I'm just here to say hello to my friend Lys and also o/ Khizr Khan. :p

 

 

We are stacking up the questions!

 

 

For all americans, are there numbers on the amount of voters for each side that vote:

- strictly due to party membership

- strictly due to dislike of opponent

- strictly due to liking of candidate (ignoring political platform)

- strictly due to political platform (different from party membership as these people follow the party as a whole)

There are a ton of people that vote strictly based on party membership (I know several people that refer to themselves as "yellow dog democrats". Had to have one explain it to me a few years back, he said he'd "vote for a yellow dog if it was registered as a democrat"). Are there actually any studies or surveys out there that give percentages who vote based on what you've asked? None that I know of.

Also, are people voting for Dem/Rep knowing that while candidate for Dem/Rep isn't there desire, they know the partymembers surrounding them + senate and representatives will "reighn them in" when needed? (aka, I know my president is a fruitcake but his staff will keep us safe).

 

I'm sure there are. Who the candidate surrounds themselves with has influenced me to not vote for someone in the past. I would have likely voted for McCain, until Palin seemed to be batshit insane to me (and that honestly could have been media portrayal, and she wasn't nearly as bad as she came off).She can see the Russians coming, from her house!

 

 

I got to admit, that one was one of the reasons why I wouldn't vote for McCain.  Coworker told me a couple of years later that was actually from a Saturday Night Live skit, and Palin never said it.  I had to look it up, because I didn't believe him at the time.  http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp

McCain is awesome. If I were american I would vote for him every time.

Coming back to Trump, its really surprising the huge amount of support he has in the US. I came across an article (opinion piece really) that tries to explain the Trump phenomenon. I dodn't know if the writer is right or not but some parts of it does make sense for an outsider looking in.


 

Donald Trump has variously been described as “dangerous,” “fraud,” “unhinged,” “racist,” “mentally unbalanced” and “outright nuts.” Vanity Fair magazine's Mark Bowden summed up these epithets in one sentence in a slightly more charitable manner: He argued that Donald Trump is “adolescent, hilariously ostentatious, arbitrary, unkind, profane, dishonest, loudly opinionated, and consistently wrong.”

Yet, this “dishonest” man ¬¬- whose state of mental sanity was openly questioned by Mike Bloomberg, his one time friend and a former mayor of New York City, at last month's Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia - is only a heartbeat away from becoming America's next President!

As many as 14 million people – most of them white, many of them without a college degree and very few of them women – voted him to victory through a primary process that included 16 seasoned and sane politicians. Right now, although he is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, a significant portion of the American electorate appears willing to endorse him and his policies, which centres on three things: banning Muslims, expelling illegal immigrants and building a wall with Mexico.

To me, that is the scariest thing.

How could 14 million Americans so eagerly embrace a white supremacist ideology that disparages whole groups of people who either look different or practice a different religion? Trump even endeared himself by disparaging women and people with disability.

Recently, three New York Times reporters put together a video montage, bringing together the sounds and fury of Trump supporters at various public meetings (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/donald-trump-supporters.html) . These people are almost exclusively white, universally crude and completely happy to hurl the worst epithets at Muslims, immigrants, gay and anyone who does not speak English.

Build a wall – kill them all. Ignorance and immigrants, they mix together. If you don't speak English and don't contribute, get out. They chant, as Trump from the podium exhorts, “Am I a unifier or what?” The crowd goes wild, and everyone begins chanting, build that wall.

What are these people angry about?

Most fair-minded American pundits – most of them white, too! – seem to agree that Donald Trump has successfully appealed to the economic anxiety of America's bottom half. Over the past twenty or so years, while America's top one percent prospered, the middle class and the rest of the country languished, trapped in an economic morass. These whites once held good jobs at local factories and coal mines, or owned their own small businesses. The recession killed them all. In rust belt States of the Midwest, such as Indiana, Michigan, Iowa and even Pennsylvania, most mines remain idle, factories shuttered and small businesses closed.

Now they are angry and need a scapegoat. Donald Trump has given them two - immigrants and Muslims.

