US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Rippounet]

Interesting "today's worldview" from the Washington Post. It's called "Can Europe find its spine?" and focuses on the coming Munich Security Conference. Basically it explains that many European leaders seem to be closing ranks against Trump, but one may wonder whether this will go beyond mere declarations.

And on a reassuring note:

 

Quote

 

Despite their boss' rhetoric, Trump's lieutenants have delivered messages to their European counterparts that are more in keeping with Washington's traditional stances.

After holding meetings in Bonn, Germany, with various foreign ministers from the Group of 20 major world economies, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urged Moscow to pull back in eastern Ukraine. In Brussels, Mattis scolded his NATO colleagues for not contributing their fair share in defense spending, a longstanding American complaint. But he also reiterated America's commitment to the military alliance and said he did not see much prospect of military collaboration with Russia, at least in the near future.

But no matter how figures like Mattis and Tillerson may moderate Trump's foreign policy, Europe's policy makers still fret over the prospecting of confronting a world of challenges on their own.

Writing in the Financial Times, columnist Anne Applebaum offered a curious new proposal for Western Europe's governments.

"Britain, together with France, Germany and others — perhaps including non-Nato members like Sweden — should launch a new European security pact that actually reflects political reality," wrote Applebaum. "In other words, Europe’s leading defense powers should create an organisation that is compatible with NATO, but which also starts preparing coldly for the day when the U.S. security umbrella might be withdrawn."

In other words, she argues, "better safe than sorry." And in the age of Trump, that may be the best motto.

 

Quite close to what I was saying just a few hours ago I believe...

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Because he already won the election? Has anybody told him yet? 

What's his approval rating at this point? I'm not suggesting he turn away from his supporters, I'm just hoping he can manage to conduct himself with some small measure of dignity. It's fucking embarrassing. This is the leader of the free world we're talking about.

Trump's approval rating is an interesting exercise in "it depends on who you ask": Rasmussen says 55% while Gallup says 41%. Of course, the polling companies are owned by corporate conglomerates just like the media and thus participate in the same propaganda war. Thus, I personally have no idea whatsoever.

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

He will need congressional support sooner or later if he wants to do anything meaningful. He might want to be able to talk like an adult for that.

Undoubtedly... but it also benefits him to be able to say that his supporters are still behind him personally and if a certain Congressperson doesn't agree, Trump would be happy to tell him to vote for somebody who does in a primary. There's power in having people on your side.

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

As to your point about Hillary being a "consumate neo-liberal" which made "gambling on Trump" a good idea I say: meh.
Hillary at least had a few proposals to actually address the question of inequality (raise taxes on the richest, make education cheaper)... Something which you systematically forget or dismiss.

I dismiss it because this is standard campaign rhetoric which never amounts to any meaningful redistribution of wealth. She would never be able to get a tax increase through a Republican House and she knew it. Making education cheaper is a similarly difficult proposition with the additional caveat that even if she could do it, it would not result in any more jobs that require the education. There are already many graduates competing for a small number of well-paid jobs right now so I don't see how making this competition fiercer reduces inequality. As usual, the people who would reap the most benefit are the elites with a small fraction going to some of the new graduates.

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

While I understand how some uneducated or uninformed people might make such a mistake, I can't understand why you specifically (Altherion) could, and continue arguing that there is "hope" with Trump when, quite frankly, his cabinet does not provide any, and most of Trump's actions so far reflect his absence of genuine plans for the country and the future. This is a man who, apart from destroying Obama's legacy and pandering to his electorate, will be content to sign the Republican Congress's bills. He hasn't articulated any vision for the future, and, in all honesty, though I doubt he's as dumb as he looks, I don't think he is capable or willing to do that. To use your own terms "he has no incentive whatsoever" to do so.

Look, I acknowledge that it is a gamble -- the possibility that Trump is exactly what you think he is certainly exists and I would even go so far as saying that it is more likely that Trump making a meaningful positive difference. However, I don't think that it is a certainty. I don't think he will be content to sign the bills that Congress sends him. His cabinet does not inspire confidence, but, for example, Bannon appears to be a smart man with a plan. And Trump does have an incentive: he wants to be reelected and remembered as a great President.

