Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

[TheGreatBuzz]

I think it will also depend on how the Dems handle the primary.  Now you can say the opinion is wrong but I know that many people had the opinion that the Dem primaries in 2016 were a example of what they think is wrong with the government.  If the Dems let whoever wants to run in the primaries and it gets narrowed down by the will of the people, that will help.  If they appear to anoint someone again and the primaries just appear to be for show, I think that will hurt them with the fence sitting voters.  I really don't think the Dems understand how many voters couldn't stand Trump but hated the Left process and that caused them to either stay home or vote 3rd party.

[TheGoodBits]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

thats a big deal in my opinion. A third is a ridiculous portion. Around half is so alarming I’m not so sure leaving isn’t a joke of an option. I’m hard pressed to think this country is what is best for my family. And we’re white upper-middle class. Among the least affected. 

 

My wife and I have had this exact conversation a number of times in the past year. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

That may seem trivial but in the grand scheme of things, it shifts the conversation from “just under a third” to “just about half” of the country thinking this way 

 

thats a big deal in my opinion. A third is a ridiculous portion. Around half is so alarming I’m not so sure leaving isn’t a joke of an option. I’m hard pressed to think this country is what is best for my family. And we’re white upper-middle class. Among the least affected. 

Where would you go?  Honest question.

 

There was a conversation not that long about about how as many problems as we have with race relations, etc that we are still better than pretty much any other place on that front.  Would you settle for country that was better run on economy yet race relations were worse?

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Where would you go?  Honest question.

 

There was a conversation not that long about about how as many problems as we have with race relations, etc that we are still better than pretty much any other place on that front.  Would you settle for country that was better run on economy yet race relations were worse?

Norway or Sweden are at the top of my list. 

 

My wife and I have talked about it a lot. I don’t think we’re going too, but we’ve had somewhat serious discussions about it. 

 

My concern is mainly about education, health, and economy. Race relations will always be a problem.  Only time will make them better. 

 

Im more concerned about what it means that we elected someone like trump. To me, it’s a really bad sign. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by tshile

[Bang]

35 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think this number is flawed. That’s approval rating. That’s a look at the individuals job. 

 

I think the the more important/accurate number is who would vote for him. People who will justify it because they refuse to vote for a democrat. 

 

If you vote to put him in power you’re just as culpable as people who “approve” of what he’s doing. It’s just another form of approval, whether they admit it or not. 

 

I think the the number of people willing to vote for him again is still over 40%. I think any decent dem candidate will beat him in 2020, but I think trump will still pull over 40% of the electorate 

that's a scary thought.

 

PS, wife is a Canadian citizen. Plans made for retirement anyway, but we will watch the winds.

 

~Bang

Edited May 5, 2018 by Bang

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I don’t want to hear any more horse**** about how the Dems need to nominate a better candidate. It does not matter who they nominate. The MO of the GOP is on full display. Obama and Comey and Mueller are demonized the same as Hillary.

 

Also not to mention... the fact that Trump is THEIR candidate of choice kinda proves that they don’t care about quality. They’re just ****ing ignorant.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

I don’t want to hear any more horse**** about how the Dems need to nominate a better candidate. 

 

Then you obviously don’t pay attention. The dems can’t win if they can’t “inspire” their base to show up and vote. It’s quite pathetic but unfortunately true. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

13 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

It does not matter who they nominate.

Do you really think that the Dems loss has nothing to do with who they nominated or the manner they went in nominating her?

[Llevron]

Yall really dont see the difference between Republicans during the Obama years and Democrats now? 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

Yall really dont see the difference between Republicans during the Obama years and Democrats now? 

 

I absolutely do. 

 

The dems are usually overly hysteric but now seems like an appropriate time for it

 

the republicans were just being racist and dumb 

[Kilmer17]

17 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Do you really think that the Dems loss has nothing to do with who they nominated or the manner they went in nominating her?

It has lots to do with that.  But it also came down to Hillary’s lack of a message that resonated with rust belt voters.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Yall really dont see the difference between Republicans during the Obama years and Democrats now? 

Who are  you talking to?  

[Kilmer17]

If neither side changes and tries to understand those currently not voting for them, which side wins?

[Llevron]

8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Who are  you talking to?  

 

Which ever one if yall this applies to. I know some are in here saying that dems remind them of last decades repubs. And I think that's ridiculous. 

 

It's obvious they are over board. But unfortunately they have a reason to be right now. It's all totally justified for once and that's the problem. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I know some are in here saying that dems remind them of last decades repubs.

Gotcha.  I must have missed that part.

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Which ever one if yall this applies to. I know some are in here saying that dems remind them of last decades repubs. And I think that's ridiculous. 

 

It's obvious they are over board. But unfortunately they have a reason to be right now. It's all totally justified for once and that's the problem. 

 

The only way the dems have behaved like the gop under obama was the immiate turn to  questioning the legitimacy of the president. That was sad and pathetic and the ones involved are as scummy as the gop that did the same thing to obama. The whole “not my president” stuff being done by adults behaving like petulant and hypocritical children 

Edited May 6, 2018 by tshile

[88Comrade2000]

7 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Apparently there is some kind of "race summit" coming that Colin Kaepernick and Kanye West are gonna be in.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/colin-kaepernick-president-donald-trump-race-kanye-west-summit-911973

 

Why on earth would Colin attend such a summit?

7 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Hillary still better than Trump.

 

And at least she respects the Republic and wouldn't try to make herself President for Life as Trump has gotten it into his brain.

 

You prepared for that, the demise of our Republic?

No doubt Trump will try but will the military take him out to prevent that?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Then you obviously don’t pay attention. The dems can’t win if they can’t “inspire” their base to show up and vote. It’s quite pathetic but unfortunately true. 

Ain’t no doubt about that. I’m suggesting they “inspire” people by raising awareness of exactly what the GOP  and the GOP voting base has become.

[Spaceman Spiff]

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Ain’t no doubt about that. I’m suggesting they “inspire” people by raising awareness of exactly what the GOP  and the GOP voting base has become.

 

Didn't they try that last time around?  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Do you really think that the Dems loss has nothing to do with who they nominated or the manner they went in nominating her?

In the sense that the democratic base wasn’t energized to go out and vote, sure. In the sense that she is everything the GOP has been saying, no.

 

I’d say that the bigger factor was how the other side was extremely energized to get out and vote for the cartoonish personification of a FOXNews - Infowars love child come to life.

[mcsluggo]

6 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

To be fair, it was never theirs to begin with.  They just decided to stop collecting as much.  More accurate would be “which side just lessened the rich’s burden by $1T”

 

Im sorry...but that is a position of pure and complete ignorance.  it has not reduced ANY burden to stop collecting money to pay the bills (no spending was decreased it was actually increased.)

 

 As long as people are stupid enough to continue to believe that THIS is reducing burden, rather than INCREASING a burden that will still have to paid, the longer we will have corrupt assholes like Trump bilking us all.   

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Didn't they try that last time around?  

No, not at all. That’s the problem.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No, not at all. That’s the problem.

 

Well, when Hillary called his base deplorable, I thought that was a start.  Then the self proclaimed deplorables rose up and elected a deplorable President.   They wore that moniker like a badge of honor.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

In the sense that the democratic base wasn’t energized to go out and vote, sure. In the sense that she is everything the GOP has been saying, no.

Well you had said it doesn't matter who they nominate.  But here it sounds like you think it does matter at least some.  I also think a lot of what hurt her is the WAY she was nominated.  She essentially had the nomination before the primaries even started.  I think that hurt her for several reasons.

 

Also, I get tired of hearing this "energizing the base" talk (though I will admit it is true in our current setup).  To me, I'd like to see more focus on appealing to the middle of the road voters.  I feel like we have become more worried about getting each fringe scared enough to go vote then convincing the undecided's.

[Spaceman Spiff]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well you had said it doesn't matter who they nominate.  But here it sounds like you think it does matter at least some.  I also think a lot of what hurt her is the WAY she was nominated.  She essentially had the nomination before the primaries even started.  I think that hurt her for several reasons.

 

Also, I get tired of hearing this "energizing the base" talk (though I will admit it is true in our current setup).  To me, I'd like to see more focus on appealing to the middle of the road voters.  I feel like we have become more worried about getting each fringe scared enough to go vote then convincing the undecided's.

 

Speaking as someone who's middle of the road, I'm scared to get demonized by one side for voting for the other.  The fringe ain't scared, they're going to vote who they're going to vote for and be proud of it.  I'm glad I didn't vote for Trump, but that doesn't make me a raging liberal like some would make it out to be.  For those of us who should feel comfortable in the middle it can be a scary place when people crawl up your ass for not being on their side 100%.

 

No one wants to understand anyone anymore.  And why should they?  Easier to hurl insults back and forth.