Please stop turning politics into character attacks, conspiracies, and stereotypes, because that makes you no better than Trump, and it's how we end up in such a polarized mess where both sides can agree that a significant chunk of our government has gone to shit.

+1. If both the average Conservative and average Liberal in this country spent as much time solving problems as they spent flinging mud at the other side we'd get a lot done.

In recent years we've been exaggerating smaller (but still politically significant) disagreements into huge fundamental disagreements about how civilization should be run, and now we're reaping what we sowed- a polarized political situation that's getting pretty close to having fundamental disagreement as the big theme. We under-emphasized how much we agree on (which is a lot) and as a result we've started disagreeing on even things that all political groups were united about- George W. Bush, for example, was careful to note that the War on Terror was not a battle of civilizations between Christianity and Islam, and in modern history racism, sexism, and opposing constitutional liberties have all been taboo. I remember when most of the country liked the idea of a global free market and strongly believed that America had an almost insurmountable economic edge, but now our disagreements on these issues have shifted far more quickly than reality. We used to resent it when other countries- particularly corrupt oligarchies- attacked democracies or Westernizing countries that looked to us for leadership and support, and now we're split along party lines about whether Putin is an idol. We used to oppose war crimes like killing innocents or eliminating entire ethnic groups, and yet I can name off the top of my head multiple elected officials and political candidates who've advocated for them.

Of course, there were always some big disagreements- an urban America vs. a rural one, liberty vs. security, interventionism vs. isolationism- and we've always had problems (slavery, propping up dictatorships, racism, sexism) but we used to have a trend of gradually coming together and working those out while avoiding pitfalls like Leninism- the political groups in this country used to negotiate, learn, and develop together instead of seeing their side as morally correct and the others as depraved. And now, starting with the realignment of the '90s, we've walked into an incredibly polarized era where party disagreements spill over into things as small as liking the President's dog or agreeing on which film should get an Oscar.

By pushing this little narrative where the American political parties are somehow having fundamental disagreements about Western civilization, we've created a culture where it's not only politically acceptable but common to now create actual fundamental disagreements just to differentiate yourself from the other side of the aisle. Both sides need to start seeing the other as fellow Americans- not "hicks," not "out-of-touch Boomers," not "commie liberal hippie Muslims," not "delusional feminists who want to destroy America," not "big business shills," abandon their claims of moral or intellectual superiority, and come together to negotiate instead of making a point of always opposing the other party even on issues they've historically supported.

Edited 6/13/2016 19:45:02

These states are not above average in the amount of old folks and "dumb hicks". They have a lower median age, and higher levels of education than most places in the US.

This is a non-sequitur. I've tried to explain it multiple times and you're just not getting it. What you're doing is like saying 'there aren't a lot of black people in California, the census says it's 35% hispanic'. What the fuck does that have to do with how many black people are in the state? Nothing. Nor does your stats about median age and education. You need to get some stats specifically on old dumb hicks or your stats are irrelevant.

If you have some suggestions for more reasonable measures of how many "Old dumb hicks" there are in a state then let me know. However, Being 33 years old normally disqualifies you from being "old", and being well educated normally disqualifies you from being a "Dumb Hick".

Also, it's more like saying that since 91% of people in wyoming have white skin that most people in Wyoming are white. This is a logical conclusion base on a metric that qualifies you as a white person, which is a perfectly fine conclusion to draw.

Edited 6/13/2016 20:00:47

Trump's the best candidate because he will slash political correctness, curb illegal immigration, and waterboard radical Islamic terrorists. But if you don't think these are important issues

Believe it or not, I think 1/3 you listed is weighty (torture "we're going to bring back loads worse than waterboarding), which he is for. Immigration is not as weighty, and he again takes a wrong, and if not prejudist, then very dumb approach. As for politic rightness, maybe it's gone too far, maybe it hasn't, but who cares at all? Now what is to care about is how he plans to solve it - by cutting speech freedoms.

at least keep in mind that while Trump is a question mark who could be good or bad, we already know that Hillary will be bad.

I'm not actually buying in to the Trump frainmark criticism. He is inconsistent on a few things, but on most he's consistent.

I've never really bought into the idea of the whole email thing or her killing people; It's plain and simple, I just disagree with her policies.

+1

Until a cop has his gun stolen, or someone uses a bomb, or someone makes a gun, or someone smuggles a gun. And then suddenly, if there are no cops around, shit hits the fan real fast.

Generally, if a country manages to stop guns from being smuggled in, and takes away most guns, and with high teaching to all strength that can wield guns, it's very rare to have gun deaths. Like in Japan, where about 10 folk are killed by guns each year.

I'm not actually buying in to the Trump frainmark criticism. He is inconsistent on a few things, but on most he's consistent.

He's a question mark compared to Crooked Hillary because he hasn't held political office, not because of anything he says. What he says is indeed quite consistent and a lot more open than what his competitors have said.

How would him not being a politician of any kind affect it?

People can say he could just be lying

^+1

With a year in office, a lot of uncertainty goes away. We see how he actually acts in a lot of issues where he has been vague. No more talk about him starting WW3 or destroying the US.

If you listen to Hillary, you notice she's much more ambiguous than Trump. She talks about Trump being thin-skinned and offensive, she repeats platitudes about equality and women's rights. Nothing specific. Yet people don't accuse her of being vague nearly as much as Trump.

Clinton has said many specific things about Trump, like that he plans to give core weapons to Japan (while he didn't actually say that, he did say that he wouldn't be against the thought).

Anyhow, I still don't understand why Trump's lack of politic experience would at all be a mystery factor. He'd learn, and there's no grounds why a non-politician would go back on his word loads more than a politician.

To be honest, picking a U.S President is like picking an STD you would least like to have.. Clinton is a Liar, Trump is an Idiot and Bernie.. loves being mediocre.

What I mean is that it's easy to talk, but you truly know a president only once he has actually done something in office. Bush jr. said he'd focus on domestic affairs, but his presidency became very foreign policy focused.

On another account, isn't it funny that Saudi Arabia is funding Crooked Hillary's presidential campaign? Why might that be? Do they want to promote women's rights, or do they think that Hillary is easy to manipulate and walk over?

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

Edited 6/13/2016 21:09:04

Saudi Arabia is donating to the Clinton Foundation, not her presidential campaign. If she were knowingly receiving foreign donations, transparency rules make that fairly easy to track and she'd be under FEC investigation for it like Bernie.

Clinton is a crook, but she's better than Trump. #GirlIGuessImwithher

What I mean is that it's easy to talk, but you truly know a president only once he has actually done something in office.

I agree, but what makes Trump the odd one?

I think this says everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFIVXkJWzfA

I have trouble believing there aren't occasional political assassinations in the US. Stuff like Wellstone is pretty suspicious. And suicides and police reports can be faked if you have enough money. Plus Bill Clinton did rape a bunch of women, so it looks like something up at least his alley, and he wouldn't really care about the morality of it.

What is this diabetes?