I was trying to respond to the idea, not to you, personally. I just find the whole “liberals don’t understand middle America” thing to be very one-sided. Big cities aren’t more American than small towns, but they aren’t less, either.
By numbers they are “more american.” They could only be “less american” if being “metropolitan” was less american, and we know where that rhetoric goes. Oops, we’re there already.
I have to disagree with you there, Nava. The fact is that, to quote a Pew Research headline from last year, the U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout. The election of Trump was largely the result ignorance and apathy: ignorance in the general sense of many poor and middle-class voters being persuaded over the years by overt and covert money-driven disinformation campaigns to vote the Republican ticket against their own best interests, ignorance in the more specific sense of uninformed rednecks believing that Trump is either capable of or has the slightest interest in doing anything to benefit them, and apathy in having neither interest in being informed about political issues or in getting their asses out to vote. When barely more than half of eligible voters actually vote, the results can be terribly skewed by motivated idiots, rednecks, and zealots.
The electoral college is indeed an anachronism, an outdated institution that clearly cannot perform the one purpose for which it was established, to prevent a dangerously unqualified moron from assuming the presidency of the US. However, the fact that the EC compartmentalizes the vote so that the election winner is not always the winner of the popular vote is no different from most parliamentary systems where the elected leader is the one whose party has the most parliamentary seats.
I had a coworker who in all seriousness thought that trump having a “hot wife” was a plus for his presidency. And that is a microcosm of how we ended up where we are.
I’ve been saying that since before the election. Because Trump’s underlying belief system is such at odds with Jesus’s, supporting him requires putting him in front of Jesus and God. That’s why I’ve labeled him an antichrist. Not because he’s the big scary dude from Revelation, but because he’s just clearly at odds with everything Christianity stands for. He’s even at odds with what Fundamentalists claim to believe. He’s at odds with Dominionism, even–the usual problematic belief that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals shaire.
It’s also another instance of where they project themselves. People were said to think of Obama as their Messiah. But they didn’t. They agreed with his message of hope, but they didn’t agree with him where their religion said otherwise. But Trump supporting “Christians” do seem to fall for the authoritarian tactics and fall over him.
Trump preaches hate. It’s his entire platform. Jesus said to love your enemies. They are at different ends of the morality pool. To support Trump is to say that you don’t care about Jesus.
Like the guy in that article, I have quit giving my religious background as Evangelical, because I don’t want to be associated with this clear idolatry.
I think there is a distinction in Bricker, and, say, Shodan, who made a big post about how Trump sucks but we all need to come together to oppose him, but has since shat all over liberals any time they are anti-Trump. I honestly don’t know if Shodan even doesn’t support Trump anymore, or if he’s fine because liberals hate him.
Bricker just seems to have problems reconciling his hatred for Trump, his loyalty to his party, and desire to show up liberals–to the point that he sometimes crosses the line into supporting Trump at times. Though I note he’s done less of it since his month off. My hope is that he realized what was happening and took a step back.
Yeah, I remember quite a few Trump supporters saying they’d vote for him because, in their words, “he says what I’m thinking!”
But what are they thinking?
Are they thinking at all?
Oh, I can do that, and I’m not a supporter in the slightest.
The surface implication is that “Things were better in the past, so let’s return to this.” To get more specific, I look at who this message resonates with: working class whites who now struggle to make ends meet. In the past, white people (if not the other races) had more economic stability. To use their language: They want good, decent paying jobs.
Of course, the beauty of such a slogan is that it can mean different things to different people. So you also have the racists believing that life was better before when they didn’t have to worry about minorities. This can be blatant like the KKK hating on black people or Nazis hating on Jews, or it can be more subtle in just thinking that everyone has to be “politically correct” because you’re asked to treat minorities equally. Or Evangelicals feeling attacked because their “Christian” values aren’t just accepted without question anymore. Their own privilege is eroding, and they see that as an attack on them.
There may be others, but I think this covers 99% of the support of this sentiment that I have heard. The former I of course have sympathy with, while the latter I do not. The former is where I think Clinton really let the Democrats down, thinking she could ignore the hurting white working class, and I really hope we won’t make that same mistake again.
Oh, and emphasize how little Trump has actually done on that front. The jobs market is no better than it was, no matter how much everyone keeps crowing on about the economy being up. It’s not different than under Obama.
It’s really painful how fucking stupid you are.
Do me a favor and actually say what, in that article, reflects a tax policy that screwed small business owners.
You fucking can’t.
#1) The article was about a policy proposal. People would appreciate you actually talk about laws and other things, called facts, which actually happen.
#2) The policy proposal was to let tax cuts on people whose taxable income was over $250,000.00 expire. Tell me how that is “screwing small business owners”. Nothing in the article says it does.
#3) What the article lamely tries to do is say that, if we increase personal income tax on those whose net taxable income is over $250,000, we won’t get small business hiring more people. Which is ridiculous tripe. If you disagree, please tell me how the owner of a business that has more volume than it can handle would decide against hiring more staff because the increased profit also results in an increase tax on that profit. You fucking can’t.
#4) The article is an editorial full of opinions. There is simply no objective data to argue the point that raising income tax on people who’s net taxable income is over $250,000 would hurt the economy.
#5) The author, David Park, appears to have no credentials other than being a blogger. His “job creators alliance” has no apparent footprint on the web, since it’s links go to weird Japanese text pages.
And the list goes on…
I hear some regulations are being cut. Other than that I am against Trump just as much as I was against Obama and Bush2. The Three Stooge era of the American presidency.
That being said, I feel quite a bit of delight from seeing the mental breakdown of a particular group of statists. Trump has caused many an identity crisis. They actually wrap up their personal identity with the state. It is a phenomenon that will be a topic of study in psychology for centuries to come.
I listen to NPR in the car, so hearing good anti-protectionist rhetoric is a pleasing ride. No railing against cheap Chinese tires anymore. No excusing mass deportation anymore. They chilled a bit on supporting humanitarian mass-murder and regional destabilization, but not so much. Empire is very much an ego thing for them.
Are you from the fucking future or something? Why the fuck do you believe this??
At his absolute best, Trump will get a pledge from the North Koreans to dismantle their nuclear program, as verified by inspectors, in exchange for an easing of sanctions.
Except…
That was what we agreed to with Iran. And Trump called that the stupidest deal he’s seen (and he knows stupid deals; he paid over $100,000 to nut in some porn actress).
So, he has no endgame. Just blather.
But, apparently his really fucking stupid followers turn that nonsense into a fervent belief that the Korean War is now over!!
Un-fucking-believable.
I am against Trump’s disposal of the Iran deal, but the deal wasn’t necessary in the first place. Iran had no intentions of developing a nuclear weapon for quite some time according to the US government’s intelligence agencies.
In addition to that, according to Obama, he had to back the Saudis in Yemen so they wouldn’t throw a tantrum after the deal was passed. The Iran deal was not worth that price. (A price paid by thousands of civilians in Yemen so Obama and Kerry could have a good chapter in their books)
I think it is the other way around. The strawman of The Evil Liberal has been built up for so long that people take it seriously, and seem to really believe that it is synonymous with “not conservative.” Whenever anything bad happens, instead of analyzing the issue, liberals are blamed. They might as well be The Devil Himself.
For example, look at how clothy unironically uses the phrase “war on coal.” Who do you think is behind that? Why, liberals, of course! Credulous people who can’t read, or who are as uninformed as someone who can’t, can be led to believe such nonsense. But even a cursory examination of the decline of coal jobs reveals that the cause lies 1) with the frackers, who have unleashed mass quantities of cheap natural gas and 2) coal interests themselves, who have automated their operations. “Liberals” are not to blame, no matter how you slice it.
The problem is, for someone who has to be told what to think because they can’t separate the wheat from the chaff for themselves, is whom to trust. Sadly on the right, the most trusted voices are also the most full of shit, telling their thralls anything, just anything, if it results in tax cuts for the wealthy.
I don’t think the answer to the OP will make sense, being rooted in nonsense. However, I don’t buy the whole “rednecks reject a strong woman!” argument, FWIW. Hillary was simply too flawed a candidate to hang her failure on other people’s shortcomings.
Detaining families at the border is one thing. Separating children from their parents at said borders is quite another. What reason is there to separate them at all except to be cruel?
But you know, shit rolls downhill. I stopped being surprised by sadistic crap like this quite a while ago.
I, for one, do want to be divided from the ignorant, racist, misogynist, bigoted morons who support Trump. Not being united with them is a good thing.
Here’s a think-piece that a FB friend had on his feed the other day.
[url=]Rebecca Solnit: Whose Story (and Country) Is This? ‹ Literary Hub
I found it thought-provoking. And distressing.
I agree. It’s just that when people talk about partisan politics tearing the country apart, I feel like I should be trying to build bridges. But how can I?
The dems are wrong on some things, IMO, but the modern GOP is wrong on pretty much *everything *because they are pro-ignorance. They stigmatize facts, intellectual curiosity, science.
It helps to note that the two main parties in the US do not (now) represent the two main sides of the political spectrum.
Modern Dems are somewhat right wing compared to most political parties in the developed world. And the GOP is way out there in the lunatic fringe; you can barely slide a sheet of paper between them and infowars.
Sorry for this rant going somewhat off-topic but I just wanted to say I don’t lay it all on Trump. His party laid the foundation in their behaviour when Obama was pres, and they’re complicit now.
This is indeed a brilliant article. Also very sad and very true. (long-ish, but worth the read.)
I can relate to the following as an adult woman, and it states what I believe was The Problem with Hillary Clinton. And will be the problem with any (near) future female candidate for President.
It is possible to dislike HRC and not hate women.
I know, it goes against the “men dislike HRC because they misogynist” narrative.
I deeply disliked HRC as a candidate (I did vote for her in the general because Trump) but I can think of several women who I would love to see run for office and certainly have zero problem with a woman as a candidate just because she is a woman.
Doubtless some are misogynists who freak out at the thought of a woman as president solely because she is a woman but I doubt they are that numerous.
Way to miss the whole point. :rolleyes: