Trump supporters in a nutshell

[uo111 5,282]

1 hour ago, 18 said:

she's pro life so i think that's largely the reason why she's voting for trump, which is somewhat understandable i guess. the interviewers came out looking bad too in my opinion, the same as the pro trump woman.

i mean the pro trump woman brought up fair points regarding trump's comments and bill clinton's antics. the problem is that the policy positions should come first (which she rightly introduces, pro-life) and these antics and comments of his apart from his policy are secondary or tertiary imo, otherwise you don't fully understand who you're voting in--sure someone can be a pig, like bill was in his time, but where does he stand on the issues, that is what is most important. but in reality the policies are often made secondary in some cases to matters of lesser importance.

the pro trump woman's mistake is that she is focusing on one issue when there are so many others where trump is way off and just all around uninformed on, positions so ignorant that it obliterates his being any kind of a serious candidate in my eyes. these terrible policy suggestions should be the focus not whether or not a private conversation he had was degrading toward women. but this is not the case because voters are swayed by something they can see and better understand, something superficial when it comes to politics, something they are familiar with in their everyday lives, the misogynistic and racist remarks and so on, policy on the other hand is a little more out of reach to the common everyday person. 

i just say all this to say that she doesn't come off any worse than the interviewers when you look at it critically. i don't think she was changing the focus at all, merely answering a really bad question with evidence, though inarticulately. 

 

edit:

this is one reason why people often say the media is bad

I didn't watch the video until I read your comment and now I'm wondering if you watched the video.

That woman was asked if Trumps words were okay and she starts talking about abortion. And when they asked her why she was talking about abortion she said it's because abortion is an issue and words aren't. And then she said Bill's words were an issue.... But trump's aren't?

You don't honestly think trumps words are a non-issue. You can't think that.

[Eighteen 5,430]

4 minutes ago, uo111 said:

I didn't watch the video until I read your comment and now I'm wondering if you watched the video.

That woman was asked if Trumps words were okay and she starts talking about abortion. And when they asked her why she was talking about abortion she said it's because abortion is an issue and words aren't. And then she said Bill's words were an issue.... But trump's aren't?

You don't honestly think trumps words are a non-issue. You can't think that.

good question. she says in the video that his words aren't okay and that she doesn't like them at all in fact. but she stands by his policy (pro life) which is what people should be doing in general first and foremost, to first analyze according to policy. i mean most people can tell you, "i don't like trump because of his misogyny and racism," which of course are reasons not to like him, but how many can tell you "i don't like him because of his position here, and here, and here"? <-this is how one can see the distortion in the media, by knowing this.

for the office of the presidency, i'm arguing that what is more important to look at and argue with first are his positions (which are very bad in trump's case). for example, if candidate A had hillary's policy and donald trump's bad attitude vs. candidate B with trump's policy and hillary's good attitude, i would vote for A. sure i wouldn't like him, but that's not really what i'm voting for. i'm voting for what i see him doing with his power as president which doesn't really involve all the noise that is just fanfare for the emotions and winning votes. i don't see some people using the same logic when looking at an election. 

i'm not saying that his words are a non issue, just that they aren't as important considering his absurd position in policy. his policy position, we should assume, is the forecast of how he will use his power in the white house, and what he says outside of that is not as important, so i think the former is where much of the scrutiny should lie. i mean what's the point of asking "do you think it was ok for donald to say such things about women" TO a woman? i mean of course it wasn't ok, duh? poor question imo. but she's thinking of it from a policy perspective. 

idk i was just offering a way to critically look at the media and politics and i think this vid makes a good point how reality is made askew by the lens of the camera and the worst part is sometimes people don't even notice it's happening (not saying you, but generally, even me). 

 

[uo111 5,282]

2 hours ago, 18 said:

good question. she says in the video that his words aren't okay and that she doesn't like them at all in fact. but she stands by his policy (pro life) which is what people should be doing in general first and foremost, to first analyze according to policy. i mean most people can tell you, "i don't like trump because of his misogyny and racism," which of course are reasons not to like him, but how many can tell you "i don't like him because of his position here, and here, and here"? <-this is how one can see the distortion in the media, by knowing this.

for the office of the presidency, i'm arguing that what is more important to look at and argue with first are his positions (which are very bad in trump's case). for example, if candidate A had hillary's policy and donald trump's bad attitude vs. candidate B with trump's policy and hillary's good attitude, i would vote for A. sure i wouldn't like him, but that's not really what i'm voting for. i'm voting for what i see him doing with his power as president which doesn't really involve all the noise that is just fanfare for the emotions and winning votes. i don't see some people using the same logic when looking at an election. 

i'm not saying that his words are a non issue, just that they aren't as important considering his absurd position in policy. his policy position, we should assume, is the forecast of how he will use his power in the white house, and what he says outside of that is not as important, so i think the former is where much of the scrutiny should lie. i mean what's the point of asking "do you think it was ok for donald to say such things about women" TO a woman? i mean of course it wasn't ok, duh? poor question imo. but she's thinking of it from a policy perspective. 

idk i was just offering a way to critically look at the media and politics and i think this vid makes a good point how reality is made askew by the lens of the camera and the worst part is sometimes people don't even notice it's happening (not saying you, but generally, even me). 

 

The problem is Trump doesn't have clear positions, he just panders to his base. So we are forced to use his views to determine what his positions might be like, and taking advantadge of women is very telling. This woman is just a single issue voter who doesn't care that he will do nothing to protect women's rights. Which is fine but she could've just said that.

The few positions he does have are really bad though. Tax breaks for the uber rich, omg. 

[Lion Heart 15,041]