The 2016 Election

> I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump.

Then you're really not gonna understand how he will win by a large margin.

Here are the facts: people don't want to vote for Hillary. Trump supporters are extremely passionate. Consider the following online metrics:

Facebook likes: Trump: 12.17M Clinton: 4.39M

Recent Live Stream Videos (Oct 14): Trump: 135K likes, 18K shares, 1.5M views Clinton: 9K likes, Average Views Per Live Stream: Trump: 160K Clinton: 400 (5000% more views for Trump)

Instagram Followers: Trump: 6.2M Clinton: 0.8M

Reddit Subscribers (to their main subreddits): Trump: 230K Clinton: 21K

"Do you plan on voting Hillary Clinton for President in 2016" 84% NO Source: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-hillary-2016)

EVEN WITH Clinton's "Correct The Record" online (and PAID) team of internet jokeys, she can't come close to competing with the passion of Trump supporters online. The key point: you cannot honestly believe that this disparity will not correlate with the popular vote. If you do, you're in denial and your candidate will probably lose. "Oh it's just online raids" - do you not think these people will be passionate enough to vote, but waste hours of their time for free discussing and liking the other candidate?

One final comment:

> I am endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

You mean the one that wanted to drone strike Julian Assange?

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562/phot...

Trump's said mean things, has different policies than typical liberals, and has had a ton of personal accusations conveniently come up 3 weeks before the presidential election -- after over 30 years in the public eye.

Given how corrupt the democrats are and how they treated Bernie Sanders, how can one trust Clinton and the Dems at all? Many people think Bernie was cheated out of the nomination. And there are more than emails, some interesting studies, to show this as a strong possibility as well:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0...

There are a lot of negative things about Trump in this post, but aren't any positive points about Hillary. It seems to me that if one were to endorse one candidate over another, they should talk about the policies of the candidate they're supporting in a positive light.

> He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.

There are a slew of former Secret Service agents from Bill Clinton's detail who say the same exact things about Hillary. One even cites being hit in the back of the head with a Bible by Hillary.

Also, is anyone even the slightest bit concerned about the revelations in the Podesta emails? One in particular that comes to mind is a conversation about Hillary hating the 'Everyday American.'

To me, having done hours upon hours of intense research into the two major candidates, this post sounds more like a regurgitation of the narrative put forth by the mainstream media rather than a well thought out and informed point of view.

I honestly don't know a ton about Taft's presidency, but what made him such a bad executive? I really should invest in some books about him, since on the surface, he's pretty interesting: only dual President/Supreme Court justice (which, even if it's inarguable that he was great there, seems completely at odds with the ostensible non-partisanship of the Supreme Court), Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Presidential run was a somewhat direct outcome of his tenure, all on top of the many apocryphal stories about his girth. If you've got any recommendations for learning about his weakness as a President, I'd appreciate them.

Scott Adams blog has turned into sensless propaganda.

From what I can gather by reading below[0] he does not like Clinton raising taxes. The rest of his points are such insightful gems as:

"I don't know the best way to default ISIS .. negotiate trade policies .. neither do you but you probably think you do... Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes"

what kind of convoluted logic is this? since we as voters are not sure how to fix all these problems that somehow makes these candidates equal? and tax policy breaks the tie?!

Then he regurgitates the usual Trump arguments about Clintons health. And then cites Trumps superior persuasion skills. His comments have been "temporarily disabled" so no way to respond to this nonsense. I've lost all respect for this guy

[0] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-...

I think this is basically the major and effective meme/emotion that Trump plays into: Nostalgia. Thiel also voiced concerns about the state of the infrastructure at a GOP Convention. Nostalgia is a strong emotion and it is often based on false memories or weak comparisons. Sure, large parts of our infrastructure are worse than they were 50 years ago, but on the other hand we had very different problems back then. We used to consume goods that turned out to be toxic. Today almost everyone has access to extremely fast transportation via air travel. Almost everyone has access to the world's knowledge at any time. Medicine has improved a lot. "Make it great again" is the central lie and people are dumb enough not to question it and to believe his financial independence would make him a superior leader, when in fact he only displays characteristics that are opposed to the ones we should expect from a good leader, for example decency and intelligence.