News Donald Trump's Popularity To Date

[joeylittle]

I believe the only way to truly work TOGETHER in American politics is to begin to respect the opinions of others.

I guess my hope for mutual respect regardless of the outcome of elections is basically naive.

I agree about mutual respect and listening. But I have a hard time offering respect to opinions that I believe are based in fear-mongering and hate. So, while this statement he made in June of 2015 could be considered opinion:

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

I'd be more likely to call it xenophobia and bigotry.

So, when does xenophobia become a topic worthy of balanced discussion? Maybe that time is now - but it's honestly, very hard, at least for me.

 

[prayingforpeace]

@joeylittle

I agree with you on that. I guess I didn't mean "respect the opinions of others" but rather, respect other people regardless of opinion. I'm not a very good speaker but what I'm trying to say is that if we could have a mutually respectful conversation in this country, maybe we could discover more of what we have in common and help to change some opinions we may disagree with. I think more common ground could be found if we were civil and explained our views in a way that didn't seem offensive or insulting. I'm not sure how else to say what I mean. I definitely didn't mean everyone has to respect all opinions of others, that doesn't make much sense. There may be someone (a good person) who doesn't think Trumps above statement was xenophobic, and supports him. I wouldn't automatically assume that said person is a hateful bigot but I'd want to discuss it to try to understand where they're coming from. Maybe explain why I think he's dangerous and a bad choice for our country.

@EveHarrington I guess having a discussion with anyone who doesn't agree with you is out of the question then. Clear

Unfortunately, while debate and discussion are effective at making people question their own beliefs and consider the opinions of others, if people are not willing to engage then I don't know where we're headed as a nation.

I guess I'm not adding to this discussion so I'll bow out. Just one more thing... to criticize the "hate" with HATE isn't productive in resolving hate. Love & Understanding beat hate every time. IMHO

 

[joeylittle]

Thanks for clarifying, @prayingforpeace - I understand better your point about respect for the person behind the opinion.

It's hard when the opinion is rooted in hate, also. I don't think every trump supporter is necessarily bigoted, and I'm actually pretty confident that if anyone wanted to talk about why they support him as a candidate, and could do so in a way that didn't center on the parts of his platform that are bigoted - that the conversation/debate would be fair.

It's hampered by his own campaign strategy, which has xenophobia at its center.

If he weren't constantly lobbing these hate-balls into the air...but right now, it seems that he can't talk about 'putting America first' without talking about excising certain races and religions from the American population. And he's made a lot of statements indicating that he really believes what he's saying.

I'm not trying to draw you into a thread you don't want to be in, BTW - just am articulating why it's hard to separate his specific kinds of opinions from who he actually is, as a person.

 

[Justmehere]

I have been open online and offline that I don't consider myself to be a republican or a democrat, but I did get involved as a GOP state delegate this year to try to help stop Trump. My state kept Trump from winning a single delegate from our state and now my state is leading the charge to try to not give the GOP nomination to Trump. I am a little in the loop on some of the inner workings of it and there is so much I wish I could post and maybe one day I can... But wow, it's a messy thing!

It is a valiant effort, and I'm so proud of those standing up and I encourage them every day that it's worth it even though it's likely to fail...

It will likely fail because yes, many republicans are spineless, and even more are shit-scared. It's hard for them to even have the conversation about how awful Trump is even when they agree. I have never wanted to openly call people wusses until now! Ugh.

But there is progress and some financial support is even coming in. The debate amoung these republicans is heated but my state is pretty strongly against Trump. Which is helping my heart so much!

I think most thought that Trump's numbers would rise after the Orlando shooting but they had dropped, and that is promising. The weird hold he has over people in times of fear and crisis does have some potential to break.

If we do manage to deny him the nomination, there will be violence and so many disillusioned and such backlash... But I think it's worth t to risk that.

There are Trump pledged national delegates threatening to kill some leaders. Because you know, Trump is Trump. Sigh.

The #freethedelegates movement now contains hundreds of delegates though, and hopefully it keeps growing: Dead Link Removed

 

[EveHarrington]

@prayingforpeace

I don't wish to debate when it comes to topics that revolve around hatred of women, Mexicans, Muslims, the disabled, and so forth. I see these issues as very black and white.

Pretty much all of my trump slams have revolved around these issues. His stance in business? Who knows? (Other than the many business failures and bankruptcies.) Its these issues of hate that to me, means his stance on everything else simply does not matter.

I'd be willing to debate these other issues, but we'd have to pick a trump stance on a very specific date and time as the guy changes his mind on everything on an hourly basis.

As for coming together as a nation-----republicans have been holding the running of our country hostage. I have said much about this in this thread I believe. I am but one voter. I am not a Senator who costs the country millions and millions by refusing to fund the government so government workers are unable to pay their bills when the government shuts down, or refusing to vote so that MANY diplomatic positions overseas go unfilled for the better part of a year, or refusing to vote so the SCOTUS can function properly. (Repubs will regret not confirming Garland.) This is happening daily in congress----

 

[hodge]

Trump is totally bigoted and hateful. How can anyone say that it would have been "beautiful" if someone in that Orlando club had a gun and shot the gunman in the forehead? I mean, yeah if someone had, it could have possibly prevented more deaths, but to call it "beautiful" to kill another human being, even though they were a psychopathic killer??? Umm, sorry, I guess I'm still kind of human.

All that said, however, if I was a cop and in that club that night, I know I would have shot him if I could have in order to save more lives. I wouldn't be proud of it, I'd feel horrible about it, but I would have done it in order to save lives.

I've only shot a gun a few times, but my dad said I'm a natural good shot. He's the one who insisted on teaching me to shoot, against my own wishes. That's the only part of a detective's job I wouldn't like, though I know it's necessary. If I had to do it over again, I'd major in criminal justice and apply for a cop job. Though I'd probably still end up with PTSD and have to retire early, eh.

 

[hodge]

To go back to our original subject, Trump, I have to say that I was not impressed with the press conference his ousted campaign manager gave. I don't really trust anyone who says they never look back and would never do anything over again. I mean, who's perfect the first time around?

 

[prayingforpeace]

A quote from Obama describing what I meant in a brilliant way,

"We can’t expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialists” and “Soviet-style takeover” and “fascist” and “right-wing nut” -- that may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes. Now, we’ve seen this kind of politics in the past. It’s been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation’s birth. But it’s starting to creep into the center of our discourse. And the problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized. Remember, they signed up for it. Michelle always reminds me of that. The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning –- since, after all, why should we listen to a “fascist,” or a “socialist,” or a “right-wing nut,” or a left-wing nut”? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

BARACK OBAMA, remarks at University of Michigan, May 1, 2010


Again, I never meant to say that we have to agree with opinions of others, just to be able to separate the opinion from the person. The above statement says it much better than I can. It is terribly difficult to hear hateful rhetoric from Trump, but I truly believe that the most powerful way to challenge the stance of another, one we do not agree with, is not to vilify them but to challenge their beliefs in a way that still offers them dignity.

 

[EveHarrington]

Obama made that speech a full five years before neo-Hitler came on the political scene.

Five years ago that was a relevant speech and I would have agreed.

Are you aware of the things Obama is saying against Trump?

 

[prayingforpeace]

@eve, Throughout this thread I have just shared my opinion on how I see the idea of mutual respect and dialog as the most effective means to finding common ground, vs. alienating one another. I have personally dealt with people from both political sides of the spectrum as I'm an independent. I have been able to change/adjust my own views and I've challenged others views which led them to being at least a little more "open" to the other side. I still stand by my opinion because it has worked for me. Even reading through this thread has helped me to see the opinions of others when presented as information. I can say that I now see why Trump is being compared to Hitler better than I could before reading it. I still disagree with the idea of saying Trump=Hitler but I can agree with the possibility that he may be a Hitler in the making. I agree with Obama that opening dialog with enemies of the world i.e. north Korea was worth the possibility of some reconciliation although it has not worked.
No, I don't know what Obama is saying about Trump that I haven't heard on mainstream news. I will try to learn more. I just believe his statement above is relevant when dealing with our neighbors here at home. Like he said in the statement, politicians open themselves up for criticism by running for office and they should expect it. Trump is fair game, he is running for office and we need to know what he's about. I don't like him as a person because of his hatred, insults and attitude. I do not believe that everyone who supports his presidency is just like him. I'm sure there are many who are, but I think many out there may support him for reasons other than love of his hatred. When I speak to someone who supports him, I will most definitely question why but I choose not to hate/dislike them as people until they show me otherwise. My neighbors right now are kind & friendly people who, unfortunately, support him. The best I can do is continue to dialog with them and challenge their beliefs in a respectful way.

 

[scout86]

I think, possibly naively that there are not as many people today, willing to "follow" someone like Hitler blindly

I hope you're right! I've had a couple of small experiences with mob mentality and they were scary. People abandon any effort to rationally think about what they're hearing. And it can happen to pretty much anyone, on any side of any issue. I think that Mr. Trump gets that and knows how to use it.

Immigration, for example. It's true that a lot of good paying jobs have disappeared and that's been really hard on a lot of people. From there, it's kind of normal for people to go looking for someone to blame. Mexican immigrants, legal and otherwise, are a possibility. Except that the numbers of Mexican immigrants are declining. Many left out country back during the height of the recession. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/ And the jobs they take aren't necessarily good paying jobs. It's possible that they've contributed to the job problem. But it's also possible that the job problem is a result of globalization. Manufacturers have moved their plants to foreign countries when wages are less as are an assortment of regulations. Companies, more and more, seem to be loyal only to their stockholders and have no particular loyalty to a country. It's all about profit. I think this is also a real problem, but it's a harder one to address.

I'm not sure what definition of "fascism" you're using. Here's Merriam-Webster's

• : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
  : very harsh control or authority

I don't especially like Secretary Clinton, and there are a lot of policy issues where I disagree with her. But I really think, in the end, she believes in the rule of law and she has no intention of trying to establish a dictatorship. I think she's aware enough of her limitations and respectful enough of the constitution and our legal processes that that's unlikely. She might think she can skirt the law on small issues, but I don't think she's got the kind of ego that would let her think a dictatorship was a real option. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, I wonder about. I don't see as much evidence of respect for our system. I do see a HUGE ego. I haven't seen any evidence that he thinks anyone might know better than he does or that there's any reason HE needs to play by the rules, if they don't suit him.

I have to confess, I have a hard time being objective. I grew up around malignant narcissism and I've seen what it can do. (Pretty much anything it wants, most of the time.) I see a lot of those traits in Trump. Maybe I'm wrong. But other people who are in more of a position to be objective say they see the same things.

As far as whether or not Trump would try to exterminate an entire class of people....... Hitler had "a thing" about the Jewish people. But they were also a convenient target. Germany, at the time, had suffered a decline following WWI. There were a lot of people who's standard of living had declined and they were looking for someone to blame it on. Someone who could easily be thought of as "the others". The Jewish people were a convenient target. If you want to inspire and manipulate a group of disaffected people, and easy way to do it, and to get them to follow you is by picking a group to blame everything on and then saying the equivalent of "let's git em". It's scary how well that works. I've seem it work with otherwise nice, normal people I'd have thought knew better. So, I don't KNOW what Trump might do. I just haven't seen anything to suggest that there's anything other than his own self interest that's going to limit it.

In sincere curiosity, what has Secretary Clinton done that makes it look like she might over throw our system and seize power as a dictator? (And, I totally agree that we'd all be a lot better off if we listened and tried to understand where each other is coming from. This business of debate through personal attack hasn't served us well at all, either nationally or internationally.)

 

[Anarchy]

Quoting O'bama:
Throwing around phrases like “socialists” and “Soviet-style takeover” and “fascist” and “right-wing nut” -- that may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes. Now, we’ve seen this kind of politics in the past. It’s been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation’s birth. But it’s starting to creep into the center of our discourse. And the problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized. Remember, they signed up for it. Michelle always reminds me of that. The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise.

OK, let's just have a look at the planks from a couple of Manifestos, to see what today's political landscape looks like

First the Communist manifesto by Marx and Engels in 1848: Link Removed

The [second] section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; (done)abolition of inheritances (usually heavily taxed) and, indeed, all private property (now effectively state controlled ); free public education (done); the "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital" ( exceeded with a fully fiat currency and central banks printing paper money at will to control the interest rate between near zero to negative rates); the nationalisation of "communication and transport" (generally done, those parts not in state ownership are effectively state controlled); the expansion of state-owned production—both agricultural and industrial (indeed, the combination of the two) (state agricultural and industrial subsidies, quotas and licensing, also tarrifs effectively achieve this)—leading to universal employment (if feckin only! - Marx and Engels were a pair of utopian dreamers!). Implementing these measures would be a precursor to a stateless and classless society.' (Bakunin called Marx on this - and Bakunin clearly foresaw that Marx proposals would create a brand new class of all powerful bureaucrats (the "nomenklatura") far more abusive and dangerous than any king or aristocracy or capitalists, Bakunin also clearly saw that you do not eliminate the state by making it all powerful)

The comments in bold are added by me @

and now the NSDAP (National Solcialist German Worker's Party ) usually known as Nazi Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

The 25-point Program of the NSDAP

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Link Removed.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for Link Removed.
6. The right to determine matters concerning Link Removed and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the Link Removed be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (Link Removed).
14. We demand a division of Link Removed of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young. (Oh Michelle!!!!:p )
    
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:
    a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;
    b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language;
    c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands. (net neutrality as well!)
    
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.[10]
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.(That would be a Fe'ral Gubbermint)

What do you think? there's lots and lots in those that are very familiar
I would say that references to extremist totalitarian regimes is very well founded and just

we even had "The Bern" defending the idea of presidential kill lists - looks like he'd want to wield that power himself if he were ever 'resident and commie in chief