Am i literally the only Trump supporter on NS?

[The Romulan Republic]

Even though most of NS users are American, I would state that if I were in America, I support Jill Stein.

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

You're not. If you read the relevant megathread you'd know that.

I expected NSG-blr and all the Trump threads to be an immature Trump-bashing circle jerk where the Trump supporters are looked down as ignorant and poorly educated. The idea that there are more Trumpets than it seems is shocking to me.

[United States Kingdom]

Even though most of NS users are American, I would state that if I were in America, I support Jill Stein.

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

How? She has the right to run if she wants to, and one can argue the same about Clinton. After all, she says she is a progressive, but Hillary Clinton's record shows that she does not support progressive values. FYI, she also has been trying to reach out to Sanders supporters as well. Same goes for Trump. It's a common tactic to try to reach out to certain groups in election campaigns through ads, and so on. I fail to see how she is 'manipulating' progressives.

[Dream Rua]

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

How is a progressive telling progressive, "Hey, I'm a progressive," cynically manipulating progressives? I know several Sanders supporters who make the argument that voting for Hillary is, though better than Trump, against their own self-interest. I don't find it cynical or self-defeating to convince others to vote for the candidate who best addresses their concerns. Saying otherwise is exactly the kind of political "settling" that both the Sanders supporters and Trump supporters have been railing against.

[United States Kingdom]

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

How is a progressive telling progressive, "Hey, I'm a progressive," cynically manipulating progressives? I know several Sanders supporters who make the argument that voting for Hillary is, though better than Trump, against their own self-interest. I don't fit it cynical or self-defeating to convince others to vote for the candidate who best addresses their concerns. Saying otherwise is exactly the kind of political "settling" that both the Sanders supporters and Trump supporters have been railing against.

[SaintB]

Even though most of NS users are American, I would state that if I were in America, I support Jill Stein.

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

To further elaborate, the Green Party is a not a serious enough party to be voting for in a Presidential Election. Sure they have a right to run candidates the same as everybody else but consider that Green Party candidates are only represented in a few states and for less than 120 of around 50,000 open government positions across the country and isn't even on the ballot in like 48 states voting for Jill Stein is just a wasted vote.

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

How is a progressive telling progressive, "Hey, I'm a progressive," cynically manipulating progressives? I know several Sanders supporters who make the argument that voting for Hillary is, though better than Trump, against their own self-interest. I don't fit it cynical or self-defeating to convince others to vote for the candidate who best addresses their concerns. Saying otherwise is exactly the kind of political "settling" that both the Sanders supporters and Trump supporters have been railing against.

Its a cynical manipulation because Jill Stein is a candidate with no chance to win but is attempting to court voters anyway.

[SaintB]

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

How? She has the right to run if she wants to, and one can argue the same about Clinton. After all, she says she is a progressive, but Hillary Clinton's record shows that she does not support progressive values. FYI, she also has been trying to reach out to Sanders supporters as well. Same goes for Trump. It's a common tactic to try to reach out to certain groups in election campaigns through ads, and so on. I fail to see how she is 'manipulating' progressives.

The USA has a really fucked up idea of progressive.

[Jochizyd Republic]

You're not. If you read the relevant megathread you'd know that.

I expected NSG-blr and all the Trump threads to be an immature Trump-bashing circle jerk where the Trump supporters are looked down as ignorant and poorly educated. The idea that there are more Trumpets than it seems is shocking to me.

The notion that the site is mostly liberal is ludicrous. The site has all kinds of people. Leftist sensibilities aren't exactly the majority.

[The Black Forrest]

You're not. If you read the relevant megathread you'd know that.

I expected NSG-blr and all the Trump threads to be an immature Trump-bashing circle jerk where the Trump supporters are looked down as ignorant and poorly educated. The idea that there are more Trumpets than it seems is shocking to me.

Well? I am still waiting for a Trumpet to explain how Trump will mass create jobs for them.

[United States Kingdom]

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

To further elaborate, the Green Party is a not a serious enough party to be voting for in a Presidential Election. Sure they have a right to run candidates the same as everybody else but consider that Green Party candidates are only represented in a few states and for less than 120 of around 50,000 open government positions across the country and isn't even on the ballot in like 48 states voting for Jill Stein is just a wasted vote.

How is a progressive telling progressive, "Hey, I'm a progressive," cynically manipulating progressives? I know several Sanders supporters who make the argument that voting for Hillary is, though better than Trump, against their own self-interest. I don't fit it cynical or self-defeating to convince others to vote for the candidate who best addresses their concerns. Saying otherwise is exactly the kind of political "settling" that both the Sanders supporters and Trump supporters have been railing against.

Its a cynical manipulation because Jill Stein is a candidate with no chance to win but is attempting to court voters anyway.

