|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Trump (Read 7375 times)
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
 |
Trump
« on: June 20, 2017, 05:22:47 pm » |
|
You are never going to make me believe that the educational system in the United States is functional when so many of you voted for Donald Trump.
I think it's quite aggressive to assert that the only reason anyone would vote for Trump is because they're stupid. Education and the 2016 election really have nothing to do with each other. These are ideological differences, not educational disparities.
I think the reason many people voted for Trump (or more accurately, the reason many people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton) was because Hillary Clinton completely failed to excite the Democratic base. Further, Trump supporters were heavily demonized, which made them afraid to speak in support of Trump, that led to severe overconfidence in Hillary's ability to win (the press essentially described her victory as inevitable, as if it was literally impossible for Trump to win), and so people just didn't bother voting.
Trump, on the other hand, although he was always a prolific liar, was able to project a message to his base about change and jobs and whatnot, and that excited his base. Meanwhile, his complaints of HIllary Clinton were about actual problems, while Clinton's campaign just focused on name-calling. And since voting is anonymous, the name-calling and attempt to silence Trump supporters not only didn't help Clinton, it made Trump supporters want to support Trump even more. Even then, Donald Trumps performance was not any better than John McCain or Mitt Romney. Clinton just performed much worse than Barack Obama.
Sorry if that came off as a bit rambly. But the 2016 election was not a simple case of "Americans are stupid so they voted for Trump". It's a lot more complicated than that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
|
Trump
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2017, 06:15:13 pm » |
|
Trump, on the other hand, although he was always a prolific liar, was able to project a message to his base about change and jobs and whatnot, and that excited his base. Meanwhile, his complaints of HIllary Clinton were about actual problems, while Clinton's campaign just focused on name-calling.
So you're saying that Crooked Hillary (who should be locked up!) was the one who was name-calling?
Note, saying that a person is manifestly unfit to be president based on facts you can enumerate at length, is quite different from name-calling.
And we're seeing just how that's working out, aren't we?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
|
Trump
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2017, 07:59:36 pm » |
|
So you're saying that Crooked Hillary (who should be locked up!) was the one who was name-calling? "Crooked Hillary" was centered around a legitimate scandal. A really minor one that was hyper-inflated, but a legitimate scandal. That's very different from calling your opponent racist or "deplorable". The only scandal of Trump's I can think of that was publicized was Trump University, and that was toward the end.
Of course, none of this was the right way to campaign to begin with. If Hillary had actually run an issue-centered campaign (like Bernie Sanders was going to) and told her supporters to stop demonizing Trump supporters, she would have won easily because Trump never had anything substantial in that department. Instead she chose to play the same game Trump was playing, and she lost that game.
And we're seeing just how that's working out, aren't we? He did save us from TPP, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Honestly, overall, I haven't noticed anything Trump has done. I suspect these four years will barely even be a footnote in American history.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
Trump
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2017, 09:11:32 pm » |
|
He did save us from TPP, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Honestly, overall, I haven't noticed anything Trump has done. I suspect these four years will barely even be a footnote in American history.
After these 4 years, your country is probably going to be more in an alliance with all the dictators in the world, than with the more civilized democratic countries like Germany, France, Australia and Canada. In fact, I don't understand why we still are members of NATO. We could just as well be in an military alliance with Putin or China. Better that all the most civilized democratic countries in the world create their own military alliance without USA. We don't want to be in a military alliance with a country that has a stupid narcissistic demagogue as their president.
And maybe you Americans are going to forget about Trump, but the rest of the world is not. We are not going to trust what your people are going vote for in the future. Things always have consequences.
The only scandal of Trump's I can think of that was publicized was Trump University, and that was toward the end.
What about grabbing pussies? What about saying that he is sexually attracted to his own daughter? What about not showing his tax returns? What about abuse of people working for him? What about lying all the time? What about claiming that Obama was born in Kenya? What about all his stupid tweets? In fact, almost all of his stupid tweets are scandalous. Everything about the guy is scandalous.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 11:36:26 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
|
Trump
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2017, 08:19:31 am » |
|
What about grabbing pussies?
No, that wasn't a real scandal. All that did was show that Trump was a stupid jock, or maybe a stupid pretend jock.
What about saying that he is sexually attracted to his own daughter?
Yeah, that was hilarious. Still not a real scandal. Having weird incest fantasies isn't a crime.
What about not showing his tax returns?
Suspicious, maybe, but it was easy for Trump to hand-wave away as unimportant. Honestly, I don't see why such a big deal was made of them. I'm sure Trump pays $0 in tax just like all the other rich elite. But if he's doing it legally, that's still not a scandal, just a sign of a broken tax system (which every American knows we have). Trump even admitted on his own that he was able to get massive tax breaks, though I don't think he ever stated exactly to what extent. He used it to suggest that he would fix the tax system. I doubt he will, but that's what he ran with, and that sure was more important to his supporters than exactly how much or how little tax he was personally paying.
What about abuse of people working for him?
I don't remember that being exploited by Hillary's campaign, but even if it was, it's so indirect that it would have been ridiculously easy to brush off. "I never wanted them to be treated that way and the people responsible don't work for me anymore." Boom, done.
What about lying all the time?
Hillary may have been more truthful than Trump, but she wasn't exactly a saint in this department either. At best, Trump supporters who heard that Trump was lying all the time thought, "What else is new? Another politician lying. You do the same, Hillary!" At worst, they thought, "Yeah, right! You are a proven liar yourself! Of course you would call Trump the liar!"
This is not a matter of intelligence. It's just a matter of integrity. It isn't very compelling to anyone to say "I only lie 30% of the time while my opponent lies 70% of the time!" Intuitively, all that sounds like is, "Both of us are liars." So Hillary tried to sweep her own lies under the rug and pretend that only Trump was guilty of lying, and Trump turned that back on her.
What about claiming that Obama was born in Kenya?
Yeah, that was stupid. Not a scandal, though.
In fact, almost all of his stupid tweets are scandalous.
Perhaps you have a different definition of "scandal" from me. I'd say this definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary is most relevant: "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety". In other words, when someone is caught out doing something immoral. Speech is never immoral. Tweets are speech. Therefore, tweets are never immoral. Therefore, a scandal cannot be solely because of a tweet or a collection of tweets.
What you can say is that Trump's tweets, and many other things you list here as "scandals", are embarrassments. That's very different. Embarrassments cause people to laugh at Trump. They do not cause Trump voters to reconsider voting for him.
But again, this was always the wrong way to campaign. It was wrong when Trump did it, and it was wrong when Hillary did it. What Hillary should have done is followed in Bernie's footsteps and led an issue-based campaign. She should have pressed Trump on his policies, not on embarrassing things he did or ad hominems against his supporters. And she should have presented an exciting future for the United States based on policy, so that people would want to vote for her. Even I, a disgruntled Bernie supporter, would have gladly voted for her if she had done this approach. In fact, I waited for either one of the two candidates to do this. Neither of them did so. Every debate, they just continued to attack each other and say the other candidate was horrible, racist, a liar, or would give America AIDS. So I didn't vote for Hillary, and I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Gary Johnson, one of the third-party candidates who was actually running an issue-based campaign, with multiple points I was in support of, even if it was a guaranteed failure.
That is the type of experience that caused Trump to narrowly win. It's not because Americans are idiots, and it's not because Americans are ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
|
Trump
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2017, 10:34:46 am » |
|
What about grabbing pussies? No, that wasn't a real scandal. All that did was show that Trump was a stupid jock, or maybe a stupid pretend jock.
That is an issue, as it proves that this specific candidate is not interesting in being morally integer.
What about saying that he is sexually attracted to his own daughter? Yeah, that was hilarious. Still not a real scandal. Having weird incest fantasies isn't a crime.
This is not a matter of intelligence. It's just a matter of integrity. It isn't very compelling to anyone to say "I only lie 30% of the time while my opponent lies 70% of the time!" Intuitively, all that sounds like is, "Both of us are liars."
[...]But again, this was always the wrong way to campaign. It was wrong when Trump did it, and it was wrong when Hillary did it. What Hillary should have done is followed in Bernie's footsteps and led an issue-based campaign. She should have pressed Trump on his policies, not on embarrassing things he did or ad hominems against his supporters. And she should have presented an exciting future for the United States based on policy, so that people would want to vote for her. Even I, a disgruntled Bernie supporter, would have gladly voted for her if she had done this approach. In fact, I waited for either one of the two candidates to do this. Neither of them did so. Every debate, they just continued to attack each other and say the other candidate was horrible, racist, a liar, or would give America AIDS. So I didn't vote for Hillary, and I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Gary Johnson, one of the third-party candidates who was actually running an issue-based campaign, with multiple points I was in support of, even if it was a guaranteed failure. That is the type of experience that caused Trump to narrowly win. It's not because Americans are idiots, and it's not because Americans are ignorant.
And I thank you for not wasting your vote by not voting, but by having given hope to third parties and voting for a third party cadidate.
They are so underrepresented in the US democracy, I find that stunning. having only two parties in the representatives chambers makes it very difficult to take differentiated approachs, and democratic plurality and discussion culture lacks. Also, much just gets decided based on party dogma. Or on things like "You wanted that, so we abolish it. Just because."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
|
Trump
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2017, 12:12:38 pm » |
|
I found it creepy, but that's the way this yellow press star talks and thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
|
Trump
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2017, 12:43:54 pm » |
|
When the fattest kid we know (the USA) says he's starving, there's something wrong with him. Also, if you simply refer to Hillary as 'I don't like her' you are seriously misinformed. Shall I post the 100 people who died or disappeared mysteriously?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 12:57:43 pm by Scalare »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2017, 02:34:13 pm » |
|
They [third parties] are so underrepresented in the US democracy, I find that stunning.
It's pretty much an inevitability of the U.S. system and has always been the case. As long as there is only one victor, there will be a favorite and a second favorite. Other parties are still important, but their role is to keep the two major parties in check by making it possible for the voter base to collectively jump ship (which has happened a few times).
But lets compare it to food. I am starving, and there is only two types of consumables available: a type of food that I don't like, and a toxic substance that I might die from. I think I will eat the food that I don't like, rather than the toxic substance I might die from. But that's not what you Americans did. You went for the toxic substance, thinking that it might somehow "magically" cure you.
The trouble is that while you are insinuating here that it was obvious that Hillary would just be a nuisance and Trump would end the world, the only people who thought that in my experience were hardcore progressives. Heck, a lot of people were concerned about Hillary's attitude with Russia and worried that it would lead to WW3. You can't just take one group's concerns and treat it like an objective truth while you handwave away another group's concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2017, 02:39:56 pm » |
|
The trouble is that while you are insinuating here that it was obvious that Hillary would just be a nuisance and Trump would end the world, the only people who thought that in my experience were hardcore progressives.
Really? I would also like to know the average opinion about this for people with a PhD or an IQ of 130 or more.
I must admit that I now have much more respect for the black people in the United States, than for the white people. Because the black people seemed to be able to see what kind of a person Donald Trump is.
Personally, I feel like the people that can't see what an idiot Trump is, must lack some kind of a sense. Like they are color blind or something. I just needed to see Trump on TV for 5 seconds to know that he is a complete idiot that never should have been president.
I am also very angry that poor people don't seem to be able to understand that this is their main problem:
And that the ONLY solution to this problem is a more progressive tax system. Donald Trump has made your tax system less progressive, which means that this inequality is going to increase faster.
If you are poor, and vote for a less progressive tax system, then you are the very definition of ignorant and/or stupid. But of course, lots of the poor people in the United States are brainwashed to believe that they somehow deserve to be poor, while the overly rich somehow deserve to have much more wealth. Or they don't even know the difference between a progressive and a flat tax, and just think that all taxes are bad. And you claim to have a functional educational system?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 03:52:54 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2017, 05:20:05 pm » |
|
Really? I would also like to know the average opinion about this for people with a PhD or an IQ of 130 or more.
I don't see why. IQ is hardly relevant.
I must admit that I now have much more respect for the black people in the United States, than for the white people. Because the black people seemed to be able to see what kind of a person Donald Trump is.
Personally, I feel like the people that can't see what an idiot Trump is, must lack some kind of a sense. Like they are color blind or something. I just needed to see Trump on TV for 5 seconds to know that he is a complete idiot that never should have been president.
All I can really say is that this is a bigoted worldview. On multiple counts.
I am also very angry that poor people don't seem to be able to understand that this is their main problem:
<snip>
And that the ONLY solution to this problem is a more progressive tax system.
Again, a bigoted worldview. It's quite possible that there's a better solution. Or, alternatively, it's quite possible that some people don't see a problem with a small percentage of the population controlling 80% of the wealth. The line I usually hear is something like this: "Let's bring people up, not drag people down". Now, you can say that this is overly simplistic thinking, and you can argue against it. I would argue, for example, that there is a limited amount of resources and a lack of incentive for the rich to invest those resources into projects that help the poor, so the rich need to pay much more than the middle-class. But to just assume that they are incapable of "understanding" your argument, and that that is the only possible reason they could have to reject it, is bigoted.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
|
|
|
|
