USA Politics: Fate of the World

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Only in terms of optics though. When do you think they’ll finally figure out he’s putting himself first, last and everywhere else?

Here’s the thing. Putin’s been doing that very successfully in Russia for years now, and he’s essentially stripped the press of their freedoms, and turned the government into a semi-dictatorial state to his own liking. There’s no free political opposition, there’s no permitted real political debate, and if you have something Putin or his cronies want, they take it.

Now we swing over to the US and we’re fast seeing similar themes but here’s the rub, as long as Trump projects this strong, father-like image that at least on the surface suggests “America first” and keeps pushing against enemies (real or imagined) he’ll be able to keep getting away with the kind of insanity he has, at least to some extent, because he’s the Strongman, and much like Russia, real political debate is being usurped and replaced with whatever reality Trump deems beneficial.

It doesn’t help that the media helped create Trump, the left helped create Trump, and both the media and the left having helped create the space for this monster lack any kind of sensible tool-set now to stop him. All they can do is hysterically screech as he steadily rips apart the rights and laws that have helped bind the US together for the last half century, unless they can get more Senators in that’s all they can do.

[Sarfrin]

It’a not the answer I wanted to hear but it’s all too plausible at the moment. Surely America has slightly better constitutional safeguards than Russia though? That abominable child separation policy has started to be rolled back in part at least.

[LexW]

most of those still came in with a family income of anywhere between 50-100k (50 thousand dollars here converts to about £37,500 - as a family income? That’s not going to get you that far in the UK, dunno about the US).

Just a question but do you know what the average family income in the UK is? It’s £22,000 or so. Having a family income of £37,500 in the UK puts you in what, the top 3rd of the population? Top 4th maybe even?

So you might want to think about that a bit for comparison purposes. How much did you think people in the UK earned, btw? I know you operate a lot outside the country (not sure if ex-pat or not) but your fellow Brits operate on a lot less than £37,500, in general.

Also, £37,500 does get you pretty far in the UK, outside of the big cities. If you can somehow earn that without living in London or a few other places, you won’t be rolling in it, but you’ll definitely be doing okay. Certainly a lot better off than most Brits.

But in America it’s even better. The vast majority of people live outside the few expensive cities. Even Chicago, for example, isn’t really an expensive city. And Trump voters particularly live outside those cities.

So if you’re a Trump voter earning $50-100k it’s a very strong bet that you live in either a rural area, or a small city. Either way, your costs are vastly lower than a Brit. You can buy a house which, even in a rural area, in the UK, might cost £800k to £1.2m for about $350-400k, and that’s IN a smaller city. Which may well be a pretty nice civilized city, actually. Not the hick shithole Brits tend to imagine.

If you’re going for something lesser, well, that’s even cheaper. A 3-bed in a smaller city might cost $125-250k, and it’ll likely be nicer than a UK equivalent, because it’s simply physically larger, and more modern in design (they don’t have everyone trying to shove into Victorian crap), and will actually be designed for modern amenities.

And if you’re renting, wow. In the US rent is frequently LOWER than a mortgage, because the housing market is actually competitive. A massive modern two-bed condo with all mod cons in a safe area, with gated security, where I used to live with my wife in the US costs $550. Per MONTH. In London the same would cost you £2000+ per month, and even outside London you’d be looking at £1200-1500 per month. Not the £400 that’s equivalent to.

Then look at grocery prices, look at utility bills, even account for gas mileage in some shitty SUV, and you’re ridiculously way ahead because $50000 is a lot of money (and £37500 is quite a lot of money).

And that’s the bottom end of your range!

Most of the people in that range around going to be somewhere in the middle, say $75k, which just makes it better. And people who are on $100k, outside of SF/NY, who consider themselves “poor” or “dispossessed” are wild fantasists. And they do exist. I’ve them IRL. I’m related to some marriage. People who boast about earning $120k (and I am confident they are not lying from their lifestyle, decade on decade) in one breath, but claim to be completely disenfranchised, dispossessed, and barely above water in another. People who have a mansion (no seriously, maybe it’s a “McMansion” and hideous/tacky-AF but it’s still huge and good quality and could be rendered tasteful if people cared), multiple good cars (not lemons), a cabin or two, maybe they even own a bit of land, who put kids through college, and really the only threat to them is healthcare costs, but they voted for the guy who said he would get rid of Obamacare, so…*

I mean, I think what might surprise a lot of British people, if they went to the rural US, is how well-off a lot of it is and a lot of the people are. It’s a crazy place but… I went with my wife’s mom to buy a car and a totally upright, normal-seeming dude, holding his baby on one arm, and chatting about the car he was selling, had a H&K USP (or similar) holstered on his waist with three extra mags for the firefight I guess he must be anticipating. Job-wise he was a server tech, not some kind of cop or security guard. Nuts.

