I voted for Clinton because she's the only reasonable person running for president right now. I don't think she's perfect but I also don't think she has done anything that other people in the past haven't also done. She's just the one getting dinged for it. I also voted for her because I think the Supreme Court is very important and I don't like the direct threats Trump has made about appointing people who will be like Scalia. I don't like how he panders to evangelicals by threatening women's bodily autonomy when it comes to healthcare. I couldn't give a shit if Trump was a bigger philanderer than Bill Clinton. I don't care that he said pussy. But I do care that he's basically victim blamed every woman who has accused him. I also don't like that he obviously doesn't know anything about foreign policy. His ideas amount to some drunken, trailer park, piece of shit who wears Dolphins boxers and no shirt, yelling at his wife in between beatings proudly sporting an 8th grade education. He wants to sound like a tough guy while knowing next to nothing about reality. A while back, I was in the Johnson camp as well. But I kept reading more and more about him and seeing transcripts of his interviews. Not even the Aleppo one or the favorite foreign leader one. There was a New Yorker interview where he didn't even know who Harriet Tubman was. I like the whole personal freedom aspect of his ideas, but I think he would be an embarrassment on the world stage.
I thought you meant this in the sense that he has a touch of sympathy towards Trump voters, but while he still seems pro Hillary the stuff he's saying really surprised me. I would have thought of Michael Moore as the poster child for Trump hate. He has a speech that is a succinct explanation of why people support Trump and why they're willing to overlook the embarrassing antics. It's not about race, Islamophobia, the gays, the Jews, or any of the other endless lists of groups the left wing media is constantly seeking out for their confirmation bias. The way Hillary Clinton has sold this to the public has been brilliant, although I wish she had chosen a tactic that was less tribal and divisive. For you guys who think the Hillary allegations are make believe, and bought her narrative hook, line, and sinker; I'm just lost on the mindset you have to reach these conclusions. You can quote mine/quote spin Trump and selectively search through his supporters, but from a holistic perspective it doesn't make any sense to me. That's not to say I don't think there are a lot of good reasons to despise Trump, and the sex scandal stuff is probably true. I get xray's reasons, but outside of this board, the bigot perception is the most prevalent rationale for Hillary support I see. Given the preponderance and availability of information about Hillary, I thought she was utterly fucked when she started pushing the 'A vote for Hillary is a vote for good' angle, but I was wrong.
Yeah but can't. Therefore his is either a) incompetent b) there is nothing there c) there is nothing there and these are just partisan attacks Gowdy wasn't there, but considering there wasn't Republican outrage over violence at embassies during the Bush years I'm thinking it's all just c. The same thing goes for the emails and private servers. Remind me again which allegations have been proven thus far? As far as Trump voters being motivated by economic woe, that wasn't true in the primaries (click through to see hyperlinks to the research if you wish). As for race, Islamophobia, etc from the same article. Hillary Clinton is not the divisive candidate in this race. She hasn't been the one blowing racist dog whistles into a bullhorn at every chance she gets. Not every Trump voter is a racist. But again, if you are a racist, you are going to be voting for trump. If you are an Islamophobe, you are going to voting for Trump. If you believe there is a cabal of bankers (i.e Jews) conspiring to rule the world, you are going to be voting for Trump. But maybe I just have bought the narrative of the "left wing media." I guess I'm comfortable going down in history with the Times, the Post, Foreign Policy, Vox, The Atlantic, et al. I would have thought someone would feel embarrassed by staking their claim to Breitbart, but I guess not.
Anyone else notice that these polls are conducted with an insanely small sample size? I mean it doesn't surprise me, but just something to think about. And not only is the sample size interesting, an important thing to keep in mind is the word "LIKELY" next to "voters." This doesn't mean "will" or "have" or "how they voted." I'm also curious how they determine who is a "likely" voter or not? Does the participant tell the pollster that? Is it based upon the participant's own record of voting? Further, as is the case in the most recent google survey trump referenced today, 19.31% of respondents said they were still undecided. So that's interesting that it shows clinton up by however many points, but 19.31% is no small number. How do the undecided voters split? What percentage is abstaining? If nothing else good comes from this election, it has at least taught me how to get through the media's bullshit (on both sides) and figure out the facts on my own. Or at least dig deep enough to realize that no one really knows.
I'm not going through the Hillary scandals again. It's been posted repeatedly, how could you possibly need more reminding? I find it funny Pew has one article saying it's not about the economy, and then their polling shows the opposite. http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/ The number #1 issue at very important to 90% of Trump supporters was the economy. You'll notice that treatment of minorities was a much more important issue to Clinton supporters. The other article was just stupid. A stance against widespread immigration isn't racist, nor is it racist to believe illegal immigrants aren't adherent to American values. It also says this: This is just true, and given the left's insistent push for more and more Syrian refugees it's not surprising it's an issue of concern in this election. Don't have access to the Washington Post, but I'm sure it's similar to other garbage I've seen partisans push. The basket of deplorables candidate isn't divisive? Over the last month she's spent more time talking about how Trump and his supporters are bigots than anything else. You say this isn't divisive and then spend your post trying to prove they're predominantly racist. I'm not going to go through every point in that article, but how the fuck is anyone stupid enough to believe that this election is primarily about racism? This country has been becoming less racist every decade since the civil rights movement and unlike elections of the last 30 years this one is supposed to be primarily about race. People are idiots. According to 538, who in my opinion is the best polls analysis site, more Trump supporters are saying no to Hillary Clinton than a liking for Trump. I'm guessing most are like me and fall somewhere in the middle, but I'll leave it to you to sort out how that fits with your theory. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/ I'm not even totally sure what people are trying to prove with all the racism talk that never ends. Is he going to bring back Jim Crow laws? Is he going to switch from wanting to deport illegal immigrants(and allow re-entry for non-criminals) to deporting every minority? Concentration camps? I've heard all that crazy shit thrown out there, but it's generally just trying to spin data and narratives to prove they're all so racist other than even bothering to explain what that would mean.
You really, honestly, have no interest in the truth? Sad, really, we can't discuss the issue without it being "Yeah, but Bush did this or that." You complain or point to partisanship, but your opinion and post defines it. In the end, what's right is right and everything else is wrong. There is no distinction to me between Republicans and Democrats, I'm neither and think they are both scum, so trying to argue that one was treated different than the other is a completely invalid argument in my opinion. You forget that people died because of this, probably quite a few choppers were knocked out of the sky in Afghanistan by American-made heat seekers because of this botched deal. Why isn't the opinion that these people should be held to some standard, some level of transparency. Why isn't the opinion that the laws should be changed so this won't happen again, as it stands now, there is no reason to believe the next administration cannot do the exact same thing. The impression I get from what you write is ho-hum, politics as usual? This is precisely what is wrong with this country.
A lot of the polls are taken several times a week, and there are a lot of different polls. One individual poll on one day doesn't tell you a whole lot, but the aggregate gives a clear picture of where the public stands. Some polls have methods that contain bias towards democrats, and others that contain bias towards republicans, but those too are often useful. For example the LA times poll asks the same group of respondents every time rather than random sampling. Their methods have selected more elderly and likely voters erring towards a republican bias. This means that while it doesn't necessarily give a clear picture of average national support, it is very good at measuring trends. Trump is leading or tied in that poll over the last week depending on the day, but has dropped about 5 points over the last 6 weeks. This is again, why I love 538. They had a great article on this topic: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-are-the-undecided-voters/ There are plenty of undecided voters left and 3rd party voters that might be swayed. That's why 538 is holding Clinton's chances in the mid 80s, whereas other sites are putting her odds in the high 90s. Trump probably has too steep of a hill to climb, but there is still a margin of uncertainty left in the election.
Speaking of (double) standards, let's not be hypocritical here. If you're allowed to not give a shit that Trump very likely sexually assaulted a bunch of women, I'm allowed to not give a shit that Clinton very likely negligently mishandled classified emails.
