US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[Ithekro]

Currently speaking the country is too divide ideologically. The candidate you are looking for doesn't exist. No candidate not even Washington with Lincoln as his running mate would win over the party.

And that is a serious problem.

[risingstar3110]

On Hillary's email server. Remember there is still that story about the Romanian hacker Guccifer, who was escorted back to the US. And in his own word, when we got into Hillary server, he could track trail of similar breakthrough from "10 different regions in the world".

Could he lie? Yeah, possible. But that is pretty stupid to admit for more crime just to add more jail time to himself.

But he did successfully hack into Bush email before (where he released many of Bush pictures). And if he can prove his words somehow, or the information he give, can point the intelligence to gather on any evidences in that direction. Then this whole issue could escalate big time.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

It is true. However, she is TRYING really hard to lose. I can't count out the possibly of her succeeding in losing. Just as I didn't expect her to completely alienate Sanders voters to the point of hostility. If she managed to anger so many Democrats, it is just as likely she would anger Independents come the General election. It is amazing how condescending she is when she speaks.

She will be fine. The division has been just as worse when she and Obama were duking it out in the primary in 2008. Stopping Trump will take precedent over the difference in ideologue once Democratic nomination becomes definitive. Our two party system is what makes people divided in primaries come together in general election cause even if their preferred candidates aren't nominated, majority of these people still vote within the party line.

The one other reason why a Democratic candidate tend to have the advantage in general election is because the primary mimics general election voting trend so well which includes blacks, whites, and hispanics votes in meaningful proportion. That can't be said about a GOP primary which constitutes mostly the white votes. Hilary will win comfortably against Trump. Once Sanders exit after California things should start falling in Hilary's direction. As I mentioned in one of my early posts, the one way Trump can exceed Hilary is if there is a terrorist attack of some kind around October while they are neck and neck in polls.

I think Hilary wins comfortably because she is running against Trump. If it was Bush or Kasich, I don't know if the same could have been said.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Official Mexican guide for entering the USA (illegally):

The source of the pamphlet was gone, so I wondered if it's fake. But no, I checked with wayback machine. It's real. The pamphlet claims that this is "not pushing illegal immigration", although there are whole segments about how to pass the border illegally. It doesn't get more obvious than that.

copy of pamphlet: http://www.fdrurl.com/MexicoPamphlet

original source (currently redirecting to the homepage): http://www.sre.gob.mx/tramites/consulares/guiamigrante/

original source through wayback machine (July 2005): http://web.archive.org/web/200507130.../guiamigrante/



To be fair this pamphlet has been posted there in 2005, but guess WHO was president of Mexico at that time? It's none other than Mr. Vicente "we are not going to pay for that fu***ng wall" Fox.

May I ask if there is an alternative viewpoint that can be considered other than the one, "Mexico is sending......"? Mind you, one may have to step out of ones own echo chamber (to borrow your phrase) to consider the alternate reason for that video.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Trump is an expert provocateur but those statements aren't racist... I actually abhor these protesters who come into the US and fly the Mexican flag. It's one thing to be proud of your roots, another thing entirely to do this.

Whether Trump is racist himself or sexist or a bigot is a moot point. What is disturbing is his willingness to evoke emotions in people that are so raw and primal to the point of irrationality.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by monir

May I ask if there is an alternative viewpoint that can be considered other than the one, "Mexico is sending......"? Mind you, one may have to step out of ones own echo chamber (to borrow your phrase) to consider the alternate reason for that video.

the REASON for the VIDEO is not the point here (yes, the one who made the video is a well-known Trump supporter). It's all about the pamphlet. You tell me for what reason would a MEXICAN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION give people instructions about immigration that includes aspects that would exclusively occur as an illegal immigrant? Other than to make sure that people actually illegally immigrate to the USA successfully? The large point here is that the government DID support illegal immigration and this evidence is simply undeniable.

And I am not "echo-chambering" here. As I said in my post, I even doubted the existence of the pamphlet because the link to the original source doesn't work. But it did, infact, exist at the time Vicente Fox was president and it was there on a Mexican government website, unless you are going to tell me some conspiracy theory that the people behind wayback machine are somehow fabricating this because they are secretly Trump supporters or something like that.

Originally Posted by monir

Whether Trump is racist himself or sexist or a bigot is a moot point. What is disturbing is his willingness to evoke emotions in people that are so raw and primal to the point of irrationality.

That's like saying that a raped girl "provoked" the rapist by wearing revealing clothing, i.e. victim blaming.

