I wonder if she's being overly optimistic in assuming there's not going to be any bad consequences for her, or if she's actually been told something to that effect by someone who knows.Astronuc said:Meanwhile - Clinton: Email scandal "moving toward a resolution"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-email-scandal-moving-toward-a-resolution/
Judge Napolitano asserts that a grand jury must have been empaneled to investigate and indict Hillary Clinton, as that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.zoobyshoe said:I wonder if she's being overly optimistic in assuming there's not going to be any bad consequences for her, or if she's actually been told something to that effect by someone who knows.
Isn't the whole point of nationalism to put the interests of your own country ahead of all the others?zoobyshoe said:More seriously and without sarcasm, I am getting very alarmed at the people who don't see all the clear warning signs of a very destructive leader when they look at Trump. He already has a whole country we used to get along fine with pissed off at him.
http://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2015/07/17/trump-pinatas-a-hit-in-mexico-come-to-sacramento/
Dotini said:... that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.
That's what I suspected. I saw the immunity as a bad sign for her, indicating it was granted to him in exchange for his helping them gather evidence against her.Dotini said:Judge Napolitano asserts that a grand jury must have been empaneled to investigate and indict Hillary Clinton, as that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/47848061...ing-to-unveil/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
That's a good enough characterization. But, how is gratuitously pissing other countries off good for the U.S.? It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, it's the way he so grotesquely insulting about it.Dotini said:Isn't the whole point of nationalism to put the interests of your own country ahead of all the others?
It isn't just the RNC, indeed I think the "narcissistic rage" is stronger coming from the left.jim hardy said:One man speaks a few truths and it throws RNC's whole self aggrandizing dreamworld into narcisstic rage ?
The price of self delusion is vulnerability to that.
Trump is most definitely a very imperfect vehicle for the fears and aspirations of millions of US voters. Flamboyant billionaires from New York City all seem repulsive to me. But IMHO Trump is the only candidate appealing to the nationalism and populism of the Republican base, especially important on the key issues of immigration, jobs, debt and anti-war.zoobyshoe said:That's a good enough characterization. But, how is gratuitously pissing other countries off good for the U.S.? It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, it's the way he so grotesquely insulting about it.
The very word revolution implies something destructive. Why is it so hard to understand that Trump and Sanders supporters have destructive intentions in the Jeffersonian sense?zoobyshoe said:I am getting very alarmed at the people who don't see all the clear warning signs of a very destructive leader when they look at Trump.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying no candidate is worth considering unless he's an obvious nationalist?Dotini said:Trump is most definitely a very imperfect vehicle for the fears and aspirations of millions of US voters. Flamboyant billionaires from New York City all seem repulsive to me. But IMHO Trump is the only candidate appealing to the nationalism and populism of the Republican base, especially important on the key issues of immigration, jobs, debt and anti-war.
It's not a revolution, it's a presidential election.anorlunda said:The very word revolution implies something destructive. Why is it so hard to understand that Trump and Sanders supporters have destructive intentions in the Jeffersonian sense?
Says Clinton.Astronuc said:Meanwhile - Clinton: Email scandal "moving toward a resolution"
...
No, its hardly normal in the GOP to adopt actual hard line action and thus is *the* issue behind Trump. One can not understand the rise of Trump under such a misconception.zoobyshoe said:... It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, ...
This is my perception of what happens every election:mheslep said:No, its hardly normal in the GOP to adopt a hard line and thus is *the* issue behind Trump. One can not understand the rise of Trump under such a misconception.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
Jeb Bush on *illegal* immigration: "it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htmStrategists generally agree that to win the White House a Republican nominee needs to secure 40% of the Latino vote, the portion George W. Bush won in 2004. 4 years later Republican John McCain got only 33% when he lost to Democrat Barack Obama.
But for Republicans seeking their party's nomination, the calculation can be different: it is more important to gain white working-class votes by staking out the position of being the toughest candidate on illegal immigrants than it is to court the ascending bloc of Latinos, whose influence registers mainly in the general election. So in the 2012 primary the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney promoted the idea of a high-tech fence stretching the entire length of the US-Mexico border, nearly 2,000 miles long.
Agreed, there's been all kind of pose adoption. In reality, very little action has been taken, thus Trump.zoobyshoe said:This is my perception of what happens every election:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htm
So, every election you have GOP candidates "staking out the position of being the toughest candidate on illegal immigrants" to get the nomination, and then softening up on that to get the popular vote.
This is the wrong thread, (the right one is now locked) but my theory of Trump's popularity is not the particular stand he takes on any issue, it's the fact he enthusiastically bulldozes over any and all politically correct stands. He's not selling a wall, he's selling the promise of a future where anyone can blurt out whatever politically incorrect thought that might blow through their minds without fear of someone jumping down their throats. He promises they are going to be able to turn off their internal censor, relax and "tell the truth." They're not applauding the wall, per se, they're applauding his defiance of socially imposed censorship. That's my take on it.mheslep said:Agreed, there's been all kind of pose adoption. In reality, very little action has been taken, thus Trump.
It's a regime change. One of the key things that makes the US great is that we pretty much invented the concept of a smooth/peaceful regime change.zoobyshoe said:It's not a revolution, it's a presidential election.
Nationalist was your word choice and I believe it to be inaccurate. I would say that no candidate should be considered who isn't an obvious patriot. But that's just my opinion and didnt, for example, keep Obama from being elected. My hope is that isn't a new trend.I'msorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying no candidate is worth considering unless he's an obvious nationalist?
Disagree that PC is the main issue. PC is a problem but it has not made blue collars angry in the way that immigration abuses do. GOP candidate after candidate keeps getting the anger about immigration abuses wrong. For Trump to be believed by his followers on the wall, his anti-pc , establishment go to hell language is convincing. Consider, does anyone believe Trump would take office and be turned around on the wall by those saying he had to court the hispanic demographic, as GOP politicians have for years, or by negative opinions on Telemundo?zoobyshoe said:This is the wrong thread, (the right one is now locked) but my theory of Trump's popularity is not the particular stand he takes on any issue, it's the fact he enthusiastically bulldozes over any and all politically correct stands. He's not selling a wall, he's selling the promise of a future where anyone can blurt out whatever politically incorrect thought that might blow through their minds without fear of someone jumping down their throats. He promises they are going to be able to turn off their internal censor, relax and "tell the truth." They're not applauding the wall, per se, they're applauding his defiance of socially imposed censorship. That's my take on it.
As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.
Meanwhile, Florida senator Marco Rubio is polling a distant fourth among those likely to vote in Tuesday's Republican primary with just 13 percent, which is below the threshold of 15 percent is necessary to claim any delegates in Michigan.Trump led the way with 36 percent, followed by 23 percent for Cruz and 21 percent for Kasich, the governor of Ohio who has pinned his hopes both in Michigan and, like Rubio, on his home state's March 15 primary.
Of course you're right that no one thinks he's going to get turned around. However, I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."mheslep said:Disagree that PC is the main issue. PC is a problem but it has not made blue collars angry in the way that immigration abuses do. GOP candidate after candidate keeps getting the anger about immigration abuses wrong. For Trump to be believed by his followers on the wall, his anti-pc , establishment go to hell language is convincing. Consider, does anyone believe Trump would take office and be turned around on the wall by those saying he had to court the hispanic demographic, as GOP politicians have for years, or by negative opinions on Telemundo?
Immigration and the border are the first specific mentioned, the third sentence in that panel video. I think we're talking past each other.zoobyshoe said:Of course you're right that no one thinks he's going to get turned around. However, I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."
...
Of course, you may question if these people are authentically representative, I suppose.
If you have an actual reference to a topical scientific study, please demonstrate. Amanda Taub, the "Senior Sadness Correspondent" at the left leaning Vox is not the author of such a study.jobyts said:
Here's the exchange you're referring to:mheslep said:Immigration and the border are the first specific mentioned, the third sentence in that panel video.
I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."
First, no, that's not a scientific study, it is a [alternative] news article. It cites a bunch of studies, but it isn't itself a study. Next, on checking, the very first stat I checked in the article was wrong: a critical qualifier was omitted that vastly changes the meaning of the stat. This does not meet our guidelines, so it is deleted.jobyts said:
No specifics? " Immigration control and the border" was the first issue she mentioned when questioned about more specifics. Must she have addressed the number of proposed fence miles to be specific? She did not start with, "He says it like it is ..." on the budget, on military spending, on college loans. I don't understand a line that labels this observation irrelevant, so I won't continue on this point.zoobyshoe said:...All her comments describe his frankness, and not the specifics of his proposals.
Joyts certainly misspoke when he referred to the article as a study, but that doesn't change the fact the article is based on a study, and quotes from authentically peered reviewed political science experts. Unless you can demonstrate she mischaracterizes those studies and those experts, then your questioning of her is an ad hominem fallacy. There is no reason to suppose she can't properly characterize her sources without some evidence.mheslep said:If you have an actual reference to a topical scientific study, please demonstrate. Amanda Taub, the "Senior Sadness Correspondent" at the left leaning Vox is not the author of such a study.
It's based on multiple studies, and even more polls, which means most of the analysis is her own. And it was deleted because yes, she mischaracterized the evidence she cited. Specifically, she quoted stats about negative views of Trump supporters and omitted qualifiers, changing the meaning. Put it this way: If I said "Americans support Trump" and omitted the important qualifier "some", people would rightly think it inaccurate.zoobyshoe said:Joyts certainly misspoke when he referred to the article as a study, but that doesn't change the fact the article is based on a study, and quotes from authentically peered reviewed political science experts. Unless you can demonstrate she mischaracterizes those studies and those experts, then your questioning of her is an ad hominem fallacy. There is no reason to suppose she can't properly characterize her sources without some evidence.
jobyts said:
Gleem, what you do with information you choose to read on your own, none of our business, of course you can't discuss that here. We post only the most accurate information we can.gleem said:Thank you Russ for your concerns for my 75 year old impressionable mind but I still have the link and am studying the left leaning information presented and drawing my own conclusions. Time and time again news articles are quoted and allowed.
Trumpists seem to be willing to go the extra mile to have someone "make the bogeyman go away" at any cost. I recall that Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You are correct. Googling the stats I think you're referring to (the first one mentioned) I see an important difference between what she said, "In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States," and what the poll actually asked: "How do you feel about temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S.?" That is certainly a significant change of meaning, as you say.russ_watters said:It's based on multiple studies, and even more polls, which means most of the analysis is her own. And it was deleted because yes, she mischaracterized the evidence she cited. Specifically, she quoted stats about negative views of Trump supporters and omitted qualifiers, changing the meaning. Put it this way: If I said "Americans support Trump" and omitted the important qualifier "some", people would rightly think it inaccurate.