6 ms·

It's tough. I've been trying to find a pen pal who can give me some reasonable arguments for Donald Trump for the last few weeks, to no avail. Not living in th

by md_ 10y ago

It's tough. I've been trying to find a pen pal who can give me some reasonable arguments for Donald Trump for the last few weeks, to no avail. Not living in the US, I don't really meet people who support Donald Trump. I'm probably living in a bubble, which isn't a great feeling--but at the same time, it's hard to credit the democratic process when you can't understand the alternative view. No doubt this is a symptom of polarization. Maybe this is the famed "filter bubble". In an ideal world one would imagine social media would help bridge that gap, but I'm unsure it has.

commenting 10y ago
The nature of Trump is that he relies almost exclusively on appeal to emotion, rather than the reasonable arguments that you desire. Tapping into, encouraging and formenting the groundswell of American anger - mostly against demonized minority groups - is, sadly, his modus operandi. My only hope for America is that his presidency is nothing like his campaign.
- astrodust 10y ago
  It'll be like his campaign, only crazier. If he runs the country anything like he runs his businesses he'll smash and grab anything of value, then leave the smouldering ruins for someone else to clean up.
Swizec 10y ago
What has helped me in this regard has been actively likeing Trump stuff on facebook. I didn't see much of that world, but enough to get a glimpse into their mindset. I heaetily suggest actively seeking out opposing views and training your filter bubble to give them to you. It's refreshing and often frustrating and upsetting, bud fundamentally a good thing.
- md_ 10y ago
  I don't even use Facebook! But I primarily read mainstream (i.e. "liberal") newspapers like the New York Times, the Guardian, the New Yorker, and similar. And none of them have any opinion writers making a case for Trump! So it's the traditional filter bubble, not the social media bubble.
  - ddorian43 10y ago
    First you say "i thought social media would help" and then you say "i don't social media". Did you read any positive things pro-brexit ?
    - md_ 10y ago
      Sorry, good point. What I meant initially was, "I thought the promise of social media was to drive down polarization." I think I'm not the only one who doesn't know anyone with the alternative view. Did I read any pro-Brexit arguments? Hmm. I read a fair amount of fairly wonkish economic arguments--as with trade barriers, however, it seems that most professional policy experts (and most economists) are generally pro-free-trade and don't have much to say on this being good policy. Again, maybe my perception is a bit off, but I see this as similar to climate change arguments: the science (especially when it comes to macroeconomics) is imperfect, but if you restrict yourself to those with some academic qualifications, you see a very different picture than if you read political opinion.
      - ddorian43 10y ago
        When Bernie competed against Clinton, I don't think there was anyone pro Clinton. Stuff happened. You could've gone to /r/the_donald. Beside the memes, there were many threads for each podesta email-leak, linking specific comments/sentences for deplorable dnc doings. But you instead went to cnn, where it is illegal to think for yourself. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A ) Now, it will be the Hillary supporters that need to create new accounts to defend her.
        md_ 10y ago
        I actually did spend a lot of time passively reading r/the_donald, but as you say, it seemed more into the other side (email leaks, etc) than into Trump's policy proposals or similar. I don't watch CNN. Not a big fan of TV news.
        scrollaway 10y ago
- astrodust 10y ago
  There's "opposing views", as in "I think we should avoid TPP because it's harmful to our businesses" or as in "I'm not so sure government medical care is the way to go, the private insurance industry can step up" but the types of anti-Hillary vitriol were off the charts. She's literally a demon! She's running a child trafficking ring! She's covering up multiple murders! Black helicopters! Mind control drugs! It's the Alex Jones shit that's infected people and they're not even in the same reality. You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person.
pionar 10y ago
I've heard the alternative view, and do understand it somewhat (Disclaimer, I voted for Clinton). This election wasn't about women. This election wasn't about immigration, or minorities. This election was about the working class (blue-collar folks) feeling like they're getting shafted by government. I live in what's usually a heavily Democratic state, Michigan. This year it'll probably go for Trump. Not because of Muslims, not because of terrorism, but because of the economy. For years, these people (mostly white, blue-collar workers) have been told the economy's doing great for most people, free trade is great for most people, unemployment is low for most people, and the ACA helps most people. However, for these folks, they see themselves as not part of that most people that are benefiting from our economic policies. All they hear from the establishment is the same bullshit "promises" and corporatism that they've been given for the past 30 years. They're sick of it. They're sick of Democrats and Republicans toeing the same line, deferring to "the market" and not doing anything about it. Donald Trump had answers. Whether those are the right answers remains to be seen (my guess is they're not). Trump said what they wanted to hear, and wasn't afraid of pissing off the establishment along the way. That's what these folks want. They didn't vote for Donald Trump the person, they voted for Donald Trump the personality.
