I’d be surprised if a huge number of Mormons voted for Clinton instead. But if there was any third party conservative candidate, they’d get a lot of Mormon support instead of Trump.
Thanks for that informative post. Now I can understand why Trump fares poorly among Mormons and it all makes sense. But if they are uncomfortable with both Trump and Hillary, what do they do? Sit out?
Yes, I’ve read that even most other White Nationalists regard the Klan as silly and dated. But David Duke is still the biggest-name WN in America, and when he gives an endorsement, they listen, and WNism ain’t quite so marginal as all that, and it’s newsworthy indeed, and also important and telling, that so many of them see Trump as the first presidential candidate in a long time who really speaks for them.
The influence usually comes by not telling others who they are while supporting Trump and working for him. Recently the news identified a few supporters that manned the Trump call centers who were white supremacists. And then the supremacists even funded robocall machines to do that.
Add to that the tweets that he re-tweeted from white supremacists and one can see that Trump does not mind running around with people like that for a vote.
The candidate who bragged at AIPAC yesterday about his soon to be born Jewish grandchild speaks for David Duke and white nationalists? What a bizarre conclusion.
No, he simply speaks strongly on one issue that they care about, illegal immigration. Just as the lefty candidates they sometimes support speak strongly about one issue they care about, Israel.
No one prominent speaks for them, so they take what they can get.
Considering that ISIS wants to see their own world go down in flames as they want to die as martyrs, it seems to me and others that the terrorists would like to see Trump become president.
Thing is that since Clinton also helped in killing Osama, the support you are talking about going to Trump is not going to amount to much.
He also, multiple times, retweeted bogus bullshit statistics from white supremacists; advocates for bigoted policies against Muslims; calls Mexican immigrants “rapists”; and says he’ll consider paying the legal fees of the man who assaulted a non-violent black protester.
That’s what the white supremacists “can get” with Trump…
Just as evangelicals are willing to overlook Trump’s three marriages and boastful womanizing, just as rural white working-class Americans are willing to overlook Trump’s New-York-City-slickerdom and immense wealth, so WNs are willing to overlook that sort of thing. To each group, the whole Trump-package is too valuable to reject over details.
People don’t want coherence; they want a guy like Trump with the cojones to do what it takes after a terrorist attack: bomb Paris and Brussels back to the Stone Age.
You are reeeaaally reaching here, you know that, right?
Like lot’s of twitterers, he tweets and retweets constantly, from all over the place. That a certain infograph he tweeted was also posted somewhere else doesn’t really mean much.
Islam is not a race, and Americans’ desire to mitigate the effects of the global Islamic insurgency here at home don’t make them bigots. A few hundred million people have these concerns. What a few hundred KKK members, or a few thousand White Pride Bozos, have to say on the issue is irrelevant. (except to turn it back on them and show their ideology to be vapid and gross for the same reasons Islamism and Jihadism are)
And he speaks kindly of Mexican immigrants, the context of the quote in question was a discussion about illegal Mexican immigrants. It doesn’t matter how many others are simultaneously wrong about this along with you, you are still just as wrong. Trump vilified* illegal* Mexican immigrants as rapists.
As far as “the man who assaulted a non-violent black protester”, do you have any evidence that race had anything to do with the incident? Or are you just trying to make it racial?
What about this incident? Is it racial in nature? Or is race just a component of the story when it makes it easier to bend the facts to fit the narrative that is being used to vilify Trump’s supporters as racists?
The repetitions of the associations between Trump and the KKK, Nazis, and David Duke are sensationalist, lazy, ignorant, insulting slurs. And nothing more.
Horrible analogy. It would be more like evangelicals over looking Satan worship and human sacrifice. David Duke and his fan club have a Jew and Israel hatred that runs deeper than any other part of the ideology, and which is incredibly delusional and all-encompassing.
Similarly, regarding David Duke: DD is free to endorse whomever he likes. The only rational, acceptable response from any responsible politician is to spit on his endorsement without hesitation. Trump failed that test, miserably.
Nonsense. He had already disavowed the endorsement the night before.
This idea is ludicrous, that accusers can repeat bullshit stories like this, ad infinitum, implying some kind of association which does not exist, and the accused must always snap to, defer to the potency of the accusation, and mindlessly and submissively repeat the platitude that is expected of them.
Trump was refusing to acknowledge the premise of the question, refusing to acknowledge that it was even worthy of a serious response. That in no way is any kind of crypto-endorsement for the KKK, as so many are so desperate for it to be.
One legitimate answer to the question: “I heard some things man, are you, like, cool with the KKK, bro” is “fuck you”. That’s more representative of how an ordinary person might answer, and those are the people Trump is talking to and winning over.
