trump is serious!!!!!

[Big RR]

Meade--my main problem with the thesis of the article is that it does not address the leaders, or their behavior, in authoritarian regimes. Clearly people who reject changing the status quo and value the predictability of order will tend to flock behind leaders they perceive as "strong". However, these leaders are not bound by the same rules and often act well outside of the latitude those who put them into power have supposedly granted them--and in may cases the people flock right behind them. And this is true whether the people are "authoritarians" (as defined in the article) or revolutionaries who seek to tear down the status quo and put in something new. So Hitlers and Castros are all embraced, even thought the premises of their rise to power are quite different, and those who supported them still flock behind them. And I do not think the article explains the "why" of that.

[Burning Petard]

The two latest posts about this research article that was cited way above both complain that they don't like that definition of Authoritarian, and the article does not discuss that thing they are most interested in.

Tough. I hate the definition of 'syntax' that computer geeks use. But that does not mean they don't produce useful results with their definition.

What then IS the definition you prefer? Now go do the research. Write your own report on the topic you prefer and demonstrate that your definition is more useful.

Mr. RR, I regret the difficulty you have discussing the Donald with your spousal unit. As for border security, we know how that worked for the Berlin Wall, and the Great Wall of China. Lots of people have talked about walls and ladders. I wish someone in those discussion of walls would talk about tunnels. Border security for the USofA seems to be focused on the South, while lots of bad stuff comes across every day, particularly from Vancouver and Windsor (which by the way, is actually South of Detroit)

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--my main problem with the thesis of the article is that it does not address the leaders, or their behavior, in authoritarian regimes... And I do not think the article explains the "why" of that.

I get your drift but is that what the research was intending to ...er... research? I think it's a useful tool within the ambit of populism and backlash against more liberal tendencies that looks at a particular mindset and how it seeks to find relief. Of course we can say that Castro and his chums are "authoritarian" in that they want to change stuff and force issues that others prefer left alone. But the nature of liberality within society is not to force people to do certain things (necessarily; although it can be that way) but to force people to accept that they can't define what other people do.

I don't want to argue the rights and wrongs of particular issues. But let's agree that some changes represent 'freedom' for one section and an "unwarranted intrusion" to others. Keep out immigrants - yes or no? Your Bernie Sanders is going to be a strong "no" - your Donald Trump a strong "yes". Bernie will maintain that his opposition does not affect my life - he's not trying to control me. He's speaking for freedom, for erring on the side of caution and so on. Don might say "we've tried that. It's a disaster. We need to turn back the clock and Meade will be safer". (I realise these are simplistic statements). Both would seek to use authority to establish and maintain their position.

But the people who support them - the voters - tend to divide along lines that those innocent seeming questions about children reveal.

Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?

It's obvious (isn't it?) that your likely Trump supporter will answer "respect for elders" to the first question. So too with obedience, well-behaved and good manners. OTOH your average Bernie-ite will go for independence, self-reliance, considerate and curiosity.

The second set (liberal) does not involve forcing other people to do anything. It calls for change brought about by freedom - yes; but organic change which is assumed to have positive societal value. The first set (conservative) involves regulation and conformation to norms. The Trump phenom is based on that - stop messing with us; stop all this laissez-faire acceptance of change; see what it has brought us - we don't like it. It's time to reverse this "freedom" trend which in actuality is the embracing of anarchy.

The study is not designed to answer why leaders do this or that. It is part of a set of research methods to discover correlations between control and freedom and the political choices people are making.

PS Mr Snail - didn't you mean Mr Jarl rather than Mr RR?

[Lord Jim]

It's obvious (isn't it?) that your likely Trump supporter will answer "respect for elders" to the first question. So too with obedience, well-behaved and good manners. OTOH your average Bernie-ite will go for independence, self-reliance, considerate and curiosity.

"Well, there's my argument...
He's still on too many opium based pain killers.. "

[MajGenl.Meade]

Substance? Couldn't find it... must be there somewhere

[Lord Jim]

I'm going back to your original thread here about this, to pick up this discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15328&p=195785&hili ... ng#p195785

(I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of derailing an idiotic thread about Drumpf... )

[Big RR]

B, it appears that the discussion of the article is being bumped to the original thread, but I did want to answer the point you made in this thread. Just as you are free to accept or reject the premises and conclusions of the article, so am I, and I have voiced my opinion. That you don't agree with it is fine. That you tell me I must do my own research and write my own report is ridiculous. Clearly one can properly criticize something without having to provide a replacement; I have never made a movie, but I can criticize or laud any movie I choose. the same is true with articles. Sorry if you disagree.

