CDZ Why I support whomever. . .

[Picaro]

Well, unlike the consensus here IMHO most Trump voters will have zero problems dumping him if he doesn't follow through on at least most of his campaign promises same as they got fed up with GOP and DNC liars and frauds, and if the delusional establishment types think we're going to just rush back into their arms merely because they discredit Trump with fake news or real news either one, then they are still seriously out of touch and will most likely hate who we vote for if he isn't around in 2020 a whole lot more than they hate Trump now, so the old adage of 'Be careful what you wish for' is a good one to keep in mind.

Indeed, Trump voters/supporters were those of us who were sick to death of the status quo and politicians who promised the sun, moon, and stars on the campaign trail, and then put most or all of those promises on the shelf once they were safely in office.

And those who pull those same promises off the shelf in this year's campaign or 2020 after ignoring them for the last two to six years won't be getting my vote either.

So far President Trump has not disappointed. And if he continues on the course he is on I suspect pretty much all of those who voted for him in 2016 and maybe some others who are appreciating his efforts will vote for him again in 2020 if he runs. He is absolutely the toughest and bravest person to be President in my lifetime--I can't imagine anybody else holding up under the non stop 24/7 pure cruel, dishonest, and unmitigated hatred poured out on him.

I am quite relieved that his agenda is one that I can support. But yes, if he should abandon that agenda, he won't be getting my vote in 2020 if he runs.

Well, I'm not a fan of GOP domestic policies, but Trump's foreign polices have been outstanding, best foreign policy President since FDR, and foreign policy is the President's main baby. IT was critically important to deny Hillary any SC appointments, too, much less the four or so going to happen in Trump's 8 years. We've already had decades of corrupt Supreme Courts, and adding traitors to the corruption would indeed have probably ended the U.S. as a viable nation during her 'Residency'; her 'Party''s core base are complete vermin, far worse than most anybody knew until fully outed the last couple of years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, unlike the consensus here IMHO most Trump voters will have zero problems dumping him if he doesn't follow through on at least most of his campaign promises same as they got fed up with GOP and DNC liars and frauds, and if the delusional establishment types think we're going to just rush back into their arms merely because they discredit Trump with fake news or real news either one, then they are still seriously out of touch and will most likely hate who we vote for if he isn't around in 2020 a whole lot more than they hate Trump now, so the old adage of 'Be careful what you wish for' is a good one to keep in mind.

Indeed, Trump voters/supporters were those of us who were sick to death of the status quo and politicians who promised the sun, moon, and stars on the campaign trail, and then put most or all of those promises on the shelf once they were safely in office.

And those who pull those same promises off the shelf in this year's campaign or 2020 after ignoring them for the last two to six years won't be getting my vote either.

So far President Trump has not disappointed. And if he continues on the course he is on I suspect pretty much all of those who voted for him in 2016 and maybe some others who are appreciating his efforts will vote for him again in 2020 if he runs. He is absolutely the toughest and bravest person to be President in my lifetime--I can't imagine anybody else holding up under the non stop 24/7 pure cruel, dishonest, and unmitigated hatred poured out on him.

I am quite relieved that his agenda is one that I can support. But yes, if he should abandon that agenda, he won't be getting my vote in 2020 if he runs.

Well, I'm not a fan of GOP domestic policies, but Trump's foreign polices have been outstanding, best foreign policy President since FDR, and foreign policy is the President's main baby.

GOP domestic policies are generally just as feckless and/or non productive as the Democrat domestic policies--the GOP is just likely to do less permanent damage with theirs for the most part--not in every circumstance. Which is why current polling data is giving President Trump some pretty high remarks; the Congress, including the Republicans, much less so.

So my primary agenda remains:

1. Economic stability, opportunity, prosperity.

2. The Supreme Court populated with Justices who value, understand, and appreciate the original intent of the Constitution and the law, and their duty to rule on that rather than effect social justice as they personally see that to be.

3. Border security and enforcement of the law.

4. Restoration of individual liberties wherever possible and reasonable, appreciation and pride in a great country, and a rejection of the politics of personal destruction along with a renewal of values that make us Americans the best that we can be.

President Trump is delivering on that better than anybody in my lifetime, and therefore he deserves my vote.

I just hope a lot of others see it the same way.

 

[candycorn]

Well, unlike the consensus here IMHO most Trump voters will have zero problems dumping him if he doesn't follow through on at least most of his campaign promises same as they got fed up with GOP and DNC liars and frauds, and if the delusional establishment types think we're going to just rush back into their arms merely because they discredit Trump with fake news or real news either one, then they are still seriously out of touch and will most likely hate who we vote for if he isn't around in 2020 a whole lot more than they hate Trump now, so the old adage of 'Be careful what you wish for' is a good one to keep in mind.

Indeed, Trump voters/supporters were those of us who were sick to death of the status quo and politicians who promised the sun, moon, and stars on the campaign trail, and then put most or all of those promises on the shelf once they were safely in office.

And yet every time a lie of his is pointed out , the response nearly 100% of the time is to either defend the lie as a “non story” or to simply say “All politicians lie”

 

[Picaro]

Well, unlike the consensus here IMHO most Trump voters will have zero problems dumping him if he doesn't follow through on at least most of his campaign promises same as they got fed up with GOP and DNC liars and frauds, and if the delusional establishment types think we're going to just rush back into their arms merely because they discredit Trump with fake news or real news either one, then they are still seriously out of touch and will most likely hate who we vote for if he isn't around in 2020 a whole lot more than they hate Trump now, so the old adage of 'Be careful what you wish for' is a good one to keep in mind.

Indeed, Trump voters/supporters were those of us who were sick to death of the status quo and politicians who promised the sun, moon, and stars on the campaign trail, and then put most or all of those promises on the shelf once they were safely in office.

And yet every time a lie of his is pointed out , the response nearly 100% of the time is to either defend the lie as a “non story” or to simply say “All politicians lie”

Well, whether Trump has ever lied or not, it's just a fact that your ilk grossly misrepresent and lie about what he actually said within literally seconds of when he says anything, so naturally your ilk just get tuned out automatically and nobody cares what you have to say, and rightly so. We all saw this live on national TV in real time, and from the press conferences form the Primaries and debates to the elections right up to today, in fact, so please, just accept your credibility is far less than zero and honest people pay no attention to you or your spin nearly 100% of the time. you have nothing to say.

 

[candycorn]

Well, unlike the consensus here IMHO most Trump voters will have zero problems dumping him if he doesn't follow through on at least most of his campaign promises same as they got fed up with GOP and DNC liars and frauds, and if the delusional establishment types think we're going to just rush back into their arms merely because they discredit Trump with fake news or real news either one, then they are still seriously out of touch and will most likely hate who we vote for if he isn't around in 2020 a whole lot more than they hate Trump now, so the old adage of 'Be careful what you wish for' is a good one to keep in mind.

Indeed, Trump voters/supporters were those of us who were sick to death of the status quo and politicians who promised the sun, moon, and stars on the campaign trail, and then put most or all of those promises on the shelf once they were safely in office.

And yet every time a lie of his is pointed out , the response nearly 100% of the time is to either defend the lie as a “non story” or to simply say “All politicians lie”

Well, whether Trump has ever lied or not, it's just a fact that your ilk grossly misrepresent and lie about what he actually said within literally seconds of when he says anything, so naturally your ilk just get tuned out automatically and nobody cares what you have to say, and rightly so. We all saw this live on national TV in real time, and from the press conferences form the Primaries and debates to the elections right up to today, in fact, so please, just accept your credibility is far less than zero and honest people pay no attention to you or your spin nearly 100% of the time. you have nothing to say.

"Whether Trump has ever lied or not"....

Too funny.

For someone who doesn't care....you sure seem to be responding.

The larger issue isn't the liar but that people accept it or just rationalize it as some of the smaller minded conservatives have done. Principled folk who lean conservative have dutifully pointed out the massive problem that this creates; it is why HRC got more votes than the blob, it is why most of his supporters are in full spin mode most of the time, and why there are very few who actually try to mount a defense of the blob...moreover they attempt to indict any democrat as some sort of equalizer. Moving forward, it will be much harder for republicans to sell their stances when they are so proudly rootless; Democrats have their problems too; being rootless isn't one of them.

 

[sparky]

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?

We have the illusion of choice , because all our choices are the same here.

For example, there isn't much difference betwixt hope and change ,and maga

So you see, the same bumper sticker, sound byte mentality , foisted by the same sorts , who are sponsored by the same sources keep selling it all to the same sheepeople.

Our 2020 election will follow with similar fodder .....

We have a broken system, distopia , and all one needs to do to rise above and realize it is very very simple....follow the $$$




~S~

 

[Two Thumbs]

NOTICE: This is the CDZ so please keep this civil.

After visiting numerous political message boards, watching a LOT of news on various television channels, reading a LOT of commentary from all sides on the political spectrum, and after a LOT of face to face discussions, it seems obvious to me that Trump supporters and those who voted for Hillary or somebody else are just wired differently. And I wonder if it is possible to discuss that without bringing Hillary and Trump or anybody else into it personally? See the question posed at the bottom of the OP.

Among many Issues with widely differing views between Trump supports and Clinton and/or other supporters:

It is a given that Hillary supporters were mostly okay with the existing tax code and size of government and supported higher taxes especially on the rich and/or big business to effect social change and they argue that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Trump supporters mostly believe in smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes and that people will spend their money more wisely and effectively themselves than the government will spend it for them.

It is a given that Trump supporters are most likely to want conservatives or constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally while Hillary supporters are most likely to want progressives/leftists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally.

Also. . .
--the wall--Trump supporters mostly for; Clinton supporters mostly oppose.
--more federal money for welfare and programs--Trump supporters mostly oppose; Clinton supporters mostly support
--racial and gender inequality--far more Clinton supports say this is a serious problem than do Trump supporters.
--parenting--far more Trump supporters say it is important for children to have a mom and dad in the home than do Clinton supporters.
--terrorism--far more Trump supporters want stronger protections than do Clinton supporters.
--free trade--far more Trump supporters support efforts to correct trade imbalances than do Clinton supporters.
--illegal immigration--more Clinton supporters say undocumented immigrants are hard working people who commit no more crimes than the general population than do Trump supporters make that argument. Clinton supporters favor amnesty for all and open borders far more than Trump supporters do.
6 charts that show where Clinton and Trump supporters differ

A recent article in "Christianity Today" suggests that evangelicals supported Hillary more than Trump until recently when Hillary supporters are abandoning evangelicalism.
Study: Clinton Voters Much More Likely to Leave Evangelicalism than Trump Voters

But maybe this is also telling: From a recent "Washington Secrets" column:

Not sure what it means, but Emerson College polling reveals that Trump supporters more than those who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton believe space aliens have visited Earth. Overall, 31 percent believe aliens have landed, but among voters for President Trump, it is 38 percent to Clinton’s 25 percent. [/lndent]
More predictions that Trump White House chief John Kelly is leaving

And those who voted or supported somebody other than Trump or Clinton generally fall into one of those camps when it comes to the issues. And yes, there are many other issues we could have included.
​

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?

I don't vote for democrats and I don't waste my time voting for people with no chance to win.

So I did not vote.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't vote for democrats and I don't waste my time voting for people with no chance to win.

So I did not vote.

