American Politics

[M3J]

Being a woman definitely hurts Hillary, and unlike Warren she has scandals under her belt. Plus, Hillary's one of the major candidates, not Warren, so of course she'll be the target of sexism. But more importantly, Hillary's past and her husband's cheating are what hurt her. She was also criticized for being overly prepared, if I recall?

 

[xi0]

Being a woman definitely hurts Hillary, and unlike Warren she has scandals under her belt. Plus, Hillary's one of the major candidates, not Warren, so of course she'll be the target of sexism. But more importantly, Hillary's past and her husband's cheating are what hurt her. She was also criticized for being overly prepared, if I recall?

Hurts her how? As far as public perception goes? I mean, of course politics have been traditionally dominated by men, and that's for sexist reasons. But that doesn't excuse away the amount of baggage Clinton has. That was my point in bringing up Warren. But I'm sort of getting annoyed with myself and this discussion because of how conjectured it is. Basically, I don't think the people that dislike Hillary Clinton for sexist reasons like her husband much more than her. I find it more likely that her lower overall approval rating is related to an anti-Clinton and anti-establishment sentiment, and not an anti-woman one. Unless we're supposed to make a direct correlation between her low approval rating among men and her being a woman as enough evidence for this? I have no idea honestly. I will plead ignorance when it comes to the approval ratings among male demographics when it comes to female politicians in general.

I don't think Trump was deliberately criticizing Hillary for being overly prepared (who the fuck knows what his point was, I guess it was another "low stamina" thing?), but her best moment of the night was retaliating with that line. It demonstrated the difference between the two of them when it comes to how they approach different issues.

 

[M3J]

Hurts her how? As far as public perception goes? I mean, of course politics have been traditionally dominated by men, and that's for sexist reasons. But that doesn't excuse away the amount of baggage Clinton has. That was my point in bringing up Warren. But I'm sort of getting annoyed with myself and this discussion because of how conjectured it is. Basically, I don't think the people that dislike Hillary Clinton for sexist reasons like her husband much more than her. I find it more likely that her lower overall approval rating is related to an anti-Clinton and anti-establishment sentiment, and not an anti-woman one. Unless we're supposed to make a direct correlation between her low approval rating among men and her being a woman as enough evidence for this? I have no idea honestly. I will plead ignorance when it comes to the approval ratings among male demographics when it comes to female politicians in general.

I don't think Trump was deliberately criticizing Hillary for being overly prepared (who the fuck knows what his point was, I guess it was another "low stamina" thing?), but her best moment of the night was retaliating with that line. It demonstrated the difference between the two of them when it comes to how they approach different issues.

She's blamed for her husband's philandering and is accused of doing the same things that Trump gets away with, at least from non-Hillary people. If nothing else, the sexism is probably subtle or subconscious.

I'm not saying her being a woman is why she has low approval ratings, clearly it's because of her image, her husband's image, and how people see politics in general. But her being a woman doesn't help her either, except among "feminists."

i don't know if Trump was criticizing her, but I know others were. I agree though, and Hillary clearly won that debate and showed her superiority. And yet, it's not enough to put a dent in Trump, if it did. She was patient, diplomatic, and had the best comebacks, while Trump was just a lying, unconstitutional idiot.


Also:

 

[kkck]

I definitely get what you're saying here, but the thing is, the point of contention with marriage has no roots in the Bill of Rights. The mechanism by which it changes doesn't have the same standards. The Supreme Court essentially set a precedent by using their power of Judicial Review. A constitutional amendment doesn't happen without a super-majority in both the House and Senate. The people who were against marriage equality were religious people fighting a losing battle in an increasingly non-religious society. The gun debate has no roots like this. So while they both have cultural components, the foundation isn't the same.


Well, she has no controversy at all really (if anything, she has it among her own people for endorsing Clinton). Because she doesn't have a decades-long record pockmarked with controversy either. Warren is more clever and compelling to listen to as well. None of these things have anything to do with the fact that they're women. Unless you're buying the goods Clinton is selling in regards to "the vast right-wing conspiracy" comment?


Well, I think a third party candidate wouldn't be likely to get elected before winning more gubernatorial and congressional races eiither. But the RNC and DNC have a stranglehold on those positions as well.


Yes, they should (if the candidates are worthy of consideration). But it still doesn't change the fact that the two parties and the mainstream media have a monopoly on this, and they like their arrangement.

