My wife and I live in 77042 between Briar Forest and Memorial. We're townhome-dwelling riffraff; we take our walks in the adjacent affluent neighborhood. In that area, yes, there are plenty of TRUMP and VANCE signs, and CRUZ signs, and TAKE AMERICA BACK, but we are surprised to see more than a few HARRIS-WALZ and COLIN ALLRED signs. Encouraging enough. Although I'm still not sure what all Kamala Harris will accomplish today in Houston with Queen Bey. When my wife heard about that, she looked at me with that same question: "It can't be close. Is it close? Because if it is, I'll go vote." I already voted, my hope for ousting Cruz stronger than my fear of more-likely jury duty; but my wife won't vote because of our bulls*** Electoral College....and, as a former immigrant (albeit legal immigrant and American citizen for 9 years), she fears her vote being out there should Trump win and grant him power to start "the purge" (so his rhetoric must be working).
Maybe my bar is much lower in terms of a group of politically aligned people showing signs that they believe other ethnicities and races are the inferior. I might believe the way someone frames issues is enough to assume they believe other races and or ethnicities religions etc are inferior without explicitly saying "this race is inferior". I understand I'm seen as more radical here so maybe I need to readjust. But to me, someone merely believing that illegal immigration is the biggest issue facing America is enough for me to believe that they have some severe racial biases. To me something like that, a mere disproportionate concentration on immigration as an issue is enough for the accusation of racism especially from people who live in insular communities who never interacted with migrants and get their perception of them from social media algorithms. Again, I don't think this behavior makes them intently evil. I would say every insular homogenous community around the world would have the ingredients to be propagandized to have radical and ethnic superiority beliefs. The issue here entities from an radio personalities dating back to Limbaugh to grifters on social media and YouTube weaponizing the insular nature of the lifestyle of many Americans to fear the unknown or to fear things they don't have much interaction with.
I felt that way in 2016 and 2020 about Trump. I am not so sure in this election, just because there are a lot of women that do not want to have arguments with their husbands about who they will vote for. I do think that the economy will help Trump get voters though.
How so? I think it means something - I don't think that it is a dead bang guarantee of anything but it does show levels of enthusiasm. Obviously a vote is a vote, whether it is enthusiastic or not - but on the margins it can matter. I still have Trump as a slight favorite to win the election by winning the electoral college - so it isn't that I think there is some secret blue wave.
I quite frankly never saw that. Maybe it's because my experience and touch point with maga right wing type support comes from rowdy extroverted Marine Corps infantry vets. But I saw it even in my time as a mere resident of Massachusetts where in a deep blue state like that I saw more Trump paraphernalia and signage than Clinton and Biden campaign paraphernalia and signage. I think there is a certain element of the MAGA movement that is intrinsically boisterous with "I want to trigger you with my support of an ashole" vibes. I just never encountered the "I'm to ashamed to express my support of Trump" people. I think the very nature of supporting someone like Trump means you embrace the lack of shame. "Own the libs" is such a large aspect of supporting Trump and that motivation means you aren't going to be secret about your support because your support hinges on the desire that you want to annoy people who are ideologically opposed to Trump.
I think you are getting the marital dynamic wrong . There are more dudes who don't want arguments with their wives than the other way around.
The modern corporation seeks return on investment one quarterly return at a time. Running a nation and society in terms of making laws and governing to maximize the economy for a quarter of a year or the immediate future means ignoring the the long term ramifications of pumping up the economy for short term gain. When we run a society we have to worry about things like early childhood development, education etc. That means we have to govern based on knowing that policies and decisions will show their benefits maybe 15-20 years down the line rather than boosting quarterly return numbers. I simply can't understand how citizens believe a government that does things like fund educat and healthcare should be run like a corporation. Corporations don't care about what their company looks like 20 years down the line especially in the modern era of public reading and venture capitalism where investments are never for short term high risk return.
