What Kind of Person is Supporting Trump?

[hunarcy]

In an extremely well written letter to the editor in this morning's Los Angeles Times, a reader writes:

"The GOP has done this to itself. By encouraging the hateful rhetoric and anti-government vitriol of Fox News and others, the party has set the stage for Trump ..... Less educated working class whites are afraid of the demographic and cultural changes coming because it means the loss of their status as members of the preferred class. The GOP has taken advantage of this by whipping up fear and anger among them. Along comes their savior, Trump, who tells them what they want to hear.

"The monster is loose, Dr. Frankenstein. Your creature is going to kill you."

I couldn't agree more. Trump is easily on of the most annoying people I have ever seen. His arrogance and lack of humility are exceeded only by his rudeness and obvious lack of class. Can you imagine any presidential candidate in the last 60 years conducting himself the way Trump does on a daily basis? I was listening to the most recent Republican "debate" the other night. Can you imagine Dwight David Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy or, for that matter, Ronald Reagan, saying anything even close to the things that Trump is saying? Of course not.

Times have changed, you say? It's a new dawn for the conducting of presidential campaigns, you say? Hogwash. Have the standards for President of the United States changed? I don't think so. This man is so obviously the wrong person for the job it is not even funny - it's tragic.

"I'm for Trump because he's not afraid to tell it like it is!" Translation? "Trump is a bigoted asshole and so am I!" I feel sadness for all of those who purport to support this arrogant jerk. How they are unable to see beyond his obvious facade is beyond me.

I have mixed emotions about who will ultimately get the Republican nomination. My sincere hope is that it will be Trump, for obvious reasons. It will insure a Democratic victory in November.

It will not insure a Democratic victory in November unless you guys nominate someone other than the 2 current candidates.

 

[Iceweasel]

This little portion of the thread was discussing illegals.

I'm glad that you agree that we shouldn't allow illegals to compete with Americans.

I am well aware that not all Mexicans are illegal.


The next question is, what is gained by allowing legal Mexicans to compete with these Americans?

I don't know why you assumed I was for illegal immigration? As for legal immigrants working, why not? It's always been that way.

1. Your airy dismissal of the concerns of their interests.

2. Because American policy should be crafted to advance the interests of AMERICANS, not Mexicans.

3. It has NOT always been that way. We've had periods of high immigration, when we needed it. We've also had periods of low immigration when we needed that.

My airy dismissal? You're responsible for your own errors, not me.

Not all immigrants are Mexicans and work visas are legal. With citizenship, they ARE Americans.

I'm not aware of immigration being turned up or down like a spigot, what's your source?

Your airy dismissals are not an error on my part.

Yes, I am aware that not all immigrates are Mexicans, and that work visas are legal. That does not change the impact that competition with cheap imported labor has for Americans.



Here is some reading for you.History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your air head is not my error. You got your panties bunched up and want to blame me. That's pathetic. Like I said, with or without your approval, if all you can do is compete on the lowest rung of employment I don't feel too bad for you.

 

[Correll]

Money and fame are two common standards of measuring success in this country.

It is not credible that you didn't know that, so stop playing dumb.

He has my support for his Presidential Run.

You can save your hyperbole for someone else.

Sooooo, Jesus was a LOSER in your "common" standards...

These are the values of the "new" conservatives, I guess.....................................................................

And now you're just talking nonsense.

DO you believe in Jesus Christ?

Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25;Luke 18:25
Jesus said: “Dear children, it is very hard to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”

and I believe him..............................................................................................

I doubt it because you don't even know what it means.

During the time, there were very few rich. Rich people back then often obsessed with material and earthly things drifting away from God. Money didn't keep them from Gods graces, it's what money did to them.

Rich people were often greedy and would rather see an extra shekel than to feed a dying man in the street. Fast forward to today, yes, there are some rich people just like that, however, most of the rich people are rather generous with their money when it comes to charity..........at least the conservative ones are.

Ohhh, ok, no need for bible then.
Since times have changed and "conservative rich" have taken care of everything.

Well done...

THAnks Ray, that was better said than I could have managed.

So, as I said, the type of people supporting Trump are the people who are not dishonest jerks like you.

 

[Correll]

Doesn't mean we can't consider policy to make them better, or at least pay better.

I don't understand. What policy can do that?

Better Trade Policy to bring manufacturing jobs back and immigration policies to reduce the labor pool.


You have a situation where employers have to worry more about finding and keeping employees and the jobs and wages will improve.

That may work in some sectors, but others, not.

Many years ago when I was repairing medical equipment, my company wanted me to enroll in electronics school, so I did.

Working full time, going to school three nights a week, and supporting my girlfriends kids wore me down fast, so after a few months,I asked my teacher what kind of money I would be able to make if I got my FCC license which was one year of schooling? He told me 16K. Again, I asked what kind of money I would be able to make if I stuck it out two years for the Associates Degree? He told me 18K. Hell, I was making more than that on the job I was doing, so I quit the school.

Electronics is very hard. It's mostly math. But the problem was that everybody was interested in electronics, so the jobs didn't pay anything even if you could find one. One of the top ten lowest paying professions is cosmetology. Why? Because it's a dream job for many women. That too takes a lot of schooling and messing around with the state to get licensed.

IF you improve the situation in some sectors, then people will get jobs in those sections.

That will reduce the number of desperate people trying to get "ahead" by taking electronics repair classes.

It would give opportunities for some of those women in Cosmetology for higher payer jobs that they might leave for. Or maybe their husbands would be making enough so they could be stay at home moms.

In short order, Employers would realize that when they went to hire new electronics repairmen or cosmetologists, that the pool of applicants was getting smaller.

The more sensible ones would start to think about how to retain their better employees...

Perhaps with better work conditions or God Forbid, higher wages.

The point is there is no policy to improve income in many sectors of work regardless how much you spend to learn the career or how much time you put towards it. It's like anything else--supply and demand.

I knew a girl that spent four years in college partying. She took photography. Last I heard, she was a receptionist at a television repair shop. My nephews wife went to college for advertising. She said she kicks herself everyday for allowing BS artists at the college talk her into the profession. She now works at a bank processing loans.

If you are going to get into a career, you need to learn a skill that's in demand at all times. Otherwise you'll be on USMB complaining how a President should be working to create work in your field.

YOu mention supply and demand.

So, what happens if we decrease the overall supply of labor by decreasing immigration and deporting illegals,

at the same time we are bringing back manufacturing jobs?

 

[Correll]

This little portion of the thread was discussing illegals.

I'm glad that you agree that we shouldn't allow illegals to compete with Americans.

I am well aware that not all Mexicans are illegal.


The next question is, what is gained by allowing legal Mexicans to compete with these Americans?

I don't know why you assumed I was for illegal immigration? As for legal immigrants working, why not? It's always been that way.

1. Your airy dismissal of the concerns of their interests.

2. Because American policy should be crafted to advance the interests of AMERICANS, not Mexicans.

3. It has NOT always been that way. We've had periods of high immigration, when we needed it. We've also had periods of low immigration when we needed that.

My airy dismissal? You're responsible for your own errors, not me.

Not all immigrants are Mexicans and work visas are legal. With citizenship, they ARE Americans.

I'm not aware of immigration being turned up or down like a spigot, what's your source?

Your airy dismissals are not an error on my part.

Yes, I am aware that not all immigrates are Mexicans, and that work visas are legal. That does not change the impact that competition with cheap imported labor has for Americans.



Here is some reading for you.History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your air head is not my error. You got your panties bunched up and want to blame me. That's pathetic. Like I said, with or without your approval, if all you can do is compete on the lowest rung of employment I don't feel too bad for you.

You are not considering the meaning of your own words.

WHat do you mean you "don't feel too bad for you"?

That doesn't sound like you support any policy to represent the interests of those Americans.

If that is not what you mean, you need to communicate more clearly.

For myself? I think American Policy should consider the interests of ALL AMERICANS, and be crafted with an eye to best serve the interest of them as a whole.


I see no reason to dismiss interests of the leaf raker or the cleaning ladies of America.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't know why you assumed I was for illegal immigration? As for legal immigrants working, why not? It's always been that way.

1. Your airy dismissal of the concerns of their interests.

2. Because American policy should be crafted to advance the interests of AMERICANS, not Mexicans.

3. It has NOT always been that way. We've had periods of high immigration, when we needed it. We've also had periods of low immigration when we needed that.

My airy dismissal? You're responsible for your own errors, not me.

Not all immigrants are Mexicans and work visas are legal. With citizenship, they ARE Americans.

I'm not aware of immigration being turned up or down like a spigot, what's your source?

Your airy dismissals are not an error on my part.

Yes, I am aware that not all immigrates are Mexicans, and that work visas are legal. That does not change the impact that competition with cheap imported labor has for Americans.



Here is some reading for you.History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your air head is not my error. You got your panties bunched up and want to blame me. That's pathetic. Like I said, with or without your approval, if all you can do is compete on the lowest rung of employment I don't feel too bad for you.

You are not considering the meaning of your own words.

WHat do you mean you "don't feel too bad for you"?

That doesn't sound like you support any policy to represent the interests of those Americans.

If that is not what you mean, you need to communicate more clearly.

For myself? I think American Policy should consider the interests of ALL AMERICANS, and be crafted with an eye to best serve the interest of them as a whole.


I see no reason to dismiss interests of the leaf raker or the cleaning ladies of America.

I spoke very clearly. Your head is obviously muddled and fixated on replacing leaf blowers with native born Americans who wouldn't do the work if you held a gun on them. The energy you waste is your own, not my problem.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It is wrong to focus on Trump's father KKK membership because that ignores how Trump has worked tirelessly on his own to be his own racist to be racist on his own terms not under the shadow of his father...

 

[Correll]

1. Your airy dismissal of the concerns of their interests.

2. Because American policy should be crafted to advance the interests of AMERICANS, not Mexicans.

3. It has NOT always been that way. We've had periods of high immigration, when we needed it. We've also had periods of low immigration when we needed that.

My airy dismissal? You're responsible for your own errors, not me.

Not all immigrants are Mexicans and work visas are legal. With citizenship, they ARE Americans.

I'm not aware of immigration being turned up or down like a spigot, what's your source?

Your airy dismissals are not an error on my part.

Yes, I am aware that not all immigrates are Mexicans, and that work visas are legal. That does not change the impact that competition with cheap imported labor has for Americans.



Here is some reading for you.History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your air head is not my error. You got your panties bunched up and want to blame me. That's pathetic. Like I said, with or without your approval, if all you can do is compete on the lowest rung of employment I don't feel too bad for you.

You are not considering the meaning of your own words.

WHat do you mean you "don't feel too bad for you"?

That doesn't sound like you support any policy to represent the interests of those Americans.

If that is not what you mean, you need to communicate more clearly.

For myself? I think American Policy should consider the interests of ALL AMERICANS, and be crafted with an eye to best serve the interest of them as a whole.


I see no reason to dismiss interests of the leaf raker or the cleaning ladies of America.

I spoke very clearly. Your head is obviously muddled and fixated on replacing leaf blowers with native born Americans who wouldn't do the work if you held a gun on them. The energy you waste is your own, not my problem.

You think leaf rakers and cleaning ladies don't work?

What do you base that odd notion on?

And again you message is terribly muddled. YOu claim you aren't dismissing their interests at the same time you are clearly dismissing their interests.

 

[Correll]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It will not insure a Democratic victory in November unless you guys nominate someone other than the 2 current candidates.

Sanders, Clinton Beat Trump In CNN/ORC Poll

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Fuckface Von Clownstick

 

[Correll]

It is wrong to focus on Trump's father KKK membership because that ignores how Trump has worked tirelessly on his own to be his own racist to be racist on his own terms not under the shadow of his father...

 

[strollingbones]

a trump voter is one in total denial.....the great white hope bullshit

 

[Never3ndr]

It will not insure a Democratic victory in November unless you guys nominate someone other than the 2 current candidates.

Sanders, Clinton Beat Trump In CNN/ORC Poll

CNN is generally recognized as a blue network. I don't know whether or not Sanders or Clinton can beat Trump, but the last thing I'd trust is a biased source. I'd wait till Gallup or some other non-biased information source releases some current polls concerning the matter...also, today being Super Tuesday, we should see how the Republican field settles after this.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It will not insure a Democratic victory in November unless you guys nominate someone other than the 2 current candidates.

Sanders, Clinton Beat Trump In CNN/ORC Poll

CNN is generally recognized as a blue network. I don't know whether or not Sanders or Clinton can beat Trump, but the last thing I'd trust is a biased source. I'd wait till Gallup or some other non-biased information source releases some current polls concerning the matter...also, today being Super Tuesday, we should see how the Republican field settles after this.

Trump has no chance ...zero.....he is polling high among Republicans but the general election involves normal people not just Republican Filberts

 

[Stephanie]

somebody writes a letter to the LAslimes spewing slime of their fellow countrymen and women and it gets a winner atta boy for it. the left in this country are the real haters. just take this letter for an example where the Op (a liberal/progressive tool) thought it fitting to post here.

 

[Never3ndr]

Trump has no chance ...zero.....he is polling high among Republicans but the general election involves normal people not just Republican Filberts

I would agree with you if the Democratic candidates were more moderate and so could feasibly not only grab their given extreme liberal voters but swing into the middle and grab the portion of the Republican party staunchly against Trump. However, that is not the case. Sanders frightens the hell out of republicans by being a socialist, and Hilary is as polarizing or moreso than Trump is. If Trump gets the nod the general election will be between two polarized opposites...which is contrary to most races where, in the general election, the candidates usually try to appear as moderate as possible to grab the swing voters. With that being said who knows what is going to happen if Trump gets the primary win.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hell fire one of the most Socialist Phrases ever written is in our Constitution..."WE The People"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump has no chance ...zero.....he is polling high among Republicans but the general election involves normal people not just Republican Filberts

I would agree with you if the Democratic candidates were more moderate and so could feasibly not only grab their given extreme liberal voters but swing into the middle and grab the portion of the Republican party staunchly against Trump. However, that is not the case. Sanders frightens the hell out of republicans by being a socialist, and Hilary is as polarizing or moreso than Trump is. If Trump gets the nod the general election will be between two polarized opposites...which is contrary to most races where, in the general election, the usually candidates try to appear as moderate as possible to grab the swing voters. With that being said who knows what is going to happen if Trump gets the primary win.

Trust me ...the nut bag Trump will not be President.....