Trump won despite spending the least. Advertisers and media failed. What does that mean?

Trumps 2016 victory represents the first time since the 1960s that the winner wasn't the candidate that spent the most, and by a lot. Clinton's campaign machine spent almost half a billion dollars more, and was handed a landslide defeat. This was also true about Brexit. The stay campaign spent a lot more.

Does this say something important about Westerners? Have we reached the point of advertising saturation where we've no longer impacted by it?

If public opinion can't be swayed by clever ads and slogans, or massive fear campaigns, then is one of America's largest industries becoming obsolete?

The intelligence community it seems is mostly focused on controlling what the public thinks, and they too overwhelming supported Clinton, but she still lost.

The media couldn't have been more bias with the positive coverage they gave Clinton vs the negative coverage given to Trump. She still lost.

Maybe the attacks on other alternative news (the so-called fake news) is more about covering up the utter failure of these institutions to control the public discourse anymore?

Is it too late for the 'deep state' to regain the narrative through overt censorship? And is Russia-gate just an excuse to roll out such censorship?

Other urls found in this thread:

mobile.twitter.com/mmfa/status/922847766350405635
youtu.be/Rksd80-FCAw
youtu.be/fRxIhJohkCY
youtube.com/watch?v=VjrlTMvirVo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I would not only agree with all of that, I would say it's pretty obvious.

>Have we reached the point of advertising saturation where we've no longer impacted by it?
I think its more about the fact that the media and government has lied about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again etc and that every one that isn't retarded knows about.

I guess they didn't read the boy who cried wolf.

Yes, but where is it headed.

The deep state is clearly forging ahead with their russiagate/fake news narrative to roll out censorship. We're getting to see just how many social media organisations were part of the ideological status apparatus: Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. This direction is sure to run up against First Amendment advocates, resulting in a public backlash.

If the genie is out of the bottle, and can't be put back, how does the genie respond when forced? Civil war? Trump for 2020?

>Is it too late for the 'deep state' to regain the narrative through overt censorship?
Probably, but they can still try
>And is Russia-gate just an excuse to roll out such censorship?
Perhaps, they might be successful in locking things down if they did some large false flag.

It means they won't make the same mistake twice.

The Trump Campaign outsourced alot of the legwork to the Russians

>It means they won't make the same mistake twice.

So we donate to his campaign next time, like the Sanders commies did... then we beat them again.

>Have we reached the point of advertising saturation where we've no longer impacted by it?
>If public opinion can't be swayed by clever ads and slogans, or massive fear campaigns, then is one of America's largest industries becoming obsolete?

lemme stop you there, because the rest of your points assume that this base logic is correct.

i think Trump's victory is a testament to being controlled by media and image---it doesn't matter at all how much he paid or didn't pay.

Trump got on every channel, every forum, every video, article, etc, simply by being outrageous and pissing off people, and out of the novelty of a TV/business mogul running

someone worked out how much Trump would have had to pay to get that much screen time---I think it was in the billions and billions.

if anything, it shows that funding matters less than character, but the power of image/marketing/branding/etc. is perhaps more alive than ever.

>mfw i still giggle thinking about how everyone's hatred of Trump is literally EXACTLY what boosted his influence so highly and got him elected

Watch this video as media matters explains it to you

mobile.twitter.com/mmfa/status/922847766350405635

Basically we just have way more reach than anything they have got and they are getting scared

Pretty much this, to pretend that paying mattered is a mistake. This guy was in the news every day, for literally anything he could manage, and stayed in the public spotlight.

Meanwhile Hillary and Sanders only managed to scrape into the news when it suited the democrats. Hillary retreating any time another skeleton popped up from her closets, and Bernie anytime the DNC wasn't looking.

Way to much insight into something that may as well have been proof that advertisement presence, regardless of quality or content, is more important than integrity with the elections.

my point is, you're conflating money spent with media dominance.

since it cannot be said that who spends, wins, anymore....then maybe the truth is whoever gets their face out the most, wins.

and that's always been true of elected officials, i'd bet, to some degree.

...

It means
A) Hillary was that disgusting
B) mongrellus-tier populism works

this

...

>implying the left isn't just a rife with populist ideals and idiocy

it's just a different population of retards that the left preys on. to call a politician a populist is mostly a non-point today, and I'm skeptical that that is only a phenomena of america and not a phenomena of the age.

Hillary literally cucked her own party by thing muh feminism is owed a presidency.

A lot of people misunderstand advertising. The goal isn't to change your mind, but to appeal to what you like.

Advertisers focus on creating ads that tell stories to help associate their products with things the consumer likes, wants, or feels they need.

