United States - 2016 Election Thread

Who do you vote for? (Virtual Poll, Nothing Serious!)

  • Clinton

    Votes: 10 41.7%

  • Trump

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
phil3k said:
Dismissing what Wired wrote because it is a Tech magazine is a parlor trick, not legitimate criticism.
Click to expand...
Pointing out strengths and weaknesses of an organization is a natural part of the analytical process.

If I say the University of Michigan's Football Team's offense operates better with Wilton Speight at Quarterback than with John O'Korn, that's an assessment, not a "parlor trick."

I read Wired for its high tech articles. When their staff stray off that path, they are wandering away from their area of expertise. The most glaring example of this is their article, from a few months ago, about the Suey Park episode of "How The Internet Ruined My Life." It is a fine example of irresponsible journalism.
 
DireWolf98 said:
Pointing out strengths and weaknesses of an organization is a natural part of the analytical process.

If I say the University of Michigan's Football Team's offense operates better with Wilton Speight at Quarterback than with John O'Korn, that's an assessment, not a "parlor trick."

I read Wired for its high tech articles. When their staff stray off that path, they are wandering away from their area of expertise. The most glaring example of this is their article, from a few months ago, about the Suey Park episode of "How The Internet Ruined My Life." It is a fine example of irresponsible journalism.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts. Whether those facts are reported by the 'New York Times' or 'The Enquirer' doesn't really change that. You may have a legit point that 'Wired' has strayed from its core strength, but that's not really a strong refutation as to whether the story is legitimate.
 
phil3k said:
"Whatever" - the mantra of slackers.
"If the hood fits" - that is a bigoted and prejudicial comment.
Click to expand...
I characterized the comment as bigoted. That was in response to implying that anyone who raises such issues is a card-carrying member of the KKK (hence the hood reference).

It would be similar to if someone used a racially-insulting label to address me, I could logically conclude that such a label is bigoted (unless it was a well-known friend, using it as a rough form of male bounding - common among blue collar guys in New England).
 
The recent commentary here is illustrative of the polarization of U.S. politics. The labeling of opponents as evil leads to an unproductive atmosphere.

Back when I was a left-leaning university student, I remember conversing with my friend, a fellow liberal grad student in Anthropology, and stressing the need to push the narrative as far to the Left as possible.

His reply: "Dialogue is healthy, but extremism isn't good. Extremism tears at the social fabric."

Now that's anecdotal, but I personally kept his opinion in mind.
 
DireWolf98 said:
I hate to flame a moderator, so I won't.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then?

First, Wired is fantastic in its coverage of the High Tech sector and related trend. Politics? That's a bit out of their skill set. It might be compared to ESPN posting restaurant reviews.
Click to expand...

I said this is one place this was reported. I came across that story the same day I saw the post I was responding to, so I linked it. It was widely reported elsewhere in places not known for their restaurant reviews.

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot...-camp-offered-to-make-kasich-most-powerful-vp
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=0
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-team-trump-was-prepared-offer-john-kasich

Second, if my memory serves me well, Goldman Sachs had a great relationship with Secretary Clinton. I seem to remember that they paid Secretary Clinton (prior her becoming a candidate) a lot of money for speeches.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is here, other than it reinforcing my point. A lot of people if not most, other than the white supremacists, voted for Trump to 'drain the swamp' and not vote for business as usual which included strong ties to the financial industry. Trump's behavior since winning the election gives every indication that he's leapfrogging past standard US gov't corruption (rent-seeking like pay to play and regulatory capture) and all the way to Russia or Egypt-style corruption, where business kowtows to the strongman in order to stay in business. See this story for more info (from another site not known for its restaurant reviews):

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/17/13626514/trump-systemic-corruption

Third, Asian markets fell when results were being reported on election night. (I remember seeing coverage of a blubbering/confused apparatchik leaving Clinton HQ saying something like "the Dow dropped 800 points and trading was halted." US markets were closed at that time!) When US Markets opened, everything fine. CNBC didn't mention anything about this alleged "screw the little guy strategy."
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The main US markets don't trade after hours, but there are futures markets that trade during that time, which does affect prices down the line. During Election night as returns started coming in indicating that Trump might win, all three main futures markets fell through the floor - all were off nearly 5% each to the point where two of them reached or nearly reached the point where they stopped futures trading to stop the hemorrhaging. I know this because I was watching election returns at the time. But if you want a source that isn't known for its restaurant reviews, here's CNBC on why markets dropped:

"...it's not clear whether Trump would be as disruptive as the markets worry he could be, since it's unclear what parts of his platform would be pursued and what type of individuals he would choose for his Cabinet."

