Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: I look at people who voted for Trump the same way, It's okay to have voted for Trump as long as you didn't vote for him because of racism/sexism/homophobia".
The flip side of that is that a lot of single issue voters often don't understand how the other issues might adversely affect everyone. For example, people who voted for Trump because of his stance on gun control (which is an easy issue to understand), might not have fully grasped the consequences of his economic plan to cut corporation tax. He said it will bring business back and make America great again, and I imagine a lot of people took him at his word, because who wants to go reading about something boring like economics?
I have a few friends that are gun owning veterans who refused to vote for Hillary because of her 2A positions but refused to vote for Trump because of his (and mostly Pence's) anti LGBT positions. We all voted Libertarian instead. As you say, that's the problem with single issue voters, it's often a trade off where you're getting a "good" position on one issue but also a "terrible" position on another.
Which is fine if you're well informed about the pros and cons, but sadly a lot of people aren't. I visited my elderly aunty last year, and she was saying how good it was that UKIP are gaining momentum. I have to say, I was a little shocked. I'm aware that I live in a bit of a liberal echo chamber, and I do try to get out of it as much as I can (that's why I like coming here and talking to you), but sometimes you don't expect a member of your family to be living in an entirely different echo chamber. From her perspective, UKIP were the good guys, here to stop all the bureaucrats in Europe telling us what to do. The thing is, she's a lovely person, but she didn't go to college, and I don't think she really understands what the single market is or how it affects us. I'm sure if she realised that leaving Europe would cause a recession, and make Marmite cost more, she wouldn't be very keen on the idea at all. But she didn't even really know what she was voting for.
A lot of politics is really just marketing. It's not what you do or say it's how you say it or present it that counts.
Coming back to this thread now that it appears the sore losers and the sore winners have dialed it down now. I still say we all lost on Tuesday, regardless of who would have won. The divisions it created, not just throughout America (the protests from the left, and the acts of hate from the right), but what could be seen here on Dakka, were very disheartening to me. Posters I once respected are now on my Ignore list due solely to the vicious glee with which they tore into their fellow Dakka community members (seriously, this thread and this thread alone is responsible for every name on my Ignore list). Nobody has been vindicated by this election; what people are being is vindictive, and that is not the way forward.
By the way, Whembly, I actually finished off that bottle of MacAllan for you. Wish I could afford to replace it with an 18 year, but probably will have to stick to the 12.
Manchu wrote: I think it is ridiculous to assert that premise, which can only be meaningful in the abstract, necessarily has anything to do with why people cast a vote for Trump.
It doesn't matter what their reasons for voting for Trump were. Even if you voted for Trump because you thought his economic plan was better (lol) your vote was still a statement that it's ok to accept racism if that's the price you have to pay to get what you want. Or it's ok that the vice president thinks that abusing gay people until they pretend to be straight (or commit suicide trying) as long as Clinton's email server is properly punished. You don't get to pick out some of Trump's policies and discard the stuff you don't like, if you vote for Trump you're voting for his racism along with everything else.
That's exactly what people do. All the people I know who voted for Trump did so because they're primarily one issue voters. People held their nose and voted Trump for the sake of 2A rights or to get the right justices nominated to SCotUS, or to fix the economy or whatever. That's what most of the people I know do on election day, hold their nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. When you choose to vote for the lesser of 2 evils you're acknowledging that you're voting for evil it's just a degree of evil that you can rationalize supporting based on the primacy you place on a specific issue.
And that's really the truth, and I am more than willing to acknowledge that as someone on the liberal spectrum that wanted Hillary to win.
Plenty of people are anti-racism, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-trade compacts, anti-etc. During the 2012 election I saw a statement by the Catholic Church about people voting for liberals, and it was basically "It's okay to vote for candidate who are pro-choice, as long as the reason you are voting for them isn't that they are pro-choice" . I look at people who voted for Trump the same way, It's okay to have voted for Trump as long as you didn't vote for him because of racism/sexism/homophobia".
I can sympathize with that...
I... just couldn't do it this year.
I won't lie, as a father of biracial children I am extremely worried that having Trump win has moved racism back towards being an acceptable thing and I am worried that it has legitimized the alt-right and empowered groups like the KKK who were able to watch their guy win.
