By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Insidb on 24 January 2017
Edit Thread
bdbdbd said:
ShadowSoldier said:
Not solely...I mean the racist fucks that voted for Trump are to blame as well you know.

Oh the irony. I mean Clinton campaign was nothing but fueling racism and sexism, and then the fucks go on to make a 180 turn and vote for Trump who's campaign focused on jobs and socioecomy.

Insidb said:

This is a HUGE component; she was a terrible candidate, and only Trump was worse.

Except that I seriously don't know which one was worse.

WolfpackN64 said:

As any real leftist knows, the economy is the foundation of society, and if you're right on economic issues, you're right-wing. Doesn't matter how far your social policies go.

US has one party on the right and another even more on the right. I think you're right to an extent. But before discussing it further, where would you put today's green/alt/regressive/multicultural left (or whatever you're used calling it) anarchists on a political scale?

WolfpackN64 said:

The problem is that these debates, with the rise of social media has been very polarized. Most liberals I know here think Trump voters are all just "dumb people". As a Marxist, I often have to defend the American electorate. Most people didn't vote for Trump for his racist or sexist talk, but for what he stood for economically and in some cases socially (I can't see conservative people in the US voting for Hillary anyway). That's why the Democrats needed Sanders. Someone who's really on the left and who runs on an economical platform. But they persisted in Hillary and they lost.

It's not just social media, but media in general. What media around here told us about the US candidates campaigns, everything Trump did or said was perceived as bad by the media, and everything Clinton did or said was perceived as good.

Sanders would have been a no-brainer as a populist, but his age had also been an issue. Not that Clinton or Trump would be young, but not as old as Sanders.

irstupid said:

First, we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Always have been.

Second, more votes does not equal the will of the people. The U.S. is huge. It is spread out. Yet the majority live in a FEW clustered cities. If we were a pure democracy and went vote majority wins, the presidential canidates woudl spend their entire time sitting in New York, LA, Houston and Chicago. They would "buy" their votes with campaign promises that woudl solely benefit the people who live in those cities.

Finally someone who actually gets this, it actually might be a bigger problem than the current system. Also, didn't Trump skip some of the states he thought he had no chance of winning anyway? This is important when you think of the popular vote, that he actually gave up on some voters that might have won him the popular vote in the end. Of course, this is just speculation.

Being presented with both options, I favor with competence, stability, and economic policy (The Republicans always seem to get this wrong.).