Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[nereo]

I'm curious what Trump's speech will be like this evening. 
Specifically, will it be a rehearsed speech read off the teleprompters and designed to show those outside the convention center that he can talk about complex issues, or will he try to 'play-to-the-crowd' and give a performance more in line to what he's been doing at his rallies?

I keep going back and forth on this question.  Certainly seasoned political aids what him to show that he can appeal to a broader audience of independants and republicans previously wary of supporting him.  But the desire to whip thousands of already die-hard supporters into a frenzy by saying all sorts of inflammatory things be a bigger appeal to him.

Comments?

[nereo]

...
To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office.  Now that would be political chaos!

would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.

You're seriously asking whether I think it would matter whether a sitting President of the United States changed parties mid-way through his or her term?  Yes, I think that would be both significant and substantial.  Senators have changed affiliation, but there's no precedent for a sitting President to do so.  I'd imagine it would casue all sorts of confusion and arguments about which bills both parties support or oppose.  Already we've seen some of that among the GOP with Trump supporting Medicare/medicade and rejecting free trade ethos long supported by the GOP.

I also don't follow your logic on what higher taxes proposed on the rich would appeal to (specifically) a democrat mostly concerned about the economy.  There's so many quesitons wrapped up in that off-the-cuff remark; why do you think Trump would propose higher taxes on the rich than Hillary?  How much does it matter for a President to have these views since Congress passes the legislation, and does it change if his or her party holds the majority? Why a democrat and not a republican? Why should tax rates on the rich be the primary factor on the economy, and not international trade or corporate taxes or jobs? So confusing...

[Glenstache]

I wouldn't even rule out him going AWOL in a crisis or resigning because the job got hard enough that it wasn't feeding his ego enough anymore. Electing Trump would be like electing 4Chan's /b/ section.

I'm hearing echoes of Sarah Palin's foreshortened governorship.

Also, this is somewhat consistent with (very much unverifiable) rumors that Trump was telling potential VP picks that they would be in charge of running foreign and domestic affairs.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-most-powerful-vice-president

[deadlymonkey]

I wouldn't even rule out him going AWOL in a crisis or resigning because the job got hard enough that it wasn't feeding his ego enough anymore. Electing Trump would be like electing 4Chan's /b/ section.

I'm hearing echoes of Sarah Palin's foreshortened governorship.

Also, this is somewhat consistent with (very much unverifiable) rumors that Trump was telling potential VP picks that they would be in charge of running foreign and domestic affairs.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-most-powerful-vice-president

He wants the title, the perks and the ego boost without actually having to do the job.

[nereo]

I wouldn't even rule out him going AWOL in a crisis or resigning because the job got hard enough that it wasn't feeding his ego enough anymore. Electing Trump would be like electing 4Chan's /b/ section.

I'm hearing echoes of Sarah Palin's foreshortened governorship.

Also, this is somewhat consistent with (very much unverifiable) rumors that Trump was telling potential VP picks that they would be in charge of running foreign and domestic affairs.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-most-powerful-vice-president

An interesting addition to the typical reasons for supporting the VP;
1) can he lead should the President die or be impeached?
2) will he cast the tiebreaking vote in the way we want?
3) will the VP run the country well should the President just decide to leave?

oy vey.

[thd7t]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs

Well, there you have it.  Hillary is terrific!  She is a really good person! 

I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....

Do you know the date of that video clip? 
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office.  Now that would be political chaos!

would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.

Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.

[Jack]

An interesting addition to the typical reasons for supporting the VP;
1) can he lead should the President die or be impeached?
2) will he cast the tiebreaking vote in the way we want?
3) will the VP run the country well should the President just decide to leave?

That's a good point. Do we have any idea of what the answers to those questions might be for Mike Pence? (For all I know, it might have been extensively discussed a few pages ago.)

[hoping2retire35]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs

Well, there you have it.  Hillary is terrific!  She is a really good person! 

I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....

Do you know the date of that video clip? 
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office.  Now that would be political chaos!

would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.

Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.

He has said a lot of things then said something different, but judging by the general tone of what he is about i expect rich to pay more in taxes in a trump presidency than in a clinton presidency

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-trump-hedgefunds-idUSKCN0QS0P120150823

[nereo]

Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.

