2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we also need to look at the Republican base and its composition to understand how Trump happened. As well as Republican leadership since Reagan. Perhaps working class whites realize that the Chamber of Commerce crowd doesn't have their best interests at heart. Abortion is still legal, and church/charity isn't going to pay your chemo bills. Or get you meaningful work. Cultural resentments -- and, to be honest, some of the more eye rolling developments of the cultural left of late -- might condition some voters to never vote Democrat, but voting Trump is as close as you can get to voting against the Republican Party that has failed these "Regan democrats" since Reagan.

I have a bit of a hard time understanding the aspect of surprise that so many seem to have over the rise of Trump, if only because it seems like his ploy is to openly voice all of the things Republicans have been strongly insinuating for at least a decade. The racism and xenophobia, the casual misogyny, the economic protectionism, the selective ethics - these are all long-standing trends in the American right. If anything it seems logical that someone like Trump would emerge.
 
The majority of Republicans who resent other cultures, in my experience, are people who spend very little time outside of their own world. Their communities are a vast majority white or highly segregated from generations of everyone staying with their own kind. Those who are poor are still poor because they feel abandoned by the political system (and those lucky ones who created a better life for themselves all legitimately worked very hard, and can't imagine that luck had anything to do with it). That there are still significant issues is a sign that something other, something they don't see in their everyday lives, is the cause. Sure, it's the politicians, but it's more than that. It's the things Trump is talking about. They don't encounter blacks or hispanics other than when someone is in the local news for committing a crime. They don't see Muslims except for when another terrorist attack is being reported on. Their experiences are so rare with these groups of people that their thoughts are painted almost solely by their limited exposure. And they've all got so much going on in their lives, very few of them have time to learn about how truly diverse all of these different cultures are across the world. They've got bills to pay and kids to raise.

That's why I find it hard to get angry with the typical right-winger. It's only the pundit class and those who actively sneer at legitimate discourse (like our online friend BobSaget77) who grind my gears.

:up: Excellent post. This has been my experience with these people as well.
 
I have a bit of a hard time understanding the aspect of surprise that so many seem to have over the rise of Trump, if only because it seems like his ploy is to openly voice all of the things Republicans have been strongly insinuating for at least a decade. The racism and xenophobia, the casual misogyny, the economic protectionism, the selective ethics - these are all long-standing trends in the American right. If anything it seems logical that someone like Trump would emerge.

I think for me the biggest surprise is that in the information age they can't see they are all being played. I could maybe see if this was some no name or not well known person rising among the ranks and saying all the right things, but that's not what's happening. This man's past political views are very well documented and he stood on the opposite side on most hot button issues. And even if you believe he made some genuine 180 on these issues, he's spelled it out right before your eyes that he's not genuine, that's he's not on your side. He flat out told you he wants universal healthcare before changing his mind a week later, he said he knows this person and literally 5 minutes later on another program said he didn't,

I mean he's right, he could shoot their grandma right before their eyes blame Obama and they'd still vote for him. It's the full on no holds barred embracing of ignorance right there in plain sight is what shocks me. They aren't even trying to hide it. We are taught to be weary of politicians, this group in particular doesn't want an "establishment" politician because they feel betrayed so they are instead fully supporting someone that has given them every reason to doubt he'll follow through on anything.

I guess that way they can say they were betrayed, but at least it wasn't by the "establishment" :shrug:
 
I'm sure I'm missing a bunch, but these are the big ones.
Foreign policy! The one you are missing is foreign policy. It's by far the worst part of Clinton and for all the rhetoric of people on the right, Clinton has actively participated in many of the horrific things you have heard about overseas. Her foreign policy frightens the shit out of me.

One of my biggest hang ups with Obama was his overuse of drones. Clinton's stance on Obama is that he was way too soft overseas.

I think Irvine has said before that when all is said and done, the two main things a president does is direct foreign policy and the military and choose Supreme Court justices. For me, Clinton is only 1-for-2 on those things.
 
