Nalu
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You think 85% of voters would vote for Trump? What world do you live in?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Poll: 62% of Trump supporters say nothing he could do would change opinion
- Thread starter rocket88
- Start date
You think 85% of voters would vote for Trump? What world do you live in?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,228
- Reaction score
- 4,458
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
of those who would vote for Trump, c'mon for **** sake, context...
Nalu
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Take a pill, man. Wow.
So the spite vote. Got it now. That's common in politics. It's how Trump was elected in the first place.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 3,802
- Reaction score
- 1,541
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Suppose the allegations in Ukrainegate are true, and look at it through the eyes of his supporters.
He's being criticized for exercising political leverage to unearth corruption in Joe Biden and son, who they believe to be corrupt sleazeballs that deserve to have their dirty laundry aired. Hence as far as his supporters are concerned, Pres. Trump is just doing his job.
Add to this the fact that the Democrats have spent the better part of three years denying (and later, defending) a concerted CIA/FBI campaign to spy on Pres. Trump's campaign and dig up dirt on him "for the good of the nation". The fact that the CIA/FBI gambit had an official veneer to it while Ukrainegate was Pres. Trump unilaterally leaning on Pres. Zelensky doesn't mean a hill of beans to them. Both are variations of one side using their power to dig up dirt on the other side, hence it's no wonder to me why nobody gives a damn about the sins of their own side anymore.
Now suppose it's 2012 and instead of Mitt Romney, Pres. Obama is running against Donald Trump. Pres. Obama leans on the Russians for dirt on Trump, some shady Bush-era whistleblower outs him, and now Republicans (and Trump) are on the warpath, demanding Pres. Obama's head on a pike. Meanwhile, Trump is running on his platform of building a border wall, reversing all kinds of Obama-era legislation, and "making America great again".
Are you going to throw up your hands and say, "Well, it'll hand Donald Trump the presidency, but I just can't forgive Pres. Obama for leaning on the Russians for Trump dirt," or are you going to say, "Who gives a damn about unethical political horse trading when the price for giving a damn is four years of Donald Trump in the Oval Office."?
This is the conundrum Pres. Trump's supporters presently find themselves in, only with the tables turned.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 10,356
- Reaction score
- 2,437
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
He could start acting like a progressive democrat and continue the ongoing practice of raping, robbing, and killing american citizens. That would separate him from his constitutional supporters quickly.
Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support Socialism?
"Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.
Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.
Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East.
The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.
In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.
So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?
There are lots of catalysts for the new socialism.
Massive immigration is changing the demography of the United States. The number of foreign-born U.S. residents and their children has been estimated at almost 60 million, or about 1 in 5 U.S. residents. Some 27 percent of California residents were born outside of America.
Many of these immigrants flee from poor areas of Latin America, Mexico, Africa and Asia that were wrecked by statism and socialism. Often, they arrive in the U.S. unaware of economic and political alternatives to state socialism.
When they reach the U.S. — often without marketable skills and unable to speak English — many assume that America will simply offer a far better version of the statism from which they fled. Consequently, many take for granted that government will provide them an array of social services, and they become supportive of progressive socialism.
Another culprit for the new socialist craze is the strange leftward drift of the very wealthy in Silicon Valley, in corporate America and on Wall Street.
Some of the new progressive rich feel guilty about their unprecedented wealth. So they champion redistribution as the sort of medieval penance that alleviates guilt.
Yet the influential and monied classes usually are so well off that higher taxes hardly affect them. Instead, redistributionist taxation hurts the struggling middle classes.
In California, it became hip for wealthy leftists to promote socialism from their Malibu, Menlo Park or Mill Valley enclaves — while still living as privileged capitalists. Meanwhile, it proved nearly impossible for the middle classes of Stockton and Bakersfield to cope with the reality of crushing taxes and terrible social services.
From 2008 to 2017, the now-multimillionaire Barack Obama, first as candidate and then as president, used all sorts of cool socialist slogans, from “spread the wealth around” and “now is not the time to profit” to “you didn’t build that” and “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
Universities bear much of the blame. Their manipulation of the federal government to guarantee student loans empowered them to jack up college costs without any accountability. Liberal college administrators and faculty did not care much when graduates left campus poorly educated and unable to market their expensive degrees.
