Octopus Overlords

Jeff V wrote:

Rip wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Grifman wrote:It's easy to dismiss Drumpf supporters as a bunch of racist know nothing yahoos, but that would be ignoring the legitimate issues that are driving his popularity.

I don't think "legitimate" means what you think it means. There are perceived issues that are driving his popularity.

That is the spirit.

Who wouldn't be swayed by being told their issues aren't legitimate just perceived to be so?

Hopefully a little education would go a long way. Of course, education is the nemesis of the GOP. There was an article posted the other day about how the Koch brothers are trying to torpedo support for the expansion of a small suburbs library, in spite of a study that shows that each dollar spent on the library in that community translates into more than $5 worth of value. The only explanation for their opposition is a desire to keep the masses dumb.

Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country — and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians. ~Charles Krauthammer

RunningMn9 wrote:

Jeff V wrote:Hopefully a little education would go a long way.

Unfortunately, that is the one thing that the majority of Trump supporters specifically lack.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Grifman wrote:It's easy to dismiss Drumpf supporters as a bunch of racist know nothing yahoos, but that would be ignoring the legitimate issues that are driving his popularity.

I don't think "legitimate" means what you think it means. There are perceived issues that are driving his popularity.

That is the spirit.

Who wouldn't be swayed by being told their issues aren't legitimate just perceived to be so?

The Islamic takeover and the Mexican rapist invasion are both perceived issues rather than legitimate ones. Sure there are legitimate issues floating in the stew somewhere but they are more coincidental than core.

Rip wrote: I do believe in the issues which I can do without subscribing to the zany fringe rhetoric about the symptoms.

Rip wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Grifman wrote:It's easy to dismiss Drumpf supporters as a bunch of racist know nothing yahoos, but that would be ignoring the legitimate issues that are driving his popularity.

I don't think "legitimate" means what you think it means. There are perceived issues that are driving his popularity.

That is the spirit.

Who wouldn't be swayed by being told their issues aren't legitimate just perceived to be so?

The Islamic takeover and the Mexican rapist invasion are both perceived issues rather than legitimate ones. Sure there are legitimate issues floating in the stew somewhere but they are more coincidental than core.

You are confused.

Islamic Extremism is an issue as is Illegal Immigration. The perception problem appears to be yours. What you are pointing at are perceived symptoms of the issues. Dispelling perceived symptoms != dispelling the issues themselves.

I don't think Islamists are taking over, nor do I think most Mexicans, even the illegal immigrant ones are rapists. I do believe in the issues which I can do without subscribing to the zany fringe rhetoric about the symptoms.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote: I do believe in the issues which I can do without subscribing to the zany fringe rhetoric about the symptoms.

And that's all well and good. But the zany "fringe" rhetoric isbwhat is driving his popularity. And that's where the discussion was (see the quote thread above).

I'm not confused. I'm trying to avoid non sequiturs.

Rip wrote: Islamic Extremism is an issue as is Illegal Immigration. The perception problem appears to be yours. What you are pointing at are perceived symptoms of the issues. Dispelling perceived symptoms != dispelling the issues themselves.

I don't think Islamists are taking over, nor do I think most Mexicans, even the illegal immigrant ones are rapists. I do believe in the issues which I can do without subscribing to the zany fringe rhetoric about the symptoms.

Jeff V wrote: instead of fretting about evil Muslims or raping illegal Mexicans.

Jeff V wrote:

Rip wrote: Islamic Extremism is an issue as is Illegal Immigration. The perception problem appears to be yours. What you are pointing at are perceived symptoms of the issues. Dispelling perceived symptoms != dispelling the issues themselves.

I don't think Islamists are taking over, nor do I think most Mexicans, even the illegal immigrant ones are rapists. I do believe in the issues which I can do without subscribing to the zany fringe rhetoric about the symptoms.

Neither of those are deserving of the rhetoric being thrown at it by Trump. It is divisive and builds FUD that obfuscates real issues and solutions.