I think it remains to be seen what Sanders will do. It really sort of depends how the next administration goes.

My point about same sex marriage wasn't about the legal aspects of the processes (of which you are absolutely correct) but rather the change people went through in a single decade. Imagine if the ban on gun violence research was lifted and real data on the issue existed specifically for the US. Surely the older generation wouldn't even look at it but in turn the news ones would likely take a different outlook.

I do buy the vast right wing conspiracy. Just look at the bhegazzi thing. There were 9 investigations. NINE. That's a stupid number of investigations. At the very least is 7 more than necessary and viewing the results it's overwhelmingly obvious that even a second investigation was unnecessary. I remember seeing trey gowdy talking about his findings and.... He has the gal to come out and say "I leave it to each person to look at out findings and judge for themselves". In context that means the last investigation had absolutely nothing on her. The commissions one job was to investigate this and report its findings. I am sure there are people who actually believe there is something to this whole thing (which is sad and pathetic) but overall it seems fairly obvious the sole purpose behind this was specifically to smear her. And it's the exact same thing with everything she is accused of. I have read up on almost all of the -gates hillary and bill have supposedly been involved in but there never is actual evidence of wrongdoing. So I have to pick between two possibilities: Either the clintons, and specially hillary, are so evil that they out-evil satan himself (and he refers to them as sirs), they have managed to kill something like 50 people with a somewhat unreasonable amount of them being staged suicides rather than merely unsolved murders, laundered money through their foundation, silenced an ungodly amount of people, bought literally every judge, and did all of it with such astounding efficiency and capacity that 9 highly partisan commissions did not find anything to charge her with. That or the highly partisan commissions are covering up for her as well because hillary has her political enemies in her pocket as well. And they also bought the FBI guy. Whose political views are the exact opposite of their own. And also stood up to bush regarding some privacy issues and the constitutions. Even though they share a party and political views overall. Or that her political enemies see her as a threat and they will go to any extreme to smear her. I will go with the option that can't only be solved via batman shooting a silver bullet into the void where clinton's shriveled black heart should be.

Well, yeah, they parties have worked to make it this way and they definitely like this. But this entire arrangement can be undone merely by having people vote for something different. And if they aren't voting for something different it's simply because not enough people are actually unhappy with what is going on.

That said, there is something I find remarkably weird about the US situation. Obama has relatively high acceptance right now, 58% is not a bad number. But on the other hand people are going on about how there needs to be change and things can't remain as they are and a number of other things... You'd think that such opinions would have to coincide with obama having low acceptance rates across the board. What exactly is going on?

 

[M3J]

Same people who approve of Obama saying things need to change?

 

[Styx]

@M3J

I apologize for the jump then. I did not see your post where you discussed that particular thing. I guess I just get way too many people who think all conservative sources aren't trustworthy.

The videos you mentioned weren't faked, not the way some ignorant people claim it was. The real claim is that "important" pieces were cut out and just highlighted some of the (more terrible) things actually said.

 

[GrySun]

@shionoro Since you're by far the biggest Clinton defender, I was wondering about something.
What is your opinion of Juanita Broaddrick and her situation with Hillary Clinton? And she isn't the only woman either.

 

[shionoro]

@shionoro Since you're by far the biggest Clinton defender, I was wondering about something.
What is your opinion of Juanita Broaddrick and her situation with Hillary Clinton? And she isn't the only woman either.

Well, if I would think that Bill Clinton raped anyone and Hillary Clinton knew about it, defended him or even stayed together with him, I'd definitely not defend her.
But I do not believe that. I have looked into the claims, and this is no Bill Cosby case where countless of women claim over years or even decades to be raped.

With Juanita Broaddrick, the claims resurfaced only when clinton ran for president, and aside from that she even signed a paper stating that bill clinton did not rape her.
Yes, she later said she did that so she would not have to testimony in court about such an horrific event (which is quite possible for a raped woman, don't get me wrong). But signing that, keeping silent about it for a long time until hillary ran again and t hen warming up the story again let's me think that she was not raped.

As I said, if I'd ever think there was a rape not followed with a divorce from Hillary's side, she'd be unvoteable for me.

 

[kkck]

Well, if I would think that Bill Clinton raped anyone and Hillary Clinton knew about it, defended him or even stayed together with him, I'd definitely not defend her.
But I do not believe that. I have looked into the claims, and this is no Bill Cosby case where countless of women claim over years or even decades to be raped.

