Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[anorlunda]

Trump is the wrong guy to turn it around, but he might be the right one to be an alarm clock.

You are again focusing on Trump rather than his supporters.

In #128, I said that his supporters are trying to give the system a slap in the face. The constructive value of a slap (if any) is in the shock. Voting in an idiot as president is the kind of shock that would get everyone's attention. Why assume that Trump supporters are not angry enough to do that? What else could they do to show the country how angry they are?

 

[russ_watters]

You are again focusing on Trump rather than his supporters.

In #128, I said that his supporters are trying to give the system a slap in the face

No, I was referring to the Republican party as the object of the alarm and the supporters are the ones who set it ("the system"...though this won't apply to Democrats). The Republican party keeps putting up candidates who fail at addressing what many Republicans feel is wrong with the country. Maybe Trump's popularity will wake them up that their heads are in the wrong place.

. The constructive value of a slap (if any) is in the shock. Voting in an idiot as president is the kind of shock that would get everyone's attention. Why assume that Trump supporters are not angry enough to do that? What else could they do to show the country how angry they are?

Apparently Trump's supporters are serious -- but their anger level isn't what matters in making your slap land, their numbers are.

 

[gleem]

Trump may be losing some of that popularity.

I just read a summary of the voting in NH. Sanders received 151,584 to Trump's 100,406 votes even though 30,000 more Republican voted than Democrats . Trump took 35.3% of the Republican vote while Sanders took 60% of the Democratic vote. So it not clear how popular He is.

 

[russ_watters]

I just read a summary of the voting in NH. Sanders received 151,584 to Trump's 100,406 votes even though 30,000 more Republican voted than Democrats . Trump took 35.3% of the Republican vote while Sanders took 60% of the Democratic vote. So it not clear how popular He is.

The Democratic race only has two candidates. When the low-quality performing Republicans drop out, we'll see where their supporters land.

 

[gleem]

The Democratic race only has two candidates. When the low-quality performing Republicans drop out, we'll see where their supporters land.

It is hard to imagine that current supporter of Bush, Rubio, Cruz or Kasich would end up in Trumps camp.

 

[mheslep]

It is hard to imagine that current supporter of Bush, Rubio, Cruz or Kasich would end up in Trumps camp.

You think they'll vote for Clinton/Sanders instead? I won't, though I strongly dislike Trump.

 

[russ_watters]

You think they'll vote for Clinton/Sanders instead?

I think he means they'll vote for Rubio or one of the other mainstream Republican candidates. That's my theory.

 

[gleem]

A few hours ago Trump reconfirmed his stand on torture. Maybe He ought to get together with Vladimir Putin and/or Kim Jong Un and share notes.
It should be said to Trump supporters: Be careful what you wish for.

 

[gleem]

Oh Oh. just in. Gov. Nikki Haley is backing Rubio.

 

[jtbell]

Trump versus the Pope:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump added.

 

[Rick21383]

Trump versus the Pope:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/

meanwhile at the Vatican...

 

[DavidSnider]

meanwhile at the Vatican...

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall, and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

 

[jw6661]

An impressive wall never the less.

To me, seeing Trump through a foreigners lens seems like a martian. Meaning its all foreign to me.

 

[Rick21383]

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall, and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

Give me a break. The pope is clueless when it come to US politics and the issues of illegal immigration. He should be dealing with his child molesting priests rather than meddling in our politics.

 

[russ_watters]

Give me a break. The pope is clueless when it come to US politics and the issues of illegal immigration. He should be dealing with his child molesting priests rather than meddling in our politics.

While I don't agree with the rhetoric, I do agree with the point: Trump behaving badly doesn't make it ok for other countries to meddle in our politics and God forbid Trump gets elected, these meddling foreign leaders will have serious problems with relating to the US, of their own cause.

The UK trumped Trump's absurdity by proposing he be banned from the UK. Besides almost certainly violating their own and international laws and treaties, what does that then mean for dealing with their most significant ally if it's President is persona non grata?

