Who Voted for Trump?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 457759
  • Start date
It's so nice that all these people who spend a lot of their time making a fool of themselves defending dumb GOP talking points are so sincerely interested how to best advance the interests of the party they hate. :)
I got those pts from progressive liberals like Kilinski and Jimmy dore.....not sure if serious.

You strike me as a legit liberal, not some neoliberal Corp shill like others imply. I've never seen you support a single Corp backed policy tbh. Things that the DNC are doing, i.e. getting caught by the Intercept shoehorning progressives backing on tape, this reversal on fossil fuel contributions, don't bother you?

One would think that some placation of the "progressive'/better safety net platform would not only ensure more voter turnout but actual produce substantive net results...its hard to also ask why poor people vote right against their "interests" (which negates guns) and then condemn berniebros/progressives when they don't do the same.

I'm legit asking, as this line of reasoning is why I've never voted right despite what some may think. I'm a huge fan of defense spending, clearly, over the safety net but that's it. I'm for gun control, marriage choice, pro choice to the max. weed legalization, more open to UHC than ever, getting out of needless wars, etc...
 
I got those pts from progressive liberals like Kilinski and Jimmy dore.....not sure if serious.

You got the points from people I'm not familiar so you're not sure if serious?

You strike me as a legit liberal, not some neoliberal Corp shill like others imply. I've never seen you support a single Corp backed policy tbh. Things that the DNC are doing, i.e. getting caught by the Intercept shoehorning progressives backing on tape, this reversal on fossil fuel contributions, don't bother you?

The DNC has nothing to do with any of that. And I don't know what "shoehorning backing" means (not an insult--just never heard the term). If that's a reference to the Hawaii candidates thing, that's obviously bad. Get those fuckers out of the party. I didn't hear about the first move so changing it doesn't bother me (didn't hear about that either, except from you). Generally, I'm not bothered at all by campaign contributions from anyone. I've discussed that issue a lot. To me, it's a total non-issue. I wouldn't expect it to lead to a bad change in policy, and if it did, I'd condemn the bad policy change. Generally, I have a preference for discussing policy over symbolic gestures on either side and of any type.

One would think that some placation of the "progressive'/better safety net platform would not only ensure more voter turnout but actual produce substantive net results...its hard to also ask why poor people vote right against their "interests" (which negates guns) and then condemn berniebros/progressives when they don't do the same.

I might slip up on this, but my general thinking is that people vote against their *economic* self-interest but not necessarily their interests generally. Like, if you're a poor white guy, sticking it to the minorities, actors, and eggheads might legitimately be more important to you than your own income. I don't know that I exactly respect it, but I get it. With regard to the other stuff, good/bad policy is good/bad policy. I'll condemn that when I see it (note I was here talking about what bullshit the $15/hr MW was, and I thought that the TPP was much ado about nothing).

I'm legit asking, as this line of reasoning is why I've never voted right despite what some may think. I'm a huge fan of defense spending, clearly, over the safety net but that's it. I'm for gun control, marriage choice, pro choice to the max. weed legalization, more open to UHC than ever, getting out of needless wars, etc...

I definitely support more action to fight climate change. I just don't see that as being the same issue as donations from energy companies (who, let's face it, aren't exactly lining up to fill Democrats' donation plates anyway, though they might temporarily blow with the wind in a wave year).
 
As someone who is working a PhD, I am obliged to cite and research everything and anything before making claims. Also, the research process has empowered me with knowledge and skills while it has also humbled me because I have realized I practically do not know anything.

With that said, Trump is the complete opposite of what the a PhD process teaches. He is a flat out liar, boastful, conceited and unaware of his immense ignorance. I dislike him on a personal level. Politically, I was only looking forward him getting rid of Obama care, which I hate paying for because I have been blessed with very good health.

Yeah, I voted for Hillary.
 
you're not getting it my dude
you just listed a whole laundry list of things the GOP does.....things we all know they do. Trump was even much more G than normal and admitted they do alot of these things when he shit all over the other GOP scrubs in the debates, and then HIlary in the main event. So to act all surprised or offended that they do it, is beyond disingenuous IMO.

Half the eligible voters in general don't vote, and when the supposedly honest and 'for the people' party is not only also taking corporate money (fine), but taking it from sources that they usually also cite as extreme faults in their opponents and is diametrically opposed to one of the main arguments in their platform of the last decade.......

well, that's when you lose to a guy that got Stone Cold Stunned one time, in easily the most embarrassingly pathetic major election loss in US history if not the World. Then, when caught cheating or at least highly suspect activities w/ the actual popular candidate in your party and issues w/ the storage of classified materials, they not only don't take any accountability whatsoever but fabricate mythical foreign boogeyman in a truly Alex Jones level conspiracy. Even funnier, they ignore the true, actual foreign collusion that is likely happening as we speak w/ Israel and Saudi Arabia (that Yemeni bombing of children of most recent events). They just have better stated moral highground, they don't actually have any left to stand on

When you truly appreciate Trump for what he actually is, the Greatest Troll in World History and arguably THE greatest media manipulator ever, the rest of this becomes so much more comical.

No I get it perfectly

The people chose a party that has policies that are blatantly pro corporation / pro elite to the point of it being detrimental to the common good over the other party that has polices aimed at improving the common good. And why? Because that "other party" still had some pro corporatist policies and tendancies. Basically those "corperate dems" had it coming for being such hypocrites (oil, finance, globalization, etc. you name it).

This of course lets the Rs totally of the hook for their bankrupt and massively hypocritical ideology / policy while attributing the Dems failure / Trump's ascendancy to the dems own hypocracy (which again discounts the relatively better policy the dem's had). According to you, voters are choosing the party that “everyone knows does not care about them” and that is led by the troll who, when not talking tribalism, changes his policy positions mid sentence. And they are doing it becuase the Dems are talking corperate donations (fine) from the oil industries (horror).

IMO the theory that voters on mass are cutting off their noses to spite their faces is a gross oversimplification (albeit with some truth). It's certainly not something to emulate (or more plainly the dem corp shill stuff might be appealing to some idiots but that's not a good reason to repeat it). I also think Trump benefited from many additional factors. To his credit he read the R party / base well (birther identity troll) during the primary. Hilary herself was an unappealing candidate for a variety of reasons, that also happened to have an appeal to the wrong cross section in the wrong places (amazing how it’s so overlooked that she actually did better with whites, southerners, etc than Obama and less well with minorities, which is one of the things that cost her the election). The anti establishment candidate also had cred in the aftermath of globalization in dem strongholds (again those corp dem shills).

So It’s more like the master media manipulator moniker fits the primaries but it was a lot of luck in the general. Hell Trump himself was arguable surprised as shit when he won. There is definitely something to the statement that Trump trolled himself to the White House, I agree with you on that. Trolls have any immense ability to create a wave of chaos just for the fuck of it and will exploit any contradiction.

But at the end of the day, Capitalist shill is either a pejorative or its not. Political hypocrisy is either a bad thing or it is not. Whatever the level of contradictions, lies, blatant BS that the Dems are guilty of, you can put it on steroids when it comes to the Rs. “Well every body knows the Rs are FOS” is not an argument. And I am not surprised that the Rs do it, no more than I am surprised the Trump himself, despite all his great critiques, still implemented the signature R establishment tax cut policy. That also puts Trump himself on a different level of FOS than what you are complaining about with the dems.

I know you said corporate donations fine, and that its just the oil thing that irks you (despite the dem policy on the oil industry being 1000X better than the Rs), but again, taken to its logical extension, you could apply this argument to take any money from corps, to their position on globalization, etc. The notion is that the Dems have to be as pure white as snow while the Rs (Trump included) get a pass on much worse activities, becuase “everyone knows the Rs are bad”. Anyone calling the Dems Corp shills should be puking all over trump. And if the only way to beat trump is for the Dems to enage in some far left strident approach to politics, well I feel bad for America.

That's it, I have laid it out as best I can (somewhat repetitively). I doubt we are going to agree, but simply put I'll take the better policy with some corporate warts over the blatantly beholden any day.

Btw I am not going to engage on the Alex jones stuff. I disagree but it’s a derail imo. Can save that for another day.
 
No I get it perfectly

The people chose a party that has policies that are blatantly pro corporation / pro elite to the point of it being detrimental to the common good over the other party that has polices aimed at improving the common good. And why? Because that "other party" still had some pro corporatist policies and tendancies. Basically those "corperate dems" had it coming for being such hypocrites (oil, finance, globalization, etc. you name it).

This of course lets the Rs totally of the hook for their bankrupt and massively hypocritical ideology / policy while attributing the Dems failure / Trump's ascendancy to the dems own hypocracy (which again discounts the relatively better policy the dem's had). According to you, voters are choosing the party that “everyone knows does not care about them” and that is led by the troll who, when not talking tribalism, changes his policy positions mid sentence. And they are doing it becuase the Dems are talking corperate donations (fine) from the oil industries (horror).

IMO the theory that voters on mass are cutting off their noses to spite their faces is a gross oversimplification (albeit with some truth). It's certainly not something to emulate (or more plainly the dem corp shill stuff might be appealing to some idiots but that's not a good reason to repeat it). I also think Trump benefited from many additional factors. To his credit he read the R party / base well (birther identity troll) during the primary. Hilary herself was an unappealing candidate for a variety of reasons, that also happened to have an appeal to the wrong cross section in the wrong places (amazing how it’s so overlooked that she actually did better with whites, southerners, etc than Obama and less well with minorities, which is one of the things that cost her the election). The anti establishment candidate also had cred in the aftermath of globalization in dem strongholds (again those corp dem shills).

So It’s more like the master media manipulator moniker fits the primaries but it was a lot of luck in the general. Hell Trump himself was arguable surprised as shit when he won. There is definitely something to the statement that Trump trolled himself to the White House, I agree with you on that. Trolls have any immense ability to create a wave of chaos just for the fuck of it and will exploit any contradiction.

But at the end of the day, Capitalist shill is either a pejorative or its not. Political hypocrisy is either a bad thing or it is not. Whatever the level of contradictions, lies, blatant BS that the Dems are guilty of, you can put it on steroids when it comes to the Rs. “Well every body knows the Rs are FOS” is not an argument. And I am not surprised that the Rs do it, no more than I am surprised the Trump himself, despite all his great critiques, still implemented the signature R establishment tax cut policy. That also puts Trump himself on a different level of FOS than what you are complaining about with the dems.

I know you said corporate donations fine, and that its just the oil thing that irks you (despite the dem policy on the oil industry being 1000X better than the Rs), but again, taken to its logical extension, you could apply this argument to take any money from corps, to their position on globalization, etc. The notion is that the Dems have to be as pure white as snow while the Rs (Trump included) get a pass on much worse activities, becuase “everyone knows the Rs are bad”. Anyone calling the Dems Corp shills should be puking all over trump. And if the only way to beat trump is for the Dems to enage in some far left strident approach to politics, well I feel bad for America.

That's it, I have laid it out as best I can (somewhat repetitively). I doubt we are going to agree, but simply put I'll take the better policy with some corporate warts over the blatantly beholden any day.

Btw I am not going to engage on the Alex jones stuff. I disagree but it’s a derail imo. Can save that for another day.
*hypocrisy
 
You got the points from people I'm not familiar so you're not sure if serious?



The DNC has nothing to do with any of that. And I don't know what "shoehorning backing" means (not an insult--just never heard the term). If that's a reference to the Hawaii candidates thing, that's obviously bad. Get those fuckers out of the party. I didn't hear about the first move so changing it doesn't bother me (didn't hear about that either, except from you). Generally, I'm not bothered at all by campaign contributions from anyone. I've discussed that issue a lot. To me, it's a total non-issue. I wouldn't expect it to lead to a bad change in policy, and if it did, I'd condemn the bad policy change. Generally, I have a preference for discussing policy over symbolic gestures on either side and of any type.



I might slip up on this, but my general thinking is that people vote against their *economic* self-interest but not necessarily their interests generally. Like, if you're a poor white guy, sticking it to the minorities, actors, and eggheads might legitimately be more important to you than your own income. I don't know that I exactly respect it, but I get it. With regard to the other stuff, good/bad policy is good/bad policy. I'll condemn that when I see it (note I was here talking about what bullshit the $15/hr MW was, and I thought that the TPP was much ado about nothing).



I definitely support more action to fight climate change. I just don't see that as being the same issue as donations from energy companies (who, let's face it, aren't exactly lining up to fill Democrats' donation plates anyway, though they might temporarily blow with the wind in a wave year).
Would you say you're relatively pragmatic in regards to funding and the environment issue?

I think I am, the funding and contributions don't bother me per se, but I do think it's funny and I totally understand if progressives have a problem with it
 
Do you think the right went more conservative after 2008? I think they went a little more liberal. Especially on social issues. Some conservatives did stay put. Like me, but I'm no politician

Exactly. Donald Trump forced the Republican Party toward the center and basically peeled away centrist Democrats who were sick of people like @Fawlty sucking the joy out of life.
 
You got the points from people I'm not familiar so you're not sure if serious?



The DNC has nothing to do with any of that. And I don't know what "shoehorning backing" means (not an insult--just never heard the term). If that's a reference to the Hawaii candidates thing, that's obviously bad. Get those fuckers out of the party. I didn't hear about the first move so changing it doesn't bother me (didn't hear about that either, except from you). Generally, I'm not bothered at all by campaign contributions from anyone. I've discussed that issue a lot. To me, it's a total non-issue. I wouldn't expect it to lead to a bad change in policy, and if it did, I'd condemn the bad policy change. Generally, I have a preference for discussing policy over symbolic gestures on either side and of any type.



I might slip up on this, but my general thinking is that people vote against their *economic* self-interest but not necessarily their interests generally. Like, if you're a poor white guy, sticking it to the minorities, actors, and eggheads might legitimately be more important to you than your own income. I don't know that I exactly respect it, but I get it. With regard to the other stuff, good/bad policy is good/bad policy. I'll condemn that when I see it (note I was here talking about what bullshit the $15/hr MW was, and I thought that the TPP was much ado about nothing).



I definitely support more action to fight climate change. I just don't see that as being the same issue as donations from energy companies (who, let's face it, aren't exactly lining up to fill Democrats' donation plates anyway, though they might temporarily blow with the wind in a wave year).

@HunterSdVa29 some of the above might actually explain my position better, vis a vis actual policy importance. I have some minor differences on things (I think they are voting against interest but culturally blinded and worry more about contributiona than JVS, but dont see it as catastrophic) but overall gist is the same
 
No I get it perfectly

The people chose a party that has policies that are blatantly pro corporation / pro elite to the point of it being detrimental to the common good over the other party that has polices aimed at improving the common good. And why? Because that "other party" still had some pro corporatist policies and tendancies. Basically those "corperate dems" had it coming for being such hypocrites (oil, finance, globalization, etc. you name it).

This of course lets the Rs totally of the hook for their bankrupt and massively hypocritical ideology / policy while attributing the Dems failure / Trump's ascendancy to the dems own hypocracy (which again discounts the relatively better policy the dem's had). According to you, voters are choosing the party that “everyone knows does not care about them” and that is led by the troll who, when not talking tribalism, changes his policy positions mid sentence. And they are doing it becuase the Dems are talking corperate donations (fine) from the oil industries (horror).

IMO the theory that voters on mass are cutting off their noses to spite their faces is a gross oversimplification (albeit with some truth). It's certainly not something to emulate (or more plainly the dem corp shill stuff might be appealing to some idiots but that's not a good reason to repeat it). I also think Trump benefited from many additional factors. To his credit he read the R party / base well (birther identity troll) during the primary. Hilary herself was an unappealing candidate for a variety of reasons, that also happened to have an appeal to the wrong cross section in the wrong places (amazing how it’s so overlooked that she actually did better with whites, southerners, etc than Obama and less well with minorities, which is one of the things that cost her the election). The anti establishment candidate also had cred in the aftermath of globalization in dem strongholds (again those corp dem shills).

So It’s more like the master media manipulator moniker fits the primaries but it was a lot of luck in the general. Hell Trump himself was arguable surprised as shit when he won. There is definitely something to the statement that Trump trolled himself to the White House, I agree with you on that. Trolls have any immense ability to create a wave of chaos just for the fuck of it and will exploit any contradiction.

But at the end of the day, Capitalist shill is either a pejorative or its not. Political hypocrisy is either a bad thing or it is not. Whatever the level of contradictions, lies, blatant BS that the Dems are guilty of, you can put it on steroids when it comes to the Rs. “Well every body knows the Rs are FOS” is not an argument. And I am not surprised that the Rs do it, no more than I am surprised the Trump himself, despite all his great critiques, still implemented the signature R establishment tax cut policy. That also puts Trump himself on a different level of FOS than what you are complaining about with the dems.

I know you said corporate donations fine, and that its just the oil thing that irks you (despite the dem policy on the oil industry being 1000X better than the Rs), but again, taken to its logical extension, you could apply this argument to take any money from corps, to their position on globalization, etc. The notion is that the Dems have to be as pure white as snow while the Rs (Trump included) get a pass on much worse activities, becuase “everyone knows the Rs are bad”. Anyone calling the Dems Corp shills should be puking all over trump. And if the only way to beat trump is for the Dems to enage in some far left strident approach to politics, well I feel bad for America.

That's it, I have laid it out as best I can (somewhat repetitively). I doubt we are going to agree, but simply put I'll take the better policy with some corporate warts over the blatantly beholden any day.

Btw I am not going to engage on the Alex jones stuff. I disagree but it’s a derail imo. Can save that for another day.
The GOP is far far more successful at scrupulous tactics regarding elections, be they corp backing or gerrymandering or scaremongering or outright lying.

Dems won't win anything trying to mimic any of that, that's why people across the US and Europe are starting to shun the Globalist elite in those parties. Relying on policy should be their bread and butter, always, this younger millennial group is just swinging that pendulum further left
 
Would you say you're relatively pragmatic in regards to funding and the environment issue?

I think I am, the funding and contributions don't bother me per se, but I do think it's funny and I totally understand if progressives have a problem with it



Well fuck that could have saved me a wall of text FFS.......
 
To be clear I don't subscribe to the thinking that because cracka is used then white people can use whatever they want. I just happen to think that "whites" and "blacks" is commonly used so it didn't matter.

Thank you for policing my etiquette on the matter though, it does come off as a little ignorant sounding. Is "black people" acceptable? Serious question.

Somehow I fear that we'll be debating how to refer to each other for a long time coming. Half of this country absolutely loves being offended.
 
Well fuck that could have saved me a wall of text FFS.......
My bad, was just killing time today

I was originally just trying to explain why progressives could feel disenchanted. Or did last election.

And when the bulk of the media coverage is on Russia, and not actual issues or the midterms it's hard to blame them.

Attacking character is what you do when you lose the policy opinion (90s GOP vs slick willy), liberal policies are favored by a majority of the US....focus on that. They skipped like 5 steps haha
 
The GOP is far far more successful at scrupulous tactics regarding elections, be they corp backing or gerrymandering or scaremongering or outright lying.

Dems won't win anything trying to mimic any of that, that's why people across the US and Europe are starting to shun the Globalist elite in those parties. Relying on policy should be their bread and butter, always, this younger millennial group is just swinging that pendulum further left

Oh I agree imo the Dems already have the superior policy. The Dems should not be trying to be like the Rs, but calling them "cooperate shills" every time they are not perfect obscures that imo. I dont think a blind move left is a good move for the dems. Rational policy implemented incrementally is my choice, but it needs to be sold.
 
My bad, was just killing time today

I was originally just trying to explain why progressives could feel disenchanted. Or did last election.

And when the bulk of the media coverage is on Russia, and not actual issues or the midterms it's hard to blame them.

Attacking character is what you do when you lose the policy opinion (90s GOP vs slick willy), liberal policies are favored by a majority of the US....focus on that. They skipped like 5 steps haha

Haha well I was on a plane so that passed the time lol.

From a progressive pov it's a logical perspective (don't agree but I get it), it's the justifying an R vote that perplexes me. But no need for a rehash, always enjoy a back and forth.
 
Oh I agree imo the Dems already have the superior policy. The Dems should not be trying to be like the Rs, but calling them "cooperate shills" every time they are not perfect obscures that imo. I dont think a blind move left is a good move for the dems. Rational policy implemented incrementally is my choice, but it needs to be sold.
Incremental is the key IMO

I lived in Europe from 09-13, good times but I only paid VAT not income taxes to them and I still thought it was crazy high (19% sales tax). People in the US would revolt if we swiftly switched to equitable higher rates, regardless of what it paid for IMO
Also I was specifically referring to Neoliberalism as Corp shilling, not traditional or progressive liberals
 
Exactly. Donald Trump forced the Republican Party toward the center and basically peeled away centrist Democrats who were sick of people like @Fawlty sucking the joy out of life.

I'll bite. You have my full attention. Please tell us how Trump is further to the center/left than Romney, McCain, GWB, and Reagan. Are we just basing that on his inauthenticity on conservative morality?
 
I'll bite. You have my full attention. Please tell us how Trump is further to the center/left than Romney, McCain, GWB, and Reagan. Are we just basing that on his inauthenticity on conservative morality?
Gay marriage is not a big problem with Trump
Trump wasn't the strongest 2nd Amendment Republican candidate
 
City people are more likely to want big govt and big regulations.

Rural people want freedom.

And the battle seems to be this.
More like rural conservative voters are too stupid to understand that democrats aren’t taking personal freedom and that the republicans are giving freedom to corporations to poison the land and pay shit wages while stripping you of constitutional rights.
 
More like rural conservative voters are too stupid to understand that democrats aren’t taking personal freedom and that the republicans are giving freedom to corporations to poison the land and pay shit wages while stripping you of constitutional rights.
Not really. The cities are run by democrats. You guys have the most pollution
 
Back
Top