I sympathise with the white, 50 year old men who have found themselves on the sharp end of the stick with regards to globalisation. Jobs are leaving to other countries and they don't have the ability or opportunity to skill up. Jobs that remain are taken up by younger people, often from other countries. I think that would be vastly unsettling and cause grief and anxiety, particularly for people with children to support.
People in that category (amongst others) turn to someone who promises them a world of relief from the causes of the pain. He doesn't articulate how (probably because he doesn't have any idea himself), nor how he will pay for it.
I really empathise with those people. My dad could have been one of them (he is what we call a fitter and turner - he worked with piping before he retired). If Trump does not win, then they are going to be even more angry and feel a sense of betrayal.
Now, you see, Dave, your tone here is exactly why it's been so hard for me to take you seriously lately. In large part because you, yourself have espoused or encouraged policies that have screwed over European-descended people in the first place--not to mention the very nations upon which they founded their cultures. You have a few choice quotes regarding immigration from the past few decades Dave, but these ones are most relevant to the context:
"Please! Let them come. We don't have enough people anyway!"
Replace the Japanese flag with any other flag belonging to Western Civilization and it's no less accurate. To make it more accurate for the West however, it would be appropriate to point out that intellectual authorities have not simply been using inflation to discourage white birthrates, but also socially engineered stigmas toward the family unit--stigmas that they wouldn't dream of pushing on non-Europeans. So when they--and you--encourage further immigration for the purpose of replacing a dwindling workforce, the intention is made clear that you're not simply scoring Social Justice brownie points by calling Euro-descendants "racists" and "xenophobes", but also serving to artificially breed them--and their cultures--out of existence.
You trying to say that you ever cared for the European phenotype when you've always been in favor of policies that sought to destroy it by means of fostering white guilt and ridiculously expensive, recession-inducing policies that deter white people from breeding--even as you emotionally blackmailed them into supporting all manner of poor, non-white immigrants who fuck like rabbits and eat up benefits--is absolutely fucking laughable. I'm not gonna lie, the first time I read this post, it pissed me off immensely and I had to walk away because I simply didn't want to deal with its insufferably superior tone or your attempt to appeal to a race that you've more or less forsaken in practice if not in conscience. I was less than motivated to respond.
I see a Trump supporter somewhere told Pence that if Hillary gets in, it would be cause for a revolution. Pence told her not to say that.
I see also that The Crusaders, an ultra right paramilitary group, were arrested last week. I suspect that they were pumped up in their beliefs by exposure to an increasingly virulent right wing press. They said that they would not even spare babies.
Great cherry-picking. Now what about the violence at Trump rallies perpetrated by people who are overtly pro-Clinton and anti-USA (see also: Hispanics holding upon Mexican flags in Costa Mesa)? What about the people on Twitter saying that they're going to "join the resistance" if Trump gets elected? What about the firebomb thrown into the GOP office with the message stating that Trump is a Nazi? What about the guerrilla tactics employed by the Clinton camp that were designed to paint Trump voters has violent racists (as proven by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas sting) and, in effect, all but stating that it should be open season on Trump voters?
Didn't hear about any of that on CNN?
As The Economist pointed out last week, even if Clinton prevails in an election, then out of a population of 280 million or thereabouts, there are 30 million core Trump supporters who have been repeatedly told and believe that Clinton should be in jail. That makes it very difficult to achieve any sort of domestic agenda.
In which case, if it's true--and it fucking is--what exactly does that say about the election process? What does it mean when an overtly corrupt individual gets into office on the voter power of close to half the country, 95% of the media outlets, and all of the alphabet soup organizations within the government's arsenal? Would not the possibility occur to you that certain divisions have become irreconcilable by dint of a tolerance for the aforementioned corruption?
Lincoln had far, far less cause than we do now.
So let me rephrase the question. When Bush won the election in 2000, many Democrats despised him and his inauguration was best by people throwing fruit and whatever at his presidential limousine on his way to be sworn in.
What happens if Clinton is elected? Pariah, you have already foreshadowed that you think the election could be rigged, and Trump himself has been hinting at it.
No need to dance around it, Dave. We're closer to Civil War than any other point in over the last 140 years.
Trump is assassinated. Civil War.
Clinton wins with only the Electoral College. Civil War.
Trump wins--by EC or popular vote or both. Civil War.
...Or massive riots at the very least. Except in the case of a Trump assassination. If that happens, the shit hits the fan.
Despite your implication however, none of these possible conflagrations will have anything to do with any inherently violent tendencies on the part of Trump voters. I say with absolute confidence that you have no evidence of a culture of violence on the part of the Nationalist Populist movement in either the US or Europe. All the violence has originated from the left.
The other part of it is that Trump supporters might be absolutely shocked if Trump loses. Trump supporters have been exposed to a never-ending, singular news cycle that Trump is winning, Clinton is losing and so on. The conclusion might be that the election must be rigged, simply because no other option other than success was in front of them for months and months.
Dave, by your own admission, there is no "news cycle that Trump is winning" since we're inundated with negative Trump coverage and skewed poll numbers. Your message is unclear.
Furthermore, I have to wonder if you're posing the same question to Hillary supporters since they
are the ones enjoying "a never-ending, singular news cycle that [Hillary] is winning."
And by the tacit claim of your logic, all instances in which the accusation of rigging take place must necessarily be false and could only be meant to foolproof a campaign by virtue of galvanizing the accuser's voter base's perceptions. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz DNC emails proved that Hilldawg rigged the vote in California against Sanders. Counties in Texas are investigating massive voter fraud. Hillary supporters bragging about destroying mail-in ballots for Trump--And George Soros controls fucking Smartmatic voting machines for fuckssakes!
b. Setting aside all of that, I am pretty confident with the accuracy of information such as the CNN poll. A small part of my job lies in verifying and arguing the statistic validity of surveys. When I read CNN polls and consider the methodology then those give me confidence that they are accurate.
Unless you work for CNN and will personally vouch for the polling data and accompanying methodologies, there really isn't anything here for me to comment on beyond the fact CNN has proven itself to be totally untrustworthy and in the tank for Hilldawg. Examples:
On top of this, John Podesta's email revealed a
list of reporters who Clinton specifically RSVPs due to their "influence", a significant portion of which are CNN reporters.
These people are
not going to broadcast morale-killing, low poll numbers for Killary regardless of reality. CNN in particular has been oversampling democrats by over 9%. They, along with every other, MSM outlet have been ignoring certain voters who are going to vote for Trump after abstaining from the last 4 elections since their prior lack of participation disqualifies them from being considered likely voters.
The general sense is that Trump has been unable to broaden the Republican voter base, and much of that is policy driven.
On the contrary, Trump has mobilized more minority voters than prior GOP candidates--he's even got more Muslims voting for him than Romney did.
I add, in closing, that if John McCain had been running again, my gut tells me that the GOP would easily have won. Popular with Latinos, outside the GOP powerbase to be popular with disaffected GOP voters, a war hero whose service to his country is beyond dispute... Given Clinton's gaffes, even I would have been in favour of a McCain presidency.
If this is what you really believe, Dave, then you prove that you have no idea what's really going on. McCain wouldn't have stood chance--especially not against Hillary. Republicans would simply stay home yet again, as they did in 2012. He is a part of the establishment and, therefore, a part of the GOP powerbase. He's also a total asshole who misbehaved before the enemy in Vietnam. Hilldawg would have taken advantage of that.
