I don't think people are denying that Trump's popularity is in large part a response to Political Correctness or whatever. Although it is clearly more complex than that as nothing in politics can be reduced to having one single cause.
I think what people are reacting to is DiscoGary's inane rantings and tribalism. People generally don't like to be accused of holding opinions they don't actually hold.
DiscoGary wrote:
yup, wrote:me, too
I call BS on every one of you. I never see a liberal showing any signs that they believe those things, and you can't just say "me too" after you get called out on it. You just don't see liberals say "hey, you can't call all old white people racist. Stop that.". It doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen. Liberals do NOT police themselves.
In over 35 years of political discussions I have never once seen one liberal tell another that the usual vicious insults have gone too far. Never seen it. Not here. Not anywhere. Gotta throw the BS flag on this one.
You see what you want to see, DG.
Sure, the article is right about one of the main driving forces behind Trump's popularity.
But DG isn't being attacked for being a vocal conservative - he's being attacked for being aggressively wrong on other tangents that he goes on.
Bump... for those that prefer analysis and don't care about being on a political "team"...
take a closer look wrote:
Ok, so I didn't read the article. Get ready for POD, folks.
I have yet to read a single article from either side of hatred (left and right) that actually analyzes what Trump REALLY brings to the table: Centrism. People like being on teams; they've been brainwashed into "us vs them" by our media and politicians for decades now. When both sides hate you, and the only thing they keep saying is that you're a racist- despite being in the public eye in NYC!! for 40 years without a whisper regarding such a claim, working with folks from every corner of the globe- you're obviously a major threat to them both.
So here we go...
For the Lefties-
1) He is for taxing the rich. He suggested a one-time 14% wealth tax in the past. He wants to tax the hedge fund boys more.
2) He wants to make trade more "fair" when it involves the US losing jobs to other countries. He wants as many jobs as possible here in the US.
3) He is open to attacking the continued (yes, despite the ACA) unsustainable costs of health care with ideas from both sides of the aisle: he's been in favor of some aspects of single-payer, and more recently wants to increase insurance competition across state lines.
4) He is a pseudo pro-lifer (long time pro-choicer)
5) He not anti-gay rights.
6) He is not driven by religion.
For the Righties-
1) He is for a strong military, and believes the threat of it can be used to help the US' economic interests.
2) He believes countries should have real borders, and wants to ensure that everyone here is a legal citizen of the US. He believes that we need to figure out a strategy to battle ISIS before letting any other Muslim immigrants into the country.
3) He hates PC culture.
4) He is pro-2nd amendment.
5) He is not a believer in man-made climate change.
He happens to have been right (or at least had great timing) on a few controversial occasions now. For instance, when he raised the illegal immigrant crime problem to the light, shortly afterward "Kate" was murdered by an illegal immigrant in the sanctuary city of SF... Then another one in Baltimore when an illegal killed an elderly woman. Then he suggests looking into mosque activity, which "offended" everyone (please). Well, after the Paris attacks, French authorities raided and closed 3 mosques within days. They found loads of weapons and terrorist propaganda. They have plans to investigate another 100 (this was hardly covered by the media here... Al-Jazeera covered it well though).
I work at a Fortune 100 Engineering and Manufacturing firm. Everyone is well educated. Most have masters degrees. Trump has a LOT of support there. Hillary and Sanders bring nothing to the table, and the establishment Right candidate is too stiff on social and economic issues. The media is selling the "uneducated voter" story for Trump, but his appeal is much larger than that. This is the chance for centrists- and especially center-righters- to shift what the Republican brand stands for.
DiscoGary wrote:
The only thing I care about is that an Establishment Republican NOT win.
Hold on.
I know you are a conservative.
You would really prefer Hillary Clinton to be elected over any established Republican like Rubio, Bush, Christie or Kasich?
Are you pulling the lever for Hillary against anyone of them or just not voting?
L L wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:The only thing I care about is that an Establishment Republican NOT win.
Hold on.
I know you are a conservative.
You would really prefer Hillary Clinton to be elected over any established Republican like Rubio, Bush, Christie or Kasich?
Are you pulling the lever for Hillary against anyone of them or just not voting?
A few years ago I used to tell people that they should vote Republican for the simple reason that Republicans will be held accountable and Democrats won't. I now know I was wrong about that. Paul Ryan just gave away the store and he is not being held accountable by the MSM.
So to answer the question directly.
I will not vote for Hillary or any other Democrat this cycle.
I will not vote for Bush or Kasich. I would vote third party.
I might vote for Rubio or Christie.
Cruz is my first choice, and he is the one that lovers of Big Government should really fear.
spade detector wrote:
Sure, the article is right about one of the main driving forces behind Trump's popularity.
But DG isn't being attacked for being a vocal conservative - he's being attacked for being aggressively wrong on other tangents that he goes on.
So I'm right but you don't like my style. I can live with that.
He is popular with Repulblicans because of his positions. Those are your voters.
People may go overboard on PC stuff but now the left is responsible for the R's candidate? Why are you guys always playing victim? Everyday on talk radio its victim, victim, victim.
That's a fair answer for who you would vote for.
But you know a third party won't win and you would be helping Hillary just to spite the Republican establishment.
My opinion is that Rubio has a much better shot at winning in the general election than Trump.
Would you agree with that?
Dhdhdhdhdh wrote:
He is popular with Repulblicans because of his positions. Those are your voters.
People may go overboard on PC stuff but now the left is responsible for the R's candidate? Why are you guys always playing victim? Everyday on talk radio its victim, victim, victim.
Liberals do nothing but present a parade of victims who have been wronged, so it's entertaining to see them complain when someone else claims to have been wronged. But accusing someone of hypocrisy never works so let's try something else.
The next time you are surrounded by liberals, say something nice about old white American Christians and then come back here and report what happened. If you want a really explosive response throw in "Southern", but be sure to take a few steps back first.
Do that, and then we can discuss who the real villains and victims are, where the hatred lies, and we'll have a nice discussion on racism as well.
DiscoGary wrote:
L L wrote:Hold on.
I know you are a conservative.
You would really prefer Hillary Clinton to be elected over any established Republican like Rubio, Bush, Christie or Kasich?
Are you pulling the lever for Hillary against anyone of them or just not voting?
A few years ago I used to tell people that they should vote Republican for the simple reason that Republicans will be held accountable and Democrats won't. I now know I was wrong about that. Paul Ryan just gave away the store and he is not being held accountable by the MSM.
So to answer the question directly.
I will not vote for Hillary or any other Democrat this cycle.
I will not vote for Bush or Kasich. I would vote third party.
I might vote for Rubio or Christie.
Cruz is my first choice, and he is the one that lovers of Big Government should really fear.
If republicans had any foresight, they would realize that the best chance of the country moving in the direction of their principles is to nominate a candidate that will beat Hillary. A Rubio-Kasich ticket would give the GOP the best chance as it would all but hand them Florida and Ohio. With Trump or Cruz, there is no chance of the GOP taking swing states with high minority population.
The truth is they don't have foresight. If you look at the education level of the supporters of each candidate you'll notice that Trump's supporters are the least educated. As you go down the list, the more liberal the candidate the more educated the supporters. Trump supporters don't have the ability to look one step ahead to see their rebellion will be funny and silly for a few months, but the dems will be the ones laughing next fall.
DiscoGary wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Nope!
White Privelege is an effort to convince white people that they are guilty of all racial injustices since the beginning of time so that they will accept their role as second class citizens and give up their money and positions in society to members of politically correct victim classes.
I will not accept blame for things I have not done and therefore I do not accept White Guilt... oops ... White Privilege.
BTW. That is what everyone should say when the topic of White Privilege comes up. Say that and the life-long guilt trip they had planned for you will last about 15 seconds. Anyone who tries to lay blame on you for something you haven't done is your enemy. Remember that.
I guess this nuanced concept is really over your head, and I pity you. You are showing very concrete thinking.
No one is blaming you personally or me personally for white privilege. Did I own slaves? No. Have I deliberately tried to harm black people? No. White privilege is NOT blaming me for the sins of my ancestors, which would be absurd.
Thus, acknowledging white privilege does not equal white guilt. I do not feel GUILTY for things I did not do. Nor should you. At the same time, I am being naïve to think that I don't have advantages based on skin color. As an example, I could ask any one of my black (professional, upstanding citizen) friends, how their interactions with police go when they are stopped for a broken tail light and compare it to my own experiences....There are differences.
I get the sense that you are not capable of seeing subtlety though, and you prefer to go with sweeping generalizations, "all liberals..." The irony is astounding. You paint liberals as idiots who think only in generalizations, while you are generalizing all liberals as being of a particular mindset.
FYI, I dated a conservative for many years. Very good person. Not a black-and-white thinker like you, so that gives me hope.
L L wrote:
That's a fair answer for who you would vote for.
But you know a third party won't win and you would be helping Hillary just to spite the Republican establishment.
My opinion is that Rubio has a much better shot at winning in the general election than Trump.
Would you agree with that?
No. I don't agree, and not just because I want to burn down the Republican party. I really believe that Trump has the best chance of winning, because he is the only one fighting the demonization coming from the left head on, and winning. He's beyond the media's reach. No one else is.
Rubio is too much like Romney. He looks great as a candidate, but after the left gets through ripping him apart his chances of winning go way down. If he doesn't fight back he will lose just like Romney, and I don't see him fighting back.
Only someone who can push through the politically correct demonization machine will be able to win from the Republican side. Right now, that's Trump.
The most important thing right now is that we start building an opposition party to the current single party system. That will take a while, some disruption will occur and we'll have to break some eggs to make that omelet. 8)
you are missing the point wrote:
...
I guess this nuanced concept is really over your head, and I pity you. You are showing very concrete thinking.
No one is blaming you personally or me personally for white privilege. Did I own slaves? No. Have I deliberately tried to harm black people? No. White privilege is NOT blaming me for the sins of my ancestors, which would be absurd.
Thus, acknowledging white privilege does not equal white guilt. I do not feel GUILTY for things I did not do. Nor should you. At the same time, I am being naïve to think that I don't have advantages based on skin color. As an example, I could ask any one of my black (professional, upstanding citizen) friends, how their interactions with police go when they are stopped for a broken tail light and compare it to my own experiences....There are differences.
I get the sense that you are not capable of seeing subtlety though, and you prefer to go with sweeping generalizations, "all liberals..." The irony is astounding. You paint liberals as idiots who think only in generalizations, while you are generalizing all liberals as being of a particular mindset.
FYI, I dated a conservative for many years. Very good person. Not a black-and-white thinker like you, so that gives me hope.
People are accusing me of having "White Privilege", and you have the nerve to say that I am the one doing the "black-and-white" thinking?
The irony is strong with this one.
LOL DG is an idiot. Look at the polls in the below chart. 59% of the general election voters have a negative image of Donald Trump, compared to 48% for Hillary. 27% have a positive image of Trump, compared to 37% for Hillary. If you took these numbers for Rubio, Kasich, or any other moderate GOP candidate they would probably beat Hillary on these measures (or be close). The amount of people that despise Trump is insurmountable.
The funny thing is that Hillary is a weak candidate because of her character issues. This would be the year for the GOP to win despite electoral demographic challenges that they face. But there are too many Ammon Bundy's out there who think "ME NOW!!", and too many DGs that don't understand political science "believe" Trump will win without any data or science to support it.
trumpeteer wrote:
...
If republicans had any foresight, they would realize that the best chance of the country moving in the direction of their principles is to nominate a candidate that will beat Hillary. A Rubio-Kasich ticket would give the GOP the best chance as it would all but hand them Florida and Ohio. With Trump or Cruz, there is no chance of the GOP taking swing states with high minority population.
The truth is they don't have foresight. If you look at the education level of the supporters of each candidate you'll notice that Trump's supporters are the least educated. As you go down the list, the more liberal the candidate the more educated the supporters. Trump supporters don't have the ability to look one step ahead to see their rebellion will be funny and silly for a few months, but the dems will be the ones laughing next fall.
Perhaps the arbiters of nuance and subtlety would like to tell the Trumpet what this thread is all about.
OK. The point's been made and I have other things to do.
trumpeteer wrote:
But there are too many Ammon Bundy's out there who think "ME NOW!!", and too many DGs that don't understand political science "believe" Trump will win without any data or science to support it.
It reminds me of supporters of Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul (in past elections). They get so isolated in their echo chambers that they truly believe EVERYONE supports their candidate. They point to online polls and number of small dollar donors and think their candidate has tens of millions of supporters, but come election day that support is nowhere to be seen.
That said, Trump's main advantage is that everyone knows who he is. It's sad, but a lot of people will vote for him simply because they've heard of him and he's famous. I typically vote D, but I'd love a Trump presidency, if only for the pure entertainment value.
DiscoGary wrote:
spade detector wrote:Sure, the article is right about one of the main driving forces behind Trump's popularity.
But DG isn't being attacked for being a vocal conservative - he's being attacked for being aggressively wrong on other tangents that he goes on.
So I'm right but you don't like my style. I can live with that.
What part of "W R O N G" are you having a difficult time comprehending?
Monkey See Monkey Doo Doo wrote:
Monkeys typing wrote:The irony here is a tad heavy handed, but it did make me chuckle.
It's funny, I caught "thejeff" with the exact same "Liberals see groups while conservatives see individuals" claim. He was good enough to admit the obvious irony and have a laugh at himself.
Doubt that the Disco Man is capable of that. We'll see.
As expected, the Disco "Man" has proven to be not man enough to step up to the plate..
You can choose to be as concrete as you need to be, but I'll spell it out.
"Black-and-white" thinking is a phrase meaning "all-or-nothing" thinking.
Being black-and-white means seeing things in absolute terms without seeing any shades of gray (i.e. "Either this or that...no middle ground.") It is not a racial term.
Black-and-white thinking looks like "all conservatives are...", "all liberals are..."
Another example of "black-and-white" (or "all-or-nothing") thinking would be to say that "white privilege" is the same as "white guilt" and that the term "white privilege" is just an attempt to make you as an individual feel guilty for things that aren't your fault.
"White guilt" is a feeling one can choose to have. "White privilege" is a societal phenomenon and not a status that anyone chooses to have or not have. Thus, white privilege is not about you as an individual but about the structure and history of society. There are other types of privilege, too. It is not all about race.
Our status in life is some combination of our own individual hard work and choices we make and also luck of the draw (e.g. where we grow up, how we are raised, what opportunities we have access to, what happens to us). So, I would be ignorant to discount either personal choice OR the accident of birth when I look at where I am today.