Because you nor any other investigator has come up with anything to "lock her up." That's just factual. You're desperately wanting to see things that aren't there. How come she can't get points for just calling a spade a spade? I thought y'all were anti-political correctness? Is the alt-right deplorable? Yes. I think so to most people's standards. Trump started by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. He said a judge of Mexican heritage couldn't do his job. He said we should ban all Muslims. He wants to jail the opposing party's presidential candidate if he wins. He doesn't believe in our electoral process. He says terrible things about women and may have done terrible things as well. But yes, Hillary is surely the more divisive one. Has there been a candidate that says things like Donald Trump does in the last 30 years? This election is different. It's different because of him. You think it's positive that he is in this race. I don't because of the way he has shifted the conversation in this country about all of these things. He is taking us backward. And isn't that his intention anyway? Make America Great Again and all. Someone can be racist without dropping n-bombs at every turning point. If I'm remembering correctly even stormfront.org doesn't let people use slurs, but you would agree that they are racist right? You agreed that the alt-right's wish to build homogeneous communities is deplorable and rephrensible and obviously racist. Trump's views obviously coincide with that if nothing else. Shouldn't that make people view him through that lens? I didn't know that. That makes me happy. And it's a good point. It's good for America that Trump's voters seem to just be holdovers from the old GOP. However, 40% of pro-Trump is not insignificant. I'd assume these are the people that are really trying to make sure the train has no brakes. What motivates them? Well, if they are the alt-right we sort of know don't we? And how can the anti-Clinton people stand alongside with the pro-Trump people without really caring? This is going to be a big problem with the GOP going forward as they try to disavow Trumpism but can't because they laid the foundation for Trumpism and still need those 40% of voters. Racism doesn't need to have a plan to be the message. Trying to implement stop and frisk and creating a deportation force that would rip families and friends apart is bad enough though. Besides, it can also just be about not giving that much of a shit about people or their concerns. The rest of his policies obviously don't appeal to the minority communities. If they did, they might vote for him. The GOP has a huge problem with race anyway. Why can't they appeal to minority voters? There's more to it than the Democrats calling them bigots. Minority voters aren't stupid. If you think they are, then.... Did I ever say an investigation shouldn't be done? No. Do I care about the truth? Of course. I never said she isn't free from criticism for any of this. I'm not saying people shouldn't be held to certain standards. I am pointing out that people aren't willing to hold their party up to the same standard which makes this a partisan attack. Has anything presented been disqualifying for Hillary to not receive my vote? No. Politics as usual? Yeah kind of. People make mistakes, shit happens, people die. That's tragic, but it's not going to stop happening any time soon. I'm thinking Hillary will make fewer mistakes and less people will die. That's why I'm voting for her.
Yeah, and this is pretty much all you can come up with. He thinks illegal immigrants are more prone to crime. That happens to be true (result of poor English, poverty, more limited job prospects, and no middle class family to fall back on) although I disagree on the extent. This isn't racist. He said a judge wasn't going to be fair because he thought his political positions were going to factor into the case. This is Trump being a butt hurt baby, but again, not racist. He wanted to ban Muslim travel to the United States until the vetting process has been approved, and has since reduced this to certain regions. Again, not racist, and The United States has raised and lifted travel restrictions on certain locations many times throughout its history. While I don't agree with his position entirely here, and definitely not his initial position it was about global terrorism, not the dirty, dirty brown people. This is also you selecting as best you can out of everything he's said and done throughout the entire election. You want him to be racist so you can feel so good about voting against him. You're doing something important for civil rights! What could be more helpful to race relations than erroneously convincing people half the country is out to get them? This stuff is like a weird fantasy. You then seem to think that everyone who is voting for Trump instead of against Clinton is doing so because of racism. Why? Because you're an SJW who doesn't like Trump, that's why.
You were so close to having a good point and then you lost it all at the end (kinda like trump at the debates *rim shot*). It is important to remember that not everyone supporting trump agrees with everything he says or does, as you mentioned above. Not everyone who supports Clinton thinks everything she does is right either. No candidate is perfect, and thanks to the Internet and social media we can figure out just exactly how imperfect they are. Just because I or someone else supports Clinton does not make me or them a sjw (I actually hate that mentality), just like it doesn't make you racist for supporting trump. Now, certainly Clinton does have a lot of sjws voting for her and a lot of racists like trump. I compare it to a stereotype I see a lot here in Texas --- just because we wear cowboy boots, doesn't mean we all ride horses. Some of us do, but others just like the way they look. Things aren't black and white, and people are allowed to have nuanced views. This election has really brought out the hate in people.
Yes, I know and believe me that wasn't directed toward him based on that one post. There's a lot of Clinton supporters that despise her and just despise Trump more. Not everyone, probably not most, who buy into the whole ubiquitous racism around Trump supporters is an SJW either. It's more because the left wing media is trying to get Clinton elected and as such has been ramping it up the whole election. Given the questionable character of the two candidates, it makes some sense that there's more personal attacks than most elections, but it seems as though there's a serious lack of focus on the issues and instead we're getting tribal anger, and I agree, it's pretty fucking sad.
