Overheard at gym, two older women complaining about various Trump comments, convo ends with "but I am still voting for him." "Oh me too"— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) August 11, 2016
Eric (the commenter) pointed that out.
Wouldn't conversations between Hillary Clinton supporters sound the same way? I'm thinking yes, but the Trump voters love him. Hillary voters don't love her.
पोस्ट्स
१५१ टिप्पण्या:
Trump's speech to the Home Builder's Association in Miami an hour ago was the best temperament seen in The Donald to date. He is in the zone.
In Wisconsin, even conservatives don't love Trump too much, they seem to care about what he says. Clinton ahead by double digits.
Among likely voters, i.e., those who say they are certain they will vote in November, Clinton is supported by 52 percent and Trump by 37 percent in the new poll, with 10 percent saying they will support neither candidate. In July, likely voters gave Clinton 45 percent support, Trump 41 percent and 14 percent said they would vote for neither.
https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/poll-release/
If these random and unknown older women were in fact devout Washington Republicans (not surprising, in Jake Tapper's Rock Creek D.C. neighborhood), this conversation would be bad news for Trump.
That is to say, the two older women ought to never had the slightest doubt about voting for their party's standard-bearer. But Trump, being Trump, is throwing doubt into even the most devoted Republicans' hearts and minds.
Now, these two Republicans will be voting for Trump. But what if just 15 or 20 per cent of normally reliable Republican voters won't vote for Trump? And what if 5 per cent will turn and vote for the Democrat?
I think there's a core for each candidate that actually loves them--after all, both won their respective primaries. We don't see the "Hillary lovers" around here, but they exist--black voters who feel some inexplicable affinity towards the Clintons, or the faux feminists who genuinely think Hillary is a gift to women.
The more significant chunk are the people who reluctantly support them, mostly out of fear of their opponent. They may not love their candidate, but their vote makes just as much a difference.
There are some of us who react to being told that Hillary is unlikable the way that others react to being told they should reject Trump. To be sure, Hillary Love is a different kind of love than Trump Love. But they are both going to get 50 to 65 million votes, so you can't say that either of them is unloved.
Trump looked bored as hell today. He seemed like he wasn't having any fun. He's being leashed by the RNC, but he'll tire of it soon, he's the Big Dog, no one controls him for long.
"That is to say, the two older women ought to never had the slightest doubt about voting for their party's standard-bearer. But Trump, being Trump, is throwing doubt into even the most devoted Republicans' hearts and minds."
Well, that's just it--these two women would be significant if they were the type that usually voted Democratic or didn't vote at all. That'd be a sign of advancement for him. But if it's a struggle to get reliable Republicans to vote for you, you're in trouble.
I disagree with the headline and/or premise. Trump voters do not necessarily "love" him. But they loath Hillary and that's enough to tip the scales. I do believe there is a hidden "Ventura" type voter that is tired of being lectured to by friends on FB and tired of the sanctimonious caterwauling by the MSM re: every minor misstatement of any GOP candidate. Don't equate "voting for him" as "loving him".
"I'm thinking yes, but the Trump voters love him. Hillary voters don't love her." Clintons don't do love. All you need is votes.
I agree with Kathryn. I don't love Trump in any way shape for form but I'll crawl over broken glass to vote against the corrupt Clinton sleaze machine.
Hating Trump is like hating Babe Ruth. Even his fiercest critics secretly love him.
Now he is calling his shot to hit it out of the park for America again. And that is so arrogant that we all hate him for it ...except secretly we love that.
"but the Trump voters love him. Hillary voters don't love her."
Which is why I'm thinking and hoping for a bigger turn out by Trump voters.
Trump needs to hammer Hillary on all the latest info about her. Is he?
I loathe Trump. And I don't secretly love him. If in 2014 I had a list of famous people I liked the least of all of famous people, Trump would have certainly been on that list. There is nothing about him I like.
I like Hillary less.
Well, I don't like Trump as a person. I don't really care about Hillary as a person as much. It is the Clinton machine that I sincerely think is dangerous for politics in this country. They represent everything that is wrong in contemporary politics and media.
I do think there are people who genuinely like Trump as a person and as a candidate. In fact he is still probably well-liked by people who officially have to fight him for political reasons. I would be surprised if there is anyone who genuinely likes Hillary as a person.
"Trump needs to hammer Hillary on all the latest info about her. Is he? "
Why do that when he can spend today telling us that Obama (who last I checked is not on the ballot) created ISIS and is worshipped by ISIS? There's not enough time to waste on hammering his actual opponent on an actual scandal when there is some nonsense to throw around.
I just watched Trump's speech to the Home Builders Association and he was so cool. He spoke in a lower voice and told the story about how his father started out as builder. Trump can read people and relate to them. I don't think the corrupt liberal media is going to be able to stop Trump.
Lets remember how far Trump has come, remember when NBC canceled his Miss USA/Miss Universe because of Trump's comment about immigrants and that was just a little over a year ago.
dreams said...
"but the Trump voters love him. Hillary voters don't love her."
Which is why I'm thinking and hoping for a bigger turn out by Trump voters.
Dream on! You are right; turnout is the biggest thing.
But turnout isn't produced by the Fox News Channel. Turnout is produced by political machinery. And there has never been a better turnout machine, than the Obama Era African American vote machine. They vote about 97% Democrat.
Trump's reliance on free media is going to be so exposed, by the turnout issue.
Trump is an unknown in the political space. He may support abortion rites in a final solution. He may channel Sanger in Planned Parenthood clinics for the "greater god"... I mean, "greater good", and exotic cars. He may sacrifice women and girls to progress the female chauvinist movement. He may engage in progressive wars. He may carry out regime changes and bring people to social justice through sodomy and abortion sessions. He may create and sustain the refugee crises and other anti-native policies. He may adopt liberal fiscal policies of progressive debt (i.e. devaluation of capital and labor). He may go on social justice adventures and create global humanitarian disasters. He may normalize [class] diversity schemes (e.g. racism, sexism). He may promote selective exclusion ("="). He may condone and enable mass exodus from second and third-world nations. He may continue free trade with nations that enable the green blight, abortion industry, class diversity, progressive debt, anti-native policies, etc. He may raise the health penalty tax and fix Obamacare.
He may be the Obama, Clinton heir apparent.
Clinton is fortunate in her choice of opponent.
Hillary's supporters love her like Johns love their whores.
"But turnout isn't produced by the Fox News Channel. Turnout is produced by political machinery. And there has never been a better turnout machine, than the Obama Era African American vote machine. They vote about 97% Democrat."
Yep--Trump is hoping the excitement of his rallies and social media message will bring voters out, but it's discounting what even less sophisticated GOP turnout machines relied on in past elections--identifying voters at the neighborhood level, setting up rides to polls for the infirm, getting absentee ballots out, convincing fence sitters to make it out and even the simplicity of letting people know where their polling place is. (The Dems have it down to a science, and in some places even cross the line by providing food and drink for voters as an incentive). By ignoring all that, Trump is certainly testing the old assumptions. But it seems to me a pretty unnecessary risk not to have a turnout operation at all.
Chuck said...
But turnout isn't produced by the Fox News Channel. Turnout is produced by political machinery. And there has never been a better turnout machine, than the Obama Era African American vote machine. They vote about 97% Democrat.
