Tribalism and morals

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

As several posters have pointed out, it's not uncommon for someone to look past a politician's flaws and vote for him or her anyway, simply based on policy concerns. So the fact that Trump appears to be a terrible human being and the fact that millions of Americans voted for him aren't necessarily logically or historically inconsistent.

However, in the past, while voting for a bad person, or even just supporting them politically, we've still been willing to condemn them for their personal or moral failings. A Quinnipiac poll last week revealed a majority of Americans think Trump does not provide good moral leadership, and that he is not a good role model for children.

In the crosstabs, this holds true across demographic groups. Does he display good moral leadership? No, say 62% of men, 64% of women, 54% of whites, 53% of people 65+. Is he a good role model? No, say 67% of men, 68% of women, 60% of whites, 57% of people 65+. All races, all age groups. Everyone agrees. Except one. Republicans say yes, he displays good moral leadership, 80-16, and yes, he's a good role model for children, 72-22.

You might think this is normal. It is not. As WaPo points out:

No doubt some of those Republicans now condoning Trump’s behavior will give the standard rebuttal: What about the Clintons? Well, Quinnipiac didn’t poll nationally during the Clinton presidency, but Gallup, during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in January 1999, asked a similar question. The number of Republicans back then saying Clinton did not provide good moral leadership, 91 percent, was similar to the 96 percent of Democrats who say Trump does not provide moral leadership today. The difference: Democrats disapproved of Clinton’s morality by 2 to 1 (65 to 33 percent), even as they overwhelmingly approved of his job performance. Only 16 percent of Republicans today say Trump does not provide moral leadership.​

In other words, in 1999, Democrats generally came to grips with the fact that, while they liked the job Clinton was doing, he wasn't necessarily a very moral person. Today's Republicans, on the other hand, do not draw that distinction. Trump's job approval among Republicans is 84%, very similar to the numbers that also think he's a moral person. For some reason, support for Trump appears to translate to a denial of his moral failings in a way that it didn't for Clinton.

So the question is: Why? Is there something unique about the Republican tribe that makes it difficult to draw this distinction? Is there something different about our politics as a whole? Is it that Trump actually does display good morality, according to how most Republicans understand it? Or is it a side effect of some other force entirely?

I labeled this thread "Tribalism and morals" because the demo breakdowns make it clear that, whatever is the underlying cause, it is intricately tied to being a Republican. But I'm not sure it's as simple as concluding that Republicans generally can't condemn one of their own. I suspect there is something deeper going on.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

As several posters have pointed out, it's not uncommon for someone to look past a politician's flaws and vote for him or her anyway, simply based on policy concerns. So the fact that Trump appears to be a terrible human being and the fact that millions of Americans voted for him aren't necessarily logically or historically inconsistent.

However, in the past, while voting for a bad person, or even just supporting them politically, we've still been willing to condemn them for their personal or moral failings. A Quinnipiac poll last week revealed a majority of Americans think Trump does not provide good moral leadership, and that he is not a good role model for children.

In the crosstabs, this holds true across demographic groups. Does he display good moral leadership? No, say 62% of men, 64% of women, 54% of whites, 53% of people 65+. Is he a good role model? No, say 67% of men, 68% of women, 60% of whites, 57% of people 65+. All races, all age groups. Everyone agrees. Except one. Republicans say yes, he displays good moral leadership, 80-16, and yes, he's a good role model for children, 72-22.

You might think this is normal. It is not. As WaPo points out:

No doubt some of those Republicans now condoning Trump’s behavior will give the standard rebuttal: What about the Clintons? Well, Quinnipiac didn’t poll nationally during the Clinton presidency, but Gallup, during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in January 1999, asked a similar question. The number of Republicans back then saying Clinton did not provide good moral leadership, 91 percent, was similar to the 96 percent of Democrats who say Trump does not provide moral leadership today. The difference: Democrats disapproved of Clinton’s morality by 2 to 1 (65 to 33 percent), even as they overwhelmingly approved of his job performance. Only 16 percent of Republicans today say Trump does not provide moral leadership.​

In other words, in 1999, Democrats generally came to grips with the fact that, while they liked the job Clinton was doing, he wasn't necessarily a very moral person. Today's Republicans, on the other hand, do not draw that distinction. Trump's job approval among Republicans is 84%, very similar to the numbers that also think he's a moral person. For some reason, support for Trump appears to translate to a denial of his moral failings in a way that it didn't for Clinton.

So the question is: Why? Is there something unique about the Republican tribe that makes it difficult to draw this distinction? Is there something different about our politics as a whole? Is it that Trump actually does display good morality, according to how most Republicans understand it? Or is it a side effect of some other force entirely?

I labeled this thread "Tribalism and morals" because the demo breakdowns make it clear that, whatever is the underlying cause, it is intricately tied to being a Republican. But I'm not sure it's a simple as concluding that Republicans generally can't condemn one of there own. I suspect there is something deeper going on.

Don’t know. Can’t figure it out.

 

[Sope Creek]

As several posters have pointed out, it's not uncommon for someone to look past a politician's flaws and vote for him or her anyway, simply based on policy concerns. So the fact that Trump appears to be a terrible human being and the fact that millions of Americans voted for him aren't necessarily logically or historically inconsistent.

However, in the past, while voting for a bad person, or even just supporting them politically, we've still been willing to condemn them for their personal or moral failings. A Quinnipiac poll last week revealed a majority of Americans think Trump does not provide good moral leadership, and that he is not a good role model for children.

In the crosstabs, this holds true across demographic groups. Does he display good moral leadership? No, say 62% of men, 64% of women, 54% of whites, 53% of people 65+. Is he a good role model? No, say 67% of men, 68% of women, 60% of whites, 57% of people 65+. All races, all age groups. Everyone agrees. Except one. Republicans say yes, he displays good moral leadership, 80-16, and yes, he's a good role model for children, 72-22.

You might think this is normal. It is not. As WaPo points out:

No doubt some of those Republicans now condoning Trump’s behavior will give the standard rebuttal: What about the Clintons? Well, Quinnipiac didn’t poll nationally during the Clinton presidency, but Gallup, during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in January 1999, asked a similar question. The number of Republicans back then saying Clinton did not provide good moral leadership, 91 percent, was similar to the 96 percent of Democrats who say Trump does not provide moral leadership today. The difference: Democrats disapproved of Clinton’s morality by 2 to 1 (65 to 33 percent), even as they overwhelmingly approved of his job performance. Only 16 percent of Republicans today say Trump does not provide moral leadership.​

In other words, in 1999, Democrats generally came to grips with the fact that, while they liked the job Clinton was doing, he wasn't necessarily a very moral person. Today's Republicans, on the other hand, do not draw that distinction. Trump's job approval among Republicans is 84%, very similar to the numbers that also think he's a moral person. For some reason, support for Trump appears to translate to a denial of his moral failings in a way that it didn't for Clinton.

So the question is: Why? Is there something unique about the Republican tribe that makes it difficult to draw this distinction? Is there something different about our politics as a whole? Is it that Trump actually does display good morality, according to how most Republicans understand it? Or is it a side effect of some other force entirely?

I labeled this thread "Tribalism and morals" because the demo breakdowns make it clear that, whatever is the underlying cause, it is intricately tied to being a Republican. But I'm not sure it's a simple as concluding that Republicans generally can't condemn one of there own. I suspect there is something deeper going on.

GOP now means Grab Our Power. They're a win at all costs party, and are willing to sacrifice morals, law, courts and the Constitution to accomplish that.

BTW, my crystal ball foresees no long-term future for the GOP; they've peaked and I think they know it. That's why they're so desperate now, to the point of sacrificing what made them palatable to voters to begin with . . . .

 

[UncleMark]

...whatever is the underlying cause, it is intricately tied to being a Republican. But I'm not sure it's a simple as concluding that Republicans generally can't condemn one of there own. I suspect there is something deeper going on.

The only people still willing to identify as Republicans are Trump sycophants. Duh.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

BTW, my crystal ball foresees no long-term future for the GOP; they've peaked and I think they know it.

I think you underestimate them. Money poured into Indiana media on the tax bill. Indy stations had lots of local spots. Now i am seeing them on migration. Zero money opposing the tax bill or hardline immigration. The GOP can just throw money at whatever problems they have. Then accuse DC of doing just that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you underestimate them. Money poured into Indiana media on the tax bill. Indy stations had lots of local spots. Now i am seeing them on migration. Zero money opposing the tax bill or hardline immigration. The GOP can just throw money at whatever problems they have. Then accuse DC of doing just that.

Up on our end of the state, we are getting "Elect me so I can go to Washington and help Donald Trump enact his agenda" ads. They are gross.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Up on our end of the state, we are getting "Elect me so I can go to Washington and help Donald Trump enact his agenda" ads. They are gross.