Racism will never by acceptable... and it's incumbent on all of us to remain vigilant.
But I don't feel like I can really blame that on the vast majority of people who voted for Trump. I think the blame for that falls almost exclusively on Trump, who didn't do very much of anything to denounce these groups and their view point and instead pandered to them, as well as his campaign at large. I do think a lot of racists voted for Trump, but I don't think that voting for Trump automatically makes you a racist.
...eh... I think it's more certain elements of the Trump campaign than Trump personally that is to blame. (well, he does shoulder the responsibility as it's his campaign)
The nebulous factions of these racists, spurred on by the likes of reddit and the likes existed... and it was a shame more wasn't done to discourage that.
But, to be fair on the subject of the KKK and David Duke, he did denounce them.
I understand, accept, and mostly agree with everything in this post (not just your's, but all the quoted bits, too). My biggest fear, I think, is what we'll see in 2018. Now that we have proven, beyond all doubt, that you can be a horrible human being and still be elected as long as enough people will side with your position on an issue they care about. So, my fear is that this was only the beginning, and I fear to see what will come through the door that has been opened.
Two things:
a) Toldya the ACA is vastly unpopular that hung like a millstone around the democrat's neck
b) Interesting that the "build the wall" is last on this list. Probably supports Theil's position that Trump voters didn't really take him literally, but seriously.
What I find most amusing is what came in third: reducing spending. Because numbers two, five, seven, and eight all require, well, more spending.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: Coming back to this thread now that it appears the sore losers and the sore winners have dialed it down now. I still say we all lost on Tuesday, regardless of who would have won. The divisions it created, not just throughout America (the protests from the left, and the acts of hate from the right), but what could be seen here on Dakka, were very disheartening to me. Posters I once respected are now on my Ignore list due solely to the vicious glee with which they tore into their fellow Dakka community members (seriously, this thread and this thread alone is responsible for every name on my Ignore list). Nobody has been vindicated by this election; what people are being is vindictive, and that is not the way forward.
By the way, Whembly, I actually finished off that bottle of MacAllan for you. Wish I could afford to replace it with an 18 year, but probably will have to stick to the 12.
Manchu wrote: I think it is ridiculous to assert that premise, which can only be meaningful in the abstract, necessarily has anything to do with why people cast a vote for Trump.
It doesn't matter what their reasons for voting for Trump were. Even if you voted for Trump because you thought his economic plan was better (lol) your vote was still a statement that it's ok to accept racism if that's the price you have to pay to get what you want. Or it's ok that the vice president thinks that abusing gay people until they pretend to be straight (or commit suicide trying) as long as Clinton's email server is properly punished. You don't get to pick out some of Trump's policies and discard the stuff you don't like, if you vote for Trump you're voting for his racism along with everything else.
That's exactly what people do. All the people I know who voted for Trump did so because they're primarily one issue voters. People held their nose and voted Trump for the sake of 2A rights or to get the right justices nominated to SCotUS, or to fix the economy or whatever. That's what most of the people I know do on election day, hold their nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. When you choose to vote for the lesser of 2 evils you're acknowledging that you're voting for evil it's just a degree of evil that you can rationalize supporting based on the primacy you place on a specific issue.
And that's really the truth, and I am more than willing to acknowledge that as someone on the liberal spectrum that wanted Hillary to win.
Plenty of people are anti-racism, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-trade compacts, anti-etc. During the 2012 election I saw a statement by the Catholic Church about people voting for liberals, and it was basically "It's okay to vote for candidate who are pro-choice, as long as the reason you are voting for them isn't that they are pro-choice" . I look at people who voted for Trump the same way, It's okay to have voted for Trump as long as you didn't vote for him because of racism/sexism/homophobia".
I can sympathize with that...
I... just couldn't do it this year.
I won't lie, as a father of biracial children I am extremely worried that having Trump win has moved racism back towards being an acceptable thing and I am worried that it has legitimized the alt-right and empowered groups like the KKK who were able to watch their guy win.
Racism will never by acceptable... and it's incumbent on all of us to remain vigilant.
But I don't feel like I can really blame that on the vast majority of people who voted for Trump. I think the blame for that falls almost exclusively on Trump, who didn't do very much of anything to denounce these groups and their view point and instead pandered to them, as well as his campaign at large. I do think a lot of racists voted for Trump, but I don't think that voting for Trump automatically makes you a racist.
...eh... I think it's more certain elements of the Trump campaign than Trump personally that is to blame. (well, he does shoulder the responsibility as it's his campaign)
The nebulous factions of these racists, spurred on by the likes of reddit and the likes existed... and it was a shame more wasn't done to discourage that.
But, to be fair on the subject of the KKK and David Duke, he did denounce them.
I understand, accept, and mostly agree with everything in this post (not just your's, but all the quoted bits, too). My biggest fear, I think, is what we'll see in 2018. Now that we have proven, beyond all doubt, that you can be a horrible human being and still be elected as long as enough people will side with your position on an issue they care about. So, my fear is that this was only the beginning, and I fear to see what will come through the door that has been opened.
Don't overlook the importance of the opposing candidates in the midterms. While a lot of people found reasons to rationalize voting for Trump he was also running against a candidate that depressed turnout from her party. A different candidate than Hillary could have performed much better. The midterms will be interesting because while this election cycle definitely highlighted and exacerbated the country's political divisions, the exit poll data is eye opening, it also showed that there is still a strong desire for change and candidates that represent change. Hopefully we don't get more candidates that are like Trump on a personal level but we could get more candidates like Trump in the sense that they don't have prior experience in political office or candidates that promote genuine principled positions like Sanders. Moving away from candidates that have accumulated wealth and influence through decades of political service and machinations wouldn't be a bad thing. Making the Parties fear that "establishment" candidates can lose can create new candidates that could reinvigorate governance and politics.
Manchu wrote: The justification is exactly as you have written it out above: whites cannot be threatened because Donald Trump is in charge and Congress is behind him. First, please understand that this type of argument is actually big part of why Trump was elected. Second, Trump does not have Congress behind him - the "Republican" label doesn't mean much (on either part, increasingly) and, even if they were united, this country is not actually the failed state that alarmists have been portraying it as (on both sides) throughout the election.
It goes deeper than that.
We've seen a number of people in this thread (Kan, Kill Krazy) say that despite most of Trump's supporters not being bigots, many of them were. The problem with a statement like this is that it attempts to demonise his victory ("He only won because Trumpers are Nazis!") whilst at the same time absolving the other side of any possible similar behaviour. I mean, are we to believe that no one voting for Hillary can be considered a bigot? That's absurd, and we can see that with the "Die whites die" stuff that appeared in those photos you posted and all the crap that's filling up my Facebook page (mostly posts from angry SJW's on twitter, but I digress).
And we see the justification for this sort of thing all the time:
1. The bigots on Hillary's side aren't really bigots, because, in the eyes of so many on that side, you cannot be bigoted towards whites/males/straight people.
2. To be white/male/straight is to naturally be a bigot. It is a default state. An unavoidable genetic truth.
3. Non-whites*/non-straights/women, by comparison, cannot be bigoted, therefore we go back to point one, and in and endless loop/echo chamber.
This is why the concepts of "white privilege" or "male privilege" feel so outmoded (and that's before we even get to 'affirmative action'). The idea that some uneducated white guy in bum-feth Idaho is somehow more privileged than the black kid who got a scholarship to Yale is mind-boggling.
*I refuse to use the blatantly racist term 'Person of Colour' (except in instances where I am specifically referring to the term, obviously).
Many (a certain number) of Trumps supporters are racists (depending on the value of "many") e.g the KKK, to be fair, a small minority.
As far as Clinton supporters being racists against white people, it seems that her loss was partly due to low turnout by minorities, so it isn't something the minorities took to the polling stations. The Trump campaign was full of discriminatory messages, and the Clinton campaign wasn't. You have to ask if Trump's support was 100% non-discriminatory.
The real struggle is to make the rich pay the taxes required to support a civilised society. The arguments about white privilege are something of a distraction on both sides of the political spectrum.
