S.T.A.G.E. said:
And nine times out of ten the blue collar worker puts their faith in the person who will do the least for them. |
That is because Hillary Camapigned to get votes in Big cities only and that is not enough under an electoral college.
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Trump is a celebrity. Hes unpredictable and on a political level is an element of uncertainty. Republicans are known for looking down upon the poor and minorities. This is why Romney got in trouble with them and pretty much wrote off the other 47% of the nation. Trump is in truth an outsider who mostly does business with Republicans opposed to Democrats (even though Hillary is a dem who he mostly donated to). As a businessman, he plays both sides and looks to side with the winner or the person who will best have his favor at heart. He came into the GOP because he understands that as a third party you cannot get close to the majority vote without being apart of the two party system. Essentially, he hijacked the Republican party and told them he would split their vote if they did not endorse him for president. Both parties will need to restructure after Trump, but the Republican party will need to go through with its restructuring process after him. Hes quite liberal in a way most republicans wont understand. His temperament is very aggressive though, which neo-conservatives tend to relate to. |
I dont think the fact that hes a celebrity has anything to do with it. Hillary had most of Hollywood speaking for her. He is as you say unpredictable and on a political level is an element of uncertainty. I think thats what drew alot people towards him. They would rather have an outsider with no connections to their current government, than someone who to them represents everything wrong with it. Im not an american and if I was, Im not sure who I would have voted for. Probably a third party candidate. I just think people should give the person who is going to be their next president the benefit of the doubt. Im not quite sure what you mean by "he hijacked the Republican party and told them he would split their vote if they did not endorse him for president". That must have been something he said after he already was a popular candidate. Otherwise you cant just come in and say that. It doesnt mean anything.
| NightDragon83 said: So what does OP have to say now that it turned out that most if not all of those alleged "racist" incidents in the wake of Trump's victory last Tuesday were completely fabricated, and on top of that the few racial incidents that we actually have concrete proof of are actually perpetrated by minorities AGAINST whites... Black mob beats white Trump supporter... www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNClFJ6BRJA White teen girl who voiced her support for Trump gets beat by black girl... www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJenokrmb4 I'd like to see anyone on here defend this kind of behavior. And we all know that if the roles were reverse and instead we had minorities being attacked by whites because of their color and who they voted for, it would be international headline news instead of being burried by the mainstream media for not fitting their narrative that hate crimes and racial attacks commited by whites are on the rise. |
@ bolded
Considering the number of claims being made, prove it.
KLXVER said:
I dont think the fact that hes a celebrity has anything to do with it. Hillary had most of Hollywood speaking for her. He is as you say unpredictable and on a political level is an element of uncertainty. I think thats what drew alot people towards him. They would rather have an outsider with no connections to their current government, than someone who to them represents everything wrong with it. Im not an american and if I was, Im not sure who I would have voted for. Probably a third party candidate. I just think people should give the person who is going to be their next president the benefit of the doubt. Im not quite sure what you mean by "he hijacked the Republican party and told them he would split their vote if they did not endorse him for president". That must have been something he said after he already was a popular candidate. Otherwise you cant just come in and say that. It doesnt mean anything. |
Trump got the nationalists and the vote of most people without college education. Trump has connections with the government, but more of lobbying variety as well. Hes erratic and narcissistic.
This doesn't mean that much really. Anger and resentment does flare up around big elections. It usually goes back to normal after about a month.
Also, we have no idea how many of these are real. We have fairly good evidence that people lie about this sort of thing constantly to push political agendas.
And we have no reliable data of how much this sort of thing happens normally anyway. It could be that it's happening exactly the same amount but that the anti-Trump people are looking for it a lot more now to confirm their biases about Trump.
LadyJasmine said:
That is because Hillary Camapigned to get votes in Big cities only and that is not enough under an electoral college. |
There are more people in the metropolitan cities. If we only went by those votes, hillary wouldve won, but we go state by state using the electoral college. It prevents what is known as Tyranny of the Majority.
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Trump got the nationalists and the vote of most people without college education. Trump has connections with the government, but more of lobbying variety as well. Hes erratic and narcissistic. |
He did, but you cant win the election with those people alone. He is not a part of the government like Hillary is. Hes a business man. He might have dealt with many politicians, but he never was one. Sure he has flaws, but who doesnt?
KLXVER said:
He did, but you cant win the election with those people alone. He is not a part of the government like Hillary is. Hes a business man. He might have dealt with many politicians, but he never was one. Sure he has flaws, but who doesnt? |
Those who voted for Trump set a standard...that there is no standard to become president. The only prerequisite is having a lot of money and influence and, aggressive temperament (when youre not in front of your enemy) and a big mouth. Watch the quality of people running drop in the primaries. Theres a reason the movie idiocracy went into theaters for a short period of time.
LadyJasmine said:
That is because Hillary Camapigned to get votes in Big cities only and that is not enough under an electoral college. |
That is in fact the very raison d'etre of the Electoral College. It's a mechanism to allow the rural population to tell urban voters to keep them in mind or live on their shoes for the next five years.
I'd say it's pretty genius since most countries will always have an urban majority.
It's the bipartisan nature of the bloody electoral system that I am having trouble wrapping my head around...
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Those who voted for Trump set a standard...that there is no standard to become president. The only prerequisite is having a lot of money and influence and, aggressive temperament (when youre not in front of your enemy) and a big mouth. Watch the quality of people running drop in the primaries. Theres a reason the movie idiocracy went into theaters for a short period of time. |
Youre right, there is no standard. Thats why it came down to people like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as presidental candidates.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
