The Donald Trump Thread

[Michael2]

Could you list off your top 3 to 5 grievances with Trump?

Just one reason: he plays those saps who applaud him for all they're worth. He's a smart game player. He isn't racist. I don't think he hates muslims, I don't think he really wants to build a wall to keep the Mexicans out, nor does he seriously believe for one second that he can make Mexico pay for a wall. He is gaming all those people who support him just so he can win the nomination. There is nothing there, there. That's what I don't like about a Trump. The Donald is a facade. All show and nothing else. Jimmy Carter, when given the choice between a Trump and a Cruz, said he preferred Trump, because the Donald is maleable thing and he will do whatever it takes to win, even if that means pandering to the most banal and base sentiments in American culture. This is the exact opposite of someone I want to be in office of President of the USA. Never mind his positions, they are meaningless campaign rhetoric. This man is a cypher.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I'm of two minds on the Donald, which I guess is expected given my inability to fit into the two-party system.

Trump's attitude to violence at his rallies and elsewhere is disturbing. As is the slowness with which he condemns anyone, including David Duke, who he counts as supporters.

Yet I do think Hurmanetar is correct that trying to characterize every Trump supporter as a racist bigot is unfair. While I can see the value of a certain level of "political correctness" challenging certain aspects of this concept doesn't make one a racist. I mean do we want to call out every person going on about how"White people are <<insert negative quality>>" which would end up being a lot of young minority Democrats?

There seem to be underlying economic reasons to vote for Trump. Thomas Frank goes into some of these in the Guardian.

When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.

Trump himself provides rather excellent evidence for this finding. The man is an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn. He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants. He wants to bar Muslims from visiting the United States. He admires various foreign strongmen and dictators, and has even retweeted a quote from Mussolini. This gold-plated buffoon has in turn drawn the enthusiastic endorsement of leading racists from across the spectrum of intolerance, a gorgeous mosaic of haters, each of them quivering excitedly at the prospect of getting a real, honest-to-god bigot in the White House.

...The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending.

...because he is free from the corrupting power of modern campaign finance, famous deal-maker Trump can make deals on our behalf that are “good” instead of “bad”. The chance that he will actually do so, of course, is small. He appears to be a hypocrite on this issue as well as so many other things. But at least Trump is saying this stuff.

All this surprised me because, for all the articles about Trump I had read in recent months, I didn’t recall trade coming up very often. Trump is supposed to be on a one-note crusade for whiteness. Could it be that all this trade stuff is a key to understanding the Trump phenomenon?

Greer does the same in Archdruid Report which someone shared on Prescott's blog:

Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment

There’s a further barrier, though, and that’s the response of the salary class across the board—left, right, middle, you name it—to any attempt by the wage class to bring up the issues that matter to it. On the rare occasions when this happens in the public sphere, the spokespeople of the wage class get shouted down with a double helping of the sneering mockery I discussed toward the beginning of this post. The same thing happens on a different scale on those occasions when the same thing happens in private. If you doubt this—and you probably do, if you belong to the salary class—try this experiment: get a bunch of your salary class friends together in some casual context and get them talking about ordinary American working guys. What you’ll hear will range from crude caricatures and one-dimensional stereotypes right on up to bona fide hate speech. People in the wage class are aware of this; they’ve heard it all; they’ve been called stupid, ignorant, etc., ad nauseam for failing to agree with whatever bit of self-serving dogma some representative of the salary class tried to push on them.

And that, dear reader, is where Donald Trump comes in.

Now I think the analysis of class & trade leaves something out, and I'm admittedly a bit wary of reducing everything to this one axis. I wouldn't pretend to claim I can verify how accurate Frank or Greer is at a glance. Yet I do think this axis has gotten ignored, and Trump's rise does at least in part come from an economic angle.

That said I do think it's too difficult to separate the man's theatrics from how he might actually govern, even if there are times I suspect he'd be more of a moderate and less of a hawk than many of the others (including Clinton who did vote for Bush's Fake WMD Hunt). And I do think he needs to be quicker in condemning violence, rejecting support from KKK & Neo-Nazi types. OTOH I get that the total sum of lives his more isolationist policies might reduce the number of casualties than the more hawkish candidates but I think being the President of America means having a greater responsibility for one's actual country and maintaining civility within its borders....even at just the nominal level.

