Trump Triumphs

[Bellend Sebastian]

Before anyone ignores it by default because it's in the Guardian, I've never found any of their 'The Long Read' series anything other than fascinating reading - they're very much observation/investigative pieces and rarely more than subtly political, even given subject matter such as this:

 

How Trump Took Middle America

 

I was going to say that even the comments at the bottom are sensible (even in the Guardian these usually degenerate into people shouting at each other as in every other newspaper site ever) but you don't have to go far before excitingly strong opinions are aired

[Barky]

7 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 don't really know enough about the American election to know whether trump offered a better economic plan, but it was definitely the case that better economics won our election for the tories. They talked a good game that made a lot of sense. Shame they didn't really follow through, but I suppose following through isn't really the priority for politicians.

 

I think the social issues will remain abstract for most people. The likes of trump are very careful only to threaten minorities with social issues. Even the supposed attack on disabled people here didn't really do much to change people's pririties. Perhaps because it wasn't as bad as the left wing press made out, or maybe because at the end of the day people don't really care unless it affects them, perhaps a bit of both. For sure, having a better economic plan which benefits the majority will usually defeat the threat of social issues for the minority.

 

What that doesn't explain though is brexit. Rightly or wrongly the general consensus was that brexit would be bad for the economy at least to some extreme in the short term. Even brexiters seemed to accept that there was no real economic argument in favour of brexit, but they still voted for it. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

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.

 

Yeah, I can see that argument. And I'd be the first to advocate that people should be free to do as they will as long as they don't cause harm to others.

 

However, I think that it's inevitable that people WILL do stuff in their own self interest that will harm others, whether intentional or not. Of course, often the issues are really abstract - like you said, the priority for a blue collar coal worker in rural Ohio isn't that in a few decades time the Earth is going to change rapidly in part because of the work he's doing to put food on the table, and for a classic nuclear family in Oklahoma the priority isn't some young girl alone and scared out of her wits because she can't get access to parenthood related healthcare. Abstract as they are, the decisions of those two sets of people can and do harm others, either now or in the future. But at the same time, you can't expect people to understand these issues nor act against their own self interest to help if they don't really, truly understand why.

 

It's a massive ethical minefield, that's for sure. Free will should be something everyone has, but it's also free will that will likely end up causing humanity a great deal of trouble down the road.

[MC Prussian]

Turns out a vast majority (roughly two thirds) of the anti-Trump protestors arrested in the Portland OR area didn't vote at all or voted for Sanders or Green candidate Jill Stein or weren't even eligible to vote in Oregon, as they were from outside the state.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-than-half-of-arrested-anti-trump-protesters-didnt-vote/351964445

 

So, it's ok to protest and destroy even though you've shown to be either completely irresponsible or not using your democratic right (by not voting or not voting in your own state, thus paving the way for Trump) or totally anarchist (by destroying/damaging other people's property for the sake of it).

 

Also, more votes for Clinton in Oregon would've done zilch all, as the state had already been won by the Democrats.

 

Seeing that these protestors were mostly young, it raises the question of how they see democracy. Something passive they regularly reap the benefits of or something that needs proactive, positive engagement (voting)?

To me, it's surely partly down to a spoilt generation who can't be bothered to vote, taking everything around them for granted, without seeing/appreciating the work that needed to be done in order to get there.

[leicsmac]

I can't really disagree there, the voter turnout amongst 18-30 year olds for both the EU referendum vote and the US election were both hugely embarrassing.

 

You'd have thought by now that they'd get the message: don't vote, get a candidate/outcome that you might not want. Definitely a lot of taking for granted.

[Alf Bentley]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can't really disagree there, the voter turnout amongst 18-30 year olds for both the EU referendum vote and the US election were both hugely embarrassing.

 

You'd have thought by now that they'd get the message: don't vote, get a candidate/outcome that you might not want. Definitely a lot of taking for granted.

 

Have you (or anyone else) seen any reliable figures for turnout by age at the EU referendum? 

Initially, people were suggesting that turnout had been very low among young people - but then another survey suggested that wasn't true.

 

I know turnout among the young was very low at the 2015 general election (42% for age 18-25, compared to 78% for age 65+, as a recall) but haven't seen reliable data for the referendum....