Yes, the markets recovered, and have been going gangbusters since Trump has more or less signaled that he plans to appoint someone acceptable to them.

Speaking of little guys, President-elect Trump just convinced Ford Motor Company to to keep one of its SUV plants in Kentucky.
Click to expand...

To put it bluntly, this is a lie. It's a lie propagated by Trump and was immediately reported to be so by major media markets, and, y'know, Ford.

Ford was never planning on cutting any jobs in its Kentucky plant. It had been exploring moving one of its truck lines elsewhere while expanding existing lines at the KY Ford plant. The main reason Ford is keeping their plant in Kentucky is due to the UAW labor contract they have, not Trump (Thanks, organized labor!)

We could fire back and forth and inflict Death By One Thousand Cuts. Let's all try to get along.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to have constructive conversations with people that genuinely have differing, informed views (ie, people should be reading Trump's tweets with a critical eye, not taking them at face value). But I'm not going to apologize for calling out potential tyranny and corruption. And if calling that out isn't 'trying to get along', that sounds to me like 'shut up and sit down', which I'm not going to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phil3k and DocMcStuffins
phil3k said:
This was posted after I made reference to this story. I believe it was widely reported ( I don't read Wired articles because of their pesky paywall which pops up at work, so I don't believe I read it there). The article which I read on the link at home (because, I'm not going to surf TAG at work) was a factual and unbiased article. Dismissing what Wired wrote because it is a Tech magazine is a parlor trick, not legitimate criticism.
Click to expand...
I do agree that it is not legitimate criticism. But you have dismissed other people's sources because it's right-wing, lame stream or whatever. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Don't you think it's interesting that everyone thinks an article is factual or unbiased if it supports their point of view. Everyone is biased. I have read most of the political articles on Wired and they seem extremely biased to me but that's because I'm biased too.
 
Just read this interesting article about Trump.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

Some interesting points:

Minorities
"Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population."

LGBT
"Trump walked on stage in Greeley, Colorado to a large cheering crowd when he spotted a rainbow flag in the audience. As the music blasted through the speakers, Mr. Trump pointed to a supporter as if to ask if he could see his flag and then motioned for a campaign worker to help retrieve the LGBT symbol of equality from the attendee. Within seconds, Mr. Trump was walking around the platform with the rainbow flag in his hands and moments later unfurled it in full display. You could see a huge smile on Mr. Trump’s face as he walked to both sides of the stage to proudly hold up the rainbow flag announcing support from the gay and lesbian community."

KKK
“David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years,” Trump said on MSNBC's “Morning Joe.”“I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK,” Trump added. “Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now.”

Mexicans
"Trump said that: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I'm serious. It's anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here."
"Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away."

Border wall
"As multiple sources point out, both Hillary and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which put up a 700 mile fence along the US-Mexican border. Politifact says that Hillary and Obama wanted a 700 mile fence but Trump wants a 1000 mile wall, so these are totally different. But really? Support a 700 mile fence, and you’re the champion of diversity and all that is right in the world; support a 1000 mile wall and there’s no possible explanation besides white nationalism?"
 
Chocoballs said:
I do agree that it is not legitimate criticism. But you have dismissed other people's sources because it's right-wing, lame stream or whatever. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Don't you think it's interesting that everyone thinks an article is factual or unbiased if it supports their point of view. Everyone is biased. I have read most of the political articles on Wired and they seem extremely biased to me but that's because I'm biased too.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's interesting. Bias is irrelevant. It is actually possible to factually report a story, regardless of personal biases. Bump, I also read the same allegation made against Trump (he offered to delegate domestic and foreign policy to John Kasich if he ran for VP) in 'The Economist' today. Of course, 'The Economist' is a just financial rag and should probably stay away from politics, just like 'Wired' should stick to technology.
 
