• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why People Voted For Trump – For Those Who Don't Get It

Donal said:
And if people wanted change, explain the incumbency rate in Congress and state legislatures.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between "Congress is a bunch of losers" and "My Congressman is a loser."

In 1994, I went to a dinner where the keynote speaker was then-Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). It was an...experience to say the least. At that point, he had been in the US Senate for 36 years. Although I did not realize it at the time (I was a naive 17-year old high school senior), he was quite clearly senile. But WV would continue to reelect him until his death in 2010. (I am convinced people in WV would still vote for him if they could.) The people of WV elected him because he got things done for WV. He knew where all the bodies in DC were buried (and buried a few himself), and knew how to play the game.

banquetbear said:
...I don't think something that happened 40 years ago is weighing heavily on the thoughts of the modern generation. Some people are still in the mindframe that Trump won't be able to do anything that bad: because the system won't let him. Those people are in for a rude awakening.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I fear you are right. I had faith in the system that Trump would not win the EC on Election Day. I had a small hope that the members of the EC would reject him Dec 19. Neither happened.

I see articles on liberal blog sites, quoting legal scholars that Trump's business practices would violate the Constitution. I read stories about ethical violations and conflicts of interest of his Cabinet picks. Everyone is saying he will be impeached Day 1. Hogwash! The only way he will be impeached is if the House does it - and they won't. Regardless of what he does, House leadership will sit back and ignore everything because Trump (currently) has an "R" after his name.
 
Darat said:
I must be niave as I thought people voted for Trump because they wanted him to be president.
Click to expand...


Because he made them feel good.

It really doesn't matter how. Donald said some stuff, it doesn't matter what, that made their squidgy, emotional bits all happy so they voted for him.

Logic, facts, potential outcomes, contradictions and all the mistreatment of baby cats in the world isn't going to make a whit of difference when the arena isn't one of logic but only of emotion.
 
Bring out the tiny violins for white people. They have it tough, according to people with post-racial outlook such as ChrisBFRPKY. :rolleyes: I'm arraying this textbook, paranoid, racist weaseling for posterity:

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Be honest now, what you're really upset about is the Democrat party agenda has been exposed. Their plot to take power away from any race of Americans should be rejected, not embraced. Doesn't matter which race of people they plot to take power from. This agenda should have been rejected by everyone that is not a racist, however it still seems to be their rallying cry while pointing fingers at others and accusing THEM of being racists........tsk tsk.

If you are not ashamed of the current Democrat agenda, you should be. That's exactly why it failed. When you try to remove power from one race in favor of another, it's wrong. The Democrats may not acknowledge it as racism but that's exactly what it is, and everyone has seen it now. So the cat's out of the bag. Why not represent all Americans without looking at race as the qualifier to do so.
Click to expand...

varwoche said:
For instance?
Click to expand...

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Hillary Clinton's campaign. She deserted White working class Americans.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

varwoche said:
What a load of vague baloney.

I'm left with the operating assumption that your statement was a paranoid, racist fantasy. Here's a reminder, to keep you focused: <snip duplicate material>

So again -- for instance?
Click to expand...
Unimpressive in the extreme, ChrisBFRPKY. "tsk tsk" indeed.
 
Last edited:
Marcus said:
Mexico is the leader with 6.72 million illegal immigrants living in the US, , Central and South America are second with 1.78 million.
http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845
Click to expand...

What he meant is that in the last years , the mexican nationality was not the highest represented.

Naturally the bulk of the past is still there.

I am trying to find a statistic but IIRC the most represented nationalities were actually central/south american in the latest years, and asia countries (illegal immigration is mostly visa overstay nowadays).
 
Well it is not quite there , it seems Mexico still has the lead, but is dropping quickly, where as other countries are spiking. Seeing there are vastly more mexican illegal than others, the dropping numbers hint that the numbers illegally entering in are actually also dropping quickly.

A proxy to measure that is the apprehended number of alien without good visa :

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table34

I am trying to find another table showing the reason the spike of apprehension is, was because actual illegal Mexican immigration dropped below the other countries.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
What he meant is that in the last years , the mexican nationality was not the highest represented.

Naturally the bulk of the past is still there.

I am trying to find a statistic but IIRC the most represented nationalities were actually central/south american in the latest years, and asia countries (illegal immigration is mostly visa overstay nowadays).
Click to expand...
Yes, in recent years, Mexican illegal immigration has dropped. Mexico still contributes more than any other country, if you compare it to entire continents or groups of continents, those groups currently contribute more.
 
People voted for Trump because he conned them into thinking he would make their lives better.

There's really nothing more to it than that.
 
Aepervius said:
What he meant is that in the last years , the mexican nationality was not the highest represented.

Naturally the bulk of the past is still there.

I am trying to find a statistic but IIRC the most represented nationalities were actually central/south american in the latest years, and asia countries (illegal immigration is mostly visa overstay nowadays).
Click to expand...

Yup. And this makes quite a bit of sense, when you think about it - our immigration process is still quite a mess.

(I also doubt that Trump would be interested in distinguishing between Mexicans and immigrants from any other central/south American country. For some reason, he doesn't strike me as a profoundly intellectual man.)
 
Mumbles said:
Yup. And this makes quite a bit of sense, when you think about it - our immigration process is still quite a mess.

(I also doubt that Trump would be interested in distinguishing between Mexicans and immigrants from any other central/south American country. For some reason, he doesn't strike me as a profoundly intellectual man.)
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, he'll go against illegal immigrants , without worrying very much about which country they're from. I'm with this up to a point, I'm not for building a wall, or mass deportations, but I am in favor of better border security.
 
Mumbles said:
Truth is that Sanders lost because he ran a crappy campaign. He was unable to discuss much of anything outside Wall St., he completely failed to court nonwhite voters, and he basically skipped the south entirely. Regardless of why he did this, he wasn't much of an opponent.
Click to expand...

He had some impressive rallies for a primary run. His message was broader than 'Wall St. sucks.' He talked about tuition bills and mortgages and falling prosperity amidst rising productivity. In short, the kind of rhetoric that resonates with how people are feeling. I watched quite a few Bernie videos where he sat down with black community figures who are not household names. He handled the tense BLM moment well. Not campaigning in the south was a tactical error. I think their issue was courting votes in states that don't come through in the general election. That's a big component of Hillary's primary win that I saw as troubling around convention time. That and Bernie polled better against Trump since the 'economically distressed and distrustful of insiders' were a big part of the coalitions. Bernie was the first preference of many Trump/3rd Party/abstain votes.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
He had some impressive rallies for a primary run. His message was broader than 'Wall St. sucks.' He talked about tuition bills and mortgages and falling prosperity amidst rising productivity. In short, the kind of rhetoric that resonates with how people are feeling. I watched quite a few Bernie videos where he sat down with black community figures who are not household names. He handled the tense BLM moment well. Not campaigning in the south was a tactical error. I think their issue was courting votes in states that don't come through in the general election. That's a big component of Hillary's primary win that I saw as troubling around convention time. That and Bernie polled better against Trump since the 'economically distressed and distrustful of insiders' were a big part of the coalitions. Bernie was the first preference of many Trump/3rd Party/abstain votes.
Click to expand...
So just getting this straight, its wonderful when a politician tells these loser college snowflakes that college tuition should be "free" but she couldn't do anything for these working class rural folks?

Looks to me Bernie and Hillary were pandering to the wrong crowd.
 
logger said:
So just getting this straight, its wonderful when a politician tells these loser college snowflakes that college tuition should be "free" but she couldn't do anything for these working class rural folks?

Looks to me Bernie and Hillary were pandering to the wrong crowd.
Click to expand...

Well maybe working class rural folks could take advantage of the "free" education and broaden their horizons so they can help themselves and stop blaming the left for complex economic circumstances that are not soley the fault of one segment of society and will not be fixed because an (alleged) con man tells you he will fix it without a viable plan.

Especially so when it's people LIKE Trump that shift the jobs offshore and exploit and purchase foreign labour in the first place, so they can maximise their profits at the expense of working class rural folks like you.



Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
He had some impressive rallies for a primary run. His message was broader than 'Wall St. sucks.' He talked about tuition bills and mortgages and falling prosperity amidst rising productivity. In short, the kind of rhetoric that resonates with how people are feeling.
Click to expand...

And yet, Hillary trounced him in the popular vote, and he basically the election on Super Tuesday. Perhaps you're missing something here.

I watched quite a few Bernie videos where he sat down with black community figures who are not household names. He handled the tense BLM moment well.
Click to expand...

No, he really alienated many people with his responses. Cancelling interviews, becoming visibly angry, and so forth. Hillary, meanwhile, got much better as time went on, recruitung black women who usually get overlooked, and eventually calling put Trump's ties to white supremacists directly. Sanders managed to win over Killer Mike, and some respected writers, but he got slaughtered overall.

Not campaigning in the south was a tactical error. I think their issue was courting votes in states that don't come through in the general election. That's a big component of Hillary's primary win that I saw as troubling around convention time.
Click to expand...

They count in the primary season just like every other state and territory.

That and Bernie polled better against Trump since the 'economically distressed and distrustful of insiders' were a big part of the coalitions. Bernie was the first preference of many Trump/3rd Party/abstain votes.
Click to expand...

As others have said, he polled better in the general before the GOP started going after him. How he'd have dealt with their attacks is open to question. I can't see how anyone could think he could do better than Hillary, though.
 
The Shrike said:
Word. I think he could've mopped the floor with Trump if given the chance. The DNC was too stupid to let that happen, however.
Click to expand...

I wonder. I know the only way that I would vote for an avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders is if he were running against Trump. So the Dems would not have lost my vote in this election, but I think there were plenty of people who could stomach Hillary, but not Bernie.

Against any candidate other than Trump, the Democratic Party would have lost my vote by running Sanders, whereas there were very few Republicans, maybe none, that I would have voted for over Hillary.

I really wish someone else would have run, and been taken seriously, but that's the problem when you have a strong "insider" like Hillary. She had the party machinery locked up, so no candidate who cared about his future inside the party would have been willing to take her on. As a result, you had Bernie, who is so far outside the Democratic mainstream that he isn't actually a Democrat, and three guys that no one took seriously.

I must admit I paid no attention at all to the other three also-rans, but by the time Michigan came around they had all dropped out. We have an open primary in Michigan, so I voted for Kasich.
 
Looking back at the OP (remember that?) there were two things that struck me. I talked about the accusations of racism/misogyny, etc. The other thing was all the discussion of emails.

It occurred to me that two Democratic candidates have been torpedoes by campaigns of half-truths, out of context accusations, and occasional outright lies. The whole email "scandal" wasn't worth a hill of beans, but it almost certainly cost her the election. Similarly, John Kerry was "swiftboated".

I don't know what to do in the face of this sort of attack. I think that the lesson that should be learned is that future campaigns are going to get ugly, and trying to "go high" when they go low doesn't seem to be very effective. I hate to see things get nasty, and I hate to see nastiness rewarded with votes, but it happened. It works. I'm pretty sure we'll see more of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom