- 03 Feb 2019 19:27
#14985546
The US system isn't inherently undemocratic. Rather, it seeks to address the need for representation of smaller states and less populous polities. Personally, I don't think Clinton won by nearly that much, because voter fraud is so rampant in places like California that it can hardly be called a democracy itself. On the contrary, Trump won 2,626 US counties compared to 487 counties for Hillary Clinton. Dense population centers voted for her, but rural and many suburban areas did not. She did not have anywhere near as widespread support as Trump as evidenced by Trump rallies, versus Clinton rallies.
The illegal alien issue was a significant part of it, but I started the "Trump calls it like it is; the establishment can't take it" thread a few days after his announcement when he started talking about trade. That's when it was clear to me that he was going to be around for awhile and a significant voice at the very least. His efforts were speaking directly to blue collar working class voters--usually the bedrock of leftist politics. So it seems odd to me that you refer to the people that typically comprise the left as hooting morons.
That is generally true in population centers where Hillary Clinton won, except among devout Catholic voters. The mainline protestant denominations do not seem to believe in anything related to Christianity, but rather putting some ecclesiastical polish and an ecumenical applicability to modern social mores mostly emanating out of the Democratic party and media with acquiescence from establishment Republicans. Hence, women pastors preaching that homosexuality is okay to mostly empty churches in once packed Protestant denominations. On the contrary, the mega churches are devout, packed and vote their values. Keep in mind, the real reason the media reacted to the Covington High School boys is that they were Catholic, anti-abortion (their purpose for being in Washington) and Trump supporters. They are not yet voters, but it illustrates the devotion of religious groups to the anti-abortion message. That is why I say those people are already essentially in the bag for Trump. He has to continue to win blue collar voters, where some Democrats seem to want to compete.
Those are areas again where state-run or state sponsored businesses make money. Some poor black kid in an urban ghetto who violates gun control laws and drug laws ends up in a prison, where prison guards (labor unions; hence Democrat) and the prison industry (private industry, usually Republican) make money on someone who probably won't become a valuable tax payer. Private industry also profits handsomely from a vast military budget. What some Democrats are proposing involves essentially outlawing private insurance businesses, which will likely meet with strong resistance from monied interests and already insured middle class populations.
Schultz's former employees are all working class hourly workers, yet he provided them with private health insurance--unlike McDonald's for example. So he may speak into the listening of blue collar voters, while the Democrats are talking about an absolutely massive healthcare undertaking after having more or less failed with ObamaCare and promoting radical abortion platforms that horrify evangelical and Catholic (including illegal aliens from Central America) voters. They have to be banking on strong antipathy for Trump, while Schultz could act as a voice of reason and split the baby so to speak. We'll see how that plays out.
Red_Army wrote:I should have made it more explicit that Clinton lost the election (even though she won 3 million more votes than Trump because Republican gerrymandering and the electoral college system is undemocratic) because she was a terrible candidate.
The US system isn't inherently undemocratic. Rather, it seeks to address the need for representation of smaller states and less populous polities. Personally, I don't think Clinton won by nearly that much, because voter fraud is so rampant in places like California that it can hardly be called a democracy itself. On the contrary, Trump won 2,626 US counties compared to 487 counties for Hillary Clinton. Dense population centers voted for her, but rural and many suburban areas did not. She did not have anywhere near as widespread support as Trump as evidenced by Trump rallies, versus Clinton rallies.
Red_Army wrote:I was just trying to explain why Trump won the primary and galvanized the hooting morons.
The illegal alien issue was a significant part of it, but I started the "Trump calls it like it is; the establishment can't take it" thread a few days after his announcement when he started talking about trade. That's when it was clear to me that he was going to be around for awhile and a significant voice at the very least. His efforts were speaking directly to blue collar working class voters--usually the bedrock of leftist politics. So it seems odd to me that you refer to the people that typically comprise the left as hooting morons.
Red_Army wrote:The late-term abortion shit might be important to you, but I doubt it matters to most people.
That is generally true in population centers where Hillary Clinton won, except among devout Catholic voters. The mainline protestant denominations do not seem to believe in anything related to Christianity, but rather putting some ecclesiastical polish and an ecumenical applicability to modern social mores mostly emanating out of the Democratic party and media with acquiescence from establishment Republicans. Hence, women pastors preaching that homosexuality is okay to mostly empty churches in once packed Protestant denominations. On the contrary, the mega churches are devout, packed and vote their values. Keep in mind, the real reason the media reacted to the Covington High School boys is that they were Catholic, anti-abortion (their purpose for being in Washington) and Trump supporters. They are not yet voters, but it illustrates the devotion of religious groups to the anti-abortion message. That is why I say those people are already essentially in the bag for Trump. He has to continue to win blue collar voters, where some Democrats seem to want to compete.
Red_Army wrote:Doesn't seem to be an issue with criminalization of bullshit and endless war.
Those are areas again where state-run or state sponsored businesses make money. Some poor black kid in an urban ghetto who violates gun control laws and drug laws ends up in a prison, where prison guards (labor unions; hence Democrat) and the prison industry (private industry, usually Republican) make money on someone who probably won't become a valuable tax payer. Private industry also profits handsomely from a vast military budget. What some Democrats are proposing involves essentially outlawing private insurance businesses, which will likely meet with strong resistance from monied interests and already insured middle class populations.
Schultz's former employees are all working class hourly workers, yet he provided them with private health insurance--unlike McDonald's for example. So he may speak into the listening of blue collar voters, while the Democrats are talking about an absolutely massive healthcare undertaking after having more or less failed with ObamaCare and promoting radical abortion platforms that horrify evangelical and Catholic (including illegal aliens from Central America) voters. They have to be banking on strong antipathy for Trump, while Schultz could act as a voice of reason and split the baby so to speak. We'll see how that plays out.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden
Maybe your political orientation is a latent sexual desire for white women... ever been introspective enough to consider that possibility?
- By FiveofSwords
- By late
- By Puffer Fish