Is PC responsible for Trump?

[NYcarbineer]

I just made a delightfully brilliant point in another thread, SO delightfully brilliant that it certainly deserves its own thread.



As someone who (a) did not support Trump, but (b) is still virulently anti-PC, it seems pretty clear to me that the one overriding feature of Trump's candidacy that endeared him to his voters was that he is so non-PC.

People had enough of decades of the intellectual dishonesty, cowardice and counter-productive nature of PC, it had built up to a fever pitch, and bing, just the right guy came along at just the right time.

Rather than cower when the PC zealots did their predictable screaming, his voters embraced it, ran with it, and shoved it right back in the PC zealots' face. And now, it will be President Trump.

The PC zealots are largely responsible for this guy.

Thoughts?
.

Sorry to disappoint, but your idea has been brought up several times on USMB and one even started a thread just for that. But I'll comment the same way.

I agree and disagree. I disagree because I don't think that anybody would vote for a President simply because of the way he talks. I agree because I think his anti-PC related to people who otherwise are confused when it comes to politics. He put politics into simple language anybody can understand.

Trump talks about politics the way we do at the bar, at work, at family doings. I think people who normally don't get involved in politics bonded with his messages. And let's face it, we all know a lot of people like that. Those people get confused (and bored) when politicians dance around what they would really like to say with great concern about offending anybody.

We are political junkies here. We spend much of our lives with politics; I know I do. But we falsely assume that most people are like us when it's just the opposite. We are a very small minority in this country. So Trump found a way to get through to those people (anti-PC) and probably helped him win the presidency.

Thanks, much appreciated.

I think the role that it played was that it intensified opinions. And, theoretically, increased turnout.

No way to know. But I'm VERY pissed that I wasn't FIRST with this!


.

If 'PC' was so important, why, amidst all of this, did North Carolina elect a Democrat governor,

in the face of the very anti-PC initiatives that the Republican governor had been pushing?

Because life is not binary, either/or, black or white.

You wouldn't understand.
.

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

As if the Trump scandals didn't matter?

 

[Mac1958]

I just made a delightfully brilliant point in another thread, SO delightfully brilliant that it certainly deserves its own thread.



As someone who (a) did not support Trump, but (b) is still virulently anti-PC, it seems pretty clear to me that the one overriding feature of Trump's candidacy that endeared him to his voters was that he is so non-PC.

People had enough of decades of the intellectual dishonesty, cowardice and counter-productive nature of PC, it had built up to a fever pitch, and bing, just the right guy came along at just the right time.

Rather than cower when the PC zealots did their predictable screaming, his voters embraced it, ran with it, and shoved it right back in the PC zealots' face. And now, it will be President Trump.

The PC zealots are largely responsible for this guy.

Thoughts?
.

Sorry to disappoint, but your idea has been brought up several times on USMB and one even started a thread just for that. But I'll comment the same way.

I agree and disagree. I disagree because I don't think that anybody would vote for a President simply because of the way he talks. I agree because I think his anti-PC related to people who otherwise are confused when it comes to politics. He put politics into simple language anybody can understand.

Trump talks about politics the way we do at the bar, at work, at family doings. I think people who normally don't get involved in politics bonded with his messages. And let's face it, we all know a lot of people like that. Those people get confused (and bored) when politicians dance around what they would really like to say with great concern about offending anybody.

We are political junkies here. We spend much of our lives with politics; I know I do. But we falsely assume that most people are like us when it's just the opposite. We are a very small minority in this country. So Trump found a way to get through to those people (anti-PC) and probably helped him win the presidency.

Thanks, much appreciated.

I think the role that it played was that it intensified opinions. And, theoretically, increased turnout.

No way to know. But I'm VERY pissed that I wasn't FIRST with this!


.

If 'PC' was so important, why, amidst all of this, did North Carolina elect a Democrat governor,

in the face of the very anti-PC initiatives that the Republican governor had been pushing?

Because life is not binary, either/or, black or white.

You wouldn't understand.
.

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

She also was simply not likable. She rubs people the wrong way, always has. She had trouble filling coffee shops while Trump was overflowing stadiums. PC or not he connects with people. I predict most people will get behind him, especially when things take off. Libs will hate any success like they did with Reagan, he proved them wrong and they'll never forgive him for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry to disappoint, but your idea has been brought up several times on USMB and one even started a thread just for that. But I'll comment the same way.

I agree and disagree. I disagree because I don't think that anybody would vote for a President simply because of the way he talks. I agree because I think his anti-PC related to people who otherwise are confused when it comes to politics. He put politics into simple language anybody can understand.

Trump talks about politics the way we do at the bar, at work, at family doings. I think people who normally don't get involved in politics bonded with his messages. And let's face it, we all know a lot of people like that. Those people get confused (and bored) when politicians dance around what they would really like to say with great concern about offending anybody.

We are political junkies here. We spend much of our lives with politics; I know I do. But we falsely assume that most people are like us when it's just the opposite. We are a very small minority in this country. So Trump found a way to get through to those people (anti-PC) and probably helped him win the presidency.

Thanks, much appreciated.

I think the role that it played was that it intensified opinions. And, theoretically, increased turnout.

No way to know. But I'm VERY pissed that I wasn't FIRST with this!


.

If 'PC' was so important, why, amidst all of this, did North Carolina elect a Democrat governor,

in the face of the very anti-PC initiatives that the Republican governor had been pushing?

Because life is not binary, either/or, black or white.

You wouldn't understand.
.

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

 

[Iceweasel]

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

As if the Trump scandals didn't matter?

The Trump scandals were largely fabricated outrage and the media was unable to make mountains out of the molehills. They've lost the power to control elections with all the alternative routes these days. Hillary's problems were national security/life and death concerns.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

She also was simply not likable. She rubs people the wrong way, always has. She had trouble filling coffee shops while Trump was overflowing stadiums. PC or not he connects with people. I predict most people will get behind him, especially when things take off. Libs will hate any success like they did with Reagan, he proved them wrong and they'll never forgive him for it.

Things aren't going to take off. Trump won because he embraced ONE winning issue, the trade issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

As if the Trump scandals didn't matter?

The Trump scandals were largely fabricated outrage and the media was unable to make mountains out of the molehills. They've lost the power to control elections with all the alternative routes these days. Hillary's problems were national security/life and death concerns.

Fabricated? Are you insane?

 

[Mac1958]

Thanks, much appreciated.

I think the role that it played was that it intensified opinions. And, theoretically, increased turnout.

No way to know. But I'm VERY pissed that I wasn't FIRST with this!


.

If 'PC' was so important, why, amidst all of this, did North Carolina elect a Democrat governor,

in the face of the very anti-PC initiatives that the Republican governor had been pushing?

Because life is not binary, either/or, black or white.

You wouldn't understand.
.

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

Fabulous, thanks so much.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

Thanks, much appreciated.

I think the role that it played was that it intensified opinions. And, theoretically, increased turnout.

No way to know. But I'm VERY pissed that I wasn't FIRST with this!


.

If 'PC' was so important, why, amidst all of this, did North Carolina elect a Democrat governor,

in the face of the very anti-PC initiatives that the Republican governor had been pushing?

Because life is not binary, either/or, black or white.

You wouldn't understand.
.

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

2.7, but many illegal no doubt, especially California.

 

[Iceweasel]

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

As if the Trump scandals didn't matter?

The Trump scandals were largely fabricated outrage and the media was unable to make mountains out of the molehills. They've lost the power to control elections with all the alternative routes these days. Hillary's problems were national security/life and death concerns.

Fabricated? Are you insane?