And as for discussing Trump with my wife, I have never has any problem doing so not have I even suggested such in any thread. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else?

[wesw]

yeah BSG, I m glad you appreciate the ironworkers and steel fabricators.

they have done their part in emergencies.

from WW2 to the world trade center rubble, we were there. (rosie the riveter!)

there were a couple of younger guys in our shop who loaded up their truck with tools and torches and went to NYC after 9/11....

the steel guys came when they were needed.

now you done made me cry......

as raythom would say...... god bless America......

[Lord Jim]

Donald Trump extols his rallies as ‘lovefests’

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Monday that his campaign rallies are “lovefests,” pushing back against critics who blame his heated rhetoric for inflaming clashes between his supporters and protesters.

He made the remark after a pair of protesters disrupted a campaign event in North Carolina, with one of them standing on a chair and unfurling a banner that read: “Turn away from hate.”

Such demonstrations have become routine at Trump events.

“Because of that, people say, ‘Well, is there violence?’ There is no violence. There’s a lovefest. These are lovefests,” Mr. Trump said after the protesters were led out.

Mr. Trump, who was seated on stage beside supporter New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at the event, remained quiet as security officials removed the protesters. It was a more measured response from Mr. Trump, who in the past often urged the ejection of protesters by demanding, “Get ‘em out.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... lovefests/

Okay, now for those of you that may be somewhat skeptical about Trump rallies being "lovefests" I present these recent photos taken at a Trump rally that have been suppressed by the Trump hating press:







So I hope that clears that up....

[Big RR]

Trump was at Woodstock?

And he didn't even put a T on the farm

[Lord Jim]

Trump was at Woodstock?

I think Altamont was probably more his kind of event...


The "lovefest" claim appears to be meeting some resistance from the Cumberland North Carolina sheriff's department:

‘Inciting a riot’ charge against Trump possible after rally assault, NC sheriff says"

Presidential candidate Donald Trump might face criminal charges of inciting a riot at his Fayetteville rally, according to the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department.

Ronnie Mitchell, an attorney for the sheriff’s department, said in a news release that investigators are continuing to probe an incident last week in which a protester was punched in the face while being escorted out of the Trump event.

John Franklin McGraw, 78, of Linden, has been charged with assault, disorderly conduct and communicating threats. Investigators say video of the incident shows McGraw punching the protester.

“We are continuing to look at the totality of these circumstances, including any additional charges against Mr. McGraw, including the potential of whether there was conduct on the part of Mr. Trump or the Trump campaign which rose to the level of inciting a riot, and including the actions or inactions of our deputies,” Mitchell said in the news release.

Mitchell and a sheriff’s department spokesman did not immediately return calls from The News & Observer.

North Carolina riot law says that “any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, so that as a result of such inciting or urging a riot occurs or a clear and present danger of a riot is created, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

The law defines a riot as “a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property.”

McGraw is due in court on April 6, and Trump said Sunday that he’s considering helping McGraw with legal expenses.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politi ... rylink=cpy

ETA:

"I went to a fight the other day, and a Donald Trump rally broke out"....

[Big RR]

I think Altamont was probably more his kind of event

where's your sympathy for the devil?

After all, no angel born in hell, can break that satanic spell.

[Lord Jim]

"Let's hire The Hell's Angels to provide security and pay them in beer. What could possibly go wrong?"

[Big RR]

Well with Trump, I guess he'd pay their legal fees as well.

[dales]

Speaking of "love fests".....................here's mine.

[RayThom]

I always liked the Manson Family bus. 'Come On Get Happy'

[dales]

Here's another shot of the bus at Barker Ranch (a little worse for wear).

[Econoline]

This video* immediately put me in mind of...well, someone we all know and love tolerate here on this forum...



* well, except for approximately the last 15 seconds of it...

[BoSoxGal]

[Long Run]

As of today, Trump has 673 delegates of the 1,237 needed to win so he is more than 54% of the way there, but 1,396 of the 2,472 delegates have already been chosen, so the race is 56% completed (pretty good maths that a guy who has averaged under 40% of the vote gets half the delegates). Thus, he needs 564 of the remaining 1,076 to get the nomination without a convention fight (which he would probably lose).

If all of the remaining states allocated delegates proportionately, he would not stand a chance of getting to 1,237; however, only 278 of the remaining 1,076 are selected proportionately, and 798 are winner take all (including California). On the plus side (for those who like rational politicians), he has done best in open primary states and most of the remaining states are closed primaries (including California), so there will be real Republicans voting most of the rest of the way; his 40-45% ceiling could drop back to the 30's.

What are the people who slice and dice these numbers saying about the horse's ass race to get to 1,237 before the convention?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html