Blinded by hatred and not doing a good analysis.
 

Just heard Morning Joe say this. I thought of this community.

Not a knock, an observation.

Thanks for sharing.

I think one can dislike Trump as a presidential candidate, just like they may dislike any other candidate, without being blinded my hatred. That said, there's plenty to dislike about Trump for president. Plenty.

I totally agree.

I would like to see posts here that reflect that.

How about this - by unapologetically singling out religious and ethnic groups for disdain and exclusion, Trump has espoused the values that we, as a society, had hoped to have left behind. In doing this as the leading candidate of a major political party, he has subjected us to ridicule in the rest of the world. Is that hatred or analysis?

Regards,

D-Ray

Better than calling his supporters and those who don't stone him idiots.

Much better.

I do think your interpretation of his banter extreme and your concern "subjected us to ridicule in the rest of the world" lesser concern to me.

Thanks for the comment though. A reasoned conversation can be had. :)

Come to think if it, Trump has presented to the world the precisely contrary message to what we presented in 2008. Then, by electing an African-American President, we showed the world tremendous growth in overcoming a history of slavery and racism. Admittedly, the optimism of 2008 gave way to the gritty reality of obstructionism - some of which was based on racial attitudes. And the hope of a transformational presidency wasn't fulfilled. So maybe a Trump presidency wouldn't be Armageddon. The extremes of hope and despair don't always bear out. But a Trump presidency wouldn't be good.

Regards,

D-Ray

nice post

as to Obie, I voted for him twice, 08 and 12. I supported Hill in 08 however in the primary.
That said, and I get and am furious at the GOP for how they adapted an obstructionist platform but Obie holds much of the blame.

He is not a legislator, he is not a diplomat. He has not had a productive presidency. IMO.

I thing the thing that many have against Trump supporters is that the most distasteful positions he takes are the greatest attraction to too many. When he appeals to the base aspects of human nature and succeeds as a result, it does not speak well of his followers. I'm sure there are other things that attract some voters, but they are not sufficient for me to consider him a qualified candidate.

Regards,

D-Ray

One can draw the same conclusion with an objective analysis of any of the candidates. I think this will be a "hold your nose" election for most voters.

Don't know if you saw my posts on this Whell but this is the first time in my life I'll be happy with either candidate winning. I could vote for Hill or Trump.

As a left leaning centrist, both fit.

I can understand a stanch right wing or left wing voter feeling as you do however.

I don't know that its all about the "staunch right or left". If you assume that the hard core of either side is, at max, 30% (that might be a bit high), and compare that the to "unfavorables" polling which is over 50% for Trump and Hillary.

Actually, is any candidate under 40% unfavorable? I suspect not. Maybe that's not horrible by political standards, but from a voter perspective I think it suggests a frustrated electorate.

Not that I condone blind hatred, but it just seem ironic that anti Trump people are being called out for blind hatred when that is exactly what Trump peddles.

His statements about Mexicans and muslims are hate filled and yet, his supporters say he is " telling it like it is".

As always you are the voice of reason thanks for being here.

good point

Depending on the poll, Bernie is. Just under. And nobody else is even close. I suspect that, were it not for the dreaded "S-word", it would be higher.

The remaining candidates:

• Sanders: Fav. 47.6%, Unfav. 42.3%, Spread 5.3%
  
• Kasich: Fav. 42.1%, Unfav. 31.3$, Spread 10.8%
  
• Clinton: Fav. 40.2%, Unfav. 54.2%, Spread 14%
  
• Cruz: Fav. 32.4%, Unfav. 53.6%, Spread 21.2%
  
• Trump:Fav. 29.4%, Unfav. 64.5%, Spread 35.1%

I do not see that.

I hear the same statements.

i think many take a stand that voicing an opinion outside of political correctness is hate. It's not. It's speech outside the confines of political correctness.

BTW, I do not support that talk. It is simply not a deal breaker for me.

Deal breakers for me are looking to the bible for guidance or being an obvious idiot savant.

Thanks for sharing your impressions.

Translation: racism is ok as long as I nor my family is not the target.

That is an erroneous translation in my case but I appreciate your perspective.

I think to some extent it is true. The "real American" Palin types do default as you just said.

But Trump has wider support than just the Palin crowd.

Your own words: :"It is not a deal breaker"

I guess if everyone supports a bad thing it is ok....

With a favorability rating of 29% and with by all accounts the Tea Party base representing somewhere around 25% of the vote, it looks like base of Trump's support is the Palin crowd, TJ and you.

You don't see it because you don't want to see it.

Your blind support of Trump is just as bad as anyone's blind hatred.

How come anti Trump people aren't " speaking outside the confines of political correctness" rather than blind hatred?

You see..... You think you are being objective but it is very obvious you are not.

Functionally, support for Trump and blind hatred are pretty much the same thing.

now you are not being reasonable

I have no blind support of TRump.

I have posted here what have been non negotiables for me.

He has not crossed any line. I had supported Kasich prior. I still support Hill on the DEm side. I voted for Bernie in the primary. Does that sound like blind support?

you are seterotyping.