I mean if Trump REALLY was evoking irrational emotions, you WOULD see Trump supporters being the ones to actively attack others because they are under the most exposure of Trump, right? And yet aside from 3 cases that have been reported (and sometimes misreported) by the media for weeks, all of which were at least 2 months ago, you don't see "irrational" Trump supporters attacking minorities or illegal immigrants in the last 2 months. What you see are USA-flag burning, Mexico-flag waving thugs that attack police cars, wear masks, throw eggs at people, etc., which makes one wonder "why" those people aren't going back to the country they love so much?

But sure continue to blame it on Trump's "tone".



What would happen if you waved USA-flags, while burning Mexico-flags in Mexico? Your corpse would probably be found in a mutilated state somewhere. It seems no one has problems with signs saying "Make California Mexico Again", but perhaps I have an outdated mindset in regard to national sovereignity in this "globalized" world.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by monir

She will be fine. The division has been just as worse when she and Obama were duking it out in the primary in 2008. Stopping Trump will take precedent over the difference in ideologue once Democratic nomination becomes definitive. Our two party system is what makes people divided in primaries come together in general election cause even if their preferred candidates aren't nominated, majority of these people still vote within the party line.

I can understand why you bring it up because that is what every Democrat establishment used nowadays. But if it gonna be Hillary vs Trump, this line of thinking will almost ensure Democrat defeat this election (unless Trump imploded himself over)

They don't understand that Hillary coalition is the one loyal to the party and consisting of more established voters. Meanwhile Obama's coalition, young , new, independent, disfranchised voters which Sanders inherited (minus black minority) is the group that loyal to the progressive idea, not the party. The heart of progressive is progress, and they are not motivated by incremental change (especially considering the low level of distrusts).

Young people, they won't vote in anyway, I heard? Check this yourself again as this is from the top of my head, but Obama got as much votes from under 30/35 as above 60/65 during 2012.

So, my prediction for November 2016 if it gonna be Hillary vs Trump: the turn out for Democrats in some swing and blue states ended up so low in contrast with the GOP that Democrats had a shocking defeat. All of the pundit and DNC elite, those stuck inside the establishment bubble, will be simply so shocked at the defeat despite prediction of easy win, that it will take them a couple days before realising the reason: "Hillary ran a perfect campaign, but lost because young people didn't vote. This new generation who spent more time on Iphone and games didn't come out to votes. Democrats defeat was totally their fault."

Originally Posted by GreyZone

the REASON for the VIDEO is not the point here (yes, the one who made the video is a well-known Trump supporter). It's all about the pamphlet. You tell me for what reason would a MEXICAN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION give people instructions about immigration that includes aspects that would exclusively occur as an illegal immigrant? Other than to make sure that people actually illegally immigrate to the USA successfully? The large point here is that the government DID support illegal immigration and this evidence is simply undeniable.

Have to disagree with you here. The video itself does not means the Mexico government support illegal immigration. The video itself means they support when the illegal immigrants won't put themselves in danger over when they will.

I means if you watch the video, all of the tips were not to ensure the illegal immigration to be successful, but for it to be safer than it could have been. Of course a safer option increase the chance of success but it is not part of the goal.

(In some way, it is similar to that Arab Saudi's video teaching husbands "how to correctly beat up your wife". It's easy to criticise it, but a few quotes in that video showed that they support a more symbolic beating rather than brutal one.... So.... I guess it has some good at heart ?)

Saying that through the Mexican pamphlet will benefit Trump regardless. Because just like that "how to beat your wife" video, it reveal to outsiders about the extend of the problem, with illegal immigration in this case, so much that the Mexican government can't prevent it and had to resort into adapting to it. Not to mention , one of the main cause that led to the flood of Mexican illegal immigration was due to NAFTA . So regardless everything still stick to the Clintons like velcro .

[Eisdrache]

To make a judgement about the pamphlet we should also hear the side who released it. A one-sided view rarely leads to objective criticism.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

That's like saying that a raped girl "provoked" the rapist by wearing revealing clothing, i.e. victim blaming.

I mean if Trump REALLY was evoking irrational emotions, you WOULD see Trump supporters being the ones to actively attack others because they are under the most exposure of Trump, right? And yet aside from 3 cases that have been reported (and sometimes misreported) by the media for weeks, all of which were at least 2 months ago, you don't see "irrational" Trump supporters attacking minorities or illegal immigrants in the last 2 months. What you see are USA-flag burning, Mexico-flag waving thugs that attack police cars, wear masks, throw eggs at people, etc., which makes one wonder "why" those people aren't going back to the country they love so much?

But sure continue to blame it on Trump's "tone".

Trump the poor victim.

You're free to close your eyes from reality but it's a fact that he has been leading a very aggressive campaign that is using people's frustrations (justified or not) by aggravating them even more. He's fully aware that he's heavily provoking with his statements and utilizing that to his own benefit.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by monir

Whether Trump is racist himself or sexist or a bigot is a moot point. What is disturbing is his willingness to evoke emotions in people that are so raw and primal to the point of irrationality.

I'm far from a Trump supporter as a disclaimer, but most of the violence and aggression is coming from leftist agitators, many of whom seem to be paid to stir up shit.

Trump is a demagogue, and he has capitalized on the Republican party's failure to address the desires and worries of their base. For far too long have they blew off their voting base, to the point where it seems like they hate their own voters, in favor of Republican urban elites that are simply trying to line their pockets with cash.

These are the voters who are social conservatives and have been promised for decades they would get more jobs. Instead they have seen their very way of life vanish before their eyes. Republican congress has delivered exactly nothing on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Their trickle down economics has only sent most of their jobs overseas and a way of life that they used to enjoy economically has all but disappeared. Most of the "racial" tension will be resolved if the underlying economic problems are solved.

The biggest lie in America right now is that somehow we can bring back the good ol days of jobs in manufacturing (Or other similar blue collar work). Even if manufacturing comes back today, it's all going to be automated. Globalization has changed the economy forever and we need to find ways to adjust to this new economic landscape. Frankly neither party has a good answer for it at the moment.

[frivolity]

Trump is indeed riding on the wave of disillusionment and the anti-establishment sentiment, but he's not the one inciting violence. Trump supporters have, in general (not all of them though), been peaceful in showing support. Instead, the ones that have been showing unruly behaviour have mostly been the anti-Trump protesters.

To be clear, I'm not saying that supporters of other candidates are violent as a whole, just that the people who have been violent have mostly been supporters of candidates other than Trump (see: Conditional Probability).

If I were to pin the blame on anyone, it would be the politically correct Social Justice Warriors who rally others to shut down the right to free speech and perpetuate a culture of victimisation for their own benefit so that they can carry on profiting from being SJWs. Naturally, they don't support Trump because that would shatter the system that they profit from.

This video is a good example, though it's only one case:

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Trump is indeed riding on the wave of disillusionment and the anti-establishment sentiment, but he's not the one inciting violence. Trump supporters have, in general (not all of them though), been peaceful in showing support. Instead, the ones that have been showing unruly behaviour have mostly been the anti-Trump protesters.

Haven't you seen all the case of violence inside Trump event, which were pretty much encouraged by Trump.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

The biggest lie in America right now is that somehow we can bring back the good ol days of jobs in manufacturing (Or other similar blue collar work). Even if manufacturing comes back today, it's all going to be automated. Globalization has changed the economy forever and we need to find ways to adjust to this new economic landscape. Frankly neither party has a good answer for it at the moment.

Agree. But even the bigger lie in America have right now is: there is actually two parties in America. There is not.

Other than some out-cried non-issues like transgender bathroom or gun confiscation. You can literally pick a conservative policy, tell Democrats that Hillary or Obama support it, and they will still defend it to the hilt. Vice versa

1. Trump may want to deport all (3.3 million) Muslism out of America? No problem, Obama already deported 2.5 millions people and still have from now till November to catch up to that number. Trump probably even can inherit existing facilities to carry out his plan. Just use the same hammer on different nail really
2. Trump don't care about clean energy and climate change, and believe US and the world future energy demand should depend on fracking (which is worse than coal) for the time being to phase coals out first. Oh, wait sorry that's Hillary position on climate change
3. Trump want to repeal Romneycare? Or was it Obamacare? I can't distinguish the two to be honest as they are the same to me. I know one Democrat hate and one Democrat loves through. Maybe that's why they have to attach Obama name in just in case Democrat and Republican praise and criticise the wrong one
4. Trump want to build a 2000 miles wall. Perhaps to extend on the existed 700-miles fortified "fence" that Hillary already voted for? She claimed she is against illegal immigration afterall. So in American dictionary, "wall" is bad, racist, "fence" is OK, not racist?
5. And put your hand up, if you think you will against if Trump want to "invade" and "bomb" Iran ? But think it's OK if Hillary want "human intervention" and "replace the authoritarian government" of Iran?
6. Yeah, yeah we know the drill. Both of them will cut tax for the rich, ease or pass law allow Wall Street to reel people in easier. Glass-Stegall will never being reinstalled means if the bank took your money and bet on the next housing bubble, and make profit, they take it all. If they lose, they will fake the book, lure people in to buy more shares, prolong and in the end call bankrupt unless US government come in to bail them out. No one will be jail, all will get fat paycheck. And it's all because of those damn poor who want a roof over their head but can't pay for mortgage

And all the media argue over, is which bathroom people should go to. Really? That Trump mistook 9/11 and 7/11? That Hillary imitated a dog barking on stage? Tip: if Trump call Hillary ass "big". That will be the only thing on the news and in every debate until September at least. Screw economy and foreign policy, we vote for a candidate depending on whether he/she call someone else ass big?

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Haven't you seen all the case of violence inside Trump event, which were pretty much encouraged by Trump.

Are you referring to the rally where he told the security guards to "get him out of here", and one of his supporters started hitting the man while he was escorted out? If so, then I agree that that man was wrong for doing that, but it wasn't an action that Trump himself encouraged.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Haven't you seen all the case of violence inside Trump event, which were pretty much encouraged by Trump.

2 or 3 times. All of which were more than 2 months ago with the last case being a black Trump supporter attacking a man and woman of whom one dragged an American flag on the ground and the other wore a KKK costume.

After that for 2 months the only thing you see are violent rioters who cause vandalism in the name of being anti-Trump, while the Trump supporters aware of how their counter-attacks would be specifically highlighted by the media among the chaos can only grit their teeth and not punch back.

Meanwhile the police acted very differently from region to region. In San Diego, for example, the police did a great job keeping the rioters in check. Not so much in other regions of California. Not necessarily the fault of the police though. Sometimes they are unfortunately ordered to "stand down" either because someone in the background with influence supports the rioters, or because someone with influence is afraid of becoming a victim of the "PC-police" and being called a "racist" and such things, like suddenly Black-Lives-Matter screaming about "race-based police brutality".


As someone who isn't from US that's probably one of the most important reasons I want Trump to win. He is the only one among the candidates who actually shows willingness to dismantle the disease called "PC-police". If he managed to do this, it would only become a matter of time until other nations would follow and we would finally get rid of that disgusting distortion of reality. People like Merkel have no backbone. If Trump branded the dismantleing of the PC-culture as the "new trend" of the western world, she would cave in and get a "sudden enlightment" that perhaps "a bit less globalisation wouldn't hurt". Just like she got a "sudden enlightment" that nuclear power is not that great right after Fukushima. That woman has ZERO integrity! She only follows wherever the wind blows. She is like Hillary Clinton without the skeletons in her closet, but is even more often "confused" than Hillary.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Haven't you seen all the case of violence inside Trump event, which were pretty much encouraged by Trump.

Well the media isn't liked for a reason. Here is a different experience.

There are incidents of violence at Trump rallies and Trump himself has at times said things that were not helpful, but the media does like to pick and choose what they decide to show. There has been far more violence perpetrated by outside parties towards his supporters though from what I can see.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

There are incidents of violence at Trump rallies and Trump himself has at times said things that were not helpful, but the media does like to pick and choose what they decide to show. There has been far more violence perpetrated by outside parties towards his supporters though from what I can see.

The problem here is that the "incited violence"-phrases that media claims are the "cause" of the riots were things Trump said 2+ months ago (he never said things like "I wish I could punch him in the face" anymore since then). I wonder if anyone ever thought how absurd it would be if someone in a court room would claim that they acted "out of impulse" yesterday based on something someone had said multiple months ago. You'd only get laughed at at best or looked at with serious ice-cold eyes at worst. But lo and behold, the media are claiming just that.

[Soliloquy]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

As someone who isn't from US that's probably one of the most important reasons I want Trump to win. He is the only one among the candidates who actually shows willingness to dismantle the disease called "PC-police". If he managed to do this, it would only become a matter of time until other nations would follow and we would finally get rid of that disgusting distortion of reality.

Fully agreed with this. To an extent Trump is too unrealistic about his policy especially the wall and scanning and banning all the muslims but he is the only one I think will do something about influence of political correctness and indoctrination going on in the public schools. On the other hand Clinton and Sanders will do nothing about it, rather enable it more with hate speech laws constitution be damned.

[Eisdrache]

I don't know if this was what monir meant but irrational behaviour doesn't necessarily mean attacking others. It can also be supporting a person who promises the world by going to unrealistic extremes and believing his every word without critically analyzing it.