8/11/16, 12:00 PM
Trump doesn't have to worry about voter turn out. It will be a non-issue for him as the DNC/Clinton machine will ensure that every person alive or dead votes and votes often. I will leave it up to you to determine for whom they will be voting for...
Wrong, Althouse.
The two women in this story have internalized the MSM truthiness about Trump, despite great evidence that the MSM is bull shitting its audience.
Leftists think the truth about Hillary Clinton -- trading state favors for bribes to the Clinton Foundation and revealing classified information to adversaries via an unsecured homebrew server, to name two recent ones -- are lies dreamed up by a VRWC. Democrats will vote for Hillary because they believe Republicans are political enemies, with all that entails. Democrats think Republicans are evil.
Republicans think Democrats are wrong.
I don't love Trump. I don't even like Trump. But I'm voting for him because I like what he stands for.
Brando, the Dems don't even have to break rules. They have carefully set the rules in their favor.
Early voting -- where church buses transport the peoples to polling places where they cast straight Democrat ballots on the Saturday or the Sunday before Election Day.
Unions -- which make damn sure that everybody knows what to do and when to do it.
Community activist groups -- many of them public-supported, going door to door in voter registration and turnout and phone bank efforts.
The most sophisticated digitalized micro-targeting ever invented -- pushing voter numbers in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and anywhere else that polling suggests might be a swing state.
Meanwhile, the Trump kids are borrowing some email and phone lists from the GOP, running a campaign office out of a spare room in Trump Tower with something less than a skeleton staff. And The Donald is flying from one auditorium to another, saying stupid risible things and then getting time on FNC to explain them away.
Some of these people, like Mick, who are so sure he will win, are gonna lap it up and lick it up when the charges of "rigged!" follow a Clinton win.
Hopefully those ladies at the gym are not among this crowd.
Brando,
Well, that's just it--these two women would be significant if they were the type that usually voted Democratic or didn't vote at all. That'd be a sign of advancement for him. But if it's a struggle to get reliable Republicans to vote for you, you're in trouble.
That's just the point: We don't know where these women are coming from. They might be (in the past) reliable Democratic voters; or they might not. The only sure takeaway is that they are voting for Trump now.
And they are two anecdotes against the "Trump gets the older white male voters, and no one else," yes?
"Meanwhile, the Trump kids are borrowing some email and phone lists from the GOP, running a campaign office out of a spare room in Trump Tower with something less than a skeleton staff. And The Donald is flying from one auditorium to another, saying stupid risible things and then getting time on FNC to explain them away."
Probably because Trump never really intended to actually serve as president. His best case scenario is to lose in a way that he can blame on someone else, and if he somehow wins he can resign and let Pence take over.
How else can you explain not even having someone below him do the basic work of setting up a national campaign?
What mockturtle said. With all the so called Republicans saying they will not vote for him, I just might not vote down ballot since it does not seem to matter much. So far my Republican Senator, Gardner, has not said a word that I know of. The non vote for Republicans will not end with this year either.
Brando
Why do that when he can spend today telling us that Obama (who last I checked is not on the ballot) created ISIS and is worshipped by ISIS? There's not enough time to waste on hammering his actual opponent on an actual scandal when there is some nonsense to throw around.
Lately, it is one nonsense day after the other. It's one error or gaffe after the other. He is unable to concentrate or make any serious dent in her and he's not even trying.
To me - It tells me he's a fraud.
To those saying the polls are wrong - wishful thinking. We are gonna long for the days when Romney and McCain almost won!
"That's just the point: We don't know where these women are coming from. They might be (in the past) reliable Democratic voters; or they might not. The only sure takeaway is that they are voting for Trump now."
Yep--if those were true blue Trump-from-the-beginning supporters, their comment could mean "wavering among the loyal" and be a problem for him. If they're moderate Democrats who are coming to him because they don't like Hillary, it'd be a sign he's moving the needle.
"And they are two anecdotes against the "Trump gets the older white male voters, and no one else," yes?""
Yep--I'd throw in Althouse as an example too--an educated, Madison-based woman who voted for Obama in the past. The fact that she's seemingly for Trump now goes against the "working class white male" stereotype.
"Hillary voters don't love her."
A lot of them do. It's frightening.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
...
That's just the point: We don't know where these women are coming from. They might be (in the past) reliable Democratic voters; or they might not. The only sure takeaway is that they are voting for Trump now.
And they are two anecdotes against the "Trump gets the older white male voters, and no one else," yes?
I'll be the first to stipulate; we just don't know. The two older ladies could be almost anything. And therefore they are of zero value in gauging the larger electorate. I'll concede that they might be interesting anecdotal evidence of support for Trump if you will conceded that they might be interesting anecdotal evidence of an election day disastah for Trump.
And as of right now, the popular reaction seems to be A)Lots of hits on Jake Tapper's Twitter account and B)Lots of people thinking that there is an undercurrent of quiet support for Trump. And the latter point is the one that I find unsupportable.
"Lately, it is one nonsense day after the other. It's one error or gaffe after the other. He is unable to concentrate or make any serious dent in her and he's not even trying."
That, and the "serious people" around him cannot control him. I can't imagine Manafort or Ivanka saying "sweet, he's now in Day 3 of going after the Gold Star parents...".
"To me - It tells me he's a fraud."
I think so--it's hard to imagine he genuinely wants to be president. Or at least, if he didn't want to be president, it's hard to imagine what he'd do differently from what he's doing now.
"To those saying the polls are wrong - wishful thinking. We are gonna long for the days when Romney and McCain almost won!"
Yeah--and they're using the same arguments they did four years ago. Didn't they at least read up on WHY their assumptions were wrong that time?
And if Trump loses to Hillary worse than Romney did to Obama, it should be far more embarrassing. Obama was a relatively popular incumbent in an improving economy, with a united party behind him, and he's a skilled politician. Hillary is generally despised, not popular in her own party, trying to get a (usually difficult) third term, a terrible politician and plagued with scandal. Hell, most of the country is begging for a reason to vote against her. Losing to her is like losing to the Patriots when they sub in their cheerleaders to play as the offensive line.
Trump should start experimenting with new nicknames for Hillary. "Crooked" is good but it's getting a bit old. Maybe "Rickety" to call attention to her weak physical health.
I bet less that half the people planning to vote for Trump "love him." But it is fun to mock your political opponents, which is what Tapper is doing.
I don't love Trump, but I despise Hillary Clinton. As I've said before, she is the most corrupt major party candidate since James Blaine in 1884. Indeed, the latest Email dump tells me that she is even more in the hip pocket of her big donors than I had believed.
IMHO if Rubio hadn't been so stupid on immigration he'd be up on Clinton by at least 20 points. Schumer the Schemer knifed him good.
LYNNDH,
Yes, stay home! Why vote down ballot at all? Just kidding, but hey if that's what you think is best for you, who am I to stop you? I wouldn't stay home, I take the privilege of being able to vote seriously.
Brando - exactly. If he cannot beat Hillary - horrible liar corrupt Hillary- there's something else going on.
It's high time. She wants it.
Let's face it, on both sides there are lovers and haters, as the two conventions demonstrated.
Big Mike
Schumer did knife him and the media torpedoed him over a boat purchase. The media were terrified of Rubio - they wanted him out. A young articulate moderate against crooked old tired Hillary. That just won't do.
