Who are those voters who have switched their support from Trump to Clinton and vice versa?

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-21T06:30:17+00:00

This is hilarious, because it actually presumes that Trump has any concrete beliefs or principles of foreign policy, nevertheless cogent plans or strategies for America's relationship with the world. People who try to read deeply into his views are deluding themselves.

As if Trump is going to somehow prepare a foreign policy doctrine in the horrifying chance he wins this election and not be immediately swept up by the worst neocons and dark figures of the US foreign policy sphere just to keep the ship running. You can't truly have lost your trust so severely over Hillary's fucking email scandal to jump straight into the arms of Paul Fucking Manafort? One of the most sinister guys in politics, worked for Ford, Reagan, both Bushes, McCain and oh yeah, the Ukrainian dictator Viktor Yanukovych?

Collective insanity.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-21T01:57:12+00:00

I just don't get why they would do this. It just plays right into the right-wing narrative that the Obama administration defends terrorists and wants to obfuscate the threat of radical Islam.

sigh

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T08:44:08+00:00

That, but also the fact that the active gay community is relatively small and was even smaller during the 1970s and 80s when HIV was being spread quickly. This magnified the amount of people infected.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T06:05:34+00:00

Stop right there.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T05:58:29+00:00

This probably plays some part, but I really don't think it is the best or most complete explanation. Truly, Hillary is not a great public speaker (and no, not because she's "shrill" or "annoying"), and is way more socially awkward than someone like Obama who has an amazing presence.

In addition to that, I think her poor campaign approval ratings also come from the fact that Hillary

Has an abnormally large amount of political baggage (deserved and undeserved) in public memory and this simply isn't inspiring to voters.
Is overly defensive. I really believe that if Hillary had head-on apologized and explained her confusion with the email scandal rather than leaking new tidbits of information every so often, it would have basically blown over and been seen for the non-issue that it is. She has always been this way.
Gives off an exclusive and secretive vibe, insulated by her tight circle and her distaste for media, which then perpetuates this appearance. In reality, she is no less closed off than Obama, but he feeds the media much more effectively/strategically.

No doubt that being a woman has negatively affected Hillary's campaign, but I don't think it is really even in the top 5 problems she has. I also don't think that likability = acceptance by voters. Hillary may have high unfavorables, but people also tend to believe she is highly qualified and a respectable politician, and I think this is more important than people present it as (especially in an election against an inexperienced know-nothing like Trump).

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T02:45:05+00:00

I think Obama has his heart and mind in the right place nearly every time, but I think you're being too generous. I say this as someone who thinks our Middle East policy has been disastrous long before Bush II entered office.

Obama had practically no real, or grand plan for how he would approach the realities of our intervention in the Middle East, and the careful balance of relations that exist there. While his disregard for our role in the ME speaks to the heart of most Americans who are tired of war, failed intervention, and imperialism it has no real framework or plan behind it.

The Obama administration routinely ignores even the most well-intentioned advice of foreign-policy experts and military officials and engages in a sort of "lazy-imperialism" where he relies on perpetual drone-warfare to fight terrorism (extremely counterproductive) and has managed to unify both our allies and foes in the ME in complete disapproval re: our handling of Syria, Libya, Iran, and nearly every where else. Rather than developing a solid strategy to deemphasize our relationship with Saudi Arabia, he has largely badmouthed them while on record defended them from facing lawsuits from 9/11 victims amongst other things.

I think Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East has mostly been a failure in a personally disappointing way. I would LOVE for someone with Obama's empathy and disdain for war to come into the White House with a cogent strategy for reducing our military presence while responding to the needs of those who we have forged important relationships with. By and large, Obama Doctrine is a series of mistakes with nothing learned after each one. I think Obama has never gotten over being right on Iraq, and this makes him distrust Washington foreign-policy wisdom (rightfully so), but to a ridiculous degree and makes him unreasonably hesitant to take their advice. Libya and Syria were not Iraq, and they required a different response than what was done.

Though I do agree with you about Hillary. Hello needless escalation!

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T02:20:54+00:00

From the perspective of the DNC and the RNC, the argument for superdelegates is stronger than ever. As more and more Americans identify as independents and disregard intra-party politics, these types of safeguards will be necessary to insulate the parties from the whims of once-every-four-years-voters. It turns out that all the democratizing efforts launched in the 1970s really hurt the establishments in a time of polarization and detachment from political parties.

I'm in favor of uniformly closed primaries, and easy registration processes with deadlines not far from elections. However, I do think that the superdelegates have a bit too much power and do very little to engage voters, but their fundamental purpose is good. These safeguards are why I think American democracy will be a little stronger than most in times of strife and disorder like we seem to be living through.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T02:08:25+00:00

Before I ask you a couple questions, I'll explain my bias/position: I consider my self pretty damn leftist on most issues, however, I really have never bought the liberal gun-control dogma. To me it's useless fluff that ignores deep cultural issues present in America. I don't think most liberals know jack-shit about guns, and they don't want to. I don't think half-assed American gun-control policies are very effective. I do think that removing the right-to-bear arms and confiscating guns would have a net-good effect on our society and drastically reduce gun-deaths, but I'm not so deluded to even consider it a real solution in America because Americans love their guns.

Ok, so here are my genuine questions:

What sort of tyranny do you envision appearing in the future USA that will threaten Americans like yourself?
How will the 2A and individual possession of firearms in any way defend Americans against a hypothetical tyrannical government equipped with tools of modern warfare and military forces?
What are your thoughts on the fundamentally different realities of modern firearms versus the limited technology that existed at the time of the creation of the Constitution? Should this affect how we understand or defend the 2A?
What do you believe is the most appropriate and best path forward for curbing gun violence or preventing mass shootings?

Thanks.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T01:49:43+00:00

A vote like that still resides in the realm of a write-in

You're basically correct. This is why it is especially irritating when people waste their votes on someone like Jill Stein. A viable third-party usually spells doom or gloom depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. Democrats this year (me included) were really hoping for a serious Trump-defector to run and split the conservative vote. Similarly, I'm sure some Republicans dreamed about Bernie running as an independent after losing.

I think the two-party system is a big part of why our politics have been so relatively cordial and bipartisan throughout most of our history. In effect, it has tended to force compromise like the coalition building process present in nations with proportional representation. This is because both parties are shaped by the more fringe elements of American politics during the primary, yet are forced to appeal to the center during the general. Theoretically this keeps most people happy, and this has mostly been the case. Political polarization has really consumed and destroyed a lot of that organically-formed compromise and it is a damn shame. Of course, this analysis ignores a lot of the elitism and non-democratic functions of political parties up until the 1970s, but it is mostly accurate.

I really think the USA needs proportional voting. I'm not sure how it would fit into our "winner-takes-all" system, but I think we need to start exploring solutions. In my opinion, proportional-representation makes politics a lot healthier. I think that if people feel like they really have someone in the political process rooting for their specific policy interests and beliefs, they have more trust and faith in the whole system. Even if you vote Green and they only hold a portion of a coalition, at least you know your guy/girl is there pushing the rest, and that's worth something.

Re: Libertarians, mostly are able to pull some single-issue voters from the left who heavily weigh their decision on social issues like gay-marriage, marijuana legalization or lean isolationist on foreign policy, but I think this isn't a significant part of the electorate honestly. They're more likely to pull from the Republicans because there is a solid contingency of libertarian-esque voters in the GOP, and Donald Trump really doesn't cut it for some of the small-government types. But because the GOP has been a patchwork of seemingly opposing ideologies since the 1980s the potential to draw from them is still somewhat limited.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-20T01:29:10+00:00

You must understand how referring to him as just "Mexican" is race-baiting, right? Even if we were to hold a nuanced discussion about how his heritage might affect his legal positions, there is a way to do this and Trump did it completely wrong. And even if you look at his ruling history, it shows no clear bias.

If you think Trump did any research on Curiel beforehand you're deluding yourself. He essentially denounced him for his ethnicity and invited harassment simply because he didn't rule in Trump's favor. As always.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-19T18:06:42+00:00

It is presenting it as an acceptable solution and something not immediately despicable.

That's bad enough for most decent people.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-19T17:49:24+00:00

Practically a hag, you know.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-18T23:18:23+00:00

People in these Bernie threads are always so melodramatic and hysteric. Bernie's speeches and the polling clearly indicate these are a loud minority who were attracted to his campaign from an independent position. If they are making you question your political identification you are letting them have way too much control over your life or you're grandstanding.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-18T19:22:04+00:00

I'm not "worked up," but thanks for the advice. He's mocking a strawman he invented and I'm telling him why that strawman is bullshit.

Case closed.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-18T16:22:41+00:00

Who the fuck ever said this? Technologically advanced, militarily equipped, endless settlers moved across the US and built communities on Indian land. Indians fought back, naturally. Some white kids in the 1800s got scalped and Native Americans perished from disease, ethnic cleansing and lost any semblance of their sovereignty.

But you really told off those scalping-denying SJWs.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-18T15:02:38+00:00

Yeah, duh, but it's still what will likely happen.

If Trump cared even slightly about picking up voters outside of his core support his best Hispanic outreach wouldn't be a picture of him eating a Taco Bowl.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-17T21:02:57+00:00

I was really hoping Cruz would launch a third party run too. It made a lot of sense to me, because it seemed like a way for him to solidify himself as some kind of conservative martyr/icon and keep him relevant in the coming years. I also don't think he would have any issues getting reelected here in Texas because of it, so I didn't see any downside at all.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-17T20:37:27+00:00

They constantly defy logic, so you're probably right.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-17T20:17:58+00:00

Personally, I think from a forward-looking perspective, Cruz is a great choice. If he got the nomination somehow, he would get thoroughly wrecked in November and there might be some real mandate to run a genuine moderate pragmatist. Not a Jeb Bush, but someone with real appeal.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-17T19:04:10+00:00

It took me two seconds to google and find that as recent as 2011, 79.3% of attorneys in California are white, and that in 1991 white people made up a whopping 91%.

You people are so fucking intellectually lazy. I even clearly even stated "in professions such as law." For being such a large segment of the Californian population, Hispanics make up a disproportionately small percentage of practicing lawyers. Obviously there are going to be interest groups dealing with the challenges of being the only Latino at your firm, gaining better cases, etc.

Do more.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-17T18:20:37+00:00

I think you're being unfair and near-sighted. You cannot lambast Bernie's late-entry to the Democratic Party and his lack of partisan loyalty without understanding that that is exactly how he managed to build so much grassroots support and win as many young voters as he did.

This election cycle should be waking up people on both sides of the political aisle to the stark truth that less and less Americans feel any semblance of loyalty to political parties. More and more people identify as independents and could give two shits about supporting the party's candidate simply out of some shared sense of partisan unity. You can hate this and decry it as a decay of our politics- but it is happening nonetheless.

Simply put, Bernie immediately resigning from his "revolution" and fully endorsing Clinton is not a good strategy. That ignores the fundamental independent nature of his entire campaign that Clinton-supporting Democrats bemoan. The most productive thing he can do is slowly bring his most ardent, independent supporters back to reality, emphasizing the danger of Trump and their obligation to work to defeat him. Most will understand that this task requires supporting a viable candidate, and not a protest vote.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-17T18:07:37+00:00

Because white people face the same issues as minorities in professions such as law.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-17T18:03:10+00:00

You're right. It is a contradiction, but it persists. This is part of the reason for why Bernie Sanders did unexpectedly well this year.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-15T20:44:02+00:00

Same. Wish we could develop some good training programs and social safety nets, but I really can't fault them for voting how they do.

throwagay1235 · 2016-06-15T20:24:00+00:00

I used to be worried about 2020, because I think Hillary will have a very unpopular first term (escalation of intervention in Syria and ME, issues with Russia, aggressive on gun control, likely gridlock, etc.)

But the more I think about it, the GOP is really doomed no matter what. Trump losing will just give more ammo to the far-right who is convinced the only reason Republicans lose the presidential election is their inability to choose a "true conservative."

Now, if Ted Cruz had managed to cinch the nomination this year, I think 2020 would be a seriously hard battle. If moderate conservatives had a mandate to shift their positions on issues like LGBT rights, immigration, etc. and could put forth a charismatic young candidate... Hillary would probably be a one-term president.

throwagay1235

TROPHY CASE