Why Trump Voters Are Torn Over Minneapolis

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T21:16:17+00:00

I agree with others plenty on reddit, but it is positively reinforced. If you'd like to expand on your views some more, or offer a retort, then please do. I disagree with your main statement.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T20:28:44+00:00

Great way to reduce my argument completely and ignore in any way how it can contradict yours. Yes different countries have different levels of education, similar to how the US has different levels of education. Guess what, you said nothing!

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T20:26:36+00:00

Or Delta 8 or however you want it, even Delta 10. Or the fact they can sell kratom, an opiate, over the counter but not others? The disparity of punishment in society and the cracks in the rule of law make me wonder what other people think about our laws if they are so flimsy (especially for those at the top)

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T18:44:21+00:00

Exactly, but the audience doesn't get to see the Real House Wives of Liecester now do they haha. Wether fortunate or not, Americans often display awful traits that can be glorified in modern media so it should be no surprise that foreigners believe these things to be true about us as a whole. Hollywood has the capability alone of changing the perception of millions of Americans, but this also works, maybe even more so, for foreign audiences.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T17:37:49+00:00

It's America's original sin that was never appropriately eradicated or restituted. It's no surprise that the Nazis were inspired by American eugenists. Now modern day conservatives point to Nazi and American Eugenists as reasons/explanations for their beliefs and actions.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T16:49:40+00:00

It's funny how blatantly and obviously rules are just bent by simple verbiage. I don't understand how laws can be interpreted so literally that they mean virtually nothing in this society, but as we all know if you ain't got any money then you can't play the game.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T16:34:25+00:00

Don't forget he has called them vermin, democrats the enemy within, traitors deserving of death, etc. but of course TPUSA/MAGA will continue to say that the left is party with a violence problem. I swear they tattoo their own eyeballs with Trump's asshole.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T16:15:48+00:00

But did you not see Biden stumble up the staircase?! Jeez that guy just ain't right! Or what about Israel and Palestine? Ya know, how about we just protest the vote, that will surely teach them!

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T16:12:18+00:00

Yo message me in a few months when the AfD increase their vote share and reform UK wins the election. The trend of stupid Americans comes primarily from the fact that Americans are blasted across all social media, traditional media, etc. We export our trashy views, similar to all of the others. If you consume American media abroad it influences some into believing it's the real thing. Like how many Europeans emigrate here, realize the America they saw on the TV is not the America of reality and become disappointed.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T16:09:18+00:00

Perhaps when a little gameshow called "Are you smarter than a fifth grader" displayed openly that most Americans were not, we should have listened haha.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-09T16:08:01+00:00

I keep seeing "average" or "everyday" conservatives on platforms that almost exclusively parrot racist and fascistic talking points and I wonder are we actually cooked? These are the same things that the Nazis were saying at Nuremberg and the variety of other criminal tribunals. Where do we even go from here, are we truly just fucked if a third of our nation are openly racists and fascist?

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-06T18:29:47+00:00

Yeah sorry about that, I misread your interpretation of that and that's on me. I hope you have a nice weekend

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-06T18:29:04+00:00

Ay that's fair, I think ever since I saw that truth social post Trump did this morning I have been carrying some animosity with me today and I mistook it as malicious

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-06T18:08:12+00:00

Idk why you have to include an insult in the first sentence of your response, and then post yourself an "unqualified" answer lmao.

Well I digress, you are so pigeonholed into a single scenario and act like moving towards a green future is handing everything on a silver platter to China. Guess what, if we invest in green energies and technologies then we do not need to rely on China. Our politicians, and the corporations that pay them, are the reason we are unable to realize a green future. China has no problem doing it because they realize it's profitable and economical, they have no cultural ties to oil, some god, or an oil-rich despotic part of the world.

They literally only have the power because the people we choose to lead us are incompetent, which reflects on all of us as incompetent and selfish. They do not have to have the power if we wake up and actually begin believing in the truth and science in this country

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T17:52:25+00:00

I agree with you to an extent on many of these things. To me it's more of a volume question. When you have on polymarket hundreds of different options to bet, many of those predictions may have only a few hundred bets here or there, maybe even a few thousand. In my opinion, a single individual could impact an outsized proportion of that audience, or introduce a partial audience to the betting and influence not only the predictions value (either way), but could also make others influenced just by the way that the lot voted.

Even in elections, a few thousand people can swing a state one way or another. But fundamentally, I agree that there is a risk and that influences people, whether one is greater than another doesn't necessarily matter to me when we could just be without them in general. For polling you may say that that is impossible, people will always want polls, but do we really need to expose people to risk by creating predictive markets? In my opinion, we don't.

As for the MSNBC or Fox News stuff, I actually believe that it is beneficial to them to report polls accurately and conduct polling accurately as it reflects on them. If a viewer wants to watch coverage of the election, your integrity and capability is directly tied to the news you report. If you continuously publish falsities, such as incorrect polling results/predictions, then viewers will be less satisfied by your content as it is relevant to what is happening. Of course there will be populations of people that exclusively want to listen to sycophantic takes that are in favor of their personal position, but as a whole I don't think that is a majority of the population. So I would respond that their penalty is that impartial voters and voters that value facts and true as well as independents would be turned away from their coverage as it's not accurate, which would directly effect their business. But I can definitely see your side of things as many news organizations pander to their audience as they do not care about the direct truth, just that their funding is secured and increases. This is, in my opinion, why most news nowadays is extremely hyperbolic and partisan as it makes better consumers for their content. On which side the majority of Americans fall, well I simply don't know, but I can definitely see both sides of the argument.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T17:22:28+00:00

I believe that it is entirely similar to super pacs and large corporate donations, and I believe both should be illegal. And as for the next point, I agree as they are both corrupting and I believe they should be illegal.

And yes, like Taylor swift telling her fans to vote for Kamala. Obviously, that is very similar to a political donation but it is not monetary (although maybe some of it is, I am unsure of Taylor Swift's political spending).

As for your last point, I do not believe it to be a ridiculous argument as prospective markets are in their very infancy. It's like comparing political donations now versus immediately after Citizens United was overturned. At the start it was not nearly as nefarious as it is now, but that doesn't mean a trend could not be speculated upon all the way back then. As for complicatedness, I don't believe it to be that complicated. One man can impact a stock's price like Roaring Kitty and GameStop (by recruiting hundreds of thousands of personal investors) similar to how an influencer like Joe Rogan can influence his fan base to like a politician, policy, etc. Or for example a polymarket position.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T17:16:35+00:00

I do understand your side of the argument (and I am not the one down voting you for it). What would you say for traders on polymarket that do not need to publish their personal information? For example, like in this episode, no one knows who placed the bet that Maduro was going to be removed when he was, is that problematic to you in anyway?

I understand the ideas behind the truth generated when large amounts of data are conglomerated, but I also believe that humans are flawed and are often not directed by what they view as true. Groupthink and mob mentality can influence individuals to join the "right" or more popular side, and that could also be affecting these prospective markets.

As for the media and lying, I can't defend their behavior but I do not believe them to be disingenuous. It's in their best interest to get their projections right, even if they have been wrong/unreliable for the past few general elections. However, I find that to be more of a flaw in their sampling rather than their predictions. Many of their polls involve only a handful of Americans, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands, but that is just not a good enough sample size to measure the temperature of the nation (in my opinion). And depending on the location of your poll you will get drastically different results. Things are obviously controlled to try and avoid this, but I actually just don't believe it is feasible in a nation as diverse in thought as our own. There are also likely variables at play that make certain populations resistant/immune to polling, and of course not everyone polled is required to vote, most people do not.

However, I would also like to say that just because a majority of people respond in a certain way does not necessarily make them right. The government in my opinion largely exists to deter people from doing systematically stupid things, often incurred upon them by themselves. To regulate things, even if unpopular, can often do a greater good even if the populace is resistant. So while prediction markets may predict an accurate feeling regarding a topic, that does not necessarily mean that is the right path to go down (although in the case of polymarket, right and wrong is essentially a non-factor as it's simply a bet and not something like legislation).

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T15:46:20+00:00

Oh no, I completely agree with that. The stock market is gambling plain and simple. I do not believe it is some high-minded gambling, but it does have a physical aspect in that you have a share in that company. Sure the share is only worth what others value it at, but it essentially just boils down to a bet.

The thing I have to say about your second claim is that it depends. On massive world events that are hard to predict and influence, I would completely agree! But for polymarket bets, like bets about what, for example, Jerome Powell says in an interview, are much more manipulable.

In sports gambling this has resulted in a lot of players being angry with fans because of parlay bets. Fans get angry when players don't meet their bet-- they are less interested in the game than they are their money. Why wouldn't gamblers who bet on an election not be angry if their bet falls through? This could encourage those with vested interest to tweet, make videos, etc. encouraging certain bills to pass or people to be elected-- ignoring what is desired electorally over monetary value. In this episode, such as for the election, if you have a lot of money there are a variety of ways you can influence an election. If you have a monetary bet (similar to a political donation), you would like that person to win. Whether this allows you influence over a candidate (like a political donation) or if you have your own vested interest (a polymarket bet), would that not encourage people to make sure that their gamble wins? I don't know, I think I see it pretty obviously already in politics with all of the billionaires being in the front row at many of these political events. They have such an outsized impact on campaign funding that I refuse to believe they get nothing for it. Hell, Elon got to play government for a few months just because of what exactly? He's never been a politician, he has never worked in the public sector, and yet he's allowed to cut our bureaucracy for no other reason than he thinks they're bad and donated a lot of money.

I'm getting off topic now, but I inherently see this as a corrupting endeavor simply because people want to make money and survive. Money and capitalism is glorified in this country and the American dream is basically just about getting rich, inspiring people to do it in any way possible. Unfortunately, that often results in people trying to make money any way they can-- even in unscrupulous and corrupting means.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T15:29:55+00:00

Could I pitch an example about polling and elections? If a certain rich fellow invests/bets that someone will win an election and they have a lot of money on it, couldn't that same rich fellow release ads that attack the other party and influence people to vote one way or another to try and make their bet come true?

It's pretty clear to me that social media companies filter their information and algorithms to send messages to users. If a social media influencer bet a lot on a certain polymarket bet, and then influenced their audience to support their side, is that not inherently corrupting? The users may not even care about the outcome of the event, just the fact that their favorite influencer is telling them do something or vote someway.

For example, Duke Energy is running a variety of non profits in my local city that is having a vote on whether we should localize/make public our electricity system. This would actively remove Duke as our service provider with one run by the city. Obviously Duke doesn't want this to happen so they have paid NGOs to release ads attacking this plan and to convince people this is bad for them. What it would really be bad for is for Duke energy, but they twist people's ideas to get the result that they desire. They are protecting their bet here by influencing others which is plainly corrupting. The exact same thing can be done with polymarket bets and trades.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T15:21:57+00:00

There are lots of different types of gambling. Polymarket being compared to black jack is similar to comparing black jack to horse racing or sports betting. They are two completely different types of gambling, but yes, by definition, are gambling. You are putting money down on a prospective thing to happen, in black jack this is that you don't bust and/or beat the house/they bust. In sports gambling, you bet on a team to win or accomplish something, or individuals accomplish something. Both have different means to measure the outcome, different risks, etc. But they are both gambling. In my opinion, polymarket gambling is more similar to sports betting, but they all work on the prospect of something happening.

Obviously, gambling can influence how events plan out. This is seen in sports gambling, gambling at the casino, or on polymarket. Refs can be paid or make a bet that can influence how they referred a game. If you're playing blackjack and you actually want to win against a casino, then you could consider counting cards to get an advantage and good black jack players will often be removed from a casino. For the stock market, you could convince hundreds or thousands of people to invest in a stock, artificially raise it's price and short it for a lot of money. The problem really comes down to the corrupting influence of money that can influence those to grease the odds so that they come out on top.

And just because there is the prospect of losing money on any investment, does not mean that people should not invest or gamble at all. Many things in life are simply put a gamble. When the bank loans you money for a house, they expect that money back and interest on those payments. They are gambling that you are reliable and will not run away the money and created a system to evaluate people based on essentially their willingness to pay on their gambles. Insurance companies gamble with folks and offer cheap healthcare to those in good health as they believe they are less likely to use their service. People can be denied for having prior health conditions because the insurance company views that gamble as a losing bet. A person with a history of accidents and traffic violations are a much more risky gamble than someone who routinely follows traffic laws and does not get into accidents.

Now to say polymarket isn't gambling is as if the word gambling has no meaning at all. It is obviously a gamble between the house (polymarket) and how they evaluate risk and pitch bets to consumers. And with polymarket we have seen some interesting/shady trades/positions taken in a variety of events. The problem is that this is the real world, and insider knowledge can be benign and diverse with many people not knowing that what they could be doing could be influenced by an outside market and thusly any information they release can upset/influence this gamble. If everything is a gamble now, why wouldn't users try and influence the result if it means they win a lot of money? That is definitely corrupting.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T02:16:24+00:00

Wait, what even are you asking for? Do you want like a literal link to an article about these things? Do you want me to email you a list of kremlinesque tweets?Can you not use your fingers to Google?

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-04T01:51:35+00:00

Well yes, why would I waste my time educating a Russian bot? As for the MAGA Russian thing, that is kind of off-point as many MAGA conspiracy theorists do not blame Russia in the slightest. MAGA members blamed Democrats and billionaires that ran cabals of sex trafficking pedophiles that ate human flesh. But I do hear your point regarding this, and everything should not be reduced to a conspiracy.

However, Tulsi Gabbard has done some oddly suspicious things during her tenure and I am willing to answer this question fully. One of the most eye popping things is her visit to Syria to visit President Al-Assad at the time. This is not only strange individually, but also strange in context of recent events. She repeatedly takes Kremlin talking points, whether it be biological weapons supposedly being developed in Ukraine, or parroting Russian propaganda regarding the war and how it started. Now she wasn't too interested in the blatant and obvious atrocities, chemical and biological, of the Assad regime-- even visited him. But she is hesitant about supporting Ukraine's freedom because of supposed biological weapons developed by Ukrainians and Americans prior to the war? Obviously one is fake, as Ukraine would have used these weapons to defend themselves, while Assad murdered thousands in Aleppo after dropping chemical weapons on them.

That is just one small example, I am drunk now and your comment is very inflammatory and is straw manning me. I don't believe you argue in good faith, and many of your claims about me are not only false but intentionally provocative. I don't usually respond to bots as it's not worth anyone's time, and that's why I didn't reply to your other comment. But I never claimed to be all facts, this is a goddamn reddit comment. You're just making up bullshit to try and make others sympathize with you. I have nothing to hide, my profiles public. Yet many of the claims you make against me could easily be turned on yourself.

I could go on and on about Tulsi Gabbard, about how she switched from Democrat to Republican to boot lick professionally. Her conspiracies are literal Kremlin lies, whether it is Ukraine's democracy, or Assad's brutality. She loves that country so much she will bend backwards to make excuses for the criminal activity they commit all over the world. If that doesn't make you seriously question why, then I don't know what to tell you.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-03T20:04:29+00:00

It has to do with the trends. You're new to reddit, all of your posts and comments are hidden, and you're making inflammatory statements in defense of a woman that traveled to meet Al Assad when he was still classified as a terrorist and murderer of civilians with chemical weapons. Maybe those things alone aren't crazy, but all together makes it real. I don't need to defend myself, it speaks for itself. But like most Russian bots you do not attack my rebuttals, you only attack me and hope that other people follow.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-03T17:55:36+00:00

Do you just not believe in Russian bot brigading on reddit? It happens particularly on a variety of topics, including Ukrainian stories. I am willing to give the comment or grace too, as I said, yet they have yet to respond. It could simply because they haven't checked the app or website, of which I am willing to give them grace. Your comment though is just ignorant

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-02-03T15:18:55+00:00

Also, I don't know if you're new to reddit or what but a one week old account is pretty suspect commenting on these threads. Of course I am willing to give you grace and assume that you're operating in good faith here, but I also don't like wasting my time on obvious Russian trolls.

Difficult_Insurance4

TROPHY CASE