The failure of the media and Hillary's campaign showed they didn't understand what Americans wanted or needed. They thought America viewed being anti-immigration as racist, that we viewed men wanting to sleep with women as sexist, and so on. Everything they tried using in ads showed they didn't understand. They put forth Khizr Khan, a guy whose son died in a war Hillary voted for, as a spokesman for Muslims being oppressed by Trump and his supporters even while Americans could hear stories of Muslims killing people nearly every week. They trotted out a woman that helped a bank robber and who Trump had helped in the past when she was going to be in breach of contract for gaining too much weight as an example of women that Trump was acting sexist against.

It was all too absurd.

Hillary could have won had she not focused so much on racial politics. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are even decent about this. They of course still fail to STAY away from racial politics because their base has changed from mainstream America to purely racist minorities and bat shit insane left wingers who all demand their party officials talk about racial politics should Trump ever mention anything they consider a "dog whistle" (which is most anything). So luckily Trump and Trump style Republicans have an easy path to victory for a good long while ahead in spite of the MSM.

Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of Trump's media coverage was negative, and that should have lost Trump supporters. Especially how the DNC focused on the message that people were voting for Trump because they were like Trump.

That little phrase they kept saying over and over: sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist..

The DNC message was anyone who voted for Trump was all of those things. Ask any leftist, they'll repeat that exact phrase in that exact order. That message sunk in.

Yet people still voted for Trump.

Similar negative campaign accusing people of being racist if they voted for Brexit. Didn't work.

In France and Germany, the same campaign strategy worked. If you vote for Le Pen or AfD you're a Nazi.

Well populism is pretty easy to understand:
>make your supporters scream lock her up, sell that illusion, give a shit then
>make people shout drain the swamp, fill that swamp with GS, Bilderberger and whatever con you come up with
>tell people to fight islamic terror, sell 350k billion of weapons to SA
These are all populistic con actions.
I unironically understand you didn't want to vote for Hillary as a person, but why you now suck off this shrivel unquestioned is something I don't actually understand.
I mean you would be standing on burning barricades with your AR15 if some of those measures had been done by Democrats.
Why is it so difficult electing somebody and then watch him close once he's in power?
Same goes for leftists.

I'm honestly hoping for a civil war. This country will never be ideologically repaired or restored to the greatness that it used to be. I think Trump knew this, and it's one of the reasons why he appealed so hard to the patriot groups, hardcore conservatives and right wing Americans in general.

i agree with most of your analysis, and clearly you're a smart slice of bread, but technically speaking, the popular vote does show that hillary convinced more people of her message, strictly numerically

also, most of Trump's slogans and ideas were considered retarded and far-fetched by people who voted for him, they just hated hillary even more (though the same could be said of clinton)

they liked what trump represented as a character, if you will. they liked his tone, his style, but undeniably, his words are mostly retarded, and i am a fan of the guy.

i think it's more this, coupled with a resentment of SJWs and perceived cultural degeneracy (like extreme feminism and race baiting, anti-white sentiments) that Hillary became the figurehead for

it means Trump is a fed

>That little phrase they kept saying over and over: sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist

This tactic is probably very much a double-edged sword. They're making Trump-voters subtly tolerant of being called these things, and anti-Trumpers more tolerant of such people labeled as such because suddenly a lot of normal people are forcefully fit into them.

>The deep state is clearly forging ahead with their russiagate/fake news narrative to roll out censorship.
Trump is definitely deepstate

you can tell because of that time in 1989 the mob tried to kill him and failed

yes, as i said, i agreed with you. it's just our options were only populist.

i was pointing out that hillary and bernie were populist candidates to (populist meaning appealin to lower classes against a privileged elite)

their entire rhetoric was based on perceived oppressed classes and genders, in-debt students, and the evils of rampant capitalist/corporatists who are bleeding the country dry

(yes i know hillary and clinton are themselves the elite, but so is trump, and that doesn;t stop him from being a populist)

i didn't vote, btw. just watched the chaos like a true ineffectual faggot. im sure you can empathize with that, ancestorbro

>hillary and clinton are themselves the elite, but so is trump,
Trump isn't elite, he's a loud mouth kid from queens whose grandfather was a busker until he opened a whorehouse during the klondike gold rush

Internet and social media changed everything. Grassroots campaigns and movements beat advertisement any day now. Same reason people would rather stay in and watch a twitch stream than go to a theater and see a movie. Genuine is the most valuable marketing tool right now.

