They Do This to Every Republican.

[Blueskye2]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

See, there you go again, pretending Republicans are the catalyst for corruption, and that Democrats are magically immune.  This is the biggest problem I have with Democrats. Rather than own their own corruption, they deflect, as if Olly North's actions decades ago somehow makes Hillary's actions non-factual.  They are, and not only that, they are far worse than North's.

Ditto for me, a problem with both parties. 

It's Republicans who are deflecting. I've been trying to figure out for months why Trump is so popular. Why should anyone vote for him.  Why should I vote for him? Because HRC is a terrible person. That is the most common answer. As though Trump is not. And then. Get a litany of Democrats did this, this, this. Selective memory, and I'm just bringing up these other memories that seem to be forgotten. Deflection from the Republican Party and their garbage. Period. How many people have to die for someone to be considered worse than Clinton?? Seriously?

Trump supporters here have made it a little clearer why they support him. There's a pocket of anarchists. Fine, but these anarchists are temporary anarchists, and haven't seemed to have thought ahead. Still, only get a reason of  HRC can't win because she's the done this, this, this. 

I'm so sick of playing the game of vote for someone because they stink less than the other candidate. Super especially done with vote one particular party because the other one is corrupt. They are both corrupt and have been for a long time, is my point. Arguments for Trump are all, because he smells better than Clinton. Or because the DNC is sketchy as heck. Sorry to break it to you, so is the Republican Party. These are NOT reasons for me to vote for Trump. 

I'm not asking Trump supporters why I should not vote for Clinton. I'm asking why I should vote FOR Trump  

I have objective guidelines I'm going by here. One, I ask the question, who will do the most good? Morally bankrupt persons or parties will do the least good.  It seems prudent for me, at this point, to vote third party. The two major parties are both, morally bankrupt. I'm almost going with morally depraved, but I find it depressing to go there. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Blueskye2

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

I'm so sick of playing the game of vote for someone because they stink less than the other candidate. Super especially done with vote one particular party because the other one is corrupt. They are both corrupt and have been for a long time, is my point. Arguments for Trump are all, because he smells better than Clinton. Or because the DNC is sketchy as heck. Sorry to break it to you, so is the Republican Party. These are NOT reasons for me to vote for Trump. 

I'm not asking Trump supporters why I should not vote for Clinton. I'm asking why I should vote FOR Trump 

I gave you 2 reasons why I support Trump on another thread... those are not my only reasons but those 2 are the most important.

The thing about normal everyday democratic (small d) people though is that they instinctively know what is good governance.  The problem is, they may not be able to define it.  It's like saying, I don't feel good.  You know something is wrong, and if you have to put a name to it you kinda say... my stomach hurts, my head hurts, it might be because I didn't have breakfast.  You can't point to something that makes sense so you throw your hands up and say, I just know something needs to change!  But somebody who knows the innards of physiology can say, it is because the change in season has lowered his vitamin D level which made the death of his pet fish affect him more than it should have so to fix it he needs to take D supplements or sit by a sunny window... or something.

So, you might see all these passionate people supporting Trump and the best way they can describe why is that they're angry.  Whereas, someone who has experience in the political underbelly can point to exactly why the word angry is the word that seem to make sense.  And the thing that makes the most sense for them is that Clinton represents the status quo that is causing that angry feeling.  Trump is the change agent.  They can't explain accurately what kind of change is needed (they bungle through an explanation about immigration and economy, etc.) but they can explain that it hurts right now.

This is a completely valid and acceptable reason for one's vote.  A 3rd party vote, of course, doesn't cause things to change.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by anatess2

[bytebear]

I would say, if you really want an exposure of the D/R corruption, you vote for the outsider.  Hillary is eyeball high in corruption, and is probably the most blatant at being unable to hide her corruption.  The media is right there along with her. And i agree there is a clear movement to turn the world into a global government, and the US just another player.  But to do that, you have to destroy what has made America unique and great.  We are actually talking about censoring "hate speech" and punishing those who mock sacred cows?  When did our freedom of speech come with limitations based on offensiveness?   I see these calls for censorship on college campuses, but I also notice a single trend.  All of the sacred cows also happen to be voting blocs of the Democratic party.  The sad truth is, the progressive movement, while chiding us for being offensive to Muslims, Hispanics and gays has no problem being offensive to Catholics, Christians and Mormons.  You won't see posters telling people that dressing up like missionaries is wrong.  And in fact, you will see it praised.  Selective outrage is simply a tool of cultural Marxism, and that is why Trump is popular.  People are tired of it. 

[yjacket]

31 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I would say, if you really want an exposure of the D/R corruption, you vote for the outsider.  Hillary is eyeball high in corruption, and is probably the most blatant at being unable to hide her corruption.  The media is right there along with her. And i agree there is a clear movement to turn the world into a global government, and the US just another player.  But to do that, you have to destroy what has made America unique and great.  We are actually talking about censoring "hate speech" and punishing those who mock sacred cows?  When did our freedom of speech come with limitations based on offensiveness?   I see these calls for censorship on college campuses, but I also notice a single trend.  All of the sacred cows also happen to be voting blocs of the Democratic party.  The sad truth is, the progressive movement, while chiding us for being offensive to Muslims, Hispanics and gays has no problem being offensive to Catholics, Christians and Mormons.  You won't see posters telling people that dressing up like missionaries is wrong.  And in fact, you will see it praised.  Selective outrage is simply a tool of cultural Marxism, and that is why Trump is popular.  People are tired of it. 

Exactly.  Wake up and smell the coffee folks! We just had a release of the Church's response to the Committee on Civil Rights.  Quite frankly . . .what the devil. . . is in that report? Church's are a veneer for discrimination? Really, you write that in an official government documentation?  Then you get stories like the below?  People know that offering a bribe (especially in government) is illegal.  Why would an under-Secretary risk bribing an FBI officer over stupid e-mails?  Risk going to jail literally over a blasted e-mail? That makes no sense, none, none whatsoever.  I feel like I'm in lalalalal land. It shouldn't be #NeverTrump, it should be #StopTheTakeover.  

Folks, I am terrified.  If I just step back, evaluate this from a 30,000 foot view and think, think. . . just think folks, the stuff we are seeing is the stuff of movies of downright really scary crap.  Just add it up.  What the heck is going on?

Why would you promote Trump? Why would you use private e-mails servers to communicate back and forth with each other using pseudonyms? I need someone to walk me back from the ledge. 3 weeks and I can say it's all a bad, bad dream.  Come on people, please I am begging you walk me back from the ledge here. I need it for my sanity.

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by yjacket

[Blueskye2]

15 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I gave you 2 reasons why I support Trump on another thread... those are not my only reasons but those 2 are the most important.

The thing about normal everyday democratic (small d) people though is that they instinctively know what is good governance.  The problem is, they may not be able to define it.  It's like saying, I don't feel good.  You know something is wrong, and if you have to put a name to it you kinda say... my stomach hurts, my head hurts, it might be because I didn't have breakfast.  You can't point to something that makes sense so you throw your hands up and say, I just know something needs to change!  But somebody who knows the innards of physiology can say, it is because the change in season has lowered his vitamin D level which made the death of his pet fish affect him more than it should have so to fix it he needs to take D supplements or sit by a sunny window... or something.

So, you might see all these passionate people supporting Trump and the best way they can describe why is that they're angry.  Whereas, someone who has experience in the political underbelly can point to exactly why the word angry is the word that seem to make sense.  And the thing that makes the most sense for them is that Clinton represents the status quo that is causing that angry feeling.  Trump is the change agent.  They can't explain accurately what kind of change is needed (they bungle through an explanation about immigration and economy, etc.) but they can explain that it hurts right now.

This is a completely valid and acceptable reason for one's vote.  A 3rd party vote, of course, doesn't cause things to change.