- md_ 10y ago
  And all the other stuff--the bigotry, the misogyny, etc--is simply not a deal breaker? I find some of that quite surprising.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    Priorities. Unfortunate as it may be, when you are not the target of bigotry or misogyny, it's much easier not to see those issues as a deal breaker, even if you disagree with them. Remember that, when it's not self-interest, the only thing that makes those issues a deal breaker is empathy. Today's world has very little empathy; the US especially, with its corporate-centric philosophy. It's not that surprising.
    - arstin 10y ago
      Agreed that it's about priorities. I'm from a poor state that went to Trump in a landslide. I personally know many people who voted for him. Most were somewhat embarrassed by it. They were ones who lied to or ignored pollsters, who wavered until the last moment. They found Trump despicable, or at least not worthy of the presidency. To understand why they would vote for him anyway, I think about how my vote for Clinton was not an endorsement of her history of warmongering, her complicity with the evils of Wall Street, her failure to advocate strong enough solutions to certain social problems until pushed by Sanders... (what follows isn't a disagreement with the above posters, just a remark for context) I vehemently disagree with their reasons (such as they are) for voting for Trump, but reducing the explanation of their behavior to bigotry---the easiest, most accessible, most self-affirming, and most totalizing explanation available to isolated liberals---misplaces the real problems and thus opens to misguided solutions. Yes, the Trump supporters who make the news are terrible people, and there are many of them. But they aren't over half the country. Explaining Trump's success -primarily- in this way is a failure of empathy on the part of liberals, a failure to understand the majority of the country as decent, caring human beings just like you and I who have, in fact, gotten shafted. Almost all economic recovery the past few years has gone to major cities and life for rural communities is only getting worse. We all know here that Clinton had proposals for addressing this (a 500 billion injection into infrastructure for example), but, for better or for worse---okay, for worse---Trump is who connected on this sentiment. Everyone knows Trump is a wild card---to put it kindly---who has no concrete policies, but it's worth remembering that the main focus of his victory speech last night was promising to bring back the New Deal, for a "socialist" program of government supported work, to distribute jobs across the whole country by fiat. Whether he will make good on his word and can then force it through the Republican establishment in Congress and whether it will then work all remains to be seen.
jimmywanger 10y ago
If you would like, PM me. I can give you a quick basic overview on at least my perception what some reasonable arguments for Donald Trump is. Another decent resource is blog.dilbert.com, where Scott Adams goes over some reasons why he believed Trump would win (going on for over a year) and why a lot of the criticisms about him were unfounded.
- Klover 10y ago
  How exactly does one PM here?
  - md_ 10y ago
    Yeah, I'm happy to chat, actually, but...PM? Er, is there a PM function I didn't notice?
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      Whoops. For some reason I thought there was a PM function on this site, I guess I was wrong. Is there anything specific you'd like answered, or just my general opinions on the situation?
      - md_ 10y ago
        Hmm. My starting question in most cases has been, "What are the top reasons you think Trump is a good choice to be President, preferably without making it a negative argument about the opposition?"
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        There are a couple good reasons. Would like you to add your input here also. 1) Trump is easier to predict than Hillary. Based on a bunch of the email leaks and leaks about the Clinton foundation, she's getting lots of money from foreign countries, which might cause her to make decisions that are bad for the United States for reasons unknown to me. Trump likes power and money. I can understand those motivations and can work with them. 2) Clinton is generally a lot more hawkish than Trump. Forgive me for being crude, but I'd rather Trump grab hundreds of p*ssies than engage in sabre rattling with Putin. She has promised to retaliate against Russia with no definitive proof that it was Russian hackers or Russian attempts to monkey with the election. Trump on the other hand wants to make friends with Putin, and he has said that North Korea is China's problem, which I think is a really good way of dealing with the situation. Especially since Russia has just debuted an ICBM called the "Satan 2", which is able to destroy either Texas or France with just one missile. 