Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What The Hell Is Wrong With Donald Trump Supporters?
#21
Quote:Values don't fail.  Worldviews do. One can have a belief (as Clinton does) in the efficacy of American power in foreign policy.  Others (like me) can disagree.  Yet if president Clinton decides to intervene in a way with which I disagree, and the result is positive, then she was right and I was wrong.  The question was whether intervention was wise (i.e. would it work?).  This is NOT a values issue.  Its an worldview issue that was resolved by explicit demonstration.

Quote:On the other hand one can have a moral belief (i.e. values) that proprietors have a right to exclude the wrong sort of clientele as part of their property rights.  The government can pass a law saying proprietors may not restrict access to their product/service to based on certain characteristics (e.g. race in the 1960's sexual orientation today). They lose, but this unlikely to convince them that their values were wrong.  Typically this does not happen.  Instead expression of the old value is suppressed and the fraction of the next generation who picks it up through social learning (cultural evolution) decreases, while the original holders gradually die off.  In time a new population emerges in which the old cultural phenotype is quite rare.

Values and worldviews are very different things, with very different dynamics.


But if this were true, how do you explain how anti-Semitism has waxed and waned so many times in white Christian societies for literally close to 2,000 years?

The exact same form of prejudice, against the exact same target, has kept coming back - over and over and over again.
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#22
(08-27-2016, 05:41 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote:
Quote:Values don't fail.  Worldviews do. One can have a belief (as Clinton does) in the efficacy of American power in foreign policy.  Others (like me) can disagree.  Yet if president Clinton decides to intervene in a way with which I disagree, and the result is positive, then she was right and I was wrong.  The question was whether intervention was wise (i.e. would it work?).  This is NOT a values issue.  Its an worldview issue that was resolved by explicit demonstration.

Quote:On the other hand one can have a moral belief (i.e. values) that proprietors have a right to exclude the wrong sort of clientele as part of their property rights.  The government can pass a law saying proprietors may not restrict access to their product/service to based on certain characteristics (e.g. race in the 1960's sexual orientation today). They lose, but this unlikely to convince them that their values were wrong.  Typically this does not happen.  Instead expression of the old value is suppressed and the fraction of the next generation who picks it up through social learning (cultural evolution) decreases, while the original holders gradually die off.  In time a new population emerges in which the old cultural phenotype is quite rare.

Values and worldviews are very different things, with very different dynamics.


But if this were true, how do you explain how anti-Semitism has waxed and waned so many times in white Christian societies for literally close to 2,000 years?

The exact same form of prejudice, against the exact same target, has kept coming back - over and over and over again.

Perhaps it is that this kind of prejudice is the kind of natural instinctive conservatism Haidt has been describing. This is in the realm of values, I think. The voters of this kind of attitude say, when asked why they vote for a Republican candidate, it's because "he shares my values" (or more often, "val-yas")
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#23
But no one ever said that they voted Republican on "values" grounds until the late 1960s.
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#24
Anthony Wrote:But if this were true, how do you explain how anti-Semitism has waxed and waned so many times in white Christian societies for literally close to 2,000 years? The exact same form of prejudice, against the exact same target, has kept coming back - over and over and over again
You have evidence for this? Just because the expression of this prejudice varying in intensity (probably reflecting larger societal stresses) does not mean that the value fluctuated. How do know this?
Reply
#25
How do I know this?

Because anti-Semitism is still alive and well in the "Christian" world, after all these (close to 2,000) years.
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#26
(08-29-2016, 07:26 AM)Anthony Wrote: How do I know this?

Because anti-Semitism is still alive and well in the "Christian" world, after all these (close to 2,000) years.

Well, Jews never persecuted my Huguenot, Quaker, or Mennonite ancestors. In the event that I should find Moravian ancestors, the Jews never persecuted them, either. Christians did.


