2016 Presidential Horse Race

[woolybug25]

Thought this was interesting considering the video posted earlier in the thread. I know it's an opinion piece, but shame on CNN for letting an article be published that is so blatantly incorrect. The entire premise is that dreadlocks come from black culture, so white people need to respect that. When in fact, the first signs of dreadlocks in a culture were in Greece (like all good things, mind) and spread through the mediterranean and then through the middle east.

Dear white people with dreadlocks: Things to consider - CNN.com

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I made the conscious decision to discredit anyone who even remotely supports Trump. At this point you're either trolling, racist, or so wildly ignorant that having a conversation with you is beyond pointless.

Prisons should absolutely not be for-profit. I'm personally of the belief that schools and most aspects of healthcare shouldn't be either. There's something inherently wrong about profit-motive and what it does to people in the context of schools, hospitals, and prisons. What's best for the citizens isn't always what's best for the bottom line, yet the bottom line always wins. I find that to be morally wrong.

 

[wizards8507]

I made the conscious decision to discredit anyone who even remotely supports Trump. At this point you're either trolling, racist, or so wildly ignorant that having a conversation with you is beyond pointless.

Prisons should absolutely not be for-profit. I'm personally of the belief that schools and most aspects of healthcare shouldn't be either. There's something inherently wrong about profit-motive and what it does to people in the context of schools, hospitals, and prisons. What's best for the citizens isn't always what's best for the bottom line, yet the bottom line always wins. I find that to be morally wrong.

I agree on prisons but strongly disagree on schools and hospitals.

The profit motive doesn't work in prisons because the notion of competition doesn't work. The inmates aren't the customers, the community is. On the other hand, students and patients are the customers in schools and hospitals. When you have to compete for business, the damage that can be done by "profit motive" are non-existent. If hospital ABC tries to abuse its patients, the patients can choose hospital XYZ instead.

 

[Rack Em]

I made the conscious decision to discredit anyone who even remotely supports Trump. At this point you're either trolling, racist, or so wildly ignorant that having a conversation with you is beyond pointless.

Don't let that narrative prevent you from thinking that some people are just fed up with the status quo and see Trump as the only candidate who will actually bust that up. Whiskey has posted several articles in here that suggest Trump supporters, by and large, feel left out by both establishments and want them to burn.

I don't understand why that is so hard for people to grasp. You don't have to be a troll, racist, or idiot to support someone who won't walk a party line.

Personally, I don't have any use for Trump because he has no use for the Constitution. Then again, I have little use for many current politicians for that reason. But the point still stands that Trump supporters don't have to be scum of the earth just because you refuse to step outside your bubble.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Don't let that narrative prevent you from thinking that some people are just fed up with the status quo and see Trump as the only candidate who will actually bust that up. Whiskey has posted several articles in here that suggest Trump supporters, by and large, feel left out by both establishments and want them to burn.

I don't understand why that is so hard for people to grasp. You don't have to be a troll, racist, or idiot to support someone who won't walk a party line.

Personally, I don't have any use for Trump because he has no use for the Constitution. Then again, I have little use for many current politicians for that reason. But the point still stands that Trump supporters don't have to be scum of the earth just because you refuse to step outside your bubble.

I disagree with this because any logical person can point out that Trump 1) doesn't know what he's talking about 2) doesn't actually believe what he's saying 3) is a flip-flopper 4) has zero experience 5) is xenophobic, racist, bigoted, and misogynistic.

There are two candidates who are anti-establishment. One is Trump and one is Bernie Sanders. So if you're against the status quo, you have a choice to make. Either support someone with the qualities I listed above. Or support the one who isn't all those things. Even if you don't agree with everything Bernie stands for, you still have the opportunity to not support someone as vile and hateful as Trump. That's why I immediately discredit someone who supports Trump. There's zero legitimacy in supporting that man for POTUS unless you just honestly don't know what he stands for, or you're xenophobic on some level....or you're just trolling to piss people off in debates.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I agree on prisons but strongly disagree on schools and hospitals.

The profit motive doesn't work in prisons because the notion of competition doesn't work. The inmates aren't the customers, the community is. On the other hand, students and patients are the customers in schools and hospitals. When you have to compete for business, the damage that can be done by "profit motive" are non-existent. If hospital ABC tries to abuse its patients, the patients can choose hospital XYZ instead.

