On Bloomberg TV last night Donald Trump was asked what he thought his chance of winning was. He replied "25%". Here is the full interview:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-08-26/donald-trump-the-full-with-all-due-respect-interview
This is kind of what I was getting at in my post to William on the "Trump soars" thread. Trump is fanning the flames of magical thinking. I also appreciate that Will called this out further when describing how Obama is taken to task for his heavy handedness, but those who support a guy like Trump are really no better because they just want heavy handed things done to their liking. I guess I don't understand why conservatism is so closely tied to white people. I truly believe there are plenty of non whites who are very religious, who don't like endless, wasteful spending, but are nonetheless somewhat more pragmatic on issues like gay marriage and abortion. This is not to say they celebrate these things, as much as they don't believe they problems that require a solution of banning them. I don't believe that all the minorities who vote for Democrats are in love with their choices. When enough old white dudes die off, the Democrats are finally going to face some real challenges to their unquestioned base.
Is it really any different from Obama's runs for the office? The original hopey, chaney, uniter. Talk about fantasy.Romney's dog story, Cranbrook story and from the media on Obama nothing.I guess I don't understand why conservatism is so closely tied to white people. I truly believe there are plenty of non whites who are very religious, who don't like endless, wasteful spending, but are nonetheless somewhat more pragmatic on issues like gay marriage and abortion.Why is it that all conservatives must be white or support anti abortion efforts, anti gay marriage, blah, blah blah.There are as many factions of conservatives as there are liberals. Some conservatives are strictly against government waste and growth. Some are white some are people of color. My wife is conservative and she isn't white. Her parents are both ultra liberals and is to be expected as they were both university professors and clueless as to how the world works out side the academic cocoon. Why is it people on the left continually label people that don;'t agree with their agenda?The upside is more old liberals dudes will die off than white conservative dudes as there are more of them.
I spent 40 years in the "academic cocoon" as a college professor, so I guess I am ultra liberal. Actually the two other professors I worked most closely with during my research years were both ultra conservative. One was a second generation American from Chicago and the other was a graduate of The Citadel. It is always a mistake to characterize people so broadly, such as calling conservatives old white men. Do you think Hillary wants to give free college educations because she thinks it will turn people into liberals? Well, Jeb Bush just yesterday proposed a similar program based on the Tennessee Model.
Lou has a point depending on how we choose to interpret his prose. To me he is saying there are too many distinctions between the political viewpoints of the population. If my interpretation is correct, then Low is absolutely right. If I as a right wing conservative find the outpouring of Trump offensive, why am I a conservative?. Surely I should be able to find the man offensive simply because I am a human being, irrespective of my political beliefs. I think what I am trying to say is that we are all putting the cart in front of the horse. Let us try to forget high faluting idealism and concentrate on the things that matter.Can Trump pull your country out of the deep doggy do? Probably not but then I am just as concerned that HRC will find the task beyond her given the disparity of views within the electorate. Perhaps I am looking for the unattainable, a leadership team such as the founders enjoyed for two decades and a population who not only are prepared to be governed but who want to be governed. Perhaps FDR had many of the attributes necessary, JFK certainly did. Both Presidents were faced with problems in foreign policy which ensured they would be properly scrutinized. They got on with job unlike the present lot who try valiantly to divide the three arms of government rather than unite it by compromise.Cheers from Aussie.I do apologize for breaking eggs here occasionally but I do so as a friend.(with friends such a I, do you really need enemies!!.
MickI read Thomas Sowell’s book ‘Intellectuals and Society’ a couple of years ago. It paints a fairly reasoned picture why most academia is liberal. He lumps together academics, philosophers, writers and historians as ‘idea workers’ who seldom have to have their ideas tested or verified outside of the theoretical world in which they exist. Except for the hard sciences which tend to produce more conservative individuals whose ideas are applied and easily tested, ‘idea workers’ tend to be more abstract and also seem to have an outsized impact on society. This is especially true of those who gain notoriety in their narrowly defined field such as economics and start expounding on subject outside their area of expertise like foreign policy or the actor who decides that they are more politically aware just because of their success at imitating someone else but without the need to put their own reputation on the line.... I.E how can an economist be 'right or wrong' on foreign policy or an actor on the nuances of education.
Lou, You echoed my point, there ARE many factions of conservatives. However, I don't believe it's any more of a radical point to acknowledge that white conservatives have found a home in the Republican party than it is to acknowledge that black voters of all views overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Who are the recognized faces of conservatism in politics or the media? It is not remotely diversified by color or gender. I'm not sure why acknowledging this is such a big deal. You didn't really dispute my bigger point, there are plenty of people who have pretty conservative views, who aren't white, who nonetheless really don't like the candidates the Republicans are putting up. I tend to believe, perhaps falsely, that younger people who lean conservative and non whites who lean conservative are at odds with the current leaders of the Republican party. Who, by the way, are basically all white dudes. It's not like the Democrats don't have their non negotiable standards that all candidates must adhere to, but as Will pointed out, you can win without getting a majority of the white vote and regardless of how intractable Democrats may be about some things, they have been able to get a broader base of support. Recapping, you don't have to be white to be a conservative, but the conservative group that seems to have overwhelming control over the Republican party seems to be a pretty homogenous group. Your last sentence misses my point. It doesn't matter how many white liberals die off because the Democrats are not as dependent on that group as Republicans are on white conservatives. I'm actually trying to make the point that when the current group that controls the Republicans starts to lose their control of the party, I believe the Democrats will be in trouble and will start to lose chunks of people they currently take for granted.