With the possible exception of the Quakers, no white people were ever so trustworthy to African-Americans. It is worth remembering that in the Jim Crow South, Jews had plenty of opportunity to join segregationist causes -- and didn't, even if such would have been financially lucrative. Jews were far over-represented among whites in the Civil Rights struggle for Southern blacks.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#27
(08-28-2016, 10:09 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: But no one ever said that they voted Republican on "values" grounds until the late 1960s.

Maybe that is just a current example. A prejudice against Jews by Christians is another form of hostility to people outside of their own group; the unfamiliar, in favor of the authority of those who rule your own group and impose uniformity of belief and drill it into their people. That is the same kind of natural instinctive conservatism that Haidt described in the article you (iirc) cited. This is probably what Classic Xer means by "nature over science" among conservatives today in his opinion. "Nature" in this case means the natural conservative instinct which we can all be instilled with, but which is much stronger in "conservatives" per se: the instinct to defend your own group and its traditions against the unfamiliar or the outsider.

Nowadays, since the 1960s, the same sorts of authoritarian Christians are supporting their group against other outsiders besides just the Jews, but it's the same behavior.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#28
(08-29-2016, 03:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(08-29-2016, 07:26 AM)Anthony Wrote: How do I know this?

Because anti-Semitism is still alive and well in the "Christian" world, after all these (close to 2,000) years.

Well, Jews never persecuted my Huguenot, Quaker, or Mennonite ancestors. In the event that I should find Moravian ancestors, the Jews never persecuted them, either. Christians did.


With the possible exception of the Quakers, no white people were ever so trustworthy to African-Americans. It is worth remembering that in the Jim Crow South, Jews had plenty of opportunity to join segregationist causes -- and didn't, even if such would have been financially lucrative. Jews were far over-represented among whites in the Civil Rights struggle for Southern blacks.

Yes, and that's also why today's "minorities" and other less-powerful demographic groups today are less likely than Classic Xer thinks to favor Republicans and conservative ideologies in the future, because once you have been a victim of discrimination, prejudice or oppression for a certain time, you and your group are less likely even if you become wealthy to forget the experience and identify with your new class instead of your ethnic or demographic group and the party or ideology that defends your rights.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#29
(08-29-2016, 07:26 AM)Anthony Wrote: How do I know this?

Because anti-Semitism is still alive and well in the "Christian" world, after all these (close to 2,000) years.
What, do you think there was substantial anti-Semitism in the West in the 7th through 10th centuries?  You have any evidence for that?
Reply
#30
(08-31-2016, 12:08 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(08-29-2016, 07:26 AM)Anthony Wrote: How do I know this?

Because anti-Semitism is still alive and well in the "Christian" world, after all these (close to 2,000) years.
What, do you think there was substantial anti-Semitism in the West in the 7th through 10th centuries?  You have any evidence for that?

You might want to check out the Wiki history of antisemitism.  They mention it starting in Egypt about 270 BC, and note that stubborn Jewish resistance to Rome built up considerable resentment.  Some suggest that the European tradition of anti-Semitism grew out of Roman policy and attitude.
Reply
#31
It is far easier to survive as a minority if one's group is seen as weak and powerless. The perception matters far more than does the reality, so such bilge as the forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion that held that the Jews were by their own admission a well-organized conspiracy based on heredity intent on degrading and exploiting gentiles could serve as grist for genocidal hostility. (The raw truth was that the Jews were so ill-organized that the Nazis had to create Jewish organizations to put Jews into livestock-like herds, according to the testimony of the convicted war criminal war criminal Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski).

After successful communist insurrections, the former ruling class of landowners and industrialists are typically first dispossessed and then murdered for being threats to the Socialist revolution for having access to alleged wealth that can be used against the people, and for being aligned with plutocrats elsewhere.

In contrast, poor people can survive indefinitely even in gross contempt by the powerful. Think of blacks in the American South. They were generally powerless, helpless, and poor... and unthreatening unless they became criminals preying upon white people or offering 'uppity' challenges to white power. (Black criminals preying upon black people got away with such during the era of Segregation. That is over). The Klan never posed the threat of mass murder of blacks until a large black middle class emerged -- and the Klan adopted Nazi-style, genocidal bigotry.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#32
Certainly many are fringe.

But I also look at those, mostly boomers, who were told that if they got a good job, raised a family, bought a house, and saved money, they would have a good life and retirement. The past several years has wiped many out. Their kids are thousands of miles away. They are mad.

So they look at what changed.... and blame it all on that; and look for some who tells them they can go back. Of course you cant go back.

(as I write this I notice that Maddow is saying the same thing in her lead)
Reply
#33
(09-01-2016, 01:10 AM)Arkarch Wrote: Certainly many are fringe.

But I also look at those, mostly boomers, who were told that if they got a good job, raised a family, bought a house, and saved money, they would have a good life and retirement.   The past several years has wiped many out.  Their kids are thousands of miles away.  They are mad.

So they look at what changed....  and blame it all on that;  and look for some who tells them they can go back.   Of course you cant go back.

(as I write this I notice that Maddow is saying the same thing in her lead)

Many Boomers (and X) never got the good job. The jobs that appeared in great numbers in the late 1970s were mostly drudgery in retail and food service, jobs where at best one marks time until getting a chance for advancement by quitting to go elsewhere. When one has great numbers of college graduates taking such jobs, then you can just imagine how hard life can be for those who have no advantages in life whatsoever.

Most people who lost big in the latter part of the Double-Zero decade are never going to get back what they lost. The political system worked to stop bigger losses (the economic damage of the sesquiannum beginning in the autumn of 2007 was similar as that of the same time beginning in the autumn of 1929) that loomed similarly severe due to similar cause. We may have avoided a second Great Depression, but we failed to get the needful reforms. We instead got the Corporate agenda as dressed in 18th-century costumes and verbiage that the users did not understand. We are back to an economic order in which most people are nothing more than the economic roles that they are allotted -- a miserable situation if one loathes one's function and the terms of pay.

We went backward to intensify the depraved politics of the 3T. We may have even lost our representative democracy because the Master Class succeeded in imposing a new form of tyranny for which there is no fancy Greek neologism: government by lobbyist. Should America elect Donald Trump, then the descent into fascism is irreversible except in revolution or military defeat. What sort of defeat? Just think of Atlanta having a Rio-like Carnival, and just think of mandatory classes in Japanese in California. 

Donald Trump offers a sort of technocracy, but one devoid of intellectual pretensions. It must appeal to the most primitive types in America, and to that end what Donald Trump is simplistic in the extreme. So "Make America Great Again" suggests that we need to bring back some glory that no longer exists.

...America will never be able to recover the 'greatness' of the 1950s if by such one means Jim Crow practice, McCarthyism, callous disregard for the environment, contempt for 'sissy' qualities in men, second-rate citizenship for women, and the remnants of WASP dominance in Corporate America. We can no more do that than we can demolish the Interstate Highways to put people back on the Blood Alleys that made the Interstates necessary, let alone reduce America's population to about 150 million.

Doing right again what we used to do right? Now that makes sense! Eschewing debt even if such compromises consumerism and quick-buck leverage in investments, having a child-safe mass culture, establishing a climate favorable to small business even at the expense of giant enterprises, and reverting to the old objective of liberal-arts education of making educated elites better (so ditch the Multiversity that became a watered-down grad school in which the students got to wallow in mass culture)... and we may be onto something good. We won't need to ban abortion or try to 'fix' homosexuality. We won't have to give up computers and the internet either. But just imagine a world in which blue-collar workers have union cards but not credit cards... again.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#34
Bob wrote “You might want to check out the Wiki history of antisemitism.  They mention it starting in Egypt about 270 BC, and note that stubborn Jewish resistance to Rome built up considerable resentment.  Some suggest that the European tradition of anti-Semitism grew out of Roman policy and attitude.”  in response to my response to Anthony ’58.
 
