• 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!

Trump voters don’t have buyer’s remorse. But some Hillary Clinton voters do.

So you can't give him credit for pulling us out of the TPP, which is something the vast majority of liberals wanted. Just goes to show that liberals will flip their opinion on Trump for partisan reasons only. They don't care about the well-being of this country.

The conservative GOP and Heritage Foundation's Jim DeMint, former SC Senator, have always been the ones favoring free trade agreements that began with Reagan.

Yet SC Senator Graham opposed free trade hurting his state's textile industries.
 
Hillary derangement syndrome is strong in this thread. Don't remember this with Romney and McCain. Lots of DPosters who aren't to blame for where America is politically .
 
The way I look at it, Clinton did it to herself. The left made out Trump to be the devil. You know the old saying, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In the end, it was a choice of the devil vs. Satan. Neither a sane choice. Two things, first one could go back to February of 2016 when a poll came out that stated 56% of all Americans, the key phrase is all Americans, wanted the Democrats to nominate someone else other than Hillary Clinton. But who won the Democratic nomination or whom the Democrat's picked wasn't up to all Americans. It was up to that parties base, registered Democrats who made up 30% of the electorate. Perhaps they failed to realize that 100% of the electorate votes in the general election, not just 30%.

Number two is way back in January and February of 2016 Hillary was still seen negatively by over 50% of the total electorate. That was completely over shadowed by Trump being viewed at a 60% negativity and rarely was America's negative view of Hillary talked about. It was there. A few months later, July Gallup came out with an article stating 25% of all Americans disliked both candidates. More important and over looked was that it stated 54% of all independents disliked both candidates.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates | Gallup

But independents have no say in whom is nominated, but they do in the general election. Also come July, the same time as this poll came out, third party candidates, Johnson and Stein were drawing between 12-15% of the vote. They ended up with 6%. That also spoke of the dislikes.

The thing is Clinton supporters see nothing wrong with her as Trump supporters see nothing wrong with him. Both are like that old Missouri Mule with blinders on. Clinton supporters can't understand how anyone could dislike her and the same holds true for Trump. Neither side could understand folks like me who detested both candidates that I, we would vote for someone we knew had no chance of winning rather than vote for one or the other of the two major party candidates. The numbers were all over the place which showed more or less total dissatisfaction among American voters as a whole of both candidates.

The most interesting exit poll I saw showed that 50%, half of all Trump voters was an anti-Clinton voter. In other words any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done, as long as the last name wasn't Clinton. Their votes wasn't necessarily for Trump, it was against Clinton. Now without Clinton around, they are now beginning to come out against Trump. You can see it in his job approval/disapproval numbers. Especially among independents who went for Trump during the election 46-42 with 12% voting third party. Today only 39% of independents approve of Trump, 50% disapprove and their disapprove number is growing. Without Clinton around to show their disapproval, it is beginning to come down on solely on Trump.

The far right had already declared Clinton as public enemy number one before Trump ever threw the first of his turds into the punchbowl.

The assassination was already scheduled long before she ever won a single primary.
 
The far right had already declared Clinton as public enemy number one before Trump ever threw the first of his turds into the punchbowl.

The assassination was already scheduled long before she ever won a single primary.

wow, what a very colorful metaphor.
 
I voted for Trump and he has been for the most part satisfactory. I don't regret for an instant voting for him. As for the crap you brought up most all of it is bunk and I don't care about it. I voted first and for most with my pocket book. So far it was the right call.

You hit on the reason we have such poor governance and so much debt, preaching to altar of greed always gets a lot of parishioners. I take it you have no children....
 
Of course you don't care. And in not caring you voted for a mad idiot.

Can you explain the pocketbook remark? I take it by that you make over $250K per year?

I did care that's why I voted the way I did and am in no way ashamed. Its not my problem that you don't care about what I care about.

I am a small business owner, Trumps election has so far been quite favorable to my pocket book. You don't need to net 250k to get a tailwind. The big money is spending money which means I am making money. By the way big business runs on medium to small business.
 
I did care that's why I voted the way I did and am in no way ashamed. Its not my problem that you don't care about what I care about.

I am a small business owner, Trumps election has so far been quite favorable to my pocket book. You don't need to net 250k to get a tailwind. The big money is spending money which means I am making money. By the way big business runs on medium to small business.

You already stated

I voted for Trump and he has been for the most part satisfactory. I don't regret for an instant voting for him. As for the crap you brought up most all of it is bunk and I don't care about it. I voted first and for most with my pocket book. So far it was the right call.

So you do not care about very serious things like the mental stability of Trump.... or the dishonesty of Trump ..... or the serious character flaws about Trump ..... or the actual record of Trump but you only care only if you can rationalize that somehow magically it was Trump who put a buck in your pocket.

