sure looks to me like you are campaigning for anyone but
ok now who are you really for!
Trump 2016 Or Hillary?
- Thread starter WhiteGuyintoThis
- Start date
ok now who are you really for!
when I support someone I don't cut their friggn throat.... and point out all their faults so people will be swayed another direction.... I have to think you are just playing mind games and supporting someone else
you wouldn't be registered under 2 names would you... the other be hoping hub?
you wouldn't be registered under 2 names would you... the other be hoping hub?
Donald Trump will (almost certainly) never be elected president. Here’s why.
With Donald Trump steamrolling towards the GOP nomination, the political chatter is increasingly focused on whether Trump could win a general election by making surprise inroads into states in the industrial Midwest. Many Democrats and nonpartisan observers see this as probably the only plausible (if that’s even the right word for it) path for Trump, who might do this mainly by running up huge numbers among white voters — particularly blue collar whites.
But a new examination of the demographics and projected voting patterns in some of the key Rust Belt states underscores just how unlikely this really is. To succeed, this analysis finds, Trump would likely have to improve on Mitt Romney’s advantage over Barack Obama among blue collar whites by double digit margins, which is an astronomically high bar — in almost all of these states.
Demographer Ruy Teixeira conducted this analysis at my request. Teixeira was the lead analyst on a comprehensive report on the projected makeup of the 2016 electorate that was released by the Center for American Progress late last year. He built on that report in this new analysis.
The rub of the matter is that Trump’s goal of winning by running up big margins among whites could be made even harder by ongoing demographic shifts that are slowly rendering even whiter Rust Belt states less white. The CAP report found that in a number of these states — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio — the blue collar white share of the vote is projected to decline by at least two percentage points, and the overall white share is projected to drop by around one point.
I asked Teixeira to factor in these expected shifts to calculate how much better Trump would have to fare among working class whites than Romney did in order to win each state. In each of these, Teixeira assumes that the Democratic candidate (likely Hillary Clinton) will win the same share of the nonwhite and college educated white vote that Obama did, which, if anything, is generous to Trump. Given the overall margins that Obama won these states by — which are in some cases quite large — Trump would have to improve enormously on Romney’s performance among blue collar whites:
— In Michigan, where Romney beat Obama by 53-45 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 62-36, an improvement of 18 points.
In Wisconsin, where Romney beat Obama by 50-48 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 56-42, an improvement of 12 points.
— In Pennsylvania, where Romney beat Obama by 56-42 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 63-36, an improvement of 13 points.
— In Ohio, where Romney beat Obama by 57-41 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 60-38, an improvement of six points. (This is lower than the others because Ohio was much closer overall; but even six points is a pretty sizable improvement.)
Now let’s be even more generous to Trump. Let’s assume he can win college educated white voters by larger margins than Romney did (which seems unlikely, though not impossible), and calculate how much he would need to improve over Romney’s performance among white voters overall, meaning among both working class and college educated whites taken as one group. (This again assumes the Dem wins among nonwhites by the same margins Obama did.) If you factor in demographic shifts, here’s what you get:
— In Michigan, where Romney beat Obama by 52-46 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 58-40, an improvement of 12 points.
— In Wisconsin, where Romney beat Obama by 50-49 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 54-45, an improvement over Romney of eight points.
— In Pennsylvania, where Romney beat Obama 54-44 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 58-40, an improvement of eight points.
— In Ohio, where Romney beat Obama by 56-42 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 58-40, an improvement of four points. (This seems doable, but again, this presumes Trump makes inroads among college educated whites and that the nonwhite spread remains the same.)
“It seems very unlikely that Trump can do so much better than Romney among whites and particularly working class whites in these states,” Teixeira tells me. “The swings are just too big.”
Now, Trump backers might argue that he will also drive up turnout among white voters relative to nonwhites, meaning he would not have to win among them by these margins to prevail. But here is where a demographic trap intrudes: All of the things that Trump might say and do to drive up white turnout — particularly working class white turnout — would also likely drive up nonwhite turnout. So there’s no reason to expect a major boost in turnout from one group and not the other, Teixeira says.
“I don’t think he can produce a tsunami of white turnout in these states without provoking an answering surge in minority turnout,” says Teixeira, who has a lot more comprehensive demographic analysis at his Election Oracle page. “The fact of the matter is that his path in the Midwest/Rustbelt is very, very difficult no matter how you look at it.”
TEAM HILLARY PREPARES STRATEGY AGAINST TRUMP: The Post pulls back the curtain on the preparations underway by the Clinton campaign and Democratic groups for a general election against Trump:
They are now focused intently on researching the billionaire real estate mogul’s business record, dissecting his economic policies and compiling a long history of controversial pronouncements that have captivated and repelled the nation in this tumultuous election season….Because of the litany of controversial pronouncements he has made, they expect a Trump nomination to make it easier to rally women, Latino and African American voters to turn out for Clinton.
The story also reports that Democrats are working to understand the source of Trump’s economic message (such as it is) and its appeal to blue collar whites, which should not be neglected.
* RNC CHAIR HINTS AT CONTESTED CONVENTION: On CNN’s State of the Union, RNC chair Reince Priebus was asked whether Trump should get the nomination if he emerges with a plurality, but not a majority, of delegates. his reply:
“When someone’s a little bit short, you let the process play out….the minority of delegates doesn’t rule for the majority. So this is a delegate-driven process….delegates matter. And so the majority of voting delegates in our party choose the nominee.”
Contested convention, here we come! Of course, Trump could win a majority of the delegates outright through primary voting, making the best laid plans moot.
With Donald Trump steamrolling towards the GOP nomination, the political chatter is increasingly focused on whether Trump could win a general election by making surprise inroads into states in the industrial Midwest. Many Democrats and nonpartisan observers see this as probably the only plausible (if that’s even the right word for it) path for Trump, who might do this mainly by running up huge numbers among white voters — particularly blue collar whites.
But a new examination of the demographics and projected voting patterns in some of the key Rust Belt states underscores just how unlikely this really is. To succeed, this analysis finds, Trump would likely have to improve on Mitt Romney’s advantage over Barack Obama among blue collar whites by double digit margins, which is an astronomically high bar — in almost all of these states.
Demographer Ruy Teixeira conducted this analysis at my request. Teixeira was the lead analyst on a comprehensive report on the projected makeup of the 2016 electorate that was released by the Center for American Progress late last year. He built on that report in this new analysis.
The rub of the matter is that Trump’s goal of winning by running up big margins among whites could be made even harder by ongoing demographic shifts that are slowly rendering even whiter Rust Belt states less white. The CAP report found that in a number of these states — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio — the blue collar white share of the vote is projected to decline by at least two percentage points, and the overall white share is projected to drop by around one point.
I asked Teixeira to factor in these expected shifts to calculate how much better Trump would have to fare among working class whites than Romney did in order to win each state. In each of these, Teixeira assumes that the Democratic candidate (likely Hillary Clinton) will win the same share of the nonwhite and college educated white vote that Obama did, which, if anything, is generous to Trump. Given the overall margins that Obama won these states by — which are in some cases quite large — Trump would have to improve enormously on Romney’s performance among blue collar whites:
— In Michigan, where Romney beat Obama by 53-45 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 62-36, an improvement of 18 points.
In Wisconsin, where Romney beat Obama by 50-48 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 56-42, an improvement of 12 points.
— In Pennsylvania, where Romney beat Obama by 56-42 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 63-36, an improvement of 13 points.
— In Ohio, where Romney beat Obama by 57-41 among working class whites, Trump would have to win among them by 60-38, an improvement of six points. (This is lower than the others because Ohio was much closer overall; but even six points is a pretty sizable improvement.)
Now let’s be even more generous to Trump. Let’s assume he can win college educated white voters by larger margins than Romney did (which seems unlikely, though not impossible), and calculate how much he would need to improve over Romney’s performance among white voters overall, meaning among both working class and college educated whites taken as one group. (This again assumes the Dem wins among nonwhites by the same margins Obama did.) If you factor in demographic shifts, here’s what you get:
— In Michigan, where Romney beat Obama by 52-46 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 58-40, an improvement of 12 points.
— In Wisconsin, where Romney beat Obama by 50-49 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 54-45, an improvement over Romney of eight points.
— In Pennsylvania, where Romney beat Obama 54-44 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 58-40, an improvement of eight points.
— In Ohio, where Romney beat Obama by 56-42 among white voters overall, Trump would have to win among them by 58-40, an improvement of four points. (This seems doable, but again, this presumes Trump makes inroads among college educated whites and that the nonwhite spread remains the same.)
“It seems very unlikely that Trump can do so much better than Romney among whites and particularly working class whites in these states,” Teixeira tells me. “The swings are just too big.”
Now, Trump backers might argue that he will also drive up turnout among white voters relative to nonwhites, meaning he would not have to win among them by these margins to prevail. But here is where a demographic trap intrudes: All of the things that Trump might say and do to drive up white turnout — particularly working class white turnout — would also likely drive up nonwhite turnout. So there’s no reason to expect a major boost in turnout from one group and not the other, Teixeira says.
“I don’t think he can produce a tsunami of white turnout in these states without provoking an answering surge in minority turnout,” says Teixeira, who has a lot more comprehensive demographic analysis at his Election Oracle page. “The fact of the matter is that his path in the Midwest/Rustbelt is very, very difficult no matter how you look at it.”
TEAM HILLARY PREPARES STRATEGY AGAINST TRUMP: The Post pulls back the curtain on the preparations underway by the Clinton campaign and Democratic groups for a general election against Trump:
They are now focused intently on researching the billionaire real estate mogul’s business record, dissecting his economic policies and compiling a long history of controversial pronouncements that have captivated and repelled the nation in this tumultuous election season….Because of the litany of controversial pronouncements he has made, they expect a Trump nomination to make it easier to rally women, Latino and African American voters to turn out for Clinton.
The story also reports that Democrats are working to understand the source of Trump’s economic message (such as it is) and its appeal to blue collar whites, which should not be neglected.
* RNC CHAIR HINTS AT CONTESTED CONVENTION: On CNN’s State of the Union, RNC chair Reince Priebus was asked whether Trump should get the nomination if he emerges with a plurality, but not a majority, of delegates. his reply:
“When someone’s a little bit short, you let the process play out….the minority of delegates doesn’t rule for the majority. So this is a delegate-driven process….delegates matter. And so the majority of voting delegates in our party choose the nominee.”
Contested convention, here we come! Of course, Trump could win a majority of the delegates outright through primary voting, making the best laid plans moot.
Ten reasons to not vote for Senator Ted Cruz
Senator Ted Cruz was the first Republican to officially announce his campaign to run for the presidency in 2016. Since coming onto the national stage he has been a very high profile and outspoken member of the Senate and has very strong name recognition and support among conservatives in the country. Hailing from Texas, the largest Republican leaning state in the union and the only large population state that is all but guaranteed to vote GOP, his campaign is enticing for the promise of how many electoral votes he can deliver. He is also the first major Hispanic candidate to run for president, which may help attract the key voting block. On the surface, he seems to be the most electable Republican in the current field.
However, Cruz does have several major drawbacks. He is extremely conservative compared to most of the country, which could do him some major harm in the general election. Still, he seems to be the current frontrunner with other candidates like Mike Huckabee being a liability from both the right and the left, Rand Paul lacking widespread appeal, and Marco Rubio being woefully out of touch with both the electorate and reality. Add to that Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, who are more or less joke candidates who have little to no chance of even carrying a single state, and you have Cruz appearing to be the strongest candidate currently. Having said that, if he gets the GOP nod he will have to contend with either Hillary Clinton, who has so much baggage she could start a luggage company (which would probably be used to launder money anyway), or Bernie Sanders who is so far to the left that he’s coming back up around on the right.
Political realities aside, Cruz won’t be the next president for a variety of reasons. Here are our top ten reasons why you should consider casting your vote for another candidate.
He has a disastrous record and plan on women's rights
Ted Cruz is anti abortion. That’s not exactly a startling revelation for a conservative Republican running for office, but how far he is willing to take that stance is another matter. Cruz believes that women should not have control over their own bodies when it comes to pregnancy, working to institute abortion bans in Texas that were so extreme that they were ruled unconstitutional and had to be repealed. Not only that, but he even opposes abortion in cases of ******* or *******, though he does stop short of using the biblical standard of forsing the victim to marry the *******. Still, forsing a woman to carry a *******’s baby to term is one of the most extreme views one can have on abortion, one that even staunch anti abortion activists shy away from. But while his stance on reproductive rights are pretty shaky, it’s not the only social issue he’s extreme on…
He opposes civil rights for LGBTQ citizens, and we aren’t talking just marriage
Same sex marriage is a hot button topic in the United States today. Much like the anti-miscegenation laws of the last millennium, there are many in this country who refuse to acknowledge that there are people who cling to outdated notions that the government should be allowed to prevent people from marrying whomever they wish. Ted Cruz is one such person. Not only does Cruz oppose allowing people to marry and have equal standing before the law, but he has actively worked on cases to overturn gay marriage, about which has bragged about as if it were something to be proud of. Not only that, but he has called the extension of equal rights to all citizens as making gay marriage mandatory. Not only does he not want to allow LGBTQ citizens to have equal rights, he wants to strip some of the existing rights they have, such as serving in the military or even holding gay pride parades. But his abysmal record on civil rights doesn’t stop there…
His views on immigration are contradictory and hypocritical
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mom and a Cuban *******. With a background such as that you would expect that he would be somewhat sympathetic to the plight of immigrants and refugees who come to the United States in search of a better life. However, he opposes any leniency for illegal immigrants whatsoever, including those who were brought over as children with no choice in the matter. He seems to be of the all too common mindset that immigration, even of the illegal sort, is a negative for the United States. Even if you ignore the fact that illegal immigration is a net gain for the American economy, it’s a bit disingenuous to hold people accountable for actions that they had no choice in, especially for someone born outside of the country who lucked into his citizenship. His stances have, unsurprisingly, alienated the hispanic community, blunting the effect of him being the first Hispanic running from a major party. He has softened his stance on the issue quite a bit lately, likely realizing that his position was untenable, in an attempt to steal voters from Rand Paul. But this isn’t the only issue he’s softened his stance on in an attempt to pull votes away from Rand Paul…
He wants to continue spying on Americans
Senator Ted Cruz wants to extend the Patriot Act in the federal government. He has, however, joined his opponent Rand Paul in calling for the discontinuation of the NSA spying aspects and wants to reform the program as a whole. But where Paul wants to end the Patriot Act as a whole, Cruz simply wants to reform it. In fact, he is one of the co-sponsors of the so-called “Freedom Act” which, if passed, is supposed to end some of the more egregious violations of Americans’ constitutional and civil rights. However, it seems that the bill would not only continue to allow spying, but would actually open the door for even worse violations. In the meantime, he is praising efforts by other senators, like Paul, for their efforts publicly. In other words, he is trying to have the appearance of a civil liberties advocate, while fighting behind the scenes to reduce Americans’ civil rights and sneak a bill by with false intentions and impressions. But in Cruz’ mind, anything is fair game when it comes to national defense, no matter the cost. For example….
He wants yet another American war in the Middle East
ISIS has become a major problem in the Middle East. They have been wreaking havoc on Syria and Iraq in particular, and the entire region as a whole. They are also almost entirely a creation of Americans meddling in foreign affairs where we shouldn’t be. While it’s easy to look back on the Iraq War and argue about whether or not it was a mistake (it was), the result of it was the creation of ISIS. Ted Cruz thinks that the best way to handle this situation is to double down on the wars in the Middle East by sending even more troops and assets in. Either that or “bomb them back to the stone age,” as he so eloquently put last fall. He’s also more willing to play politics with the situation than to offer real analysis and solutions, blaming Presidents Obama and Clinton for the mess while ignoring President Bush’s role. But a hawk is a hawk, regardless of party, and it’s difficult for trigger happy presidents to stay away from foreign wars. Speaking of which….
He is opposed to peace with Iran
President Obama is currently in negotiations with Iran on their nuclear program. A deal with Iran has long been thought out of reach, but it seems more and more likely with each day. Cruz, however, was having none of that, preferring to keep Iran on the enemies list rather than try to find a solution that works for all sides involved. He joined with 46 other senators and attempted to sabotage the deal, which led to accusations of treason and a petition to charge the senators involved with the same. The deal would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while at the same time allowing them to keep their national sovereignty intact when it comes to other forms of nuclear and energy research. Cruz, however, believes that the United States is the world’s police and should dictate what types of research other countries can and can not be involved in. This is no surprise, really, because Cruz is an interventionist who believes that American hegemony and short term political gains are more important than any peace deals. But Cruz is often shortsighted on many issues, preferring the short term political to the long term impacts. For example…
He doesn’t believe in climate change
There is a major anti-science contingent in the Republican Party, especially on issues like evolution and climate change. Nowhere is this more apparent than with major party candidates like Ted Cruz who are in complete denial over the science. Climate change is a real phenomenon that is occurring, over 97 percent of scientists have officially signed on in saying so. The data is clear, the effects are already beginning to occur, and the causes are evident. Cruz is not one for facts, however, refusing to accept reality. He even goes a step further, calling scientists and those who believe in science “flat-earthers.” Without even a sense of irony, he compared himself to Galileo fighting against the medieval church, showing his historical knowledge to be on about the same level as his scientific. But it’s probably no surprise since….
He is in the pocket of the oil companies
Following the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in 2010, a moratorium on offshore drilling was put into place in order to protect the environment. Cruz was one of the top voices calling for the revocation of the moratorium, believing that entire ecosystems and thousands of *******, plant, and other lives are a small price to pay for easily accessible oil. Additionally, he wants to expand fracking, the highly controversial practice that causes earthquakes, pollutes groundwater, and is generally just environmentally disastrous. He also supports the increase of drilling, the expansion of the Keystone pipeline, and even access oil on Native American lands-whether they want it or not. So why is Cruz not satisfied until oil pollutes land, sea, and air? Well, as it turns out, he is the top recipient of money from oil and gas companies, and by a wide margin too. Oh, and his parents were both oil workers, but that’s probably just a coincidence. In fact, this is the only issue he’s actually been consistent on because…
He changes his positions frequently with the prevailing political winds
While reading this list, you may have noticed a pattern on several issues. Namely, that Ted Cruz has shifted his position on several issues for political reasons. He has tried to have his stances on the Patriot Act and NSA spying scandal not one, not two, but three different ways, as mentioned above. He has changed his position on marijuana legalization, albeit for the better. He is attempting to paint himself as a champion of civil rights in order to steal votes from Rand Paul, while at the same time trying to paint himself as the rock-ribbed conservative in order to capture the far right of his party. He is even starting to get some attention online for some flip flops on the death penalty, stimulus, and tort reform. Some softening of positions is to be expected during a campaign, to be sure. But when a candidate spouts rhetoric and attempts to continue bad programs behind the scenes, while intentionally disguising what they really would do, it’s a major red flag. Which is why we believe….
He has no chance of winning
While Ted Cruz is probably the frontrunner in the current GOP field, he has little appeal with moderate Republicans and in swing states. He will do poorly with hispanics thanks to his stance on immigration, his disastrous environmental policies, poor civil rights record, and weak understanding of science will harm his chances with swing voters, and women will shy away thanks to his abysmal ideas on women’s rights. Even if he does get the nomination, he will likely fare poorly in a general election, even if it is against the likes of Hillary Clinton. You would be better served to cast your vote for another candidate if you would like to see a president who actually has a shot at the White House.
Senator Ted Cruz was the first Republican to officially announce his campaign to run for the presidency in 2016. Since coming onto the national stage he has been a very high profile and outspoken member of the Senate and has very strong name recognition and support among conservatives in the country. Hailing from Texas, the largest Republican leaning state in the union and the only large population state that is all but guaranteed to vote GOP, his campaign is enticing for the promise of how many electoral votes he can deliver. He is also the first major Hispanic candidate to run for president, which may help attract the key voting block. On the surface, he seems to be the most electable Republican in the current field.
However, Cruz does have several major drawbacks. He is extremely conservative compared to most of the country, which could do him some major harm in the general election. Still, he seems to be the current frontrunner with other candidates like Mike Huckabee being a liability from both the right and the left, Rand Paul lacking widespread appeal, and Marco Rubio being woefully out of touch with both the electorate and reality. Add to that Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, who are more or less joke candidates who have little to no chance of even carrying a single state, and you have Cruz appearing to be the strongest candidate currently. Having said that, if he gets the GOP nod he will have to contend with either Hillary Clinton, who has so much baggage she could start a luggage company (which would probably be used to launder money anyway), or Bernie Sanders who is so far to the left that he’s coming back up around on the right.
Political realities aside, Cruz won’t be the next president for a variety of reasons. Here are our top ten reasons why you should consider casting your vote for another candidate.
He has a disastrous record and plan on women's rights
Ted Cruz is anti abortion. That’s not exactly a startling revelation for a conservative Republican running for office, but how far he is willing to take that stance is another matter. Cruz believes that women should not have control over their own bodies when it comes to pregnancy, working to institute abortion bans in Texas that were so extreme that they were ruled unconstitutional and had to be repealed. Not only that, but he even opposes abortion in cases of ******* or *******, though he does stop short of using the biblical standard of forsing the victim to marry the *******. Still, forsing a woman to carry a *******’s baby to term is one of the most extreme views one can have on abortion, one that even staunch anti abortion activists shy away from. But while his stance on reproductive rights are pretty shaky, it’s not the only social issue he’s extreme on…
He opposes civil rights for LGBTQ citizens, and we aren’t talking just marriage
Same sex marriage is a hot button topic in the United States today. Much like the anti-miscegenation laws of the last millennium, there are many in this country who refuse to acknowledge that there are people who cling to outdated notions that the government should be allowed to prevent people from marrying whomever they wish. Ted Cruz is one such person. Not only does Cruz oppose allowing people to marry and have equal standing before the law, but he has actively worked on cases to overturn gay marriage, about which has bragged about as if it were something to be proud of. Not only that, but he has called the extension of equal rights to all citizens as making gay marriage mandatory. Not only does he not want to allow LGBTQ citizens to have equal rights, he wants to strip some of the existing rights they have, such as serving in the military or even holding gay pride parades. But his abysmal record on civil rights doesn’t stop there…
His views on immigration are contradictory and hypocritical
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mom and a Cuban *******. With a background such as that you would expect that he would be somewhat sympathetic to the plight of immigrants and refugees who come to the United States in search of a better life. However, he opposes any leniency for illegal immigrants whatsoever, including those who were brought over as children with no choice in the matter. He seems to be of the all too common mindset that immigration, even of the illegal sort, is a negative for the United States. Even if you ignore the fact that illegal immigration is a net gain for the American economy, it’s a bit disingenuous to hold people accountable for actions that they had no choice in, especially for someone born outside of the country who lucked into his citizenship. His stances have, unsurprisingly, alienated the hispanic community, blunting the effect of him being the first Hispanic running from a major party. He has softened his stance on the issue quite a bit lately, likely realizing that his position was untenable, in an attempt to steal voters from Rand Paul. But this isn’t the only issue he’s softened his stance on in an attempt to pull votes away from Rand Paul…
He wants to continue spying on Americans
Senator Ted Cruz wants to extend the Patriot Act in the federal government. He has, however, joined his opponent Rand Paul in calling for the discontinuation of the NSA spying aspects and wants to reform the program as a whole. But where Paul wants to end the Patriot Act as a whole, Cruz simply wants to reform it. In fact, he is one of the co-sponsors of the so-called “Freedom Act” which, if passed, is supposed to end some of the more egregious violations of Americans’ constitutional and civil rights. However, it seems that the bill would not only continue to allow spying, but would actually open the door for even worse violations. In the meantime, he is praising efforts by other senators, like Paul, for their efforts publicly. In other words, he is trying to have the appearance of a civil liberties advocate, while fighting behind the scenes to reduce Americans’ civil rights and sneak a bill by with false intentions and impressions. But in Cruz’ mind, anything is fair game when it comes to national defense, no matter the cost. For example….
He wants yet another American war in the Middle East
ISIS has become a major problem in the Middle East. They have been wreaking havoc on Syria and Iraq in particular, and the entire region as a whole. They are also almost entirely a creation of Americans meddling in foreign affairs where we shouldn’t be. While it’s easy to look back on the Iraq War and argue about whether or not it was a mistake (it was), the result of it was the creation of ISIS. Ted Cruz thinks that the best way to handle this situation is to double down on the wars in the Middle East by sending even more troops and assets in. Either that or “bomb them back to the stone age,” as he so eloquently put last fall. He’s also more willing to play politics with the situation than to offer real analysis and solutions, blaming Presidents Obama and Clinton for the mess while ignoring President Bush’s role. But a hawk is a hawk, regardless of party, and it’s difficult for trigger happy presidents to stay away from foreign wars. Speaking of which….
He is opposed to peace with Iran
President Obama is currently in negotiations with Iran on their nuclear program. A deal with Iran has long been thought out of reach, but it seems more and more likely with each day. Cruz, however, was having none of that, preferring to keep Iran on the enemies list rather than try to find a solution that works for all sides involved. He joined with 46 other senators and attempted to sabotage the deal, which led to accusations of treason and a petition to charge the senators involved with the same. The deal would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while at the same time allowing them to keep their national sovereignty intact when it comes to other forms of nuclear and energy research. Cruz, however, believes that the United States is the world’s police and should dictate what types of research other countries can and can not be involved in. This is no surprise, really, because Cruz is an interventionist who believes that American hegemony and short term political gains are more important than any peace deals. But Cruz is often shortsighted on many issues, preferring the short term political to the long term impacts. For example…
He doesn’t believe in climate change
There is a major anti-science contingent in the Republican Party, especially on issues like evolution and climate change. Nowhere is this more apparent than with major party candidates like Ted Cruz who are in complete denial over the science. Climate change is a real phenomenon that is occurring, over 97 percent of scientists have officially signed on in saying so. The data is clear, the effects are already beginning to occur, and the causes are evident. Cruz is not one for facts, however, refusing to accept reality. He even goes a step further, calling scientists and those who believe in science “flat-earthers.” Without even a sense of irony, he compared himself to Galileo fighting against the medieval church, showing his historical knowledge to be on about the same level as his scientific. But it’s probably no surprise since….
He is in the pocket of the oil companies
Following the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in 2010, a moratorium on offshore drilling was put into place in order to protect the environment. Cruz was one of the top voices calling for the revocation of the moratorium, believing that entire ecosystems and thousands of *******, plant, and other lives are a small price to pay for easily accessible oil. Additionally, he wants to expand fracking, the highly controversial practice that causes earthquakes, pollutes groundwater, and is generally just environmentally disastrous. He also supports the increase of drilling, the expansion of the Keystone pipeline, and even access oil on Native American lands-whether they want it or not. So why is Cruz not satisfied until oil pollutes land, sea, and air? Well, as it turns out, he is the top recipient of money from oil and gas companies, and by a wide margin too. Oh, and his parents were both oil workers, but that’s probably just a coincidence. In fact, this is the only issue he’s actually been consistent on because…
He changes his positions frequently with the prevailing political winds
While reading this list, you may have noticed a pattern on several issues. Namely, that Ted Cruz has shifted his position on several issues for political reasons. He has tried to have his stances on the Patriot Act and NSA spying scandal not one, not two, but three different ways, as mentioned above. He has changed his position on marijuana legalization, albeit for the better. He is attempting to paint himself as a champion of civil rights in order to steal votes from Rand Paul, while at the same time trying to paint himself as the rock-ribbed conservative in order to capture the far right of his party. He is even starting to get some attention online for some flip flops on the death penalty, stimulus, and tort reform. Some softening of positions is to be expected during a campaign, to be sure. But when a candidate spouts rhetoric and attempts to continue bad programs behind the scenes, while intentionally disguising what they really would do, it’s a major red flag. Which is why we believe….
He has no chance of winning
While Ted Cruz is probably the frontrunner in the current GOP field, he has little appeal with moderate Republicans and in swing states. He will do poorly with hispanics thanks to his stance on immigration, his disastrous environmental policies, poor civil rights record, and weak understanding of science will harm his chances with swing voters, and women will shy away thanks to his abysmal ideas on women’s rights. Even if he does get the nomination, he will likely fare poorly in a general election, even if it is against the likes of Hillary Clinton. You would be better served to cast your vote for another candidate if you would like to see a president who actually has a shot at the White House.
here's one for you
Why Ted Cruz Shouldn’t Be President
Ted Cruz is a rising star in the Republican Party thanks to his tough stands for liberty and against big government and the status quo. Evidence of his rise and threat to the establishment comes in the fact that CNN now thinks it’s time to give scrutiny to the albatross hanging around Cruz’s neck: scrutiny it never gave to the illegal alien currently occupying the People’s House. CNN asks: “Can Cruz Run For President?”
The simple answer is that because there is no longer the rule of law in America, he probably can and will. But that does not mean he’s a natural born citizen, as required under Article II, Section 1, or that he’s Constitutionally eligible to be President.
Cruz was born in Canada to a mom who was an American citizen but a ******* who was a Cuban citizen. His ******* did not become a naturalized American citizen until 2005.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerstat clearly defined a “natural born citizen” as a baby “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” It differentiated “natives or natural born citizens” from “aliens or foreigners.” So as the ******* of only one U.S. citizen and as one born outside the United States, Cruz is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.
The Republican establishment is running from the Cruz eligibility question just as it’s run from the Marco Rubio and Barack Obama eligibility questions. When asked about it by CNN, Senator Rand Paul gave a pat beltway answer, saying: “You won’t find me questioning his eligibility. I decided a long time ago I wasn’t going to be a birther for Democrats. I’m not a birther for Republicans.” The rule of law doesn’t matter to the establishment.
Nor does it matter to CNN. According to their Constitutional “experts,” Athena Jones reports: “[A]ll of them believe that Cruz is. But it’s important to know the Constitution doesn’t define who is a natural-born citizen. And those are the only people eligible to run for president. Also I should add the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.” Except that it has in Minor v. Happerstat, as I pointed out.
Five Reasons Why Rafael Edward Cruz Will Never Be President
Many believe Rafael Edward Cruz (aka Ted Cruz) will never be president because he is ineligible to run for the office. They believe since Cruz was not born in the U.S., but Canada, he is disqualified from serving as Commander in Chief. While this is a legitimate concern, it does not make the list of top five reasons why the Cuban-Canadian, senor Cruz, will never see the inside of the White House other than as a guest.
Here are the Top Five reasons why Ted Cruz will never be president:
1.In high school, he was voted most likely to be a sleazy, sneaky, sweaty, unscrupulous douchebag adult.
2.As a once budding actor, he auditioned for the role of Grandpa Munster, sans make up, but was rejected as too scary.
3.His college roommate at Princeton slept, each night, clutching a large cross and wearing a clove of garlic around his neck.
4.His barber has confirmed the numbers 666 are visible on his scalp.
5.There just aren’t enough low-information, low-IQ, racist, xenophobic, Bible-hugging, gun-toting voters out there.
Yes, Cruz may become the Republican presidential nominee. Reason #5 only applies to a general election. There are more than enough misguided and misinformed Republican voters for Cruz to secure the GOP nomination.
Many believe Rafael Edward Cruz (aka Ted Cruz) will never be president because he is ineligible to run for the office. They believe since Cruz was not born in the U.S., but Canada, he is disqualified from serving as Commander in Chief. While this is a legitimate concern, it does not make the list of top five reasons why the Cuban-Canadian, senor Cruz, will never see the inside of the White House other than as a guest.
Here are the Top Five reasons why Ted Cruz will never be president:
1.In high school, he was voted most likely to be a sleazy, sneaky, sweaty, unscrupulous douchebag adult.
2.As a once budding actor, he auditioned for the role of Grandpa Munster, sans make up, but was rejected as too scary.
3.His college roommate at Princeton slept, each night, clutching a large cross and wearing a clove of garlic around his neck.
4.His barber has confirmed the numbers 666 are visible on his scalp.
5.There just aren’t enough low-information, low-IQ, racist, xenophobic, Bible-hugging, gun-toting voters out there.
Yes, Cruz may become the Republican presidential nominee. Reason #5 only applies to a general election. There are more than enough misguided and misinformed Republican voters for Cruz to secure the GOP nomination.
damn you do a search for reasons why Cruz shouldn't be president.... and so far it has shown me 5 pages from different publications
that man is well liked hahahahah
that man is well liked hahahahah
Trouble is if you actually bother to read the Minor v. Happerstat ruling, you'll find the Supreme Court did discuss someone in exactly Cruz's situation, and said he would be a natural born citizen.
Here's en excerpt from Chief Justice Waite who wrote the court's opinion:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
You can read the whole ruling here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
It is actually a pretty interesting case. It was about a woman's right to vote. Virginia Minor tried to register to vote in Missouri and was denied because under state law then women couldn't vote in Missouri. Virginia sued claiming the 14th amendment prohibited the state from denying her the right to vote as an equal protection issue.
In ruling, the court analyzed her citizenship and said she was clearly a natural born citizen, being born to citizen parents on US soil. (Note they didn't say you had to be on US soil to be a natural born citizen....just that she was). However, they said she wasn't guaranteed a right to vote under the constitution, as the constitution was silent on the topic.
It is interesting when you think about the ramifications of their ruling. They said under the constitution and then current state law, Virginia was eligible to BE president of the united states, but couldn't legally vote for someone to be president.
The court back then also showed great judicial restraint. They understood and abided by their constitutional role to rule on the laws....not make try to write their own laws as is all too often the case these days. Another excerpt from their ruling:
We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us.
Which just goes to show you that even if President Obama had been proven to be born in Kenya, as many Republicans have been bringing up his entire first term and part of his second term as President, he was still eligible to be President. And again proves that all those 5-6 years of charging Obama as an illegal president was nothing more than "racism masquerading as some kind of integrity movement". And that being the case, the charges being laid against Hillary, for the most part, probably lack the same integrity that Obama's accusers had ... the very same.
Last edited:
You have repeatedly claimed Cruz is ineligible to be president. By your logic in this post I guess this "proves" you charging Cruz as ineligible is nothing more than racism due to his Hispanic heritage.
Nope ... that's not what I'm saying or why I'm bringing the Cruz citizenship issue up. I'm saying that its the Republicans who made issue and questioned Obama's eligibility to be President for over 6 years, but aren't questioning Cruz's citizenship ... I'm simply mocking the party's hypocrisy, h-h, that's all.
Well, accusing them of hypocrisy is perfectly reasonable. Saying it proves they were being racist isn't.
@subhub174014 - if your addressing me then the only person who so far has earned my vote is Kasich. But in the general election I don't want to see Trump elected and I prefer not Hillary either but Trump does represent more evil than Hillary does at this point.
The guy is extremely immature, lacks the global-macro and geo-political intellectual acumen, hot-headed, and dangerous. He does not have the right temperament nor intellectual capacity for the job. If he wasn't so crazy I'd might be for him as I don't want an establishment Oligarchy brought candidate either as Hillary is just a tool that will uphold their status-quo.
It appears the national CBS poll is in sync with many the same sentiment we have here, neither Trump or Hillary are generating much enthusiasm amongst the voting populace.
Poll: Trump, Clinton score historic unfavorable ratings
By David Wright, CNN
Updated 4:33 PM ET, Tue March 22, 2016
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll.
View attachment 804265
That makes Trump and Clinton viewed more unfavorably than any front-runner for either party since 1984, when CBS began polling voters on the question.
On the Republican side, Trump scores a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of voters who view him unfavorably. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a 52% unfavorable rating, according to the poll.
Both candidates' negatives far outweigh front-runners of the past. In 2012, President Barack Obama was viewed favorably and unfavorably by an equal share of voters, while Republican nominee Mitt Romney scored a net negative of -7. In 2008, both Obama and Sen. John McCain had net positive ratings of 16 and 7 points, respectively.
CNN/ORC poll: Trump, Clinton remain on top
The previous highest unfavorable rating since 1984 actually belongs to another Clinton -- former President Bill Clinton, who in 1992 had a net negative rating of -17.
Most have low opinions of the two political parties as a whole as well -- though the Republican Party is viewed far less favorably than the Democratic Party.
Just 28% hold a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, compared to 46% of voters who view the Democratic Party favorably. Overall, 66% of Americans have a negative view of the GOP, which CBS says matches the lowest rating ever recorded in CBS polling.
The CBS/NYT poll also surveyed voters on hypothetical general election match-ups.
National poll: Clinton, Sanders both top Trump
In a Clinton-Trump election, Clinton leads the billionaire businessman by 10 points. Against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Clinton is ahead by 3 points. And her lead disappears when matched up against Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who would beat Clinton by 4 points.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's primary rival, performs better in a hypothetical contest with Trump. He leads the Republican front-runner by 15 points due to his strong support among independent voters, according to the poll.
Poll: Trump, Clinton score historic unfavorable ratings
By David Wright, CNN
Updated 4:33 PM ET, Tue March 22, 2016
View attachment 804265
That makes Trump and Clinton viewed more unfavorably than any front-runner for either party since 1984, when CBS began polling voters on the question.
On the Republican side, Trump scores a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of voters who view him unfavorably. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a 52% unfavorable rating, according to the poll.
Both candidates' negatives far outweigh front-runners of the past. In 2012, President Barack Obama was viewed favorably and unfavorably by an equal share of voters, while Republican nominee Mitt Romney scored a net negative of -7. In 2008, both Obama and Sen. John McCain had net positive ratings of 16 and 7 points, respectively.
CNN/ORC poll: Trump, Clinton remain on top
The previous highest unfavorable rating since 1984 actually belongs to another Clinton -- former President Bill Clinton, who in 1992 had a net negative rating of -17.
Most have low opinions of the two political parties as a whole as well -- though the Republican Party is viewed far less favorably than the Democratic Party.
Just 28% hold a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, compared to 46% of voters who view the Democratic Party favorably. Overall, 66% of Americans have a negative view of the GOP, which CBS says matches the lowest rating ever recorded in CBS polling.
The CBS/NYT poll also surveyed voters on hypothetical general election match-ups.
National poll: Clinton, Sanders both top Trump
In a Clinton-Trump election, Clinton leads the billionaire businessman by 10 points. Against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Clinton is ahead by 3 points. And her lead disappears when matched up against Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who would beat Clinton by 4 points.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's primary rival, performs better in a hypothetical contest with Trump. He leads the Republican front-runner by 15 points due to his strong support among independent voters, according to the poll.
Paul Ryan's Latest Speech Said One Thing: He's Running
He took the stage at AIPAC, and he began courting delegates from the great state of Florida
WASHINGTON, D.C.—All three of the remaining presidential candidates got the prime speaking slots Monday night at the annual AIPAC policy conference, to which we were not invited, alas, although that seems to have been somewhat epidemic. But any chance we get to hear Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin, talk about foreign policy, the area in which Joe Biden literally laughed him out of the campaign in 2012, is one that we never should pass up. (Remember when Ryan explained to us that, in Afghanistan, it snows during the winter? Gravitas!) Of all the barefaced pandering that went on yesterday, and Hillary Rodham Clinton was singing in tune Monday afternoon, the face of Ryan's pandering was the barest of all, and not just because he's lost the scruff he was cultivating a few months back. This was a guy doing more than rattling the saber. He was swinging it around his head until the air whistled. And, yes, this was a guy who's still thinking about being president, no matter how many non-facts he burbles out on the topic to various interviewers.
And, yes, on foreign policy, as is the case on economic policy, which I will continue to let Professor Krugman handle, Paul Ryan remains one of the biggest fakes we ever have seen. Let us begin and see where he leads us.
"To me, it is a lesson of history. For many years, we avoided what Thomas Jefferson called 'entangling alliances,' We were not as strong a country back then. And the great powers wanted to use us for their own purposes. There was no reason for us to play the pawn in their chess game. So we stayed out. That all changed in World War II. We learned the hard way that even if you don't go looking for trouble, it has a way of finding you."
Somehow, World War I, in which we certainly entangled ourselves in alliances, seems to have slipped Ryan's mind. Also, this formulation neatly elides the fact that the United States had been acting on its own, and quite imperialistically, for more than a half-century before Pearl Harbor. Probably because he wants to get to the Nazis and the Communists as quickly as possible, Ryan is trying to equate avoiding entangling alliances with isolationism. History shows that both can lead to the same bad ends.
"After the war was over, a new threat emerged: an aggressive and expansionist Soviet Union. The Soviets were setting up puppet regimes in Eastern Europe. They were aiming missiles at our friends in Western Europe. They were on the march in Asia and Africa and South America. And so we faced a choice. Either we could withdraw from the world, arm ourselves to the teeth, and make ourselves into a garrison state. Or we could pursue a forward-leaning defense. Create a community of free nations. Keep open the lanes of commerce. Build institutions that would foster cooperation. And that's exactly what we did."
And we overthrew elected governments willy-nilly, from Iran to Guatemala to Chile, and we killed countless millions of Asian peasants. And among the free nations with whom we were in community were Nicaragua under the Somozas and South Africa under apartheid. We continue.
"The threats are very different now. North Korea thumbs its nose at the world as it plays with its nuclear weapons. Iran openly backs tyrants and funds terrorist groups as it jockeys for dominance in the Middle East. An emboldened Russia is only too happy to try to reclaim its neighbors as client states. And with the rise of ISIS, an even deadlier strain of Islamist extremism has taken hold. Once again we face an aggressive militant ideology—with an assist from a gang of rogue states. And why is our relationship with Israel so important? Because in the fight against terrorism and proliferation, our interests are one and the same. For the terrorists, Israel is the first target, and we are the ultimate one. That's because we share the same values.
Yeah, he's running.
"Israel, like us, is a liberal democracy in a sea of authoritarian regimes. So when America helps Israel, both countries become stronger. Both countries are protecting our way of life.
Wait, whoa. The United States is "a liberal democracy in a sea of authoritarian regimes"? Why does Paul Ryan hate Canada so much? Or the U.K.? Or Ireland? Or the Finns, the Danes, the Swedes and the Norwegians? What is this man talking about? He's talking about delegates from Florida, is what he's talking about.
And so I want to leave you with this: I think we need to build a confident America. And the way I see it, a confident America does not shirk our commitments or shunt aside our allies. "A confident America does not distance itself from Israel or cozy up to Iran. A confident America keeps its word. It stands by our allies. It stands by Israel. Because that is what will keep the peace. That is what will keep us safe. That is what both of our countries need to thrive. "I know I just threw a lot at you. And you probably are thinking, 'What does a guy from Janesville, Wisconsin care about Israel?' But before I leave, I just wanted to say that there's actually a vibrant Jewish community in my state. And it's one that I'm very proud of.
Some of his best friends, you know…
Yeah, he's running. By not running, but he's running.
He took the stage at AIPAC, and he began courting delegates from the great state of Florida
WASHINGTON, D.C.—All three of the remaining presidential candidates got the prime speaking slots Monday night at the annual AIPAC policy conference, to which we were not invited, alas, although that seems to have been somewhat epidemic. But any chance we get to hear Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin, talk about foreign policy, the area in which Joe Biden literally laughed him out of the campaign in 2012, is one that we never should pass up. (Remember when Ryan explained to us that, in Afghanistan, it snows during the winter? Gravitas!) Of all the barefaced pandering that went on yesterday, and Hillary Rodham Clinton was singing in tune Monday afternoon, the face of Ryan's pandering was the barest of all, and not just because he's lost the scruff he was cultivating a few months back. This was a guy doing more than rattling the saber. He was swinging it around his head until the air whistled. And, yes, this was a guy who's still thinking about being president, no matter how many non-facts he burbles out on the topic to various interviewers.
And, yes, on foreign policy, as is the case on economic policy, which I will continue to let Professor Krugman handle, Paul Ryan remains one of the biggest fakes we ever have seen. Let us begin and see where he leads us.
"To me, it is a lesson of history. For many years, we avoided what Thomas Jefferson called 'entangling alliances,' We were not as strong a country back then. And the great powers wanted to use us for their own purposes. There was no reason for us to play the pawn in their chess game. So we stayed out. That all changed in World War II. We learned the hard way that even if you don't go looking for trouble, it has a way of finding you."
Somehow, World War I, in which we certainly entangled ourselves in alliances, seems to have slipped Ryan's mind. Also, this formulation neatly elides the fact that the United States had been acting on its own, and quite imperialistically, for more than a half-century before Pearl Harbor. Probably because he wants to get to the Nazis and the Communists as quickly as possible, Ryan is trying to equate avoiding entangling alliances with isolationism. History shows that both can lead to the same bad ends.
"After the war was over, a new threat emerged: an aggressive and expansionist Soviet Union. The Soviets were setting up puppet regimes in Eastern Europe. They were aiming missiles at our friends in Western Europe. They were on the march in Asia and Africa and South America. And so we faced a choice. Either we could withdraw from the world, arm ourselves to the teeth, and make ourselves into a garrison state. Or we could pursue a forward-leaning defense. Create a community of free nations. Keep open the lanes of commerce. Build institutions that would foster cooperation. And that's exactly what we did."
And we overthrew elected governments willy-nilly, from Iran to Guatemala to Chile, and we killed countless millions of Asian peasants. And among the free nations with whom we were in community were Nicaragua under the Somozas and South Africa under apartheid. We continue.
"The threats are very different now. North Korea thumbs its nose at the world as it plays with its nuclear weapons. Iran openly backs tyrants and funds terrorist groups as it jockeys for dominance in the Middle East. An emboldened Russia is only too happy to try to reclaim its neighbors as client states. And with the rise of ISIS, an even deadlier strain of Islamist extremism has taken hold. Once again we face an aggressive militant ideology—with an assist from a gang of rogue states. And why is our relationship with Israel so important? Because in the fight against terrorism and proliferation, our interests are one and the same. For the terrorists, Israel is the first target, and we are the ultimate one. That's because we share the same values.
Yeah, he's running.
"Israel, like us, is a liberal democracy in a sea of authoritarian regimes. So when America helps Israel, both countries become stronger. Both countries are protecting our way of life.
Wait, whoa. The United States is "a liberal democracy in a sea of authoritarian regimes"? Why does Paul Ryan hate Canada so much? Or the U.K.? Or Ireland? Or the Finns, the Danes, the Swedes and the Norwegians? What is this man talking about? He's talking about delegates from Florida, is what he's talking about.
And so I want to leave you with this: I think we need to build a confident America. And the way I see it, a confident America does not shirk our commitments or shunt aside our allies. "A confident America does not distance itself from Israel or cozy up to Iran. A confident America keeps its word. It stands by our allies. It stands by Israel. Because that is what will keep the peace. That is what will keep us safe. That is what both of our countries need to thrive. "I know I just threw a lot at you. And you probably are thinking, 'What does a guy from Janesville, Wisconsin care about Israel?' But before I leave, I just wanted to say that there's actually a vibrant Jewish community in my state. And it's one that I'm very proud of.
Some of his best friends, you know…
Yeah, he's running. By not running, but he's running.
From Wikipedia, definition of Banana Republic:
Banana republic or banana state is a pejorative political science term for politically unstable countries in Latin America whose economies are largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites. This politico-economic 'oligarchy' [there's that word again] controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
BBB76: Now doesn't that sound like the current state of political affairs in the USA to you?
Banana republic or banana state is a pejorative political science term for politically unstable countries in Latin America whose economies are largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites. This politico-economic 'oligarchy' [there's that word again] controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
BBB76: Now doesn't that sound like the current state of political affairs in the USA to you?
Another article discussing about the Psychological Warfare I mentioned that has been going on
Donald Trump's candidacy is a great way to study misinformation
A potential Donald Trump presidency terrifies people worldwide. His racism, bullying, and enthusiasm for violence are a great concern for onlookers.
But we see a positive in Trump’s candidacy: We can improve our critical thinking by using him as an example of how people spread misinformation.
And there is no shortage of material to work with, given Trump’s firehose of falsehoods.
Politifact found that 78 percent of Trump’s statements were Mostly False, False, or “Pants on Fire” (the most extreme form of false). Fact-checking websites, parody videos, and even a debunking speech by former governor Mitt Romney have highlighted his misinformation.
But pundits and political scientists are mystified that this hasn’t hurt his level of support, with fact-checking efforts sometimes helping Trump and energizing his supporters.
When facts aren’t enough
Psychologists are quite familiar with the fact that die-hard supporters of an idea aren’t swayed by contrary evidence, which can backfire and strengthen pre-existing attitudes. Indeed, trying to change the minds of headstrong Trump supporters may be largely futile.
Communicating to the larger majority who are still open-minded to facts is more effective. Psychological research on science denial provides a model for how to reduce Trump’s influence on the general populace: inoculation theory.
This uses the metaphor of vaccination. Vaccines stop viruses from spreading through inoculation, which is when when healthy people are injected with a weak form of a virus and then build immunity to the virus.
The inoculation theory applies the same principle to knowledge. Research has found we can make people “immune” to misinformation using the Fact-Myth-Fallacy approach. In this method, we first explain the facts, then introduce a related myth, and then explain the technique the myth uses to distort the facts. By understanding the technique used to create the myth, people are exposed to a “weakened form” of the misinformation.
Science deniers use five techniques to distort facts: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking evidence, and conspiracy theories. The acronym FLICC is an easy way to remember these techniques.
Let’s take a look at some examples of Trump’s FLICC-laden arguments:
Fake experts
The fake expert strategy occurs when people claim to be experts despite having little or no relevant expertise.
Trump has negligible relevant expertise to be President. However, Trump believes that presidents must be smart. He elegantly demonstrates his intelligence level in the following video:
Logical fallacies
Logical fallacies cover a variety of techniques, from distracting red herrings to Trump’s favorite, ad hominem attacks, i.e. attacking a person’s character rather than their ideas (you’ll find many examples on Twitter and in his speeches).
A common fallacy from Trump is over-simplification: proposing overly simplistic solutions to wickedly complex problems. Trump’s explanation for how Mexico will pay for his infamous wall between the US and Mexico demonstrates this fallacy:
Impossible expectations
Impossible expectations involves demanding unrealistic or unreasonable standards of proof.
For example, while the planet has been warming for decades, that doesn’t mean winter will stop happening or that places will no longer experience cold periods. Arguing that cold weather disproves global warming is like arguing that feeling full after a large meal disproves global hunger.
Cherry picking
Cherry picking paints a misleading picture by selecting a few facts that support an idea and ignoring the larger body of evidence. Trump cherry picks isolated examples of Hispanic supporters to cover the fact that the vast majority of surveyed Hispanics disapprove of him.
Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories are a common feature of science denial. Deniers claim that the large group of people who disagree with them are part of a conspiracy. Trump often uses this logic to justify why the media speaks poorly about him.
Both climate science denialists and Trump are known to entertain a variety of conspiracy theories. For example, Trump has been a big proponent of the birther theory about Obama’s birthplace).
An example of Trump inoculation
Now that we understand the techniques Trump uses to spread information, let’s look at an example of inoculation using the Fact-Myth-Fallacy approach used by inoculation theory:
Donald Trump is highly unpopular among Hispanics. This should come as no surprise given his constant refrain for a wall along the Mexican border, as well as his characterization that Mexicans crossing the border are ******* traffickers and rapists.
A recent Gallup survey found 77 percent of Hispanics view Trump unfavorably. This is the highest disapproval rating among all Presidential candidates.
Contradicting these statistics, Trump falsely claims that Latinos love him. At one rally, Trump brought an enthusiastic Colombian woman on stage to share her support.
Trump uses the cherry picking technique to distort the facts. He paints a misleading picture by highlighting a single example and ignoring contradicting information.
This inoculation approach gives people the critical thinking skills to assess arguments and determine what information to believe.
Is this the solution to stop Trump?
Given similarities between science denial and Trump support, could we apply inoculation theory to stop Trump? It’s difficult to say.
Inoculation research has mainly been applied to areas of knowledge that are quite different to the complicated political arena. Trump’s support is not as simple as distinguishing between a fact and a myth.
When it comes to voting patterns, political affiliations interact with ideology, religion and many other factors, including dissatisfaction with the political establishment — a dominant theme in this election cycle.
Promisingly, inoculation has been found to be effective in neutralizing political attack messages. But whether inoculation would prevent Trump’s influence from spreading beyond his core followers is an unanswered question.
Even if examining Trump’s arguments using the inoculation approach has a minimal effect on the political landscape, at least Trump’s candidacy can help strengthen our critical thinking skills.
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/dona...misinformation-2016-3?amp;utm_medium=referral
Donald Trump's candidacy is a great way to study misinformation
But we see a positive in Trump’s candidacy: We can improve our critical thinking by using him as an example of how people spread misinformation.
And there is no shortage of material to work with, given Trump’s firehose of falsehoods.
Politifact found that 78 percent of Trump’s statements were Mostly False, False, or “Pants on Fire” (the most extreme form of false). Fact-checking websites, parody videos, and even a debunking speech by former governor Mitt Romney have highlighted his misinformation.
But pundits and political scientists are mystified that this hasn’t hurt his level of support, with fact-checking efforts sometimes helping Trump and energizing his supporters.
When facts aren’t enough
Psychologists are quite familiar with the fact that die-hard supporters of an idea aren’t swayed by contrary evidence, which can backfire and strengthen pre-existing attitudes. Indeed, trying to change the minds of headstrong Trump supporters may be largely futile.
Communicating to the larger majority who are still open-minded to facts is more effective. Psychological research on science denial provides a model for how to reduce Trump’s influence on the general populace: inoculation theory.
This uses the metaphor of vaccination. Vaccines stop viruses from spreading through inoculation, which is when when healthy people are injected with a weak form of a virus and then build immunity to the virus.
The inoculation theory applies the same principle to knowledge. Research has found we can make people “immune” to misinformation using the Fact-Myth-Fallacy approach. In this method, we first explain the facts, then introduce a related myth, and then explain the technique the myth uses to distort the facts. By understanding the technique used to create the myth, people are exposed to a “weakened form” of the misinformation.
Science deniers use five techniques to distort facts: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking evidence, and conspiracy theories. The acronym FLICC is an easy way to remember these techniques.
Let’s take a look at some examples of Trump’s FLICC-laden arguments:
Fake experts
The fake expert strategy occurs when people claim to be experts despite having little or no relevant expertise.
Trump has negligible relevant expertise to be President. However, Trump believes that presidents must be smart. He elegantly demonstrates his intelligence level in the following video:
Logical fallacies
Logical fallacies cover a variety of techniques, from distracting red herrings to Trump’s favorite, ad hominem attacks, i.e. attacking a person’s character rather than their ideas (you’ll find many examples on Twitter and in his speeches).
A common fallacy from Trump is over-simplification: proposing overly simplistic solutions to wickedly complex problems. Trump’s explanation for how Mexico will pay for his infamous wall between the US and Mexico demonstrates this fallacy:
Impossible expectations
Impossible expectations involves demanding unrealistic or unreasonable standards of proof.
For example, while the planet has been warming for decades, that doesn’t mean winter will stop happening or that places will no longer experience cold periods. Arguing that cold weather disproves global warming is like arguing that feeling full after a large meal disproves global hunger.
Cherry picking
Cherry picking paints a misleading picture by selecting a few facts that support an idea and ignoring the larger body of evidence. Trump cherry picks isolated examples of Hispanic supporters to cover the fact that the vast majority of surveyed Hispanics disapprove of him.
Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories are a common feature of science denial. Deniers claim that the large group of people who disagree with them are part of a conspiracy. Trump often uses this logic to justify why the media speaks poorly about him.
Both climate science denialists and Trump are known to entertain a variety of conspiracy theories. For example, Trump has been a big proponent of the birther theory about Obama’s birthplace).
An example of Trump inoculation
Now that we understand the techniques Trump uses to spread information, let’s look at an example of inoculation using the Fact-Myth-Fallacy approach used by inoculation theory:
Donald Trump is highly unpopular among Hispanics. This should come as no surprise given his constant refrain for a wall along the Mexican border, as well as his characterization that Mexicans crossing the border are ******* traffickers and rapists.
A recent Gallup survey found 77 percent of Hispanics view Trump unfavorably. This is the highest disapproval rating among all Presidential candidates.
Contradicting these statistics, Trump falsely claims that Latinos love him. At one rally, Trump brought an enthusiastic Colombian woman on stage to share her support.
Trump uses the cherry picking technique to distort the facts. He paints a misleading picture by highlighting a single example and ignoring contradicting information.
This inoculation approach gives people the critical thinking skills to assess arguments and determine what information to believe.
Is this the solution to stop Trump?
Given similarities between science denial and Trump support, could we apply inoculation theory to stop Trump? It’s difficult to say.
Inoculation research has mainly been applied to areas of knowledge that are quite different to the complicated political arena. Trump’s support is not as simple as distinguishing between a fact and a myth.
When it comes to voting patterns, political affiliations interact with ideology, religion and many other factors, including dissatisfaction with the political establishment — a dominant theme in this election cycle.
Promisingly, inoculation has been found to be effective in neutralizing political attack messages. But whether inoculation would prevent Trump’s influence from spreading beyond his core followers is an unanswered question.
Even if examining Trump’s arguments using the inoculation approach has a minimal effect on the political landscape, at least Trump’s candidacy can help strengthen our critical thinking skills.
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/dona...misinformation-2016-3?amp;utm_medium=referral
bbb76 would probably be better than what's running, particularly the GOP.I vote for Mr @bigblackbull76 in this 2016 general elections. Thumbs up if you are with me.
