Please pick how you feel about the ~majority~ of them. Also, if you are an actual human that wants to vote for Trump, I would love to hear you explain how you are not ignorant or evil! It would delight me to no end. But feel free to vote the 3rd option and go on with your life too.
[Question] A question about Trump supporters
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Oh yeah, Trump supporters absolutely think they're the heroes in their own story. but this is about YOUR (our) opinion(s).
I only included the third option because the previous poll actually had votes for Trump that I don't think were ironic.
I think Trump supporters are wrong-headed, but mostly tired of the imposition of the politically correct culture pervading society, and they'll vote for a doofus who shouts obnoxious anti left rhetoric and claim him a hero for doing so. Charlie boi, when you spout off your own brand of rhetoric - it almost compels me to vote for Trump, despite me an Anishnaabek Canadian.
When people feel they are deprived of their capacity to be insenstive jackasses, the jackassery will only intensify as a result.
When people feel they are deprived of their capacity to be insenstive jackasses, the jackassery will only intensify as a result.
lol
also please go on about the evils of politically correct culture that's stopping society and impeding us from greatness
I never stated that there were evils of politically correct culture that's stopping society and impeding anyone from greatness. Those are your words, not mine.
GasBandit
Staff member
Trump is not an actual candidate.
Trump is a grenade.
A lot of people who feel their best interests are not in the mind of the DC establishment want to throw a grenade at the capitol.
They don't want a politician.
They want a molotov cocktail that won't get them arrested for throwing.
Trump is a grenade.
A lot of people who feel their best interests are not in the mind of the DC establishment want to throw a grenade at the capitol.
They don't want a politician.
They want a molotov cocktail that won't get them arrested for throwing.
I suppose there's some actual truth to this.
I mean, if the populace really wanted a government made up of people who were actually good at running things, they would vote based on that instead of the current "what's in it for me?" mentality.
--Patrick
I feel like 'ignorant' is too generous: I think there's a lot of genuine, malicious racism driving many of them. But, as a second, Ignorant, definitely.
I don't think Trump supporters are inherently ignorant or racist. Certainly some of them are, and Trump has pandered to that demographic, but I think a lot of Trump voters like him just because he comes across as not a politician, and they're fed up with the system. In a way, I think Trump appeals for the same reason Bernie Sanders appeals, he comes across as an outsider that speaks his mind and isn't a part of the system that they've grown to hate.
My mom supports Trump because her friends do and she's a follower. She knows nothing of his politics; she likes that he's loud and angry. I have a feeling there are bunch who are just playing herd mentality. But I'd say that's true of many Bernie Sanders supporters too. There are many people who aren't politically educated, so instead of making an educated decision to find out what a person supports, they just go along with others around them.
Of course, many people also believe that the two-party system is just part of our government set-up, when really you're free to vote for anyone who's running and gets their name on the ballot.
Of course, many people also believe that the two-party system is just part of our government set-up, when really you're free to vote for anyone who's running and gets their name on the ballot.
It's probably safe to say Sanders supporters aren't tacitly endorsing the murder of children. How else would you interpret "you have to take out the terrorists' families"?
It's probably safe to say that anyone who supports President Obama is tacitly endorsing the murder of children. Of course when a republican was in the office the media went into a frenzy every time a child or civilian was struck, but that's all quietly carried out now.
Worse than the deaths is the absolute terror we are causing to large populations in the Middle East.
I'm not interested in Trump, and thus not interested in defending him, but if you're going to vilify him for his words, I expect you to at least internalize the actions of our current and past presidents and recognize that he is simply saying much openly that is already carried out in actuality.
The difference, though, is he's transparent about it, whereas the current regime attempts to hide their activities as much as possible. They say it's for security purposes.
Yep. Evil? Really?! They're not evil people.
Problem with taking these threads (or Chuckles) seriously is exactly this kind of rhetoric.
I imagine many voters are on the "Never Hillary" path.
Dave
Staff member
The only candidate worth a shit is Bernie. Trump is racist, sexist, and dangerous - and his followers reflect this to a large extent. Hillary is a hawkish lying opportunist and her followers are either voting simply because she's a woman, because she's not Trump, or because they are snowed by the DNC and MSM who have already anointed her as the candidate.
Do you have any idea what this will cost?
Well, current estimates for the proposed giant wall are in the 15 billion range.
The cost of Bernie's plans are in the 18 trillion range over ten years.
Of course, Bernie's stuff will continue to cost that much over time, while the wall will require maintenance it won't require another 15 billion every ten years.
A 1:1,000 ratio is significant, and probably couldn't be termed "less"
The wall is a stupid use of our money, and Bernie desires to increase the federal government by double (employees, revenue, spending, etc) and with that necessarily comes a great loss of liberty - any power the government takes unto itself is power necessarily removed from the people.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225172,1465225133][/DOUBLEPOST]Wall: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
Bernie: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html[DOUBLEPOST=1465225522][/DOUBLEPOST]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_border
The border is just under 2,000 miles. So if each mile was 500 million dollars, then it would be 1 trillion total. To equal Sander's commitment it would have to be 9 billion dollars per mile, or about 1.7 millions dollars per foot of fencing.
