• NBC: Clinton lead over Trump would more than double without Sanders in the race
    95 replies, posted
People are rooting for Trump because they are tired of politicians and want to have a real person to lead them for a change. Politicans are all talk and no action. No matter what they say, you can't trust them. They are bought and have [B]zero[/B] interest in serving the people. Donald Trump has been saying the same things and raising the same valid concerns for decades.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50429925][B]Donald Trump has been saying the same things and raising the same valid concerns for decades.[/B][/QUOTE] Ok I'll bite. Name one stance he's had that's been valid and not flipped flopped over to pander to people.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50429980]Ok I'll bite. Name one stance he's had that's been valid and not flipped flopped over to pander to people.[/QUOTE] That countries like Saudi Arabia should be paying the US for the protection it provides them. Not the other way around. That it should be just as easy for US companies to sell their products in countries like China/Japan as it is for them to sell products in the US. This means China not using dirty tactics like devaluing their currency. [editline]31st May 2016[/editline] [URL="http://youtu.be/A8wJc7vHcTs"]Watch Donald Trump videos from the 1980s[/URL] and see how eerily similar they are to Trump speeches today. He got so tired of politicians not fixing the issues with the country that he decided to run for president himself.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50429925]People are rooting for Trump because they are tired of politicians and want to have a real person to lead them for a change. Politicans are all talk and no action. No matter what they say, you can't trust them. They are bought and have [B]zero[/B] interest in serving the people. Donald Trump has been saying the same things and raising the same valid concerns for decades.[/QUOTE] Too bad people are very stupid and don't realize the ol' "I'm not a politician" trick is one of the oldest and easiest to pull off in the book.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50429521]If the media is misleading voters then yeah it does dude.[/QUOTE] Apparently you're able to see through it. There's no excuse for others not to.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50429925]People are rooting for Trump because they are tired of politicians and want to have a real person to lead them for a change. Politicans are all talk and no action. No matter what they say, you can't trust them. They are bought and have [B]zero[/B] interest in serving the people. Donald Trump has been saying the same things and raising the same valid concerns for decades.[/QUOTE] "Saying the same things for decades." Okay, fuck it, I'll bite. In 2000 he was pro-choice. In 2011 he was pro-life. In 1991 he said all drugs should be decriminalized. In 2011 he said to legalize all drugs to fund drug education. In November 2015 he opposed full marijuana legalization until further study was done. In 2000 he called for more support of Israel. In February 2016 he said not to take sides with Israel. In 2008 he said that the US needed to embrace globalization and international markets. In 2015 he said we needed to restrict free trade to protect US jobs. In 2000, he was in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban, background checks, and waiting periods. In 2011 he was against any form of gun control. In 2016 he said "no limits on guns." In 2000 he said we "must have universal healthcare." Now he's in favor of a competitive free market health insurance system. In 1999 he supported a one-time "wealth tax" to reduce the deficit and wanted higher taxes on assets over $10 million. In 2011 he supported the Bush tax cuts. In 2000 he called for the privatization of Social Security. In 2011, he spoke out against any modification of Social Security and has sworn in his campaign to protect it. In the 2000s, Trump called Hillary a "fantastic Senator" and called Jeb Bush "bright, tough, and principled." Now he's called Hillary "the worst Secretary of State in the history of our nation" and mocked Jeb to the point of absurdity. Very consistent. Same thing for [i]literally decades[/i]. Except those minor bits, you know. Definitely not all talk. He's so consistent and admirable, isn't he? Wow. Look at that consistency!