Not exactly the definition of PATRIOTISM now is it?
 
Yes, but they did not run good candidate as their queen, so they get dinged for wanting a queen, and again for choosing Hillary, and again for not figuring out till many months after she lost just how bad she is at this, and again for not apologizing to the nation, and yet again for generally failing to learn .

If what Clinton supporters are saying on this site and what I have heard on TV, the Democrats still haven't realized they nominated a candidate unwanted or disliked by around 60% of America. They still are going around blaming everyone and everything except the main culprit for the loss.

But thinking everything is rosy is just as wrong for Trump supporters. Everything is far from rosy or even for the Republicans. Trump won for sure. Now he has to govern with an all Republican controlled congress in a way that satisfies America at large and not just his supporters. At least satisfied those in the middle, the center, center right and center left crowd which most independents all into that category. This remains to be seen.
 
The far right had already declared Clinton as public enemy number one before Trump ever threw the first of his turds into the punchbowl.

The assassination was already scheduled long before she ever won a single primary.

Blaming the far right for Clinton's defeat I think is wrong and also seems to me a failure to learn from the past. Anyone who follows politics knew Hillary was going to be the Democratic nominee going back to before the 2012 election even. Heck, she had 30 super delegates announce their support for her prior to the year turning to 2013. She had 300 plus in her corner before 2015 rolled around.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Hillary was the one. Nate Silver had at one time a list of all super delegates on his site and the date they confirmed their support for Hillary. She had close to 400 or maybe more before Sanders even decided to run as a democrat. I think the only reason Clinton was in the lead in most of the polls all though the campaign is the Republicans also picked their worst candidate to oppose her. That a Kasich or Rubio or almost anyone else would have beaten her by 10 points.

This election was unique, history has shown one doesn't vote for someone they dislike and voters disliked both of the two nominated candidates to the tune of 60% plus. There was no choice but to hold one's nose and vote for their least disliked candidate since both were unless one voted third party. Trump and Clinton were always in the negative, but Kasich, Rubio had positive numbers. More people like them than not. The complete opposite of Clinton and Trump. But these positive and negative numbers were for America as a whole, not just Republicans in Trump's case or Democrats in Clinton's.

I'm a firm believer in numbers and most of the time the candidate with the highest favorable numbers win. Gallup took it back to 1992 for every presidential election and that was the case until this one. But the one with the highest favorable number, 38% did win the popular vote. Until this election the candidate with the lowest favorable number was Barry Goldwater at 43% followed by G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46%.

One can look at 2016 as the least disliked, the least unwanted candidate won. 2016 wasn't about picking a candidate one wanted to win, it was all about choosing one that you least wanted to lose.
 
Blaming the far right for Clinton's defeat I think is wrong and also seems to me a failure to learn from the past. Anyone who follows politics knew Hillary was going to be the Democratic nominee going back to before the 2012 election even. Heck, she had 30 super delegates announce their support for her prior to the year turning to 2013. She had 300 plus in her corner before 2015 rolled around.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Hillary was the one. Nate Silver had at one time a list of all super delegates on his site and the date they confirmed their support for Hillary. She had close to 400 or maybe more before Sanders even decided to run as a democrat. I think the only reason Clinton was in the lead in most of the polls all though the campaign is the Republicans also picked their worst candidate to oppose her. That a Kasich or Rubio or almost anyone else would have beaten her by 10 points.

This election was unique, history has shown one doesn't vote for someone they dislike and voters disliked both of the two nominated candidates to the tune of 60% plus. There was no choice but to hold one's nose and vote for their least disliked candidate since both were unless one voted third party. Trump and Clinton were always in the negative, but Kasich, Rubio had positive numbers. More people like them than not. The complete opposite of Clinton and Trump. But these positive and negative numbers were for America as a whole, not just Republicans in Trump's case or Democrats in Clinton's.

I'm a firm believer in numbers and most of the time the candidate with the highest favorable numbers win. Gallup took it back to 1992 for every presidential election and that was the case until this one. But the one with the highest favorable number, 38% did win the popular vote. Until this election the candidate with the lowest favorable number was Barry Goldwater at 43% followed by G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46%.

One can look at 2016 as the least disliked, the least unwanted candidate won. 2016 wasn't about picking a candidate one wanted to win, it was all about choosing one that you least wanted to lose.

If you do not like the super delegate system which is totally apart from any expression of primary voter support - count me in with you. When I was a convention delegate in 1972 for McGovern in Miami, every party office holder and official had to compete against normal citizens for a convention spot. That would be the ideal way to do it.

Now if you want guaranteed spots for office holders, perhaps they should be reflective of the primary vote in that state. In other words, if your state has 20 super delegates who are office holders and the vote was split 50% for Sanders and 50% for Clinton in the primary - then they should each have ten pledged to them.