More than 45 million borrowers now struggle with nearly $1.6 trillion in collective student debt, with climbing interest. That indebtedness has delayed — or ended — the traditional forces that encourage conservatism and traditionalism, such as getting married, having children and buying a home.
Instead, a generation of single, childless and mostly urban youth feels cheated that their high-priced degrees did not earn them competitive salaries. Millions of embittered college graduates will never be able to pay off what they owe — and want some entity to pay off their debts."
Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support Socialism?
"Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.
Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.
Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East.
The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.
In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.
So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?
There are lots of catalysts for the new socialism.
Massive immigration is changing the demography of the United States. The number of foreign-born U.S. residents and their children has been estimated at almost 60 million, or about 1 in 5 U.S. residents. Some 27 percent of California residents were born outside of America.
Many of these immigrants flee from poor areas of Latin America, Mexico, Africa and Asia that were wrecked by statism and socialism. Often, they arrive in the U.S. unaware of economic and political alternatives to state socialism.
When they reach the U.S. — often without marketable skills and unable to speak English — many assume that America will simply offer a far better version of the statism from which they fled. Consequently, many take for granted that government will provide them an array of social services, and they become supportive of progressive socialism.
Another culprit for the new socialist craze is the strange leftward drift of the very wealthy in Silicon Valley, in corporate America and on Wall Street.
Some of the new progressive rich feel guilty about their unprecedented wealth. So they champion redistribution as the sort of medieval penance that alleviates guilt.
Yet the influential and monied classes usually are so well off that higher taxes hardly affect them. Instead, redistributionist taxation hurts the struggling middle classes.
In California, it became hip for wealthy leftists to promote socialism from their Malibu, Menlo Park or Mill Valley enclaves — while still living as privileged capitalists. Meanwhile, it proved nearly impossible for the middle classes of Stockton and Bakersfield to cope with the reality of crushing taxes and terrible social services.
From 2008 to 2017, the now-multimillionaire Barack Obama, first as candidate and then as president, used all sorts of cool socialist slogans, from “spread the wealth around” and “now is not the time to profit” to “you didn’t build that” and “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
Universities bear much of the blame. Their manipulation of the federal government to guarantee student loans empowered them to jack up college costs without any accountability. Liberal college administrators and faculty did not care much when graduates left campus poorly educated and unable to market their expensive degrees.
More than 45 million borrowers now struggle with nearly $1.6 trillion in collective student debt, with climbing interest. That indebtedness has delayed — or ended — the traditional forces that encourage conservatism and traditionalism, such as getting married, having children and buying a home.
Instead, a generation of single, childless and mostly urban youth feels cheated that their high-priced degrees did not earn them competitive salaries. Millions of embittered college graduates will never be able to pay off what they owe — and want some entity to pay off their debts."
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 10,356
- Reaction score
- 2,437
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I agree that the alleged "whistleblower" is just that. Alleged.
Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer
"Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, was part of an Obama administration email chain celebrating the eventual signing of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine.
That and other emails show Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. One of those individuals, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (pictured), received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to Nuland’s direct role in the dossier controversy.
Also part of the email chains was Christopher J. Anderson, who was a special adviser to former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. Anderson testified to the Democrat-led House committees running the impeachment inquiry.
Ciaramella’s name comes up in six Obama-era government emails that were released by the State Department as part of two previous Freedom of Information Act requests. At the time of the exchanges, Ciaramella served as the Director for Baltic and Eastern European Affairs for the Obama-era National Security Council, where he worked on Ukraine policy. He is now an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.
One email, titled, “Loan Guarantee,” involved Nuland, who was reportedly a key champion of the Ukraine loan guarantee policy.
“Hurray,” a celebratory Nuland wrote in response to a translated Ukrainian government announcement about the signing of the $1 billion loan guarantee. The announcement singles out Joe Biden as being present for the conclusion of an agreement leading to the loan guarantee.Ciaramella was one of several people CC’d in the email, which was sent from the U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was another key champion of the loan guarantee to Ukraine along with Nuland.
The email is one of several that shows Ciaramella in the loop with top officials such as Nuland working on Ukraine policy under the Obama administration.