 

I'd have given @MC Prussian +1 for that post, which makes some excellent points about democracy, but am a bit queasy with the generalisation about "a generation".

Others have criticised my generation (50+) for being a bunch of selfish, xenophobic reactionaries and voting Leave.....

Well, whatever we think of the different arguments, I voted Remain (like everyone I know of my age - indeed a couple of mates had a go at me for even considering voting Leave) - and a lot of younger people on here obviously voted Leave.

Not sure generalising to the level of a generation is useful.

[GazzinderFox]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can't really disagree there, the voter turnout amongst 18-30 year olds for both the EU referendum vote and the US election were both hugely embarrassing.

 

You'd have thought by now that they'd get the message: don't vote, get a candidate/outcome that you might not want. Definitely a lot of taking for granted.

It's easy to think of people in demographic blocks but I think with age is hard to make the same conclusions about voting patterns as you could do about other things like ethnicity and class. At the next election the 18 yo's are going to be people who were 14 at the time of the last election so it's not like its a case of learning a lesson - they probably didn't give a monkeys when they were 14.

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Have you (or anyone else) seen any reliable figures for turnout by age at the EU referendum? 

Initially, people were suggesting that turnout had been very low among young people - but then another survey suggested that wasn't true.

 

I know turnout among the young was very low at the 2015 general election (42% for age 18-25, compared to 78% for age 65+, as a recall) but haven't seen reliable data for the referendum....

 

I'd have given @MC Prussian +1 for that post, which makes some excellent points about democracy, but am a bit queasy with the generalisation about "a generation".

Others have criticised my generation (50+) for being a bunch of selfish, xenophobic reactionaries and voting Leave.....

Well, whatever we think of the different arguments, I voted Remain (like everyone I know of my age - indeed a couple of mates had a go at me for even considering voting Leave) - and a lot of younger people on here obviously voted Leave.

Not sure generalising to the level of a generation is useful.

Hence I stated "partly down to a spoilt generation" - and that particularly in the context of young voters in the US who seem to me more consumerist than any other nation (apart from the Japanese, maybe).

 

Bottom line is - I want your rep point and I want it badly!

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Hence I stated "partly down to a spoilt generation" - and that particularly in the context of young voters in the US who seem to me more consumerist than any other nation (apart from the Japanese, maybe).

 

Bottom line is - I want your rep point and I want it badly!

 

 

Rep point awarded for this shameless begging!

 

Presumably, then, we old gits must also accept that Trump's victory was "partly down to a selfish, inward-looking older generation"? 

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Rep point awarded for this shameless begging!

 

Presumably, then, we old gits must also accept that Trump's victory was "partly down to a selfish, inward-looking older generation"? 

Given the circumstances in the US for the rural population in particular, I suppose so.

[MPH]

Haha! Quite a well made video, actually...

 

 

 

[RedSoxUK]

28 minutes ago, MPH said:

Haha! Quite a well made video, actually...

 

 

 

 

Decent production value to be honest; though I must stress, this continued anti-Trump rhetoric that he 'hates mexicans' et al is a complete misunderstanding of his actual policy regarding immigration. Mr. Trump; like many Americans and many members of government who are not lying for the hispanic vote, dislike immigrants who have come in to the country illegally. There's a massive massive difference between someone who has entered the US illegally to mow lawns or live with a legal family of 10 whatever, and a doctor from Mexico who has immigrated to the US legally. One is legal, the other is illegal. 

 

The problem lies on both sides of manipulation and name calling, the left shouting 'racist!', the right presuming all non-'Americans' are illegal. Probably an educational problem.

[MPH]

9 minutes ago, RedSoxUK said:

 

Decent production value to be honest; though I must stress, this continued anti-Trump rhetoric that he 'hates mexicans' et al is a complete misunderstanding of his actual policy regarding immigration. Mr. Trump; like many Americans and many members of government who are not lying for the hispanic vote, dislike immigrants who have come in to the country illegally. There's a massive massive difference between someone who has entered the US illegally to mow lawns or live with a legal family of 10 whatever, and a doctor from Mexico who has immigrated to the US legally. One is legal, the other is illegal. 