 

[Roberta]

And here is MSNBC's complete SNAFU when attempting to paint Trump and his supporters as racists:

Trump and many, not all, of his supporters are racist. Or rather, he at the very least says many racist or prejudiced things, maybe he doesn't believe them who knows? And many of his supporters agree.

He's not 'anti-political correctness either', I feel many of his supporters hold prejudiced or outdated views and he is legitimising them. This 'political correctness' is just a way to avoid being challenged and called out on prejudiced opinions.

 

[Roberta]

I think Hillary Clinton is also egregious in her own way. Personally, I think they're both deeply flawed, and equally concerned in the main with achieving their own political ambitions. How the US has managed to narrow down a choice of its probable next president to these two eejits is completely beyond me. I think it has something to do with the fact that presidential campaigns depend much more on money and "star appeal" than suitability, and, frankly, integrity.

Hey I'm no Clinton fan, some of the things she has done are so corrupt and wrong that I can't believe how well she's doing. The only acceptable candidates are Sanders and Jill Stein.

 

[malf]

This is quite funny

http://newsthump.com/2015/12/16/boost-for-donald-trump-after-he-appears-in-margaret-thatchers-dress/

 

[Roberta]

Well that is a huge "Fair Enough" - just about all the other candidates - Democrat and Republican - seem to want to treat him as an enemy.

Well I think we should be very cautious before just saying that (almost because it is the only politically correct thing to say). Europeans have suffered a major bombing in London (7/7) that killed over 50 people and the bombers had been brought up in the UK, 30 Britons were killed on a beach in Tunisia, a Muslim doctor and his friend tried to drive a burning car packed with gas cylinders into a departures hall crowded with families, there have been several Muslim attempts to down transatlantic airliners, an entire concert hall full of young people were being killed one by one until the Muslim killers were themselves taken out by security forces (some of those killers were from Belgium). Hundreds of Muslim youths went to Syria to fight with ISIS despite having (presumably) seen some of the awful things that ISIS were doing. Etc.

We are not talking about race here, but about religion. Christianity went through some barbarous phases in the past, and Islam seems to be in one now.

The far right has been pretty much wiped out by UKIP, and really, to be honest what have they done that compares with that catalogue I just quoted?

Well some weren't - possibly the ringleaders. All were Muslim. I mean we pretend that only a tiny minority of people are sympathetic to terrorism, but our security services are overloaded with the task of chasing down all the plotters and getting them into court.

I would say that political correctness meant that everyone had to assume that opposition forces in Iraq and the other countries were pro-Western, whereas in reality they were also fired up with militant Islam.


Well historically the US invited people to come, but it vetted them pretty carefully when they arrived - as it does Europeans who fly over on holiday.

Nobody wants war - and that is part of the point here. Americans are sick to death with fighting wars in far away places, and then realising that they made things much worse! I think Donald Trump actually understands that. I think he also realises that the West has sold vast numbers of jobs to other countries, and the rich elites haven't cared. Ordinary people care very much!

David

Well the only candidates I have any time for are Bernie Sanders are Jill Stein. I don't think Trump's stance on Putin begins to make up for his stance on other issues.

Yes there have been some awful terror attacks by Muslims, I'm not pretending otherwise. But those attacks shouldn't be used to stereotype and be prejudiced against a large group of people. And the west have killed many, many more times more Muslims in recent years and I think we should remember that disturbing fact. In terms of America, there's plenty of white Christians shooting Muslims, shooting black people, or just shooting people in general. Yet nobody makes such generalisation about them - so with some people I think there is a race element here and they may not realise it (I'm not saying that's the case with you by the way you generally seem like a pretty decent/nice person).

It doesn't, yet, but in terms of terror attacks in Europe and the USA, statistically there are far more by ethno-nationalist groups,separatist groups, and in America even extremist Jewish groups, which make up 7% of terrorist attacks compared to 6% by Muslim extremists.

Are our security services overloaded? What evidence do you have for that statement?

I don't know why you keep bringing up political correctness, clearly you have an axe to grind with this, and I think you're overstating it. Have applied skepticism to what you're saying instead of assuming it's other people being OTT with political correctness? It wasn't political correctness that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people and completely messed things up in the countries we've invaded and got involved with recently.

I don't buy that this angry billionaire cares about ordinary people, he doesn't seem interested in raising their wages for example. Sanders is against all the wars and the trade deals and selling jobs abroad - but he isn't scapegoating people of certain religions, backgrounds, ethnicities and immigrants in general.

Cheers

Roberta

 

[Roberta]

Louis Farrakhan (a prominent black leader and leader of the "Nation of Islam") came out in support of Trump. That tells you there's something seriously wrong with the simple narrative fed to the left that Trump is an anti-Muslim racist.

No it doesn't, and I'm skeptical of the term 'the left'. You don't need someone to tell you that Trump is anti-Muslim and prejudiced, you just have to listen to what he says. It's nothing to do with 'political correctness' either - he is just saying hateful things and I'm worried about how many people here agree with him and I'm going to challenge you and call you out on it.

 

[Steve]

Well I think we should be very cautious before just saying that (almost because it is the only politically correct thing to say). Europeans have suffered a major bombing in London (7/7) that killed over 50 people and the bombers had been brought up in the UK, 30 Britons were killed on a beach in Tunisia, a Muslim doctor and his friend tried to drive a burning car packed with gas cylinders into a departures hall crowded with families, there have been several Muslim attempts to down transatlantic airliners, an entire concert hall full of young people were being killed one by one until the Muslim killers were themselves taken out by security forces (some of those killers were from Belgium). Hundreds of Muslim youths went to Syria to fight with ISIS despite having (presumably) seen some of the awful things that ISIS were doing. Etc.

And the west have killed many, many more times more Muslims in recent years and I think we should remember that disturbing fact.

Well said Robbie.

How David can blindly make a list of atrocities carried out by Muslims alone without even mentioning the untold atrocities that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan suffered is very telling. These countries weren't behind 9/11, the people who were are still the Wests biggest pals. Before we point the finger at anyone, look at the Wests amazing hypocrisy!

How many of the attacks on Europeans took place before we had bombed the crap out of at least two Muslim countries? For made up reasons!

 

[David Bailey]

Well said Robbie.

How David can blindly make a list of atrocities carried out by Muslims alone without even mentioning the untold atrocities that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan suffered is very telling. These countries weren't behind 9/11, the people who were are still the Wests biggest pals. Before we point the finger at anyone, look at the Wests amazing hypocrisy!

Look - we can't - we should not have gone to Iraq - in fact Donald Trump described this as the worst mistake in US history! I myself was on the demonstrations in London objecting to that war.
But if someone has enraged a tiger, you don't invite it into your house! However, I think that tiger was already enraged to some extent. The fundamental mistake was to assume that if Saddam Hussein was removed - or Assad, or the Taleban - everyone would heave a sigh of relief and start debating their new democratic constitution! These leaders - brutal as they are - hold down violent passions that the West can barely understand.

How many of the attacks on Europeans took place before we had bombed the crap out of at least two Muslim countries? For made up reasons!

It is also worth remembering that a lot of Muslim violence is against other Muslims - think back to the times when Catholics burned Protestants and Protestants burned Catholics (or indeed to the NI troubles) for an analogy.

Would you really say that the West should atone for the sins of Bush and Blair by lining up our people to be slaughtered by angry Islamists? Even though our leaders made those ghastly crimes, we aren't going help anything by allowing that cultural madness to infect the relatively peaceful West.

Meanwhile other potential leaders, like Clinton or Cruz would happily continue with a game of teasing the Russians - a game that could so easily go wrong and kill many more people than all the wars in the Middle East! I mean, I would like to see a fundamental change in politics, so that it was focussed first and foremost domestically on the needs of the people, not on messing about destabilising places about we really know almost nothing.

When Donald Trump says no more Muslim immigration until we understand why they hate us, I am right behind him. That hits the nail on the head. I imagine many of the Muslim families that came to Britain in the early days, knew it wasn't a Muslim country, but part of their motivation for coming was to escape the extremism in their home countries. What they have found howevever, was a culture that didn't understand them at all and told them to organise themselves as they saw fit - including setting up their own schools. This meant that the extremists could get to work and poison hearts and minds of Muslims in the West so that their children and grandchildren ended up being recruited by ISIS - in some cases to blow themselves up to destroy other Muslims! Because our multiculturalism has become so permissive, we have utterly failed to inculcate our own tolerance and Western values into those who have come here. That is why we see extremism, intolerance of gays, repression of women and repeated outbreaks of sexual violence towards children in our major cities (Rotherham and many other cities).

Hey I'm no Clinton fan, some of the things she has done are so corrupt and wrong that I can't believe how well she's doing. The only acceptable candidates are Sanders and Jill Stein.

And they don't stand a chance!

David

 

[lhl]

Could you list off your top 3 to 5 grievances with Trump?

The attempt by John Oliver to discredit Trump was rather scathing and (I thought) funny:

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

He's not 'anti-political correctness either', I feel many of his supporters hold prejudiced or outdated views and he is legitimising them. This 'political correctness' is just a way to avoid being challenged and called out on prejudiced opinions.

I think Trump himself has gone past the post in his call for banning all Muslims as well as suggested a vast number of undocumented migrants are rapists.

However, expressing some concern about a particular religion and its association with violence to me isn't just a matter of simple prejudice...though I do think the idea that Islam is intrinsically some kind of evil cult is unsubstantiated. There are probably negative elements to any ideology or faith - for example I myself have criticized some of the ideas related to Hinduism quite a few times on this forum.

Similarly, the rhetoric Trump uses is extreme but wanting secure borders isn't, in and of itself, racist. I do think there is a bit of amusement in painting undocumented migrants as "illegal immigrants" committing some great evil when Native Americans might similarly condemn just about everyone living in the US now. So I don't have any moral animosity, but practically speaking there are limits to how many unprocessed persons a country can realistically absorb.

 

[Michael2]

And they don't stand a chance!

David

True... but why is that? I mean, in addition to the fact that the Hillary has most of the "super" delegates in her pocket there is also this little feature of American politics:

"Gerrymandering Rigged the 2014 Elections for Republican Advantage"
http://www.thenation.com/article/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

...The GOP benefitted from the most egregious gerrymandering in American history....GOP donors plowed cash into state legislative efforts in 2010 for the very purpose of redrawing congressional lines. In the following year, as the Tea Party wave brought hundreds of Republicans into office, newly empowered Republican governors and state legislatures carved congressional districts for maximum partisan advantage.

There was some analysis done on how it was possible for someone like Cruz, who represents a minority stance in American politics, could ever get elected. I can't recall the specifics at the moment, bu when you factor in voter apathy on top of gerrymandering, it was some small percentage of the actual popluation that got Cruz elected.

Still, Sanders gets my vote in June...November is going to be a tougher call to make given the choice will be between Hillary vs Trump/Cruz. My prediction Hillary will be the next US President. Trump even if he gets the nomination, quite frankly, so far has mostly only gotten a plurality of votes. That's likely why the Republicans don't want Trump, they know he can't win in the General election.

 

[Michael2]

"Bernie Sanders may not prevail, but his revolution is just getting started"

..the true basis of Sanders's strength has been largely overlooked: He gives voice to a set of policy ideas that lie closer to the hearts of most Democratic voters and especially the Democratic voters of the future than Clinton's do. That's why the revolution's repeatedly called for won't be quelled for long, even though Clinton will be the one accepting the party's nomination in Philadelphia. This is as much a demographic certainty as a political one..

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...il-but-his-revolution-is-just-getting-started

 

[Michael2]

"If it's Trump versus Clinton, what does it mean for Iran and ISIL policy?"
http://www.juancole.com/2016/03/if-...at-does-it-mean-for-iran-and-isil-policy.html

A main difference between the two is that Trump seems sanguine about Russia's intervention in Syria and the prospect that it might prop up the al-Assad regime. Clinton distanced herself last October from President Obama's acquiescence in a direct Russian role in Syria and urged that Putin be confronted about it. More recently she has allowed as how Russia should have a place at the negotiating table.

With regard to fighting Daesh, both want to great increase US troop presence in Iraq, though Trump's recently proposed numbers dwarf those of Clinton. Clinton agrees with Trump that Daesh's oil fields and refineries should be targeted, though she doesn't talk about the US grabbing them for itself. She also agrees with him about targeting Daesh leaders personally, though she hasn't suggested torturing them or deliberately murdering their children and wives.

The policies of these two and their world views on these two foreign policy challenges appear to me to differ only at the margins, not as a matter of principle on most matters with the exception of torture and deliberate killing of innocents.

I have to agree with one of the commentators:

It's a sad state of affairs.
US elections are hardly ever decided on foreign policy issues. The voters don't care nor are they educated enough to know better.

 

[Hurmanetar]

Just one reason: he plays those saps who applaud him for all they're worth. He's a smart game player.

But that's one reason I like him... he's really really good at the game and playing it better than anyone else. A huge part of being an effective leader is charisma, telling a story, being able to persuade and influence people and cast a vision. He's got that in the bag.

He isn't racist. I don't think he hates muslims,

I'm glad you see through the race baiting propaganda.

I don't think he really wants to build a wall to keep the Mexicans out, nor does he seriously believe for one second that he can make Mexico pay for a wall.

I hope the talk of the wall is just symbolic of other actions he will take to actually enforce existing immigration law and perhaps actions ending the "war on drugs".

He is gaming all those people who support him just so he can win the nomination. There is nothing there, there. That's what I don't like about a Trump. The Donald is a facade. All show and nothing else.

I do think he is playing the game at expert level and talking at a 4th grade level to win broad popular support, but I don't think he is all bluster and no muster. I DO think he is sincere about being upset with what he sees happening to the country and wanting to fix it. I mean he is seriously putting his life on the line here. He is going straight to the heart of the oligarchy and messing with the nastiest den of vipers in the world. Calls for his assassination are all over the place now. He might soon be found with a pillow over his head.

Some of his valid criticisms of the establishment - especially of foreign policy - go back decades. I think he is the real deal, but even if he is not or even if after getting into office his every move is checked or he is corrupted by the oligarchy, the things he is saying right now are death blows to their narratives and that is why there is a vast campaign to demonize him.

Jimmy Carter, when given the choice between a Trump and a Cruz, said he preferred Trump, because the Donald is maleable thing and he will do whatever it takes to win, even if that means pandering to the most banal and base sentiments in American culture.

I don't see him as a jellyfish. I have seen him openly admit to changing his mind on a few issues after learning more about them and that makes me more hopeful he will be responsive to the concerns and criticisms of the people even after he gets into office.

He's not following a script someone else wrote for him. "He hasn't been through the initiation rites. He's not a part of the secret society," as Newt Gingrich said. The Illuminati does not pull his strings...

Basically the choice is between Trump - a hardworking successful charismatic businessman who doesn't drink or smoke or do drugs and is as close as we're going to get to a man of the people - and the reptiles. ;-)

Never mind his positions, they are meaningless campaign rhetoric. This man is a cypher.

I disagree. I think you've got him misjudged. Some of his positions and rhetoric has been consistent for decades.

I haven't seen any of his critics provide heavyweight intellectual arguments against his positions... it is all rhetoric and race-baiting... which IS appealing to the most banal and base sentiments out there.

There was some analysis done on how it was possible for someone like Cruz, who represents a minority stance in American politics, could ever get elected.

Maybe it has something to do with his relationships with Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bush crime syndicate, and probably some dirt they've got on him that can be used to control him.

My prediction Hillary will be the next US President. Trump even if he gets the nomination, quite frankly, so far has mostly only gotten a plurality of votes. That's likely why the Republicans don't want Trump, they know he can't win in the General election.

Hillary doesn't have any supporters. Everyone knows she's a fraud and a super-villain and Trump will expose this to those who are currently still ignorant of it. If she wins it will be through more fraud. She's got the political establishment and mainstream media behind her and a few people who are afraid of Trump because his ugly declarations of truths and his male bravado intruded upon their safe spaces and clashed with their androgynous non-threatening ideals and they've repeatedly been told he is a racist.

Trump's Republican support is now up to 53% with Rubio out and Carson's endorsement. It is now possible he may win a majority of the delegates despite the voter fraud.

 

[Hurmanetar]

"If it's Trump versus Clinton, what does it mean for Iran and ISIL policy?"
http://www.juancole.com/2016/03/if-...at-does-it-mean-for-iran-and-isil-policy.html
It's a sad state of affairs.
US elections are hardly ever decided on foreign policy issues. The voters don't care nor are they educated enough to know better.

I don't see a marginal difference between Trump and Clinton on foreign policy. With Clinton we'll get more of the same treasonous hypocritical insane Zionist driven policy that we saw from the last four administrations. Trump's foreign policy statements were for me one big thing that brought me over to his side.

 

[Michael2]

Hillary doesn't have any supporters. Everyone knows she's a fraud and a super-villain and Trump will expose this to those who are currently still ignorant of it. If she wins it will be through more fraud. She's got the political establishment and mainstream media behind her and a few people who are afraid of Trump because his ugly declarations of truths and his male bravado intruded upon their safe spaces and clashed with their androgynous non-threatening ideals and they've repeatedly been told he is a racist.

Trump's Republican support is now up to 53% with Rubio out and Carson's endorsement. It is now possible he may win a majority of the delegates despite the voter fraud.

Problem for Trump is that Hillary has more support than Trump. By some polls even Sanders can beat Trump in a general election . Assuming Trump is the GOP nominee, he will have to tack back hard to the current center-right, moderate his stance by walking back his extreme positions and soften his public persona - he will loose votes by doing so and won't be able to win over any Hillary voters to replace the ones he's lost.

 

[Michael2]

I don't see him as a jellyfish. I have seen him openly admit to changing his mind on a few issues after learning more about them and that makes me more hopeful he will be responsive to the concerns and criticisms of the people even after he gets into office......I disagree. I think you've got him misjudged. Some of his positions and rhetoric has been consistent for decades.

Sorry, but when he couldn't even disassociate himself from David Duke's endorsement he revealed himself as having absolutely no shame, no scrubles, no substance. No doubt he is purposefully plugged into some basic anger and fear in American society, and I'll grant you that maybe that does reflect his true identity but why, again, would I vote for that?

 

[Hurmanetar]

I'm of two minds on the Donald, which I guess is expected given my inability to fit into the two-party system.

I think Donald is more of an independent infiltrating the Republican party... that's why top establishment Trotskyite neo-con republicans are threatening to leave the party and vote for Hillary.

Trump's attitude to violence at his rallies and elsewhere is disturbing. As is the slowness with which he condemns anyone, including David Duke, who he counts as supporters.

David Duke's endorsement means nothing. Will Quigg, the KKK grand dragon in Cali recently endorsed Hillary. Is she going to be asked 15 times to disavow that?

In 2000 Trump left the Reform party because of David Duke calling him a “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

The establishment has no racist dirt on Donald so they invented it. In the interview where he supposedly hesitated or equivocated on disavowing Duke and the KKK, he was set up. Trump said after the interview they were messing with the sound in his earpiece and that he didn't know what groups they were talking about and that he wanted to know what "groups" they were referring to before disavowing them. He disavowed Duke and the KKK over a dozen times. The media, establishment politicians, and Soros funded groups like BLM are shamelessly race baiting and stirring up racial tensions in this country. Trump is not doing that.

Yet I do think Hurmanetar is correct that trying to characterize every Trump supporter as a racist bigot is unfair.

That is a little bit of an understatement... the number of racist bigots among Trump supporters is probably in line with the national average... a very very small percentage.

While I can see the value of a certain level of "political correctness" challenging certain aspects of this concept doesn't make one a racist. I mean do we want to call out every person going on about how"White people are <<insert negative quality>>" which would end up being a lot of young minority Democrats?

Agreed.

Now I think the analysis of class & trade leaves something out, and I'm admittedly a bit wary of reducing everything to this one axis. I wouldn't pretend to claim I can verify how accurate Frank or Greer is at a glance. Yet I do think this axis has gotten ignored, and Trump's rise does at least in part come from an economic angle.

...I suspect he'd be more of a moderate and less of a hawk than many of the others (including Clinton who did vote for Bush's Fake WMD Hunt). ... I get that the total sum of lives his more isolationist policies might reduce the number of casualties than the more hawkish candidates but I think being the President of America means having a greater responsibility for one's actual country and maintaining civility within its borders....even at just the nominal level.

Agreed... though I would use "non-hypocritical-non-interventionist" policies rather than "isolationist". :)

 

[Hurmanetar]

Trump and many, not all, of his supporters are racist.

No they aren't. This narrative has been fabricated by the media based on nothing but one of 14 or more disavowals of racism in which during the one in question they were messing with his earpiece.

Or rather, he at the very least says many racist or prejudiced things,

I haven't heard any but perhaps I missed something. Can you quote a few?

I feel many of his supporters hold prejudiced or outdated views and he is legitimising them.

Such as...?