• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are American Voters Actually Just Stupid?

eohrnberger said:
Oh hell more than that. The media gave her a pass on a lot of stuff as well, just by not bothering to cover it, and rather piling on condemning Trump and his chances.
Well, their bias and the blindness it caused in them is clear for all to see now.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I don't think the left sees it yet. They haven't learned one damned lesson yet. What they have taken out of all of it is to get out the vote better and move the party farther to the left. They are still totally blind. I see many lefties on here who have given up reading the left biased mainstream media in favor of the Guardian, VOX, Salon, and other similar tabloids.
 
Moderate Right said:
I have to disagree. I don't think the left sees it yet. They haven't learned one damned lesson yet. What they have taken out of all of it is to get out the vote better and move the party farther to the left. They are still totally blind. I see many lefties on here who have given up reading the left biased mainstream media in favor of the Guardian, VOX, Salon, and other similar tabloids.
Click to expand...

The Guardian is a tabloid? Where do you get your news from, Breitbart? :lol:
 
Phys251 said:
The Guardian is a tabloid? Where do you get your news from, Breitbart? :lol:
Click to expand...

No. That's just the point. I don't read any of the tabloids. I'm not that biased that I have to get my news from any tabloid.
 
Moderate Right said:
No. That's just the point. I don't read any of the tabloids. I'm not that biased that I have to get my news from any tabloid.
Click to expand...

The Guardian is not a tabloid. Get your facts straight. Where do you get your news?
 
Stupid and irrational are not the same thing, but yes we have long massively failed to understand and factor in that humans are irrational, and we are getting dumber, but Trump is not here by mistake.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Stupid and irrational are not the same thing, but yes we have long massively failed to understand and factor in that humans are irrational, and we are getting dumber, but Trump is not here by mistake.
Click to expand...

No, he's more of a consequence.
 
Phys251 said:
The Guardian is not a tabloid. Get your facts straight. Where do you get your news?
Click to expand...

I get it from as many mainstream sources as I can and then even have to filter that out to find the truth. I don't get it from Breitbart, Fox News, The Hill, Zero Hedge, Heritage Foundation, or other similar tabloids such as MSNBC, the Guardian, Vox, Salon, or the other left tabloids. I don't understand why anyone would even read garbage like any of these in the first place, unless they are so biased that's where they want to get their news from - sources that are so biased that it reaffirms what they were already thinking and they need to hear the garbage to validate their biased beliefs.
 
rocket88 said:
No, he's more of a consequence.
Click to expand...

He being where he is is proof of our profound failure to do things right.

He is a corrective action.

Kurt Bardella:
I think the media fundamentally underestimated how angry the American people are at Washington. Too many (myself included) just couldn’t wrap their arms around the idea that Donald Trump could actually win. The reality was the American people were, if anything, enamored with Trump’s style and tone and could care less about facts and numbers. They just wanted change. The reality of today is this discontent with Washington still exists. I think Democrats’ decision to reappoint Nancy Pelosi as Leader was incredibly out-of-touch with reality and shows Democrats just don’t get it. It’s [not] enough to be against Trump, you have to give people an alternative for leadership. Republicans need to get **** done and show they can handle the responsibility of governing. This election was a signal that the American people want action.
Click to expand...
Kurt Bardella, Former Breitbart Exec, on Truth in Modern Journalism | Observer
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
I get it from as many mainstream sources as I can and then even have to filter that out to find the truth. I don't get it from Breitbart, Fox News, The Hill, Zero Hedge, Heritage Foundation, or other similar tabloids such as MSNBC, the Guardian, Vox, Salon, or the other left tabloids.
Click to expand...

When you're ready to stop with automatically branding calling sources that you disagree with "tabloids," feel free to let me know.
 
jet57 said:
Out of spite for Democrats or other candidates from other parties. That's where conservatives are making their big mistake. Instead of rebuilding the party toward credibility and reason after the GW Bush debacle, they hand the country Donald Trump!?! The Dems as afar as I'm concerned are going to have to do the same rebuilding, and thus far it doesn't look to me like they're getting the message, but the right is just doubling down on ridiculous and "replace Obama Care!!" - with what? That's just populace nonsense.

The right is following behind the radical far right and that is where people like Colin Powell and John Mccain take a powder. As long as the far right leads the pack, then the Republicans are still gonna be behind the eight ball; sure, they won the presidency and now control both houses, but to what end? Just another empty alley where people get screwed.
Click to expand...

I am just concerned that Americans might be carried away with emotions of spite an elect someone even worse just to harm other Americans (and other countries in the world).
 
Lutherf said:
Trump is a racist but African-Americans are a homogeneous voting bloc. It's stuff like this that endears me to Alternet and associated moonbat sites.


I'll try this one more time because many on the left STILL don't understand...half or more of Trump's votes were actually votes against Hillary. Hillary Clinton, more even than Jeb Bush, was the epitome of the political class. Half of her own party didn't want her and only voted for her because she wasn't Trump. So, when you ask "If Trump and Clinton were the candidates would you still vote for Trump?" the ONLY answer most anyone to the ideological right of Mao would give you is "Yes".

If Trump was running against Sanders you might get a few more "I just wouldn't vote" responses because even as wacky as Sanders ideas were he was at least human (and besides, he'd never get anything through). Basically, there would be less harm in a Sanders presidency than in a Clinton one.

My hope, assuming we survive the next few years, is that Americans realize that we've created a ****ing monster in DC and that we need to cage it before it kills us. We should NEVER be in a position where a Trump v Clinton election would be this problematic because the federal government should never have so much power that it becomes a problem.
Click to expand...

You have used your imagination and hysterics to create your own monster that is living rent free in your head!
 
Lutherf said:
Trump is a racist but African-Americans are a homogeneous voting bloc. It's stuff like this that endears me to Alternet and associated moonbat sites.


I'll try this one more time because many on the left STILL don't understand...half or more of Trump's votes were actually votes against Hillary. Hillary Clinton, more even than Jeb Bush, was the epitome of the political class. Half of her own party didn't want her and only voted for her because she wasn't Trump. So, when you ask "If Trump and Clinton were the candidates would you still vote for Trump?" the ONLY answer most anyone to the ideological right of Mao would give you is "Yes".

If Trump was running against Sanders you might get a few more "I just wouldn't vote" responses because even as wacky as Sanders ideas were he was at least human (and besides, he'd never get anything through). Basically, there would be less harm in a Sanders presidency than in a Clinton one.

My hope, assuming we survive the next few years, is that Americans realize that we've created a ****ing monster in DC and that we need to cage it before it kills us. We should NEVER be in a position where a Trump v Clinton election would be this problematic because the federal government should never have so much power that it becomes a problem.
Click to expand...

The danger to the country is the anarchy of the left which has taken over the minds of enough otherwise normal people that they think the louder they are the stronger they are. Good luck with that.
 
DDD said:
I am just concerned that Americans might be carried away with emotions of spite an elect someone even worse just to harm other Americans (and other countries in the world).
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% and that's why I'm a non partisan voter. It's my way of protesting the political machine that tries to tell me what I should think and then depends on me to help them deliver more of what I don't like.

What's really going on in this country is that we truly have no leadership and nobody with a modicum of that ability wants to be thrown into the blender just to be torn apart by the desire for more money. Deepak Chopra said that "we've thrown away our souls for the selfie". Past presidents and political leaders were faaarrrr worse or just as immoral as we complain about today, but the difference was the press and just people in general had class and look what we were able to accomplish buy ignoring the stupid stuff and focusing on what we needed to happen.

Those days are gone and that is the seat of our problem.
 
Moderate Right said:
I get it from as many mainstream sources as I can and then even have to filter that out to find the truth. I don't get it from Breitbart, Fox News, The Hill, Zero Hedge, Heritage Foundation, or other similar tabloids such as MSNBC, the Guardian, Vox, Salon, or the other left tabloids. I don't understand why anyone would even read garbage like any of these in the first place, unless they are so biased that's where they want to get their news from - sources that are so biased that it reaffirms what they were already thinking and they need to hear the garbage to validate their biased beliefs.
Click to expand...

And so - where do you get your information? and, can you define "tabloid" and show why those sources that you have named ARE tabloids?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
He being where he is is proof of our profound failure to do things right.

He is a corrective action.

Kurt Bardella:

Kurt Bardella, Former Breitbart Exec, on Truth in Modern Journalism | Observer
Click to expand...

A former Breitbart exec on truth in journalism? :lamo
Maybe that's why he's a former Breitbart exec. Truth isn't exactly important there.

Trump is where he is because of America's continued problems with doing something right. More of a symptom than a solution though.
 
rocket88 said:
A former Breitbart exec on truth in journalism? :lamo
Maybe that's why he's a former Breitbart exec. Truth isn't exactly important there.

Trump is where he is because of America's continued problems with doing something right. More of a symptom than a solution though.
Click to expand...

This is how folks stay willfully ignorant, by dismissing any ideas they dont want to hear or deal with by labeling the speaker garbage.

This is a failure of civilization on a grand scale, with profound negative consequences.

We will have to wait for the pain to teach.
 
Phys251 said:
When you're ready to stop with automatically branding calling sources that you disagree with "tabloids," feel free to let me know.
Click to expand...

A tabloid is a tabloid is a tabloid. Just because you want to call it by another name doesn't change the fact that it is uber hyper partisanship. If the news printed in that trash was not fake news it would be printed in the mainstream media. The fact that that crap is only carried by the tabloid media instead of the regular media just proves that it is fake news only meant for the extremely biased.
 
jet57 said:
And so - where do you get your information? and, can you define "tabloid" and show why those sources that you have named ARE tabloids?
Click to expand...

Already asked and answered when someone else asked me. But it explains a lot when the uber partisan even read trash media to begin with.
 
Moderate Right said:
Already asked and answered when someone else asked me. But it explains a lot when the uber partisan even read trash media to begin with.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. You just don't know where you get your information from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom