I’m a middle class lib who grew up in a conservative area to conservative parents. I saw a lot of my father’s blue collar friends get hammered by outsourcing, automation, and when they tried to get other jobs like construction or factory work or whatever they’d notice immigrants have taken those jobs too. It’s not exactly a mystery why there’s a lot of simmering resentment from whites in the South and rustbelt.
I can’t remember if it was Chris Hedges, Chomsky, or someone else like that who basically said these people want answers, and if the left won’t give them any then they’ll look elsewhere, even if they’re horrible answers from right wing talk radio and religious fundamentalists. Furthermore, it’s easy to point and laugh and feel superior to them when they regurgitate their goofy world views. But the thing is, all this festering xenophobia, male insecurity, and anti-intellectualism is basically how fascist movements start. “Take our country back” indeed. At least Trump isn’t that dangerous, but he’s taking advantage of the impulse.
Yeah, the proper response is for all the working saps of all creeds to join together in harmony and smash the system, yada yada, but I don’t think that will be forthcoming anytime soon.
No. But I’m definitely not comfortable seeing so many libs throwing rocks at the karma gods. Trump keeps rising in the polls and has the obvious swagger that so much of America worships (remember the Putin love?). Why tempt fate? Maybe it’s just because I’m younger than most posters here. For me, 2004 was a clarifying moment on America’s character. Maybe if Trump gets BTFO I’ll regain a sliver of faith.
My point is that the system we’ve set up is such that 20 years or so after I was old enough to vote, there’s a non-zero chance that I may be presented the choice of a Clinton or Bush again. fuck that noise. I don’t think I’ll even bother voting this time around.
One reason liberals have trouble winning support is that their love may extend to all humanity – not just American voters. Many Americans are happy that they can get inexpensive clothing; nevermind the enslaved children in South Asia. Humanitarians and rich Job Creators may both support illegal immigrants, though for different reasons. For most Americans, OTOH, it’s Us -vs- Them.
I’m not sure what you mean by 2004 – the re-election of Cheney and Rove to the White House? Remember they had FoxNews and the Billionaires behind them, things Trump lacks.
Though I’m increasingly amazed by the phenomenon, I’ll still bet Trump fizzles out. I’d hope he doesn’t! I’d rather have Trump as President than Cruz, Walker, or even Jeb! (who seems far nastier than his brother or father).
This sentiment describes my current perception of the situation. On tangentially related note, politics is a whole clusterfuck to me, i.e.:
If you’re white and uneducated it just means you are stupid, lazy, ignorant and any opinion you have on anything is built upon a foundation of stupidity.
If you’re black, hispanic migrant and uneducated you’re opinion is valid because you’ve been suppressed by the aforementioned white people, at heart you are noble and good and wise.
If you’re white and male.it’s you’re fault if you’re not successful. The world is your oyster, it doesn’t matter what kind socioeconomic situation you grew up in.
Therefore we need lots and lots of policy to help minorities, women, immigrants. White males, fuck off nobody cares about your problems.
You know, admitting your ignorance IS the first step, but demanding that everyone else accept it is not the second step. You’re doing it wrong. If you want to spout bullshit that you know is bullshit and have no one else call you on it, this probably is not the best forum for you. I’m surprised you don’t know that by now.
I think I have been clear in my responses. I prefer discussion, not argument. My ideas may lack merit, but if you want to just say my thoughts are bullshit, ignorant etc. without anything more specific than that I am just not interested in responding. I just find it dull and uninteresting.
I did not put this in the pit or elections or Great Debates for these reasons. There are many many Trump threads in those forums by now.
I’m not calling your thoughts bullshit. You said yourself that they’re just things that popped into your head, born out of ignorance, and having nothing to do with reality. That’s not having a humble opinion, it’s spouting bullshit, and you know it; you just want a pass on it.
OK. Thank you for the clarification. Maybe I should have posted in MPSIMP, but I think a mod would have just moved it. But maybe not - I just took gamble and posted in IMHO.
Maybe there should be some sort of BTIMP (Bullshit thoughts I must post forum), but I don’t think that would go through.
The most recent poll I can find is Monmouth University’s poll of “registered voters who identify themselves as Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party”. Each poll is different, but this one does not rely on “likely voters” or “likely primary voters”–which are distinct subsets of “registered voters”–and given that I’m not sure exactly how useful this poll is.
But here’s my other point: Trump is polling at 30% among GOP/lean GOP types, which itself is about 40% of the voting public (another 40% is Dem/leans Dem, the last 20% is more or less independent). That puts his national support at about 12%, give or take a bit. Don’t most parliamentary governments have fringe right-wing parties with about that much support?
If we did the same analysis on the top 5 candidates (on both sides), what would it look like? Would any of them have national support above 15%? What is your cutoff for the fringe label?
I am not disputing this number, but without context I do not know how to evaluate it.
But then again, looking at the numbers in this way may lead to a conclusion that all candidates are fringe candidates. This could be due to the expanding cultural rifts and our country leading to a paradigm shift in US politics.
A paradigm shift implies a fundamental change of some kind; this is just a stupid candidate hitting a new low of stupid, and revealing a new low of stupidity in low-information voters. The anti-immigrant bigotry that has attracted support for Trump is nothing new – roll back a few decades, and the anti-immigrant and anti-Latino bigotry of today is joined by widespread anti-black racism, in many places supported by law. A few decades further turns up some pretty virulent antisemitism. In the years leading up to World War II, this guy Adolf Hitler was widely considered to be a fairly reasonable fellow, and antisemitism was surprisingly widespread. As in this story of the SS St. Louis bearing 900 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, who were turned back from Cuba and then turned back from Florida despite direct appeals to President Roosevelt. The anti-immigrant sentiment against this particular group was almost exactly what we’re hearing from Trump. The ship returned to Europe, where many of the hopeful refugees perished as the Nazis swept across the continent.
So, no, things aren’t worse today and there’s no paradigm shift. Some aspects of bigotry and racism have improved, others remain the same, and still others fester underground. Politics has just hit a new low of stupid that Trump is exploiting, possibly even to his own surprise.
Let’s see - Hillary Clinton polls at around 50% among the “40% Dem/Leans Dem”. According to your logic, that means that she is only supported by 20% of the voting public. Is that much better?
I’m not championing any one candidate over another. I’m responding to the original question: “Does the Trump candidacy signal a paradigm shift in US politics?” My answer is no, because his level of support at the moment is among a relatively small group of Americans and at a level that is somewhat common across the world for minority parties that take similar aggressive right-wing positions. Whether or not Trump’s support will grow is an open question, but my suspicion is that he has a rather low ceiling; for example, I think his support is entirely among non-Hispanic whites and winning a national election that way is challenging to say the least. If I’m wrong, then his candidacy does in fact signal a paradigm shift.
The US system of party primaries & general elections is a bit uncommon around the world. Barring a significant independent candidate (such as Ross Perot), the major party nominees can bank on 40% of the electorate at the very least. McGovern and Goldwater are the only post-WWII candidates who failed to meet that minimum. Based on that, the next questions are…
a) can Trump win the GOP nomination? and
b) if he does, will he have a chance at winning or will he suffer a historically major defeat like McGovern & Goldwater?
Mostly, I think the attention the press gives Trump can be boiled down to two words: “click bait”.
By every measure we’re in worse shape. We have record debt and record numbers of people on public assistance. The displeasure is seen in the flip of both houses. This change wasn’t a narrow margin it was a landslide change.
Putting aside his Nobel prize for melanin Obama is about as black as I am. and had to use a black church as a beard for his ethnicity. He had no resume going into office and 8 trillion dollars later he’s proof that any fuck-stupid politician can vote to spend borrowed money without any personal consequence. He has outspend every president combined.
This is a good example of the difference between ethnicity and race. Obama isn’t ethnically black from childhood: he wasn’t raised by a black family, and his father’s black family aren’t African-American. He is, though, racially black, 100%, meaning that strangers see him, perceive him as black, and treat him accordingly. So in some sense he isn’t black, and in other senses he is.
This is complicated by the fact that in adulthood, he seems to have spent a lot of time in the black community, and of course his children are black, so to the degree that it’s possible, he has acquired a valid black identity as an adult.
The only way he’s ethnically AA is if he reinvented himself that way. He was raised by his Mother and Grandmother. He literally had to buy into it like Rachel Dolezal. It fit better into his early years as a social worker. He wasn’t picking cotton in his youth or running with inner city gangs he was going to law school.
I’m not sure how the first part of your statement contradicts what I said.
As for the second part, are you seriously claiming that “picking cotton” or “running with inner[-]city gangs” is an inherent part of black ethnicity? Because that assertion is both factually incorrect and horrifically racist. Please clarify.