Trump can be forgiven for all his past support of Democrats. Even his PRAISE of Hillary and financial support to all sorts of democrats over the years amounted to total forgiveness. Rubio screwed up - and he knew it - but there was no forgiveness for him. The DNC press lucked out there.
"Why do that when he can spend today telling us that Obama (who last I checked is not on the ballot) created ISIS and is worshipped by ISIS?"
Because he is not just attacking Hilary Clinton, but the entire political establishment. Thats the point of Trump. Obamaism will be continued by Clinton because its all one. And Clinton specifically was SOS during the creation of ISIS, as they were a result of the Syrian war.
LYNNDH said...
What mockturtle said. With all the so called Republicans saying they will not vote for him, I just might not vote down ballot since it does not seem to matter much. So far my Republican Senator, Gardner, has not said a word that I know of. The non vote for Republicans will not end with this year either.
What does this even mean?
Cory Gardner -- no matter what you think of him -- is a vast improvement over Mark Udall. Is there a Democrat who you think ought to be in congress, over a Republican who is there now? Are there down-ballot Republicans whom you don't like? Why?
Congressional Republicans have blocked Obama some important judicial nominations. They have kept fracking legal. They have conducted an investigation into the Benghazi debacle. They held in check Elizabeth Warren's CFPB. According to Obama himself, Republicans have blocked 500 bills since he took over the White House. Too bad it wasn't more. Most of all, Republicans stuck to their guns on the biggest reduction in federal spending in a lifetime; the sequester.
In the era of Obama, the Republicans in Congress who made sure that Obama's legislative train got stopped are real heroes.
Rubio wasn't destroyed by his boat, but by his immigration deal.
This was a massive error.
That's what all the right wing populist sites were on to.
""Crooked" is good but it's getting a bit old."
Its the most accurate description and repetition is good.
Chuck -
I'm staring to think these purists would like to throw out Scott Walker, and install Russ Feingold. That will show em!
"In the era of Obama, the Republicans in Congress who made sure that Obama's legislative train got stopped are real heroes."
But the public doesn't see it that way. The popular perception is unrelieved defeat and futility.
Lowest home ownership in 50 years?
"You think you got problems..."
Chuck - it's no use. These people hate Republicans so much - they have deluded themselves into believing the R's passed ObamaCare on party line vote.
"Trump's speech to the Home Builder's Association in Miami an hour ago was the best temperament seen in The Donald to date. He is in the zone."
Trump just confirmed every Republican's worst fear
Donald Trump told CNBC on Thursday he will either win with his frank and uncensored style of campaigning or enjoy a "very, very nice long vacation."
Republicans have long hoped Trump will pivot on his behavior, but in the "Squawk Box" interview, he said:
"I'm a truth teller. All I do is tell the truth. And if at the end of 90 days, I've fallen short because I'm somewhat politically correct even though I'm supposed to be the smart one and even though I'm supposed to have a lot of good ideas, it's OK. I go back to a very good way of life."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/gop-presidential-candidate-donald-trump.html
The big dog decided he didn't like being leashed. Unleash the Trump! Did that last paragraph of his even make sense?
Big Mike said...
...
IMHO if Rubio hadn't been so stupid on immigration he'd be up on Clinton by at least 20 points. Schumer the Schemer knifed him good.
If the anti-immigration extremists hadn't sided with Trump, and blown off a really good candidate like Rubio, we wouldn't have gotten stuck with the Trump disaster.
I didn't like the immigration compromise that Rubio joined. But it shouldn't have been disabling, particularly next to Trump. Rubio made a political calculation. Turns out to have been a mistaken position, politically. But Rubio's compromise position was never as bad as Trump's insanity.
Curious George said...
"Hillary voters don't love her."
A lot of them do. It's frightening.
Yes, and they are immune to any facts about her. It is like they have been drinking some sort of Kool Aid. Zombies.
Chuck is wrong about Rubio of course. Rubio is wrong on the most important issue of our time. What could be more disqualifying?
Trump definitely has a larger core of true believers than Hillary does. But of course that doesn't really matter in the final analysis. If 20% of the voting base absolutely adore Trump and 10% absolutely adore Clinton, everyone else is just picking the person whom they fear less and/or believe is safer. Elections aren't determined by the ardour of an individual voter. A true believer's vote is still just a single vote.
We're going to have some very angry people in November who will cast blame widely. Personally I'd like to avoid blaming Trump supporters, but I'm sure they'll blame people who think like me.
"Personally I'd like to avoid blaming Trump supporters, but I'm sure they'll blame people who think like me."
-- If Trump loses, his supporters will be angry.
Given what we've seen from Trump opponents, if he wins, Trump supporters may need to be cautious going to and from Trump events for the foreseeable future.
Chuck said...
"LYNNDH said...
What mockturtle said. With all the so called Republicans saying they will not vote for him, I just might not vote down ballot since it does not seem to matter much. So far my Republican Senator, Gardner, has not said a word that I know of. The non vote for Republicans will not end with this year either.
What does this even mean?
Cory Gardner -- no matter what you think of him -- is a vast improvement over Mark Udall. Is there a Democrat who you think ought to be in congress, over a Republican who is there now? Are there down-ballot Republicans whom you don't like? Why?"
Chuck, the lifelong republican, can't see the blaring hypocrisy here. How about calling us all teabaggers again he? You are a joke.
"Yep--I'd throw in Althouse as an example too--an educated, Madison-based woman who voted for Obama in the past. The fact that she's seemingly for Trump now goes against the "working class white male" stereotype."
Cruelly neutral until she tells us she is voting for crooked Hillary, I think.
Tank - Trump is already changing his mind on immigration - and how we are stuck with a loser. So much for that purity.
Sad that we could have beaten Hillary. Too many people fell for the fraud. The DNC media manipulated everyone - and won.
"Trump can be forgiven for all his past support of Democrats. Even his PRAISE of Hillary and financial support to all sorts of democrats over the years amounted to total forgiveness. Rubio screwed up - and he knew it - but there was no forgiveness for him. The DNC press lucked out there."
I think any Trump supporter who ever used the term "RINO" to describe any other Republican for the slightest deviation from conservatism lost all credibility when they backed Trump. Apparently, Rubio and Jeb are "RINOs" for even talking about comprehensive immigration reform, but Trump gets a pass with his "wall with a big door" and "just suggestions" flip flops on Muslims, and supporting gun control as recently as Sandy Hook, and don't get me started on taxes and health care reform where his opinions change weekly (and "bigly"!). Somehow, Trump gets endless forgiveness but anyone who actually had to campaign and serve in office does not.
Althouse hasn't been cruelly neutral Dreams. Have you even been reading her pro Trump blog posts since the Wisconsin Primary? She is in the tank for Trump, why I don't understand, but hey each to their own.
"She is in the tank for Trump"
-- People said the same about McCain and Romney.
Trump isn't a liberal, he isn't a conservative, he is a Trumpist. He espouses Trumpism. It's his own special brand he has foisted upon the easily duped.
Tank said...
Chuck is wrong about Rubio of course. Rubio is wrong on the most important issue of our time. What could be more disqualifying?
I have a technical question for you. After Trump builds The Wall (haha; right) and after Trump deports 8 or 10 or 12 million people (sure!), Trump has said that he will welcome legal immigrants. How many? Which ones? And how long until they get citizenship? You could say "never" and I might not care, to be honest. But I trust the nation's corporate leaders to tell us what they need as employees and I don't think they'll be happy with your answer(s).