As for the attacks, we're going after the wrong question. More than 'who' it should be 'why'.

Why are [insert group here] doing these acts of violence? The reasons are diverse but it's undeniable that Trump's campaign loves to pour oil into many fires. Sometimes he has a point, more often than not he only sees what he wants to see. Point being that continuous speeches like that incite the emotions of the attacked and the backlash shouldn't be a surprise. Speeches by someone who could become the president of the US.

It's fully possible that the anger/frustration of these groups would have exploded some day on their own but Trump's rally clearly intensified that process.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

I don't know if this was what monir meant but irrational behaviour doesn't necessarily mean attacking others. It can also be supporting a person who promises the world by going to unrealistic extremes and believing his every word without critically analyzing it.

As for the attacks, we're going after the wrong question. More than 'who' it should be 'why'.

Why are [insert group here] doing these acts of violence? The reasons are diverse but it's undeniable that Trump's campaign loves to pour oil into many fires. Sometimes he has a point, more often than not he only sees what he wants to see. Point being that continuous speeches like that incite the emotions of the attacked and the backlash shouldn't be a surprise. Speeches by someone who could become the president of the US.

It's fully possible that the anger/frustration of these groups would have exploded some day on their own but Trump's rally clearly intensified that process.

No, it's more like Trump represents USA and the rioters represent Mexico. I must remind you that they burn American flags, wave Mexican flags and hold up signs that say "Make California Mexico Again". In my knowledge that would be called an "invading force", but I guess my knowledge on that must be outdated

And whatever excuses they have those rioters are still criminals. Normally you'd expect people to be "responsible adults" and things like "being emotionally incited to violence by Trump's words" would, in a courtroom, be at best be considered as a "lame excuse", at worst be considered as slander (there was even a Vox editor that called for rioters to actually go and vandalize things. That person was suspended from Vox right after).

But it seems since that it fits the anti-Trump media narrative, it is somehow OK to consider the rioters in a legal sense as "misguided children" that are throwing tantrums and are "not aware what they are doing". Well perhaps they really don't know what they are doing. Because they are doing everything they can to get Trump elected and they don't even realize it. Reminds one of Nixon.


I think most the independents just won't buy that "incited violence" excuse. Escpacially with individuals like George Soros and websites like moveon.org around. People who look into it will mostly realize that they are either paid for by someone to riot/protest or actually want to make California into a part of Mexico again. You can't reuse the same excuse for months and months. Again, the last really "violence inciting words" have been said over 2 months ago. Unless you are a fundamentally immature person you will certainly not still hold violent impulses after so much time.

[Eisdrache]

That's all nice and well but it has nothing to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

No, it's more like Trump represents USA and the rioters represent Mexico.

Let's take a break here. Depending on what poll you look at, half or two-thirds of the American population have an unfavourable view of Trump. They don't really like Clinton either. Someone who is negatively viewed by over half the people is not representative.

Regardless of who people support, be it Clinton, Trump, (Sanders), this election is a complete joke for one simple reason. Voters aren't voting who they believe is suited best for the presidency but because they don't want the other candidate to win. If you're presented with two bad choices, one of them will inevitably win but that doesn't make the winner good.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

But it seems since that it fits the anti-Trump media narrative, it is somehow OK to consider the rioters in a legal sense as "misguided children" that are throwing tantrums and are "not aware what they are doing".

No. Aside from a few exceptions nobody supports the vandalism etc. And nobody here even said so before you interpreted things into my post that aren't there. All while completely ignoring what is in it.

Let me repeat it for you since apparently it's not that easy to understand:

The reasoning behind someone's actions are just as important to understand as the action itself. That does not mean that one supports the action but it allows for more objective judgement.

Constant provoking, repeated over a long enough time, at some point result in outbursts like this. And the Trump campaign is fully aware and trying to utilize it to their benefit [read as in their own benefit, not the benefit of the country] by constantly pouring even more oil into the fire.

[Soliloquy]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

I don't know if this was what monir meant but irrational behaviour doesn't necessarily mean attacking others. It can also be supporting a person who promises the world by going to unrealistic extremes and believing his every word without critically analyzing it.

Isn't Bernie supporter the same? Even Hilary supporters because they are voting Hilary because she's a woman.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Constant provoking, repeated over a long enough time, at some point result in outbursts like this. And the Trump campaign is fully aware and trying to utilize it to their benefit [read as in their own benefit, not the benefit of the country] by constantly pouring even more oil into the fire.

Isn't mainstream media just as guilty for sensationalise whatever Trump says and blow them out of proportion. Trump loves the attention. Of course he's gonna take a full advantage of it to ensure getting more votes. Also outbursts were going to happen sooner or later whether Trump is pouring oil or not like Baltimore Riot or Black lives matter movement. It is disingenuous to say Trump is the sole catalyst.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

That's all nice and well but it has nothing to do with what I said.



Let's take a break here. Depending on what poll you look at, half or two-thirds of the American population have an unfavourable view of Trump. They don't really like Clinton either. Someone who is negatively viewed by over half the people is not representative.

I was refering to Trump building his campaign to a large extent around patriotism and national sovereignity more than the other candidates. Of course he is not the "representative" of the people. Only the winner of the election will really have the right to call themselves that.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Regardless of who people support, be it Clinton, Trump, (Sanders), this election is a complete joke for one simple reason. Voters aren't voting who they believe is suited best for the presidency but because they don't want the other candidate to win. If you're presented with two bad choices, one of them will inevitably win but that doesn't make the winner good.

It's because media attention seems much greater for the primary season this election cycle than previous ones. And the coverage is also largely negative. And yet despite so much media attention, the voter turnout, while having changes, are still clearly in the realm of primaries. So while there is more "media involvement" and controversy after controversy being reported all the time, the amount of people that got involved in the primary season and closely followed the politics did actually not change.

So what does that mean? My take on that is that people who are NOT involved in the primary season and don't follow politics that much at this point in time can only see the controversies all over the place in the news which are almost all negative for the candidates (negative news and controversies bring more ratings, so they are much more often broadcasted). That in turn leads to people who are not politically involved in the primary season to get a negative view on the front-runners of the two parties.

What supports my take is the fact that people's unfavorability ratings are higher for those candidates who the media cover more in general. That's why Kasich's favorability ratings were so high. No one actually paid any attention to him. He appeard simply irrelevant. Aside from the people who view any Republican negatively just for being Republican, no one who only occasionally watched news would paint him negatively. Bernie Sanders didn't have many controversies surrounding him and the GOP primaries had much more of the spotlight most of the time, so he got much better favorability ratings as well.

tl;dr: GE voters - P voters + unusually much and negative media coverage = high unfavorability ratings for likely nominees.

I think once the GE season starts and people actually look into things deeper than just the usual TV news, the favorability and unfavorability ratings may change a lot. Or maybe not. But the GE debates will most likely have quite a bit of influence.

You are free to disagree with me of course. I say let's wait and see how this turns out later on. We didn't even have the party conventions yet.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

No. Aside from a few exceptions nobody supports the vandalism etc. And nobody here even said so before you interpreted things into my post that aren't there. All while completely ignoring what is in it.

I was refering to the "media narrative" which I think has influence on people, I was not refering to you in that paragraph. The media only talk about how Trump "incites violence", but somehow they don't mention other important things, like California officials ordering the police to stand down and not do their job out of concerns that it may "get out of hand", although a few days earlier the San Diego police did their job and there were less problems than in San Jose where the police stood down. As I said: It doesn't fit the "media narrative" so they leave those "inconvenient details" out.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Let me repeat it for you since apparently it's not that easy to understand:

The reasoning behind someone's actions are just as important to understand as the action itself. That does not mean that one supports the action but it allows for more objective judgement.

Yes, signs saying "Make California Mexico Again" coupled with Trump's campaign goals to enforce immigration laws and to build a wall that includes the border between Mexico and California (with "doors" for legal border-crossing, of course) is all the reasoning a US-citizen needs to know. There is no, literally no room for compromise. Trump and the people holding those signs are by definition enemies. There is absolutely nothing vague about it. But because they are at odds does not mean Trump has to change his mind, just as Bernie Sanders doesn't have to change his mind because high-income people don't like that Bernie Sanders wants to rise the taxes.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Constant provoking, repeated over a long enough time, at some point result in outbursts like this. And the Trump campaign is fully aware and trying to utilize it to their benefit [read as in their own benefit, not the benefit of the country] by constantly pouring even more oil into the fire.

If that were actually the case, i.e. that Trump "incited" violence by saying that a part of the illegal immigrants include rapists, then by that logic Trump supporters would be constantly commiting vandalism too because people from the Democratic side have accused a part of them of being racists, sexists, xenophobes and more. But it appears for some reason this obvious flaw in the anti-Trump argument goes over everyones' heads.

Oh wait, there is actually one who noticed:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1454560...-united-states