IGX

I only know two "out" Trump voters, and they're both now leaning Gary Johnson. Anybody here have faith in Trump's ability to be President? Genuinely curious. Obviously 30%+ of the country thinks he can do it.

I'm mainly pissed that he's convinced me to vote for Clinton, which was a tall order.

I do, but I don't have any faith in successfully discussing it with you, so...

TerryB wrote:I do, but I don't have any faith in successfully discussing it with you, so...

I'm not trying to persuade or be persuaded. I'm wondering what makes his supporters, aside from the low-information ones, think he can do the job.

Trump's alleged appeal was he didn't have government expertise but could assemble an amazing team. So far the opposite has been the case.

Some smart people are seeing something different. They supported him despite other GOP choices, not just out of Hillary hate. I just don't know what it is causing it.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: Trump's alleged appeal was he didn't have government expertise but could assemble an amazing team. So far the opposite has been the case.

Like I said.

You might as well say, "I like vanilla ice cream, but convince me that chocolate ice cream is better, although I have to warn, you, I've tried chocolate and it's terrible. But, I'll listen."

TerryB wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: Trump's alleged appeal was he didn't have government expertise but could assemble an amazing team. So far the opposite has been the case.

Like I said.

You might as well say, "I like vanilla ice cream, but convince me that chocolate ice cream is better, although I have to warn, you, I've tried chocolate and it's terrible. But, I'll listen."

Nah. I could explain why I'd vote for Hillary without arguing or expecting to change minds.

I can give you a few reasons why I'm open to Trump:

1 - Hillary, an utter failure in her last job. And totally undistinguished in previous jobs. Oh, and corrupt.
2 - Pence.
3 - Trump has actually created a few jobs in the private sector*.
4 - Trump's list of possible appointees to the federal court system. Minus his sister.
5 - Trump's stance on the border (whatever it is). It's superior to Hillary's.

If I knew that there was a team of Secret Service agents assigned 24/7 to prevent Trump from getting near the nuclear football, I might vote for him.



*IMO, Trump can't be as hair-trigger & dogmatic as his public persona - I don't think he could have functioned in the business world like that. But this might be wishful thinking.

Good question : I'm interested in the answer as well. And won't argue it unless invited.

I identify myself as a 'classical liberal' and I wanted my vote to go to Jim Webb (D), he was not to be the guy for the Dems. This will be the third time in a row I am voting against someone (Hillary, this time) vs. for someone (I don't like Trump, but he is genuine and the lessor of two cunts). So, I am voting for Trump, no question at this point....Hillary is one nefarious bitch, although as time marches on, I like her husband as prez moreso than what we've seen since him.

1. Not Hilliary
2. Border Security and illegals.
2b. Radical Islam
4. Trade
5. Not a politician.

I'm voting for Trump despite the plethora of things about him that make me concerned. Why?

[1]I was recently driving down the Westside Hwy in NYC and looked at some magnificent Trump buildings overlooking the Hudson River and thought about how astoundingly difficult that must be in a difficult environment like NYC, yet he did it.

[2]Legal immigration matters to me and he's the only candidate who I don't completely distrust on the issue.

[3]He's accomplished a lot as a developer and as a personality over decades. Consistent success (despite some failures)

[4]His level of scandal is a #3 compared to the Clinton's #11. I've always felt that Bill was a serial abuser of women and he was aided and abetted in their marginalization, if not personal destruction, by a team that included Hillary. It's not a "marriage" issue, it's an abuse issue.

[5]The Clinton Foundation is Roman Empire level corrupt. Having that type of person as President is dangerous to the nation.

[6]I can't forgive Hillary's mendaciousness on Benghazi. Presidents have had messes in the ME forever so I cut her some slack there. Her lies about the "hateful video" to the parents of the slain galls me to no end. The fact that the Egyptian who made the video immediately disappeared into the prison system bothers me almost as much.

