What is Trump a symptom of?

[up_the_junction]

@Sam_Stone

The two share the prime characteristic of populist campaigns: They tell the voters that all their problems are the result of some ‘other’, and that if they vote for the candidate the other will be put in their place, order restored, and there will be a chicken in every pot.

Left wing populism and right wing populism both trade on fear and anger, and feature candidates with big plans that will make the world right again.

There’s an element of populism in just about every politician’s campaign, but Trump and Sanders are easily the most populist candidates running this year, or for many years.

You’re missing the entire point: a buffoon is heading for the GOP nomination.

[Sam_Stone]

I understand that. And an old radical with ties to Marxism/Leninism is doing really well in the Democratic party. What’s your point? I was talking about populism, not the quality of the candidates. I happen to agree that Trump is the worst candidate running on either side, but that’s not what I was talking about.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam_Stone

The two share the prime characteristic of populist campaigns: They tell the voters that all their problems are the result of some ‘other’ . . .

That is sometimes largely true, or at least an oversimplification of the truth. Trump has said little true about immigrants, but Sanders has said nothing false about the 1%, AFAIK. It is a fact that they have been dominating American politics and both parties for their own individual and collective benefit for decades now and that the pain a lot of Americans are suffering is a direct result of that.

[kaylasdad99]

This is just me spitballing here, but:

while I don’t watch news on television, it has not been possible for me to avoid EVERY piece of footage of Trump’s rallies. I note that there are a LOT of people applauding some of his lines.

So I think maybe he’s a symptom of the clap…

[BrainGlutton]

@kaylasdad99

This is just me spitballing here, but:

while I don’t watch news on television, it has not been possible for me to avoid EVERY piece of footage of Trump’s rallies. I note that there are a LOT of people applauding some of his lines.

So I think maybe he’s a symptom of the clap…

Specifically, the milky emission.

[kaylasdad99]

I said I was SPITballing, not SNOWballing…

(also, eww.)

[bump]

@BrainGlutton

Crime’s down, actually. (Except maybe for white-collar crime.)

Sure… *WE *know that, but does Joe Six-Pack or anyone else who gets the majority of their current events and news from television news? And as someone who watches the TV news as well as reads a few internet sources and the online versions of a couple of newspapers, the TV news seems to be a situation where they have time to show 4 crazy violent crimes a night in a 30 minute newscast, and even though the total number of crazy violent crimes may have gone from 26 to 8, the news is still showing 4 a night, so from the perspective of the couch potato news consumer, crime is just as bad as ever.

I agree with UltraVires, who agreed with my post, but said it better. There are a lot of people who feel rather abandoned by the current party structure, and are refreshed by Trump’s bellicose buffoonery; the not giving of any fucks aspect of his rhetoric isn’t concerning or startling to them; it’s a good thing because it’s not typical mealy-mouthed politician-speak meant to offend no one, or equivocating lawyer-ese a-la Bill Clinton and blowjobs not being sex. There’s a (IMO confused) perception that as a result, we “know where he stands.”

[elfkin477]

There’s been a sharp rise in the number of Americans prescribed antipsychotics in the past decade. I’m not saying it’s causal, but I for-sure know one person on antipsychotics, and for-sure know one person who voted for Trump… and they’re the same person.

Okay, okay, I’m kidding (mostly). But those poor down-trodden discriminated against grumpy old white guys have found their messiah and they’re rallying around him. It’s just too bad so many vote. And that so many democrats think it’s funny to register as republican to vote for him because they think he’s beatable.

[octopus]

@elfkin477

There’s been a sharp rise in the number of Americans prescribed antipsychotics in the past decade. I’m not saying it’s causal, but I for-sure know one person on antipsychotics, and for-sure know one person who voted for Trump… and they’re the same person.

Okay, okay, I’m kidding (mostly). But those poor down-trodden discriminated against grumpy old white guys have found their messiah and they’re rallying around him. It’s just too bad so many vote. And that so many democrats think it’s funny to register as republican to vote for him because they think he’s beatable.

Not a fan of democracy?

[Fear_Itself]

@octopus

Not a fan of democracy?