The economy will help Trump to a certain extent because people only see that they're paying more for groceries now than before, so it must be Biden-Kamala's fault, right? They might not hear "the whole world had high inflation, most countries worse than here," and "price gouging." Also, Trump has his name in gaudy gold on the side of buildings so he must be good at business, amiright? Some people paying attention will note she has good economic proposals and Trump has....um, tariffs (which will hurt the economy, God, what an idiot) and tax cuts for the wealthy. For sure a lot of women might vote for Trump if simply not to listen to their husband rant about a vote for Kamala. ("Hey, how you want your burger? Anyway, as I was saying, so Christine here, she up and votes for Ka-MA-la." "It's 'KA-ma-la, and will you shut up about it?") (Jeez. Dudes gonna "dude". Always.)
The hell does it even matter. Nod your head to your spouse or whatever to disperse arguments over something so trivial, then vote however you want to later. How is your spouse gonna know?
Well, that's my point. Men are more trained to deal with women on PMS or whatever. Just nod along and do what you want. Any married man will be able to tell you that you never really "win" an argument with your wife, because if you do, you will regret it later lol. Women, on the other hand, sometimes just want to argue. I just do it here .
Did he say he was going to send the military after specific politicians? I don't think so. He called specific politicians at various times "the enemy within". On separate occasions he has used the same language to refer to other threats (terrorist infiltrators, illegal immigrant criminals, etc.). He has said he would use the National Guard or even the military to go after the enemy within. You are concluding that he means politicians when he says that. It is possible, though I think it is far more likely that he means some of the other groups he has also referred to with that language. Why would he need to use the National Guard or the military to deal with Adam Schiff, for example? What would he have them do? Bomb his house?
When Donald Trump refers to criminals as enemies and talks about deportation of "20 million people" is he implying the dude who crossed illegally that came to pick avocados under minimum wage is an "enemy of the people"? I think you have to argue in bad faith to express that Donald Trump is very loose with who he defined as "enemies". He has called entire legacy media publications as the enemy. Is he going to use the military against NYT? He has called them the enemy before.
Leftists... "I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within," Trump said. He added: "We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they're the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen."
Nook, this election, my wife and I are on different sides of the fence. She's not voting for Kamala, she just despises Trump (so she's voting for Kamala). I hate Trump as well but I'm voting for him. Unlike some others on here (specifically the idiot who started this thread) my wife and I can disagree on this (and MANY other things) and respect each others opinion(s). She knows who I am (and I know who she is) and slapping a label on each other that encompasses everything about us is foolish. She knows I'm not a "racist" nor am I uneducated" or "white trash". People wonder why this country is so d@mn divided and going off the tracks. There's people on both sides of the fence who are just throwing gasoline on the fire and making it worse. People like the jack@$$ who started this thread. Anyway, you and I have agreed on quite a few things on Clutchfans, and even though it appears we have differing opinions on this election it doesn't alter how I view and I would you'd feel the same way. If we were getting together to have a beer I'd like to think we could have a civil discussion about this subject and that we could agree to just disagree on this. Then we could just change the conversation to things that we both agree on (like the Astros). Life is too short for all this crazy hostility. I don't need to like (or agree) on every aspect about life with someone to be their friend and when we do disagree on something that I have to attack them or end the relationship. My mother (who passed away a few yrs ago) and I disagreed on numerous things but we respected each others opinions and like I said earlier (agreed to just disagree on things). Based on some of the comments on here there's people on here who would end their relationship with their mother. Just makes me want to shake my head and laugh.