A crude comment said in private became Trump grabbing pussies left and right. No one ever even said he did it but lefties imploded over it. That's called fabricated outrage, some bullshit think you can go all drama queen over. No one but lefties bought it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

She also was simply not likable. She rubs people the wrong way, always has. She had trouble filling coffee shops while Trump was overflowing stadiums. PC or not he connects with people. I predict most people will get behind him, especially when things take off. Libs will hate any success like they did with Reagan, he proved them wrong and they'll never forgive him for it.

Things aren't going to take off. Trump won because he embraced ONE winning issue, the trade issue.

It was stupid when you said it before. It goes downhill from there.

 

[imawhosure]

If 'PC' was so important, why, amidst all of this, did North Carolina elect a Democrat governor,

in the face of the very anti-PC initiatives that the Republican governor had been pushing?

Because life is not binary, either/or, black or white.

You wouldn't understand.
.

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

Fabulous, thanks so much.
.

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

As if the Trump scandals didn't matter?

The Trump scandals were largely fabricated outrage and the media was unable to make mountains out of the molehills. They've lost the power to control elections with all the alternative routes these days. Hillary's problems were national security/life and death concerns.

Fabricated? Are you insane?

A crude comment said it private became Trump grabbing pussies left and right. No one ever even said he did it but lefties imploded over it. That's called fabricated outrage, some bullshit think you can go all drama queen over. No one but lefties bought it.

Now see, I go the opposite way this board is voting on this; I believe it was significant, and here is why--------->

Whenever any Republican runs for President and the left attacks him, he softens his tone. Both Bush Presidents did it, and so did Mcain and Romney (especially Romney) when they ran for President. In essence, the GOP theory has been to try and steal a few Democratic voters to push them over the top, and nobody in the GOP but Santorum, would approach union blue collar workers, or even try to engage with black America.

Now, who among you believes that blue collar workers are going to follow some double talking slickster? Not me, because I was union for 31 years. They do NOT speak like that, they speak like Trump! (I know, shocking, isn't it!) None of those people believed in Romney, but they understood what Trump was saying, and the neat thing was......when the Dems called him out, he doubled down! He didn't "panty waist" around, he said it, he owned it. And what he said and owned, was something that the none PC crowd had been saying for years..........illegal immigration was helping to kill our wages, change the country for the worse, and cause more spending to fund welfare.

And so, while every lefty on this board is going to go to the poll numbers when I say this.......the number 1, 2 and 3 reasons Trump got elected were.....

The Supreme Court

Illegal Immigration

and because voters thought he would do his best to deliver, because he was NOT PC, and did NOT back down from his own statements like other politicians always do. He still hasn't!

 

[jc456]

Of course enough Americans are done with it!

 

[Mac1958]

Because life is not binary, either/or, black or white.

You wouldn't understand.
.

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

Fabulous, thanks so much.
.

Being non-PC was huge in winning the nomination. Going against Hillary was even a bigger advantage in the general election. She having shot herself in one foot with the private server and in the other with the Clinton Foundation.

As if the Trump scandals didn't matter?

The Trump scandals were largely fabricated outrage and the media was unable to make mountains out of the molehills. They've lost the power to control elections with all the alternative routes these days. Hillary's problems were national security/life and death concerns.

Fabricated? Are you insane?

A crude comment said it private became Trump grabbing pussies left and right. No one ever even said he did it but lefties imploded over it. That's called fabricated outrage, some bullshit think you can go all drama queen over. No one but lefties bought it.

Now see, I go the opposite way this board is voting on this; I believe it was significant, and here is why--------->

Whenever any Republican runs for President and the left attacks him, he softens his tone. Both Bush Presidents did it, and so did Mcain and Romney (especially Romney) when they ran for President. In essence, the GOP theory has been to try and steal a few Democratic voters to push them over the top, and nobody in the GOP but Santorum, would approach union blue collar workers, or even try to engage with black America.

Now, who among you believes that blue collar workers are going to follow some double talking slickster? Not me, because I was union for 31 years. They do NOT speak like that, they speak like Trump! (I know, shocking, isn't it!) None of those people believed in Romney, but they understood what Trump was saying, and the neat thing was......when the Dems called him out, he doubled down! He didn't "panty waist" around, he said it, he owned it. And what he said and owned, was something that the none PC crowd had been saying for years..........illegal immigration was helping to kill our wages, change the country for the worse, and cause more spending to fund welfare.

And so, while every lefty on this board is going to go to the poll numbers when I say this.......the number 1, 2 and 3 reasons Trump got elected were.....

The Supreme Court

Illegal Immigration

and because voters thought he would do his best to deliver, because he was NOT PC, and did NOT back down from his own statements like other politicians always do. He still hasn't!

Thank you.

I knew how the PC zealots would react - denial, don't look at me, and my personal favorite, there's no such thing as PC - but I've been a little surprised by some of the comments from Trump supporters. They seem to think this thread was some kind of back-handed attack, and it's just an honest theory, based directly on what they said a thousand times.

Clearly it played a role, the only question is to what extent. If all it did was increase the resolve of his voters, that still seems significant to me.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The election was binary. Either Clinton or Trump was going to win.

You've done this thread multiple times now and never offered a shred of evidence to support your claim.

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

Fabulous, thanks so much.
.

As if the Trump scandals didn't matter?

The Trump scandals were largely fabricated outrage and the media was unable to make mountains out of the molehills. They've lost the power to control elections with all the alternative routes these days. Hillary's problems were national security/life and death concerns.

Fabricated? Are you insane?

A crude comment said it private became Trump grabbing pussies left and right. No one ever even said he did it but lefties imploded over it. That's called fabricated outrage, some bullshit think you can go all drama queen over. No one but lefties bought it.

Now see, I go the opposite way this board is voting on this; I believe it was significant, and here is why--------->

Whenever any Republican runs for President and the left attacks him, he softens his tone. Both Bush Presidents did it, and so did Mcain and Romney (especially Romney) when they ran for President. In essence, the GOP theory has been to try and steal a few Democratic voters to push them over the top, and nobody in the GOP but Santorum, would approach union blue collar workers, or even try to engage with black America.

Now, who among you believes that blue collar workers are going to follow some double talking slickster? Not me, because I was union for 31 years. They do NOT speak like that, they speak like Trump! (I know, shocking, isn't it!) None of those people believed in Romney, but they understood what Trump was saying, and the neat thing was......when the Dems called him out, he doubled down! He didn't "panty waist" around, he said it, he owned it. And what he said and owned, was something that the none PC crowd had been saying for years..........illegal immigration was helping to kill our wages, change the country for the worse, and cause more spending to fund welfare.

And so, while every lefty on this board is going to go to the poll numbers when I say this.......the number 1, 2 and 3 reasons Trump got elected were.....

The Supreme Court

Illegal Immigration

and because voters thought he would do his best to deliver, because he was NOT PC, and did NOT back down from his own statements like other politicians always do. He still hasn't!

Thank you.

I knew how the PC zealots would react - denial, don't look at me - but I've been a little surprised by some of the comments from Trump supporters. They seem to think this thread was some kind of back-handed attack, and it's just an honest theory, based directly on what they said a thousand times.

Clearly it played a role, the only question is to what extent. If all it did was increase the resolve of his voters, that still seems significant to me.
.

Most times I go into work about a half-hour early. Me and my coworkers stand around in the parking lot for a BS session. There are the normal guys, and then there are the guys that are out there, and the only thing they are educated on is sports. The normal guys try to stay in one group, but the lower-IQ people can't help but to come over and try to join our discussions.

Of course we are not rude by telling them to go away. We just kind of put up with them. Often we bring up subjects we know they don't understand like politics. Usually they get bored since they have no idea what we are talking about and eventually drift away.

However the last couple of months that strategy didn't work so well. That's because they began talking about what Trump said or what he said he was going to do. They actually knew WTF we were talking about for a change.

I can't say for sure if any of them voted or not. But what I do know is Trump related to more people.

 

[Mac1958]

And it makes you whine.

Not my problem.

Others have offered some interesting thoughts, so that's okay. Whine away.
.

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

Fabulous, thanks so much.
.

The Trump scandals were largely fabricated outrage and the media was unable to make mountains out of the molehills. They've lost the power to control elections with all the alternative routes these days. Hillary's problems were national security/life and death concerns.

Fabricated? Are you insane?

A crude comment said it private became Trump grabbing pussies left and right. No one ever even said he did it but lefties imploded over it. That's called fabricated outrage, some bullshit think you can go all drama queen over. No one but lefties bought it.

Now see, I go the opposite way this board is voting on this; I believe it was significant, and here is why--------->

Whenever any Republican runs for President and the left attacks him, he softens his tone. Both Bush Presidents did it, and so did Mcain and Romney (especially Romney) when they ran for President. In essence, the GOP theory has been to try and steal a few Democratic voters to push them over the top, and nobody in the GOP but Santorum, would approach union blue collar workers, or even try to engage with black America.

Now, who among you believes that blue collar workers are going to follow some double talking slickster? Not me, because I was union for 31 years. They do NOT speak like that, they speak like Trump! (I know, shocking, isn't it!) None of those people believed in Romney, but they understood what Trump was saying, and the neat thing was......when the Dems called him out, he doubled down! He didn't "panty waist" around, he said it, he owned it. And what he said and owned, was something that the none PC crowd had been saying for years..........illegal immigration was helping to kill our wages, change the country for the worse, and cause more spending to fund welfare.

And so, while every lefty on this board is going to go to the poll numbers when I say this.......the number 1, 2 and 3 reasons Trump got elected were.....

The Supreme Court

Illegal Immigration

and because voters thought he would do his best to deliver, because he was NOT PC, and did NOT back down from his own statements like other politicians always do. He still hasn't!

Thank you.

I knew how the PC zealots would react - denial, don't look at me - but I've been a little surprised by some of the comments from Trump supporters. They seem to think this thread was some kind of back-handed attack, and it's just an honest theory, based directly on what they said a thousand times.

Clearly it played a role, the only question is to what extent. If all it did was increase the resolve of his voters, that still seems significant to me.
.

Most times I go into work about a half-hour early. Me and my coworkers stand around in the parking lot for a BS session. There are the normal guys, and then there are the guys that are out there, and the only thing they are educated on is sports. The normal guys try to stay in one group, but the lower-IQ people can't help but to come over and try to join our discussions.

Of course we are not rude by telling them to go away. We just kind of put up with them. Often we bring up subjects we know they don't understand like politics. Usually they get bored since they have no idea what we are talking about and eventually drift away.

However the last couple of months that strategy didn't work so well. That's because they began talking about what Trump said or what he said he was going to do. They actually knew WTF we were talking about for a change.

I can't say for sure if any of them voted or not. But what I do know is Trump related to more people.

Apparently so. It seems counter-intuitive to me, but it really does look like he has.

Surely a part of the attraction is the fact that, for better or worse, he doesn't pre-measure every word to determine if it may "offend".

There are a lot of people who have had enough of that, far more than I realized.
.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I just made a delightfully brilliant point in another thread, SO delightfully brilliant that it certainly deserves its own thread.



As someone who (a) did not support Trump, but (b) is still virulently anti-PC, it seems pretty clear to me that the one overriding feature of Trump's candidacy that endeared him to his voters was that he is so non-PC.

People had enough of decades of the intellectual dishonesty, cowardice and counter-productive nature of PC, it had built up to a fever pitch, and bing, just the right guy came along at just the right time.

Rather than cower when the PC zealots did their predictable screaming, his voters embraced it, ran with it, and shoved it right back in the PC zealots' face. And now, it will be President Trump.

The PC zealots are largely responsible for this guy.

Thoughts?
.

Did voters choose Trump because he appeared to be anti PC?

Yes and no. To answer that question, we have to first ask what is PC? It's can't be just trying to avoid offending people because that's what nearly all of us do nearly all of the time, and when we don't, we most often argue we were provoked. The problem with PC arises when our efforts to avoid offending people comes into conflict with our ability to be forthright in our speech or effective in formulating policies.

We have been witnessing this happening with President Obama who wants to talk about combating terrorism, nearly all of which is committed by Muslims who cite their religion or harm being done to their co-religionists as motivation for acts of terror, but continues to deny there is any connection between Islam and terrorism for fear of offending other Muslims, and who has chosen to put the lives of Americans at risk by allowing insufficiently vetted immigrants from countries where terrorists are common because of a fear of offending other Muslims if he refused, this despite the fact our intel agencies have warned that terrorist groups are likely to use this influx of insufficiently vetted Muslims to smuggle in terrorist who will attack Americans. This is a clear case of allowing PC considerations to dangerously alter policy considerations.

Trump, who has a reputation for avoiding offending people in his personal and professional life or arguing he was provoked if he does, just like the rest of us, has not allowed this consideration to alter his assessments of important issues or his policies, so while I doubt many voted for him because he seemed to them anti PC, per se, I believe many voted for him because he clearly did not allow PC considerations to interfere the important work of government as Obama clearly has done and as Clinton promised to do.

 

[Mac1958]

I just made a delightfully brilliant point in another thread, SO delightfully brilliant that it certainly deserves its own thread.



As someone who (a) did not support Trump, but (b) is still virulently anti-PC, it seems pretty clear to me that the one overriding feature of Trump's candidacy that endeared him to his voters was that he is so non-PC.

People had enough of decades of the intellectual dishonesty, cowardice and counter-productive nature of PC, it had built up to a fever pitch, and bing, just the right guy came along at just the right time.

Rather than cower when the PC zealots did their predictable screaming, his voters embraced it, ran with it, and shoved it right back in the PC zealots' face. And now, it will be President Trump.

The PC zealots are largely responsible for this guy.

Thoughts?
.

Did voters choose Trump because he appeared to be anti PC?

Yes and no. To answer that question, we have to first ask what is PC? It's can't be just trying to avoid offending people because that's what nearly all of us do nearly all of the time, and when we don't, we most often argue we were provoked. The problem with PC arises when our efforts to avoid offending people comes into conflict with our ability to be forthright in our speech or effective in formulating policies.

We have been witnessing this happening with President Obama who wants to talk about combating terrorism, nearly all of which is committed by Muslims who cite their religion or harm being done to their co-religionists as motivation for acts of terror, but continues to deny there is any connection between Islam and terrorism for fear of offending other Muslims, and who has chosen to put the lives of Americans at risk by allowing insufficiently vetted immigrants from countries where terrorists are common because of a fear of offending other Muslims if he refused, this despite the fact our intel agencies have warned that terrorist groups are likely to use this influx of insufficiently vetted Muslims to smuggle in terrorist who will attack Americans. This is a clear case of allowing PC considerations to dangerously alter policy considerations.

Trump, who has a reputation for avoiding offending people in his personal and professional life or arguing he was provoked if he does, just like the rest of us, has not allowed this consideration to alter his assessments of important issues or his policies, so while I doubt many voted for him because he seemed to them anti PC, per se, I believe many voted for him because he clearly did not allow PC considerations to interfere the important work of government as Obama clearly has done and as Clinton promised to do.

Agreed, thanks.

Yeah, I wouldn't say it was THE reason by any means, but it clearly added an important energy to his support.

Kind of a daily thumb in the eye of the PC zealots.


.

 

[imawhosure]

How can I say that in the last post, and mark those 1, 2, and 3?

Simple, the only issue that got many conservatives out to vote for him was the Supreme court, the other 2 reasons had him wi

At least you admit you haven't made any substantive argument to support your claim.

We've made that much progress.

You also neglect to see that Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. That destroys your argument as well.

Fabulous, thanks so much.
.

Fabricated? Are you insane?

A crude comment said it private became Trump grabbing pussies left and right. No one ever even said he did it but lefties imploded over it. That's called fabricated outrage, some bullshit think you can go all drama queen over. No one but lefties bought it.

Now see, I go the opposite way this board is voting on this; I believe it was significant, and here is why--------->

Whenever any Republican runs for President and the left attacks him, he softens his tone. Both Bush Presidents did it, and so did Mcain and Romney (especially Romney) when they ran for President. In essence, the GOP theory has been to try and steal a few Democratic voters to push them over the top, and nobody in the GOP but Santorum, would approach union blue collar workers, or even try to engage with black America.

Now, who among you believes that blue collar workers are going to follow some double talking slickster? Not me, because I was union for 31 years. They do NOT speak like that, they speak like Trump! (I know, shocking, isn't it!) None of those people believed in Romney, but they understood what Trump was saying, and the neat thing was......when the Dems called him out, he doubled down! He didn't "panty waist" around, he said it, he owned it. And what he said and owned, was something that the none PC crowd had been saying for years..........illegal immigration was helping to kill our wages, change the country for the worse, and cause more spending to fund welfare.

And so, while every lefty on this board is going to go to the poll numbers when I say this.......the number 1, 2 and 3 reasons Trump got elected were.....

The Supreme Court

Illegal Immigration

and because voters thought he would do his best to deliver, because he was NOT PC, and did NOT back down from his own statements like other politicians always do. He still hasn't!

Thank you.

I knew how the PC zealots would react - denial, don't look at me - but I've been a little surprised by some of the comments from Trump supporters. They seem to think this thread was some kind of back-handed attack, and it's just an honest theory, based directly on what they said a thousand times.

Clearly it played a role, the only question is to what extent. If all it did was increase the resolve of his voters, that still seems significant to me.
.

Most times I go into work about a half-hour early. Me and my coworkers stand around in the parking lot for a BS session. There are the normal guys, and then there are the guys that are out there, and the only thing they are educated on is sports. The normal guys try to stay in one group, but the lower-IQ people can't help but to come over and try to join our discussions.

Of course we are not rude by telling them to go away. We just kind of put up with them. Often we bring up subjects we know they don't understand like politics. Usually they get bored since they have no idea what we are talking about and eventually drift away.

However the last couple of months that strategy didn't work so well. That's because they began talking about what Trump said or what he said he was going to do. They actually knew WTF we were talking about for a change.

I can't say for sure if any of them voted or not. But what I do know is Trump related to more people.

Apparently so. It seems counter-intuitive to me, but it really does look like he has.

Surely a part of the attraction is the fact that, for better or worse, he doesn't pre-measure every word to determine if it may "offend".

There are a lot of people who have had enough of that, far more than I realized.
.

Listen Mac, were it not for Trumps anti PC, he would not have won. Without it, he would not have had the blue collar workers listening to him, and they were the difference, no doubt about it, because THEY WERE THE OUTLIER!

See, Trump will embrace the blue collar workers, the left just tolerated them in their coalition.

Did you ever see a (former) union worker translate what Trump was actually saying to them? I know, if it needs a translation, then it must be PC, but no, it can't be broadcast if actually told them like he would have on a job site------->

"Listen, these god damn people are coming across our border, stealing jobs, taking your money in welfare payments, scaring the hell out of our women, and the Democrats sitting in Hollywood don't give a fuck!" "All they want is someone to clean their god damn mansions for cheap, and get a little deportable pussy on demand when their wives aren't looking." "For Christ's sake, right before the fucking election that god damn socialist/Marxist Obowelmovement, actually tried to convince them to vote for the coal killing hag."

"Lets make America great again and throw these god damn bathroom sharers out of office for fucking good." All they are in truth are touchy, feely, whining, snowflakes, and we better get someone with balls in charge, before they let Iran and the rest of Islamic Jihadists in here, and have all of our women wearing fucking Burkinis!"