I stand corrected.  I was aware of the Roman bias against Jews and particularly early Christian (e.g. Gospel of Peter). 
 
I was also aware of a resurgence of anti-semitism that occurred as a result of the development of the crusade ideology (Christian version of jihad—in fact they got the idea from the Muslims in Spain).  This was an outgrowth of the Pax Dei movement (ca. 1000) which sought to promote peace amongst Christians as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.  Crusade south to redirect the violent energies of Christian elites away from intra-Christian violence (which affected Church property and clergy lives) and toward extra-Christian (i.e. Muslim) targets. But this of course included Jews.  From this I inferred that Christians had been less anti-Jew before the 11th century. 
 
I had also had unearthed these events in my search of religious events:
 
686          Jewish efforts to discredit Jesus as messiah in Spain
816          The archbishop of Lyons, Agobard (816-40), wrote pamphlets against Jewish proselytizers active in southern Gaul among both peasants and town dwellers, and against Jewish influence in the French court.  When Agobard sent missions to the Jews in Lyons, they complained to King Louis the Pious (814-40), who sided with his Jewish subjects.
838          Bodo, a deacon in the service of the Frankish King Louis the Pious, secretly converted to Judaism under the influence of prominent Jews at Louis’ court.  Bodo traveled to Spain where he changed his name to Eleazar, married a Jewish girl, and forced his nephew to convert to Judaism as well.  Eleazar predicted appearance of the Messiah in 867 and accused Christians of tritheism and of worshipping a man.
840          Amolus, archbishop of Lyons, stated that some Christians in Lyons were visiting synagogues because rabbis were better preachers than Christian priests.  He complained of the Toledoth Yeshu, an anti-Christian work that ridiculed the gospels.
 
It suggested a relatively positive European view on Jews compared to later when monarchs were expelling them and Christians were forcing conversions through the Inquisition.  Anthony had provided no evidence so I challenged him.
 
After your response I though uh oh, better check. So I searched on Jews in Visigothic Spain.  Big change in my views.  I was thinking Visigoths, Arians, no prob.  Ha, they became Roman soon enough and the old Roman prejudice continued.  Note the first entry in my list was negative.  This was before 711.  The rest are afterward, but before the start of the Reconquista.  The leading cultural power during the 9th century in this part of the Europe was Muslim Spain.  They were the advanced culture of the day which provided a model for upwardly mobile youth. As far as the Islamic authorities were concerned, both Jews and Christians were people of the book.  No diff and so both groups were on an equal “cultural competition” basis and Christian elites were worried about the relative appeal of Judaism versus their own belief system.
 
The apparent favorable attitude towards Jews in Western Europe in the period I selected was an artifact of the Muslim conquest of Spain in 711.
 
I responded to Anthony the way I did because he made an assertion with no backing while I believed I had more backing (see above).  I did not research it first, but just posted, based on the understanding in my head--like we all do. Anthony did not respond, but YOU did.  So I looked more into it, if nothing else to prove you wrong.  But I was wrong and you were right.  You will actually engage in this shit with facts and data (when pushed).  Having the interest in digging further makes me wonder if you have views based on data and evidence and not just what you want to believe. Do you see why I want to pick your brain?  So I am going to continue to dog you. Smile
Reply
#35
(09-02-2016, 03:27 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I responded to Anthony the way I did because he made an assertion with no backing while I believed I had more backing (see above).  I did not research it first, but just posted, based on the understanding in my head--like we all do. Anthony did not respond, but YOU did.  So I looked more into it, if nothing else to prove you wrong.  But I was wrong and you were right.  You will actually engage in this shit with facts and data (when pushed).  Having the interest in digging further makes me wonder if you have views based on data and evidence and not just what you want to believe. Do you see why I want to pick your brain?  So I am going to continue to dog you. Smile

Oh no!  A dog!  Wink

I didn't have a dog in that particular fight.  When I see folks disagree on these boards I'll often type some key words into Google and frequently find myself in Wiki.  When seeing such differences in opinion, I will often spend just a little bit of effort trying to form an informed opinion.  Note, I worded said opinion as a suggestion without hammering the point that hard.  Reading a single Wiki article does not make one an expert in the field.

While I have no particular interest in Rome, I am into role playing games.  One of my recently active player characters was a Celtic archer in a game centered on the defense of Hadrian's Wall from assorted supernatural threats.  A good sized part of the game was a jaunt through the realm of Farie.  My character got to meet the Queen of Air and Darkness.  We hypothesized that the results of our actions would be recorded in the "10 Files", or in Roman notation the "X Files".  In general I would not suggest a role playing game is the most reliable source of information on the era or much of anything.  Still, two of the other three players and the game master were fairly intense students of the era.  In one of the first game sessions, the game master walked into the store wearing a full suit of Roman style armor he acquired for his historical recreation group, just so the players could see how our characters were equipped.  The two players who were into Rome commented on how the suit wasn't quite right for Britain of the era we were playing.  

Anyway, my Celtic character all through the game was showered with all sorts of derogatory opinions from the Roman characters about the Jews. These opinions sounded entirely plausible.  My character was left with the feeling that the Celts were not fierce and stubborn enough fighters to stand against Rome, but that these Jews must be really intense if they were giving the Romans that much of a hard time.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the game's plot.  It was just what the other players thought Romans of the era would say.  Thus, when Google suggested the Wiki article, I wasn't at all surprised by what I found.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.  Smile
Reply
#36
So was I.  So you should get my analogy of a Rod of Stimulus in another post.  Smile
Reply
#37
Some years ago my colleague Kitae Hong (a liberal like me) asks me, what is wrong with these Americans (speaking of conservatives). I said, well it has to do with Texas, that's what they like.  Kitae says, yes, but that's one state!  I said, well it comes from our civil war, it's long story and I'm not sure I could explain it to you--I don't really understand it myself and I was born here.....But hey! You MUST have folks like this back in Korea (I'm thinking of Kim Jong-Il--although Kitae is from South Korea of course).  He said "Korea is FULL of crazies" that's why I left. But this is AMERICA!  So I said, well, we have our crazies too.

Cmon now, Trump is Trump, but for God's sake at least he is not Kim-Jong-un!  When Trump gets me down, I just youtube the Civilizaton IV video and see the depiction of Abraham Lincoln.  We created that Greatness! We are not losers. And then I read some of the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt. Nope-we have NOT lost it then.  Then play Pride (In the Name of Love) and see we created MLK.  We have our own fucking Nelson Mandela too!!! And we did
this too.  You might point to Europe, but I say, given me a fucking break--we had SLAVERY. compare us to Brazil.  Besides, Europe, look at how OUR immigrants turn out! Booyah! Sure there is much more to do.  But hey, Trump is no fucking Kim Jong Un (or Robert Mugabe) and he is gonna go down! I still hold faith in what Winston Churchill said about us (apocryphal): You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Reply
#38
(09-03-2016, 02:25 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I still hold faith in what Winston Churchill said about us (apocryphal): [/font][/size][/color]You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.

I just hope that The Donald doesn't count as part of everything else.
Reply
#39
...and in America's time of greatest peril, when it faced the most dangerous and despicable enemies that America had ever faced, the President of the time, FDR, called upon the legacy of Abraham Lincoln for the rhetoric and means of emancipation for worlds an ocean away.

Of course we have it relatively easy with our immigrants in contrast to Europe, as ours come largely from Latin America and already have great cultural affinities to the USA.

...I see Donald Trump as a potential Hugo Chavez in the slight likelihood that he should succeed.

Yes, it is true that Barack Obama cannot complete his historic task as President. Bey0ond any question he is above average as President, and even sub=par Presidents as Nixon and Carter could do much good as ex-Presidents. President Obama shows no signs of becoming a recluse, and he has his credibility intact. If he must deliver a Lincolnesque or FDR-like speech, a consequence of a clear and brilliant mind, then he will do so. He does not have to be President to be one of the most influential people in the world.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#40
(08-15-2016, 04:41 AM)taramarie Wrote: Well they finally are not holding back any punches at repubs who are voting for Trump. Never mind the latter part of the video. It isjust insult throwing. I am posting for the earlier part and I am interested in thoughts regarding it. Is he a treasonous potential president? Are people so blind that he could literally shoot someone in broad daylight and people would still vote for him because you know....2nd amendment and all that. It is not like people have not supported someone shooting an innocent before so he is not wrong. But it sure as hell tells me there is something wrong with ole big bro America. Anyway here is the link and give me your thoughts.

You might ask yourself why Trump's opponents end up resorting to throwing insults.  If they had rational arguments against him, wouldn't they be using them?

The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.

The announcer would like to be able to say that the comment is calling for an assassination.  But he can't say it outright, because Clinton's 2008 comment about staying in the race in case Obama went the way of Robert Kennedy was much closer to an actual call for an assassination.  So, he resorts to innuendo and insults.

The second comment was about how it might be a good thing if the Russians hacked into Clinton's email servers and made the emails public.  Whether this is "borderline treason" perhaps depends on how you see the email scandal and whether you see, for example, Edward Snowden as a traitor or a patriot for revealing how the U.S. government was illegally spying on U.S. citizens domestically.  As it turns out, the emails that Clinton attempted to destroy only demonstrate tawdry "pay to play" style corruption, but at the time it was suspected by some on the right that Clinton might be trying to hide illegal breaches of national security and illegal state department initiatives in support of the Islamic State; if you believed that, and you thought Snowden was a patriot for revealing illegal government activities, you might feel that revealing Clinton's missing emails, by whatever means, was a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Instead of engaging rationally on the issue, though, the announcer prefers to misrepresent the statement as actual advocacy of hacking - a big distinction legally and ethically, if not politically - which gives him an excuse to resort to insults again.

Finally, there's the comment about people still voting for Trump if he shot someone; as you note, that statement is likely not wrong.  What it does reveal is just how strongly his core supporters feel, how badly they feel the government and the system have gone off the tracks, to give him their unconditional support like that as long as he keeps fighting for them.

In this case, perhaps the Trump supporters in question do deserve to be denigrated - but if so, certainly the same must apply to the protesters who are resorting to actual violence against those attending Trump rallies, rather than just cheering for hypothetical violence?

The whole campaign is undoubtedly ugly on both sides.  I think it's just a small taste of what's ahead as the crisis unfolds, though.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BBC Video... Donald Trump and the MAFIA pbrower2a 2 43 05-29-2020, 03:47 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability pbrower2a 567 127,048 05-27-2020, 02:30 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  House of Representatives impeaches President Donald Trump Kay 51 1,657 01-27-2020, 03:31 AM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  America Is Bombing the Hell out of Syrian Civilians nebraska 0 533 01-06-2018, 09:24 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Why One Baby Buster Voted For Donald Trump Anthony '58 43 16,349 01-24-2017, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  What if Donald Trump is the new John C. Fremont? Anthony '58 1 1,211 10-19-2016, 09:56 PM
Last Post: Einzige
  Prominent Republicans call for Donald Trump to drop out of the nomination pbrower2a 11 4,969 10-12-2016, 07:06 AM
Last Post: Odin
  Poll of the U.S. military has Gary Johnson tied with Donald Trump Dan '82 3 1,817 09-23-2016, 07:37 AM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Americans Aren't Buying Donald Trump's Immigration Rhetoric, Polls Show naf140230 7 3,736 09-22-2016, 11:33 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  The Donald only cares about the Donald historically. taramarie 3 1,382 08-07-2016, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)