• = This is where it does get interesting though. Even some staunch pistol-toting “white genocide” (though they never quite say it, only imply it) Republicans I’ve met have actually been keen to keep “ACA”, even as they might sneer at “Obamacare” (they are the same exact thing) because it actually does benefit them in an obvious way. So there are Republican politicians wavering on that.

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

So you might want to think about that a bit for comparison purposes. How much did you think people in the UK earned, btw? I know you operate a lot outside the country (not sure if ex-pat or not) but your fellow Brits operate on a lot less than £37,500, in general.

My presumption is a household averages £36-40k if both parents are earning. That means both are in jobs that pay 18 to 20k or one earns the bulk of that with the other part timing. You can halve that for a single earner to get the average. That’s not an unreasonable guesstimate. No, that money doesn’t go very far if you have a car and a mortgage to deal with on top of the other expenses (woe betide you if you have to commute or live in London).

I’m well aware that if you’re not near any major city your earnings drop sharply, it’s not fun if you’re in low-level retail because it’s almost a given you have to top your earnings up with benefits (hell, if you’re in any “not decent” job that seems to be the lay of the land now). The problem is the cities are where the jobs are that pay a damn so it’s a bit of a catch 22, you either go where the jobs pay and suck up the expenses or you stay out in the sticks and commute and then wince as Trains or the Car eats up your money.

I mean, I think what might surprise a lot of British people, if they went to the rural US, is how well-off a lot of it is and a lot of the people are. It’s a crazy place but… I went with my wife’s mom to buy a car and a totally upright, normal-seeming dude, holding his baby on one arm, and chatting about the car he was selling, had a H&K USP (or similar) holstered on his waist with three extra mags for the firefight I guess he must be anticipating. Job-wise he was a server tech, not some kind of cop or security guard. Nuts.

Yeah, the bit about people having guns just casually always got me about the US, I mean, what exactly are they defending themselves from, ze Germans? (cookie if you get the film reference)

I’m in the fraction of a fraction of a percent in the UK who holds an active firearms license on account of my work and unlike in the US I can say with absolute certainty we treat guns over here with a hell of a lot more respect and caution. I’m not even allowed to carry “at will” unless I have a valid defence (and “because I felt like it” doesn’t count) and as for shooting the damn thing? I’d best be prepared to fill in the several sheets of A4 if I do.

This is why the Police over here try not to use the firearms unless it’s last resort, despite all the police dramas that sensationalise the use of guns, because the level of paperwork and scrutiny involved if you fire the gun is enough to drive you mad, like -

ADDENDUM : I did more travelling a decade ago, now - not so much. I’ve done most of Europe and the Middle East (great fun), and America (did a three month sabbatical there). These days I content myself with mostly northern Europe.

[Skalpadda]

They’re looking for a Father figure and a strong man, much like how Russia has wound up cosying up to Putin for the same reasons. It’s not so much the entertainment factor, it’s about someone who, at least in terms of optics, puts America first.

Well, if anyone sees Trump as a father figure something’s gone terribly, terribly wrong. I mean something definitely already has, but… more. He’s also the whiniest little crybaby I think I’ve ever seen in political office anywhere, so I have to assume “strong man” means something different in this context.

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Well, if anyone sees Trump as a father figure something’s gone terribly, terribly wrong. I mean something definitely already has, but… more. He’s also the whiniest little crybaby I think I’ve ever seen in political office anywhere, so I have to assume “strong man” means something different in this context.

You’re looking at Trump from the perspective of someone who doesn’t approve of his policies or his generalised stance. Russians who do not approve of Putin equally will not look at him as a Strong Man but rather someone who is running their country slowly into the ground (outsize military spending in relation to their economy, massive corruption, crony capitalism just to name the obvious problems).

People who believe in that kind of politician generally do not care so much about the policies and more care about the fact that this is the kind of guy who tweets about Harley Davidson making “terrible mistakes” by offshoring their production and threatening to slap massive levies on bikes if they go through with it. Of course Harley isn’t stupid, those levies will murder their domestic market so they back down, lo and behold, Trump looks like a hero to those who think it’s bringing jobs “back to the US”.

This is regardless of all the more insane policies he enacts.

This is all about being able to look at the matter from a dispassionate perspective. Take your feelings out of the equation and analyse what conditions allowed for the space to Trump to exist. Space had to be created in political discourse for someone like him to appear in America.

Here’s the thing, that space got created because at the ground level both the left and right were steadily retreating to more extreme positions and eroding what the US would see as the centre ground - what we in Europe see as centre-right - and resulting in spats like the government shutdowns, people just want their government to work so when someone comes along, tells them their government is dysfunctional (true), made up of people only willing to protect their own interests (true) and progressively less willing to listen to people on the ground (this one is debatable, moreso with the Dems than the GOP, but towards the end of the Obama era even the left were getting high on the glue they were inhaling) - is it any wonder the GOP voters swarmed to him?

Telling people what to do or think and saying that all other opinions are wrongthink is how you lose elections and referendums, it’s how Brexit got lost, because our government made the amazingly dumb assumption that people would vote pragmatically and that anyone who had any legitimate grievance about the EU was a bigoted racist who must be shouted down.

Generalising voters as unreachable or categorising large swathes of the GOP voter base as deplorables because you can’t figure out a strategy to talk to them for example is a great way to alienate people not just on the right, but in the middle as well.

Switching off from what one side is saying because clearly they’re apparently all nazis because Trump is a nutjob therefore anyone who possibly voted or supported him is therefore also a complete nutjob is the worst strategy in existence. You won’t convince anyone to change their mind, you’ll just piss them off and make them even more willing to vote Trump in again.

It doesn’t work. It keeps not working. Eventually people will figure this out.

Maybe.

Or maybe people think if they are woke enough and yell hard enough and scream loud enough they might just win through sheer volume.

Yeah, that always is a winning strategy.

[Matt_W]

Generalising voters as unreachable or categorising large swathes of the GOP voter base as deplorables

Clinton’s actual quote:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Her major mistake (and it was a major mistake) was using the world “half” instead of “some”. But replace the word half with some and she is saying exactly what you’re saying Fuzzy.

[MD]

Can’t we simultaneously acknowledge that a vocal segment of the progressive left overreached with their strategy of shaming dissenters, and also that Trump is genuinely terrible & a notable chunk of his support comes from people who are either irredeemably awful (the actual ‘nazi’ crowd, using that word loosely but not as loosely as I’d like, whom Trump has undeniably courted through dog-whistles and personnel choices) or unreachably ignorant (people who literally only watch Fox and/or read Breitbart)?

Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ line played into Trump’s hands because they gave a label and an identity for him to use to unify the worst people at the core of his base & the more ordinary people at the fringes, whose resentment and bitterness made them susceptible to throwing up their hands and throwing in their lot with people their better natures would have shunned. But it worked that way mostly because political debate is all about soundbites and nobody paid any attention to her actual point. (I’m not even sure that ‘half’ was an exaggeration, depending on whether she was talking about half of the people who would eventually vote Republican, or half of the Trump fans who propelled him to the nomination.)

Here’s the thing, that space got created because at the ground level both the left and right were steadily retreating to more extreme positions and eroding what the US would see as the centre ground - what we in Europe see as centre-right -

I keep reading lines like this, but I’m not convinced. I think you might be conflating the shrill, intellecually lazy, unprincipled segment of the left wing commentariat & base (and/or the caricature version painted by the right, which makes the awful ones seem more prominent and the prominent ones seem more awful) with the actual policies held or enacted by Democratic politicians. I’m open to being corrected, but I can’t think of any ‘extreme’ legislation passed or executive orders signed during Obama’s terms, unless you count the watered-down healthcare bill, which surely doesn’t count even by American standards. Maybe there are some crazy things that would have passed without Republican opposition, but none come to mind.

edit: maybe I misread, and ‘ground level’ limits your point to the people rather than the politicians? I’m confused because you say that at ground level both sides became more extreme, and that members of the government were less willing to listen to people on the ground, but nevertheless “were getting high on the glue they were inhaling”. Which is confusing to me, but I think you mean that politicians were following the lead of ground-level extremists on their own side – which is the part I am skeptical of.

Even if we’re talking about the voters rather than the government, I’d like some examples of ‘extreme positions’ with mainstream support among Democrats. I agree that the positions that are held seem to be held with more emotional force and less tolerance for dissent, and that the field of positions held with this kind of vehemence has probably expanded – but I’m not sure which ones are actually ‘extreme’ in substance rather than style.

Telling people what to do or think and saying that all other opinions are wrongthink is how you lose elections and referendums

Again, I acknowledge that the rhetorical and tactical overreach of some on the left certainly helped to create the conditions for a major backlash. But how on earth would you characterise the Trumpian campaign style? I’ve never seen a politician or a base less interested in honest debate or nuance, or more willing to insult and belittle opponents.

[Xercies]

because you can’t figure out a strategy to talk to them for example is a great way to alienate people not just on the right, but in the middle as well.

The problem is that politics has gotten to extreme that if you try to talk to them they will not listen at all. I’ve had to many conversations and I’m sure others have where your basically banging against a brick wall and they are changing the goal posts every 5 seconds.

They will not change their minds, will refuse to even but will make sure to insult you at every opportunity.

I’ve never seen a politician or a base less interested in honest debate or nuance, or more willing to insult and belittle opponents.

Exactly

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

edit: maybe I misread, and ‘ground level’ limits your point to the people rather than the politicians? I’m confused because you say that at ground level both sides became more extreme, and that members of the government were less willing to listen to people on the ground, but nevertheless “were getting high on the glue they were inhaling”. Which is confusing to me, but I think you mean that politicians were following the lead of ground-level extremists on their own side – which is the part I am skeptical of.

Clarification -

Ground level means people, supporters - and they’ve definitely been getting more and more polarised over the last five years (they’ve been doing this for a lot longer but the process has visibly accelerated exponentially in the last five with the in-step rise of social media and the concept of news filtering), this in turn has created fertile ground for politicians to move off of moderate positions and get more extreme with their messaging - The Right very much more so on this count, but the Left isn’t entirely innocent either. This feeds back into the polarisation and creates a cyclic effect of Media > People > Politicians > Media.

With the Democrats right now the most extreme people are Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, hilariously, because the idea of “extreme” in the US is “socialism” - yeah, it’s a dirty word over there. Even the right wing isn’t as extreme as people contend beyond the fact they want to wind the clock back to the 18th century and relive the “Good ol’ days” where there were slaves and the railroads were hammered into place nail by nail.

No, if you want to see some actual political extremism in action, you need to go to Belgium

Again, I acknowledge that the rhetorical and tactical overreach of some on the left certainly helped to create the conditions for a major backlash. But how on earth would you characterise the Trumpian campaign style? I’ve never seen a politician or a base less interested in honest debate or nuance, or more willing to insult and belittle opponents.

For once I shall quote a much earlier post by myself on this matter -

Oh Trump very much Forrest Gumped his way to the Presidency, be in no doubt, he was as stupid as he could possibly get without actually failing the “Are you braindead and should we turn off life support?” test. Granted, he mixed it in with a very clever narrative “Vote for me and I’ll blow Washington up”, but overall, he did pretty much Forrest Gump his way there.

He proved you don’t need coherent policies or even a coherent personality, you just shout and scream and soundbite your way into office. Forrest Trump style.

[LexW]

You’re looking at Trump from the perspective of someone who doesn’t approve of his policies or his generalised stance. Russians who do not approve of Putin equally will not look at him as a Strong Man but rather someone who is running their country slowly into the ground (outsize military spending in relation to their economy, massive corruption, crony capitalism just to name the obvious problems).

Ok I get what you’re saying but Trump is still an incredibly screechy little wimp who cries all the time and takes everything personally. That’s what I don’t get re: strong man. It’s like, say there was some kind of I dunno radical-socialist “strong-man” running the UK, if the dude was weeping all the time about the “mean names” he’d been called (especially as he regularly calls people worse himself), weeping that everyone in the press was mean to him, and so on, I have to say, my “punk-ass bitch” (I hate to use that phrase but…) detector would be getting hard returns and my support for him would be continually dropping. What happened to stoicism? Not even his staunch supports could say he was stoic. He’s not a John Wayne or a Dirty Harry, nor even the sort of Frank Capra-movie character you might see Reagan or Bush2 as, he’s a bloody Adam Sandler character - one of the shriekier ones!

