2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Suryavarman

I made a post in the previous thread claiming that Trump's support comes from him offering a return to the 50s/60s. The below poll provides evidence to support that claim. I really don't understand how anyone that isn't a white supremacist could argue that life is worse now than it was in the 60s but 81% of Trump supporters manage it.

Quin_Dub

Suryavarman wrote: »

I made a post in the previous thread claiming that Trump's support comes from him offering a return to the 50s/60s. The below poll provides evidence to support that claim. I really don't understand how anyone that isn't a white supremacist could argue that life is worse now than it was in the 60s but 81% of Trump supporters manage it.

Whilst the Trump supporters at 81℅ certainly seems way out of kilter.. It's still 47℅ overall, which is not a great indictment of US society.

I can't imagine a result anything like that in Ireland ( or many other countries tbh)

Suryavarman

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Whilst the Trump supporters at 81℅ certainly seems way out of kilter.. It's still 47℅ overall, which is not a great indictment of US society.

I can't imagine a result anything like that in Ireland ( or many other countries tbh)

The reason it's so high overall is because of Trump supporters. Only 19% of Clinton supporters believe America to be worse off than it was 50 years ago.

America is objectively better off than it was 50 years ago. This poll is more a testament to how stupid the average person is than the state of American society.

20Cent

The top tax rates in the 1950's were 92% and corporation tax 50%. Modern republicans wouldn't like that.

Quin_Dub

Suryavarman wrote: »

The reason it's so high overall is because of Trump supporters. Only 19% of Clinton supporters believe America to be worse off than it was 50 years ago.

America is objectively better off than it was 50 years ago. This poll is more a testament to how stupid the average person is than the state of American society.

I don't disagree at all, but someone still needs to address the underlying train why so many feel like it's not better for them..

That someone is not Trump, that's for sure, but it's still something that government will need to address in the long term.

Suryavarman

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't disagree at all, but someone still needs to address the underlying train why so many feel like it's not better for them..

That someone is not Trump, that's for sure, but it's still something that government will need to address in the long term.

The biggest reason is that there is a Democrat in the White House. A similar poll taken 10 years ago would have seen similar results but the ideological split reversed I think.

Another reason is that "PC is gone mad" and now you are expected to be nice to minorities. That calling black men "boy" and women "toots" isn't acceptable in polite company is a great injustice.

There are some with legitimate concerns. White men with only a high school education are worse off than they were 50 years ago. They had no civil rights or feminist movement and they don't have the education needed to experience job security and growing incomes. Where once they were guaranteed a job for life after leaving high school, now they're guaranteed a life of poverty.

At the urging of demagogues like Trump they have blamed immigrants and free trade. There doesn't seem to be any explanation as to why foreigners are to blame for their lack of education, but feels > reals after all. The solution is greater redistribution and retraining opportunities along with a better education system for their children. Ironically they support the party that wants to do the exact opposite.

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

How just 5 example how he is not just a change but a positive change.

1) Trump is no different from many professional businesspeople who have earned a living anywhere in the world.

2) Whatever personal or family issues Trump has been involved in President Clinton was involved in when he was the president of the US not standing for office.

3) A great many lobbyists are eager for a Democrat to be elected into the White House, they are afraid that Trump will start making deals and not endanger their livelihoods of causing wars.

4)The economy of the world is still very fragile and what the world needs are market places that treat the public a lot better than they have been as Trump has said repeated times Americans are being screwed, partly true.

5) Trump is not a politician as such, he is new to this campaigning. He is a celebrity personality so the media twists and spins what he says. He clearly does not want to be part of the Washington elite, if he did the papers would right nice articles about him.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

1) Trump is no different from many professional businesspeople who have earned a living anywhere in the world.

2) Whatever personal or family issues Trump has been involved in President Clinton was involved in when he was the president of the US not standing for office.

3) A great many lobbyists are eager for a Democrat to be elected into the White House, they are afraid that Trump will start making deals and not endanger their livelihoods of causing wars.

4)The economy of the world is still very fragile and what the world needs are market places that treat the public a lot better than they have been as Trump has said repeated times Americans are being screwed, partly true.

5) Trump is not a politician as such, he is new to this campaigning. He is a celebrity personality so the media twists and spins what he says. He clearly does not want to be part of the Washington elite, if he did the papers would right nice articles about him.

That's an answer to some question but it's not an answer to the question posed or your claim that Trump is different. If you going to throw out claims at least back them up.

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

3) A great many lobbyists are eager for a Democrat to be elected into the White House, they are afraid that Trump will start making deals and not endanger their livelihoods of causing wars.

Funnily enough, Michelle Bachmann (remember her?) announced yesterday that she was acting as his "foreign policy (and pandering to evangelicals) advisor". And of course, this is the same guy who claims he'll "bomb the hell out of ISIS", follows the Republican party line on defending Israel at every turn, and wants American boots on the ground in Syria.

4)The economy of the world is still very fragile and what the world needs are market places that treat the public a lot better than they have been as Trump has said repeated times Americans are being screwed, partly true.

You're not going to get a more pro-consumer marketplace with Mr. I'll-Be-Going-On-Trial-Because-Of-Trump-University.

KingBrian2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Funnily enough, Michelle Bachmann (remember her?) announced yesterday that she was acting as his "foreign policy (and pandering to evangelicals) advisor". And of course, this is the same guy who claims he'll "bomb the hell out of ISIS", follows the Republican party line on defending Israel at every turn, and wants American boots on the ground in Syria.


You're not going to get a more pro-consumer marketplace with Mr. I'll-Be-Going-On-Trial-Because-Of-Trump-University.

Don't know where your getting that "American boots on the ground in Syria" because that has been the line from both major parties.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/04/senate-syria-committee-vote/2762415/

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

1) Trump is no different from many professional businesspeople who have earned a living anywhere in the world.

He has declared bankruptcy multiple times and driven many other businesses to the wall by refusing to pay them. He's also under investigation for illegal business practices and is facing multiple lawsuits over Trump University.

If I were to truthfully describe Trump the businessman I would be carded.

2) Whatever personal or family issues Trump has been involved in President Clinton was involved in when he was the president of the US not standing for office.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

3) A great many lobbyists are eager for a Democrat to be elected into the White House, they are afraid that Trump will start making deals and not endanger their livelihoods of causing wars.

More like Trump will end deals that prevent wars. Do you think that Russia is going to keep to itself when Trump pulls America out of NATO?

4)The economy of the world is still very fragile and what the world needs are market places that treat the public a lot better than they have been as Trump has said repeated times Americans are being screwed, partly true.

Trump has talked about defaulting on at least part of America's national debt and erecting huge trade tariffs. Do you actually think that would be good for a fragile global economy?

Massive tax cuts for the richest Americans and the abolition of the estate tax will really show the markets what's what and create the fair society America's worst off deserve.

5) Trump is not a politician as such, he is new to this campaigning. He is a celebrity personality so the media twists and spins what he says. He clearly does not want to be part of the Washington elite, if he did the papers would right nice articles about him.

The media doesn't twist what Trump says. He really does say those idiotic things. Maybe if Trump wasn't such a horrible person the papers might publish nice articles about him.

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

He has declared bankruptcy multiple times and driven many other businesses to the wall by refusing to pay them. He's also under investigation for illegal business practices and is facing multiple lawsuits over Trump University.

If I were to truthfully describe Trump the businessman I would be carded.



I don't even know what you're trying to say here.



More like Trump will end deals that prevent wars. Do you think that Russia is going to keep to itself when Trump pulls America out of NATO?



Trump has talked about defaulting on at least part of America's national debt and erecting huge trade tariffs. Do you actually think that would be good for a fragile global economy?

Massive tax cuts for the richest Americans and the abolition of the estate tax will really show the markets what's what and create the fair society America's worst off deserve.



