WHY DON’T GOP VOTERS CARE ABOUT TRUMP’S LIES?

[The Tradition]

I'm not talking about stuff that you disagree with I'm talking about having a lack of tact. Those are two different things.

The closest one that you have there to a lack of tact is "Get in their faces"

And the business one is such a misquote that it's sad that you would post it. He said you didn't build that in reference to roads and other public works that businesses use in order to be profitable.

Okay, I see you're delusional. I'll stop trying to converse with you now.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

remember when Obama went to iran and signed a treaty to have muslims nuke americans cause whitey in the west is evil?

 

[22*43*51]

According to your data, a large majority, 62.2% of GOP voters DO care about Trumps lies and don't support him.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

In case you’re wondering, nothing like this process has happened on the Democratic side. When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate, say, financial regulation, it’s a real discussion, with both candidates evidently well informed about the issues. American political discourse as a whole hasn’t been dumbed down, just its conservative wing.

Windy, but basically nailed it. I especially like the above obvious but unacknowledged contrast. American conservatives are recognized as dangerous idiots around the world.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Excellent summation.

People who self-identify as Liberal or Conservative are holding us all back.

How do you turn that into an attack on liberals? SMH at such blatant partisanship.

Perhaps you meant Tea Party Libertarians?

 

[The Tradition]

Windy, but basically nailed it. I especially like the above obvious but unacknowledged contrast. American conservatives are recognized as dangerous idiots around the world.

I'll take that as opposed to being viewed as a windbag pushover like Obama is recognized.

 

[Capital1Hawk]

Also, people act like he's such a brilliant businessman even though he's ran 4 companies into bankruptcy.

4 out of how many considering the success of businesses making it 10 years is minimal.

 

[unIowa]

Simply put, LIES DON'T MATTER anymore in politics. The people just want someone who will say stuff that makes them feel good, regardless if it is true or not. This isn't a Republican problem it is an American Political System problem.

 

[strummingram]

How do you turn that into an attack on liberals? SMH at such blatant partisanship.

Perhaps you meant Tea Party Libertarians?

I'm not attacking Liberals. I'm deriding people for self-identifying as either of those because no one is all one or the other all of the time. It's an inaccurate characterization.

 

[KitingHigh]

How do you turn that into an attack on liberals? SMH at such blatant partisanship.

Perhaps you meant Tea Party Libertarians?

Stop trying to associate the Tea Party with libertarians. They aren't ours.

 

[IamHawkeye]

Almost six months have passed since Donald Trump overtook Jeb Bush in polls of Republican voters. At the time, most pundits dismissed the Trump phenomenon as a blip, predicting that voters would soon return to more conventional candidates. Instead, however, his lead just kept widening. Even more striking, the triumvirate of trash-talk — Mr. Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz — now commands the support of roughly 60 percent of the primary electorate.

But how can this be happening? After all, the antiestablishment candidates now dominating the field, aside from being deeply ignorant about policy, have a habit of making false claims, then refusing to acknowledge error. Why don’t Republican voters seem to care?


Well, part of the answer has to be that the party taught them not to care. Bluster and belligerence as substitutes for analysis, disdain for any kind of measured response, dismissal of inconvenient facts reported by the “liberal media” didn’t suddenly arrive on the Republican scene last summer. On the contrary, they have long been key elements of the party brand. So how are voters supposed to know where to draw the line?

Let’s talk first about the legacy of He Who Must Not Be Named.

I don’t know how many readers remember the 2000 election, but during the campaign Republicans tried — largely successfully — to make the election about likability, not policy. George W. Bush was supposed to get your vote because he was someone you’d enjoy having a beer with, unlike that stiff, boring guy Al Gore with all his facts and figures.

And when Mr. Gore tried to talk about policy differences, Mr. Bush responded not on the substance but by mocking his opponent’s “fuzzy math” — a phrase gleefully picked up by his supporters. The press corps played right along with this deliberate dumbing-down: Mr. Gore was deemed to have lost debates, not because he was wrong, but because he was, reporters declared, snooty and superior, unlike the affably dishonest W.

Then came 9/11, and the affable guy was repackaged as a war leader. But the repackaging was never framed in terms of substantive arguments over foreign policy. Instead, Mr. Bush and his handlers sold swagger. He was the man you could trust to keep us safe because he talked tough and dressed up as a fighter pilot. He proudly declared that he was the “decider” — and that he made his decisions based on his “gut.”

The subtext was that real leaders don’t waste time on hard thinking, that listening to experts is a sign of weakness, that attitude is all you need. And while Mr. Bush’s debacles in Iraq and New Orleans eventually ended America’s faith in his personal gut, the elevation of attitude over analysis only tightened its grip on his party, an evolution highlighted when John McCain, who once upon a time had a reputation for policy independence, chose the eminently unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate.

