4 ms·

are you actually serious? the lower middle class support Trump because of his job focused agenda. the man says the word job more than anything. to correlate ev

are you actually serious? the lower middle class support Trump because of his job focused agenda. the man says the word job more than anything. to correlate everything a president does with support of his general fan base is ridiculous. that's like saying democrats support murdering people with drones because Obama used that often. This type of logic is very divisive and dangerous.

averagewall 9y ago
They kind of do, don't they? The reason Obama was able to kill so many people with drones was because he was elected. His voters could have decided killing was wrong and not voted for him. He even warned people he would do drone killing while he was campaigning. Perhaps you're saying most Obama voters didn't like the drone killing but tolerated it because they liked the rest of Obama enough? That at least means they don't mind killing too much - it's not a show stopper for them.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Did other candidates promised they'd end drone strikes? If not, then it would be naïve to assume other candidates wouldn't continue with the program (frankly, it would be dumb to assume that even if they promised so). In other words, it's not that this particular issue is a discriminator between candidates.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Voting for a candidate doesn't mean you agree with all their policies, simply that you agree more or find the bad ones less vile than the competition. This is especially true in what is essentially a two-party system. For example, one candidate is racist and thinks segregation and separate-but-equal is the way to go towards a peaceful society. The other one supports drone strikes (or something else you find vile). Any other candidates have one similarly vile views. Abstaining from voting to protest these views doesn't seem to be the answer for most folks, so they look at other things and pick the one they like the most. Afterwards, you can voice your concern over the things you disagree with or choose to ignore them. This isn't dissimilar to not needing to agree with everything your friends, partner, or family says to spend time with them.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    That's the ridiculous thing about American voting. They don't pick the one they like the most, they do what your first paragraph said and pick the one they dislike the least out of the two major parties. The result is the same two parties doing the same things year after year, swapping places about every 8 years and making the whole exercise of voting pointless except to maintain that stable state. So many people on HN seem to support strong climate change action, dislike drone strikes, and want massive immigration reform. But hardly anyone voted for the Green party.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      It is ridiculous, but I also think folks tend to not like either viable choice, and often don't see themselves represented in the fringe parties - if they even have many choices in the category. I'm from Indiana, and often the only third choice was the green party. And that was only for presidental election, nothing for other offices. The system in the states is a multi-party system in name only: Functionally, it is a two-party system, hence the low participation in such political parties. I think this could be changed with proper legislation, but am doubtful this will happen in the current political climate. Besides, it isn't like the green party could make everyone happy either, and doubt they'd have an easier time getting things done in congress.

averagewall 9y ago

They kind of do, don't they? The reason Obama was able to kill so many people with drones was because he was elected. His voters could have decided killing was wrong and not voted for him. He even warned people he would do drone killing while he was campaigning. Perhaps you're saying most Obama voters didn't like the drone killing but tolerated it because they liked the rest of Obama enough? That at least means they don't mind killing too much - it's not a show stopper for them.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Did other candidates promised they'd end drone strikes? If not, then it would be naïve to assume other candidates wouldn't continue with the program (frankly, it would be dumb to assume that even if they promised so). In other words, it's not that this particular issue is a discriminator between candidates.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
Voting for a candidate doesn't mean you agree with all their policies, simply that you agree more or find the bad ones less vile than the competition. This is especially true in what is essentially a two-party system. For example, one candidate is racist and thinks segregation and separate-but-equal is the way to go towards a peaceful society. The other one supports drone strikes (or something else you find vile). Any other candidates have one similarly vile views. Abstaining from voting to protest these views doesn't seem to be the answer for most folks, so they look at other things and pick the one they like the most. Afterwards, you can voice your concern over the things you disagree with or choose to ignore them. This isn't dissimilar to not needing to agree with everything your friends, partner, or family says to spend time with them.
- averagewall 9y ago
  That's the ridiculous thing about American voting. They don't pick the one they like the most, they do what your first paragraph said and pick the one they dislike the least out of the two major parties. The result is the same two parties doing the same things year after year, swapping places about every 8 years and making the whole exercise of voting pointless except to maintain that stable state. So many people on HN seem to support strong climate change action, dislike drone strikes, and want massive immigration reform. But hardly anyone voted for the Green party.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    It is ridiculous, but I also think folks tend to not like either viable choice, and often don't see themselves represented in the fringe parties - if they even have many choices in the category. I'm from Indiana, and often the only third choice was the green party. And that was only for presidental election, nothing for other offices. The system in the states is a multi-party system in name only: Functionally, it is a two-party system, hence the low participation in such political parties. I think this could be changed with proper legislation, but am doubtful this will happen in the current political climate. Besides, it isn't like the green party could make everyone happy either, and doubt they'd have an easier time getting things done in congress.