I was frankly amazed by the current Republican's, other than Trump, taking stances which will alienate them to Hispanic voters. It was not long ago, maybe 5 months or so when the Republican leadership was planning strategies to recruit more Hispanics, who comprise our largest minority population. Surely they know that the party which appeals to the majority of voters will, in the end, be the winners, I haven't heard any of them proposing that they end Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid lately.
I have to admit, I have my own reservations about the Hispanic demographic. I don't really argue that illegal immigration has caused some very undesirable problems. They pay sales taxes on things they buy. Some have gotten SS numbers that they are paying into that they will get no return on. And they have helped keep the cost of produce and a lot of shitty fast food cheap. But, they also have put strain on a lot of local resources and I get frustrated too when people come to this country and refuse to learn the language well enough to get by. Clearly though, they are out breeding white people and whether we seal the border with moats and frickin lasers on the sharks or not, this demographic is going to keep getting bigger. I've had a lot more experience out here in the South West taking care of Hispanic patients than I did back in Chicago. They are very family oriented, and I would tend to think not very high on abortion. Most I have met are also pretty religious. The Democrats right now take it for granted they will keep this vote locked up, and I guess they probably will for as long as Republicans keep saying "We don't hate all of you, just the ones here illegally". Trump, IMO, is inadvertently wearing down a barrier. His comment that, "We will be humane but we have to deport them" is still less harsh than what others are offering. Republicans are not likely to capture any piece of the Hispanic vote any time really soon, but 10-15 years from now? might be a different story.
“However, I don't believe it's any more of a radical point to acknowledge that white conservatives have found a home in the Republican party than it is to acknowledge that black voters of all views overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Who are the recognized faces of conservatism in politics or the media? It is not remotely diversified by color or gender. I'm not sure why acknowledging this is such a big deal.”Personally I think the statement is a bit of a red herring. I would find this statement to be more correct.I don't believe it's any more of a radical point to acknowledge that white conservatives have found a home in the Republican Party than it is to acknowledge that white liberals have found a home in the Democratic Party.In my way of thinking, blacks have been sold a bill of goods that they are slowly starting to realize to be both harmful to them as a people and more sell than reality. It is easy to get people who are, for lack of better word, downtrodden, to cotton to the idea of ‘free’ than it is to get them to take the harder but ultimately more rewarding road of assuming responsibility. Prior to the Great Society, black unemployment was less than that of whites.. black families were very close and nurturing... now we have high unemployment with minimum wage that drives out the ability for young blacks to gain work experience, social programs that reward single parent children to the extent that it drives away fathers. No experience, no family, no hope... best to vote Democrat.Republicans are represented by quite articulate persons of color but with names like ‘Uncle Tom’, ‘Oreo’ and ‘House (PC word starting with ‘N’),it is hard to get any real respect for the ideas presented and I don’t see Democrats discouraging reverse racism or engaging racial division within the black community that seems to fuel so many black deaths in primarily Democratic cities... I don’t see white democrats actually engaging black conservatives... perhaps because they can’t, so they allow the racism instilled by years of government policy to kill the conversation.There is a reason why I find so many government programs to ‘help the black’ so insidiously damaging. There is a reason why I find so many government programs in general so insidiously damaging to society. There is a reason a growing number of people are calling for a rational review of the imperial evidence of these ‘sacred cow’ programs and either fix them or kill them. The deaf ear provided by political elite both left and right are precisely what gives people like Trump a voice.
Please, could someone provide a view as to the general editorial leaning of the Washington post. Further, did you all note the disclaimer that the authors wife works for an opposing Repub candidate?I am treating this article with caution until someone provides some assistance,
Center-left. Not as liberal as the New York Times.Jeff Bezos purchased the newspaper for $250 million in cash, completing the transaction on October 1, 2013, after announcing the planned acquisition on August 5, 2013. The newspaper is currently owned by Nash Holdings LLC, a holding company created for the acquisition and controlled by Bezos.In September 2014, Jeff Bezos announced his decision to appoint Frederick J. Ryan Jr., founding President and CEO of Politico, to serve as Publisher and CEO of The Washington Post.It has regularly published an ideological mixture of op-ed columnists, some of them left-leaning (including E.J. Dionne, Greg Sargent, and Eugene Robinson), and many on the right (including George Will, Marc Thiessen, Robert Kagan, Robert Samuelson, Michael Gerson and Charles Krauthammer).The key, it's an OPINION piece and not news.
I think the Post is fairly unbiased. George Will is a well known and well respected conservative journalist, and baseball expert. Other Post opinion writers include Charles Krauthammer who is very conservative and Michael Gerson who seems rather neutral. All three have written articles recently criticizing Trump.
Thank you both for your assistance. See my post above.Cheers from Aussie