That said, I don't think the concept of white privilege is the slightest bit outmoded.
White privilege isn't about Joe Dud from Bumfuck Arizona versus President Obama's daughter. It's about the general situation that black people are more likely to die young, be arrested, go to prison, etc etc. than white people.
These are facts so it isn't worth arguing about them.
At the same time, we also have a situation in which working class people of any skin colour are more likely to die young, etc. than wealthy people of any colour, as noted by your example of rich black child going to Harvard and poor white child going on to unemployment benefit.
This doesn't mean there aren't anti-white racist black people, of course there are. The point is that the thrust of the Don't Check My White Privilege anti-anti-racism agenda is that White Men (who as a broad class actually are the most privileged in the western world in general) are equally at threat of bigotry as black women. This simply isn't true.
It is necessary to remember that anti-discrimination laws are neutral. They might seem to favour black people over white, but that is only because black people are more downtrodden than white, and therefore are more likely to benefit.
It's like putting rocket boosters on a lumpy cargo plane and a super-fast jet fighter. The cargo plane will benefit more from the added thrust, because it starts from the position of being slower. That doesn't mean the jet fighter is being denied the opportunity to have rocket boosters.
If as a white man you are used to being top of the heap, to see black women getting an equal chance to climb up beside you might seem like it's unfair discrimination in favour of black women, and therefore against white men, but in reality you just have lost the special advantages that you previously didn't notice you had because they were so ingrained into the overall pattern of society.
The pity is that people get distracted from the power/wealth divide by the issues of immigration and racism.
Two things:
a) Toldya the ACA is vastly unpopular that hung like a millstone around the democrat's neck
b) Interesting that the "build the wall" is last on this list. Probably supports Theil's position that Trump voters didn't really take him literally, but seriously.
What I find most amusing is what came in third: reducing spending. Because numbers two, five, seven, and eight all require, well, more spending.
I think it is funny that people voted for less spending when Trump said he wanted to spend twice as much money as Hills on Infrastructure. Trump wanted to spend a Trillion dollars to be precise. That doesn't even include the Wall.
Perhaps, the voters didn't really know what they were voting for.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
sirlynchmob wrote: and back on the electoral college for a minute, could the protesters actually convince any of the EC to change their votes? they are in no way legally required to vote based on what their people want and are free to change their minds and still give us hillary. I bet then people would finally start agreeing with me that it should be done away with and just go with the popular vote.
No. The electors are chosen from the hardcore party loyalists and almost never change their votes. The only scenario where the electoral college overturns the result of the election would be if a major scandal happened between the votes, like Trump testing his "I could shoot someone and everyone would still love me" theory.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I think it is funny that people voted for less spending when Trump said he wanted to spend twice as much money as Hills on Infrastructure. Trump wanted to spend a Trillion dollars to be precise. That doesn't even include the Wall.
Perhaps, the voters didn't really know what they were voting for.
Also wall seems no indications of being only metaphor. Trump's staff is already working on it and noting it will come. Just when and who pays open. Guess Mexico pays isn't solid after all and usa tax payers might pay it after all.
The latest "blame the libtards" excuse for Trump's victory is white America is tired of being called racist and sexist by the insidious PC culture.
So white America responds to being called racist and sexist by electing the most openly racist and sexist mainstream candidate in decades.
Idiots.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Sorry, given how fast this thread as been moving, I seemed to have miss this.
I made that comment just for you.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
feeder wrote: The latest "blame the libtards" excuse for Trump's victory is white America is tired of being called racist and sexist by the insidious PC culture.
So white America responds to being called racist and sexist by electing the most openly racist and sexist mainstream candidate in decades.
Idiots.
take a look at what actually won trump the election. He did better among all minorities than either mccain or romney.
feeder wrote: The latest "blame the libtards" excuse for Trump's victory is white America is tired of being called racist and sexist by the insidious PC culture.
So white America responds to being called racist and sexist by electing the most openly racist and sexist mainstream candidate in decades.
Idiots.
I think it's more accurate to say that PC Culture has accused white America (as a group) of having racist and sexist tendencies, and worse of openly ignoring that these tendencies exist, are problematic, and tends to respond to the accusation in counter productive ways.