As it is, the estimate of 15 billion is $1,420 per foot of fencing, or $118 per inch. This is primarily because some sections (which probably shouldn't even be fenced, given how hard they are to access) will cost a lot more, while most sections will be fairly modest in cost.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225675][/DOUBLEPOST]The funny thing is, I intended to point out how little the fence costs, but it looks like all I'm doing is shining light on just how unbelievably expensive Bernie's plan is.
You can build Trump's fence 1,000 times every ten years for the rest of this country's life and still not use as much money as Bernie wants to spend in addition to what the US government is already spending.
That sounds a whole lot like "she started it," or "he did it first."
It is not the stated public policy of the United States to intentionally target children. Trump would make it so. And has thereby declared his intent to commit a war crime.
That's two new mexico fences a week to pay for Bernie's plan.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225841,1465225733][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's ok, though, Obama has a Nobel Peace prize, so it's cool, it's cool.
You are correct. It is not stated public policy. It is a secret war crime.
It's ok, though, Obama has a Nobel Peace prize, so it's cool, it's cool.
GB got on me for going "but... but... but... BUSH!" You're just doing "but... but... OBAMA!"
Bush did the same thing with Drone strikes. If anything it's a bad mark on both of them.GB got on me for going "but... but... but... BUSH!" You're just doing "but... but... OBAMA!"
If anything, this instead shows how little I've heard about Bernie's plans, and how much has been made of Trump's.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
*sigh*
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Bernie's plans are economically viable, no matter what the NYT (a shill for Hillary who routinely alters columns to make Bernie look bad regardless of the facts) would have you believe.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Bernie's plans are economically viable, no matter what the NYT (a shill for Hillary who routinely alters columns to make Bernie look bad regardless of the facts) would have you believe.
DAMN YOU BERNIE!! MAKING RICH PEOPLE PAY THEIR FAIRSHARE AN SHIT!
I feel today's SMBC is oddly appropriate to this discussion.
There are calculators out there that crunch how much your taxes would jump if all of Sander's policies poofed into existence. I think mine went up like 30%.
You think that's bad? I'm a public school teacher scraping by with my car payments and rent. But thanks to the rather reckless and stupid Sanders plans, my taxes would go UP. Dramatically. Because why apply nuance and thought to your economic policy when you can just make broad generalizations? For example, just tax the shit out of people based on income without bothering to check the local cost of living. Details are for suckers!
By the way, Robespierre had some good quips he would shout to the mob too.
hence the fuck him comment.
You and I have very different political outlooks, but I agree with you wholly on this. I voted for Obama, I like a lot of the social policies he's helped to push, but he's been as much of a war president as Bush was.
Sorry to have to make you back up your claims! I know it's tough work, particularly in this case.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
Yes, huge increase in taxes, huge increase in government.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
A no-name economist becomes famous because he writes an analysis that suggests Bernie's plan will fix the entire economy. A lot of other economists say terrible things about the analysis.
Who is right, the one economist who wrote it and seems to be the only one willing to stand by it, or the other economists who disagree with it?
Go ahead and accept this as a reasonable analysis if you like, but until many economists agree then I'm going to take it with a whole lot of salt.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Yet another article that says huge tax increases, huge increase in government.
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
I think you are trying to debate a different question.
I'm saying, "His plans cost 18 billion," but I don't think you're disputing this.
You're saying, "His plans include huge increases in taxes to pay for his huge increases in spending." I'm not disputing this. I think it's the absolute wrong way to go, and the articles you've suggested say such rosy things like, "This puts us more in line with the EU in terms of GDP of government spending" but this is not a good thing for the US. And if you move the discussion to recently democratic countries that have chosen socalist paths, such as those in South America, you find disasterous results.
Those countries that succeeded (if you call the many financial failures and continuing slow burn failure of the EU "success") went from essential monarchy to democratic socialism. Their culture included the idea that the government, paternalistic in nature, was primarily responsible responsible to provide and care for its citizens. So socialistic policies makes sense for their culture.
You take the US, though, largely built on the idea that the government is limited and citizens are meant to tend to their own needs, and the government only step in for crisis and tragedy, and force a different mindset, you're going to find it a very different result altogether.
The only reason Sanders is making headway is because people don't understand macro economics, and they are voraciously eating the idea that the rich are too rich and must be taxed heavily.
Now here's the rub - I simply believe these changes will adversely impact everyone - including the middle class.
You believe these changes will be positive for everyone, except, perhaps, those you declare unworthy of their wealth.
So of course I cannot support high tax, big government, citizen coddling Bernie Sanders. I've already been a significant victim of Obama's healthcare act which wasn't supposed to affect the middle class.
But I think we can both agree on one thing - Bernie stands for 18 billion on new taxes, new spending, and doubled federal government.
You like it, I don't.