A lot of Americans have trouble processing Darwin’s theory of evolution. As a matter of interest does anyone know Trump’s view?
I think he believes in it until it become pertinent or convenient not to.
He's not a dumb man, far, far from it. He's arrogant and annoying, but not dumb, and if he chose to claim not to believe in it, it would be just that, a choice.
You hear me bang on and on about the fact that a candidate like him has a broad base and was inevitable. The one thing I got wrong was just how un-Christian this inevitability turned out to be. It makes him all the more strong as a candidate though, as he can turn his Christianity on and off as needed, and he isn't weighed down by principles or some of the arcane beliefs held by American Evangelical Christians.
Looking at polling numbers nationwide, he doesn't have a path to the White House. But by that same token, he shouldn't be underestimated. The Democrats did that with George W. Bush when he was polling low and they had an establishment candidate and it backfired.
He has a base. He polls at around 37% nationally. He speaks to angry white people who have seen their country change in their lifetimes. Trump is, in so many ways, the archetype of American Exceptionalism and the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story that is so often described as the American Dream. This probably seems counterintuitive--he after all inherited Millions of Dollars--but then so is that notion of the American Dream. He speaks to a mindset of predominantly white Americans who not only idolize the rich, but believe that they too will one day be rich (in one form or another). This is how you get Presidents who are the sons of Presidents and billionaires and actors becoming president on the back of lowering taxes for the rich. This country doesn't have that many rich people. But the greatest Republican lie of the second half of the 20th century and into the start of the 21st century is that "when you get rich, you won't want these oppressive measures (mostly taxes) on you."
Not sure if this has been covered. Is there cause for worry even if he doesn't get into the white house? There has been several skirmishes between his supporters and protesters at rally's. Some of his supporters say there will be riots on the streets by them if he doesn't get in. Of course I'm sure there would be even greater riots if he does get in. Either way it doesn't look great.
Not sure if this has been covered. Is there cause for worry even if he doesn't get into the white house? There has been several skirmishes between his supporters and protesters at rally's. Some of his supporters say there will be riots on the streets by them if he doesn't get in. Of course I'm sure there would be even greater riots if he does get in. Either way it doesn't look great.
I don't think so, at least not as a result of him losing.
That said, Americans on both sides of the aisle are angry. When Obama won and tried to change our healthcare system, it ended up becoming a debate about guns. People would turn up to town hall meetings with their big fuck-off AK-47s and whatnot.
The racial and class schism in the country is really starting to show itself in a way that just can't be ignored. The country desperately needs some sort of healing, something that can bring it together in some way. The problem is that both political parties have been playing to the culture wars for 30-40 years that it feels like "the other" is an entirely different species.
I don't know what will happen to be honest. I don't think it will hinge on the election alone, but unfortunately we are not going to end up with a president capable of healing the divide. The only one I could see maybe doing it is Sanders, getting people to rally around the fact that the banks screwed us all over, foreclosed on houses, etc. That should not be a partisan issue. But that said, he won't win, and even if he did, I'm not sure he could convince Trump supporters that wealth redistribution is in their best interest (even if it is).
A lot of Americans have trouble processing Darwin’s theory of evolution. As a matter of interest does anyone know Trump’s view?
Would that be yesterday's, this mornings or this evenings view ?
Coincidentally Ken Livingstone has just asked the same question to his radio guest Steve Erlanger of the New York Times. Livingstone made the point that Republicans are all guarded and evasive in the matter of evolution and (jokingly) referred to them as the Christian version of the Taliban. Mind you, many a true word spoken in jest.
A lot of Americans have trouble processing Darwin’s theory of evolution. As a matter of interest does anyone know Trump’s view?
Would that be yesterday's, this mornings or this evenings view ?
Coincidentally Ken Livingstone has just asked the same question to his radio guest Steve Erlanger of the New York Times. Livingstone made the point that Republicans are all guarded and evasive in the matter of evolution and (jokingly) referred to them as the Christian version of the Taliban. Mind you, many a true word spoken in jest.
Think the Orlando shootings will just help cement Trump's bid for Presidency. His knee-jerk reaction shows everything that's wrong with him but sadly this appeals to many.
Think the Orlando shootings will just help cement Trump's bid for Presidency. His knee-jerk reaction shows everything that's wrong with him but sadly this appeals to many.
It gives Trump the platform to bash Muslims some more and it gives Hillary the platform to push for tighter gun control. Fasten your seatbelts for the endless arguments
I think the battle lines are so starkly drawn at this point regarding guns and gun control that it's unlikely to have much of an effect, especially five months out from the election. Because of lobbyist money, unless there is a significant shift n the congress in November, it's unlikely we're going to see gun reform any time soon.
Not really understanding what constitutes an illegal abortion in this context.
Is this state legislation? I remember reading about Roe v Wade which having looked it up was back in 1973.
Before 12 weeks, states have to permit abortion, after then becomes more uncertain?
Pope Francis against the weight of opinion in the Catholic Church seeks to allow women who have had an abortion greater access to acceptance, and Trump goes the other way.
The only thing Trump cares about is himself - I find it astonishing how many people are taken in by him. Seems people throughout history are impressed by a psychopath with a simplistic view of the world. The way things are going we'll end up with Boris as PM whose ego should be a match for Donald's.
The only thing Trump cares about is himself - I find it astonishing how many people are taken in by him. Seems people throughout history are impressed by a psychopath with a simplistic view of the world. The way things are going we'll end up with Boris as PM whose ego should be a match for Donald's.
That is the really big question about Trump - is he spouting whatever populist tubthumping bullshit he thinks will get him more publicity/votes or does he actually, genuinely believe everything he's coming out with? Both are pretty scary prospects if he WAS elected (though I don't think he will be.)
Not really understanding what constitutes an illegal abortion in this context.
Is this state legislation? I remember reading about Roe v Wade which having looked it up was back in 1973.
Before 12 weeks, states have to permit abortion, after then becomes more uncertain?
Pope Francis against the weight of opinion in the Catholic Church seeks to allow women who have had an abortion greater access to acceptance, and Trump goes the other way.
Roe V. Wade allows for access to abortion with reasonable ease. How far into pregnancy that is, and what that means visa vi how many abortion clinics are open is decided by the state, and there are all sorts of hurdles. There is currently a case that has either been heard by the Supreme Court, or that is going to be heard by the Supreme Court, about I think it's Texas where there are two clinics within a massive state.
He is an extremely smart operator and is taping into the anger and frustrations of those that feel entirely disaffected and unheard... he is fueling their anger... and giving his supporters targets for them to place that hate... which is making them feel better... in their bigotted, unevolved, 10 year old thinking, way.
This will be an entirely negative campaign from both sides, constantly attacking the other, and Trump is better at that than Hilary, Hilary is also extremely vulnerable because of the email scandals, far more so than Trump who gets stronger and stronger the more he is attacked.
We needed Sanders desperately, but he couldn't get over the top.
He is an extremely smart operator and is taping into the anger and frustrations of those that feel entirely disaffected and unheard... he is fueling their anger... and giving his supporters targets for them to place that hate... which is making them feel better... in their bigotted, unevolved, 10 year old thinking, way.
This will be an entirely negative campaign from both sides, constantly attacking the other, and Trump is better at that than Hilary, Hilary is also extremely vulnerable because of the email scandals, far more so than Trump who gets stronger and stronger the more he is attacked.
We needed Sanders desperately, but he couldn't get over the top.
So here we are.
He has not got a hope. Pretty much everything is known about Hillary. The E.mail scandal is just another desperate Benghazzi witch hunt that will go nowhere. When his tax returns eventually get released they will probably show he has virtually paid no tax over the last few years. There are probably a whole series of attack ads in production now titled Draft Dodger Donald. There are interviews from the 90s in which he actually claimed he went through his own personal Vietnam when he was whoring around Manhatten. This from the man who insulted a genuine Vietnam war hero. There is a lot more mileage in the Trump University scandal. There will also be many ads about the blatant racist practices he used when renting out apartments in his buildings in the seventies not to mention the illegal methods he used to force evictions from his buildings. Obama is going to rip him to pieces during the summer. When we get to the debates Hillary will show him up to be the clueless ignorant man-child blow-hard that he really is.
He is an extremely smart operator and is taping into the anger and frustrations of those that feel entirely disaffected and unheard... he is fueling their anger... and giving his supporters targets for them to place that hate... which is making them feel better... in their bigotted, unevolved, 10 year old thinking, way.
This will be an entirely negative campaign from both sides, constantly attacking the other, and Trump is better at that than Hilary, Hilary is also extremely vulnerable because of the email scandals, far more so than Trump who gets stronger and stronger the more he is attacked.
We needed Sanders desperately, but he couldn't get over the top.
So here we are.
He has not got a hope. Pretty much everything is known about Hillary. The E.mail scandal is just another desperate Benghazzi witch hunt that will go nowhere. When his tax returns eventually get released they will probably show he has virtually paid no tax over the last few years. There are probably a whole series of attack ads in production now titled Draft Dodger Donald. There are interviews from the 90s in which he actually claimed he went through his own personal Vietnam when he was whoring around Manhatten. This from the man who insulted a genuine Vietnam war hero. There is a lot more mileage in the Trump University scandal. There will also be many ads about the blatant racist practices he used when renting out apartments in his buildings in the seventies not to mention the illegal methods he used to force evictions from his buildings. Obama is going to rip him to pieces during the summer. When we get to the debates Hillary will show him up to be the clueless ignorant man-child blow-hard that he really is.
And Clinton will be shown to be bought and paid for by Wall Street. It'll be interesting to see which pile of turd America decides to swallow.
So it is really, really, really early in the process to start believing the polls. This is from around five weeks ago, so should also be taken with a huge grain of salt. But where Trump was polling then would see Clinton win easily. If Trump were to gain 5% across the board, he'd still lose. If he were to gain 10% across the board, he'd win.
Remember it's not a straight head-to-head, it has to do with the electoral college. In order to win, Trump would need to turn a combination of swing states--Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, from Blue (Democrat) in the last election to red.
Without getting too policy or polling wonk, a lot of people have long believed that Trump has a ceiling, going back to around this time last year. The problem was that throughout the primaries in the first half of this year, he kept hitting, and at times exceeding, that ceiling in the Republican primary race. Now that it's a national race, pundits/pollsters are hesitant to make the same prediction--that Trump's appeal has a ceiling. But in overall national polls, his numbers have been around 36% for some time now. Clinton also has a ceiling, though she's been around 42% for some time now.
Now, because it's not head-to-head that only means so much, but what we can extract from that is that both seem to have hit roughly their numbers. Both candidates have pretty high "unfavorable" ratings, but I think this is an election where plenty of people will vote against a candidate, while plenty more will stay home.
I suspect that whoever wins will have challenges within their own party in four years' time (usually a sitting president runs unopposed). For Trump, it would basically be the Republican establishment's attempt to find someone who appeals to an increasingly split party--hoping to find someone conservative enough and charismatic. For Clinton, baby boomers will be four years older, voting demographics are shifting, and Sanders has shown there is a pretty substantial "left wing" (Clinton is essentially a center-right hawk) of the party who feel barely represented at national level politics.
Just my two cents. My record is three in the last three in terms of calling presidential elections.
I think critical for both nominees will be their running mates. As you mentioned both have high negative ratings, so it may come down to who the VP is and how he or she polls with their core support and the wider American audience.
Comments
He's not a dumb man, far, far from it. He's arrogant and annoying, but not dumb, and if he chose to claim not to believe in it, it would be just that, a choice.
You hear me bang on and on about the fact that a candidate like him has a broad base and was inevitable. The one thing I got wrong was just how un-Christian this inevitability turned out to be. It makes him all the more strong as a candidate though, as he can turn his Christianity on and off as needed, and he isn't weighed down by principles or some of the arcane beliefs held by American Evangelical Christians.
Looking at polling numbers nationwide, he doesn't have a path to the White House. But by that same token, he shouldn't be underestimated. The Democrats did that with George W. Bush when he was polling low and they had an establishment candidate and it backfired.
He has a base. He polls at around 37% nationally. He speaks to angry white people who have seen their country change in their lifetimes. Trump is, in so many ways, the archetype of American Exceptionalism and the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story that is so often described as the American Dream. This probably seems counterintuitive--he after all inherited Millions of Dollars--but then so is that notion of the American Dream. He speaks to a mindset of predominantly white Americans who not only idolize the rich, but believe that they too will one day be rich (in one form or another). This is how you get Presidents who are the sons of Presidents and billionaires and actors becoming president on the back of lowering taxes for the rich. This country doesn't have that many rich people. But the greatest Republican lie of the second half of the 20th century and into the start of the 21st century is that "when you get rich, you won't want these oppressive measures (mostly taxes) on you."
Is there cause for worry even if he doesn't get into the white house? There has been several skirmishes between his supporters and protesters at rally's. Some of his supporters say there will be riots on the streets by them if he doesn't get in. Of course I'm sure there would be even greater riots if he does get in. Either way it doesn't look great.
That said, Americans on both sides of the aisle are angry. When Obama won and tried to change our healthcare system, it ended up becoming a debate about guns. People would turn up to town hall meetings with their big fuck-off AK-47s and whatnot.
The racial and class schism in the country is really starting to show itself in a way that just can't be ignored. The country desperately needs some sort of healing, something that can bring it together in some way. The problem is that both political parties have been playing to the culture wars for 30-40 years that it feels like "the other" is an entirely different species.
I don't know what will happen to be honest. I don't think it will hinge on the election alone, but unfortunately we are not going to end up with a president capable of healing the divide. The only one I could see maybe doing it is Sanders, getting people to rally around the fact that the banks screwed us all over, foreclosed on houses, etc. That should not be a partisan issue. But that said, he won't win, and even if he did, I'm not sure he could convince Trump supporters that wealth redistribution is in their best interest (even if it is).
This is from the 2008 President Primary.
However. He won't become president.
Trump going for the Irish vote?
The way the US have gone in recent years, where does The Donald send the US born terrorists?? Gun school??
A lot to admire in the US. Their gun laws are certainly not one of those things.
Is this state legislation? I remember reading about Roe v Wade which having looked it up was back in 1973.
Before 12 weeks, states have to permit abortion, after then becomes more uncertain?
Pope Francis against the weight of opinion in the Catholic Church seeks to allow women who have had an abortion greater access to acceptance, and Trump goes the other way.
The way things are going we'll end up with Boris as PM whose ego should be a match for Donald's.
For more, and this is super legalize/policy wonk stuff, see this:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Kate-Banfield-Kramer-Levin.pdf
He is an extremely smart operator and is taping into the anger and frustrations of those that feel entirely disaffected and unheard... he is fueling their anger... and giving his supporters targets for them to place that hate... which is making them feel better... in their bigotted, unevolved, 10 year old thinking, way.
This will be an entirely negative campaign from both sides, constantly attacking the other, and Trump is better at that than Hilary, Hilary is also extremely vulnerable because of the email scandals, far more so than Trump who gets stronger and stronger the more he is attacked.
We needed Sanders desperately, but he couldn't get over the top.
So here we are.
So it is really, really, really early in the process to start believing the polls. This is from around five weeks ago, so should also be taken with a huge grain of salt. But where Trump was polling then would see Clinton win easily. If Trump were to gain 5% across the board, he'd still lose. If he were to gain 10% across the board, he'd win.
Remember it's not a straight head-to-head, it has to do with the electoral college. In order to win, Trump would need to turn a combination of swing states--Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, from Blue (Democrat) in the last election to red.
Without getting too policy or polling wonk, a lot of people have long believed that Trump has a ceiling, going back to around this time last year. The problem was that throughout the primaries in the first half of this year, he kept hitting, and at times exceeding, that ceiling in the Republican primary race. Now that it's a national race, pundits/pollsters are hesitant to make the same prediction--that Trump's appeal has a ceiling. But in overall national polls, his numbers have been around 36% for some time now. Clinton also has a ceiling, though she's been around 42% for some time now.
Now, because it's not head-to-head that only means so much, but what we can extract from that is that both seem to have hit roughly their numbers. Both candidates have pretty high "unfavorable" ratings, but I think this is an election where plenty of people will vote against a candidate, while plenty more will stay home.
I suspect that whoever wins will have challenges within their own party in four years' time (usually a sitting president runs unopposed). For Trump, it would basically be the Republican establishment's attempt to find someone who appeals to an increasingly split party--hoping to find someone conservative enough and charismatic. For Clinton, baby boomers will be four years older, voting demographics are shifting, and Sanders has shown there is a pretty substantial "left wing" (Clinton is essentially a center-right hawk) of the party who feel barely represented at national level politics.
Just my two cents. My record is three in the last three in terms of calling presidential elections.
Remove those groups from the equation before we even consider the average voter.
It will be embarrassingly one sided. Which is a good thing.