One reason Clinton was so hated was a many year campaign from the right wing to demonize her and tell the world she was the most evil corrupt bitch since the Wicked Queen peddled apples in Snow White. To not consider that is simply to not consider reality.

Yes - Clinton was not a good candidate and yes she had flaws and weaknesses which were exploited. And that hurt her. But the gut level hatred for Clinton on the right was manufactured and grown by the far right hate machine.

And even with all that, she still got 2.8 million more voters to vote for her than Trump.
 
I voted for Trump, and given the alternative, I don't regret my vote. Why should I? Because you hate him? That's not a good enough reason.

*thread*

The left doesn't understand their own responsibility in trump getting elected. I didn't vote for Trump, but I also didn't vote for HRC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you do not like the super delegate system which is totally apart from any expression of primary voter support - count me in with you. When I was a convention delegate in 1972 for McGovern in Miami, every party office holder and official had to compete against normal citizens for a convention spot. That would be the ideal way to do it.

Now if you want guaranteed spots for office holders, perhaps they should be reflective of the primary vote in that state. In other words, if your state has 20 super delegates who are office holders and the vote was split 50% for Sanders and 50% for Clinton in the primary - then they should each have ten pledged to them.

One reason Clinton was so hated was a many year campaign from the right wing to demonize her and tell the world she was the most evil corrupt bitch since the Wicked Queen peddled apples in Snow White. To not consider that is simply to not consider reality.

Yes - Clinton was not a good candidate and yes she had flaws and weaknesses which were exploited. And that hurt her. But the gut level hatred for Clinton on the right was manufactured and grown by the far right hate machine.

And even with all that, she still got 2.8 million more voters to vote for her than Trump.

Being I'm not a Republican or Democrat I really don't care how they select their nominees. That doesn't mean I was totally disappointed that they chose Trump and Clinton. The only two I could never vote for in the whole fields of both parties. When I mentioned super delegates, it was to show that Hillary Clinton was chosen as the Democratic candidate as far back as 2012 by the democratic party establishment or whatever one wants to call them. Bosses if you will and from that time on they worked to ensure nothing went wrong with her nomination.

I sat and watched both parties demonize the other other parties candidates. Last year's election was purely personal with a ton of mud slinging with little facts or truths. It was a hate filled election. The idea I suppose was to get the voter to hate the other candidate more than they hated yours. Ideas, solutions to problems, visions of where one wanted to take America need not apply. It was personal, not substance. I hated it.

Now I have been turned off by both major political parties since around 1990. Too much of putting the good of the political party over the good of the country. It's loyalty to party and not to the nation. The polarization in Washington today is the result of exactly that. No one in Washington asks anymore if this is good or bad for the country, it is if a Republican proposes something, all Democrats are against it. If a Democrat proposes something, all Republicans are against it. Who cares anymore about the country as a whole? It's all about the R and the D. It sucks.

1972 huh, I was in Vietnam them. That is back in an era where there was very little straight party line voting. Back in an era where our elected officials were more contemplative. Back when the Democratic Party which had been known as the big tent party was throwing off the tent. Back in an era when 45-50% of the electorate identified themselves or affiliated themselves with the Democratic Party. Today only 30% identify with the Democratic Party if Gallup is to be believed.

FYI, I first became interested in politics watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV back in 1956. I liked IKE and still think he was the best president in my life time.
 
You already stated



So you do not care about very serious things like the mental stability of Trump.... or the dishonesty of Trump ..... or the serious character flaws about Trump ..... or the actual record of Trump but you only care only if you can rationalize that somehow magically it was Trump who put a buck in your pocket.

Not exactly the definition of PATRIOTISM now is it?

Patriotism???:lamo Please. I lost that bit of delusion a long time ago in a sandbox far away. I am no patriot. Not after what I have seen and experienced. That's pabulum to be fed to some sucker to go die for their country in some far off ****hole for no better reason than some jackasses poll numbers.

You have been rambling on about fluff and filler, character flaws, honesty, record all of which are quite frankly far better than Clinton IMHO. You make it seem as though Trump is the Devil or Satan or Lucifer. He's not. Never has been. Clinton had her share of flaws and track record as well, and they spoke for themselves quite loudly I might add. I made my decision. I am quite comfortable it was the RIGHT one for ME. Not you. Me. I did not consider you at all. Like I said I don't care about the stuff you do or care about. I care about stuff that interests me. My pocketbook being the major interest.
 