I'm so confused... you don't expect him to do what he has said he would do?  Does that mean you expect him to do what he hasn't said he would do, or that he said he would NOT do??
Regarding taxes for the rich, Donald Trump has said:

“For the wealthy, I think, frankly, [tax rates] it’s going to go up. And you know what? It really should go up.”

before proposing the very same week that the top tax rate be cut from 39% to 25%, the standard deduction go up to $25k/person and the elimination of the estate tax and alt min. tax (the former of which overwhelmingly favors the rich).

so once again - is he going to raise rates or lower them on the wealthiest Americans?  He's promised both.  And getting back to hoping2retire35's comment - why would that make Trump "my man" if my primary concern is the economy?

[nereo]

He has said a lot of things then said something different, but judging by the general tone of what he is about i expect rich to pay more in taxes in a trump presidency than in a clinton presidency

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-trump-hedgefunds-idUSKCN0QS0P120150823

Here is Trump's current Tax Reform proposals directly from his website:
$25k standard deductions ($50k joint)
no estate ("death") tax
25% maximum tax bracket (currently at 39.6%)

The tax policy center's analysis (itself economically conservative) deemed that his proposal would result in a lower tax burden for those in the highest income brackets.

[hoping2retire35]

When it comes to Trump you cannot read a white paper, forest for the trees and all that.

In general I think Trump would push for higher tax burden on the wealthy; Hillary, OTOH, would push for a "moderate" 3% increase or whatever satisfies wall street and her supporters. Trump will do whatever he can("everything is negotiable") to accomplish his goals; he is a pragmatist. He might say something that sounds conservative and yes he is on the Republican ticket but that really does not matter; see #NeverTrump. He does not hold the Constitution in high regard or any rules really. The only rule is "will the people support him."  I could keep explaining but hopefully that makes sense.

[Metric Mouse]

I'm curious what Trump's speech will be like this evening. 
Specifically, will it be a rehearsed speech read off the teleprompters and designed to show those outside the convention center that he can talk about complex issues, or will he try to 'play-to-the-crowd' and give a performance more in line to what he's been doing at his rallies?

I keep going back and forth on this question.  Certainly seasoned political aids what him to show that he can appeal to a broader audience of independants and republicans previously wary of supporting him.  But the desire to whip thousands of already die-hard supporters into a frenzy by saying all sorts of inflammatory things be a bigger appeal to him.

Comments?

I expected him to downshift a few weeks ago. I'm not sure if he actually believes the things he says, or if he's just trolling.  So perhaps now that he's the candidate, full stop, he'll dial it back to 'reasonable' and start to actually campaign.  Hard to say. Be interesting to watch.

[thd7t]

When it comes to Trump you cannot read a white paper, forest for the trees and all that.

In general I think Trump would push for higher tax burden on the wealthy; Hillary, OTOH, would push for a "moderate" 3% increase or whatever satisfies wall street and her supporters. Trump will do whatever he can("everything is negotiable") to accomplish his goals; he is a pragmatist. He might say something that sounds conservative and yes he is on the Republican ticket but that really does not matter; see #NeverTrump. He does not hold the Constitution in high regard or any rules really. The only rule is "will the people support him."  I could keep explaining but hopefully that makes sense.

So, you're guessing, based on no information? Except your made up number? Trump shouldn't be expected to do anything against his own self interest. It would run counter to every action that he has taken in public. It's therefore unreasonable to expect him to raise taxes on the wealthy. As for the Constitution, I agree that he would treat it as toilet paper.

[hoping2retire35]

When it comes to Trump you cannot read a white paper, forest for the trees and all that.

In general I think Trump would push for higher tax burden on the wealthy; Hillary, OTOH, would push for a "moderate" 3% increase or whatever satisfies wall street and her supporters. Trump will do whatever he can("everything is negotiable") to accomplish his goals; he is a pragmatist. He might say something that sounds conservative and yes he is on the Republican ticket but that really does not matter; see #NeverTrump. He does not hold the Constitution in high regard or any rules really. The only rule is "will the people support him."  I could keep explaining but hopefully that makes sense.

So, you're guessing, based on no information? Except your made up number? Trump shouldn't be expected to do anything against his own self interest. It would run counter to every action that he has taken in public. It's therefore unreasonable to expect him to raise taxes on the wealthy. As for the Constitution, I agree that he would treat it as toilet paper.

Guarantee you he will make SS and Medicare viable. How will he do that?

EDIT; *seem viable.

[thd7t]

When it comes to Trump you cannot read a white paper, forest for the trees and all that.

In general I think Trump would push for higher tax burden on the wealthy; Hillary, OTOH, would push for a "moderate" 3% increase or whatever satisfies wall street and her supporters. Trump will do whatever he can("everything is negotiable") to accomplish his goals; he is a pragmatist. He might say something that sounds conservative and yes he is on the Republican ticket but that really does not matter; see #NeverTrump. He does not hold the Constitution in high regard or any rules really. The only rule is "will the people support him."  I could keep explaining but hopefully that makes sense.

So, you're guessing, based on no information? Except your made up number? Trump shouldn't be expected to do anything against his own self interest. It would run counter to every action that he has taken in public. It's therefore unreasonable to expect him to raise taxes on the wealthy. As for the Constitution, I agree that he would treat it as toilet paper.

Guarantee you he will make SS and Medicare viable. How will he do that?

EDIT; *seem viable.

He won't do that. I can tell, because he has done nothing to suggest that he would, but has surrounded himself with people who are interested in removing entitlement programs. He doesn't care about policy (never discusses it in any depth), but frequently talks about how he will delegate everything (his son has said that this includes forming positions). The people around him would have to care about making the programs viable and they don't.

[nereo]

Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent?  While connected, they aren't the same thing.

[hoping2retire35]

Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent?  While connected, they aren't the same thing.

I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.

[thd7t]

Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent?  While connected, they aren't the same thing.

I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.

So, you don't expect any changes?

[Yaeger]

Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent?  While connected, they aren't the same thing.

I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.

So, you don't expect any changes?

Here's what I'd do:

I'd campaign on the promise of strengthening social security and medicare with vague assurances and recommendations. I'd offer more generous expansions than Hillary to undercut her voting bloc and take her votes. Once I'm in office I'd 'strengthen' SS and Medicare by cutting back on the automatic growth of the programs, restructure our mandatory spending programs to fall into discretionary so we can weigh rising healthcare and retirement costs every year against other priorities (infrastructure, defense, education, etc), reduce benefits, or raise retirement age/age of eligibility.

I think the consensus is that Americans don't care about things like the budget, long-term impacts, or sustainability. We've become a very selfish society and as the government spends more and more of the nation's GDP even Republican voters have gotten to the point where they just want their own piece of the pie.

[nereo]

Well this is amusing/ironic

After spending so much time criticizing Hillary Clinton's reliance on big donors, Trump today stated that he's now open to speaking at events hosted by Super PACs in an effort to raise $100MM.

To me it looks like Trump has recently been moving many of his major positions to be as close to Clinton's as he can. What's the end game here? "Don't vote for her because my policies are the same but I'm not her?"

[randymarsh]

To me it looks like Trump has recently been moving many of his major positions to be as close to Clinton's as he can. What's the end game here? "Don't vote for her because my policies are the same but I'm not her?"

Not the worst plan. A lot of people really don't like her. Not her policies, but her. Trump has already endorsed the double standard. Pence can be mistaken about Iraq, Hillary can't be.

[nereo]

To me it looks like Trump has recently been moving many of his major positions to be as close to Clinton's as he can. What's the end game here? "Don't vote for her because my policies are the same but I'm not her?"

Not the worst plan. A lot of people really don't like her. Not her policies, but her. Trump has already endorsed the double standard. Pence can be mistaken about Iraq, Hillary can't be.

True, but the percentage of people who "strongly dislike" Trump is even higher. That's what leaves me shaking my head.
I could understand this move if it were from a typical politician who had decent likeability numbers.  For Trump it just seems like he's doing more nad more to piss off his base (hoping they still show up to vote) while not gaining much in exchange.
... but maybe it will work.  who knows?

[Glenstache]

To me it looks like Trump has recently been moving many of his major positions to be as close to Clinton's as he can. What's the end game here? "Don't vote for her because my policies are the same but I'm not her?"

Not the worst plan. A lot of people really don't like her. Not her policies, but her. Trump has already endorsed the double standard. Pence can be mistaken about Iraq, Hillary can't be.

True, but the percentage of people who "strongly dislike" Trump is even higher. That's what leaves me shaking my head.
I could understand this move if it were from a typical politician who had decent likeability numbers.  For Trump it just seems like he's doing more nad more to piss off his base (hoping they still show up to vote) while not gaining much in exchange.
... but maybe it will work.  who knows?

If only this election were still about quaint concepts like "integrity", "policy positions", or "experience."

I don't think we should so much be disgusted by candidates like Trump, but that we should be disgusted with ourselves as a nation to have them as nominees. This election cycle has shone light into some dark corners we had willfully forgotten about.

[hoping2retire35]

Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent?  While connected, they aren't the same thing.

I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.

So, you don't expect any changes?

Here's what I'd do:

I'd campaign on the promise of strengthening social security and medicare with vague assurances and recommendations. I'd offer more generous expansions than Hillary to undercut her voting bloc and take her votes. Once I'm in office I'd 'strengthen' SS and Medicare by cutting back on the automatic growth of the programs, restructure our mandatory spending programs to fall into discretionary so we can weigh rising healthcare and retirement costs every year against other priorities (infrastructure, defense, education, etc), reduce benefits, or raise retirement age/age of eligibility.

I think the consensus is that Americans don't care about things like the budget, long-term impacts, or sustainability. We've become a very selfish society and as the government spends more and more of the nation's GDP even Republican voters have gotten to the point where they just want their own piece of the pie.

Precisely. this is why trump will be president. if you want to understand why he has risen now, read on.

Everyone agrees that we have a representativve democracy, where 536 people(meh, supreme court don't count they are appointed by the others, sorry states gov's but you've been losing power since 1789) tell 320+mil how to live their lives, essentailly an oligarchy, and this is ok.  It is ok because the people who are chosen as leaders are the successful business owners, those who have climbed the corporate ladder, and others who have proven themselves. It is ok because the oligarchy is fluid not like previous civilizations where it was hereditary and an aristocracy, anyone can do it, and now more than ever. This handful of people have been by and large trusted since things have generally gotten better for everyone, even if there was a little corruption on the side. However in the most recent generations the federal government's power has grown to where its decisions affect people much more than in the past. Combine this with the fact that the oligarchs have used their power to increase their own without regard to those they serve and viola! When it becomes clear that the rules are being used against the people, even the most diehard constitutionalist (myself included) no longer care about policy only pie. (a little zing phrase i came up with) The Constitution was supposed to be followed not used by our leaders.

Im sure someone will say why this is BS bc "x,y,z" I am only trying to explain what is going on in the minds of many conservative/republicans.

[nereo]

Precisely. this is why trump will be president. if you want to understand why he has risen now, read on.

Everyone agrees that we have a representativve democracy, where 536 people(meh, supreme court don't count they are appointed by the others, sorry states gov's but you've been losing power since 1789) tell 320+mil how to live their lives, essentailly an oligarchy, and this is ok.  It is ok because the people who are chosen as leaders are the successful business owners, those who have climbed the corporate ladder, and others who have proven themselves. It is ok because the oligarchy is fluid not like previous civilizations where it was hereditary and an aristocracy, anyone can do it, and now more than ever. This handful of people have been by and large trusted since things have generally gotten better for everyone, even if there was a little corruption on the side. However in the most recent generations the federal government's power has grown to where its decisions affect people much more than in the past. Combine this with the fact that the oligarchs have used their power to increase their own without regard to those they serve and viola! When it becomes clear that the rules are being used against the people, even the most diehard constitutionalist (myself included) no longer care about policy only pie. (a little zing phrase i came up with) The Constitution was supposed to be followed not used by our leaders.

Im sure someone will say why this is BS bc "x,y,z" I am only trying to explain what is going on in the minds of many conservative/republicans.

You didn't connect this line of thinking to why you think Trump will be president. 
So.... why does the system you describe mean Trump will become president?

eta: n'vermind...  misread the post.

[Metric Mouse]

You didn't connect this line of thinking to why you think Trump will be president. 
So.... why does the system you describe mean Trump will become president?

I think you misread. Yeager explained how Trump will win enough votes to become president. h2r35 postulated why Trump can do such things.

[nereo]

You didn't connect this line of thinking to why you think Trump will be president. 
So.... why does the system you describe mean Trump will become president?

I think you misread. Yeager explained how Trump will win enough votes to become president. h2r35 postulated why Trump can do such things.

ah, right you are, i miss read the text
sorry.

[HPstache]

Watching his speech... this is the first time I realized Trump is going to be the president of the Unitd States of America.  He is not getting my vote, but it's happening.

[nereo]

Watching his speech... this is the first time I realized Trump is going to be the president of the Unitd States of America.

what about the speech brought on your epiphany?

[nereo]

Well the GOP convention has come to a close, and there was no widespread rioting.
I know whether there would be was debated upthread, but I can't find it now.

Anyhow, one positive thing I'll say about this whole thing is despite many people's expectations it appears that we can express our conflicting views on a massive scale in public without it devolving into anarchy.  So..... go us.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs

Well, there you have it.  Hillary is terrific!  She is a really good person! 

I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....

Do you know the date of that video clip? 
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office.  Now that would be political chaos!

Hillary's changed positions pretty substantially as well; she was against gay marriage in 2008 and sent out mailers criticizing Obama for not being pro-gun enough. Not to mention the 1990s crime bill. Frankly I don't think she holds, or has held, any of those positions any more sincerely than Trump does his, but she's much more articulate with them...and the longer timeline makes it more plausible.

A funny parody poem on this topic, which I'll link to rather than copy-paste as the language is a little crude for this site.

[nereo]

Hillary's changed positions pretty substantially as well; she was against gay marriage in 2008 and sent out mailers criticizing Obama for not being pro-gun enough. Not to mention the 1990s crime bill. Frankly I don't think she holds, or has held, any of those positions any more sincerely than Trump does his, but she's much more articulate with them...and the longer timeline makes it more plausible.

The gay marriage one is an interesting example. It's true that she hasn't supported full gay marriage until recently, but at least since 1999 she's stated that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets." and "be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship".
While not bleeding edge, that was pretty firm support given public and political sentiment. 

The mailer is also a bit more complex.  The background was the presidential primary season. Here Clinton sought to highlight conflicting statements Obama had made to various groups where he both supported a ban on handguns in Chicago but then told people in Idaho he would defend the 2nd amendment.  This doesn't demonstrate a changing position for Clinton, but a political attack on an opponent during an election campaign.

As for the crime bill - well I"m not certain here what you are referencing. Her husband signed a crime bill in 1994 making for longer criminal sentences and expanded the death penalty, but at the time Hillary's only role was that of first lady. She appeared to support it. Most people (including both democrats and republicans) have concluded that the harsher punishments did not have the intended effect of deterring crime or reducing recidivism. If this a "change in opinion?"  Perhaps, but to counter, i) it would have been incredibly unusual for a first lady to voice an opposition on presidential policy, and ii) the general consensus has been that the crime bill did not have the effects its signatures had hoped for.  Live and learn would be the message.

To me, none of these represent extreme policy changes, while a shift from being "very pro-choice" to "very pro-life" is, or being for free trade before wanting to impose massive tariffs, among many other large shifts of Trump.

[thd7t]

Watching his speech... this is the first time I realized Trump is going to be the president of the Unitd States of America.  He is not getting my vote, but it's happening.

Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based. I've been lightly involved in some of the gun threads on here and have seen arguments about the AR-15 that demonstrate that it may be demonized disproportionately to its illegal use (particularly compared to handguns). Trump spent the speech bouncing between similar disproportionate chastisement, using the example of one murder to paint undocumented immigrants with a broad (and largely false) brush, and making claims that current immigration in the US is related to terrorist attacks (which hasn't been the case). He made the case that crime was up in 2015, but ignored that in 2014, it was at new lows.

Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?

[randymarsh]

Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?

Yes. See: Iraq, Patriot Act, & TSA.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

For the record - and if you've been following the thread you know I loathe Hillary Clinton - I think I will vote for her if it appears Trump might win Pennsylvania. I truly think Johnson would be the best President of the three of them but if it's Trump or Hillary it HAS to be her.