You really think that nibbling around the edges of immigration policy is the most important issue of our time? Not entitlements? Not tax policy? Not the education bubble? Not Asian trade policy? Not rising health care costs? Not the breakdown of families and out of wedlock births?
You have some weird priorities.
"Cruelly neutral until she tells us she is voting for crooked Hillary, I think."
If she does that, it'd be a 180 from her current posts.
"Tank - Trump is already changing his mind on immigration - and how we are stuck with a loser. So much for that purity."
Trading honor for victory and getting neither. The story of the Trump campaign.
If opposition to immigration reform is important to you, you had other candidates who were actually consistent on it. If you chose Trump because you like his style, ok, it happens. Voters chose Obama for his style too. But Trump has never given anyone a reason to trust him on anything. Hoping he'd be good on immigration is a crap shoot.
And of course if he blows it this November, it's moot anyway. Hillary will owe you nothing.
Brando - 1:15
"Bigly!" Bigly, indeed.
When the field of candidates for the Republican nomination was 17, Trump wasn't even in my 10 ten list. I didn't vote for him in my state's primary. I will vote for him in November despite the fact that I don't like him very much. I'll vote for him because he isn't Hillary. She could be standing in front of me with a million dollars in one hand and a gun in the other and I still wouldn't vote for her. She represents everything I despise about politics in general and the Democrat party in particular.
Thanks for featuring me again Althouse!
My take away wasn't love of Trump. But now you've got me thinking about it.
Here is how I feel toward Trump. He is misunderstood.
When I hear him talking, I don't see a politician. I see a regular guy sitting down at the table over a cold one and discussing politics. I see a guy who I can really appreciate because he doesn't filter.
I also see a guy who has a way of talking that is completely misunderstood. I'm not sure if the misunderstanding is the intentional type (like when Althouse chastised one of her Senators once for knowing he should have phrased something differently. Not that Althouse was purposefully misunderstanding him, but his enemies were) or if it's just us regular folk who are so used to hearing politicians speak, we try to interpret his words through that filter. And that causes the misunderstanding.
As an example. Trump was on Hugh Hewitt. Here is the exchange.
HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.
DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?
HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the pneumonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.
HH: I did. I did. I played it.
DT: I gave her the co-founder.
HH: I know what you’re arguing…
DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?
HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.
HH: All right, that’s okay.
DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.
HH: That’s…
DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.
HH: That’s true.
DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.
HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.
DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
I see Hugh and Trump are saying the same thing here. But Hugh speaks politician. He is fluent in it and is used to interviewing people who know how to follow his lead. Trump doesn't hear it. He is saying exactly what Hugh is saying, but he doesn't hear the coded language of Hugh. He doesn't grasp the nuance Hugh is trying to lead him to.
People, especially #Nevertrump and Democrats, take this as a sign that Trump is too stupid to catch on.
I don't see it that way at all. And I think this is the fundamental difference between the establishment #Nevertrump crowd and us Trump supporters. He is like a foreigner whose culture they just can't grasp. And therefore he is crude and uncouth and not worthy of the high office or the presidency.
Conversation between two Hillary True Believers:
TB #1: "Oooh, I wonder what things she's going to take from us for our own good!"
TB #2: "Me, too! I get a tingle in my pants just thinking of it!"
Matthew, no way. McCain and Romney have made it exceedingly clear as to where they stand with Trump. Althouse has also made her support for Trump exceedingly clear, so much so that she feels she understands him and actually translates his comments to her readers for him
Unknown: Try context. People said the same thing ["She is in the tank for Trump"] about McCain and Romney. Obviously McCain/Romney fill in for Trump in what thing people said the same about. The reverse construction ["McCain is in the tank for Trump"] makes no logical sense.
"Here is how I feel toward Trump. He is misunderstood."
Only those who hear his dog whistles understand him. Plus there is always the good Professor Althouse on hand to translate for him.
People are frustrated. They don't like either candidate, but the default for Dems is much easier than for everyone else. Most democrats are OK with Clinton, sadly. They refuse to see her as corrupt. (how many? - hard to say, but the polls tell us how many - lots!)
The media is in full trash-Trump mode - and he makes it easy for them on a daily basis. A bad story about Hillary is quickly rushed off center stage so we can deal with the Trump gaffe.
If we only had likeability and articulate in our side - we might stand a chance. If only Trump were like Reagan and actually liked us and wanted to win. Yes - I'm leaving out principles on purpose.
The principle ship sailed a long time ago.
Ann,
It's not true that Hillary voters do not love her. There is a very very specific set of people who love her. They are mostly older women (55-75, thereabouts) and Democrats, though of course not every woman in that age range who's also a Dem love her, but it's inaccurate to say Hillary voters don't love her. There are many many who do.
I don't think Althouse is in the tank for Trump.
My own view -- Althouse can refute if she wishes -- is that Trump was the one Republican candidate who deep down favored expanded LGBT rights, in the tradition of a Manhattan liberal. Althouse liked that part.
And so Althouse "humored" Trump. Trump's having gotten the nomination and having defeated all of the "anti-gay" Republicans was enough, to satisfy Althouse I suspect.
Althouse might even support Trump, if he weren't such an offensive dumbass. But no matter what, Trump is "mission accomplished" as far as Althouse is concerned.
Althouse revealed herself (fairly, I think) when she wrote that she thought that "Trump is pro-gay and is being cagey about it."
So no; I don't think that Althouse is "in the tank for Trump." But her soft tolerance for Trump to date speaks volumes for something else.
I'd love to be excited about Trump.
I love to be excited about the things he is saying.
I'd love to think he really was our new Reagan.
Holy shit, eric; is that a real transcript?!?
Hugh Hewitt is doing the best job that an intelligent person could possibly do, to make sense out of Trump.
And Trump refuses even that. The guy is out of his fucking mind.
DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
--
of course, when they're yapping about DT's language, Hil's slips by unnnoticed:
"..we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights"?
Not much talk about that..and she's the scripted, thought through candidate. Who is unduly vote restricted in her short circuited um..cabeza?
If Trump wasn't so busy baiting the press/explaining his own language, he could her statement to illegal immigration and the case for SCOTUS appointments being a reason to vote for him. Not to mention the ways in which Clinton Inc. have parlayed political access into cash..bigly.
@ Eric
HH: I’d just use different language to communicate it.
Please Trump - listen to HH.
"Althouse hasn't been cruelly neutral Dreams. Have you even been reading her pro Trump blog posts since the Wisconsin Primary? She is in the tank for Trump, why I don't understand, but hey each to their own."
That's her style, she likes to analyze and point out the hypocrisy when she sees it. I don't know who she is going vote for but I suspect she will vote for who she thinks is the safer choice, crooked Hillary.
Chuck, it's too one dimensional to say Althouse is drawn to Trump on the mere chance he may be less extreme on LGBT rights. I think she saw something else in him that she related to. Is she one of those secret anarchists?
"I'd love to be excited about Trump.
I love to be excited about the things he is saying.
I'd love to think he really was our new Reagan."
In that sense, I envy our Trump fans--imagine believing you found the real thing and he was going to win--and win against someone as awful as Hillary. It'd be a better feeling than seeing two terrible options.
Reagan--yeah, the contrast is striking. It's true a lot of people thought Reagan was dumb, extremist, even nasty, and that he couldn't win. But it was also pretty clear that he was a decent person, good at forgetting slights and making allies out of foes, and had a real vision for what he was standing for (rather than making it about him).
Blogger Chuck said...
The guy is out of his fucking mind.
--
Decaf, Chuck. That excerpt is a disagreement over style. On substance, they essentially agree. Get a "fucking" grip.
Hugh Hewitt tries to give Trump a way out and Trump stupidly clings to his idiotic narrative. So Trump thinks he can be president? LOL.
"I didn't like the immigration compromise that Rubio joined. But it shouldn't have been disabling, particularly next to Trump. Rubio made a political calculation. Turns out to have been a mistaken position, politically. "
It was a grossly mistaken position, politically. The immigration issue blew open early in the primary campaign, and there it was. An emotional bomb. It was probably critical for maybe 30-50% of the Republican primary vote - it worked for Cruz as well, up to a point.
Its also a majority position in public polls across party lines.
These sorts of numbers aren't the sort you can talk back to.
Worse, NONE of the candidates other than Trump, and to a degree Cruz, saw the significance of this.
I was amazed, myself, all through the primary campaign, at the total inability of the candidates to get it. These people (the other 15) simply refused to connect even to the emotional context of the issue, much less deal substantially with it. Rubio certainly didn't. Others put themselves in active opposition, futile swimming against the tide.
Luntz had focus groups on the Trump phenomenon repeatedly pointing this out, and with the hundreds of millions all the others spent I'm sure they picked up on this too.
Which makes it all the more puzzling. These are professional politicians? The only explanations I have is that they were too deep in their consultant bubbles, or too beholden to their funders, like the Kochs, who were opposed to the public sentiment.
As for Congress, they too missed the emotional context. The Republican base, and the would be Republican base, those people Trump is drawing out of the woodwork, was all set for blood and iron. Cruz at least saw this, but he really is a poor emotional politician. Not sympatico.
As for yourselves, the ex-Rubio backers, I think the problem here is you have difficulty putting yourselves in others shoes.
Blogger Chuck said...
Holy shit, eric; is that a real transcript?!?
Hugh Hewitt is doing the best job that an intelligent person could possibly do, to make sense out of Trump.
And Trump refuses even that. The guy is out of his fucking mind.
This is a great illustration of what I mean. Chuck reads the transcript and sees a guy out of his mind. I see a guy who doesn't play the political game. Dances to his own tune. And communicates to us in a way that is new and unusual.
Some can't process this. So they put it on Trump.
"Reagan--yeah, the contrast is striking. It's true a lot of people thought Reagan was dumb, extremist, even nasty, and that he couldn't win. But it was also pretty clear that he was a decent person, good at forgetting slights and making allies out of foes, and had a real vision for what he was standing for (rather than making it about him)."
Trump is liked and well respected by those who know him in the business community. I heard a CEO say on CNBC a few months back that Trump didn't have a mean bone in his body.
Unknown said...
Hugh Hewitt tries to give Trump a way out and Trump stupidly clings to his idiotic narrative.
--
Hewitt agrees with Trump's "narrative".
Which makes it all the more puzzling. These are professional politicians? The only explanations I have is that they were too deep in their consultant bubbles, or too beholden to their funders, like the Kochs, who were opposed to the public sentiment.
I have a 3rd view. They speak a different language. One Chuck understands. One Hugh Hewitt is fluent in. One that Bill Kristol speaks. And so when they talk, they are speaking to these guys who understand. Who get it.
But they don't realize we speak a different language. We don't get it. We want plain talk, not the wink wink nudge nudge gibberish of politicians and the media.
It's weird this year. Most of my life I've been hearing people ask for such a plain spoken politician. Now they are telling STOP!
"I see a guy who doesn't play the political game. Dances to his own tune. And communicates to us in a way that is new and unusual."
Trump is kind of like a blue collar Ronald Reagan, he is going over the head of the corrupt liberal media.
Maybe he does Walter, but Hewitt knows how stupid it is to express it the way Trump has. It makes Trump appear to not even understand what he is saying. Hewitt encouraged him to express himself more clearly, Trump dumbly refused it and sounded like the boy who put his thumb in the pie and pulled out a plum, very pleased with himself. It appears that Trump doesn't like more intelligent people trying to "translate" the stupid stuff he says.
"This is a great illustration of what I mean. Chuck reads the transcript and sees a guy out of his mind. I see a guy who doesn't play the political game. Dances to his own tune. And communicates to us in a way that is new and unusual."
I sure as hell wouldn't admit that eric. Makes you sound like a Trump sychophant.
They are complaining about the JournoList interpretation. They will vote for a candidate with or without the approval of the Fourth Estate. Positive progress. The Press is frantic that they will lose their leverage as information gatekeepers.
eric there simply is no question but that you are wrong about Trump speaking in a way that anyone ought to find plain and understandable. If you understand Trump, you are tuned into Trump's own bizarre code, and not plain English.
Barack Obama is not a "founder" of ISIS. Hugh Hewitt had it right. Hewitt actually favored Trump with a better wording than Trump had ever imagined. Trump wouldn't have it. And Trump couldn't even deny the essential fact. Obama hates ISIS and is trying to kill its leaders.
The only impenetrable "code" is on the part of Trump, using "founder" as a metaphor for what Hewitt was more accurately describing. I am not speaking in any codes.
Indeed the same thing happened with yesterday's Trump outrage. (They come on a daily basis nowadays.) Where Trump was caught on his oblique, unclear meaning of what "the Second Amendment people" might do. Trump could have been clear about what (he now says) he meant. He could have said, simply and clearly that gun rights supporters would fight back politically. But Trump chose different words. Words less clear. Words that left me -- a lawyer who is used to cross-examining witnesses and reading transcripts -- with the conviction that Trump meant to speak to the possibility of gun owners using those guns if pressed by unfavorable gun laws.
I said a day ago that these were unforced errors on Trump's part. I may have been wrong. These aren't so much unforced errors as they are a pattern of severe pathology.
Unknown said...Hewitt encouraged him to express himself more clearly.
--
I think the term would be more "obviously".
I'm not aware of a "clearer" explanation by Trump of an intentional use of provocative language.
It's provocative, but when push comes to shove, Hewitt can't frame it as inaccurate.
Trump's riding the line intentionally for effect.
Whether that works politically is the issue.
But "unknown" (can't settle for anonymous, have to confuse the forum),
Wanna take a stab at who Hil feels needs expanded voting rights?
"Trump is liked and well respected by those who know him in the business community. I heard a CEO say on CNBC a few months back that Trump didn't have a mean bone in his body."
I don't know about that--he's got a lot of lawsuits and bankruptcies and while that's to be expected if you do a lot of business, he does seem to have a lot of enemies.
But to be fair, I don't think business vs. government is an apples to apples comparison. You could ruffle a lot of feathers in business but still prove adept at winning people over in government (where it's arguably even a more important skill, because you're more constrained by stakeholders). The thing is, in politics so far, Trump doesn't seem to be doing a lot of winning over people he needs--he's got his core, which is nice, but a distinct minority. Then he has the "reluctants" like Paul Ryan, who endorse and support and get nothing but grief for their troubles and have to spend every week of the campaign distancing themselves from what he says (rather than supporting him with every crowd and on every broadcast). And then there's the sniping at rivals who shouldn't even be rivals anymore. I just don't see where Reagan did anything like that. He had intraparty foes (George Christopher, Jerry Ford, George Bush) but he never really crossed the line and always pulled them back in when the fighting was over.
" but Hewitt knows how stupid it is to express it the way Trump has."
Why is it stupid? Churchill would have said it just as bluntly but more poetically. But such stress about points of style?
I wonder about the internal filters in you.
There was an article quoting something of Dalrymples today, on other subjects - Gramsci actually, very interesting - http://takimag.com/article/the_symptoms_of_potts_disease_theodore_dalrymple#axzz4H3Koov2t
and he was quoting Alexander Pope -
Words are like leaves; and where they most abound,
Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found
Hugh Hewitt may have introduced to the national media the best new way to embarrass Trump.
You don't argue with Trump or berate him about how he is wrong. You ask, "Wouldn't it have been better to have said it this way... ?"
It forces Trump to say what he did to Hewitt today; I get more attention when I say it my way. That is the truth. Trump gets more attention. He gets the howling admiration of his Trumpkin supporters. And he horrifies a sizable majority.
Trump can and should learn to moderate his speech and choose his words more carefully.
Hillary, on the other hand, will only learn how to better hide and insulate herself from prosecution for her career-long kleptocracy.
Blogger buwaya said...
" but Hewitt knows how stupid it is to express it the way Trump has."
Why is it stupid? Churchill would have said it just as bluntly but more poetically. But such stress about points of style?
I wonder about the internal filters in you.
I think this is it. They don't care about his substance.
They can't gruk his style.
Another quote from Alexander Pope:
"We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow.
Our wiser sons no doubt will think us so."
"the howling admiration of his Trumpkin supporters."
Chuck, you have a tendency towards provocative language yourself.
I don't know if you'll ever simply deal with this at a lesser of two evils level.
Or if you do, whether how you think Hil is better.
If Trump loved you - he would be trying to win.
Trump doesn't love you. He doesn't even love his bigly supporters.
So if Trump loses..especially if bigly", intentionally..what does he get out of that?
If his whole MO is ego driven "winner" branding, how does he work that?
Sells a bunch of "It was rigged!" T-shirts?
Seems like a lot of work for that.
"So if Trump loses..especially if bigly", intentionally..what does he get out of that?"
What has he always wanted? Attention, and to be loved--and he's getting that now. Why spoil it by faceplanting in the White House when he can't pick an adviser to save his life, and won't read anything more than 140 characters?
Besides, it may build his brand for something new. He can now appeal to a sizable minority of the public as their spokesman, launch a media empire based on that--the possibilities abound. I think he'll come out of this pretty well, and won't much mind the Clintons being back in charge. He was pretty ok with them until a year ago when he decided to run.
Trump uses provocative language and as a result all the media coverage is coverage of him, not Hillary. Crazy? Maybe. But it worked in the Republican primaries.
Like most people, I used to be pretty sure that when Trump said something stupid it was a reflection of the fact that he really is that dumb. But Trump's point in the exchange with Hugh Hewitt was that he talks the way he does because he gets media attention that way, and media attention is the only thing that counts. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he clearly thinks that what worked in the primaries will work in the general election. He might be right. How many voters do you think have any idea what Hillary wants to do as President? Trump is dominating the airways to such an extent that most of the time when you hear anything about Hillary, it's in the context of one or another of Trump's supposedly outrageous statements about her.
No one's ever won the Presidency running a campaign like Trump's. And since his rhetoric is clearly not stuff he believes himself, we really have no idea what he'll do if he wins.
Here's hoping Gary Johnson can get into the debates.
Hmm. Losing as a means to build a brand based on "winning".
He's no spring chicken..not really in need of anything.
So all about attention..even if he loses.
Hmm.
Blogger Jeff said...
he clearly thinks that what worked in the primaries will work in the general election.
--
Actually, I think his behavior in the primary was far more reprehensible than the current level tweaks.
Based on the proposition of the next 4 years based on the last 8 years, I'm voting for The Bull in the China Shop.
Do I love Trump? Hell no.
However, what I do love about Trump is that he pisses off all of the people that piss me off.
In the end, he is the anti-Hillary and has promised to appoint conservative justices.
Who cares what the mediaswine claim he said - usually different from what he actually said, but how are we to know?
"So if Trump loses..especially if bigly", intentionally..what does he get out of that?"
If he's been shilling for Hillary, he gets what all rich people who work with the Clintons get: influence and graft.
Prof. Althouse wrote:
"Wouldn't conversations between Hillary Clinton supporters sound the same way? I'm thinking yes, but the Trump voters love him. Hillary voters don't love her."
This is unusually sloppy thinking for you, Prof. A. Both Trump and Clinton have "supporters" who will vote for them as the lesser evil, and who definitely do not love the candidate they're voting for. I'm not one, but I know many Republicans who "support" Trump in that sense, and only in that sense. Likewise, I know many Democrats who "support" Hillary only in the sense that they'll vote for her out of opposition to Trump.
So both candidates have "true believer" supporters, both have "hold your nose" supporters, and everything in between. Likewise there are those who, like me, cannot bring themselves to vote for either, and won't.
Of course, even if Trump manages to win in November, his anti-immigrant rhetoric has destroyed the Republican party's electoral chances for at least the next twenty years. See this paper which shows how Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant stand turned California into a reliably Democratic state. The damage has already been done. Even a strongly pro-immigrant Republican candidate will have a very hard time reversing it, as the (correct) perception that many in the GOP are bigots has already taken hold.
Beldar,
Have you met anyone you thought to be "true believers" in Hil?
(I wouldn't count the "High time" voter)
If you believe the country cannot withstand another 4 or 8 years of corrupt self-dealing elitists looting our treasury while ignoring our interests in the world, then you have to vote for Trump. However imperfect a vessel he may be for your alarm at the state of things, he is the only vessel you have.
Jeff,
From that paper:
"Known as the “Save Our State” initiative, Proposition 187 would have denied all public services to illegal immigrants and forced all state employees to immediately report illegal immigrants to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for deportation."
The refernced Wilson ad
The problem is folks like yourself erroneously referring to these as "anti-immigrant" and a growing electorate that falls for it.
"See this paper which shows how Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant stand turned California into a reliably Democratic state. "
The inexorable increase in immigrants did this all by itself.
There is no part of the Republican/conservative program that would attract these voters.
And there is nothing Pete Wilson or anyone else could have done about it, in policy or rhetoric. Its all numbers.
Actually, what was created in LA and much of the south state was a Chicano political machine, very much a Tammany-hall Democrat system. There was no way this ever could have been a Republican system. This was the key.
The paper, needless to say, is very defective as it does not connect the campaign to the later developments.
And, to add, California politics became extremely dirty, corrupt, and thoroughly inefficient/ineffective. It is one big Chicago.
This is such an awesome scene:
Tapper's hanging w/ oldie gals at the gym who are jabbering about DJT.
1)Do the gals know who's w/in earshot? More likely yes than no. He's the cons favorite CNNer. Having conversations about the details of DJT, these gals are probably not just into TMZ et. al. for news, so it's reasonable to assume they know who the dude is. And, beyond that, old gals at Tapper's gym may discuss, via the grapevine, which co-members have national recognition, if not fame.
