Election 2016 (Page 67)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2016-11-22 5:25 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 the man in the video is one of the leaders of the alt-right movement. Bannon has said he is part of the alt right movement.... That's the thing.....I can show you videos of Black Panthers calling for all out war during a BLM protest. I know some of the leaders of the BLM movement....they are not Black Panthers and don't want that. The Black Panthers have said they are part of "the movement". No.....it's not the same. Same with "alt-right" and Nazis. Here's the craziest thing I have seen lately......now the ultra left (can I call them "ult-left"?) is starting to tweet that the media is normalizing Trump and they are catching hell for it. Go figure. Same shoe, different foot. It's nuts on both ends of the spectrum........don't go there. The rest of us are just trying to live our lives and put a stop to the stupid......no matter what color, race, nationality, etc. It's not easy since the loudest voices are the dumbest ones....and the ones getting the most play. Edited by Left Brain 2016-11-22 5:28 PM |
|
2016-11-22 5:45 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 the man in the video is one of the leaders of the alt-right movement. Bannon has said he is part of the alt right movement.... You do realize the "alt-right" term has been used for years by a lot of different groups and gradually evolved into some fringe areas. It's like the Tea Party was pretty main stream with a lot of support from both sides when it started, but quickly was taken over by the social conservatives and got a little whacky. I know you're just grasping at straws because Trump won, but you're out in the fringe weeds my friend. I know the feeling, so I'm trying to help you but I hope you're not sucked in too far. |
2016-11-22 5:55 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 so if I say I'm a Nazi, but I wasn't actually at the rally where hitler says the bad things, I am totally free from any association with those things? ok brotha. So Bannon said he was a Nazi? What's your source for that? You're basically taking a video of some fringe whack jobs that have nothing to do with Bannon and then trying to convince people to treat Bannon as though he was at this event and doing the things that the fringe whack jobs are doing? How is this different than labeling Obama a terrorist because of him hanging with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers or calling him a hate filled racist because he attended Jeremiah Wrights church with his fringe Black Liberation Theology? You're getting sucked into the very fringe on the other side that you're trying to shout down. I'll just sit back and watch how fast the media gets locked down. Then you guys will have your answer. Now that I think this through I can't believe the president would lock out the press. It's truly unprecedented. |
2016-11-22 6:19 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 so if I say I'm a Nazi, but I wasn't actually at the rally where hitler says the bad things, I am totally free from any association with those things? ok brotha. So Bannon said he was a Nazi? What's your source for that? You're basically taking a video of some fringe whack jobs that have nothing to do with Bannon and then trying to convince people to treat Bannon as though he was at this event and doing the things that the fringe whack jobs are doing? How is this different than labeling Obama a terrorist because of him hanging with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers or calling him a hate filled racist because he attended Jeremiah Wrights church with his fringe Black Liberation Theology? You're getting sucked into the very fringe on the other side that you're trying to shout down. I'll just sit back and watch how fast the media gets locked down. Then you guys will have your answer. Now that I think this through I can't believe the president would lock out the press. It's truly unprecedented. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Same shoe. |
2016-11-22 6:51 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. |
2016-11-22 8:04 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. |
|
2016-11-23 8:10 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. oh so you agree the media should be held accountable for torpedoing Hillary based on her emails, which they covered more than every thing trump did wrong combined. |
2016-11-23 8:46 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. oh so you agree the media should be held accountable for torpedoing Hillary based on her emails, which they covered more than every thing trump did wrong combined. You misinterpreted my post. "When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate". The media can absolutely destroy anyone as long as they're doing it with facts and the truth. Hillary's email server was not a lie, and nobody in her campaign even suggested as much. The media as a whole gave her a complete pass on the laws she broke. |
2016-11-23 8:56 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 2373 Floriduh | Subject: RE: Election 2016 " The media as a whole gave her a complete pass on the laws she broke." So did the FBI. |