She's a dishonest warmongering piece of crap but she's not Donald Trump.

[infogoon]

She's a dishonest warmongering piece of crap but she's not Donald Trump.

Print that on a bumper sticker.

[nereo]

For the record - and if you've been following the thread you know I loathe Hillary Clinton - I think I will vote for her if it appears Trump might win Pennsylvania. I truly think Johnson would be the best President of the three of them but if it's Trump or Hillary it HAS to be her.

I had become aware that you dislike Clinton, so i'm impressed to hear you say that you might vote for her.
While I was unlikely to ever vote for Trump, his speech last night did all but seal it for me. It was an hour+ of non-stop fear mongering and (ironic for a Republican candidate) Trumps vision that the US President and the executive branch needs to be much stronger and wield even more power. Not once did I hear him mention states rights or empowering local communities over large federal solutions.

Perhaps this shoudn't surprise me - he seems to envision himself as the C.E.O. of the U.S.A., with presumably a weak board (congress) and obedience from mid-level managers (state and local governments).

[arebelspy]

Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?

Um, yes.  Have you seen our mass media today?  Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?

[Glenstache]

Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?

Um, yes.  Have you seen our mass media today?  Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?

And this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

[thd7t]

Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?

Um, yes.  Have you seen our mass media today?  Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?

I know that people respond to fear, but I don't know that they respond to doom and gloom. Trump's speech was about a US that sounds like an alternate reality, to me. Even Reagan campaigned on optimism.

[randymarsh]

Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?

Um, yes.  Have you seen our mass media today?  Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?

I know that people respond to fear, but I don't know that they respond to doom and gloom. Trump's speech was about a US that sounds like an alternate reality, to me. Even Reagan campaigned on optimism.

They do. The speech wasn't for you or me or most MMM readers. His speech was to a suspicious white segment that already thinks we're in the end times. That has been the sentiment for the past 7 years. No matter what Obama does, he is a scary foreigner set to ruin America. ISIS and immigrants are out to kill you. That's the narrative and it's been wildly successful.

Our economy and culture have changed. The people he was speaking to have not. Change can feel an awful lot like an attack when you aren't a part of it.

[yuka]

Today Facebook showed me a 'memory' from this day last year: posting an article talking about Trump's abuse of eminent domain with the caption 'Is this guy really leading in the polls right now?' Oh, if only I'd known...

[forummm]

Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.

I guess Dole hired someone else to watch a dumpster fire, do his hair, and mow his lawn for him.

[Turkey Leg]

Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.

Paul Ryan was there. He was Romney's pick for VP in the last election.

(I imagine he would have rather not been there, but I'm not a Republican and might be reading him incorrectly.)

[arebelspy]

Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.

Yeah, that's another amazing thing in this election cycle.. ignoring the fact that it's TRUMP, the issue of the main core of the party (the people running it) being so out of touch with their voters/base.  They hate who their voters have chosen, and that's pretty telling.  Very interesting times, in terms of party shifts.

[hoping2retire35]

Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.

Yeah, that's another amazing thing in this election cycle.. ignoring the fact that it's TRUMP, the issue of the main core of the party (the people running it) being so out of touch with their voters/base.  They hate who their voters have chosen, and that's pretty telling.  Very interesting times, in terms of party shifts.

Pretty sure the voters, primary ones, don't like who they have chosen either, but at least the nominee is not a "republican." they want to burn down the government and the republican party and trump is the best one to do that.

[geekette]

I can't tell you where this fits in here, but my mother had an 85 year old neighbor ask if she was required to vote her party's ticket.  Wow.

[forummm]

Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.

Paul Ryan was there. He was Romney's pick for VP in the last election.

(I imagine he would have rather not been there, but I'm not a Republican and might be reading him incorrectly.)

Oh yes, I forgot about him.

[forummm]

I can't tell you where this fits in here, but my mother had an 85 year old neighbor ask if she was required to vote her party's ticket.  Wow.

Ted Cruz says she's not.

[deadlymonkey]

Since everyone loves Hillary is corrupt conspiracy theories, here is a Trump one.  Real or not...you Decide


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link