Didn't I just say the exact opposite of this my last post? I know a lot of good people who are going to vote for Trump. But I also do know a lot of racists are going to vote for Trump. Get drunk with the good ol' boys in western Kansas and you'll hear their reasons for voting for him. More accurately, you will understand their opinions of minorities being no good welfare cheats and drains on the system who need to gtfo replete with slurs. And then they will say they are voting for Trump. That probably wasn't the best I could do to prove he is a racist. I haven't touched on what he has said about "inner cities" or how to watch the polls there. I haven't touched the Central Park 5 or his apartment buildings. Not that it matters. You won't accept that he could be a racist. Again, short of a guy saying the n-word and spitting on anyone with a different skin color I don't think they could be racist in your view. I don't want him to be racist so I can feel good about not voting for him. Eliminate everything regarding race and I still wouldn't vote for him because he is a buffoon that wouldn't be able to accomplish anything for the country. At his core he is just a a huckster. If he hadn't been born on third base I doubt we would talk about him at all. To top that off, the policies he proposes in my view wouldn't make America better. His tax plan alone would have me voting the other way. All in all, I would much rather cast my vote against Romney or McCain or Kasich or Jeb. It would be a lot better for the country if I could do that. But I can't. Why? In my opinion, it is because a deplorable movement has gone mainstream in American politics. And from the Cato Institute: Immigration and Crime – What the Research Says And yes, these studies include illegal immigrants in them. Sheesh.
Illegal immigration and crime. Jesus, Gravy. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...counts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/ http://www.dailywire.com/news/10155/9-things-you-need-know-about-illegal-immigration-aaron-bandler http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nearly-180000-illegal-immigrants-have-crimin/ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf The 40% pro Trump, 55% anti-Clinton.... Whatever, just make up your mind.
Like I said, the Cato Institute studies included illegal immigration. But it's cool. Why did I just know a Breitbart link was coming. Or it's not as bad as they desperately want to think it is? The YouTube video they provide is hilarious though. The expert says first of all that immigration/refugee agenda of the Left "dilutes American culture." That doesn't sound racist/xenophobic at all. What are the odds that whenever he says "American culture" he means white culture. Whatever that is.
From your own link, which you changed while I was responding. They didn't draw much of any in the way of conclusions about illegal immigration. Actually they linked to one of the sources I put. So you looked at one of four links, that one which was to a right wing site, which you didn't even refute, you just said that site is stupid LOL republicans. I really don't understand you.
No, I said LOL Trumpers. Republicans until recently haven't had policies so strange. George W. Bush for instance was in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. I glanced at all of your links, but your entire point of view becomes suspect when you include Breitbart. I don't really need to refute it anymore. I won't refute a source whose own sources are wacko. Do you think a guy who is worried about the dilution of American culture is credible about immigration? I don't, not at all. You can believe a guy who gives talks like "Refugee Resettlement: The Agenda to Erase America" but I don't. Do illegal immigrants commit crimes? Yes. Do they do so at a rate that would make me think build a wall, gin up a deportation force, protect American culture!!! Nope sorry. There's nothing you can post that's going to convince me of your point of view on this bit, so we might as well stop. Besides, it's probably the only thing I agree with Gary Johnson about and I like having that. Have a good night.
I think Hillary is a policy wonk, and can bypass obstructionist politics well. So yeah, I think the experience works in her favor. I also don't give a fuck about racism, isis or benghazi...none of that seems likely to affect me. Trump is an incompetent bully. By all means, prove me wrong. Hillary has operated at this level my entire adult life. There is no one more qualified. The system sucks and she is tainted by that. But she isnt a facist, she hasnt advocated violating the constitution, or claimed democracy is broken. Trump couldnt make a casino money for fucks sakes...is this a joke?
I think the reason we don't see so much of a focus on the issues on this board (or other places/spaces) is because the majority of people are much more entrenched about their political views than their opinions of Clinton or Trump. I've already stated twice that the primary reason I'm voting for Clinton is that she's the democratic candidate, which is why Benghazi, email servers, foundation donations, and all that other shit doesn't matter to me. Even if all of the allegations against her were true, I'd still likely vote for her - and if I didn't I certainly wouldn't vote for any republican. I find the republican platform completely abhorrent and utterly contemptible, and pretty much all of the Clinton supporters I know feel the same way. Clinton is a flawed candidate, but any republican is a non-starter. As far as Trump, I really don't bear any special animosity toward him. He's not a republican outlier; he's saying the same things the GOP/conservative leaders have been saying for decades. He's just discarded the coded language, dog-whistles, and obfuscation that's all.
We've now heard several times from several people both "I'm voting for Hillary simply because she's a democrat." And "I'm voting for Trump simply because he's a republican." The people saying these things are tacitly(or explicitly) saying "I don't care about bad thing a, b and c regarding Hillary/Trump, I'm still voting for him/her because he/she is a democrat/republican. With this mindset(read: base tribalism) prevalent, is it really any wonder nothing has changed?