Re: US strike options on TSP

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 19 May 2016 23:25

Fox News may be onboard (...mostly), but unfortunately Donald Trump is still Donald Trump. He's already gone back on his pledge to self-finance his campaign and hired a Goldman Sachs alum to run his fundraising effort. Bernie Sanders' people will mostly either stay home or pinch their nose and vote for Clinton (esp. women).

And since 'The Donald' continues to put his foot in it at a regular pace (sometimes both feet), for the next six months the Hillary campaign and media as whole will heaps of material to work with. Not just of Trump being outrageous (there's still upside to that) but being plain flat-out stupid.

Case in point:

Donald Trump aka John Miller aka John Barron. Honestly, can someone explain to me what was going through his Trump Brain when this happened (I mean his reaction now, not his antics back in the 90s)?

Watch from 02:00 if you're short on time.


RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 20 May 2016 00:17

Viv S wrote:And since 'The Donald' continues to put his foot in it at a regular pace (sometimes both feet), for the next six months the Hillary campaign and media as whole will heaps of material to work with. Not just of Trump being outrageous (there's still upside to that) but being plain flat-out stupid.

Case in point:

Donald Trump aka John Miller aka John Barron. Honestly, can someone explain to me what was going through his Trump Brain when this happened (I mean his reaction now, not his antics back in the 90s)?


All this is intellectual snobbery, and the majority of Americans not only don't care about it but it seems in this election cycle are vehemently opposed to it. Trump has become a lot like how Modi used to describe the "Kamal": the more mud you throw at it, the more it would bloom!

What we are seeing in USA today, is the rebellion of the masses against the snobbery of the elites, often represented through their voices in the media. Today, if the media wants anybody to believe something, they have to credibly push a contrarian view to what they really want. That is how bad it has become.

People have started showing their middle-finger to all the logic and data the media people are going to show. People just don't care much about the content of what the media has to propose. People are just interested in showing the middle finger.

Tell them about John Barron, and people would say, is that all you have on Trump?

Snobbery, "data" and "logic" is past their sell-by date!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 20 May 2016 03:32

RajeshA wrote:All this is intellectual snobbery, and the majority of Americans not only don't care about it but it seems in this election cycle are vehemently opposed to it. Trump has become a lot like how Modi used to describe the "Kamal": the more mud you throw at it, the more it would bloom!

Intellectual snobbery? Your honour, I'd like to enter into evidence Exhibit A:-

__________________________________________________________________________________________

1. “Now I just call them stupid. I went to an Ivy League school. I’m very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words. I have the best, but there is no better word than stupid. Right? There is none, there is none. There’s no, there’s no, there’s no word like that.” - Donald Trump

2. "I went to the Wharton School of Business. I'm, like, a really smart person." - Donald Trump

3. “Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country.” - Donald Trump

4. "My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault." - Donald Trump
__________________________________________________________________________________________


This is a man who can describe going to an Ivy League school and sound like a moron doing it. Not a snob mind you, just a moron.


'Majority of Americans' haven't spoken yet, general election is in November. Trump has gotten 10.5 mil out of the 26 mil primary votes cast (before Cruz & Kasich withdrew). And while that's a substantial amount, given that its still less than the 12.5 mil that Clinton has gotten the in Democratic primary at the same point, its hardly something to crow about.

What we are seeing in USA today, is the rebellion of the masses against the snobbery of the elites, often represented through their voices in the media. Today, if the media wants anybody to believe something, they have to credibly push a contrarian view to what they really want. That is how bad it has become.

People have started showing their middle-finger to all the logic and data the media people are going to show. People just don't care much about the content of what the media has to propose. People are just interested in showing the middle finger.

And the people's revolution against the establishment has manifested in form of Donald Trump...!! A man who plans to be first candidate in 40 years to not release his tax records.

That says as much about his voters as it does about the state of his country.

On the other hand, he's given some solid assurances to the electorate about the size of his penis, so he's got that going for him -

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee." - Donald Trump
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Tell them about John Barron, and people would say, is that all you have on Trump?

See now that's what a normal person in Trump's shoes would have said when confronted with the tape.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"Hey it was 25 years ago, yes that was me and I already admitted it was joke gone awry back then. Its irrelevant today." - Normal Person

"No, I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time and it doesn't sound like my voice at all." - Donald Trump

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby devesh » 20 May 2016 09:21

Again I don't understand why this thread is turning into a campaigning spot for either candidate. Is that part of "understanding US"?

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Shreeman » 20 May 2016 09:49

Of course, how else is neu jersee going to relect a govn'r or california a kamala harris? Or that haley girl? or that fair and lovely dude? You think all those motel owners had nothing to do with modi doing two runs a year in manhattan?

Umreeka is truly reekey now. And I dont want to hear one word अगेंस्ट the big handed one. He will get my vote and I will canvass for him and hand him my first born (though thats just a figment of imajinashun now). ही इज दी बेष्ट थींग् टू हैपुन टू डिस कुन्ट्री इन फ़िफ़्टी ईयर्ज!!

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Arjun » 20 May 2016 09:55

Viv S: all these long posts on "the stupid Trump" seem kinda pointless. Stupidity is relative after all... :wink:

Can you take a stab at posting your views on the really substantive questions that are of interest to Indians (ref. this post: viewtopic.php?p=2018261#p2018261)

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 20 May 2016 11:06

Viv S wrote:
RajeshA wrote:All this is intellectual snobbery, and the majority of Americans not only don't care about it but it seems in this election cycle are vehemently opposed to it. Trump has become a lot like how Modi used to describe the "Kamal": the more mud you throw at it, the more it would bloom!

Intellectual snobbery? Your honour, I'd like to enter into evidence Exhibit A:-

__________________________________________________________________________________________

1. “Now I just call them stupid. I went to an Ivy League school. I’m very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words. I have the best, but there is no better word than stupid. Right? There is none, there is none. There’s no, there’s no, there’s no word like that.” - Donald Trump

2. "I went to the Wharton School of Business. I'm, like, a really smart person." - Donald Trump

3. “Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country.” - Donald Trump

4. "My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault." - Donald Trump
__________________________________________________________________________________________


This is a man who can describe going to an Ivy League school and sound like a moron doing it. Not a snob mind you, just a moron.


Well this Exhibit A proves my point!

Intellectual snobbery comes from the Democrats (Progressives, Left-Liberals, call-whatever-you-want) and Republicans (Establishment, ...) etc. Donald Trump, on the other hand, can even dumb down his going to Wharton, so that Americans hear somebody speaking at their level.

When it comes to Donald Trump, one thing people don't feel around him is "Class Discrimination", which would sound ironic, as he has built his image based on being "classy", with beauty pageants and life-style, but all that is aesthetics and superficiality and even the down-to-earth "bimbo" understands that. "Class Discrimination" has more to do with those who wear "intellectual snobbery" on their sleeve; who talk using big words; who talk very composed, as if impervious to emotion; who like to delve into details, the common man isn't interested in; who like to show-off that they're somewhat better because they attended college and work as professionals.

Donald Trump understands the American, who likes to keep it simple and clear. And he has been pushing through his message incessantly, dumbed-down to the most basic elements of understanding.

