Trump's Big Orlando Rally

After the Kentucky results came in last night, Trump gave a press conference (see my last post for a recap.) During it, he touted his campaign rally in Orlando earlier in the day. He said there were 20k people at the event, and they turned another 10k people away. This got me curious. Who goes to these rallies, and what does he say at them that makes so many people want to attend? Does he give the same speech at his rallies that he does during debates and in press conferences?

To answer my questions, I watched his very long speech in Orlando. I'm assuming you won't want to, so here's a recap.

His opening words were like a shout out to the uneducated (who of course wouldn't realize it.) He said:

We're not going to be the stupid country anymore. We're not going to be the stupid people anymore. We're going to be a smart people.


Then he attacked Rubio as the "little nasty guy." Then he attacked Cruz as a liar, saying "He holds up the bible, then he puts it down and he lies.

On Jeb Bush: "I used to listen to Jeb Bush before he flamed out. "

He says something about the time four weeks ago that Hillary called him a sexist, and he got back at her and Bill. He refers to it as the time "She got a dose." Why did he pick that word? I'm no shrink, so feel free to skip this paragraph, but I'd bet this is his stream of consciousness at work when it comes to word association: Sexist morphs into sex, morphs into an STD, and comes out as a "dose." So his first association for a word with sex in it is something negative. Interesting.

He says Bernie's done. "He had his time in the sun." What did him in? Defending Hillary's emails in the debate. He says he called it right away. The minute he heard Bernie say that during the debate he said, "Bernie, you just blew the election." And, he complains, the press didn't give him credit for calling it. The media are "the most dishonest human beings on earth. They are disgusting, dishonest human beings."

There were a lot of protesters at the rally. He claimed "We love protesters." But each time one would come to light, he'd say in a disgusted tone, "Get him out of here." or "Get rid of him." Once he added, "Don't hurt him." Another time, after one was escorted out, he quipped, "Go home to Mommy."

At one point he says, and this is a direct quote, "I wish we had some real protesters with guns." [Correction: I apparently misheard. He said "guts" not guns." Sorry.)

Interestingly, there were these 3 young guys behind him through the whole speech. One had a cross between a buzz cut and a faux Mohawk. He seemed to be the leader. They were so front and center I couldn't even watch Trump (as opposed to merely listen to him) because they dominated the screen visually for the whole speech.

They didn't react to anything Trump said. The middle one sniffled a lot (like he had done too much coke, but of course, that's speculation.) He flashed a lot of signs (using one, two or three fingers, see photos below), kept taking out his phone and putting it back, and sharing what was on it with his two friends.

At first I thought they were security. Every time the middle one flashed a sign or texted something or whatever he did with his phone, another protester would get escorted out. Then I wondered if they weren't with the protesters. It seemed like they were plants, directing the protesters, telling them when to make their move. After Trump got done speaking, it looked like police or secret service physically escorted them out. So they were probably with the protesters. But how did they get so close to Trump in the first place?

Actually, the middle guy did laugh at Trump's Mommy joke -- it was the only thing I saw him react to. He actually laughed so hard he spun around (like a dance move.) Here he is after he turned back around, still laughing hard.

Then there was an episode we've all seen before. Remember when a woman fainted at a Trump rally? Well it happened again. Really, what are the odds of this happening again. The whole thing seemed staged by Trump to me. Here's how it played out.

Trump says:

We need a doctor. A woman fainted. We love people who faint. Are you okay darling? Take your time. Take your time.

He pauses his speech while she's being attended to. He says, "She's been here for 7 hours. We'll send you flowers. You're going to be fine."

Then the cameras pan to a sick looking woman being wheeled out of the venue.

Then a big bouquet of flowers, obviously from a florist, appear. He says, coyly, "Oh, those are for me?" He immediately follows that with, "Here's what I want you to do. Run up and catch that woman and give those flowers to that woman. That's nice. That's nice."

That whole thing seemed scripted to me.

Trump moves onto ISIS. He says if General Patton or McArthur were around, ISIS would be gone already. He gives the same waterboarding explanation he gave in his Saturday night press conference. Then he adds a story. First, he asks the audience if he should tell a "rough" story. Then he launches into a story about a General Pershing. (If you've never heard of him, it's probably because he was in the Philippines around WWI.) Here's the story, as told by Trump.

In 1919 "they" had a problem with radical Islamic terrorists. They caught 50 terrorists. They called in General Pershing. (It's not until the middle of his story he mentions this took place in the Philippines, not the U.S.)

They rounded up a lot of pigs and shot bullets into them. Then they removed the bullets from the pigs, which were covered with pig fat and pig blood. Then they used the same bullets, still covered with pig stuff, to shoot 49 of the 50 terrorists. When it was time for the 50th terrorist to be shot, they walked up to him and gave him the bullet saying it was intended for him. He didn't want it, but he took it. They told him, "Go back and tell your people there will be no more terrorism." Trump says, "For 28 years there was no more terrorism." He tells the audience to go look it up. (Added: I just did, and Snopes says there's no documentary evidence supporting this happened. Urban Legends thinks it's false and would have been against Pershing's character. It seems to be a story spread on the internet.) Trump's dates also seem off. Pershing was in the Philippines from 1899 to 1903 and again from 1906 to 1913.

While there, he led American forces against several tribes, collectively called “Moros,” who were resisting the United States’ control. The fighting was difficult and flared off and on for several years. During his time in the Philippines, Pershing learned the Moros’ language and studied their customs, which helped him gain their respect and confidence. One of the tribes even named Pershing a minor noble.

Trump moves onto the topic of education. I didn't understand much of this part, but at the end he said that third world countries have better education than we do. He said people can't achieve the American Dream if they don't get educated.

Then he talked about a new hotel he's building on Pennsylvania Ave. He was awarded the contract by the GSA (Obama's GSA, he points out.) It's between the White House and the Capitol, a very coveted location. It will be very luxurious. He's bringing it in under budget and two years ahead of schedule. It will open in September, before the election. His point was that's how good a businessman he is and that's what he will do for America -- charge less and get more results. He then tells the audience, "If I don't win, I'm living on Pennsylvania Ave. anyway."

If you aren't shaking your head right now in disbelief that this man might be the next President of the United States, I honestly don't know what else to tell you.

Actually, I do know what to tell you. We get the Government we elect. So don't forget to vote.

< Trump Calls on Rubio to Drop Out, Supports Waterboarding and Torture | Nancy Reagan Dies at Age 94 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I considered going to observe the spectacle (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 06:27:55 AM EST
    UCF, where it was held is only about 20 minutes from home. But actually I forgot it was happening until I saw the pictures later in the day.

    Maybe that explains the deserted dog park in the morning. Traffic jams...I refuse to believe any of my dog park pals are trumps supporters.

    thanks for the recap -interesting about the 3 guys. Will be interesting to see if they are identified - I hope they were directing the protesters, as you say, from the front row behind Trump's back.

    His rallies have more and more of a 'Triumph of the Will' quality. Anyone not already horrified should be.

    No kidding! (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:26:08 AM EST
    From Huffington Post:

    "Trump Rally Looks Like A Scene From Nazi Germany"

    He makes followers raise their right hands and swear they'll vote for him.

    I think he's going to hold his next rally at a beer hall in Munich.


    kinda silly... (none / 0) (#4)
    by linea on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    the nazi compasison seems over the top and makes people look rediculous and hysteical. rachel maddow does it and it makes me cringe. it feels like the democrat version of the republican conspiracy theories that allege the clintons had vince foster assasinated (not sure that is the correct name). just my opinion. just how it feels to me.

    The sad part is (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    It's not silly.  Check the killing families of terrorists thread.

    That said, making a big deal out of a thing he did in a speech that had people raising their hands as if THATS what makes him seem like a Nazi only helps to miss the things he is actually doing that sound an awful lot like a Nazi.

    That pledge thing is stupid.  The comparison is not.


    Did you see this on Maher (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 11:25:50 AM EST
    Video from Friday night



    I did (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    Oh my god

    Subtitles put under Hitler's speech (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 11:27:30 AM EST
    "Thank you, thank you. We're going to make Germany great again, that I can tell you, believe me," the subtitles read in the mock translation. "Germany doesn't win anymore. England, France America -- they're laughing at us."