Chocoballs said:
Just read this interesting article about Trump.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

Some interesting points:

Minorities
"Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population."

LGBT
"Trump walked on stage in Greeley, Colorado to a large cheering crowd when he spotted a rainbow flag in the audience. As the music blasted through the speakers, Mr. Trump pointed to a supporter as if to ask if he could see his flag and then motioned for a campaign worker to help retrieve the LGBT symbol of equality from the attendee. Within seconds, Mr. Trump was walking around the platform with the rainbow flag in his hands and moments later unfurled it in full display. You could see a huge smile on Mr. Trump’s face as he walked to both sides of the stage to proudly hold up the rainbow flag announcing support from the gay and lesbian community."

KKK
“David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years,” Trump said on MSNBC's “Morning Joe.”“I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK,” Trump added. “Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now.”

Mexicans
"Trump said that: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I'm serious. It's anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here."
"Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away."

Border wall
"As multiple sources point out, both Hillary and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which put up a 700 mile fence along the US-Mexican border. Politifact says that Hillary and Obama wanted a 700 mile fence but Trump wants a 1000 mile wall, so these are totally different. But really? Support a 700 mile fence, and you’re the champion of diversity and all that is right in the world; support a 1000 mile wall and there’s no possible explanation besides white nationalism?"
Click to expand...

tl:dr
 
DireWolf98 said:
I characterized the comment as bigoted. That was in response to implying that anyone who raises such issues is a card-carrying member of the KKK (hence the hood reference).

It would be similar to if someone used a racially-insulting label to address me, I could logically conclude that such a label is bigoted (unless it was a well-known friend, using it as a rough form of male bounding - common among blue collar guys in New England).
Click to expand...

Nobody believes they're a bigot. At the end of the day, we can only assess whether someone is bigoted by what they say or do. Calling a statement 'bigoted' but not labeling someone a bigot is a distinction without a difference. That's how people defend Trump: he makes bigoted remarks, he carries sexist/racist/bigoted actions, but people don't 'think' he's personally a bigot. So if you're going to say I made a bigoted remark, I'm going to infer you're calling me a bigot. And if I hear someone make a bigoted remark, I'm going to assume they're a bigot.
 
To put it bluntly, this is a lie. It's a lie propagated by Trump and was immediately reported to be so by major media markets, and, y'know, Ford.

Ford was never planning on cutting any jobs in its Kentucky plant. It had been exploring moving one of its truck lines elsewhere while expanding existing lines at the KY Ford plant. The main reason Ford is keeping their plant in Kentucky is due to the UAW labor contract they have, not Trump (Thanks, organized labor!)
Click to expand...

I followed up on this after I wrote my original post (because, you know, the Internet is there to actually do fact checking). Some of my facts were wrong.

Ford was never cutting jobs from the Kentucky plant in question, so that is a correct statement. But, the plant in question never made cars (as I originally posted) but made SUVs, in particular, a Lincoln SUV model (Lincoln is a high end brand comparable to BMW, Mercedes, etc. in the USA) and another Ford SUV model. Ford planned to discontinue making the Lincoln SUV at the Kentucky plant (it's an unpopular model in the US) and ramp up production of the more popular Ford SUV made there and a new model as well. I've also read on some car rumor sites that Ford may reintroduce the Ford Bronco there (you've got to be American to understand how exciting that is). At best, after talking to Bill Ford, Donald Trump may have been able to save production of the unpopular Lincoln model. The plant was never in danger of being closed.
 
I just wish people were this critical of past presidents (Obama) whenever he made statements. People are so set to try and paint Trump in a bad light and are throwing a hissy-fit every single time he says something. This is going to be a very long and tense 4 years if they keep it up like this.

Obama will say "I've created 15 million jobs!" Really? What did he do that caused this? Wait, does it count that in the same time he made 15 million jobs, the number of people going into the job market increased by 16 million? Wait, does that mean we had negative job growth under Obama?
Obama says "I've dropped unemployment below 5%." Really? Oh that's right, you stopped counting people who timed out of receiving unemployment benefits, and stopped counting those that are now working 2-3 part time jobs just to make ends meet.
Obama will say, "I've deported more illegal immigrants than any of my predecessors." Yea, really easy to claim that when you change the metric by which you count. He started counting those rejected at the borders as deportations to boost his numbers.

And these are just the ones I keep hearing repeated

Trump makes similar grandiose statements and get's fact-checked into oblivious by the 90% liberal media. Moreover, EVERYTHING becomes this massive outrage that cause people's head's to explode, and he's not even in office yet. Fake outrage is damaging to the people who take these articles as gospel, and my facebook feed is littered with it every single morning. Hell, at least once a week, I get a retarded ass puff piece reposted about how Obama is the greatest president ever. Lincoln was just some shrub compared to the glory of Obama. Hell, I just had one that said Obama had the highest (53%) approval rating of all 2 term presidents in recent history, yet Bill Clinton had higher (55%). Hell, even Bush had 49% being an admitted screw up president.... By every objective metric, Obama has been an absolute failure of a president.

I'm just annoyed that the media keeps rewriting history to make their points... Moreover, people are doubling down on the retarded identity politics, and it just makes me roll my eyes every time I read it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MossBoss, TokyoJoeblow, just4fun and 1 other person
static said:
By every objective metric, Obama has been an absolute failure of a president.
Click to expand...

I'm not even America and like I noted to another reader, not a fan of Trump, but also not a fan of Obama.. But pot calling the kettle black here. Clearly you're a bit passionate about this topic but your statement is pure hyperbole.

Let's look through the left wing, right wing and balanced stats:

NY Mag 50 Historians on Obama's presidency: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/53-historians-on-obamas-legacy.html

Fox News Critic Jesse Watters:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/21/jesse-watters-real-assessment-obamas-two-terms

Quartz explaining Labour Force Participation Rates (and sub- & derivative statistics):
http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/
(tl;dr version: driven mostly by baby boomers retiring BUT, discouraged workers have increased significantly)

Factcheck January 2016 Figures:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/

National Review on the Three Obama (personas)
www.nationalreview.com/article/419488/three-obamas

Super Long Quora Article on Pros &a Cons:
https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-find-a-critical-and-unbiased-analysis-of-the-Obama-adminstration

Basically, an unbiased review of all the facts suggests:
  1. Oversaw a an extended period of economic expansion after a severe global "Great Recession" - unlikely he had any real impact on it whatsoever (economic cycles are decades in the making, tech bubble, the economy is bigger than anyone president silly bears, etc.)
  2. The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
  3. His noble peace prize win is a mockery of the award. He has overseen the largest expansion of military assassinations than any American President (I've heard from a friend about the "Game Room" - gotta love all the active drone programs flying over the Middle East)
  4. He has overseen a massive expansion of healthcare coverage
  5. Violent crime and homicides are actually way down
All in all, he's been very likely to be remembered more for his personality and being the first black president.. But the stats and figures seem to suggest he was a mediocre president.. Like basically everyone has been in modern history. The world is too big and too complicated now. Bush Jr. wasn't to blame for the financial crisis (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Alan Greenspan's collective fault). Clinton didn't magically fix the economy and perjured himself.

Obama was much more conservative than liberals hope and much more progressive than conservatives think. To say he's the best or worst is obvious bias talking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocMcStuffins
Never said he was the "worst." I said he was a failure.

1 2 and 3 I agree with you, but 4 and 5 are an issue when you break them down. 1 I would argue that he actually hurt with some of his regulations (TPP and the sort) but there's been 1.6% GDP growth, so cool. Should have been way more.

4. When you require by law that you have to have healthcare, duh, you get increased coverage, but it doesn't help when people's premiums have more than doubled for anyone not receiving subsidies. Virtually every promise he made at it's launch (you can keep your doctors, your premiums won't change, etc) were all lies.
5. Violent crimes and homocides with an average of the entire country are down, yes, that's true. However, violent crimes in larger cities (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc) are all up. Violence against police has increased quite a bit as well. Ironic that in Democrat run cities, crime is increasing, yet in all the areas that voted for Trump, crime is down. Obama, I actually blame a lot of this on for his demonization of the police during the the whole BLM movement. Even when he was speaking in Dallas at the funeral for the 5 police officers that were killed, he still made it about the police's "implicit bias" against black people, despite the fact that almost all the famous cases have all found that the police officers were justified in their use of force.

