white is right

This reads like confirmation bias

I will concede and agree with you but I will still maintain the view that exposing the lameness is a good thing thus I am fine with Trump being in the race.

I don't think this is all has much to do with Obama. Trump barely mentions him. More of a general dislike of politicians and government. And Mexicans.

Trump is an OG truther.

They had the same white hot rage at Clinton. They are angry at losing their power and blame it on the brown people stealing their jerbs and their money (through entitlements). They are being fed lies but are too stupid to see the truth.

Replace "they" for "you" anywhere that might fit.

It's not hard to tell when someone knows a measure of fairness in life, and can at least sense when some people's circumstances doesn't reach it.

I agree about people feeling scared and losing control. 'Scared stupid' describes the base kinda well IMO. Tricked, scared, and stupid isn't necessarily malicious though.

Difference is, after Clinton they had hope of reclaiming power. This year they have little.

Handicap the August 6 debate, how will Trump do against his opponents? If David is interested in the debate I'm sure he has some valuable insight. Understandably he may not be too interested though.

He's never going to campaign against him, so why would he?

I don't think he should but that is beside the point. Do you think Trump's success has anything to do with Obama like Foldn asserted?

The working class is rightly concerned about their perilous economic standing and looking for scapegoats. Trump is tapping into that anger by scapegoating the brown. The populist left is more subtly doing the same thing by blaming the yellow man.

David's contention that a lot of Trump's support comes from clueless moron's may be true. However, Dennis Rodman has thrown his support behind Donald Trump for POTUS . He's not just any run of the mill clueless moron.

He was a particularly vocal critic. Tough to say what's drawing people to him.

brilliant campaign for trump so far. Nothing he says now will matter in the end to more than a few % negatively b/c everyone will forget/not care by then. Media will have moved on. While it seems dumb for gen election atm; anything could happen (opponent scandal, complete business chaos, etc)

I don't know what he's running on either other than I'm a business guy (with 2x bankruptcy... seems easy to rack up a billion when you never have to pay anyone you owe)

I am curious if he is actually more knowledgeable than the other candidates about economic problems regarding currency, Mexico, China, etc. I also agree with him that most politicians are mainly concerned about elections and are mediocre at best when it comes to doing their job. So he actually might do well in the debates via these issues. Of course there are plenty of businessmen types who would do better yet.

Imagine Donald meeting with the leader of a foreign African or Asian nation, and smiling that fake smile for the cameras.

Better yet, imagine Donald visiting the scene of a natural disaster. Or comforting the victims' families of a hate crime.

How delicate and sincere he would be.

"Ask not what The Donald can do for you!!... Ask what you can do for The Donald!"

Lol how is pornography hard to define? Isn't the original quote you're trying to apply for the word "obscene"?

It depends on the topic I guess. If his speeches thus far are any indication, he'll be slaughtered when it comes to intelligent debates over immigration and foreign policy. For example, when he presents his "plan" for dealing with the Islamic State, I've only ever heard him (repeatedly) say something to the effect of:

"I'll hit 'em hard. Nobody will hit 'em harder than me! NOBODY!"

Which, for anyone out there who hasn't already realized it, is absolutely empty rhetoric completely devoid of substance. I think much of the reason that he's enjoying this (temporary) success in the polls is because he offers appealingly simple solutions to complicated questions, which naturally none of his supporters are informed or educated enough about to be able to comprehend themselves and so can't call him out on his bull****.

Or it could mean something specific, namely that he wouldn't worry about using the military in a way that would cause a lot of collateral damage.

Why did you write this?

Seattle, the "difficult to define but I know it when I see it" in that case referred to the word "obscenity" - just like you quoted. Pornography was what was under question, as in "is pornography obscene?" but pornography itself was not what was referenced as hard to define.

You made me look it up but it was pornography - specifically hard core pornography

The expression became one of the most famous phrases in the entire history of the Supreme Court.[5] Though "I know it when I see it" is widely cited as Stewart's test for "obscenity", he never used the word "obscenity" himself in his short concurrence. He only stated that he knows what fits the "shorthand description" of "hard-core pornography" when he sees it.
Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard was praised as "realistic and gallant"[6] and an example of candor.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it