2016-11-23 8:57 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. oh so you agree the media should be held accountable for torpedoing Hillary based on her emails, which they covered more than every thing trump did wrong combined. HUH?!?!?! Man......what channel are you watching??? And Dave, Hillary's base torpedoed her and nobody, including HRC paid any attention. I told you a year ago that people were tired of being called racists,m bigots, homophobes, etc. just because they disagreed with the left's policies. There is not a single person w ho knows me who would say those things about me, yet I (AND MANY OTHERS) had to listen to it non-stop from the Liberal base. It cost her the election. The funny thing is, the left learned nothing from it and had doubled down on the rhetoric since the election. If it continues, your party is done. |
2016-11-23 9:39 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. oh so you agree the media should be held accountable for torpedoing Hillary based on her emails, which they covered more than every thing trump did wrong combined. HUH?!?!?! Man......what channel are you watching??? And Dave, Hillary's base torpedoed her and nobody, including HRC paid any attention. I told you a year ago that people were tired of being called racists,m bigots, homophobes, etc. just because they disagreed with the left's policies. There is not a single person w ho knows me who would say those things about me, yet I (AND MANY OTHERS) had to listen to it non-stop from the Liberal base. It cost her the election. The funny thing is, the left learned nothing from it and had doubled down on the rhetoric since the election. If it continues, your party is done. I was just pointing out how ridiculous the idea of "holding them responsible" is. Whoever is in power can say "CNN did this!" "Fox did this!" and then punish them. Say goodbye to free press if this is the case. |
|
2016-11-23 9:45 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I agree......we just need to figure out who to truly blame.....because the left is crying they torpedoed HRC and the right is whining that they are trying to sink Trump. Here's what REALLY needs to happen.....the news media needs to get out of the commentary business and just report the forking news in a straightforward and unbiased manner. |
2016-11-23 9:48 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Left Brain I agree......we just need to figure out who to truly blame.....because the left is crying they torpedoed HRC and the right is whining that they are trying to sink Trump. Here's what REALLY needs to happen.....the news media needs to get out of the commentary business and just report the forking news in a straightforward and unbiased manner. amen. |
2016-11-23 10:07 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. oh so you agree the media should be held accountable for torpedoing Hillary based on her emails, which they covered more than every thing trump did wrong combined. HUH?!?!?! Man......what channel are you watching??? And Dave, Hillary's base torpedoed her and nobody, including HRC paid any attention. I told you a year ago that people were tired of being called racists,m bigots, homophobes, etc. just because they disagreed with the left's policies. There is not a single person w ho knows me who would say those things about me, yet I (AND MANY OTHERS) had to listen to it non-stop from the Liberal base. It cost her the election. The funny thing is, the left learned nothing from it and had doubled down on the rhetoric since the election. If it continues, your party is done. I think that had something to do with it, and maybe this is mincing words, or part of the same issue, but I think the main reason why Hillary lost is because she didn't effectively articulate her plan to people outside her base. The Right will say, "that's because she didn't have a plan" but I don't think that's true. She actually had a much more articulate plan than Trump did, but, at some point, she decided that the road to victory was to continue to paint Trump as unfit, instead of telling people how she was going to help them. I saw a million Hillary campaign ads and all of them were about how terrible Trump was. Not one of them articulated her plan and spoke to the voter like a grownup. And, after a while, I started thinking, "Everyone knows who Trump is-- stop wasting time telling them." There are people who are willing to overlook all of that stuff if they think he will provide a better future for them, and she never really did. She took the PA/OH/Rust belt voter for granted and it cost her. Those voters clearly wanted more than just "I'm not Trump" from her. I think a lot of people in those states waited until the last minute to decide because they were waiting for either candidate to articulate a plan that spoke to them. When neither of them did, they rolled the dice and went with "change", since the status quo wasn't working out for them. I admonished a bunch of my liberal friends, in the days after the election, for saying that every person who voted for Trump is a racist and a homophobe. Jon Stewart put it best when he said, "I know lots of people who voted for Trump who aren't afraid of Muslims-- they're afraid of their health insurance premium." There's no question (as you yourself observed) that this election has emboldened some really horrible people who feel that Trump tacitly supports their white nationalist agenda, even if he publicly says he disavows them. But anyone who says that "anyone who voted for Trump is, by extension, a racist, homophobe, etc." is mistaken and foolish. And that philosophy will lose the next election for the Dems as surely as it contributed to losing this one. I know a fair number of Trump supporters who are none of those things. Jon Stewart said in the same interview that you can't define every Trump voter by the worst of his rhetoric, and also that you can't criticize the right for making monolithic statements about, for example, Muslims ("all Muslims are terrorists") while at the same time, making monolithic statements about Trump supporters. ("All Trump supporters are racists"). |
2016-11-23 10:18 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I thought it was interesting that Sanders admonished a voter at an appearance this week for saying that she wanted to be "The first Latina"-something or other. He said that the Democrats needed to get away from "identity politics" and focus on the voters and their issues. I still don't think Sanders could have won this election, but he might be a viable candidate in 2020 if Trump craps the bed, as I'm still fairly confident he will. |
2016-11-23 10:33 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Left Brain I think that had something to do with it, and maybe this is mincing words, or part of the same issue, but I think the main reason why Hillary lost is because she didn't effectively articulate her plan to people outside her base. The Right will say, "that's because she didn't have a plan" but I don't think that's true. She actually had a much more articulate plan than Trump did, but, at some point, she decided that the road to victory was to continue to paint Trump as unfit, instead of telling people how she was going to help them. I saw a million Hillary campaign ads and all of them were about how terrible Trump was. Not one of them articulated her plan and spoke to the voter like a grownup. And, after a while, I started thinking, "Everyone knows who Trump is-- stop wasting time telling them." There are people who are willing to overlook all of that stuff if they think he will provide a better future for them, and she never really did. She took the PA/OH/Rust belt voter for granted and it cost her. Those voters clearly wanted more than just "I'm not Trump" from her. I think a lot of people in those states waited until the last minute to decide because they were waiting for either candidate to articulate a plan that spoke to them. When neither of them did, they rolled the dice and went with "change", since the status quo wasn't working out for them. I admonished a bunch of my liberal friends, in the days after the election, for saying that every person who voted for Trump is a racist and a homophobe. Jon Stewart put it best when he said, "I know lots of people who voted for Trump who aren't afraid of Muslims-- they're afraid of their health insurance premium." There's no question (as you yourself observed) that this election has emboldened some really horrible people who feel that Trump tacitly supports their white nationalist agenda, even if he publicly says he disavows them. But anyone who says that "anyone who voted for Trump is, by extension, a racist, homophobe, etc." is mistaken and foolish. And that philosophy will lose the next election for the Dems as surely as it contributed to losing this one. I know a fair number of Trump supporters who are none of those things. Jon Stewart said in the same interview that you can't define every Trump voter by the worst of his rhetoric, and also that you can't criticize the right for making monolithic statements about, for example, Muslims ("all Muslims are terrorists") while at the same time, making monolithic statements about Trump supporters. ("All Trump supporters are racists"). Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. oh so you agree the media should be held accountable for torpedoing Hillary based on her emails, which they covered more than every thing trump did wrong combined. HUH?!?!?! Man......what channel are you watching??? And Dave, Hillary's base torpedoed her and nobody, including HRC paid any attention. I told you a year ago that people were tired of being called racists,m bigots, homophobes, etc. just because they disagreed with the left's policies. There is not a single person w ho knows me who would say those things about me, yet I (AND MANY OTHERS) had to listen to it non-stop from the Liberal base. It cost her the election. The funny thing is, the left learned nothing from it and had doubled down on the rhetoric since the election. If it continues, your party is done. All valid points. It's interesting that both Trump and Clinton made disparaging remarks about each other......but only Clinton made disparaging remarks about the other candidate's supporters. (the basket of deplorables....and then went on to call them racists, homophobes, islamaphobes, etc) REALLY dumb for someone as experienced as Clinton. Edited by Left Brain 2016-11-23 10:34 AM |
|
2016-11-23 10:54 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Left Brain I think that had something to do with it, and maybe this is mincing words, or part of the same issue, but I think the main reason why Hillary lost is because she didn't effectively articulate her plan to people outside her base. The Right will say, "that's because she didn't have a plan" but I don't think that's true. She actually had a much more articulate plan than Trump did, but, at some point, she decided that the road to victory was to continue to paint Trump as unfit, instead of telling people how she was going to help them. I saw a million Hillary campaign ads and all of them were about how terrible Trump was. Not one of them articulated her plan and spoke to the voter like a grownup. And, after a while, I started thinking, "Everyone knows who Trump is-- stop wasting time telling them." There are people who are willing to overlook all of that stuff if they think he will provide a better future for them, and she never really did. She took the PA/OH/Rust belt voter for granted and it cost her. Those voters clearly wanted more than just "I'm not Trump" from her. I think a lot of people in those states waited until the last minute to decide because they were waiting for either candidate to articulate a plan that spoke to them. When neither of them did, they rolled the dice and went with "change", since the status quo wasn't working out for them. I admonished a bunch of my liberal friends, in the days after the election, for saying that every person who voted for Trump is a racist and a homophobe. Jon Stewart put it best when he said, "I know lots of people who voted for Trump who aren't afraid of Muslims-- they're afraid of their health insurance premium." There's no question (as you yourself observed) that this election has emboldened some really horrible people who feel that Trump tacitly supports their white nationalist agenda, even if he publicly says he disavows them. But anyone who says that "anyone who voted for Trump is, by extension, a racist, homophobe, etc." is mistaken and foolish. And that philosophy will lose the next election for the Dems as surely as it contributed to losing this one. I know a fair number of Trump supporters who are none of those things. Jon Stewart said in the same interview that you can't define every Trump voter by the worst of his rhetoric, and also that you can't criticize the right for making monolithic statements about, for example, Muslims ("all Muslims are terrorists") while at the same time, making monolithic statements about Trump supporters. ("All Trump supporters are racists"). Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone I'm not talking about who's invited to White House press conferences. I'm talking about more fundamental changes -- for example, Trump has previously said he wanted to "open up" libel laws. I know what you're saying but there does have to be some level of accountability for the press. When they blatantly lie for the purpose of torpedoing a political candidate then they are no longer the media, they are a corporate entity libeling an individual for their own gain. There has to be a recourse of some sort, and libel laws don't seem unreasonable. As the left likes to say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. oh so you agree the media should be held accountable for torpedoing Hillary based on her emails, which they covered more than every thing trump did wrong combined. HUH?!?!?! Man......what channel are you watching??? And Dave, Hillary's base torpedoed her and nobody, including HRC paid any attention. I told you a year ago that people were tired of being called racists,m bigots, homophobes, etc. just because they disagreed with the left's policies. There is not a single person w ho knows me who would say those things about me, yet I (AND MANY OTHERS) had to listen to it non-stop from the Liberal base. It cost her the election. The funny thing is, the left learned nothing from it and had doubled down on the rhetoric since the election. If it continues, your party is done. All valid points. It's interesting that both Trump and Clinton made disparaging remarks about each other......but only Clinton made disparaging remarks about the other candidate's supporters. (the basket of deplorables....and then went on to call them racists, homophobes, islamaphobes, etc) REALLY dumb for someone as experienced as Clinton. True. I think that that was the turning point of Romney's failed campaign as well- the famous "47%" comment. Bottom line-- don't insult voters, no matter how secure you think your base is. |
2016-11-23 11:03 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I wish Brit Abroad aka "His Royal Smugness" would come back and weigh in. |
2016-11-23 12:58 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I'll chime in now about the name calling etc. I live in a poor rural majority black parish that Trump carried. Talking to one of my neighbors about the election was quite interesting. He voted (as well as a majority of blacks here) for Trump. The main reason was jobs. He said that folks know that white people who supported Trump in our parish weren't racists, homophobes, etc. because out here we are neighbors and we help each other out. Our parish just wants to work and folks thought Trump would have the greatest chance at bringing in jobs. He also said that everyone in Washington could care less about us because they don't know us and don't want to know us. He ended on a funny note about Democrats and he is a registered Dem, stating they would not believe that black and white guys could get together with guns and the only thing shot would be squirrels and deer. At least in our neck of the woods the elites have a lot to learn about rural folks and it doesn't look as if they want to. As LB said, if they keep up the name calling they will continue to lose. |
2016-11-23 2:36 PM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Good posts JMK and I agree. I've been telling people that Hillary had a plan to win and the plan was to do nothing more than attack Trump. Apparently her and her team felt it had a better chance of winning than her trying to convince people her plan was better. I also feel the "basket of deplorables" was a Romney'esq level mistake and I don't feel she ever really apologized for it. It seemed as though she and a lot of her supporters more doubled down on it than walked it back. Ultimately though I feel the true beginning of the end with her campaign was the original FBI statements by Comey (in June I think). The polls sharply turned towards Trump at that point. Then when you started throwing in the Wikileaks emails the whole thing masterfully played into Trumps corruption accusations. It was pretty clear to people that she was being held to a different standard than us regular folks. Trump had the worst political bomb I've ever seen with the Access Hollywood tape, and his polls suffered badly when it hit, but he slowly recovered back to where he was pre-tape by the end so in essence it didn't hurt. Either way, I have to say I kind of like the path the DNC is heading down. They seem to believe that we're all just racists and homophobes and are going to try and shame us more into voting for the Democrat next time around. Good luck with that. |
2016-11-23 2:45 PM in reply to: NXS |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by NXS I'll chime in now about the name calling etc. I live in a poor rural majority black parish that Trump carried. Talking to one of my neighbors about the election was quite interesting. He voted (as well as a majority of blacks here) for Trump. The main reason was jobs. He said that folks know that white people who supported Trump in our parish weren't racists, homophobes, etc. because out here we are neighbors and we help each other out. Our parish just wants to work and folks thought Trump would have the greatest chance at bringing in jobs. He also said that everyone in Washington could care less about us because they don't know us and don't want to know us. He ended on a funny note about Democrats and he is a registered Dem, stating they would not believe that black and white guys could get together with guns and the only thing shot would be squirrels and deer. At least in our neck of the woods the elites have a lot to learn about rural folks and it doesn't look as if they want to. As LB said, if they keep up the name calling they will continue to lose. I wouldn't make too much of that. It's an interesting n=1 story, but it's not really indicative of any national trend. We were in NoLa in Feb and our tour bus driver, who was black, proudly proclaimed himself a Trump fan (not that anyone asked). Trump did a little better than Romney got running against Obama, but it's not as if there was this great tidal shift among blacks away from Democrats and towards the GOP. Blacks nationwide voted in this election pretty much the way they always have, with the overwhelming majority voting democrat and a single-digit percentage voting for the GOP. Ive seen numbers between 5-8% depending on where you look. Regardless, he made a lot of promises to them, and some of them, your neighbor, for example, clearly trusted in him. I hope he doesn't let them down and I hope that you'll side with your neighbor in holding the president-elect accountable to those promises too. There's a sad history in this country of politicians of every stripe courting the poor and the minority vote and forgetting all about them once the ballots are counted. |
|
2016-11-24 6:11 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS I'll chime in now about the name calling etc. I live in a poor rural majority black parish that Trump carried. Talking to one of my neighbors about the election was quite interesting. He voted (as well as a majority of blacks here) for Trump. The main reason was jobs. He said that folks know that white people who supported Trump in our parish weren't racists, homophobes, etc. because out here we are neighbors and we help each other out. Our parish just wants to work and folks thought Trump would have the greatest chance at bringing in jobs. He also said that everyone in Washington could care less about us because they don't know us and don't want to know us. He ended on a funny note about Democrats and he is a registered Dem, stating they would not believe that black and white guys could get together with guns and the only thing shot would be squirrels and deer. At least in our neck of the woods the elites have a lot to learn about rural folks and it doesn't look as if they want to. As LB said, if they keep up the name calling they will continue to lose. I wouldn't make too much of that. It's an interesting n=1 story, but it's not really indicative of any national trend. We were in NoLa in Feb and our tour bus driver, who was black, proudly proclaimed himself a Trump fan (not that anyone asked). Trump did a little better than Romney got running against Obama, but it's not as if there was this great tidal shift among blacks away from Democrats and towards the GOP. Blacks nationwide voted in this election pretty much the way they always have, with the overwhelming majority voting democrat and a single-digit percentage voting for the GOP. Ive seen numbers between 5-8% depending on where you look. Regardless, he made a lot of promises to them, and some of them, your neighbor, for example, clearly trusted in him. I hope he doesn't let them down and I hope that you'll side with your neighbor in holding the president-elect accountable to those promises too. There's a sad history in this country of politicians of every stripe courting the poor and the minority vote and forgetting all about them once the ballots are counted. Jim I know its anecdotal, but you missed the point as did/does the Dem party. Rural folks feel left out and the elites couldn't care less about them. I hope he is able to turn things around for folks as well. As far as accountability, I guarantee you he will be held more accountable that our current president, if he doesn't deliver in four years, he'll be gone. |
2016-11-24 8:41 AM in reply to: NXS |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 (So...an Ivy League educated New York billionaire doesn't qualify as "elite" in your book? I see....) I didn't miss the point. It's exactly what I said in my earlier post. The Democrats took the rural and the rust belt working class for granted and it cost them. I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Trump supporters don't seem inclined to even question, much less show concern for some of the eyebrow-raising stuff he's done just since the election. I don't really see them holding him accountable for keeping his promises. If it goes sideways, I expect that he'll convince his base that someone else is to blame (the media, Obama, Saturday Night Live, etc.). |
2016-11-24 9:08 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn (So...an Ivy League educated New York billionaire doesn't qualify as "elite" in your book? I see....) I didn't miss the point. It's exactly what I said in my earlier post. The Democrats took the rural and the rust belt working class for granted and it cost them. I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Trump supporters don't seem inclined to even question, much less show concern for some of the eyebrow-raising stuff he's done just since the election. I don't really see them holding him accountable for keeping his promises. If it goes sideways, I expect that he'll convince his base that someone else is to blame (the media, Obama, Saturday Night Live, etc.). Maybe I should have said Washington or ruling class elitist. You know the ones that tell you how to live your life, like your vehicle is causing global warming while they fly around in their private jets, what size soda you can drink, health insurance you need, whether you can build a pond on your land, or your taxes will subsidize my contributor's solar business only to have it go bankrupt, bailing out Wall St., or .....you get the picture. He came off as anti establishment, like Bernie did for the left. I bet you dollars to donuts that if he doesn't deliver he will be gone like George H W Bush after raising taxes when he said he wouldn't. |
2016-11-24 10:59 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn (So...an Ivy League educated New York billionaire doesn't qualify as "elite" in your book? I see....) I didn't miss the point. It's exactly what I said in my earlier post. The Democrats took the rural and the rust belt working class for granted and it cost them. I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Trump supporters don't seem inclined to even question, much less show concern for some of the eyebrow-raising stuff he's done just since the election. I don't really see them holding him accountable for keeping his promises. If it goes sideways, I expect that he'll convince his base that someone else is to blame (the media, Obama, Saturday Night Live, etc.). Because he hasn't raised any eyebrows yet. He's raising eyebrows for those that don't support him, but that's to be expected. I've seen nothing but great picks so far and he's doing what he said he'd do to this point. Obviously he's not president yet, but when he is I can assure you that myself and most of his other supporters will be raising a lot of heck, if he turns into another "regular politician". Also, be aware that the media and Soros are doing everything they can to spin and discredit him as a flip flopper in the media. If you watch the news he's backed away from every campaign promise, but it's been a lot of garbage thrown at the wall hoping something sticks. |
|
2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | |||
Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | |||