Trump isn’t a master of obfuscation?
The only things that Trump is blunt about are his racism, narcissism, sexism, ignorance, incompetence, corruption, irresponsibility, and his complete disregard for anything and anyone but himself.
Sure, he doesn’t mince words. If by that you mean he just says whatever he wants and then turns around and says exactly the opposite when it suits him.
That’s what folks like you like?
They’re the people who constantly say they don’t care about celebrity opinions until it’s Jon Voight, James Woods and Roseanne Barr in which case they’re all over those celebrity opinions.
To answer the OP: Why shouldn’t they?
In the semi-recent past, a particular progressive Democrat was accused of nefarious things by the right-leaning media. To the extent that these allegations were mentioned in the left-leaning media, they simply said, “There’s no evidence to support these allegations”. I looked at the allegations, double-checked that the evidence which had been provided proved true and to the extent that I was able to do so, everything that had been said was independently verifiable.
Later, one left-leaning source did a follow-up article where they stated what their methodology was for ascertaining that everything was a lie created by a troll. That methodology was to perform a 5 second Google search and look at the page titles in the search results. All of those search results were angry progressives posting about the topic, from after the incident in question, calling the accuser a liar and troll. I changed the search range to exclude anything after the incident and read posts by and about the accuser and they seemed to be a respected, reasonable person.
Fast-forwarding to the impeachment of Donald Trump, the one thing that I called for the House managers to do was to build a full case against the man. I believed that they needed to start from the beginning and establish that Trump was a crook and conman and that it was reasonable and correct to assume, based on his past and basic character, that everyone’s assumption that he had nefarious intent in his activities with Ukraine should be taken as fair and reasonable.
I’ve read enough about him to know that such a read is correct and that the assumptions made by everyone - Volkman, etc. - were just the obvious. But your average person reads the news and they never see any big attempt to prove anything, just to assert it, and it’s not difficult to find examples where those assertions are clearly specious.
I mean, if I say that “there’s no evidence” well…how did I determine that? Did I do a six second Google search? Did I go and sit in a dark closet for 5 minutes and shout, “No no no!” while covering my ears? Or did I go talk to all the interested parties, a few insiders, experts, etc.? Only one of those is authoritative in any way but from “there’s no evidence” it’s impossible for me, the reader, to ascertain what was actually done before the person came to that conclusion.
Reasonable people who read most media sources realize that those sources have some a priori assumptions that guide them. You don’t need to prove that Trump is a conman. It’s already “known”. You don’t need to defend a progressive Democrat, their innocence is implicit.
And, the important thing in all of this, is that there’s no media source which says how they reached their conclusions. They never state their methodology. They rarely go back to cite older articles and, often, when they do the older articles don’t really match what the new article says it said.
Basically, Middle America reads their media and buys into it because they have no reason to buy into anything else. Likewise, Coastal America reads their media and buys into it because they have no reason to buy into anything else. It’s all surface layer only, whichever group you happen to be a part of. And both sides are largely just taking free material (when it comes to politics) from politicians and running with it, as a lazy way to make content day-to-day.
To get Middle America, the left-leaning media would need to present their work and that would mean, for one, to go back to the beginning and prove their a priori assumptions.
They should.
They won’t. If Adam Schiff can’t be talked into running Trump into the ground, in a reasonable and professional fashion, I hold no hope that the New York Times will.
This is going predictably the way all these discussions go:
Libtard: What is the deal with you and Trump?
MAGATS: We want to be heard and our views respected!
Libtard: Which views, for example?
MAGATS: Abortion kills babies! Protect our borders! LGBTQ makes baby Jesus cry! Respect our religion! Don’t tread on us!
Libtard: Not this shit again. Do you see how that’s bigoted?
MAGATS: See? You just called us racist again! TRUMP2020!
I think it’s a mistake to assume that all conservatives and Republicans are farmers and hicks. A lot of the conservatives I know live in farm country only an hour or so outside of New York City, but they don’t work on them. Many are dentists, lawyers, corporate managers and other professionals.
They are also very “ordinary” in the sense that, for the most part, there is not a lot that distinguishes them from each other. They all sort of dress alike, think alike, probably make around the same income range, live in similar suburban homes (maybe some smaller or larger than others), work the same sort of jobs, have the same sort of education background.
I think it is this “ordinariness” that gives the a sense of comfort and normalcy. They remind me of (and in some cases were) people in high school who place a high importance on “fitting in”. Almost militantly so.
Middle America doesn’t see themselves as “racist” or homophobic because they, by and large, aren’t out there burning crosses and dressing up in vintage Nazi regalia. But they do view people who are different from them as “others”, to be tolerated at best.
Middle America seems to have a great deal of respect for “following the rules”. You follow the rules or you expect to be chewed out - your parents, teachers, coach, boss, the cops, God, whoever.
So I think what Middle America sees in Trump is some guy who is a well known celebrity businessman (therefore successful) telling them that their Middle America way is morally correct. And they appreciate his authoritative “tough talk” because he is chewing out anyone who isn’t following “the rules”.
Exactly. Such threads usually last about 10-20 posts on topic before it devolves into arguing as to why someone ***shouldn’t ***support Trump, rather than the original question (asking why people do support Trump.) The nature of the question completely shifts.
Asking - in a non-heated, objective, rational way - why some people support the KKK, or Nazis, or ISIS, is entirely different than a finger-pointing shouting match over why people *shouldn’t *support those ideologies.
That’s a good point; here in suburban NE Dallas, there’s pretty wide range of political opinions- all the way from fairly left/progressive types to hardcore MAGA-hat wearing Trumpers.
And in general, ALL of us are:
[ul]
[li]White[/li][li]Upper Middle-class[/li][li]College educated[/li][li]White collar[/li][li]Parents[/li][li]Homeowners[/li][/ul]
The distinguishing factors seems to be,as best I can tell, age and religious affiliation followed by something less definable- some kind of viewpoint difference on the world. Like the Trumpers seem to have a very threatened/insecure mentality, where their families and their associated community are viewed as under threat by everything from without, which would include poor people, black people, immigrants/foreigners, Hispanics, and all the combinations thereof.
The rest of us seem to have a less in-group/out-group mentality, can see the bigger picture, or are more pragmatic instead of dogmatic. But I’d guess most of it is a lack of fear- we’re not afraid of poor black people from the south side of town, nor are we incensed that our city tax money might go to help homeless people instead of being spent on cops and firemen.
So it’s a fair bet that most older, Baptist/Evangelical people in our area are going to be staunch Trumpers, while people under say… 50 are going to be less likely to fall into that group.
Other than border, I haven’t heard trump talk a lot about these other issues.
I feel like Trump is kind of like a Republican Rorschach blob. He paints himself up in the grotesque MAGA caricature of a Republican but says nothing and people see what they want to see.
Would you characterize, say, his Supreme Court picks as Rorschach blobs?
Seems to me, they only enforce the rules they like and show disdain for the rest. Just like Trump who has made it a matter of his campaign promise to break all the standing rules of government.
Some studies suggest that American conservatives are more sensitive to things like fear and disgust than liberals are.
The following articles, I believe, are about the same set of studies, but phrase the ideas in different ways –
Trump has no internal moral compass or philosophy outside of what furthers his interests and popularity.
No shit, you’re living in a bubble.
NYC has significant Trump supporters; it is not the bubble you portray. This “Middle America” of yours, which sure looks like a synonym for “Flyover States”, is not as monolithic as most posters in this thread are treating it.
You can try instead asking Trump supporters what they see in him. Most of what I have read in this thread so far reads like projection from those so confident in their correctness that everyone who disagrees is demonized.
Me? I’m a CCSF employee and can see the Bay from my roof. I voted for Obama in 2012 (and would again, happily), but voted for Trump in 2016 and it appears I will vote for him again in 2020. Why? Because the Democratic Party’s choices lately are, in my opinion, worse. My choices, as I see them, are Bad and Worse.
“But Trump-”! Yeah, some of it, but there is a lot of overstatement and histrionics. Biden- again, in my opinion- is still worse.
Yeah, there’s no way someone making objective, rational judgements would come to that opinion. You’re either not showing your hand, or you won’t admit to yourself what it is.
Trump is a fascist and a would-be dictator, he has appointed incompetents and criminals to every office, he has systematically crippled every efficient organization he can get his hands on, he has risked the country’s security in every way. He abuses and threatens the press. He lies about everything. He is clearly a self-absorbed moron whose only talent is to rile up an ignorant and bigoted mob, and he makes that crystal clear every single day.
And Biden is worse? No, you’re no reliable spokesman for your choices.
Well, sure, if you count Staten Island and some of the Brooklyn Hasidic groups and other ultra-orthodox groups.
But seriously, this city doesn’t have a single Republican in its Congressional delegation. There are three (of 51) in the City Council, and two of them are from Staten Island.
I know that “Republican” does not necessarily equal “Trump Supporter,” but the near total lack of Republicans in the city’s government, and in legislative bodies elected from the city, should tell you that the number of Trump supporters in the city probably isn’t all that significant.
Y’know, part if it is that to many in the lower and middle classes of the MAGAverse it IS existential, in this very visceral sense: as a liberal, to that other person I sound like I am saying the only hope for his son’s future, is for that son to grow up to think and speak and be like ME, not like him.
I would not be surprised if that man takes offense at that and throws his support behind someone who he believes can shut me up.
No, but he embodies what they think are values of being “tough” and “not taking shit from anyone” (that was Ted Cruz’s mistake when he spoke of DT embodying “New York Values” – he thought he was dogwhistling “cosmopolitanism and sexual decadence”. The voters heard “hustling and taking no shit from anyone”).
Just as often you have heard that his public image is a poor person’s caricature of what being rich must be like, his image is also a disempowered person’s caricature of what is being powerful. Which means being intimidating and able to hurt others with impunity. And from some people’s POV that is not bullying, it’s asserting dominance, and from their life experience the observation is that it works and just is the way the world is.
His constant whingeing as to why he does not get more praise and about how unfairly he gets treated does not affect the following because, at heart, that is also how they feel about themselves: unappreciated and unjustly looked down on.
Indeed, to them, Trump’s personal prickishness was not a disqualifier, but to the contrary, a sign that he would be “putting people in their place” and not giving a damn if others did not like it.
I did not say ‘in government’. Just because they are a minority does not mean they are not significant and not voting.
I also did not say ‘numbers’. But I have the impression Wall Street and a lot of NY money has a worldview closer to DJT than Bernie.
I can confirm, having worked in a fintech company in NYC at the time of the 2016 elections, that there was strong, outspoken, MAGA-hat wearing Trump support among almost all of the sales guys and senior executives, while most of the software engineers were not (a few libertarian types who vote straight ‘R’ even though they didn’t like the guy at the top, but mostly quiet Obama/Hillary supporters).
Among the traders/bankers it was more, “we want the banking regulations enacted after 2008 lifted, and the Rs are the guys to do it”.
But the thread is about “Middle America”, not “Trump-supporting coastal elites”. The latter category has much more plain motivations (and certainly the mythos of the Trump-o-sphere is that Trump support is 100% the former category).
I find the last part hard to believe. If conservatives really believed that hard physical work should be rewarded, then why do they keep voting for those who want to reward the wealthy who rely on the hard physical work of others and do very little to no work (physical or otherwise) themselves? If they believe hard physical work should be rewarded then why do they insist on screwing over the immigrants who pick crops, wash dishes, process meat, etc. while wanting to reward the owners of the mega farms who again personally do little to no work? Why do they complain about athletes making a lot of money but say nothing about the sport team owners?
It’s because saying they care about hard work is just a rationalization they use to avoid admitting to themselves that it it’s really about bigotry.
Wall St and “NY money” = significant support for dt?
So your talking about $ and not people?
Money is fungible. It can move. In fact it might even not be where it says it is.