 

[Rick21383]

While I don't agree with the rhetoric, I do agree with the point: Trump behaving badly doesn't make it ok for other countries to meddle in our politics and God forbid Trump gets elected, these meddling foreign leaders will have serious problems with relating to the US, of their own cause.

The UK trumped Trump's absurdity by proposing he be banned from the UK. Besides almost certainly violating their own and international laws and treaties, what does that then mean for dealing with their most significant ally if it's President is persona non grata?

I agree with you and, ironically, I really do believe that nonsense like this is what is fueling his popularity.

 

[russ_watters]

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall...

He should probably tear it down then.

...and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

...and guarded by a company of machine-gun toting soldiers.

This specific example is besides the point: the Pope is being ridiculous here. Fence, wall, moat, minefield, whatever: many (most?) nations have border fortifications. It is a normal thing. To attack Trump or anyone else for suggesting the existing one be improved, on the grounds that walls are bad/immoral, is just stupid.

Now if you want to argue necessity, effectiveness or cost benefit ratio, that's fine -- but again, that's none of his business.

 

[DavidSnider]

He should probably tear it down then.

...and guarded by a company of machine-gun toting soldiers.

This specific example is besides the point: the Pope is being ridiculous here. Fence, wall, moat, minefield, whatever: many (most?) nations have border fortifications. It is a normal thing. To attack Trump or anyone else for suggesting the existing one be improved, on the grounds that walls are bad/immoral, is just stupid.

Now if you want to argue necessity, effectiveness or cost benefit ratio, that's fine -- but again, that's none of his business.

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism? Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy? You're right, walls by themselves are not a moral issue. The motivations behind building them absolutely are.

 

[p1l0t]

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism? Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy? You're right, walls by themselves are not a moral issue. The motivations behind building them absolutely are.

You might be right, but I do think we should BOTH make it harder to come here illegally but also easier to come here legally. Just my opinion. I don't know how much a physical wall helps or is the best solution though.

 

[mheslep]

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall, and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

The Vatican is not "wide open". I was rejected entry for wearing shorts. In any case, if the wall along the US border (aka double fence) is completed by Trump or whoever, the several gates through that wall like the one below will remain in place.

 

[mheslep]

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism?

This kind of comment, assuming to know the minds of others, is almost the entirely the reason a showman like Trump is leading in the GOP. Trump would love your post, probably locking him up another ten thousand votes.

 

[DavidSnider]

This kind of comment is almost the entirely the reason a showman like Trump is leading in the GOP. Your post probably locked him up another ten thousand votes.

A showman like trump is leading the GOP because it's a showman party.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism?

Yes. *I'm* a supporter of improving our border controls. And I'm a supporter for strictly practical reasons. And what the Pope actually said has nothing to do with any of that. For the record: some of my favorite people are immigrants. In fact, my perception is that on average they are bigger believers in and exploiters of the American Dream - and therefore patriots - than most Americans. I love them for that - and that's not an exaggeration.

And I submit that if you refuse to believe that people are being truthful about their own beliefs, our political system has broken down to the point where rational debate is no longer possible -- and it ain't Trump (or his supporters) who caused that.

Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy?

Do you have a reference to such a poll? A quick google comes up with several links implying you are way, way wrong.

Please dial yourself back here and argue about real issues, as they are actually stated, and not what your anger has you imagining.

 

[mheslep]

A showman like trump is leading the GOP because it's a showman party.

Compared to what?

 

[DavidSnider]

Yes. *I'm* a supporter of improving our border controls. And I'm a supporter for strictly practical reasons. And what the Pope actually said has nothing to do with any of that. For the record: some of my favorite people are immigrants. In fact, my perception is that on average they are bigger believers in and exploiters of the American Dream - and therefore patriots - than most Americans. I love them for that - and that's not an exaggeration.

And I submit that if you refuse to believe that people are being truthful about their own beliefs, our political system has broken down to the point where rational debate is no longer possible -- and it ain't Trump who caused that.

Do you have a reference to such a poll? A quick google comes up with several links implying you are way, way wrong.

Please dial yourself back here and argue about real issues, as they are actually stated, and not what your anger has you imagining.