Is it Braun, he also is on the air big as "I am the most conservative Trump supporter in the US". He was a Democrat until 2012 so we will see how that plays.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is it Braun, he also is on the air big as "I am the most conservative Trump supporter in the US". He was a Democrat until 2012 so we will see how that plays.

Yeah, I think that's the guy.

 

[iu_a_att]

As several posters have pointed out, it's not uncommon for someone to look past a politician's flaws and vote for him or her anyway, simply based on policy concerns. So the fact that Trump appears to be a terrible human being and the fact that millions of Americans voted for him aren't necessarily logically or historically inconsistent.

However, in the past, while voting for a bad person, or even just supporting them politically, we've still been willing to condemn them for their personal or moral failings. A Quinnipiac poll last week revealed a majority of Americans think Trump does not provide good moral leadership, and that he is not a good role model for children.

In the crosstabs, this holds true across demographic groups. Does he display good moral leadership? No, say 62% of men, 64% of women, 54% of whites, 53% of people 65+. Is he a good role model? No, say 67% of men, 68% of women, 60% of whites, 57% of people 65+. All races, all age groups. Everyone agrees. Except one. Republicans say yes, he displays good moral leadership, 80-16, and yes, he's a good role model for children, 72-22.

You might think this is normal. It is not. As WaPo points out:

No doubt some of those Republicans now condoning Trump’s behavior will give the standard rebuttal: What about the Clintons? Well, Quinnipiac didn’t poll nationally during the Clinton presidency, but Gallup, during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in January 1999, asked a similar question. The number of Republicans back then saying Clinton did not provide good moral leadership, 91 percent, was similar to the 96 percent of Democrats who say Trump does not provide moral leadership today. The difference: Democrats disapproved of Clinton’s morality by 2 to 1 (65 to 33 percent), even as they overwhelmingly approved of his job performance. Only 16 percent of Republicans today say Trump does not provide moral leadership.​

In other words, in 1999, Democrats generally came to grips with the fact that, while they liked the job Clinton was doing, he wasn't necessarily a very moral person. Today's Republicans, on the other hand, do not draw that distinction. Trump's job approval among Republicans is 84%, very similar to the numbers that also think he's a moral person. For some reason, support for Trump appears to translate to a denial of his moral failings in a way that it didn't for Clinton.

So the question is: Why? Is there something unique about the Republican tribe that makes it difficult to draw this distinction? Is there something different about our politics as a whole? Is it that Trump actually does display good morality, according to how most Republicans understand it? Or is it a side effect of some other force entirely?

I labeled this thread "Tribalism and morals" because the demo breakdowns make it clear that, whatever is the underlying cause, it is intricately tied to being a Republican. But I'm not sure it's as simple as concluding that Republicans generally can't condemn one of there own. I suspect there is something deeper going on.

Excellent question. One theory might be that the Republican respondents are simply interpreting all questions as pro and anti Trump. They mean to signal that they are pro and so they give the answer to each question they think will be interpreted as pro. They are not signalling that they think Trump has morals so much as they are answering the question strategically. That is a theory but I am not sure I believe it. I thought during the runnup to the second gulf war that it was entirely clear that Iraq did NOT possess WMD and that the administration was lying about the threat. But then, afterward, it appeared that not only did war supporters believe Iraq did possess WMD--despite the evidence--they actually persuaded themselves that Iraq did have WMD despite the admin acknowledging they did not. So perhaps the GOP tribe feels itself entitled to whatever reality it prefers. Truth is whatever it is advantageous to believe.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The only people still willing to identify as Republicans are Trump sycophants. Duh.

Uh. No.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The only people still willing to identify as Republicans are Trump sycophants. Duh.

Uh. No.

FWIW, 25% of respondents identified as GOP, which is pretty normal historically.

 

[twenty02]

As several posters have pointed out, it's not uncommon for someone to look past a politician's flaws and vote for him or her anyway, simply based on policy concerns. So the fact that Trump appears to be a terrible human being and the fact that millions of Americans voted for him aren't necessarily logically or historically inconsistent.

However, in the past, while voting for a bad person, or even just supporting them politically, we've still been willing to condemn them for their personal or moral failings. A Quinnipiac poll last week revealed a majority of Americans think Trump does not provide good moral leadership, and that he is not a good role model for children.

In the crosstabs, this holds true across demographic groups. Does he display good moral leadership? No, say 62% of men, 64% of women, 54% of whites, 53% of people 65+. Is he a good role model? No, say 67% of men, 68% of women, 60% of whites, 57% of people 65+. All races, all age groups. Everyone agrees. Except one. Republicans say yes, he displays good moral leadership, 80-16, and yes, he's a good role model for children, 72-22.