2)WTF is Tapper doing in a gym such that his workout overlaps w/ oldie gals who are maintaining a conversation? The dude seems like a real Pussy. Just sayin'.
Ah..poor PBJ, only prez choices are "oldies".
"Tapper's hanging w/ oldie gals at the gym who are jabbering about DJT"
I have learned, among much else in my time, that it serves you well to hang with the "oldie gals", at least sometimes. Especially the bosses secretaries aka "executive assistants". Better friends you cannot have. Also all those who have been plugged in for a looong time.
A word to the wise.
My bad, I should have written "golden gals." That implies sassy, smart, funny, wise, and into sex better than "oldie."
I often use "golden gals" in these threads. [Don't want to offend the hostess.]
To explain, in popular culture terms - every largish organization has one or more of "Miss Moneypenny" (from James Bond, this character is drawn from life). This rule never fails. Make friends with "Miss Moneypenny".
Buwaya,
You haven't seen a new JB, have you. Nowadays MP can be young and hot. The new version of MP are most likely found at modeling organizations (but they may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, and even if they are, they're not driving the ship).
The original JB were written by intelligent people, for intelligent people.
So details like Moneypenny were real, otherwise it would not have worked.
New crap is crude crap, written for kids and fools.
Buwaya,
Hopefully you're self aware enough to catch yourself if you ever start screaming for someone to get of your grass.
BTW, I'm not sure that the writing which produced Pussy Galore, Goodhead, Onatop, and Octopussy is as Shakespearian as you may think it is.
This comment from an article at Taki's Mag Hillary Clinton's cold, cold, womb pretty much sums up why I "love Trump":
"It's probably all over anyway no matter who is elected, but still I thank God that at least this one time, however late in the game it may be, Trump may be able to throw up a last "Hail Mary" pass for the America that once was.
That's worth voting for."
"Hopefully you're self aware enough to catch yourself if you ever start screaming for someone to get of your grass."
My grass is a hopeless case. I have one of those San Francisco townhouses with a garden in back. And like so many of those, between the fog and neighboring houses and trees there simply isn't enough sunshine to keep a lawn going.
And like San Francisco houses in general, if you want to yell at kids to get off your lawn, you have to make them yourselves, because your neighbors are unlikely to supply any kids, so we did.
After I was done yelling at them (but dad, we haven't got a lawn. and we don't want to play outside, its too cold and I wanna play Nintendo), I took to yelling at skunks, possums and raccoons, which was fine as far as it went. My daughter did end up writing a one-act play about an intrusive raccoon however, so I'm a bit less worked up on this matter.
Anyway, the original James Bond series was excellent. No, its not Shakespeare, but it is better and smarter stuff than most things of the last twenty years. And I have met Pussy Galore - not by that name, but a lady with stage name of the same ilk, retired from a career as a Nevada demimondaine. Reality has characters fiction won't touch.
it's intriguing how they are seen as the quintessential cold war spy tale, but it owes much more to pre war tales like perry oppenheim, some of the tribute tales, like anthony horowitz's tales are quite faithful to the canon,
Hi narciso,
Any suggestions for Oppenheim?
Most seem to be mysteries, and I can take only so much of that.
Clinton's gang is advertising a great deal in Connecticut. If they have to spend money in CT they are in trouble. Just saying.
BTW, I'm not sure that the writing which produced Pussy Galore, Goodhead, Onatop, and Octopussy is as Shakespearian as you may think it is.
8/11/16, 5:17 PM
PBJ, you're obviously a guy who has only seen the movies and not read the books.
This is unusually sloppy thinking for you
Likewise there are those who, like me, cannot bring themselves to vote for either, and won't.
I dunno. If someone accuses me of sloppy thinking, and then claims that he can't make a decision. Well....ya' know.....I'm not going to change a damn thing.
@ Buwaya,
You really shouldn't criticize things you haven't actually read. The authors of the paper do address your point: Texas experienced the same growth in Hispanic immigrant voters, yet the Republicans do very well there. They get about half of the Hispanic vote in Texas, just like the Republicans used to do in California. Only after Pete Wilson's ugly campaign made it clear that many Republicans despise Hispanics did Republicans began losing the Hispanic vote by very large margins. They also lost some of the white vote, as some of the non-bigoted whites were repelled by what looks, smells and acts like racism.
In Texas, the Republicans have welcomed Hispanics, and they win pretty consistently there.
Walter, I lived in California from 1984 to 1988, and I followed the state's politics for years after that. Wilson was scapegoating Mexicans for his own failure to rein in spending. It was already the case that illegal immigrants were not entitled to much in the way of state-funded benefits, so Prop 187 would not have done much to solve California's fiscal problems. The appeal of Prop 187 was that it was a highly emotional symbolic issue that could be used to rile up the Republican base, just as Trump did. And just as Trump has done, Wilson destroyed the party in the process.
Welcome to your one-party state, Trump supporters. I hope you enjoy the reign of Herr Rodham.
Walter, I just watched the Pete Wilson ad you linked to. You don't think that's racist? Pretending there are hordes of immigrants streaming across the border costing the State of California billions of dollars? It has been proven time and time again that illegal immigrants pay much more in taxes than they consume in state services. Mostly they are young, working-age people who actually ARE working. They're not retirees, and they're not school-age children. Right there you eliminate the demographic groups who cost the state the most.
But Wilson, like Trump, wanted to scare people. It seems to have worked pretty well on you, so well that you haven't learned any better in 22 years. Really, just do some reading on actual studies by real economists to learn a fact or two. You might start here.
It has been proven time and time again that illegal immigrants pay much more in taxes than they consume in state services.
Proven by whom? What utter rubbish!
In Texas, the Republicans have welcomed Hispanics, and they win pretty consistently there.
Many, if not most, Hispanic families in Texas have lived there for generations and are a huge part of Texas history and culture. And while legal immigration is encouraged, illegal immigration is not.
mockturtle, I provided a link that you obviously didn't follow. Go read that and then come back and tell us all why it's rubbish.
Jeff, the average cost per student in CA is about $12K/yr. Let's say the average family of illegal immigrants has three kids. That's $36K. Are you going to tell me that this family, who probably gets paid under the table, is paying $36K in annual state taxes? And we're not even factoring in health care.
Oh, and the article you referenced from the Cato Institute was about LEGAL immigrants. You said ILLEGAL immigrants.
Blogger mockturtle said...
Jeff, the average cost per student in CA is about $12K/yr. Let's say the average family of illegal immigrants has three kids. That's $36K. Are you going to tell me that this family, who probably gets paid under the table, is paying $36K in annual state taxes? And we're not even factoring in health care.
Before the Terminator became governor, there was Gray Davis. Before Gray Davis, there was Pete Wilson. I started working with the INS in San Diego on the Tijuana border in 1996. Wilson was the Governor. We had a state agency at the border with us. They were called DHS (Department of Health Services).
Every day border crossers would come across the border to shop, visit, take their kids to school, something. Many of these border crossers (Mexican Citizens) were wealthy, or upper middle class of Mexico.
When they would come across, we would ask to see their purse (On the border anyone can be searched without PC). Inside their purse they would have a DHS benefits card. In other words, they would be receiving medical benefits by the state of California. We would send them over to the DHS office located at our border station at San Ysidro, and they would have their benefits card canceled (Because the law said you had to be a resident of California to receive benefits). These people were Mexican citizens with temporary visitors visa's. They weren't allowed residency in the USA.