Anybody who can dumb-down to that level, is an extremely clever man, a man with instincts. Donald Trump has a greater grasp of psychology, than his opponents would like to give him credit for. He is in a position, where no mud, thrown at him, would stick, and in fact people would only get mad that you are throwing mud at him. What better shield can a politician hope for?! That is what makes "intellectuals" fear him, because their biggest weapons are their "arguments" and their "media empire" and both have failed to make a dent against him.

"Progressive Intellectuals" can hide their fear of Donald Trump, either through ridicule or through underestimation. It ain't gonna work!

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6890
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby habal » 22 May 2016 08:13

List of luminaries holding dual Israel-US citizenship in US administration. Obama First term and second.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION (2008-12)

Rahm Emanuel (2009-2010) Chief of Staff to the President
David Axelrod (2009-2011) Senior Advisor to the President
Elena Kagan (2009-2010) Solicitor General of the United States
Peter Orszag (2009-2010) Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Lawrence Summers (2009-11) Director National Economic Council
Mona Sutphen (2009-2011) Deputy White House Chief of Staff
James B. Steinberg (2009-2011 ) Deputy Secretary of State
Dennis Ross (2009-2011 ) Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for the Central Region to the Secretary of State
Ronald Klain (2009-2011) Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Jared Bernstein (2009-2011) Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President
Susan Sher (2009-2011) Chief of Staff to the First Lady
Lee Feinstein (2009) Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor
Mara Rudman (2009) Foreign Policy Advisor
Sources: White House

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION [Current]

Jack Lew – Chief of Staff to the President
David Plouffe – Senior Advisor to the President
Danielle Borrin – Associate Director, Office of Public Engagement; Special Assistant to the Vice Preisdent
Gary Gensler – Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Dan Shapiro – Ambassador to Israel
Gene Sperling – Director National Economic Council
Mary Schapiro – Chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
Steven Simon – Head of Middle East/North Africa Desk at the National Security Council
Eric Lynn – Middle East Policy Advisor

THE US SENATE

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Joseph Lieberman (Independent-CT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Bernard Sanders (Independent-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Eric Cantor (R-VA)
David Cicilline (D-RI)
Stephen Cohen (D-TN)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
Ted Deutch (D-FL)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)
Jane Harman (D-CA)
Steve Israel (D-NY)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
Steve Rothman (D-NJ)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)

BSR Murthy
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 12:31
Location: Texas

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby BSR Murthy » 22 May 2016 09:50

Bernie Sanders has no dual citizenship. Here in his own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIPhEBNxha8

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 22 May 2016 11:37

Arjun wrote:Viv S: all these long posts on "the stupid Trump" seem kinda pointless. Stupidity is relative after all... :wink:

Well...

I’m very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words.

Can you take a stab at posting your views on the really substantive questions that are of interest to Indians (ref. this post: viewtopic.php?p=2018261#p2018261)

Can't really. It would require once to believe that Trump has set of policies or principles he believes in. He doesn't. He's 100% winging it. You can't analyse the effect of his positions because he has no positions. On anything.

However as far as your question is concerned, all one can say is that the combination of ignorance and preening overconfidence is dangerous. Economically and politically. And thanks to the globalized nature of the world and the US' predominant position in it, it is going to affect us in India. Which is why I'm worried.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 22 May 2016 12:36

Viv S wrote:However as far as your question is concerned, all one can say is that the combination of ignorance and preening overconfidence is dangerous. Economically and politically. And thanks to the globalized nature of the world and the US' predominant position in it, it is going to affect us in India. Which is why I'm worried.


What Trump is promising is to shuffle the cards somewhat, i.e. reordering the world order somewhat. India which has been kept low, may get a chance of rising in the deck.

It is dangerous for nations and interests which are already high up in the deck of cards. Let's not project their angst on to ourselves.

Regarding policy, it was also difficult to place Hindutva as left or right. Just because one has difficulty in using old political categories on the new leaders, doesn't mean they don't have policies. However in order to receive traditional banks of electoral support, candidates may try at times to fit into the traditional categories as well.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 22 May 2016 12:46

RajeshA wrote:Well this Exhibit A proves my point!

Intellectual snobbery comes from the Democrats (Progressives, Left-Liberals, call-whatever-you-want) and Republicans (Establishment, ...) etc. Donald Trump, on the other hand, can even dumb down his going to Wharton, so that Americans hear somebody speaking at their level.

Getting a 3rd year transfer into a BS Econ. program at UPenn for the son of a well connected multi-millionaire (a big deal in the 60s) isn't the mark of academic excellence he's trumpeting it to be.

If the 'not-too-bright-person's-idea-of-a-smart-person' schtick is an act, well.. he's a natural at it and he's been at it since long before he decided to run for President.

When it comes to Donald Trump, one thing people don't feel around him is "Class Discrimination", which would sound ironic, as he has built his image based on being "classy", with beauty pageants and life-style, but all that is aesthetics and superficiality and even the down-to-earth "bimbo" understands that. "Class Discrimination" has more to do with those who wear "intellectual snobbery" on their sleeve; who talk using big words; who talk very composed, as if impervious to emotion; who like to delve into details, the common man isn't interested in; who like to show-off that they're somewhat better because they attended college and work as professionals.

You're painting with an awfully wide brush there. Its true his core demographic - white males with lower levels of education, will swear by him. Others are likely to be lot more circumspect.

Especially as they get to know him over the next six months.


Hispanics can decide how they feel about being described as 'rapists', 'criminals' and 'drug dealers'.


Blacks can decide whether a man who refused to repudiate the KKK's endorsement after lying about never having heard of its leader (David Duke). A man who's father may have been a Klansman himself in his youth, and who as a real estate developer got sued by the Justice Dept. for refusing to rent to black people.


Women, who make up 53% of the electorate, can decide if they feel good, feel empowered when they hear this -

______________________________________________________________________________

- You know, it doesn't really matter what [the media] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass.

- All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected.

- I tend to like beautiful women more than unattractive women.

- A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10. - Donald Trump
______________________________________________________________________________


.. and many other things in a delightful interview with Howard Stern.


Traditionalists can decide whether a thrice divorced playboy who declared a prenup to be basis of a happy marriage and boasted about sleeping with married women best represents their values.

______________________________________________________________________________

If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller. - Donald Trump
______________________________________________________________________________


Veterans need to consider where a draft-dodger who described his experiences braving STDs by having unprotected sex as "his own personal Vietnam", and thought his boarding school gave him "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military", would be a their choice for commander-in-chief.

______________________________________________________________________________

I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam-era. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier. - Donald Trump
______________________________________________________________________________


We've just been through the primaries so far. Like I said, the American people have six months to get to know Donald Trump. It remains to be seen how many put their intelligence and self respect aside to vote for him.
Last edited by Viv S on 22 May 2016 13:02, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 22 May 2016 12:59

Viv S wrote:Hispanics can decide how they feel about being described as 'rapists', 'criminals' and 'drug dealers'.

Blacks can decide whether a man who refused to repudiate the KKK's endorsement after lying about never having heard of its leader (David Duke). A man's who's father may have been a Klansman himself in his youth, and who as a real estate developer got sued by the Justice Dept. for refusing to rent to Black.


Well Trump has said that Mexico is not sending its very best to the US while the ones coming in illegally are 'rapists', 'criminals' and 'drug dealers', and he plans to stop that.

Where is the racism there?

Even Bill Clinton before he became President ran on a strong platform of stopping illegal immigration.

As far as blacks are concerned, in white American society, it has been an evolution of acceptance. If we go by the standard you're espousing, one can say the prominent ancestors of all whites were slave-masters. As an Indian, I don't mind using such a brush to paint them, but then one cannot single out Trump's father, or ignore the sensibilities of "high society" to which Trump himself may have had to cater to as a businessman in the earlier years.

Even Hillary Clinton was best of buddies with Senator Robert Byrd, a former KKK member.

So one can trash the high society of whites in general for being racists, and justifiably so, but picking on Trump alone does not make sense.

What you are referring to is whether Trump can overcome the racist, bigot, misogynist image that the Democrats have painted of him through their overwhelming media presence. That is something we have to see!

Viv S wrote:We've just been through the primaries so far. Like I said, the American people have six months to get to know Donald Trump. It remains to be seen how many put their intelligence and self respect aside to vote for him.


His platform is basically one of

- America First w.r.t. Trade, i.e. no more Trade Deficits
- Hard on Terrorism
- Resistance to Islam
- Secured Borders

Most Americans would see all the rest as "campaign noise".
Last edited by RajeshA on 22 May 2016 13:12, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 22 May 2016 13:10

RajeshA wrote:Well Trump has said that Mexico is not sending its very best to the US. The one's coming in illegally are 'rapists', 'criminals' and 'drug dealers', and he plans to stop that.

Where is the racism there?

I doubt Latinos will see it that way. Including second and third generation immigrants.

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.


As far as blacks are concerned, in white American society, it has been an evolution of acceptance. If we go by the standard you're espousing, one can say the prominent ancestors of all whites were slave-masters. As an Indian, I don't mind using such a brush to paint them, but then one cannot single out Trump's father, or ignore the sensibilities of "high society" to which Trump himself may have had to cater to as a businessman in the earlier years.

He refused to repudiate the endorsement of the KKK high wizard after being probed thrice (only did he days later when the controversy had snowballed). That's not my high standard. Doing so would have been just basic decency.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Gus » 22 May 2016 13:16

Trump is smart...like bush was smart. Bush also went to fancy college and also "dumbed it down" without "intellectual snobbery" and knew how to win popularity based on "anti elitism" and won elections. And we all know what happened after that.

Nobody knows trumps position on important things. Not even himself. Thus, arguing that I like trump because he will do this, or that - is pointless. What is more important is - who is going to be his advisors as clearly they are the ones going to be running many things as trump doesn't know much about many things and will be relying heavily on advisors feeding info and "guiding" him to decisions. And we know nothing about what his team will be either. Just a bunch of bs about making murrica great again. Yeah I believe that alright.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 22 May 2016 13:27

Viv S wrote:
As far as blacks are concerned, in white American society, it has been an evolution of acceptance. If we go by the standard you're espousing, one can say the prominent ancestors of all whites were slave-masters. As an Indian, I don't mind using such a brush to paint them, but then one cannot single out Trump's father, or ignore the sensibilities of "high society" to which Trump himself may have had to cater to as a businessman in the earlier years.

He refused to repudiate the endorsement of the KKK high wizard after being probed thrice (only did he days later when the controversy had snowballed). That's not my high standard. Doing so would have been just basic decency.


That controversy ensured that there was a core segment of population which embraced him completely. Any campaigner knows that he needs a group of highly motivated followers, a core around whom he can build his coalition and pivot away.

At that moment, Trump had a lot of media presence but hardly a core supporter group. All he had was a shallow support, so it was a good move.

We are talking political strategy.

He has almost 6 months of pivoting left, and he has almost secured his base. There are some conservative holdouts and some donors still unwilling to throw their support behind him.

- Putting out a list of conservative SC judges nominees
- NRA endorsement
- hard stance on Muslim immigration

means the conservatives would come around in the end, even as Trump does not need to prove his high marital morality. He is covering his bases pretty well.

The big battle is going to be fought only in some swing states, and he is doing pretty well in them against Hillary.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 22 May 2016 14:29


Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Arjun » 22 May 2016 15:28


from the article:
He and Cohn had a lot to talk about at Le Club, because — and this is the key difference between Trump and the Rat Pack — he did not then and has not to this day had a drop of alcohol.

Am sure this is massive confirmation of Trump stupidity in the eyes of most 'liberals' :) especially contrasted with THE Hillary whose passion was
“searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living."

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Arjun » 22 May 2016 16:04

Gotta hand it to Hillary for her foresight though...

she talks of the importance of 'penetrating' modes of living in her valedictorian address - and many years later her husband makes the US the world leader in oral penetration !

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 22 May 2016 18:00

RajeshA wrote:
Viv S wrote:He refused to repudiate the endorsement of the KKK high wizard after being probed thrice (only did he days later when the controversy had snowballed). That's not my high standard. Doing so would have been just basic decency.


That controversy ensured that there was a core segment of population which embraced him completely. Any campaigner knows that he needs a group of highly motivated followers, a core around whom he can build his coalition and pivot away.

At that moment, Trump had a lot of media presence but hardly a core supporter group. All he had was a shallow support, so it was a good move.

We are talking political strategy.

He has almost 6 months of pivoting left, and he has almost secured his base. There are some conservative holdouts and some donors still unwilling to throw their support behind him.

He deliberately built his coalition around a core segment that included the KKK & white nationalists. That's not going to be forgotten come November. Not in a country where 31% of the voting population is non-white.

RajeshA wrote:What you are referring to is whether Trump can overcome the racist, bigot, misogynist image that the Democrats have painted of him through their overwhelming media presence. That is something we have to see!

An 'image' is usually something artificially created or nurtured. Every mark against him however come right out of his mouth. That's why ads attack him nowadays don't have voice-overs. They simply broadcast Trump in his own words.

Sometimes even of Trump speaking of himself in third person -


"Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred. Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money."

- Donald Trump (on Donald Trump)


Again, those are Trump's words not the Democratic party, or Clinton campaign or the liberal media. His image, for what its worth, is one that he's himself created. The impression of tremendous business success (reflected in his tax records?) as well as the supposed irresistibility to women.

Will women voters be 'turned on' by that comment and thus be enticed into voting for him. Lets put it into distribution and see.

His platform is basically one of

- America First w.r.t. Trade, i.e. no more Trade Deficits
- Hard on Terrorism
- Resistance to Islam
- Secured Borders

Most Americans would see all the rest as "campaign noise".

That's the hope. That people will forget who he was before he received the party nomination. Unlikely with his record and legacy receiving hundreds of hours of paid and unpaid coverage in the media helping undecided GOP women, anti-establishment liberals and political independents to make up their minds.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 22 May 2016 22:15

Viv S wrote:He deliberately built his coalition around a core segment that included the KKK & white nationalists. That's not going to be forgotten come November. Not in a country where 31% of the voting population is non-white.

...

That's the hope. That people will forget who he was before he received the party nomination. Unlikely with his record and legacy receiving hundreds of hours of paid and unpaid coverage in the media helping undecided GOP women, anti-establishment liberals and political independents to make up their minds.


Trump would have a tough time getting the votes of Mexicans and most of all Muslims. However the black vote is most definitely in play.