3) Trump is against illegal immigration. A lot of people tend to think of the wall as a literal proposal, instead of just a metaphor of making illegal immigration more difficult. Trump has indicated recently that he wants to restrict deportations to illegal immigrants who commit crimes in the US, which seems eminently fair to me. Hillary doesn't really have as much of an answer except for sweeping amnesties. 4) LGBT issues. Trump took a lot of flak for supporting LGBT people from the republican party. He also proposes restricting immigration and "extreme vetting" from the countries that tend to export people who believe in sharia law and stone homosexuals and rape victims. I think it's ridiculous that we're up in arms about bathrooms in North Carolina, while one of the major candidates in our party gets millions from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And one last point, which might count me as running down the other party. I just don't like Clinton supporters. They're really shrill and righteous, and if you don't agree with them on everything you're automatically a racist and a bigot. It's difficult having a civil discussion with them, and I don't want to put myself in the same camp as them. Also, they're incredibly histrionic. "Trump is literally Hitler" and "I'm moving to Canada/Europe." And the best is "I can't believe half of this country is populated by xenophobic racist bigots. If you support Trump I want nothing to do with you." Last I checked, calling people names is not a good way to rally support to your cause.
kiksy 10y ago
A good article posted on the other thread by another user: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... The most concise and clearest explanation I've read, also written before the result.
jjoonathan 10y ago
Hillary wanted to dramatically expand the H1B program (footnote). Whatever your stance on the issue, you should be able to understand how this upset some American tech workers. There are similar stories in other sectors. Economic protectionism hasn't really been in either party's platform for a long time, and during that time American workers took a severe beating. Then Trump came along and started making promises. * More precisely: Tim Kaine proposed a bill to double the size of the H1B program and Hillary has been in bed (donation-wise) with Tata, Wipro, and the like for the last decade at least. When asked for her position, she maintained strategic silence or dodged the question.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
"I've been trying to find a pen pal who can give me some reasonable arguments for Donald Trump for the last few weeks, to no avail." First off, I do not like Donald Trump and did not vote for him. That said: It's not "racist", "misogynist", or any other kind of "ist" for a factory worker in Ohio to believe that he shouldn't have to compete with Chinese slave labor. Nor is it "racist", "misogynist", or any other kind of "ist" for an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia to take exception to being lectured on his "white male privilege" by an academic who's never done a hard day's labor in his life, or to be upset by seeing the industry that's employed his family for generations deliberately destroyed for no reason. The coal is still going to be mined and burned. It's just going to be mined and burned in countries with few, if any, environmental regulations. Multiply those guys by a few million and you have Trump. Will Trump actually help these people? Probably not, but he's listening to them. He's at least pretending to care about their concerns. The Democrats (supposedly the party of the working class), on the other hand, have been spending the last few decades demonizing them.
- md_ 10y ago
  Hmm. I don't think I said it was racism or misogyny, but since we're talking about it: I do think there was quite a lot of bigotry. In particular, I think the campaign repeatedly conflated Muslims with terrorists (to the point that a religious test for immigration was suggested). The candidate also said a number of things that could be construed as misogynistic, though I'm the first to admit that all of this "locker room talk" is probably as much the product of insecure posturing as it is a formulation of any particular view towards women per se--a product of a child-mind exposed to a misogynistic culture, not of a misogynist. Part of my surprise is that that bigotry is not a deal breaker, as I said in reply to a different comment. Part of my surprise is that the electorate did not detect the unrealistic nature of the policy proposals (such as they are).
  - thefalcon 10y ago
    The message was directed towards those without a college education; I see college as a place where people are encouraged to develop their critical thinking skills. If you have underdeveloped critical thinking skills then you'll be more easily persuaded by unrealistic policy proposals that sound like what you want to hear. I sometimes feel the democratic party uses similar tactics on under-educated minorities; Trump seems to be the first to have the gall to overtly use them to unabashedly target under-educated white males - and to great success.
Natsu 10y ago
Try this from Michael Moore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY
jjawssd 10y ago
Maybe this can help you find a pen pal https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total