With Juanita Broaddrick, the claims resurfaced only when clinton ran for president, and aside from that she even signed a paper stating that bill clinton did not rape her.
Yes, she later said she did that so she would not have to testimony in court about such an horrific event (which is quite possible for a raped woman, don't get me wrong). But signing that, keeping silent about it for a long time until hillary ran again and t hen warming up the story again let's me think that she was not raped.

As I said, if I'd ever think there was a rape not followed with a divorce from Hillary's side, she'd be unvoteable for me.

Well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Gennifer_Flowers
There are a number of women who claim to have been raped or assaulted by bill. However none of the cases ever amounted to anything. At least one was settled out of court. Given the amount of evidence there is (none), it's basically bill's word against them (Juanita, Paula and Dolly).

That said, even if the absolute worst was true, I doubt trump would be any better. I mean, trump's first wife accused him of raping her as well.... Let alone trump's overall treatment of women. Of course, this would be an scenario where neither candidate should be in the race.

 

[shionoro]

Well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Gennifer_Flowers
There are a number of women who claim to have been raped or assaulted by bill. However none of the cases ever amounted to anything. At least one was settled out of court. Given the amount of evidence there is (none), it's basically bill's word against them (Juanita, Paula and Dolly).

That said, even if the absolute worst was true, I doubt trump would be any better. I mean, trump's first wife accused him of raping her as well.... Let alone trump's overall treatment of women. Of course, this would be an scenario where neither candidate should be in the race.

I know that Trump has those allegations too (which in my opinion are in fact more trustworthy if we look at his actual life, comments and general stance on women), but it would still be a dealbreaker for me if i was american that i would not vote for clinton, not even as the lesser evil.

And yes, there were other allegations, but those, in my opinion, make it less trusthworthy, because noone except that woman ever claimed that bill raped them.
He had countless affairs, but seemingly never behaved brutally to anyone else.

 

[xi0]

She's blamed for her husband's philandering and is accused of doing the same things that Trump gets away with, at least from non-Hillary people.

How much of a factor is such a stupid criticism? There's zero substance there. People can be cruel and dismissive online, but nothing of any of this is relevant to her candidacy. Trump hinting at such a thing is evidence that he's panicking.

To the broader topic of her marriage, I think it's obvious proof that marriages with high stakes show that marriage itself is not merely about love. If Bill Clinton drove a garbage truck, would she have stayed with him? Probably not, but that's just going with the odds.

I think the only legitimate criticism for Clinton in regards to her husband's scandals are the way in which she talked about the accusers when the media asked her about it as it was all going down. She looks rather foolish in hindsight (downright disrespectful in some instances), but there is a ton of shared blame for the entire situation. So what does any of it have to do with her as a politician? She's opportunistic and shrewd? Who can really say?

 

[M3J]

How much of a factor is such a stupid criticism? There's zero substance there. People can be cruel and dismissive online, but nothing of any of this is relevant to her candidacy. Trump hinting at such a thing is evidence that he's panicking.

To the broader topic of her marriage, I think it's obvious proof that marriages with high stakes show that marriage itself is not merely about love. If Bill Clinton drove a garbage truck, would she have stayed with him? Probably not, but that's just going with the odds.

I think the only legitimate criticism for Clinton in regards to her husband's scandals are the way in which she talked about the accusers when the media asked her about it as it was all going down. She looks rather foolish in hindsight (downright disrespectful in some instances), but there is a ton of shared blame for the entire situation. So what does any of it have to do with her as a politician? She's opportunistic and shrewd? Who can really say?

I think it's enough of a factor that it gets brought up over and over and over, while people ignore Trump cheating on his wives. He's been doing this for months, so I'm not sure if it's out of panic or just another way to dig at Hillary.

I agree even though I'm sure she most likely wouldn't, but it's not like the Clintons are the first to stay married for beneficial reasons. Trump's side can't criticize Hillary's marriage when Trump got divorced two times and was accused of so many things.

It shows she's a horrible person (the way she talked about the accusers and laughed and etc), opportunistic for staying with Bill, a failure as a wife or something for her husband cheating on her, and an unethical person for defending her "rapist" husband and smearing the accusers. Either way, people reach to make her look even worse.


Though, the only reason I'm even defending her is because I see Trump worse, more due to his supporters.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

But the sad thing is that even if Trump loses the election and "fades" away off the face of the planet, "Trumpism" (or another word I think of it is Radical Nationalism) would still be around for years. Unless the Republican party (and the Democrats of course) gets their shit together and prevents such a mess from happening again, I'm just afraid of who's really going to run for election by 2020 (I cannot imagine someone worse than Trump running for office. Then again, I can think of Ted Cruz and Rick Perry being as bad, if not worse, than Donald Trump himself).
But the one thing I know for sure is that the Republican Party needs to change the most, badly.

 

[kkck]

But the sad thing is that even if Trump loses the election and "fades" away off the face of the planet, "Trumpism" (or another word I think of it is Radical Nationalism) would still be around for years. Unless the Republican party (and the Democrats of course) gets their shit together and prevents such a mess from happening again, I'm just afraid of who's really going to run for election by 2020 (I cannot imagine someone worse than Trump running for office. Then again, I can think of Ted Cruz and Rick Perry being as bad, if not worse, than Donald Trump himself).
But the one thing I know for sure is that the Republican Party needs to change the most, badly.

Well, that depends on a lot of things. Even now, I would argue, for trump to win he needs people to actually not show up to vote. As in, people being so uninspired by hillary that they do not show up to vote and trump's supporters actually make enough of a difference. It's not completely impossible but also it shouldn't be the most likely possibility. And then you have country's changing demographics and millenials.... The demographic where trump is strong (white, uneducated males) are going to be less representative next election than they are now. So unless something even more insane than this election happens then they shouldn't have the best odds of winning. And millenials as a group largely lean liberal. Which means the republican party in the long term does not have an option but to change and adapt to that. Or disappear. Unless the generation that follows millenials suddenly pivots conservative. But I doubt such a backwards thing is going to happen unless something even more insane than what went on in this election happens. Millenials pivot liberal/progressive which means democrats and republicans will need to make serious adjustments as time goes on (arguably, democrats already made adjustments thanks to bernie). Whatever the case, trumpism won't have better odds of winning the next election than in this one.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Well, that depends on a lot of things. Even now, I would argue, for trump to win he needs people to actually not show up to vote. As in, people being so uninspired by hillary that they do not show up to vote and trump's supporters actually make enough of a difference. It's not completely impossible but also it shouldn't be the most likely possibility. And then you have country's changing demographics and millenials.... The demographic where trump is strong (white, uneducated males) are going to be less representative next election than they are now. So unless something even more insane than this election happens then they shouldn't have the best odds of winning. And millenials as a group largely lean liberal. Which means the republican party in the long term does not have an option but to change and adapt to that. Or disappear. Unless the generation that follows millenials suddenly pivots conservative. But I doubt such a backwards thing is going to happen unless something even more insane than what went on in this election happens. Millenials pivot liberal/progressive which means democrats and republicans will need to make serious adjustments as time goes on (arguably, democrats already made adjustments thanks to bernie). Whatever the case, trumpism won't have better odds of winning the next election than in this one.

Well, unless the Trump supporters are the first time voters (which are doubtful, but it's a possibility), it's unlikely that any of the supporters would just not show up to vote for a candidate they're most excited for. However, it just entirely depends on Hillary's supporters and those who absolutely refuses to vote for Trump but wouldn't mind voting for Hillary (hopefully, this election doesn't have any fuck-ups, but I know there will be one, at least one in Florida; after all, we're the ones who made Bush president).
Yes, that too. I believe that 2020 will be the starting year where the entire Millennials (and some of the early 21st Century generation) will matter the most (not that Millennials don't matter in this election tho, since their votes do count). It should give the Republican Party enough time for the reforms they need to gain the momentum (and you're right that the Democrats made adjustments, or at least I hope that is the case.). If they continue on their "Bible first, then Constitution" theocracy, they might as well as dismantle the party because they'll have almost no hope at winning future elections.
Let's hope that the Trumpism gets put down before the 2020 election, if not, then I better hope that the Democrats pick a new candidate.

 

[kkck]

Well, unless the Trump supporters are the first time voters (which are doubtful, but it's a possibility), it's unlikely that any of the supporters would just not show up to vote for a candidate they're most excited for. However, it just entirely depends on Hillary's supporters and those who absolutely refuses to vote for Trump but wouldn't mind voting for Hillary (hopefully, this election doesn't have any fuck-ups, but I know there will be one, at least one in Florida; after all, we're the ones who made Bush president).
Yes, that too. I believe that 2020 will be the starting year where the entire Millennials (and some of the early 21st Century generation) will matter the most (not that Millennials don't matter in this election tho, since their votes do count). It should give the Republican Party enough time for the reforms they need to gain the momentum (and you're right that the Democrats made adjustments, or at least I hope that is the case.). If they continue on their "Bible first, then Constitution" theocracy, they might as well as dismantle the party because they'll have almost no hope at winning future elections.
Let's hope that the Trumpism gets put down before the 2020 election, if not, then I better hope that the Democrats pick a new candidate.

Well, trump is actually trying to get people who have never voted before to vote. Though it does not seem like he has been very successful in getting people to register. I am not so sure the republican party really has that much time to change. They tried this election but trump ruined it (they had a plan to be more inclusive and everything). however to me it does not look like the current party can make meaningful changes to things millenials care about. The current GOP denies climate change. They deny evolution. They take issue with science and make points of liberal bias rather than just admitting they are wrong. They are still going on about Reaganomics even though liberal millennials want people to pay their taxes. For me it would be hard to see millenials or the generation that follows embracing people who reject basic knowledge. Then again, I could be way off. Trump has a realistic chance of winning this shit so obviously it wouldn't be the first time.

 

[M3J]

But the sad thing is that even if Trump loses the election and "fades" away off the face of the planet, "Trumpism" (or another word I think of it is Radical Nationalism) would still be around for years. Unless the Republican party (and the Democrats of course) gets their shit together and prevents such a mess from happening again, I'm just afraid of who's really going to run for election by 2020 (I cannot imagine someone worse than Trump running for office. Then again, I can think of Ted Cruz and Rick Perry being as bad, if not worse, than Donald Trump himself).
But the one thing I know for sure is that the Republican Party needs to change the most, badly.

Democratic party also needs to change badly, especially given how they treated Bernie. Imagine how the primaries would have gone if the party gave as much attention to Bernie or made sure he got as much attention as Hillary.

But yeah, I hope Trump and most of his dumb supporters die horrible deaths. Shitheads, the lot of them.

Well, that depends on a lot of things. Even now, I would argue, for trump to win he needs people to actually not show up to vote. As in, people being so uninspired by hillary that they do not show up to vote and trump's supporters actually make enough of a difference. It's not completely impossible but also it shouldn't be the most likely possibility. And then you have country's changing demographics and millenials.... The demographic where trump is strong (white, uneducated males) are going to be less representative next election than they are now. So unless something even more insane than this election happens then they shouldn't have the best odds of winning. And millenials as a group largely lean liberal. Which means the republican party in the long term does not have an option but to change and adapt to that. Or disappear. Unless the generation that follows millenials suddenly pivots conservative. But I doubt such a backwards thing is going to happen unless something even more insane than what went on in this election happens. Millenials pivot liberal/progressive which means democrats and republicans will need to make serious adjustments as time goes on (arguably, democrats already made adjustments thanks to bernie). Whatever the case, trumpism won't have better odds of winning the next election than in this one.

You underestimate the powers of Trump idiots and overestimate the power of Killary.


Also, I wonder what Hillary's true stance on refugees is. At the very least, she should be supporting letting in the migrant children. Bad enough Trump is against it and talking about banning Muslims from the country for no reason.

 

[kkck]

You underestimate the powers of Trump idiots and overestimate the power of Killary.


Also, I wonder what Hillary's true stance on refugees is. At the very least, she should be supporting letting in the migrant children. Bad enough Trump is against it and talking about banning Muslims from the country for no reason.

As for the bold part, what are you talking about?

What? Her stance is to allow more refugees in. That is the sort of stuff you google in 3 seconds.... What reason do you have to doubt that being the case?

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Well, trump is actually trying to get people who have never voted before to vote. Though it does not seem like he has been very successful in getting people to register. I am not so sure the republican party really has that much time to change. They tried this election but trump ruined it (they had a plan to be more inclusive and everything). however to me it does not look like the current party can make meaningful changes to things millenials care about. The current GOP denies climate change. They deny evolution. They take issue with science and make points of liberal bias rather than just admitting they are wrong. They are still going on about Reaganomics even though liberal millennials want people to pay their taxes. For me it would be hard to see millenials or the generation that follows embracing people who reject basic knowledge. Then again, I could be way off. Trump has a realistic chance of winning this shit so obviously it wouldn't be the first time.

I just hope that is the case for those supporters, that they don't know how to register to vote, let alone, where to vote (I don't want to sound like a Left-wing nutjob in that case, but these supporters are a threat equal to the Sovereign Citizens).
Well, if they want to win future elections, it is necessary for them to change as soon as possible. 4 years may seem short, but it's necessary if they want to get their shits together (otherwise, it might as well as be a 3rd Democratic president in a row, assuming Hillary becomes the victor). Otherwise, this could be the decade of Democrats (assuming they don't fuck up, which I know they eventually will).

Democratic party also needs to change badly, especially given how they treated Bernie. Imagine how the primaries would have gone if the party gave as much attention to Bernie or made sure he got as much attention as Hillary.

But yeah, I hope Trump and most of his dumb supporters die horrible deaths. Shitheads, the lot of them.

That's what I said, didn't I? One of the things that I can see that needs to go are Superdelegates (which is a stupid concept that enables shitty candidates to win). But how it stands, the Democrats will get better down the road (unless they continue pulling stunts like they did with Sanders).
But yes, you're still correct that the Democratic Party needs a massive change, but I don't see it being as horrible as the Republican Party (Delegates failed to remove Trump from becoming the nominee, continues to embrace a theocratic ideology, and plenty more).

Woah. I mean, as much as I don't like them, I wouldn't really go THAT far.

 

[M3J]

As for the bold part, what are you talking about?

What? Her stance is to allow more refugees in. That is the sort of stuff you google in 3 seconds.... What reason do you have to doubt that being the case?

The fact that Trump is doing well in the polls show that Hillary is in trouble. Trump can only get more support from here, especially since more people see Hillary's past as worse. THere is a picture going around with a list of bad things Trump and Hillary have done, and Trump has one thing while Hillary has at least ten things. This, actually. Even undecided/people who are against both have more criticism for Hillary than for Trump, and they said they're entertaining the idea of voting for him. Either way, it's a fact that this election being close proves that Hillary is in trouble, given the kind of opponent she's running up against. If it was someone like Romney or McCain, this close election would make sense.

I said her TRUE stance, not the stance she says she's about. And because I don't trust Hillary? She was against allowing South American refugee children coming in years ago, and now she's for Muslim migrant children? She can't have changed that view without obviously pandering.

I just hope that is the case for those supporters, that they don't know how to register to vote, let alone, where to vote (I don't want to sound like a Left-wing nutjob in that case, but these supporters are a threat equal to the Sovereign Citizens).
Well, if they want to win future elections, it is necessary for them to change as soon as possible. 4 years may seem short, but it's necessary if they want to get their shits together (otherwise, it might as well as be a 3rd Democratic president in a row, assuming Hillary becomes the victor). Otherwise, this could be the decade of Democrats (assuming they don't fuck up, which I know they eventually will).



That's what I said, didn't I? One of the things that I can see that needs to go are Superdelegates (which is a stupid concept that enables shitty candidates to win). But how it stands, the Democrats will get better down the road (unless they continue pulling stunts like they did with Sanders).
But yes, you're still correct that the Democratic Party needs a massive change, but I don't see it being as horrible as the Republican Party (Delegates failed to remove Trump from becoming the nominee, continues to embrace a theocratic ideology, and plenty more).

Woah. I mean, as much as I don't like them, I wouldn't really go THAT far.

no, you only mentioned "(so do the democrats)" or something, but nothing more. I don't see them getting better, at all. If anything, they'll probably be better at being sneaky, but it'll probably be the same, if not get worse.

It's pretty close, although most republicans who don't want Trump are voting for him only because he's a republican.

I'm pissed. They say disgusting, horrible, and disturbing shit and do violent things and are so full of ignorance. THey attack protesters and claim (as far as I know) that protesters started it first. They give us bullshit facts about refugees being dangerous when that's completely false and keep referring to Europe even though we're not Europe (Sharkbait has brought up refugees/migrant children being more dangerous without stats to back that up). They call for Hillary's death/assassination and laughed at a meme of how to kill Bernie supporters. These guys are scums of this country, and I feel we'd be better off without them staining the great nation.

At least US needs conservatives and liberals to have any hope of being powerful. But it doesn't need extreme versions of both or ignorant Trump supporters. At least Trump supporters who genuinely think he's a good choice because of his views towards the establishment and economical views aren't that bad, so I don't care much about them.