Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Who Are The Trump Voters?


Recommended Posts

mtangelsfan is obsessed with me.

 

 

Not really an attempt to insult, just to jab a bit. And you know, I basically agree that the president has very little power, or at least less than people think. But that's mainly because most/all presidents don't want to challenge the status quo too much. But what I disagreed with is that Trump wouldn't make much of a difference. There are numerous ways in which I think a Trump presidency could be devastating, if only because of the impact of his words as he insults foreign dignitaries.

 

p.s. Not all of those things you mention are alike. I'm for a $15 minimum wage, increasing taxes on the wealthy, feel strongly about animal rights (although don't value them over human beings), believe all drugs should be legalized, prisons shouldn't be a for-profit industry, prefer education vouchers to public education, etc. But this may or may not have anything to do with objectivity, emotions, or what have you. In other words, you seem to imply that if one thinks objectively than there is a right or wrong about everything, a clear answer. These are complex issues.

 

The implication that objective thought led to right and wrong answers wasn't intentional. At the end of the day different variables, outcomes and consequences, good or bad have different values to different thinkers. Most solutions have collateral damage. The individual has to decide what is worth more. It is certainly possible to objectively conclude that $15 minimum wage is a good idea. There are plenty of bright, well-credentialed experts that will make that conclusion. Forgive my speculation but I wouldn't bank on Jose and Mercedes having a sound objective basis for wanting $600 per week for dropping frozen potatoes in hot oil. 

Edited by Adam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are Jose and Mercedes?

 

Anyhow, the problem is that there's more agreement about what is needed, what are the big problems, then there are on how to solve those problems. In other words, no one thinks poverty isn't a problem. No one thinks there aren't too many abortions or that we don't need to improve education. But how to do go about solving these problems? That isn't so easy.

 

There are some issues where there are real differences between Democrats and Republicans, like climate change. And when the science so clearly points to the reality of climate change, it must be an issue where either there are ulterior motives involved and/or just flat-out willful emotionalism, like you complained about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are Jose and Mercedes?

 

Anyhow, the problem is that there's more agreement about what is needed, what are the big problems, then there are on how to solve those problems. In other words, no one thinks poverty isn't a problem. No one thinks there aren't too many abortions or that we don't need to improve education. But how to do go about solving these problems? That isn't so easy.

 

There are some issues where there are real differences between Democrats and Republicans, like climate change. And when the science so clearly points to the reality of climate change, it must be an issue where either there are ulterior motives involved and/or just flat-out willful emotionalism, like you complained about.

 

Climate change is a very good example. Unfortunately, in America we've got two parties - both bad and/or extreme on many things (in my opinion of course). For some, Climate Change or Gay Rights or Abortion may be the trump issue (pun totally intended) and they'll vote for the party that holds their view regardless of any other issue(s). For others it's Taxes or Religious Rights or Guns... I think there are probably a lot of 1 or 2 issue voters out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a few elections ago i was preparing something for my students about the california governor's race. i looked at websites for both the R and D, and while there were definite differences in several areas, i was quite surprised at how many areas there were where they both held the same view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last truly contested gubernatorial election in Nevada was between two candidates who seemed a great deal alike. Unfortunately for the Democrat, he had the surname Reid (Harry's son Rory), and voters could only stomach voting for one Reid. Since Harry's Senate opponent was a certifiable nutbag, Rory didn't do too well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Truthfully, I don't know what to think of Trump as a Republican candidate.

 

I know what I think of him as a person--he's an obnoxious, ignorant blowhard--but as a "serious" candidate?  I just can't see it happening.  In fact, I'm almost positive he will not only fail to be the nominee, but that this next debate will showcase how incompetent he is about governing the literal world.  

 

I'll admit, his insults are funny at first (if you actually like that sort of humor), but at the end of the day he's a one-trick pony whose central comeback to anyone who disagrees with him is: "you're a doody head."  People get bored with that after awhile. 

 

I heard him on Hugh Hewitt's radio show on my way home from LA a few nights ago and it was so telling how in the dark he was about many foreign policy issues.  After failing to acknowledge he knew any of the major terrorist leaders in ISIS, etc. he said Hugh Hewitt was playing "gotcha" journalism with him.  Um, dude.  You're running for president during war time.  It's a legitimate question and you failed to answer it with any legitimate answer.  

 

Also, I laughed out loud--a literal "lol" as it were--about the idea that his candidacy has brought about the discussion on immiration reform.  Really?  I'm sorry, but both sides have acknowledged immigration has been out of control for years.  Donald Trump doesn't even have a solution to fix it.  It's just, "I'll build a wall so fast your head will spin."  He doesn't have any real rationale for executing those plans.  His candidacy is more of the same whether people or himself sees it or not.  He speaks in generalities and makes grandiose promises he'll never be able to deliver on.  It might sound like a "breath of fresh air", but at the end of the day it's just hot air all over again. 

Edited by DEVLBAT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does appear that he is trying to appeal to redneck voters with his...damn...I'd like to **** my daughter schtick

Who says shit like this?

From the Rolling Stone article:

After I met Ivanka and praised her to her father, he said, "Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father . . . "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is good at simplistic one liners that play well with people who don't think too much about the details of what anything costs or how practical it would be to actually do any of the things that he proposes. His comment about putting up a wall at our southern border and making Mexico pay for it is beyond laughable. Putting him in a situation in which any kind of diplomacy is called for could be an adventure. He is used to pushing people around and getting his way through sheer force of will. That kind of approach won't work well with heads of state.

Edited by Vegas Halo Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That certainly explains the Clinton support.

Yeah, except there isn't much enthusiasm for her. She's gonna be the broad that's still at the bar and alone at closing time.

People are a lot more excited about Trump. He's the broad with clown tits and horrible makeup and the smoker's hack that the dudes are just drunk enough to convince themselves she'll look good in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That certainly explains the Clinton support.

 

Relative to Bernie Sanders, yes. But relative to the entire Republican field...well, it becomes a matter of lesser of two evils. Clinton, like most Republicans, supports oligarchy. The only difference is that she sees it as necessary to give poorer people some support, an olive branch if you will. We could say that Trump is both more of an a-hole and more honest in his a-holism. In other words, if we imagine each of the candidates as a wealthy person living in a mansion and the people as the help, we have:

 

Hillary: We'll give you decent digs, but stay in your poverty - just a nicer poverty.

Most Republicans: Fend for yourself - we'll pay you what we feel like paying you.

Bernie: Let's tear down the mansion and use the materials to make better dwellings for everyone.

 

Actually, Bernie isn't that extreme but that's the general idea. In actuality, what he wants is there to be greater equity. He isn't trying to get rid of the wealthy, just reduce their welath from "obscene" to "excessive" in order to increase the poor from "miserable" to "doing ok."

Edited by Angelsjunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...