The loan guarantee was pushed through after Ukraine agreed to several reforms, especially the firing of the nation’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This at a time that Shokin was reportedly investigating Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company paying Hunter Biden. Joe Biden infamously boasted on video about personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed.
Another released email shows Ciaramella himself sending a message to Nuland and others. Most of the contents are blocked out, including the email’s subject line. One non-classified section of that email shows a reply stating, “Embassy Kyiv — coordinated with our USAID mission folks — will have detailed input tomorrow.”
One email involving Nuland was sent two days before the loan guarantee was signed on June 3, 2016. “Can you confirm who will be doing the actual signing for each side?” the exchange asked.
Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy.
FBI notes also cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson."
Here we go again....
Nalu
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That is not a conundrum for many of us. You just described the subjective (or absent) morality of Trump supporters.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Actually, i would have said "**** Obama " at that point. I didn't vote for him in 2012 anyway.
Supporters are basically saying that they don't care if he commits crimes because he is above the law.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 3,802
- Reaction score
- 1,541
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Hypothetically, supposing the allegations could be proven to your satisfaction, would it be enough to cost Pres. Trump your vote in 2020?
Does voting for the man one believes to be the lesser evil constitute an absence of morality?
Isn't this what voting is about in a two-party system? Weighing all the good and (especially) all the evil a politician can potentially do, weighing one side against the other, and then zealously backing the least harmful side, warts and all?
Take your preferred presidential candidate for 2020. In a hundred conversations about him/her, how many of these would you honestly say you acknowledged and strongly denounced an immoral act or harmful policy by him/her? Of these denouncements, how many did you utter without any reference to similar or worse acts/policies by other politicians?
Perhaps you're the outlier, but having observed both Democrats or Republicans on a politically-electrified forum like DP, I'd stake my fortune that most members would rate < 5 in 100 on the first question, and < 1 in 100 on average for the second. Does this mean that DPers are profoundly immoral people, or is it instead a consequence of the human tendency to magnify the good while rationalizing and downplaying the bad when one favours one alternative overall?
For the hypothetical to have meaning, replace Pres. Obama with a politician you would have voted for prior to the scandal. The opposing candidate would have to be a politician you believe would wreak havoc on American businesses and the American upper and middle classes especially. If that's not Pres. Trump, pick some politician who fits the bill for you.
There's what they say and what they believe.
What they say is that they don't care about Ukrainegate because [insert rationalization here], e.g. the allegations aren't proven, the whistleblower is suspect, the US President has authority to..., no laws have been broken because..., etc., etc. Arguments they feel might reasonably persuade others to agree with them.
Some sincerely believe what they're saying. But what most believe is: Well crap, the man we consider to be the distinct lesser evil got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and it looks genuinely bad. Even so, it's not bad enough to void his status as "distinct lesser evil" and there's uncertainty surrounding it, hence we're on defense for this one, boys.
How can I make assertions about others' undeclared beliefs so confidently? Because I know as well as you do (and they do) that if the man with his hand caught in the cookie jar had been Pres. Obama, they'd be the ones leading the charge for his impeachment.
But lest any Democrat here pat himself on the back and look down his nose at those rotten hypocritical Republicans, take it from a foreign observer of US politics: Democrats are exactly the same. Exactly the same. It's the ingrained nature (and some would even say "the function of") your two-party system. You play all-in offense or all-in defense.
Immoral? Perhaps. But ubiquitous.
Nalu
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Not always. In the case of Trump, yes.
I voted for a third party in 2016. I would skip voting before I voted for someone I didn't support. What you're describing is fairly common though.
I don't have a preferred candidate for 2020. I also don't do what you're describing. I find people who can't criticize the people the support and/or "whatabout" to people they don't support to be weak, unintelligent, and boring.
I'm not convinced that DP draws that kind of people especially. I think the internet itself is a relative cesspool of humanity that often brings out the worst in people. A site like DP attracts people who are heavily involved and very interested in partisan politics. Partisans often sacrifice their rationality, their morality, and their objective sense in support of their ideology. I think that's what you're describing.
