I suspect that indeed a large number of people voted for Trump for the same reason as @Flashburn. To dine on liberal tears. I'm not sure who is promoting political violence. The people who have caused property destruction at protests have almost universally been anarchists, who fall almost completely outside the political paradigm altogether. And it's not that we didn't get our way. It was a 3 million popular vote discrepancy, a unprecedented political move by the FBI, and Russian hacking that have everyone up in arms, on top of the fact that this is the second time in 16 years a relic of the 18th century that has no business in a modern electoral climate has ushered in someone that received less votes.
I guarantee if Trump had won the popular vote and Clinton the Electoral College, there would already be impeachment hearings taking place. I saw a map the other day of the country being split into the coastal states of the west and the upper Northeast, and then everything else in the middle as a separate country. I'd love to see the difference in GDP between these two hypothetical countries.
I honestly wish there was some magical, easy way to just have Trump voters have one side of the country and the rest of us take the other half and just say good riddance to each other. Because at this point, the acrimony is very real. I have members of my extended family who aren't even talking to each other anymore. I can't be alone in that situation.
Never really understood the Mizhena thing. It's a fantasy game, big whoop! I guess I'm not a 'true blue' conservative after all...
We won't open those wounds, but suffice to say, there is a newer strain on the right that's main concern is that they are apparently not being allowed to say certain things, or that certain things are being "shoved down their throat" (feminism, LGBT and minority rights top the list). It's epicenter is among young, male gamers.
Something I keep hearing from the right on a daily basis is "keep it up, you're why Trump got elected." It's basically a warning daring liberals to keep standing up for equal rights and to resist discrimination. It also serves the purpose of letting anyone who voted for him off the hook when things inevitably fall apart (as if they aren't already). The rallying cry then will be "the liberals made me do it." An interesting motto from a party who worships "personal responsibility".
All that speculation is based on their records. And their records suggest they either are on the record as wanting to destroy the agencies they are being put in charge of (DeVos, Perry) or have no business running them (Ben Carson in HUD).
Great, it is still speculation until they do, do something. Then I will judge them on their actions but I have my own government to scrutinize first.
Silly to vote for someone just to hurt other people. But if that's your thing congratulations, you've helped screw over women, the poor, black people, foreigners, immigrants, and children among other groups.
Women by way of the men telling women what to do with their bodies (+ "dress like a woman"), the poor by way of wall street goldman sachs rule, black people because obviously, foreigners because "America first", immigration same reason plus ban, children by appointment of people who want to destroy public education.
Riot, burn your own establishments and businesses, threaten, and beat others for disagreeing if you must - you're not endearing anyone to your point of view. I used to be pretty liberal too, but the recent psychosis of the left as well as their general (and intensifying) insanity after being defeated has driven me pretty far to the right. All of this unrest and hatred for anyone not like themselves because they didn't get their way.
I think I'd like to amend my previous post. After seeing nearly a dozen commercials tonight in this vein, it's not that they are all aimed directly at repudiating Trump. It's that in his America, anything that manages to celebrate diversity or inclusiveness simply SEEMS that way by default.
President Trump predicted the New England Patriots would win the Super Bowl by eight points in an interview on Fox’s pregame show, citing his friendship with quarterback Tom Brady and owner Bob Kraft.
“You have to stick up for your friends, right?” Trump said. “There’s less pressure on the Patriots because they’ve been there. Once you’ve done it there’s a lot less pressure so we’ll see what happens.”
It wasn’t completely clear if the president knew who the Patriots were playing, as he referred to the Atlanta Falcons as “the other team” and quarterback Matt Ryan, crowned as the NFL’s Most Valuable Player, as “a good quarterback.”
Trump, who has been around football as an owner in the defunct USFL and had spoken before about the possibility of owning a team, acknowledged that his longstanding relationship with Brady was the subject of significant discussion during the election, which Brady has tried to avoid.
“They’re taking a lot of heat, but you know what, they’re also getting a lot of popularity out of it,” Trump said. “Tom’s a winner.”
How the eff did the Falcons blow a 25-point lead???
That was inconceivable. Run the ball instead of taking a killer sack, kick the field goal, and go home with a championship. That rivals Seattle passing the ball instead of giving Marshawn Lynch 3 chances at the goal-line. This raises the question again, how does the Off-Topic section not have a sports thread??
I used to be pretty liberal too, but the recent psychosis of the left as well as their general (and intensifying) insanity after being defeated has driven me pretty far to the right. All of this unrest and hatred for anyone not like themselves because they didn't get their way.
I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, but no individual citizen like this woman can "take away" your free speech. She's not a pleasant person, but she has violated no one's rights, certainly no more so than the guy holding the camera did to the woman holding the Mexican flag. Only the GOVERNMENT can infringe upon your free speech rights. It doesn't get any more clear cut. Anything else is just someone else exercising their free speech. You may not like what she's saying in response, but she has violated no one's rights. Not even remotely. And as long as she doesn't touch him, she has committed no crime either. She is definitely LOUDER and more obnoxious about it than he was, but they were both engaged in the same behavior: video taping someone they disagree with. I find both instances annoying, but neither one of them violated a thing.
In the second video, unless I am watching something completely different than anyone else, it is the older Trump supporter who instigates the physical contact (and this is not a fight by any stretch of the imagination). If he can't keep his cool in a verbal argument, that's his problem. He is free to walk away if he likes. Or continue to stand his ground in the screaming match. Again, no rights have been violated, no laws have been broken. I'm sure you can find videos that present these examples, because, as I've said, in any group of large people protesting, you will be able to find spattering incidents of altercations. But these two do not qualify. These are simply examples of two people using their free speech against each other in verbal confrontations (minus the rather innocuous physical contact of the old man in the second one).
I just keep coming back to what the thrust is of this "anti-PC" argument. It seems to me that anyone who expresses a liberal opinion is by definition "shutting down" debate. Now there are two points to make about this:
#1 is, no one is ENTITLED to a debate. People have their own feelings about what is out of bounds morally for them, and if they don't want to engage you, they aren't obligated to, and your rights have not been trampled on. I have found this rule is always at the center of every argument about this subject. If you don't engage in THEIR debate, under THEIR rules (which change arbitrarily on a whim) then you have violated some code of intellectual ethics you didn't even know you were bound to in the first place.
#2, and I have discussed this at least a dozen times, and asked the question at least a dozen times: What are people who are upset about this no longer allowed to say that they so desperately want to get off their chests?? Furthermore (and more importantly) who (or what) is preventing them from saying these things?? Because it isn't the government. And if it is social norms, you are free to violate them and engage in whatever speech you would like. The problem, again, comes when people receive backlash for making these statements. Free speech is punishment free in regards to legality. It IS NOT, and has never been CONSEQUENCE free in the realm of public spaces.
It's the holier than thou, I'm so superior to you attitude of the left that is so irritating to me. That and the neverending supply of rich celebrities preaching it. If you really want to save the damned planet start by getting rid of your mansions and private jets and show me how to do it. Their words are meaningless.
Here's a headline I'd love to read: Al Gore sells his cars and mansion, refuses to fly on private jets, buys himself a windmill and grows his own vegetables on a small plot of land in his tiny backyard using no pesticides or fertilizer. Then he writes a book on how satisfying his subsistence living is and donates the proceeds to homeless shelters.
We've reached a hell of a point. The right is fed up with what they see as the smugness and hypocrisy of liberals, and the left is fed up with what they see as the complete lack of empathy and hypocrisy from conservatives.
What's bothering me most about Trump voters at the moment is this new (and constantly changing) narrative about what Trump's words mean. In the early part of the campaign, they liked him because he told it like it is. When it looked like he was going to lose the election, and after he won, this switched to "you can't take him literally". Now that he is literally doing these things, it's back to "see, he does what he says". Except in the case of the Mexican Wall. Now EVERYONE claims they never thought Mexico was going to pay for it. Which is a bit insulting to MY intelligence personally, because I watched dozens of Trump rallies where they chanted that Mexico was going to pay for it. If the wall doesn't get built, I fully expect we will be back to not taking him literally, that it was only a metaphor for getting tough on immigration. These stances sometimes change on a daily basis.
Politicians lie. Unfortunately Trump wasn't lying about some of the things I was hoping he was lying about. It's kind of hard to predict which promises will be lies and which won't be from anybody in politics. At least Saturday Night Live will have plenty of ammunition for the next 4 years.
Fyi: I wasn't at any of those rallies. The wall is a really stupid idea that I hope never sees the light of day (even if Russia pays for it)!
So this video, as soon as he started making personal attacks on the person instead of what they are saying, he loses all credibility. Although he's laughing at his own jokes so he doesn't really realize this.
Guy 1: "He wants to deport Mexicans" "He wants muslims to wear identification"
(two things that Hitler did, so obviously they were explaining why they thought Trump was like Hitler before the camera started to roll)
Guy 2: "What are we doing about ISIS?"
Ok, ignore the first two points that the person brought up and then show your ignorance by asking a question regarding the Western response to a terrorist organization as if Trump would make the situation better (after claiming America First, and Lets Pull out of NATO).
Guy 1: "Black people being killed by police."
Guy 2: "OK what about WHITE people being killed by police."
Once again, showing an ignorance of the race struggle.
That's the first two minutes when the "host" decides to show his face again and instead of countering any points, just decides to make fun of the other two appearance.
Guy 1: "You have never experienced oppression in your life."
Guy 2: "You don't know me." (Ignorance again, probably not even knowing the meaning of oppression)
Guy 1: "You're a white man!"
But that's ok, the Host is going to twist it and showing how ignorant he is by claiming that the first guy dismissed the trump's supporters argument because he is a white male. The trump supporter didn't make an argument, or said, "no, I have been oppressed when XXXXX happened." The Trump supporter went defensive and just didn't claim anything. But it was enough to twist the argument into a SJW rant claiming that Guy 1 is wrong, without explaining why he is wrong. This makes the host hypocritical as just 30 seconds ago, he was claiming he wanted facts during the argument of why Trump resembles Hitler (even though they were given).
Host "You just challenged him to a fight and now you are telling the authorities..."
when all Guy 1 said was "You old A** piece of Sh** Baby boomer... *guy gets in his face*" without knowing what he was responding too. What the older gentleman said was cut out from the video.
So no, there was no challenge to fight, just some older gentleman getting mad that he didn't like what he was hearing and wanted to show how tough he was.
But maybe, to the Host that is a challenge to a fight. Maybe that's what he waits for his opposition to stoop to, so instead of laying on the facts, he can lay on the fists and claim it was "self defense" because he challenged me. ~
So there you have it. A complete fluff piece where the host just twists what is actually happens uses personal attacks to get his point across (once again, hypocritical when the guy called the trump supporter a PoS). With no substance of what the protesters were saying was false.
I honestly wish there was some magical, easy way to just have Trump voters have one side of the country and the rest of us take the other half and just say good riddance to each other. Because at this point, the acrimony is very real. I have members of my extended family who aren't even talking to each other anymore. I can't be alone in that situation.
I have been saying for years that the marriage is over, that the time has come for the spouses who no longer love each other to quit trying to fake it and continue living together in the same house because the thought of starting over on their own seems worse than the living nightmare in which they exist on a daily basis. Those of you who have been in disastrous relationships which dragged on past the point when you should have left will understand exactly what I mean. Most Democrats and Republicans are no longer interested in trying to reconcile and get along with each other; their distrust and/or hatred of the other side is so ingrained that there is no reconciliation. Thanks a lot, major political parties.
This is why I like Babylon 5 so much. The Democrats and Republicans are the Vorlons and the Shadows (I leave it up to you to figure out which group is which--hint: ultimately it doesn't matter) while the rest of us are with Sheridan, telling them both to "get the hell out of our galaxy".
The problem with splitting--CalExit is still working on getting the signatures required to put a ballot option to amend the State constitution--is that the geography is going to be problematic. Based on county-by-county election results, the people who skew Democrat are concentrated on the West coast, Las Vegas/Reno, larger cities in the Southwest, the Rio Grande Valley, the Mississippi River, Miami, large cities in the South, major Rust Belt cities (Chicago, Detroit, Flint, etc), major Eastern seaboard cities, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii (another State with a significant portion who wish to return to being their own nation), and rural Alaska (all 12 of them--just joking). Should the rest of Illinois separate into a different country just because Chicago wants to? Should all of those people in those cities congregate into one area so they are all together, making it easier to form a nation? Why should they leave their home city behind? Which group gets which area? Who would get to decide such things?
Although I don't like the lingering, living death with which we find ourselves the logistics of actually separating are impossible to resolve, which is why such a thing is not likely to happen. Despite the fact that some people think the situation has already gotten to the point where a split is necessary--reality check: except for immigrants, the Trump Administration hasn't actually screwed anyone over just yet because they haven't had sufficient time to really do much of anything--the overall situation would have to become worse before anything like a split is likely to occur.
re: people being paid to protest. We can apply a little math to the situation (me, applying math? what are the odds?) we can treat the situation as a binomial probability. If we presume that the likelihood that any random person involved in the conspiracy has a 0.1% chance of revealing the conspiracy the to news each month (this number was chosen at random and could be higher), then if n people are involved in the conspiracy and m is the number of months which transpire, we find that p(someone talks) = 1 - p(no one talks) = 1 - combination(n,0) * (.001)^0 * (.999)^m = 1 - .999^m
Interestingly, the number of people involved is irrelevant. Anyway, after only 1 year (m = 12) there is already a 1.19% chance that someone reveals the conspiracy. After 5 years the probability rises to 5.83% and becomes 11.31% after 10 years. Of course, the primary presumption is "no one talks" but here is the problem--if these people were willing to protest for k dollars then they can be persuaded to talk about it for some amount greater than k. Conclusion: someone always talks, which is why conspiracies don't work unless only a handful of people know about them and those people have to swear upon their life that they will never talk.
Viral Facebook post by Ben Mallicote to Trump voters
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's emails. The Trump administration is running its own private email server.
You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness. You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he took away your health insurance so he could give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies, and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the stamina to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5pm phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't "respect" Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Now that you know the score, quit insisting the con-man is on your side.
I'll readily admit, liberals can be smug. I myself can be a sarcastic and passive-aggressive prick when I get in these conversations in real-life. I never get into screaming matches like shown in the video, but I'm sure the aura of contempt oozes out of me.
I generally view this as a coping mechanism, because by the very nature of liberalism and conservatism, liberals hardly ever see the change they seek. The country is by nature conservative, the status quo is by definition conservative. Any true liberal victory usually takes DECADES to come to fruition, and even then, they are one administration away from having it all reverted back to default. Conservative victories, by contrast, happen almost instantaneously. They simply require rolling back the changes that were made. It's a constant state of 1 step forward, 3 steps back. That is a far harder climb mentally than simply wanting things to stand in place or revert.
That said, I have no further interest in learning more about what motivates most Trump voters. I grew up in a deep red farming community in rural MN, and I have a 13 year Masters degree in what motivates them. I'm not sure what else I could possibly find out. I vaguely remember being literally the ONLY kid in our class election in 1992 who voted for Clinton over Bush the 1st. I'm not some coastal elite (but it would be nice to love in a truly metropolitan area for a change). @Mathsorcerer has it pegged. Much of America can't stand to even be around their partner anymore. Unfortunately, the country is stuck with each other. No states are leaving the Union, it's a pipe-dream. But I do believe it's reached a point where that pie in the sky scenario would be much preferable.
@jjstraka34: Instant change would lead to chaos. It's actually a good thing conservatism slows liberals down. Take comfort in the fact that liberalism will never be stopped. I know it's frustrating but look at the progress made in the last 100 years alone.
"You voted for Trump because the Democrats didn't, and still haven't, got the faintest notion how you mind works."
Straw men or no I definitely heard these arguments against Hillary, didn't you?
Heard them? Yes. Think they determined how many people voted? No.
Consider this: you have no job, no money and no prospects. So long as you remember, things have been getting steadily worse. Does it make any sense to vote for the status quo candidate? No, you will vote for a change, ANY change, or the closest thing to a change available on the ballot paper.
In order to understand, liberals and democrats need to grasp that, outside of a few fanatics, many of those who voted for Trump hate him just as much as they hate Clinton.
Trump didn't win the election, the Democrats lost it. And they lost it the moment they chose a candidate of the status quo.
It has nothing to do with Clinton being corrupt, or incompetent, or a women. It's just down to her standing for no change.
Comments
I guarantee if Trump had won the popular vote and Clinton the Electoral College, there would already be impeachment hearings taking place. I saw a map the other day of the country being split into the coastal states of the west and the upper Northeast, and then everything else in the middle as a separate country. I'd love to see the difference in GDP between these two hypothetical countries.
I honestly wish there was some magical, easy way to just have Trump voters have one side of the country and the rest of us take the other half and just say good riddance to each other. Because at this point, the acrimony is very real. I have members of my extended family who aren't even talking to each other anymore. I can't be alone in that situation.
Something I keep hearing from the right on a daily basis is "keep it up, you're why Trump got elected." It's basically a warning daring liberals to keep standing up for equal rights and to resist discrimination. It also serves the purpose of letting anyone who voted for him off the hook when things inevitably fall apart (as if they aren't already). The rallying cry then will be "the liberals made me do it." An interesting motto from a party who worships "personal responsibility".
Women by way of the men telling women what to do with their bodies (+ "dress like a woman"), the poor by way of wall street goldman sachs rule, black people because obviously, foreigners because "America first", immigration same reason plus ban, children by appointment of people who want to destroy public education.
Well done sir.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit
Decent human behavior isn't determined by party lines.
I AM HILARIOUS AND YOU WILL QUOTE EVERYTHING I SAY
How the eff did the Falcons blow a 25-point lead???
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/president-trump-makes-his-super-bowl-pick/ar-AAmDXpV
President Trump makes his Super Bowl pick
President Trump predicted the New England Patriots would win the Super Bowl by eight points in an interview on Fox’s pregame show, citing his friendship with quarterback Tom Brady and owner Bob Kraft.
“You have to stick up for your friends, right?” Trump said. “There’s less pressure on the Patriots because they’ve been there. Once you’ve done it there’s a lot less pressure so we’ll see what happens.”
It wasn’t completely clear if the president knew who the Patriots were playing, as he referred to the Atlanta Falcons as “the other team” and quarterback Matt Ryan, crowned as the NFL’s Most Valuable Player, as “a good quarterback.”
Trump, who has been around football as an owner in the defunct USFL and had spoken before about the possibility of owning a team, acknowledged that his longstanding relationship with Brady was the subject of significant discussion during the election, which Brady has tried to avoid.
“They’re taking a lot of heat, but you know what, they’re also getting a lot of popularity out of it,” Trump said. “Tom’s a winner.”
In the second video, unless I am watching something completely different than anyone else, it is the older Trump supporter who instigates the physical contact (and this is not a fight by any stretch of the imagination). If he can't keep his cool in a verbal argument, that's his problem. He is free to walk away if he likes. Or continue to stand his ground in the screaming match. Again, no rights have been violated, no laws have been broken. I'm sure you can find videos that present these examples, because, as I've said, in any group of large people protesting, you will be able to find spattering incidents of altercations. But these two do not qualify. These are simply examples of two people using their free speech against each other in verbal confrontations (minus the rather innocuous physical contact of the old man in the second one).
My turn!
Disclaimer:
I hate this game. Let's please not go down this road. Please.
#1 is, no one is ENTITLED to a debate. People have their own feelings about what is out of bounds morally for them, and if they don't want to engage you, they aren't obligated to, and your rights have not been trampled on. I have found this rule is always at the center of every argument about this subject. If you don't engage in THEIR debate, under THEIR rules (which change arbitrarily on a whim) then you have violated some code of intellectual ethics you didn't even know you were bound to in the first place.
#2, and I have discussed this at least a dozen times, and asked the question at least a dozen times: What are people who are upset about this no longer allowed to say that they so desperately want to get off their chests?? Furthermore (and more importantly) who (or what) is preventing them from saying these things?? Because it isn't the government. And if it is social norms, you are free to violate them and engage in whatever speech you would like. The problem, again, comes when people receive backlash for making these statements. Free speech is punishment free in regards to legality. It IS NOT, and has never been CONSEQUENCE free in the realm of public spaces.
Al Gore sells his cars and mansion, refuses to fly on private jets, buys himself a windmill and grows his own vegetables on a small plot of land in his tiny backyard using no pesticides or fertilizer. Then he writes a book on how satisfying his subsistence living is and donates the proceeds to homeless shelters.
What's bothering me most about Trump voters at the moment is this new (and constantly changing) narrative about what Trump's words mean. In the early part of the campaign, they liked him because he told it like it is. When it looked like he was going to lose the election, and after he won, this switched to "you can't take him literally". Now that he is literally doing these things, it's back to "see, he does what he says". Except in the case of the Mexican Wall. Now EVERYONE claims they never thought Mexico was going to pay for it. Which is a bit insulting to MY intelligence personally, because I watched dozens of Trump rallies where they chanted that Mexico was going to pay for it. If the wall doesn't get built, I fully expect we will be back to not taking him literally, that it was only a metaphor for getting tough on immigration. These stances sometimes change on a daily basis.
Fyi: I wasn't at any of those rallies. The wall is a really stupid idea that I hope never sees the light of day (even if Russia pays for it)!
So this video, as soon as he started making personal attacks on the person instead of what they are saying, he loses all credibility.
Although he's laughing at his own jokes so he doesn't really realize this.
Guy 1:
"He wants to deport Mexicans"
"He wants muslims to wear identification"
(two things that Hitler did, so obviously they were explaining why they thought Trump was like Hitler before the camera started to roll)
Guy 2:
"What are we doing about ISIS?"
Ok, ignore the first two points that the person brought up and then show your ignorance by asking a question regarding the Western response to a terrorist organization as if Trump would make the situation better (after claiming America First, and Lets Pull out of NATO).
Guy 1:
"Black people being killed by police."
Guy 2:
"OK what about WHITE people being killed by police."
Once again, showing an ignorance of the race struggle.
That's the first two minutes when the "host" decides to show his face again and instead of countering any points, just decides to make fun of the other two appearance.
Guy 1:
"You have never experienced oppression in your life."
Guy 2:
"You don't know me." (Ignorance again, probably not even knowing the meaning of oppression)
Guy 1:
"You're a white man!"
But that's ok, the Host is going to twist it and showing how ignorant he is by claiming that the first guy dismissed the trump's supporters argument because he is a white male. The trump supporter didn't make an argument, or said, "no, I have been oppressed when XXXXX happened." The Trump supporter went defensive and just didn't claim anything. But it was enough to twist the argument into a SJW rant claiming that Guy 1 is wrong, without explaining why he is wrong. This makes the host hypocritical as just 30 seconds ago, he was claiming he wanted facts during the argument of why Trump resembles Hitler (even though they were given).
Host
"You just challenged him to a fight and now you are telling the authorities..."
when all Guy 1 said was "You old A** piece of Sh** Baby boomer... *guy gets in his face*" without knowing what he was responding too. What the older gentleman said was cut out from the video.
So no, there was no challenge to fight, just some older gentleman getting mad that he didn't like what he was hearing and wanted to show how tough he was.
But maybe, to the Host that is a challenge to a fight. Maybe that's what he waits for his opposition to stoop to, so instead of laying on the facts, he can lay on the fists and claim it was "self defense" because he challenged me.
~
So there you have it. A complete fluff piece where the host just twists what is actually happens uses personal attacks to get his point across (once again, hypocritical when the guy called the trump supporter a PoS). With no substance of what the protesters were saying was false.
Thanks for sharing.
From a comedy point of view Trump is amazing even better than Bush.
This is why I like Babylon 5 so much. The Democrats and Republicans are the Vorlons and the Shadows (I leave it up to you to figure out which group is which--hint: ultimately it doesn't matter) while the rest of us are with Sheridan, telling them both to "get the hell out of our galaxy".
The problem with splitting--CalExit is still working on getting the signatures required to put a ballot option to amend the State constitution--is that the geography is going to be problematic. Based on county-by-county election results, the people who skew Democrat are concentrated on the West coast, Las Vegas/Reno, larger cities in the Southwest, the Rio Grande Valley, the Mississippi River, Miami, large cities in the South, major Rust Belt cities (Chicago, Detroit, Flint, etc), major Eastern seaboard cities, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii (another State with a significant portion who wish to return to being their own nation), and rural Alaska (all 12 of them--just joking). Should the rest of Illinois separate into a different country just because Chicago wants to? Should all of those people in those cities congregate into one area so they are all together, making it easier to form a nation? Why should they leave their home city behind? Which group gets which area? Who would get to decide such things?
Although I don't like the lingering, living death with which we find ourselves the logistics of actually separating are impossible to resolve, which is why such a thing is not likely to happen. Despite the fact that some people think the situation has already gotten to the point where a split is necessary--reality check: except for immigrants, the Trump Administration hasn't actually screwed anyone over just yet because they haven't had sufficient time to really do much of anything--the overall situation would have to become worse before anything like a split is likely to occur.
re: people being paid to protest. We can apply a little math to the situation (me, applying math? what are the odds?) we can treat the situation as a binomial probability. If we presume that the likelihood that any random person involved in the conspiracy has a 0.1% chance of revealing the conspiracy the to news each month (this number was chosen at random and could be higher), then if n people are involved in the conspiracy and m is the number of months which transpire, we find that
p(someone talks) = 1 - p(no one talks) = 1 - combination(n,0) * (.001)^0 * (.999)^m = 1 - .999^m
Interestingly, the number of people involved is irrelevant. Anyway, after only 1 year (m = 12) there is already a 1.19% chance that someone reveals the conspiracy. After 5 years the probability rises to 5.83% and becomes 11.31% after 10 years. Of course, the primary presumption is "no one talks" but here is the problem--if these people were willing to protest for k dollars then they can be persuaded to talk about it for some amount greater than k. Conclusion: someone always talks, which is why conspiracies don't work unless only a handful of people know about them and those people have to swear upon their life that they will never talk.
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's emails. The Trump administration is running its own private email server.
You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he took away your health insurance so he could give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies, and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the stamina to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5pm phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't "respect" Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened.
The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Now that you know the score, quit insisting the con-man is on your side.
How about this:
"You voted for Trump because the Democrats didn't, and still haven't, got the faintest notion how you mind works."
I generally view this as a coping mechanism, because by the very nature of liberalism and conservatism, liberals hardly ever see the change they seek. The country is by nature conservative, the status quo is by definition conservative. Any true liberal victory usually takes DECADES to come to fruition, and even then, they are one administration away from having it all reverted back to default. Conservative victories, by contrast, happen almost instantaneously. They simply require rolling back the changes that were made. It's a constant state of 1 step forward, 3 steps back. That is a far harder climb mentally than simply wanting things to stand in place or revert.
That said, I have no further interest in learning more about what motivates most Trump voters. I grew up in a deep red farming community in rural MN, and I have a 13 year Masters degree in what motivates them. I'm not sure what else I could possibly find out. I vaguely remember being literally the ONLY kid in our class election in 1992 who voted for Clinton over Bush the 1st. I'm not some coastal elite (but it would be nice to love in a truly metropolitan area for a change). @Mathsorcerer has it pegged. Much of America can't stand to even be around their partner anymore. Unfortunately, the country is stuck with each other. No states are leaving the Union, it's a pipe-dream. But I do believe it's reached a point where that pie in the sky scenario would be much preferable.
Instant change would lead to chaos. It's actually a good thing conservatism slows liberals down. Take comfort in the fact that liberalism will never be stopped. I know it's frustrating but look at the progress made in the last 100 years alone.
Consider this: you have no job, no money and no prospects. So long as you remember, things have been getting steadily worse. Does it make any sense to vote for the status quo candidate? No, you will vote for a change, ANY change, or the closest thing to a change available on the ballot paper.
In order to understand, liberals and democrats need to grasp that, outside of a few fanatics, many of those who voted for Trump hate him just as much as they hate Clinton.
Trump didn't win the election, the Democrats lost it. And they lost it the moment they chose a candidate of the status quo.
It has nothing to do with Clinton being corrupt, or incompetent, or a women. It's just down to her standing for no change.