Think so?
Trump supporters want respect
- Thread starter katsung47
- Start date
Think so?
I could begrudgingly give respect to the original 63 million that voted for him. ("Fool me once....") But that cannot be the case for whatever number remaining that still supports the lying buffoon.
His approval rating is 43% which is about the same as his percentage of popular votes. I know they are not exactly comparable, but it seems like he has not lost much support among his voters. Today our allegiance is to the social group with which we identify, so we stick by them regardless. If Hillary won and did some stupid stuff, her voters would most likely stick by her.
Interesting research finds when randomly placed in two groups without knowing anything about the others in your group (race, religion, etc.), we could choose to give both groups $100 each or give our group $60 and the other group $40. Most people choose the $60 because it gives more to our group than the other---winning.
The Republican party is gone. The Trump party does not believe in free trade, something the Repubs have long claimed as a belief. Now they are pro-tariff. trump is talking about tariffs on all Chinese goods. That is not Republican. They are pro adding to the debt. Trumps policies are kicking the debt up a couple truillion. But the right is now at peace with that too. The Repubs have been taken over entirely by Truimp. The Republican party would not shove NATO away and get huggy with rRussia and Putin. But the Trumpettes think it is great.
It is odd, when Obama was in office, the left criticized him plenty. we were unhappy with him not getting universal health care. We did not like his cabinet choices who came from Wall Street and Goldman.Barack got plenty of resistence from the left , many wanting him out of the center. Trumps followers. Silence . Trump is floundering and bumping into things all the time. But not a whisper out of Trumpettes. The most ludicrous expalnations are repeated as fact, indisputable facts. If Trump says it, it must be great. If he changes his mind due toi it being stupid or a lie he did not get away with, they buy that too.
They called Barack, stupidly, our Messiah. What is Trump, your god? You guys never question him or disagree with him.
They called Barack, stupidly, our Messiah. What is Trump, your god? You guys never question him or disagree with him.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Nifty,
It's easy. Many of these people I knew long before Trump began his campaign. While I was shocked to hear of their support for Trump I came to realize it was more of a vote against Hillary than for Trump. I am not going to disown friends, neighbors or relatives over their politics. They didn't disown me because I voted differently than them. We have to go on. It is America's way for us to each vote our own choice. That doesn't mean we are enemies.
It's easy. Many of these people I knew long before Trump began his campaign. While I was shocked to hear of their support for Trump I came to realize it was more of a vote against Hillary than for Trump. I am not going to disown friends, neighbors or relatives over their politics. They didn't disown me because I voted differently than them. We have to go on. It is America's way for us to each vote our own choice. That doesn't mean we are enemies.
When the election occurred some news stories showed Russians in bars celebrating his victory. They also supported Bernie by defending attacks against him in social media. Hillary should not have questioned the validity of Putin's election--he seems vindictive.
Yes, those cross-cutting cleavages (friends, family, work colleagues) help us be more accepting of the other side because you already liked those people. Today, the "sorting" means we live in areas of people like ourselves and associate with people like us. More homogeneous groups means you know fewer of those on the other side and allows you to dislike and stereotype them.
Did your friends who were voting against Hillary also vote primarily Republican in past years? If so, it was also identification with those groups and antagonism against Hillary made it easier to support Trump. Posters on this forum are probably more tolerant of those who voted for Trump/Hillary if they are family or long-time friends. They can overlook their vote but when it comes to anonymous Trump/Hillary supporters on this forum they can be rude and nasty with ignorant, bigoted stereotypes. Even though I showed them form numerous sources that Trump voters had higher educational and income levels than their claims, they still find it convenient to believe their exaggerated images. I know people who feel the same way about Hillary voters, homosexuals, blacks, etc.
Old Trapper
Verified User
With Trump now going after Naturalized Citizens who obtained their citizenship illegally, Melania better watch her ass. Trump has already shown he doesn't mind separating mothers from their children.
Old Trapper
Verified User
IMO, Trump won based on two issues, Hillary's support for abortions, and pure ignorance. Underlying this was the voters lack of initiative to do their own research on alternative candidates thus limiting the field to two major players. Then, if one was to consider the Electoral College (which is supposed to be a free body), and the control that elitists had over that body, the winner was predetermined.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/1...s-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/
I completely disagree about any elite control over the Electoral College. In almost every state all the electors voted for the candidate winning a plurality of popular votes in their state. The electors in every state are either free to vote however they choose or their state pledges them to support the popular vote winner of their state. Since anti-abortion voters are loyal Republicans I don't think that was any more an issue in 2016 than any other year. Voters know any 3rd party/independent candidates have no chance of winning.
"The Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two. Three of the faithless electors voted for Colin Powell while John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one vote."
Not suport for abortion, but support for a woman to choose. We have had 2 parties for long before we were born. This is not new.
Old Trapper
Verified User
And then reality hits. The "electors" are selected, not voted for, by the elites of their particular party. These come from the top donors, or other representatives of the upper class of the party. So, they do not represent the party as a whole, just the few. I believe that the number of States that require the elector to follow the majority vote is 23. Other States have some varying rule. However,m the original intent was that the electors would be free to vote as they saw fit. As is true with most of the Constitutional ideals this had=s been corrupted.
As to the third party issue, back in the 80's I remember Limbaugh pushing the idea that a third party was a wasted vote. As long as the people accept this kind of foolishness (one that the Founding Fathers warned against e.g. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp ) then it will be true, and we will only have those selected by the wealthy as candidates regardless of their qualifications, or lack thereof, as we saw in the last election. Not decent people with the country as their major concern.
Old Trapper
Verified User
It is not about the right of the woman to "choose". She had that right before engaging in an act that would create the child. After the child has been created that right to "choose" goes away. Then it becomes "to kill or not to kill". And the argument that it is not about support for abortion is a lie. It is all about support for abortion.
How they are selected varies by state. In some they actually vote for the electors. But you missed the point. Regardless of how they were chosen, the electoral votes of every state went to the candidate winning a plurality (majority not required) of popular votes of that state. So, the electors all "chose" to vote for the winning candidate in their state.
Whether they represent the party as a whole is irrelevant since they voted for the popular vote winner. Being a top donor or upper class means nothing when those electors simply cast their vote for their party's nominee who won their state.
Since only 23 states bind their electors, that means the electors in the other states are free to vote as they see fit. But the Constitution did not (and still does not) have any reference to the people voting for president. If we stuck to original intent with no popular vote and the legislatures chose the electors, you don't think those would be upper class and top donors?
Sorry, Trapper, but I have to respectfully disagree.
This last election there were people supporting third party candidates on the left...and there were people who refused to vote because they were miffed about Sanders not being the candidate.
ANYONE WHO DID NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE LAST ELECTION...
...helped get Donald Trump elected.
Donald Trump, in significant part, was elected because of the people who refused to enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton.
Anyone who does the equivalent during the next election is equally culpable in what happens.
A woman cannot choose unless the law makes abortion legal. "Choice" is a decision by the individual, allowing abortion is a legal issue.
The "support" was for the right of a woman to CHOOSE.
If she chooses to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to make that choice without the government interfering.
If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy...she should be able to make THAT choice without the government interfering.
Wake up.
The "support" was exactly what Nordberg said.
Old Trapper
Verified User
I know of no State where the electors are elected. Then again, even if that were true the choices would be extremely slim, and the common person would not be one "elected".
The original intent of the electoral college was to eliminate the chances of larger States determining the results of the election. Hasn't worked.