I guess, like, if we look at history, most “strongman” leaders ARE punk-ass bitches though. Seriously so that is true. Right now Erdogan is a punk-ass bitch for example, as is Kim Jong-un. But why? How does that work? I guess maybe you need to be a petty, juvenile SOB to work things that way?

Putin doesn’t quite seem to be from the same mould. Like he’s ridiculous self-regarding and so on, but I don’t see the petty, juvenile side. Maybe he just hides it better or the Western media doesn’t report it sufficiently.

I guess I’m just struggling with seeing a punk-ass bitch as a father figure, like what kind of fathers did these people have? Is that what leads to liking aimless dictatorial nutjobs? Have a punk-ass bitch for a dad?

God. It might be. An awful lot of the Americans I know who voted Trump did have dads who ping my punk-ass bitch detector in that they’re, as we discussed, wealthy and successful, but still feel “persecuted”. Or maybe I’m just enjoying writing “punk-ass bitch” too much and have lost my mind. Maybe America needs more dads who are real men, not fucking crybabies. Maybe that’s how they go into this mess. Probably not but…

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Putin doesn’t quite seem to be from the same mould. Like he’s ridiculous self-regarding and so on, but I don’t see the petty, juvenile side. Maybe he just hides it better or the Western media doesn’t report it sufficiently.

That’s because he hasn’t got pesky things like “Democracy” and the “Rule of law” stopping him from putting polonium in his opponent’s tea or spraying them with novichok or employing hitmen to just outright shoot them. He doesn’t tweet, he just gets on and gets rid of his opponents.

I guess I’m just struggling with seeing a punk-ass bitch as a father figure, like what kind of fathers did these people have? Is that what leads to liking aimless dictatorial nutjobs? Have a punk-ass bitch for a dad?

Because these people project power and authority in the sense of “I am in charge and I will make people respect my authority” rather than the more statesmanlike approach of “I will work with other leaders to establish consensus”, yes the former is more immature but it does appeal to the people with daddy issues.

God. It might be. An awful lot of the Americans I know who voted Trump did have dads who ping my punk-ass bitch detector in that they’re, as we discussed, wealthy and successful, but still feel “persecuted”. Or maybe I’m just enjoying writing “punk-ass bitch” too much and have lost my mind. Maybe America needs more dads who are real men, not fucking crybabies. Maybe that’s how they go into this mess. Probably not but…

And slowly, by degrees, you’re coming to understand how the largest and supposedly most advanced Democracy in the world voted for Trump.

The unvarnished truth is never a pretty thing to lay eyes upon, it’s why everyone will reach for the most convenient lie because anything is better than coming to the conclusion that America has daddy issues and Trump is the surrogate to the dispossessed and the ignorant and offered them the metaphorical legal grenade to throw at “Sanity” as we’d collectively understand it.

[Fumarole]

Wait, Hispanics are white now? We’re conflating races to make bullshit points fit the article narrative?

Hispanics have long been polled as White for race in US surveys. That may change in the near future, though.

[Matt_W]

Hispanics have long been polled as White for race in US surveys.

Indeed. “non-Hispanic whites” is pretty standard language in any demographic survey of the American public. Also, Hispanic does not equal any racial category. A person from Argentina or or Chile or Spain would be considered Hispanic in the U.S., and would–more likely than not–be as “white” as I am.

This man was just elected President of Mexico:

“Hispanic” is no more a “race” than “someone from the United States” is, which is why it’s not marked as such on census forms.

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

The more you learn.

That interests me because I’m acutely aware that Dems campaign to Hispanics as a specific minority. But the census suggests they’re not a specific racial category. Odd.

[Shadoko]

I guess that’s the difference between cultural minority and racial category at work.

[Skalpadda]

You’re looking at Trump from the perspective of someone who doesn’t approve of his policies or his generalised stance. Russians who do not approve of Putin equally will not look at him as a Strong Man but rather someone who is running their country slowly into the ground (outsize military spending in relation to their economy, massive corruption, crony capitalism just to name the obvious problems).

Oops, forgot to reply to this, but no, I’m talking about Trump being a big fat manbaby snowflake who reacts to everything like a hysterical toddler, how he’s openly and clumsily corrupt, irrational, sexist (and not in a paternalist way, but just a complete douchebag), and so on.

I can sort of understand how Putin can be seen as a strong paternalist figurehead of Russia. Trump though? I think you’d have to be seriously wrong in the head.

I think people voted for him for lots of reasons: They bought into the anti-establishment circus, they thought he’d genuinely do something for workers, decades of anti-Clinton sentiment made a lot of people genuinely scared of her, a significant chunk of evangelicals are completely insane and will excuse anything if it lets them roll back abortion rights (and there’s other, even crazier stuff, like Israel). Some were probably just racists who loved the dog whistles and wink-nudge bigotry. A lot were probably just people who vote R because that’s what they always do.

Here’s the thing, that space got created because at the ground level both the left and right were steadily retreating to more extreme positions and eroding what the US would see as the centre ground - what we in Europe see as centre-right - and resulting in spats like the government shutdowns, people just want their government to work so when someone comes along, tells them their government is dysfunctional (true), made up of people only willing to protect their own interests (true) and progressively less willing to listen to people on the ground (this one is debatable, moreso with the Dems than the GOP, but towards the end of the Obama era even the left were getting high on the glue they were inhaling) - is it any wonder the GOP voters swarmed to him?

As far as I can tell the Democrats aren’t any further to the left than they were 30 years ago. Certainly party leaders like Shumer and Pelosi, or candidates like Obama and Clinton can hardly be accused of being rabid socialists (of course they still are, because a lot of Americans are insane, but it’s not a rational position). It seems more like the Republicans have gone completely off the deep end, and these days they have outlets like Fox, Breitbart, talk radio stations and Infowars to amplify the insanity and go into hysterics about everything that doesn’t represent their particular brand of conservative bigotry, which in turn has made classical conservatism (or even basic civility) impossible. Look at what’s happened to McCain, or Flake, or any other conservative that’s been labeled a RINO for not toeing the Trump line.

TLDR: The USA has gone insane.

Switching off from what one side is saying because clearly they’re apparently all nazis because Trump is a nutjob therefore anyone who possibly voted or supported him is therefore also a complete nutjob is the worst strategy in existence. You won’t convince anyone to change their mind, you’ll just piss them off and make them even more willing to vote Trump in again.

It doesn’t work. It keeps not working. Eventually people will figure this out.

Maybe.

Or maybe people think if they are woke enough and yell hard enough and scream loud enough they might just win through sheer volume.

Yeah, that always is a winning strategy.

If you replace “nazis” with some other epithets it seems like exactly the strategy Team Trump and the GOP employed successfully to sweep the election. Trumps rallies were essentially “two minutes hate”, except they lasted for hours. .

[LexW]

If you replace “nazis” with some other epithets it seems like exactly the strategy Team Trump and the GOP employed successfully to sweep the election. Trumps rallies were essentially “two minutes hate”, except they lasted for hours. .

Yeah that seems like a weak argument for Fuzzy because that is exactly what Trump did.

Maybe what he means is that it only works on a certain kind of person, and that kind of person isn’t likely to vote liberal.

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

If you replace “nazis” with some other epithets it seems like exactly the strategy Team Trump and the GOP employed successfully to sweep the election. Trumps rallies were essentially “two minutes hate”, except they lasted for hours. .

Wow, way to miss the point. Yes, that’s what “Team Trump” did, but simply because Team Trump are nutjobs and people voted for Team Trump != all people who voted for Team Trump are nutjobs.

If that is your thinking, then keep screeching away. Otherwise I suggest you take the time to sift the actual nutjobs from the people who have either legitimate grievances or misplaced ones and try to convince them there’s a better option.

[LexW]

Wow, way to miss the point. Yes, that’s what “Team Trump” did, but simply because Team Trump are nutjobs and people voted for Team Trump != all people who voted for Team Trump are nutjobs.

If that is your thinking, then keep screeching away. Otherwise I suggest you take the time to sift the actual nutjobs from the people who have either legitimate grievances or misplaced ones and try to convince them there’s a better option.

I don’t think he’s missing the point at all.

I think he’s illustrating the point, and much as you might have had some interesting things to say recently, you are the only one “screeching” in this thread in the last few posts, if you want to label people that way, and maybe that sort of thing is better not said? Hmm?

therwise I suggest you take the time to sift the actual nutjobs from the people who have either legitimate grievances or misplaced ones and try to convince them there’s a better option.

What legitimate grievances do you think people can be turned around on?

What misplaced grievances, like the people we’ve discussed, do you think people can be, er… cured of?

This is the huge problem with the idea of “turning around the rational ones”, because Trump’s behaviour should have turned off any rational person, at this point.