And one can argue that Hillary Clinton is also manipulating voters by stating she will "fight the big banks" yet some of them funnel a lot of money to her campaign. Same goes for the fact that she has lied about a whole host of things(such as gay marriage), and she stopped supporting the TPP when she was supporting it and called it the "golden standard" of trade agreements. Fact is that she has lied a lot, and that can be shown in her record. So far from what I've heard, I fail to see how she is manipulating voters. You are also assuming voters can't make their own proper, informed decision. If they want to vote for Jill Stein, they can do that.

[SaintB]

I expected NSG-blr and all the Trump threads to be an immature Trump-bashing circle jerk where the Trump supporters are looked down as ignorant and poorly educated. The idea that there are more Trumpets than it seems is shocking to me.

Well? I am still waiting for a Trumpet to explain how Trump will mass create jobs for them.

By building a giant border wall that will never exist.

[SaintB]

To further elaborate, the Green Party is a not a serious enough party to be voting for in a Presidential Election. Sure they have a right to run candidates the same as everybody else but consider that Green Party candidates are only represented in a few states and for less than 120 of around 50,000 open government positions across the country and isn't even on the ballot in like 48 states voting for Jill Stein is just a wasted vote.
Its a cynical manipulation because Jill Stein is a candidate with no chance to win but is attempting to court voters anyway.

And one can argue that Hillary Clinton is also manipulating voters by stating she will "fight the big banks" yet some of them funnel a lot of money to her campaign. Same goes for the fact that she has lied about a whole host of things(such as gay marriage), and she stopped supporting the TPP when she was supporting it and called it the "golden standard" of trade agreements. Fact is that she has lied a lot, and that can be shown in her record. So far from what I've heard, I fail to see how she is manipulating voters. You are also assuming voters can't make their own proper, informed decision. If they want to vote for Jill Stein, they can do that.

They can vote for Jill Stein if they want but she's a candidate that is not represented in 90% of the nation, belongs to a party that many people have never even heard of, and will not win a presidential race, not now or not ever.

Hillary is an absolutely shitty candidate, a wishy washy psuedoconservative authoritarian that is trying to sound like (the American idea of) a progressive to get people to vote for her. The sad truth is however A. Gary Johnson is just a Republican who got on the legal weed train and is running as a Libertarian, B. Donald Trump is a bumbling moron with no actual solid policy positions to speak of and joined a party that wants to undo the last 40 years of civil progress. C.) Jill Stein can't win D.) Vermin Supreme is not serious about being president. That means E.) Hillary is a damage reduction candidate.

[United States Kingdom]

And one can argue that Hillary Clinton is also manipulating voters by stating she will "fight the big banks" yet some of them funnel a lot of money to her campaign. Same goes for the fact that she has lied about a whole host of things(such as gay marriage), and she stopped supporting the TPP when she was supporting it and called it the "golden standard" of trade agreements. Fact is that she has lied a lot, and that can be shown in her record. So far from what I've heard, I fail to see how she is manipulating voters. You are also assuming voters can't make their own proper, informed decision. If they want to vote for Jill Stein, they can do that.

They can vote for Jill Stein if they want but she's a candidate that is not represented in 90% of the nation, belongs to a party that many people have never even heard of, and will not win a presidential race, not now or not ever.

Hillary is an absolutely shitty candidate, a wishy washy psuedoconservative authoritarian that is trying to sound like (the American idea of) a progressive to get people to vote for her. The sad truth is however A. Gary Johnson is just a Republican who got on the legal weed train and is running as a Libertarian, B. Donald Trump is a bumbling moron with no actual solid policy positions to speak of and joined a party that wants to undo the last 40 years of civil progress. C.) Jill Stein can't win D.) Vermin Supreme is not serious about being president. That means E.) Hillary is a damage reduction candidate.

The reason mostly why people haven't heard of her is b/c the USA has a two party system, and one can honestly make the argument that the Democrats, and Republicans aren't that different, as they are supported(at least in terms of their Presidential candidate) mostly by the people they claim to fight against. I also never stated Supreme will be president, as he actually isn't a serious candidate. Your original point about her manipulating voters isn't true. All I'm hearing from you is "Hillary Clinton is shit, but out of the two candidates, she is the least shittiest", at least from the main point of your paragraph.

[SaintB]

They can vote for Jill Stein if they want but she's a candidate that is not represented in 90% of the nation, belongs to a party that many people have never even heard of, and will not win a presidential race, not now or not ever.

Hillary is an absolutely shitty candidate, a wishy washy psuedoconservative authoritarian that is trying to sound like (the American idea of) a progressive to get people to vote for her. The sad truth is however A. Gary Johnson is just a Republican who got on the legal weed train and is running as a Libertarian, B. Donald Trump is a bumbling moron with no actual solid policy positions to speak of and joined a party that wants to undo the last 40 years of civil progress. C.) Jill Stein can't win D.) Vermin Supreme is not serious about being president. That means E.) Hillary is a damage reduction candidate.

The reason mostly why people haven't heard of her is b/c the USA has a two party system, and one can honestly make the argument that the Democrats, and Republicans aren't that different, as they are supported(at least in terms of their Presidential candidate) mostly by the people they claim to fight against. I also never stated Supreme will be president, as he actually isn't a serious candidate. Your original point about her manipulating voters isn't true. All I'm hearing from you is "Hillary Clinton is shit, but out of the two candidates, she is the least shittiest", at least from the main point of your paragraph.

People haven't heard of the Green Party because its a tiny party. Most of the Green Party's elected officials are Dog Catchers and Postmaster Generals and the like. They hold less than 120 offices and have their hats in about 120 more. They are not big enough to support an actual presidential bid.

[Mike the Progressive]

Even though most of NS users are American, I would state that if I were in America, I support Jill Stein.

The very epitome of a wasted vote, who is cynically manipulating progressives/Sanders supporters to get them to back her against their own self-interest.

Hey. This guy gets it.

[United States Kingdom]

The reason mostly why people haven't heard of her is b/c the USA has a two party system, and one can honestly make the argument that the Democrats, and Republicans aren't that different, as they are supported(at least in terms of their Presidential candidate) mostly by the people they claim to fight against. I also never stated Supreme will be president, as he actually isn't a serious candidate. Your original point about her manipulating voters isn't true. All I'm hearing from you is "Hillary Clinton is shit, but out of the two candidates, she is the least shittiest", at least from the main point of your paragraph.

People haven't heard of the Green Party because its a tiny party. Most of the Green Party's elected officials are Dog Catchers and Postmaster Generals and the like. They hold less than 120 offices and have their hats in about 120 more. They are not big enough to support an actual presidential bid.

I'm watching Bernie speak. I will reply to this tmr.

[Republican Union of America]

No, don't be daft. Trump '16.

[Mike the Progressive]

The reason mostly why people haven't heard of her is b/c the USA has a two party system, and one can honestly make the argument that the Democrats, and Republicans aren't that different, as they are supported(at least in terms of their Presidential candidate) mostly by the people they claim to fight against. I also never stated Supreme will be president, as he actually isn't a serious candidate. Your original point about her manipulating voters isn't true. All I'm hearing from you is "Hillary Clinton is shit, but out of the two candidates, she is the least shittiest", at least from the main point of your paragraph.

People haven't heard of the Green Party because its a tiny party. Most of the Green Party's elected officials are Dog Catchers and Postmaster Generals and the like. They hold less than 120 offices and have their hats in about 120 more. They are not big enough to support an actual presidential bid.

It's not that people haven't heard of the Green Party. They just don't care for it. The same goes with most third parties. Because they are not filled with moderation. A moderate doesn't form a Socialist Party, he doesn't form a Constitutional one, or a Libertarian one. Only an ideological fanatic does. Frankly, that's the reason why their platforms are so batshit crazy. They created and embraced by purists and only purists.

[Mike the Progressive]

No, don't be daft. Trump '16.

Here's my problem with Trump. America is a flawed place, but it is also a great place. Our foreign policy, while full of mistakes, regrets and sins, has done great things. Everything from the UN to NATO to the WTO have given the world a largely positive impact compared to what would have happened had they not existed. NAFTA and the TPP, while not great, have and will provide economic growth. It will benefit the wealthy, yes, but it will benefit countries with workers that can make goods at a cheaper rate and it will benefit the consumer who can buy those goods at a cheaper cost. The scary part to me with the GOP establishment is how they've casually embraced Trump despite him saying things that go against what the GOP is about. It scares me and disappoints me that the GOP has embraced isolationism and mercantilism. It scares me that a large chunk of America has.

[Republican Union of America]

No, don't be daft. Trump '16.

Here's my problem with Trump. America is a flawed place, but it is also a great place. Our foreign policy, while full of mistakes, regrets and sins, has done great things. Everything from the UN to NATO to the WTO have given the world a largely positive impact compared to what would have happened had they not existed. NAFTA and the TPP, while not great, have and will provide economic growth. It will benefit the wealthy, yes, but it will benefit countries with workers that can make goods at a cheaper rate and it will benefit the consumer who can buy those goods at a cheaper cost. The scary part to me with the GOP establishment is how they've casually embraced Trump despite him saying things that go against what the GOP is about. It scares me and disappoints me that the GOP has embraced isolationism and mercantilism. It scares me that a large chunk of America has.

Your flag is funny because Richard Nixon's role in the Republican Union is that he's essentially more bad ass version of Joseph Goebbels, a propaganda minister for the government, until he launches a coup in the 1970s that is...

Anyways, I welcome that America is finally embracing nationalism. To hell with the neoliberal, hawkish globalism of old. The Bush era is over and it deserves to die.

[Mike the Progressive]

Here's my problem with Trump. America is a flawed place, but it is also a great place. Our foreign policy, while full of mistakes, regrets and sins, has done great things. Everything from the UN to NATO to the WTO have given the world a largely positive impact compared to what would have happened had they not existed. NAFTA and the TPP, while not great, have and will provide economic growth. It will benefit the wealthy, yes, but it will benefit countries with workers that can make goods at a cheaper rate and it will benefit the consumer who can buy those goods at a cheaper cost. The scary part to me with the GOP establishment is how they've casually embraced Trump despite him saying things that go against what the GOP is about. It scares me and disappoints me that the GOP has embraced isolationism and mercantilism. It scares me that a large chunk of America has.

Your flag is funny because Richard Nixon's role in the Republican Union is that he's essentially more bad ass version of Joseph Goebbels, a propaganda minister for the government, until he launches a coup in the 1970s that is...

Anyways, I welcome that America is finally embracing nationalism. To hell with the neoliberal, hawkish globalism of old. The Bush era is over and it deserves to die.

Not to go off track, but how the fuck is Nixon anything like Goebbels? Truly. I want to know the twisted logic here.

As for nationalism, I have no problem with it. Teddy Roosevelt was a nationalist. However he recognized the important role America has to play on the global scene. America has been a force for good in this world. It helped liberate Europe and parts of Asia after WW2. While it has involved itself in tragic wars with no end in sight, the intent was not malicious. And the benefits, while minimal perhaps to you and me, means something to the many in the Middle East.

[Saiwania]

Trump supporters finally have something to be thrilled about. Trump has enjoyed a big enough post convention bounce to get ahead in the polls against Hillary. But I don't want to cheer just yet because I have a feeling that it will be short lived and that he perhaps won't be able to hold the lead. I'm prepared for whatever happens at this point.

[Republican Union of America]

Your flag is funny because Richard Nixon's role in the Republican Union is that he's essentially more bad ass version of Joseph Goebbels, a propaganda minister for the government, until he launches a coup in the 1970s that is...

Anyways, I welcome that America is finally embracing nationalism. To hell with the neoliberal, hawkish globalism of old. The Bush era is over and it deserves to die.

Not to go off track, but how the fuck is Nixon anything like Goebbels? Truly. I want to know the twisted logic here.

The whole world of the Republican Union is twisted. Joseph Stalin was an American and John F. Kennedy was literally Hitler.

And Nixon was an actor turned propaganda minister...turned dictator.

As for nationalism, I have no problem with it. Teddy Roosevelt was a nationalist. However he recognized the important role America has to play on the global scene. America has been a force for good in this world. It helped liberate Europe and parts of Asia after WW2. While it has involved itself in tragic wars with no end in sight, the intent was not malicious. And the benefits, while minimal perhaps to you and me, means something to the many in the Middle East.

But don't think you post-Cold War foreign policy of the GOP has been pretty bad for Americans and it's refreshing to see it disappear. I really don't know who has benefited from the Iraq War.

[Mike the Progressive]

But don't think you post-Cold War foreign policy of the GOP has been pretty bad for Americans and it's refreshing to see it disappear. I really don't know who has benefited from the Iraq War.

It has been imperfect. It's true the Iraq War was an unnecessary distraction, but don't act like Saddam was a saint. He was butcher and a monster. But that mistake doesn't discredit the good things the US has done since the Berlin wall fell down.

[Freefall11111]

Your flag is funny because Richard Nixon's role in the Republican Union is that he's essentially more bad ass version of Joseph Goebbels, a propaganda minister for the government, until he launches a coup in the 1970s that is...

Anyways, I welcome that America is finally embracing nationalism. To hell with the neoliberal, hawkish globalism of old. The Bush era is over and it deserves to die.

Not to go off track, but how the fuck is Nixon anything like Goebbels? Truly. I want to know the twisted logic here.

As for nationalism, I have no problem with it. Teddy Roosevelt was a nationalist. However he recognized the important role America has to play on the global scene. America has been a force for good in this world. It helped liberate Europe and parts of Asia after WW2. While it has involved itself in tragic wars with no end in sight, the intent was not malicious. And the benefits, while minimal perhaps to you and me, means something to the many in the Middle East.

The intent was also not to be a benevolent military power. The US, like every state, fights for its own interests. It's just that often said interests coincide with other states' and other people's interests. That's basic geopolitics.