From my Canadian perspective the guy is a total scumbag a big mouth knowitall on par with a used car salesman with no political expertise whatsoever, All my friends and other people i've talked to think he's a total ahole, how is he garnering the support of so many? has America lost its mind?
America has long since lost its mind. Ever since the 1980's when they were all conned into believing 'trickle down' economics.
I have a nephew and niece that are American. I don't want to insult them. But Americans are dumb. They are uninformed and blissfully ignorant. They are selfish,incompassionate and unable to empathize with anything or anyone.
Hence,Trump is America's candidate. They can relate to his ignorance and they celebrate it.
Quite honestly,I think the West Coast,especially California,should seperate. As a matter of fact,California's GDP is among the highest in the world. They could easily go it alone.
For starters, a not insignificant number of Republicans would vote for any Republican candidate before voting Democrat, regardless of that candidate or their merits, or their lack of merits.
As to those who *might* have been swing voters, I think there's a popular sense that Trump is kind of a Hollywood action hero or something. To wit:
1. He plays by his OWN rules
2. Authority and the establishment can kiss his ass; he has a JOB to do
3. Sure, his methods might seem coarse and unconventional, but what do you want? A crime-free Gotham, or everyone drinking tea with their pinky out while the terrorists burn our nursery schools?
4. He speaks his mind. And it had to be said. Nobody else has the courage to say it. They hide behind excuses like "that's not actually accurate" or "WTF??"
5. His arch villain is a castrating old crone with a mental illness, an e-mail server, a uterus, less than six months to live, and a war-criminal husband
5. His arch villain is a castrating old crone with a mental illness, an e-mail server, a uterus, less than six months to live, and a war-criminal husband
Isnt this kind of rhetoric the expected product of a cleaverly manufactured smear campaign and character assasination from the Trump campaign? a campaign tactic that was designed to ellicite just such a viewpoint toward his competitor to detract from the very vacuous nature of Trump himself...
Isnt this kind of rhetoric the expected product of a cleaverly manufactured smear campaign and character assasination from the Trump campaign?
Absolutely. Or, the principled left. Haven't you read anything at all at babble about Hillary's terminal illness??
But at any rate, items 1-5 above weren't me speaking my own opinion; just me suggesting, from a Trump supporter's point of view, what they're supporting. So, a bit of conjecture to try to answer your question.
I'm new on the forum and not familiar with some aspects of the forum,like is lt orientated left or right,American or Canadian based .
As for what i hear about Hillary it all seems like over the top Right wing psychobable to me
Left and Canadian, though some would say "faux" left and Canadian. But Canadian for sure.
I'm new on the forum and not familiar with some aspects of the forum,like is lt orientated left or right,American or Canadian based .
Since you asked this question you probably missed the policy page. Welcome to our raucous community where everyone has a viewpoint.
What is rabble.ca?
rabble.ca is a public, independent, progressive news and information source. In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.
babble: discussion board
As part of rabble.ca, babble was created to ensure that readers and participants could explore a wide range of issues of interest and concern in interactive and dynamic ways.
babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.
http://rabble.ca/about/babblepolicy
Right about the psychobabble though.
And of course it's the school where everyone who says they are for seeing the evil empire crashing and burning is supposedly on "the left".
Thanks all for the info. I hope to fit in to the group .
Beyond the basic principles laid out by Krop, above, don't get too hung up n the whole "fitting in" bit. By definition, Babblers are all pretty much misfits of one sort or another.
And as someone once said, "Be who you are and say what you feel. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.”
5. His arch villain is a castrating old crone with a mental illness, an e-mail server, a uterus, less than six months to live, and a war-criminal husband
Isnt this kind of rhetoric the expected product of a cleaverly manufactured smear campaign and character assasination from the Trump campaign? a campaign tactic that was designed to ellicite just such a viewpoint toward his competitor to detract from the very vacuous nature of Trump himself...
That rhetoric could have come straight from Global Research. Minus the "uterus" part, of course
I'm somewhat ambivilant about Hillary but think she looks pretty good for some one close to 70,
she has an impressive array of qualifications,
http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-acc...
stood cool calm and collected through 7 or 8 inquisitions the last one spanning 11 hours
and the email business is just another strawman from a desperate rightwing evidenced by this video=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdok3aOoupk
I dont get the hate for her and the love for Trump, maybe the water is different up here in Montreal .lol
Not so sure about things being different up here. Check out this Globe piece. The video that goes with it could run as an ad for Trump if it wasn'e being published for free and circulated on Facebook.
There is no challenging of their ideas, no alternative viewpoints, no analysis of how his platform compares to their expectations of him.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trumpland-how-this...
The Globe and Mail isn't the only mainstream Canadian publication shilling for Trump. Here is some American commentary on an article in Maclean's.
Not so sure about things being different up here. Check out this Globe piece. The video that goes with it could run as an ad for Trump if it wasn'e being published for free and circulated on Facebook.There is no challenging of their ideas, no alternative viewpoints, no analysis of how his platform compares to their expectations of him.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trumpland-how-this...
Especially the smugness of those who look down on Americans for being dumb enough to vote for Trump when 3 in 10 of us voted for a party that ran on a blatantly racist platform last year.
When Donald Meets Hillary - the debate and Trump's tactics and vulnerability:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/
I guess that if you want to know what Trump supporters see in Trump, you could go to a Trump friendly community and ask there. Most likely the closest you will find here to a Trump supporter is some disaffected Sanders supporters who don't like Hillary Clinton.
I participate on a rather large rightwing forum and for Trump supporters he seems to be the mesiah ,he can do no wrong they will vote for him no matter how incompetant he may appear.I guess that if you want to know what Trump supporters see in Trump, you could go to a Trump friendly community and ask there. Most likely the closest you will find here to a Trump supporter is some disaffected Sanders supporters who don't like Hillary Clinton.
Hillary may shred him in upcoming debates and they'll still adore him and hate Hillary.It defies logic.
Michael Moore has a good article on how Trump will win=
I agree 100% with anything you've said (although I didn't read the Michael Moore piece). However, to be fair, if you swap the instances of Trump with Hillary (and the he's and she's) and rightwing to leftwing, you'll have an equally accurate sentence in reverse.
There are many right-wing sycophants who adore Trump regardless of any possible evidence that shows Trump's flaws. But this is not a condition unique to the right, the left does the same thing with Hillary.
Both sides believe every good thing about their candidate and refuse to accept anything bad about their candidate, and do the reverse for the opponent. This is why swing voters and independants are the most important voting group.
So, I guess, I can answer your original question. Imagine hypothetically speaking that every good thing you've ever heard about Trump was true. Imagine everything bad you've heard about him was not just untrue, but proof of media corruption and bias. Imagine every bad thing you've ever heard about Clinton was true, and everything good you've ever heard about Clinton was false (more MSM lies). Through that perverse worldview, how could one not support Trump?
Now, reverse exactly the above and through that equally perverse worldview, how could one not support Clinton?
In reality, the election will be decided by those who fit into neither camp. Those who look at the overall set of information from as many sources as possible, judge for themselves the quality of the evidence under consideration of the bias of those presenting the evidence, and recognize that both candidates have some (at least a few) good qualities and some (probably quite a lot) bad qualities, and weigh those qualities to find out who is "better" or, in this case, "less bad."
While your logic is sound Cody it presupposes that Trump supporters are just like Hillary supporters, from my experience the Hillary supporters are a saner bunch on the whole than Trumps legions who seem to be the same bunch that have been frothing at the mouth with hate venom and vitriol toward Obama for the last 8 years.
Clinton is the least liked and least trusted candidate the Dems have run since they started tracking those numbers.
Sure, she's clearly better than Trump, and attacks on her are overzealous. But wide dislike and distrust of Clinton can be demonstrated pretty objectively.
She is definitely not liked but i wonder if that isnt the result of a two year smear campaign and character assassination of baseless allegations from the Trump camp.Clinton is the least liked and least trusted candidate the Dems have run since they started tracking those numbers.
Sure, she's clearly better than Trump, and attacks on her are overzealous. But wide dislike and distrust of Clinton can be demonstrated pretty objectively.
There is a chart on this page which shows HRC's popularity from around 1990 to May 19, 2015. It shows clearly that she was always above 50% popularity during her term as Secretary of State, reaching a high of 66% in November, 2009. Once she started running for president the serious ratfucking began from the Republicans, especially regarding Benghazi, and her popularity has declined ever since. This is the triumph of propaganda over reality.
I thought after the debate Hillary would have pulled substantially ahead of TRump,particularly after his poor showing at that debate,appears the opposite has happened and its Trump pulling ahead. I dont get how much of America sees this guy as their saviour ,hes all mouth with no tact diplomacy or experience whatsoever yet much of America is ok with handing over control of the world to this dumbass..
I'm starting to think theres something in the water down in the US as a certain segment of their society has gone mad..
Trump has not pulled ahead according to any credible poll.
No, he hasn't. But the only poll that counts is the one on election day. I am looking at Gary Johnson's current 8 percent with concern, and also thinking about who is going to be motivated enough to vote, and who is going to be prevented from doing so. Especially in Florida.
As for what so many see in Trump, forget the right wing crackers, teapartiers and goofballs. Maybe we should ask Julian Assange, or the rest of the crew within our own ranks who are laying into Hillary, and going soft on Trump because they think he'll pull out of NATO, rip up NAFTA, and so on.
I thought after the debate Hillary would have pulled substantially ahead of TRump,particularly after his poor showing at that debate,appears the opposite has happened and its Trump pulling ahead. I dont get how much of America sees this guy as their saviour ,hes all mouth with no tact diplomacy or experience whatsoever yet much of America is ok with handing over control of the world to this dumbass..
I'm starting to think theres something in the water down in the US as a certain segment of their society has gone mad..
Wrong. He's fallen further further behind.
Here is a link to 25 Logical Reasons for Voting for Trump.
http://25logicalreasonstovotefordonaldtrump.com/
Charlie Pierce reports on a Trump speech in Bedford, New Hampshire.
Whether he's hired new speechwriters, or his staff simply has found the right dosage, El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago is dealing out the real thing there—true, classic America First populism. The soaring skyscrapers and gleaming airliners of the mind. The New Jerusalem, which the earliest white American immigrants believed they had crossed the ocean to build on this continent, and which succeeding generations have worked and strived to build within themselves.Is it all a charlatan's boast? Of course, it is. He can't do any of that stuff if he's also going to ram even more wealth upwards with his preposterous economic program. But he's selling a dream here, and not a con. Is it a narcotic vision bound to fall short of grubby reality? Of course it is. It almost always does. But, for the first time since I've been listening to him, Trump has stumbled into a rich vein of American political history and a rich vein of American political bunkum, both of which have sustained the other ever since the nation was founded.
The LA Times has pretty much always shown Trump ahead.
Lots being said about the LA Times poll showing Trump moving ahead significantly:
Two important things:
1) It uses a single tracking sample of 3000 people -- declines as some drop out. This sample has been criticized as overly Republican to start with. The Poll also weights supporters based on how people report they voted. People lie.
Still since it tracks change this is not the most serious. The second issue is:
2) The poll does not use a preference question so much as a weighted percentage of voting. This means if 10 people say Clinton at 90% and 10 say Trump at 100% you would assume 50% Clinton and 50% Trump as 90% is quite firm. The poll would report 47% Clinton vs 53% Trump. In other words it is measureing the enthusiasm of the Trump supporters not just realistic differences in how someone may vote. Trump demonizes his opponents so there is little chance anyone would consider him at much less than 100%. Many of Clinton's supporters are not enthusiastic about her but are voting to oppose Trump so may consider by small percentages the small second teir candidates or at least be open to hear them.
Trump is the more polarizing figure and more likely to get a higher percentage in a poll like this than Clinton, whose supporters may be consdiering small possibilities regarding how they may vote. It is incorrect to assume that 10% of 100 people who say they are 90% likely to vote for Clinton will not do so (as an example).
I'll be blunt here -- my impression of Trump supporters are that they are generally a little less sophisticated and more prone to absolutes.
This weighting of preferences that are already very high (enough to be counted) is enough to skew a poll by up to 10%. Add the weighted sample and you could see a swing of 20%.
The poll is shockingly flawed.
The LA Times has pretty much always shown Trump ahead.
Yes but some people might want to know the specific reasons how they do that.
It is also warning to review methodology when looking at a poll.
I know Sean. It is the "moving ahead significantly" I am refering to.
Americans distrust the MSM to a great degree. It's a new phenomenon. And the MSM, overwhelmingly, echoes the MIC and Wall Street in arguing that HRC is the preferred candidate.This also explains some of the Russophobia, hostility to other media like RT, etc.
No one likes to be told how to vote. So that's number one.
Number two is that, despite Trump's odious remarks and policies (racism, xenophobia, etc.), his foreign policy puts him at a distance from the consensus of Wall Street and the military. [Not one of the top Fortune 100 CEO's support Trump. And you can already see prospective Clinton staffers barking out what they think Clinton wants to hear, e.g., with the 50 diplomats who, shockingly, rejected President Obama's policy and called for bombing Syria.] There is simply no forgiving this.
Number 3. As others have remarked, he has the Republican nomination, so there are plenty that will support him for this reason alone.
This US election has two of the most awful, hateful, hated candidates in decades.
My own view is that the US regime is very much like a runaway train. And, using that analogy, the President is a hood ornament. The horrific impact of this runaway juggernaut seems more and more likely. Others, e.g., Russia and China, seem to be preparing for the worst. Can't say I blame them.
If a "reluctant" Clinton supporter could explain how she is not the preferred candidate of the MIC and Wall Street, how her policies are not being represented by a insubordinate Pentagon ALREADY (see Syria), how she is not more likely to start WW3, then I'm all ears.
I know Sean. It is the "moving ahead significantly" I am refering to.
And that is the report-- poll shows 47-41 gap so while the poll is wrong, as I have said, this is a fair representation of what the poll is claiming.
I addressed the fact that there is a built in bias -- but the poll shows it is growing. According to the poll they were tied on September 12 but Trump has lead of 6 points now. How on earth can you say this is not moving ahead significantly?
The LA Times thing is not a random sample poll, i.e, it is not a poll. It is a set panel of participants. A focus group if you will.
If a "reluctant" Clinton supporter could explain how she is not the preferred candidate of the MIC and Wall Street, how her policies are not being represented by a insubordinate Pentagon ALREADY (see Syria), how she is not more likely to start WW3, then I'm all ears.
Here's something from someone who hates Clinton:
Trump: The Fascist “Anti-Imperialist”
In the unending search for the most imbecilic political logic, one comes across that rare breed of obtuse ignoramus who suggests that Trump is the anti-imperialist’s choice. If that word has any meaning left today – something that is very much open for debate given recent developments – its application to Donald Trump is about as appropriate as referring to Clinton as the anti-fascist’s choice.
Trump doesn’t mean no more imperial wars; he simply means no more pretending our wars aren’t imperial. He’s not for ending the wars, but rather fighting them with the nakedly neo-colonial intentions made overt that Clinton would only secretly share over candlelit dinners with Huma Abedin, Madeleine Albright, and Mephistopheles. With people like Walid Phares, Michael Flynn, and Keith Kellogg as advisers, Trump will retain a pro-Israel imperial policy in the Middle East while advocating for NATO’s expanded mission of counter-terrorism. Oh, excuse me, Trump wants Denmark to pay “it’s fair share” of NATO costs – pardon me while I release to the heavens a flight of doves in his honor.
What anti-imperialist isn’t enamored with a candidate who calls for a full military invasion of Syria and Iraq? And, of course, there’s no connection whatever between imperialism, colonialism and white supremacy, right? Trump can spout the most virulently racist filth heard in US politics since George Wallace and Barry Goldwater went on a Tinder date to the Old Ebbitt Grill, and yet these anti-imperial mannequins swear up and down that Trump is an enemy of the Empire. Even his complimentary reach-around to Bibi Netanyahuisn’t enough to shake the cobwebs from the faux anti-imperial noodleheads of the commentariat. Sigh.
The LA Times thing is not a random sample poll, i.e, it is not a poll. It is a set panel of participants. A focus group if you will.
It is a poll not a focus group even though the sample is the same. A focus group is a discussion -- there is no discussion and it is conducted like any other poll. I have been involved in common sample tracking polls before -- they are still polls.
The problem here is that the sample is biased and the methodology of weighting percentages of likelihood to vote is more than a little suspect.
If a "reluctant" Clinton supporter could explain how she is not the preferred candidate of the MIC and Wall Street, how her policies are not being represented by a insubordinate Pentagon ALREADY (see Syria), how she is not more likely to start WW3, then I'm all ears.
Here's something from someone who hates Clinton:
Trump: The Fascist “Anti-Imperialist”
In the unending search for the most imbecilic political logic, one comes across that rare breed of obtuse ignoramus who suggests that Trump is the anti-imperialist’s choice. If that word has any meaning left today – something that is very much open for debate given recent developments – its application to Donald Trump is about as appropriate as referring to Clinton as the anti-fascist’s choice.
Trump doesn’t mean no more imperial wars; he simply means no more pretending our wars aren’t imperial. He’s not for ending the wars, but rather fighting them with the nakedly neo-colonial intentions made overt that Clinton would only secretly share over candlelit dinners with Huma Abedin, Madeleine Albright, and Mephistopheles. With people like Walid Phares, Michael Flynn, and Keith Kellogg as advisers, Trump will retain a pro-Israel imperial policy in the Middle East while advocating for NATO’s expanded mission of counter-terrorism. Oh, excuse me, Trump wants Denmark to pay “it’s fair share” of NATO costs – pardon me while I release to the heavens a flight of doves in his honor.
What anti-imperialist isn’t enamored with a candidate who calls for a full military invasion of Syria and Iraq? And, of course, there’s no connection whatever between imperialism, colonialism and white supremacy, right? Trump can spout the most virulently racist filth heard in US politics since George Wallace and Barry Goldwater went on a Tinder date to the Old Ebbitt Grill, and yet these anti-imperial mannequins swear up and down that Trump is an enemy of the Empire. Even his complimentary reach-around to Bibi Netanyahuisn’t enough to shake the cobwebs from the faux anti-imperial noodleheads of the commentariat. Sigh.
Important to note but not in the quote is the fact that Trump stated that the big Democrat blunder allowing for ISIS was not to have occupied the oil fields and just stolen ALL the oil.
Here's something from someone who hates Clinton ...
Are you too embarrassed to name the source?
In any case, this does not address the overwhelming support of the Pentagon, Wall Street, and the MIC generally for Clinton; if Trump is as bad as Clinton in terms of foreign policy, why the opposition and/or lack of support to Trump from the above? The elites always hedge their bets and make sure that they always win, however the public votes. And I'm not seeing that; there is a real, long-lasting unanimity from the MSM and the institutions named for their chosen candidate.
We can all cherry pick quotations. The positioning by the State Department staffers was significant. I don't see any Trump supporters inside or outside the current Obama regime positioning themselves for a job in the next US war.
Here's a better evisceration of Trump from Canadian Linda McQuaig.
However, if McQuaig thinks Clinton won't impose the very neo-liberal atrocities that she mocks in Trump, then she's dreaming in technicolour. They're both posing for the camera; one is a better liar than the other.
Hood ornament. Freight train. The only remedy to either of these two is millions of people in motion against both of them. Not this damn sideshow.
Here's something from someone who hates Clinton ...Are you too embarrassed to name the source?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/stop-trump-stop-clinton-stop-the-...
Not so sure about things being different up here. Check out this Globe piece. The video that goes with it could run as an ad for Trump if it wasn'e being published for free and circulated on Facebook.
There is no challenging of their ideas, no alternative viewpoints, no analysis of how his platform compares to their expectations of him.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trumpland-how-this...
I thought that was interesting, actually. Just seems to me that things are not going well for people in that video, and they want change. If anything, it indicates that the Democrats should have went with Sanders rather than Clinton. Regardless, I don't think Trump has a hope in hell to win the race. He's pissed off both the Black and Latino vote, and won't be able to make up for that.
As for what so many see in Trump, forget the right wing crackers, teapartiers and goofballs. Maybe we should ask Julian Assange, or the rest of the crew within our own ranks who are laying into Hillary, and going soft on Trump because they think he'll pull out of NATO, rip up NAFTA, and so on.
I sort of wonder whether everyone simply recognizes that voting for Hillary won't actually send any kind of message to the Tea Party, or at any rate not one they could understand or would act on. But voting for Trump might send a message to the Democrats.
But Assange's pro bono assistance to the Trump campaign remains a bit of a mystery. I hope Trump at least sends the guy a free hat.
The LA Times thing is not a random sample poll, i.e, it is not a poll. It is a set panel of participants. A focus group if you will.
It is a poll not a focus group even though the sample is the same. A focus group is a discussion -- there is no discussion and it is conducted like any other poll. I have been involved in common sample tracking polls before -- they are still polls.
The problem here is that the sample is biased and the methodology of weighting percentages of likelihood to vote is more than a little suspect.
But Assange's pro bono assistance to the Trump campaign remains a bit of a mystery.
Quid pro quo? It would help him a lot with President Trump in his corner.
I thought that was interesting, actually.
I thought it was interesting too, but it was just an advertisement.
There is no balance, and no squaring of their expectations with reality. Because of that, many are going to watch it and simply take it as the truth without thinking about what is left out.
And @ Magoo
I don't think Democrats voting for Hillary is going to send a message to teapartiers. But Republicans voting for her sure is.
And I see no mystery in Assange's actions at all. He said quite clearly what he is in it for. It would be nice if those who honestly think what he is doing is journalistic or progressive could see that.
Wouldn't President Clinton also be an asset? Or heck, even President Stein?
If he hit the warpath for both Clinton and Trump, in support of Stein, we might be able to tell ourselves that he's doing a progressive thing, even if it's tilting at windmills.
But helping Trump? Whatever axe he's grinding, it must be one hell of an axe.
