[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4211

File: 1574198755779.jpg (63.63 KB, 640x796, 160:199, d480d603d39083f65300d4532e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Did memes on 4chan help propel Donald Trump to the presidency?

 No.4212

No, partisan loyalty did.

That and geographic distubution of those who voted for hilary vs those who voted for Trump.

Also voter suppression in some key states helped too.

I mean he did lose the popular vote afterall, but won the electoral college

 No.4214

Donald Trump was popular with the alt-right, but their support alone wasn't enough to help him win. There were other factors.

 No.4221

>>4212
And also the DNC rigging their own primaries for Hillary.  I voted for Trump mainly because I hated Hillary even more than Trump.  If Bernie had been the Democratic nominee in 2016, I likely would have voted for him in the general election.

 No.4223

>>4221
I find it hard to believe people voted for Trump solely because they "hated Hillary". On some level, they must have agreed with the ideas behind the border wall and the Muslim ban and the other issue Trump ran on. Otherwise they would have refrained from voting at all.

 No.4225

>>4223
>I find it hard to believe people voted for Trump solely because they "hated Hillary".
First, how is that related to my post?  Second, I find it quite believable, especially for elderly people who have trouble with forming new memories but easily remember a deep-seated hatred of Hillary from their earlier days.  For better or worse, even patients with dementia are allowed to vote.

>>4223
>On some level, they must have agreed with the ideas behind the border wall and the Muslim ban and the other issue Trump ran on. Otherwise they would have refrained from voting at all.
Nope!  They could have thought that the border wall and the Trump's campaigning about a ban on Muslim immigration were terrible ideas but less terrible than shooting down Russian planes over Syria and believed that Hillary was willing to shoot down planes like that.  

 No.4226

>>4225
You claimed you voted for Trump because you hated Hillary. I said I doubt people who claim that as their only reason for voting for Trump. I'm not sure how much more related to your post it can be.

Well, I'll admit that those things are possible, but I am still skeptical they happened to many people. I find Trump's proposed actions (and the motivations behind them) to be clear and objectionable enough that they were clearly worse than anything Hillary was actually proposing. The Muslim Ban and Border wall were real plans, whereas Hillary "shooting down planes" was hypothetical, based on a lot of ifs and maybes surrounding her actual plans.

As for old people voting, again, I think it's possible. But I doubt the majority of the nearly 63 million people who voted for Trump suffer from dementia.

 No.4228

>>4226
>You claimed you voted for Trump because you hated Hillary.
I said in >>4221 :
> I voted for Trump mainly because I hated Hillary even more than Trump.  
You said in >>4223
>I find it hard to believe people voted for Trump solely because they "hated Hillary".
Quite a big difference.  I was saying that I hated both Trump and Hillary and voted for whom I percieved as the lesser of the two evils.

>>4226
>Well, I'll admit that those things are possible, but I am still skeptical they happened to many people.
OK, well your revised position is a lot more reasonable than the position you had advanced in >>4223.

 No.4231

>>4228
Well then, my issue is difficulty believing someone could look at what Trump was actively saying he planned to do, versus hypothetical things Hillary could do if and when and still determine Trump to be "the lesser of two evils". Nothing Hillary said explicitly stated that she planned to "shoot down planes". But Trump explicitly stated he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US. Unless they agreed with banning Muslims, atleast in priciple, I feel like there's no way someone could support Trump. I wouldn't vote for someone who openly ran on a platform of kicking puppies, even if his opponent ran on a platform of of raising the price on catfood, which could potentially harm cats. And I love cats!

 No.4232

File: 1574311077254.png (546.83 KB, 325x325, 1:1, mtr_1567093983997.png) ImgOps Google

>>4231
>I wouldn't vote for someone who openly ran on a platform of kicking puppies
What if his opponent was running on a platform of 'ethnically cleansing' all the blacks and Jews from the country and burning puppies alive?  And to up their ante, let's say that your vote will be the deciding vote.  Would you vote for McPuppyKicker if his opponent was strictly and greatly worse?

 No.4233

>>4231
>Trump explicitly stated he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US.
>>4231
>versus hypothetical things Hillary could do if and when
Trump didn't ban Muslims from entering the country.  He didn't even ban all alien Muslims from entering the country.  He banned aliens originating from countries designated by Obama as terrorist countries.  And even then his plan didn't fly so good with the courts. And his policy can be reversed by the next president.  In contrast if Hillary started World War 3, she would have been unchecked by the courts and her actions would be permanent and irreversible.

>Unless they agreed with banning Muslims, atleast in priciple, I feel like there's no way someone could support Trump.
I am a counterexample.  I disagreed Trump's proposed "Muslim ban", but I voted for him anyway.

 No.4236

>>4232
I understand how the concept of "lesser of two evils" works. I even agree that determining the lesser of two evils IS what should be done, if opting out of choosing at all isn't an option (which in the case of Presidential elections, it is and option to opt out). What I don't agree on is that Trump was the lesser of two evils, or that anyone could come to that conclusion.

>>4233
OK, but that's my point. You said "if". "If" Hillary did this or "if" that action caused this. It's all hypothetical. But everything Trump proposed, many things I find morally reprehensible, were NOT hypothetical. He openly said he planned to do these things and how.

So if you are weighing the lesser of two evils, then a direct statement of intent should always supersede an unlikely hypothetical.

 No.4241

>>4236
>So if you are weighing the lesser of two evils, then a direct statement of intent should always supersede an unlikely hypothetical.
I disagree.  I thought it was unlikely that Trump would be able to ban Muslims from the country.  And I was right.  And even if Hillary starting WW3 had a probability of 0.1%, that's still too high of a risk for me, considering that it would literally end civilization as we know it.

And Hillary also promised to do some terrible things, like infringe the 2nd Amendment, and she would have been able to appoint Supreme Court justices to get away with it.

 No.4243

>>4241
He did not succeed with that, but he still tried to do so as he said he would. And he HAS succeed in doing a lot of reprehensible actions.

Hillary starting WWIII is a hypothetical. A very unlikely one at that. But it isn't real. it's a product of your own speculation and imagination. The things Trump promised ARE real. The two things can't be compared. You can't compare the real to the imagined and say that the imagined outcome is somehow worse. Because it doesn't exist.

Trump appointed an accused rapist to the Supreme Court, (who, for the record I personally believe committed the crime, but I will leave it at "accused" for the sake of fairness) so anyone Hillary could have potentially appointed could not be any worse unless they too were accused rapists. Not that it matters because, again, anything attributed to Hillary is all hypothetical and not real.

 No.4245

>>4243
>so anyone Hillary could have potentially appointed could not be any worse unless they too were accused rapists.
Huh?  That doesn't follow at all.  Someone's sexual misbehavior in high school doesn't do a good job of predicting how well one would discharge the duties of the Supreme Court.  Someone who committed rape 30 years ago could very will be rehabilitated now.  Justice Kavanaugh is a steller jurist and definitely does a better job than would a someone selected randomly from the set of all lawyers in the US.

>>4243
>The things Trump promised ARE real. The two things can't be compared.
I don't understand what you're saying.  What I did in 2016 was to estimate the expected value of electing Trump and the expected value of electing Hillary.

 No.4246

>>4245
>Someone who committed rape 30 years ago could very will be rehabilitated now.

Woah, that's a whole other can of worms to open in this thread. I don't agree at all, but it's not what we are talking about.


>I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that promises to do something should carry more weight than fabricated hypotheticals. Me saying "I'm going to rob a bank" is more an indication of future events than if I buy a ski-mask, which could allow me to hide my identity, which could allow me to rob a bank.

 No.4248

I think they did.  And in fact, I think they contributed to other recent election results, and perhaps even more distant election results.  Almost every election is ultimately a challenge to create a wavy ripple of popularity by spreading ideas through the electorate.  By definition, those are memes, whether they're pictures spread by Russian bot accounts or just articles in the opinion sections of newspapers.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]