The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=362353)

0 November 3rd, 2016 7:18 PM

^ funny enough, after reading your post above, I think I support Hillary a bit more then trump now.


The points you made above, especially the downward spiral made sense. See, I hoped trump would set things back a bit so that a lot of people would wake up and question "What has our nation become." That's the message I take from make America great again.


However, on further reflection, I realize that no one would wake up, and that he could possibly set the ball rolling much quicker then Clinton ever could for the collapse of the nation.


However, I truly take the side of No Confidence. I understand that Clinton might be a better candidate, but she is still corrupt. In fact, it seems there is corruption that extends pretty deep in this country.


I don't think it can be healed to be honest. The country will fall, but I now get that it is inevitable. Every single nation has fallen in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.


Since this country is on such a decline, I can see I failing in the next 75 years. It is very interesting to realize that one is in such a situation, although I hope it doesn't get too bad.


I've always wondered how Rome fell and the answer was, "It got too big." It is the same here.


Thanks mate for the chat.




As for Badsheep, I found both foreign policies unique in their own ways. Clinton has actual political experience and is well equipped to handle many diplomatic situations, where as it seems Trump has a more business/negotiation type approach, which can be interesting to see. Clinton has some failures, but so does Trump, and it will be interesting to see how the winner handles foreign and domestic issues.

Aliencommander1245 November 3rd, 2016 9:09 PM

Rome didn't fall because it was "too big" it fell because of a wide variety of social, economic and diplomatic problems without any single cause and equating empires of antiquety with modern globalised nations really just doesn't... work? What would a modern country like the US "failing" even mean? I've seen a lot of nihilistic views like that and i honestly don't get anything about it beyond that people have a vague sense of dread that life will suddenly fall apart in some unknown and unseeable way.


The foreign policy of Trump being.... "Business/negations" kind of ignores both his own ability and what he's actually lain out. I'd actually say negotiation fits more with diplomacy than it does with a buisiness approach, which simply cannot work as the foundation for inter-country interaction. While he claims "i'm a successful business man, i can renegotiate all our alliances to be better for the US" he really can't. He doesn't have the negotiation skills and he doesn't understand how foreign policy even works? Claiming that he'll make countries pay to have US army bases in them ignores both the point of having them there and their purpose, claiming vaguely that he'll "renegotiate trade deals" means near nothing nor is it likely that he could even get anything better than is already there- with it more likely that it'll be worse off.

Shaking up old alliances for no functional purpose, or for a purpose that goes against the point of said alliances simply won't work. A man who claims that the US should've taken the middle east's oil as "payment" for their involvement and thinks it was an awful, stupid decision not to steal the resources of sovereign nations for no reason can hardly be thought to have any great negotion skills, not even mentioning his clear lack of understanding of what's politically "good" to make "better" through negotiation

0 November 3rd, 2016 9:53 PM

You can't even give the man a single good point? Like really, he asked what I thought of their approach to foreign matters, and I still think Trump would be pretty good at negotiating deals and such.


We've had a president who was an actor, and he didn't do quite so bad. I'm sure that being a business man would help in negotiations. He does have a multibillion dollar empire(?) after all so you can give him some credit. After reading around, I
candidates approach was good enough, with Hillarys being better due to her past experience. That is all on that matter that I'd like to discuss, as I'm not advocating for one or the other. Both have different flavors of foreign policy.


As for Rome, when I say it got too big, I meant in the context of being a huge empire that spanned quite a length that would inevitably have issues which would lead to it's decline. Social, economic, etc were all implied by that to reclairify.


My view is not nihilistic. I don't think the US will be the same thing however. When Rome fell, you had a split in the empire. It wasn't that Rome suddenly was destroyed. But the Rome that had existed prior was gone, replaced by the Byzantines the scholars and the barbarians (?) who didn't view knowledge as important.


I can see something like how after world war I and II, the maps had been changed quite significantly from even 50 years prior. The theory I have is that the USA would split into smaller sub nations. A more modern example would be Britian and the British empire. The empire did fall, but it wasn't like Britain was destroyed. But there was a redrawing of the entire world map, with nations becoming independent of British control. Same here except, again, the USA would be redrawn into smaller portions.