The white supremacist groups were simply an initial stepping stone. It was available and he used it. So he did not reject Duke's endorsement the very first day, is basically a very very narrow plank for Democrats to build his "racism" on.

In fact, I expect a backlash from blacks against the Democrats for trying to force-feed it to them that he is a racist, when he clearly is not. There are sufficient black voices who have endorsed Trump and one knows about his past friendships with prominent prominent blacks. More likely the blacks are going to hang Hillary for pushing this narrative of Trump's racism. It is like forcing blacks into thinking in a particular way, and they're not going to like it.

Viv S wrote:
RajeshA wrote:What you are referring to is whether Trump can overcome the racist, bigot, misogynist image that the Democrats have painted of him through their overwhelming media presence. That is something we have to see!


An 'image' is usually something artificially created or nurtured. Every mark against him however come right out of his mouth. That's why ads attack him nowadays don't have voice-overs. They simply broadcast Trump in his own words.


Left-Liberals tend to think that normal people are just as "political correct" as them, and people can be kept enraged for some slights by the other. People usually are mature to know, when the other is pulling a leg, when the other is nurturing a popular culture of humor revolving around race, gender and appearance. This humor has been around in American culture for a very very long time. It is only the Left-Liberals who don't have any of that humor left.

This is why I posted the article on the early 60s culture in USA, so that people know where Trump derives his cultural moorings from.

Even many blacks see "political correctness" for the cultural prison it is.

So when Hillary puts out videos of Donald Trump doing some cursing in his own words, she is basically humanizing him, and doing propaganda FOR him. Her campaign thinks that the video would make just as a negative impression on others as it makes on their own campaign team. It is not. She has no clue of psychology.

When she shows those videos what people see is that this guy does not have the "measuredness" of a professional politician and that for them means he is an outsider and thus the right person to shake up Washington D.C..

I expect Trump to remain very reserved as far as criticism towards Obama is concerned. Black votes are in play and Hillary ought to be scared.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 23 May 2016 06:22

RajeshA wrote:Trump would have a tough time getting the votes of Mexicans and most of all Muslims. However the black vote is most definitely in play.

Muslims don't have the numbers to be electorally relevant.

Hispanics are an entirely different matter. They are a major swing vote especially in the battleground states. And while Trump wasn't ever likely to get a majority with them, he's managed to galvanize them as a voting block. Traditionally, Hispanics have had the lowest turnout numbers among all ethnic groups. This time round, their eligible numbers are far higher and they'll be out in record numbers.

Blacks aren't in play in either. For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, the Clintons have always been very very strong with African-Americans. Bernie Sanders, a man who actively participated in the civil rights movement and was even arrested by the police during one such protest, has been beaten by over 50 points on average across all states. In Alabama, Hillary got 92% of the black vote. And after the party convention, she'll have Obama in her corner. With Trump's history and his attacks on Obama (who they're still fiercely loyal to), Trump would be lucky to get 15% of black vote.

Combine that with his huge unpopularity with women and this time around, in addition to the usual players like Virginia, Ohio & Florida, the list of battleground states will likely include -

Arizona: non-white 43%

Georgia: non-white 38%

Texas: non-white 56.5%


The white supremacist groups were simply an initial stepping stone. It was available and he used it. So he did not reject Duke's endorsement the very first day, is basically a very very narrow plank for Democrats to build his "racism" on.

You say it like its complicated decision. Rejecting the KKK and neo-Nazis should be pretty instinctual for any decent person.

Maybe Trump was being a political realist. But that's not going to fly with most people of colour. Especially with the Clinton campaign spending millions to remind them of his words (after massively out-raising him).

In fact, I expect a backlash from blacks against the Democrats for trying to force-feed it to them that he is a racist, when he clearly is not. There are sufficient black voices who have endorsed Trump and one knows about his past friendships with prominent prominent blacks. More likely the blacks are going to hang Hillary for pushing this narrative of Trump's racism. It is like forcing blacks into thinking in a particular way, and they're not going to like it.

I imagine this is one would think if one took every Trump said ("the Blacks love me"/"I have a great relationships with the Blacks") at face value and then built an argument around that premise.

Left-Liberals tend to think that normal people are just as "political correct" as them, and people can be kept enraged for some slights by the other. People usually are mature to know, when the other is pulling a leg, when the other is nurturing a popular culture of humor revolving around race, gender and appearance. This humor has been around in American culture for a very very long time. It is only the Left-Liberals who don't have any of that humor left.

'Pulling legs'? 'Culture of humour'? :shock:

Do you suppose African-Americans will chuckle when they see this exchange? Because you can bet it'll be aired over and over again in states & counties with a significant black population.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Tapper: I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke who recently said that voting against you at this point would be treason to your heritage. Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say you don't want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?

Trump: Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, ok? I don't know what you're even talking about with 'white supremacy' or 'white supremacist.' So, I don't know. I mean, I don't know, did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that i know nothing about.

Tapper: But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don't know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don't want their support?

Trump: Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group up that I know nothing about. I'd have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow them if I thought there was something wrong. But you may have groups in there that are totally fine and it would be very unfair...

Tapper: The Ku Klux Klan?

Trump: So give me a list of the groups and I'll let you know.

Tapper: I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here.

Trump: Honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him, I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him, and I just don't know anything about him.
_____________________________________________________________________________


Of course his claiming to know nothing about David Duke was a bald faced lie, having previously disavowed him in his more liberal days.

_____________________________________________________________________________


So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.” - Trump, 2000.

"I can’t stay within a national party that, you know, that could well have Pat Buchanan as its presidential nominee. And now the latest word, I hear he’s getting support from David Duke. Well, I can’t be part of that." - Trump, 2000.

"Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party." - Trump, 2000.

_____________________________________________________________________________


I see no rational logic behind this theory about black voters reacting to Trump's courting of the white supremacist vote by lashing out against Clinton.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby chetak » 23 May 2016 08:32

How corporate America bought Hillary Clinton for $21M


How corporate America bought Hillary Clinton for $21M
By Michael Walsh May 22, 2016

“Follow the money.” That telling phrase, which has come to summarize the Watergate scandal, has been a part of the lexicon since 1976. It’s shorthand for political corruption: At what point do “contributions” become bribes, “constituent services” turn into quid pro quos and “charities” become slush funds?

Ronald Reagan was severely criticized in 1989 when, after he left office, he was paid $2 million for a couple of speeches in Japan. “The founding fathers would have been stunned that an occupant of the highest office in this land turned it into bucks,” sniffed a Columbia professor.


Bill and Hillary Clinton collected more than $48 million in speaking fees in the past few years.
So what would Washington and Jefferson make of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, “Hard Choices.”

Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria,” and the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the former first couple — who, according to Hillary, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001 with some of the furniture in tow — can finally make ends meet.

No wonder Donald Trump calls her “crooked Hillary.”

Image
Hillary Clinton was paid huge sums of money to speak with everyone from Goldman Sachs to eBay.

A look at Mrs. Clinton’s speaking venues and the whopping sums she’s received since she left State gives us an indication who’s desperate for a place at the trough — and whom another Clinton administration might favor.

First off, there’s Wall Street and the financial-services industry. Democratic champions of the Little Guy are always in bed with the Street — they don’t call Barack Obama “President Goldman Sachs” for nothing, but Mrs. Clinton has room for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice and their 10 best friends. Multiple trips to Goldman Sachs. Morgan Stanley. Deutsche Bank. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. UBS Wealth Management.

