The Donald Trump thread

budoslavic

Peacock
Gold Member
Republicans have often won the "hispanic" vote in Florida, because "hispanic" meant "mostly anti-communist Cubans". Newer hispanics from other places not so much, though. He'll probably still win Texas and will obviously lose California and New York, but looking at how the hispanic vote there ends up performing will be a better barometer of his favorability among hispanics at large.
I agreed with this comment and can confirm based on my conversations with my friend & primary MA instructor in FL over the years. He spoke to and has many Cuban-American friends, students' parents & neighbors in his community, MA school, etc. Without a doubt, Cuban-Americans despise Marxism, Communism and Socialism ideologies.
 

kosko

Peacock
Gold Member
This is...interesting and it's not a development I saw coming. We will see how things actually pan out, but if we assume this is valid and halfway reflective of reality it looks like the backing of rioting and tying Democrat branding to "Black lives matter" they've turned the perception of themselves into being the party of black people and thus alienated other minorities to an extent. Almost certainly not enough to make them vote Trump but it is still apparent that declaring yourselves as the party of black people does not ingratiate you with other minorities who, for the most part, are extremely prejudiced against black people.
I don't agree with this as the Democrats have pandered to Latinos hardcore to the point of having the whole infrastructure in Spanish to cater to them. For some time, one could say just prior to Obama, Dems were hardcore with Latinos as they were seen as a more favourable group to pander too due to their geographic location and far fast-paced growing numbers versus the stagnant Black population. The whole Dem plan was to cater to Latinos and have the flood gates open so they could lock in other votes and a path to power.

The reason we likely see growth with Trump and Latinos is:

  • Trump presents the strongman aura many Latinos prefer in leadership, they don't want weak noodle necks, they want strong leaders who take action and get stuff done.
  • Trump focuses on simple table-top issues: Immigration, Jobs/Economy, Faith
  • He pushes 'MADE IN THE USA' type rhetoric which resonates with many immagrints as there is a romanticized version on America that many people from the outside fall for prior to migrating
  • Trump talks and promotes Faith/God as this is still a crucial point within Latino households
  • Latinos don't want the trash from their counties they left behind to come to the USA - all the gang members and lettuce pickers many Latinos want no part of
The above could be gleaned towards other groups, likely many other ethnic groups in the USA are for Trump more than many other POTUS candidates.
 

Easy_C

Crow
I don't agree with this as the Democrats have pandered to Latinos hardcore to the point of having the whole infrastructure in Spanish to cater to them. For some time, one could say just prior to Obama, Dems were hardcore with Latinos as they were seen as a more favourable group to pander too due to their geographic location and far fast-paced growing numbers versus the stagnant Black population. The whole Dem plan was to cater to Latinos and have the flood gates open so they could lock in other votes and a path to power.

The reason we likely see growth with Trump and Latinos is:
I think there’s one factor being missed here: there was a significant amount of violence between blacks and Latinos associated with the riots in major cities. When you threaten the bottom of the needs hierarchy it tends to make people forget about everything else
 

dicknixon72

Kingfisher
I think there’s one factor being missed here: there was a significant amount of violence between blacks and Latinos associated with the riots in major cities. When you threaten the bottom of the needs hierarchy it tends to make people forget about everything else
Latinos of most origin aside from Puerto Ricans also harbor a resentment towards blacks because they feel that - while they both receive the brunt of 'racism' - Latinos have/do work harder to maintain their station and advance upwards while blacks have been gifted their status both on the bottom and the top. To wit, rich blacks are pop culture and athletic icons while low-echelon blacks are always at the front of the line when it comes to federal and state benefits (EBT, housing assistance, scholarships).

This is prevalent especially among older Mexicans who either came to the US legally or illegally but obtain amnesty under Reagan; they never qualified for benefits in the 70s and 80s and would never dare ask because detection = deportation.

Latinos are cognizant of where they come from and do not want to return; blacks lack this recognition of their origins and therefore take for granted the US is their home.
 

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
I'm in the dark about how much power Trump really has. Does he have control over the military or does the deep state control the military?
What would he do with the military? The president also serves as commander in chief, who issues orders to the generals, but we are not at war with any nation and the military is not supposed to undergo missions in the USA, so there's no legal order he could give them.

Now, of course, if he wanted to order the military to bomb Syria, or harass Russia, or steal a private merchant ship belonging to an Iranian, or murder someone from Venezuela, he would get away with it (though it is still illegal) because the deep state won't react. But if he, say, ordered the military to nuke a certain tribal desert nation, that order would never be carried out, and Trump would likely be impeached. So they pick and choose when they allow presidents to act illegally, and when they do not.

But this begs the question: What would Trump be "doing" with the military in the first place in your hypothetical example? One good thing about America is that our military is (ostensibly) a defense force, not a tool of politicians, or a political enforcement wing, the way, say the Saudi forces or the Sturmabteilung in 1930s Germany or the Stasi in 50s Germany were. What type of order would these military be given? Other than the hypothetical but violent and somewhat absurd example I gave, I can't imagine any order one could give the military that would help the US in any way. Is there somebody out there that needs a killin' that will help Make America Great Again?
 

Salinger

Woodpecker
What would he do with the military? The president also serves as commander in chief, who issues orders to the generals, but we are not at war with any nation and the military is not supposed to undergo missions in the USA, so there's no legal order he could give them.

Now, of course, if he wanted to order the military to bomb Syria, or harass Russia, or steal a private merchant ship belonging to an Iranian, or murder someone from Venezuela, he would get away with it (though it is still illegal) because the deep state won't react. But if he, say, ordered the military to nuke a certain tribal desert nation, that order would never be carried out, and Trump would likely be impeached. So they pick and choose when they allow presidents to act illegally, and when they do not.

But this begs the question: What would Trump be "doing" with the military in the first place in your hypothetical example? One good thing about America is that our military is (ostensibly) a defense force, not a tool of politicians, or a political enforcement wing, the way, say the Saudi forces or the Sturmabteilung in 1930s Germany or the Stasi in 50s Germany were. What type of order would these military be given? Other than the hypothetical but violent and somewhat absurd example I gave, I can't imagine any order one could give the military that would help the US in any way. Is there somebody out there that needs a killin' that will help Make America Great Again?
I guess a question I'd like answered is why can't Trump declare Antifa terrorists and have them arrested by the military?
 

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
I guess a question I'd like answered is why can't Trump declare Antifa terrorists and have them arrested by the military?
The military is not allowed to perform those functions under the posse comitatus act. The military is for waging war only, and we are not at war against any nation. During times of war the president may broadly direct the generals, but not in domestic actions. The US lacks an internal federal military group, and that is actually a good thing.

(The closest thing we have is the ATF and the FBI and look at what disasters they are. Their biggest cases are where they kill and destroy American communities like Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. and the FBI is always "setting up" low IQ people and encouraging them to do violent things).
 

Blitz

Pigeon
The military is not allowed to perform those functions under the posse comitatus act. The military is for waging war only, and we are not at war against any nation. During times of war the president may broadly direct the generals, but not in domestic actions. The US lacks an internal federal military group, and that is actually a good thing.

(The closest thing we have is the ATF and the FBI and look at what disasters they are. Their biggest cases are where they kill and destroy American communities like Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. and the FBI is always "setting up" low IQ people and encouraging them to do violent things).
Sounds like a libertarian cope, no offence. What happens when the war comes home and it's not another nation waging it, but a large group of Americans with explicit intentions to overthrow the government? "Shucks, if only that law wasn't there, we could save the country"? Obviously not (I hope) which means there's a point at which military action against an insurrection becomes legally permissible. What is that point and who determines it?
 

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
That point is whenever a new law is passed allowing federal troops to occupy American cities, and Posse Comitatus is repealed. That's how the rule of law works.

Is it also also "libertarian" to believe that Congress should have to pass a vote and declare war before government can fight other nations? Passing laws is the only reason Congress even exists. That's their sole purpose and function. If we are going to do away with that system, then you are talking real revolution, which is what the original question was posed to prevent.
 

Papaya

Crow
Gold Member
Republicans have often won the "hispanic" vote in Florida, because "hispanic" meant "mostly anti-communist Cubans". Newer hispanics from other places not so much, though. He'll probably still win Texas and will obviously lose California and New York, but looking at how the hispanic vote there ends up performing will be a better barometer of his favorability among hispanics at large.
Dont underestimate the money, power, and influence of the (formerly Cuban) American community in South FL. No one knows better the real life consequences of the Marxist lie than those that lost everything because of it.

And no one is more patriotic to the ideal of what America was founded on and provided the opportunity to build it all back in a new home

My father killed communists in Cuba and then when his homeland fell he volunteered for 2 tours in Vietnam to kill some more there on behalf of his new homeland.

Florida is swinging back to Trump in a big way and the neo marxists Hispanics among the South Florida community know why. There are many many wealthy Cubans there and they dont suffer "comemierderia" (shit eating stupidity) lightly .
 
Top