The apparent narrative now is that in response to this accusation, an open bigot has been elected to "stick it to the liberals." So the only real interpretations are that white America (as if all white people voted for Trump somehow not sure how that works) elected a bigot out of spite which is just pathetic, or has done exactly what PC culture has generally accused it of doing. Either way, not very convincing.
feeder wrote: The latest "blame the libtards" excuse for Trump's victory is white America is tired of being called racist and sexist by the insidious PC culture.
So white America responds to being called racist and sexist by electing the most openly racist and sexist mainstream candidate in decades.
Idiots.
take a look at what actually won trump the election. He did better among all minorities than either mccain or romney.
All minorities voted less this election than in previous elections for both candidates. The change between Given that the end result is people showed up to vote Trump, but not Clinton it's hardly surprising the percentage is higher while the overall number is much lower.
But go on. Let's keep repeating this tired line. I'm sure it will never get old no matter how inaccurate it is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/11 21:40:46
I think the bigger issue is more that the R's showed up to vote, the D's did not going by the turnout results, Blue voters just stayed home it appears. Now, the whole "PC" thing may have played into that, but it would be more in potential D voters getting discouraged and skipping the election as opposed to ""white people" as a group doing anything en masse.
Ultimately however, no matter what way you slice it, America chose to reject a self serving, divisive, and arguably corrupt political oligarch by electing a similarly corrupt fascist gak-gibbon.
The Aristocrats!
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Well...I just unfriended a bunch of people on Facebook that kept on spouting inflamatory right wing BS. I just couldn't take it any more and I'm not letting myself legitimize them by being listed as a 'friend'.
feeder wrote: The latest "blame the libtards" excuse for Trump's victory is white America is tired of being called racist and sexist by the insidious PC culture.
So white America responds to being called racist and sexist by electing the most openly racist and sexist mainstream candidate in decades.
Idiots.
I think it's more accurate to say that PC Culture has accused white America (as a group) of having racist and sexist tendencies, and worse of openly ignoring that these tendencies exist, are problematic, and tends to respond to the accusation in counter productive ways.
The apparent narrative now is that in response to this accusation, an open bigot has been elected to "stick it to the liberals." So the only real interpretations are that white America (as if all white people voted for Trump somehow not sure how that works) elected a bigot out of spite which is just pathetic, or has done exactly what PC culture has generally accused it of doing. Either way, not very convincing.
feeder wrote: The latest "blame the libtards" excuse for Trump's victory is white America is tired of being called racist and sexist by the insidious PC culture.
So white America responds to being called racist and sexist by electing the most openly racist and sexist mainstream candidate in decades.
Idiots.
take a look at what actually won trump the election. He did better among all minorities than either mccain or romney.
All minorities voted less this election than in previous elections for both candidates. The change between Given that the end result is people showed up to vote Trump, but not Clinton it's hardly surprising the percentage is higher while the overall number is much lower.
But go on. Let's keep repeating this tired line. I'm sure it will never get old no matter how inaccurate it is.
its not inaccurate, he did win those numbers. he could not have won with just 1% more of the white vote than either mccain or romney, sorry it hurts your feelings but thats how it is.
Vaktathi wrote: I think the bigger issue is more that the R's showed up to vote, the D's did not going by the turnout results, Blue voters just stayed home it appears. Now, the whole "PC" thing may have played into that, but it would be more in potential D voters getting discouraged and skipping the election as opposed to ""white people" as a group doing anything en masse.
Obama got people out to vote for him. Kerry, Gore, Bill and Hillary failed to do that on the Democrat side (though Bill still managed to win in years with poor overall turnout and lots of votes going to Perot).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 21:55:12
Alright, I was kind of thinking that maybe Trump would calm down a bit after a heated campaign and might be influenced by some good advisors, and now...
...he picks Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich. To "drain the swamp".
Apart from that, has anybody heard this one speech from one of his campaign minions, Omarosa? Where she explains how good it is that "Trumps enemies are coming out in the open" and how he "has a long memory and we are keeping a list" and the office of POTUS is "the ultimative revenge"???
There aren't enough question marks for that one, those are her words on tape.