I work in a hospital and I can assure you that patient care doesn't trump revenue in most cases.

And thanks to private insurance companies, no you can't just choose hospital XYZ instead unless you have the money to pay out of pocket.

 

[woolybug25]

Don't let that narrative prevent you from thinking that some people are just fed up with the status quo and see Trump as the only candidate who will actually bust that up. Whiskey has posted several articles in here that suggest Trump supporters, by and large, feel left out by both establishments and want them to burn.

I don't understand why that is so hard for people to grasp. You don't have to be a troll, racist, or idiot to support someone who won't walk a party line.

Personally, I don't have any use for Trump because he has no use for the Constitution. Then again, I have little use for many current politicians for that reason. But the point still stands that Trump supporters don't have to be scum of the earth just because you refuse to step outside your bubble.

One thing I don't get about this narrative, and I understand what both you and Whiskey are saying, is that if someone is willing to support someone that is racist, sexist, etc simply to get their end goal of "burning it down".... doesn't that make them racist, sexist, etc by proxy?

I mean, if I went and worked for the KKK because they paid me twice as much, I couldn't just say that it's about the money and i'm not racist. You are what you condone.

 

[Rack Em]

I disagree with this because any logical person can point out that Trump 1) doesn't know what he's talking about 2) doesn't actually believe what he's saying 3) is a flip-flopper 4) has zero experience 5) is xenophobic, racist, bigoted, and misogynistic.

There are two candidates who are anti-establishment. One is Trump and one is Bernie Sanders. So if you're against the status quo, you have a choice to make. Either support someone with the qualities I listed above. Or support the one who isn't all those things. Even if you don't agree with everything Bernie stands for, you still have the opportunity to not support someone as vile and hateful as Trump. That's why I immediately discredit someone who supports Trump. There's zero legitimacy in supporting that man for POTUS unless you just honestly don't know what he stands for, or you're xenophobic on some level....or you're just trolling to piss people off in debates.

Well I guess we're done here then.

I agree with you about the anti-establishment candidates. But maybe, just maybe, some people realize that the Bern is promising a lot (free college, universal health care, etc) that will definitely raise their taxes. And maybe, just maybe, they don't like that. Maybe these people already feel like the system isn't working for them and they want to see it completely dismantled in a different way.

Look I disagree with Bernie Sanders on literally everything. Like everything. But I don't think that all of his supporters are a bunch of spoiled millenials who want an easy ride through life and want corporate fat cats to bank roll everything. Instead, I try to understand why they would support Bernie. Huh, maybe it's because THEY ALSO FEEL LIKE THE SYSTEM WORKS AGAINST THEM. But their plights are just different from the lower middle class supporters Trump attracts. They focus more on tax brackets for the rich and access to health care and college educations.

Trump supporters look at the world differently. Deal with it and stop lumping everyone into neat little "racist, bigot, idiot, moron" buckets.

 

[Rack Em]

One thing I don't get about this narrative, and I understand what both you and Whiskey are saying, is that if someone is willing to support someone that is racist, sexist, etc simply to get their end goal of "burning it down".... doesn't that make them racist, sexist, etc by proxy?

I mean, if I went and worked for the KKK because they paid me twice as much, I couldn't just say that it's about the money and i'm not racist. You are what you condone.

I get that. Sometimes the means justify the ends.

Personally, don't agree with that sentiment. But his supporters are willing to stomach his comments/attitudes/prejudices to reach the bigger goal.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't understand why that is so hard for people to grasp. You don't have to be a troll, racist, or idiot to support someone who won't walk a party line.

Trump isn't an idiot for not walking the party line. He's an idiot because he's an idiot. One has nothing to do with the other. You can be an idiot who follows the party line or an idiot outsider. Your idiocy isn't excused by virtue of your outsider status.

I work in a hospital and I can assure you that patient care doesn't trump revenue in most cases.

And thanks to private insurance companies, no you can't just choose hospital XYZ instead unless you have the money to pay out of pocket.

Third party insurance is a broken model, I agree; but it's broken whether the third party is the government or private companies. The triangular relationship creates disharmonious incentives. The patient doesn't care what it costs, just that they get treated. The hospital doesn't care about the patient, only that they get paid. The insurance company doesn't care about the quality of care, only that they pay as little as possible. This creates an environment where quality of care goes down while costs go up. Ironically, this is the same situation Bernie Sanders is going to create if he were able to subsidize college education. The customers aren't the ones paying the bill so costs will skyrocket and quality will decline.

 

[Rack Em]

Trump isn't an idiot for not walking the party line. He's an idiot because he's an idiot. One has nothing to do with the other. You can be an idiot who follows the party line or an idiot outsider. Your idiocy isn't excused by virtue of your outsider status.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not? Trump's an idiot - but his supporters don't have to be by default.

 

[woolybug25]

I get that. Sometimes the means justify the ends.

Personally, don't agree with that sentiment. But his supporters are willing to stomach his comments/attitudes/prejudices to reach the bigger goal.

I get that, and agree that a lot of his supporters are of that mindset.

But I also understand those that want to lump all Trump supporters together. At this point, Trump hasn't just alluded to these claims, I don't even think his supporters really believe that. But if someone is willing to sacrifice their beliefs regarding bigotry in order to board the Trump boat. Then I also don't think it's fair for them to beg for life boats when the boat burns.

You can't be halfway pregnant. If you support a bigot, then you condone bigotry. People can make whatever determination on whether condoning bigotry makes one a bigot themselves. But for anyone to say his followers do not condone bigotry, they aren't being truthful.

 

[Rack Em]

I get that, and agree that a lot of his supporters are of that mindset.

But I also understand those that want to lump all Trump supporters together. At this point, Trump hasn't just alluded to these claims, I don't even think his supporters really believe that. But if someone is willing to sacrifice their beliefs regarding bigotry in order to board the Trump boat. Then I also don't think it's fair for them to beg for life boats when the boat burns.

You can't be halfway pregnant. If you support a bigot, then you condone bigotry. People can make whatever determination on whether condoning bigotry makes one a bigot themselves. But for anyone to say his followers do not condone bigotry, they aren't being truthful.

 

[wizards8507]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not? Trump's an idiot - but his supporters don't have to be by default.

I disagree. I think Trump's flaws are so obvious and he's so ignorant that there's no way anyone can still support him without sharing that same ignorance.

 

[Rack Em]

I get that, and agree that a lot of his supporters are of that mindset.

But I also understand those that want to lump all Trump supporters together. At this point, Trump hasn't just alluded to these claims, I don't even think his supporters really believe that. But if someone is willing to sacrifice their beliefs regarding bigotry in order to board the Trump boat. Then I also don't think it's fair for them to beg for life boats when the boat burns.

You can't be halfway pregnant. If you support a bigot, then you condone bigotry. People can make whatever determination on whether condoning bigotry makes one a bigot themselves. But for anyone to say his followers do not condone bigotry, they aren't being truthful.

But seriously, I get where you're coming from. I know this is a different type of situation (but illustrative of my point), but Abe Lincoln did some unethical, backroom dealing to get enough votes for the 13th Amendment.

Means and ends and all that jazz.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Third party insurance is a broken model, I agree; but it's broken whether the third party is the government or private companies. The triangular relationship creates disharmonious incentives. The patient doesn't care what it costs, just that they get treated. The hospital doesn't care about the patient, only that they get paid. The insurance company doesn't care about the quality of care, only that they pay as little as possible. This creates an environment where quality of care goes down while costs go up. Ironically, this is the same situation Bernie Sanders is going to create if he were able to subsidize college education. The customers aren't the ones paying the bill so costs will skyrocket and quality will decline.

I said profit motive is bad for healthcare and what you just posted backs up what I said. So why did you disagree with my OP? I said some aspects of healthcare...and you just described exactly what I was talking about. Patient care should never go down. And costs going up are in many ways related to insufficient reimbursement rates from private insurance companies who are doing everything they can do take in premiums and pay out as little as possible (in order to keep profits high).

*One gripe: The patient does care what it costs, I promise you. I work in oncology and I've seen patients walk out of the building and refuse treatments because of costs.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

One thing I don't get about this narrative, and I understand what both you and Whiskey are saying, is that if someone is willing to support someone that is racist, sexist, etc simply to get their end goal of "burning it down".... doesn't that make them racist, sexist, etc by proxy?

I mean, if I went and worked for the KKK because they paid me twice as much, I couldn't just say that it's about the money and i'm not racist. You are what you condone.

I disagree. I think Trump's flaws are so obvious and he's so ignorant that there's no way anyone can still support him without sharing that same ignorance.

Yes to both of these. I gave Trump supporters a lot of slack in the beginning. But this far into the process, there is enough information available to make the statement that Trump has no business being the POTUS and the people who support him are ignoring these glaring issues with his campaign.

This whole means to and end jazz is insane. If the means is hateful rhetoric and the spread of ignorance on issues and policy, then those means will never justify whatever end he has in mind. Trump doesn't even know what his end game is. How can any of his supporters?

 

[woolybug25]

Means and ends and all that jazz.

I'm with ya. I understand what you're saying. But....

The means (condoning bigotry) justifies the end (burning down the institution).

If that is in fact the case, then it completely discredits the argument that his supporters shouldn't be lumped together. They cannot have it both ways, condoning bigotry for the sake of burning down the establishment, but then completely absolving themselves of the bigotry. They are sleeping with the enemy and the enemy is themselves.

 

[wizards8507]

I said profit motive is bad for healthcare and what you just posted backs up what I said. So why did you disagree with my OP? I said some aspects of healthcare...and you just described exactly what I was talking about. Patient care should never go down. And costs going up are in many ways related to insufficient reimbursement rates from private insurance companies who are doing everything they can do take in premiums and pay out as little as possible (in order to keep profits high).

My problem is not with the profit motive, it's with the third party nature of insurance. If "insurance" consisted of individual savings accounts that the patient controlled, patients would be more selective about their treatment and much more selective about their providers. Providers would then have to compete on both quality and cost, meaning they would no longer get away with ridiculous treatment plans designed to bill as much to the insurance companies as possible. When patients are the ones getting that bill, they'll make their voice heard by going elsewhere. Hospitals will need to provide better prices and better care to attract patients. Right now, patients don't care what the hospital charges because the bill goes to Aetna and Cigna, not them.

*One gripe: The patient does care what it costs, I promise you. I work in oncology and I've seen patients walk out of the building and refuse treatments because of costs.

The patient cares what it costs out of pocket. They don't care what it costs in total. If my copay is $15 for an outpatient visit no matter what services I receive, I don't care if I get $20,000 worth of tests or five minutes with a doctor and a Band-Aid.

 

[GoIrish41]

Trump isn't an idiot for not walking the party line. He's an idiot because he's an idiot. One has nothing to do with the other. You can be an idiot who follows the party line or an idiot outsider. Your idiocy isn't excused by virtue of your outsider status.


Third party insurance is a broken model, I agree; but it's broken whether the third party is the government or private companies. The triangular relationship creates disharmonious incentives. The patient doesn't care what it costs, just that they get treated. The hospital doesn't care about the patient, only that they get paid. The insurance company doesn't care about the quality of care, only that they pay as little as possible. This creates an environment where quality of care goes down while costs go up. Ironically, this is the same situation Bernie Sanders is going to create if he were able to subsidize college education. The customers aren't the ones paying the bill so costs will skyrocket and quality will decline.

I don't think this is right. What Bernie is talking about is subsidizing college at public institutions. There is no profit motive because nobody would be in it to make money. In your healthcare example, the hospital and the insurance industry are the entities that are applying pressure that makes costs rise. And, let's not forget about the pharm industry that represents more than 1 in every 6 dollars that are spent on healthcare in this country. I posted an article yesterday in the politics thread on the lovely little marketing scam they have unleashed in this country through aggressive marketing campaigns and lobbying. (Drugs You Don't Need For Disorders You Don't Have - The Huffington Post)

The trick in Bernie's plan would be to slow the rate of growth in college education costs. That, I think, would be fairly easy. My daughter attends the same college I attended 30 something years ago. There are few buildings left on that campus that were there when I was a student. Everything is new, bigger, and more dazzling than it was when I went there. Every year, some major construction project is happening. Why? To draw students in, to convince students to use their student loan money to keep feeding the beast. Free college education would work to put an end to all of that, and put the focus back where it belongs -- on the quality of education and not campus amenities.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

My problem is not with the profit motive, it's with the third party nature of insurance. If "insurance" consisted of individual savings accounts that the patient controlled, patients would be more selective about their treatment and much more selective about their providers. Providers would then have to compete on both quality and cost, meaning they would no longer get away with ridiculous treatment plans designed to bill as much to the insurance companies as possible. When patients are the ones getting that bill, they'll make their voice heard by going elsewhere. Hospitals will need to provide better prices and better care to attract patients. Right now, patients don't care what the hospital charges because the bill goes to Aetna and Cigna, not them.


The patient cares what it costs out of pocket. They don't care what it costs in total. If my copay is $15 for an outpatient visit no matter what services I receive, I don't care if I get $20,000 worth of tests or five minutes with a doctor and a Band-Aid.

Two honest questions: Do you have 100% coverage after your deductible? Have you had any major medical costs in your life?

Here's the reasons I ask. Most people don't have 100% coverage (I do, and it's because my wife's a teacher with good benefits.). Insurance companies have a way of paying very little. They cap what they pay out. So when we bill $250,000 in cancer treatments and the patient is responsible for 20% of that, how can you claim that they don't care about costs? I have a pending back surgery that's currently being put off because of costs. I know it will cost us $3000 out of pocket for the procedure alone. If I didn't have 100% after my deductible, I'd absolutely care about total costs, because I'd still owe 20% of that total. Medical bills are one of the leading causes for bankruptcy in this country. People care about the costs...co-pays, totals, all of it.

I totally get what you're saying about people having their own savings accounts and being more selective which would force providers to be more competitive and lower costs while increasing level of care. But in all honesty, that's more pie-eyed than universal healthcare, in my opinion. If there was a way to combine the best aspects of both, I'd love to see how that looks. But I just don't see how this all works without totally dismantling private insurance companies, or at the very least regulating them massively, because they're the ones screwing this whole thing up for the most part. And if you do away with insurance companies, who helps pay for poor people's healthcare? Because expecting someone living in poverty to have their own savings account just for healthcare is crazy.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think this is right. What Bernie is talking about is subsidizing college at public institutions. There is no profit motive because nobody would be in it to make money.

That's a tad naive. Universities are not-for-profit in the sense that they don't distribute dividends to the shareholders, but they're in it to "make money" in a very real sense. The only difference is that they make money to spend money. Tuition builds facilities and facilities attract faculty and faculty attract grant money and grant money attracts research and research means prestige and prestige draws more students and students pay tuition and tuition builds facilities...

Facilities and faculty define "quality" in an educational institution. The students' decision to attend a university and pay tuition to do so is based on perceived quality. When the schools become subsidized, they have no reason to keep their customers happy because they're getting paid by DC no matter what kind of shit hole they turn into. When that happens, top faculty are going to flee to private schools and the research coming out of Ann Arbor, Austin, and Berkeley are going to dry up.

The trick in Bernie's plan would be to slow the rate of growth in college education costs. That, I think, would be fairly easy. My daughter attends the same college I attended 30 something years ago. There are few buildings left on that campus that were there when I was a student. Everything is new, bigger, and more dazzling than it was when I went there. Every year, some major construction project is happening. Why? To draw students in, to convince students to use their student loan money to keep feeding the beast. Free college education would work to put an end to all of that, and put the focus back where it belongs -- on the quality of education and not campus amenities.

Subsidies make things more expensive, not cheaper. You just don't see it because it's the taxpayer taking the hit, not the direct customer. If you had $25K per year to send your daughter to school, you're going to make a value decision based on the price and quality of different institutions. To attract top students, schools need to consider their price tag. The "arms race" in higher education will be balanced by efforts to keep school affordable, otherwise schools won't fill their rolls. Now, if you take your $25K and add $10K per year in subsidized student loans, every school in the country can now charge $10K more for their services because your price target jumped that much (along with every other prospective students'). Federally subsidized student loans have created the current debt crisis and free public college will do the same and worse to taxpayers.

 

[wizards8507]

Two honest questions: Do you have 100% coverage after your deductible? Have you had any major medical costs in your life?

We have a $3,000 deductible, then 80% coverage up to $8,000 out-of-pocket max per year. We paid the full $8,000 in 2014 when our daughter was born. Certainly not what we'd pay for chemotherapy, but I'd call it "significant" and/or "major."

Here's the reasons I ask. Most people don't have 100% coverage (I do, and it's because my wife's a teacher with good benefits.). Insurance companies have a way of paying very little. They cap what they pay out. So when we bill $250,000 in cancer treatments and the patient is responsible for 20% of that, how can you claim that they don't care about costs? I have a pending back surgery that's currently being put off because of costs. I know it will cost us $3000 out of pocket for the procedure alone. If I didn't have 100% after my deductible, I'd absolutely care about total costs, because I'd still owe 20% of that total. Medical bills are one of the leading causes for bankruptcy in this country. People care about the costs...co-pays, totals, all of it.

Catastrophic coverage plans with an out-of-pocket maximum are pretty affordable.

I totally get what you're saying about people having their own savings accounts and being more selective which would force providers to be more competitive and lower costs while increasing level of care. But in all honesty, that's more pie-eyed than universal healthcare, in my opinion. If there was a way to combine the best aspects of both, I'd love to see how that looks. But I just don't see how this all works without totally dismantling private insurance companies, or at the very least regulating them massively, because they're the ones screwing this whole thing up for the most part. And if you do away with insurance companies, who helps pay for poor people's healthcare? Because expecting someone living in poverty to have their own savings account just for healthcare is crazy.

You wouldn't have to dismantle private insurance companies. Just like competition helps at the patient - doctor level, it also helps at the patient - insurance company level. Personal health savings accounts can be used not just to pay for medical treatment, but also to shop around for private insurance plans. Right now it's employers that make those choices for their employees, not the employees making the choices for themselves. Disney has 185,000 employees. 185,000 people choosing their own policies results in far more options, price points, and customization than one entity making one decision on behalf of all 185,000 people.

I haven't vetted it thoroughly, but on the surface I very much liked Ben Carson's "Health Empowerment Accounts."

https://www.bencarson.com/issues/health-care

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I don't have much of a counter to the free-education debate yet. But I will mention this:

I do agree with Wiz on this point and would like to add something that actually, imo, supports the free tuition debate.

Wiz:

Facilities and faculty define "quality" in an educational institution. The students' decision to attend a university and pay tuition to do so is based on perceived quality. When the schools become subsidized, they have no reason to keep their customers happy because they're getting paid by DC no matter what kind of shit hole they turn into. When that happens, top faculty are going to flee to private schools and the research coming out of Ann Arbor, Austin, and Berkeley are going to dry up.

As long as the public universities can still maintain a decent level of academic integrity and put students into better jobs, I have zero problem with their quality leveling off and private universities getting the better faculty/facilities. Here's why: You've created a situation where poor people and middle class people can still get a higher education than they would have had normally without crushing them with insane debt, while still providing a place for people, who can afford it, to get a "better" education.

I know this goes against my equal opportunity rants, but in this case, maybe this is a good compromise. Idk. Thoughts on this?

 

[wizards8507]

I don't have much of a counter to the free-education debate yet. But I will mention this:

I do agree with Wiz on this point and would like to add something that actually, imo, supports the free tuition debate.

Wiz:

As long as the public universities can still maintain a decent level of academic integrity and put students into better jobs, I have zero problem with their quality leveling off and private universities getting the better faculty/facilities. Here's why: You've created a situation where poor people and middle class people can still get a higher education than they would have had normally without crushing them with insane debt, while still providing a place for people, who can afford it, to get a "better" education.

I know this goes against my equal opportunity rants, but in this case, maybe this is a good compromise. Idk. Thoughts on this?

I think that's a problem that, frankly, doesn't exist. If you're poor, you can already get a bachelor's degree at your state school (or two years at a community school and two more at your state school) virtually for free with need-based financial aid. If not free, it's absolutely achievable through a reasonable amount of part-time work.

Bernie's young supporters aren't poor kids who go to state schools (the only people his plan even feigns to help). They're middle- and upper-middle class kids whose debt comes from private bachelor's degrees and graduate degrees. They have no idea that his plan does absolutely nothing to deal with their "problem," nor should it.

 

[GowerND11]

I disagree. I think Trump's flaws are so obvious and he's so ignorant that there's no way anyone can still support him without sharing that same ignorance.

But isn't that it? We've talked about who is voting for Trump many times. It is lower middle class/working class people who are, for lack of a better word, ignorant. They perceive the world through a view that doesn't mesh with a lot of others.

1. They see their jobs go overseas. Trump says we need to take our jobs back from China. They agree.

2. They see terrorism committed by Muslim Extremists. Trump says we should not allow Muslims into our country. They agree.

3. They read anecdotal stories on Facebook and hear second hand musings about people abusing Welfare and SS Disability. Trump says these people are lazy and not American. They agree.

4. They see more and more minorities moving into their neighborhoods and "taking jobs." Trump says we need to stop illegal Mexicans from crossing the boarder. They agree.

These voters are totally ignorant, and you can't really blame them. (Ok, yes you can) Perception is reality, and the reality for these people is that Trump, despite commonsense saying otherwise, will "Make America Great Again."

 

[phgreek]

I disagree with this because any logical person can point out that Trump 1) doesn't know what he's talking about 2) doesn't actually believe what he's saying 3) is a flip-flopper 4) has zero experience 5) is xenophobic, racist, bigoted, and misogynistic.

There are two candidates who are anti-establishment. One is Trump and one is Bernie Sanders. So if you're against the status quo, you have a choice to make. Either support someone with the qualities I listed above. Or support the one who isn't all those things. Even if you don't agree with everything Bernie stands for, you still have the opportunity to not support someone as vile and hateful as Trump. That's why I immediately discredit someone who supports Trump. There's zero legitimacy in supporting that man for POTUS unless you just honestly don't know what he stands for, or you're xenophobic on some level....or you're just trolling to piss people off in debates.

Trump or Bernie isn't really a choice...In a lot of cases you'd have to change parties for primary participation. I think if both survive the primaries, I see your point...But Bernie isn't going to make it to the general...so, its not a choice.

 

[wizards8507]

But isn't that it? We've talked about who is voting for Trump many times. It is lower middle class/working class people who are, for lack of a better word, ignorant. They perceive the world through a view that doesn't mesh with a lot of others.

1. They see their jobs go overseas. Trump says we need to take our jobs back from China. They agree.

2. They see terrorism committed by Muslim Extremists. Trump says we should not allow Muslims into our country. They agree.

3. They read anecdotal stories on Facebook and hear second hand musings about people abusing Welfare and SS Disability. Trump says these people are lazy and not American. They agree.

4. They see more and more minorities moving into their neighborhoods and "taking jobs." Trump says we need to stop illegal Mexicans from crossing the boarder. They agree.

These voters are totally ignorant, and you can't really blame them. (Ok, yes you can) Perception is reality, and the reality for these people is that Trump, despite commonsense saying otherwise, will "Make America Great Again."

I don't disagree. I think the thing that dispirits a lot of principled conservatives and even moderate Republicans is that you'd think Trump's supporters were a huge portion of the population. From the media coverage and the way he's been portrayed as the "overwhelming front-runner," you'd think these ignorant voters were much more numerous than they are. However, the country is only about 1/4 registered Republican and Trump has received about 1/3 of the popular vote so far. That means that Trump supporters are only about 8% of the population. Meanwhile, Trump has been getting 52% of all election coverage and 68% of Republican campaign coverage, making the rate of voter ignorance appear much greater than it actually is.

How Trump Hacked The Media | FiveThirtyEight

 

[drayer54]

I disagree. I think Trump's flaws are so obvious and he's so ignorant that there's no way anyone can still support him without sharing that same ignorance.

You ever hear someone say, "We should just nuke them all!"

Subtly or not so subtly imply that Mexicans and Muslims are the problem?

Or hear someone argue their position while seemingly flopping around the issue because they don't really understand it?

OR hear someone say that all of our problems could be solved by a businessman, because that is what they do?

These are your Trump people. If you agree with the madness, then it isn't madness.

 

[Wild Bill]

I get that, and agree that a lot of his supporters are of that mindset.

But I also understand those that want to lump all Trump supporters together. At this point, Trump hasn't just alluded to these claims, I don't even think his supporters really believe that. But if someone is willing to sacrifice their beliefs regarding bigotry in order to board the Trump boat. Then I also don't think it's fair for them to beg for life boats when the boat burns.

You can't be halfway pregnant. If you support a bigot, then you condone bigotry. People can make whatever determination on whether condoning bigotry makes one a bigot themselves. But for anyone to say his followers do not condone bigotry, they aren't being truthful.

Following this logic, we'd have to assume the current POTUS is either a bigot or condones bigotry. Jeremiah Wright married him, baptized his kids and Obama sat in his church for years. Obama even wrote in his book that he was inspired by his sermons.

I can't agree. I have no idea what Obama feels in his heart but he doesn't strike me as a bigot even though he sat in this twit's church. I think he's misguided and disagree with his policies but I don't believe the man to be a bigot or a man that would condone bigotry.

Similarly, I don't believe all Trump supporters are bigots or condone bigotry.