Why are white, uneducated voters voting for Trump?

iolo said:
Surely anyone who could even contemplate voting for Mr Trump is by definition invincibly stupid?
Click to expand...
The same can be said for those who would vote for Cruz, or other Teabag idiots. And they're infinitely more intelligent than Trump.
 
cawacko said:
When your other option is a corrupt war hawk?

Anyone with a modicum of economic intelligence for example with know to never vote for Jeremy Corbyn yet somehow the man has some power...
Click to expand...
As opposed to Trump, who is arguably more inept than Dubyah?
 
cawacko said:
I have the brains to know capitalism is the economic system that has produced more wealth and brought more people out of poverty than any other and you are anti-capitalism so what's that say about you?
Click to expand...
Ancient history
 
cawacko said:
I see. So lower educated whites are too dumb to "vote for their best interests" while lower educated minorities are smart enough too?
Click to expand...
Correct. You think Trump represents them?


(Think "keep your govt hands off of my Medicare")
 
cawacko said:
And Hillary is extremely corrupt and self serving and yet millions are going to vote for her as well. So are you one of the few smart people who won't vote for either or are you another non thinking sheeple?
Click to expand...
You do realize that by continually parroting that term, you have become one of those uneducated Whites?
 
Althea said:
Bullshit scandals aside, why wouldn't they be? Do you really think Trump is qualified to be POTUS?
Click to expand...

Bullshit scandals? It's amazing the lengths partisans here will go to justify her behavior. (And yes the same occurs in the right with Trump). There's a reason Hillary's negatives are as high as they are. Nor can you say why you think it is in their best interests to back her.
 
Althea said:
You do realize that by continually parroting that term, you have become one of those uneducated Whites?
Click to expand...

El Oh El. What's your background Althea? whats your education and job? I mean living in SF I'm around quite a few people who think very highly of themselves but it seems you want to join the group. Where do you live? You better be in a major coastal city with this attitude
 
evince said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
Click to expand...

the facts
 
cawacko said:
Bullshit scandals? It's amazing the lengths partisans here will go to justify her behavior. (And yes the same occurs in the right with Trump). There's a reason Hillary's negatives are as high as they are. Nor can you say why you think it is in their best interests to back her.
Click to expand...

The reason, as you know, is a sustained and intense campaign of continuous lying by the trumpers. She is a standard politician, Trump a Nazi liar with no real suggestions as to improving things, getting support from ignorant mugs by lying, lying, lying - as well you know.
 
anatta said:
elitist scum.

a famiiy member is voting for Clinton because "Trump hates gays" :palm:
I don't even ask her why she says this -the last thing i wanna do is get into debate with a low information voter.

If you are a single issue voter -changes are you'll find something on the Democratic laundry list to fill up your needs.
Trump voters are thematic. Make America Great again is geared to everyone
Click to expand...
Yes....Yes...generalized vagueness is superior to actual positions on issues.
 
cawacko said:
Bullshit scandals? It's amazing the lengths partisans here will go to justify her behavior. (And yes the same occurs in the right with Trump). There's a reason Hillary's negatives are as high as they are. Nor can you say why you think it is in their best interests to back her.
Click to expand...

because your party have lied about her for decades


shitty dad
 
iolo said:
The reason, as you know, is a sustained and intense campaign of continuous lying by the trumpers. She is a standard politician, Trump a Nazi liar with no real suggestions as to improving things, getting support from ignorant mugs by lying, lying, lying - as well you know.
Click to expand...
I see. So she had a stellar reputation before 2015 and it's only in the past year people have turned on her?
 
Cowgirl Up said:
No I really don't. The system that was designed by our founders was that we followed the constitution and if something is not explicitly defined in the constitution then its deferred to the states through the 10th amendment. I like that system and I think they did too.
Click to expand...

correct. there are sound reasons for things like block grants, where money is shifted thru the fed's to poorer districts
or Congress decides federal standards apply.
But it's become the go to means to just ceed all power to the fed's for "equality" and other nebulous concepts
whereby the fed's become tyranical ..

A healthy respect for balance of powers is missing because it takes forethought when delegating to the fed's.
Politicians don't care,and the populace get'sused to being clubbed on the head like baby Harp seal with over-reach
 
anatta said:
I'm as patriotic as the next person. Making America Great again isn't a putdown -it's a clarion call for change.
What trump is pointing out is we have severe problems with debt, border controls, outsourcing, and trade.
Click to expand...
And he'll do nothing to address any of it. Pence is supposed to deal with all of that, while he 'makes America great again'.

What a crock of shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top