Sure, that's a good reason to feel frustrated about, but the 99 percent that has been left behind also include people from other groups, most notably African-Americans, and millions of documented and undocumented immigrants. Bernie Sanders built a whole movement on the theme of economic disparity that has brought together millions of young Americans, white, black and everyone else in-between. Instead of joining hands with them to demand economic fairness, why are the Trump supporters venting against those who too are facing the same quagmire?
I believe they are angry at the loss of their sense of power – white power. To most of them, America is a white man's country that they alone conquered by vanquishing the American Indians. They once owned farmlands, cotton fields, and yes, hundreds of thousands of slaves. Now all are lost, except perhaps a framed photo on the wall of the old farm house.

Donald Trump claims he will be the “law and order President,” making no secret of his disdain for those picketing against police brutality in inner cities. This veiled attack on protests by Black people has delighted the white supremacists.

We have to note here once the black man was considered to be only three-fifths of a white man, barred from travelling on the same bus with a white man or entering into the union of marriage with a white woman. While the original framers of the US Constitution used the three-fifth formulation for the purpose of counting slaves, Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney made its hidden meaning amply clear. In his now infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, Taney ruled that neither slaves nor free slaves were eligible to be US citizens, and since blacks are “regarded as beings of an inferior order,” they had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

Fast forward the tape to present day. The descendants of the same slaves now enjoy - at least on paper - the same rights as whites do. Worse, one of them is now the country's President, occupying the White House! The last eight years, a mostly white Republican Party has argued over and over again that Obama was an illegal occupant, a usurper, who must be defeated at any cost.

Add to this sense of loss and defeat the spectre of non-white immigrants streaming into the country. The white man's anguish has been further compounded by an inescapable demographic reality. According to the US Census Bureau, by 2045, this country will become a non-white majority country, putting the whites - demographically speaking - into second class status. No wonder, the traumatised whites feel lost and abandoned in a country that they thought was God's gift to them – only to them.

Faced with this twin reality – lost economic security and swarming immigrants – the Trump followers want to build a “wall” to stem the tide of non-white immigrants. What they really want is to build a wall around themselves, separating them from all non-whites. That's what the Ku Klux Klan wanted. That's what many white supremacist groups – with such well-meaning names as New Century Foundation and American Renaissance – want.

African-American comedian and writer Kamau Bell, whose documentary series United Shades of America is now featuring on CNN, recently met with some KKK members. Speaking through his white robes, a KKK man told him that they were '100 percent' for white people. “Just leave us alone.”

In Trump, these white supremacists have found an ally. He speaks their language and shares their worries. As The New York Times reported, white supremacist groups all across America have found in his candidacy a cause worth celebrating. It quotes Jared Taylor, the country's most prominent white supremacist, who admits he has finally found someone he can support. In robocalls to voters across Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Taylor has urged voters to support Trump. “We need smart, educated, white people who will assimilate to our culture,” his recorded message counsels.

One Jared Taylor, or his small band of followers, would never be a cause for concern. We now have millions of people who either agree with Donald Trump or are ready to tolerate him to maintain the Republican – read white – political control. Some opinion polls show that unless Trump's road to the presidency implodes by his own folly, as much as 40 percent of the US voters could be seen supporting the “con man”.

That, in my view, is the real danger.

The writer is a journalist and author based in New York.

He speaks what everyone thinks, sadly he does it all at once and for each and every thought out there...

 

The internet, with its anonymity, but mostly with its "detachment" is a place where social norms and "restrictions" don't work. Before you needed to be in a special club to find likeminded individuals, nowadays you just post something and you will find your soulmate in a flash!

 

Society is losing its self refraining mechanism due to overstating freedom of thought into freedom of speech. The previous "special club" has been brought forward from the shadows and instead of being shamed by society for "speaking your mind", the people are now being held back to shame someone due to "freedom of speech". The proverbial "don't throw a stone if you yourself can't take it" is being butchered in name of "freedom". Absolut freedom doesn't excist. Absolute white vs black doesn't excist. Absolute moral thruths don't excist.

 

Our society is going into full liberty mode, anything goes! We are going from a "life and let life" mentality (societal freedom) into "life and let die" mentiality (narsicist freedom, the libertarian on a deserted island).