[7]I like shaking up the comfortable elites. They deserve and need a good shaking.

[8]Our systems of checks and balances should stop any outlandish Trump decisions.

[9]Supreme court picks.

[10]Gary Johnson's chance of winning is zero.

There’s Probably Nothing That Will Change Clinton Or Trump Supporters’ Minds

for example:

Detractors shake their heads over Trump’s habit of repeating lies that have already been publicly debunked. (PolitiFact has documented at least 17 times when Donald Trump said one thing and then denied it, and they’ve found that only five of the 182 Trump statements they evaluated were true, while 107 of them were false or “pants on fire” false.) But this strategy might not be as foolish as it seems. Work by political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler has shown that once an incorrect idea is lodged in someone’s mind, it can be hard to overturn and corrections can actually strengthen people’s belief in the misperception via the “backfire effect.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... ers-minds/

for the next few months, "motivated reasoning" will guide how everyone processes information--in other words, people have made up their minds and will selectively use what they hear to reinforce their conclusions.

so we're in for several months of ugly theatre and then, finally, a vote.

after that, we'll have years of anger and blaming, and then more anger and blaming.

I'm straddling a fence about this.

On one side, I *have* to vote for Trump, because I dislike Hillary Clinton for the same reasons already mentioned in this thread, vis: she's a corrupt shill, etc.

On the other side, I dislike Trump, because whenever he speaks, the fascist alarm in my head pipes-up. I also think he's a blowhard, an idiot, and that making him the Commander in Chief of our military would be like putting a chimpanzee in the driver's seat of a Sherman tank (sorry WGM) and turning the key for him.

And on the *other*, other side, I hate our system for giving me these two options and nothing else.

Back to your original question. I have varying degrees in confidence in Trump's ability to be President.
1. Economy- 85%(Hillary-10%)
2. Protect the USA against enemies(60%)-Hillary 15%
3. Trade deals-60%(Current admin including Bush dynasty-10%)
4. Military and The Thin Blue Line-85%(current admin which includes HRC-25%)
5. Working with Congress 50/50 toss up for either. We'll see. I like Pence, but don't think Trump is a great listener.
My hope is either Trump wins and follows thru on some of his promises, or he loses and the current two party system undergoes a revolution which changes our election process. I was waiting till after the Pa. primary to change my affiliation to independent after 45 years as a registered Republican.

johno wrote:I can give you a few reasons why I'm open to Trump:
...
5 - Trump's stance on the border (whatever it is). It's superior to Hillary's.

Pondering Trump's appeal, I have realized how important the Border is to ANY nation. A (wealthy) country that will not or can not control its borders, will lose its national identity. And, probably, its culture, Constitution, and wealth.




6 - PC has poisoned public debate. Trump is a welcome antidote.

johno wrote: 6 - PC has poisoned public debate. Trump is a welcome antidote.

can you give examples of pc that keep us from addressing the issues candidly? not disagreeing, simply trying to understand what in particular troubles you

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote: 6 - PC has poisoned public debate. Trump is a welcome antidote.

can you give examples of pc that keep us from addressing the issues candidly? not disagreeing, simply trying to understand what in particular troubles you

Ripped from the latest headlines: The refusal to put in context racially-charged conflicts between whites & blacks; the historical amnesia about previous racial hoaxes such as the Ferguson shooting, the Duke Lacrosse Team "rapes," the Trayvon Martin shooting. The back-paging of findings such as the Obama Justice Department's investigation of the Ferguson shooting. The systemic refusal to acknowledge black overachievement in violent crime.

Eric Holder was right: we are afraid to discuss race. Because to honestly address it would lead to accusations of racism.