Being I'm not a Republican or Democrat I really don't care how they select their nominees. That doesn't mean I was totally disappointed that they chose Trump and Clinton. The only two I could never vote for in the whole fields of both parties. When I mentioned super delegates, it was to show that Hillary Clinton was chosen as the Democratic candidate as far back as 2012 by the democratic party establishment or whatever one wants to call them. Bosses if you will and from that time on they worked to ensure nothing went wrong with her nomination.

I sat and watched both parties demonize the other other parties candidates. Last year's election was purely personal with a ton of mud slinging with little facts or truths. It was a hate filled election. The idea I suppose was to get the voter to hate the other candidate more than they hated yours. Ideas, solutions to problems, visions of where one wanted to take America need not apply. It was personal, not substance. I hated it.

Now I have been turned off by both major political parties since around 1990. Too much of putting the good of the political party over the good of the country. It's loyalty to party and not to the nation. The polarization in Washington today is the result of exactly that. No one in Washington asks anymore if this is good or bad for the country, it is if a Republican proposes something, all Democrats are against it. If a Democrat proposes something, all Republicans are against it. Who cares anymore about the country as a whole? It's all about the R and the D. It sucks.

1972 huh, I was in Vietnam them. That is back in an era where there was very little straight party line voting. Back in an era where our elected officials were more contemplative. Back when the Democratic Party which had been known as the big tent party was throwing off the tent. Back in an era when 45-50% of the electorate identified themselves or affiliated themselves with the Democratic Party. Today only 30% identify with the Democratic Party if Gallup is to be believed.

FYI, I first became interested in politics watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV back in 1956. I liked IKE and still think he was the best president in my life time.

IKE was besides Coolidge and Reagan one the top three presidents of the 20th century.
 
Patriotism???:lamo Please. I lost that bit of delusion a long time ago in a sandbox far away. I am no patriot.

Nothing more needs to be said to you or with you then regarding important issues impacting the USA and our people.
 
IKE was besides Coolidge and Reagan one the top three presidents of the 20th century.

Silent Cal, now that is one I would have never considered as a top 3. But something has to be said that at times doing nothing is a lot better than doing something. Perhaps that is what we need now. A president that lets things settle down, that corrects what is and doesn't try to change the world with a ton of new programs.

Perhaps the problem is we view and rate presidents on them being very active, proposing and doing a lot of things, legislation, actions around the globe. But I do think there are times when the better president realizes it is time to consolidate, to slow things down. Give the American people time to adjust to what is and to take in long deep breaths or at least get their breath back instead of running sprints all through congress. To relax a bit.

Interesting choice of Silent Cal.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...s-remorse-but-some-hillary-clinton-voters-do/



Interesting...

(Finally found a link that Trumpeteers won't tell at me about)

Well, Hillary did lose, so it makes sense to wish Sanders had won the nomination.

But President Trump is turning out to be the most impotent, corrupt, ignorant fool we've ever elected to disgrace the office. So we got this comedy gold mine to enjoy while we wait for WW3 under the hands of the malignant narcissist elected by the most racist voting bloc in five decades.
 
She did not have Putin and his army of trolls and hackers. That gave Trump the advantage.

assuming facts not in evidence.

The Hillary campaign had a fawning media that hated Trump with a passion and fluffed Hillary constantly
 
Well, Hillary did lose, so it makes sense to wish Sanders had won the nomination.

But President Trump is turning out to be the most impotent, corrupt, ignorant fool we've ever elected to disgrace the office. So we got this comedy gold mine to enjoy while we wait for WW3 under the hands of the malignant narcissist elected by the most racist voting bloc in five decades.

hyperbolic much there dude?
 
If the election were held today (or 4/20, the day of that poll) - of the people in total who answered the question, the results are:

Clinton beats trump 41 to 37.

cool story bro but I fail to see that it has any relevance to anything that matters
 
cool story bro but I fail to see that it has any relevance to anything that matters

Without a doubt....you fail.

I was addressing the OP which cites "were the 2016 election held again today, it shows Trump would avenge his popular-vote loss. "

Did you miss that?
 
Without a doubt....you fail.

I was addressing the OP which cites "were the 2016 election held again today, it shows Trump would avenge his popular-vote loss. "

Did you miss that?

so you are saying that poll disproves the op premise?
 
2. On that poll, Trump tweeted yesterday: "New polls out today are very good considering that much of the media is FAKE and almost always negative. Would still beat Hillary in popular vote. "

Unbelievable. Trump is STILL going on about election & thinks he would "still" beat Clinton in popular vote.
 
2. On that poll, Trump tweeted yesterday: "New polls out today are very good considering that much of the media is FAKE and almost always negative. Would still beat Hillary in popular vote. "

Unbelievable. Trump is STILL going on about election & thinks he would "still" beat Clinton in popular vote.

it must be tough knowing that for the next four years-at least- that Hillary is not the president.
 
Back
Top Bottom