AT BEST This country's whole history is about a majority of the people being quite ok with racist and racism Even if a person wasn't racist . .. . they allowed a lot of racism at best . .. took advantage of the privilege at worse. I think Trumpers want to go back to that level of privilege They are ok having a king rule over them . . .as long as they are not the lowest class Their ok with being serfs and cowtowing to their lords and ladies Rocket River
In a healthy relationship spouses should be able to vote they want to and declare who they are voting for without issue. Unfortunately that isn't always the case. Some men have very strong opinions and believe that their wives should just go along. I have an aunt like that, she will be voting differently than he husband but doesn't want an argument. [QUOTE="the shark, post: 15418031, member: 45924]"People wonder why this country is so d@mn divided and going off the tracks. There's people on both sides of the fence who are just throwing gasoline on the fire and making it worse. People like the jack@$$ who started this thread..[/QUOTE] There are very divisive people - and they are on both sides. [QUOTE="the shark, post: 15418031, member: 45924]"Anyway, you and I have agreed on quite a few things on Clutchfans, and even though it appears we have differing opinions on this election it doesn't alter how I view and I would you'd feel the same way. If we were getting together to have a beer I'd like to think we could have a civil discussion about this subject and that we could agree to just disagree on this. Then we could just change the conversation to things that we both agree on (like the Astros)..[/QUOTE] I am pretty lenient on politics - and get along with a wide variety of people.... I would say half of the the people I am very close to are Republicans and half are Democrats. As long as it isn't over the top or purposely trying to argue, I never have issues... and will even agree on some points. I am sure we would get along well.... neither of us are monsters and we have gotten along well in the past. [QUOTE="the shark, post: 15418031, member: 45924]"Life is too short for all this crazy hostility. I don't need to like (or agree) on every aspect about life with someone to be their friend and when we do disagree on something that I have to attack them or end the relationship. My mother (who passed away a few yrs ago) and I disagreed on numerous things but we respected each others opinions and like I said earlier (agreed to just disagree on things). Based on some of the comments on here there's people on here who would end their relationship with their mother. Just makes me want to shake my head and laugh.[/QUOTE] I miss when this was the case. I think that the USA is too political and too politically divided - there is never a discussion of the stuff we agreed with and there was a reason why people in the past would usually avoid direct political conversations or if it was discussed, it wasn't the end of the world. Ultimately people see the world very differently - and except in extreme cases, I refuse to believe half the country is made up of terrible people..... plus my opinions change over time. There was a period where I was becoming quite conservative, and I wasn't insane then and I am not...... when the country goes too far in one direction I tend to swing the other way.
There is certainly truth to the idea that this country has a long history of exploitation of other groups of people - from black Americans to immigrants and women. However - I would point out that it isn't unique to the USA and it is just the human condition...... I have reached this conclusion because often times, a group that was oppressed in the past become oppressors- and individuals that are members of an oppressed group will come times look to oppress their own for personal comfort and gain. That doesn't mean that we should EXCUSE the history of it, or justify the continued happening of it - but we also should realize the wider perspective. You and I both are doing something right now - that people in a hundred years from now would judge us harshly for doing, and some would label us as exploitative monsters for it. I look at slavery - it ended formally in the USA 160 years ago - informally about 65 years ago (share croppers/US apartheid).... I have only known a few people that said they could own another human being, yet in the 1850's, over half of America supported slavery and strove to own a slave..... were people inherently different back then? Nope - which means if culture dictates something terrible is okay, a lot of people don't really question it.
Honestly the moment a candidate is in a presidential debate and makes up blood libel claims of an entire ethnic group such as Hatians and then defends it by saying "I saw it on TV" and you don't follow that up with immediately dismiss this person as a candidate you would vote for, you probably have strong racist inclinations. I'm sorry but we are beyond arguing against voting for someone like Mit Romney. We are talking about someone who has expressed explicit Nazi rhetoric like migrants are "poisoning the blood of this country". It's akin to saying "I know he's a Nazi but he wants lower my tax rates in my bracket"
Somethings are objectively horrible IMO That said. . . even the nastiness of today . . . .if we move beyond it . . .. to have people wanting to return to it would be a problem THAT IS THE POINT - Trumper want to go back to those Quasi Slavery days They want to return to the nastiness There are just somethings we cannot AGREE TO DISAGREE THEM: Black folx are 3/5ths of a person ME: Nah that's not right THEM: We will just have to agree to disagree ME: THE F*** WE WILL How many horrible ideas and behaviors must a person have before we accept that they are just a horrible person? The covering up of past horribleness aka white washing it .. . it not acceptable either Rocket River
