Lots of reasons but a big part is that Trump gives them someone to blame without giving any real answers. I don't have time right now to expand but I'll give one good example.

- Loss of coal jobs?

Trump: we will bring them back! Those others (Obama, Clinton, etc) want them gone!

Reality: it was a dying industry and those people should have been preparing and being helped for years. Sadly, government is a dirty word to so many in these areas that they don't seem to understand that this is EXACTLY why government should exist. I honestly can't remember if it was Clinton or Sanders but one of them actually proposed a training program with clean energy jobs. But what is going to resonate to middle-aged under-educated skeptics more? Learning skills with the help of a government program or some loudmouth promising their old world will be restored?

Basically a long way of saying there are many non-racist reasons why people would support Trump. There are also a lot of explicit and subtle racist reasons. These aren't mutually exclusive.

10/3/2016 9:09:29 PM

Quote :

"Trump never denied calling her that. In fact, he doubled down on his comments. But you're too fucking stupid to understand the whole situation anyway, so why am I bothering?"

Oh please, enlighten me with the Clinton News Network's calculated smear campaign talking points?

^ Can we redefine "racist" ITT since the SJWs/leftists have completely overused it to the point where it is meaningless?

10/3/2016 9:42:18 PM

Great response. Really.

10/3/2016 10:12:29 PM

Maybe I should have dumbed it down to your level and just said "you're too stupid".

10/4/2016 12:14:14 AM

If you run into an asshole in the morning....

10/4/2016 7:13:46 AM

Lol, did Julian Assange purposefully troll the entire right this morning? Or is he just completely insane from confinement?

10/4/2016 7:19:54 AM

lol at people that stayed up til 3am for that crap

10/4/2016 7:36:02 AM

Don't you worry, THERES MORE TO COME, Julian said so.

10/4/2016 7:40:25 AM

i can hear earl's sobs from New York Avenue

10/4/2016 9:50:22 AM

Quote :

" ignoring all of thier greviences."

please list the grievances trump supporters have that the democratic party is ignoring. and I mean the real ones.

for example: "killary wants to outlaw gunzzz" isn't a real grievance.

eliminating coal is. which is why she has addressed that and wants to invest $30B to revitalize coal communities https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/

[Edited on October 4, 2016 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2016 10:24:54 AM

I bet the "specific information" that caused assange to move his announcement was that no one cares

10/4/2016 10:53:34 AM

Quote :

"he did promise to publish information regarding the presidential election “every week for the next 10 weeks.” Assange denied that he was specifically targeting Clinton with his document dumps, insisting that some of his statements have been misconstrued. He added that WikiLeaks will publish leaked documents on war, oil, Google and mass surveillance in addition to the U.S. election. “It’s a variety of documents, from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting, some even entertaining”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/04/wikileaks-to-publish-presidential-election-docs-every-week-for-next-10-weeks.html

10/4/2016 11:02:37 AM

i look forward to seeing what russian documents the kremlin vetted for him to "leak"

10/4/2016 3:43:12 PM

the deepend is saying they are waiting to leak so the democrats don't have time to promote a Kaine ticket after hillary is out.

10/4/2016 3:54:07 PM

funny. that's what r/the_donald was saying 2 months ago. good to see the loons are consolidating around a central alternative reality

10/4/2016 4:18:01 PM

something tells me Hillary could drop out on 11/7 and a good majority of folks would still show up to vote for "not the donald."

10/4/2016 4:35:00 PM

huh?

10/4/2016 5:47:55 PM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Trump has no endorsements.

Many newspapers endorsing a democrat for the first time ever, or first time in decades, or the first endorsement of a non-republican.

10/5/2016 8:54:59 PM

so you're saying newspapers support corporate interests?

10/5/2016 11:47:09 PM

Quote :

"Honestly just search any Jewish reporter on twitter and read the responses."

My cousin didn't support Trump in the primaries, but he hates Hillary and all things "liberal" because to him it's a dirty word and he's never given me an actual reason beyond trite accusations of liberals being sissies who want everything while working for nothing.

So I brought up the fact that as Jews, if we allow Muslims to be banned and black communities to become further segregated, we're opening the door for the same thing to happen to us. But that doesn't matter one bit, because "Killary e-mails."

I've met a few other Jews who are voting for Trump, and I just can't wrap my head around why they would even consider it.

10/6/2016 5:20:55 AM

I'm sure Trump himself is not an antisemite (isn't Jared Kushner Jewish?). But it is undeniable that he has really allowed that underbelly of American society to come back in the open.

10/6/2016 8:57:42 AM

There was that incident where he referred to Jewish stereotypes while talking to a Jewish organization. And that time he said he wanted Jewish guys handling his money, not black people.

10/6/2016 9:53:51 AM

Quote :

"so you're saying newspapers support corporate interests?"

if newspapers only cared about supporting corporate interests, they'd all endorse Johnson because of his bullshit proposal to eliminate all corporate taxes.

10/6/2016 11:27:21 AM

he would also eliminate government subsidies and programs that indirectly serve corporate interests. It's much cheaper for them to pay their taxes and have the government function in their interests than to be on their own completely.

10/6/2016 1:35:55 PM

i love that you, once a bernie supporter, have such a hard on for defending johnson.

did you buy you Chicago Cubs ballcap yet, or are you waiting till after they win it all?

10/6/2016 1:52:40 PM

It's almost as if the endorsements correlate with the donations.

Trump doesn't owe favors to corporations = bad thing because the media says so

10/6/2016 3:20:12 PM

he's got the most fantastic narrative

10/6/2016 3:49:48 PM

You've been in full on troll mode. Gotta say it's better than spamming a question 100 times just so you can create a strawman argument tho

10/6/2016 6:36:32 PM

I just really like your vocabulary

10/6/2016 6:44:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure Trump himself is not an antisemite (isn't Jared Kushner Jewish?). But it is undeniable that he has really allowed that underbelly of American society to come back in the open."

Quote :

"There was that incident where he referred to Jewish stereotypes while talking to a Jewish organization. And that time he said he wanted Jewish guys handling his money, not black people."

And the crooked-Hillary add that implied she was taking Jewish money. 75% of Jewish voters typically go Democrat. I'm expecting this election to be closer to 90% based on this: Of all campaign donations by Jewish supporters in 2016, 96% have gone to Clinton. Obama only received 71% of Jewish donations in 2012.

10/6/2016 6:57:44 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

So it looks like clintons gains are coming at the expense of Johnson voters, but there's a lot of Johnson and stein voters left to pick off. It wouldn't surprise me to see, if trump puts in a decent debate performance, enough of these voters go to trump.

10/6/2016 7:18:39 PM

Quote :

"Trump doesn't owe favors to corporations = bad thing because the media says so "

Nope. Just owes the state controlled bank of China.

10/6/2016 8:59:54 PM

I have been waiting the whole election cycle for him to really start ranting about China... other than the standard (and mostly outdated) China is taking out jobs!

10/6/2016 9:05:03 PM

Quote :

"i love that you, once a bernie supporter, have such a hard on for defending johnson. did you buy you Chicago Cubs ballcap yet, or are you waiting till after they win it all?"

Don't label me as a supporter of a man. I'm a progressive but fortunately, that doesn't prevent me from defending people I disagree with from unfair treatment.

Not everyone operates like you. You are so biased against everything the koolaid doesn't make you believe, that you see me defending trump or johnson against unfair treatment as support for them. Your political ideology is actually much closer to Trump's than mine.

10/6/2016 9:23:14 PM

Trump isn't not getting endorsements because the corporations are worried he'll hold them accountable (looks like he plans to do the opposite), they just recognize he's completely and utterly unqualified and incompetent.

10/6/2016 9:29:06 PM

^strong with you, the neoliberalism is

"oh those corporations! always putting profit aside in pursuit of the greater good!"

"the boards of fortune 100 companies couldn't live with themselves having increased profits knowing that they had a racist president who said bad things about women. "

[Edited on October 6, 2016 at 9:33 PM. Reason : k]

10/6/2016 9:33:00 PM

Ha it's more his terrible business sense and potential trade wars, self dealing, and unpredictable business landscape he would create. Only the most uninformed think trump would actually be good for the economy. Propping up dying industries and import restrictions aren't how you grow an economy.

But his racism and sexism factor in too, no one wants to be publicly associated with that.