    Maher's clip pointed out the way that Trump has employed racist and xenophobic rhetoric as he appeals to the worst fears of Americans to build support for his presidential bid. That kind of rhetoric has earned Trump support from extremist white supremacist groups.

    The really scary part (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    To me
    Is not that the xenophobia appeals to white supremacists and the like.   It's that it is being shrugged off by far more rational people.

    In spite of what FLJoe thinks, many "liberals" will vote for Donald.   I know some.   If it was just white supremacists he would be David Duke or George Walkace.  It's not.  And we are well beyond that.


    It's (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    scary, but nothing new. If you had told me two years ago that 34%  of the Republican base were  composed of some combination of racist,nativist or government hating rubes you would have been dead on.

    Pretty much by definition, the 34% of the vote Trump has actually received can not be ascribed to "far more rational people".

    So far empirically by actual vote count and recently by unequivocal rhetoric from Romney et al, most evidence has shown that whatever "rationally" exists in the GOP is not  rushing to jump on the Trump Train and there are many powerful forces actively trying to derail it(WTF took them so long maybe the biggest question of this whole cycle).

    Bottomline: until Trump proves that he can attract more than the knuckle dragging rump of the party(not his creation), it's really hard to see him attracting much beyond that.


    The hand-raising thing is a component (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    of mass hypnosis.  I googled but can't find the description or name.  

    Orlando-DisneyWorld as Consumerist, fat, smug, and self-absorbed America's Zeppelin Stadium?  What a world.


    I guess (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    I still think it's a silly thing to obsess on.   Making a big deal out of this pledge incident just makes it easier to dismiss the next comparison that could be way more valid.

    Which could be (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    Why he did it.

    The hand raising thing synchronizes people (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    He's genlocking the crowd.

    Nazi analogies are always inapproriate. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    As I've cautioned others here and elsewhere many times before, Nazi Germany was a unique and singular horror show in the history of the modern world.

    As such, hyperbolic references to our own country's more buffoonish and obtuse politicians as the moral equivalents of Adolf Hitler and his followers -- regardless of reason or provocation -- serves only to dishonor the memories of those tens of millions of people who died as a direct result of the Nazi presence on the world stage between 1933 and 1945, as well as the hundreds of millions more whose own respective life's trajectories were forever altered by the tragic events of that era.

    I'll admit that when he gets going onstage, Donald Trump does tend to mimic the exaggerated mannerisms of the late Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. But that's as far as I'm willing to go personally. As intemperate and megalomaniacal as his public rhetoric might occasionally sound, Trump is NOT Hitler. Therefore, why would we ever inadvertently mitigate and minimize the seriousness of the Nazis' own vast and pervasive crimes against humanity, by offering such a noxious and cartoonish comparison?



    It seems people are going to (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 04:38:56 PM EST
    Continue "finding the analogy inappropriate" until it goose steps right up and bites them in the ass.

    You are welcome to your opinion Donald.  


    Seems like (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    Glenn Beck agrees with you

    Stephanopoulos interjected, "Whoa- Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler?"

    "If you look what's happening with Donald Trump and his playing to the lowest common denominator and to the anger in us," Beck said. "[W]e look at Adolf Hitler in 1940. We should look at him in 1929. He was a kind of funny, kind of character that said the things people were thinking. Where Donald Trump takes it, I have absolutely no idea. But, Donald Trump is a dangerous man with the things he's been saying."


    So (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 05:06:55 PM EST

    To tell you the truth I would be as worried about agreeing with George Stephanopoulos as agreeing with Glenn Beck.


    Well, years of looking at video of himself (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 07:07:40 PM EST
    have given Beck rare insight into crowd pleasing nationalistic demagoguery. On this topic I consider him an expert.

    Oh, for Pete's sake, Cap'n! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:26:25 PM EST
    I would suggest that you stop watching so much television, and regain a proper sense of logical proportion. Not everyone in this world who so happens to be a friggin' louse deserves to be equated with amoral sociopaths who perpetrated the Holocaust and launched the Second World War.

    There's fascism, which is the subversion of the state to serve corporate interests. There's racism, which imbues its adherents with a false sense of superiority that's based on nothing more than ethnic origin. And then there's Nazism, which codified mass subjugation and murder on an epic scale so grand that it's without any modern historical parallel.

    If you can't differentiate between these three conceptual levels in this campaign without descending into hyperbole, then you're not necessarily the person to be leading the charge here. Because rather that elevating this particular discussion, you're instead taking the low road yourself by engaging in same type of base fearmongering about The Other.

    I take these Republicans very seriously. But if I want anyone else to take my own concerns about them equally seriously, I better damned well be able to build a far better case than blithely comparing them to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

    I've been in this game a long time, admittedly far longer than is probably healthy. If I've learned anything over the last nearly three decades, it's what tends to work and what can backfire on you. Nazi analogies belong in the latter category. If they're your default position in a political debate, then you're so over the top that the only thing you'll likely convince most otherwise rational people to do is to stop listening to you.

    That's exactly why shrill invective has no place in political campaigns, never mind the part about gaining others' hearts and minds. The people who are victorious in battle tend to be those who keep their feet on the ground, a cool head on their shoulders, and their wits about them at all times.



    I don't think wanting to nip anything resembling (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 07:01:08 PM EST
    Hitlerism in the bud minimizes the seriousness of the Nazis. It is exactly because we take them seriously that hearing the same rhetoric in our own country is horrifying.

    Hitler was not HITLER when he started.


    ruffian: "Hitler was not HITLER when he started."

    My own point is that Nazi analogies are the most shrill form of political hyperbole, and wielding them during a political debate is an almost sure-fired loser. I mean, where do you go in a discussion, once you've dropped such a rhetorical atom bomb?

    Is yours that Donald Trump is actually Adolf Hitler, before he became Der Führer? Seriously, I'm afraid that such an abstract differentiation on your part will probably be entirely lost on your intended target audience, because the only thing they'll hear is one word -- "Hitler."

    Let's say you're talking to some people you know, perhaps even family members, who may be leaning toward Trump this election, and you're trying to convince them to instead look elsewhere when casting their ballot.

    Now, how is implying that their initial instincts are eerily similar to those once exhibited by the mindless followers of Adolf Hitler going to accomplish that?

    Doesn't it follow that rather than keep a line of communication open to them, you'll instead likely shut it down, as they take offense and hold their ground?

    You don't dig yourself an unnecessary foxhole and then dive into it, when you still have a lot of other available options. Nazi analogies are cheap and easy, but they're also highly toxic in politics, and often completely counterproductive to the eventual achievement of your own goals and objectives.



    That you are missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 08:26:15 AM EST
    Is obvious.  

    No, I pretty much nailed it. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    It's the difference between someone who been doing retail politics for a long time, and someone who comments about politics in friendly blogs as though it were a vicarious form of entertainment to him, like an episode of "Game of Thrones." When you finally put down that remote and step into the arena, and start walking your districts door-to-door and phone-banking on behalf of your candidate three hours an evening, then you can tell me how I don't get it.

    Because in the real world, Cap'n, it's pretty easy to predict what would happen were you to call undecided voters and start comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. The half of our country's population that leans a little right of center isn't going to appreciate having their initial political instincts about voting Republican equated with those German citizens who long ago enabled the Holocaust -- any more than you'd likely appreciate them labeling you a pro-Muslim fundamentalist stooge, because you happen to lean Democratic.

    So, why don't you stop emulating the far right, and dial back your own emotional appeals to people's baser instincts, because your hyperbolic comparisons of Trump to Hitler really don't help the candidate you purport to support.

    Successful retail politics IS about winning elections, Cap'n, and not necessarily about validating our own personal points of view. And in order to win this election, Hillary Clinton needs to be presented as the reasonable and rational alternative to what's presently being offered elsewhere.

    Polarizing statements about her GOP counterparts from supporters like you are not making that effort any easier, particularly when those Republicans are already doing a rather splendid job themselves of alienating mainstream opinion. There's no need for you to overstate and embellish the obvious for additional effect. It's counterproductive.

    As Napoleon Bonaparte once admonished one of his generals in the midst of battle, never interfere with or alert your opponent when he is making a mistake. Just be patient, and let him screw himself over.



    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    Since Trump rode down the escalator ever single thing you have said about him and his campaign has been as wrong as it could possble be.

    I may not be a "professional" Donald, but my batting average on Trump is better than yours.


    OK. Trump is not Hitler. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    Just kinda sorta has rallies that remind us of Hitler.

    The hair (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    Is all wrong

    Right, Trump is Not Hitler... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    ...and calling him that dishonors victim's memories, but Mussolini on the other hand...  Guess that fascists victims can't be dishonored with comparisons, even though Italy had concentration camps and committed ethnic cleansing as well.

    I used to know a dark skinned Puerto Rican guy who had a Hitler mustache, it was obvious and I didn't dishonor anyone by pointing it out.  Neither is noting that a pledge looks similar to the Reich salute.

    No on thinks Trump is a Hitler redux, just that maybe some of the theatrics are similar.


    Raise you right hand and repeat after me... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Redbrow on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    I will not resort to hysteria and hyperbole about the most common oath taking tradition of raisng ones right hand....

    You know, I was just wondering ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    ... how long it would be before a right-wing cheerleader and apologist would show up. I was concerned that perhaps you guys had locked yourselves accidentally inside your own cage.

    I am (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Redbrow on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 05:35:31 PM EST
    A classic liberal.

    I ahve never voted for a republican in my life.

    I value truth, facts and evidence over emotion amd fearbased hyperbole.

    If that makes me right wing in your myopic prejudiced view than so be it.


    You point out something (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:52:43 AM EST
    Very important.  

    It's not what he says.  He has never said anything of substance on any real policy or plan.   And he never will.

    This is a personality cult.  Pure and simple.

    And I have bad news for those who have not been keeping up.

    He is good at this.
    He is really fu@king good at it.

    that's the meme... (none / 0) (#7)
    by linea on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:18:51 AM EST
    i know that's the meme on tv and obviously many people love his brash personality but i politely disagree that it's simply a personality cult. donald trump has specific positions. while some dont rise to the level of a plan; they are percieved by supporters of as at least a "vision" they agree with. would trump be packing stadiums if he espoused the policies of ted cruz or hillary clinton? {smile}

    What are they (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:20:27 AM EST
    You mean "the wall"? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:25:11 AM EST

    Or maybe rounding up and expelling 12 million people?   Or how about killing terrorists families.

    These are not "plans" and if that is your idea of "vision" it's odd to me that you think the Nazi comparison is "silly"

    If you have any information that Donald has ever mentioned or endorsed a single actual "thing" that would ever in a real world happen,  please share it.


    I would (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:48:18 AM EST
    say Trump definitely has a vision and it would be called Make America Whiter.

    He actually has plans but they're kind of like bullet point power power statements. Of course, that really is all his voters need. It's not like they want to get into the weeds of actually how anything is going to be done.


    ok... (none / 0) (#20)
    by linea on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:09:22 AM EST
    bullet points then.

    ignoring the bullet points and defaulting to the popularity cult meme isn't much of an analysis. the pundits are saying that trump has crossover appeal with independants and blue colar democrats. is that personality or his bullet points?


    Another thing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    About crossover.   GA said something about making the country white.  That's the message now, more or less, but if he makes it to the general that will not be his message.   He will run to the center and even to the left.

    You think Leftie blue collar people can't be taken in by silly empty promises?  Explain Bernie Sanders.


    One single (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:14:09 AM EST
    Actual policy proposal


    And yes Trevor, the wall is very popular.

    Now, do you actually believe there will be a wall?


    FYI (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    The pressure for Donald to release the tapes of his "off the record" interview with the NYTimes you have been hearing lately is because it was leaked he told them the wall is just bullsh!t red meat for the morons.  Or words to that effect.

    Trump (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    would then it blow it off as telling lies to the NYT.....they are the enemy after all....I'd never lie to my supporters......wild cheering.

    The Wall (none / 0) (#37)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    Border enforcement

    If President, The Donald will turn the Wall into Border Security, and enforcement.

    I believe it has already been plotted out, physical walls, fences, in the most accessible regions, cameras, drones and increased Border Patrol presence at others.

    That should appease those clamoring for The Wall,

    All they really want is some sort of actual border enforcement, and the documented felons among those here illegally only adds fuel to the flame for The Wall.
    And the Administrations shoulder shrug to such


    There it is (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 12:22:57 PM EST

    Without (none / 0) (#19)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    The Wall,

    Trump is already gone.

    The Wall propelled him to the early lead, and he hasn't given it up.

    To say that 35% of Republican primary voters are against illegal immigration and want secure borders is not a stretch


    ... this very same 35% segment of Republican voters is nonsensically paranoid, hysterically xenophobic and unconscionably racist.

    Why (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 04:27:54 PM EST
    Is it such a crime to enforce a countries border?

    To know who comes in , when and where.

    Our current system is in shambles, Student visas are a sham, we have no clue who is here, for how long.
    We cannot even keep track of people here illegally, commit felonies, and remain here.
    Is that not a broken system?

    That is one thing I cannot fathom, how the mere mention of border security and enforcement is met with insults and slander, but no explanation of why?


    The "Crazy Aunt/Uncle in the attic" (none / 0) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 07:36:11 PM EST
    Here's a couple of questions:

    Why hasn't any President, Democrat/Republican/Conservative/Liberal, ever done anything meaningful about "illegal immigration?"

    All of them touted it in their campaigns, but the minute they were sworn in, amnesia, and benign neglect became their policy.

    And, question #2:

    I think most would agree that illegal immigration, and, border security is the one big rallying issue tying Trump's coalition together. They blame "Them" for their lack of jobs, and, their stagnant wages.

    If, by some magic, or, divine intervention, all 12 million undocumented individuals were beamed back from whence they came, what kind of change, or, financial improvement do Trump's followers think will occur?

    p.s. I have to leave for a little while, but, I'll be very interested to hear what the answers to my questions will be. The answer to my question about past President's neglect towards this issue holds the answer to why Trump and his supporters are dead wrong about border security.


    put this in an open thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    it's off topic

    You've got me totally confused. (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 03:28:29 PM EST
    How can a discussion of border security, illegal immigration, and loss of jobs be "off topic?"

    Whatever, feel free to delete any comments I write whenever you feel they don't meet your criteria.


    You (none / 0) (#94)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    conflated 2 issues.

    Border security, illegal immigration

    And Deportation.

    That will not happen, there is no way in hell we will deport people living here for years, especially those with children born here.
    It is unfortunately, an ugly campaign promise that will never come to fruition.
    But, we can then weed out the felons from the law abiding , and grant legal residency status for the law abiding.

    Well, I have stated I can't stand politicians, and I believe one of the reasons nothing has been done about border security is that both sides of the aisle just love having this as a campaign issue.

    As far as "tracking" people, if you go to a foreign country, or perhaps Canada, are you allowed to stay as long as you like. Or are you granted a visa, and subject to deportation if you overstay. Just enforce those laws.


    Non-Sense... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    ...the reason immigration hasn't been addressed is republicans.  The money class relies on the cheap labor, the party needs the growing hispanic vote, and the base will never be down with any compromise, like amnesty.

    Dems want reform, republicans don't want to touch it.  We want it so bad that Obama is using executive orders on the very things you mentioned.  Common sense stuff that if debated would almost certainly create a rift in the party while simultaneously losing the fastest growing voting demographic.

    You have serious problems with lumping everyone together and pretending that all the problems are 50/50 blame.  That simply isn't true, but especially with immigration.


    I WOuls Also Add... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    ... that I think the immigration 'problem' is made up by republicans.  When I first moved to Texas, 20 years ago, I was surprised by how little people cared.  It was good, just surprising, and now after a decade of immigrants from Mexico declining, it all of a sudden this massive problem that is threatening to destroy America, er whatever this years doomsday scenario is.

    It is not, and if republicans would quit using brown people to get elected, very few would care about uneducated immigrants entering the US to do the manual labor that most Americans would never do, at the wages they are paid.

    Trump is just another fraudster blaming the problems we created, on minorities.  If he wasn't, he wouldn't be hiring them.


    BINGO!! Give that man a kewpie doll. (none / 0) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    "very few would care about uneducated immigrants entering the US to do the manual labor that most Americans would never do, at the wages they are paid."

    I know that this is a sensitive issue, but you hit it square on its head. This is no longer debatable, there is countless evidence to support the fact that a great plurality of the work that immigrants (legal, and otherwise) do is work that Americans simply will not do. Of course people will do almost anything if the price were right, but, that price would have to be so high that it would make the ultimate work or product completely unaffordable.

    There are many reason why this situation occurs, some financial, some psychological. But, regardless of the reason, all Presidents, once sworn in, are given this, irrefutable fact by their Secretary of Commerce. "Mr. President, if you actually go forward and clamp down on these undocumented workers be prepared to explain to the American Public why doing it, and triggering the worst recession/depression this country has ever experienced was a good idea."  


    Speaking for me Trevor... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 10:20:58 AM EST
    I really don't want people "kept track of" like they're cattle or a UPS parcel.  That's why I cringe when I hear about increased border security and immigration enforcement, because I think I have a good idea of what that really means...f*cking with people like my neighbors.

    I do agree with you that Trump's main source of support within the republican base stems from his hardline immigration and wall talk.  That sect of the GOP feels strongly about the issue, and they feel the establishment of their party has failed them on the issue.


    It is a mistake (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    To believe it's only the republican base

    Bloomberg today

    Sixty-one percent of Americans agree that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States," according to a new poll commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney that revealed pessimism across a wide range of issues.



    Oops (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 10:28:27 AM EST

    The degree of concern is remarkable considering that the question was about all immigration, including the legal kind. Even Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said he supports legal immigration into the U.S.

    Point taken... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    the majority comes from the GOP, but some otherwise liberal people have a nativist streak...even my boy Bernie is too nativist for my taste.

    I'm an open borders guy, and neither party wants any part of that.  Our choices are hardline immigration/borders and harder-line immigration/borders.


    Did you think that (none / 0) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    decades of deliberate dumbing down of our citizenry wouldn't have an effect? A country that grew and prospered because of motivated immigrants is too stupid to appreciate all the benefits we get/got from it.

    Immigrants bring with them all the positive attributes any country should be grateful to get.

    Americans are born, receive an iPhone or tablet, and atrophy for the duration.


    The less he says, re policy, etc (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    the easier people find it to <insert dream fantasy half understood policy implications-be-damned talking point bumper stick depth thought>

    We hear what we want to hear.  The best con men use that with a vengeance.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    And there is more.  He has a creepy way of making everyone in the crowd feel he is their friend.  That he is talking to them.  I suspect that has to do with what you just said.  

    Trump's total indifference to the truth (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    is a pattern and thus apparently either a personality trait, or a deliberate campaign tactic, or both. (In order to succeed at this tactic, of course, it is also necessary to attack and delegitimize the role of the press -- essential to democracy, as recognized in the First Amendment -- as a watchdog and neutral, good faith fact-checker.) His use of a right-wing Internet fable about the U.S. war in the Philippines is particularly disturbing, since there was in fact a national scandal in 1902 over the use of what was called the "water cure" (a different form of "waterboarding") by U.S. troops there in 1900-01. A Congressional investigation (led by Republicans), an official on-site investigation (led by the Republican future President and Supreme Court Justice Wm. Howard Taft), and at least one court martial conviction of a U.S. soldier for the prohibited use of torture resulted. The arguments made unsuccessfully then in defense of our military's use of illegal tactics, as detailed in the New Yorker piece I linked, are exactly the arguments being articulated by Trump now. (Also, native Filipino resistance to the U.S. takeover of the former Spanish colony following the Spanish-American War was nationalist, not religious, and most resistance fighters were not Muslim, although some groups were, including those in the province that Pershing governed/commanded.)

    If your question is intended to deflect (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    the point I made in my comment, or to justify Trump's consistent comments about the press, I reject its relevance. (Of course, in his attacks on the press, Trump is merely echoing a longstanding right-wing strategy to undermine the very notion of facts or objectivity, including the idea of science, since their ideas cannot stand up to objective scrutiny. As applied to journalism, he is merely echoing the self-parodying FOX News slogan ("fair and balanced") and Sarah Palin's "lamestream media"). If you actually want to know about my opinion (not sure why you would), I don't get any of my news from television, either network or cable; don't watch it at all, because I think there's nothing to learn there. I read two newspapers daily (delivered to my driveway) and a fair amount on line, subscribe to The Nation, and listen to public radio (both NPR and BBC). I make no apologies for the sad state of corporate journalism, but I don't see how that's pertinent to my comments about the nature and apparent purpose of the Trump comments on the subject.  

