[Maru]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I'll look at your links a bit later in the day when I have more time Maru as I have to get off now...but wasn't it Reddit also that were asking for people to share the vid with Hilary's 'rapist enabler', slanted in editing video in the other thread..?..

There are a few groups at different sites, though Reddit is maybe the most popular. The Reddit article has statistics and its just amazing how much it's pickIng up.

I guess another question would be... without the internet would a Trump candidacy even be possible... the media held the narrative with lock and key. It took numbers to get ideas and more pressure than it was probably worth to spread... now it only takes a few clicks and a willing botnet.

For me, the tension in the US became obvious after 911 but since that coincided with the rise of the net, I guess it could also be that we are all exposed to increasingly oppressive rhetoric in larger doses. Some Americans become very sensitive when they feel their version of the nation's self-image is being attacked and under siege by what they consider to be a toxic force imposing on their idealist visions for the US. Once you put someone into a defensive posture, it's very difficult to get them to come down from their position... especially on the net of all places. We all generally live in a filter bubble thanks to click baity social media algorhythms, tailored search results via Google and now an army of propaganda pushers.

It is incredibly difficult to get through all that noise to try to find a voter who is receptive to such messaging without playing to their deepest emotional sensivities. It's probably much easier to just talk to voters in person to level with them on how their views are contributing to the sexism, etc than over the net where most content served to them is meant to coddle them and cater to their views, not differ from them and challenge them.

[bots]

if you watch the American comedy shows, any of the topical shows, they are all ridiculing Trump for all its worth, some are even dedicating 50%+ of their shows to it. They are so one sided and bias in their condemnation, its shocking.

Both Hilary and Donald are dreadful candidates, but the establishment machine is working at 200% to sway the vote for their preferred choice. Is that really a democracy to use as an example to others?

I don't care how bad a candidate Trump is, a democracy should provide balance and perspective on both candidates equally, and nothing could be further from reality.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Maru

While I appreciate the time you're taking to respond to those comments therein, an inflammatory statement about supposed views on white privilege has naught to do with the OP, which is about voting demographics in the US.

Michelle's speech has everything to do with this discussion since she is a not only coming from an informed position, but she herself represents the female vote seeing as she is not only a US citizen, but is an active female voter. I don't necessarily agree with others that she should be president as I don't think inspirational speeches are enough to prepare someone for the presidency. However, I don't see how some idle conjecture about her views on white privilege aka alleged racist views has anything to do with this topic...

That said, one of your quotes...



It's like setting up a large fire in the center of a live protest and then turning to people and saying "Well I don't care actually care about what the protesters are talking about... I just didn't like your choice in speakers". Bullocks.

I don't think Michelle Obama was the trigger behind your "throw away comment". I think you made the post to derail the thread because you didn't like the discussion, and for what purpose, I won't even try to surmise.

Whatever turns you on.

[reece(:]

The fact there still is Trump supporters is both worrying and dumbfounding.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if you watch the American comedy shows, any of the topical shows, they are all ridiculing Trump for all its worth, some are even dedicating 50%+ of their shows to it. They are so one sided and bias in their condemnation, its shocking.

Both Hilary and Donald are dreadful candidates, but the establishment machine is working at 200% to sway the vote for their preferred choice. Is that really a democracy to use as an example to others?

I don't care how bad a candidate Trump is, a democracy should provide balance and perspective on both candidates equally, and nothing could be further from reality.

Probably because there's no upsides to Donald Trump unless you're a bigot. It's not like Hillary hasn't been getting bad press though

it's probably too difficult to try to put a positive spin on anything Trump related and to do so would be just as manipulative as making him out to be the terrible candidate that he is. At least the latter is factual.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Probably because there's no upsides to Donald Trump unless you're a bigot. It's not like Hillary hasn't been getting bad press though

it's probably too difficult to try to put a positive spin on anything Trump related and to do so would be just as manipulative as making him out to be the terrible candidate that he is. At least the latter is factual.

THANK YOU.

You have just PROVED me RIGHT on what I have claimed in posts on several different threads.

So ANYONE who does not believe in being so simplistic and naive as to agree that Trump is The Devil Incarnate - 100% ALL BAD and without one redeeming feature - is a BIGOT.

Yeah, OK.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

THANK YOU.

You have just PROVED me RIGHT on what I have claimed in posts on several different threads.

So ANYONE who does not believe in being so simplistic and naive as to agree that Trump is The Devil Incarnate - 100% ALL BAD and without one redeeming feature - is a BIGOT.

Yeah, OK.

It's funny that he's only become The Devil since running for the presidency. I don't remember him being The Devil when he presented The Apprentice.

I think it's only because he's running against a woman, if he was running against another man, I don't think many on here would be that bothered.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Probably because there's no upsides to Donald Trump unless you're a bigot. It's not like Hillary hasn't been getting bad press though

it's probably too difficult to try to put a positive spin on anything Trump related and to do so would be just as manipulative as making him out to be the terrible candidate that he is. At least the latter is factual.

Its difficult to tell with Trump, some of his policies are good, others ridiculous, others plain fantasy. Hilary's under examination, while she may have considered the policies and issues in greater depth, it doesnt make them any more meritful (new made up word alert) in the scheme of things, it just depends where your political beliefs sit.

Both candidates have mountains of crap that can be thrown at them ... they have both been around for years, its there for anyone to see. That's not been reflected in the televised debates, and its not being reflected in the media coverage.

I think there is a real danger of Trump winning because of this clear unfairness. It will consolidate his support, but whether he wins or loses, the USA needs to go back to the drawing board on its method of presidential selection as it has become a laughing stock.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

THANK YOU.

You have just PROVED me RIGHT on what I have claimed in posts on several different threads.

So ANYONE who does not believe in being so simplistic and naive as to agree that Trump is The Devil Incarnate - 100% ALL BAD and without one redeeming feature - is a BIGOT.

Yeah, OK.

Dezzy just likes calling people bigots, it gives him a feeling of superiority.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

THANK YOU.

You have just PROVED me RIGHT on what I have claimed in posts on several different threads.

So ANYONE who does not believe in being so simplistic and naive as to agree that Trump is The Devil Incarnate - 100% ALL BAD and without one redeeming feature - is a BIGOT.

Yeah, OK.

He literally only got as far as he did because of his comments on immigrants and muslims. If he never made those statements then he wouldn't have made the ticket.

People only like Trump for three reasons, he appeals to their bigoted opinions, or they are generally ignorant and believe that he should be president because he's 'different and not a politician' or, like many users on this site, they support him because they think it's funny to do so.

The rest of your post is pure exaggeration and silliness. I don't know what your problem is lately Kirk but sort it out.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Alf

It's funny that he's only become The Devil since running for the presidency. I don't remember him being The Devil when he presented The Apprentice.

I think it's only because he's running against a woman, if he was running against another man, I don't think many on here would be that bothered.

I guess people hold more importance to the character of someone running for president than they do someone who presents a reality TV show.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if you watch the American comedy shows, any of the topical shows, they are all ridiculing Trump for all its worth, some are even dedicating 50%+ of their shows to it. They are so one sided and bias in their condemnation, its shocking.

Both Hilary and Donald are dreadful candidates, but the establishment machine is working at 200% to sway the vote for their preferred choice. Is that really a democracy to use as an example to others?

I don't care how bad a candidate Trump is, a democracy should provide balance and perspective on both candidates equally, and nothing could be further from reality.

I don't know about american shows but I'd agree that there's been more negative attention focused on Trump. I do think that it's his own doing though and not a conspiracy or anything like that. When things like that tape happens, and people coming forward and accusing him of assault, of course they're going to cover it. Just like when Hillary's email scandal happened that was covered too. And tbh, he's just an easier target for parody. Nothing to do with politics, just as a person and those shows are out to entertain.

Russell Brand made a video about the recent debate that's actually really funny and he makes fun out of both of them, he's just kind of mocking the whole election and makes some really good/funny points so I'd recommend it to people...

Youtube video

[Crimson Dynamo]

please

russell brand should never be used as an argument for anything


seriously?

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

please

russell brand should never be used as an argument for anything


seriously?

I wasn't using it as an argument for anything, I was sharing it because some people might be interested in watching it for the reasons I gave (which were related to the post I was replying to). Don't know why I should have had to explain any of that but there you go

[Jack_]

You don't have to explain yourself Jamie. I watched the video last night and it was amusing and actually non-partisan, but Russell Brand propagates anti-establishment politics and encourages people to seek out news that isn't spoon fed to people via the mass media, so of course he's going to be reviled

When someone tries to challenge the status quo, they are ridiculed by those who either don't want things to change or don't understand why they need to change

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You don't have to explain yourself Jamie. I watched the video last night and it was amusing and actually non-partisan, but Russell Brand propagates anti-establishment politics and encourages people to seek out news that isn't spoon fed to people via the mass media, so of course he's going to be reviled

When someone tries to challenge the status quo, they are ridiculed by those who either don't want things to change or don't understand why they need to change

So you are a Nigel Farage fan, then Jack?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You don't have to explain yourself Jamie. I watched the video last night and it was amusing and actually non-partisan, but Russell Brand propagates anti-establishment politics and encourages people to seek out news that isn't spoon fed to people via the mass media, so of course he's going to be reviled

When someone tries to challenge the status quo, they are ridiculed by those who either don't want things to change or don't understand why they need to change

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

So you are a Nigel Farage fan, then Jack?

Nope, but I understand why he (and Trump) are popular, and in actual fact a lot of the reasons anti-establishment figureheads and movements have become so popular are largely the same, it's just that the solutions they offer up differ depending on your political persuasion. It may seem strange at face value but people like Trump, Sanders, Farage and Corbyn have more in common than one might think, because they're addressing the same issues but with different answers

[bots]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

So you are a Nigel Farage fan, then Jack?

i was going to say .... isn't that what Trump is doing now .... challenging the status quo

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i was going to say .... isn't that what Trump is doing now .... challenging the status quo

I wouldn't call rolling the country back on women's rights to vote or to health care in abortions, making sexism normalized....again, and encouraging segregation of society based on race challenging the status quo. I would call that the status quo of 50% of Americans that we see rear it's ugly head every election cycle.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Nope, but I understand why he (and Trump) are popular, and in actual fact a lot of the reasons anti-establishment figureheads and movements have become so popular are largely the same, it's just that the solutions they offer up differ depending on your political persuasion. It may seem strange at face value but people like Trump, Sanders, Farage and Corbyn have more in common than one might think, because they're addressing the same issues but with different answers

Very true.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mokka

I wouldn't call rolling the country back on women's rights to vote or to health care in abortions, making sexism normalized....again, and encouraging segregation of society based on race challenging the status quo. I would call that the status quo of 50% of Americans that we see rear it's ugly head every election cycle.

i'm not a trump supporter, but he is challenging the establishment, and he has an absolute right to do that in a democracy, its just that the usa pays lip service to democracy, nothing more

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i'm not a trump supporter, but he is challenging the establishment, and he has an absolute right to do that in a democracy, its just that the usa pays lip service to democracy, nothing more

Did I say he didn't have the right to do it? Like I said, it happens every election cycle. Was it not the Tea Party the last two elections spouting the same illogical theories? It is a part of the democracy they have and want in America

[Maru]

People keep bringing up the candidates the status quo, but the truth is, the vast majority of Americans don't appear to agree on what the status quo actually is. That's why you hear a lot of talk about left/right wing media twisting and manipulating perception... the truth is, neither represents the status quo, both parties have become increasingly irrelevant, which is why they HAVE to rely on divisive political rhetoric to make the case for their relevance. Once they're voted back in, it's back to same ol' same ol'.

There is no single majority perception anymore.. America has become very mixed and many people are in denial of this fact... they keep trying to force their vision of what the US actually is, but it won't stick in people's mind because 1) It's not seated in fact and 2) Both visions are too restrictive to truly represent an increasingly mixed population and an all inclusive minority population.

I would argue there are some things Clinton specifically is not going along with the status quo on, and then there are some things that Trump is more inline with good ol' boy politics on. On other issues, it's flipped around. However, Trump is not anti-status quo candidate when looking at the entire picture... the brand he is trying to sale to the American public may disagree, but looking at the issues and positions, this does not appear to be the case.

Anyway, you have to look at the issues. Not whether their personality or not clicks with you. As a female US voter, Trump will never get my vote because not only is his business record highly suspect (something he could easily clear up by releasing tax returns), but his actual understanding of how foreign politics and economies actually work isn't even college level.

The last major issue I have is obviously his sexist commentary and his treating alleged sexual harassment victims as "not pretty enough" to be sexually harassed on the campaign trail... it just goes backwards in time with regards to everything that has been accomplished in the US.

Not to mention, his brand and way of carrying himself as a leading image of the US would be a massive catastrophe for US foreign policy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i'm not a trump supporter, but he is challenging the establishment, and he has an absolute right to do that in a democracy, its just that the usa pays lip service to democracy, nothing more

what is surprising is that the very people who decry him cannot seem to see past his personality and see what he actually represents - change

no wonder people like clinton get votes

Obama won on a "change" ticket and the young lapped it up

He brought no change, nothing but the status quo

you could not make it up

and still they are going on about a convo on a bus in 2005

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Maru

People keep bringing up the candidates the status quo, but the truth is, the vast majority of Americans don't appear to agree on what the status quo actually is. That's why you hear a lot of talk about left/right wing media twisting and manipulating perception... the truth is, neither represents the status quo, both parties have become increasingly irrelevant, which is why they HAVE to rely on divisive political rhetoric to make the case for their relevance. Once they're voted back in, it's back to same ol' same ol'.

There is no single majority perception anymore.. America has become very mixed and many people are in denial of this fact... they keep trying to force their vision of what the US actually is, but it won't stick in people's mind because 1) It's not seated in fact and 2) Both visions are too restrictive to truly represent an increasingly mixed population and an all inclusive minority population.

I would argue there are some things Clinton specifically is not going along with the status quo on, and then there are some things that Trump is more inline with good ol' boy politics on. On other issues, it's flipped around. However, Trump is not anti-status quo candidate when looking at the entire picture... the brand he is trying to sale to the American public may disagree, but looking at the issues and positions, this does not appear to be the case.

Anyway, you have to look at the issues. Not whether their personality or not clicks with you. As a female US voter, Trump will never get my vote because not only is his business record highly suspect (something he could easily clear up by releasing tax returns), but his actual understanding of how foreign politics and economies actually work isn't even college level.

The last major issue I have is obviously his sexist commentary and his treating alleged sexual harassment victims as "not pretty enough" to be sexually harassed on the campaign trail... it just goes backwards in time with regards to everything that has been accomplished in the US.

Not to mention, his brand and way of carrying himself as a leading image of the US would be a massive catastrophe for US foreign policy.

evidence?