Fair enough except President Trump apparently had a chance to win because he did. (A whole bunch of folks gave him no chance however. Those Youtube montages of all the pols, entertainers, media types etc. saying he would never be President are pretty funny now but anybody could be forgiven for believing them and/or thinking that.)

But how about now? Has President Trump been accomplishing things you approve of? Could you support him in 2020? Or do you wish one of the also rans had won?

 

[sartre play]

My vote is used to try and elect people who have some semblance of what working Americans need. its an interesting Fact that Congress dose not represent us. less than 30% of Americans are over age 50+ yet almost 70 % of congress is over age 55.
Around 5 % of Americans are millionaires, yet over 50% of congress are millionaires
Women in congress are 20% but women in America are over 50% of the population.
SO do you call this fairly Represented???

 

[Foxfyre]

My vote is used to try and elect people who have some semblance of what working Americans need. its an interesting Fact that Congress dose not represent us. less than 30% of Americans are over age 50+ yet almost 70 % of congress is over age 55.
Around 5 % of Americans are millionaires, yet over 50% of congress are millionaires
Women in congress are 20% but women in America are over 50% of the population.
SO do you call this fairly Represented???

My criteria for President was also based on what not only working Americans but Americans in general need re life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is why President Trump got my vote as the ONLY--literally he was the ONLY person among the front runners--that not only understood that but who had the track record to solve big problems and get things hard to accomplish done.

I reject quotas, racial/ethnic diversity, or economic status as what qualifies somebody to do the job I expect from them as an employee, appointee, or elected representative of we the people. I expect all of them to understand what the Constitution was all about and what makes us the greatest nation on Earth and to not do ANYTHING that interferes with that.

I don't care that much about political parties or personalities. I want results. President Trump is delivering on what makes America great. Which is why I supported him and continue to do so.

 

[Picaro]

My vote is used to try and elect people who have some semblance of what working Americans need. its an interesting Fact that Congress dose not represent us. less than 30% of Americans are over age 50+ yet almost 70 % of congress is over age 55.
Around 5 % of Americans are millionaires, yet over 50% of congress are millionaires
Women in congress are 20% but women in America are over 50% of the population.
SO do you call this fairly Represented???

Well, I can call it representation because they got elected by those very same demographic numbers you claim represent 'unfairness'. Whether thosw ho get elected go on to do what they said they would do while running is of course an entirely different thing.

If '50%' of the country were 5 year olds, you think Congress should be 50% five year olds or something?

And what makes you so sure 50% of five year olds would vote for other five olds in the first place?

 

[Foxfyre]

My vote is used to try and elect people who have some semblance of what working Americans need. its an interesting Fact that Congress dose not represent us. less than 30% of Americans are over age 50+ yet almost 70 % of congress is over age 55.
Around 5 % of Americans are millionaires, yet over 50% of congress are millionaires
Women in congress are 20% but women in America are over 50% of the population.
SO do you call this fairly Represented???

Well, I can call it representation because they got elected by those very same demographic numbers you claim represent 'unfairness'. Whether thosw ho get elected go on to do what they said they would do while running is of course an entirely different thing.

If '50%' of the country were 5 year olds, you think Congress should be 50% five year olds or something?

And what makes you so sure 50% of five year olds would vote for other five olds in the first place?

Good argument. Should the homeless or the Communists and/or white supremacists or Louis Farrakhan's disciples or pick your extremists group of the month be automatically represented in Congress because they exist in the population as a whole? Should the illiterate and/or the non-English speaker be automatically represented in Congress because they exist in the population as a whole?

I once was executive director of a very large social agency during the crunch period of civil rights, women's rights, affirmative action and all that. And the decision was made to diversify the board of directors with young, multi-race, and lower income people who would 'better understand and relate to' our clientele who were mostly lower income folks in the community.

BIG MISTAKE. The diversified board had fewer organizational skills and aptitude for achievement of success, and we greatly missed the wealthy women who had previously served on the board and who had connections and ability to fund raise and get the permissions and donations we needed to achieve goals. I and my staff had mad management and program innovation skills, but none of us were by any means 'wealthy' or had those connections that you need to fund big projects etc.

So, the next time to do the board elections, we fixed that problem. Our undiversified board was far more beneficial to that lower income group than their peers had been. Diversity is highly overrated. Effectiveness is what we all, rich/poor/black/white etc. should be shooting for.

 

[Picaro]

I once was executive director of a very large social agency during the crunch period of civil rights, women's rights, affirmative action and all that. And the decision was made to diversify the board of directors with young, multi-race, and lower income people who would 'better understand and relate to' our clientele who were mostly lower income folks in the community.

BIG MISTAKE. The diversified board had fewer organizational skills and aptitude for achievement of success, and we greatly missed the wealthy women who had previously served on the board and who had connections and ability to fund raise and get the permissions and donations we needed to achieve goals. I and my staff had mad management and program innovation skills, but none of us were by any means 'wealthy' or had those connections that you need to fund big projects etc.

So, the next time to do the board elections, we fixed that problem. Our undiversified board was far more beneficial to that lower income group than their peers had been. Diversity is highly overrated. Effectiveness is what we all, rich/poor/black/white etc. should be shooting for.

Well, by coincidence I'm re-reading the parts of Hugh Davis Graham's The Civil Rights Era, dealing with Sec.of Labor Schultz and Nixon reviving the 'Philadelphia Plan' just months after its hard fought defeat by Moynihan and the LBJ liberals, his goal being to drive a wedge between the radicals and black factions and organized labor in the Democratic Party. It worked, and though Moynihan caught a lot of political heat for it, his predictions on what would happen in turning Affirmative Action into a quota system turned out to be 100% correct.

Yet another of example of the 'radicals' being utter morons and blowing their own feet off, giving bureaucrats all across the board a 'get out of jail free' card, especially in Education and schools results for the next 5 decades right up to the present.

 

[Foxfyre]

I once was executive director of a very large social agency during the crunch period of civil rights, women's rights, affirmative action and all that. And the decision was made to diversify the board of directors with young, multi-race, and lower income people who would 'better understand and relate to' our clientele who were mostly lower income folks in the community.

BIG MISTAKE. The diversified board had fewer organizational skills and aptitude for achievement of success, and we greatly missed the wealthy women who had previously served on the board and who had connections and ability to fund raise and get the permissions and donations we needed to achieve goals. I and my staff had mad management and program innovation skills, but none of us were by any means 'wealthy' or had those connections that you need to fund big projects etc.

So, the next time to do the board elections, we fixed that problem. Our undiversified board was far more beneficial to that lower income group than their peers had been. Diversity is highly overrated. Effectiveness is what we all, rich/poor/black/white etc. should be shooting for.

Well, by coincidence I'm re-reading the parts of Hugh Davis Graham's The Civil Rights Era, dealing with Sec.of Labor Schultz and Nixon reviving the 'Philadelphia Plan' just months after its hard fought defeat by Moynihan and the LBJ liberals, his goal being to drive a wedge between the radicals and black factions and organized labor in the Democratic Party. It worked, and though Moynihan caught a lot of political heat for it, his predictions on what would happen in turning Affirmative Action into a quota system turned out to be 100% correct.

Yet another of example of the 'radicals' being utter morons and blowing their own feet off, giving bureaucrats all across the board a 'get out of jail free' card, especially in Education and schools results for the next 5 decades right up to the present.

Yes. As I recall the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited quotas? Really digging into the old memory banks here but I think it was the Comptroller General who would declare the subsequent Johnson era Philadelphia Plan illegal on the basis it was too close to requiring quotas? As something of a very amateur constitutional scholar at that time, I was amazed that the GAO would be given power to declare anything illegal, but as it didn't affect me, I didn't really philosophically care all that much at the time. And Johnson was on his way out at the time and probably didn't object all that much.

And yes, the Nixon Administration did reinstate a version of the plan, again declared illegal by the GAO but Nixon fought for it as you said. The goal was to drive a political wedge between African Americans and the very strong and pretty much anti-black unions at the time. He threatened to keep Congress in session until they passed a new law which they did. (Can you imagine any President having that kind of power over Congress now? Just doesn't happen.)

So we entered the era of Affirmative Action complete with quotas which did break down some institutional barriers that otherwise would have been a long time coming down. But once that was accomplished, as we know, these kinds of government policy assume the shelf life approximating mop handles. It went on and on and on until no African American would be seen as earning/meriting any job or promotion but rather being gifted via Affirmative Action as well as creating a new entitlement among the more militant. That made it a very negative, harmful, destructive thing. It has actually perpetuated racism.

So getting back to President Trump who doesn't give a diddly squat about race or gender but is totally focused on policy that creates hope, vision, opportunity, awareness of possibilities. Having more good jobs than there are workers to fill them has benefited African Americans more than any other policy or program ever could. Ergo, unemployment among African Americans is the lowest in history and still dropping.

And it is that kind of vision that prompted many of us to vote for President Trump and continue to support him. He may be the mouth who scored, but by golly he is scoring which is more than the perfectly poised, polished, politicians of the permanent political class--nice alliteration yes?--can claim.

 

[Picaro]

Yes. As I recall the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited quotas? Really digging into the old memory banks here but I think it was the Comptroller General who would declare the subsequent Johnson era Philadelphia Plan illegal on the basis it was too close to requiring quotas? As something of a very amateur constitutional scholar at that time, I was amazed that the GAO would be given power to declare anything illegal, but as it didn't affect me, I didn't really philosophically care all that much at the time. And Johnson was on his way out at the time and probably didn't object all that much.

More to it, but I'm not going to derail here, especially since few people even know about the in's and out's of the Acts and their consequences; they all seem to be happily uninformed and satisfied with misplaced LBJ bashing and woulnd't be interested anyway.

And yes, the Nixon Administration did reinstate a version of the plan, again declared illegal by the GAO but Nixon fought for it as you said. The goal was to drive a political wedge between African Americans and the very strong and pretty much anti-black unions at the time. He threatened to keep Congress in session until they passed a new law which they did. (Can you imagine any President having that kind of power over Congress now? Just doesn't happen.)

Well, Dirksen had a lot to do with it, and in those days the GOP had some Democrat allies to work with in Congress, and it was going to cost them nothing to go along with Nixon, at least on that issue, plus we know from later investigations GOP'ers like Mitchell were already getting up front companies to milk the 12%-15% premiums 'minority owned companies' stood to gain from the quota schemes on military contracts.

So we entered the era of Affirmative Action complete with quotas which did break down some institutional barriers that otherwise would have been a long time coming down. But once that was accomplished, as we know, these kinds of government policy assume the shelf life approximating mop handles. It went on and on and on until no African American would be seen as earning/meriting any job or promotion but rather being gifted via Affirmative Action as well as creating a new entitlement among the more militant. That made it a very negative, harmful, destructive thing. It has actually perpetuated racism.

True. And then they turned around and threw away their political advantages over continuing and expanding Title VII to all 50 states, inducing the ban on literacy t tests, some 14 states outside the South had them,, including New York and California, and of course followed by the busing debacle in northern states that had been very busy re-segregating their school systems throughout the 1960's and and the riots that followed Nixon's desegregation plans for the northern states and California.

So getting back to President Trump who doesn't give a diddly squat about race or gender but is totally focused on policy that creates hope, vision, opportunity, awareness of possibilities. Having more good jobs than there are workers to fill them has benefited African Americans more than any other policy or program ever could. Ergo, unemployment among African Americans is the lowest in history and still dropping.