We may be asking you the same question when President Clinton is being sworn in.

[Voyager]

@Sam_Stone

The two share the prime characteristic of populist campaigns: They tell the voters that all their problems are the result of some ‘other’, and that if they vote for the candidate the other will be put in their place, order restored, and there will be a chicken in every pot.

Left wing populism and right wing populism both trade on fear and anger, and feature candidates with big plans that will make the world right again.

There’s an element of populism in just about every politician’s campaign, but Trump and Sanders are easily the most populist candidates running this year, or for many years.

There is blaming things on others without power - Muslims, illegal Mexican rapists, and there is blaming problems on those with power, like the 0.1% who have gotten much of the wealth generated by the recovery.
Or was it also populist - and wrong - to blame Southern Democratic politicians for Jim Crow?
And you naturally didn’t address the main point, which is the difference between populist proposals and populist shouting.
Do you think Trump and Sanders act the same way in debates or on the campaign stage? There is a slight difference between the Democratic debates and the Republican debates which probably make Don Rickles blush.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Sam_Stone

By the way, if you’re looking for Canadian style ‘socialism’, be prepared to cut the corporate tax to 12%, lower your top imarginal tax rate to 31%, shrink the federal government and give mre power to the states, cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, end the estate tax, cut business regulations, and raise taxes on the poor and middle class through a national VAT tax. Also, no free state education, a school system that allows for parental choice in which school your kid attends, and scrap the federal Department of Education and half your other federal agencies, because in Canada such decisions are left to the provinces - one of which is considered to be the most economically free region in North America.

If that’s your idea of socialism, sign me up

I’m more than a little dubious about such a characterization.

Taxes as a share of US GDP: 24.3%, among the lowest in the OECD.
Taxes as a share of Canadian GDP, still below average but much higher than the US: 35.2%.

That’s what? 40% higher?

Chart: Donald Trump Rediscovers an Old Truism: Big Lies Are Better Than Little Ones – Mother Jones

Data: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/total-tax-revenue_20758510-table2
Yeah I’d say Canada is a socialist country. It’s not a big deal.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Voyager

That is dumb, but it is not anti-science. Anti-science would be the claim that fission doesn’t work and there is a natural gas input somewhere. I’m for nuclear power, but as an engineer I have to say the industry has screwed up more than once.

I’d go quite a bit further and note the massive cost over runs in the US nuclear industry. There is no moratorium on US nuclear power: we aren’t building them because they make no economic sense in the absence of a hefty CO2 tax, despite massive US government subsidies.

Crazy conservatives like nuclear power because it’s dangerous, costly and opposed by cost cutting liberals. They get a charge from that. Personally, I think we should have a small nuclear construction program to keep our options open. And that’s what the US is doing, in states with captive public utility commissions. Where there’s competition in the electricity market, Wall Street isn’t interested. Like most liberals, I agree with the judgment of the investment professionals.

I also support R&D into next generation nukes. But like most liberals, I would prefer not to piss money down the toilet supporting pointless wars and failed technologies. Government programs should be subjected to strict cost/benefit metrics at the legislative level, rather than modern conservative emotional attachments.

[Urbanredneck]

Back to Trump, I feel the whole country is concerned about the illegal immigration issue and we read about how illegal immigration has soared and how messed up our system is to kick out even the ones who are caught. Almost everyday we see headlines discussing things like “Obama Amnesty”.

But then finally a candidate comes along and talks tough on the issue. Real tough. That sounds good to alot of people.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Urbanredneck

Back to Trump, I feel the whole country is concerned about the illegal immigration issue and we read about how illegal immigration has soared and how messed up our system is to kick out even the ones who are caught.

Except illegal immigration hasn’t been soaring for almost a decade, so if “we” are reading that, we are not choosing our sources correctly.

[up_the_junction]

That issue is just classic playing to fear tactics. No rational basis, entirely emotionally driven - if it’s not the Muslims it’s immigrants that are ruining America.

Nothing to do with the 1% owning the government.

All of which does feed into the idea of Trump being a symptom of the electorate sensing things needs to change - a lot and quickly.

[CandidGamera]

@octopus

It’s a bit arrogant to decide for other voters what their interests are.

