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

[nonniey]

8 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I truly hope that a swath of reliably Republican/Independent voters can briefly set aside their issues with Democrats/liberals the next two elections.  

 

While I can imagine it’s very tough to vote against one’s own political ideology and vote with a group that has shown them a good deal of anger, I’m more and more convinced that our history is at stake.  Retaining our allies, NATO, concerns of Russian supremacy, and election interference, authoritarianism in the US, freedom of the press etc., should all trump the hot button issues like abortion, State’s rights, and strict interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment. 

 

Just my opinion of course.  

Problem is identity politics is the biggest problem many of us have with Trump (not the only one) which obviously means the Democrats are not a viable alternative. 

[Kilmer17]

22 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I truly hope that a swath of reliably Republican/Independent voters can briefly set aside their issues with Democrats/liberals the next two elections.  

 

While I can imagine it’s very tough to vote against one’s own political ideology and vote with a group that has shown them a good deal of anger, I’m more and more convinced that our history is at stake.  Retaining our allies, NATO, concerns of Russian supremacy, and election interference, authoritarianism in the US, freedom of the press etc., should all trump the hot button issues like abortion, State’s rights, and strict interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment. 

 

Just my opinion of course.  

Maybe the Dems should nominate a candidate a swath of Republicans/Independent voters can support.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Maybe the Dems should nominate a candidate a swath of Republicans/Independent voters can support.

Who are some Dems that fit this description?

[Bang]

It really is cute to think republican voters that voted for Trump will do anything different.

 

Completely unrealistic, but cute.

Can they come up with a candidate that does not conspire with our greatest enemies, that doesn't **** on our allies, that hasn't swamped the swamp so swampy that they won't even bother to try and hide the corruption? 
Gee, can they come up with that?

Nope. That person does not exist, and there is no irresistible force that can get through the immovable object that is right wing thinking. None.

They would hate Jesus if they were told to. Don't doubt it. They love them some Putin,, LOVE him.. and it's about the same amount of WTF. (the American right loves the leader of Moscow and hates fellow Americans. Let that sink in if there is any doubt to the brainwash.)

their last nominee was eminently qualified, but awash in media driven bull**** and innuendo, of which none has turned out to be true, but hasn't budged the republican voter a single iota in their opinion. An obvious snow job, a very long and expensive and obvious smear, and they can't / won't recognize it.

Nothing is going to change these people because they will fall for it again, and what's more,, they WANT to fall for it again. Pick a candidate, and whatever smear they can come up with, these folks will clamp down on it like a dog on a rope and never let it go. 
 

.. , and regardless, it's going to be a hard time convincing me that the results aren't already planned.. like in an office in Moscow last wednesday. I hope not, but this crew is actively trying to dismantle all obstacles to it's keeping power and pressing it's (and Russia's) agenda of dividing the free world. rigged elections are small potatoes and pretty much standard fare for totalitarians.
Didn't congress just admit that 39 states may have been compromised in 2016?

 

Play Taps.

 

~Bang

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Bang

[The Evil Genius]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Maybe the Dems should nominate a candidate a swath of Republicans/Independent voters can support.

 

Maybe the GOP should nominate someone who isn't a lizard person. ?

Edited July 9, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Who are some Dems that fit this description?

Hickenlooper, Bullock, and if you want star power- Mark Cuban

 

 

Oh, and it would help if Dems would come out and strongly denounce this idea-

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5931169/Talk-emerges-Hillary-Clinton-plotting-2020-comeback-prepping-Trump-rematch.html

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Kinda odd, right?

 

And on that note, I’d like to extend an apology to @CousinsCowgirl84.  I did not mean for the “crush you” comment to be interpreted personally towards her.  I intended it as a strongly worded statement of what I believe is really at stake for us with no pretense of civility. In other words, that’s what an actual lack of civility looks like.  As far as the “Becky” thing, I felt it was fairly accurate given the context and my understanding of the term.  If cowgirl took offense, I apologize for that as well.

 

 

Hi. No, I did not take offense to it. I understand your frustration. When you use someone’s evil acts to justify your own evil acts you justify theirs in kind. I do not want to justify them.

[nonniey]

6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Who are some Dems that fit this description?

Lieberman?

[Captain Wiggles]

Just now, nonniey said:

Lieberman?

 

He'll be almost 80 by 2020. 

 

 

And also NO...... Last thing Dems should do at this point is start appeasing conservatives IMO.

 

 

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Hickenlooper, Bullock, and if you want star power- Mark Cuban

 

 

Oh, and it would help if Dems would come out and strongly denounce this idea-

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5931169/Talk-emerges-Hillary-Clinton-plotting-2020-comeback-prepping-Trump-rematch.html

 

 

 

How is Hickenlooper really any different than wide swaths of the Democratic party- other than he's a white male?

[TradeTheBeal!]

I know it sounds trite, but Cuban could probably wrap up my vote fairly easily.

[Kilmer17]

7 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

He'll be almost 80 by 2020. 

 

 

And also NO...... Last thing Dems should do at this point is start appeasing conservatives IMO.

 

 

That's the rub though right?  And the OP of the thread.  If they DONT start appeasing, they wont sway their votes.

 

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

How is Hickenlooper really any different than wide swaths of the Democratic party- other than he's a white male?

He's more centrist.  He comes from a business background.  He has proven success running a Govt.

 

I know it's easier for those on the left to only see race and gender, but looking beyond that he's a solid choice.

[Bang]

The only way to win is to do what we say.

 

Gosh, now that I see it written out, it makes total sense.

 

"Appeasement" is such an appropriate word. Filled with historical significance..   but i guess we stopped counting correlations?

 

~Bang

Edited July 9, 2018 by Bang

[Zguy28]

42 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

Truth claim? I guess I didnt explain myself clearly enough. I claim no truth. IM not trying to reach group consensus or prove my definition is right. My definitions and thoughts are only right for me. I dont expect anyone to agree with me. i dont care if they do. How I feel or think is not universal, it is only how I personally think and feel. 

 

I went out of my way to explain that my definition is only my definition, and I dont think anyone else's is wrong and i dont expect anyone else to accept my definition. I dont push my definitions or thoughts on others. You want to tell me how I think? Okay. Youre free to do so.  

 

Me personally .... yeah, i probably wouldnt look to the "Oxford English Dictionary" as my first source in gathering info on defining racism or what is a racist. Thats just me though. You do you. 

 

I think we all think for ourselves and no one can say what another person thinks. 

If you don't care, and you don't even think its right, then why even post it?

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's the rub though right?  And the OP of the thread.  If they DONT start appeasing, they wont sway their votes.

 

He's more centrist.  He comes from a business background.  He has proven success running a Govt.

 

I know it's easier for those on the left to only see race and gender, but looking beyond that he's a solid choice.

 

I guess my question is what makes him more centrist?  I don't see what makes him much different than Booker who you've said would be part of an ideal ticket for the GOP.

[Going Commando]

18 minutes ago, clietas said:

And also NO...... Last thing Dems should do at this point is start appeasing conservatives IMO.

 

Hear ****ing hear.  It's going to take a generation of work to fix the damage that Right Wing courts and government have done to our society.  If it's even possible.  We can't give a damn about appeasing the people who are ruining our country.  We need to get to work.

 

If you're a Conservative and you've got kids and you just can't find it in yourself to vote for a Democrat, the least you can do for them is to stay home on election day.

[Kilmer17]

7 minutes ago, Bang said:

The only way to win is to do what we say.

 

Gosh, now that I see it written out, it makes total sense.

 

"Appeasement" is such an appropriate word. Filled with historical significance..   but i guess we stopped counting correlations?

 

~Bang

I know right!  GOP voters should just do what the Dems tell them to do!

[Bang]

This really is amazing.

In one post, you say the only way to sway GOP voters is to appease them.. then blame the dems for trying to make them do something by putting up a candidate that would represent their own values.. and not a compromise with people who have no desire to compromise.

 

Commonly known as bull****.

 

FTR, i am in no mood to appease or sway or even understand the Trump voter, this final 30%.

i understand them perfectly. (They do, too. Fully aware of what they do. It's people who think anything is going to change them that don't.) 

 

~Bang

Edited July 9, 2018 by Bang

[PleaseBlitz]

22 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I know it sounds trite, but Cuban could probably wrap up my vote fairly easily.

 

Have we learned nothing from Trump?  Being rich does not mean you are qualified for the top job.  If you want to go from business to politics, start at mayor or governor and prove you can do it.  Not ****ing President of the United States.  

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, Bang said:

This really is amazing.

In one post, you say the only way to sway GOP voters is to appease them.. then blame the dems for trying to make them do something by putting up a candidate that would represent their own values.. and not a compromise with people who have no desire to compromise.

 

Commonly known as bull****.

 

FTR, i am in no mood to appease or sway or even understand the Trump voter, this final 30%.

i understand them perfectly. (They do, too. Fully aware of what they do. It's people who think anything is going to change them that don't.) 

 

~Bang

Clearly.

 

but I think you've flown by the point and missed the distinction between Trump voters (the 30%) and "swath of reliably Republican/Independent voters" as stated above.

[Captain Wiggles]

13 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Clearly.

 

but I think you've flown by the point and missed the distinction between Trump voters (the 30%) and "swath of reliably Republican/Independent voters" as stated above.

 

Uh a lot more than 30% voted for Trump. So they're all Trump voters. There is no distinction. 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by clietas

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, clietas said:

 

Uh a lot more than 30% voted for Trump. So they're all Trump voters. There is no distinction. 

His number, not mine

 

[PleaseBlitz]

This is not the year people on the left should nominate a for-real centrist.  The BEST outcome is a moderate liberal, which today means what far-left progressive meant 10 years ago.  

[The Evil Genius]

3 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

Uh a lot more than 30% voted for Trump. So they're all Trump voters. There is no distinction. 

 

Actually, 60 mil out of 200 mil registered voters went for Trump.

 

So it is about 30%. 

 

[Bang]

13 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Clearly.

 

but I think you've flown by the point and missed the distinction between Trump voters (the 30%) and "swath of reliably Republican/Independent voters" as stated above.

OK, you're right.  Let me breathe and begin again, then.

(First to answer some questions.. i get 30% because that is about as far as his approval rating is going to dip. At his lowest, it stayed right around a third.. and given what he's done, i doubt that 30% or so will change. That is his hardcore base.)

 

I am not so sure they won't stick to party either.

If half the country did not vote, then it stands to reason many of them would be GOP voters (although not as many,, usually this is a democrat problem) ,, so I assume it may be possible to entice them.

I would also assume there are a percentage who have fallen away as Trump has barreled forward.

 

I think it wouldn't be smart of the left to go full left and try to put up severely socialist candidates. They'd definitely do better at going for a moderate.. and the overall politics of the party is more moderate.

But the question for me remains.. will these voters listen to facts, or propaganda? MANY right leaning voters won't vote for a democrat if their lives depended on it, especially those who still ID as Republicans. Moderates are few and far between over there in Rightville.

If a good chunk of conservative voters stayed away or voted in the third party trap because they couldn't deal with Hillary..  as i said above.. since so much of the smoke around her has turned out to be nothing but a big gigantic taxpayer funded smear campaign..  will they use that knowledge of being swayed once into not letting it happen again?

I am not optimistic.

 

I feel like we are waltzing as the fuse burns. 

 

~Bang

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Bang