 

 

Yes, I saw your replies.  The temporary anarchists that have no plan for Nov. 9 and beyond. I also think a lot of Trump supporters are star struck.

Also, you said that Trump supporters are not thinking emotionally. If that is so then supporting Trump should be able to be explained rationally. Right?

Have you looked at any of the third party candidates? They are all for change, but they are also kind of, well, cuckoo. At least that is what I've seen in Stein and Johnson. If you want outsiders, they definitely are out there. I'm still checking out more. (There are more than I knew about.)

Edited October 18, 2016 by Blueskye2

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Yes, I saw your replies.  The temporary anarchists that have no plan for Nov. 9 and beyond. I also think a lot of Trump supporters are star struck.

Also, you said that Trump supporters are not thinking emotionally. If that is so then supporting Trump should be able to be explained rationally. Right?

Have you looked at any of the third party candidates? They are all for change, but they are also kind of, well, cuckoo. At least that is what I've seen in Stein and Johnson. If you want outsiders, they definitely are out there. I'm still checking out more. (There are more than I knew about.)

Are you sure you read my post?  I don't, for one minute, believe Trump supporters are temporary anarchist.  To me that's an insult much in the vein of Hillary's Deplorables.  I gave you 2 very substantive reasons why Trump is the better candidate. 

Yes, I have looked at the 3rd party candidates.  First of all, the only reason I would support a candidate that has zero chance to become President is so that I can help advance their platform in governance.  Now, if that 3rd party candidate's platform that is important to me is already carried by the 2 major parties then there is no reason for me to support the 3rd party.

1.)  Gary Johnson - he is running for the libertarian party but he is not much of a libertarian.  Now, the main reason I would support a libertarian candidate is so that the libertarian principle of small government (absent in Republican and Democratic platforms even when Republicans pay lip service to it) can be advanced.  Well, Gary Johnson is one libertarian whose governance does not conform to the tenets of small government.  Now, one thing I disagree with the libertarian principles is national security.  So, I would be fine with Gary Johnson veering from the libertarians on this one.  But no... Gary Johnson is so libertarian on national security he doesn't even know what Aleppo is.

2.) Jill Stein - the platform of the Green Party does not align with my principles of governance.

3.) Evan McMullin - Romney puppet.  He has no platform except as a protest run against Trump.  So, his platform is a copy of the establishment Republican platform - the pre-Trump Republican platform... the same platform that has failed under the Bush administration.  Trump's position on foreign policy and the economy is closer to my idea of governance than the e-GOP.

 

 

[Blueskye2]

On 10/18/2016 at 8:55 AM, anatess2 said:

Are you sure you read my post?  I don't, for one minute, believe Trump supporters are temporary anarchist.  To me that's an insult much in the vein of Hillary's Deplorables.  I gave you 2 very substantive reasons why Trump is the better candidate. 

Yes, I have looked at the 3rd party candidates.  First of all, the only reason I would support a candidate that has zero chance to become President is so that I can help advance their platform in governance.  Now, if that 3rd party candidate's platform that is important to me is already carried by the 2 major parties then there is no reason for me to support the 3rd party.

1.)  Gary Johnson - he is running for the libertarian party but he is not much of a libertarian.  Now, the main reason I would support a libertarian candidate is so that the libertarian principle of small government (absent in Republican and Democratic platforms even when Republicans pay lip service to it) can be advanced.  Well, Gary Johnson is one libertarian whose governance does not conform to the tenets of small government.  Now, one thing I disagree with the libertarian principles is national security.  So, I would be fine with Gary Johnson veering from the libertarians on this one.  But no... Gary Johnson is so libertarian on national security he doesn't even know what Aleppo is.

2.) Jill Stein - the platform of the Green Party does not align with my principles of governance.

3.) Evan McMullin - Romney puppet.  He has no platform except as a protest run against Trump.  So, his platform is a copy of the establishment Republican platform - the pre-Trump Republican platform... the same platform that has failed under the Bush administration.  Trump's position on foreign policy and the economy is closer to my idea of governance than the e-GOP.

 

 

Nah, anarchists aren't necessarily deplorable. 

The arguments for Trump are based on a cultivated celebrity persona. Which is why I said I think there is a starstruck factor in the support for him. It is normal for people to think they know all about someone, when that someone is a celebrity, when what they know is a character that is performed. 

That is what I see in Trump and it's confirmed even more when digging deeper into his past, in how he does business and how he interacts people.

Honestly he has a long history of treating people as deplorable. He's a joke and it's a big joke that he even ran for president let alone that he is the nominee. I really don't see how this is not obvious to Trump supporters. I don't think it is stupidity...I just really don't get it.   

[NeuroTypical]

Huh.  I personally know an anarchist.  He was one of the co-authors of the anarchist faq back in the '90's.  He utterly despises Trump, thinking of him as an unhinged fascist that promised to gather up millions of muslims at gunpoint and encouraged violence by his idiot fans.

But anarchists seem to be very, very, very sensitive to anything resembling drawing a circle around them.  They refuse to be defined as a group, and they refuse to unify.  Rather, they're all about organizing groups of similarly-minded people to accomplish temporary mutually-held goals.  (Which is why they'll never win anything, ever.  They may form a team, but it'll disband on principle if someone threatens to form a league.)

Edited October 20, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 an unhinged fascist

Those are my thoughts of him too. Mussolini hawking snake oil to the gullible. 

[Blueskye2]

On 10/19/2016 at 6:37 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Huh.  I personally know an anarchist.  He was one of the co-authors of the anarchist faq back in the '90's.  He utterly despises Trump, thinking of him as an unhinged fascist that promised to gather up millions of muslims at gunpoint and encouraged violence by his idiot fans.

But anarchists seem to be very, very, very sensitive to anything resembling drawing a circle around them.  They refuse to be defined as a group, and they refuse to unify.  Rather, they're all about organizing groups of similarly-minded people to accomplish temporary mutually-held goals.  (Which is why they'll never win anything, ever.  They may form a team, but it'll disband on principle if someone threatens to form a league.)

I can agree with Trump being a fascists. His supporters, however, find hope in the destructionism that is Trump's platform.

[Guest]

On 10/14/2016 at 7:09 PM, yjacket said:

I personally think the only thing that will save us will be the 2nd Coming; but I definitely hope more people will take solace in religion.

On 10/17/2016 at 8:47 AM, yjacket said:

Quite frankly, if I have the choice between the end of the Republic and someone who has stolen kisses and who may sexual assault women.  I will 100% take the sexual predator over the end of the Republic every day of the week.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two comments.

If the only thing that will save us is the 2nd Coming, then why would you vote for anyone that you find to be morally bankrupt?  Why for any reason?  If the 2nd coming is what will save us, then prepare for it by doing the right thing no matter what the outcome.

Quote

Do what is right; let the consequence follow.

 

[Blackmarch]

On October 14, 2016 at 5:51 PM, bytebear said:

There is clearly a double standard when it comes to the infidelities of Democrats vs. Republicans.  Frankly, I am surprised they didn't try to smear Romney, although I am sure they tried to find something.  That's far more telling about Romney really, since you should live a life so that if you are accused of wrong doing, your character will win out.  Trump is taking heat because it's probably true that he was a masher.  But I do find it hard to swallow the notion that some random woman comes forward after 30 years to complain about his behavior.   And for the NYTimes to actually run with this story as if it has even an ounce of verifiability, just tells me the deep dishonesty of the media.  Journalism is dead. 

They did. It was his dog and the company he rescued that they used. He was too airtight regarding his marital fidelity.

[Blackmarch]

On October 14, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I think they're just frustrated at all the apparent cheating on the other side, to the point that they are willing throw the old rule book away.  That's understandable--if you have thought long and hard about what the new rules will be.

They havent thought long and hard on that. But considering all the cheating going it is awfully tempting.