Yes, for a moment I thought things might not be so bad, but now, holy fething hell people. I wouldn't be so concerned if this was some backwater banana republic, but this is the United States, most powerful nation on earth. Arrrgh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 22:06:42
Witzkatz wrote: Alright, I was kind of thinking that maybe Trump would calm down a bit after a heated campaign and might be influenced by some good advisors, and now...
...he picks Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich. To "drain the swamp".
Apart from that, has anybody heard this one speech from one of his campaign minions, Omarosa? Where she explains how good it is that "Trumps enemies are coming out in the open" and how he "has a long memory and we are keeping a list" and the office of POTUS is "the ultimative revenge"???
There aren't enough question marks for that one, those are her words on tape.
Yes, for a moment I thought things might not be so bad, but now, holy fething hell people. I wouldn't be so concerned if this was some backwater banana republic, but this is the United States, most powerful nation on earth. Arrrgh.
He hasn't picked anyone yet. That's just a guess list of people he may look at.
A 2% shift is statistically insignificant, especially when you use basic math;
1000 people vote one year, and split 66% to 33%.
The next year 100 people vote and split 64% to 35%.
The difference between the two years is 320 voters vs 35 voters. With a major drop in turnout like we saw on Tuesday, it's not remotely meaningful that Trump gained an insignificant few percentage points.
But I don't expect the narrative to change. If I've learned anything from years on this board it's that there's no end to the lengths people will go to to maintain a illusionary narrative.
A 2% shift is statistically insignificant, especially when you use basic math;
1000 people vote one year, and split 66% to 33%.
The next year 100 people vote and split 64% to 35%.
The difference between the two years is 320 voters vs 35 voters. With a major drop in turnout like we saw on Tuesday, it's not remotely meaningful that Trump gained an insignificant few percentage points.
But I don't expect the narrative to change. If I've learned anything from years on this board it's that there's no end to the lengths people will go to to maintain a illusionary narrative.
Yeah, no. A candidate who was so blatantly racist, so vile, so hateful... the only way that number should have gone is down. It went up though. It doesn't matter if it went up 1% of 15%. It is an even bigger deal considering that the minority turn out was so much lower then previous elections. Even fewer of them showed up, but they still managed to drive his numbers up. The fact of the matter is that it was higher then McCain, or Romney, neither of whom was accused of the racial hatred that Trump is accused of. Explain that. I'm sure we're not going to hear that they were voting against their own good... Nobody here would stoop to that level, I'd hope.
In 2012, 4,265,345 Black Americans voted for Romney. 2016, 4,805,804 Black American's voted for Trump. So even though the Black American voting block got smaller (12% in 2012, 11% in 2016), more, in just raw numbers, still voted for this vile racist. How does that make sense?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/11 22:30:26
Oh, good, AG Pam Bondi, i.e. the person Trump literally bribed to drop the case on TrumpU. What happened to the accusing people of the whole pay to play, political corruption stuff that Clinton was crucified for? Same goes for Thiel, the silicon valley billionaire who's only on that list because he donated so much money to Trump.
Also, what happened to the kids getting out of his campaign and running the business?
I absolutely love the whole idea that this election was a slap in the face of political dynasties,by starting a new political dynasty that people won't even have the chance to vote for.
And Steven Bannon. Sweet Christ on a crutch, the man's actually going to get into the White House.
But yeah, let's drain that swamp.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/11/11 22:48:41
Oh, good, AG Pam Bondi, i.e. the person Trump literally bribed to drop the case on TrumpU. What happened to the accusing people of the whole pay to play, political corruption stuff that Clinton was crucified for?
Also, what happened to the kids getting out of his campaign and running the business?
I absolutely love the whole idea that this election was a slap in the face of political dynasties,by starting a new political dynasty that people won't even have the chance to vote for.
And Steven Bannon. Sweet Christ on a crutch, the man's actually going to get into the White House.
Please no Bannon.... dear god.
I'm hoping for Kellyanne Conway for chief of staff... the campaign manager who saved Trump.
But I don't expect the narrative to change. If I've learned anything from years on this board it's that there's no end to the lengths people will go to to maintain a illusionary narrative.
