The debate "Polls were unable to predict Trump's rise to power because his supporters were being shamed by media" was started by
March 19, 2018, 4:36 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
ChangeMyMind posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
ChangeMyMind, brontoraptor, bruh352, tylathecat and 8 visitors agree.
3 visitors disagree.
and for the record, I don't really care about trumps infidelity or the access Hollywood tape. I'm much more concerned of his abuse of eminent domain to steal the house of an elderly women for personal profit, or not paying contractors.
dude, elected officials don't represent you when they jerk off or play golf in their free time.... they represent you in their office, on the podium, or on the campaign trail. in the policies they push in your name.
trumps and bills affairs aren't what I'm talking about. thats their personal business. I'm talking about the wall, lock her up, money is speech.
you had to have known I wasn't talking about their sleeping positions or favorite movie right.... this was a heck of a stretch of logic.
since when does one of the top officials in the entire executive branch, flying from peace deals to multinational trade pacts, handle security details in specific embassies?
"MacArthur wanted to use nukes. he was the military man in charge. it was only civilian oversight which prevented them being used. and if they had been used it would have triggered WW 3."
How is it not foolish that a civilian SAVED the day on this argument... I thought decisions like these were made way lower in the ranks. Could it be you are picking and choosing for the sake of arguing?
But I guess in the case of Hillary Clinton, civilian oversight had nothing to do with Benghazi?
neither of your examples of Democrats ignoring issues is even significant. the security at an individual embassy is not a decision that politicians make. that is a bureaucratic decision. saying that an elected official is responsible for that is just foolish. that decision gets made way beneath their pay grade.
and the incident about emails is valid. however it is pretty much standard procedure in Washington. several of Trump's people do this too. I'm not saying that to excuse Hilary, but it wasn't illegal or even uncommon. we should pass laws to prevent this stuff.
I would advise caution with what you just said, because you are opening Pandora's box of false accusations. If elected officials are truly a representation of those who elected them, then all Republican voters are misogynist, and racists, while all Democrat voters are picketing hippies who love to cheat on their wives while on the job.
Having said that, it's not fair to judge constituents by the actions of those they chose to elect.
[Side bar, I always found it fascinating how those who affiliated to a party are quick to defend their candidate after wrong doing (Trumps "grab her by the p***y comments, Clinton's lack of security when handling sensitive info...) It's comical to me, it's the weirdest form of buyer's remorse avoidance I've seen.]
If you find yourself identifying as a Democrat, I would NOT imagine that it would be an easy task or a go-to move for you to abandon military forces pinned in an embassy overseas. Nor would I expect that from any other party member. Your actions speak more to me than your party affiliation. That's just me though.
correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel it is perfectly fine to generalize based on the words of elected representatives (as they represent the people who elected them). as opposed to the right wing tactic of generalizing based off unelected bloggers and stupid college kids who represent no one but themselves and even had democratic leaders like Obama calling them stupid (in nicer words)
and especially when those leaders have been re-elected many times based off these messages.
certainly I am not saying those views stated by politicians are shared by ALL republicans, but a significant portion of them, likely even more than half.
also, mass media with many millions of regular viewership may qualify as accurate representations and a voice of the people. not all media, just the massively popular ones.
My point exactly Nemiroff, I hate generalizations like those. (I was fishing) But historybuff made one, so I was curious how far we are willing to generalize. "Republicans did all those thing and much much more".
I will be the first one to say that blanket statements tend to be cheap; I have a good time arguing blanket statements, for battling absolutes ain't that hard.
so because some democrats said something stupid (allegedly) all democrats are guilty of that? Does that mean that by your logic if some republicans say something racist then all republicans are guilty of that as well? if so, weren't those democrats right based on your logic?
you personally are guilty of the same generalizations you are accusing the dumbest of the democrats of doing.
I did hear hear protests of democrats chanting "racists" to anybody who affiliated as Republican. In my book, that is an equally haineous accusation.
other politicians certainly use some of the same elements. but I'm not aware of Hilary's supports chanting about locking up political opponents, or calling all Mexicans rapists, or making a list of crimes committed by one specific group in an attempt to demonize them. Republicans did all those thing and much, much more.
haha, someone is not very fond of Trump...
I still wonder though, would you go as far as saying that Clinton campaign (or any politician in our era for that matter) has not run a campaign in which fear and anger are not elements?
Every political ad is a smear campaign against their opposition. Trump was no different. He just has no filter and way less common sense than the average Joe, and in an era where scandals and tide pods are news, so is the guy talking smack. Thoughts?
I meant that there are very good reasons to be ashamed of supporting trump. similarly, there are very good reasons to be ashamed of drunk driving. both involve doing something foolish that endangeres other people's lives.
I'm not too clear on your argument about drunk drivers, perhaps an autocorrect or a typo?
Will you be willing to say that the Clinton campaign was not based on fear and anger too? Because, it was my experience that from the Trump campaign I learned why Clinton was bad for America, and from the Clinton campaign (surprise surprise) I learned why Trump was bad for America. Do not think that my argument is meant to defend Trump. But you better be able to show me that no other candidate had a similar strategy to make this claim.
I have another theory. I think America was so sick of politicians that they went with a reality tv star. The ultimate cry for help with the highest risk possible as America gambled the highest office in the state. I often laugh and wonder how career politicians aren't ashamed of this.
I mean, what if hospitals gave up on the scientific research team working on a cure for AIDS; and suddenly decided to hire a group of idk... reality tv stars and shamans. Does anyone else find this ridiculous? I sure as heck do.
I think there is an element of that. but that's a bit like saying drunk drivers are shamed by the media so they don't tell everyone.
Trump is an abysmal president. he got elected on anger and fear. most of the things the media were saying about him we're true. there were good reasons for people to ashamed of supporting him.
What do you think guys? How come America was so surprised by the election of President Trump? Was it because the research was poorly done, or maybe because the supporters of Trump found much shaming in society to even express their support openly? I'm eager to learn your views on this very old topic. (sorry I'm new to the app, I have suppressed debate material)