[Fragile Bird]

Every station every paper every analyst I've seen has called the Rasmussen poll a pile of steaming turds.

[JGP]

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Interesting "today's worldview" from the Washington Post. It's called "Can Europe find its spine?" and focuses on the coming Munich Security Conference. Basically it explains that many European leaders seem to be closing ranks against Trump, but one may wonder whether this will go beyond mere declarations.

And on a reassuring note:

 

Quite close to what I was saying just a few hours ago I believe...

Yup, though honestly --what other recourse is there-- it's just the classical world writ large. I too wonder if it will go beyond declarations now, but I've no doubt that in the not-too-distant-future it definitely will. 

On a personal level, I see no long term benefit for Canada remaining in NATO, frankly. We will, of course [to a certain extent] but any other 'league' that may arise in the future whose mandate is free trade, shared values and mutual defense-- they won't exclude us. re: Trade, well, we're making inroads. CETA happened today. We've already met with Mexico [though I'm sure that was mostly NAFTA strategy] and then there's the UK, and talk of another agreement [or being amenable to it] with NZ, AUS.

The States haven't been left behind, but the distancing is happening. At least for us. [shrugs] Here's the thing. The Trump Presidency may have sped up some timelines, but this actually probably started a decade or more ago. 

[Martell Spy]

Trump’s Public Humiliation

By rejecting the national security adviser job, Robert Harward gave cover to every professional who wants to turn the president down.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/02/robert_harward_turned_down_trump_now_others_can_too.html
 

Quote

 

From the perspective of the intelligence community, the fundamental question is: Are you susceptible to blackmail from a foreign entity or individual? There’s the possibility of blackmail based on giving money or lending money or guaranteeing something. There could be some hanky-panky that opens the president up to blackmail.

It’s like you’re trying to do a security clearance on the president. The intelligence agencies want to make sure there’s no undue foreign influence on him.

 

Evelyn Farkas was the Pentagon’s top Russia expert. Now she wants Trump independently investigated.
“The fundamental question is: Are you susceptible to blackmail from a foreign entity or individual?”

http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/2/16/14630856/evelyn-farkas-trump-russia-flynn

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I dismiss it because this is standard campaign rhetoric which never amounts to any meaningful redistribution of wealth. She would never be able to get a tax increase through a Republican House and she knew it.

Fair enough, but then you're basically saying that because of the Republican House, any proposal by a Democratic candidate could have been seen as mere rhetoric. In which case Sanders was even more of a fraud than Hillary. A bit paradoxical, don't ya think?

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Making education cheaper is a similarly difficult proposition with the additional caveat that even if she could do it, it would not result in any more jobs that require the education. There are already many graduates competing for a small number of well-paid jobs right now so I don't see how making this competition fiercer reduces inequality.

By allowing poor people to become college graduates and thus competing for those well-paid jobs?
In other words, to reduce inequality of opportunity / to increase social mobility.
Which is what reducing inequality is supposed to be about, really. Of course, ideally you want to raise wages across the board at the expense of the top 1%. But that's meaningless if you don't have decent social mobility.

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

And Trump does have an incentive: he wants to be reelected and remembered as a great President.

Possibly. But does he want this to the point of working for it? And does he even have the capability of identifying the real problems? That would mean realizing that he and his friends are part of the problem... Heck most of the people in his cabinet represent the problem.

[Rippounet]

On a different note... I stumbled upon this during my research yesterday. The association between bigotry and fascism in the US dates back -at least- to World War II. At the time, in order to depict the fight against Nazi Germany as a fight to defend civilization, the Office of War Information worked with the American Jewish Committee (among others) to promote tolerance. Those campaigns went further than you'd think. The OWI had ads attacking "thoughless remarks" that could spread "hatred and distrust," fought "hate rumors" and accused bigots of being "saboteurs" for the fascists/nazis.Weirdly enough, many Americans had convinced themselves that France had fallen so quickly because of the confusion and distrust that had been sowed by German infiltrators (this can be seen in Capra's third propaganda film "Divide and Conquer"). Thus it became essential for the American propaganda machine to avoid such division and associate bigotry with fascism.
Needless to say this meant a lot of paradoxes, like with the segregated armed forces, among others. But you can find some interesting posters like this one:

Or this one:
http://pictures.abebooks.com/NSRB/12792097653.jpg

Of course, segregation in the armed forces officially ended in 1948, and the Supreme Court decision Brown v. Ferguson ending de jure segregation was in 1954.
Perhaps there's a lesson in there somewhere...

[Altherion]

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Fair enough, but then you're basically saying that because of the Republican House, any proposal by a Democratic candidate could have been seen as mere rhetoric. In which case Sanders was even more of a fraud than Hillary. A bit paradoxical, don't ya think?

More or less. Had Sanders gone full-on populist and it worked, the Senate (likely) and the House (much less likely) might have gone to the Democrats as well. Clearly, he failed to even make it out of the primaries so it is a moot point. Clinton had no chance of winning the House and everybody knew it.

26 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

By allowing poor people to become college graduates and thus competing for those well-paid jobs?
In other words, to reduce inequality of opportunity / to increase social mobility.
Which is what reducing inequality is supposed to be about, really. Of course, ideally you want to raise wages across the board at the expense of the top 1%. But that's meaningless if you don't have decent social mobility.

The inequality is almost entirely due to the concentration of wealth at the level of the 1%. Shifting resources from the middle class to the poor does not help this situation at all, especially since the 1% pockets a large fraction of the transaction (in this case, most likely due to the increased competition resulting in lower wages). In fact, this accomplishes the same economic effect as the Affordable Care Act did and the result would be somebody even worse than Trump. Any meaningful solution must redistribute resources from the 1% in a clear, foolproof way and anything claiming to be a solution without doing that is almost certainly part of the problem.

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Possibly. But does he want this to the point of working for it? And does he even have the capability of identifying the real problems? That would mean realizing that he and his friends are part of the problem... Heck most of the people in his cabinet represent the problem.

They certainly do represent the problem, but, if they so chose, they could also represent the solution. Again, we can only wait and see.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Maybe this was all undertaken for the highest and most disinterested public motives. And Flynn has now resigned; the CIA director has been restored to his seat at the table. But you can imagine that an investigator of the White House’s troubling Russia connections might have perceived a purge in the making. If information was not brought forth now, such an investigator might reasonably fear, that information would be silenced and secreted forever by people with a deep personal interest in silencing and secreting it

Three Reasons to Reject Trump's Criticism of Intelligence Leaks
The self-proclaimed WikiLeaks lover is poorly positioned to complain about the release of information that disadvantages his administration.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/reject-trumps-criticism-of-leaks/516990/

[Martell Spy]

Quote

On a different note... I stumbled upon this during my research yesterday. The association between bigotry and fascism in the US dates back -at least- to World War II. At the time, in order to depict the fight against Nazi Germany as a fight to defend civilization, the Office of War Information worked with the American Jewish Committee (among others) to promote tolerance. Those campaigns went further than you'd think. The OWI had ads attacking "thoughless remarks" that could spread "hatred and distrust," fought "hate rumors" and accused bigots of being "saboteurs" for the fascists/nazis.Weirdly enough, many Americans had convinced themselves that France had fallen so quickly because of the confusion and distrust that had been sowed by German infiltrators (this can be seen in Capra's third propaganda film "Divide and Conquer"). Thus it became essential for the American propaganda machine to avoid such division and associate bigotry with fascism.
Needless to say this meant a lot of paradoxes, like with the segregated armed forces, among others. But you can find some interesting posters like this one:

The America First rhetoric goes all the way back to the American Nazi sympathizer Charles Lindbergh. There's this great alternative history novel where Lindbergh becomes President. The Plot Against America by Phillip Roth.