As the character of Che Guevara sings in “Evita”: “And the money kept rolling in.” And all at the bargain price of $225,000 a pop . . . to say what? We don’t know, because Hillary won’t release the transcripts.


One has to wonder what corporations are getting for their money when Hillary Clinton shows up to speak

Big Pharma and health-care companies also make the list; they want to keep on the good side of the woman who tried to force HillaryCare down our throats in 1993 and who’s sure to morph ObamaCare into the “single-payer” socialized-medicine model so beloved of “progressives.” So say hello to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores ($225,000) and the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society ($225,500).

The entertainment industry has an enormous effect on the popular culture, so no surprise seeing the A&E Networks on the list. American Jews donate lustily to the Democratic Party, so throw in the Beth El Synagogue in Minneapolis and the Jewish United Fund of Chicago.

The United Fresh Produce Association. The National Automobile Dealers Association ponied up $325,000. Even eBay forked over protection money, er, an honorarium. Because taking care of constituents is what the Clintons do — as long as the constituents take care of them.

As “Clinton Cash,” a new documentary based on Peter Schweizer’s 2015 book, shows in excruciating, irrefutable detail, it’s always “pay to play” with the Clintons, whether personally or via their family racket, the Clinton Foundation (which includes the Clinton Global Initiative). They’ve sucked up vast sums of “contributions” from some of the most unsavory folks on the planet, including Nigerian dictators and Kazakhstani despots.

But it’s their parlaying of “public service” by two career “civil servants” into personal enrichment that’s shameless.

Bill Clinton’s speaking fees skyrocketed just days after Hillary’s nomination as secretary of state in 2009. Corporations, such as TD Bank, that had never paid a dime to hear him speak suddenly bellied up to the bar, waving fistfuls of cash. Coincidentally, TD Bank was the largest investor in the Keystone XL pipeline, which needed approval from the new secretary of state. Hillary dodged and weaved and Obama later nixed it, — but the Clintons kept the cash. It makes sense to make friends with the woman who might just be the next president. But what does that say about what the office has become?

As Obama has shown, there’s now essentially no limit on the president’s power: He can dictate overtime wages (via executive decree), the forcible integration of the suburbs (via HUD) and even sexually integrate bathrooms (under Title IX). No wonder private companies want to cozy up to the White House. Your business is now the president’s business, if he or she wants it to be.

But, should Hillary attain the White House, you ain’t seen nothing yet. For the Clintons, who once rented out the Lincoln Bedroom, too much doesn’t even approach being enough.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 23 May 2016 12:03

Viv S wrote:Of course his claiming to know nothing about David Duke was a bald faced lie, having previously disavowed him in his more liberal days.

_____________________________________________________________________________


So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.” - Trump, 2000.

"I can’t stay within a national party that, you know, that could well have Pat Buchanan as its presidential nominee. And now the latest word, I hear he’s getting support from David Duke. Well, I can’t be part of that." - Trump, 2000.

"Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party." - Trump, 2000.

_____________________________________________________________________________


:lol:

Please do ask Hillary to include the above in her next smear-video of Trump, just to prove that he knew of David Duke before talking to Tapper. May be Hillary can also do a jig singing "Gotcha, Gotcha"! And then let's see the reaction!

So if Trump was liberal once, what stops him from becoming a liberal again? Why shouldn't people think that the David Duke episode was anything more than
a hiccup in Trump's liberalism?

Endorsements are like Retweets. Anybody who you haven't blocked can retweet you! Generally speaking you don't block those with whom you have had no contacts. Has Trump been buddies with Duke? If not, why not, if Trump is such a racist? Has Trump shared the stage with any KKK members or wizards?

A real endorsement is one which the candidate shows off with, or one where the candidate shares the same stage with! Duke thing is basically a dead donkey, the Donkey would go overboard whipping.

In the meantime the "racist, misogynist, bigot, xenophobe, hate-spewing" candidate is already snapping at Hillary's heels in the polls and overtaking her, and it is still more than 5 months to go to the election.

And of course, one does wonder why Hillary, the Angel, has got such high negatives in the polls.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 24 May 2016 08:46

Viv S wrote:
In fact, I expect a backlash from blacks against the Democrats for trying to force-feed it to them that he is a racist, when he clearly is not. There are sufficient black voices who have endorsed Trump and one knows about his past friendships with prominent prominent blacks. More likely the blacks are going to hang Hillary for pushing this narrative of Trump's racism. It is like forcing blacks into thinking in a particular way, and they're not going to like it.


I imagine this is one would think if one took every Trump said ("the Blacks love me"/"I have a great relationships with the Blacks") at face value and then built an argument around that premise.


Just for the inquisitive.

Image

BTW, the caption should read "divorce from Ivana". The young lady above is "Kara Young", who was a model. She is half-black, just like Obama.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 24 May 2016 09:50

RajeshA wrote:Please do ask Hillary to include the above in her next smear-video of Trump, just to prove that he knew of David Duke before talking to Tapper. May be Hillary can also do a jig singing "Gotcha, Gotcha"! And then let's see the reaction!

Not really a 'smear video' when its Trump in his own words. And at the moment they seem more concerned with running attack ads hitting his history with women.

On the other hand, Obama has started to open up on Trump, and given that his approval rating among blacks has rarely dropped below 90%, it'll carry far more weight than Trump's list of women having included a black girl.

So if Trump was liberal once, what stops him from becoming a liberal again? Why shouldn't people think that the David Duke episode was anything more than a hiccup in Trump's liberalism?

What stops David Duke himself from becoming liberal tomorrow? Nothing really. Just a matter of credibility. That Trump was willing to chase the white supremacist vote to secure his nomination doesn't help secure his liberal credentials. After all his most ardent KKK supporters probably see his move towards the centre as an outcome of the same political logic.

Endorsements are like Retweets. Anybody who you haven't blocked can retweet you! Generally speaking you don't block those with whom you have had no contacts. Has Trump been buddies with Duke? If not, why not, if Trump is such a racist? Has Trump shared the stage with any KKK members or wizards?

I doubt anybody had an issue with the KKK endorsing him. The controversy erupted when Trump started hedging instead of offering a clear and simple rejection of their support. And his disavowal only came after being hammered on the issue for days by the press.

A real endorsement is one which the candidate shows off with, or one where the candidate shares the same stage with! Duke thing is basically a dead donkey, the Donkey would go overboard whipping.

I'm sure its a dead issue for his supporters. An decided black voter however won't be quite as blase about it.

In the meantime the "racist, misogynist, bigot, xenophobe, hate-spewing" candidate is already snapping at Hillary's heels in the polls and overtaking her, and it is still more than 5 months to go to the election.

And of course, one does wonder why Hillary, the Angel, has got such high negatives in the polls.

Because she's a shady corporate backed establishmentarian who's still locked in a bruising primary fight while Trump is in the midst of his post-nomination bump.

A situation that will revert to normal only after Clinton sews up her primary, which should happen around two weeks from now. And where Trump is getting lukewarm support from his party and its fundraisers, and isn't on talking terms with most of his former rivals, Clinton will have the support of Bernie Sanders in the general election campaign. Very likely as her running mate.

Bernie Sanders Drops His Biggest Hint Yet That He Is Open To Being Hillary Clinton’s VP
Last edited by Viv S on 24 May 2016 10:10, edited 1 time in total.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Shreeman » 24 May 2016 09:55

So I have been doing a lot of understanding the us, lowercase, of late. more or less full time, just fitting the universalism models, being philosophical, and so on. The nub, or gist, for abstract, or 2cents is Rome in decline. Totally and utterly Rome. Completely headed into oblivion. You wonder though. The romans of the similar time period, they did not free their slaves or dancing girls, right? So its the same with US, everyone gets it. But its the only way to go about daily life left now. Sort of irreversible global warming that we deny because "reasons".

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 24 May 2016 11:56

Viv S wrote:A situation that will revert to normal only after Clinton sews up her primary, which should happen around two weeks from now. And where Trump is getting lukewarm support from his party and its fundraisers, and isn't on talking terms with most of his former rivals, Clinton will have the support of Bernie Sanders in the general election campaign. Very likely as her running mate.

Bernie Sanders Drops His Biggest Hint Yet That He Is Open To Being Hillary Clinton’s VP


There is always the "hope"! Bernie Sanders may or may not be ready to be Clinton's VP. He is probably continuing in this race, to drive a hard bargain, either for platform or for Veepship or both.

That however does not mean that his supporters would continue to #FeelTheBern. He would end up losing his credibility on trade and to some extent his anti-war standing. If Bernie does join the Democratic ticket, it would only mean, that the protectionism pitch would be all for the taking for Trump.

West Virginia showed as much as 40% of Sanders supporters and voters willing to support Trump. Overall it may be at least 20% at the moment. By November it would go far higher.

There is no soft landing for Democrats here. Core Bernie supporters hate Hillary more than Trump. For them Hillary represents the Establishment and is even thought to be a warmonger.

On the Republican side, Trump has marginalized the neocons, which bolsters his heft as far as pacifism goes. Trump can play the "Make in America" and "Disentanglement from Costly Wars" themes much better than a Hillary-led Ticket, with or without Bernie.

The only wall Hillary really has against Trump is accusations of racism and misogyny, even if they don't really hold any water. If she loses that, she will slide like anything.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 24 May 2016 13:07

RajeshA wrote:There is always the "hope"! Bernie Sanders may or may not be ready to be Clinton's VP. He is probably continuing in this race, to drive a hard bargain, either for platform or for Veepship or both.

That however does not mean that his supporters would continue to #FeelTheBern. He would end up losing his credibility on trade and to some extent his anti-war standing. If Bernie does join the Democratic ticket, it would only mean, that the protectionism pitch would be all for the taking for Trump.

For single issue (trade protectionist) Bernie voters, yes. For protest voters, maybe a few. For progressives, no. Nobody with a socially progressive agenda is going to be voting Trump. Especially with Sanders on the Dem ticket.

West Virginia showed as much as 40% of Sanders supporters and voters willing to support Trump. Overall it may be at least 20% at the moment. By November it would go far higher.

West Virginia is a safe Republican state. In most other states they'd barely be enough to offset right-leaning moderates voting Democrat.

There is no soft landing for Democrats here. Core Bernie supporters hate Hillary more than Trump. For them Hillary represents the Establishment and is even thought to be a warmonger.

Maybe back when Trump was promising to self fund his campaign and release his tax records. As things stand, he's been chasing after the Republican establishment ever since he secured his nomination.

On the Republican side, Trump has marginalized the neocons, which bolsters his heft as far as pacifism goes. Trump can play the "Make in America" and "Disentanglement from Costly Wars" themes much better than a Hillary-led Ticket, with or without Bernie.

The only wall Hillary really has against Trump is accusations of racism and misogyny, even if they don't really hold any water. If she loses that, she will slide like anything.

For you, they are allegations and accusations that don't affect how you see Trump. For most women (including GOP women) Trump's history of commentary is (often deeply) offensive. Same goes for Hispanics. African-Americans, even before the KKK controversy, were overwhelmingly pro-Dem & pro-Clinton (securing the Democratic primary would have been far far harder for Clinton if not for their backing). And while Obama may not have a lot of love lost for Clinton, he certainly dislikes everything about Trump and he'll be campaigning hard to take him down.

Which brings us back to demographics. Women form 53% of the voting electorate. Blacks and Hispanics round that up to 65%.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 24 May 2016 14:06

Viv S wrote:For single issue (trade protectionist) Bernie voters, yes. For protest voters, maybe a few. For progressives, no. Nobody with a socially progressive agenda is going to be voting Trump. Especially with Sanders on the Dem ticket.


There are some ideological purists and many many more who follow them with a sort of a vague idea, letting their heart lead them. Those with a "socially progressive agenda" are not that many, just as there aren't many people who would define themselves as neo-cons. Neo-cons are an elite. Progressive agenda people are also an elite.

Viv S wrote:
There is no soft landing for Democrats here. Core Bernie supporters hate Hillary more than Trump. For them Hillary represents the Establishment and is even thought to be a warmonger.

Maybe back when Trump was promising to self fund his campaign and release his tax records. As things stand, he's been chasing after the Republican establishment ever since he secured his nomination.


With Bernie Sanders on the ticket, the Democratic ticket too would be going for big money, as Clinton would be dictating that. Even if he is not on the ticket, the Democrats would be taking big donations.

Only difference with Trump is that even if he takes money from others, people know that being richer than most politicos, Trump can resist a complete sell-out to the various business-related special interests.

Viv S wrote:
On the Republican side, Trump has marginalized the neocons, which bolsters his heft as far as pacifism goes. Trump can play the "Make in America" and "Disentanglement from Costly Wars" themes much better than a Hillary-led Ticket, with or without Bernie.

The only wall Hillary really has against Trump is accusations of racism and misogyny, even if they don't really hold any water. If she loses that, she will slide like anything.

For you, they are allegations and accusations that don't affect how you see Trump. For most women (including GOP women) Trump's history of commentary is (often deeply) offensive. Same goes for Hispanics. African-Americans, even before the KKK controversy, were overwhelmingly pro-Dem & pro-Clinton (securing the Democratic primary would have been far far harder for Clinton if not for their backing). And while Obama may not have a lot of love lost for Clinton, he certainly dislikes everything about Trump and he'll be campaigning hard to take him down.

Which brings us back to demographics. Women form 53% of the voting electorate. Blacks and Hispanics round that up to 65%.


Well Hillary's love affair with women may not last that long once people learn about her role as defender of rapists.

There will be a lot more news on Hillary destroying a 12-year old rape victim as well as intimidating Juanita Broaddrick, whom Bill Clinton had raped.

As far as blacks are concerned, if their support level to Hillary falls under 90%, she would be in a lot of trouble.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 24 May 2016 14:11

For Indians what is relevant to know is that during Bill Clinton's time we had Robin Raphel running amock in her support for Kashmiri Azaadi, and that Hillary Clinton sent clandestinely an "investigation team" into Gujarat to go dig up graves of Muslims killed by Modi in 2002.

The Clintons are pure poison for India and Indo-US relations.

Any interest for Trump from Indians is mostly because it helps stop Clintons from again coming to power.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 24 May 2016 14:47

RajeshA wrote:There are some ideological purists and many many more who follow them with a sort of a vague idea, letting their heart lead them. Those with a "socially progressive agenda" are not that many, just as there aren't many people who would define themselves as neo-cons. Neo-cons are an elite. Progressive agenda people are also an elite.

Social progressives are hardly a neocon-like 'elite'. Most of the college students and assorted young folk supporting Bernie Sanders would self describe as progressive.

With Bernie Sanders on the ticket, the Democratic ticket too would be going for big money, as Clinton would be dictating that. Even if he is not on the ticket, the Democrats would be taking big donations.

Only difference with Trump is that even if he takes money from others, people know that being richer than most politicos, Trump can resist a complete sell-out to the various business-related special interests.

The DNC/Clinton campaign is taking big donations, but they've never been running on anti-establishment platform. Trump in contrast promised to self-fund his campaign, and then reneged on that pledge while offering up a new one - to take the money and remain unaffected by it.

Well Hillary's love affair with women may not last that long once people learn about her role as defender of rapists.

There will be a lot more news on Hillary destroying a 12-year old rape victim as well as intimidating Juanita Broaddrick, whom Bill Clinton had raped.

The Clintons have been been in political life for three decades now. I imagine if these allegations were revelatory enough to hurt them, it would done so by now - from Bill Clinton's bid for presidency in 1992, all the way to his wife's campaign against Obama in 2008.

As far as blacks are concerned, if their support level to Hillary falls under 90%, she would be in a lot of trouble.

Even at 85% she's in a good position as long as she's got a strong majority with the other two bases - women & Hispanics.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 24 May 2016 14:50

Why Trump Won’t Get Sanders’ Supporters


He’s making a populist play for ‘Bernie Bros’ in the Midwest, but the ideological differences are too great.

By Bill Scher
May 10, 2016

or a presumptive nominee who’s well behind Hillary Clinton in most polls, Donald Trump doesn’t seem terribly worried about unifying the GOP behind him in the general election. Perhaps that’s because Trump has another strategy in mind: stitching together a bipartisan coalition by winning over the nearly 10 million supporters of his comrade in populist anger, Bernie Sanders.

In his first naked appeals to the Bernie left last week, Trump suddenly announced on CNN he is “open to doing something” with the minimum wage and hinted on ABC’s “This Week” that “I wouldn't mind paying more” in taxes. His campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, uncritically lumped Sanders together with Trump, saying they “have reignited a group of people who have been disenfranchised and disappointed with the way Washington, D.C., and career politicians have run the country … and we will bring those people in.”

In some ways, the strategy makes sense. The only way for Trump to make up his national deficit to Clinton may be with a gang-buster performance in the white-dominated Midwestern Rust Belt, where the issue of jobs lost to trade—a touchstone for both Trump and Sanders—looms larger than elsewhere, and the appeal of another supposedly anti-Big Money candidate would be strong. Of the eight national trial heats conducted in April, six post a Clinton lead of from 7 to 13 percentage points. If you assume Trump can’t compete in the swing states with pivotal nonwhite voting blocs—Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada—then perhaps he can add Ohio and Pennsylvania to the 2012 Mitt Romney states. He would still need two or three more in the north, such as Michigan, Iowa and New Hampshire. If Trump can’t snag Pennsylvania, he would need to add bluer Minnesota and Wisconsin—a near-sweep of the Midwest.

Various number-crunchers have concluded Trump would need to reach stratospheric levels of white support to run the table in the Midwest. Remember, Mitt Romney won 61 percent whites without a college degree, the best any Republican did with white working-class voters this century. Yet for Romney to have won the national popular vote, he would have needed to boost that to 66 percent. And since Trump performs worse than Romney with women—recent polls show Trump 10 points off Romney’s poor pace—Trump may need to win more than 75 percent of white men. Where will he find them? The “Reagan Democrats” have been Republicans for a long time; perhaps the only way for Trump to hit his targets is by poaching the white male Sanders supporters known as the “Bernie Bros.”

On the surface, Trump has a case to make that he’s a more natural home for frustrated “felt-the-Bern” voters than Clinton is. He is a more vociferous critic of global trade rules than she is. He does less big dollar campaign fundraising than she does. And he is a greater skeptic of military intervention than she is.

But Bernie’s revolutionaries are not now buying many tickets for the Trump Train, even as they confront the reality that Sanders can’t win the nomination. While Clinton may have struggled to win millennials—particularly white working class millennials—in the primary against Sanders, they appear ready to forgive. Harvard’s Institute of Politics, which specializes in surveying young voters, found Clinton trounces Trump 61 percent to 25 percent with voters under 30 years of age, a bigger margin than Obama had over Romney.

The problem for Trump is that the few areas of ideological overlap don’t come close to outweighing the long list of issues where Sanders and Trump are practically opposites. Sanders supports a carbon tax; Trump calls global warming a hoax. Sanders wants a $15 minimum wage; Trump has said “our wages are too high.” Sanders wants to jack the top income tax rate up to 54 percent; Trump wants to slash it to 25 percent.

Their foreign policies do not dovetail that neatly. Sanders’ anti-imperialist fans would not echo Trump’s call to “take the oil” in Iraq. Nor would they want to “authorize something beyond waterboarding” for suspected terrorists, let alone “take out their families.”

Then there is the enormous gulf on race. Sanders has linked Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust, as a reminder “what a lunatic can do by stirring up racial hatred.” While Sanders rails against excessive police violence and mass incarceration; Trump has said the police are “absolutely mistreated” and endorsed a beating of a Black Lives Matter protester at one of his rallies, saying “maybe he should have been roughed up.”

And when Donald Trump tried to hold a rally in Chicago, it was Bernie Sanders supporters, outraged by Trump’s racially divisive rhetoric, who took over the arena and chased Trump out of town. That’s a lot of disagreement for a shared view of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to overcome.

Finally, the Sanders-Trump divide runs deeper than an issue checklist. The two camps live in different politico-sociological worlds. As the New York Times’ Thomas Edsall explained, citing the research of political scientist Emily Ekins and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Trump and Sanders supporters register on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding their core values in the areas of authoritarianism, empathy and “proportionality” (the desire for people to “reap what they sow”). In contrast, the value sets of Clinton and Sanders supporters are fairly close to each other.

In turn, Trump would need to go beyond tweaks in his platform and emulate Sanders’ more compassionate worldview, even though doing so could risk a further fracturing of the Republican base. But the kind of “pivots” Trump displayed recently on economic issues falls well short of the mark. Trump’s thin talk of a minimum wage increase was quickly followed, on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” by a punt: “I'd rather leave it to the states. Let the states decide,” which makes his stance no different that any other Republican opposed to a federal increase. His feint on tax hikes came with the insistence that “we're giving a massive business tax cut.” For good measure, during a CNN interview last week, he threw in a dig that Sanders “could be beyond a socialist” before predictably bragging he can win his supporters.

Trump also can’t flip-flop in a vacuum. The Clinton campaign—perhaps with Sanders’ help—presumably is prepared to undercut Trump’s populist aura by savaging him as a billionaire phony who outsources the manufacturing of his products overseas, pays his casino workers below the Las Vegas Strip average and is refusing to negotiate a new contract with his newly unionized employees. And Trump’s other flip-flop this week—hiring a former Goldman Sachs partner to spearhead a big-dollar fundraising push—robs him of another opportunity to impress Sanders’ supporters who detested Clinton’s pursuit of Wall Street campaign cash.

Moreover Clinton, as she did with Sanders, is unlikely to cede issues like trade to Trump. Die-hard Sanders supporters didn’t believe her when she abandoned her past support of TPP, but she blurred the distinction with Sanders well enough to win where it counted: the Rust Belt states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. In both contests, she split the white working class vote and won with voters who said global trade takes away American jobs. In fact, those are two of the eight states that Clinton won in both 2008 and 2016 primaries. Primary performance doesn’t predict general election performance—Obama’s Rust Belt primary losses meant nothing come November—but Clinton at least is experienced at downplaying her husband’s record in support of global trade agreements among the voters most bitter about it in the most critical swing states.

For Sanders supporters, trade is not a stand-alone voting issue—most of his base is too young to have lost a factory job because of NAFTA or Permanent Normal Trade Relation Status with China. Trade is part of a broader critique about how the rules are rigged for the billionaire class, of which Trump is a member. Trump’s promise to negotiate better deals doesn’t automatically signal to millennial democratic socialists that what he thinks is a better deal matches what they think is a better deal, if at the same time he’s on record supporting low wages and low top end tax rates.

True, Clinton heads into the general election with tenuous party unity. One quarter of Sanders voters said in a McClatchy-Marist poll last month they would not vote for her in November. While that number is likely overheated by the intensity of the primary, it would not be surprising to see Clinton lose some of her left flank, if not to Trump, then to the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson or the Green Party’s Jill Stein, both of whom are actively courting Sanders’ voters. Anyone who believes that Clinton is a war-mongering tool of Wall Street will at least be open to the argument that Trump is a lesser evil.

But Trump needs far more than a faction of protest votes. The 2016 race starts with more blue states than red states. The general election polls prove that, as of today, there are more #NeverTrump Republicans than #BernieOrBust Democrats. Trump must outright capture Bernie’s revolution to compensate for the damage he’s inflicted on Republican Party unity and swipe the Rust Belt from the Democrats. To pull that off, he’s going to have to sound a lot more revolutionary than he actually is.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 24 May 2016 15:09

Viv S wrote:
With Bernie Sanders on the ticket, the Democratic ticket too would be going for big money, as Clinton would be dictating that. Even if he is not on the ticket, the Democrats would be taking big donations.

Only difference with Trump is that even if he takes money from others, people know that being richer than most politicos, Trump can resist a complete sell-out to the various business-related special interests.

The DNC/Clinton campaign is taking big donations, but they've never been running on anti-establishment platform. Trump in contrast promised to self-fund his campaign, and then reneged on that pledge while offering up a new one - to take the money and remain unaffected by it.


And Bernie Sanders too would have to renege on that pledge, if he becomes Hillary Clinton's VP pick.

So there are no good guys on "self-financing"!

Moreover Clinton's image would remain far more "connected" to Wall Street and Trump's image would remain that of a Builder. So it would also depend on from whom the candidate is taking the money. If Hillary takes from Wall Street and Pharma, he has a problem as compared to Trump.

Viv S wrote:
Well Hillary's love affair with women may not last that long once people learn about her role as defender of rapists.

There will be a lot more news on Hillary destroying a 12-year old rape victim as well as intimidating Juanita Broaddrick, whom Bill Clinton had raped.

The Clintons have been been in political life for three decades now. I imagine if these allegations were revelatory enough to hurt them, it would done so by now - from Bill Clinton's bid for presidency in 1992, all the way to his wife's campaign against Obama in 2008.


Social Media wasn't really there in 2008. At that time, these allegations were put away as part of the "Republican dirty tricks" department. Now it is an outsider coming full throttle with them. So dirty or not, these are not "Republican dirty tricks", which looked that time like the poor Clinton's were fighting off against the big bad Empire, now it is only against a "foul-mouthed" lone ranger, who may be saying the truth.

Viv S wrote:
As far as blacks are concerned, if their support level to Hillary falls under 90%, she would be in a lot of trouble.

Even at 85% she's in a good position as long as she's got a strong majority with the other two bases - women & Hispanics.


If all that had sufficed, she wouldn't be having problems putting Bernie Sanders away, because even now she has the support of these groups.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 24 May 2016 16:58

Interesting prophecy

Image

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 24 May 2016 18:13

Viv S ji,

perhaps you can jot down all the reasons why Indian Americans with Indian interests at heart, should vote for Clinton over Trump, that is apart from the pure joy of being a 'Progressive' and thus more enlightened than the rest of mankind. I am still trying to get my head around why you seem to support Hillary Clinton!

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4791
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Yayavar » 24 May 2016 22:59

Trump has caused the nasties to come out and blatantly target non-white immigrants and be anti-PC as they call it (but mostly misogynist). Indians here will get some of the brunt - see the positive news thread for the latest example. Trump may himself not be that but his movement has encouraged others. So domestically for non-whiltes living in USA he very likely is not good news. He might or might not be good news in foreign policy. That is unknown. Hillary is known bad news in foreign policy and wrt India. India has to and will survive either of them just as it survived Clinton/Bush and Obama eras.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Arjun » 25 May 2016 07:23

Is there any evidence that Trump is against ALL immigration ?? He is very obviously against some kinds of immigration (that he rightly believes are detrimental to US well-being and economy) - but my impression is that he is also FOR the right kind of 'meritocracy'-based immigration that America needs in order to continue her 'greatness'.

As it happens - any kind of meritocratic basis for immigration will automatically see Indians rising to the top. So where is the source of angst from the Indian American POV?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Singha » 25 May 2016 07:40

WASHINGTON:
HIGHLIGHTS
Mr Trump is, on average, 0.2 percentage points ahead of Ms Clinton: Poll
Polling data site RealClearPolitics took an average of national polls
Americans were asked who they would choose in a contest between the two
For the first time, Republican front-runner Donald Trump seems to have edged ahead of Democrat Hillary Clinton in presidential polling.

The polling data site RealClearPolitics (RCP) takes an average of national polls that ask Americans who they would choose in a contest between the two candidates (a scenario that now looks inevitable).

On Sunday, RCP updated their numbers to show that Trump is now, on average, 0.2 percentage points ahead of Clinton, The Guardian reported.

That gap might be narrow, but it has still led some (including a senior elections analyst at RCP) to conclude "it's probably time to panic". However, for those concerned about the prospect of a Trump victory, it's been time to panic for a while -- zooming out from a single statistic shows it.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Arjun » 25 May 2016 07:55

RajeshA wrote:Viv S ji,

perhaps you can jot down all the reasons why Indian Americans with Indian interests at heart, should vote for Clinton over Trump, that is apart from the pure joy of being a 'Progressive' and thus more enlightened than the rest of mankind. I am still trying to get my head around why you seem to support Hillary Clinton!

"Progressives" have been on the wrong side of history regarding Modi, anti-Semetism / Israel, the Dynasty in India and a whole bunch of global issues...So it is perhaps a good sign that the same 'progressives' including those on this thread - seem to on the anti-Trump bandwagon.

But I do agree that it has been somewhat difficult to read Trump so far...So far he appears to be the better candidate especially in comparison with Hillary - but I do need a more informed perspective before I go across to the embassy and place my vote.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: madhu, shaun and 62 guests