|
meristem posted:By whom? Democrats in the Senate? They aren't going to go along with his ideas, especially something as nutty as building a literal wall on the us-mexican border and attempting to make the mexicans pay for it. That would be bipartisanly blocked if he attempts to go through with it. Same thing with his tax code. There will have to be heavy concessions if he expects it to pass (and I think everybody can agree that some tax reform is needed) Like all politics, Trump won't be able to pass whatever he wants uncontested. Everything's going to be a fight. UV_Catastrophe posted:I think people are forgetting that a Trump administration comes connected at the hip to a republican Congress. Trump's ideas may or may not be blocked, but you can bet your rear end that Congress will be quite busy repealing or privatizing basically every public institution created since FDR took office, exactly according to what their donors have paid them to do. How's that any worse than Obama and Hillary? They supported budget sequestration, the privatization of schools/jails and the selling of public commons. At least the Democrats will attempt to fight it if it comes from a person with a (R) next to their name. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Feb 28, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:You might as well ask for nuclear holocaust, honestly A nuclear holocaust would be more effective for what he wants, which is apparently for everyone to cry HOSANNA and unleash the apocalypse to cleanse the earth for our sins. A Trump presidency would just be everything horrible about the Obama presidency amped up, with more terrible things since the Republicans would have all three branches of government. It would be the same old mundane kind of horrid that we've gotten used to, but with the added joy of the GOP social agenda. It's basically the same sort of fallacy that Accelerationists fall prey to. That if we just make things worse and worse, we'll eventually reach a breaking point where the CURSE WILL BE LIFTED and people will vote for sane leaders who make good choices for the future of all people. In reality, that kind of thinking just means that when poo poo goes south, the worst sort of people have all the power and the resources. And yeah, the reply would be that "Hillary is just as bad!" But that's just not true. She's no left -winger, but she's got many policies that are clearly better than Trump, even including his tendency to say OH YEAH WE'LL DO THAT to whoever he's talking to at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Democrats in the Senate? They aren't going to go along with his ideas, especially something as nutty as building a literal wall on the us-mexican border and attempting to make the mexicans pay for it. That would be bipartisanly blocked if he attempts to go through with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:How's that any worse than Obama and Hillary? They supported budget sequestration, the privatization of schools/jails and the selling of public commons. At least the Democrats will attempt to fight it if it comes from a person with a (R) next to their name. It's entirely possible that Clinton might compromise away bits and pieces of pro-working class policies with a republican Congress, just as the early Obama administration was open to doing. That would suck, sure. But what Clinton won't do is pass the entire oligarch wishlist that comprises the current republican agenda. It's better to keep the wheels from completely falling off the bus over the next eight years while we attempt to unfuck local and state politics to the extent that gerrymandering can be undone and progressive populists would have the opportunity to take back Congress. Hopefully by then, conditions will be more favorable for a Bernie-esque presidential candidate, ideally one with solid credentials on minority issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Arguing that Trump will be powerful enough to destroy our political party system but not powerful enough to do any of the other horrible things he's promising seems like magical thinking. This is just turning into Hillarychat now, but I'll add that the status quo that Hillary would preserve may suck, but it is not an imminent crisis at the level of what Trump could be. Sometimes shooting the moon isn't the right move. See McGovern, Carter, Mondale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
All Trump supporters seem to think that he'll do the things he promised that they like, but not the things he promised that they hate. They should try imagining it the other way around - what if all the things he promised that they liked are blocked or lies to get elected, and he successfully pushes through all the things he promised that they hate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:It's entirely possible that Clinton might compromise away bits and pieces of pro-working class policies with a republican Congress, just as the early Obama administration was open to doing. That would suck, sure. But what Clinton won't do is pass the entire oligarch wishlist that comprises the current republican agenda. You can hate Trump but see how that message is going to work less and less well over time, especially since how many people openly dislike Hillary. Ultimately, Trump would be worse for the working class by far but at the same time Hillary as a package is a very tough sell. I could see even more Sanders supporters just staying home than anything because they have simply have grown fatigued with the traditional inner workings of the Democratic party. Also, to be honest, a lot of Sanders supporters do probably care about broad economic issues rather than minority issues specifically as well and you have a broad cleavage of people more invested in minority rights/social policy and those who really care much more on the economic side of the divide. Ultimately, what Trump is doing is mostly an act, but he is really hitting on some key points that are going to appeal to specifically the white working class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
meristem posted:Why would the Republicans want to help the Democratic minority in the Senate block the ideas of their own president? Are you assuming some sort of a bizarro world where Trump wins the Presidency but the Democrats take the Senate? Assume instead Republican Presidency + Congress, and recall the GW Bush years. I live in a world where 'oh noes, obama can't do nuthin' cuz them meanies won't let him  ' exists so yeah, I expect the Democrats to do everything they can to block the most odious of Trump's ideas. And I expect some Republicans to break from rank and file when it comes to spending tens of billions of government dollars on a loving wall along the us-mexican border. Nobody, not even hardcore Trump fans, think it's really going to happen.Bush 42 tried for years to "reform" social security and he wasn't able to get it done. What's so special about Trump where all of his ideas will pass uncontested or unchanged? [And that could be the biggest problem with the country along with the biggest driver of support for outsiders like Trump/Bernie. Both sides feel like they're losing the battle. The really hardcore right wing forums I read basically are some bizarro land to what you would consider reality.] UV_Catastrophe posted:It's entirely possible that Clinton might compromise away bits and pieces of pro-working class policies with a republican Congress, just as the early Obama administration was open to doing. That would suck, sure. But what Clinton won't do is pass the entire oligarch wishlist that comprises the current republican agenda. Great. So we'll continue privatizing, cutting government programs, protecting wall street, outsourcing jobs, destabilizing other countries, stomping on domestic freedom and making absolutely no progress except for things we luck into...and maybe we'll get to pick one or two centrist supreme court justices. Where do I sign up  [where's the bernie-esque presidential candidate of the future coming from? he really seems like the last of a dying breed] Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:This sort of identity politicking is part of what is driving the right wing populist surge in America, I'm thinking. I wager similar things are fueling the same animus over in Europe- when refugees or those using the refugee crisis for personal gain act badly and commit real bodily crime and well-to-do scolds chastise the natives for daring to be so intolerant. your not wrong, i know a bunch of friends who will end up voting for trump because they are sick of being talked down to by the left. identity politicking has sadly hurt the left. its to easy to use a band aid, the parts of left would rather care about stupid poo poo like Harvard removing the title "masters" and stupid poo poo in media, are these issues, yeah, but we shouldnt treat them they way the right treats its issues and scream and yell and force people to kowtow over them. its why the left other then bernie is losing people. it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:I was an Occupy protester for a time in my town. I graduated in 09' and everyone I knew who said they could probably find me a job was out on their ear. I've done better since, but the American story I've known is multigenerational downward mobility. My great grandparents on both sides owned things and had businesses. My grandparents were bureaucrats with golden pensions. My parents are blue collar, but on the good side of the two tier contracts. I see the world growing smaller and smaller around me and I know that I will never have the things that they had- limits to growth and all that. With what you've posted in this thread you deserve to get sneered at. No matter how much you try to dress it up it still boils down to "I'm not winning so I'm taking the ball and going home, gently caress everyone else".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:With what you've posted in this thread you deserve to get sneered at. The attitude isn't unique to myself- and it takes fear and force to realize change. If team D just assumes we'll show up and pull the lever for yet another god awful trade deal or identity politics palliative they have another thing coming. You don't negotiate by first capitulating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Just want to remind people that the general purpose of this thread is not to talk about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in general. You can do go that in the comments section of your local news station. I was specifically asking "Why Now?". Many of the arguments that people are talking about, like wealth concentration and alienation, have been going on for a while. Talking in vague, general terms about "people are sick of the establishment" doesn't really tell me much. I want more specific ideas, with more specific information. For example, just looking at the employment rate: it is much lower now than it was in 2012. And if unemployment was a factor, then would Trump (or another populist candidate) do better in states with high unemployment, like Nevada and South Carolina, than he would in states with low unemployment rates, like Iowa and New Hampshire. Can anyone think of specific factors, rather than vague sentiments about mood?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
I suppose it is a point of view. My point of view is we're all citizens of this world and should all have global opportunities. Protectionism and walls and restrictive immigration policies are all bad things because they divide us instead of leading to a better, more just, world. As for why now: The racism has been there all along. The new things are the bad economy due to housing speculation, the bankers getting off the hook scott free, and politicians blaming it all on poor immigrants (and with the existing racism, a huge lump of people believing them). Plus tribal politics that make it easier psychologically to vote for a crazy man than anyone from the other party. nelson fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Just want to remind people that the general purpose of this thread is not to talk about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in general. You can do go that in the comments section of your local news station. I'm thinking the now is that the dam is bursting. Larger and larger segments of the population are being left out. News media harps on 'great' economic stats and even though unemployment has been falling the participation rate has conveniently been doing the same. A job isn't a job- the fellows who worked at the plant in a previous era now having jobs at the Wal*Mart are both 'employed' but that employment isn't nearly as robust as it once was. Culture has been shifting at a faster and faster clip. The promises of globalization have made very clear losers out of entire swaths of both America and similar disaffected types in Europe. If your mainstream leadership class seems more devoted to the idea and 'promise' of globalization and is friendlier to foreign aliens than to your own population, well... that is a pill people may swallow in good times, but in times of struggle...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Just want to remind people that the general purpose of this thread is not to talk about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in general. You can do go that in the comments section of your local news station. I consider it to possibly be the fact that multiple right wing signs of the apocalypse have come to pass in past four years like the re-election of Barack Obama (another failure for conservatives), the rise of ISIL (scary, savage terrorists), Black Lives Matter protests (potential race wars coming), the legalization of gay marriage (proof of the country losing "Christian values"), alongside economic pressures of the slow recovery. Ordinarily it could all pass, but with the right wing media bubble constantly proclaiming that Real Americans' (read: white conservatives) are entering an apocalyptic death spiral have gotten the average conservative voter so terrified that they'll gladly throw in with the person loudly and crassly saying that he'll crush whatever they fear. That he says that while seeming like an outsider to the establishment that, as far as they can tell, has failed to secure their dominance is just gravy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Just want to remind people that the general purpose of this thread is not to talk about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in general. You can do go that in the comments section of your local news station. I think this question has been answered multiple times and in multiple ways, if "wealth concentration" is cumulative why wouldn't politics change over time to reflect that? Why not now? Unemployment statistics don't tell you much especially if you don't take wages and underemployment into account, and it is quite clear many people are still struggling from the recession years later. I don't get the hold up here, I think it is safe to say what is going on is mostly economic. Trump and Sanders are ultimately just picking up on a mood that has been bitter for a while, and in case of 2016, the field was thin enough that it broke into the political mainstream even through the rise of populist feelings has been going on for years (Obama was in part elected for that reason...then re-elected).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:
Well, given that in the past two years none of that has happened despite the Republicans controlling all of Congress, I think you might be talking out of your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
I still believe the question of timing all comes down to Trump. In the alternate non-Trump timeline, the current republican primary would probably be limited on the right by Ted Cruz and his standard tea party nonsense and not by the diet version of Mussolini. I don't think this thread exists in the non-Trump timeline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Can anyone think of specific factors, rather than vague sentiments about mood? I think you're making the mistake of assuming that Trump's success indicates that populism has reached some sort of peak, when really he's just the first person in a while to come along and successfully take advantage of it. It's entirely possible Trump might have been even more successful in 2012 if he'd actually run instead of just talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I was specifically asking "Why Now?". Many of the arguments that people are talking about, like wealth concentration and alienation, have been going on for a while. [...] I suppose one additional factor is just the fact of the election itself? I mean, the office of the President is highly symbolic - it's not just "a" seat of power, it's "the" one. So that's why 2015/6. And it's not an election against the incumbent, too, and there is a sort of feeling, sometimes and for some people, that parties are 'supposed' to take turns. So, they may have the feeling that it's 'their turn'? And, on the other hand, the humiliation of the latter Bush days is long enough in the past to be forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I think you're making the mistake of assuming that Trump's success indicates that populism has reached some sort of peak, when really he's just the first person in a while to come along and successfully take advantage of it. It's entirely possible Trump might have been even more successful in 2012 if he'd actually run instead of just talking about it. Most of the arguments seem to come around to their being a necessary cause (economic inequality) and a sufficient cause (Trump, or someone like him) The next step is to try to make a predictive pattern out of this. Will Trump do better in states that are economically alienated (states with high unemployment/low wage growth) or culturally alienated ("flyover" states)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
meristem posted:there is a sort of feeling, sometimes and for some people, that parties are 'supposed' to take turns. I have honestly never heard this about the Presidency, and I can't really think of a time when that would be true. Maybe Eisenhower since FDR & Truman were in office for so long, but JFK's election was as razor thin as can be, 1968 was a colossal mess, the 70s in general were another colossal mess, and Reagan campaigned on ending the colossal mess of the last 10 years, which were majority Republican controlled. Even 92 was a three way battle that Clinton barely won, and everyone knows about 2000.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:It's basically the same sort of fallacy that Accelerationists fall prey to. That if we just make things worse and worse, we'll eventually reach a breaking point where the CURSE WILL BE LIFTED and people will vote for sane leaders who make good choices for the future of all people. In reality, that kind of thinking just means that when poo poo goes south, the worst sort of people have all the power and the resources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Just want to remind people that the general purpose of this thread is not to talk about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in general. You can do go that in the comments section of your local news station. I apologize for trying to explain my position instead of posting a hilarious Wile E. Coyote gif. We did nothing to prevent another recession. We're heading towards another one. For the past eight years, we've had rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, that all we need to do is support them and they'll do all the work the country needs. If we don't support them, the dreaded others will destroy America as we know it. The work never gets done for whatever reason. The world never ends when the others in power. I think people are just realizing that all this fear from the two parties - that are moving in the same general direction (at least, on a federal level) - is bullshit. That's the appeal. Progressives are lashing out at establishment neoliberals. Conservatives are lashing out establishment cuckservatives. Both sides are sick of whatever wedge issues that's suppose to drive them to their respective parties. Both sides realize how rigged this election was suppose to be. Hillary was preselected back in 2008 and the Republicans are still attempting to overthrow Trump before the nomination. Since there's no incumbent president, outsiders like Trump and Bernie are attractive because they have a track record (Trump as a successful businessman, Bernie as a successful independent politician) and they're publicly rejecting money from tainted sources. Everybody else is running on business as usual. If you don't get the appeal of that, I don't know what to tell you. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
At some point the results of current decades long policies were going to come to a head and this just became more and more likely as the effects became statistically greater and greater, trying to pinpoint some exact date or even singular cause is not really possible. Most significantly the policies of immigration, free trade, social failure, corporatism, demographics, and the "new" economy which both parties have embraced have culminated in the current political "crisis". Trump is popular precisely because he directly attacks or at least talks about these things, not because of whatever inane psycho analysis liberal dweebs try to pull over on dumbass whites (his personality is synergistic with it perhaps but it's not the impetus for his popularity). Sanders popularity was in similar vein except he was anchored on only a few of those (corporatism, the new economy) and never would have addressed the others. People in this thread keep mentioning that voting for Trump is worse for the average worker than voting for Hillary but I have yet to see any concrete policy reasons laid out as to why, minimizing immigration and free trade alone are bigger boons to the average worker than anything I've seen Hillary talk about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:
The average worker is not very white. See, you're once again approaching this from the perspective of the "Silent Majority" - that America is really just white people and those drat negroes and Hispanics need to shove off. That's not been the case for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Questions about Hillary were something to ask when she was running for Senate, not now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The average worker is not very white. How does this work out statistically my man? How would this invalidate my points even if what you said is true? computer parts posted:See, you're once again approaching this from the perspective of the "Silent Majority" - that America is really just white people and those drat negroes and Hispanics need to shove off. That's not been the case for a while now. Do non-white workers not face the same pressures from immigration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Do non-white workers not face the same pressures from immigration? Non-white workers will not vote for someone who's saying "evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The average worker is not very white. You think native born blacks or latins won't benefit in some way from restricting immigration and reindustrializing? Seems to me they very well might.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:You don't think native born blacks or latins will benefit in some way from restricting immigration and reindustrializing? They benefit, but computer parts posted:Non-white workers will not vote for someone who's saying "evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They benefit, but Then the question is one of tone and not substance. The message of protectionism and border restriction could be sold without the race baiting, to be sure. Globalists seem to do a fine job of meshing all resistance to their world view as racism, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Then the question is one of tone and not substance. The message of protectionism and border restriction could be sold without the race baiting, to be sure. It possibly could be, but it's not, because of existing cultural biases. You'll be able to sell an Italian on border restrictions because Italians aren't immigrating en-masse anymore, even if his dad did immigrate here. Not so much with a Mexican.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:I'm thinking the now is that the dam is bursting. Larger and larger segments of the population are being left out. News media harps on 'great' economic stats and even though unemployment has been falling the participation rate has conveniently been doing the same. A job isn't a job- the fellows who worked at the plant in a previous era now having jobs at the Wal*Mart are both 'employed' but that employment isn't nearly as robust as it once was. The perplexing thing is that Obama was elected ostensibly in response to the financial collapse with the promise of reigning in inequality and banker pay. Despite this, inequality and pay at the top of the scale is exploding, while people on the bottom are making less than they did in 2007 in nominal terms. computer parts posted:Non-white workers will not vote for someone who's saying "evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway". Two things about this: 1) Non-whites absolutely will vote for someone like this. Look at the types of leaders elected in developing countries and the types of immigration policies they implement to thunderous applause. Even Mexico is extremely rough on illegal immigrants from Central America, and this enjoys wide popular support. Non-whites don't hate Trump, they hate that Trump isn't one of them. 2) Why bother with groups that don't plan on voting for you anyways? Last I checked, non-whites are a minority of the population and many of them are ineligible to vote. If Trump becomes president, many illegal immigrants will never be able to vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Then the question is one of tone and not substance. The message of protectionism and border restriction could be sold without the race baiting, to be sure. Globalists seem to do a fine job of meshing all resistance to their world view as racism, however. It's made easier by the fact that anyone who uses the word "globalist" is actually a racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
on the left posted:1) Non-whites absolutely will vote for someone like this. Look at the types of leaders elected in developing countries and the types of immigration policies they implement to thunderous applause. Yes, you are correct that supporting immigration is not an immutable concept built into the DNA of minorities. This is not what's being argued.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Non-white workers will not vote for someone who's saying "evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway". Some of them inevitably will for different reasons but I'm not really disagreeing with you that non-whites (latinos here) are generally averse to vote for someone like Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They benefit, but Unless I'm missing a newer quote quote:“When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people." That isn't "evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway". He's talking about Mexico encouraging illegal immigrants. And you'll probably be shocked that alot of legal immigrants aren't fans of people who circumvent the system they had to go through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:your not wrong, i know a bunch of friends who will end up voting for trump because they are sick of being talked down to by the left. identity politicking has sadly hurt the left. its to easy to use a band aid, the parts of left would rather care about stupid poo poo like Harvard removing the title "masters" and stupid poo poo in media, are these issues, yeah, but we shouldnt treat them they way the right treats its issues and scream and yell and force people to kowtow over them. its why the left other then bernie is losing people. it sucks. Funny how people so concerned about the "working class" are so willing to shove minority issues off the plank once their feelings are hurt by minor things like changing language. Abandoning minority groups because you feel "talked down to" is not going to help the left in any way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's made easier by the fact that anyone who uses the word "globalist" is actually a racist. Tell that to the towns turned to rubble by offshoring, or to the people forced to train their foreign replacement workers to qualify for unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:54
|
|