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

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

You can be next lol (kidding)

 

: )  Seen a lot since '03, to point if I can tell if someone is completely emotionally compromised and unreachable, I can wait until they calm down and try again.  Just don't say anything you wouldn't say to my face, that's the policy I try to run by, we've already disagreed before, its gonna happen again.

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

No one wants to read this nonsense. Its taking away from a good conversation.

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Just show me where I said if you disagree with me shut the **** up. Just like I asked you who called you a racist for disagreeing with them.

 

Give me the proof, of either honestly. Or stop posting that bull****. 

 

 

If ya'll are really trying to reconcile, that can be done via PM.

[Llevron]

Ok how about this. On topic to boot.

 

Taking my point (that if you voted third party, effectively wasting your vote, AND you are saying 'it's the dems fault' that you really have no leg to stand on so you should STFU) and publicly, shamelessly twisting it to say 'if you disagree with me then you should STFU' is not only dishonest, but amusingly Trumpian. A perfect example of the manipulation that has ruined over GOP for years. It doesn't matter what I said. He heard what he wanted and is sticking with it. Even using the original quote as proof his interpretation (no matter how dumb) was the only interpretation. Not only was what I meant easy to understand. I wrote it word for word AND he quoted it. 

 

That kind of unconscious bull**** is only learned from years of watching others do it and thinking it's normal. Fox news says hello. The fact that he can do it and not even see where he is wrong is the perfect ****ing example. And hes ****ing smart! Imagine the loopty loops that are happening in the heads of the dumb ones. 

 

This is why what the dems did wrong is small patatos compared to the aversion of facts on the right. It's true. You have your example over the last few pages. 

 

Fight me. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Llevron

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Ok how about this. On topic to boot.

 

Taking my point (that if you voted third party, effectively wasting your vote, AND you are saying 'it's the dems fault' that you really have no leg to stand on so you should STFU) and publicly, shamelessly twisting it to say 'if you disagree with me then you should STFU' is not only dishonest

 

But that's exactly what it sounds like, man.  Are you saying if someone voted for 3rd Party they shouldn't say it's Dems's fault they lost the election, what are they supposed to do if they disagree with you in a discussion forum?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

delete sauce

Edited May 31, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[visionary]

Haven't read this thread much the past couple of days. 

 

 

 

Ah, ok, let's see what people have been talking abo...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by visionary

[88Comrade2000]

The simple fact, the Dems nominated a candidate in 2016 that couldn't defeat a candidate like Trump.  Even in their primary titled in favor of Hillary; they couldn't prevent a candidate from the left.  If Hillary and the Dems didn't strong arm anyone of consequence not to enter the 2016 race; do you really think she would be even be the nominee.  She was rejected in 2008 and if there was real competitive primary race in 2016; she would've been defeated.

 

Her arrogance and thinking she had the election, hurt her in the fall.  She couldn't get some of the Bernie supporters to vote for her. She couldn't get the third party people to vote for her. She couldn't get some people who voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for her.

 

Ultimately, she is responsible for her loss.

 

As far as trying to understand the Trump voter for 2020, there's no point. They are with him. I see only 2 types of people who voted for Trump in 16 and could be lured away in 2020.  The Bernie voters that voted for Trump, could be lured back; assuming the Dems nominate a candidate to their liking.   The other Trumo voter that might be lured away, the suburban woman who dislikes Trump's behavior and everything his administration is doing.

 

Find that right candidate to beat Trump in 2020 isn't going to be easy.  Understanding his voters. is probably a waste of time.  You just need a candidate who will appeal to those Trump voters, who are waivering and might consider voting for you.  Going after the diehard Trumpsters and the GOP forever voter  like TWA; is pointless.

[Llevron]

Hold up. Wait. Timeout. Let's figure this out. 

 

@tshile are you yourself a 3rd party voter AND your of the opinion that Trump is all the dems fault?? 

 

 

[Bang]

I think what Hillary's responsibility boils down to is being the foregone conclusion for the nomination for 4 solid years, which gave the GOP propaganda and misdirection team plenty of time to smear her to the point where most people who didn't vote for her give a shudder as a reason why, but not much else.

4 solid years of ridiculous bull**** hearings and innuendo poisoned the well on people who consider themselves reasonable and ended up wasting their vote on a moron like Jill Stein in a party that hasn't even won a damn mayorship, and thinking they did something.

