During the course of this election, how have your political views changed?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Literally zero people switched from Obama to Trump because of immigration and big government. Nice try, though.

If Trump fails us and caves to that heartless coward sociopath Paul Ryan, just see how swiftly we abandon him too.

"Literally zero."

Okay, pal. Okay.

Trump gave them scapegoats and bogeymen that distracted voters from the truth. Maybe they'll get a better understanding of reality when they lose their health insurance.

[pikachu]

I've lost any hope in the Republican Party being even mildly redeemable in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, no major shifts, though some of my priorities have changed.

[Kolip1]

YES IM TOTALLY SHILL NOW

[Thunderbird is the word]

I don't know if they shifted that much, if anything I became more politically left; I think my outlook on some issues changed. I used to say I hated identity politics for one thing and also kind of glibly trashed mainstream liberal feminism but I think stepping back and questioning some of my views and as a Bernie supporter being constantly faced with charges of misogyny and being a "berniebro" actually caused me to step back and really analyze what might and might not come off as misogynist. I also went from despising Hillary to really wanting her to win and I think I may be becoming more of a partisan Democrat while still being critical of much of the party in part because I'm really starting to see Republicans as representing a more unique danger.

[BaldEagle1991]

Same. It'll take a lot for me to change. If anything I think I have became somewhere between a weird spot of libertarian and left-wing over the course of 2 years.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

As for me, I got pulled so far to the left that my party label switched. I used to think center-left pro-business liberalism was good for all, but my mindset is totally with the labor movement now, and I feel foolish for previously conflating the two as equally relevant, good and indistinct philosophies.

So, did you just vote for Trump because of abortion and political correctness, or did you have another reason?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

As for me, I got pulled so far to the left that my party label switched. I used to think center-left pro-business liberalism was good for all, but my mindset is totally with the labor movement now, and I feel foolish for previously conflating the two as equally relevant, good and indistinct philosophies.

So, did you just vote for Trump because of abortion and political correctness, or did you have another reason?

I originally typed up a few policy planks, but more importantly, there is the fact that Hillary is not a great person and her husband is even worse. Everything being faked and rehearsed is not a good look. I'll never forget her performance pieces in the first debate which enraged me. But I will absolutely forget her dull and uninspiring speech to follow up Obama's inspiring words the night before the election.

The biggest issue of all was that this was a battle for the face of America, so it's easy to choose the one that is my voice. The Presidency is a chance to make a statement about what is the true ideal for the American future by electing the face of a movement that represents something everyone should be proud of. We are electing a message  - unlike Congress which is driven by actual policy planks (so much so that I chose someone I liked significantly less for the sake of party lines). Donald Trump just gets it. He is right on most of the cultural issues that pop up on a day's notice. I want that to be the voice that speaks louder than any other whenever any event that causes division happens. I know I can count on him to be right on the money and humorous as usual.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Literally zero people switched from Obama to Trump because of immigration and big government. Nice try, though.

If Trump fails us and caves to that heartless coward sociopath Paul Ryan, just see how swiftly we abandon him too.

"Literally zero."

Okay, pal. Okay.

Trump gave them scapegoats and bogeymen that distracted voters from the truth. Maybe they'll get a better understanding of reality when they lose their health insurance.

Trump picked up comparatively few voters though. The far bigger problem was that Clinton simply didn't motivate turnout.*






*In electorally decisive areas of the country

[Averroës Nix]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 you, buddy.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

 you, buddy.

This experiment would be funny.

 you, buddy.

you, buddy.

...

Those two words are not as clever as you think.

it's the profanity filter lol

Yeah, the f-word is before each 'you'. I'm pretty sure the posters in question have enough experience with the profanity filter to be able to tell.

There are enough ways to say f**k without setting off the filter that it never occured to me that someone who knew of its existence would type the four letters knowing they would get erased and creating the bland " you, buddy." instead of the more impactful "F**k you, buddy".
[/quote]

I wanted the cheap satisfaction of typing the word and hitting 'post' without spending time editing.
[/quote]

You really think it's good that the country has legions and legions of economically struggling people who think the root cause of their problems is immigrants and big government, so vote for candidates  who would literally take away the only support they're actually getting? How do you propose these people be swayed to vote in their own interest? The evidence, logic, and facts that we would want to use would be seen as untrustworthy elitist hogwash. The only language they know is "feeling" like something is true. It makes things incredibly difficult.
[/quote]

At the point when you are literally proposing liquidating large parts of the population because of their untenable political views, you need to take some time to reflect seriously on what kind of person you want to be.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

More opposed to the existence of rich people

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They have become more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues.  I used to be more for a populist message on the economy... lift everyone up type of thing.  Now as a natural reaction to the ilk that Trump has brought out I have a much more hard line stance on fiscal issues.  Cut taxes, cut social programs, support as much free trade as possible, stop sending money directly from the two coasts to support social programs in the Midwest and South (we pay way more in taxes than we get back). Basically, I want a sink or swim economy.  But I want it to be "fair" on social policies, which means there shouldn't be racial discrimination, gays should have equal treatment, and we shouldn't waste a ton of money on dumb wars.  So on balance, I still support democrats.

 you, buddy.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

 you, buddy.

This experiment would be funny.

 you, buddy.

you, buddy.

...

Those two words are not as clever as you think.

it's the profanity filter lol

Yeah, the f-word is before each 'you'. I'm pretty sure the posters in question have enough experience with the profanity filter to be able to tell.

There are enough ways to say f**k without setting off the filter that it never occured to me that someone who knew of its existence would type the four letters knowing they would get erased and creating the bland " you, buddy." instead of the more impactful "F**k you, buddy".

I wanted the cheap satisfaction of typing the word and hitting 'post' without spending time editing.

You really think it's good that the country has legions and legions of economically struggling people who think the root cause of their problems is immigrants and big government, so vote for candidates  who would literally take away the only support they're actually getting? How do you propose these people be swayed to vote in their own interest? The evidence, logic, and facts that we would want to use would be seen as untrustworthy elitist hogwash. The only language they know is "feeling" like something is true. It makes things incredibly difficult.

I think it's both immoral and extremely unlikely to be successful to deliberately make people's lives worse to blackmail them into voting for you (literally normal and sane).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The difference is, they would essentially be liquidating themselves through their own stupidity. I'm not necessarily saying I support this. Just that they'd get what they unknowingly asked for and maybe learn something. I see the appeal of that part of the situation even though I would not actually support deliberately making their lives close to unliveable.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah no that's really not O.K. at all. If you're starting to think along those lines then the time has come to disengage (at least for a while) from politics.

[RINO Tom]

I am hoping Non Swing Voter's post here is more of a direct response to Trumpism than a representation of his actual beliefs. Even I believe the government should help the working class and the poor and struggling.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

Well, your first mistake is thinking that anyone thinks people living on the coasts are elite, haha.  Like holy shlt, dude.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You really think it's good that the country has legions and legions of economically struggling people who think the root cause of their problems is immigrants and big government, so vote for candidates  who would literally take away the only support they're actually getting? How do you propose these people be swayed to vote in their own interest? The evidence, logic, and facts that we would want to use would be seen as untrustworthy elitist hogwash. The only language they know is "feeling" like something is true. It makes things incredibly difficult.

Well I think that actually campaigning on your economic platform rather than "I am just so shocked at how mean my opponent is and how he violates Our Hallowed Democratic Process!" would be a start.

A very accurate observation by the above poster.  I tend to think that folks who want to talk "character" and "scandal" are folks who are really trying to avoid discussing their policy proposals for fear that they will be found out of sync with whatever mainstream they're trying to appeal to.