[Rippounet]

23 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The inequality is almost entirely due to the concentration of wealth at the level of the 1%. Shifting resources from the middle class to the poor does not help this situation at all, especially since the 1% pockets a large fraction of the transaction (in this case, most likely due to the increased competition resulting in lower wages). In fact, this accomplishes the same economic effect as the Affordable Care Act did and the result would be somebody even worse than Trump. Any meaningful solution must redistribute resources from the 1% in a clear, foolproof way and anything claiming to be a solution without doing that is almost certainly part of the problem.

No. There are different forms of inequality and ideally all can be addressed. Free education isn't exactly a form of redistribution, but it certainly doesn't benefit the 1%, nor does it even shift resources from the middle class to the poor. To make it simple, improving social mobility focuses more on the individual than on classes or groups. Or I could say it's about defining social classes by more than just income and building a fairer society. At any rate, it's another aspect of the problem. Less important in a way, and yet the two are far more linked than you believe.

[ThinkerX]

40 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The inequality is almost entirely due to the concentration of wealth at the level of the 1%. Shifting resources from the middle class to the poor does not help this situation at all, especially since the 1% pockets a large fraction of the transaction (in this case, most likely due to the increased competition resulting in lower wages). In fact, this accomplishes the same economic effect as the Affordable Care Act did and the result would be somebody even worse than Trump. Any meaningful solution must redistribute resources from the 1% in a clear, foolproof way and anything claiming to be a solution without doing that is almost certainly part of the problem.

 

------

No. There are different forms of inequality and ideally all can be addressed. Free education isn't exactly a form of redistribution, but it certainly doesn't benefit the 1%, nor does it even shift resources from the middle class to the poor. To make it simple, improving social mobility focuses more on the individual than on classes or groups. Or I could say it's about defining social classes by more than just income and building a fairer society. At any rate, it's another aspect of the problem. Less important in a way, and yet the two are far more linked than you believe.

 

-----

 

The way I see it, the US is moving very fast towards a rigidly defined caste system, based partly on race but mostly on economic class.

At the top - the '1%' you have the 'Executive Caste' - the people who own pretty much everything, including the government.  They typically own multiple residences, some outside the US. Private schools, assured jobs, and competence doesn't matter because of caste. They are essentially immune to all but the most serious laws, and when they do get in trouble, it is likely to be the result of an internal feud rather than a triumph of justice. Not all politicians belong to this caste, but at the national / higher state levels, all politicians are beholden to this class one way or another.

 

Next, we have the 'white collar caste' - professionals, managers, lawyers, doctors, highly skilled and trained. Many own/operate small businesses. Two or three homes is not uncommon. Renting is a sort of strategic choice. Their offspring go to either private schools or the best public schools.  They are effectively exempt from minor laws - cops will often pass on writing tickets, charges won't get filed, that sort of thing, but can still be prosecuted for the big stuff.  Many are beholden to the executive caste.  Collectively, they have thinly disguised contempt for the lower castes.

 

Third is the 'blue collar' or 'tradesman' class - carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, and other 'hands on' types.  Most work for others, a few have tiny businesses. Many are home owners, others rent. Public school is the norm here, though there is some home schooling.  Race factors into legal standing at this level: whites might get a pass on minor offences, blacks and other minorities will not.  At this point in time, owing to repeated sellouts 'from above,' this caste is collectively ticked off with the white collar caste and less than thrilled with the lower castes (seen as competitors).  However, many are weirdly enthralled by the Executive Caste.

 

The 'Service Caste' is almost but not quite at the bottom of the heap: fast food workers, shelf stockers at stores, counter attendants, janitors, and whatnot. Barring inheritance, a habitat house, or a trailer, they rent. Their kids go to public schools, frequently not very good ones.  Legally...well being of the white race helps...sometimes. They bear some animosity towards the 'illegal' caste. (job competition)

 

At the bottom is the 'foreign' or 'illegal' caste, people of often dubious legal standing, typically performing jobs that those of higher castes see as beneath them.  Despite this, they are making inroads into both the service caste and the blue collar caste, which is a major driver behind the animosity with 'undocumented workers.'  Legally, they have few rights - which is exactly what their sponsors want.

 

From my POV, the executive caste *prefers* things this way and is willing to go to substantial lengths to make this model ever more rigid, making true upward caste mobility all but impossible. 

 

 

 

 

 

[butterbumps!]

@Altherion

Quote

The number of people directly impacted by globalization may not be that large, but the number affected by the other aspects of neoliberalism is a good deal larger. The people who voted for Trump are generally not destitute, but nearly half of them believe that their children will be worse off than they are and less than a third believe that they will be better off (exit polls).

Just to get on the same page, what aspects of neo-liberalism are you referring to?  

I get that this is the perception people have-- that things will be worse for their future generations if the Obama/ Clinton* state of being were continued.  Is this a vision you also share, or are you just pointing that out as an explanation for why they seem desperate enough to vote for a charlatan like Trump?    

*I saw from another post that you seem to believe it wasn't so much Clinton's policies that would be ineffective or inimical to the middle class, but rather that a Republican Congress would be the enemy of implementing otherwise good policy.   If Republicans are the problem, then doesn't it make utterly less sense to vote in a repub executive branch to award them a monopoly?  

Did you assume that Trump would spend time forming populist policy himself without heed to the republican agenda, would appoint left-wing/ populists/ socialists to his cabinet, would totally control a republican Congress to bend to his populist will?

Quote

Regarding "bigotry" and the like: what has happened here is that the establishment has lost almost every vestige of moral and intellectual authority with respect to a substantial fraction of the population. The media threw practically every identity politics insult in existence at Trump and only succeeded in dividing the population into a winning faction that rejected this attempt at demonization and a losing faction which accepted it and is now very angry. The same thing has happened (and is still happening) with their evaluations of his competence. Basically, political incorrectness is no longer an automatic guarantee of immorality -- even among politicians.

These people still do see terms like "bigot" or "sexist" or "racist" as bad.  One problem is that they refuse to accept those things when they see it; people don't want to admit a bigotry exists unless the perpetrator is, for instance, wearing a white hood.  Another issue seems to be that a lot of white people are mistaking rising equality of other groups for "reverse discrimination."   I don't think a lot of people truly acknowledge or understand just how much their white identity enabled a kind of social dominance for ages.  So they misinterpret any loss of that dominance for discrimination.  

Trump is the first politician in a long while who came in and played to their fragile white identity, promising them that they wouldn't "be discriminated against anymore," assuring them that they could get away with saying whatever potentially hurtful thing to other identity groups just like in the good old days, reinforcing the mistaken belief that rising equality means subjugating white people.  He took their racial (and gender/ religious/ sexual) anxieties, said they were being treated like second class citizens now, but that with him in power, they'd be "equal" again.   Of course this is nonsense.   He essentially promised to make all these other historically discriminated against groups second class citizens again.   Do you genuinely not see why that is deserving of moral condemnation?

I'm not sure how much forbearance his supporters deserve regardless of which part of the overall package they claim to be supporting in light of the egregious excesses he brings-- specifically in terms of bigotry.   My point was that if a Trump supporter doesn't want to be seen as a bigot, a bigotry enabler, or a questionable person by the big bad judgmental left, then the onus is on them to do something to mitigate the negative externalities that come with the Trump package first.   These people who claim to not have voted for bigoted reasons, who chafe at being thought of as bigotry enablers, should be calling their MoCs, donating to rights causes, or protesting with the left on these matters.  

If his base truly does reject the bigotry he spun-- which you seem to keep trying to suggest by implying that his base is primarily voting for "hope and change"-- then they need to let him know.  As you pointed out upthread, he only plays to his base.  So if his base is actually filled with all these good people who only want a little something better for themselves, then they should prove it, work to show Trump they reject those parts of his snakeoil, and ostensibly his message should change, right?    

[butterbumps!]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Keep beating the - white people that hate culture and theysa skeered uf not bein aloudd to be natseez voted for trump- horse. 

This is in reference to my post, I assume.    You should read to the end.   I will requote for you, with special attention to the bolded:

24 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 My point was that if a Trump supporter doesn't want to be seen as a bigot, a bigotry enabler, or a questionable person by the big bad judgmental left, then the onus is on them to do something to mitigate the negative externalities that come with the Trump package first.   These people who claim to not have voted for bigoted reasons, who chafe at being thought of as bigotry enablers, should be calling their MoCs, donating to rights causes, or protesting with the left on these matters.  

If his base truly does reject the bigotry he spun-- which you [Altherion] seem to keep trying to suggest by implying that his base is primarily voting for "hope and change"-- then they need to let him know.  As you pointed out upthread, he only plays to his base.  So if his base is actually filled with all these good people who only want a little something better for themselves, then they should prove it, work to show Trump they reject those parts of his snakeoil, and ostensibly his message should change, right?    

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

It certainly looks at this point like major elements within the national security bureaucracy are prepared to create a constitutional crisis in response to what they believe is a serious and real threat to American national security from the White House itself. And there is really only one way to avoid such a crisis: for Congress to step up and begin the necessary investigations of the Trump administration.

I completely understand why a Republican Congress would be reluctant to do this. There’s not only the risk that they’d cripple their own party’s presidency; there’s the very real risk of retaliation by the Trump administration, and the President taking steps to mobilize his supporters against members of Congress that threaten him.

But that is not the only quarter from which threats may come. The GOP Congress is not going to be able to ignore an escalating war within the Executive branch. Nor can they discount the possibility of characters like Flynn engaging in their own freelance retaliatory schemes.

And, you know, there’s also our system of constitutional government, that old thing, which gives Congress the responsibility for dealing with corruption and other lawbreaking by the Executive.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/the-deep-state-gets-a-scalp/

The Deep State Gets a Scalp

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Trump's approval rating is an interesting exercise in "it depends on who you ask"

This is a classic example of cherry-picking an outlying data point (in this case a poll) in order to suggest a controversy where there is none.

It does depend on who you ask: Rasmussen, or everyone else. Now, it's not impossible that Rasmussen's methodology is producing a different but also much more accurate result. But they are undoubtedly an outlier. And even Rasmussen have Trump as scoring much lower approval and much higher disapproval than Obama at the same point in his presidency, and marginally lower approval and much higher disapproval than Bush in his.

Approval ratings, though, shouldn't be the focus. Motivating the Democrat base, that's what matters.

[Ser Reptitious]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

If his base truly does reject the bigotry he spun-- which you seem to keep trying to suggest by implying that his base is primarily voting for "hope and change"-- then they need to let him know.  As you pointed out upthread, he only plays to his base.  So if his base is actually filled with all these good people who only want a little something better for themselves, then they should prove it, work to show Trump they reject those parts of his snakeoil, and ostensibly his message should change, right?    

Good point! A common sentiment seems to be "well, if average Muslims don't want to get lumped together with radical Islamists then the onus is on them to loudly, publicly, and repeatedly disavow the actions of Islamic terrorists!" So if the average Trump supporter does not want to get lumped together with bigotry, racism, misogny, etc. then the onus is on them to loudly, publicly, and repeatedly remind their Pussygraber-in-Chief that they voted for him despite his troubling views on women and Mexicans and his wishy-washiness towards racists, rather than because of them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

[Seli]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

...

The inequality is almost entirely due to the concentration of wealth at the level of the 1%. Shifting resources from the middle class to the poor does not help this situation at all, especially since the 1% pockets a large fraction of the transaction (in this case, most likely due to the increased competition resulting in lower wages). In fact, this accomplishes the same economic effect as the Affordable Care Act did and the result would be somebody even worse than Trump. Any meaningful solution must redistribute resources from the 1% in a clear, foolproof way and anything claiming to be a solution without doing that is almost certainly part of the problem.

..

Of course, which is why it such a fundamentally strange idea to put ones hope in the party that represents the rich, that has done much throughout recent history to increase their influence and wealth. It makes no sense at all to look at the GOP, look at a silver-spoon-fed member of the 0.1% to do anything about it.

 

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

Trump's approval rating is an interesting exercise in "it depends on who you ask": Rasmussen says 55% while Gallup says 41%. Of course, the polling companies are owned by corporate conglomerates just like the media and thus participate in the same propaganda war. Thus, I personally have no idea whatsoever.

...

A graph I saw earlier today showed the approval rate split up by party adherence (can't find it right now, twitter ). Trump had 88% approval amongst GOP voters, a wee bit higher than traditional at this stage of a presidency, but only 16% for Democratic voters, a clear low point.

Of course this raises the question if that is influenced by which part of actual GOP voters is still willing to self-identify as GOP voters, or that the polling agency in question used historical voting date.

Leading back to the numbers you quoted, we all know that Rasmussen tends to skew towards GOP voters in their polling for whatever reason. So that result seems normal.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

10 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Good point! A common sentiment seems to be "well, if average Muslims don't want to get lumped together with radical Islamists then the onus is on them to loudly, publicly, and repeatedly disavow the actions of Islamic terrorists!" So if the average Trump supporter does not want to get lumped together with bigotry, racism, misogny, etc. then the onus is on them to loudly, publicly, and repeatedly remind their Pussygraber-in-Chief that they voted for him despite his troubling views on women and Mexicans and his wishy-washiness towards racists, rather than because of them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Ok I agree here, but at the same time many Trump voters would have views on immigration, islam and gender and racial discrimination that some here wouldn't agree with, it doesn't automatically make them racist or bigots. They might focus on Trumps rejection of Globalisation (which has been pretty bad for many low paid westerners) , but also feel that Trumps views on Mexico and Islam are closer to their views than the prevailing liberal mentality. So they might not entirely endorse his language but they see it as better than the alternative viewpoint touted by left wing media / parties.

 

 

[butterbumps!]

11 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Good point! A common sentiment seems to be "well, if average Muslims don't want to get lumped together with radical Islamists then the onus is on them to loudly, publicly, and repeatedly disavow the actions of Islamic terrorists!" So if the average Trump supporter does not want to get lumped together with bigotry, racism, misogny, etc. then the onus is on them to loudly, publicly, and repeatedly remind their Pussygraber-in-Chief that they voted for him despite his troubling views on women and Mexicans and his wishy-washiness towards racists, rather than because of them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

I think the some people do tend to think that way about Muslims needing to endlessly denounce terrorists.  But I want to draw a distinction that I think is important.

I don't think we can really draw an analogue between "Trump voters" and "Muslims."   Trump voters performed an action (placed a vote for Trump), whereas Muslim denotes a religious affiliation.    In the same way we shouldn't put an onus on, say, all white christians to endlessly profess and denounce all the random crimes committed by other white christians (i.e. Quebec mosque shooting, Dylan Roof church shooting, etc) or else assume they are deranged hate filled terrorists, neither should we put an onus on all Muslims to ceaselessly renounce all terrorist acts committed by Muslims or or else assume they're also terrorists/ terrorist sympathizers. 

However, when one takes the affirmative action of voting for a politician, it is fair to ask whether those individuals support the positions taken by that politician.    When a candidate has a whole lot of excesses as part of their package, I think it's fair to assume that those voting for the package are either voting for the excesses, or are comfortable enough with those excesses to cast a vote in favor.   That is, unless those voters do something to mitigate the negative externalities of that vote (i.e. protest in some way the parts of the package they believe are wrong or misguided).

But more to the other point I was making, it's been repeatedly suggested by Altherion that Trump voters are just people hoping for a better life, not really interested in the bigotry part of the package.    If that's true-- Trump supporters aren't bigots or bigot sympathizers-- and if it's also true that Trump only plays to his base, then it would suggest that he's singing the wrong song.  If they truly aren't invested in his bigotry, then they ought to let him know so that he stops "performing" for a bigoted audience.