Trump, the Fools that Voted for Him, and the Fools that Stayed Home

Actually, they can't. They don't have the votes for it and they can thank Harry Reid for making it MUCH harder to filibuster in the Senate and pushing ways to go around them to get things passed with a simple majority.

They'll just have to hope Trump pushes stupid legislation that fails like Obama did and help them take back control of congress in the mid-terms.

 

Easy now, Deckard. I don't want you to pop a blood vessel in the noggin. I would miss our pithy exchanges. First, a lot of people voted against Hillary rather than for Trump. Count me in that group, although I have my fingers crossed that Trump will turn out to be a good President.

Remember, Hillary caused a lot of damage to herself with:

1) Her "charitable" foundation.
2) Her illegal server and subsequent email scandal.
3) Her lack of stated goals, other than "it's my turn."
4) Her reclusiveness from even a fawning media (see Donna Brazile / DNC).
5) Telling coal miners et al in union states that she was going to end their jobs.
6) Not being able to keep track of her abundant lies.

I could go on, but that caused a lot of people to just stay home or vote for "protest" candidates. If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at Hillary Rodham Clinton .... Next time I'm in Austin, let's do lunch.

 

Gary Johnson disagrees with you.

As recently as June, 18% of Sanders' supporters favored Johnson (per Bloomberg) - that's 2.4MM. Johnson's '12 total of 1.2MM increased 2.9MM last night.

 

LOL fair enough, if true it just shows how stupid Bernie bros are.

Socialism is on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum from what Libertarians stand for. It's like saying that a vegan was upset about not getting to go to the vegan restaurant that they wanted to go to so they went to a Brazilian steakhouse.

 

I didn't vote, so you just assumed again. I don't necessarily agree that voting is a responsibility, either. I don't believe in democracy in particular because of the many uninformed/ignorant voters. It's a civic duty to vote responsibly after informing oneself. If I had to choose a president between Clinton and Trump, I'd probably pick Clinton since she has the experience in public office.

But there's a large block of voters that voted for Trump because he wasn't a standard politician and they see him as a fresh face in office. They voted for him despite his behavior. There are other reasons, but to simply label all his supporters as racist and misogynistic is downright wrong.

 

The system is what it is. I bet you Clinton lovers didn't whine much in 92 when Bill got 43% of the popular vote and won. 57% of Americans did NOT want him in office. Yet he won. Sometimes the rules work in your favor. Sometimes they don't.

 

I don't know what the right approach is BUT... Trump doesn't owe the Republicans a thing; they were openly hostile, especially among its establishment. And given that Trump likely doesn't believe much of his own rhetoric, and that the Democrats hold no power in Congress, getting in bed with him preemptively may be their best shot to curry favor and influence policy.

I don't really believe Trump has any interest in running the country; I can't think of a single policy he's suggested or favored, and he certainly doesn't have any initiatives behind immigration, in which many of his ideas are non-starters (and likely vote-getting bullshit). In many ways, he seems like a lump of clay; easily stroked and manipulated because, again - what does he care?

 

Yep.

That's a fiscal initiative, and yes - polar opposites rooted in Libertarians' dream of a non-existent government. But there's near-universal overlap on virtually every social issue, as well as mutual agreement of getting big money out of government (different means, yes - but same end). (ETA) And they're both anti-war.

 

Love ya Deckard, but I'd like to offer a different message to those that are responsible for this situation. But first of all its important to know who we are talking to here. What really it is baffling is what turned out to the be 40% (63% of the US being white, and 40% of that being the suburban & rural white Trump voters).

Yes there were still Latinos, Blacks, and others that also voted for Trump, but the bread and butter that got Trump elected was two-fold-

A. Rust belt White working class who felt abandoned & just wanted to blow the whole thing up
B. The deplorables in the suburbs/rural areas that came out in droves & ran up the score to make Urban voters have to match the intensity at the polls. Yes... Hillary was right that there is a pocket of Trump supporters that are just really really bad people, but I think the power behind trump was driven by A.

If you are White working class who felt abandoned, I want to say that I totally get where you are coming from. However I don't understand how you rationalize Donald Trump as a rational change agent. I think you folks where looking for someone to latch onto that would "drop the PC-ness" and "talk real talk". And yes the racism thing is real but I doubt many of you would think of yourself as racist. You would think of yourself as the new minority who gets sh#$ on at every turn. Basically you feel how it must feel to be an African American.... but you and I for that matter have no right to feel that way. Yes things are not AS GREAT for white people as they used to be, but there is a big difference between society being more fair, and society treating you in way that even comes close to comparing to the black or Latino American experience.

So I get it... Things aren't as great as they USED TO BE, and it upsets you. I get it totally... Hell, I'm a middle class white guy that is about to likely lose his job, and shuffling to find another. However you listened to voices on the internet, TV, friends, etc. that told you to blame someone else for your rough couple of years... which really aren't that rough in comparison to how every other middle class in every single other country lives.

So to the 40%.... I get where you are coming from, and understand why Donald Trump happened.... but boy are you guys wrong, and have been taken advantage of. Donald Trump is no "change agent". Nothing in his 70 years shows us that he's all the sudden going to change who Donald Trump is and what Donald Trump's priorities are.... But God willing... I hope I am wrong that a 70 year old Narcissist can change, and deliver what the 40% took a chance on him being able to deliver.

So to the 40%... I don't want to hate you guys because I could easily be you guys if I bought into the pyramid scheme, or if I lived in Ohio, Iowa, Penn, etc. and have felt the affects of the post 2008 years worse than if didn't live in Texas. I understand why you did it... but its now up to you guys to understand the responsibility on the 40% to be better than Donald Trump and make him live up to the pyramid scheme he & his cronies sold to you on a fake gold platter. The 40% proved that they still hold the power to swing the majority of power in this country. Its time though for the 40% to be better than they told themselves they were okay with being JUST TO PROVE A POINT that they are pissed off that life isn't as good as it used to be.

 

Bernie or bust people yes, it's what I've been saying for a while. The op too I think. Clinton was the candidate closest to him by far, I have no idea why so many of them threw a tantrum about losing and voted for a guy that was about as far away from Bernie as Trump is.

 

I don't understand why people find that moving toward socialism is a good thing. What is so attractive about socialism that bern wants?

 

For the most part it's little kids who are attracted by the "free stuff". Most of them will grow out of it and have more mature political beliefs one day.

 

I voted against Trump but honestly as long as he calms down with all the hate talk and doesn't start anything crazy with any other countries life will go on as usual.

 

Eventually she did. But that is where the primary voters share some responsibility for not having a candidate who could be trusted to stick with that platform. People didn't trust her, and it hurt her in the election.

 

This messaging right here is what I think ultimately undermined the Democrats last night.

There are no advantages afforded poor white people in Kentucky or West Virginia. Tennessee or Michigan. They have the same uphill climb facing many minorities; no, it might not as systemic but it's every bit as daunting and, at the end of the day, impossible. To ignore their plight, or - as you're doing here - marginalize it as secondary because, well you're white and these groups have it soooo much harder.

Poor is poor. If you can't provide for your family; if you can't make ends meet; if you can't see a light at the end of the tunnel that isn't a train, man - those things are not racial issues; they're human issues and the Democrats are going to have to find a way to rebuild their trust with these people. Right now, they're comic fodder for too many liberals in the media, mocked for their stupidity and attachment to their guns and religion. It has bred distrust and disdain, and the Democrats are in danger of being behind a massive cultural shift that is going to remake this country.

 

... if you're an upper middle class heterosexual white male...

 

Not eventually; it was her national platform put forth at her party's national convention. And it was shaped and influenced by an unprecedented primary season that necessitated a massive campaign-wide overhaul.

I don't know about not being trusted... It's hard to verify the trust issue if you're not going to first vote her in...

 

Not all socialism is bad, in fact it's built most of this country. True story.

I think it's far more naive to believe that if you just let the free market reign then things will work out. Trickle down and all that. That's practically never happened. Instead the wealth gap continues to grow until the poor get so fed up with it that they get hostile.

 

Ok. What in this country is stopping a poor person from working their butt off and making something of themselves? If you develop a product or a service or open your own business no one is going to chain you to the ground and stop your success. If, however, you are going to sit on your butt on the couch perfectly able to work and expect the government check simply because you spit out a few illegitimate children you should be poor until you make better decisions.

 

Yeah, socialism isn't about that at all though.

Socialism is something as simple as public libraries. Helping people too poor to afford books to rent them out...or school programs that also help poor children to find a hobby and latch onto it. Public schools are socialism. This idea that socialism is making homeless people rich is silly. It's just about giving everyone a fair shot. That's all.