I have a bit of a hard time understanding the aspect of surprise that so many seem to have over the rise of Trump, if only because it seems like his ploy is to openly voice all of the things Republicans have been strongly insinuating for at least a decade. The racism and xenophobia, the casual misogyny, the economic protectionism, the selective ethics - these are all long-standing trends in the American right. If anything it seems logical that someone like Trump would emerge.
The pundit class and the "country club" Republicans don't want to admit that this is who they've thrown their lot in with all of this time. The pundits don't want to admit that by framing every issue as having two legitimate sides even when many of them don't, they've allowed these ideas to take root. The establishment GOP doesn't want to admit that all of the accusations of dog whistles and catering to bigotry was 100 percent accurate and that it was a crucial part of their ability to win elections. They've spent so much time and effort defending themselves against attacks that this is what the American right is, and they still refuse to believe that it could have been true all along.
 
I think Irvine has said before that when all is said and done, the two main things a president does is direct foreign policy and the military and choose Supreme Court justices.


And give speeches about mass shootings.
 
What's sad about Clinton's foreign policy, to touch on what PF was saying, is that it's not even an important item on people's list of criticisms about her. I mean, republicans criticize her for doing essentially their right stance but in the wrong way. Maybe that's because the media shoves ISIS down our throats as though they're bigger and scarier than they truly are. It really leaves an "I don't know what to do about them" mentality on the table. People sort of just either turn a blind eye, or if they're truly afraid, they support intervention.
 
so, this is interesting, and runs counter to what we've been talking about. that people who support Sanders and Clinton are poorer than those who support Trump:

It’s been extremely common for news accounts to portray Donald Trump’s candidacy as a “working-class” rebellion against Republican elites. There are elements of truth in this perspective: Republican voters, especially Trump supporters, are unhappy about the direction of the economy. Trump voters have lower incomes than supporters of John Kasich or Marco Rubio. And things have gone so badly for the Republican “establishment” that the party may be facing an existential crisis.

But the definition of “working class” and similar terms is fuzzy, and narratives like these risk obscuring an important and perhaps counterintuitive fact about Trump’s voters: As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.

The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support | FiveThirtyEight

i have totally been swept up in this narrative about a shattered white working class in burnt out small town America. communities with no hope and beset by opiates, alcoholism, obesity, and suicide. a demographic where women have a lower life expectancy than they did 20 years ago. a group of people left behind by modernity and globalism who are turning to a demagogue to focus their fears.

but it appears as if those people aren't the Trump supporters. so maybe it's time we started calling Trump supporters by their true name: assholes.
 
Last edited:
Can we meet somewhere in the middle on foreign policy?

Bernie strikes me as not wanting to be involved, and not having any sort of care in FP. Either out of ignorance, or just a lack of caring about it. I get he's very much against the trade agreements being pushed/proposed out there.

I'm fine with special forces and drones to keep ISIS in check. In regards to the middle east, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. ISIS will still try to harm the west regardless of our involvement. They want world domination, not isolation.

I think the steps we have taken under Obama are fine. You cut off their $$$, you do your absolute best at intel for drone strikes, and you start hardening your stances, relationships with the Saudis.
 
Foreign policy! The one you are missing is foreign policy. It's by far the worst part of Clinton and for all the rhetoric of people on the right, Clinton has actively participated in many of the horrific things you have heard about overseas. Her foreign policy frightens the shit out of me.

One of my biggest hang ups with Obama was his overuse of drones. Clinton's stance on Obama is that he was way too soft overseas.

I think Irvine has said before that when all is said and done, the two main things a president does is direct foreign policy and the military and choose Supreme Court justices. For me, Clinton is only 1-for-2 on those things.

I think anyone that has witnessed Obama's tenure would vehemently disagree with that last point of them only really being responsible for those two things. That large list, really the guts of what people will remember a president by. A lot of it, social issues, and economic successes.

That being said, this then brings us to probably my most hated Sanders deception. Foreign policy.
They pretty much have ONE vote that differentiates their background on foreign policy, and that was Iraq. And boy does he run with that one. Problem is, it's a bunch of crap.

Sanders voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq. Then, when it came to the vote that would give Bush the power to use military action, after inspections were done, blah, blah.. He voted NO.
I guess he thought maybe a strongly worded letter, or a gift basket from Harry and David might be the best method to get Saddam out of power.

Then he voted 5 times to fund the war he was so against! He didn't need to, the funding would have gone through without his vote.

Same in Libya. He voted to get Khaddafi out, but since it didn't work out as well as they hoped, now he's against it?

It must be nice to just lob criticism and blame, while he sits back safely in his little independent bubble of no consequence.

I will take Clinton, who has actually been in the trenches, and probably learned a whole hell of a lot along the way. If Bernie were SOS, He would have a spotty record as well. Its not an easy job, and Bernie's stance that he puts out there to supporters, is that he would just be hands off everything... Well his record says otherwise, AND if he did go to a hands off everything approach, that could be disastrous as well..
I think Obamas approach of keeping a toe in a lot of hotspots with limited forces has served us fairly well.
Just ignoring problems abroad, could in the end leave us in a bad position.
 
I think FP ranks 2nd for POTUS. For everyone who's been disappointed with Obama, I just don't get it. He ended the two wars we were in, two wars which liberals were so against, that made Dubya out to be the worst president we've ever had....

But FP is tricky. The middle east is a mess, and has been for a very long time. The fact that some people openly wish Saddam was still in power should illustrate how fucked up of a region that is.

Obama has said himself he wishes Libya would have ended up differently. Doubt he means keeping the regime in power, but what happened after MG's death/removal.

We are putting less soldiers in harms way. We are operating on a different scale now. This is a mess that we started, and we're finding out there's no easy way to end it. Like it or not, we are probably stuck in that region for a while.

My personal opinion is to try and support the less evil of candidates and groups that arise. We keep hearing about how the youth of a country like Iran is very much more progressive than the leaders, and similar in other countries. Revolutions (real ones) can take time, and a lot of chaos before something better/stronger can take hold.

I don't think Hillary is going to just send us into 30 wars like some people make it sound. I see her continuing Obama's methods. Hopefully learning from mistakes along the way.

I shudder to think what would happen with Trump or Bernie in charge in this area. Trump would bomb everything, and Bernie would ignore. Both damaging to our relations
 
I'm fine with special forces and drones to keep ISIS in check. In regards to the middle east, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. ISIS will still try to harm the west regardless of our involvement. They want world domination, not isolation.


Everybody wants to rule the world. It's not an excuse for intervention. Their legitimate threats are generally combatted with intelligence. Sometimes, individuals slip through. But dropping bombs and killing civilians is lateral at best when trying to slow them down. Except innocent people have to die. Intervention beyond intelligence is not worth it.
 
so, this is interesting, and runs counter to what we've been talking about. that people who support Sanders and Clinton are poorer than those who support Trump:



i have totally been swept up in this narrative about a shattered white working class in burnt out small town America. communities with no hope and beset by opiates, alcoholism, obesity, and suicide. a demographic where women have a lower life expectancy than they did 20 years ago. a group of people left behind by modernity and globalism who are turning to a demagogue to focus their fears.

but it appears as if those people aren't the Trump supporters. so maybe it's time we started calling Trump supporters by their true name: assholes.

While I agree they are assholes, I think these numbers are a little skewed by the demographics and geographic locations of many of each candidates supporters and don't project an honest picture of who a particular candidate's supporters really are.

Lower middle class whites in the Northeast, where Trump has done well, still make significantly more than poor, urban African Americans or your west of the Mississippi, more rural white voters... where Trump has done poorly.

But they still fit the larger scope of your description and thoughts. They just happen to be in a region if the country where it takes a lot more to not be poor.
 
Last edited:
Happy Cinco de Mayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!

This is Trump's Facebook post today, along with a lovely pic of him eating said taco bowl.

He's not even trying anymore. He's playing you all for fools and mocking you to your face at the same time, and his comment section shows you all still don't get it.
 
is this not the tweet of an asshole?

chdqfdokhqnrt98ifjii.jpg
 
I've been to Mexico 4 times, various regions. Never saw a single taco "bowl".

Is there some other "Hispanic" country that specializes in them?
 
If you look at the bottom of the he full picture...

920x920.jpg


...you will see Marla Maples, his ex, in a bikini.

Not to mention blueprints behind him, cause he's such a builder. Huge builder. And look at all those trophies. Cause he wins.

Thanks, Republicans.




All of which leads us back to the Trump Troll Theory.

Honestly, how does he not know how this reads? This is about winning the asshole vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom