Do you support Donald trump?

[mishra]

17 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

Now he says muslim ban was just a suggestion lol Backtracking on all the issues he used to polarize people.

Earlier he use to say things what he wanted. Half way into campaign he realised that whatever he wants is not practical as he got more educated. By the end of election or first year in office he may backtrack everything.

 

But people will vote him. Atleast he has similar wishes as that of common people.

[vvvslaxman]

26 minutes ago, mishra said:

Earlier he use to say things what he wanted. Half way into campaign he realised that whatever he wants is not practical as he got more educated. By the end of election or first year in office he may backtrack everything.

 

But people will vote him. Atleast he has similar wishes as that of common people.

Nope he has no wishes for anything. He does not know what to do with presidency. He likes to be an authoritarian which is exactly people are terrified. His arrogance, narcissism, bigotry,  extremely bad temperament, classless behavior, tabloid style campaig and many other negative qualities practically disqualify him as president. He is not even showing the tax which has been a practice for decades. for presidential nominee. First he said he would show. Now he says he won't.  His proposed trade wars with their biggest trading partners is not inspiring confidence in any investors. He knows real estate business. That's it. Zero on everything else. When you run for presidency you are expected to have solid positions on many issues. This guy has no position on any issues. He is saying things off the cuff only to backtrack after an hour. then he backtracks again. He is unpredictable, dangerous for the country. Sadly white nationalists, white supremacists may help him win the election. As it is racism is seriously on the rise. 

[vvvslaxman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

Narcissism 101?

[Asim]

Trump has already lost it...

[BeautifulGame]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/donald-trump-women-vulgar/index.html

Hopefully the end of Trump

[The Outsider]

It's so funny to see people who support Modi oppose Trump just because the boot of right wing majoritarianism is on the other foot in that case.

[mishra]

^

Modi supporters also support Tendulkar and oppose Thakare. Unlike your likes we dont have to figure out how to start factory production of potatoes

[rkt.india]

 

[Muloghonto]

On 10/8/2016 at 10:13 PM, The Outsider said:

It's so funny to see people who support Modi oppose Trump just because the boot of right wing majoritarianism is on the other foot in that case.

Err no. You are ridiculously off base, its not even funny.

Modi is a right wing conservative. He has support of ALL the right wing conservatives of his party.

 

Trump is a loose cannon crackpot who has hijacked the right wing conservatives and hardly any right wing conservative republican party members support him. 

Huge difference. 

 

its like comparing your conservative Grandpa to a certifiable lunatic.

[Tibarn]

Right-wing majoritarianism is bad, I suppose by that statement left-wing majoritarianism would be okay?

 

I suppose (neology time) minorityism is okay as well.

 

What's funny is that in the US: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, all overwhelming vote for the Democrats, but that isn't considered racist 

 

What's even more funny is that criticizing illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism is now considered something that panders to the White majority of America. Firstly, illegal immigrants in the US overwhelmingly affect Blacks far more negatively, as both compete for low skill labor jobs and put a strain on the welfare state. Secondly, for jokers that try to propagate a pink elephant like Hindu terror at every moment, I'm not sure why they are so bothered by an American talking about Islamic terrorism.   

 

It's like everyone thinks that they have a birthright to move to the US.  On the other hand, Trump has been complimentary to Hindus, a usual punching bag in America. He has also said he will help facilitate skilled labor go to America, the category Indians usually come under. 

 

Also, Modi has done near-0 for Hindus since becoming PM. RTE is still destroying Hindu-run schools, the government still loots Hindu temples, the Indian economy is still over-regulated, and we still have to tolerate the eulogizing of Central Asian/Middle Eastern savages who contributed 0 to our civilization. And those are just a few Hindu issues he hasn't addressed. On the other hand, our hallucinating friends won't name what has actually been done by him.  

[New guy]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

R

 

What's funny is that in the US: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, all overwhelming vote for the Democrats, but that isn't considered racist 

 

Use a bit of common sense some times. Those people vote overwhelming because the party takes care of them. Republicans want to oppress them, DNC doesn't. Are you so daft you cannot see the difference between one party wanting to oppress people who are different and one party giving them rights. The former is racism, the later is obviously not, its just wanting to know you will be safe. Seriously this one line is one of the stupidest thing I have seen this year on the internet

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

What's even more funny is that criticizing illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism is now considered something that panders to the White majority of America. Firstly, illegal immigrants in the US overwhelmingly affect Blacks far more negatively, as both compete for low skill labor jobs and put a strain on the welfare state. Secondly, for jokers that try to propagate a pink elephant like Hindu terror at every moment, I'm not sure why they are so bothered by an American talking about Islamic terrorism.

 

It's like everyone thinks that they have a birthright to move to the US.  On the other hand, Trump has been complimentary to Hindus, a usual punching bag in America. He has also said he will help facilitate skilled labor go to America, the category Indians usually come under. 

 

 

If it stopped at criticising illegal immigration no one would bat an eyelid. You very well know Trump and his supporters go way beyond and harass legal immigrants too. That is the culture of US, to accept everyone and that is why it has been one of the greatest countries in the world for a long time. Some of the most ground breaking tech, companies, scientists, businessmen who have made US great today were immigrants

 

And only the most moronic person would believe something Trump says about supporting India. This guy has gone after his own campaign guys, close friends and supporters, and you believe he will be friendly to a brown country? Some people are extremely gullible. 

[Tibarn]

3 minutes ago, New guy said:

Use a bit of common sense some times.

It's cute how the senseless use phrases like "common sense." When you don't have an argument, resort to stock phrases and ad hominems. Your stupidity betrays you. 

 

7 minutes ago, New guy said:

Those people vote overwhelming because the party takes care of them.

The Blacks and Latinos are the poorest groups in America. They are heavily concentrated in areas where they are either the majority population, or they are a significant percentage, ie >30%. They regularly/sometimes exclusively have Democrats running their communities at both local and state levels. If the Democrats were taking "care of them," they wouldn't live in impoverished ghettos. Unless, of course, the Democrats are incompetent.

 

10 minutes ago, New guy said:

Are you so daft you cannot see the difference between one party wanting to oppress people who are different and one party giving them rights.

Are you such a moron that you can't argue a issue without hallucinating? How about you actually try to make an argument without resorting to stock phrases and insults. I'm not surprised, having seen some of your earlier posts. You seem to have a logic deficiency. 

 

Now how about you grow up and let's get to the meat of the matter. 

 

How do you know someone is trying to oppress them? Have you been to America? If not, then what is the basis of your assertion?

 

Who in the Republican party has said anything indicating that they are aiming for oppressing anyone? Are all so-called "Whites" on a mission to oppress minorities just because they vote solidly for a different party?  What if, I were to show you statistics that Blacks murder whites at a higher rate than Whites murder Blacks. Would you then agree that Whites are oppressed and thus vote Republican to protect themselves from violent minorities? Or, are double standards are okay with you? 

 

Giving them rights is a funny phrase. Americans get rights from their constitution, not a political party. Now, let us see who made the American constitution that gives all Americans rights. Well, it seems that all of them were Whites. It seems your insinuation that Whites are on a mission to oppress minorities is flimsy.   

29 minutes ago, New guy said:

The former is racism, the later is obviously not, its just wanting to know you will be safe.

Let's see the Oxford dictionary definition of racism:  The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.  

 

Now, the only thing remotely racist in this entire discussion was your insinuation that essentially 50% of America, those Whites who vote Republican, are out to oppress minorities. You assigned an entire group, a specific quality. The only thing obvious is that you decided to pick sides and get in an argument with someone you don't have the competency to engage with. What's the matter, trouble at home?  

 

Again, why can't I say that Whites vote Republican to keep themselves safe from Blacks and Hispanics who overwhelmingly commit more violent crimes and commit more interracial crimes. Are Whites not allowed to feel safe?  Safety is only for minorities? 

 

38 minutes ago, New guy said:

Seriously this one line is one of the stupidest thing I have seen this year on the internet

Brilliant, starts with an ad hominem and ends with ad hominem. Textbook signs of someone who lost an argument before one even started. Apni aukat mein raho.

