Trump supporters why?

>>97292
not a trump supporter but the guy is just showman, he is not going to kill anyone.
He was just boasting about his popularity and said an exaggeration

Man, the "Not My President" coalition is going to make birthers look like amateurs, aren't they?

>>97292
Also not a trump supporter nor murican.
I feel like people mistake electing a president and his or her party for electing a celebrity.
At the end of the day they just dumb it down to gossip to convince voters of their horrendous choice.

>>97292
This is a blog post. Read the sticky.

>>97313
>news
>what I say it is
The sticky sucks.

>alternet

Infowars-tier

Obama's entire legacy will be undone on the first day of Trump's presidency and you can't stop that, bitch

>>97320
>The sticky sucks
NO U
>>>/pol/

Meanwhile not a peep on /news/ about the republican-proposed congressional term limit bill

oh no

that would insinuate we're something other than nazis and saturday morning cartoon villains

>>97330
Post a thread about it, jackass.

>"This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill: the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill: you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

>>97334
>You take the red pill: you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes
>mfw Morpheus was inviting neo to a rape-date with drug

>>97330

Already in the thread about the ethics committee, and it doesn't gain any traction as a news story because it will never pass (even if Congress was literally 100% Republican it would not pass because good luck convincing congressmen to voluntarily give up power) and is being proposed just so a certain Republican (Cruz) can pat himself on the back.

The salt price is crashing. Never before has there been such an excess supply.

>>97305
The point us that he thinks he can. And i think he is right

>>97292
Trump supporters? Ask bernout voters why. The DNC alienated their own base with Debbie wasserman Shultz bullshit. She should have been fired the instant her emails leaked and Hillary never should have hired her. Democrat voter turnout was at a low point and the DNC started the dumpster fire that was her candidacy. Democrats handed him the presidency by being the epitome of establishment backscratching while trump was hated by the establishment movers of both parties.

>alternet

>>97583
I'm curious, what is it exactly that you think Debbie Wasserman Schultz did?

>>97583
this post is a good post

>>97292
Explain how at all this is related to Current Events? This is a very shit thread. There isn't even any information posted besides the link. It's just fucking advertising your shit site.

>>97292

Keep moving people, keep moving. Nothing to see here. It's "fake news".
The moment Alternet quoted Media Matters they tipped their hand. It's just a blog post pushing opinion as fact.

>>97330
>house members can only serve a max of six years
If you want the government to be completely non functional, and at the mercy of lobbyists this is what you would do.

>>97585
It's fairly well known her, and others in the party, undermined Sanders' candidacy

>>97323
Why are you telling him to go to /pol/ when he clearly is a leftist shitting on Trump supporters.

"drain the swamp"
> appoints corporate shills and old-school racist hacks
"lock her up"
> never mind, you guys sure went crazy for that stuff, amirite
> "Make America Great Again"
Actually, I love Putin's Russia more than America, even though he kills journalists, tampers in our elections, wants to destroy democracy throughout the world, and props up the worst dictators in the world, like Assad in Syria

Seriously, if you still support this guy and can't admit that a vote for him was a mistake, you're no better than the people who drank the Kool-aid at Jonestown. It's a cult, folks. Stop being cucks and supporting him despite him playing you for fools.

>>97292

"The press takes him [Trump] literally, but not seriously;
his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

— Salena Zito - 23 September 2016 - The Atlantic —

>>98115

I feel like this quote is as worthless as "trust, but verify" and is perhaps just as overused.

>>98156

How is it "worthless"?

The author is simply pointing out the difference in how the Establishment Media and the People see Trump.

>>98357

Beyond being incredibly overused, I don't think it works, just like "trust but verify" (if you trust, you don't need to verify). Trump is a man with no public office record, and his private record is based primarily on his word. Therefore, his public statements have way more weight than a normal politician, since normally you can use their record to pinpoint where politicians truly stand and reveal contradictions (ex. candidate X says he's pro gun but he passed control legislation in the past, thus revealing a contradiction that needs explaining). Without this reference point, you need to take him literally, otherwise you are quite literally making up policy positions for him, filling in the blanks with what you want to hear and not what is actually being said. He is practically Chance the Gardner, which is why you see all of his people constantly say "what he meant was..." whenever they are questioned about his positions.

You can see this interpretation failure at work with Obamacare, Trump promised to fully repeal it, his supporters interpreted it to mean partial repeal (keeping the good stuff), and now that the cards are on the table and a full repeal is possible (without a replacement lined up and ready for inspection) you have supporters who are in danger of losing their healthcare.

In short, if you can never take someone's statements literally, then how can you take them seriously? If everything you say is up for interpretation, then how can anyone take you seriously? The president of the United States has to be taken literally with minimal exaggerations, so hopefully we'll get a truer picture of his policies.

>>98381
>He is practically Chance the Gardner
Word, I often compare the two as well. Sometimes though, I think it's a stretch. Or at least I'd like to think that it's impossible for someone to bumble their way to potus with cavalier nodding and vague assurances. But despite what I think, many folks wanted exactly that this time around; the premise of everything being up for negotiation rather than detailed proposals. I didn't vote for the guy but I don't really blame him for the outcome. Motherfucker played a slick game while democrats splintered into an array of overconfident circlejerks. Kudos Donny.

>>97292
Stop concentrating on DT - he's the one they wanted you to watch.

Take a closer look at what we DIDN'T choose.

Look into Hillary Clinton - more importantly, where she gets her money from and how it compares to what she has to say.

Then I invite you to come to your own conclusions.

>>98478

>stop focusing on the guy who won and will be president of the United States
>instead focus on the person who lost and will never reach that level of power again

In addition everything about the Clintons has been under the microscope for literally decades, there's not much more to see there.

>>97312

When you look at it it does seem like Americans always pick the most interesting candidate. Bush was more interesting than Al Gore, Obama than Mccain and Romney etc.

>>97292
not news >>>/pol/

>>98482
Basically, she alienated anyone who demanded ethical consistency from her campaign by taking money from the fucking Saudis and George Soros, and having the gall to attempt to run on a platform of "Woman Power" and "Social Justice".

She's like a tick on the American establishment, and the only way to dig out a tick is with tweezers and a match.

>>98489
>taking money from the Saudis
But it's okay when DT does it.
>taking money from Soros
As did Kerry and Obama. He's a politically active billionare. It's a bit like saying a republican took money from the Mercers or the Kochs.

>>98497
DT is just the big dumb boot the public have been forced to use to stamp on Hillary Clinton's stupid face.

The only reason he was allowed to run was as a joke candidate; but controlled opposition so often goes awry.

>>98113
> tampers with elections
Yeah you and Obama are going to need a better source than what you've provided this far.
In any case, exposing corruption isn't tampering with the election. Maybe the dems shouldn't have been such bastards in the first place

>>97292
>unpopular
Then why did he win?
Also pic is unsourced faggo
"I suck so much cock"
-OP, 2017

>>98551
>>unpopular
>Then why did he win?
Because the electoral college has nothing to do with popularity.

>>98552
>muh electoral college
Kek

>>97322
Remember, we were in the worst economic recession since the great depression when Obama took office. So yeah, maybe Trump will undo everything that happened in the last 8 years.
>except Obamacare

>>98113
Don't forget
>hasn't paid his taxes in 20 years

>>97307
You realize there is a clear difference between rejecting the results of an election and opposing the proposed ideas and policies of an incoming president?

Jesus, its people like you who cause more of a divide by bringing up stale arguments like this to instigate others. You want unity? Why don't you try to find some common ground, both the left and right want a viable solution for healthcare in this country, and Trump's/GOP's ideas are garbage and even the GOP is split on their rush to repeal the ACA.
Talk about issues, not identity politics, or leave the discussion.

>>97330
Term limits are the whole reason we got into this mess, the only reason Bernie, Hillary, or Trump had a chance at all was because Obama couldn't get a third term. They serve no purpose but to punish adequacy and favor incompetence.

>>98553
It's true you moron.

>>98795
>[term limits] serve no purpose but to punish adequacy and favor incompetence
what an unintelligent comment. They serve to reduce the amount of power individuals have over the government- and thereby the people.
power corrupts, and the easiest way to reduce corruption is to reduce power. that is the point of term limits, not to punish your favourite demagogue.

>>98808
Term limits refer to limiting the number of terms you can serve, not the length of the term. Being able to serve unlimited terms doesn't lead to a dictatorship, you still have to keep getting re-elected. Term limits mean reducing the power of the people because apparently they're too dumb to know who they want running the country.

>>99534

>Term limits mean reducing the power of the people because apparently they're too dumb to know who they want running the country.

Well it was more "man I hate that FDR won literally 4 terms in a row, let's put up a rule so the Democrats can ever do that again." And then Eisenhower happened and the Republicans got super mad at themselves because they probably could have had like 16 years of Ike. In a related example, if the Republicans remove the Senate filibuster they'll be kicking themselves in a few years when the natural swing of politics loses them the Senate again.

The two-term limit has created the current 8 year swing where the presidency changes party hands every 8 years (with the exception of Regan to HW for 12 years). This election was practically Trump's to lose, so the fact he didn't have a massive blowout victory on all measures is embarrassing against such a weak opponent.

>>97307
Your country is fucked.

Putin is laughing.

>>98100
obvious false flag tbh

>>99534
Then move to Russia moron. You can re-elect Putin forever.

>>99909
All of the right is laughing.

>>99923
Russia is even less democratic than the USA.

>>100035

Assange says Russia isn't that bad though.

>Why aren't human rights abuses producing the same effects in regimes like China or Russia, and what can be done to democratise information in those countries?

>"In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player.

>whereas if you compare it to Russia, it too is an increasingly authoritarian society, but one that has a cultural tradition of lionising dissidents

http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/12/23/news/assange_wikileaks-154754000/

And here's what Snowden had to say:

>Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

https://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

>>98708
Dude... the Democrats are all about identity politics. Don't even begin with that shit.

>>97292
Funny thing, one of Trump’s real assets … that his hands aren’t drenched in blood… seems to go unnoticed by all the libtards.

>>100117
What you call ``identity politics", reasonable people call ``not voting against your best interest".

>>100132
Most people who claim to have ``concrete evidence" of Hillary being connected to suspicious deaths, moments later try to convince me that she's involved in a conspiracy of left-wing 4channers to rape children in a nonexistent basement.

>>97292
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/373493-trump-deep-state-russia-tillerson/

This is why we can't have nice things.

>>100140
Apparently US wants its next war w/ Russia; it’s been on a waiting list; but I believe Mattis may have just shortlisted them during the hearing. Obama probably wants to invade Russia and take all of their oil like in Iraq. Nothing we can do now will stop this war machine. Thing is, it'll be a nuclear war this time, and all of us regular people are going to lose hard.

>>100148

>Obama probably wants to invade Russia and take all of their oil like in Iraq.

>dozens of oil states that don't have nukes
>"no we need to invade the one with nukes that will kill us all."

Could you "US WANTS WAR WITH RUSSIA" people at least apply critical thinking skills? Nearly every reason I've seen has some shit faulty logic or requires the US to have magic anti-nuke defenses and leadership that's totally okay with nuclear weapons flying around.

Also, it's fascinating how this narrative has shifted over time. Before it was just "warmonger Hillary will start WWIII," then it was "democrats want WWIII," now it's "US government wants WWIII." It keeps expanding because Russia wants to scare people first into voting for Trump, and now to lift sanctions and probably extra concessions in the future in the name of "peace." It's why they push for an alliance, because said alliance would be far more beneficial for Russian than the United States. The US stands to gain nothing besides "no nukes killing the planet," which is the status quo regardless from simply being neutral with lukewarm relations, while Russia would have all sanctioned lifted and a green light to do whatever the fuck they want since their biggest competitor is now on their side.

>>100162
They love their either-or fallacies, don't they? We either drop NATO and ally with Russia, or we kick off WWIII. It's not like we can't adopt a careful, cautious, and defensive multilateral strategy to discourage Russia from fucking us over, kind of like what we do to most of our other nation-state enemies.

>>100138
>"Not voting against their best interests"

As defined by Democrats, because clearly they know what is in everyone's best interest.

>>100175
Right? Of all the things that drive me away from the Democrats the worst of all has to be their "monopoly" on what is progress, what is right, and what is in the best interests of everyone everywhere. Every night people like Bill Maher or Jon Stewart get up and rant about how it's their way or the highway and how anything that isn't Democrat isn't progress.

>>100175
Not at all unlike conservative support for stuff like abortion bans, huh?

>>100175
Sorry, most of us aren't so brain-damaged that we need a political party to tell us what our interests are. We can decide that for ourselves, and look at the parties to determine which ones actually represent our interests. When one party sometimes helps us, and the other consistently goes out of its way to hurt us, the choice is obvious.

>>100187
The GOP has a monopoly on what is in the best interests of wealthy, white, gender-conforming, straight cisgender males; everyone else goes to the Democrats by default. When the GOP starts branching out to support other groups (something that Trump tried to make happen, albeit only half-heartedly), then the Democrats won't have a monopoly over "everyone else".