 

She's qualified, period, and frankly of ALL the candidates, she is far and away the most qualified to hold the office. But give the propaganda machine four years, and people even believe she's running a baby raping slave ring out of a pizza place.

 

Hillary isn't responsible for the idiocy.

 

Whichever candidate, the less time Fox has time to mix it's poisons, the better off they will be. Course, by now the Trump base is so far gone it won't matter again, but it's on those 'reasonable' people to understand that now,, the notion of a 3rd party is dead. It is a tool used against you by those who are desperate for you to NOT cast your vote against them.

And again, you should be voting FOR something. even if it's FOR that guy not winning.

Because as is obvious,, the GOP isn't even trying to govern anymore. They earn votes through fear. And they move votes away from opponents through fear as well.

 

~Bang

 

[PeterMP]

29 minutes ago, Bang said:

I think what Hillary's responsibility boils down to is being the foregone conclusion for the nomination for 4 solid years, which gave the GOP propaganda and misdirection team plenty of time to smear her to the point where most people who didn't vote for her give a shudder as a reason why, but not much else.

4 solid years of ridiculous bull**** hearings and innuendo poisoned the well on people who consider themselves reasonable and ended up wasting their vote on a moron like Jill Stein in a party that hasn't even won a damn mayorship, and thinking they did something.

 

She's qualified, period, and frankly of ALL the candidates, she is far and away the most qualified to hold the office. But give the propaganda machine four years, and people even believe she's running a baby raping slave ring out of a pizza place.

 

Hillary isn't responsible for the idiocy.

 

Whichever candidate, the less time Fox has time to mix it's poisons, the better off they will be. Course, by now the Trump base is so far gone it won't matter again, but it's on those 'reasonable' people to understand that now,, the notion of a 3rd party is dead. It is a tool used against you by those who are desperate for you to NOT cast your vote against them.

And again, you should be voting FOR something. even if it's FOR that guy not winning.

Because as is obvious,, the GOP isn't even trying to govern anymore. They earn votes through fear. And they move votes away from opponents through fear as well.

 

~Bang

 

 

When Hillary stepped down from Secretary State she had a higher favorable rating than Obama and Biden.

[Larry]

28 minutes ago, Bang said:

think what Hillary's responsibility boils down to is being the foregone conclusion for the nomination for 4 solid years, which gave the GOP propaganda and misdirection team plenty of time to smear her to the point where most people who didn't vote for her give a shudder as a reason why, but not much else.

4 solid years of ridiculous bull**** hearings and innuendo poisoned the well on people who consider themselves reasonable and ended up wasting their vote on a moron like Jill Stein in a party that hasn't even won a damn mayorship, and thinking they did something.

 

Oh, the GOP has been working on Hillary for more like 20 years. 

 

And I’ve got to say, I fully expect a portion of the upcoming midterms will be “Sick of the constant BS about the Russia investigation?  Vote Republican, and we’ll shut it down. (The investigation. Not the BS.)”

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If Hillary and the Dems didn't strong arm anyone of consequence not to enter the 2016 race; do you really think she would be even be the nominee.  She was rejected in 2008 and if there was real competitive primary race in 2016; she would've been defeated.

 

Unless somebody like Booker was going to run, Hillary was going to win the nomination.  The likes of Biden and Warren would not have defeated her.  The disgruntled Democratic union/white/rural vote is not enough to win the Democratic primary.  We saw that in 2000 when Hillary ran against Obama and again in 2016.  The key to winning the Democratic primary is the African American vote.

 

The Clintons have a long history of cultivating connections in the African American community and she doubled down on that after their rejection of her for Obama to make sure they would have strong support.  Other than an African American (e.g. Booker), there was nobody in the Democratic party that had stronger support and roots in the African American community than Clinton.  

 

The likes of Biden would have ended up splitting the unhappy white voter with Sanders (with Clinton getting some of it still) and would have actually helped Clinton more than hurt her.

 

(And I'll point out that you are still going to see the same issue in 2020.  Warren and Biden have done very little to grow support in the African American community and Sanders has tried, but he's had issues with putting his foot in his mouth and it has very much been a one step forward one step backwards process.  Assuming we don't see a split of the African American vote (e.g. Booker and Harris don't both run), the African American vote will again be the key to winning the Democratic nomination.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 hours ago, Llevron said:

Hold up. Wait. Timeout. Let's figure this out. 

 

@tshile are you yourself a 3rd party voter AND your of the opinion that Trump is all the dems fault?? 

 

 

I dont think anyone has claimed trump is ALL the Dems fault.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, Larry said:

And I’ve got to say, I fully expect a portion of the upcoming midterms will be “Sick of the constant BS about the Russia investigation?  Vote Republican, and we’ll shut it down. (The investigation. Not the BS.)”

 

That and they’ve already started with the “they will impeach your president” because I think all early signs show their base waning in support and the dems in growing. Turnout looks bad for the gop right now. 

[Larry]

Just now, tshile said:

 

That and they’ve already started with the “they will impeach your president” because I think all early signs show their base waning in support and the dems in growing. Turnout looks bad for the gop right now. 

 

Oh, I've already heard a few cases of "A vote for a Dem is a vote to impeach".  

 

But I'm not sure that they want to push that meme too much.  By the time November gets here, a vote to impeach might appeal to a lot of voters.  

[No Excuses]

Hillary Clinton was and will always be an infintitely better and more qualified candidate than Trump.

 

The Dems could run a ****ing donkey and the donkey would be better than Trump. 

 

Some of you (and many people in this country) just don’t like liberal politics to the point that you would rather watch the Republic get dismantled than vote for a liberal. And it’s ok to admit that instead of the usual ‘wahh Hillary sucked”. Even if she sucked, any rational person should have been able to the see the mountain of differnce in quality between her and the current buffoon in office.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

Hillary Clinton was and will always be an infintitely better and more qualified candidate than Trump.

 

The Dems could run a ****ing donkey and the donkey would be better than Trump. 

 

Some of you (and many people in this country) just don’t like liberal politics to the point that you would rather watch the Republic get dismantled than vote for a liberal. And it’s ok to admit that instead of the usual ‘wahh Hillary sucked”. Even if she sucked, any rational person should have been able to the see the mountain of differnce in quality between her and the current buffoon in office.

I think this is a solid point.  And one that the Dems need to figure out.  Not just WHY people dont like liberal politics, but how they can either get them to like it, or change it.

[No Excuses]

15 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think this is a solid point.  And one that the Dems need to figure out.  Not just WHY people dont like liberal politics, but how they can either get them to like it, or change it.

 

It is borderline impossible at this point to convince the older American public on the values of liberalism.

 

The younger generation, particularly women and people of color are much more liberal than their parents and grandparents. 

 

If we imagine that millennial become more politically active as they get older, there are major trouble signs ahead for the GOP, particularly with college educated female voters, both white and colored. 

 

I suspect that in 2024, American politics will be very hard to recognize based on our conversations today. Even the younger GOP crowd wants Trump primaried in 2020 by a majority.

Edited May 31, 2018 by No Excuses

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

It is borderline impossible at this point to convince the older American public on the values of liberalism.

 

The younger generation, particularly women and people of color are much more liberal than their parents and grandparents. 

 

If we imagine that millennial become more politically active as they get older, there are major trouble signs ahead for the GOP, particularly with college educated female voters, both white and colored. 

 

I suspect that in 2024, American politics will be very hard to recognize based on our conversations today. Even the younger GOP crowd wants Trump primaried in 2020 by a majority.

As people get older though, they become more conservative.  Alot of that is the FUGotMine idea.  It's easier to see liberalism as a solution to problems when it's not your money being used to do it.

[zoony]

12 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think this is a solid point.  And one that the Dems need to figure out.  Not just WHY people dont like liberal politics, but how they can either get them to like it, or change it.

 

The very people that dems say they want to help, the middle, working, and lower class, are automatically alienated by the three most important issues that exist within the demographic.

1.  Religion

2.  Guns

3.  Raising taxes on them and giving it to the poor people who dont work

 

Youd probably have better luck asking out a woman after you murder her boyfriend, then wonder why she thinks youre an asshole.

 

Also, as a general statement, might make sense to leave universities, san fran or nyc once in a while and participate in state and local elections, talk to people, and give them a voice in your party.  This is 1000 percent been handed to republicans.  Whats left is two pockets of Dems in this country that chastize the rest of america as dumb because theyre not voting the way they ought to.

 

 

[No Excuses]

32 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

The very people that dems say they want to help, the middle, working, and lower class, are automatically alienated by the three most important issues that exist within the demographic.

1.  Religion

2.  Guns

3.  Raising taxes on them and giving it to the poor people who dont work

 

 

 

Majority of the working class in the country voted for Hillary.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Oh, I've already heard a few cases of "A vote for a Dem is a vote to impeach".  

 

But I'm not sure that they want to push that meme too much.  By the time November gets here, a vote to impeach might appeal to a lot of voters.  

According to the npr segment I heard the other week, it sounds like they’ve already decided to go all in on that. 

 

We’ll find out soon enough

[PeterMP]

Can somebody tell me the last time Democrats raised taxes on the working class?

 

https://www.thebalance.com/obama-tax-cuts-3306330

 

"In 2010, President Obama signed an $858 billion tax cut deal. It extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012 and unemployment benefits through 2011. It cut payroll taxes by 2 percent, adding $120 million to workers' spendable income. It extended a college tuition tax credit. It also included $55 billion in industry-specific tax cuts.

To pay for part of these costs, Obama’s deal revived the inheritance tax that had lapsed for a year. It applied a 35 percent tax rate to estates worth over $5 million for individuals or over $10 million for families. (Source: Washington Post, "Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax breaks," December 7, 2010)"

 

And there are plenty of urban and suburban working and middle class people that are pro-gun control.

 

When @zoonysays working class what he really means is rural whites.

Edited May 31, 2018 by PeterMP

[zoony]

15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Can somebody tell me the last time Democrats raised taxes on the working class?

 

https://www.thebalance.com/obama-tax-cuts-3306330

 

"In 2010, President Obama signed an $858 billion tax cut deal. It extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012 and unemployment benefits through 2011. It cut payroll taxes by 2 percent, adding $120 million to workers' spendable income. It extended a college tuition tax credit. It also included $55 billion in industry-specific tax cuts.

To pay for part of these costs, Obama’s deal revived the inheritance tax that had lapsed for a year. It applied a 35 percent tax rate to estates worth over $5 million for individuals or over $10 million for families. (Source: Washington Post, "Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax breaks," December 7, 2010)"

 

And there are plenty of urban and suburban working and middle class people that are pro-gun control.

 

When @zoonysays working class what he really means is rural whites.

 

This is exactly my point.  Competely tone deaf to the problem.  Though im sure it helps with your denial to paint me a certain way. Easier than admitting to yousrself that youre a goddam idiot.

 

Heres a hint, im not the one who needs to hear this. 

33 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Majority of the working class in the country voted for Hillary.

 

Yah those rust belt states reaally came thru for the old girl!

 

De 

 

Now stop wasting your time with me, go comb the internet some more to work out that confirmation bias muscle

[Fresh8686]

You can attack the post, but not the poster Zoony

Edited May 31, 2018 by Fresh8686

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

 

This is exactly my point.  Competely tone deaf to the problem.  Though im sure it helps with your denial to paint me a certain way. Easier than admitting to yousrself that youre a goddam idiot.

 

Heres a hint, im not the one who needs to hear this. 

 

So are you denying that there are many lower and middle class people that support gun control?

 

I don't think you can back this statement up:

 

"The very people that dems say they want to help, the middle, working, and lower class, are automatically alienated by the three most important issues that exist within the demographic.

 

2.  Guns"

 

I don't think that the Democratic position on guns is an important position that broadly alienates middle, working, and lower class Americans because I think many working, middle, and lower class Americans live in urban and suburban areas where support for gun control is strong.

 

However, I suspect that the Democratic position on guns broadly alienates white rural people across economic classes.

 

Am I wrong?

 

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

 

This is older, but across income levels the largest support for gun rights is 54% that make between $75,000-$99,999.  It is the least popular (40%) for very low income people (< $30,000).  In general, there isn't much of a difference from the top group and the bottom (14%) and that difference is within 2 economic groups that you posted about (certainly $75,000-$99.000 and <$30,000 fall within the middle class and lower class).

 

Now compare to that race: 54% for white, 30% for black, and 21% for Hispanic.  Race is a much more powerful determinant of support for gun rights vs. gun control then economics. (we've got a 34% difference there between the top and the bottom).

 

Now, let's look at where you live:

 

63% for rural, 46% for suburban, and 38% for urban.  Where you live is an even more powerful descriptor than income again (25% difference).  And they didn't combine race and where you live, but I'll bet that would even show larger differences.

 

And it isn't like you haven't done this sort of thing before.  You make statements about "working class" or "middle class" Americans that are only really true if you are talking about rural white Americans.

 

Now, if I'm an idiot, please point out what I said that was wrong/idiotic.

 

(But we both know you won't.)

Edited May 31, 2018 by PeterMP