I would have probably voted for a third party I guess, just because that 2-party system is in meltdown anyway.
What I don't understand is this:
You elected Trump, you gave him a chance, it didn't work out like expected.
You don't shut up or even criticize him but instead suddenly shill for the stuff you hated a few years ago??
Is this american either / or mentality?
Like 'enemy of my enemy is a friend?
>dems want investigation / WTF putin is /ourguy/ now
>dems say something is wrong / WTF it must be right then

I mean seriously..what is this?
Why is pol or anybody who voted form him so shy about testing the Donald?

Analysis I read said that Clinton's warmongering, particularly the 'no fly zone' in Syria was a key factor for a lot of voters who voted against her.

People understood that a no-fly zone translated directly to declaration of war, and that war with Russia they didn't want.

That could also be why Russia is the all-purpose bad guy. Maybe the deep state identified that Americans didn't hate Russia enough to be totally on-board with the idea of war. That would be bad, as it means war with Russia is definitely on the books.

Read The Decline of the West, specifically the parts about Democracy and the rise of the Caesar.
Oswald Spengler was basically a prophet.

Could you give some examples of flipflopping? I think this place has always liked Putin. And you shouldn't watch media which uses Neuro Linguistic Programming on you, like the MSM, at all.

sure, but couple a trend of distrusting the media (which is something that started long before this campaign), you're gonna do exactly the opposite of what the perceived liars are telling you to do.

also, more locally and socially speaking, people had been sick of having to apologize for whiteness, sick of the media's guilty conscience portrayal of minority classes, sick of having to put up with extreme feminists and BLM and all that annoying, pseudo-revolutionary virtue signaling
>this meant that people were used to being called racists, nazis, etc. because people had been making statements like "all whites are inherently racist" for years. really backfired on 'em. they made the term meaningless, and almost a badge of honor.

so the negative reaction was expected, and when a bunch of people keep condascending to you about how shitty something is, you start wondering if they are lying to you

it's retarded logic, but it really is the same as when your grandma puts the cookie jar on the top shelf, you want it even more and devise all these schemes to get up there

ADDRESSING YOUR OTHER POINTS

>Brexit
Britain is the ex-global superpower
still strongly nationalistic and elitist
also, physically an island, which seems like a simple point, but it certainly factors into the psychology of the decision
>would have been harder for Brexit to pass if Britain was on mainland europe
>also, more insidiously, don't forget that the US especially, but certainly UK, too, always had their share of people who flirted with fascism/racial superiority/hitler fantasies

>France
(this is where i am less confident in my argument)
more love-conquers-all, idealistic nation
despise nazis more because they had to fight them in a closer proximity (im not undermining how much britain got fucked in WW2, i realize that)
also, the races in US and UK were close, so it stands to reason that the right wouldn;t win them all

>Germany
hahahaha
waaayyyy tooo much guilt after ww2

Russians played both side to sow discord. It's pretty fucking obvious.

However, there's so far no evidence of your exact statement (yet), which means it's currently false.

She refined her statement regarding this topic many times.
She said the US would never impose such a NF zone on their own, it had to be done with a backing from UN council of whatever.
As if she declared Syria a NF zone the moment she was elected.
Also why do americans come up with this but don't realize the Donald just initiated a new (nuclear) arms race with Russia?
Much worse.

>I think this place has always liked Putin
Putin is a fucking scumbag and if you disagree, then you're either a LARPing faggot or don't know shit about Russian politics. He's a fucking ex-KGB agent parading around as an authoritarian patriarch of Russia. Even when Medvedev had his spot, he still ran the country.

t. no meme flag

hope this is really good bait or...

yeah, you bought the propaganda full-on, kiddo.

i'm not saying he doesn't have blue-collar stylings and an anti-globalist message, but to say Trump is not an elite is just full retard. sorry.

I don't care about you or what you have to say, and I didn't even give my own opinion on the man.

>the popular vote does show that hillary convinced more people of her message, strictly numerically

She only had the popular vote due to getting higher turnout due to getting higher turnout in regions already aligned with her. This was even a stated strategy of her team since they wanted to make sure they got the popular vote.

That's just preaching to the choir rather than really convincing people to agree with her.

>they liked what trump represented as a character, if you will. they liked his tone, his style, but undeniably, his words are mostly retarded, and i am a fan of the guy.

It's true that the language he uses when speaking to the American public can sound simplistic, but that's a strategy of his that's been molded by seeing the reception he received at rallies. You can compare what you see in rallies he's done during the presidency of his versus what he did in the congressional hearing in 1991 where he sounds much less boisterous and more intelligent.

youtu.be/Rksd80-FCAw

But a relatively more recente change I like to point out that occurred in Trump's language over the course of his campaigning was the way he went from talking about corporate inversion to "we have to bring the money back". He likely noticed that not as many people understood what corporate inversion was so he tried dumbing down his language on the subject so that the average American could understand it more easily. It does make him sound a bit retarded, but it works.

youtu.be/fRxIhJohkCY

I could give endless examples. Do you want some from the US population getting played by this or the Donald flipflopping?
>dems may have sold Uranium to Russia / WTF Putin is innocent
>let's talk about not giving every mong access to high powered weaponry / WTF they want to take our guns guys
>Drain the swamp / Fill it with exxon-cons, GS, Bilderberger, ex-pharma-managers
>muh FED bad / let's elect an ex-banker with no education in economy as it's next chairman
>SA is a terror state / let's sworddance with them to sell 350k of weaponry
>muh police state incoming / Trump wants to provide military equipment to regular police, so awesome!

In america it's always either / or it seems.

thanks

I've wondered about that. I know he seems to show two ways of speaking. Regular Joe Trump and Business Exec Trump.

I live in North Georgia. I voted, and I know dozens if not hundreds of others who voted. Overwhelmingly so, albeit anectodal, the reason people voted Trump is because he expresses patriotism, vigor, and strength... where Clinton comes across as a slimy, America-hating 'feminist' with a shady past.

Trump proudly screams "MURICA", Clinton comes across as thinking America is scum, a tool for her to use to further her dynastic wants.

This is a simple, but very important reality.

Most voters don't know anything about politics, history, facts, etc. What they do know is what the candidate looks like, sounds like, and the impression that person gives off.

Clinton's charisma is that of a gravedigger turned meth dealer.
Trump 'feels' like a patriotic, fat white guy who wants to uncuck the nation.

This means more than anything else, in the big numbers game.

haha it's irrelevant, redundant, meaningless, etc. to criticize trump.

clearly the guy is a bit daft, a demagogue, mentally unsound, and underqualified.

would me posting that before any of my points really help? all i did was give a pretty solid statement that answered OP's question. you are assuming a lot about me based on your impression of other, more retarded americans on this board. i don't get into the whole mess over who is better or worse.

my only silver-lining in Trump is that we are going to see a definite change from the stale, dead-eyed politics of the past. he opens the door for a really diverse (in a meaningful sense) set of candidates in the future---which could be good. i personally don't believe that career politicians should be president. i more align with the idea that they should just have solid values and integrity, or at least some proven skill in the world that actually lends itself to leading a nation (something trump and clinton lacked in many ways)

also why are you trying to be combative? it's possible to talk about politics without falling clearly on a pro or con side. i just find it all interesting at an anthropological level, and think the chaos of this election will set an interesting precedent for the future. and you can't say, and I can't say if that will be a good or a bad future. i'm optimistic....darkest before the dawn and all that haha...but i could be wrong

This was a popular thing for us to point out on Sup Forums when Trump was first started to campaign.

He'd have press conference mode versus interview mode versus rally mode. The rally mode probably was the most relaxed form of Trump speaking where he's trying to use the simplest language possible.

if you guys think that this actually was a main focal point in the election that would sway someone to trump or clinton, it is very clear that you are not american.

not trying to be rude, it is really cool getting your perspective, but that of all things, is almost too logical of a reason to choose trump haha. you're giving us too much credit

both candidates had the insult of war-mongering thrown to them plenty, rendering it mostly meaningless.

Well the key to any successful business venture is to get the most for your money. I'd say Trump did that and then some.

You misunderstand. It's not about Trump. It's about what Trump's election represents. It's a threat to the century-old establishment and corruption of D.C. It doesn't matter if Trump is himself corrupt; the system was bought and paid for him to win.

People support Trump because Trump has come to symbolize more than Trump. It isn't about the flawed loudmouth real estate mogul anymore; that's why attacking Trump doesn't bother Trump supporters. It isn't about him.

It's about what he symbolizes, the movement that put him in place, as a representative, willing or otherwise, of the US People offering a stern warning to the Zionist elite that we aren't quite under yolk yet.

Criticizing the policy, trump, etc means nothing. It's down to guns and feelings for most actual Americans, except for delusional city-cucks who live in Coffee shops and think they have a grasp on the average 'rural retard' (e.g. the silent majority).

yes, this is far closer to the truth.
it's a much more tribal, abstract reasoning for one or the other.

kinda funny that people think they could accurately point to one blemish on the record of hillary.

