Serious Q's To Trump Supporters (or those on the fence for Trump)

[TGHusker]

I never thought I'd say this, but Joe Biden is looking like an oasis in a desert right now.

You got that right. I didn't think I'd agree wt you if I had heard you say it.

That was the point of my post that Moiraine stopped reading. Both candidates are - pardon the use of the word ..."deplorable". Yes, maybe one more so than the other but on this scale they both should have been disqualified so long ago. Both parties had a path they took to get there. I think the establishment repubs see it (by distancing themselves from Trump) and the RNC chairman regrets it (and hopefully they will change going forward) but I don't think the dems see it but have actually institutionalized the path by the DNC's action to back Hillary at all cost. The RNC's fault was taking the opposite approach with a total hands off approach and we end up wt this result. The RNC should have jumped in early, disqualified Trump after his pattern of outrageous actions/words became known well before the early primaries.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

If Trump were running against a respectable candidate, he'd be toast by now. Since he's running against the most corrupt candidate in the history of American politics, he's going to continue to stay in the race, and after last night, he ought to take the lead.

What I've been saying,

 

If Hillary wins Republicans have no one to blame bite themselves for nominating Trump ( well, that and the fake stories about dead people voting and voter fraud that Trump has already planted)

 

If Trump wins Democrats have no one to blame but themselves and the fradulant DNC for Hillary being the nominee

 

I have been yelling that from the roof tops. Any reasonable candidate would be beating Hillary in a land slide. But...no.....the clueless voters in the Republican party nominate the biggest fraud they could find because he says obnoxious things and they think thats cool.

 

 

I think there's a crapload of stuff that led up to the current mindset of the average Republican base voter that has obviously led them to a point where they nominate a Trump.

 

My ideas:

 

1. Fox News/Breitbart type of places --> The proliferation of right-wing media
2. The party itself becoming less the party of personal responsibility and more the party of Screw Obama (or, to view it a bit differently, the party of No.)
3. Corporate money influences. It's extremely damning in the eyes of Millennials when a substantial chunk of your party denies climate change and ignores something like universal background checks
4. Subtle racist undercurrents that even if not displayed by a majority of the party, manifest themselves in very poor minority outreach (though this is definitely amplified BIG LEAGUE by the Trump effect)

Others?

 

Dude, turn it around, How would the Dem party come to the point to nominate someone like Hillary?

 

 

 

Just gonna stop reading here. Clinton isn't even borderline close to as terrible a candidate as Trump is.

 

It isn't a matter of comparison it is the matter of where we have come as a country - we are polarized as a nation around the 2 worse possible candidates possible. I know I can name many 'redeemable qualities' of Joe Biden, Jim Webb, Sanders and other dems. And I'm sure Dem supporters could name redeemable qualities of Rubio, Paul, Jeb, Kasich, and others. But these 2 nominees?? A perfect storm if you will - I cannot think of a worse Repub nominee in recent history (last 100 years) nor can I think of a worse Dem nominee over the last 100 years - including Carter. This speaks more about us as a nation, as a people than of the candidates and that is a sobering thought. The candidates are just a by-product of our processes, the values within our society. As they say, we get the govt we deserve and look what we will get with either of these.

[BigRedBuster]

What the DNC did behind Bernie's back was bad and I would be pissed if I was one of his supporters. But...come on.... these are private organizations that can do whatever they want as far as what candidate they support. They hand picked Hillary years ago as their candidate for this election and anyone who dared think about running against her was probably quickly told where to shove that idea. They though Bernie was a cute crazy old man and would do well acting like someone actually serious about running. They weren't prepared for him to actually start getting that big of a following. They had to do something to squash him so their Queen can rise to the top.

 

Like you implied, the Repubs were too hands off and they ended up with way too many people on stage. I really think after the last election, they put out at least a decent effort in trying to find someone to take the party in a different direction. They gave the voters a wide range of options to choose from. They weren't prepared for exactly how clueless and blind those voters were.

 

The problem is that people actually think these parties have their best interest at heart. The Dems actually thought they were giving them a fair option and letting them choose. Fact is....it was all chosen before the primary ever started.

[TGHusker]

What the DNC did behind Bernie's back was bad and I would be pissed if I was one of his supporters. But...come on.... these are private organizations that can do whatever they want as far as what candidate they support. They hand picked Hillary years ago as their candidate for this election and anyone who dared think about running against her was probably quickly told where to shove that idea. They though Bernie was a cute crazy old man and would do well acting like someone actually serious about running. They weren't prepared for him to actually start getting that big of a following. They had to do something to squash him so their Queen can rise to the top.

 

Like you implied, the Repubs were too hands off and they ended up with way too many people on stage. I really think after the last election, they put out at least a decent effort in trying to find someone to take the party in a different direction. They gave the voters a wide range of options to choose from. They weren't prepared for exactly how clueless and blind those voters were.

 

The problem is that people actually think these parties have their best interest at heart. The Dems actually thought they were giving them a fair option and letting them choose. Fact is....it was all chosen before the primary ever started.

Yes, as the republicans always seem to come up wt 'the next in line' - the guy who played his dues and waited. It was suppose to be Jeb this year but Trump rained on his parade. Before that Romney, McCain and Bob Dole. GWB was also preordained not by his time in line and years of service but by daddy's influence to continue the GHWB agenda that was interrupted by 8 years of Bill Clinton. GHWB of course was the next in line after Reagan - and this after Reagan had interrupted his rise by the 1980 election. GHWB was the RNC favorite in 1980.

[zoogs]

It could also be there are just more center-left people than people drawn to either Democratic socialism or burn-the-establishment populism in the Democratic base.

 

That wouldn't be shocking.

 

The Republicans have been running nonpoliticians for years. At some point one was going to win. Maybe it's the mood of the times; the Democrats hadn't had a contested primary since '08.

[BigRedBuster]

It could also be there are just more center-left people than people drawn to either Democratic socialism or burn-the-establishment populism in the Democratic base.

 

That wouldn't be shocking.

 

The Republicans have been running nonpoliticians for years. At some point one was going to win. Maybe it's the mood of the times; the Democrats hadn't had a contested primary since '08.

By design.

[zoogs]

I mean they didn't have one in 2012, when guys like Herman Cain were at one point leading the airwaves.

 

Of course they had one this year. Sanders contested it. There was a lot more of a movement than anybody expected. But not enough of one to win. It wasn't particularly close, either.

[BigRedBuster]

I mean they didn't have one in 2012, when guys like Herman Cain were at one point leading the airwaves.

 

Of course they had one this year. Sanders contested it. There was a lot more of a movement than anybody expected. But not enough of one to win. It wasn't particularly close, either.

Really???

[zoogs]

[Danny Bateman]

TGH, I think you made some good points about some of the things people most dislike about the Democrats. But I don't think they're necessarily disqualifying of Clinton. Just because she has her flaws doesn't mean that she is lacking in qualifications for the position which she is seeking. I think she's eminently qualified for the position, even if some of her experience is quite distasteful for some folks.

 

I think the Wikileaks thing is really just pulling back the curtain from what underlies politics in our country. I'd wager we'd see similar revelations if we rolled back that curtain on almost any politician, regardless of party. Wikileaks just has a vested interest in doing so for Clinton. Political operatives are just people, like anyone else-- sometimes out of either hubris or laziness they operate in ways that are less than savory. I.e., taking shots are an co-workers daughter or cracking a joke about Catholicism.

 

And yes, they have connections within the media. And yes, they use them. It's a part of campaigning.

I continue to think Bernie knew the odds when he stepped into the race. I still think he launched his bid as a protest candidate. He ran an amazing campaign, given the circumstances, but he didn't do well with minority outreach and still got crushed by a pretty sizable margin. Much like with Trump, crowd size isn't a very good indicator of what will happen in the ballot box.

I think she's very well positioned because of all the experience and the connections she's built within Washington over years. I'm not one that counts her as having illegally profiteered from those connections, but I do think they will be a great asset in governance.

But you raised some great points. Both sides definitely have their flaws. As do third parties.

[NM11046]

I have a difficult time being thought of as a Trump supporter. So many flaws, but yes I am on the fence.

 

To answer your questions:

1. Who do you respect enough, that if they took a strong public stance against Trump you would listen and reconsider? Too many to list that I respect, but wouldn't change my stance.

2. Is there anything that he could say or do between now and election day to change your support of him? Short answer: No, not really. It's deeper than that.

 

And this is why I will eventually vote for him.

 

Trump is pro-life and supports the partial-birth abortion ban act. His list of conservative judges that he would consider for Supreme Court are all pro-life.

Hilary is for Roe vs Wade, and supports the partial-birth abortion procedure. She will only nominate judges for the Supreme Court that are not pro-life.

Trump's VP Pence is solid pro-life and votes for the partial-birth abortion ban act.

Hilary's VP Kaine votes against pro-life by supporting abortion, including late abortions.

　

The partial birth abortion procedure from the 5th month on pulls the living baby out of the womb by the feet, except for the head, puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain.

Stats

Over One Million abortions are reported per year.

Roughly 17% of abortions are teenagers, 57% of women in their 20's, and 26% of women over 30 years of age through 44 years old. Which means, 83% of abortion procedures are being done by women between 20-44.

1% of all abortions performed have been reported as survivors of rape.

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/abortion-statistics/

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042

http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/2016POTUScomparison.pdf

So you see, it's not so much that I think he would be the best president ever!1, nor do I think anyone of remarkable influence that I respect could change my mind before voting. The older I get, hopefully the more wiser I become. I may not have made the best out of my life, but I was given a chance, just like y'all. And the best thing I can do is to stand up for the innocent, for the soon-to-be born, the one's who need our help (adults) - so that they get the opportunity to a life just like you and I - and not be snuffed out so quickly.

As hard as it may be to cast that vote for Donald, tell me, who is so wise to tell me I should reconsider and vote against what I stand for? I will at least listen.

 

I just had this article sent to me by a friend - it's a very good read for those who are pro life or those who are pro choice. It brings a lot of the points I think (Zoogs?) has mentioned as far as education etc.

 

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton

[zoogs]

 

...

...

 

Hey, admo, I came across this article today and just wanted to share it. I'm not sure what your religious background is exactly, but I thought this was really well written, particularly with regards to bridging a gap that exists between people of similar goodwill, as the article puts it, but differing beliefs and preferences. Hope you enjoy:

 

Can Trump help us bridge the 'God Gulf'?