There are many reasons I quickly became disenchanted with engaging in these discussions. The first example goes back to the start, when I talked about how I like that Trump is a rare candidate in that he's not getting tons of donor money from special interests. So if he can win he stands a better chance at serving the American people, rather than simply serving the elite classes who usually fund these presidential campaigns. Then you talked about how it wasn't self-funding because he took out loans. Which really kind of mucked up the point, because regardless he isn't nearly as tied up with the special interests as other candidates.
I addressed this head on at the time, though. Saying he's not as "tied up with the special interests" implies he's been freed up to do what's right for you, yeah? But that carries two assumptions with it:
1) He knows what's right for you.
2) He wants to do what's right for you.
If both of these things aren't also true, then it doesn't matter how little money he's taken from special interests. So when I point out that he's lied about war, or misled people about how he's funding his campaign, or has no grasp of the issues, that's actually a direct response to what you're saying. Being free of the influence of special interests is meaningless if it just means he's replacing their interests with his, instead of yours, or if he has no idea how to serve your interests to begin with. Like, for example, if he thinks he can help you by starting a trade war.
Here we are in September, and as of the update I found from the
end of August, sure enough- Hillary Clinton has raised $131.0 Million in Super-Pacs, and Trump has received 10 TIMES LESS than that from these elite special interests groups. $12.1 Million
I think you've completely misunderstood what Super PACs are. They are not "elite special interest groups," and that isn't money raised by the candidates. In fact, they're legally forbidden to coordinate with the campaigns in any way. Direct contributions, then, would be a much better comparison if you're actually trying to measure influence.
Those issues aside: why do you think this is a sliding scale? If we took two people off the street and gave $10 million to one of them to try to screw you (uh, metaphorically speaking), and gave the other $20 million for the same reason...would you trust either? Or would you conclude that both had been sufficiently bought off, and the second wasn't really "more" bought off in any meaningful sense?
A basic point I want to make is there's a fine line in these political discussions. What I mean by that is, when someone reads a message like this- they're not sure whether the writer is simply expressing their own thoughts OR actually trying to change you, the reader's mind. I just want to say I'm not trying to speak for anyone other than myself. I respect other people's right to form their own world views, and I don't feel it is my place to tell someone else who they should or should not support and the reasons why and all that.
C'mon, sure you do. You're not posting all that anti-Hillary stuff just for fun. You're indirectly telling people they should not support her. And that's fine! That's what happens when people don't agree and have a discussion about it. There's nothing unfair about it.
So naturally when the American national media tried to do exactly that to the American people, in its attack on Donald Trump, it really just made me like him more.
I think you know I'm no fan of the media, so this is one area where we sort of agree. But liking someone because they're hated by the right people is a good way to get taken advantage of. And whether you like the media or not, and whether they're always fair or not, there's really no way around the fact that a lot of these scandals are totally legitimate, and totally self-created by Trump.
I know it may seem that because I don't engage and tend to just like to post images and gifs, that I'm not thoughtful about choosing leaders. That's really pretty far from the truth.
There's a really easy way to prove this: be candid about your thought process.
I already know you're intelligent and thoughtful, so I know there's no way you really believe all these things are invented or distorted. You can see Trump on video saying one thing, then saying he never said it. You've seen the proof, so you know the criticism is fair. So why not come out and say "yeah, he did all that, but I dislike Hillary more anyway"? We all know what he's done whether his supporters admit it or not, and when they refuse to give any ground, it just makes it easier to believe they're deluding themselves, as opposed to merely wrong. And it's that stonewalling that leads to all the dogpiling.
That, and I'm also the worst rep whore in MoFo history, and this thread is trash for my reps per post ratio.
Well, hopefully you've noticed how much rep you get when you give a more thoughtful response to this stuff, like now.
Reply to Topic
