• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Insight into Trump's base

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
What I think is most interesting about these stories is that a large number of his supporters know he is lying to them and have no expectations of him actually bringing those jobs back. It's purely an emotional/cultural appeal where they vote for the person they feel represents them emotionally as opposed to the person who is actually going to help them.

I'll have to find the link, but heard of a study of how voters make decisions. Logical would of course be something like "who represents things I believe". Perhaps not surprising, but what they found however was that people find a person/personality they like, then ascribe their own values/policies to that person! (whether that true or not). I mean, that's literally insane. Why I find the term "reasonable political debate" a pointless pipe-dream. It's a mistake to argue about policies, when that's not what people base their voting decisions on in the first place. For whatever reason people liked Trump's "i'm a raging asshole who hate the people you hate" personality, and no matter what his politics were they'd support him. Like you said I don't think coal had anything to do with it.
 
Even more of the same proving that the same ideology exists no matter where his supporters live.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/news/economy/beattyville-kentucky-trump-voters/index.html

What's so crazy about these is that all they seem to care about is jobs (i.e. not the usual abortion and guns issues). Yet all the needed to know was that Trump said he'd bring jobs back? Did they ask how? What would he do? What kind of jobs? Far as I know Hillary probably said she's bring jobs too (they all do). So why did they believe him but not her? What was so special about trump's job promises? A grade-schooler could tell you he has no understanding of economics, and he gave no concrete plans. So why do these people seem to (still!) believe him?
 
What's so crazy about these is that all they seem to care about is jobs (i.e. not the usual abortion and guns issues). Yet all the needed to know was that Trump said he'd bring jobs back? Did they ask how? What would he do? What kind of jobs? Far as I know Hillary probably said she's bring jobs too (they all do). So why did they believe him but not her? What was so special about trump's job promises? A grade-schooler could tell you he has no understanding of economics, and he gave no concrete plans. So why do these people seem to (still!) believe him?
Funny thing is that if they'd just pay attention to what Trump says versus what he does they'd already know that he's a habitual liar and doesn't give a damn about American jobs. Just look at how he conducts his own personal businesses. He outsources materials to offshore suppliers and deliberately hires low wage foreign workers to staff them.

How blatant does it all need to be for these people?😱
 
Normally our resident Libtards don't even need that many to make generalized statements. Surprised that racist and xenophobe wasn't mentioned but it seems that calling people pedophiles is the new Libtard insult.

yeah, earning such generalizations are never the fault of the people that proudly support racists, xenophobes, and now pedophiles. Who knew!?
 
yeah, earning such generalizations are never the fault of the people that proudly support racists, xenophobes, and now pedophiles. Who knew!?

I guess when calling someone a racists and phobe doesn't work add the unfounded claim of pedophilia. If the Democrat world is convinced that Moore really did touch a 14 year girl, why aren't they going 110% in the MSM and the rest of the country for him to face charges? Why are we only seeing stories about the backslapping and the congrats on getting the minority vote to step up and how the GOP party just self destructed? If by Monday yearbookgate is still in the news, color me shocked.
 
I guess when calling someone a racists and phobe doesn't work add the unfounded claim of pedophilia. If the Democrat world is convinced that Moore really did touch a 14 year girl, why aren't they going 110% in the MSM and the rest of the country for him to face charges? Why are we only seeing stories about the backslapping and the congrats on getting the minority vote to step up and how the GOP party just self destructed? If by Monday yearbookgate is still in the news, color me shocked.

Statute of limitations, genius.
 
You'll feel differently when some 32 year old guy is messaging your 14 year old daughter for dates.
In light of all the inbreeding and incest a lot of people in Alabama apparently view a 35 year old stranger trying to get in 14 year old daughters pants is preferable to someone with the same last name.
 
I wonder if intensive organic gardening of high quality produce, etc. combined with a massive network of solar powered pneumatic faster than sound trains couldn't make rural life very livable for even low education people. Imagine being able to live 350 miles away and get home in the time it would take to commute to a house in the suburbs.
 
Alabama doesn't have a SOL for kid touching. Try a little research. So stop parroting your standard excuse on why the Dems don't really care to pursue charges against Moore.

By all means prosecute the fucker if possible. Be specific about what Dems don't want to pursue charges against Moore if they can. Where has this been stated as a position?
 
I just don't see that happening. For one, these mines are pretty much superfund sites. People aren't flocking to leveled mountains and holes filled with toxic sludge, that is almost certainly poisoning the groundwater (so have fun growing crops and getting good drinking water). And that's if they aren't also being fracked to hell and back.

Unless someone comes along and makes a massively profitable business cleaning up these types of situations, there's just nothing there to gentrify, and these places can't sustain much else.

I don't see anything putting a stop to the move to population centers. Once factory farming starts taking off, it'll further limit what rural areas can sustain.



Silicon Valley got its start well before that, and you have it backwards. The professionals were there before the creative types. I'd actually say that's been true of all of those areas. The professionals brought money, which brought creative types (despite the poor starving artist trope, artists actually end up near where the wealth is to try and sell to them). There's been a back and forth some (i.e. the creatives take over some of the delipidated city areas, which then professionals start to gentrify) some, but you need the money there first. Plus, especially these days, where there's a lot of overlap between what was traditionally "creative type" and "professional type". Which I assume your overall point is that they should be trying to woo these younger "startup" types.

Actually with regards to the picture, wasn't the issue just that they were moving from the city proper and out to the fringe areas? So say from Seattle to places like Redmond? The population growth eventually led back to the city (granted it did take active work to improve the city to revitalize the city proper, but its not like they were flocking from the city to middle of nowhere like they'd have to do to revitalize these dying rural areas).

The other thing is, they're behind the times there too. Lots of places have already been doing that. Phoenix, Salt Lake City, North Carolina (not sure specific area), Austin, they've already been courting that stuff and corporations for decades. Basically people will consider smaller cities, but I don't see them going to these really rural areas. Those places are basically selling out for factory work (which makes them beholden to the whims of a company) or dying (sometimes they do the former only for the factory to leave and then they die).

Living in a superfund site is actually not a major issue for tech workers, since Silicon Valley is a giant superfund site anyways:
https://qz.com/1017181/silicon-vall...ites-in-santa-clara-than-any-other-us-county/
 
Same was said about urban centers 20-30 years ago, but now they are hot property with young people flocking to them.
lastpersonleavingseattle_31.jpg

You have to follow the young creative types. They move to a poor area, make it cool and apparently safe, then professionals follow them, make it expensive, then creative types get priced out, and move to another area, and the cycle starts over. It takes time, but the major current centers like Silicon Valley, Seattle, LA, are in the process of peaking and pricing out young creative talent. They are going to move somewhere. Probably first wave won't be to Trump country, but once they gentrify and price out Portland, Denver, and other second tier cities, and old geezers in Trump country die off, there may very well be a wave of revival there.


LA still has plenty of affordable housing. SFC and Silicon valley have much lower housing density and refuse to rezone any of it so they are the ones with the 1+ hr commutes. If you are commuting 1 hour to LA because you can't afford housing you are being "priced out" because you have no income.
 
Alabama doesn't have a SOL for kid touching. Try a little research. So stop parroting your standard excuse on why the Dems don't really care to pursue charges against Moore.

News to me. If what you say is true, he should absolutely be charged and prosecuted. However, It seems somewhat pointless in Alabama where apparently this kind of behavior is pretty normal. I am VERY upset that he isn't behind bars where he belongs.
 
I guess when calling someone a racists and phobe doesn't work add the unfounded claim of pedophilia. If the Democrat world is convinced that Moore really did touch a 14 year girl, why aren't they going 110% in the MSM and the rest of the country for him to face charges? Why are we only seeing stories about the backslapping and the congrats on getting the minority vote to step up and how the GOP party just self destructed? If by Monday yearbookgate is still in the news, color me shocked.

Here boy! Go get Clinton! Go get him, boy! You know you wanna! That'sagoodboy!
 
What does that mean? Can he be charged or not?

As I understand it the law was changed after the statute of limitations time frame for this type of crime had expired for the alleged offense.

That's awkwardly phrased but I'm no lawyer so...but, based on what I've read, no, the present law can't be applied retroactively.
 
As I understand it the law was changed after the statute of limitations time frame for this type of crime had expired for the alleged offense.

That's awkwardly phrased but I'm no lawyer so...but, based on what I've read, no, the present law can't be applied retroactively.

Well we can all hope that Roy files the defamation suit that he was threatening. The chances of that are around 0%. Brandon is right that Roy is getting off easy. He did substantial lifelong damage to several different girls and in a moral world he would pay for those crimes with some time behind bars.
 
Last edited:
Alabama doesn't have a SOL for kid touching. Try a little research. So stop parroting your standard excuse on why the Dems don't really care to pursue charges against Moore.

Yes, try a little research. There was a statute of limitations at the time of the offense, which is what matters.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_could_alabama_senate_1.html

What’s funny is that I strongly suspect you are just parroting this off of some right wing site. Lol.
 
Back
Top