Trump Triumphs

[Alf Bentley]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

In my experience most women don't care about those subjects either.

 

If most "normal" women, like most "normal" men only care about incomes, families, neighbours and country, men and women obviously viewed those issues differently from one another.

US women voted overwhelmingly Democrat and US men voted overwhelmingly Republican - in both 2012 and 2016 (so it obviously wasn't just gender loyalty to Clinton in 2016).

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "those subjects" but if you're referring to globalisation and neo-liberal free trade, surely they were massive issues for US men and women in the Presidential election?

Rust Belt jobs being exported to Mexico and the US being damaged by cheap Chinese imports were big issues, weren't they? Opposition to globalisation and neo-liberal free trade partly won Trump the election, surely, even if different words were used and other issues, such as immigration and remote elites, came into the equation?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If most "normal" women, like most "normal" men only care about incomes, families, neighbours and country, men and women obviously viewed those issues differently from one another.

US women voted overwhelmingly Democrat and US men voted overwhelmingly Republican - in both 2012 and 2016 (so it obviously wasn't just gender loyalty to Clinton in 2016).

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "those subjects" but if you're referring to globalisation and neo-liberal free trade, surely they were massive issues for US men and women in the Presidential election?

Rust Belt jobs being exported to Mexico and the US being damaged by cheap Chinese imports were big issues, weren't they? Opposition to globalisation and neo-liberal free trade partly won Trump the election, surely, even if different words were used and other issues, such as immigration and remote elites, came into the equation?

If normal offends you change it to average or everyday people.

 

The commentators said the vote was about globalisation, to the voters I'd guess they just wanted some job security and didn't care how it was achieved or what the causes of of the job insecurity was.

[SMX11]

I wonder if the DNC have organised these protests like last time

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If normal offends you change it to average or everyday people.

 

The commentators said the vote was about globalisation, to the voters I'd guess they just wanted some job security and didn't care how it was achieved or what the causes of of the job insecurity was.

 

Very little offends me (certainly on here, in real life maybe) - even normal blokes like you! 

 

If the voters didn't care about the causes of job insecurity, why did Trump bother (successfully) blaming factories in Mexico, cheap Chinese imports, illegal immigration and corrupt Washington politics?

He could have just promised economic policies to stimulate employment and investment. Either a lot of voters already blamed globalisation, free trade & immigration, or Trump persuaded them to blame those phenomena.

[MPH]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I might ask you why you didn't mention this guy. Same article, after all.

 

 

What happens when words stop being words and start becoming deeds? On both sides, come to that?

 

People are afraid.

 

Perhaps I'm taking this personally as I have friends over there who have already been targeted by abuse, but hey: I only have their word to go on and its only words, right? Sticks and stones and all that?

 

 

 

Same here . I have relatives who voted for Trump ( although they actually said it was more of a vote against Hilary) and  for one of them after a conversation about who voted for who at work ( an open plan office situation) , his and another 'trump supporter' colleague as they was called had their cars damaged in the parking lot at work,. 

 

44 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Come off it Matt.

 

Both sides of this coin are in the wrong. There's been plenty of discussion about how wrong it is to physically attack someone for their political views and i've seen you write two or three posts like the one i've quoted.

 

The only one who seems incapable of condemning their own "side" is you.

 

 

I Think that was the point her was trying to make... That there is wrong on both sides... He just think thats beating the crap out of people is up a level on hateful words

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Very little offends me (certainly on here, in real life maybe) - even normal blokes like you! 

 

If the voters didn't care about the causes of job insecurity, why did Trump bother (successfully) blaming factories in Mexico, cheap Chinese imports, illegal immigration and corrupt Washington politics?

He could have just promised economic policies to stimulate employment and investment. Either a lot of voters already blamed globalisation, free trade & immigration, or Trump persuaded them to blame those phenomena.

If you look at the polling Trump got 2 million votes less than Mitt Romney, It's just that Clinton got 6 million  less than Obama Trump didn't didn't win it Hilary lost it, and that was probably down to talking about subjects like feminism , globalisation and the environment etc that most normal/average/everyday people didn't care about while Trump talked about jobs.

[RedSoxUK]

Just now, SMX11 said:

I wonder if the DNC have organised these protests like last time

Think you'll find some of these are Soros funded, indirectly ofcourse.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

If you look at the polling Trump got 2 million votes less than Mitt Romney, It's just that Clinton got 6 million  less than Obama Trump didn't didn't win it Hilary lost it, and that was probably down to talking about subjects like feminism , globalisation and the environment etc that most normal/average/everyday people didn't care about while Trump talked about jobs.

I think the exodus from Hillary is more to do with who she is and her history than anything else.  She could have promised free puppies and kittens to everyone but she still wouldn't have got in.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think the exodus from Hillary is more to do with who she is and her history than anything else.  She could have promised free puppies and kittens to everyone but she still wouldn't have got in.

Calling some of the electorate deplorable probably didn't win her any votes either.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

Calling some of the electorate deplorable probably didn't win her any votes either.

Whereas taking the piss out of a disabled reporter didn't do any harm to Trump. Strange old world 

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you look at the polling Trump got 2 million votes less than Mitt Romney, It's just that Clinton got 6 million  less than Obama Trump didn't didn't win it Hilary lost it, and that was probably down to talking about subjects like feminism , globalisation and the environment etc that most normal/average/everyday people didn't care about while Trump talked about jobs.

 

 

People will probably still be arguing inconclusively about the causes of the result in 100 years time.

 

Let's hope he provides some jobs and employment security now, then, or he risks disillusioning a lot of voters in the Rust Belt (though he always has the option to distract people with a little race hate).

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

People will probably still be arguing inconclusively about the causes of the result in 100 years time.

 

Let's hope he provides some jobs and employment security now, then, or he risks disillusioning a lot of voters in the Rust Belt (though he always has the option to distract people with a little race hate).

Please Alf, lets not label all Trump supporters as racist, some were, sure but most of them weren't.

 

As an aside, apparently one of the morning shows in America last week had a psychologist on to advise parents how to help their children get over Hilary's lost. Seriously, what planet are some of these people on?  

[RedSoxUK]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

As an aside, apparently one of the morning shows in America last week had a psychologist on to advise parents how to help their children get over Hilary's lost. Seriously, what planet are some of these people on?  

 

You should see what it's like in school.

[AKCJ]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Please Alf, lets not label all Trump supporters as racist, some were, sure but most of them weren't.

 

As an aside, apparently one of the morning shows in America last week had a psychologist on to advise parents how to help their children get over Hilary's lost. Seriously, what planet are some of these people on?  

This is America we're talking about.

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Please Alf, lets not label all Trump supporters as racist, some were, sure but most of them weren't.

 

 

 

Please, Webbo, let's not accuse me of labelling people as racist when I've done nothing of the fvcking sort!

Indeed, in posts I've highlighted the economic problems and job insecurity of people in the Rust Belt states as the key factor in Trump's victory, as I see it (even if he opportunistically blamed those problems on foreigners and immigrants, among others).

 

I didn't even mention his supporters. I only mentioned him.

 

If they can't deliver other stuff that voters want, some politicians resort to racism to bolster their support. Trump has a proven track record of that.

I assume that you accept that, given his comments about Mexicans?

Or would you consider it non-racist of me to say: "White people sell drugs. They commit crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"?

 

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Please, Webbo, let's not accuse me of labelling people as racist when I've done nothing of the fvcking sort!

Indeed, in posts I've highlighted the economic problems and job insecurity of people in the Rust Belt states as the key factor in Trump's victory, as I see it (even if he opportunistically blamed those problems on foreigners and immigrants, among others).

 

I didn't even mention his supporters. I only mentioned him.

 

If they can't deliver other stuff that voters want, some politicians resort to racism to bolster their support. Trump has a proven track record of that.

I assume that you accept that, given his comments about Mexicans?

Or would you consider it non-racist of me to say: "White people sell drugs. They commit crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"?

 

I've obviously upset you in some way. I apologise, it wasn't my intention.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I've obviously upset you in some way. I apologise, it wasn't my intention.

 

No problem.

 

You've not upset me. I just find it a bit irritating to be accused of wrongs that I quite clearly have not committed, and stand up for myself when it happens. You'd be the same, I imagine.

 

See you around the forum tomorrow or whenever, as I've got other stuff to get on with now. 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I am just amazed that Clinton and Trump ended up as challengers for the presidency. Obviously, mega bucks backing is the answer to that. Without the millions, no man or woman will ever become President of the USA. Ability, honesty, and genuine care for the people, don't come into the equation, or at least, seem not.

 

It is of serious concern that in many countries throughout the world, have leaders that are unfit for purpose, unless that purpose represents some form of evil.

[leicsmac]

Perhaps this is a point that has been made on here before, but another reason that Trump won was because people prioritised economic issues over social ones. I can sort of understand that, especially if you're out in the rust belt, you're struggling for work and for money and feel you've been overlooked. But do the reasonably obvious social issues that are going to result now really appear that abstract and low priority to so many people? I mean, without a decent social structure you don't have an economy in the first place, right? It's like the idea that people think the changing environment isn't a priority either; again, a good economy doesn't mean much if things change radically in that way either.

 

I guess my point is I'm wondering exactly why people prioritised this issue to try to better understand their thought process. Is it just self interest?

 

Wouldn't mind hearing from some more of the right leaning folk on here about this one.

[davieG]

People react for selfish reason and maybe those in the rust belt and others in jobs looking less secure every day got fed up with hearing and seeing money spent on diversity and integration.

I wondered why so many seemingly 'ordinary folk' were so against  obamacare  perhaps they also preferred their taxes to be spent on jobs and improving the economy, You could do both I guess but people have very simplistic  views on government spending why else would you see so many  Leicester folk saying why are we spending money squares and plazas etc when people are classed as in poverty.

 

Just a few rambling thoughts.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, davieG said:

People react for selfish reason and maybe those in the rust belt and others in jobs looking less secure every day got fed up with hearing and seeing money spent on diversity and integration.

I wondered why so many seemingly 'ordinary folk' were so against  obamacare  perhaps they also preferred their taxes to be spent on jobs and improving the economy, You could do both I guess but people have very simplistic  views on government spending why else would you see so many  Leicester folk saying why are we spending money squares and plazas etc when people are classed as in poverty.

 

Just a few rambling thoughts.

I think that's pretty reasonable. Is self interest the only factor, though?

 

Another example is environmental plucky - Trump plans to rip up the Paris agreement, get rid of the Clean Air Act and boost coal mining production, ask for the supposed economic benefits. Short term I'm sure that will bring the money in, but long term all the money in the world won't save you from the change that neglecting the environment brings.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps this is a point that has been made on here before, but another reason that Trump won was because people prioritised economic issues over social ones. I can sort of understand that, especially if you're out in the rust belt, you're struggling for work and for money and feel you've been overlooked. But do the reasonably obvious social issues that are going to result now really appear that abstract and low priority to so many people? I mean, without a decent social structure you don't have an economy in the first place, right? It's like the idea that people think the changing environment isn't a priority either; again, a good economy doesn't mean much if things change radically in that way either.

 

I guess my point is I'm wondering exactly why people prioritised this issue to try to better understand their thought process. Is it just self interest?

 

Wouldn't mind hearing from some more of the right leaning folk on here about this one.

Well, it's one of two realistic approaches or schools of thought: Does government focus on and investment in the national economy boost social security and welfare or vice versa?

 

Personally, I think both strategies are feasible - it's about how you approach it and what measures you take.

[Smudge]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps this is a point that has been made on here before, but another reason that Trump won was because people prioritised economic issues over social ones. I can sort of understand that, especially if you're out in the rust belt, you're struggling for work and for money and feel you've been overlooked. But do the reasonably obvious social issues that are going to result now really appear that abstract and low priority to so many people? I mean, without a decent social structure you don't have an economy in the first place, right? It's like the idea that people think the changing environment isn't a priority either; again, a good economy doesn't mean much if things change radically in that way either.

 

I guess my point is I'm wondering exactly why people prioritised this issue to try to better understand their thought process. Is it just self interest?

 

Wouldn't mind hearing from some more of the right leaning folk on here about this one.

I meant to post this last night so I think you have it right. It's not just the manufacturing and job exports but agriculture, coal mining and construction have all been sidelined.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, I voted. 

It was a dilemma since I, like many in the US, have lived with a stagnant economy and worse yet are those have seen their livelihoods taken away.

 

It's my opinion that for the majority who are living under those conditions, they voted for an alternative to the last 16 years of gridlock and war. 

 

To vote for Clinton was a vote for the status quo so they went for Trump despite the baggage. They'll turn a blind eye to what he calls people if he could offer them something new.

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Smudge said:

I meant to post this last night so I think you have it right. It's not just the manufacturing and job exports but agriculture, coal mining and construction have all been sidelined.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, I voted. 

It was a dilemma since I, like many in the US, have lived with a stagnant economy and worse yet are those have seen their livelihoods taken away.

 

It's my opinion that for the majority who are living under those conditions, they voted for an alternative to the last 16 years of gridlock and war. 

 

To vote for Clinton was a vote for the status quo so they went for Trump despite the baggage. They'll turn a blind eye to what he calls people if he could offer them something new.

 

Thanks.

 

I guess that makes sense and I can't really judge people for thinking that way.

 

Again though, I wonder what the long term social and environmental consequences will be.

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps this is a point that has been made on here before, but another reason that Trump won was because people prioritised economic issues over social ones. I can sort of understand that, especially if you're out in the rust belt, you're struggling for work and for money and feel you've been overlooked. But do the reasonably obvious social issues that are going to result now really appear that abstract and low priority to so many people? I mean, without a decent social structure you don't have an economy in the first place, right? It's like the idea that people think the changing environment isn't a priority either; again, a good economy doesn't mean much if things change radically in that way either.

 

I guess my point is I'm wondering exactly why people prioritised this issue to try to better understand their thought process. Is it just self interest?

 

Wouldn't mind hearing from some more of the right leaning folk on here about this one.

Ask yourself, who knows what's best for me? Me or some civil servant in London who's never met me? I'm a working class family man, what's good for me is good for every other working class family man. 

 

If everybody did what's best for themselves without causing harm to anyone else this would be a much happier world.