And it is that kind of vision that prompted many of us to vote for President Trump and continue to support him. He may be the mouth who scored, but by golly he is scoring which is more than the perfectly poised, polished, politicians of the permanent political class--nice alliteration yes?--can claim.

I don't put lot of value in govt. stats re unemployment or any others any more, since the GAO was politicized and no longer an independent agency any more. I can see the propaganda value for incumbents of throwing them out every year, though. Obama made the same claims. All it means in my state is more waves of criminal illegal aliens building houses and working, not Americans, so I don't get excited over those numbers. Wages ares till shit, and not growing much at all, so no big leap in disposable incomes for small businesses to exploit.

I do like the tariffs and the foreign policies, though.

 

[frigidweirdo]

NOTICE: This is the CDZ so please keep this civil.

After visiting numerous political message boards, watching a LOT of news on various television channels, reading a LOT of commentary from all sides on the political spectrum, and after a LOT of face to face discussions, it seems obvious to me that Trump supporters and those who voted for Hillary or somebody else are just wired differently. And I wonder if it is possible to discuss that without bringing Hillary and Trump or anybody else into it personally? See the question posed at the bottom of the OP.

Among many Issues with widely differing views between Trump supports and Clinton and/or other supporters:

It is a given that Hillary supporters were mostly okay with the existing tax code and size of government and supported higher taxes especially on the rich and/or big business to effect social change and they argue that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Trump supporters mostly believe in smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes and that people will spend their money more wisely and effectively themselves than the government will spend it for them.

It is a given that Trump supporters are most likely to want conservatives or constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally while Hillary supporters are most likely to want progressives/leftists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally.

Also. . .
--the wall--Trump supporters mostly for; Clinton supporters mostly oppose.
--more federal money for welfare and programs--Trump supporters mostly oppose; Clinton supporters mostly support
--racial and gender inequality--far more Clinton supports say this is a serious problem than do Trump supporters.
--parenting--far more Trump supporters say it is important for children to have a mom and dad in the home than do Clinton supporters.
--terrorism--far more Trump supporters want stronger protections than do Clinton supporters.
--free trade--far more Trump supporters support efforts to correct trade imbalances than do Clinton supporters.
--illegal immigration--more Clinton supporters say undocumented immigrants are hard working people who commit no more crimes than the general population than do Trump supporters make that argument. Clinton supporters favor amnesty for all and open borders far more than Trump supporters do.
6 charts that show where Clinton and Trump supporters differ

A recent article in "Christianity Today" suggests that evangelicals supported Hillary more than Trump until recently when Hillary supporters are abandoning evangelicalism.
Study: Clinton Voters Much More Likely to Leave Evangelicalism than Trump Voters

But maybe this is also telling: From a recent "Washington Secrets" column:

Not sure what it means, but Emerson College polling reveals that Trump supporters more than those who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton believe space aliens have visited Earth. Overall, 31 percent believe aliens have landed, but among voters for President Trump, it is 38 percent to Clinton’s 25 percent. [/lndent]
More predictions that Trump White House chief John Kelly is leaving

And those who voted or supported somebody other than Trump or Clinton generally fall into one of those camps when it comes to the issues. And yes, there are many other issues we could have included.

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?​

I voted FOR Trump AND FOR his policies. I had no plans to vote in 2016 election until President Trump jumped in. If he hadn't run I would not have voted...the country deserved Clinton to be president so she would destroy America some more...I was more interested in the worst candidate winning and destroying America so a war would break out. That didn't happen someone won who is trying to fix America.

Trying..... to fix America so he becomes richer......

He's not really fixing America though, is he?

I mean, what he's setting up is that potentially in the future all presidential candidates are just egotistical maniacs who want attention.

Potentially one of these wants to be king/dictator and Trump is giving that person the tools to do so.

Destroying the fabric of American Democracy (however fragile and pathetic that is) is not going to make America better.

 

[Foxfyre]

NOTICE: This is the CDZ so please keep this civil.

After visiting numerous political message boards, watching a LOT of news on various television channels, reading a LOT of commentary from all sides on the political spectrum, and after a LOT of face to face discussions, it seems obvious to me that Trump supporters and those who voted for Hillary or somebody else are just wired differently. And I wonder if it is possible to discuss that without bringing Hillary and Trump or anybody else into it personally? See the question posed at the bottom of the OP.

Among many Issues with widely differing views between Trump supports and Clinton and/or other supporters:

It is a given that Hillary supporters were mostly okay with the existing tax code and size of government and supported higher taxes especially on the rich and/or big business to effect social change and they argue that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Trump supporters mostly believe in smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes and that people will spend their money more wisely and effectively themselves than the government will spend it for them.

It is a given that Trump supporters are most likely to want conservatives or constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally while Hillary supporters are most likely to want progressives/leftists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally.

Also. . .
--the wall--Trump supporters mostly for; Clinton supporters mostly oppose.
--more federal money for welfare and programs--Trump supporters mostly oppose; Clinton supporters mostly support
--racial and gender inequality--far more Clinton supports say this is a serious problem than do Trump supporters.
--parenting--far more Trump supporters say it is important for children to have a mom and dad in the home than do Clinton supporters.
--terrorism--far more Trump supporters want stronger protections than do Clinton supporters.
--free trade--far more Trump supporters support efforts to correct trade imbalances than do Clinton supporters.
--illegal immigration--more Clinton supporters say undocumented immigrants are hard working people who commit no more crimes than the general population than do Trump supporters make that argument. Clinton supporters favor amnesty for all and open borders far more than Trump supporters do.
6 charts that show where Clinton and Trump supporters differ

A recent article in "Christianity Today" suggests that evangelicals supported Hillary more than Trump until recently when Hillary supporters are abandoning evangelicalism.
Study: Clinton Voters Much More Likely to Leave Evangelicalism than Trump Voters

But maybe this is also telling: From a recent "Washington Secrets" column:

Not sure what it means, but Emerson College polling reveals that Trump supporters more than those who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton believe space aliens have visited Earth. Overall, 31 percent believe aliens have landed, but among voters for President Trump, it is 38 percent to Clinton’s 25 percent. [/lndent]
More predictions that Trump White House chief John Kelly is leaving

And those who voted or supported somebody other than Trump or Clinton generally fall into one of those camps when it comes to the issues. And yes, there are many other issues we could have included.