Good thing, then, that I didn’t do any such thing.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Steve_MB

The GOP has sown the winds of jingoism, anti-intellectualism, and racial/religious tribalism, and is now reaping the whirlwind of a candidate willing to dispense with the usual veneer of (increasingly im)plausible deniability in order to fully tap those forces.

@The_Hamster_King

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a clever theory. Basically he suggests that the GOP has spent decades building up a “nonsense debt” as an easy way of attracting low-information voters. Now the party finds itself in a position where a charismatic empty suit can win the nomination and there’s no way to call him on his bullshit because the GOP no longer has the capacity to make an appeal to facts or real-world consequences.

I largely agree with this but I think there are legitimate issues that are driving a lot of the anger. There is some commonality between the Sanders and Trump candidacies.

Our politicians have spent the last 30 years putting corporate interests over national interests and claiming that this is good for everyone. I think most of them even believe it. Both parties are guilty of this.

We are exporting every job that can be exported to China and India and we are importing illegal underpriced labor to handle all the low skill jobs we can’t export. This leaves us with pretty good jobs at the upper end of the spectrum but a collapse in the middle.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Deeg

You’ll pardon me if I don’t take a former Clinton cabinet member as unbiased. From my view Sanders is almost as nutty as Trump (albeit without the buffoonery) and he’s getting almost as much support. Sanders might be hampered in that Hillary is a more viable (and better) alternative to what the Republicans are currently peddling.

Sanders is not doing nearly as well as Trump.

Both candidates are demonizing (Trump: Islamists, Sanders: 1%ers)

How is he demonizing the 1%?

anti-science (Trump: AGW, Sanders: nuclear power)

You mean we can’t all live in solar powered igloos (I got no excuse for his position on nuclear power while also beating up on carbon based energy), there is a strong vibrant anti-science element on the left that we keep trying to ignore but they won’t go away.

and nutty (Trump: Mexico will build the wall, Sanders: tax 1%ers at 85%).

I thought Sanders said this too but he never said he wants to tax the rich at 85%. he just didn’t object very much to the notion that we could do it without destroying the country.

One difference is that Sanders is attracting the recent liberal outrage (e.g. OWS) whereas Trump seems to be going against the grain of the Tea Party movement. In that regard Trump’s success is more surprising.

Trump is only surprising because the establishment Republicans thought they had a handle on the crazies that they work up into a lather.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

Casting this as a problem with stemming from crazy Republicans is comforting to the left, I suppose, but Trump’s appeal has nothing to do with Republican ideas. In fact, Trump’s policies are simple blue-collar populism.

Right. They just happen to line up with Republican rhetoric on the deportation of 11 million illegal aliens and targeting Muslims.

There are a lot of scared, angry working class people out there

I wonder who scared them. I mean this situation has been going on for decades but they are scared to death right now, have been since about January 20th, 2008.

and that’s created a situation ripe for a table-pounding populust to rise. On the left you got Sanders, on the right they got Trump. The reason Sanders is fading is that he’s a bit too much of a principled leftist, a bit too old, and he doesn’t have the media skills that Trump has.

And the left hasn’t been relying on the crazies on the left to win elections.

I will predict that if Trump becomes the Republican nominee the Democrats are going to lose a lot of blue collar voters to him. Those people were never staunchly Democrat anyway - Reagan managed to pull huge swaths of them into his coalition, but they drifted back to the Democrats after the aristocratic George HW Bush was supplanted by the plain-speaking Clinton, who was also more of a populist in campaign rhetoric while Bush was saying things like, “Message: I care.”

I predict that if Trump becomes the nominee, the Republicans lose after the first debate when Trump criticizes the size of Hillary’s ass/boob ratio.

Trump should be scaring you Democrats as much as he’s scaring serious Republicans.

So you’re saying that Trump should be scaring us because he’s not really a Republican but the “normal” republicans are going to support him in the general anyway?

Trump can’t win without a pretty good turnout from the mainstream Republicans. What you are saying is that once he gets the nomination, the mainstream republicans will just swallow hard and vote for the guy that was nominated by the craziest, angriest people in their party?