Oh, look: A Nazi Salute.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9r3mnxUgO0[/youtube]

johno wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote: 6 - PC has poisoned public debate. Trump is a welcome antidote.

can you give examples of pc that keep us from addressing the issues candidly? not disagreeing, simply trying to understand what in particular troubles you

Ripped from the latest headlines: The refusal to put in context racially-charged conflicts between whites & blacks; the historical amnesia about previous racial hoaxes such as the Ferguson shooting, the Duke Lacrosse Team "rapes," the Trayvon Martin shooting. The back-paging of findings such as the Obama Justice Department's investigation of the Ferguson shooting. The systemic refusal to acknowledge black overachievement in violent crime.

Eric Holder was right: we are afraid to discuss race. Because to honestly address it would lead to accusations of racism.

thanks.

candor is good. to be useful in addressing racial issues, direct speech probably needs to be coupled with goodwill. my concern is that trump, being a provocateur, heightens the racial divide rather than helping to bridge it.

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote: 6 - PC has poisoned public debate. Trump is a welcome antidote.

can you give examples of pc that keep us from addressing the issues candidly? not disagreeing, simply trying to understand what in particular troubles you

I used to feel the same way, about the proliferation of Political Correctness, but then I began seeing instances where individuals, like Trump, spoke in ways that seemed almost to be deliberately inflammatory. And the problem with that is that it accomplishes nothing aside from polarizing more people. And that's not what we need, right now.

Sometimes it's good to put on the kid gloves, and handle people politely, and courteously.

I don't want a loud-mouth shit-starter in the Oval Office. I want a calm, level-headed motherfucker who can speak authoritatively and not go out of his way to piss people off.

johno wrote:Oh, look: A Nazi Salute.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9r3mnxUgO0[/youtube]

Can't tell if you're being cute. Given no human being actually starts waving like this:


and it created this image.

it was obviously deliberate. That doesn't make her a Nazi, but she's obviously stirring shit. That is irresponsible as fuck.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:


it was obviously deliberate. That doesn't make her a Nazi, but she's obviously stirring shit. That is irresponsible as fuck.

Irresponsible as fuck, indeed. There's no place for crap like that in American politics and I detest that this shit is getting stirred.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: it was obviously deliberate. That doesn't make her a Nazi, but she's obviously stirring shit. That is irresponsible as fuck.

And you people say the Right is paranoid.

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: it was obviously deliberate. That doesn't make her a Nazi, but she's obviously stirring shit. That is irresponsible as fuck.

And you people say the Right is paranoid.

I saw the photo first and dismissed it, and only had a vague idea of who she was. Then you see the gif and it's obvious that the photo's not an accident. She's an asshole playing games.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: it was obviously deliberate. That doesn't make her a Nazi, but she's obviously stirring shit. That is irresponsible as fuck.

And you people say the Right is paranoid.

I saw the photo first and dismissed it, and only had a vague idea of who she was. Then you see the gif and it's obvious that the photo's not an accident. She's an asshole playing games.

Ingraham's wrist was straight for what, 0.50 seconds? Your body language and mind reading skills are amazing.

I'll say nothing for Trump..in reality there is no "for" He is quite clearly a dolt and a buffoon who will achieve perhaps something far less than nothing and violate the Constitution with impunity while attempting it.

Nor for Hilary, she is clearly so unlikable that whatever potential good thing she might want to achieve she will be stymied by her pathological UN-likeability and her disregard for law, policy and general good political sense.

All this highlights (besides the need for a viable multiparty system) is that we should sharply curtail the power of the Executive. All the angst on all sides could be mitigated if we hadn't started letting the POTUS binge on power.

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: it was obviously deliberate. That doesn't make her a Nazi, but she's obviously stirring shit. That is irresponsible as fuck.

And you people say the Right is paranoid.

I saw the photo first and dismissed it, and only had a vague idea of who she was. Then you see the gif and it's obvious that the photo's not an accident. She's an asshole playing games.

Ingraham's wrist was straight for what, 0.50 seconds? Your body language and mind reading skills are amazing.

Doesn't matter what the group of semi-nazi's here think about it, the fact is that REAL white supremacist groups think it's real and that can't be good.

*shrug*