Live listen ... starts @ 6.00 EST or about 5 minutes from now. Palin is supposed to be there to announce her support. Palin supported Cruz in his Senate campaign in Texas.
Live listen ... starts @ 6.00 EST or about 5 minutes from now. Palin is supposed to be there to announce her support. Palin supported Cruz in his Senate campaign in Texas.
Just last night I heard Clinton adviser and supporter, Democrat Doug Schon say that he could vote for Trump, especially since Hillary just declared that she would be Obama's 3rd term. Something big is happening.
Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate, is endorsing Donald Trump as the Republican White House nominee, US media report.
"I'm proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president," Mrs Palin said in a statement provided by Mr Trump's campaign, according to the New York Times.
She is expected to announce her endorsement in person on stage alongside Mr Trump at a rally in Ames, Iowa, on Tuesday afternoon.
WINTERSET, Iowa — 2016 GOP frontrunner and billionaire Donald Trump secured the endorsement of the family of legendary movie star John Wayne—at Wayne’s birthplace.
Aissa Wayne, John Wayne’s daughter, joined Trump at a podium inside the small museum in her father’s hometown here. She said:
Welcome to the John Wayne birthplace. Now, this is the place in Iowa where legends are made. Now we have somebody that I want to welcome personally here to the birthplace of John Wayne, and that is Mr. Donald Trump. Hopefully, for America, he will be the next president of the United State. The reason I am here to support Mr. Trump is because America needs help. We need a strong leader and we need someone like Mr. Trump with leadership qualities, someone with courage, someone that’s strong like John Wayne. And I’ll tell you what, if John Wayne were still here, he’d be standing right here instead of me. So with that, I just want you to welcome Mr. Donald Trump.
(...) And so, today the Post and the New York Times both weigh in with big reported pieces that ponder one of the most interesting subplots of the 2016 presidential contest: Why are evangelical voters apparently so drawn to The Donald, who has been married three times, wants to deport millions, favors a religious test for entry into the U.S., and regularly boasts about his spectacular wealth (and pretty much everything else about himself, too)?
In dozens of interviews with evangelical voters in 16 states, from every region of the country outside the Northeast, those supporting Mr. Trump sounded a familiar refrain: that his heart was in the right place, that his intentions for the country were pure, that he alone was capable of delivering to a troubled country salvation in the here and now….
For many others, Mr. Trump speaks the truth and mirrors what they are feeling: fevered anger at President Obama, distress about the economy and fear that terrorists could pose as Syrian refugees to infiltrate the American heartland. Rather than recoiling from his harsh language about immigrants and insults of people he dislikes, these voters said Mr. Trump was merely being honest.
All this has deeply puzzled some evangelical leaders. The Post quotes one evangelical leader describing Trump as a “thrice married owner of casinos with strip clubs,” and adding that he is “the most immoral and ungodly man to ever run for President of the United States.”
But even if Trump is not a very good Christian in the eyes of some evangelical leaders, the Times interviews with evangelical voters suggest that Trump’s personal morality may not matter much to them. Instead, Trump’s success among evangelical voters may be rooted in the fact that, more than any other GOP candidate, Trump is able to speak to their sense of being under siege. Trump somehow conveys that he understands on a gut level that both Christianity and the country at large are under siege, and what’s more, he is not constrained by politically correct niceties from saying so and proposing drastic measures to reverse this slide into chaos and godlessness. (...)
This is factual straight up for me (obviously we won't build the wall before society collapses). Doesn't have anything to do with genetics or skin color, for me personally this is hard, cold on the ground facts. I have long ago made a decision to stay away from all metro highly populated areas as much as possible and not go anywhere near large cities if I can help it. This is my personal choice to have a peaceful and safe life for me and my family. You can call it what you will, I just call it nothing but a good idea.
Although Altemeyer has continually updated the scale, researchers in different domains have tended to lock-in on particular versions. For example in the social psychology of religion, the 1992 version of the scale is still commonly used. In addition, the length of the earlier versions (30 items) led many researchers to develop shorter versions of the scale. Some of those are published but many researchers simply select a subset of items to use in their research; a practice that Altemeyer strongly criticizes. (...)
According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.
Nope. I got it right.
Altemeyer is not cited in the original article. My reading comprehension is pretty good.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 tomeasure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ? (...)
Nope, I got it right. The goal of the questions are ... to measure inclination toward authoritarianism.
Pardon me for forgetting to highlite the first bolded. My reading comprehension is pretty good.
Also in this case, what I get out of it is more important than what you get out of it cuz I have a vote in the matter. You're just a voyeur in this.
Although Altemeyer has continually updated the scale, researchers in different domains have tended to lock-in on particular versions. For example in the social psychology of religion, the 1992 version of the scale is still commonly used. In addition, the length of the earlier versions (30 items) led many researchers to develop shorter versions of the scale. Some of those are published but many researchers simply select a subset of items to use in their research; a practice that Altemeyer strongly criticizes. (...)
According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.
Your quoted bit says: "Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian."
We're talking respondents, i.e. people, not regimes. It's not my problem if you can't read properly.
kurtster wrote:
Really ?
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 tomeasure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ? (...)
Nope, I got it right. The goal of the questions are ... to measure inclination toward authoritarianism.
Pardon me for forgetting to highlite the first bolded. My reading comprehension is pretty good.
Also in this case, what I get out of it is more important than what you get out of it cuz I have a vote in the matter. You're just a voyeur in this.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ?
Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party ...
and ...
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist. Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutitions and formal rules." Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups." Examples include Argentina under Perón and Nasser in Egypt. Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity". Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition. A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination. Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people." Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse. Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority.
Hardly what I believe in at any level. I see the bolded above as an example of what the USA is presently experiencing under our present regime led by Obama. The questions used to determine the predisposition to authoritarianism are a joke, a dishonest choice of alternatives.
The only people who understand what Trump is about are those who support him or recognized from the time he declared that he was a serious candidate. All else are clueless. Only one other regular poster here recognized Trump as being serious from the beginning which was sird. I never name names in these cases but in this one I will. He doesn't support him, but get's what is really going on and what is important here.
Trump isn't about authoritarianism, he's about solving problems as he sees them. He is not afraid to identify the problems as he sees them in no uncertain terms. He is the only candidate running who can say don't bullshit the bullshitter. He has bought and sold the establishment and knows where the bodies are buried, yet not compromised because he has not been bought and paid for himself.
His priorities are clear as a bell.
When I said all else are clueless, its just not pertaining to those here, but the whole of the media and the establishment political class on both sides of the aisle. You here are in good company and probably still feel he will fold like a cheap suit before the South Carolina primary after his impending defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire and will be the first to say I told you he wasn't a serious candidate.
We'll soon see. We're just a couple of weeks to real voting and real answers. Iffen I was fooled and wrong to take him seriously, I will be the first to admit it. How about those of you who said he isn't ?
. Edit: all the discourse from Trump's detractors seem to be based in the idea / assumption that there is a perfect candidate out there, somewhere. Well there isn't and never will be. Whose priorities are are your's and who checks off more of your boxes than anyone else, versus the crap you don't like that comes with them ? That's as good as it gets.