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 07:57:13 PM EST
    was deleted as off-topic

    I guess when (none / 0) (#78)
    by smott on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:01:44 PM EST
    You said this
    " order to succeed at this tactic, of course, it is also necessary to attack and delegitimize the role of the press -- essential to democracy, as recognized in the First Amendment -- as a watchdog and neutral, good faith fact-checker.)
    I thought you were in fact stating that you took it as generally accepted by yourself and the public that the press is neutral, working in good faith and so on.

    I sense you're giving him too much credit, and he merely attacks whoever criticizes him, be it the press, Fox , whomever.


    I try pretty hard to say what I mean (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:55:31 PM EST
    I described the "role of the press." I did not opine on whether any particular representative or segment of the press actually fulfills that role, or how well. That said, I think it's a fallacy to suggest that the press used to be noble and effective, and has only recently fallen from some pedestal. The historical record of the U.S. press, whether in the late eighteenth century, in the nineteenth, or in most of the twentieth, is far from the ideal of journalistic professionalism, neutrality and objectivity as taught in modern j-schools.

    "Chickens, Home to Roost" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:33:48 AM EST
    - Maureen Dowd.

    After watching Hillary Clinton, for whom campaigning is a nuisance, and Barack Obama, who disdains politics, it's fun to see someone having fun. Like Bill Clinton, Trump talks and talks to crowds. They feed his narcissism, and in turn, he creates an intimacy even in an arena that leaves both sides awash in pleasure. It's easy to believe him when he says that, unlike President Obama, he would enjoy endlessly negotiating with obstructionists and those on the other side of the aisle.

    Kristol, the midwife to three debacles -- Dan Quayle, Iraq and Sarah Palin -- solicited suggestions for the name of the new party that Republicans will have to start if Trump secures the nomination. How about "Losers"?

    We can only hope that one day, ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 03:39:12 PM EST
    ... Maureen Dowd's own sanctimonious multitude of chickens will also come home to roost, and that this supercilious woman will slip on their droppings in a very public pratfall.

    "supercilious woman" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 08, 2016 at 09:52:01 PM EST
    Your use of "woman" reveals more than you intended, Donald.

    What is he (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:44:51 AM EST

    Not as big as his doughy gut (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    Which, if pressed on even slightly, spills forth from his orifice a plague of half-digested casino employees, Sen. Joe McCarthy's shoes, and pickled young girls in creepy Trump University cheerleader outfits. And eighteen pounds of Hamburger Helper, prepared with the brains of his most ardent supporters. Mmm Mmm Good..Lord almighty.

    It's not (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    your era because there are plenty of people that are the same age as you that are Trumpsters. As a matter of fact I bet your age group is where he gets the majority of his votes though I have no looked at any internals. And frankly you seem to be just as likely to fall for conspiracy theories as any Trump supporters.

    GUTS (none / 0) (#47)
    by Redbrow on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    ....not guns.

    'I wish we had some real protesters. Protesters with guts,' he snapped.

    Even more context for the remark (none / 0) (#48)
    by Redbrow on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 02:53:42 PM EST
    Trump: My protesters don't have nearly the guts as those that interupted Bernie Sanders that time. & Remember how Sanders retreated??!!

    then I misheard and (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 07:50:29 PM EST
    will correct. I listened twice and heard guns, maybe the speakers on my computer are going.

    Thread cleaned of (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    off topic comments and insults and name-calling as to Trump. You may not call anyone a racist on this site.

    Also, this is not an open thread. It's about the contrast, if any, between Trump at his rallies, and Trump on TV, and why his supporters flock to his rallies.

    If you want to talk about Nazis, or Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher, do it at  some other corner or the internet.

    You can be critical of Trump and his positions and actions without resorting to name-calling and potentially libelous accusations.