I didn't say people who support "improving border controls". *I'm* a supporter of that. I'm talking about Trumps 1,000 mile long 8 billion dollar wall. I think you need to consider what the real issue is here.

 

[mheslep]

There is good evidence that the wall (double or triple fence) works in the places where its been built. "Works" in this case meaning slowing illegal crossing to a point where the numbers are manageable by local law enforcement or integration into the local community, as it should be.

NPR

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.
[...]
"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say people who support "improving border controls". *I'm* a supporter of that. I'm talking about Trumps 1,000 mile long 8 billion dollar wall. I think you need to consider what the real issue is here.

So your objection is strictly to the word "wall"? If Trump started using the word "fence" you'd be ok with it? I'm pretty sure it is you who needs to check what the real issue is here -- and by the way, you're still describing me. To be clear: *I* read the word "wall" as symbolic/non-specific and as a result *I* support the statement/general proposal because of what *I* believe it actually means. Maybe I am mistaken about what *Trump* is after, but even if that's true, I am still evidence that at least some of "such people" don't believe what you think they do.

To be clear: a wall is better than a fence, but more expensive, but the most expensive piece would probably be the personnel/technology required to adequately man it anyway (though drones are going to make that much cheaper). The specific details of how we improve the border controls are open for debate and I'm open to a variety of suggestions up to and including a wall, depending on the details and cost of a real proposal. All we have at this point is political talking points, and such things are very thin on meaning/details. But regardless of the details, there is nothing inherently different between a fence and a wall and I therefore see no reason to assume the "wall" comes with nasty implications about motivation behind it.

David, we both believe that symbolism is being used in the wording choice, and you are choosing to believe the symbolism points in a really nasty direction, while sitting in front of you is an example of someone who takes it in a perfectly reasonable direction (that you might actually agree with!). I suggest that you should re-evaluate your perception of "such people".

If you haven't read it, here's Trump's website describing his proposal:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

There's nothing in there that implies racism/xenophobia even a little bit. So your attaching racism/xenophobia to it is an unfounded assumption based on some speculation/bias of yours.

And again: I want a reference or retraction of your claim about 20% of "such people" being self-described white supremacists.

 

[DavidSnider]

So your objection is strictly to the word "wall"? If Trump started using the word "fence" you'd be ok with it? I'm pretty sure it is you who needs to check what the real issue is here -- and by the way, you're still describing me. To be clear: *I* read the word "wall" as symbolic/non-specific and as a result *I* support the statement/general proposal because of what *I* believe it actually means. Maybe I am mistaken about what *Trump* is after, but even if that's true, I am still evidence that at least some of "such people" don't believe what you think they do.

To be clear: a wall is better than a fence, but more expensive, but the most expensive piece would probably be the personnel/technology required to adequately man it anyway (though drones are going to make that much cheaper). The specific details of how we improve the border controls are open for debate and I'm open to a variety of suggestions up to and including a wall, depending on the details and cost of a real proposal. All we have at this point is political talking points, and such things are very thin on meaning/details. But regardless of the details, there is nothing inherently different between a fence and a wall and I therefore see no reason to assume the "wall" comes with nasty implications about motivation behind it.

David, we both believe that symbolism is being used in the wording choice, and you are choosing to believe the symbolism points in a really nasty direction, while sitting in front of you is an example of someone who takes it in a perfectly reasonable direction (that you might actually agree with!). I suggest that you should re-evaluate your perception of "such people".

And again: I want a reference or retraction of your claim about 20% of "such people" being self-described white supremacists.

“It’s $8 billion.… And of the 2,000 [miles], we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers, et cetera, et cetera, and I’m taking it price per square foot and a price per square, you know, per mile, and it’s a very simple calculation. I’m talking about precasts going up probably 35 to 40 feet up in the air. That’s high; that’s a real wall. It will actually look good. It’ll look, you know, as good as a wall is going to look.”

