Why Do Elections Favor Socialists Over Libertarians?

[acptulsa]

So here's the question. How did the rank and file republican voters fall for it? Why were so many people willing to overlook Donald Trump's anti-gun, pro abortion, pro Clinton past? And not just McCain / Romney backing republicans. Hardcore "socialism is evil" republicans. Simply saying "people love socialism" doesn't answer it. Ultimately socialist Bernie Sanders lost to corporitist Hillary Clinton.

They love calling Democrats sheep, but Republicans are the real herd animals. They really do view the primary process as a horse race. They really don't want to vote for a loser, no matter how much better off we'd all be if they all did vote for a horse that the track touts all say can't win.

They're incredibly easy to manipulate. No wonder the GOP doesn't need superdelegates.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

My thought on this is simple:

The powers that be propped up Trump because they figured he was a sure loser against Hillary.

Agree. Trump was a hand grenade thrown into the GOP primary. They wanted him to turn it into a shitshow and smear everyone. It worked. Remember all of the talk before that about how good the GOP primary field was? Remember when Hillary and other pundits greatest fear was Rand Paul? They took care of that.

And we must add that the ratings were another factor. People loved the reality TV show. Making money is always an additional incentive.

That's not just a thought. That's proven fact.

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/th...ed-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...led-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016

So here's the question. How did the rank and file republican voters fall for it? Why were so many people willing to overlook Donald Trump's anti-gun, pro abortion, pro Clinton past? And not just McCain / Romney backing republicans. Hardcore "socialism is evil" republicans. Simply saying "people love socialism" doesn't answer it. Ultimately socialist Bernie Sanders lost to corporitist Hillary Clinton.

Trump was loud and outrageous. He said things that the majority of voters had yelled at their TV from time to time. He addressed issues like immigration that no one would touch. He related to Joe Sixpack.

And we can never forget, in the purest and non-derogatory definition of the term, voters are extremely ignorant. And to make it worse, they think that they know everything.

 

[Ender]

My thought on this is simple:

The powers that be propped up Trump because they figured he was a sure loser against Hillary.

I think they propped him up because it didn't matter which one won- 2nd verse, same as the first.

Trump talked to the Clintons before he ran- my POV is that no matter who won, Hitlery was safe & the same BS would continue.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think they propped him up because it didn't matter which one won- 2nd verse, same as the first.

Trump talked to the Clintons before he ran- my POV is that no matter who won, Hitlery was safe & the same BS would continue.

If that was the case, they wouldn't be making such a fuss to get rid of him.

I'm frankly amazed nobody has taken a shot at him yet.

 

[PAF]

The presidency typically, more than usually, lasts 2 terms, unless something very drastic takes place. Knowing this, the people support 2 terms of a democrat, before figuring out that things really don’t get better, then decide it is time for republicans to take over for 2 terms, same downward spiral... back and forth, left, right, under the same structured corporate government and federal reserve.

Bill served 2, GWB served 2, Obama served 2, it was clearly the republicans turn regardless of who it was. Trump supported Hillary’s bid to senate, which she won, on top of being friends with the Clintons. Trump was a shoe-in the democrat that he is, only stick an R after the name and everything is good to go. Rand and others being necessary nuisances, required for TV ratings and to appear “fair”.

 

[acptulsa]

If that was the case, they wouldn't be making such a fuss to get rid of Bill Clinton.

I'm frankly amazed nobody has taken a shot at him yet.

Oh, wait, that's not what you said. You don't see the Clinton and Trump impeachments the same way at all. Clinton's impeachment was clearly a sideshow designed to fail to remove him in the Senate. You see it as a way to make Democrats hate and resent Republicans, a way to (ironically, and illustrative of their chutzpah) insulate Clinton from things like Koreagate by distracting the public from it, a pure circus.

You don't see the Trump impeachment that way because... Why, exactly, don't you see them as being the exact same thing, again? Don't let me lie about this. I'm not totally clear on your concept.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh, wait, that's not what you said. You don't see the Clinton and Trump impeachments the same way at all. Clinton's impeachment was clearly a sideshow designed to fail to remove him in the Senate. You see it as a way to make Democrats hate and resent Republicans, a way to (ironically, and illustrative of their chutzpah) insulate Clinton from things like Koreagate by distracting the public from it, a pure circus.

You don't see the Trump impeachment that way because... Why, exactly, don't you see them as being the exact same thing, again? Don't let me lie about this. I'm not totally clear on your concept.

Yah. This is clearly history repeating itself.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, wait, that's not what you said. You don't see the Clinton and Trump impeachments the same way at all. Clinton's impeachment was clearly a sideshow designed to fail to remove him in the Senate. You see it as a way to make Democrats hate and resent Republicans, a way to (ironically, and illustrative of their chutzpah) insulate Clinton from things like Koreagate by distracting the public from it, a pure circus.

You don't see the Trump impeachment that way because... Why, exactly, don't you see them as being the exact same thing, again? Don't let me lie about this. I'm not totally clear on your concept.

The Clinton impeachment was designed to fail, it was theater, as you noted.

In the case of Trump, I do not see it the same way because I think they will be successful.

I think he will be removed or resign by the summer of 2020.

Hard to tell what Machiavellian purpose that may serve, as there are so many.

But it is clear to me the system is scared to death of Trump, more than likely because of that loose cannon, Drunken Monkey aspect.

I know I can't figure him out...he's flip, flopped and flown on so many issues I don't know where the hell he is coming from, minute to minute, let alone day by day.

I do know that presidents who run around bashing the Federal Reserve usually have very bad things happen to them.

 

[jmdrake]

The Clinton impeachment was designed to fail, it was theater, as you noted.

In the case of Trump, I do not see it the same way because I think they will be successful.

I think he will be removed or resign by the summer of 2020.

Hard to tell what Machiavellian purpose that may serve, as there are so many.

But it is clear to me the system is scared to death of Trump, more than likely because of that loose cannon, Drunken Monkey aspect.

I know I can't figure him out...he's flip, flopped and flown on so many issues I don't know where the hell he is coming from, minute to minute, let alone day by day.

My "Machievellian" feeling is that Trump engineered the impeachment in order to increase his chances of getting re-elected. There's no way in hell they will find 20 Republicans to vote on removal based on what they have so far.

 

[acptulsa]

In the case of Trump, I do not see it the same way because I think they will be successful.

Well, by the time it fails, we will all be older and wiser. Especially if we help each other keep an eye out for what's being overshadowed in the news...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ced-Because-Impeachment&p=6884963#post6884963

Certainly Biden's getting protection from the process.

 

[Cleaner44]

no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

No need to ignore the reality either. Should we ignore the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be liberal than conservative or libertarian?

 

[acptulsa]

No need to ignore the reality either. Should we ignore the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be liberal than conservative or libertarian?

May God grant us enough relief from the most spammed factoid of our age to forget it for five minutes.

Maybe if Republicans didn't spend all day, every day on the net telling immigrants they don't vote for Republicans, they might give it a try. Look up "self-fulfilling prophesy".

 

[jmdrake]

May God grant us enough relief from the most spammed factoid of our age to forget it for five minutes.

Maybe if Republicans didn't spend all day, every day on the net telling immigrants they don't vote for Republicans, they might give it a try. Look up "self-fulfilling prophesy".

 

[Anti Federalist]

May God grant us enough relief from the most spammed factoid of our age to forget it for five minutes.

Maybe if Republicans didn't spend all day, every day on the net telling immigrants they don't vote for Republicans, they might give it a try. Look up "self-fulfilling prophesy".

What if you're wrong?

 

[acptulsa]

What if you're wrong?

Don't think I am. I remember a time when many Hispanics voted Republican.

But what if I am? Are Republicans dissuading migrants from coming, or encouraging Democrats to turn them away, by wasting all day every day telling immigrants they don't vote Republicans?

 

[Swordsmyth]

This is not true.

In most elections, including the most recent three, nonhispanic whites vote (which means they vote for Socialists) at higher rates than nonhispanic blacks, hispanics, or other.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

And among those whites, it isn't primarily the poor ones who are voting, but the wealthier ones.
https://econofact.org/voting-and-income

It is literally the case that the group in America that votes for socialism at the highest rates is wealthy whites, to the tune of about 85%. And as you move outside of that group to nonwhites and lower income people, they vote for socialists at progressively lower rates to the point that among the lowest income groups a full majority refrains from voting for socialists, and this percentage that refrains from voting for socialists is especially high among nonwhites, particularly hispanics.

Voting for Republicans is a vote for reduced government and welfare.
You are attempting to make voting at all count but it doesn't, voting for Demoncrats is voting for communism and the immigrants vote communist at much higher rates.
Not voting is not virtuous, it is consenting to the outcome whether it is for larger or smaller government.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Voting for Republicans is a vote for reduced government and welfare.

Recent decades of history prove the opposite, with an absolute perfect record.

 

[acptulsa]

Voting for Republicans is a vote for reduced government and welfare.

Voting in Republicans has never resulted in any of that in my lifetime. Perhaps you meant to say voting Republican is paying lip service to that stuff?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Recent decades of history prove the opposite, with an absolute perfect record.

Not at all.

 

[CCTelander]

What if you're wrong?

I may have more to say on this when I can get in front of my actual computer, depending on how I feel at the time and whether I think it's worth a half-hour to an hour's worth of my time to compose and type up something that's lkely to just be ignored by anyone but those who already agree anyway, but for now suffice it to say this:

What if he IS wrong? So what?

You've already admitted, many times, that you've already lost the battle over immigration, that it's too late and is therefore a lost cause. That being the case, what have you got to lose trying something different? When does one finally decide to give up on what they already know to be an ineffective strategy and start looking at other options?