Yeah, it kinda does. I don’t really give a shit how “complex their reasons” are-- if they’re voting for a racist, bigoted, xenophobe, then they have a hand in promoting that in the world. They don’t get to hand wave away their culpability in that just because they’re white and have the privilege of none of his shitty beliefs affecting them negatively.
[quote=“Mister44, post:114, topic:85071”]
How many people have Anti-Muslim attitudes because of the actions some small factions? [/quote]
This is a bullshit false equivalence and you know it. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who have nothing to do with terrorism, living their lives quietly like the rest of us. We’re talking about Trump supporters being held accountable for their actions - supporting and voting for a racist, bigoted, xenophobe.
Because it’s not obvious? Three million more people voted for Clinton over Sanders. She simply had more name recognition and support from her husband’s Presidency. You’re the one whining about how the country owes Sanders the presidency. Clinton is out there working her ass off to win it so the rest of us doing have a Cheeto penis as president.
Really, distilled down, “it’s so obvious” is just you ego stroking yourself for being so smart about something that you can never actually prove. No one can accurately predict how Sanders would’ve done against Trump. No one. Not in any regular election year (see also: Mondale) but especially not in a year against Trump, who defies all predictions and polls and punditry.
Not to mention Martin O’Malley, who’s a cheap Clinton substitute, or Lincoln Chafee, whom I forgot even existed.
I do believe Bernie Sanders would have had an easier time against Trump, though. Preliminary polls for Trump vs Sanders were worse for Trump than the same polls for Trump vs Clinton. Also, Trump gets much of his support by claiming to be anti-establishment. If an actual anti-establishment candidate runs, Trump can kiss that support goodbye.
I’m not saying Sanders would beat Trump with no problems in the general election, but I believe it would have been easier for him than for Clinton.
The DNC didn’t exactly make it fair for Sanders with the back stage shenanigans.
Also remember, primaries have much lower turn out than general elections. Only people registered as that party can vote in them. General elections aren’t one by hard line party voters. They are one by the majority of middle of the road people/independents.
So by that logic, Clinton voters are voting a pro corruption, nepotism, corporate power in government, political scandals, questionable ethics, being a jerk to people, and all the other negative traits that is the reason Clinton isn’t winning by a landslide?
No it isn’t. It is the same “us vs them” mentality. There are a lot of fundamentalist Muslims who aren’t terrorists, who still follow all the sexists, anti-Semitic, anti-infidel rules and teachings. Who are xenophobic toward not only non-Muslims, but Muslims who are a different sect. But there are many who don’t have those views.
But just like you, there are many people who “…don’t really give a shit how ‘complex their reasons’ are…” for believing in what they believe or how it differs from other Muslims.
The polls in question were Clinton vs Trump compared to Sanders vs Trump. So far the polls for Clinton vs Trump look dead on.
Clinton was a poor choice in as much as the DNC “choose” and altered the outcome of the primary. Clinton is and has been a bought candidate and this is why her support in a give-away election is so poor. The Democrats are suffering the fall out of “installing” their candidate. They deserve it. We don’t.
There is some actual, verifiable racism among some Trump supporters:
We are not making this up. He’s got verifiable white power supporters. It’s not in our imaginations. David Duke is not a sprite, he’s a real human being who believes in white supremacy. And he supports Trump.
So, no, not all of Trumps supporters are racist. Duh. But he is getting the white power vote. I don’t know what we do about that other than call that shit out and show it for what it is. If that makes me a “bad guy,” then I guess I’m going to hell.
What backstage shenanigans? A legitimate question. The only thing I saw from the DNC hack was some lower level staffers not exactly on board with Sanders suddenly becoming a Democrat and throwing around some less than supportive emails about that. Did you think that affected the vote enough to cost him 3 million votes? I don’t think so, but if you want to make a compelling case, I’m all ears.
What corruption? Serious question. Because she’s withstood 25 years of Right Wing attacks and so eventually people just assume this is true because they’ve tried to paint her with that brush so many times, but there’s very little “there” there. Example: the supposed corruption about Clinton Foundation influence. They found no evidence that the donating to the Foundation led to any policy changes or favors. And it’s has an “A” rating from Charity Watch. And it’s provided AIDs medicine to Africans. The email scandal is a politically motivated attack when Colin Powell did the same, as well as giving her tips on how to run her server. And so on.
Yup. I wish we didn’t have political dynasties in this country. Not sure how to combat that since there is no Constitutional limit.
-corporate power in government
Yes, but we need to get Citizens United overturned.
You blaming her for Bill getting his dick sucked? GTFO with that nonsense.
This is an easy thing to say without backing it up. What are you talking about specifically? I think she was late to recognize gay marriage and the “super predators” thing was a huge mistake.
-being a jerk to people
You’re adorable. Welcome to politics.
Still, she’s not a racist, bigoted, xenophobe, so she’s got that going for her, which is nice.
Sorry, it is. If they go to a rally for a terrorist or donate money to terrorism or put a “kill all the infidels” bumper sticker on their car, then call me.
She had the responsibility to investigate the administration’s claims before voting for the war. I had no such responsibility, but I read the Powell presentation in detail, and recognized that the photos included didn’t show the new construction they were supposed to show, so I could figure out that the administration’s claims weren’t entirely honest.
An engineer shouldn’t sign off on a new dam without checking out the plans. It doesn’t matter if the politicians say its good. It doesn’t matter if the public says its good. It’s the responsibility of that engineer to check out the plans.
A politician shouldn’t vote for a new war without checking out the casus belli.
If that’s a purity standard, well, maximum lead levels in municipal water supplies, and minimum ph levels, are also purity standards.
i quote myself from earlier in this thread[quote=“navarro, post:24, topic:85071”]
there is no way of truly comparing trump and clinton as candidates or as politicians. it’s not even so much an apples to oranges comparison as much as it is an apples to burning deep sea oil rigs comparison. this election is a choice between a very cautious, utterly conventional democratic candidate and a demagogic, careless, completely abnormal candidate who, while he might represent the most ugly racist streak inherent in the party of cruelty the present day republican party has become, goes so far beyond the norms they have left standing that it is truly breathtaking.
i realize you and i are going to disagree on certain fundamentals, the second amendment for one, and you can provide whatever texture you want to your reality, i put up with the same kind of thing from popobawa4u in 4 out of 5 threads they post in, but your casual dismissal of clinton as corrupt without reckoning with the context of 30 years of unverified or disproven sleaze that has been dumped on her and her husband by a calculating yet reckless group of rightwing billionaires is remiss and you should seriously check your premises before you make your conclusions out loud.