Obama is a great speaker, an orator. However, you can lay blame for the formation of ISIS squarely on his decision to withdraw from the middle east. You can blame the new perceived weakness in foreign countries on Obama's unwillingness to back his threat (Line in the sand incident). You can call him a tyrant for his unprecedented excessive use of prosecutorial discretion and executive orders. I mean no, I wouldn't call him the worst (I think Wilson takes the trophy for that if we're talking the last 100 years or so), but I would feel perfectly justified in calling him a failure. I mean you talked about the resession we had, and if you ask most people, it was all Bush Jr's fault. They completely ignore the fact that if Clinton's subprime loan program didn't happen, Bush wouldn't have had to bail out the banks in the first place. Again, this is what I mean by rewriting the past. Or how many of my friends actually believe Clinton isn't corrupt, or is always truthful, despite hours and hours of video out there proving that she is both corrupt and a liar.

But more to the point, I was more talking about media bias not giving Trump a chance, yet letting "their" candidates get away with murder, often times for the exact same action. IMO, the media should be calling everyone out on their blusters, and being critical of everyone equally.
 
I agree that Trump should be given a chance but I can't imagine the swamp to be drained anymore.

Here is an interesting article:
Trump’s Bait and Switch. How to Swamp Washington and Double-cross Your Supporters Big Time
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176219/

I know that some of you are not able to read long articles :p so here is the summary:
"Hillary Clinton certainly cashed in big time on her Wall Street connections during her career and her presidential campaign. And yet her approach already seems modest compared to Trump’s new open-door policy to any billionaire willing to come on board his ship. His new incarnation of the old establishment largely consists of billionaires and multimillionaires with less than appetizing nicknames from their previous predatory careers. They favor government support for their private gain as well as deregulation, several of them having already specialized in making money off the collateral damage from such policies.
Trump offered Americans this promise: "I'm going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people." In his world, best means rich, and serious means seriously shielded from the way much of the rest of the country lives."
 
Chocoballs said:
I agree that Trump should be given a chance but I can't imagine the swamp to be drained anymore.

Here is an interesting article:
Trump’s Bait and Switch. How to Swamp Washington and Double-cross Your Supporters Big Time
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176219/

I know that some of you are not able to read long articles :p so here is the summary:
"Hillary Clinton certainly cashed in big time on her Wall Street connections during her career and her presidential campaign. And yet her approach already seems modest compared to Trump’s new open-door policy to any billionaire willing to come on board his ship. His new incarnation of the old establishment largely consists of billionaires and multimillionaires with less than appetizing nicknames from their previous predatory careers. They favor government support for their private gain as well as deregulation, several of them having already specialized in making money off the collateral damage from such policies.
Trump offered Americans this promise: "I'm going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people." In his world, best means rich, and serious means seriously shielded from the way much of the rest of the country lives."
Click to expand...

Haha. The Trump administration is turning out to be a mess already. He's setting up climate deniers in the Environmental Protection Agency, he has a conspiracy kook advising him as his national security adviser (retired Gen Flynn), and former presidential candidate Ben Carson running Housing and Urban Development (HUD), even though weeks earlier he turned down running Health and Human Services through a surrogate because he didn't want to cripple a federal agency because of his lack of experience (which begs the question why running HUD is any different). Let's add that it's been reported that he's only sat in on 4 of the 30 Presidential Daily Briefings that he's entitled to, but remaining the Executive Producer of 'Celebrity Apprentice' so now America's national security is now under threat from Trump's lack of interest. But we're only 30 days post election. I'm sure it'll get worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wwanderer
To be fair, this is what republican voters wanted - smaller government, run by an outsider with no experience. Nothing surprising so far.
 
DocMcStuffins said:
To be fair, this is what republican voters wanted - smaller government, run by an outsider with no experience. Nothing surprising so far.
Click to expand...

