Who Are The Trump Voters?

[juansavage1]

Both parties spend though.  It is just that one spends on infrastructure/education while the other spends on wars and a wall on the mexican border.  Bernie's not going to get most of his stuff through anyway with a Republican house + senate.  

This is another ridiculous generalization. First, what are the cost/benefit to securing the border? Do you think if we did, which we haven't, we might not have to spend as much on education? Is education spending beneficial to education? Or, is there a correlation between spending and results. Most research says no. 

 

My advice for the liberals here is to spend a little bit of time to think these things through. 

[mtangelsfan]

Huge gap that won't ever close.

 

Yep.

 

I, for one, find the idea of forcibly taking money from the person that earned it and giving it to someone who didn't earn it (at 10 cents on the dollar) to be immoral.

[Tank]

Could even be more than that.  Trump this Trump that.  In the defense of the candidates the moderators are feeding them Trump questions.  It's a win win for him. 

 

i was not a fan of the format they used. "mr. smith, you believe that our military should do X, Y, and Z, while mr. wilson came out and criticized your suggestion. what would you like to say to him right now?"

[Adam]

Yep.

I, for one, find the idea of forcibly taking money from the person that earned it and giving it to someone who didn't earn it (at 10 cents on the dollar) to be immoral.

Thank God we have a two party republic in which both parties are interested in forcibly taking money so we can participate in the political procesd

[Angelsjunky]

You guys remind me of this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpxVEiuxF0Y

[Adam]

I remember when maher was a libertarian lol

[Adam]

[Rico]

This is another ridiculous generalization. First, what are the cost/benefit to securing the border? Do you think if we did, which we haven't, we might not have to spend as much on education? Is education spending beneficial to education? Or, is there a correlation between spending and results. Most research says no. 

 

My advice for the liberals here is to spend a little bit of time to think these things through. 

 

Well I see illegal immigration as a boon to your economy.  Cheap labor helps keep prices of goods down, plus they actually do pay into taxes/social security.  On top of that they make all those babies you like so much.  I don't see a whole lot of benefit to building a wall.  

 

I do agree throwing money blindly at education isn't the answer.  Also, even though I'm a lefty, I don't feel just anyone should be granted higher education just because they want it.  (I joined the military to earn my higher education)  I do feel there should be some middle ground, where someone can earn a higher education and serve their country without it necessarily being military service.  Bernie's going to have to compromise with a Republican congress, that is what I'm getting at.

[Angelsjunky]

 

That's an interesting little clip. I think the thing is that there is the Libertarian Party and libertarian philosophy. The former is a specific codification of right wing libertarian philosophy, it is--to use Maher's phrase--"small tent." But libertarian philosophy is much broader than that and can include many flavors. In fact, it is why a lot of progressives and Libertarians meet with shared views on social issues and foreign policy.

 

Take the Political Compass, for example. It contrasts Left vs. Right and Libertarian vs. Authoritarian with four quadrants. Both Maher and I are "left libertarian," whereas the politically correct academic crowd is more "left authoritarian." The Libertarian party is "right libertarian" and the "religious right" and most Washington Republicans are "right authoritarian." The Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas of the world are more authoritarian centrist, even with right leanings.

[juansavage1]

Well I see illegal immigration as a boon to your economy.  Cheap labor helps keep prices of goods down, plus they actually do pay into taxes/social security.  On top of that they make all those babies you like so much.  I don't see a whole lot of benefit to building a wall.  

 

I do agree throwing money blindly at education isn't the answer.  Also, even though I'm a lefty, I don't feel just anyone should be granted higher education just because they want it.  (I joined the military to earn my higher education)  I do feel there should be some middle ground, where someone can earn a higher education and serve their country without it necessarily being military service.  Bernie's going to have to compromise with a Republican congress, that is what I'm getting at.

My kids are using my military benefits as we speak. I hope it's on good things. 

 

The cost/benefits of immigration are complicated. Primarily, because not all immigrants are the same. Is there a way to maximize that benefit by choosing who comes in the country (along with some purely humanitarian immigration)? Yes, but any policy requires us to know who comes in and a way to keep people out. A wall is one way of doing that and nations that have problems with immigration have walls. I don't really see any downside to a wall at all. It's a wall. 

[juansavage1]

The problem with Libertarians is that they make an antipathy to government an ideology and a good in itself rather than assessing the results of government, which can be good or bad. It's also true that there hasn't been a Libertarian society in the history of the world. There have been societies with weak governments, as in the US, but that was counterbalanced by very strong civic institutions, like churches and mutual aid societies (how many schools, universities, and hospitals and welfare systems are/were religiously affiliated?), things Libertarians also see to dislike. 

[Angelsjunky]

The problem with Libertarians is that they make an antipathy to government an ideology and a good in itself rather than assessing the results of government, which can be good or bad. It's also true that there hasn't been a Libertarian society in the history of the world. There have been societies with weak governments, as in the US, but that was counterbalanced by very strong civic institutions, like churches and mutual aid societies (how many schools, universities, and hospitals and welfare systems are/were religiously affiliated?), things Libertarians also see to dislike. 

 

Hey, we agree on something!

[juansavage1]

Red321: 

 

Fiorina - must say, she can put words togethers...it helps that she doesn't really worry about facts (planned parenthood twitching baby stuff just pulled out of thin air)...but she comes across as forceful. Helped herself in the race for the #2 slot.

Red321: The people you read lie to you. I urge you to change your news/opinion provider lest you continue to believe untrue things; 

 

Here’s the transcript of the exchange between ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Carly Fiorina:

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: Another powerful moment last night was when you talked about those Planned Parenthood tapes. But analysts who’ve watched all 12-plus hours say the scene you’ve described, that harrowing scene you described, actually isn’t in those tapes. Did you misspeak?

 

FIORINA: No, I didn’t misspeak and I don’t know who you’re speaking about in terms of watching the tapes, but I have seen those images. I don’t know whether you’ve watched the tapes, George. Most people haven’t. Certainly none of the Democrats who are still defending Planned Parenthood have watched those tapes, Planned Parenthood needs to be defended [sic]. This kind of butchery erodes at the character of our nation.

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Sarah Kliff, actually, writing in Vox, watched all 12 hours and she concluded, “Either Fiorina hasn’t watched the Planned Parenthood videos or she is knowingly misrepresenting the footage, because what she says happens in the Planned Parenthood videos simply does not exist.” 

 

FIORINA: Well, you know, there’s a lot of commentary about these tapes being doctored. In fact, that’s what the mainstream media keeps talking about is the tapes and their origins. Rest assured, I have seen the images that I talked about last night. Rest assured that human lives are being aborted, fully formed, in order to harvest body parts. Rest assured that this erodes at the character of our nation. And once again I will say I dare Mrs. Clinton and President Obama, two defenders of Planned Parenthood, to watch these videotapes.

 

Evidently there are no fact-checkers — or persons with eyeballs — at the American Broadcasting Company. Because as I wrote yesterday, Sarah Kliff was wrong. In fact, Sarah Kliff — whom you might remember as the Washington Post reporter who dismissed Kermit Gosnell’s slaughterhouse as a “local crime” story — did not watch “all 12 hours” of the Planned Parenthood tapes. In the updated version of her piece from yesterday, she was astonished to report that there were more videos — for instance, one in which, just as Fiorina said onstage, a fully-formed fetus’s leg is kicking. Yet Kliff still maintains that that could not be what Fiorina was talking about.

 

On one hand, this is extraordinary; on the other, it’s positively typical. In today’s NY Post, Andrea Peyser writes: “A video showing a fully formed fetus on a table may have been a figment of Fiorina’s fevered imagination. Each video made by an anti-abortion group, The Center for Medical Progress, merely shows people talking.” She accuses Fiorina of “pushing” a “fabricated” “tale.” These are the sorts of things you say only if you haven’t watched the videos — which, as Carly rightly suspects, Stephanopoulos, the rest of the mainstream media, and most Democratic lawmakers obviously haven’t. Their ignorant comments about the videos prove it.

 

Fiorina’s Planned Parenthood statement at the debate is a huge coup. She has forced the mainstream media to cover videos that they have tried desperately to ignore for months, and made them look like fools in the process. Carly, rightly, is not backing down. Republicans should not, either.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424304/now-hiring-hillsdale-radio-john-j-miller

[red321]

Red321: 

 

Red321: The people you read lie to you. I urge you to change your news/opinion provider lest you continue to believe untrue things; 

 

 

 

Let's go to the tape...I'll help you out and provide a link to the actual article instead making you search for it on the site you linked...you are welcome.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/carly-fiorina-abortoin-defense

 

....But pressed to identify which video contains the gruesome scene Fiorina described, neither her campaign nor the anti-abortion group who produced the sting videos have not been able to do so.

We've watched the clips they did send along, and here's what they show. But first a reminder of what Fiorina said.

During the debate, Fiorina said that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could watch "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain."

 

No such scene was present in the hours of sting videos released in recent months. When asked by TPM to defend Fiorina's comments, the Center for Medical Progress, which produced the videos, pointed to a section of the third episode of its "documentary" series "Human Capital," a spin-off of the initial "sting" videos.

 

"The 

 was from Grantham Collection & Center for Bio-Ethical Reform used to illustrate the first person eye witness testimony of Holly O’Donnell of the barbaric acts committed inside Planned Parenthood abortion facilities," David Daleiden -- leader of the project -- said in a statement....

 

....The video then jumps to O'Donnell, an ex-staffer at yet another tissue procurement company, who describes being asked to procure a brain tissue from an aborted fetus, but such footage is never shown.

 

While she is describing the incident, footage is shown of a fetus in a tray, footage Center for Medical Progress is now admitting it did not film itself, but rather obtained from anti-abortion groups. The Center for Medical Progress itself came under fire for a separate image used in one of the videos that was not an aborted fetus, as suggested, but in fact a stillborn. The photo was taken without the mother's permission from a Daily Mail article about the woman's miscarriage.

 

There is no proof that the footage cited by Fiorina's defenders was filmed in a Planned Parenthood clinic, nor that it was even of an aborted fetus.

 

Furthermore, there is no point in the scene where someone is overheard saying, "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain."

While Fiorina has continued to defend her debate remarks, her campaign has complicated things by offering a video separate from the Center for Medical Progress series to show what inspired her. As Vox reported, the one-minute video was a uploaded by a group called "Save Babies" (not by Center for Medical Progress) and is a mish-mash of some footage from the sting campaign, but also other footage not from those particular videos.

 

As Vox noted, the scene Fiorina described is not there either....

 

-----------------------------------

 

 

Odd cuts of video, admitted use of video/pictures from other sources that aren't from "scenes" being described by the interviewee, outright fabrication (stillborn).

 

Pretty much par for the course from Fiorina.

[Glen]

My kids are using my military benefits as we speak. I hope it's on good things.

The cost/benefits of immigration are complicated. Primarily, because not all immigrants are the same. Is there a way to maximize that benefit by choosing who comes in the country (along with some purely humanitarian immigration)? Yes, but any policy requires us to know who comes in and a way to keep people out. A wall is one way of doing that and nations that have problems with immigration have walls. I don't really see any downside to a wall at all. It's a wall.

Really? You don't see any logistical or financial problems with building a wall that is thousands of miles long? No problems with manning or maintaining the wall? None at all?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

[Adam]

I think people are tired of presidential presidents, which is why hes doing so well

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Really? You don't see any logistical or financial problems with building a wall that is thousands of miles long? No problems with manning or maintaining the wall? None at all?

 

Sounds like a solid Trump voter. Biting on sound bytes, not much thinking about practicality or cost.

 

I was just thinking of this: Trump says that he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall he wants at the southern border. Let's say that by some completely improbable miracle, he succeeds. They would then provide the labor for the wall to be built. What possible problems could arise from the very people who want to cross the border building a wall that is supposed to stop it? Believe that there might be a few built-in breaches?

[juansavage1]

That's an interesting little clip. I think the thing is that there is the Libertarian Party and libertarian philosophy. The former is a specific codification of right wing libertarian philosophy, it is--to use Maher's phrase--"small tent." But libertarian philosophy is much broader than that and can include many flavors. In fact, it is why a lot of progressives and Libertarians meet with shared views on social issues and foreign policy.

 

Take the Political Compass, for example. It contrasts Left vs. Right and Libertarian vs. Authoritarian with four quadrants. Both Maher and I are "left libertarian," whereas the politically correct academic crowd is more "left authoritarian." The Libertarian party is "right libertarian" and the "religious right" and most Washington Republicans are "right authoritarian." The Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas of the world are more authoritarian centrist, even with right leanings.

Something to avoid confusion: There's also no such thing as a left (progressive) libertarian. Somebody who is for little societal involvement in the regulation of sex and death, but who also advocates little government involvement in the economy is just a Libertarian. That's a consistent philosophy- little government regulation. 

 

A leftist who doesn't care about assisted suicide and who "marries" is just a leftist who doesn't care about those things (or finds it a way to divide their enemies). He's not Libertarian on those issues. You might as well say that somebody who doesn't care about what color you paint your nails is a Libertarian on nail polish. 

[juansavage1]

Really? You don't see any logistical or financial problems with building a wall that is thousands of miles long? No problems with manning or maintaining the wall? None at all?

Have you investigated this or know from expertise or are you just asking? How much does it cost? What are the cost/benefit tradeoffs between people entering and leaving when they wish or building a wall? 

[juansavage1]

But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. Costs for a wall that would run the entire length of the border might be as low as $851 million for a standard 10-foot prison chain link fence topped by razor wire. For another $362 million, the fence could be electrified. A larger 12-foot tall, two-foot-thick concrete wall painted on both sides would run about $2 billion. Initially it was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million -- about $1 million a mile. The first 11 miles of the fence eventually cost $42 million -- $3.8 million per mile, and the last 3.5 miles may cost even more since they cover more difficult terrain. An additional $35 million to complete the final 3.5 miles was approved in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security -- $10 million per mile.

 

Compare to: 

 

The project's cost and scope have long been a source of controversy. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has estimated the project's year-of-expenditure cost at $68.4 billion (2011 estimate)

[Rico]

I've seen the video Fiorino was talking about.  I saw it over a year ago.  It had nothing to do with planned parenthood and I don't believe it was actually an aborted baby.  

[Rico]

12 foot tall and two foot deep wall ain't keeping anyone out.  You forget Mexicans are expert at building tunnels.  

[Glen]

When did I ever say anything about the high-speed rail? Stay on topic, man.

[juansavage1]

I've seen the video Fiorino was talking about.  I saw it over a year ago.  It had nothing to do with planned parenthood and I don't believe it was actually an aborted baby.  

Why don't you think this? My understanding was that the twitching aborted baby was a real aborted fetus (slipping?) and that it was part of the background footage for the released video. 

 

Do you think that it's impossible for a fetus to look fully formed when it's terminated?