by md_ 10y ago

commenting 10y ago

The nature of Trump is that he relies almost exclusively on appeal to emotion, rather than the reasonable arguments that you desire. Tapping into, encouraging and formenting the groundswell of American anger - mostly against demonized minority groups - is, sadly, his modus operandi. My only hope for America is that his presidency is nothing like his campaign.

astrodust 10y ago
It'll be like his campaign, only crazier. If he runs the country anything like he runs his businesses he'll smash and grab anything of value, then leave the smouldering ruins for someone else to clean up.

Swizec 10y ago

What has helped me in this regard has been actively likeing Trump stuff on facebook. I didn't see much of that world, but enough to get a glimpse into their mindset. I heaetily suggest actively seeking out opposing views and training your filter bubble to give them to you. It's refreshing and often frustrating and upsetting, bud fundamentally a good thing.

md_ 10y ago
I don't even use Facebook! But I primarily read mainstream (i.e. "liberal") newspapers like the New York Times, the Guardian, the New Yorker, and similar. And none of them have any opinion writers making a case for Trump! So it's the traditional filter bubble, not the social media bubble.
- ddorian43 10y ago
  First you say "i thought social media would help" and then you say "i don't social media". Did you read any positive things pro-brexit ?
  - md_ 10y ago
    Sorry, good point. What I meant initially was, "I thought the promise of social media was to drive down polarization." I think I'm not the only one who doesn't know anyone with the alternative view. Did I read any pro-Brexit arguments? Hmm. I read a fair amount of fairly wonkish economic arguments--as with trade barriers, however, it seems that most professional policy experts (and most economists) are generally pro-free-trade and don't have much to say on this being good policy. Again, maybe my perception is a bit off, but I see this as similar to climate change arguments: the science (especially when it comes to macroeconomics) is imperfect, but if you restrict yourself to those with some academic qualifications, you see a very different picture than if you read political opinion.
    - ddorian43 10y ago
      When Bernie competed against Clinton, I don't think there was anyone pro Clinton. Stuff happened. You could've gone to /r/the_donald. Beside the memes, there were many threads for each podesta email-leak, linking specific comments/sentences for deplorable dnc doings. But you instead went to cnn, where it is illegal to think for yourself. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A ) Now, it will be the Hillary supporters that need to create new accounts to defend her.
      - md_ 10y ago
        I actually did spend a lot of time passively reading r/the_donald, but as you say, it seemed more into the other side (email leaks, etc) than into Trump's policy proposals or similar. I don't watch CNN. Not a big fan of TV news.
      - scrollaway 10y ago
astrodust 10y ago
There's "opposing views", as in "I think we should avoid TPP because it's harmful to our businesses" or as in "I'm not so sure government medical care is the way to go, the private insurance industry can step up" but the types of anti-Hillary vitriol were off the charts. She's literally a demon! She's running a child trafficking ring! She's covering up multiple murders! Black helicopters! Mind control drugs! It's the Alex Jones shit that's infected people and they're not even in the same reality. You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

pionar 10y ago

I've heard the alternative view, and do understand it somewhat (Disclaimer, I voted for Clinton). This election wasn't about women. This election wasn't about immigration, or minorities. This election was about the working class (blue-collar folks) feeling like they're getting shafted by government. I live in what's usually a heavily Democratic state, Michigan. This year it'll probably go for Trump. Not because of Muslims, not because of terrorism, but because of the economy. For years, these people (mostly white, blue-collar workers) have been told the economy's doing great for most people, free trade is great for most people, unemployment is low for most people, and the ACA helps most people. However, for these folks, they see themselves as not part of that most people that are benefiting from our economic policies. All they hear from the establishment is the same bullshit "promises" and corporatism that they've been given for the past 30 years. They're sick of it. They're sick of Democrats and Republicans toeing the same line, deferring to "the market" and not doing anything about it. Donald Trump had answers. Whether those are the right answers remains to be seen (my guess is they're not). Trump said what they wanted to hear, and wasn't afraid of pissing off the establishment along the way. That's what these folks want. They didn't vote for Donald Trump the person, they voted for Donald Trump the personality.