>system was bought and paid for Clinton to win****

Events like gamergate and the shooting of 'gentle giant' Mike Brown caused a massive drop in respect for traditional media.

I quite like him. He seems like a cool guy.
youtube.com/watch?v=VjrlTMvirVo

The reason Trump won was ultimately it was him vs Clinton.

Clinton is basically the embodiment of everythng that the people were sick of: A powerful and controlling Neo-Liberal Establishment corrupt politician with Political Correctness and Post-Modernist fakery.

Trump on the campaign was the complete opposite and basically turned Post-Modernists against themselves to basically show how stupid they truly are.

Plus, the chaos that would have came would be hilarious.

Civil War if people are over the top. People are resorting to alternative media and tech to get passed the (((mainstream media))).

The Media is the ultimate divider that is amplifying tensions and did everything they could to bury Obama's failures and scandals.

people assume if you talk in an even slightly positive tone about the trump phenomena you are saying that trump is a really competent, really great leader.

> trump phenomena > trump
which is the only way to put it, because Trump the individual is irrelevant, he is literally just the subconscious manifestation of a lot of frustration and resentment, coupled with a few actualy white supremacists and maga retards who actually suck him off

Yes I understand that, this election was about personality not agenda.
What I don't get is why is everybody sucking him off now? Because muh better than Hillary?
That's a lame excuse if it is used for years to come.
It seems he can basically do what he wants now and nobody actually cares..again some of the stuff he is doing would have up your fence if the democrats did it.
I mean that's not what you elected him for?

Also do you understand that you are actually doing containment politics to your own country?
Call it america first, but you have never been this isolated in the world. Years you tried to contain the chinese (TTIP wink wink) but now you do it to yourself while Russia / China emerge as the new leaders of this world.
Just yesterday Iran, Syria and Turkey had a press conference about the future of Syria..no US anywhere despite millions and millions for military support and involvement in Syria.
You imply Putin may be your fuckbuddy now, but he sure isn't. He is KGB, a patriot and has never forgot what your country did to Russia.
Who else is cheering? Israel and SA..
It's just weird.

thanks canada....

I'm not trying to be comabatative, just asking why people support him no matter what he does now.
I also think he cracked open old structures.
But then again I also see him fill the next best swamp.

I don't know a lot about the issue, but even I understand that a NFZ means foreign air power coming in to bomb a sovereign nations military installations, in particular the air bases, eliminating air superiority so that foreign-backed forces on the ground, the so-called 'moderate' terrorists, can be more successful. We've all seen what happened in Libya; the rise of Islamic State and the refugee crisis.

Russia isn't going to agree to a UN resolution that grounds its air power, or allows foreign air power to bomb its air base in Syria. They'd veto any such resolution, meaning there'd be no UN consensus. NATO would have to act without UN approval (as they often do), and that would be a declaration of war. Everyone understand on both sides of politics understood this.

The left is seems thought the novelty of the first woman President was worth WW3.

>ex-KGB

so? That's badass.

I'm not pretending to know Putin or the complexities of Russian government but I like him because he is a strong leader who does all sorts of badass shit. He clearly loves his country and his people and won't bow to (((them))). He is like every Russian stereotype rolled into one. Albeit he is definitely a shady figure, with the suspicious murders of his rivals and the tag-team relationship he has with Medvedev for the last decade+. But perhaps that is forgivable if it all leads to the survival and prosperity of the Russian people.

It wasn't that long ago that the USSR was in ruins and Russia had lost the significant world-wide influence it has only very recently regained. That was all Putin.

thanks for your insight.
For what I can tell these people will be bitterly disappointed once reality kicks in.
That's the problem with populism:
High expectations oh muh murrica best can't be fulfilled and then it gets nasty.
You may very well have a new civil war because of this.

>Analysis I read said that Clinton's warmongering, particularly the 'no fly zone' in Syria was a key factor for a lot of voters who voted against her.
>People understood that a no-fly zone translated directly to declaration of war, and that war with Russia they didn't want.
That was my biggest reason desu. However my impression is that Americans are too ignorant and fed on propaganda to think of issues like that. I live in SoCal: nobody cares about geopolitics unless it's time for the Russian(or other) boogeyman to distract from internal issues; nobody cares about human nature except to find ways to sell things better; nobody reads anything except trashy mags, low-tier fiction, and Bibles printed en Español

I didn't say that, I unironically think it was all about the old elites people like Hillary represented.
Those self-fulfilled individuals who thought that if they could just pour enough money into a campaign-as-usual american can be tricked to vote for them again.
It's actually the same over here:
No party represents me or my interests.
It's either old boomers who think everything will go easy as the last 40 years or some populists with a bizarre mix of ideas which have nothing to do with real-world-2.0-realities.

>d to bury Obama's failures and scandals
This is true. I couldn't help but notice that the US debt doubled under Obama; yet, he's talked about as if he was an economic success.

this is a website of trolls. i doubt most trumptards are as dumb as you think.
to suck off the trump, the king of trolls, is really just a way to troll. it's guaranteed to get attention

don't get me wrong, some americans are really that retarded and really buy into the whole cult

next...

>what has trump done that we accepted, but wouldve hated democrats for?
>and don't answer with stuff that relates to temprament or gaffes or sensationalist shit, give me real policy.

>never been this isolated in the world
this is hyperbolic. no one can afford to blacklist the USA just because of one guy (even if he is the president), and the global eyes on american politics certainly don't seem to denote an isolation to me...

>to your point of putin

here i agree with you completely. it seems clear to me that clinton would have been far tougher on russia, and probably has a tense history with Putin

it makes me sad when people don't realize that Putin clearly wanted a more malleable buffoon who he knew he could steamroll over with KGB mind games

but then, i also believe putin when he says, rather earnestly, that he wants better relations with america, and why not? im sure he hopes to pull the wool over trump a bit, but he certainly stands to gain a lot from being friendlier with russia, and so to do we americans. russia and america have many common enemies.

>muh KGB badass
You are naive user.
You assume he is your friend now, but the reason his country isn't prospering is because of (You).
He sure hasn't forgot about that.
Just look at Europe:
It was was because of muh merrica our supermarkets are now full of US products while you will be hard-pressed to find ONE russian item.
Your country has humiliated russia many decades, you may have forgot about it, KGB hasn't.

but you still don't get it, people don't support HIM no matter what, they support the movement behind him.

i know that sounds a bit over-simplified and kinda gay, but he really was a rebellious, fuck the world candidate. a true chaos candidate.

what's the point of judging chaos, negatively or positively? especially when most people are already doing it negatively. Sup Forums is not a very good meter for how americans actually feel about TRUMP, even those who voted for him.

Russia was a nightmare through the 1990s. A leader would have to be ruthless to take on the gangsters that had complete control of the country and come out on top.

We have a lot to clean up internally, and most Americans aren't big on "World first, America second". Isolationism is fine by most actual Americans; most don't respond well or sympathetically when told about billions of foreign aid dollars thrown at places like Israel or Zimbabwe. We have our own starving people, and most Americans would prefer to see everyone in Africa starve before a single American. It just doesn't translate into the calculating, measured papers and 'schools'.

Again, "Suburban Retards" vs the ZOG elite and zeitgeist-driven city-bloc and their pet victim-status minorities.

>Cheerin trump on despite bla bla
Who? Who is doing this? Where are you reading it? Sup Forums?? The NYT? HuffPo? Fox News? Speak with actual Americans person to person and ask about their thoughts, you'd get a better answer and a better feel for this than you're pretending to understand here. Not a combative response, it just seems like you have a powerful conception and opinion of Americans worldviews, without actually being based in anything but bait posts and stereotypes thrown at you by your media.

You're welcome. Yeah, it's likely if Trump continues failing his constituency that shit will get uglier in a matter of years. We'll see, i guess.

We agree, this site is mostly shitposting anyway.
I unironically believe Trump is containing / isolating the US.
Why? I don't know. Maybe he really is a russian plant, maybe he just has no clue about real-world economical situation of the US?
I mean he unironically wants to compete with China in basic manufacturing again, that's pure braindead retardation.
You could only compete by A:
Devaluating the dollar crushing your savings and accumulation of wealth by importing the trade surplus of the world with a strong currency.
or by B:
Paying as less as them and let americans have similar working conditions.
I really don't get it.

again, each side was populist...moot point.

every single presidential candidate doesn't live up to campaign promises. clearly this is your first election haha

youre discounting the large number of people who voted for trump---despite realizing he was hot air. i'd bet less than 1/4 of all americans (and that's generous) actually thought Trump would be able to do any of this shit.

>high expectations can't be fulfilled
ever hear of obama? this is not new

>new civil war
are you a russian bot? we'll be fine. we are a robust people who chew up all of our heroes in time.

Ok I agree with that.
But if people would support the 'movment' behind it why would they allow him to shatter it by doing a 180 on key issues? That's what I don't understand.

i can't disagree with you at all here. that is patently retarded.

he won because they let him win

It's a bit like (insert any middle-eastern country here). They have ruthless dictator-like leaders, but when those leaders are taken away, the country is taken over by extremists and the situation for the people of the country gets significantly worse.