So Donald Trump as a political phenomenon is very much in a line of succession that runs from W. through Mrs. Palin, and in many ways he’s entirely representative of the Republican mainstream. For example, were you shocked when Mr. Trump revealed his admiration for Vladimir Putin? He was only articulating a feeling that was already widespread in his party.
Meanwhile, what do the establishment candidates have to offer as an alternative? On policy substance, not much. Remember, back when he was the presumed front-runner, Jeb Bush assembled a team of foreign-policy “experts,” people who had academic credentials and chairs at right-wing think tanks. But the team was dominated by neoconservative hard-liners, people committed, despite past failures, to the belief that shock and awe solve all problems.

In other words, Mr. Bush wasn’t articulating a notably different policy than what we’re now hearing from Trump et al; all he offered was belligerence with a thin veneer of respectability. Marco Rubio, who has succeeded him as the establishment favorite, is much the same, with a few added evasions. Why should anyone be surprised to see this posturing, er, trumped by the unapologetic belligerence offered by nonestablishment candidates?

In case you’re wondering, nothing like this process has happened on the Democratic side. When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate, say, financial regulation, it’s a real discussion, with both candidates evidently well informed about the issues. American political discourse as a whole hasn’t been dumbed down, just its conservative wing.

Going back to Republicans, does this mean that Mr. Trump will actually be the nominee? I have no idea. But it’s important to realize that he isn’t someone who suddenly intruded into Republican politics from an alternative universe. He, or someone like him, is where the party has been headed for a long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/21/opinion/the-donald-and-the-decider.html

I rememberTrump several years ago saying he had proof of something. Never saw that proof.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Stop trying to associate the Tea Party with libertarians. They aren't ours.

which ones? the tea party or libertarians?

 

[KitingHigh]

which ones? the tea party or libertarians?

The tea party isn't libertarian.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

The tea party isn't libertarian.

well not now but it started out that way, by ron paul, in like 1996. this new incarnation that consists of wannabees like palin and rick perry, yeah, the rinos took it over. yeah, I agree.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

people have completely forgotten that Trump had been a registered Democrat his entire adult life.......until recently.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Stop trying to associate the Tea Party with libertarians. They aren't ours.

THEY claim they are. I wouldn't claim them, either.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not attacking Liberals. I'm deriding people for self-identifying as either of those because no one is all one or the other all of the time. It's an inaccurate characterization.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

people have completely forgotten that Trump had been a registered Democrat his entire adult life.......until recently.

drudge has it front page right now

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

drudge has it front page right now

I don't read Drudge.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Who are "Trump voters"? Who has voted for Trump?

 

[sijoint]

This and I'm not a liberal either.

I'm bothered by the fact that he demonstrates absolutely no ability to be tactful or diplomatic. You can't lead the free world by being a giant douche to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

David Cameron may have to be leader of the free world for a while because no one will unite behind Trump.

Libs..."all together now, get in a BIG, Wide circle and start humming.....hmmmmmmmm"

 

[KitingHigh]

THEY claim they are. I wouldn't claim them, either.

Well, actually they claim to be a part of the Republican party and 80% of them are registered as Republican. They do claim to lean libertarian, but from a staunchly conservative base.

Regardless, Bill Maher claims to be a libertarian and he's about the farthest thing from it.

 

[Jan Itor]

Obama is an international laughingstock with his red lines and "JV" comments. We need someone with balls again.

Well then, Hillary is your man.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Well, actually they claim to be a part of the Republican party and 80% of them are registered as Republican. They do claim to lean libertarian, but from a staunchly conservative base.

Regardless, Bill Maher claims to be a libertarian and he's about the farthest thing from it.

You are making the same mistake that Nat does - thinking your version of libertarianism is the only legit one. There's a longstanding tradition of left libertarianism. Not so much in the US, but elsewhere. Whether Maher actually qualifies can be debated. But he expresses plenty of left libertarian views - such as on drugs, religion, abortion, marriage, and so on.

That said, the libertarians in the Tea Party are all on your side, not Maher's (or mine).

 

[unIowa]

Well, actually they claim to be a part of the Republican party and 80% of them are registered as Republican. They do claim to lean libertarian, but from a staunchly conservative base.

Regardless, Bill Maher claims to be a libertarian and he's about the farthest thing from it.

Why....Because he doesn't want to restrict marriage and drug use?

You can't be socially conservative and a libertarian at the same time IMO, you can say you are but you are not. In those cases you are just using libertarian principals when they are convenient to your other more socially conservative beliefs.

You can't be pro-gun and anti SSM and be considered a serious libertarian IMO.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

You are making the same mistake that Nat does - thinking your version of libertarianism is the only legit one. There's a longstanding tradition of left libertarianism. Not so much in the US, but elsewhere. Whether Maher actually qualifies can be debated. But he expresses plenty of left libertarian views - such as on drugs, religion, abortion, marriage, and so on.