The media doesn't twist what Trump says. He really does say those idiotic things. Maybe if Trump wasn't such a horrible person the papers might publish nice articles about him.

The media don't report on the content they provide editorials aimed and at giving his rival a better advantage. They are as unbalanced as Fox News in terms of reporting the two parties.

The Democrats are full of persons who are unqualified to hold office. Indeed before Nixon made his outreach to the Democratic caucus that party had the KKK in it's ranks. This veering towards the right actually occurred under Bush. Trump is merely receiving the tail's end of the far right.

I suppose my case is that far from labeling Trump as the bogeyman of American politics like others have the real cause for the demonstrations and Trump vote comes from the current elected Congress including the Democrats.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media don't report on the content they provide editorials aimed and at giving his rival a better advantage. They are as unbalanced as Fox News in terms of reporting the two parties.

The Democrats are full of persons who are unqualified to hold office. Indeed before Nixon made his outreach to the Democratic caucus that party had the KKK in it's ranks. This veering towards the right actually occurred under Bush. Trump is merely receiving the tail's end of the far right.

I suppose my case is that far from labeling Trump as the bogeyman of American politics like others have the real cause for the demonstrations and Trump vote comes from the current elected Congress including the Democrats.

Your problem is you have no knowledge of US political history, for example historically it was the Republican Party that was heavily supported by the Africian American voter lest you forget Lincoln was a Republican and until the 1950's Democrats where the party of segregation.

The congress you blame for the voter actions is the same congress those voters elected.

Black Swan

Rambling Rake wrote: »

Unlikely it will happen but I think Johnson/Weld could be in with an outside shot if they managed it onto make the debates. I don't think any of the tv networks want that to happen as everybody is gunning for a Trump v Hillary showdown.

Once again the 2-party system of government in America should be viewed with caution as warned by one of the nation's founders and 2nd president John Adams: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Furthermore, when one party controls both houses of US Congress (US House and US Senate), and the Executive (presidency), 3 of the checks-and-balances of the 2-party system are removed, and the 4rd when the controlling party stacks the US Supreme Court with their platform-biased Justices (with one vacancy to start with after 20 January 2017). One-party control of the 3 branches of US government doubles the "evil" John Adams warned Americans about.

It appears that, although the GOP may lose a few seats in the US Senate and US House, they will retain a simple majority in both after 8 November 2016, and if they win the presidency with Donald Trump, and fill the existing US Supreme Court vacancy with their biased platform choice, the worst will happen for American government as warned by John Adams, losing 4 checks-and-balances.

Black Swan

For the 1st time since 26 July 2018 Donald Trump has led Hillary Clinton in one poll per the RCP list of 23 national polls taken, the LA Times/USC poll shows Trump ahead of Clinton by 2 points.

Suryavarman

Black Swan wrote: »

For the 1st time since 26 July 2018 Donald Trump has led Hillary Clinton in one poll per the RCP list of 23 national polls taken, the LA Times/USC poll shows Trump ahead of Clinton by 2 points.

The LA Times/USC poll does make some methodological choices that skew their polls in Trump's favour. That's not to say the polls aren't tightening at the national level. At the state level though Clinton's lead seems to be widening.

The national polls have continuously painted a different picture of the race than the state level polls have. The national polls indicate Clinton winning by ~5% at the same time Georgia and Arizona are up for grabs. I'm not sure if that's an indicator of greater polarisation in deep red or blue states or if it's the effect of strong third party performances but it's interesting nonetheless.

I'd also wonder if the polls are understating the impact Latinos will have on the race. With Trump running involved in the race Latinos might turn out in greater numbers boosting Clinton's performance.

TheDoctor

Is there any electoral college map that shows each state allocated by the most recent state polls?

Pro Hoc Vice

TheDoctor wrote: »

Is there any electoral college map that shows each state allocated by the most recent state polls?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Brian?

TheDoctor wrote: »

Is there any electoral college map that shows each state allocated by the most recent state polls?