So we would also cancel their border crossing cards/visa's because they were caught in a catch 22. They couldn't be residents of California so they couldn't have the DHS benefits card, but they also couldn't live in California, which is what they must have claimed to receive their benefits card.
3 months after Gray Davis got into office, they pulled all of the DHS agents from the southern border. The California State Attorney General sued the state of California because all of those Mexicans who lost their benefits were being forced to pay them back in order to get another Visa. That was the requirement.
Gray Davis and the Democrats gave them back all the money that had been collected and forgave the rest of their debts. And we could no longer cancel their benefits card.
And this was never a scandal, or reported on, or even talked about by anyone, anywhere, except for us INS officers working on the border.
"Hillary voters don't love her."
Nobody does. Not ever her own husband. I wouldn't even say Huma loves her.
Mockturtle, I'm beginning to wonder about your reading ability.
Let's say the average family of illegal immigrants has three kids. That's $36K.
No, I have a better idea. Let's say the average illegal immigrant is a gay Mexican Muslim terrorist bent on chopping off our heads and raping our teenage daughters. Does that make you feel better?
Your "Let's say" is total bullshit. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are men who come here to work and leave their families behind. I gave you a link to an article that has references that show this.
Eric, as long we're going to swap stories and pretend they are evidence of something, I'll give you one that I knew about. I lived in San Diego from 1984 to 1988. In 1985 a DEA agent Enrique Camerena Salazar was abducted by a Mexican drug cartel off the streets in Guadalajara. Customs Service Commissioner William von Raab personally ordered all of the customs agents at every border crossing to conduct slow searches of every vehicle coming across in an effort to force the Mexican government to find Camerena. You can read about it here.
See, this made perfect sense to von Raab: Mexican drug cartels do something bad, so punish US citizens who are just trying to get home from a weekend across the border. After a day or two, they'll stop going down there and that will hurt the border economy on both sides, but since most of it is on the Mexico side, that's OK. All Mexicans are the same, just punish them all for the sins of the cartel.
Nobody thinks this way about the French, the English or the Germans. But somehow it's acceptable to treat the Mexicans the way a bad teacher treats her unruly third graders.
Jeff, do you, by any chance, know the difference between legal and illegal.
If not, I hope you have a good attorney.
Mockturtle, even a moment's reflection should tell you that illegal immigrants are less likely to be accompanied by family members than legal immigrants are. And while many of them work in the cash economy and don't pay income taxes, everyone pays sales taxes, gas taxes, and real estate taxes. (If you're a renter you pay real estate taxes indirectly thru higher rent.)
But surprisingly many illegal immigrants do pay income and social security taxes. The CBO says that between 70 and 80 percent of them file returns. And according to Wikipedia, the Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used. So they paid way more than they cost.
It's probably true that California both spends more on illegal immigrants and collects less in taxes from them, as two thirds of California's tax revenues comes from personal income taxes, while Texas doesn't have an income tax. But given what the Texas Comptroller reports, I doubt very much that California can blame it's fiscal problems on illegal immigrants.
Thing is, mockturtle, that I can Google and find this info very easily. So can you, if you really want to know. But I don't think you do.
Jeff,
Thirty years in CA, and frequent visitor to TX, where I've had much business and many friends -
My main objection to the Cato thing is partly my general objection to most things from Cato. It is tendentious argumentation. It loves to correlate and make a simple explanation for complicated things for a political point. It does not bother with factors that do not fit its extremely simple models.
There were a host of things that were going on at the time and I was a witness of, that are similarly explanatory. The biggest one was the Southern Cal counties/cities flipping, notably Orange. This is easy to explain - the peace dividend squashed the defense and related industries, and the recession did a number on industrial (many aerospace) firms beside that; huge numbers of conservatives (all races) simply left, completely changing politics across the south.
The race between "B1 Bob" Dornan and Loretta Sanchez, 1997, is the marker for this but the same thing was going on since 1990.
These were immediately replaced by Hispanic politicians who set up a spoils system and political organization. This was waiting in the wings because these people were the result of decades of preparation in indoctrinating and organizing the Chicano elites of Southern Cal mainly in the Cal State system. This was planned and deliberate, the work of the ubiquitous La Raza, as it is mainly a college fraternity organization with a political program. The Hispanic elite was crucial, and these people were indoctrinated from youth and mainly had careers in government agencies.
The machine is what delivers the votes.
After that the state went on to drive out industries that employed conservatives, this can be seen in the constant harassment of hundreds or thousands of these in the LA and Bay areas, again driving hordes of people away. These were often replaced by more liberal migrants from the rest of the US, flipping more counties. Once Dem, the fix was in through the machine.
The ideological attachments of industries, as workplace communities, is a massive, overlooked factor in these things.
There are inherent ideological and cultural characters here.
Another big difference between CA and TX is that the "deep state" is very different in ideology, and was already so in the 1980s. This could be seen in schools, and especially universities, and especially in the mid and low tiers.
It was also true in government employees at every level.
And then there is the point raised above - CA simply isnt TX, in soft factors. TX has a "national identity" that CA really doesnt. In TX the Republicans ended up taking over "Texas nationalism" as an emotional marker. CA has a very unrooted population, both white and hispanic, there really isnt a California identity (most that had one have left) and the hispanic population is aggressively Chicano, their identity is ethnic, not national.
Cato and all these think tanks would do much better by getting to know all these Hispanic people, be Chicano, speak the language, learn their nature and culture and what leverage works, and then figure out whats what and what to do. Field work, "Lawrence of San Bernardino" stuff. None of you seem to want to though.
Jeff said...
Remember when we all but eradicated TB, Measels and whooping cough?
Not any more.
buwaya said...
The inexorable increase in immigrants did this all by itself.
There is no part of the Republican/conservative program that would attract these voters.
8/11/16, 4:33 PM
The problem is (especially with Democrats and some others that purposely misconstrue) the difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants. The GOP has a problem with illegal immigrants and per your statement above, these should not [and for now are not] votes to get. They are not legal immigrants and as such have no vote. The Dems will/are actively work to change that but if you are here illegally you should get NOTHING. No government services, no right to vote, no nothing. You are already breaking the law.
It should be illegal (isn't it already?) to hire illegals. It should be illegal to provide government services to illegals. Sanctuary cities should loose all federal funds and should be actively fined for harboring criminals. I could even see going so far as to make children of illegals not automatically citizens either. We have GOT to get a handle on this. Turning off the benefits train is a good start. I can also see making legal immigration much, much easier but [as I see it] a necessary first step is much stronger enforcement of existing laws.
There is nothing at all odd about that conversation if you just figure they are rational people who recognize that both candidates are disasters, but they intend to vote for the lesser evil.
I don't see them saying then "love Trumpo no matter what he says," I see them saying it won't affect their vote, which easily be understood by anyone who looks at Hillary Clinton with a clear focus.
And, reverse it to people voting for Clinton because they dislike Trump, and it still works. People can be fully aware of all her lying and corruption, and still vote fro her as less of a problem than they fear Trump will be. That's the whole rationale for a lot of ex-GOP NeverTrumpers.
Nothing illogical or "look down my nose at the stupid rubes" at all.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा