Obama: Trump exploiting blue-collar fears in campaign

[Chicog]

No. 1 is an outright lie. He saw nothing in New Jersey.

If that's your modus operandus, I'd give it up sunshine.

[GinBoy2]

We're getting to a point in this discussion which is almost akin to the atheist talking to the evangelical. Facts in that discussion are always trumped (excuse the pun) by blind faith.

[sgtsabai]

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-would-do-better-hillary-2016-race-against-trump-national-poll-finds?akid=13804.85778.FL7G7p&rd=1&src=newsletter1047892&t=2 Trump will never win an election for president, although he has won the the heartless and the fools. Oh and BTW, while I agree with much of what Pinot says, I have just a bit of a problem with "Normal" people don't want to be around guns and want gun laws drastically changed." While most of our right wingnut posters would probably agree that I may not be normal, I am not at all like the usual Trump supporter, right wingers or most peoples mistaken vision of a left winger. I owned guns, as many as I could afford, and yes many were "military type", loaded my own ammo and shot 1000s of rounds a year. I like guns, like working on guns, like shooting and hunting, don't like right wing fools, nor "liberal" scared cats. I don't see a basic need for changes in gun laws, just enforcement and bring back the mental health programs that the Reagan regime did away with. Yea, the true believers here will never admit in a million years they and the right wing are wrong, wrong for America and wrong for the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-would-do-better-hillary-2016-race-against-trump-national-poll-finds?akid=13804.85778.FL7G7p&rd=1&src=newsletter1047892&t=2 Trump will never win an election for president, although he has won the the heartless and the fools. Oh and BTW, while I agree with much of what Pinot says, I have just a bit of a problem with "Normal" people don't want to be around guns and want gun laws drastically changed." While most of our right wingnut posters would probably agree that I may not be normal, I am not at all like the usual Trump supporter, right wingers or most peoples mistaken vision of a left winger. I owned guns, as many as I could afford, and yes many were "military type", loaded my own ammo and shot 1000s of rounds a year. I like guns, like working on guns, like shooting and hunting, don't like right wing fools, nor "liberal" scared cats. I don't see a basic need for changes in gun laws, just enforcement and bring back the mental health programs that the Reagan regime did away with. Yea, the true believers here will never admit in a million years they and the right wing are wrong, wrong for America and wrong for the world.

although he has won the the heartless and the fools.

A somewhat sweeping statement that you are never going to be able to prove.

As with so many that don't like Trump, I have to assume you prefer lying professional politicians that gave us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, a murdered ambassador, subprime and the 2007 crash.

[chuckd]

What continues to amaze me is all the progressive liberal talk about the Republican voters who might support Trump...or any of the other candidates.

They have been called racists, misogynists, war mongers. rednecks, hillbillys, gun freaks, fascists, Islamaphobes and any number of other assorted epithets.

Oh, and don't forget that old standby on this forum...dirty, grumpy old white men.

Now let's look at some quality Democrat voters and supporters:

[sgtsabai]

Yes, the heartless and fools without a shadow of a doubt. Please check your recent history, it was your idol Ronald Regan that started the road to ruin in the states, aided and abetted later by turncoat Clinton with the repeal of Glass/Steagall plus NAFTA and it was the Cheney/Bush regime that brought us the crash, Iraq, Afghanistan the hatred of much of the world, and loss of jobs, not Obama. You can find your cherry picked right wing bullshit anywhere on faux (not the) news, bratbart and various other lying right wing hate blogs etc. The real dumb "protesters" are the teabaggers that can't even spell much less understand what they are protesting, ahem hands off my Social Security/Medicare, oh give me a break. And, the Trump supporters are exactly what you say. Trump couldn't get elected dawg catcher in a national election, better check my link again, that's not a Rasmussen (Republican) poll.

[chuckd]

Yes, the heartless and fools without a shadow of a doubt. Please check your recent history, it was your idol Ronald Regan that started the road to ruin in the states, aided and abetted later by turncoat Clinton with the repeal of Glass/Steagall plus NAFTA and it was the Cheney/Bush regime that brought us the crash, Iraq, Afghanistan the hatred of much of the world, and loss of jobs, not Obama. You can find your cherry picked right wing bullshit anywhere on faux (not the) news, bratbart and various other lying right wing hate blogs etc. The real dumb "protesters" are the teabaggers that can't even spell much less understand what they are protesting, ahem hands off my Social Security/Medicare, oh give me a break. And, the Trump supporters are exactly what you say. Trump couldn't get elected dawg catcher in a national election, better check my link again, that's not a Rasmussen (Republican) poll.

I checked out your source. You are absolutely correct, your link is most assuredly NOT a Republican poll. It is a far left poll that even MSNBC might not be proud of.

You should have let sleeping dawgs (sic) lie.

From the AlterNet site they make this statement:

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

Foundation Support

AlterNet.org is a project of the Independent Media Institute. 2014 Foundation supporters include:

http://www.alternet.org/alternets-supporting-foundations

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

From here you can then motor over to the following site which is a listing of those organizations that are under the sponsorship of George Soros, a rather nasty individual.

You will find the following statement:

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

Independent Media Institute:

IMI administers the SPIN Project (Strategic Press Information Network), which provides leftist organizations with "accessible and affordable strategic communications consulting, training, coaching, networking opportunities and concrete tools" to help them "achieve their social justice goals."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237

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

You just fell off the carousel in another desperate attempt to grab the gold ring.

[up-country_sinclair]

They have been called racists, misogynists, war mongers. rednecks, hillbillys, gun freaks, fascists, Islamaphobes

Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. These people are the Trump base.

[sgtsabai]

No, the link may come from Alter Net, but the poll is from one of the most respected in the states. And, your obvious right wing bias shows through like a shinning but mis-aimed beacon. Quite frankly, there is nothing "leftist" about them, center of road and who cares except right wing fascists that Soros has anything to do with anything. He is certainly no "liberal" much less left wing. Sure beats the hell out of the Koch (John Birch Society) traitor brothers. What right wingnuts refuse to realize is that they are so far to the right that they can't find the center. Much like the Donald, a fascist.

[Publicus]

Here's a brief categorical database of Republicans who say they are voting for Trump in the Republican party state-by-state primary balloting.

The findings are in the Reuters/Ipsos poll of decided Republican voters who are likely to vote. Here is the link to the poll (among others).

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2015ReutersTrackingCorePolitical122315.pdf

Reuters/Ipsos includes some fascinating data, to include the following below (but not limited to it).

First however some narrative and the link to the narrative::

Who is Voting for Trump?

Trump's polling performance provides some stark insights into the condition of the GOP.

Over and over since the 1960s, the Republican Party has been faced with a series of situations where it can gain favor from the majority by attacking the minority. This often works to its benefit in the short term, but over time, the list of groups the Party has attacked has become so long that the Party is painting itself into a corner where, in order to win a presidential election, it will soon need to capture the vote of nearly every single heterosexual, Christian, white voter. To start every election cycle with perhaps 30% of the voters automatically against you is not a good position.

http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/trump-supporters.php

Education Level

Donald Trump's poll performance by educational attainment

I would make the significant note of this chart that of the Republicans who have decided to vote for Trump, 58% lack a high school diploma, only 24% of decided Trump voters have a graduate degree.

Race

Donald Trump's poll performance by race:

My summary statement here is that Trump is supported by 25% of the decided Republican Hispanic voters. However, to win the general election, Trump would need to be supported by 99.9% of Republican Hispanics. Trump certainly would need more than Mitt Romney's 27% of all Hispanic voters in his 2012 general election defeat by President Obama.

Income

Donald Trump's poll performance by income:

Of the decided Republican voters for Trump, 47% have an annual income of $25,000 or less. Thirty-five percent of decided Republican voters have an income of $75,000 or more. I'd add this also proves even poor Republicans don't know what's good for them.

Age

Donald Trump's poll performance by age:

Decided Republican voters split generationally. Youngest decided R's are Trumps weakest age demographic, older decided R voters, i.e., aged 40 and older, his strongest group. I see a Fox.

Gender

Donald Trump's poll performance by gender:

Makes no difference. It's basically 50-50.

Ideology

Donald Trump's poll performance by ideology:

It's almost all about immigration and to "make America great again." What Trump and these folks can't recognise is that America is and continues to be a great country. Our biggest job each election is assure the greatness is not reversed by reactionary rightists forces within. Our greatest historic victory is destined to occur in the new year.

In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 41% of all American voters surveyed said they are Democrats, 32% said they are Republicans.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

No, the link may come from Alter Net, but the poll is from one of the most respected in the states. And, your obvious right wing bias shows through like a shinning but mis-aimed beacon. Quite frankly, there is nothing "leftist" about them, center of road and who cares except right wing fascists that Soros has anything to do with anything. He is certainly no "liberal" much less left wing. Sure beats the hell out of the Koch (John Birch Society) traitor brothers. What right wingnuts refuse to realize is that they are so far to the right that they can't find the center. Much like the Donald, a fascist.

[Publicus]

What continues to amaze me is all the progressive liberal talk about the Republican voters who might support Trump...or any of the other candidates.

They have been called racists, misogynists, war mongers. rednecks, hillbillys, gun freaks, fascists, Islamaphobes and any number of other assorted epithets.

Oh, and don't forget that old standby on this forum...dirty, grumpy old white men.

Now let's look at some quality Democrat voters and supporters:

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8% of the popular vote, or 69,456,897 votes. It was the highest percentage of the popular vote since FDR got 54.7% in 1940.

In 2012 President Obama won 51.9% of the popular vote, or 65,899,660 votes. Barack Obama thereby became the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the popular vote each time. Reagan couldn't do it and neither could Nixon nor could Bill Clinton. I'll say part of that again: Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

Republicans face the "Blue Wall."

Which is that in the past six elections, the Democratic candidate for president has won at least 250 Electoral College votes. 270 EC votes are needed to win. This means the Republican for president in 2016 needs to steal about a dozen Blue Wall states to win.

It's also called Mission Impossible because it means the Republican for president would need to flip a number of the overwhelmingly Blue Wall EC vote states. For example, New York (29), California (55), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (20), Michigan (16) that among more than a dozen others have not voted Republican since 1988.

More recent Blue Wall states include Iowa (6), Nevada (6), Maine (4), New Hampshire(4), Vermont (3) etc etc.

If it happens the Republican party nominee is Trump, the Republican party will win about a dozen states total, in all, of the 50 states (some say ten states). Romney in 2012 won 23 states for 206 EC votes. Pres Obama won 27 states (and District of Columbia) for 332 EC votes.

Please, please, do all youse guyz can do to nominate Trump as your guy. But y'know, it just doesn't matter who youse guyz nominate.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Publicus

[thaibeachlovers]

Yes, the heartless and fools without a shadow of a doubt. Please check your recent history, it was your idol Ronald Regan that started the road to ruin in the states, aided and abetted later by turncoat Clinton with the repeal of Glass/Steagall plus NAFTA and it was the Cheney/Bush regime that brought us the crash, Iraq, Afghanistan the hatred of much of the world, and loss of jobs, not Obama. You can find your cherry picked right wing bullshit anywhere on faux (not the) news, bratbart and various other lying right wing hate blogs etc. The real dumb "protesters" are the teabaggers that can't even spell much less understand what they are protesting, ahem hands off my Social Security/Medicare, oh give me a break. And, the Trump supporters are exactly what you say. Trump couldn't get elected dawg catcher in a national election, better check my link again, that's not a Rasmussen (Republican) poll.

I assume you are referring to me with "your" though you don't quote.

Reagan was never my idol- he was a war criminal that should have been locked up. The crash was brought by the banks- the very ones that Obama loves. Certainly he has done nothing to punish the scum bankers that brought it about. Given the large number of ex Goldman Sachs in the White House I'd say he has a cosy arrangement with the very crooks that ruined millions. HRC voted for Iraq. Obama has done nothing to stop US jobs going to other countries like Mexico, despite having had 7 years to do so.

BTW calling Clinton a turncoat doesn't make him any less Democrat, in fact there is very little difference between the parties when it comes down to it. They both like going to war, and are incompetent at running the country. It's just a change of face at the elections, not a change of "real" policy. That is why many US voters hate Congress and would vote for a newt if it stood against the establishment.

Edited December 26, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[lostboy]

What continues to amaze me is all the progressive liberal talk about the Republican voters who might support Trump...or any of the other candidates.

They have been called racists, misogynists, war mongers. rednecks, hillbillys, gun freaks, fascists, Islamaphobes and any number of other assorted epithets.

Oh, and don't forget that old standby on this forum...dirty, grumpy old white men.

Now let's look at some quality Democrat voters and supporters:

Well Charles, since you bring up one of my favourite sayings about the grumpy old white men, let me just say that I have never, not once, included the word dirty in that sobriquet that I bestow on TVF's stalwart keyboard warriors.

A Freudian slip I wonder?

I will avoid offering hints to your ancillary questions. That seems to ring alarm bells. But dig deeper Padawan.

Edited December 27, 2015 by lostboy

[chuckd]

What continues to amaze me is all the progressive liberal talk about the Republican voters who might support Trump...or any of the other candidates.

They have been called racists, misogynists, war mongers. rednecks, hillbillys, gun freaks, fascists, Islamaphobes and any number of other assorted epithets.

Oh, and don't forget that old standby on this forum...dirty, grumpy old white men.

Now let's look at some quality Democrat voters and supporters:

Well Charles, since you bring up one of my favourite sayings about the grumpy old white men, let me just say that I have never, not once, included the word dirty in that sobriquet that I bestow on TVF's stalwart keyboard warriors.

A Freudian slip I wonder?

I will avoid offering hints to your ancillary questions. That seems to ring alarm bells. But dig deeper Padawan.

Is it your own ego that thinks I was addressing you in my post?

Don't flatter yourself.

[sgtsabai]

Damn, gotta' agree with you beachlover. Just remember, the crash occurred under the Cheney/Bush et al regime, not Obama's. And for a little kicker, I don't like Obama's policies. A tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters, codifying and enlarging the previous regime's shredding of the Constitution.

[thaibeachlovers]

Damn, gotta' agree with you beachlover. Just remember, the crash occurred under the Cheney/Bush et al regime, not Obama's. And for a little kicker, I don't like Obama's policies. A tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters, codifying and enlarging the previous regime's shredding of the Constitution.

I don't recall saying Obama caused it, but whatever. It's worth noting that Goldman Sachs was in it up to it's dirty little neck and many ex GS employees are now "advising" the wonder boy. It's little wonder why many Americans hate establishment politics and would vote for the proverbial newt if it ran.

[GinBoy2]

Damn, gotta' agree with you beachlover. Just remember, the crash occurred under the Cheney/Bush et al regime, not Obama's. And for a little kicker, I don't like Obama's policies. A tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters, codifying and enlarging the previous regime's shredding of the Constitution.

I don't recall saying Obama caused it, but whatever. It's worth noting that Goldman Sachs was in it up to it's dirty little neck and many ex GS employees are now "advising" the wonder boy. It's little wonder why many Americans hate establishment politics and would vote for the proverbial newt if it ran.

Obama certainly didn't cause it, how his administration dealt with the aftermath I think is deplorable. That being said, no POTUS of any party really has that much authority to do anything if Congress won't play ball.

The documentary 'Inside Job' is a pretty decent watch. It goes through the crash without the Michael Moore style hyperbole. It contrasts the aftermath of the S&L crisis and the 2008 crash, and the fates of those implicated in both. Funny there just didn't seem to a Charles Keating figure amongst any of the players in 2008, who basically blew up the world!

[thaibeachlovers]

Damn, gotta' agree with you beachlover. Just remember, the crash occurred under the Cheney/Bush et al regime, not Obama's. And for a little kicker, I don't like Obama's policies. A tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters, codifying and enlarging the previous regime's shredding of the Constitution.

I don't recall saying Obama caused it, but whatever. It's worth noting that Goldman Sachs was in it up to it's dirty little neck and many ex GS employees are now "advising" the wonder boy. It's little wonder why many Americans hate establishment politics and would vote for the proverbial newt if it ran.

Obama certainly didn't cause it, how his administration dealt with the aftermath I think is deplorable. That being said, no POTUS of any party really has that much authority to do anything if Congress won't play ball.

The documentary 'Inside Job' is a pretty decent watch. It goes through the crash without the Michael Moore style hyperbole. It contrasts the aftermath of the S&L crisis and the 2008 crash, and the fates of those implicated in both. Funny there just didn't seem to a Charles Keating figure amongst any of the players in 2008, who basically blew up the world!

7 years on and not a single major player has been prosecuted. No wonder people are sick to the back teeth of corrupt establishment politicians. No doubt part of the reason the Donald is getting so much support.

Edited December 28, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[chuckd]

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 had everything to do with the housing bubble/sub-prime mortgage lending crash in 2008.

Every President from Carter on helped in the crash.

George W. Bush warned Congress about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for two years and the Democrats in Congress did nothing.

A little primer for those interested in what really happened.

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

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

John Carney

Jun. 27, 2009, 9:33 AM

Earlier this week I noted that I had changed my mind on the Community Reinvestment Act.

Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble. Once I realized this, I had to abandon my suspicion that the anti-CRA case was a figment of the rhetoric of Republicans attempting to distract attention from their own role in the mortgage mess.

So I laid out the facts and arguments that had convinced me to switch sides in the CRA debate. It was a long series of posts that generated hundreds of responses and counter-arguments.

Entire article here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6