inclined toward stepping foot (consciously) in a "gun free zone" because the reality is ... it isn't one. It just means that law-abiding people aren't armed.

Where was the guy, some school official of some sort, the other day (I saw the story in passing somewhere) who got in politically correct trouble for saying (paraphrasing) that anyone who thought there weren't any guns in the school was kidding themselves. OMG, the horrorz of his statement.

Thing is, he's exactly right. My kid is in one of the more rarified hothouse high school environments you could draw up & I have exactly zero doubt there are guns on that campus every day. I don't even know the kids THAT well and I'd wager a fiver that I could name 10 names in 10 minutes and a search would turn up at least two guns between them. And that's on a 2/3rds liberal increasingly touchy-feely campus.

People who seek comfort in denial are particularly put off by that sort of candor. It's one of the reasons (among many, granted) that Trump makes so many people uncomfortable. When he's at his most blunt, he's also at his most appealing, he speaks truths that make the squeamish flinch .. and I'm a fan of that.

It's definitely getting hard for opponents to call him a lying politician and accuse him of speaking the truth at the same time.

[Edward64]

If what was said was below, I'm okay with it. She was baiting and provoking them.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politi...sting-ejected/

As they were escorted out, Trump supporters roared -- booing the pair and shouting at them to "get out." One person shouted, "You have a bomb, you have a bomb," according to Hamid.

"The ugliness really came out fast and that's really scary," Hamid told CNN in a phone interview after she was ejected.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If what was said was below, I'm okay with it. She was baiting and provoking them.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politi...sting-ejected/

I'm sorry; but what are you saying? They stood quietly. They didn't say anything. Those were things being said to them. How can you be ok with that?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If what was said was below, I'm okay with it. She was baiting and provoking them.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politi...sting-ejected/

I have to agree with this

[Edward64]

You don't think they were baiting Trump supporters?

[Dutch]

Why was she escorted out?