 

 

Coming back to Trump, its really surprising the huge amount of support he has in the US. I came across an article (opinion piece really) that tries to explain the Trump phenomenon. I didn't know if the writer is right or not but some parts of it does make sense for an outsider looking in.

 

I'm going to admit that I didn't read what you quoted in your post, but I did skim it (saw one of the typical things that is said against Trump, he's a racist).

 

I hate to come to Trump's defense, but I hate main stream media even more (and I blame them for what/how they choose to report things for a lot of things that are happening in the US right now).  I read the Scott Adam's blog quite a bit (I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it here previously, he's the Dilbert creator, which I find the comic hilarious).  He had something last weekend that he titled "Sunday Persuasion Reading".  One of the articles he linked was titled "Is Trump Racist? Let’s take a look", where the author supposedly goes and actually tries to fact check the claims that are repeated so often.  In some cases, they're actually things his father said.  In others, it's third and fourth hand accounts of things that were said and done, but no first hand accounts.  In one case, (this one I actually found funny), it's a claim from a guy that was a former employee, who was then working for a direct competitor.

I looked into that the other day too, you won't find Trump outright saying he's a racist/sexist/bigot (or at least I didn't, plz post it if anyone does).. but he does quite a bit of stuff like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH0s4bd803Q

True he didn't suggest the Muslim database but he sounded for it. Definitely not opposed to it.

Muslim is a religion not a race so it's bigotry if anything, not racism, but it's kinda close and people like to simplify things hence why many people just call him a racist. I'm not sure how racist/bigoted he is, he often backtracks later saying something more politically correct. At the RNC he even kind of made a little stand for the LGBT community saying they shouldn't have been slaughtered at that Orlando nightclub.

Either way, racist & bigots seem to love him. I think because he leaves the door open on a lot of racist/bigoted things, at least for a while. When he backtracks the bigots just tell themselves he's doing to because he has to win and think there is a semi-secret deal in place that he will actually be more like how the bigots want once he is in office. Will he be? I have no idea, but those supporters turn me off so hard. I don't like the sense of encouragement they seem to get from him, whether or not he's really racist himself or means to pander to racists.

All that being said, there are certain liberals I don't care much to encourage either but in general I tend to find them more harmless and less offensive personally. So don't necessarily take this as an endorsement for Hillary. (plus there's the whole corruption question).. not sure what I'll do, probably throw away my vote on a 3rd party, which will likely lead to Trump winning assuming a lot of former Democrat supporters like myself do the same. But whatever, if it turns to shit we vote again in another 4 years. Hopefully there are better candidates next time.

 

 

I'm going to admit that I didn't read what you quoted in your post, but I did skim it (saw one of the typical things that is said against Trump, he's a racist).

 

Well the point of the article I posted was not whether Trump is racist or not. It just shows how he is exploiting the discontent that exists in the white, low-educated group of white men in USA. He is giving them a scapegoat of who/what to vent their frustration (about the economy, jobs, taxes whatever) on. Its the muslims, the immigrants, the non-english speaking non-white immigrants etc. He may not himself be racist himself but he is using the, you can say, the worst of human nature - suspicion, hate, fear mongering, blaming other minority groups for all problems, to garner support.

 

I'm going to admit that I didn't read what you quoted in your post, but I did skim it (saw one of the typical things that is said against Trump, he's a racist).

 

Well the point of the article I posted was not whether Trump is racist or not. It just shows how he is exploiting the discontent that exists in the white, low-educated group of white men in USA. He is giving them a scapegoat of who/what to vent their frustration (about the economy, jobs, taxes whatever) on. Its the muslims, the immigrants, the non-english speaking non-white immigrants etc. He may not himself be racist himself but he is using the, you can say, the worst of human nature - suspicion, hate, fear mongering, blaming other minority groups for all problems, to garner support.

 

 

Fair enough, I was at work, and didn't have time to read the whole thing, and knew I wouldn't have time last night to look at it (kids are getting ready for back to school, and last night was meet your new teacher night)

 

 

 

When he backtracks the bigots just tell themselves he's doing to because he has to win and think there is a semi-secret deal in place that he will actually be more like how the bigots want once he is in office. Will he be? I have no idea, but those supporters turn me off so hard. I don't like the sense of encouragement they seem to get from him, whether or not he's really racist himself or means to pander to racists.

 

Part of my issue with him is, he seems to go back and forth on issues over time.  This goes back further than his current run, but to what he's done in the past.  Seems like he does what's in his best interest at the time, which I can't blame him for as a business man.  Just makes it really hard to know what he will do if and when he gets a political office.

 

 

 

not sure what I'll do, probably throw away my vote on a 3rd party

 

Honestly, I've said it multiple times, I will likely be voting 3rd party as well.  Like I said in a response to Lys a while back, I already know how my state will go, because Nebraska can split their electoral college votes.  Dems will get one, thanks to the Omaha/Lincoln area, and Republicans will get the rest.  My single vote will not change that.

 

That said, I'm definitely bringing up to people that are willing to listen that there are other candidates out there other than the Dems/Republicans.

Wasn't expecting this to happen. Doubt it will influence the polls much, at least until the televised debates begin.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-parents-of-two-benghazi-victims-file-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton/

 

I'm going to admit that I didn't read what you quoted in your post, but I did skim it (saw one of the typical things that is said against Trump, he's a racist).

 

Well the point of the article I posted was not whether Trump is racist or not. It just shows how he is exploiting the discontent that exists in the white, low-educated group of white men in USA. He is giving them a scapegoat of who/what to vent their frustration (about the economy, jobs, taxes whatever) on. Its the muslims, the immigrants, the non-english speaking non-white immigrants etc. He may not himself be racist himself but he is using the, you can say, the worst of human nature - suspicion, hate, fear mongering, blaming other minority groups for all problems, to garner support.

 

 

Quoting this again, so I can respond. 

 

It's kind of hard for me to take any article serious that starts out with the following:

 

 

 

Yet, this “dishonest” man ¬¬- whose state of mental sanity was openly questioned by Mike Bloomberg, his one time friend and a former mayor of New York City, at last month's Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia - is only a heartbeat away from becoming America's next President! As many as 14 million people – most of them white, many of them without a college degree and very few of them women – voted him to victory through a primary process that included 16 seasoned and sane politicians.

 

So, Trump is insane, while the other politicians that he was running against in the primary are completely sane.  Already very actively inserting his opinion, and trying to skew the readers opinion.

 

 

 

The last eight years, a mostly white Republican Party has argued over and over again that Obama was an illegal occupant, a usurper, who must be defeated at any cost.

 

Saw this statement in the article, which seems to be referring to the "birther" arguments that people have had.  Supposedly, that one was started by Hilary Clinton, not any Republicans.  I haven't heard any mainstream politicians bring this one up lately (except for Trump, at the beginning of the primaries), but the author sure is trying to tie it to Republicans here.

 

The whole thing seems to be a complete and utter smear campaign against Trump, and several of the points were brought up and argued in the Dilbert blog link that I posted up above.  Several other things are just straight up opinion and attempts at persuasion.

 

Edit: God, I hate that it looks like I'm pro-Trump in this. To give anyone reading this, that doesn't know me, or hasn't figured out my stances, I'm very much anti-Hilary.  I have huge issues with how she conducted herself as Secretary of State, and things she did prior to that, that make me feel she is unfit to be President. 

 

I also despise the current main stream media, because they currently seem to be more interested in only making money by having the most outrageous headlines, rather than fairly and accurately reporting what's going on and allowing the viewer or reader to come up with their own opinion.

Edited August 9, 201610 yr by hilowe

Wasn't expecting this to happen. Doubt it will influence the polls much, at least until the televised debates begin.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-parents-of-two-benghazi-victims-file-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton/

 

If they had been serious with regards to this lawsuit, they would have chosen a serious counsel.  Instead, they chose a guy (Larry Klayman) who is (in)famous for trying to get Pres. Obama deported as an illegal alien in 2014.

 

Lack of seriousness suggests the goal is pretty much only to get headlines (rather than actual compensation, like wrongful death cases normally seek), and then maybe complain about a "rigged system" when the case gets thrown out.

 

Wasn't expecting this to happen. Doubt it will influence the polls much, at least until the televised debates begin.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-parents-of-two-benghazi-victims-file-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton/

 

If they had been serious with regards to this lawsuit, they would have chosen a serious counsel.  Instead, they chose a guy (Larry Klayman) who is (in)famous for trying to get Pres. Obama deported as an illegal alien in 2014.

 

Lack of seriousness suggests the goal is pretty much only to get headlines (rather than actual compensation, like wrongful death cases normally seek), and then maybe complain about a "rigged system" when the case gets thrown out.

 

 

I see this as them trying to provide ammunition to anyone that's anti-Hilary, to basically be able to say "see, she lied to these people about why their children died. She's responsible, and we shouldn't reward her with another public office."

 

Now, just waiting to see who uses it first, a super-pac or Trump.

Trump is smart, otherwise he wouldn't be plastering his residence with goldleaf in all the decadence he so claims to eradicate from Washington.

 

He (and lets face it, either side of the media aswell) has cleverly steered it away from him persnally to Hillary personally (or any other candidate he passed) by using nothing then positive adjectives on himself and negative on his opponents. And people love that inhibited remarks about people they themselfes dislike.

I think the incidents happening in Germany only help prove Trumps point. We cannot allow anyone into this country that we know nothing about. Period, end of story. Political correctness and being afraid to "hurt someones feelers" is out. His point has been proven by actual action taken by the hidden terror cells within the Syrian refugees that flooded into Germany. Now you've got Murkel sitting there like oh fuck what have I done. My people are being gang raped by these people (look it up) in my own country and now they're being killed. Silly bleeding hearts, that's what you get when your only concern is not hurting a particular groups feelings.

 

Sad reality is we're looking at a Hilary win here. Women voting Hilary because she's a woman and not because they give a shit about her history, values, or policies.

And of course the majority of all minority groups excluding probably Asian-Americans will be voting Democrat, when have they not? Sure there are some here and there that are voting Republican but the majority will be voting democratic blindly, as always.

 

I remember back in 08, which was the first election I was allowed to vote in, I voted for Obama. I was a naive 18 year old child fresh out of highschool living off mommies money and support not knowing shit about the real world and I bought into the bull shit that he spewed in the debates. Good thing i'm in a Republican dominated state because my vote didn't count anyway. Never again will I make that mistake.

Edited August 9, 201610 yr by Lazarus Hex

 

 

by using nothing then positive adjectives on himself and negative on his opponents.

 

I know, I keep referencing Scott Adam's blog, but he was talking about this during the Republican primaries.  Essentially, it's a form of persuasion, and (at least according to Adams) Trump is really effective with it.  Scott Adam's basically has said that, up until recently, Trump was using better persuasive techniques than Clinton was, and was giving specific examples.  Trump's "make America great" leaves it vague enough that people can come up with their own version of what great is.  I can't remember what he said about Clinton's "I'm with Her" slogan, but I remember it wasn't good.  He also blasted on Clinton for using something to the effect of "Trump is too dangerous as President, with nukes in his control" (I don't remember the exact phrasing) because it effectively makes people imagine Trump has already won.

 

He has said that the Clinton campaign has improved in their use of persuasive language within about the last month or so.

 

 

 

His point has been proven by actual action taken by the hidden terror cells within the Syrian refugees that flooded into Germany. Now you've got Murkel sitting there like oh fuck what have I done. My people are being gang raped by these people (look it up) in my own country and now they're being killed.

 

Again, Scott Adam's referenced this a while back.  Said something to the effect of, it was a no lose or minimal loss proposition.  If it didn't happen, people would likely forget Trump was predicting the attacks, and if it did, people would remember and say he was right.  Trump weighed the odds of an attack (especially with the number of refugees that were being let in to Europe), and took a gamble.

 

Dear God, I sound like a Trump supporter again.  Anyways, this is one time I have to give recognition to Trump.  After it was pointed out to me, and I started trying to watch for it, he has very consistently done a good job of using this type of persuasive speech to influence people.

 

 

 

Good thing i'm in a Republican dominated state because my vote didn't count anyway. Never again will I make that mistake.

 

Ehh, in my mind it's always dangerous to just vote based on the political party of the candidate.  I know my vote won't count for much, especially with where I live, but I still vote based on who I think is the best candidate.  Seems it's usually third party.

I think the incidents happening in Germany only help prove Trumps point. We cannot allow anyone into this country that we know nothing about. Period, end of story. Political correctness and being afraid to "hurt someones feelers" is out. His point has been proven by actual action taken by the hidden terror cells within the Syrian refugees that flooded into Germany. Now you've got Murkel sitting there like oh fuck what have I done. My people are being gang raped by these people (look it up) in my own country and now they're being killed. Silly bleeding hearts, that's what you get when your only concern is not hurting a particular groups feelings.

and all the attacks perpetrated in germany are by people already over 2y in germany and I believe only 2 of the recent (read +1y) are from people from Syria/Iraq during the current crisis/war.

 

Also you folks aren't getting nearly any Syrians, let alone without vetting them for like years. Heck the pope percentage wise took in more Syrian refugees (illegally I might add, he stowed tem on his plane when visiting Lesbos ).

 

The analogy works when speaking about Mexican/South Americans, but then you also need to add that the current asylum seekers won't be the issue, it are the already present and shadowy millions who 99% of the time want to intigrate but just can't cause nationalism is a national pasttime in the US. The 2nd and 3rd generations (usually the generation born on your soil) who will be utterly discriminated, those will be the ones doing the reactionary attacks (cause they are reactionary!)

And a "well regulated militia" is now a firing squad. Niiice!

And a "well regulated militia" is now a firing squad. Niiice!

 

Where's this one coming from??

 

Please tell me you aren't referencing this.

ooo no, just the latest Trump alliteration.

ooo no, just the latest Trump alliteration.

 

He made some comment, something to the effect of nothing anyone could do about Clinton judicial appointees, then made a follow on comment about second amendment people may be able to. That's what you're referring to, right?  I literally just heard about this comment this morning. 

 

The way I read that was, not a call to assassinate Clinton, but to do what a lot of the gun groups have been doing to their members of Congress, which is inundate them with phone calls, letters, and emails telling them what you expect them to do on certain pieces of legislation or nominations.

 

Sue Collins, from Maine, actually said something similar to how I'm taking what he said.  “I think he was suggesting that the Second Amendment advocates across the country might be able to come together to pressure the Senate to reject her nominees should she become president,” Ms. Collins said on MSNBC. “That’s how I interpreted it.”  Here's where I got that quote.

Edited August 12, 201610 yr by hilowe

The quote itself isn't that bad indeed, but watch the entire thing leading up to it with it included, pauzes and tone changes and all, it still isn't a direct call for it but it could be interpretted as a rather marcabre remark.

 

As for the actual info in that little exchange, if he continues like this they might actually get the needed super-majorities (2/3rd and 3/4ths of various senate/congress/states) to actually strike down an amendment, a wild dream offcourse thus

The thing is that when it gets to this stage, where frantic trump staffers issue a constant stream of denials often which can be seen immediately as false, (the it's sarcasm line) people simply stop listening to the denials.

 

Do I believe Trump didn't mean it? No. He is playing a game he plays a lot. Say something that appeals to a hardcore minority. (Hack her emails at benghqzi truths, she's the devil to the small group who thought Obama and now Hillary is the anti-Christ, shoot those that threaten your guns for the mentally unhinged gun owners ). Then deny having said it, and relying on the target group to say to each other "well obviously he has to deny it to keep the illuminati happy."

 

If you look at a lot of wacky things he says it follows this pattern. He is trying to get these people into his tent. In that pattern "you should shoot people" is a pretty clear interpretation of what he said.

At this point, the only thing that Hillary has on him on being a politician is a political scandal itself. Namely he can't have one yet cause he hasn't been in a politicial mandate yet. All the other stuff he has already done, the most obvious one being the constant flip-flopping to garner votes from all walks of life.

bernie

At this point, the only thing that Hillary has on him on being a politician is a political scandal itself. Namely he can't have one yet cause he hasn't been in a politicial mandate yet. All the other stuff he has already done, the most obvious one being the constant flip-flopping to garner votes from all walks of life.

His campaign manager has some questions to answer however.