That said, the libertarians in the Tea Party are all on your side, not Maher's (or mine).

I understand fully the left libertarians, I consider one of the leaders of that side to be Webster tarpley

 

[KitingHigh]

Why....Because he doesn't want to restrict marriage and drug use?

You can't be socially conservative and a libertarian at the same time IMO, you can say you are but you are not. In those cases you are just using libertarian principals when they are convenient to your other more socially conservative beliefs.

You can't be pro-gun and anti SSM and be considered a serious libertarian IMO.

Those are two stances where he does align with libertarians. It's the majority of the rest of his views that don't. So I guess he isn't the farthest thing from it, but he is far.

 

[strummingram]

You are making the same mistake that Nat does - thinking your version of libertarianism is the only legit one. There's a longstanding tradition of left libertarianism. Not so much in the US, but elsewhere. Whether Maher actually qualifies can be debated. But he expresses plenty of left libertarian views - such as on drugs, religion, abortion, marriage, and so on.

That said, the libertarians in the Tea Party are all on your side, not Maher's (or mine).

The whole identity process can be debatable. That's why it's basically total hogwash.

This constant defining of what so-and-so is, is exactly my point. Stop creating a group to belong to. DOing that inevitably implies superiority of one and inferiority to the other. And, no one is ever actually in these alleged "groups" because the groups are abstracts. That's what I mean by people who self-identify as a member of one group or another. The groups themselves are basically illusions. We're merely an aggregate individuals who align on certain issues, to one varying degree or another, SOMETIMES, and other times not so much. No one is truly ANY of these labels because the labels are indistinct and subjective... obviously.

I don't believe in Beatles... I just believe in ME- John Lennon.

 

[KitingHigh]

You are making the same mistake that Nat does - thinking your version of libertarianism is the only legit one. There's a longstanding tradition of left libertarianism. Not so much in the US, but elsewhere. Whether Maher actually qualifies can be debated. But he expresses plenty of left libertarian views - such as on drugs, religion, abortion, marriage, and so on.

That said, the libertarians in the Tea Party are all on your side, not Maher's (or mine).

You are making the mistake of thinking I'm conservative. I'm not. I agree with the left on many issues, such as the ones you mentioned above. I always have and often correct you and others when you define Libertarians as conservatives. We are not. The Tea Party is not libertarian. They agree with us on taxes and that's about it. They are very right wing. Ron Paul didn't start it out to be that way, but that's what it became.

Maher on the other hand agrees with Libertarians on most social issues, as do almost all liberals. He sides with the liberals on pretty much every other issue. Neither he, nor the Tea Party are libertarian, that they each share a few common views doesn't change that. We share common views with both the far right and far left on certain issues.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Like when she said white people are inherently racist and will be racist so black people just have to deal with it?

Maybe she's met a lot of people like you.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

People have actually calculated that if he had simply taken his inherited wealth and invested it in an indexed account, he would be wealthier now than he actually is.

Interesting. Link?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You are making the mistake of thinking I'm conservative. I'm not. I agree with the left on many issues, such as the ones you mentioned above. I always have and often correct you and others when you define Libertarians as conservatives.

Sorry. I DO notice that sometimes you are on the right side of issues.

I define libertarians as conservatives most of the time because most American libertarians are. I'm not. Maher is not. Chomsky is not. And there are others. But, notice, most here who claim to be libertarians reject me, Maher, Chomsky and the others claiming to be libertarians.

Look to uniowa's comment a couple above for some of the reasons. Too many right libertarians confuse libertarianism with their social conservative views. Others think the constitution is a libertarian document (parts of the Bill of Rights qualify, most of the rest doesn't - especially the whole states rights, 10th amendment stuff).

 

[ottumwan in tx]

people make the mistake of thinking libertarians are all about social issues

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

4 out of how many considering the success of businesses making it 10 years is minimal.

The better question is how many has he jumped ship on before they collapsed and then let investors and government take the hit. That's where his real skill is. Besides that, once he forces Mexico to build the wall, there won't be any of his labor force to build another of his buildings.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

When will T-Rump call for Muslims to be barred from working in the military industrial complex?

Between the siphoning off of material for ISIS use and the sabotaging of gear intended for our guys, how can we put our nation at risk by allowing Muslims to work on or anywhere near our weapons production?

Muslims worked on the F-35 design. Need I say more?

 

[KitingHigh]

Sorry. I DO notice that sometimes you are on the right side of issues.

I define libertarians as conservatives most of the time because most American libertarians are. I'm not. Maher is not. Chomsky is not. And there are others. But, notice, most here who claim to be libertarians reject me, Maher, Chomsky and the others claiming to be libertarians.

Look to uniowa's comment a couple above for some of the reasons. Too many right libertarians confuse libertarianism with their social conservative views. Others think the constitution is a libertarian document (parts of the Bill of Rights qualify, most of the rest doesn't - especially the whole states rights, 10th amendment stuff).

Most registered libertarian voters are not conservative. There certainly are a good number of poeple who claim to be libertarian but are registered Republicans who vote republican when put to the task. I can understand the common mistake of putting us in with the cons, Ron Paul thinking he could change the GOP didn't help and the claims of many conservatives to be libertarian doesn't help.

I have to disagree with your take on the constitution. It is certainly more libertarian than liberal or conservative.

As far as Maher is concerned, he simply doesn't align with us on much aside from gay marriage and drug laws. He likes up left on most issues and even lines up to the right of us on a few, such as U.S. Military presence. It's not black and white obviously, but I think someone needs to be more than halfway in agreement with the LP platform to legitimately claim to be a libertarian. Personally, I'm pretty much in line with the LPs stated positions around the board. The best example in a celebrity I can think of off hand is Penn Jillete. Below is a link to a short sweet explanation he gives to Bill Maher, who admits he became a libertarian. Because he just wanted to be able to smoke pot.

http://alibertarianfuture.com/famou...rtarian-view-bill-maher/#sthash.24a4PLdk.dpbs

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[1] Most registered libertarian voters are not conservative.

[2] I have to disagree with your take on the constitution. It is certainly more libertarian than liberal or conservative.

[1] I think you're wrong on this. But it's an empirical question. I wonder if any good surveys have been done that would answer this question. It's certainly NOT the case that many self-professed libertarians are liberals. And most, I'm sure, vote R when they vote major party. But are they conservative?

Most of the time when I do polls here and offer a distinct libertarian set of choices, those responses line up better with conservatives than with liberals. Even on some clear individual freedom issues like gay marriage or abortion - where a lot of our so-called libertarians let religion trump freedom.

[2] Yet not libertarian. Especially if you consider that the original constitution did not include the Bill of Rights. It's all about powers granted to a central government. What made it novel was not libertarian elements but the checks and balances on the authoritarian powers that were intended to keep abuses of authority in check.

Note that even after the ratification of the BoR, states were basically allowed to be as despotic as they wished. And most libertarians today who confuse states rights with libertarianism (and that's most of them, in my observation) do so to permit states to suppress individual rights and liberties (including voting and marriage).

 

[unIowa]

[1] I think you're wrong on this. But it's an empirical question. I wonder if any good surveys have been done that would answer this question. It's certainly NOT the case that many self-professed libertarians are liberals. And most, I'm sure, vote R when they vote major party. But are they conservative?

Most of the time when I do polls here and offer a distinct libertarian set of choices, those responses line up better with conservatives than with liberals. Even on some clear individual freedom issues like gay marriage or abortion - where a lot of our so-called libertarians let religion trump freedom.

Disclosure before I get into this: I am pro-choice, mostly bc I don't GAF and the SC made their ruling so lets live by it. I also am not the type to push my morality onto others, I think doing that is wrong and I am ok shaming those that do (see crazy religious people).

Ok, so here we go:

I think abortion stances can go either way for libertarians and it has nothing to do with religion (for those that use their brain) but rather what their own personal (and many times non-religious) beliefs are in terms of when that baby is considered a life. Too many times we look at the lifers as anti-choice (bc the loudest among them are bat shit crazy) but I believe there are many that truly believe that unborn life should have the same rights and freedoms of us walking around citizens. This is why I am not hard on the non-crazy on this issue...it is a real debate.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Disclosure before I get into this: I am pro-choice, mostly bc I don't GAF and the SC made their ruling so lets live by it. I also am not the type to push my morality onto others, I think doing that is wrong and I am ok shaming those that do (see crazy religious people).

Ok, so here we go:

I think abortion stances can go either way for libertarians and it has nothing to do with religion (for those that use their brain) but rather what their own personal (and many times non-religious) beliefs are in terms of when that baby is considered a life. Too many times we look at the lifers as anti-choice (bc the loudest among them are bat shit crazy) but I believe there are many that truly believe that unborn life should have the same rights and freedoms of us walking around citizens. This is why I am not hard on the non-crazy on this issue...it is a real debate.

I simply disagree that this is not religious. The argument about "when it's a life" does not - as you point out - necessarily have to be religious, but it always seems to be. And that's probably because if you aren't confused by conception and soul and similar issues, why does it matter if it's a life? No one ever addresses that question.

As I have pointed out before, the only argument against disposing of a non-sentient life form is the argument based on developmental potential - as in the recognition that a fetus will likely become a sentient being, so should not be denied that opportunity. Personally, I find that a mildly compelling argument. But as much as I encourage pro-lifers to adopt it, they always refuse. Presumably because if you accept developmental potential as imposing a moral obligation, that opens a huge can of worms about treating people better.