So why did Donald Trump win? Flipside to the Clinton/lose thread

[SP33Demon]

exactly.
people still claiming she STOLE it from Sander's only serves to prove my point.

Sander's people are as bad as Trumps 'deplorables.' The hard left abandoned the effort because they got butt hurt that Sander's lost.

The hard left abandoned their party because of wikileaks. Don't shift the blame here, hard evidence came out that HRC was colluding with the DNC and the Sanders supporters weren't having that shit. So they pivoted to the other populist candidate which conveniently killed the 2nd bird (the person who cheated their guy out of the nomination) with one stone. And ironically Wisconsin (and parts of OH/PA) was the Rust belt state that tipped the election to Trump by flipping a blue stronghold state.

Hillary and her campaign only have themselves to blame. Run a corrupt-free campaign and she wins, it's that simple.

 

[tynopik]

liberals today: "I hate those fucking idiot midwesterners, intolerant Christians, xenophobic boomers and evil white men. Why can't they see that we are the party of tolerance and love and inclusion?"

they seriously do not see the contradiction in their words, and that is the problem

 

[nakedfrog]

like I said, low voter turnout.

I just hope the DNC learns a lesson from this if they want to win next time around.

 

[fskimospy]

The collaboration of the DNC with strongly favoring Clinton WELL deserves to be called "stealing". Cheezus Christ we had that debate months ago already. It's not surprising that ultimately more people voted Clinton. THIS WAS THEIR INTENT.

Are you seriously arguing that millions of additional people voted for Clinton because of the DNC? What, because a debate was scheduled on a Saturday? Seriously?

What actions did they take that led to Sanders losing by millions, specifically?

 

[fskimospy]

liberals today: "I hate those fucking idiot midwesterners, intolerant Christians, xenophobic boomers and evil white men. Why can't they see that we are the party of tolerance and love and inclusion?"

they seriously do not see the contradiction in their words, and that is the problem

You are making the age old 'If you hate bigots you're a bigot' argument. It's no better now than it's ever been.

 

[flexy]

T

 

[tynopik]

You are making the age old 'If you hate bigots you're a bigot' argument. It's no better now than it's ever been.

you're making the mistake of assuming that people who disagree with you are bigots

 

[nageov3t]

liberals today: "I hate those fucking idiot midwesterners, intolerant Christians, xenophobic boomers and evil white men. Why can't they see that we are the party of tolerance and love and inclusion?"

they seriously do not see the contradiction in their words, and that is the problem

I mean, how tolerant am I supposed to be towards people who think it should be illegal for me to get married and who want to take my friends' health insurance away?

 

[Zaap]

You are making the age old 'If you hate bigots you're a bigot' argument. It's no better now than it's ever been.

And you're missing his point by miles.

Everyone you label as a bigot and therefore hate (your word, ironic) isn't automatically a bigot and your list of who these 'bigots' are keeps expanding everytime people don't fall in line with whatever progressives demand.

If you're doing all this hating (again your word) because all these other groups don't think and act 'correctly' according to you, maybe its time for some introspection into who is actually being bigotted.

(Don't worry I know you and other progressives actually won't do that.. you'll just add a few more labels to your bigot list and pat yourselves on the back again.)

 

[SP33Demon]

Are you seriously arguing that millions of additional people voted for Clinton because of the DNC? What, because a debate was scheduled on a Saturday? Seriously?

What actions did they take that led to Sanders losing by millions, specifically?

Wikileaks which were verified to be true via google DKIM digital keys. Do you live under a fucking rock?

 

[fskimospy]

Wikileaks which were verified to be true via google DKIM digital keys. Do you live under a fucking rock?

I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post.

 

[SP33Demon]

I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post.

You asked what actions they took to have sanders losing by the millions. Read wikileaks on the expansive collusion to fuck Bernie over. No it wasn't just the debates but it involved illegal election strategy (see DWS and Nevada and denigrating Bernie for his religion and releasing hit pieces via MSM) since the DNC was supposed to be neutral. It was a concerted effort to disenfranchise him and yes, that could have been worth millions of votes had it not happened.

 

[fskimospy]

You asked what actions they took to have sanders losing by the millions. Read wikileaks on the expansive collusion to fuck Bernie over. No it wasn't just the debates but it involved illegal election strategy (see DWS and Nevada and denigrating Bernie for his religion and releasing hit pieces via MSM) since the DNC was supposed to be neutral. It was a concerted effort to disenfranchise him and yes, that could have been worth millions of votes had it not happened.

Uhmm, denigrating Bernie for his religion never happened. One person brought it up and then they didn't do it. Have you even read these emails?

So to be clear you're saying 'hit pieces' made MILLIONS of primary voters not vote for Sanders? Which ones? This is an astounding claim, by the way. That would make those 'hit pieces' the most effective political messaging in all of US history by a wide margin.

Also what do you mean by disenfranchise Sanders? You're saying he couldn't vote?

 

[glenn1]

I mean, how tolerant am I supposed to be towards people who think it should be illegal for me to get married and who want to take my friends' health insurance away?

As to the first, you should be as tolerant of them as you would expect them to be in return to you when the tables are turned. Damn right I (and everyone else) expect you to be tolerant to the mere opinions of others even if we might strongly disagree with them. That's what civil society is all about. You change things like that not by showing intolerance to those who show it first, but building societal change from the bottom up by influencing others that your position is the correct and moral one.

As for the second, for every friend whose health insurance is being taken away, some other person is no longer being forced to forgo something important to them to pay for your friends. My kids, my retirement, et cetera are equally as valuable as your friend's health subsidy.

 

[SP33Demon]

Uhmm, denigrating Bernie for his religion never happened. One person brought it up and then they didn't do it. Have you even read these emails?

So to be clear you're saying 'hit pieces' made MILLIONS of primary voters not vote for Sanders? Which ones? This is an astounding claim, by the way. That would make those 'hit pieces' the most effective political messaging in all of US history by a wide margin.

Also what do you mean by disenfranchise Sanders? You're saying he couldn't vote?

No they did other things like shut down access to his database for a day when it was critical. And how about DWS essentially guaranteeing clinton the nom via her reassurance superdelegates are on her side no matter what? It was rigged from the beginning, including the debate questions which hillary (AND NOT BERNIE) knew in advance. While we cannot exactly quantify the damage, yes it could've swung the primary to Bernie. The hit pieces were only one aspect.

 

[fskimospy]

No they did other things like shut down access to his database for a day when it was critical. And how about DWS essentially guaranteeing clinton the nom via her reassurance superdelegates are on her side no matter what? It was rigged from the beginning. While we cannot exactly quantify the damage, yes it could've swung the primary to Bernie. The hit pieces were only one aspect.

So you're saying that people in the DNC talking about Bernie's religion and then not doing anything, DWS making a 'promise' she never followed through on, a one day database shutdown, and saying a few mean things about him to the press swung the primary by nearly four million votes.

oooooooookkkaaaayyyyyyyy.

 

[highland145]

I mean, how tolerant am I supposed to be towards people who think it should be illegal for me to get married and who want to take my friends' health insurance away?

I would be interested in a true public count of this. Not whatever the media, some politician or some kluker retard spews. I'm pretty far right and if you want to get married and your partner gets insurance, great. Heterosexuals sure have effed up marriage plenty. 50% divorce rate...great job.

 

[zinfamous]

The hard left abandoned their party because of wikileaks. Don't shift the blame here, hard evidence came out that HRC was colluding with the DNC and the Sanders supporters weren't having that shit. So they pivoted to the other populist candidate which conveniently killed the 2nd bird (the person who cheated their guy out of the nomination) with one stone. And ironically Wisconsin (and parts of OH/PA) was the Rust belt state that tipped the election to Trump by flipping a blue stronghold state.

Hillary and her campaign only have themselves to blame. Run a corrupt-free campaign and she wins, it's that simple.

I don't buy that, mainly because most people saw through the email releases for what it was: mostly nothing.

I think the truth about the Bernie supporters abandoning her was simply what you said previously: Trump spoke to them directly in the places where they lived and where they actually beat Hillary in the primaries: PA, WI, MI.

I didn't believe that enough Bernie supporters would easily move over to a fascist, but they did, and I don't blame them for it. The dems and especially Hillary are at fault for not listening to/taking them seriously regarding their real issues. Trump wisely capitalized off of it despite what all of his advisers told him to do "Ignore those states, because she already won them." "Nah, fuck you," he said, "These guys are going to listen to what I say because she hasn't shown up at their doorstep in months! She's complacent and they'll listen."

These were the deciding voters in the end (Hillary would not have needed FL, NC, Ohio if she just won those states that she was supposed to win) and Trump shrewdly stole them away. Bully for him. Those people made up their minds about this long before wikileaks and, quite frankly, nothing about emails was going to help them get jobs.

 

[realibrad]

1. DNC leaks made people feel like Hillary was part of a rigged system.

People feel the government has been corrupted. That is on both sides. The Left feels like there is a system set up to help the rich and white. The Right feels like the system is set up to punish the rich and white. Hillary said little to nothing to appeal to those.


2. Those on the Left would rather attack Trump personally instead of attacking him on his position.

Every time Trump said something dumb, the Left would jump in making it seem 1,000x worse. Even when Trump truly said something bad, the Left's reaction made people feel like they needed to push back because of the Left going too far. Had the Left not exaggerated but had a level response, then people would have had an easier time when he did say something bigoted or racist ect.

3. The Left eventually tuned out Trump.

Many on the Left hated Trump so much, that they could not debate his supporters or listen to what he was saying. That meant that the only argument they would likely have is Trump is a racist ect. The Left eventually became tone def to what Trump was actually talking about.

4. People think Trump will make them rich.

This I think is the biggest thing. Trump did not only get the white male vote. Even though most people would probably admit he is a bad person, he is rich and they think he will make America rich too and thus them. This I think was the biggest reason. I personally do not see any real reason to believe he might, but that is something I see a lot.

 

[fskimospy]

As to the first, you should be as tolerant of them as you would expect them to be in return to you when the tables are turned. Damn right I (and everyone else) expect you to be tolerant to the mere opinions of others even if we might strongly disagree with them. That's what civil society is all about. You change things like that not by showing intolerance to those who show it first, but building societal change from the bottom up by influencing others that your position is the correct and moral one.

Ah yes, the good old call to civilized discourse.

Anti-gay activist: "Gay people are pedophiles that should be jailed and exiled from society."

Pro-gay activist:"Good sir, I respect your opinion but allow me to offer a counterpoint."

And yes, anti-gay activists have frequently made exactly those arguments and have codified them into law in some cases. On what planet should that sort of behavior be met with anything but contempt?

As for the second, for every friend whose health insurance is being taken away, some other person is no longer being forced to forgo something important to them to pay for your friends. My kids, my retirement, et cetera are equally as valuable as your friend's health subsidy.

The ACA is primarily funded through taxes on the rich and fees on the insurance industry. Your kids aren't factoring into that.

 

[highland145]

The ACA is primarily funded through taxes on the rich and fees on the insurance industry. Your kids aren't factoring into that.

Forgot I was rich and the insurance industry spent their own $$ for those fees.

 

[fskimospy]

2. Those on the Left would rather attack Trump personally instead of attacking him on his position.

Every time Trump said something dumb, the Left would jump in making it seem 1,000x worse. Even when Trump truly said something bad, the Left's reaction made people feel like they needed to push back because of the Left going too far. Had the Left not exaggerated but had a level response, then people would have had an easier time when he did say something bigoted or racist ect.

What nonsense is this? Trump had no positions. Whatever position he had one day was not only gone the next, but he would deny ever having had the position he had the day before.

 

[zinfamous]

You are making the age old 'If you hate bigots you're a bigot' argument. It's no better now than it's ever been.

Not here, he isn't. I think he is saying that there is this default liberal attitude towards the "general anonymous midwesterner/rural hillbilly" that they simply hate everything about city folk, their lifestyle, are super religious and that for the sake of themselves, want to impose restrictive laws on everyone if for no other reason than it makes the farmers feel happy or even superior to big city elite liberals.

He's talking about misplaced aggression. He's not talking about calling bonafide bigots, bigots, for actually being bigots.

 

[fskimospy]

Forgot I was rich and the insurance industry spent their own $$ for those fees.

Was I talking about you when I said 'primarily funded'? 85% of the people participating in the marketplaces get subsidies. There are some people that do not, but to say that was a 1:1 ratio is off by literally millions of people.

 

[fskimospy]

Not here, he isn't. I think he is saying that there is this default liberal attitude towards the "general anonymous midwesterner/rural hillbilly" that they simply hate everything about city folk, their lifestyle, are super religious and that for the sake of themselves, want to impose restrictive laws on everyone if for no other reason than it makes the farmers feel happy or even superior to big city elite liberals.

He's talking about misplaced aggression. He's not talking about calling bonafide bigots, bigots, for actually being bigots.

So he's describing something that doesn't exist? I've never met a single person that thinks that way.