 

The problem lies on both sides of manipulation and name calling, the left shouting 'racist!', the right presuming all non-'Americans' are illegal. Probably an educational problem.

 

 

Oh totally. Just found it kind of Amusing. Also noticed the double standards in calling him racist and yet calling him a 'F'ing  gringo' which according to my Hispanic friends at church is actually quite derogatory especially when used with swear words - their equivalent of the N word, they told me.

[RedSoxUK]

Just now, MPH said:

Oh totally. Just found it kind of Amusing. Also noticed the double standards in calling him racist and yet calling him a 'F'ing  gringo' which according to my Hispanic friends at church is actually quite derogatory especially when used with swear words - their equivalent of the N word, they told me.

 

Yeah there's an unusual amount of double standards with this stuff. I've been called gringo in passing without swear words but thought nothing of it at the time as it was more playful - 'eeeyyy gringooooooo' etc while I was in Pennsylvania. I have heard a white person use the N word towards a black person in Nyack, upstate New York - that was frightening because I fully expected an out an out gun fight between these sets of friendship groups. Nothing matetrialised and I remember asking why the N word in this case was so freely said without consequence (or fear) and the people I were with said they were just acclimatised to the lingo that the meaning didn't have any bearing on either race, in a derogatory meaning or not. 

 

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, RedSoxUK said:

 

Yeah there's an unusual amount of double standards with this stuff. I've been called gringo in passing without swear words but thought nothing of it at the time as it was more playful - 'eeeyyy gringooooooo' etc while I was in Pennsylvania. I have heard a white person use the N word towards a black person in Nyack, upstate New York - that was frightening because I fully expected an out an out gun fight between these sets of friendship groups. Nothing matetrialised and I remember asking why the N word in this case was so freely said without consequence (or fear) and the people I were with said they were just acclimatised to the lingo that the meaning didn't have any bearing on either race, in a derogatory meaning or not. 

 

 

 

How dare you come on here bringing your real life experiences...

[RedSoxUK]

Just now, MPH said:

How dare you come on here bringing your real life experiences...

 

 It's the same in many of the city / built up areas I've visited in all honesty. Well this is my opinion and view of it anyway, but it felt very divisional between the races; segregated if you like. In Michigan, I went to a great place called Kalamazoo with great bars, great beer. You could really feel the racial divide and tension between the groups just on the street. As you drive in to the city, you notice the different neighbourhoods racially divided, the so called white trash area followed by a train track then a consistency of blacks, with people in the city saying "you don't go to.... if you're not ...." I only really felt that in places in Michigan, and then again in PA. 

 

[leicsmac]

Pence gets steamed reamed and dry cleaned by the cast and audience of a Broadway musical he was attending. Trump then takes to Twitter to defend him, saying that the theater "should be a safe and special place".

 

The irony of him demanding a "safe space" after the message of his campaign is rather heavy.

[MC Prussian]

Wise words from a man I miss dearly on TV:

The only point I'd criticize is when he calls every Trump voter a racist. With the choices on display on Election Day, I find it hard to use this as the only common denominator. That's simplfying it and tarring a large part of the American population with the same (Democrat) brush - we know Stewart is an avid supporter of Clinton.

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Wise words from a man I miss dearly on TV:

The only point I'd criticize is when he calls every Trump voter a racist. With the choices on display on Election Day, I find it hard to use this as the only common denominator. That's simplfying it and tarring a large part of the American population with the same (Democrat) brush - we know Stewart is an avid supporter of Clinton.

 

Although it's not very clear, my understanding is that he's arguing AGAINST the idea that every Trump voter is a racist (though some clearly are). He compares the "monolith" of all Muslims being extremists to the "hypocrisy" of seeing all Trump supporters as a "monolith" of racists....that's my understanding of it, anyway.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Although it's not very clear, my understanding is that he's arguing AGAINST the idea that every Trump voter is a racist (though some clearly are). He compares the "monolith" of all Muslims being extremists to the "hypocrisy" of seeing all Trump supporters as a "monolith" of racists....that's my understanding of it, anyway.

That's my understanding as well.

[MC Prussian]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Although it's not very clear, my understanding is that he's arguing AGAINST the idea that every Trump voter is a racist (though some clearly are). He compares the "monolith" of all Muslims being extremists to the "hypocrisy" of seeing all Trump supporters as a "monolith" of racists....that's my understanding of it, anyway.

"There is now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric. Like there's guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect that I believe have incredible qualities, who are not afraid of Mexicans, not afraid of Muslims, or afraid of Blacks. They're afraid of their insurance premiums. In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don't look at Muslims as a monolith. They are individuals, and it would be ignorance. But everyone who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country."

 

Yeah, I don't know where that one comes from - it just sticks out as a sore thumb in his overall concept (a concept which I appreciate).

I guess you're right. It's just the way that he says it that's probably got me on the wrong foot or something - I think he's talking from an outside perspective or imitating the media perspective. Then it makes sense.

[Alf Bentley]

Any thoughts on this speech by an Irish Labour Senator?

 

My thoughts:

If Trump's actions in office are very different to his campaign rhetoric, this speech will seem like panic and exaggeration. Likewise, if Trump was serious in his rhetoric, but Congress, the American public, foreign leaders or events dilute his plans.

However, some of Trump's early appointments suggest he might be deadly serious in his rhetoric. If so, this speech will seem prophetic. It sends a powerful warning, anyway, and not just to the USA. Nationalism/populism is on the rise across the West with obvious risks (remembering the 1930s) if it catches on big-time and takes its more extreme form. This is a particular risk if it is fanned by economic problems, social/racial tensions within countries or conflicts between them....which seems increasingly likely.

 

 

[Webbo]

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Any thoughts on this speech by an Irish Labour Senator?

 

My thoughts:

If Trump's actions in office are very different to his campaign rhetoric, this speech will seem like panic and exaggeration. Likewise, if Trump was serious in his rhetoric, but Congress, the American public, foreign leaders or events dilute his plans.

However, some of Trump's early appointments suggest he might be deadly serious in his rhetoric. If so, this speech will seem prophetic. It sends a powerful warning, anyway, and not just to the USA. Nationalism/populism is on the rise across the West with obvious risks (remembering the 1930s) if it catches on big-time and takes its more extreme form. This is a particular risk if it is fanned by economic problems, social/racial tensions within countries or conflicts between them....which seems increasingly likely.

 

 

There are 50,000 Irish in America illegally worried about their future? if you enter a country illegally then you can't complain if you're deported, it goes with the territory. If you want to stay go through the legal process.

 

 

[Countryfox]

On 11/17/2016 at 14:19, Alf Bentley said:

 

Have you (or anyone else) seen any reliable figures for turnout by age at the EU referendum? 

Initially, people were suggesting that turnout had been very low among young people - but then another survey suggested that wasn't true.

 

I know turnout among the young was very low at the 2015 general election (42% for age 18-25, compared to 78% for age 65+, as a recall) but haven't seen reliable data for the referendum....

 

I'd have given @MC Prussian +1 for that post, which makes some excellent points about democracy, but am a bit queasy with the generalisation about "a generation".

Others have criticised my generation (50+) for being a bunch of selfish, xenophobic reactionaries and voting Leave.....

Well, whatever we think of the different arguments, I voted Remain (like everyone I know of my age - indeed a couple of mates had a go at me for even considering voting Leave) - and a lot of younger people on here obviously voted Leave.

Not sure generalising to the level of a generation is useful.

 

Interesting Alf as I'm in that age bracket and everyone I knew (from a varied spectrum of jobs and backgrounds) voted Leave.  

[Alf Bentley]

55 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There are 50,000 Irish in America illegally worried about their future? if you enter a country illegally then you can't complain if you're deported, it goes with the territory. If you want to stay go through the legal process.

 

 

 

True to an extent, though Trump also spoke of tearing up amnesties given to Mexicans who had arrived illegally but then settled, found employment, started families with US-born children and had come forward to legitimized their status under Obama.

 

I assume that Irish illegals are people who entered on temporary or tourist visas and overstayed, took up jobs or whatever; unless you arrived via Canada or Mexico, it would be hard to enter the US illegally from Ireland unless you were a bloody good swimmer!