What you're saying is obvious (at least to me). What I'm saying is that I don't condone that behavior. I'm not going to vote for Stalin just because he's less evil than Hitler. I don't accept that proposition. I understand why other people do, but I retain the right to criticize them and judge them as morally deficient.
That isn't news to me. As my posting history demonstrates, I criticize both major political parties. They're both trash. I never registered with either of them because I'm not going to pick the "less evil" of the 2. I consider every candidate and every ballot issue independently and on their individual merits. Either I support them or I don't, but I wouldn't vote for Trump if Satan himself was the Democratic nominee. I am suspicious of all partisans and I don't respect anyone who supports Trump no matter what rationalizations they use on Ukrainegate or anything else.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2017
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 322
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
And that is a sad thing to behold. Our country is strongestt when both parties are at their robust best. Sadly, that currently can not be said of either party IMHO.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2017
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 322
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I hear ya. What you seem to be saying is, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up". Anyone disagree with my take on that?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2018
- Messages
- 8,648
- Reaction score
- 2,674
He had an interesting event in Georgia today."62% of Trump supporters say..."
Well, considering who we are talking about....
I am not surprised.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 3,802
- Reaction score
- 1,541
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'll take you at your word, although my faith in man's powers of self-assessment (especially when it comes to objectivity) isn't what you might call "substantial".
But supposing your claim is true, the conclusion is obvious: you're a (rather extreme) outlier when it comes US political wonks. Even your willingness to meaningfully attack your preferred candidate once without hedging the words using tu quoque (i.e. "whataboutism") puts you in a distinct sub-1% minority on DP.
I'll also point out that if you consider partisanship deeply immoral (more than common vice like littering, gambling, overeating, racist jokes, etc.), you shouldn't be coming to a forum like DP--or at the very least, not wading into the "action".
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2016
- Messages
- 38,063
- Reaction score
- 22,560
- Location
- Norfolk Virginia area.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Maybe some day......
Liberals will wake up and realize that many of Trump voters in 2016 just didn't like the liberal alternative.
Either wake up, or watch another electoral landslide in 2020.
Liberals will wake up and realize that many of Trump voters in 2016 just didn't like the liberal alternative.
Either wake up, or watch another electoral landslide in 2020.
Nalu
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't think that DP is a good representation of anything. I don't mean that disrespectfully. It's just the nature of the internet. Everyone here is anonymous. Some members are bonified trolls who joined just to annoy strangers. Some members exaggerate their positions. Some members employ sarcasm and devil's advocacy without being clear about it. And I think a fair amount of members are sincere, curious, and thoughtful. So don't think that DP is a window into American political consciousness. It might be a peephole.
As for your assertion that I shouldn't be coming to a forum like DP, I have my reasons. If and when my goals aren't met or I run out of free time, I'll leave. In the meantime, I'll point out that there are progressive depths of partisanship, not all of which are immoral. My comments here have been about "Republicans" who support Trump.
Nalu
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
A lot of liberals didn't like the Democratic nominee either. That's why Trump won.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,806
- Reaction score
- 22,358
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Personally, I think those who belong to both major political parties are in a cult. So 62% who approve of Trump, almost all republicans say there isn't a thing he could do that would lose their support for him. If those are part of a cult, what about the 70% who state there is nothing Trump could do to gain their support. That's from the same article. They will always oppose him. Sounds like two cults are alive and well.
In other words, Trump could bring about world peace and those who oppose him would still oppose him. Trump could get us into WWIII and those who support him would still support him. They would also still support Trump if we went into a another great depression and those who oppose him would still oppose him if a booming economy did away with all the poor in this nation, those who oppose would still do so.
I firmly believe our two major political parties have become cults. History shows that on average 90% of all Republicans and Democrats will vote for their party's candidate regardless of who it is, how good or bad the candidate is, qualifications, visions, competence, doing good for the country doesn't matter anymore. Just the R and the D. No wonder both major parties are shrinking while more and more folks become independents, join the ranks of the non-affiliated, refuse to identify with either major party anymore. Independents have risen from 30% back in 2006 to 43% today. The Democratic Party has fallen from 35% of the electorate in 2006 down to 29% today, The Republican Party from 30% down to 26% today.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
That's because it is the leftist media telling us all the supposed things Trump has done.