>>98504
The Donald needs a better source as well
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14S0O6

>>100255

But Obama would have never been elected even once if the GOP actually had a monopoly there.

This isn't tumblr, you can drop the anti-traditionalist terminology and just say rich whites, btw.

>>100255
If you are sick of the political system which elected Trump and hate the principles and values which founded this great Union of Federated States, then let us know so that they will help you and your family move to a leftist society such as Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or France. You don't have to put up with a country that you hate; there are options around the world. We are open to receiving applications from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT and WP reporters to help them settle down overseas.

>>100344
You do not represent the entirety of the United States. One would think you would realize this now, seeing that your favored candidate only came in second place by popular vote, and the numerous protests against him and his entourage, but it seems you choose to be blind. And you will have no one to blame but yourself for the consequences.

>>100344
>leftist society
>Saudi Arabia, North Korea

hey guys I think this could be bait

A least hes not a politician. I support him in anything he wants to try because him not sucking the status quos dick might get chit done

>>100354
>Protests against someone wanting to uphold the law, secure the border, deal with the mess that's been the last 40 years in the middle east

>The protests are mostly about the mean things he said and having to deal with the consequences of your own actions instead of making taxpayers deal with it

You know why the right doesn't protest every Democrat leader? We don't get a day off, playdoh and therapy dogs when we lose. Popular vote doesn't mean anything when 2/3rds of the country can't be bothered to go vote.

>>100354
>and the numerous protests against him
No one takes these protests or the people staging seriously them except for the people actually involved and perpetuating them, which are an ever shrinking minority.

After all of those loud and useless Occupy protests that did nothing except trash the public spaces they used, and clogged up public transportation- making life difficult for the same people they claimed to have been taking a stand for, most people in the US have written most of it off as superfluous political theatre.

The face of the "anti-trump resistance" as it likes to call itself is a spoiled trust-fund college student who cries about how they're oppressed because college wasn't the instant-career ticket they were told it was by their detached, six -figure making parents. They'll claim to need tens of thousands of dollars of government money to fund their 4 year alcoholism-and-women-studies binge because "college is a right and should be free" while they drop thousands of dollars on designer clothing, and hundreds going to the clubs every night; all the while endlessly parroting socialist/communist falsehoods and preaching for a utopia that would see their lifestyles snuffed out and themselves physically lined up against a wall by commissars Cletus and Jamal, and executed for being counter revolutionary bougies.

You have NO IDEA what the face of the anti-trump movement is. It's all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds trying to save ALL of us from poor decision making. Not pro Hillary. Election is OVER. Now It's about keeping unqualified people in gov from fucking up your future.

>>101456
THIS!!!

>>100697
>not sucking the status quo's dick
Take a second look at his cabinet.

>>101544
When he goes off piste there'll be savage unrestrained backlash, of course.

But he was the necessary agent of disruption; Clinton was the greater evil, you idiots were freaking about some "pussy grabbing scandal" and old HC was buttering you up to go to war with fucking Russia over some dumbshit no-fly zone that the US doesn't even have the right to establish.

No Hillary, no War, simple as that.

>>101566

I doubt any candidate will start a war with Russia but maybe some limited conflicts deserve to be fought.

Mostly because I don't want to allow foreign states leverage over our electoral process. Like, "do our guy, or I'm taking your country down with our country".

First off, I'm not that afraid of Russian hard power; they're not suicidal and they know NATO never moves men on their side of the political boundary, because NATO doesn't want nuclear war. Secondly, to me that's just negotiating with terrorists. There's a good reason we have a degree of enimnity with some despots. And we empower them to influence our domestic lives and society at our own risk.

>>97582
youre dumb

I am a Trump supporter, but only after it Bernie Sanders was screwed by his own party by Trump's eventual opponent, Hillary Clinton. It's pretty hard to remain unaware of the fact that Hillary and her husband are criminals, with the evidence available with little to no effort. Trump may be a blowhard, but the fact that people actually try to claim he makes for a more dangerous president than Hillary would have wasn't watching when Hillary openly threatened Russia for a hack that had nothing to do with the Kremlin based on nothing, of which she was fully aware. Much like blaming the embassy attack on a youtube video, which was a theory that had been rejected by every intelligence agency and she knew that, as well. So, to answer your question of why one would be a Trump supporter?.. Because he is not her.