[QUOTE=Bleach Qeef;50427639]Am I the only guy in here actually rooting for Trump? Facepunch is incredibly liberal and sometimes I feel alone here.[/QUOTE] Probably because Trump's rhetoric is entirely regressive and jingoistic, although conservative rhetoric in general has been like that.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50429908]I think you have to be extremely mislead by social media and young-trending forums to think that the number of Sanders voters who will vote Clinton purely to stop a Trump presidency is less than 2/3. Most of Bernie's supporters are not hardline 'Bernie or Bust', they're Democrats and left-leaning independents who will support whoever the Democrats pick, plus a fair number of moderates who don't like Hillary but will take anyone else over Trump. I'm sure there will be a measurable percentage of Sanders voters who will not support Clinton. I'll be amongst them. I doubt we'll be anywhere close to the 30% they use as a working number, let alone whatever higher figure you seem to think would be more accurate.[/QUOTE] Eh you're probably right. I think when the chips are down most people will hold their nose and vote Clinton to stop Trump. But the DNC has been very unwelcoming to Sanders supporters. I think they just expect everyone to fall in line behind Hillary no matter what. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination (which seems likely unless an indictment happens) I am voting for Jill Stein.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50430149]Too bad people are very stupid and don't realize the ol' "I'm not a politician" trick is one of the oldest and easiest to pull off in the book.[/QUOTE] It's literally the first thing you'd learn if "How to be a populist piece of shit 101" was an actual class somewhere. Along with not using big words and coming up with nothing but buzzwords rather than policies.
.Isak., the hero Sensationalist Headlines needs, but not the one it deserves.
[QUOTE]Very consistent. Same thing for literally decades. Except those minor bits, you know. Definitely not all talk. He's so consistent and admirable, isn't he? Wow. Look at that consistency![/QUOTE] Face it Isak, without the likes of Trump you and your ideals would not have a reason to exist. Without opposition, the left would not have a purpose. To have Trump in office is to give the left a renewed sense of life, vigor and maybe in recent history, an actual threat to square off against.
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50433982]Face it Isak, without the likes of Trump you and your ideals would not have a reason to exist. Without opposition, the left would not have a purpose. To have Trump in office is to give the left a renewed sense of purpose and vigor and maybe in recent history, an actual threat to square off against.[/QUOTE] Vote Trump: Because without the darkness, there can be no light.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50434016]Vote Trump: Because without the darkness, there can be no light.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The left is anti establishment in nature and to its core. It has become the Establishment. Without an evil other to fight against, it becomes repressive, corrupt, listless and splinters. Without a devil to rally against, it schisms and then begins to cannibalize it self. So yeah, without the darkness there can be no light. If Trump would be as a big disaster in office as Isak claims, he would be the greatest boon to the left since forever. So stop worrying about him.
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50434031]Exactly. The left is anti establishment in nature and to its core. It has become the Establishment. Without an evil other to fight against, it becomes repressive, corrupt, listless and splinters. Without a devil to rally against, it schisms and then begins to cannibalize it self. So yeah, without the darkness there can be no light. If Trump would be as a big disaster in office as Isak claims, he would be the greatest boon to the left since forever. So stop worrying about him.[/QUOTE] You do realize you sorta have to suffer through that big disaster in the mean time and there's no evidence that any opposition or successor will be able to undo said disaster. "Great, the Dems will win 2020-2040. Too bad it'll only be over a broken country, eh?"
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50430251]"Saying the same things for decades." Okay, fuck it, I'll bite. In 2000 he was pro-choice. In 2011 he was pro-life. In 1991 he said all drugs should be decriminalized. In 2011 he said to legalize all drugs to fund drug education. In November 2015 he opposed full marijuana legalization until further study was done. In 2000 he called for more support of Israel. In February 2016 he said not to take sides with Israel. In 2008 he said that the US needed to embrace globalization and international markets. In 2015 he said we needed to restrict free trade to protect US jobs. In 2000, he was in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban, background checks, and waiting periods. In 2011 he was against any form of gun control. In 2016 he said "no limits on guns." In 2000 he said we "must have universal healthcare." Now he's in favor of a competitive free market health insurance system. In 1999 he supported a one-time "wealth tax" to reduce the deficit and wanted higher taxes on assets over $10 million. In 2011 he supported the Bush tax cuts. In 2000 he called for the privatization of Social Security. In 2011, he spoke out against any modification of Social Security and has sworn in his campaign to protect it. In the 2000s, Trump called Hillary a "fantastic Senator" and called Jeb Bush "bright, tough, and principled." Now he's called Hillary "the worst Secretary of State in the history of our nation" and mocked Jeb to the point of absurdity. Very consistent. Same thing for [i]literally decades[/i]. Except those minor bits, you know. Definitely not all talk. He's so consistent and admirable, isn't he? Wow. Look at that consistency![/QUOTE] Oh no! He changed his opinions on certain things over the course of decades! What a flip-flopper, he makes Hillary look legitimate! Face it - his opinion on all of this issues has been consistent for the last 5 years, at a minimum. Most of them, much longer. He is far and away more consistent than Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50423222]I trust news corps like NBC about as much as I do Fox News.[/QUOTE] NBC openly supports Clinton.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50434894]You do realize you sorta have to suffer through that big disaster in the mean time and there's no evidence that any opposition or successor will be able to undo said disaster. "Great, the Dems will win 2020-2040. Too bad it'll only be over a broken country, eh?"[/QUOTE] So called progressive policies were not enacted until after or during the WW2 era. During the great depression. You know, when things collapsed. Socialism in some styling didnt take rise in Western Europe until the end of WW2. It seemed great at helping people rebuild. Whenever there is a crisis, or a major disaster from a failure of government, the left is great at rebuilding or tearing down systems that have great weakness or severe failures to provide for all its citizens. When it lacks a great devil, becomes the establishment, it at the very least devolves into this: [video=youtube;VZSS_ya4SWo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZSS_ya4SWo[/video] So if Trump did destroy everything, it would provide the best chance for the perfect socialist Utopian future many here on FP dream about.
Exactly. If Trump is a disaster then you will get a blue house and senate full of real liberals/progressives. You will [B]never[/B] get this if Hillary wins. But if Trump turns out to be good then everyone will benefit.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50435543]Exactly. If Trump is a disaster then you will get a blue house and senate full of real liberals/progressives. You will [B]never[/B] get this if Hillary wins. But if Trump turns out to be good then everyone will benefit.[/QUOTE] Trump 2016: Clearing the way for a real progressive future.
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50435553]Trump 2016: Clearing the way for a real progressive future.[/QUOTE] Note the "if". That is the worst case scenario, you end up with progressives. Which isn't actually bad. But most likely he will be a good successful president and truly make America great again.
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50435094]So if Trump did destroy everything, it would provide the best chance for the perfect socialist Utopian future many here on FP dream about.[/QUOTE] no it wouldn't everything would be destroyed also why do we have to destroy everything to make a better world? what sort of fuckedup logic is that?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50435802]no it wouldn't everything would be destroyed also why do we have to destroy everything to make a better world? what sort of fuckedup logic is that?[/QUOTE] Creative destruction :^)
[QUOTE=orgornot;50435543]Exactly. If Trump is a disaster then you will get a blue house and senate full of real liberals/progressives. You will [B]never[/B] get this if Hillary wins. But if Trump turns out to be good then everyone will benefit.[/QUOTE] if anything he would completely fuck up the anti-establishment platform. how will any candidate be able to say "i'm willing to do what the establishment isn't" without the public thinking of that giant half-built $3 billion wall festering on the south side of the country? for years to come "anti-establishment" will mean "certifiably insane" because of people like Donald Trump
[QUOTE=Cone;50436046]if anything he would completely fuck up the anti-establishment platform. how will any candidate be able to say "i'm willing to do what the establishment isn't" without the public thinking of that giant half-built $3 billion wall festering on the south side of the country? for years to come "anti-establishment" will mean "certifiably insane" because of people like Donald Trump[/QUOTE] This is probably the most persuasive argument I've seen yet for voting against Trump, although I'm still not entirely convinced. Who's more dangerous to the progressive platform- the anti-establishment maniac, or the watered-down, fake-progressive corporatist? Either way, progressives lose...again.
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50435094]So called progressive policies were not enacted until after or during the WW2 era. During the great depression. You know, when things collapsed. Socialism in some styling didnt take rise in Western Europe until the end of WW2. It seemed great at helping people rebuild. [/QUOTE] So we need a decade of world wide poverty, people committing suicide because they can't find the money to feed their family, then follow up with a global war that killed millions upon millions of people? All for the sake of "progressive policies" to come about? Yeah, the 50s were totally worth all the suffering and destruction. You're looking at this with pure 'hindsight 20/20'. In the 30s, there was no evidence that anything would get them out of the Depression. There was no guarantee. In the early 40s, there was no evidence the Axis would lose. There was no guarantee. And so, there is nothing to guarantee the US would survive a catastrophe you're hoping for just for the sake of "more progressive policies" to happen. This is all taken on the belief that somehow hte US is in pretty bad shape as it is, and needs to be rebuilt. Which it doesn't. We have more freedoms than many, many countries in the world and we are one if, if not thee one, wealthiest nation on earth. Don't fall for the Trump bullshit that somehow America isn't great and he'll fix it. We never fell away from being great. Not to mention, the progressives in the US must be pretty shit if they need a proto-fascist like Trump in office JUST to look good and can't do it on their own merit.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50436571]Not to mention, the progressives in the US must be pretty shit if they need a proto-fascist like Trump in office JUST to look good and can't do it on their own merit.[/QUOTE] Whoa whoa whoa hold up a sec. You don't need to come in here talking shit about progressives or claiming we like Trump just for our own self-aggrandizement. True progressivism is based on empathy, so anyone who prays for a catastrophe to advance a political platform can't call themselves a progressive. Furthermore, for decades progressives have suffered defeat while their neo-liberal masters in congress hijack their platform and feed the public more of that "incremental change" crap. It's not the fault of progressives that the general public is too stupid to realize they're being lied to, or that the system itself marginalizes progressives for the sake of its own short-term survival.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50436701]Whoa whoa whoa hold up a sec. You don't need to come in here talking shit about progressives or claiming we like Trump just for our own self-aggrandizement. True progressivism is based on empathy, so anyone who prays for a catastrophe to advance a political platform can't call themselves a progressive. Furthermore, for decades progressives have suffered defeat while their neo-liberal masters in congress hijack their platform and feed the public more of that "incremental change" crap. It's not the fault of progressives that the general public is too stupid to realize they're being lied to, or that the system itself marginalizes progressives for the sake of its own short-term survival.[/QUOTE] That's not what I'm implying, it's what I'm inferring by Dayzofwinter's desire for the US to self destruct in hopes of some kind of progressive rebirth. Read closer before you get defensive about things.
And so you felt the need to make a generalized statement about progressives, based on the comment of one user? Again: [quote=Emperor Scorpious II][B]progressives in the US must be pretty shit if they need a proto-fascist like Trump in office JUST to look good[/B][/quote] What exactly was I not reading closely? That's quite the snap judgment. If you haven't already, I hope you will do some volunteering with progressives on a political campaign or something of the sort. You might get a very different impression of them.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50436561]This is probably the most persuasive argument I've seen yet for voting against Trump, although I'm still not entirely convinced. Who's more dangerous to the progressive platform- the anti-establishment maniac, or the watered-down, fake-progressive corporatist? Either way, progressives lose...again.[/QUOTE] Trump is worse because he's a sinkhole for [I]everyone's[/I] anti-establishment momentum - his, Bernie's, and the third party candidates' as well. in the likely event that he makes a mess of everything and no real reform happens in his first term, everyone gets disillusioned, the status quo suddenly seems a lot more sensible as the pressure on them is relieved, and people like Bernie are gonna have to spend half their campaign just divorcing themselves from people like Trump. you can already see the kind of name Bernie supporters have got in the media - they're painted like short-sighted, firebomb-happy anarchists. that'll only get worse ([I]far[/I] worse) if Trump gets elected. you see, even more than the candidate themselves, you need to think about what kind of political ground they'll leave behind. and while Clinton won't fix these things herself, i can guarantee you that she won't sabotage such efforts in the future. and it's a shame that American politics have reached a point where you have to metagame the system like this, but at least this road actually goes somewhere.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50436844]And so you felt the need to make a generalized statement about progressives, based on the comment of one user? Again: What exactly was I not reading closely? That's quite the snap judgment. If you haven't already, I hope you will do some volunteering with progressives on a political campaign or something of the sort. You might get a very different impression of them.[/QUOTE] Dayz implied that progressives can't get ahead unless the other side [Trump] looks so impossibly bad that they can make it into office. That implies that progressives can't get ahead on their own. Which is constructed from Dayz's stance. Why can't you understand me putting his thoughts into words =/= my own opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.