 

[russ_watters]

“It’s $8 billion.… And of the 2,000 [miles], we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers, et cetera, et cetera, and I’m taking it price per square foot and a price per square, you know, per mile, and it’s a very simple calculation. I’m talking about precasts going up probably 35 to 40 feet up in the air. That’s high; that’s a real wall. It will actually look good. It’ll look, you know, as good as a wall is going to look.”

David, that's non-responsive to my point, but we'll have to set that aside for now: my request for factual back-up of your claim about white supremacists is not going to go away by ignoring it. It isn't optional.

 

[DavidSnider]

David, that's non-responsive to my point, but we'll have to set that aside for now: my request for factual back-up of your claim about white supremacists is not going to go away by ignoring it. It isn't optional.

It's not non-responsive. You questioned what the meaning of 'wall' is. It's clarifying what Trump has said the wall should be.

I can't find where I saw that. Feel free to replace it with page 15 of this:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf

 

[russ_watters]

I can't find where I saw that. Feel free to replace it with page 15 of this:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf

Thank you. So can we at least agree that that's substantially different (I would say way, way off, but there is no need to go that far) from what you claimed in post #158 or do I need to go through all of the differences point by point?

 

[DavidSnider]

Thank you. So can we at least agree that that's substantially different (I would say way, way off, but there is no need to go that far) from what you claimed in post #158 or do I need to go through all of the differences point by point?

16% of Trump SC Primary Supporters openly admitting to being white supremacists is way off from from 20% of people who support the idea of Trump's wall are White Supremacists? I'd say it lends quite a lot of plausibility to the stat.

 

[meBigGuy]

This concept that Trump supporters are somehow symbolically slapping the party by supporting Trump is pure nonsense. They support Trump because they like what he says. They support torture, think illegal immigrants are violent criminals, think we need a wall, etc etc etc.

If you want to assign "symbolic" significance for these people's sincere support for what Trump has to say, feel free to do so. But don't minimalise the fact they they are true supporters, and true believers, fanatics even. I still believe

My country is full of racist bigots who like what Trump says. Simple as that, really. No tolerance for other cultures, other religions, other races, even women.

 

[russ_watters]

16% of Trump SC Primary Supporters openly admitting to being white supremacists is way off from from 20% of people who support the idea of Trump's wall are White Supremacists? I'd say it lends quite a lot of plausibility to the stat.

Yes, they are at least substantially different, and that's not what you actually claimed when you used that as support anyway. So I guess I do need to go through it point by point:

What you actually said was:

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism? Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy?

"...any...".

So your claim is that the only reason to support "a wall" is racism, or from the other direction, everyone who supports the wall is a racist. So:

1. The stat you offered in support of the claim was "a good" (meaning, more than?) 20% of wall supporters admitting to be White Supremacists. 20% is off from "all" by a factor of 5. That's way, way off.
2. The actual poll stat was 16%, not 20%. I won't argue whether that qualifies as "substantial", but it is different and not coincidentally, wrong in the same direction.
3. The poll was Trump supporters, not "wall" supporters.
4. The poll was only South Carolina Trump supporters and I think you should agree that a deep south state's population is "substantially different" on issues like racism from the national average.

The reality is that nationwide and across political lines, 51% of Americans (70% of likely Republican voters) support the idea of a border "wall":
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._build_a_wall_deport_felon_illegal_immigrants

You essentially called half the population of the US racists and defended it with a stat that applies only to a small sliver of Americans and even then doesn't support it in that case! Yes, you are way, way off.

 

[russ_watters]

This concept that Trump supporters are somehow symbolically slapping the party by supporting Trump is pure nonsense. They support Trump because they like what he says. They support torture, think illegal immigrants are violent criminals, think we need a wall, etc etc etc.

If you want to assign "symbolic" significance for these people's sincere support for what Trump has to say, feel free to do so. But don't minimalise the fact they they are true supporters, and true believers, fanatics even. I still believe

So would you like to join DavidSnider's claim that 51% of Americans are racists based on their support for a border wall? Do you have any direct evidence of their racism (such as DavidSnider's poll showing a group who admit to being racists) or do you just consider the idea racist without a direct connection?