md_ 10y ago
And all the other stuff--the bigotry, the misogyny, etc--is simply not a deal breaker? I find some of that quite surprising.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Priorities. Unfortunate as it may be, when you are not the target of bigotry or misogyny, it's much easier not to see those issues as a deal breaker, even if you disagree with them. Remember that, when it's not self-interest, the only thing that makes those issues a deal breaker is empathy. Today's world has very little empathy; the US especially, with its corporate-centric philosophy. It's not that surprising.
  - arstin 10y ago
    Agreed that it's about priorities. I'm from a poor state that went to Trump in a landslide. I personally know many people who voted for him. Most were somewhat embarrassed by it. They were ones who lied to or ignored pollsters, who wavered until the last moment. They found Trump despicable, or at least not worthy of the presidency. To understand why they would vote for him anyway, I think about how my vote for Clinton was not an endorsement of her history of warmongering, her complicity with the evils of Wall Street, her failure to advocate strong enough solutions to certain social problems until pushed by Sanders... (what follows isn't a disagreement with the above posters, just a remark for context) I vehemently disagree with their reasons (such as they are) for voting for Trump, but reducing the explanation of their behavior to bigotry---the easiest, most accessible, most self-affirming, and most totalizing explanation available to isolated liberals---misplaces the real problems and thus opens to misguided solutions. Yes, the Trump supporters who make the news are terrible people, and there are many of them. But they aren't over half the country. Explaining Trump's success -primarily- in this way is a failure of empathy on the part of liberals, a failure to understand the majority of the country as decent, caring human beings just like you and I who have, in fact, gotten shafted. Almost all economic recovery the past few years has gone to major cities and life for rural communities is only getting worse. We all know here that Clinton had proposals for addressing this (a 500 billion injection into infrastructure for example), but, for better or for worse---okay, for worse---Trump is who connected on this sentiment. Everyone knows Trump is a wild card---to put it kindly---who has no concrete policies, but it's worth remembering that the main focus of his victory speech last night was promising to bring back the New Deal, for a "socialist" program of government supported work, to distribute jobs across the whole country by fiat. Whether he will make good on his word and can then force it through the Republican establishment in Congress and whether it will then work all remains to be seen.

jimmywanger 10y ago

If you would like, PM me. I can give you a quick basic overview on at least my perception what some reasonable arguments for Donald Trump is. Another decent resource is blog.dilbert.com, where Scott Adams goes over some reasons why he believed Trump would win (going on for over a year) and why a lot of the criticisms about him were unfounded.

Klover 10y ago
How exactly does one PM here?
- md_ 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm happy to chat, actually, but...PM? Er, is there a PM function I didn't notice?
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Whoops. For some reason I thought there was a PM function on this site, I guess I was wrong. Is there anything specific you'd like answered, or just my general opinions on the situation?
    - md_ 10y ago
      Hmm. My starting question in most cases has been, "What are the top reasons you think Trump is a good choice to be President, preferably without making it a negative argument about the opposition?"
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        There are a couple good reasons. Would like you to add your input here also. 1) Trump is easier to predict than Hillary. Based on a bunch of the email leaks and leaks about the Clinton foundation, she's getting lots of money from foreign countries, which might cause her to make decisions that are bad for the United States for reasons unknown to me. Trump likes power and money. I can understand those motivations and can work with them. 2) Clinton is generally a lot more hawkish than Trump. Forgive me for being crude, but I'd rather Trump grab hundreds of p*ssies than engage in sabre rattling with Putin. She has promised to retaliate against Russia with no definitive proof that it was Russian hackers or Russian attempts to monkey with the election. Trump on the other hand wants to make friends with Putin, and he has said that North Korea is China's problem, which I think is a really good way of dealing with the situation. Especially since Russia has just debuted an ICBM called the "Satan 2", which is able to destroy either Texas or France with just one missile. 3) Trump is against illegal immigration. A lot of people tend to think of the wall as a literal proposal, instead of just a metaphor of making illegal immigration more difficult. Trump has indicated recently that he wants to restrict deportations to illegal immigrants who commit crimes in the US, which seems eminently fair to me. Hillary doesn't really have as much of an answer except for sweeping amnesties. 4) LGBT issues. Trump took a lot of flak for supporting LGBT people from the republican party. He also proposes restricting immigration and "extreme vetting" from the countries that tend to export people who believe in sharia law and stone homosexuals and rape victims. I think it's ridiculous that we're up in arms about bathrooms in North Carolina, while one of the major candidates in our party gets millions from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And one last point, which might count me as running down the other party. I just don't like Clinton supporters. They're really shrill and righteous, and if you don't agree with them on everything you're automatically a racist and a bigot. It's difficult having a civil discussion with them, and I don't want to put myself in the same camp as them. Also, they're incredibly histrionic. "Trump is literally Hitler" and "I'm moving to Canada/Europe." And the best is "I can't believe half of this country is populated by xenophobic racist bigots. If you support Trump I want nothing to do with you." Last I checked, calling people names is not a good way to rally support to your cause.