[krazen1211]

I am hoping Non Swing Voter's post here is more of a direct response to Trumpism than a representation of his actual beliefs. Even I believe the government should help the working class and the poor and struggling.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

Except that the people who get money from federal programs aren't the ones generally voting GOP. So you might get the attention of the non voters and democrats of the red states.

Trump voters are far more successful and make much more money than Hillary voters. This experiment would be funny.

Farm subsidies?  Social security/Medicare for wealthy retirees?  Mortgage interest deduction?  Tax-exempt houses of worship?  The fact that you can claim any itemized tax deductions without first passing drug tests?

What is the question here?


Farm subsidies? Maybe.

Social security/medicare? Upper income retirees vote for us. Low income retirees vote for you. Cut away, if you can. I have no idea why you restricted this to our retirees.

Mortgage interest deduction? Higher value properties reside in blue states. See number 5.

Tax exempt houses of worship? Maybe.

Itemized deductions? I don't know who uses drugs, but I know who itemizes. Blue states. At least for now, anyway, until we repeal the state/local income tax deduction to pay for the Wall.

Link

[Fuzzy Bear]

They have become more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues.  I used to be more for a populist message on the economy... lift everyone up type of thing.  Now as a natural reaction to the ilk that Trump has brought out I have a much more hard line stance on fiscal issues.  Cut taxes, cut social programs, support as much free trade as possible, stop sending money directly from the two coasts to support social programs in the Midwest and South (we pay way more in taxes than we get back). Basically, I want a sink or swim economy.  But I want it to be "fair" on social policies, which means there shouldn't be racial discrimination, gays should have equal treatment, and we shouldn't waste a ton of money on dumb wars.  So on balance, I still support democrats.

 you, buddy.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

 you, buddy.

This experiment would be funny.

 you, buddy.

you, buddy.

...

Those two words are not as clever as you think.

it's the profanity filter lol

Yeah, the f-word is before each 'you'. I'm pretty sure the posters in question have enough experience with the profanity filter to be able to tell.

There are enough ways to say f**k without setting off the filter that it never occured to me that someone who knew of its existence would type the four letters knowing they would get erased and creating the bland " you, buddy." instead of the more impactful "F**k you, buddy".

I wanted the cheap satisfaction of typing the word and hitting 'post' without spending time editing.

You really think it's good that the country has legions and legions of economically struggling people who think the root cause of their problems is immigrants and big government, so vote for candidates  who would literally take away the only support they're actually getting? How do you propose these people be swayed to vote in their own interest? The evidence, logic, and facts that we would want to use would be seen as untrustworthy elitist hogwash. The only language they know is "feeling" like something is true. It makes things incredibly difficult.

That could be applied to the folks you say are "Othered", and not without merit, either.  Folks who haven't yet discovered that Feelings aren't Facts.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

They have become more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues.  I used to be more for a populist message on the economy... lift everyone up type of thing.  Now as a natural reaction to the ilk that Trump has brought out I have a much more hard line stance on fiscal issues.  Cut taxes, cut social programs, support as much free trade as possible, stop sending money directly from the two coasts to support social programs in the Midwest and South (we pay way more in taxes than we get back). Basically, I want a sink or swim economy.  But I want it to be "fair" on social policies, which means there shouldn't be racial discrimination, gays should have equal treatment, and we shouldn't waste a ton of money on dumb wars.  So on balance, I still support democrats.

 you, buddy.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

 you, buddy.

This experiment would be funny.

 you, buddy.

you, buddy.

...

Those two words are not as clever as you think.

it's the profanity filter lol

Yeah, the f-word is before each 'you'. I'm pretty sure the posters in question have enough experience with the profanity filter to be able to tell.

There are enough ways to say f**k without setting off the filter that it never occured to me that someone who knew of its existence would type the four letters knowing they would get erased and creating the bland " you, buddy." instead of the more impactful "F**k you, buddy".

I wanted the cheap satisfaction of typing the word and hitting 'post' without spending time editing.

You really think it's good that the country has legions and legions of economically struggling people who think the root cause of their problems is immigrants and big government, so vote for candidates  who would literally take away the only support they're actually getting? How do you propose these people be swayed to vote in their own interest? The evidence, logic, and facts that we would want to use would be seen as untrustworthy elitist hogwash. The only language they know is "feeling" like something is true. It makes things incredibly difficult.

That could be applied to the folks you say are "Othered", and not without merit, either.  Folks who haven't yet discovered that Feelings aren't Facts.

That's fair. I am a bit less concerned about these people though because at least they're not supporting anti-fact candidates. They don't typically believe that knowledge is a mark of elitism.

[PresidentSamTilden]

More liberal, left, democrat. Prior to this election I was pretty center, at least in my own mind. I was willing to at least consider Republican candidates. I can't picture that ever happening again, for better or worse.

Feels like everyone interested in politics had to pick a tribe this year, and we ended up about 50/50. I know it's like that every election in a sense, but this felt so much more divisive and decisive than any other. We'll see if that holds true.

[PregnantChad]

I voted "no change".  At 39, I'm kind of set in my ways - solid left on most issues and center-right on a couple.  My outlook has changed in the sense that I'm more disgusted than ever before with these two particular political parties - in their behavior both pre- and post-election.

[PresidentSamTilden]

I voted "no change".  At 39, I'm kind of set in my ways - solid left on most issues and center-right on a couple.  My outlook has changed in the sense that I'm more disgusted than ever before with these two particular political parties - in their behavior both pre- and post-election.

Why are you disgusted with the behavior of the democrats?

[PregnantChad]

Why are you disgusted with the behavior of the democrats?

Well, the Wikileaks revelations rubbed me the wrong way.  1) the leadership basically putting its thumb on the scale in favor of Hillary + the super-delegate system (not sure it would've mattered, but...); 2) the other e-mails that tried to play up Bernie's Judaism and secularism.

Then after the election, they still seem to be tone deaf, despite the electoral college system punishing them for being exactly that.  The same people, the same money, the same wishy-washy strategy... it's as if they haven't learned anything.

With all that said, I have a different level of disgust for the cat-grabber-in-chief and whom he's surrounding himself with.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Why are you disgusted with the behavior of the democrats?

Well, the Wikileaks revelations rubbed me the wrong way.  1) the leadership basically putting its thumb on the scale in favor of Hillary + the super-delegate system (not sure it would've mattered, but...); 2) the other e-mails that tried to play up Bernie's Judaism and secularism.

Then after the election, they still seem to be tone deaf, despite the electoral college system punishing them for being exactly that.  The same people, the same money, the same wishy-washy strategy... it's as if they haven't learned anything.

With all that said, I have a different level of disgust for the cat-grabber-in-chief and whom he's surrounding himself with.

Yeah, I can understand that. Trump being a looming disaster doesn't mean the DNC or Hillary was perfect during the campaign...

[White Trash]

I really have come to despise the Democratic establishment and the DLC virus that has infected it. The best thing for the party to do is cut away these cancers.

[mistertheplague]

You really think it's good that the country has legions and legions of economically struggling people who think the root cause of their problems is immigrants and big government, so vote for candidates  who would literally take away the only support they're actually getting? How do you propose these people be swayed to vote in their own interest? The evidence, logic, and facts that we would want to use would be seen as untrustworthy elitist hogwash. The only language they know is "feeling" like something is true. It makes things incredibly difficult.

Thank you, buddy

Well I think that actually campaigning on your economic platform rather than "I am just so shocked at how mean my opponent is and how he violates Our Hallowed Democratic Process!" would be a start.

Thank you, buddy

Trump gave them scapegoats and bogeymen that distracted voters from the truth. Maybe they'll get a better understanding of reality when they lose their health insurance.

And thank you again. Buddy.