We think we can go around installing beta male leaders like Trudeau all over the place, but all that does is allow criminal gangs / extremist groups to de facto rule.

A leader must be stronger than the people, which is why Trudeau works in Canada, but no where else.

Thanks for all your time and insight. Gotta go now but I sure learned something.
It's kind of refreshing not having to answer muh muhammad every comment.

Really? It means Hillary was just that shit.

well the truth is really sad. because elections or public favour aren't decided on by actual actions or policy.

it's all romantic abstractions and feelings.

it's a glorified popularity contest, and most of us are too busy masturbating or doing drugs or buying fast cars and big houses and getting money and shitposting and social media and blach blach blah


bill burr has a great bit about trump (which is true of the american mindset in general), it goes osmething like...

"all these people make posts about how america is crumbling, how trump is hitler, how the world is ending, how ww3 is coming, and then 2 minutes later they post a funny dog video"

we are just a bunch of decadent, bored faggots who like to LARP as revolutionaries (on both political sides) in order to give us the illusion of having a meaningful existence that's not based around luxury, consumption, vanity, and inane entertainment

im gonna kill myself i think

Did you also count the rubles they gave you to shill on pol?

Just stating my opinion.

There was an Obongo Boy that made a thread here 2 weeks ago and he couldn't argue the 6T debt. You could generate all the jobs you wanted, but what good is that if you are in massive debt skyrocketed by Obummercare.
The only point he could make was Reagan had a massive debt pool himself which was largely caused by Cold War/government spending, but the GDP and economy growth countered the debt losses.

yes it was a real pleasure talking with you, too, friendo.

made me realize all of this , so i learned a lot, too. shattered ideals and what not

Power lies where men believe it lies, its a trick, an illusion, a shadow on the wall and a very small man can cast a very large shadow----Lord Varys

If Hillary couldn't get into the WH, then the media, intelligence, advertising and other general bullshitters are loosing their mojo, lack of belief is crippling them.

We as the west must be skeptical of everything til proven, question more authority and think for ourselves, then things will pick up

>I unironically believe Trump is containing / isolating the US.

But maybe isolation is the answer?

Do Americans really care about spending $700+ billion a year on having 800+ bases abroad? Do Americans really care about subsidising Europe's regional security? Or being in the middle-east forever because, Israel?

Isolation would be a reduction of forces abroad, reducing US responsibility for policing the world, and in turn reducing defence spending--or at least making it more nationalistic in nature.

I mean, THAADs placed in all ally nations aren't going to help mainland America when a submarine launches a nuke from a few hundred kilometres off the coast of NYC. For that same investment, every region of the US could be covered by overlapping air defences like Russia and China both have. That's to me is a more realistic national security doctrine.

If huge savings are made in defence spending, that could be put into infrastructure or rebooting the American industrial powerhouse.

The media has a compulsion which generated him billions in free advertising. He simply played them.

>It's not about Trump. It's about what Trump's election represents.
This resonates with me. I thought of him as a buffoon, a loudmouthed attention-seeking clown. I thought that's all he was going to amount to in the election. But I have despised Hillary since the 1990s.
>some time around here is when MSM boosted him in the hopes of making the GOP candidate a joke candidate
Then all of a sudden he rises to a small fraction of the GOP pie, and Sup Forums keeps talking about him. Why is Sup Forums boosting this guy so much? It didn't make sense to me. I still to this day don't know why Sup Forums supported him so much so early. Remember, this is before the media machine went into full-antiTrump mode.
>some time around here is when the machine realized he had a real chance. Their golem turned on them in record time.
He suddenly gets slammed with negative press over an un-PC remark about Latin American immigrants. The amount of negative press is so huge that I cannot help but notice that the establishment really wants to bring this guy down. I blow it off at first, until it keeps happening again and again. Why is the scummy MSM so intent on bringing him down? If they hate him so much, does that mean he's good for me? Meanwhile his support in the public and on Sup Forums has absolutely exploded. The attacks have backfired, almost doubling the intensity of his public support. I'd better read more about this Trump guy.
>around here is when the MSM started flinging sexual assault allegations at him
Had almost no belief in the accusations right from the beginning. Disgusted at an obvious smear campaign, I start to FEEL more pro-Trump. THINKING more pro-Trump has yet to come.
>now some of the accusers are represented by (((Gloria Allred)))
Okay, now I am convinced. The sexual assault accusations are bullshit, and Trump has to be the real deal for the machine to attack him like this. Why do they fear him so much?

anyway more shit happened and I voted for him

Media too is a business, and ratings matter. Trump was a roller coaster ride to watch, while Clinton was like watching a corpse cough up flies.

The US has had manufacturing facilities competing with China for years because it made more economic sense to produce the goods in the US due to the poor quality of the Chinese goods coupled with the cost of transporting goods to the US.

If you're not aware of all that then you yourself have about as poor an understanding of the US economic situation as those that think we require immigrants to act as fruit pickers for places like California's grape farms.

i'd be weary of drinking too much of the kool-aid. while i agree with your sentiment and empathize, there are clear concessions made with trump as president, and some pretty nasty ones at that, both locally and abroad. it's good to recognize that.

to say he's not perfect is an understatement. that anons point was more to say that the individual Trump doesn't matter, it's more abstract than that.

don't go full cult of personality. not trying to be condescending, i hope you don't take it that way, because you are clearly an articulate enough fella

Only reason why HRC won the popular vote is because California's elections are fixed.

>there are clear concessions made with trump as president, and some pretty nasty ones at that, both locally and abroad. it's good to recognize that.
I do. But in the context of recent history and what I imagined for the near future, he's a huge improvement. A very messed-up *X* is a huge improvement on an *X* that is so bad it's basically the personification of evil. A septic tank is a huge improvement on a vial of VX.

>I'd be weary of drinking too much of the kool-aid.
absolutely agree

>That's badass.
I'm sure you'd think the same if you were kept in a concrete cubicle for weeks because you don't agree that Lenin was the greatest man on Earth.

I find it strange, in a democracy, that Americans can vote without some form of identification and/or a voter register.

Here we have to vote (or face a fine), and every person that is eligible to vote is on a voter registry. You have to be a citizen to vote, so can't be on the registry unless you are.

In America, it seems quite possible for millions of Canadians, or Mexicans, or illegal immigrants to vote, and those votes be counted towards the popular vote. How is that even considered a democracy?

Personally I don't agree with mandatory voting, as I think not voting is a democratic choice. However, a register does make it impossible for anyone to vote twice without being caught out. There's none of this busing people around to vote multiple times that the DNC agents caught out in Project Veritas talked about so matter-of-factly.

>Trump won despite spending the least.

No one knows how much the Kremlin spent, I guarantee it was more than what the democrats had.

>voter register

You do have to register to vote in the US. The problem arises that there are few safeguards from unscrupulous workers involved in the voting process so it's possibly they could register dead people or people that shouldn't be allowed to register.

Like in California they let illegals get driver's licenses, while at the same time they say you can register to vote when getting a license. Technically illegals are just getting a different type of license from a citizen's, but they're still going through the same general process of going to a DMV where a worker could just enter their data wrong and let them register to vote.

>He likely noticed that not as many people understood what corporate inversion was so he tried dumbing down his language on the subject so that the average American could understand it more easily. It does make him sound a bit retarded, but it works.
I think this is a good point. I imagine lot of Americans are tired of politicians talking down to them, using highminded language in that politician style every congressdick uses when giving prepared speeches.
I also think Trump recognized that it served to distinguish him from the smooth-talking teleptompter-reading jerkoff who preceeded him.

You think the Russians spent more than $1.4 billion on the US election?

Facebook made a big song and dance about $100,000 worth of ads. Less than half of that in swing states, and ads were pretty evenly for or against Clinton. That means that at most, sources from within Russia (not necessarily the Russian government) spent $25,000 to support Trump on Facebook.

An individual on an average salary in Moscow could afford this. And you think that swayed the election? Less than 1% of the US population watches RT. Perhaps that 1% gave Trump the landslide victory?

You must be Ukrainian..

>I imagine lot of Americans are tired of politicians talking down to them
Absolutely.

Trump has made it a point to often be extremely positive when talking about anyone whether it people working in trades, manufacturing, or wall street. A nice departure from what politicians would typically do where they'd speak of people that were blue collar workers as though they're people to be pitied.

>Do Americans really care about spending $700+ billion a year on having 800+ bases abroad? Do Americans really care about subsidising Europe's regional security? Or being in the middle-east forever because, Israel?

Not so long ago, I would have answered, unequivocally yes. I voted Dubya twice, was all about invading Afghanistan and Iraq, joined the military at the height of our Iraqi Adventure. Any suggestion of cuts in military spending pissed me off. In short, neocon as fuck.
I slowly came to the realization that a lot of the problems elsewhere in the world were our own doing. Maybe a bit of American isolationism will do the world some good. We have enough of problems here at home; we don't need to be "fixing" things all over the world.