The best predictor of Trump support isn't income, education, or age. It's authoritarianism.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, I got a 3 (several of the questions seemed nonsensical).

"You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American."

[Origanalist]

Compared to you fanboy sheeples, ya, pretty much.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^looks like a Mexican, must be a rapist

[limequat]

2.466666666666

You are a liberal airhead.

I take this as a compliment

[Brian4Liberty]

Perhaps the most relevant line in the article:

The practical implication of this connection is that Americans who are not strong authoritarians behave more like them when they feel threatened.

How could a Ron Paul supporter support an authoritarian candidate? Perhaps it has to do with the level of threat, either real or imagined, experienced first-hand or heard about through other sources.

This description is not isolated to Trump. Sanders and Clinton are also authoritarians. They advocate an all-powerful Big Brother state to take care of their supporters, and especially in Hillary's case, be just as aggressive in foreign policy as a neoconservative. They feel threatened by Trump, thus they want to shut down Trump and any support of Trump. They want to disrupt his campaign events in an effort to practically prevent him from running as a candidate. "Democratic" socialism, as long as all candidates are pre-selected... perhaps they should call that authoritarian democracy. The way the Democrats arranged their primary, Hillary was pre-ordained, like an election in a third-world dictatorship.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Perhaps the most relevant line in the article:
This description is not isolated to Trump. Sanders and Clinton are also authoritarians. They advocate an all-powerful Big Brother state to take care of their supporters, and especially in Hillary's case, be just as aggressive in foreign policy as a neoconservative. They feel threatened by Trump, thus they want to shut down Trump and any support of Trump. They want to disrupt his campaign events in an effort to practically prevent him from running as a candidate. "Democratic" socialism, as long as all candidates are pre-selected... perhaps they should call that authoritarian democracy. The way the Democrats arranged their primary, Hillary was pre-ordained, like an election in a third-world dictatorship.

That's also why the whole thread is flawed. It isn't a predictor if it doesn't predict a particular outcome. The entire concept of state government is authoritarian, it doesn't matter who wants to run it. It is force.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's also why the whole thread is flawed. It isn't a predictor if it doesn't predict a particular outcome. The entire concept of state government is authoritarian, it doesn't matter who wants to run it. It is force.

Except that in the election cycle, Trump professes to be the strong authoritarian, and the media and left are more than happy to help him take that label. While Sanders and Hillary want just as much, if not more authoritarian government, that is not the general narrative.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Except that in the election cycle, Trump professes to be the strong authoritarian, and the media and left are more than happy to help him take that label. While Sanders and Hillary want just as much, if not more authoritarian government, that is not the general narrative.

I don't see it as coming off that way (more so then the other politicians) but will take it as true for this message. Also, I don't see him as actually being one - his focus has been in business and deal making - (having written a book on the art of the deal) and he's been on tv with the Apprentice he produces and stars in for years as one that sends people out in teams to do their own thing as how to get things done. Neither of which is about forcing people, but how to negotiate with people and get things done by cooperation in a team.


That is what Trump is known for. So when he says in a debate that he isn't laying down any inflexible rules, that he'll negotiate for a better deal, I believe him. He's been that way in the public eye for more than 20 years. He hasn't advocated force - he's taught people to trade and make deals and work in teams - a libertarian in lifestyle if not fact in that regard.

So I think labeling Trump an authoritarian instead of pointing our specific things is just going to bounce off people's ears - especially since he is honestly being slandered so much anyway - and a lot of the liberal media slander is for the things I said - ie for his success and what lifestyle he advocates - envy like something out of atlas shrugged.

But lifestyle doesn't mean you aren't authoritarian or will not be one when you go from business to government, and get "the ring of power". So for this message, I'll take it as true.

Could Trump be doing this on purpose?

He's running against a woman and a man that is so effeminate that he almost - but not quite - seems gay.

If Hillary tried to say the same things, she might seem shrill. And Sanders, ineffective.

Is this calculated?

For good or bad, Trump seems like something out of Atlas Shrugged, whose characters are also sometimes takeable as good or bad. These forums affect the stance of almost no one in this election, where Trump already has large leads. It's better to relax, enjoy the atmosphere, and get out a libertarian reason or two on specific stories every once in awhile.

[hankrichter12]

This is no surprise; their findings are similar to the reactions on this forum when there was a protester at a Trump rally who was already being led out by authorities; they thought it was just great when someone sucker-punched him on the way out. This is the mentality of many Trump supporters.

Oh please, are you really this stupid? One incident and you're gonna throw a fit about it? I remember some people stomping a reporter at a Rand rally, so I guess that would justify a bunch of leftist organizing a violent mob to go to Rands next rally and threaten people, assault them, vandalize, etc. It's funny seeing all the hypocrites exposed.

I think it's much more simple than that.

Conservative minded people want someone in charge who isn't afraid of the Communists who control the Democratic Party.

Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich all had the opportunity to stand up to the Communists after they rioted in Chicago a couple of days ago. They didn't have the nerve.

They curled up in the fetal position and sniveled about Trump's "tone" instead.

If they didn't stand up to them then, they won't stand up to them ever.

Meanwhile, Trump is back out there on the campaign trail, getting in front of thousands of people and putting himself in harms way to deliver his message.

I guess the rest of them are still hiding under the bed.

Thank you, this guy gets it, guess the "Liberty Movement" wants a guy like Rand who scurries into the corner and begs forgiveness any time someone gets offended by his words. Heck, Ron might not have been the most "manly" man, but at least he would stand his ground and defend people's rights to a booing crowd.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I might add, that in dealing with your own property and business, you may seem authoritarian to others - it's your property. This is one of the points that Ayn Rand made in Atlas Shrugged.

The question should be, to those who think it's worth their time to attack Trump, will Trump treat the government "as his own property", or as a servant hired by others. It's not worth my time. But I do not mind giving out advice on how to better attack Trump on libertarian principles if it can be done. I haven't seen it being done - really. but it isn't the general election, and the candidates he is running against are just as bad or worse.