There was no “viable Democratic candidate”. There was Hillary and Bernie. Bernie might have gotten my vote, instead of ‘Fuck-you-both’ Johnson, but probably not.
Re: Your “edited to add”, I can’t speak for any other Republican, but I can say that the Democrats did not offer, in this election, a candidate that could even approach someone I would actually vote for. Don’t blame me for your inability to offer any alternative. It was “Trump” or “Fuck-you-both”. That was the only alternative the Democrats offered. I chose “Fuck-you-both”. Don’t like it? Try offering a “viable Democratic candidate” instead of a ‘less disgusting shit-sandwich’ for a change.
How would that choice be made? Should the Democratic Party cancel all those primaries and caucuses, and simply go ask some guy on a message board? Because that’s wrong even if it works. It is a central part of our premise that government by the people is the ideal. That the vote is the best available test of the people’s will. That may be secular dogma, but here I stand, ain’t gonna do no other. Won’t allow it if I can stop it,
Hillary won the primaries, people voted for her. That is how she became the nominee. She wasn’t “picked” and offered, she ran, and she won. Another imperfect nominee, oh, woe, oh, noes. But they voted. And voting isn’t the important thing, it is the thing itself.
What a joke, coming from you - you never answer anything, you just insinuate, obfuscate, and mock everything you can. Everywhere.
I answered the question as it was asked. You want to take the question a step further (as I assume Czarcasm intended) and make this into a rip Republicans thread - there’s about a thousand other threads where this is done. This topic is… lacking. Like anything is new.
Blah blah blah. I voted for him because he said things I agree with more than things I agreed with that the Democrats said. The rest of the Republican candidates up for offer, too.
Not a complicated question.
I was going to pass up this comment but then I wondered why. The why is why you’re saying what you do… Do you doubt my convictions? My reasons?
Why is it you can’t say what you believe or the reasons why when others that you criticize, mock, and make fun of you, do, in good faith?
I think it’s because you can’t do anything but mock and criticize. To do more shows how little you know about the things you want others to believe you know. As someone else said around here earlier, which defines you precisely, you’re all style and no substance.
You should be asking why so many Dems and Independents did.
I can tell you why I did.
Americans both middle class and poor have been sold out. “most transparent administration ever” you have to pass the bill to found out whats in it. Senator Pelosi on Obamacare. Which incidently took me off of my neurologist and general practitioner, while raising the rates to the point I’m not saving money for my son’s college this year, nor do we insure a second car.
These transparent folks wanted to pass TPP, with no one being able to read it.
Despite electing a Black guy president twice Middle class white America was told we are racist, misogynistic, and whatever other bull the Leftists wanted to hurl. the Politically Correct Era was nauseating.
Then the dolts had the balls to not just run Clinton, but blatantly manipulate polls, talk her up i the state ran media, and steal it from Sanders. ( whom I never would have voted for, but alot did.
Don’t worry the RNC tried pulling the same.
Really not seeing any buyer’s remorse after the last week? After he spent a week lying and bragging about the size of crowds at his inauguration, and whining that the media was misrepresenting him, and after the excuse was that he was working from “alternative facts”. After he silenced the major science organizations of the US government. After that shameful display at the CIA, where he lied about his relationship with the intelligence communities, how the media portrayed it, and the size of the crowds at his inauguration. Nothing?
When the status quo is harmful and shameful, then yes, those defending the status quo (in this case, by reacting to a local ordinance by banning it state-wide) are aggressors. Being able to use the public restrooms is a pretty basic thing, and democrats merely meant to ensure that what transgender people were already doing was legal. The response was disproportionate and actively attacked those rights. So yeah. The right is very much the aggressors in this. And by the way? Liberals have not been advocating that people “should be able to use whichever restroom they wish”. That wasn’t in the charlotte ordinance. That hasn’t been in any of the ordinances from Charlotte to California to Washington. That would be a radical new idea. But that isn’t what any of these bills propose or implement, and that’s not what the new laws by the republicans prevent.
Trouble is, politicians are also the ones who know what they’re doing when it comes to, you know, governing.
As for his promises, well… We’ll see how that works out. His “drain the swamp” promise is already broken, as is the prosecution of Hillary Clinton and (as far as Vincente Fox is concerned) getting Mexico to pay for the wall.
This persistent myth is part of this cloud of underlying cynicism surrounding American politics, the kind of cynicism that leads to people thinking that Donald Trump is normal, or even better than usual, because he’s not part of this corrupt, unreliable, untrustworthy system.
But it’s still a myth. Just like most of the other things you mentioned in your post.
What will it take for you to realize that the guy you voted for is unhinged? CIA “speech” didn’t do it for you? Or simply see how far out of his depth he is?
Imho, the vast number of people who voted for Trump did so with the intention of hurting somebody else. Be it that irritating Clinton supporter at the office, “those people stealing jobs”, or with a vague “fuck you” attitude towards their lives, few people voted for Trump with positivity in their hearts.
As much as I supported her in the end, the Democratic primaries were far from an open choice. The slate reminded me of the approach taken in single-party dictatorships: “you can vote for or against this one Party candidate.” (I’m not talking about whatever the DNC did or didn’t do to Bernie during the primaries, I’m talking about the dearth of democratic bench development or strong-arming that happened to limit the field initially).
Point well taken, but then we start to get further into the weeds. What one person thinks of as “dirty politics” another will think of as realpolitik, the line is often blurred. I note opinions of people who say that Obama beat Hillary in the first place by out-organizing her and using all the arcane rules in his favor. Is that “dirty” or simply realistic? Over my pay grade.
I am not a Democrat, my remaining shreds of honesty forbid it, I am too lefty to be a Dem, even though I most always vote their way. It’s the closest I can get, and I hold it to be my duty to choose, even if choosing which shit sandwich has more mayonnaise.
I would love to see Bernie as a viable candidate, one who could energise a majority of Americans. I don’t, and then I must see the DNC favoritism towards Hillary as plain ol’ pragmatism. I note with approval that once Bernie had lost, he got on the bus and pulled on our end of the rope. I heartily disapprove of Bernie supporters who did not. Aid and comfort to the enema.
Given the number of Democrats who supported Hillary I cannot come to any other conclusion that she was the more likely candidate. I think the fact that she won the popular vote is supportive, but not necessarily conclusive. So, I’m left as I so often am, with a rock-solid conclusion of “maybe”.
In a way, I envy people who are certain about things. Trouble being, they are so often wrong.
A lot of it is narrative, of course - maybe just reflecting that Obama was a better candidate at hiding the behind-the-scenes dirt. My state is a mid-cycle caucus state (where the primary voters actually get together and talk before voting). The state went for Obama, then for Bernie. In the Obama case, I remember a tremendous amount of good, spirited discussion between Obama and Clinton options, weighing policies, electability, pragmatism, and so forth, which felt like participating in a robust democratic process. This past year, the tone was “meh, the fix is in … here’s our Bernie protest vote.” (even though, at the time we voted, it was still numerically possible for Bernie to win).
He said that he was going to “make America great again” and that he was going to give the governing back to the people.
He has picked a cabinet exclusively of people who have profited by taking governance away from the people and who are geared up to get us into trade wars that will kill the economy.
He is a narcissistic buffoon whose only talent is as a con man who has now conned his way into the White House. The only real thing about Trump is his ego.
I live in Southern Maine (which went hillary)
I am an independent with traditional republican leanings (small govt, keep govt. out of people’s personal lives)
I voted trump, even though I hated him, I just hated hillary more, I wasn’t voting FOR trump, I was voting AGAINST hillary
Southern Maine was a lock for her anyway, so my vote didn’t really count anyway, as the electoral college in southern Maine cast the vote for clinton
If the democratic candidate was anyone/anything other than hillary, I’d probably have cast my vote for them, Bernie, Vermin Supreme, Ralph Wiggum, inanimate carbon rod? Sure, but not hillary.
I have no faith in trump, I expect him to be at best, Dubya-level incompetent, at worst, I don’t want to think about it, but still, I’m glad it’s not hillary
So yes, I voted trump because I wanted to deny hillary my vote.