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.
I think she is conspiring to get Cruz nominated. Her support for Trump isn't exactly a compelling argument for him.
Just finished watching. I would say she made a very compelling argument for Trump. I've seen a lot of speeches and a few endorsement speech's in my day and what she just got done there was one of the best I've ever witnessed.
The take away line from her is the status quo has got to go.
If because you as in y'all are a political junkie, it needs to be seen. Considering that timing is everything, I would say that it is bigger than Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, which I saw and was blown away just like everyone else. ymmv ...
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.
I think she is conspiring to get Cruz nominated. Her support for Trump isn't exactly a compelling argument for him.
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.