And the newspapers, especially the ones that don't normally support democrats, aren't shunning trump because they're corporate shills. It's simplistic and reductionist to ignore their in-depth rationales that the editorial boards actually published.

10/6/2016 9:46:04 PM

Yeah that Atlantic endorsement is a pretty huge deal, as was the Arizona paper that lost tons of subscriptions and is getting tons of death threats. Of course Earl doesn't get it, because he doesn't want to.

[Edited on October 6, 2016 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2016 9:50:57 PM

Quote :

"Ha it's more his terrible business sense and potential trade wars, self dealing, and unpredictable business landscape he would create. Only the most uninformed think trump would actually be good for the economy. Propping up dying industries and import restrictions aren't how you grow an economy. "

Thats the point though. Simply growing the economy doesn't necessarily equate to better conditions for the ameican people. Most of that growth in the last several decades hasn't translated into higher median income. All of the things you described are symptoms of a government that works for its people.

Quote :

"And the newspapers, especially the ones that don't normally support democrats, aren't shunning trump because they're corporate shills. It's simplistic and reductionist to ignore their in-depth rationales that the editorial boards actually published"

I haven't read the rationale but rejecting trump and endorsing clinton are two different things. We're talking about papers endorsing clinton.

[Edited on October 6, 2016 at 9:55 PM. Reason : they could just make announcements about why they aren't endorsing trump. ]

10/6/2016 9:53:24 PM

Quote :

"Yeah that Atlantic endorsement is a pretty huge deal, as was the Arizona paper that lost tons of subscriptions and is getting tons of death threats. Of course Earl doesn't get it, because he doesn't want to."

These conservative papers have never been champions of social justice before now. Its just a convenient thing to tack on to supporting the establishment by all means.

Corporatism is the overlap of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. The only reason the two are separate at all is for packaging and marketing purposes.

10/6/2016 9:57:46 PM

Quote :

"We're talking about papers endorsing clinton"

Yes, that's correct. Now use your critical thinking skills to connect the dots. I know you can do it!

[Edited on October 6, 2016 at 10:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2016 10:05:42 PM

So you can obviously see a major inconsistency for a paper that has so strongly opposed obama to suddenly endorse a candidate with the same ideology + scandals.

10/6/2016 10:07:50 PM

You don't get it, do you? Papers are going out of their way, and risking losing their readership, because Clinton is a more qualified candidate than Trump is. They could easily choose not to endorse anyone- papers do it all the time, and many won't this time around. Saying everything is biased because of the "corporate media" is a bullshit cop out.

10/6/2016 10:13:02 PM

Here are the official qualifications for president

Quote :

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident "

The concept of "relative qualifications" is an excuse to never let an outsider be president. Its part of the corporate vetting process and operates as a filter against anyone who hasn't been in high levels of government.

10/6/2016 10:32:30 PM

If someone is an outsider and a fascist, the fascist is the more relevant categorization.

What good is being an outsider anyway when the basis of his ideology is give tax breaks to the people who are already wealthy, and they may deign to support the public by opening more for-profit businesses?

10/6/2016 10:42:05 PM

^^do you even know what an endorsement means? It's an opinion, and largely based on logical reasoning and research. You're tying to be cute with this, but it's ridiculous. "Clinton is a more qualified candidate than Trump" is an OPINION that many newspapers have right now, regardless of political affiliation or tradition.

[Edited on October 6, 2016 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2016 10:50:04 PM

The fact that the media needs to inject their opinion into the democratic process should raise a red flag. Trump is an extreme example and the argument that he requires this treatment is a solid one but I'm having a hard time believing they wouldn't do the same thing to Bernie, Gary, Jill, Ron or anyone else who threatened the oligarchal establishment. I also question their credibility because they weren't so active when past politicians did many of the awful things they allegedly fear trump MIGHT do.

10/6/2016 11:26:17 PM

You can look at primary endorsements and see they wouldn't have done this to a sane outsider. Bernie got a good 20% of democratic primary endorsement.

Trump got 4 endorsements out of 200 for GOP candidates and 2 of them were from tabloids (ny enquirer and ny post).

10/6/2016 11:39:15 PM

motherfucker in here posting wiki definitions of "qualified to be president"

10/7/2016 9:35:49 AM

yall need to adopt the first rule of sports talk.

10/7/2016 9:44:59 AM