"Despite People's comprehensive online content archive, we found no interview or profile on Donald Trump in 1998"
The "apparently spurious" quote first crossed their radar in October 2015.
I note that everyone is using the same phrase, "we find no evidence" indicating that it sounds like something he might have said. A search on the exact quote in entirety yields surprisingly few results, just a few hundred according to Google, probably because the 'quote' was distributed as a jpeg.
I couldn't even find People's archives but I am intrigued. Does anyone know anyone who has a complete collection of the print magazine from 1998 or a library which has them in archive? Now is the time to have a flick through it if you can find such a thing.
Harvey » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:41 am wrote:
I couldn't even find People's archives but I am intrigued. Does anyone know anyone who has a complete collection of the print magazine from 1998 or a library which has them in archive? Now is the time to have a flick through it if you can find such a thing.
Aye: most Snopes / Straight Dope type operations maintain the overhead of a Lexisnexis account, which provides them access to an awesomely complete corpus of English publications in plaintext, and a good deal else besides.
Here's a more precise link right to 1998, if anyone really thinks Trump would say that. I don't. Also consider the fact that if there were any verification possible for this quote, it would have been used against him in the debates, since it's been floating around for months now.
Then again, maybe that's just what they want me to believe...
Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:08 pm
by seemslikeadream
I really don't care if it's false or not ......a lie about a liar....racist ...asshole.... fascist....mutherfucker... yea right like I could give a shit
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.
Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.
"The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said.
Trump would exempt the value of an individual's principal home from the net worth total.
"By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.
"The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.
The common thread among Trump supporters is not race, religion, income, or education. It's authoritarianism. No surprise there, but it's actually true according to one researcher.
My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.
The questions social scientists to determine authoritarianism I thought were interesting.
In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, 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.
Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate—Republican or Democrat—whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant.
Trump has been casually linked to fascism, but here is some evidence that his supporters are at least linked to one of its traits. No surprise, other than to see it in the press.
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.
The questions themselves reflect well the split psyches produced by this society.
One thing not taken into account in these ‘child rearing’ values and modeling is the changing nature of consciousness. It should not take a genius to figure out that very young children benefit from having clear and consistent boundary conditions. Then magic happens around age seven as the minds abstracting abilities start to flourish. At that point, unless you want a fight on your hands, you best turn over most of the decision making responsibilities and consequences to the child, and trust that they have learned and internalized the value of having a good center from which to make decisions.
This approach was applied to my daughters and they are respectful and independent; obedient when very young and self-reliant with no notion even for the need for obedience, also at a relatively young age; always well-behaved and considerate; and well-mannered and still curious.
Sorry for the hijack, but this Trump thing seems like a grand psy-op and I don’t really care to talk about him.
Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:35 pm
by norton ash
Trump is seriously dangerous... and Sarah Palin is seriously... fucking... INSANE.
America is now ready. It just had to mature sufficiently, like Vieux Boulogne.
Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:00 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
Holy shit, Mac. Score!
Is that the first RI prediction that has come to pass?
Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:12 pm
by MacCruiskeen
I presume you're joking, WR, because of course it hasn't yet come to pass. There's another 300 days of this pro-wrestling spectacle still to be sat through.
Alex Jones did an extreme about-face regarding his opinion of Sarah Palin. Here we explore why...
.
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:05 pm
by IanEye
It was inevitable that Sarah Palin would endorse Donald Trump for president, or Donald Trump would endorse Sarah Palin for president, from the moment she arrived in New York on her “will she or won’t she” One Nation tour back in 2011. The two reality TV celebrities munched pepperoni pizza together and chewed the fat about politics and media stardom as news cameras, paparazzi and tourists all took pictures from the other side of a window. The cable news networks all excitedly carried the silent luncheon live on TV. It was reported in Entertainment Weekly, as well as the New York Times.
After being slagged by fellow New Yorkers for eating his pizza with a plastic knife and fork, Trump issued a Youtube video explaining that he doesn’t carry regular knives and forks with him and it makes it easier for him to avoid the carbs in the crust. (One can only speculate what the ghost of John Wayne,Trump’s other endorser yesterday, would have thought of that.) He didn’t support Palin for President at the time — he was considering a run himself after all — but he did express his great admiration for her and speculated that she would be “a factor” if she were to make a run for it. Yesterday, Palin repaid the compliment in spades with a full-throated, star-spangled endorsement of the Donald.
And after teasing the endorsement for a couple of days, simply saying something “great” was going to happen on Tuesday, Trump once again demonstrated his total mastery of the political media by dominating the airwaves for an entire news cycle as a dozen other candidates gasped desperately for airtime. He even timed it at the end of the day and made sure that the cable networks didn’t know the details so they’d run his own tedious opening speech before Palin stepped up. Then they ran her entire speech (if that’s what you want to call it — it was more of a surreal, tribal tone poem). - link
Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:34 pm
by stefano
Yeah, so I actually took 20 minutes out of my life and watched that. There is no way that thing is going anywhere. Trump is seriously dangerous, but he's not getting in. He's the decoy (just like McCain was) - the horrible alternative that's going to make them vote Clinton and be proud and grateful they did.
Another thought, after watching that: where can it actually go from there? There was no crowd, no real speech, no... thing worth mentioning. Just some has-been, offered a cash amount to come throw out eight-year old punchlines?
In some way I think it's a test - in a similar way to what I felt about 9/11. It's being put out there as bait - they are pretty sure that the Bible bashers don't care that Trump doesn't go to church, and that the blue-stockinged prudes don't care that Palin is a scammer and her children are the kids they warn theirs against. But they're testing it, just to make sure.
And the same is true on the other side, though I realise my self-identification as 'of the left' makes it hard for me to twig exactly how badly professed leftists betray their professed principles - I mean Palin's bullshit is more visible, to me, than Obama's.
Not unrelated:
What a fucking zoo.
Well done on the early call, MacCruiskeen. In the same spirit I'm making a 2019 call: Kirk Cameron and some fallen beauty queen, like an actress who got pregnant but then found Jayzus or something. Playing table tennis and talking about Reagan.