The economy would tank, however, as USA currency would be invalid, being based on the federal reserve system, and not physical gold or silver or other precious metals. What country would use bills from another country that doesn't have any backing? It would be just paper at that point.


This is all just theory, as I cannot see into the future, but it is based on past events and visualizations. But don't be fooled, the USA as everyone knows it will cease to exist, be it 75 years or 300. I say that also based on past history. If I'd like to go further, it is completely possible that globalization as we know it fails, replaced with some other system. As you said, there are unique circumstances here that simply didn't exist in classical times. But using the past can help with painting the future.


What I know for certain is that any nation that has had huge amounts of corruption has failed, and the USA is not some exception to the rule. The way the system is set up, one can see that it is eventually doomed to failure.


OK point finished!

Aliencommander1245 November 3rd, 2016 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
You can't even give the man a single good point? Like really, he asked what I thought of their approach to foreign matters, and I still think Trump would be pretty good at negotiating deals and such.

And my question is why, when he very clearly has expressed that he isn't and wouldn't be? Not to mention the whole concept of a business negotiation being one completely different to an inter-country one, but that aside- when he's repeatedly expressed himself as not capable of neither understanding how to negotiate in a political sense nor that he'll try to change them in a good way- how can you say you think he will, and why?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
We've had a president who was an actor, and he didn't do quite so bad. I'm sure that being a business man would help in negotiations. He does have a multibillion dollar empire(?) after all so you can give him some credit.

Not much credit can be given when he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and founded his empire on the financial support of many millions of dollars in actual exchanged money and bailouts of failed ventures from his father, then inherited the lions share of money from his dementia addled father when he did die, screwing over the family of his own dead brother in the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
After reading around, I
candidates approach was good enough, with Hillarys being better due to her past experience. That is all on that matter that I'd like to discuss, as I'm not advocating for one or the other. Both have different flavors of foreign policy.

I know, i'm just very interested in why exactly you think he'd be good at negotiating despite it all, as stated before. Who wants to give an internationally disliked man a better deal than is already going, when any rearrangement would be worse for the US than your own country?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
As for Rome, when I say it got too big, I meant in the context of being a huge empire that spanned quite a length that would inevitably have issues which would lead to it's decline. Social, economic, etc were all implied by that to reclairify.

My view is not nihilistic. I don't think the US will be the same thing however. When Rome fell, you had a split in the empire. It wasn't that Rome suddenly was destroyed. But the Rome that had existed prior was gone, replaced by the Byzantines the scholars and the barbarians (?) who didn't view knowledge as important.

I don't think many of the issues attributed to the downfall of Rome were size-based as much as a perfect storm of other things, but it should be noted that what became the Byzantine empire was literally just the other segregated half of the roman empire, it didn't rise from the ashes as much as it as just there and re branded itself after the other half crumbled and went on to survive for a thousand years more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
A more modern example would be Britian and the British empire. The empire did fall, but it wasn't like Britain was destroyed. But there was a redrawing of the entire world map, with nations becoming independent of British control. Same here except, again, the USA would be redrawn into smaller portions.

I don't really get your line of thinking beyond "I think this would happen" but the British Empire was an empire founded on colonialism expansion of foreign lands, not a single landmass so there's a lot of difference there that can't really be applied here (Separate nations before British rule returning to their own ruler ship, which isn't the same as states rising up as their own powerhouses in the absence of the government as a whole)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
What I know for certain is that any nation that has had huge amounts of corruption has failed, and the USA is not some exception to the rule. The way the system is set up, one can see that it is eventually doomed to failure.


OK point finished!

I don't really think "failure" has any real meaning in the same way it used to, Rome fell and the british isles were conquered but there really is a "too big to fail" thing going on, with the US supported by the global network. There's not really any way to describe or quantify a country "falling" in the same manner

But this isn't relevant and you're right that it's just speculation so this is just opinion v opinion without much fact basis to discuss

0 November 4th, 2016 3:32 AM

^ do you have links or sources to the first three points that show how being someone who can negotiate a business deal is significantly different from negotiating a political deal?


Do you have a source that is not CNN, fox news or any other huge completely biased news source?


As for the country deal, your right, its just a theory. We can speculate all day, but at the end of the day, we wont know who is right because my speculation is that the nation would collapse probably past my lifetime, and I can't even prove it would collapse. So, I let that issue rest.

Aliencommander1245 November 4th, 2016 4:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475243)
^ do you have links or sources to the first three points that show how being someone who can negotiate a business deal is significantly different from negotiating a political deal?

I'm... not sure how I'm supposed to source that claim since it's not really something built around a factual telling of events as much as it is a concept, but i'll try. Mostly all i can give you is examples of how Trump has been/is a poor negotiator (I.E that his what his (Probably, as he won't release his tax returns) current net worth is less than if he'd just invested the money he got from his father and made no buisiness deals at all by a factor of at least 2x, though that's a poor example considering everything else)

http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/donald-trump-negotiating-the-art-of-the-deal/

https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-negotiation

A choice quote from that second article that sums this up pretty well:

Spoiler:
One question we often are asked is how negotiating in business differs from negotiating through back channels, with defiant coalition partners, in war zones, and in the shadow of severe mistrust and hostility. One crucial difference is your goal. When you’re negotiating a business deal, your job is to figure out how much money is on the table, to consider all of the ways in which the deal could be structured, and to find an agreement that will allow you to capture more or most of the value that is being created.

That’s not how it works when you’re negotiating a high-stakes, protracted, multiparty conflict that has escalated to potentially devastating levels. There will not be multiple solutions from which to choose. If you’re lucky, there is one deal that everyone can live with — and there are countless barriers standing in the way of achieving even that. Your job is not to convince or threaten the other side into accepting your preferred solution, but rather to use everything at your disposal to knock down the barriers that are making the conflict seem unsolvable. In most cases you are not trying to beat the other side; you are trying, often in collaboration, to reach the one and only deal that can avoid disaster.

This difference between buying real estate, for example, and ending wars, building coalitions, structuring global agreements, and balancing military and diplomatic leverage has serious implications for the kind of negotiator a president should be. Consider these five features of negotiating on the world stage and ask whether what we know of the Trump approach and temperament is suited to surviving (much less succeeding) in such contexts.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475243)
Do you have a source that is not CNN, fox news or any other huge completely biased news source?

I'll give this a pass since you actually did list two awfully biased american news sources there so i can't be sure if you're implying all big media outlets are bias or that there's some form of anti-trump mainstream media alliance (There's not, there's simply no way to favourably cover someone constantly doing things that are awful)

0 November 4th, 2016 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9475290)
I'm... not sure how I'm supposed to source that claim since it's not really something built around a factual telling of events as much as it is a concept, but i'll try. Mostly all i can give you is examples of how Trump has been/is a poor negotiator (I.E that his what his (Probably, as he won't release his tax returns) current net worth is less than if he'd just invested the money he got from his father and made no buisiness deals at all by a factor of at least 2x, though that's a poor example considering everything else)

http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/donald-trump-negotiating-the-art-of-the-deal/

https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-negotiation

A choice quote from that second article that sums this up pretty well:

Spoiler:
One question we often are asked is how negotiating in business differs from negotiating through back channels, with defiant coalition partners, in war zones, and in the shadow of severe mistrust and hostility. One crucial difference is your goal. When you’re negotiating a business deal, your job is to figure out how much money is on the table, to consider all of the ways in which the deal could be structured, and to find an agreement that will allow you to capture more or most of the value that is being created.

That’s not how it works when you’re negotiating a high-stakes, protracted, multiparty conflict that has escalated to potentially devastating levels. There will not be multiple solutions from which to choose. If you’re lucky, there is one deal that everyone can live with — and there are countless barriers standing in the way of achieving even that. Your job is not to convince or threaten the other side into accepting your preferred solution, but rather to use everything at your disposal to knock down the barriers that are making the conflict seem unsolvable. In most cases you are not trying to beat the other side; you are trying, often in collaboration, to reach the one and only deal that can avoid disaster.

This difference between buying real estate, for example, and ending wars, building coalitions, structuring global agreements, and balancing military and diplomatic leverage has serious implications for the kind of negotiator a president should be. Consider these five features of negotiating on the world stage and ask whether what we know of the Trump approach and temperament is suited to surviving (much less succeeding) in such contexts.





I'll give this a pass since you actually did list two awfully biased american news sources there so i can't be sure if you're implying all big media outlets are bias or that there's some form of anti-trump mainstream media alliance (There's not, there's simply no way to favourably cover someone constantly doing things that are awful)

Your first point made sense, and those sources seem unbiased, though I read your except only so as to get a general concept of the idea.


You are right, conducting negotiations is not easy at all, especially international negotiations. Foreign policy dealing with countries in the middle east are very sensitive and Trump is too gung ho about it.


As for the second point, I was actually mentioning that, because when trying to find trumps foreign policy, I was looking for an unbiased source. Every title was hurr durr, Trump is bad. I wasn't looking for that, I was looking for a real answer and eventually got one.


J also mention it because people in debates typically throw out crap sources like CNN, Fox, etc, which are laughably biased.

gimmepie November 4th, 2016 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475341)
Your first point made sense, and those sources seem unbiased, though I read your except only so as to get a general concept of the idea.


You are right, conducting negotiations is not easy at all, especially international negotiations. Foreign policy dealing with countries in the middle east are very sensitive and Trump is too gung ho about it.


As for the second point, I was actually mentioning that, because when trying to find trumps foreign policy, I was looking for an unbiased source. Every title was hurr durr, Trump is bad. I wasn't looking for that, I was looking for a real answer and eventually got one.


J also mention it because people in debates typically throw out crap sources like CNN, Fox, etc, which are laughably biased.

My favourite source for Trump's policy is Trump. Watch videos of his debates and speeches. He's probably got a campaign website too.

Primarina November 5th, 2016 9:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9474510)
T
To me, non binary roles, genders, or whatever the hell it is is just made up stuff. Don't get me wrong, traditional roles are made up as well, but they worked and have worked for 5000+ years because they are functional and have a purpose. They have worked, and still work, whereas non binary roles seem to me to be useless. They seem to be almost a cry for help, or a product of a society that has lost any form of identity.

I guess the question that I have is: What function do non binary roles provide? Why do you feel the need to make up your own identity/gender? What makes you take them on?

I would also like to make the point that it is extremely difficult to near impossible to provide evidence that can be categorized on the human consciousness, so to ask for evidence as to why non binary roles are an issue is simply not possible. I can't quantify it or write a research paper, hence why I asked the above questions.

As for the rest of it, yes, I was passionate about my points. I could be seen as arrogant, but I am tired of the Hillary camp ignoring things like corruption, of which you described not less then three times, because Trump "hurts my feelings". I personally don't care if he is racist or misogynistic. Those are personal beliefs, and you seem to think that 100+ years of equal rights can suddenly be undone.

Again, he is not Hitler, he doesn't have the populace not the power to make a single law forbidding blacks or women from doing anything. Equal rights has it's leaders, but it's a cultural change, and would need to have a vast majority of the population to reverse, and that is simply not going to happen.

However, corruption on the other hand can and does sway how people live. Think about GMO labeling laws for a second. A few corrupt companies get a few puppets into office and all of a sudden, they are able to block your knowledge of what you eat. I don't know if a tomato has GMO's or not, because it is not a requirement, and labeling is actually stopped. That is what Clinton represents, more corruption and behind doors deals, which do have a impact on my life.

That is again, why I lean more toward Trump, because however racist he might be, he is not a corrupt as Hillary.


1. Domestic

Trump's rhetoric may influence policy, as well as the discretion of bureaucrats (police, teachers, judges, case workers etc.) During the campaign and debates Trump has compared inter-cities to a "living hell", responded to the topic of racial tension "with two words - 'law' and 'order' ", and other rhetoric implying he wants to adopt a Bill Clinton or Reagan strategy of cleaning up the streets and "saving" black people. So, it's not like he's just a racist, but he has vaguely etched out his attitudes toward "the blacks" as criminals he wants to control and fix.

