[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The people that keep labelling Trump as a racist, sexist Nazi would probably have no answer if you asked them which of his policies they don't particularly like. Most of them struggle to even source what it is that makes him one of those labels...
I had one on FB call Trump supporters racist.
I asked why, they said, if you aren't then ignore my posts. So I continued to ask why they thought that his supporters are racist. After 4 attempts of telling me to ignore their posts. I did one even better. I unfollowed, unfriended them and blocked them so I don't have to see their posts through mutual school friends.

I also did the same to someone else who posted anything and everything anti Trump.

I have no problem being friends with someone I disagree with, but constantly posting Trump supporters are racist and calling for purging the White race cause he won, shows his true colors... I have no time for that hate and I don't care to have to see it on my time line. Sadly I do miss him, but hey...
 
The people that keep labelling Trump as a racist, sexist Nazi would probably have no answer if you asked them which of his policies they don't particularly like. Most of them struggle to even source what it is that makes him one of those labels...
Well that's actually the easy part for them.

CNN. Or if they love social media, Occupy Democrats.
 
If you go back far enough the whole rhetoric (and that of the entire regressive left) stems from that fountain of knowledge Buzzfeed.

This is from a couple years ago, but I think it still holds true:

rty2jtpvjoixhbzxxb5a.png


I can't fathom a reason anyone would trust BuzzFeed on anything, especially when one of their "trending" stories of the day is this:

We'll Tell You Where You'll End Up in 2017, Based On Your Disney Tastes

Now if that isn't the pinnacle of investigative journalism, I don't know what is.

Oh and for the record, I'll be going to Florence because I like Aladdin!
 
there's obviously no convincing you that going from the most approved of president, to the least approved president is polarizing.
Because that's not what it is to polarise the citizenship. As eran stated, all that is is a shifting of popular opinion.
Polarisation, in this sense, describes a situation where different groups simultaneously occupy opposing but very popular viewpoints.
I've been reading an argument where you may have missed one of the points in that sense.
 
Polarisation, in this sense, describes a situation where different groups simultaneously occupy opposing but very popular viewpoints.
I've been reading an argument where you may have missed one of the points in that sense.

Trump is polarising but not near to the extent that Bush Jr. was(or Obama even), what we are seeing here is a small group of antagonists wanting to create polarisation but he's not the one doing it.
 
If Trump is so polarising, how come 44.7% of people expressed absolutely no preference either way?
 
If Trump is so polarising, how come 44.7% of people expressed absolutely no preference either way?

Because no one watches cnn and fox? :lol:

He was a polarising figure in the private sector but now he is in a much more important arena and judgement is reserved until action is seen.
 
Because no one watches cnn and fox? :lol:

He was a polarising figure in the private sector but now he is in a much more important arena and judgement is reserved until action is seen.

The butchering he's received from the left and mainstream media before even entering office would suggest that is not the case...
 
Because that's not what it is to polarise the citizenship. As eran stated, all that is is a shifting of popular opinion.
Polarisation, in this sense, describes a situation where different groups simultaneously occupy opposing but very popular viewpoints.
I've been reading an argument where you may have missed one of the points in that sense.

I'm not so sure, I feel like moving a vast majority of the nation to opposite ends of the spectrum is fairly polarizing.

The neutral polling center being people that didn't vote...

I think it's probably more along the lines of people that disliked both candidates and didn't care either way, which I think was a fair number of people. Unfortunately there is a stigma of voting third party in the US so people think they only ever had just two choices.
 
If Trump is so polarising, how come 44.7% of people expressed absolutely no preference either way?

I'm not sure non-voters can necessarily tell you how much (un)favourable opinion towards Trump was polarised - if you hated the guy but there was no one else you wanted to vote for, in theory you would disappear into the 44.7% with your strong view unregistered.
 
If Trump is so polarising, how come 44.7% of people expressed absolutely no preference either way?
Is that the number you have of people who didn't vote or didn't vote for Hillary?

Edit: NM misread...
 
I'm still not seeing it, but there's obviously no convincing you that going from the most approved of president, to the least approved president is polarizing.

IMG_8193.jpg


Opposing factions. If everyone is on the same side then there is no polarisation.

If you watched the debates then you must also agree that Hillary also had no idea what the hell she was on about and was more less just doing what Trump was doing.

She avoided some questions, but she was also able to explain what her plans were and give reasons to why they would work. Trump did not do that.

Neither candidate was worth anything and going into the election it was pretty clear the only thing they were preaching for votes was that they "weren't the other guy".

Someone said that for both of them they wouldn't have had a chance against any other candidate, and that is probably true. Just because Hillary wasn't popular with a lot of people doesn't mean that Trump will get an easy time in the office though and that is the topic of discussion here. But Hillary would not have had an easy time either, because Trump would have been very difficult to deal with as a voice of opposition (when in opposition you don't have to offer constructive ideas, you can just point out everything that is wrong and win people's sympathies that way) and had he campaigned again in 2020 he would probably have won a landslide victory.