An insignificant percentage of Muslims coming to this country are radical extremists. Likely no more so percentage-wise than any other ethnic/religious group. Studies have also shown that crime statistics for illegal immigrants is extremely low -- much lower than the general population. This is because they don't want attention that could result in them being deported.

Statistically, you have much more reason to be wary of what your next door neighbor is doing instead of fretting about evil Muslims or raping illegal Mexicans.

Smoove_B wrote:

Jeff V wrote: instead of fretting about evil Muslims or raping illegal Mexicans.

That are simultaneously taking all of our jobs AND collecting public assistance because they came here to not work. Don't forget that one.

Grifman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:It's not rocket science. You just have to listen to him for 5 minutes, or listen to interviews with his supporters. What sort of proof would satisfy you?

A scientific based poll showing that Trump supporter supported racism. Otherwise, you just have your opinion, and we know what this worth

Zarathud wrote:

Grifman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:It's not rocket science. You just have to listen to him for 5 minutes, or listen to interviews with his supporters. What sort of proof would satisfy you?

A scientific based poll showing that Trump supporter supported racism. Otherwise, you just have your opinion, and we know what this worth

It's discussed on a 538 podcast 2/25/2016 1:11 PM
And New York Times article by Kynn Vavrek 2/23/2016. 20% of Trump supporters disagreed with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, compared to 5% of Rubio's supporters. Seems pretty clear.

Zarathud wrote:

Grifman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:It's not rocket science. You just have to listen to him for 5 minutes, or listen to interviews with his supporters. What sort of proof would satisfy you?

A scientific based poll showing that Trump supporter supported racism. Otherwise, you just have your opinion, and we know what this worth

It's discussed on a 538 podcast 2/25/2016 1:11 PM
And New York Times article by Kynn Vavrek 2/23/2016. 20% of Trump supporters disagreed with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, compared to 5% of Rubio's supporters. Seems pretty clear.

Jaymann wrote:

Zarathud wrote:

Grifman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:It's not rocket science. You just have to listen to him for 5 minutes, or listen to interviews with his supporters. What sort of proof would satisfy you?

A scientific based poll showing that Trump supporter supported racism. Otherwise, you just have your opinion, and we know what this worth

It's discussed on a 538 podcast 2/25/2016 1:11 PM
And New York Times article by Kynn Vavrek 2/23/2016. 20% of Trump supporters disagreed with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, compared to 5% of Rubio's supporters. Seems pretty clear.

I am wondering how many of those polled were in the South. I would think there it would be more like 80% disagreement. Not because they necessarily support slavery, but they would oppose the ability of Lincoln to dictate anything to states that considered themselves to be in a separate country.

Sampling method:

Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample
matching. A random sample (stratified by age, gender, race, education,
and region) was selected from the 2010 American Community Study. Voter
registration was imputed from the November 2010 Current Population Survey
Registration and Voting Supplement. Religion, political interest, minor party
identification, and non-placement on an ideology scale, were imputed from
the 2008 Pew Religion in American Life Survey.

Weighting:

The sample was weighted using propensity scores based on age, gender,
race, education, news interest, voter registration, and non-placement on an
ideology scale. The weights range from 0.1 to 4.1, with a mean of one and a
standard deviation of 0.85.

Number of respondents 2000

128. Disapprove of the executive order which...
Do you approve or disapprove of the executive order which... (A) Freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government; (B) Created
military exclusion zones during World War II and allowed for the forcible relocation of Americans of Japanese descent to internment camps; (C) Desegregated the
U.S. military; (D) Restricted all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family
planning in foreign countries; (E) Authorized enhanced interrogation techniques and established military tribunals to try foreign enemy combatants; (F) Deferred
deportation hearings for illegal immigrants who were brought into this country before they were 16 years old, have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years, must be
younger than 30, and have graduated from high school in the U.S. or served in the U.S. military; (G) Require dealers who sell guns on the Internet and at gun shows
to obtain a federal license and require those dealers to conduct background checks on potential buyers; (H) Require manufacturers and dealers to report firearms
lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller be reported to federal authorities.; (I) Instruct the FBI to hire 230 more additional examiners and other personnel
to help process new background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Rip wrote:Vote for me!

I've been endorsed by Zarathud.

Rip wrote:

Jaymann wrote:

Zarathud wrote:

Grifman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:It's not rocket science. You just have to listen to him for 5 minutes, or listen to interviews with his supporters. What sort of proof would satisfy you?

A scientific based poll showing that Trump supporter supported racism. Otherwise, you just have your opinion, and we know what this worth

It's discussed on a 538 podcast 2/25/2016 1:11 PM
And New York Times article by Kynn Vavrek 2/23/2016. 20% of Trump supporters disagreed with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, compared to 5% of Rubio's supporters. Seems pretty clear.

I am wondering how many of those polled were in the South. I would think there it would be more like 80% disagreement. Not because they necessarily support slavery, but they would oppose the ability of Lincoln to dictate anything to states that considered themselves to be in a separate country.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... Report.pdf

Sampling method:

Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample
matching. A random sample (stratified by age, gender, race, education,
and region) was selected from the 2010 American Community Study. Voter
registration was imputed from the November 2010 Current Population Survey
Registration and Voting Supplement. Religion, political interest, minor party
identification, and non-placement on an ideology scale, were imputed from
the 2008 Pew Religion in American Life Survey.

Weighting:

The sample was weighted using propensity scores based on age, gender,
race, education, news interest, voter registration, and non-placement on an
ideology scale. The weights range from 0.1 to 4.1, with a mean of one and a
standard deviation of 0.85.

Number of respondents 2000

Question 128.

128. Disapprove of the executive order which...
Do you approve or disapprove of the executive order which... (A) Freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government; (B) Created
military exclusion zones during World War II and allowed for the forcible relocation of Americans of Japanese descent to internment camps; (C) Desegregated the
U.S. military; (D) Restricted all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family
planning in foreign countries; (E) Authorized enhanced interrogation techniques and established military tribunals to try foreign enemy combatants; (F) Deferred
deportation hearings for illegal immigrants who were brought into this country before they were 16 years old, have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years, must be
younger than 30, and have graduated from high school in the U.S. or served in the U.S. military; (G) Require dealers who sell guns on the Internet and at gun shows
to obtain a federal license and require those dealers to conduct background checks on potential buyers; (H) Require manufacturers and dealers to report firearms
lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller be reported to federal authorities.; (I) Instruct the FBI to hire 230 more additional examiners and other personnel
to help process new background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week

By race.

Black;

A. 5%
B. 36%
C. 11%
D. 34%
E. 24%
F. 20%
G. 6%
H. 8%
I. 10%

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

Rip wrote:
You mean like saying Republicans want to put you back in chains...

Defiant wrote:Anonymous Hacker Group Claims To Publish Donald Trump’s Social Security Number, Other Personal Info

While I won't shed any tears for his having his phone number revealed (since he's done it to others), what the hell makes them think revealing his Social Security Number is a good idea? Stop making him a victim so that his supporters will rally round him.

(Waiting to hear Trump blame Sanders for this in 3.. 2... 1...)

Rip wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/cramer-i ... trade.html

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

Rip wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/cramer-i ... trade.html

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/cramer-i ... trade.html

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

All of it is protectionist nonsense. If we impose barriers to trade, our trading partners will do the same. While we may gain some jobs by avoiding import competition, we will lose export-sector jobs (which tend to pay about 16% more than import-competing jobs, on average). Trump is playing on workers fears and feeding into the notion that specialization and free, voluntary exchange - which we all do on a daily basis to our individual and, thus, collective betterment - is somehow contrary to our best interests.

Rip wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/cramer-i ... trade.html

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/cramer-i ... trade.html

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

All of it is protectionist nonsense. If we impose barriers to trade, our trading partners will do the same. While we may gain some jobs by avoiding import competition, we will lose export-sector jobs (which tend to pay about 16% more than import-competing jobs, on average). Trump is playing on workers fears and feeding into the notion that specialization and free, voluntary exchange - which we all do on a daily basis to our individual and, thus, collective betterment - is somehow contrary to our best interests.

Don't be naive. There are always barriers on trade and the deals negotiate what they are. Bad negotiating means you always get the short end of the stick. They have as much to lose as we do if not more. That is leverage. Failing to use leverage is a fundamental error in bad deal making.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/cramer-i ... trade.html

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

All of it is protectionist nonsense. If we impose barriers to trade, our trading partners will do the same. While we may gain some jobs by avoiding import competition, we will lose export-sector jobs (which tend to pay about 16% more than import-competing jobs, on average). Trump is playing on workers fears and feeding into the notion that specialization and free, voluntary exchange - which we all do on a daily basis to our individual and, thus, collective betterment - is somehow contrary to our best interests.

Don't be naive. There are always barriers on trade and the deals negotiate what they are. Bad negotiating means you always get the short end of the stick. They have as much to lose as we do if not more. That is leverage. Failing to use leverage is a fundamental error in bad deal making.

The deals they have made are bad for the workers in order to be not so bad for the bankers and large corps using mostly foreign labor. Not by accident.

D.A.Lewis wrote:

Rip wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/cramer-i ... trade.html

Whether or not your agree with Donald Trump's overall message, his view on U.S. trade makes sense, said CNBC's Jim Cramer.

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "I always find it amusing to think people don't seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we're able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce."

Cramer said the only person to discuss the trade deficit before the election was Trump.

OTOH, yesterday Cramer ripped Trump for his stance on Apple, (apple making biggest building in US and will move elsewhere if forced to manufacture here). Carrier,(Great move by Carrier he said, Cramer also does biz in Mexico), and Pfizer (way to late to complain). and some other company(I forget). Cramer was pleading with his listeners to look deeper into Trumps empty takes on Trade.

BBC.com wrote: Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit...

"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".

Dave Allen wrote:Euro thinktank considers a Trump presidency as having the same risk of destroying humanity as terrorism.

BBC.com wrote: Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit...

"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".

Rip wrote:

Dave Allen wrote:Euro thinktank considers a Trump presidency as having the same risk of destroying humanity as terrorism.

BBC.com wrote: Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit...

"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".

Covered on page 69.

Dave Allen wrote:

Rip wrote:
Covered on page 69.

So many pages, so little time.

What they discovered, among other things, was a lot of support for Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner. For months, this enthusiastic backing of the obnoxious billionaire had generally baffled the chattering class — not to mention the GOP and Democratic establishment. But to Working America canvassers, it made plenty of sense.

“We hear the same refrains all the time,” said Karen Nussbaum, executive director of Working America, which has high membership in the Rust Belt. “That people are fed up and they’re hurting. That their families have not recovered from the recession. That every family is harboring someone still not back at work. That someone is paying rent for their brother-in-law.”

“And then a guy comes on the stage,” Nussbaum explained, “and says, ‘I’m your guy who will blow the whole thing up.’”

Trump’s pyromaniac approach to politics has earned him strong support from white, working-class voters and brought him to the cusp of winning the GOP nomination. It is an ascent that has shaken Republicans, who view the businessman as a fraud bound to splinter the party, and it’s leading Democrats and their allies to do what they do best: fret and panic.

Trump, the worry goes, is making precisely the right appeals at precisely the right time to fundamentally realign the Rust Belt working class electorate’s traditional political allegiances.

“And then a guy comes on the stage,” Nussbaum explained, “and says, ‘I’m your guy who will blow the whole thing up.’”

Donald Trump was able to deduct $39.1 million from his 2005 federal income taxes by pledging not to build houses on a New Jersey golf course he owns, according to public records.