You might think this is normal. It is not. As WaPo points out:

No doubt some of those Republicans now condoning Trump’s behavior will give the standard rebuttal: What about the Clintons? Well, Quinnipiac didn’t poll nationally during the Clinton presidency, but Gallup, during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in January 1999, asked a similar question. The number of Republicans back then saying Clinton did not provide good moral leadership, 91 percent, was similar to the 96 percent of Democrats who say Trump does not provide moral leadership today. The difference: Democrats disapproved of Clinton’s morality by 2 to 1 (65 to 33 percent), even as they overwhelmingly approved of his job performance. Only 16 percent of Republicans today say Trump does not provide moral leadership.​

In other words, in 1999, Democrats generally came to grips with the fact that, while they liked the job Clinton was doing, he wasn't necessarily a very moral person. Today's Republicans, on the other hand, do not draw that distinction. Trump's job approval among Republicans is 84%, very similar to the numbers that also think he's a moral person. For some reason, support for Trump appears to translate to a denial of his moral failings in a way that it didn't for Clinton.

So the question is: Why? Is there something unique about the Republican tribe that makes it difficult to draw this distinction? Is there something different about our politics as a whole? Is it that Trump actually does display good morality, according to how most Republicans understand it? Or is it a side effect of some other force entirely?

I labeled this thread "Tribalism and morals" because the demo breakdowns make it clear that, whatever is the underlying cause, it is intricately tied to being a Republican. But I'm not sure it's as simple as concluding that Republicans generally can't condemn one of there own. I suspect there is something deeper going on.

You have to understand that many of these people apparently believe that God himself sent us The Donald....in some kind of divine intervention.

In fact, while some conservative Christians speak about Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton as the work of God, it seems the real divine intercession was in clearing the GOP field for Trump. The unspoken assumption for each of the religious figures Strang references—from Franklin Graham to Robert Jeffress to Kenneth Copeland—is that God would only want a Republican president and so if Trump captured the GOP nomination, then ipso facto he must be God’s choice. And the more unlikely the selection, the better proof it is of divine intent.

“Millions of Americans,” declared Jeffress at a July 2017 event his First Baptist Church of Dallas sponsored in Washington, D.C., “believe the election of President Trump represented God giving us another chance—perhaps our last chance to truly make America great again.”
​

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ieve-god-made-trump-president-216537?lo=ap_d1

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You have to understand that many of these people apparently believe that God himself sent us The Donald....in some kind of divine intervention.

In fact, while some conservative Christians speak about Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton as the work of God, it seems the real divine intercession was in clearing the GOP field for Trump. The unspoken assumption for each of the religious figures Strang references—from Franklin Graham to Robert Jeffress to Kenneth Copeland—is that God would only want a Republican president and so if Trump captured the GOP nomination, then ipso facto he must be God’s choice. And the more unlikely the selection, the better proof it is of divine intent.

“Millions of Americans,” declared Jeffress at a July 2017 event his First Baptist Church of Dallas sponsored in Washington, D.C., “believe the election of President Trump represented God giving us another chance—perhaps our last chance to truly make America great again.”
​

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ieve-god-made-trump-president-216537?lo=ap_d1

I don't know how many Republicans that article applies to, but I think this bit from near the end probably explains at least that particular portion:

There will be no point at which Trump’s most loyal evangelical and charismatic supporters declare they have had enough. Because to do so would be to admit that they were wrong, that God wasn’t behind Trump’s election, and that their Holy Spirit radar might be on the fritz. That it was, after all, about something as temporal and banal as hating his Democratic rival.​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

As several posters have pointed out, it's not uncommon for someone to look past a politician's flaws and vote for him or her anyway, simply based on policy concerns. So the fact that Trump appears to be a terrible human being and the fact that millions of Americans voted for him aren't necessarily logically or historically inconsistent.

However, in the past, while voting for a bad person, or even just supporting them politically, we've still been willing to condemn them for their personal or moral failings. A Quinnipiac poll last week revealed a majority of Americans think Trump does not provide good moral leadership, and that he is not a good role model for children.

In the crosstabs, this holds true across demographic groups. Does he display good moral leadership? No, say 62% of men, 64% of women, 54% of whites, 53% of people 65+. Is he a good role model? No, say 67% of men, 68% of women, 60% of whites, 57% of people 65+. All races, all age groups. Everyone agrees. Except one. Republicans say yes, he displays good moral leadership, 80-16, and yes, he's a good role model for children, 72-22.

You might think this is normal. It is not. As WaPo points out:

No doubt some of those Republicans now condoning Trump’s behavior will give the standard rebuttal: What about the Clintons? Well, Quinnipiac didn’t poll nationally during the Clinton presidency, but Gallup, during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in January 1999, asked a similar question. The number of Republicans back then saying Clinton did not provide good moral leadership, 91 percent, was similar to the 96 percent of Democrats who say Trump does not provide moral leadership today. The difference: Democrats disapproved of Clinton’s morality by 2 to 1 (65 to 33 percent), even as they overwhelmingly approved of his job performance. Only 16 percent of Republicans today say Trump does not provide moral leadership.​

In other words, in 1999, Democrats generally came to grips with the fact that, while they liked the job Clinton was doing, he wasn't necessarily a very moral person. Today's Republicans, on the other hand, do not draw that distinction. Trump's job approval among Republicans is 84%, very similar to the numbers that also think he's a moral person. For some reason, support for Trump appears to translate to a denial of his moral failings in a way that it didn't for Clinton.

So the question is: Why? Is there something unique about the Republican tribe that makes it difficult to draw this distinction? Is there something different about our politics as a whole? Is it that Trump actually does display good morality, according to how most Republicans understand it? Or is it a side effect of some other force entirely?

I labeled this thread "Tribalism and morals" because the demo breakdowns make it clear that, whatever is the underlying cause, it is intricately tied to being a Republican. But I'm not sure it's as simple as concluding that Republicans generally can't condemn one of there own. I suspect there is something deeper going on.

This post suggests you don't understand why Trump won.

Those who continually bring up his moral defects and loose-mouthed remarks in person or by tweets, while cringe worthy, are small ball. All of that will be gone the second he is out of office.

The long ball are his policies, most of which I fully support. These will last for decades.

To say it another way. I don't think the majority of people, including yours truly, voted for Trump as we voted for Trump. Instead we voted for what he promised to do. So far I am not disappointed.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This post suggests you don't understand why Trump won.

Those who continually bring up his moral defects and loose-mouthed remarks in person or by tweets, while cringe worthy, are small ball. All of that will be gone the second he is out of office.

The long ball are his policies, most of which I fully support. These will last for decades.

To say it another way. I don't think the majority of people, including yours truly, voted for Trump as we voted for Trump. Instead we voted for what he promised to do. So far I am not disappointed.

This post suggests you either didn't read or didn't understand my post.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

GOP now means Grab Our Power. They're a win at all costs party, and are willing to sacrifice morals, law, courts and the Constitution to accomplish that.

Trump never had the support of the GOP establishment. Trump never had the support of the majority of the GOP voters until there were two candidates standing at the end. Frankly, given the choice between Cruz and Trump, I'd pick Trump any day.

BTW, my crystal ball foresees no long-term future for the GOP; they've peaked and I think they know it. That's why they're so desperate now, to the point of sacrificing what made them palatable to voters to begin with . . . .

I dunno. I think a shift is underway. Moreover, the Democrats can't seem to get out of their own way. Perez is a terrible party chair. Schumer got snookered with his shutdown stunt. And Pelosi, one of the wealthiest members of congress, talks about crumbs for the masses? Oh my.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This post suggests you either didn't read or didn't understand my post.

Your whole point, and supporting links, are beside the point. They are not relevant to millions of voters and you seem to be trying to make it relevant.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Your whole point, and supporting links, are beside the point. They are not relevant to millions of voters and you seem to be trying to make it relevant.

How can my whole point be beside the point? I started the damn thread. If you don't care about the topic, then just say, "I don't care." Or better yet, stay out of it altogether. But don't come in with some crap about how I don't understand why people voted for Trump, when why people voted for Trump has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

In fact, not only was my post not about why people voted for Trump, your accusation against me on this point was entirely disposed of in my very first paragraph. All you did was tell me I was wrong, restate what I said, and then claimed it as your own.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The long ball are his policies, most of which I fully support. These will last for decades

Legislatively, he has the tax cut. Almost everything else has been executive order. Why are those going to last decades?

 

[Zizkov]

How can my whole point be behind the point? I started the damn thread. If you don't care about the topic, then just say, "I don't care." Or better yet, stay out of it altogether. But don't come in with some crap about how I don't understand why people voted for Trump, when why people voted for Trump has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

In fact, not only was my post not about why people voted for Trump, your accusation against me on this point was entirely disposed of in my very first paragraph. All you did was tell me I was wrong, restate what I said, and then claimed it as your own.