[Muloghonto]

37 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

The Blacks and Latinos are the poorest groups in America. They are heavily concentrated in areas where they are either the majority population, or they are a significant percentage, ie >30%. They regularly/sometimes exclusively have Democrats running their communities at both local and state levels. If the Democrats were taking "care of them," they wouldn't live in impoverished ghettos. Unless, of course, the Democrats are incompetent.

 

This is false association. US is a democracy. Not a fascist or communist government. Therefore, how much a government can influence the economic status of one particular group is limited. Despite this, the relative income of black and hispanic americans to the white Americans have gone up since WWII. This indicates that the long term US domestic economic policies have aided minorities in USA.

 

Quote

Who in the Republican party has said anything indicating that they are aiming for oppressing anyone? Are all so-called "Whites" on a mission to oppress minorities just because they vote solidly for a different party?

There is plenty of history of the Republican party being allied to the KKK in deep south, in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Obviously, not all so-called 'whites' are on a mission to opress minorities, just like not all so-called 'muslims' are out for Kaffir blood. but in both cases, the minority is significant in size and political science shows us that vocal minorities tend to weild disproportionately greater influence.

 

Quote

Giving them rights is a funny phrase. Americans get rights from their constitution, not a political party. Now, let us see who made the American constitution that gives all Americans rights. Well, it seems that all of them were Whites. It seems your insinuation that Whites are on a mission to oppress minorities is flimsy.   

 

This is again, false association. The constitution guarantees rights. The political parties still are the executive force for those rights and America is a classic example of 'de jure rights for everyone, de-facto rights for white males only' for the bulk of its independent existence, as evidenced by slavery & chattel status of non whites and women till less than 100 years ago.

 

Quote

 

Again, why can't I say that Whites vote Republican to keep themselves safe from Blacks and Hispanics who overwhelmingly commit more violent crimes and commit more interracial crimes. Are Whites not allowed to feel safe?  Safety is only for minorities? 

If you actually live in USA/Canada and don't live inside a desi-bubble, you should know by now, the one quantifiable thing coming out of the mass protests against police action in USA in the last 2 years, is the fact that minorities in USA are found guilty disproportionately more than whites for the same, identical crime. Let me know if you want 'proof', i can link you to the Human Rights watch in USA which has a detailed catalogue of court cases over the last 25 years that categorically prove white American males are less than 30% likely to be found guilty of 1st degree murder for identical evidence than black/hispanic American males.

This is because on a jury-based trial that determines the guilty or not guilty verdict, juries overwhelmingly tend to downgrade white male violent crimes where there is wiggle room and don't do the same for minorities.

This inflates the number of incarcerated in the USA artificially to a significant degree.

 

[Tibarn]

On 10/15/2016 at 3:17 PM, New guy said:

If it stopped at criticising illegal immigration no one would bat an eyelid. You very well know Trump and his supporters go way beyond and harass legal immigrants too.

Except the criticism of him and his statements on illegal immigration started even before he was even favored to be the Republican candidate or before he said things like "Mexicans are rapists." This has been an issue in America for a while, with no argument but "racist" being thrown around by people who don't want to seal the border. Trump isn't the first. Every Republican is "racist."

 

I never said his supporters don't harass anyone. Can you prove they do it at a greater rate than others. If some members of a political party harass people, is that the basis for all of the members of that party. I have numerous family/friends that have migrated permanently to the US, they have experienced racism, robbery, harassment on racial lines at the hands of blacks as well. I can also tell you about the protests during the opening of a Hindu temple in by Uncle's community in the US by Christians(black and white). Should I say all Democrats hate Indian or Hindu immigrants? Should I say that Hillary pandering to blacks about systemic racism (whether it exists of not), encourages Blacks to riot and target non-Blacks? The LA race riots happened over police alleged brutality and Koreans were targeted, so do Democrats hate Koreans.

 

What about Hillary or Bernie supporters who interrupt Trump or other Republican rallies, often violently? Why is it okay for them? Trump has had numerous rallies that have been overwhelmingly peaceful, except when protesters, rather than debating him and defeating him based on his ideas, instead turn him into a sympathetic figure for people who actually want freedom of speech without restrictions by the politically correct.  

 

 

On 10/15/2016 at 3:17 PM, New guy said:

That is the culture of US, to accept everyone and that is why it has been one of the greatest countries in the world for a long time. Some of the most ground breaking tech, companies, scientists, businessmen who have made US great today were immigrants

 This is romanticizing of the US. The Americans barely allowed non-Europeans into the country until the 1960s. America was already a great economic and a great power militarily by the late 1800's. They would lynch blacks in the South until the end of the 70's and women couldn't vote until the 20's.  

 

I never said immigrants don't contribute to the US. You are demonizing someone who is running on ending illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a violation of law, not a racial issue. If he advocates killing innocent people, that is of course a different issue. Everyone that doesn't want unchecked immigration into the US isn't a racist. 

On 10/15/2016 at 3:17 PM, New guy said:

And only the most moronic person would believe something Trump says about supporting India. This guy has gone after his own campaign guys, close friends and supporters, and you believe he will be friendly to a brown country? Some people are extremely gullible

Great, another ad hominem. Now can you actually talk about issues, I don't really want to join you in the gutter. If you persist, I will probably just block you, cheers. 

 

I don't trust politicians, whether Indian or American. My family is an old Gujarati-Congress family, with my Grandfather rejecting an MLA ticket , so I've been around these types of people(politicians) all my life. You seem to be strongly Democrat, yet the Democrats are virulently anti-India. Trump is a loose cannon who has alienated many members of his own party. The Republicans are also usually anti-India as well. 

 

As I mentioned to another poster, Trump makes many right noises when it comes to India, more so than any presidential candidate I can remember studying, but that will not likely change US foreign policy towards India. The US state department/security establishment is still very much set in the Cold-War era. 

 

Trump doesn't have to be friendly toward anyone if he is the US president, he only has to do stuff for the American people. Don't project your thought processes onto other people. There is no evidence that he is any more or less racist than any American president before him, at least in regards to India, Indians, NRIs/PIOs. I can give you far more examples of the Democrats, particularly members of the current campaign, that are anti-India. 

 

On 10/15/2016 at 4:47 PM, Muloghonto said:

This is false association. US is a democracy. Not a fascist or communist government. Therefore, how much a government can influence the economic status of one particular group is limited. Despite this, the relative income of black and hispanic americans to the white Americans have gone up since WWII. This indicates that the long term US domestic economic policies have aided minorities in USA.

You are misattributing qualities to democracy here. There is nothing economically unique to a democracy that insulates it from economic interference/mismanagement. At the state level, for example, the government can allow unions and alter minimum wage laws, the latter of which damages poor communities. 

 

Either way, I wasn't saying that they are directly affected economically by the Democrats. They do however get the government they vote for. If they are not getting what they want, and they vote for the same people repeatedly, there may be some disconnect. One can, however, say that Democratic policies are harmful to them. 

 

The EPI says that there is still basically the same gap in real wages. 

 

   

On 10/15/2016 at 4:47 PM, Muloghonto said:

There is plenty of history of the Republican party being allied to the KKK in deep south, in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Obviously, not all so-called 'whites' are on a mission to opress minorities, just like not all so-called 'muslims' are out for Kaffir blood. but in both cases, the minority is significant in size and political science shows us that vocal minorities tend to weild disproportionately greater influence.

The Democrats are the party associated with the KKK in the South. Here is a list of governors of the state of Georgia and Alabama as two examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Georgia. During the times that you listed, was when the KKK was particularly active. If you notice, the governors, the equivalent of CMs in India,  were overwhelmingly Democrat. The South slowly started to become Republican when the Christian coalition formed. Trump is once again appealing to the South, particularly by adopting traditional Democratic economic policies of protectionism. 

 

I have never said that the so-called Whites aren't racist. It's possible the majority might be racist, although I doubt it. I simply told the other poster that, by his logic was implying that Whites are somehow racist for voting en bloc (while also mind-reading them that they want to oppress minorities), but other groups aren't, because the smaller groups fear for their safety. Where is the evidence against the idea that Whites also fear for their safety from the minorities and vote en bloc to protect themselves?

 

On 10/15/2016 at 4:47 PM, Muloghonto said:

This is again, false association. The constitution guarantees rights. The political parties still are the executive force for those rights and America is a classic example of 'de jure rights for everyone, de-facto rights for white males only' for the bulk of its independent existence, as evidenced by slavery & chattel status of non whites and women till less than 100 years ago.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The philosophy behind the US constitution is the idea of Natural Rights, that people are born with, and are enshrined within the constitution. these will exist regardless of the Executive. Of course the Executive has to enforce those rights, that is the power delegated to them, but the other poster's statement was that the party gives them rights. That is just not the case. 

 

Not even John Locke, who the idea of Natural rights derives from, was sure if everyone should vote or even be American. He even distrusted Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists and was unsure if they could fit into his ideal society. Ben Franklin only wanted people from the British Isles to be allowed into America. Alexander Hamilton had unfavorable views of universal suffrage. The US constitution wasn't something that people now think it should have been, whether we agree or not. 

On 10/15/2016 at 4:47 PM, Muloghonto said:

If you actually live in USA/Canada and don't live inside a desi-bubble, you should know by now, the one quantifiable thing coming out of the mass protests against police action in USA in the last 2 years, is the fact that minorities in USA are found guilty disproportionately more than whites for the same, identical crime. Let me know if you want 'proof', i can link you to the Human Rights watch in USA which has a detailed catalogue of court cases over the last 25 years that categorically prove white American males are less than 30% likely to be found guilty of 1st degree murder for identical evidence than black/hispanic American males.

This is because on a jury-based trial that determines the guilty or not guilty verdict, juries overwhelmingly tend to downgrade white male violent crimes where there is wiggle room and don't do the same for minorities.

This inflates the number of incarcerated in the USA artificially to a significant degree.

I don't live in the desi-bubble, not to mention that most Desis are Democrats in the US, I live near my University, at the moment. Now on to the content.

 

I have never said that minorities don't get charged for the same crime at a disproportionate rate. I can give you a meta-analysis of 71 studies regarding the issue that shows that there is a difference in sentencing at both Federal and non-Federal levels. However, the difference is small at best, and minuscule at worst. At the Federal level the max difference in 3% and at the non-Federal it is a max of 6%. If we take the max of both these number ranges, it still doesn't prove the second part of your claim that that it indicates a racist bias. This data comes from the Journal of Quantitative Criminology.  

 

Again, what is a significant degree here. Here is the FBI data from 2011 for Adults(defined in the US as over 18). You will notice that Hispanics aren't on the list, but that is because it was standard practice to include Hispanics in the White category. 

Table 43C

Offense charged	Arrests 18 and over					Percent distribution1
	Total	White	Black	American Indian or Alaskan Native	Asian or Pacific Islander	Total	White	Black	American Indian or Alaskan Native	Asian or Pacific Islander
TOTAL	8,375,733	5,839,706	2,337,774	127,399	70,854	100.0	69.7	27.9	1.5	0.8
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter	7,691	3,707	3,798	100	86	100.0	48.2	49.4	1.3	1.1
Forcible rape	12,550	8,220	4,058	158	114	100.0	65.5	32.3	1.3	0.9
Robbery	64,083	29,863	33,253	538	429	100.0	46.6	51.9	0.8	0.7
Aggravated assault	274,047	177,609	89,421	4,164	2,853	100.0	64.8	32.6	1.5	1.0
Burglary	180,375	123,546	53,897	1,703	1,229	100.0	68.5	29.9	0.9	0.7
Larceny-theft	781,515	546,583	214,693	12,300	7,939	100.0	69.9	27.5	1.6	1.0
Motor vehicle theft	40,148	26,616	12,664	535	333	100.0	66.3	31.5	1.3	0.8
Arson	5,260	3,779	1,358	82	41	100.0	71.8	25.8	1.6	0.8
Violent crime2	358,371	219,399	130,530	4,960	3,482	100.0	61.2	36.4	1.4	1.0
Property crime2	1,007,298	700,524	282,612	14,620	9,542	100.0	69.5	28.1	1.5	0.9
Other assaults	807,556	539,517	247,616	13,237	7,186	100.0	66.8	30.7	1.6	0.9
Forgery and counterfeiting	52,593	34,449	17,307	290	547	100.0	65.5	32.9	0.6	1.0
Fraud	123,780	82,587	39,143	1,101	949	100.0	66.7	31.6	0.9	0.8
Embezzlement	12,132	7,942	3,930	64	196	100.0	65.5	32.4	0.5	1.6
Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing	61,474	41,636	18,921	461	456	100.0	67.7	30.8	0.7	0.7
Vandalism	130,519	93,352	33,717	2,338	1,112	100.0	71.5	25.8	1.8	0.9
Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.	96,157	55,300	39,415	699	743	100.0	57.5	41.0	0.7	0.8
Prostitution and commercialized vice	43,330	23,287	18,744	254	1,045	100.0	53.7	43.3	0.6	2.4
Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)	43,355	31,771	10,450	652	482	100.0	73.3	24.1	1.5	1.1
Drug abuse violations	1,059,439	700,056	344,717	6,998	7,668	100.0	66.1	32.5	0.7	0.7
Gambling	5,741	1,844	3,687	38	172	100.0	32.1	64.2	0.7	3.0
Offenses against the family and children	84,884	55,091	27,445	1,782	566	100.0	64.9	32.3	2.1	0.7
Driving under the influence	916,543	781,149	111,063	13,468	10,863	100.0	85.2	12.1	1.5	1.2
Liquor laws	311,364	250,703	46,692	10,559	3,410	100.0	80.5	15.0	3.4	1.1
Drunkenness	405,017	331,441	63,416	7,413	2,747	100.0	81.8	15.7	1.8	0.7
Disorderly conduct	341,437	221,383	110,091	7,550	2,413	100.0	64.8	32.2	2.2	0.7
Vagrancy	20,969	11,963	8,425	441	140	100.0	57.1	40.2	2.1	0.7
All other offenses (except traffic)	2,492,741	1,655,737	779,404	40,469	17,131	100.0	66.4	31.3	1.6	0.7
Suspicion	1,033	575	449	5	4	100.0	55.7	43.5	0.5	0.4

 

The trend is pretty clear here. Even if we halved the crime rate for Blacks here, the percentage in most areas would still be above their share of the population(~12-13%). Why shouldn't "Whites" and even "Asians" fear  minorities. If the minorities have a right to fear, then so do Whites. 

 

If we look at the data analyzed by the Manhattan Institute to separate Hispanics from Whites we get and compare the races of the offender and victim, we get:

http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NCFS-Table.jpg

So, I agree there probably some bias, but not to a huge degree. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Tibarn

[jusarrived]

tbh I like Trump better than Hillary , hes bit of a loose canon but I dont think he will cause as much harm as Hillary in the long run . I feel like pulling my hair out when I listen to Hillary . He may not win , but hes smarter than most people give him credit . 

[The Outsider]

22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Err no. You are ridiculously off base, its not even funny.

Modi is a right wing conservative. He has support of ALL the right wing conservatives of his party.

 

Trump is a loose cannon crackpot who has hijacked the right wing conservatives and hardly any right wing conservative republican party members support him. 

Huge difference. 

 

its like comparing your conservative Grandpa to a certifiable lunatic.

You're not making any sense. Trump got elected democratically as the Republican nominee, and Modi bulldozed himself.

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

You're not making any sense. Trump got elected democratically as the Republican nominee, and Modi bulldozed himself.

All the conservative big-wigs in the BJP supported Modi. All the conservative Republicans hate trump. 
So trump is not representative of the typical conservative Republicans as Modi is to BJP, hence Modi and Trump are not equitable. 

It should be pretty simple concept to a so-called physicist.

 

[The Outsider]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

All the conservative big-wigs in the BJP supported Modi. All the conservative Republicans hate trump. 
So trump is not representative of the typical conservative Republicans as Modi is to BJP, hence Modi and Trump are not equitable. 

It should be pretty simple concept to a so-called physicist.

 

Was Trump democratically elected?

 

 

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, The Outsider said:

Was Trump democratically elected?

 

 

Democratically elected makes you a Modi analog ? Ok !! Obama is a modi analog then

 

[The Outsider]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Democratically elected makes you a Modi analog ? Ok !! Obama is a modi analog then

 

You're claiming that Trump is not a true representative of republicans even though he came through a rigorous electoral process to be their nominee for the post of the president. I hope you realize how asinine that sounds.