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?​

I voted FOR Trump AND FOR his policies. I had no plans to vote in 2016 election until President Trump jumped in. If he hadn't run I would not have voted...the country deserved Clinton to be president so she would destroy America some more...I was more interested in the worst candidate winning and destroying America so a war would break out. That didn't happen someone won who is trying to fix America.

Trying..... to fix America so he becomes richer......

He's not really fixing America though, is he?

I mean, what he's setting up is that potentially in the future all presidential candidates are just egotistical maniacs who want attention.

Potentially one of these wants to be king/dictator and Trump is giving that person the tools to do so.

Destroying the fabric of American Democracy (however fragile and pathetic that is) is not going to make America better.

The Constitution limits what a President can or should do. But to say that who is President makes no difference at all is absurd.

The President is not a perfect person, but neither is he an egomaniac. Egotistical, yes. Flamboyant yes. Engages in hyperbole and his style is to hit back when he is hit which many deem to be 'unpresidential' but we knew he was that way when we voted for him so it may become 'presidential'. But he respects the Constitution and the law--the only time he has circumvented either I believe is by going against the law and a court order to reunite the kids with their parents held in detention. And he agreed to delay enforcing the law to give Congress opportunity to pass legislation protecting the DACA people, which they have refused to do.

As for his motives in doing what he does, I could care less. Maybe he wanted one more accomplishment for his own legacy. But what motivates him is unimportant compared to his goals, objectives, and what is accomplished.

What he is doing is monumental and historic. He is circumventing the iron grip of the permanent political class in Washington and showing them to be the feckless, self serving professional politicians that they are--in both parties. He doesn't care about political polls about himself but is doing what we elected him to do. He is the FIRST President in my lifetime to actually hit the floor running to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign. And he is getting amazing results.

Will he fix America? No. No human on Earth can do that. But in less than two years, he has changed its direction from one of slow but certain decline to one of hope, opportunity, possibility. IMO, only the most vindictive, small minded, and petty would see their dislike of him personally as more important than the really good things that are happening.

He is making it more possible for America to change its own course and begin the process of fixing itself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

NOTICE: This is the CDZ so please keep this civil.

After visiting numerous political message boards, watching a LOT of news on various television channels, reading a LOT of commentary from all sides on the political spectrum, and after a LOT of face to face discussions, it seems obvious to me that Trump supporters and those who voted for Hillary or somebody else are just wired differently. And I wonder if it is possible to discuss that without bringing Hillary and Trump or anybody else into it personally? See the question posed at the bottom of the OP.

Among many Issues with widely differing views between Trump supports and Clinton and/or other supporters:

It is a given that Hillary supporters were mostly okay with the existing tax code and size of government and supported higher taxes especially on the rich and/or big business to effect social change and they argue that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Trump supporters mostly believe in smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes and that people will spend their money more wisely and effectively themselves than the government will spend it for them.

It is a given that Trump supporters are most likely to want conservatives or constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally while Hillary supporters are most likely to want progressives/leftists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally.

Also. . .
--the wall--Trump supporters mostly for; Clinton supporters mostly oppose.
--more federal money for welfare and programs--Trump supporters mostly oppose; Clinton supporters mostly support
--racial and gender inequality--far more Clinton supports say this is a serious problem than do Trump supporters.
--parenting--far more Trump supporters say it is important for children to have a mom and dad in the home than do Clinton supporters.
--terrorism--far more Trump supporters want stronger protections than do Clinton supporters.
--free trade--far more Trump supporters support efforts to correct trade imbalances than do Clinton supporters.
--illegal immigration--more Clinton supporters say undocumented immigrants are hard working people who commit no more crimes than the general population than do Trump supporters make that argument. Clinton supporters favor amnesty for all and open borders far more than Trump supporters do.
6 charts that show where Clinton and Trump supporters differ

A recent article in "Christianity Today" suggests that evangelicals supported Hillary more than Trump until recently when Hillary supporters are abandoning evangelicalism.
Study: Clinton Voters Much More Likely to Leave Evangelicalism than Trump Voters

But maybe this is also telling: From a recent "Washington Secrets" column:

Not sure what it means, but Emerson College polling reveals that Trump supporters more than those who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton believe space aliens have visited Earth. Overall, 31 percent believe aliens have landed, but among voters for President Trump, it is 38 percent to Clinton’s 25 percent. [/lndent]
More predictions that Trump White House chief John Kelly is leaving

And those who voted or supported somebody other than Trump or Clinton generally fall into one of those camps when it comes to the issues. And yes, there are many other issues we could have included.

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?​

I voted FOR Trump AND FOR his policies. I had no plans to vote in 2016 election until President Trump jumped in. If he hadn't run I would not have voted...the country deserved Clinton to be president so she would destroy America some more...I was more interested in the worst candidate winning and destroying America so a war would break out. That didn't happen someone won who is trying to fix America.

Trying..... to fix America so he becomes richer......

He's not really fixing America though, is he?

I mean, what he's setting up is that potentially in the future all presidential candidates are just egotistical maniacs who want attention.

Potentially one of these wants to be king/dictator and Trump is giving that person the tools to do so.

Destroying the fabric of American Democracy (however fragile and pathetic that is) is not going to make America better.

The Constitution limits what a President can or should do. But to say that who is President makes no difference at all is absurd.

The President is not a perfect person, but neither is he an egomaniac. Egotistical, yes. Flamboyant yes. Engages in hyperbole and his style is to hit back when he is hit which many deem to be 'unpresidential' but we knew he was that way when we voted for him so it may become 'presidential'. But he respects the Constitution and the law--the only time he has circumvented either I believe is by going against the law and a court order to reunite the kids with their parents held in detention. And he agreed to delay enforcing the law to give Congress opportunity to pass legislation protecting the DACA people, which they have refused to do.

As for his motives in doing what he does, I could care less. Maybe he wanted one more accomplishment for his own legacy. But what motivates him is unimportant compared to his goals, objectives, and what is accomplished.

What he is doing is monumental and historic. He is circumventing the iron grip of the permanent political class in Washington and showing them to be the feckless, self serving professional politicians that they are--in both parties. He doesn't care about political polls about himself but is doing what we elected him to do. He is the FIRST President in my lifetime to actually hit the floor running to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign. And he is getting amazing results.

Will he fix America? No. No human on Earth can do that. But in less than two years, he has changed its direction from one of slow but certain decline to one of hope, opportunity, possibility. IMO, only the most vindictive, small minded, and petty would see their dislike of him personally as more important than the really good things that are happening.

He is making it more possible for America to change its own course and begin the process of fixing itself.

Who is Picaro? And if you don't find my posts entertaining, I don't care. Thanks. Bye.

 

[Foxfyre]

NOTICE: This is the CDZ so please keep this civil.

After visiting numerous political message boards, watching a LOT of news on various television channels, reading a LOT of commentary from all sides on the political spectrum, and after a LOT of face to face discussions, it seems obvious to me that Trump supporters and those who voted for Hillary or somebody else are just wired differently. And I wonder if it is possible to discuss that without bringing Hillary and Trump or anybody else into it personally? See the question posed at the bottom of the OP.

Among many Issues with widely differing views between Trump supports and Clinton and/or other supporters:

It is a given that Hillary supporters were mostly okay with the existing tax code and size of government and supported higher taxes especially on the rich and/or big business to effect social change and they argue that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Trump supporters mostly believe in smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes and that people will spend their money more wisely and effectively themselves than the government will spend it for them.

It is a given that Trump supporters are most likely to want conservatives or constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally while Hillary supporters are most likely to want progressives/leftists on the Supreme Court and in the court system generally.

Also. . .
--the wall--Trump supporters mostly for; Clinton supporters mostly oppose.
--more federal money for welfare and programs--Trump supporters mostly oppose; Clinton supporters mostly support
--racial and gender inequality--far more Clinton supports say this is a serious problem than do Trump supporters.
--parenting--far more Trump supporters say it is important for children to have a mom and dad in the home than do Clinton supporters.
--terrorism--far more Trump supporters want stronger protections than do Clinton supporters.
--free trade--far more Trump supporters support efforts to correct trade imbalances than do Clinton supporters.
--illegal immigration--more Clinton supporters say undocumented immigrants are hard working people who commit no more crimes than the general population than do Trump supporters make that argument. Clinton supporters favor amnesty for all and open borders far more than Trump supporters do.
6 charts that show where Clinton and Trump supporters differ

A recent article in "Christianity Today" suggests that evangelicals supported Hillary more than Trump until recently when Hillary supporters are abandoning evangelicalism.
Study: Clinton Voters Much More Likely to Leave Evangelicalism than Trump Voters

But maybe this is also telling: From a recent "Washington Secrets" column:

Not sure what it means, but Emerson College polling reveals that Trump supporters more than those who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton believe space aliens have visited Earth. Overall, 31 percent believe aliens have landed, but among voters for President Trump, it is 38 percent to Clinton’s 25 percent. [/lndent]
More predictions that Trump White House chief John Kelly is leaving

And those who voted or supported somebody other than Trump or Clinton generally fall into one of those camps when it comes to the issues. And yes, there are many other issues we could have included.

QUESTION: Without discussing President Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein) personally, was your vote strictly against somebody else? Or did you vote along party lines? Or did your vote and current support represent your opinions and/or deepest convictions, and/or hopes?

What is most important to you re the State of the Union at this time? What do you want the policy or direction to be?​

I voted FOR Trump AND FOR his policies. I had no plans to vote in 2016 election until President Trump jumped in. If he hadn't run I would not have voted...the country deserved Clinton to be president so she would destroy America some more...I was more interested in the worst candidate winning and destroying America so a war would break out. That didn't happen someone won who is trying to fix America.

Trying..... to fix America so he becomes richer......

He's not really fixing America though, is he?

I mean, what he's setting up is that potentially in the future all presidential candidates are just egotistical maniacs who want attention.

Potentially one of these wants to be king/dictator and Trump is giving that person the tools to do so.

Destroying the fabric of American Democracy (however fragile and pathetic that is) is not going to make America better.

The Constitution limits what a President can or should do. But to say that who is President makes no difference at all is absurd.

The President is not a perfect person, but neither is he an egomaniac. Egotistical, yes. Flamboyant yes. Engages in hyperbole and his style is to hit back when he is hit which many deem to be 'unpresidential' but we knew he was that way when we voted for him so it may become 'presidential'. But he respects the Constitution and the law--the only time he has circumvented either I believe is by going against the law and a court order to reunite the kids with their parents held in detention. And he agreed to delay enforcing the law to give Congress opportunity to pass legislation protecting the DACA people, which they have refused to do.