kiksy 10y ago

A good article posted on the other thread by another user: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... The most concise and clearest explanation I've read, also written before the result.

jjoonathan 10y ago

Hillary wanted to dramatically expand the H1B program (footnote). Whatever your stance on the issue, you should be able to understand how this upset some American tech workers. There are similar stories in other sectors. Economic protectionism hasn't really been in either party's platform for a long time, and during that time American workers took a severe beating. Then Trump came along and started making promises. * More precisely: Tim Kaine proposed a bill to double the size of the H1B program and Hillary has been in bed (donation-wise) with Tata, Wipro, and the like for the last decade at least. When asked for her position, she maintained strategic silence or dodged the question.

Turing_Machine 10y ago

"I've been trying to find a pen pal who can give me some reasonable arguments for Donald Trump for the last few weeks, to no avail." First off, I do not like Donald Trump and did not vote for him. That said: It's not "racist", "misogynist", or any other kind of "ist" for a factory worker in Ohio to believe that he shouldn't have to compete with Chinese slave labor. Nor is it "racist", "misogynist", or any other kind of "ist" for an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia to take exception to being lectured on his "white male privilege" by an academic who's never done a hard day's labor in his life, or to be upset by seeing the industry that's employed his family for generations deliberately destroyed for no reason. The coal is still going to be mined and burned. It's just going to be mined and burned in countries with few, if any, environmental regulations. Multiply those guys by a few million and you have Trump. Will Trump actually help these people? Probably not, but he's listening to them. He's at least pretending to care about their concerns. The Democrats (supposedly the party of the working class), on the other hand, have been spending the last few decades demonizing them.

md_ 10y ago
Hmm. I don't think I said it was racism or misogyny, but since we're talking about it: I do think there was quite a lot of bigotry. In particular, I think the campaign repeatedly conflated Muslims with terrorists (to the point that a religious test for immigration was suggested). The candidate also said a number of things that could be construed as misogynistic, though I'm the first to admit that all of this "locker room talk" is probably as much the product of insecure posturing as it is a formulation of any particular view towards women per se--a product of a child-mind exposed to a misogynistic culture, not of a misogynist. Part of my surprise is that that bigotry is not a deal breaker, as I said in reply to a different comment. Part of my surprise is that the electorate did not detect the unrealistic nature of the policy proposals (such as they are).
- thefalcon 10y ago
  The message was directed towards those without a college education; I see college as a place where people are encouraged to develop their critical thinking skills. If you have underdeveloped critical thinking skills then you'll be more easily persuaded by unrealistic policy proposals that sound like what you want to hear. I sometimes feel the democratic party uses similar tactics on under-educated minorities; Trump seems to be the first to have the gall to overtly use them to unabashedly target under-educated white males - and to great success.

Natsu 10y ago

Try this from Michael Moore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY

jjawssd 10y ago

Maybe this can help you find a pen pal https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total