Populism and anti-establishment thinking have nothing to do with proposing simple fixes. Populism is telling people what they want to hear (or at least think what they want to hear) and anti-establishment thinking is showing how much you're unlike the norm.

Populism is to offer a radically simplified explanation of a problem, which in turn enables you to offer an easy fix. The message needs to be easy to grasp and there is no room for going into the complex details. "Build a wall to Mexico" is a great example of populist rethorics.

Anti-establishment has already been defined, see above.

Obama did both, one of his main messages during his campaign was that he was going to end the war in Iraq because frankly most of America was tired of the cost, both financially and with human life, of the war. He also showed that he was going to go against the grain and attempt to be more like Europe with universal healthcare coverage. He failed on both and were just empty promises.

That would be broken promises, but what we're talking about is populism and anti-establishment. I don't agree that it's populism to say that the war needs to end, especially as the Iraq war was started on false premises and had catastrophic consequences for the region. Why do you think that universal healthcare is about anti-establishment?

Trump is a liar, full of himself, thinks he's right, puts his cronies in power with him, and hates all the last guy's policies. I see no difference with Trump then I did with Obama, he's just saying a bunch of meaningless things to get some of the country on his side and will never actually go through with any of it. The likelihood of there ever being a wall is super low, planned parenthood will no be dissolved, Muslims won't be banned from entering the US, and so on. Just like Obama never managed to take our guns like he said.

I find that a very strange comparison. Obama's campaign inspired hope while Trump's campaign generated rage. Obama is able to expand on his reasoning and analyse the problem while Trump rarely gets past the "it's going to be the best thing" stage. Obama can take criticism, tough questions and disruptions during his speeches; Trump cannot.

If you think Trump is somehow special or different, then you really don't know anything about US politics.

Of course, his approval rating of 44% is just the lowest since polling started in 1992. Clinton and W Bush both sat above 60% and Obama above 80%. Trump's disapproval rating of 51% is twice that of Bush's while Clinton and Obama both were below 20%. Of course Trump is just the same as them. No difference, only the tweeting. Sure.

We have given you examples of another president, you just choose to ignore it.

You have mentioned names but failed to demonstrate why there is no difference between them.

Why should Trump respect other political opponents when they don't respect him?

It was Trump who set the tone. In the nomination campaign as well as in the presidential campaign.

And really why should any Trump supporters have any respect for Trump's political opponents when they often brand Trump's supporters are inbreed rednecks who love God, cheap beer, NASCAR, guns, being racist, and good old fashioned 'Murican Freedom? I didn't vote for Trump, but I get lumped in with Trump supporters because I thought Hillary Clinton was one of the worst candidates to ever attempt to run for president. I can assure you while I love cheap beer, guns, and freedom, I'm not a redneck, a racist, a believer of God, or even really fond of NASCAR...I do own a pickup truck though so I'm sure that puts me in some category.

Because in a democracy you respect diversity of opinion. And it goes both ways, so it doesn't just apply to Trump's supporters. If you can't respect someone having a different opinion then you open the door to oppression.

Also, it's not really a media conspiracy against Trump, it's most of a blatantly obvious dislike of him fueled by questionable reporting and extreme bias. If you can't see that, then you're ignoring what's being said and only hearing what you want to hear. Clinton was the media's darling and CNN did everything they could to skew everything they reported about the election in her favor. If Wolf Blitzer would have come out and said "you know Trump is literally the love child of Hitler and Satan and Clinton is Jesus reincarnated to bring peace on Earth" I wouldn't have been shocked in the slightest.

And why would the media dislike Trump so much if he is no different from the others?
 
WOW, the u.s is now a democracy? :lol:

You are showing your unwillingness to learn truth. I do know which media, buzz or cnn take your pic. You are failing my friend and I don't say that in a mean way, you need to learn some facts.
 
You don't need to learn anything when you can just ignore things when they are inconvenient for you.



Though it is amusing that he was operating on the idea that if he broke Joey's post into small enough pieces people wouldn't notice that he didn't even acknowledge Famine's.
 
Last edited:
We are a constitutional republic, that is fact.
No, you are a democratic republic, considering that if you were solely a republic, then you'd have been something like China. The word 'democratic' is the biggest difference between the US and China, nature-wise.
 
No, you are a democratic republic, considering that if you were solely a republic, then you'd have been something like China. The word 'democratic' is the biggest difference between the US and China, nature-wise.
The countries that put any variety of "Republic" or "Democratic" in their letterhead are usually the last ones you should go off of as a point of comparison to what either word means.
 
We are not a democratic republic. We are recognized as a federal republic.
A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government.[1] At its core, the literal meaning of the word republic when used to reference a form of government means: "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen".
The US is a democracy. That is why there are elections.
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.

The indirect election of the president through the electoral college conforms to the concept of republic as one with a system of indirect election.
A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country[1] which is organized with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body[2][3] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

I'm sure there's a silly Buzzfeed article out there that tries to play semantics in arguing why we're a democracy because of literal definitions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back