As for his motives in doing what he does, I could care less. Maybe he wanted one more accomplishment for his own legacy. But what motivates him is unimportant compared to his goals, objectives, and what is accomplished.

What he is doing is monumental and historic. He is circumventing the iron grip of the permanent political class in Washington and showing them to be the feckless, self serving professional politicians that they are--in both parties. He doesn't care about political polls about himself but is doing what we elected him to do. He is the FIRST President in my lifetime to actually hit the floor running to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign. And he is getting amazing results.

Will he fix America? No. No human on Earth can do that. But in less than two years, he has changed its direction from one of slow but certain decline to one of hope, opportunity, possibility. IMO, only the most vindictive, small minded, and petty would see their dislike of him personally as more important than the really good things that are happening.

He is making it more possible for America to change its own course and begin the process of fixing itself.

Who is Picaro? And if you don't find my posts entertaining, I don't care. Thanks. Bye.

Sorry started out responding to his post but clicked on yours instead--I deleted the part irrelevant to your post but after you had already copied it. But since you don't care, you're welcome. Bye.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. As I recall the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited quotas? Really digging into the old memory banks here but I think it was the Comptroller General who would declare the subsequent Johnson era Philadelphia Plan illegal on the basis it was too close to requiring quotas? As something of a very amateur constitutional scholar at that time, I was amazed that the GAO would be given power to declare anything illegal, but as it didn't affect me, I didn't really philosophically care all that much at the time. And Johnson was on his way out at the time and probably didn't object all that much.

More to it, but I'm not going to derail here, especially since few people even know about the in's and out's of the Acts and their consequences; they all seem to be happily uninformed and satisfied with misplaced LBJ bashing and woulnd't be interested anyway.

And yes, the Nixon Administration did reinstate a version of the plan, again declared illegal by the GAO but Nixon fought for it as you said. The goal was to drive a political wedge between African Americans and the very strong and pretty much anti-black unions at the time. He threatened to keep Congress in session until they passed a new law which they did. (Can you imagine any President having that kind of power over Congress now? Just doesn't happen.)

Well, Dirksen had a lot to do with it, and in those days the GOP had some Democrat allies to work with in Congress, and it was going to cost them nothing to go along with Nixon, at least on that issue, plus we know from later investigations GOP'ers like Mitchell were already getting up front companies to milk the 12%-15% premiums 'minority owned companies' stood to gain from the quota schemes on military contracts.

So we entered the era of Affirmative Action complete with quotas which did break down some institutional barriers that otherwise would have been a long time coming down. But once that was accomplished, as we know, these kinds of government policy assume the shelf life approximating mop handles. It went on and on and on until no African American would be seen as earning/meriting any job or promotion but rather being gifted via Affirmative Action as well as creating a new entitlement among the more militant. That made it a very negative, harmful, destructive thing. It has actually perpetuated racism.

True. And then they turned around and threw away their political advantages over continuing and expanding Title VII to all 50 states, inducing the ban on literacy t tests, some 14 states outside the South had them,, including New York and California, and of course followed by the busing debacle in northern states that had been very busy re-segregating their school systems throughout the 1960's and and the riots that followed Nixon's desegregation plans for the northern states and California.

So getting back to President Trump who doesn't give a diddly squat about race or gender but is totally focused on policy that creates hope, vision, opportunity, awareness of possibilities. Having more good jobs than there are workers to fill them has benefited African Americans more than any other policy or program ever could. Ergo, unemployment among African Americans is the lowest in history and still dropping.

And it is that kind of vision that prompted many of us to vote for President Trump and continue to support him. He may be the mouth who scored, but by golly he is scoring which is more than the perfectly poised, polished, politicians of the permanent political class--nice alliteration yes?--can claim.

I don't put lot of value in govt. stats re unemployment or any others any more, since the GAO was politicized and no longer an independent agency any more. I can see the propaganda value for incumbents of throwing them out every year, though. Obama made the same claims. All it means in my state is more waves of criminal illegal aliens building houses and working, not Americans, so I don't get excited over those numbers. Wages ares till shit, and not growing much at all, so no big leap in disposable incomes for small businesses to exploit.

I do like the tariffs and the foreign policies, though.

Okay, I started out what I thought was a post to you, but wasn't, but I was saying I don't like the chopped up posts because it too often changes the context and is boring as hell for me, and I presume others, to read. I do understand why many of you do that to compartmentalize thoughts. I just prefer not to do that.

Will President Trump do the entirely human thing to express positive stats and downplay anything contrary? Yeah, he is very likely to do that. But I think of something Paul Harvey once said at another time we were coming out of recession and the economy was beginning to hum again. He said something to the effect that it wasn't really that anything had changed that had affected anything much yet, but that people believed it was getting better and therefore it was.

President Trump is really pushing the good news which I believe is instinctive that good news begets good news. When people have hope, encouragement, and belief in possibilities, they make it happen. There are always mistakes, misfires, missteps along the way, but as long as they try, they'll do far better than they will when it looks hopeless to them.

President Trump didn't accept the prophecy of the Barack Obamas and the John McCains that America's glory days are over and a lot of jobs and industries that made us great are never coming back. Such prophecies are all too often self fulfilling.

President Trump's primary strength is he shrugs off the negative polls and is willing to take the hate and flack thrown at him by those who demand he conform to the status quo THEY think is proper. He is encouraged by those of us who LIKE what he is doing because he - and we who are supporting his agenda - know that the status quo was a recipe for continuous decline. He has given us a vision of what can be and courage to achieve it. And it's working.

His personal shortcomings, past sins, and unlikable traits are pretty insignificant in the face of that. Only the small minded, hateful, and hyper partisan make him personally the most important thing.