Systematic discrimination against individuals can and does occur and Trump's rhetoric highlights similarities to other administrations on race and crime. For instance, the 1990's Crime Bill under the Clinton Administration called for "getting tough" on criminals and supporting privatized prisons. Basically, this is what ensued after the single omnibus bill was mass incarceration. Literally, one bill caused mass incarceration to spark off (though obviously Reagan got the ball rolling). Similarly, Reagan pushed the "drug war" which systematically targeted "crack" users rather than cocaine users -- of course, the two groups were comprised of different racial demographics. As such, the high-risk areas for crack use were targeted, rather than the cocaine user (many of whom worked in white-collar industries). Black drug users were viewed as the "criminals" and white people who used drugs were just "drug-users". Anyway, both presidencies really screwed over the lives of black people after making so much head-way during the civil rights movement.

Anyway, the aforementioned topic of black incarceration is just the tip of the iceberg as to how CORRUPTION can permeate in public policy and its enforcement. Corruption can be 100% legitimized when a reckless majority of the public targets minorities in order to earn more privileges and be treated differently under the law and enforcement of those laws. As Rousseau, and many others have articulated, when laws do not apply to everyone equally those laws are not geared toward public good or "general will", and rather, those laws are indicative of populist rule or "particular will" formation. Some people who are a part of the populist mob are so blind to their privilege they fail to see how they themselves are a participant in corruption.

Now apply this one policy issue has impacted minorities and their families differently than non-minorities, and see how the disparity influences millions of people differently -- just one policy area.

There are numerous examples of corrupted democracy tied to legal structures throughout recent history of the United States that has impacted LGBTQ, women, and other groups differently. One leader can make that disparity of rights and power far worse.

2. Abroad

When we make racist, sexist, homophobic, and disregard non-binary people it sends a message to countries that we either do not value equality and it could inspire people abroad to:

1. Coalition-build populist movements utilizing which ever flavor of oppression fits their societal model.
2. Coalition-build Anti-American movements through appealing to others who are pointed out by Trump, our head of state, as being somehow inferior. (easy ISIS ammunition)
3. Diffuse power away from the United States among country heads who do not support Trump's xenophobia since that xenophobia distinctly expresses an opposition to their own interests. A weak American influence of soft power to influence policy abroad and support stability and linking international interests as to avoid conflict and war. Basically, losing soft-power (the ability to sway policy directions of other countries as to inspire interest convergence) means losing our ability to influence other countries and international encourage stability, and that likely it means a loss of hard-power as well. Rhetoric does have physical power, it literally changes behavior, strategy, and sense of what is rational discourse in taking on action.


As I have stated, Trump's rhetoric is a recipe for shifting alliances and encouraging instability when we combine all three of the above different outcomes as a result of Trump's words. When information distorts communication, people's identity, interests, and actions change in ways that are hard to predict, but almost certainly if more people adopt Trump's black-and-white thinking it is a recipe for conflict. Populist movement including Brexit are mobilized groups of people who want hegemony as a group. These groups listen to rhetoric and rally around whichever leaders tell them that they are more virtuous and other groups need to be silenced or are somehow inferior (Mexicans, the Blacks, the Gays, anyone with a "pussy" to grab, Arabs, etc.) How the hell do you not understand that divisive words have more negative influence than corruption amongst and against oppositional political parties? Trump and Clinton are corrupt, but in ways that encourage different degrees of instability. Please argue why Clinton's corruption, is somehow encourages instability vis-a-vis Trump's rhetoric to the rest of the world?

PS - I black-boxed the nonbinary debate as per Nah's request. Generally, I have to say how we define men and women has changed drastically in the past 100 years because of the inefficiency of controlling women. How we define men and women, as they relate to one another has changed in the workplace, economy, law, family structure, sexual domain, education, among others places. Non-binary people do not fit either of these core defintions or may be on the peripheries of both. Certainly how we define the roles of men and women have degraded over time in all the above spaces, as such, as individuals men and women are becoming more equal and free to make choices. Though, non-binary people may still not fit the cultural aspects regardless of these changes. For whatever reasons, they cannot navigate the same binary and we should respect that and learn from how they see their gender and navigate the world in order to further improve upon the gender binary at-large.

Basically, the theme of our back and forths has been a difference in how we value pluralism. The more difference we are able to maintain, the more we deconstruct group identities, the more individualistic all people can be -- not just the ones afforded special rights due to conforming. Though, those who conform in many ways are being controlled through a social incentive structure. We should let people be individuals and break up the lines that distinguishes groups of people in order to encourage less corruptible policy and enforcement of that policy. Freedom of expression requires that there is not cultural hegemony linked to some sort of incentive structure that favors some expressions over others. Racists for instance, are not expressing their individuality, but rather their delusional sense of group identity. They have a distorted sense of priorities and interests that cannot truly be their own -- this is what populism is at its core, mind control and indoctrination of a group of people that feel superior. That is what we are getting with Trump. This is his brand of corruption.

I have ranted about Clinton during the primary season, but most of these critiques were similar to Trump, but to a incomparably lesser scale.

Also, I hope we can get the ball rolling in the right direction as far as the tone of our discussion so we can more effectively get our points across. Let me know your thoughts.

Sir Codin November 5th, 2016 9:59 AM

People still think Trump's gonna win?

Aliencommander1245 November 5th, 2016 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 9476644)
People still think Trump's gonna win?

For the explicit purpose of complaining about the election being rigged when he loses, yes

Sir Codin November 5th, 2016 11:05 AM

I don't even give a shit about Hillary's flaws anymore, it was a forgone conclusion that she was going to win that I suppose I'll just have to live with it. She doesn't even seem that bad, who knows, she could lead America to a new Golden Age for all I even know with how much I've even paid attention this past year....which is nearly nil. Really, this election has been so toxic to my health and sanity that I just stopped paying attention to it completely.

I'll be glad when it's over and my friends can get back to only mildly hating each other for the next four years. Kind of like all of America, really.

I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in America, politics is so seriously lacking in integrative complexity and often feels like the country is bordering on civil war. It's an extremely toxic subject and one of two things my parents taught me to never discuss with anyone if you want to keep a conversation civil (the other being Religion).

User19sq November 5th, 2016 12:57 PM

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/JsOPHyuAuT0/hqdefault.jpg
If Hillary wins, rigged-fans will kill us all. If Trump wins, rigged-fans can stay home and let him do it for them.

If only Johnson wasn't such a ditz, I'd have supported him. And that other one... Joan Stool, she was nowhere to be found in this race.

Ivysaur November 5th, 2016 1:04 PM

Appropriate music:



Btw, turnout data shows Florida's nonwhites hitting record levels of vote share. That clearly sounds good for Trump.

0 November 5th, 2016 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9476756)
Appropriate music:



Btw, turnout data shows Florida's nonwhites hitting record levels of vote share. That clearly sounds good for Trump.

You'd be surprised how many people vote for Trump here. Hell, I even see people wearing the clothes, which I can't say for Hillary minus a bumper sticker.

Ivysaur November 5th, 2016 2:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9476830)
You'd be surprised how many people vote for Trump here. Hell, I even see people wearing the clothes, which I can't say for Hillary minus a bumper sticker.

Oh, I'm not surprised, I'm expecting Trump to get 4.2 million votes in Florida. The question was whether Clinton would turn out enough nonwhites to have a decent chance to hit at least 4.3 million or whether Trump would find a hidden stash of white voters to add to his expected results. The answer so far seems to be yes to the former and no to the later.

Incidentally, Trump may talk about the "silent majority" but his supporters, unlike Clinton's, are anything but silent. And we have yet to see whether they are a majority at all.

0 November 5th, 2016 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9476844)
Oh, I'm not surprised, I'm expecting Trump to get 4.2 million votes in Florida. The question was whether Clinton would turn out enough nonwhites to have a decent chance to hit at least 4.3 million or whether Trump would find a hidden stash of white voters to add to his expected results. The answer so far seems to be yes to the former and no to the later.

Incidentally, Trump may talk about the "silent majority" but his supporters, unlike Clinton's, are anything but silent. And we have yet to see whether they are a majority at all.

Well, we shall see. I expect Trump to win Flrida, but I'm doing no stats, whatsoever.


However, you should realize that plenty of whites and blacks like him quite a bit.


I have this feeling that the less intelligent people vote for Trump, or that's what I gather from this thread anyway. And the less intelligent people are the majority, so you can figure what I'm saying here.


Of course, it's really hard for me to attribute intelligence to people who vehemently vote for one or the other.

Aliencommander1245 November 5th, 2016 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9476867)
However, you should realize that plenty of whites and blacks like him quite a bit.

His biggest, and main, voter demographic is overwhelmingly white males (I'd say white people in general because that's usually how it falls but in particular Trump's alienation of women voters split the white vote to him by gender in a noticeable way) and he's doing fairly abysmally with any minority, something like 9% of African Americans support him? Sure that's a lot of people, based on population, but it's not at all anywhere near a big chunk of African american voters as a whole


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9476867)
I have this feeling that the less intelligent people vote for Trump, or that's what I gather from this thread anyway. And the less intelligent people are the majority, so you can figure what I'm saying here.

Are they? I don't actually know the statistics but "white guy who wasn't college educated" is his big demographic, and he does poll higher with people who aren't college educated to those who are. A big thing of that is his focus on rural areas and outlandish promises to bring the manual labour jobs back out there. They've suffered hard in rural states from losing them, and promises from a guy who can somehow bill himself as "a man of the people" (Despite being a rich demagogue born into old money) that he'll get them back and is the only one who can save them makes him really appealing.

0 November 5th, 2016 6:44 PM

To your first point, I'm just letting you know what I see from the "battlefield" that is actual voters and such. Or at least the loud/showy ones.


As for your secnd point, reread what I said, because i agree with all of what you said, and that was my point, Trump is appealing to less intelligent and working clad people, even if he is rich. He promises to Make America Great Again for the general populace, and that better then what Hillary has got, if anything.

Aliencommander1245 November 5th, 2016 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9477029)
To your first point, I'm just letting you know what I see from the "battlefield" that is actual voters and such. Or at least the loud/showy ones.

I don't think that really reflects much as the consistent polling, but that makes sense


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9477029)
As for your secnd point, reread what I said, because i agree with all of what you said, and that was my point, Trump is appealing to less intelligent and working clad people, even if he is rich. He promises to Make America Great Again for the general populace, and that better then what Hillary has got, if anything.

Not really, Trump is appealing because he's just telling people impossible things they want to hear. "I'll make america great again and get your jobs back" sounds good but is completely free of any substance or policy to actually do so.

Clinton has legitimately good plans for the country that she's outlined in detail and have been researched- they're simply not as marketable as the slogans and phrases Trump throws around, though. The problem is heavily based around the accessibility and long term effects/foresight of clinton's policies being difficult to distill into phrases or dumb down enough to just throw out the expected results without context, while saying you're doing something and expecting to work it out later is a lot easier and more readily heard by a trusting public/voter base

So really it's not that Clinton doesn't offer much as much as what she's offering isn't as publicised and easy to speak about while Trump offers what you want him to and doesn't have to bother explaining how he'll do it- he just will because he's "the only one who can"

Ivysaur November 6th, 2016 12:21 AM

Clinton has massive leads among younger generations (X/Millennials), non-whites and women. And a) more democrats are voting in Florida than republicans -like 20k, it's razor-thin but an advantage- and b) the independents who will have to break the tie are dispropportionately more female/nonwhite/younger than the general population. So I think Florida looks pretty well for Clinton even if it'll be close.

Meanwhile the ABC-WaPo tracker has had a 6-point swing for Clinton since Tuesday. I think the EMAILS!!! are starting to lose relevance...

Lipstick Vogue November 6th, 2016 10:19 AM

>katy perry
>beyonce
>bon jovi
>jay-z

Pretty embarrassing. Would have swung my vote to Trump had I been born across the pond.

Kanzler November 6th, 2016 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipstick Vogue (Post 9477775)
>katy perry
>beyonce
>bon jovi
>jay-z

Pretty embarrassing. Would have swung my vote to Trump had I been born across the pond.

What's this?

Netto Azure November 6th, 2016 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9477786)
What's this?

Celebrities who campaigned with Clinton on campaign concerts.

Also I'm going to be more passed off if these 2 Washington state electors mess theElectoral College votes up. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/6/13540504/electors-electoral-college-washington?0p19G=c

Like there is a protest vote but seriously don't blow up the country with it.

Ivysaur November 6th, 2016 2:48 PM

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/the-gops-latinos-apocalypse/

I recommend reading this article while looking at the EV data in Florida and Nevada.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.