This is true of the Palin crowd but not of liberals like me that do not condemn his candidacy. Lot's of us out there. Look at last night's results for confirmation.

Wouldn't your liberals be voting in the Democratic primaries?

you need you to engage in the conversation. These witticisms share nothing but disdain. I thought that was the domain of the Trump supporters?


Does anyone here really think I am not capable of being cutting and flippant?

Is this forum just a spot to vent and act like the hated Trump supporters while messaging one another... offering each other dispensation because their hate is founded in virtue?

You realize that is what many are doing, right?

I did. I voted for Bernie.

Think about that.

Not being unreasonable.... I'm " telling it like it is" 😉

Your blind support of Trump is evidenced here in this thread. You won't admit his flaws and you hold him to a different standard than those that don't support him.

That you are also open to supporting other candidates doesn't really matter on this issue. You are still blind when it comes to Trump.

Where did I not acknowledge flaws?

I rejected his condemnation. Much different.

Think about what?

Who are these liberals who just voted for Trump?

For starters, you can't admit that he peddles hatred.

No, I'm not. And Trump is still getting half of a third, or a sixth, of the vote.

Is pandering to people's hatred the same as selling hate? Many Trump supporters think not, it's just a means to an end. However many others do which helps explain his negative numbers.

And you need to stop telling people what they need to do.

Trump supporters are basically an angry confused lot professing their preference for Trump without really being able to explain why. For that matter Trump himself is not able to articulate why he wants to be or what he will do as President. I am great, I am best, I will make America great again passes for campaign speeches and anyone pointing out how ridiculous Trump is and will be as President, is a Trump hater.

Simply a tried and true GOP tactic that the Trump supporters have co-opted along with violence, a mark of uncivilized behavior and thuggery. Remember, he has promised riots if he is not the nominee.

For a supposedly highly successful guy, he sure whines a lot.

He isn't blind. He acknowledged most of Trump's flaws and then dismisses them as unimportant or performance art.

And therein lies the evidence that close-mindedness is stifling legitimate discourse. Since when does "non-PC" = racism? Answer - it does not. Its more often than not a legitimate difference of opinion. But since some folks - typically those on the "PC" side of the argument - are not tolerant of differences of opinion, they demonize.

S0, suggesting that we need to get a handle on illegal immigration - even if it means barring entry of individuals who hail from parts of the world that are openly hostile to the United States (hmmm...wonder if that needs to include Saudi Arabia now..?) might make some sense. Its exactly the type of policies that are under consideration in European countries right now, so why shouldn't the US also consider better protection of our own borders? Is it racist to suggest that we need to examine our border enforcement / illegal immigration issues? Absolutely not.

When Trump calls ILLEGAL aliens murders and rapists, is this racist? Well, its not exactly PC to say it the way Trump said it. Doesn't make if false, though. Texas, for example, tracks data on arrests and convictions of illegal aliens:

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/admini...Conviction.pdf

Certainly appears to be some "murdering and raping" going on according to this data. Is it "racist" to point out that illegal immigrants, many of whom are "non-white" like Trump, are engaging in "murdering and raping"? Nope. It appears to be a factual statement.

Is this a higher or lower rate of criminal activity compared to the overall US population? I'd suggest that this is difficult to ascertain, because while the US gov't can and does deport illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds in their home countries, the US can't "deport" individuals with criminal backgrounds who are citizens. This may tend to skew the comparisons a bit.

However, here are some interesting numbers CNN put together:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politi...igrants-crime/

You can cherry - pick this a bit, and I'm sure some will. Here's one that jumps out at me:

"73,665
The number of inmates in state and federal prisons who are not U.S. citizens, according to the latest prison population report from the Bureau of Judicial Statistics. That's about 5% of the total prison population."

Estimates put illegal immigrants at about 3 - 3.5% of the US population. Since the US government has the ability to deport illegal immigrants with criminal records - and the effect this would likely have on "stacking the statistical deck" in favor of the illegal immigrant population - the 5% prison population seems a bit larger than it should otherwise be if illegals committed crimes at the same rate as US citizens. Is it "racist" to make this observation. Nope. Its an opinion that is supported by an examination of the available data.

Does this suggest a bias that all illegal immigrants are individuals who are predisposed to be criminals, and are predisposed as a function of their "non-whiteness"? Nope, not even close.

Is the Mexican government "sending" its "criminals" across the border to the US, or "emptying its jails" and sending the "criminals" to the US? I have no idea, but weird things do happen from time to time:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...near-us-border

There are individuals, including Trump, who suggest that this is exactly what the Mexican government is doing. I seriously doubt that the Mexican government would admit to doing this even if they were, so we may never know for sure. Does it make one a "racist" to speculate about this? Hardly.

But be close-minded if you must. Its a free country and its your God-Given right to be....

Oops. Didn't mean to make a religious reference. Sorry. :p

so I should instead reply in vitriol?

Taking the high road assertively rubs you wrong John?

It shouldn't.

I am surprised someone could believe this.