A lot of those that voted for Trump voted for someone that wasn't a career politician and didn't have ties to the financial industry, which is exactly the opposite of what Trump has put forth so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chocoballs
DocMcStuffins said:
To be fair, this is what republican voters wanted - smaller government, run by an outsider with no experience. Nothing surprising so far.
Click to expand...

What we're getting so far (and he's not even in office yet) is big government. He's (allegedly) intervened to personally keep Ford and Carrier plants in America (i.e. socialism), plans on dumping massive amounts of fiscal stimulus into the economy (more socialism), and has named corporate insiders to run his cabinet (he just selected the CEO of ExxonMobil to be his secretary of state, to go along with the former Goldman Sachs banker who will run the Treasury). What we're about to see in the next few years is a massive transfer of public wealth to the top tenth of one percent (plutocracy) in America made possible by 80,000 voters in three states. We've yet to see what Trump's foreign policy will look like, but with conspiracy prone Flynn as his national security adviser, it doesn't look good so far.
 
It is puzzling to me how some people will actually vote against their economic interests. Here I am not talking about a vague notion, but rather a very direct threat to one’s own livelihood.

For example, I know a couple of Americans who are contractors for the US military in Japan. They voted for Trump despite the fact that during the campaign Trump floated the idea of closing the American bases in Japan. These contractors would presumably loose their jobs if the installations were shut down. Both have lived in Japan for many years. Why did they take that risk?
 
SugoiBoy said:
It is puzzling to me how some people will actually vote against their economic interests. Here I am not talking about a vague notion, but rather a very direct threat to one’s own livelihood.

For example, I know a couple of Americans who are contractors for the US military in Japan. They voted for Trump despite the fact that during the campaign Trump floated the idea of closing the American bases in Japan. These contractors would presumably loose their jobs if the installations were shut down. Both have lived in Japan for many years. Why did they take that risk?
Click to expand...

Maybe they believe in something greater than themselves and are willing to sacrifice their postings for the good of the country? I mean, they can always go find a new job, especially if Trump delivers on his promise to create more jobs. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cabbie, Chocoballs and SugoiBoy
SugoiBoy said:
It is puzzling to me how some people will actually vote against their economic interests. Here I am not talking about a vague notion, but rather a very direct threat to one’s own livelihood.

For example, I know a couple of Americans who are contractors for the US military in Japan. They voted for Trump despite the fact that during the campaign Trump floated the idea of closing the American bases in Japan. These contractors would presumably loose their jobs if the installations were shut down. Both have lived in Japan for many years. Why did they take that risk?
Click to expand...

Republicans have long been considered the party that does better with the national security voter (whether that loyalty is deserved is another matter altogether). Trump said a lot of things during the campaign that are contradictory that people chose to hear or ignore, depending on their personal biases. That's part of it.

The other (more important) part is that Hillary Clinton is so despised by some pro-military people that nothing Trump did or said could disqualify him as commander-in-chief in their eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SugoiBoy
phil3k said:
Republicans have long been considered the party that does better with the national security voter (whether that loyalty is deserved is another matter altogether). Trump said a lot of things during the campaign that are contradictory that people chose to hear or ignore, depending on their personal biases. That's part of it.

The other (more important) part is that Hillary Clinton is so despised by some pro-military people that nothing Trump did or said could disqualify him as commander-in-chief in their eyes.
Click to expand...
A person cannot agree with everything that a candidate says. You choose what you think is the most important issue. I don't agree with many of the stupid things that Trump posts on Twitter but it is not very relevant compared to dealing with political corruption from my point of view. Of course I don't know if Trump can keep many of his promises but that is a problem with every politician.
 
Chocoballs said:
I agree that Trump should be given a chance but I can't imagine the swamp to be drained anymore.
Click to expand...

You're the one with buyer's remorse, not me. And you're wrong, a person can agree with everything a candidate says. I was talking with someone at work and he was rationalizing Russian interference in this year's election. He also rationalized torture (you guessed it, he voted for Trump). Anything that Trump said (no matter how incoherent), he was ready to defend it. Your devotion to Trump has shows similar messianic levels of devotion. He hasn't even been appointed yet his bizarre tweets reveal someone completely unhinged from reality. His selections to the Cabinet so far show someone who's going to upend the entire government bureaucracy and not in a good way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.