He clearly either didn't read your post and article within or found the reading too difficult to comprehend.

I have noticed over the years that there is a direct correlation between when the thread goes to shit and when CoH enters the thread.

 

[UncleMark]

Legislatively, he has the tax cut. Almost everything else has been executive order. Why are those going to last decades?

court appointments

 

[Marvin the Martian]

court appointments

That is true. But IF the Dems can get 51 Senators, beginning Jan 1, 2019 I expect full payback for Gorsuch. The precedent was set.

 

[iu_a_att]

Here is the issue in a nutshell with Trump as the prime example. https://www.axios.com/trump-white-h...ler-93acd452-a053-47bd-87fd-7deb8c9c6883.html

One source, who knows Trump as well as anyone, told me he believes the president would be incapable of avoiding perjuring himself. "Trump doesn't deal in reality," the source said. "He creates his own reality and he actually believes it."​

I think millions (more?) believe, like Trump, that the key to success is to create your own reality and "actually believe it". One can understand the war on science through this lens as well. Science works by forcing oneself to believe stuff you want to be true (like the universe revolves around the earth) isn't true because careful observation tells you otherwise.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here is the issue in a nutshell with Trump as the prime example. https://www.axios.com/trump-white-h...ler-93acd452-a053-47bd-87fd-7deb8c9c6883.html

One source, who knows Trump as well as anyone, told me he believes the president would be incapable of avoiding perjuring himself. "Trump doesn't deal in reality," the source said. "He creates his own reality and he actually believes it."​

I think millions (more?) believe, like Trump, that the key to success is to create your own reality and "actually believe it". One can understand the war on science through this lens as well. Science works by forcing oneself to believe stuff you want to be true (like the universe revolves around the earth) isn't true because careful observation tells you otherwise.

Okay, but still: Why Republicans? Why Trump? Why now? What is it about this situation that gives rise to this mass denial of something that the rest of America seems to see quite clearly?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How can my whole point be beside the point? I started the damn thread. If you don't care about the topic, then just say, "I don't care." Or better yet, stay out of it altogether. But don't come in with some crap about how I don't understand why people voted for Trump, when why people voted for Trump has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

In fact, not only was my post not about why people voted for Trump, your accusation against me on this point was entirely disposed of in my very first paragraph. All you did was tell me I was wrong, restate what I said, and then claimed it as your own.

He clearly either didn't read your post and article within or found the reading too difficult to comprehend.

I have noticed over the years that there is a direct correlation between when the thread goes to shit and when CoH enters the thread.

This isn't all that difficult. Read the first and next to last paragraphs the OP together. In fact, cut and paste those two paragraphs to a word document and read them. The rest of the post is irrelevant surplusage. But the question(s) and underlying point are also irrelevant if the purpose of this thread is to explore how the Trump voter looks at morals and voted for Trump. Why? Several reasons. In the 2016 binary election, the question of personal moral code was a push. The "morality" of the candidates were mostly irrelevant. The reason I said goat doesn't understand why Trump won stems from his linked survey which suffers from the same defect; which is: a vote for Trump is a vote for his character.

But I can play goat's game in a purely academic and abstract sense. Morality involves personal deportment as well as policy initiatives. In the latter Trump morality exceeds that of the Democrats. Trump's position on the DACA people is an obvious and conspicuous exhibit A*. Also a little more subtle is Trump's position on growth and the economy. Take coal miners. Trump admittedly was over the top in one sense. But the morality of his opponents position, to wit: kill their jobs, families and communities, and then retrain in "computers". OTOH, Trump's answer is to shift the job market and the economy which he is doing through a number of initiatives many of which are tied to the fall out from tax changes.

*Trump proposes a path to citizenship, and he said why. A highly moral stance. Second Trump is trying his damnedest to make this a statute, to make in more or less permanent. Democrats have done neither.

Edit:

this mass denial of something that the rest of America seems to see quite clearly?

LOL. I wish I had seen this post before I responded. Your using this thread as yet another GOP bashing tool was obvious to me. But I didn't go down that road. Thanks for clearing that up. You truly are a waste of bandwidth.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Legislatively, he has the tax cut. Almost everything else has been executive order. Why are those going to last decades?

Marv, I wrote a response and then deleted it. I'd be happy to discuss this in a civil fashion, this forum isn't the place for that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This isn't all that difficult. Read the first and next to last paragraphs the OP together. In fact, cut and paste those two paragraphs to a word document and read them. The rest of the post is irrelevant surplusage. But the question(s) and underlying point are also irrelevant if the purpose of this thread is to explore how the Trump voter looks at morals and voted for Trump. Why? Several reasons. In the 2016 binary election, the question of personal moral code was a push. The "morality" of the candidates were mostly irrelevant. The reason I said goat doesn't understand why Trump won stems from his linked survey which suffers from the same defect; which is: a vote for Trump is a vote for his character.

But I can play goat's game in a purely academic and abstract sense. Morality involves personal deportment as well as policy initiatives. In the latter Trump morality exceeds that of the Democrats. Trump's position on the DACA people is an obvious and conspicuous exhibit A*. Also a little more subtle is Trump's position on growth and the economy. Take coal miners. Trump admittedly was over the top in one sense. But the morality of his opponents position, to wit: kill their jobs, families and communities, and then retrain in "computers". OTOH, Trump's answer is to shift the job market and the economy which he is doing through a number of initiatives many of which are tied to the fall out from tax changes.

*Trump proposes a path to citizenship, and he said why. A highly moral stance. Second Trump is trying his damnedest to make this a statute, to make in more or less permanent. Democrats have done neither.

Edit:



LOL. I wish I had seen this post before I responded. Your using this thread as yet another GOP bashing tool was obvious to me. But I didn't go down that road. Thanks for clearing that up. You truly are a waste of bandwidth.

Although you are trying to troll and deflect, you accidentally answered my original question, at least as it applies to you: the rest of America is wrong, and Trump actually is a good moral leader.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Although you are trying to troll and deflect, you accidentally answered my original question, at least as it applies to you: the rest of America is wrong, and Trump actually is a good moral leader.

It was no accident.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It was no accident.

If it wasn't an accident, then that means you did understand my OP, and the rest of your contributions to this thread were purposefully dishonest.

 

[UncleMark]

That is true. But IF the Dems can get 51 Senators, beginning Jan 1, 2019 I expect full payback for Gorsuch. The precedent was set.

Oh yeah. That will be rich. No more Heritage and Perkins nominees. If I'm Chuck, there won't be a single judge confirmed at any level that doesn't meet with the full approval of the Dem caucus. While the SCOTUS confirmation process gets all the press, the floodgates have been opened now to pack the Circuit and District courts with Trump nominees (the Pubs blocked Obama's nominees to those courts too).

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Oh yeah. That will be rich. No more Heritage and Perkins nominees. If I'm Chuck, there won't be a single judge confirmed at any level that doesn't meet with the full approval of the Dem caucus. While the SCOTUS confirmation process gets all the press, the floodgates have been opened now to pack the Circuit and District courts with Trump nominees (the Pubs blocked Obama's nominees to those courts too).

Tit for tat politics forever?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Tit for tat politics forever?

When the Democrats went nuclear and eliminated the filibuster for nominees, no one expected the GOP to unilaterally disarm and put the rules back into place. That would be silly on their part. They in fact expanded the nuclear option to include the Supreme Court.

The Democrats, should they get 51, are in the same boat. Democrats can't tell the GOP "hey, we get 3 years to nominate and you get 4". That would be silly of them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

When the Democrats went nuclear and eliminated the filibuster for nominees, no one expected the GOP to unilaterally disarm and put the rules back into place. That would be silly on their part. They in fact expanded the nuclear option to include the Supreme Court.

The Democrats, should they get 51, are in the same boat. Democrats can't tell the GOP "hey, we get 3 years to nominate and you get 4". That would be silly of them.

Yeah I don't see any way out of this. In the future, Presidents will only get to nominate judges before midterms, unless they happen to have the Senate.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah I don't see any way out of this. In the future, Presidents will only get to nominate judges before midterms, unless they happen to have the Senate.

I wish there were a solution. But both sides must retaliate to avoid being run over. I get that. I wish we'd come to our senses and make things right again but why would one party trust the other?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

When the Democrats went nuclear and eliminated the filibuster for nominees, no one expected the GOP to unilaterally disarm and put the rules back into place. That would be silly on their part. They in fact expanded the nuclear option to include the Supreme Court.

The Democrats, should they get 51, are in the same boat. Democrats can't tell the GOP "hey, we get 3 years to nominate and you get 4". That would be silly of them.

People may recall that I’ve always been for a straight up or down vote on judicial nominees. Others here disagreed. I don’t think they’ll get this cat back in the bag, and I’m good with that.

 

[UncleMark]

Tit for tat politics forever?

Payback is a bitch.

IMNSHO, the way McConnell handled the Garland nomination was an abuse of power and the most extra-constitutional exercise of Congressional power I've ever contemplated. Say all you want about Trump violating norms; Mitch wins the prize.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Payback is a bitch.

IMNSHO, the way McConnell handled the Garland nomination was an abuse of power and the most extra-constitutional exercise of Congressional power I've ever contemplated. Say all you want about Trump violating norms; Mitch wins the prize.

I was for giving him a vote.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I was for giving him a vote.

Unfortunately, you aren't Senate Majority Leader.

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

Goat i am not sure you really want to hear what the other side has to say or why they believe this is the current state of affairs. You seem to pose a question and then start the typical bash fest of how superior your thoughts are compared to any that oppose. Listen for a change and try to understand what CO is saying. Not who is posting it.
I will try to give my take knowing full well you have no interest in an opposing take on the matter. You simply posted as another way of slamming the "R" side.
I have no problem stating without hesitation DT has major issues with moral character and self glorification at any cost. In doing so i also have no problem stating the left has fallen into that very description for many years. Look at the moral decay from those that call themselves liberals or democrats. It matters little to the left who one marries,who one associates with and how one lives their lives. No moral code whatsoever. The right has for the most part been the only opposing force to that for years. Have things shifted and has the right fallen short of where they stood a decade or two ago without a doubt. I actually think this last election was an election that basically said to hell with morals , political correctness and standards the right has tried to win with. It all went out the window in an attempt to level the playing field of the left and people just looked the other way with things DT said that was preposterous. There in my view was a leap of faith hoping DT had the courage to do some of the things he said he would.
Another reason i think the left fails to see what actually transpired is the constant berating DT has taken in the media. Some if not a lot of it is self inflicted. But people get tired of the same old petty bullshit regarding things he says that has zero to do with policy and laws. He is appointing constitutional judges to the bench in big numbers and those not watching or reporting it are why the media and the public has it's priorities in the wrong place with him. Just watch here at what people find fault with him on. Silly tweets and stupid comments are where you folks spend your time and energy. All the while he is doing what he has promised behind the scenes.
People take sides and with DT it has become the media and the left on constant attack and people get sick of it. I know you guys think it is helping your cause but i actually think you are playing right into his hands. The right or pubs are basically picking a side in any poll at this point and they are sticking it to the media and the left in my view. I don't think for a minute the right would have numbers like that if they were being honest with themselves. it is a vote to tell the left and the media to stick it. My view and i am sure you didn't want to hear it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goat i am not sure you really want to hear what the other side has to say or why they believe this is the current state of affairs. You seem to pose a question and then start the typical bash fest of how superior your thoughts are compared to any that oppose. Listen for a change and try to understand what CO is saying. Not who is posting it.
I will try to give my take knowing full well you have no interest in an opposing take on the matter. You simply posted as another way of slamming the "R" side.
I have no problem stating without hesitation DT has major issues with moral character and self glorification at any cost. In doing so i also have no problem stating the left has fallen into that very description for many years. Look at the moral decay from those that call themselves liberals or democrats. It matters little to the left who one marries,who one associates with and how one lives their lives. No moral code whatsoever. The right has for the most part been the only opposing force to that for years. Have things shifted and has the right fallen short of where they stood a decade or two ago without a doubt. I actually think this last election was an election that basically said to hell with morals and standards the right has tried to win with. It all went out the window in an attempt to level the playing field of the left and people just looked the other way with things DT said that was preposterous. There in my view was a leap of faith hoping DT had the courage to do some of the things he said he would.
Another reason i think the left fails to see what actually transpired is the constant berating DT has taken in the media. Some if not a lot of it is self inflicted. But people get tired of the same old petty bullshit regarding things he says that has zero to do with policy and laws. He is appointing constitutional judges to the bench in big numbers and those not watching or reporting it are why the media and the public has it's priorities in the wrong place with him. Just watch here at what people find fault with him on. Silly tweets and stupid comments are where you folks spend your time and energy. All the while he is doing what he has promised behind the scenes.
People take sides and with DT it has become the media and the left on constant attack and people get sick of it. I know you guys think it is helping your cause but i actually think you are playing right into his hands. The right or pubs are basically picking a side in any poll at this point and they are sticking it to the media and the left in my view. I don't think for a minute the right would have numbers like that if they were being honest with themselves. it is a vote to tell the left and the media to stick it. My view and i am sure you didn't want to hear it.

My post did not slam or bash anyone.