Here you go. It's a shade unreliable, but the best I know of.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

The LA Times/USC poll does make some methodological choices that skew their polls in Trump's favour. That's not to say the polls aren't tightening at the national level. At the state level though Clinton's lead seems to be widening.

The national polls have continuously painted a different picture of the race than the state level polls have. The national polls indicate Clinton winning by ~5% at the same time Georgia and Arizona are up for grabs. I'm not sure if that's an indicator of greater polarisation in deep red or blue states or if it's the effect of strong third party performances but it's interesting nonetheless.

I'd also wonder if the polls are understating the impact Latinos will have on the race. With Trump running involved in the race Latinos might turn out in greater numbers boosting Clinton's performance.

If Clinton wins Az, it will signal a landslide of epic proportions. Romney took Az by 11 points in 2012. I know there have been some demographic shifts there in the last 12 years, but that's a seismic swing.

Even the chance of the state who elected Sheriff Joe and Gov Jan Brewer going blue means Trump is on serious trouble.

www.electoral-vote.com

LostinKildare

TheDoctor wrote: »

Is there any electoral college map that shows each state allocated by the most recent state polls?

I like FiveThirtyEight. It's constantly updated, and you can click on each state for details.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

Akrasia

The difference between the LA times poll and the others is explained here
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-polling-differences-20160809-snap-story.html

The main difference is that this poll asks people how likely they are to vote for a candidate rated on a scale of 0 to 100, so peoples preferences for a candidate are not recorded in the binary way other polls capture them.

It's worrying that despite Trump's repeated meltdowns, that Hillary still can't pull away.

Amerika

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin should be in line for another Pulitzer Prize with his current piece exposing media bias and the complete collapse of American journalism exhibited during this presidential election.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin should be in line for another Pulitzer Prize with his current piece exposing media bias and the complete collapse of American journalism exhibited during this presidential election.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

Is there a Pulitzer Prize for opinion pieces?

The media is biased against Trump. It's a perfectly logical bias though. He's a shockingly poor candidate who regularly makes bigoted statements and relied on racist dog whistles to win the nomination.

You think he deserves fair and equal treatment, that's exactly what he's getting.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin should be in line for another Pulitzer Prize with his current piece exposing media bias and the complete collapse of American journalism exhibited during this presidential election.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

Is not his own piece destroying his own argument, a bias media machine would not employ him in not one but two big media outlets.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Is there a Pulitzer Prize for opinion pieces?

The media is biased against Trump. It's a perfectly logical bias though. He's a shockingly poor candidate who regularly makes bigoted statements and relied on racist dog whistles to win the nomination.

You think he deserves fair and equal treatment, that's exactly what he's getting.

You should note that is is listed under "News" and not "Opinion."

'The media is biased against Trump. It's a perfectly logical bias though. He's a shockingly poor candidate who regularly makes bigoted statements and relied on racist dog whistles to win the nomination.'

This sounds like Talking Points directly out of the Clinton campaign. Mr Goodwin accurately describes what true journalists should do in this circumstance... 'Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate'

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Is not his own piece destroying his own argument, a bias media machine would not employ him in not one but two big media outlets.

Not in my opinion. Pulitzer-Prize winning journalists have clout and more leeway on what they are allowed to report on. I view it as a piece both exposing the bias of his profession and a form of eulogy for its demise.

TheDoctor

Amerika wrote: »

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin should be in line for another Pulitzer Prize with his current piece exposing media bias and the complete collapse of American journalism exhibited during this presidential election.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

An opinion piece on biased media that doesn't mention FOX "News" once lacks any credibility.

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

An opinion piece on biased media that doesn't mention FOX "News" once lacks any credibility.

Actually, it appears all 'reporting' these days should be considered opinion pieces.

What most here seem to despise about FoxNews are their entertainment opinion shows... O’Reilly, Kelly, Hannity, and Van Susteren. They are not news shows nor do they pretend to be unbiased. What they do offer when debating a topic is views usually from experts on both sides of the political spectrum, and where they utilize the assertion of “Fair and Balanced.”

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

You should note that is is listed under "News" and not "Opinion."

But it's not news. It's an opinion column. I can't see how the heading it's under makes a difference.

'The media is biased against Trump. It's a perfectly logical bias though. He's a shockingly poor candidate who regularly makes bigoted statements and relied on racist dog whistles to win the nomination.'

This sounds like Talking Points directly out of the Clinton campaign. Mr Goodwin accurately describes what true journalists should do in this circumstance... 'Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate'

What about Mr Goodwin's clear anti- Clinton bias? Shouldn't he refrain on the same grounds?

I really think a large part of your "media-bias" argument falls apart as you don't ever distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces. If a journalist writes an opinion piece, they can display bias. That's what an opinion is.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

But it's not news. It's an opinion column. I can't see how the heading it's under makes a difference.

That would be your opinion. The Post has a News section, and a Opinion and Commentary section. This was under the News section.

What about Mr Goodwin's clear anti- Clinton bias? Shouldn't he refrain on the same grounds?

I didn't see Mr Goodwin having an anti-Clinton bias, clear or otherwise.

I really think a large part of your "media-bias" argument falls apart as you don't ever distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces. If a journalist writes an opinion piece, they can display bias. That's what an opinion is.

Then we need to agree to disagree. I believe my media-bias arguments get stronger every day, and I have provided source articles exposing it along the way.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

That would be your opinion. The Post has a News section, and a Opinion and Commentary section. This was under the News section.


I didn't see Mr Goodwin having an anti-Clinton bias, clear or otherwise.


Then we need to agree to disagree. I believe my media-bias arguments get stronger every day, and I have provided source articles exposing it along the way.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/17/mike-pence-yin-donald-trump-yang/

http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/why-its-time-for-a-trump-revolution/

He works for New York Post and Fox.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That would be your opinion. The Post has a News section, and a Opinion and Commentary section. This was under the News section.

What news the the piece contain? It's a straight up opinion piece filed under news. The editor of the NY Post has displayed his own bias in the filing, but that's ok.

I didn't see Mr Goodwin having an anti-Clinton bias, clear or otherwise.

You're not looking very hard.

Then we need to agree to disagree. I believe my media-bias arguments get stronger every day, and I have provided source articles exposing it along the way.

You see here the crux of my point. You find an opinion piece you agree with and link it as proof of your argument. It's not. It's an opinion that happens to agree with yours. That's not a factual news source.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, it appears all 'reporting' these days should be considered opinion pieces.

What most here seem to despise about FoxNews are their entertainment opinion shows... O’Reilly, Kelly, Hannity, and Van Susteren. They are not news shows nor do they pretend to be unbiased. What they do offer when debating a topic is views usually from experts on both sides of the political spectrum, and where they utilize the assertion of “Fair and Balanced.”

Having people from opposite ends of the political spectrum doesn't make things fair and balanced. Using your standard a fair and balanced debate on free trade would mean having one contributor as pro-free trade and one against. An actual fair and balanced debate would have 99 people on the free trade side and 1 person on the opposite side. Similar could be said for a debate on climate change.

A debate isn't fair and balanced when somebody in the small minority of expert opinion is given the same air time as someone in the vast majority of expert opinion.

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/17/mike-pence-yin-donald-trump-yang/

http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/why-its-time-for-a-trump-revolution/

He works for New York Post and Fox.

He also graduated Columbia College and taught at the Columbia University School of Journalism. He spent 10 years at the New York Times, going from reporter to City Hall Bureau Chief. He co-authored "I, Koch," a biography of the NYC mayor Ed Koch, and hosted a cable television show about New York politics. He wrote a column and was Executive Editor for the New York Daily News.

Seems to me if there was anyone qualified to speak authoritatively about the media and any bias, it would be him.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

He also graduated Columbia College and taught at the Columbia University School of Journalism. He spent 10 years at the New York Times, going from reporter to City Hall Bureau Chief. He co-authored "I, Koch," a biography of the NYC mayor Ed Koch, and hosted a cable television show about New York politics. He wrote a column and was Executive Editor for the New York Daily News.

Seems to me if there was anyone qualified to speak authoritatively about the media and any bias, it would be him.

To me he seems to be showing a bias towards Republicans currently. There may be media bias towards the Democratic Party, there may not. My own view is many in the media are terrified because of Trump, most have an understanding of history and to any with any understanding Trump and what he stands for is scary. Does that lead to a real or perceived bias maybe. Am I scarred because of what trump stands for yes history has taught me exactly where the likes of trump ends up and it's ****ing terrifying.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again the 2-party system of government in America should be viewed with caution as warned by one of the nation's founders and 2nd president John Adams: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the bugreatest political evil under our Constitution."

Furthermore, when one party controls both houses of US Congress (US House and US Senate), and the Executive (presidency), 3 of the checks-and-balances of the 2-party system are removed, and the 4rd when the controlling party stacks the US Supreme Court with their platform-biased Justices (with one vacancy to start with after 20 January 2017). One-party control of the 3 branches of US government doubles the "evil" John Adams warned Americans about.

The two party system is certainly very bad not only for American politics but world politics. To take Japan as an example they have had the Liberal Democrats (a conservative party) in power for most of the last century. I realize that Japan has a different history and society to America but with Globalization most countries have one party that exercises most the power in the country instead of the parliaments or Congress. As you know that is were the real power is.

It appears that, although the GOP may lose a few seats in the US Senate and US House, they will retain a simple majority in both after 8 November 2016, and if they win the presidency with Donald Trump, and fill the existing US Supreme Court vacancy with their biased platform choice, the worst will happen for American government as warned by John Adams, losing 4 checks-and-balances.

The two party is certainly very bad not only for American politics but world politics. To take Japan as an example they have had the Liberal Democrats (a conservative party) in power for most of the last century. I realize that Japan has a different history and society to America but with Globalization most countries have one party that exercises most of the power in the country instead of the parliaments or Congress.

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

To me he seems to be showing a bias towards Republicans currently. There may be media bias towards the Democratic Party, there may not. My own view is many in the media are terrified because of Trump, most have an understanding of history and to any with any understanding Trump and what he stands for is scary. Does that lead to a real or perceived bias maybe. Am I scarred because of what trump stands for yes history has taught me exactly where the likes of trump ends up and it's ****ing terrifying.

And I accept your personal views of Trump. But not if you were a member of the media and bastardizing journalistic integrity by interjecting your person feelings and playing them off as a legitimate form of 'reporting.'

I remember a lot of the same media bias utilized against Ronald Reagan when he was running. The media got it wrong then too, IMO.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

And I accept your personal views of Trump. But not if you were a member of the media and bastardizing journalistic integrity by interjecting your person feelings and playing them off as a legitimate form of 'reporting.'

I remember a lot of the same media bias utilized against Ronald Reagan when he was running. The media got it wrong then too, IMO.

You are not really comparing Reagan and Trump though are you ? Reagan was a successful two time Governor , and I would guess if he were alive today he would revert back to his Democratic roots at the state of the current GOP .

Pro Hoc Vice

marienbad wrote: »

You are not really comparing Reagan and Trump though are you ? Reagan was a successful two time Governor , and I would guess if he were alive today he would revert back to his Democratic roots at the state of the current GOP .

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a47562/reagan-daughter-trump-assassination/

Looks like his family have no faith in Trump.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

You are not really comparing Reagan and Trump though are you ? Reagan was a successful two time Governor , and I would guess if he were alive today he would revert back to his Democratic roots at the state of the current GOP .

Take a trip down memory lane regarding some of the things said about Reagan back in the day. See any similarities to what is being said about Trump? I do.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/01/the_media_reagan_and_obama.html

PopePalpatine

marienbad wrote: »

You are not really comparing Reagan and Trump though are you ? Reagan was a successful two time Governor , and I would guess if he were alive today he would revert back to his Democratic roots at the state of the current GOP.

I wouldn't be so sure, he was willing to carry on the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" which began in the late 60s.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Take a trip down memory lane regarding some of the things said about Reagan back in the day. See any similarities to what is being said about Trump? I do.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/01/the_media_reagan_and_obama.html

Have you looked at the vile stuff that was said about Kennedy ? Or how the Dukakis campaign was destroyed ? Or Muskie and the Canuck letter .

This seems to be how it is in US politics - the difference is that they don't even have to do any work with Trump , he does it all himself .

Is reporting what a candidate actually says bias ?

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Is reporting what a candidate actually says bias ?

No. Reporting what a candidate says is not bias. Reporting what the challenger's reaction to what a candidate says is not bias. Reporting on people's reactions to what a candidate says is not bias. But interjecting your own personal feelings into 'reporting' and lecturing the audience on how they should feel and react to what a candidate says is bias, and should not be considered reporting, as it then becomes activism.

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

Have you looked at the vile stuff that was said about Kennedy ? Or how the Dukakis campaign was destroyed ? Or Muskie and the Canuck letter .

This seems to be how it is in US politics - the difference is that they don't even have to do any work with Trump , he does it all himself .

Is reporting what a candidate actually says bias ?

You don't have to go that far back. Bill Clinton was also impeached for far less impropriety than Trump yet the papers continue to print biased stories about Trump, taking what he says out of context and not focusing on who Trump is speaking to. Trump has seen huge attendances at his rallies and contrary to the running narratives they are not all racist rednecks.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

No. Reporting what a candidate says is not bias. Reporting what the challenger's reaction to what a candidate says is not bias. Reporting on people's reactions to what a candidate says is not bias. But interjecting your own personal feelings into 'reporting' and lecturing the audience on how they should feel and react to what a candidate says is bias, and should not be considered reporting, as it then becomes activism.

No decent person can remain unbiased indefinitely when covering a horrible creature like Donald Trump.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You don't have to go that far back. Bill Clinton was also impeached for far less impropriety than Trump yet the papers continue to print biased stories about Trump, taking what he says out of context and not focusing on who Trump is speaking to. Trump has seen huge attendances at his rallies and contrary to the running narratives they are not all racist rednecks.

That impeachment was a politically motivated farce , for God's sake Eisenhower has his mistress installed as his personal driver through WW2 and still managed to become president .

How are his verbatim quoted comments taken out of context ? It is not like Eric Clapton's racist speech in the 1970's recorded only by a print journalist . This is 2016 - everything is filmed and recorded somewhere .

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You don't have to go that far back. Bill Clinton was also impeached for far less impropriety than Trump yet the papers continue to print biased stories about Trump

The impeachment of bill Clinton was not successful. It failed.

It was the result of a partisan witch hunt by the Republicans trying to pin some kind of impropriety on clinton.

It turned out all they could find after years of investigations was an affair with an intern. So they tried to get him on that and they failed.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

The impeachment of bill Clinton was not successful. It failed.

It was the result of a partisan witch hunt by the Republicans trying to pin some kind of impropriety on clinton.

It turned out all they could find after years of investigations was an affair with an intern. So they tried to get him on that and they failed.

Exactly I agree with you on that but the same is being done to Trump. The media is making out Trump to be some sort of crazy person which is divorced from reality. We know that America is facing a major crisis and when he puts forward his proposals or his opinions on a variety of subjects he is immediately slapped down as a racist. Lets set the record straight, Trump was the first Republican to state categorically that the Iraq war was a catastrophe and he speaks for the concerns of border state Americans not the radical fringe, no those that see huge numbers of human trafficking from neighboring Mexico. He has staked his reputation on supporting a strong border position.