Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

Whatever, it's your country. If welfare policies made far right movements strong, there would be no welfare policies in the first place. The whole concept is ridiculous.

The idea that people who feel economically secure get very comfortable and start basing their vote on things other than economics isn't ridiculous in the least.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Perhaps the left needs to become more fascist and actively discriminate against assholes.


/thought pulled out of my ass

 

[Raitosaito]

Of course I read the article. Those Voters from the article are not racist.

The entire article is operating from an assumptive starting point that they must be racist then moving on to show how welfare, etc increases these types of Voters who vote to the right.

Personally I would argue that this type of Voter is nationalistic. Country first, citizens first.

Globalism vs nationalism really. What we are seeing is a wholesale rejection (by a portion of Voters) of globalist policies in North American and European societies, in favour of the idea of the Nation State.

Where is the data on this?

Or else it's just conjecture.

The idea that people who feel economically secure get very comfortable and start basing their vote on things other than economics isn't ridiculous in the least.

Ding ding

 

[Liberty4all]

You should go ask your poly sci professors about this one. Because you're not getting it.

When you are on the lower rungs, you're not worried about revolution, you're worried about survival.

When you don't have to work to support yourself, you have the time and resources to go do other stuff like this. Al Qaeda being run by a trust fund kid wasn't an accident.

When you're supporting white supremacists (Steve King, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump) this argument doesn't hold water.

Please. Bannon and Trump are not remotely close to white nationalists despite what Salon might tell you. Such hyperbole is yet another reason why support for the right is hardening.

Calling Bannon and trump white nationalists holds about as much water as calling Bernie a communist - ridiculous.

 

[Raitosaito]

Please. Bannon and Trump are not remotely close to white nationalists despite what Salon might tell you. Such hyperbole is yet another reason why support for the right is hardening.

Calling Bannon and trump white nationalists holds about as much water as calling Bernie a communist - ridiculous.

So Bannon telling Trump we need to stop Silicon Valley from having 2/3rd Asian American CEO on his radio show (fake statistic btw he used), and making interviews rounds telling generals to stop all legal immigration isn't close to "white nationalist", I think I'm living in the upside down.

And I don't read Salon.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

You should go ask your poly sci professors about this one. Because you're not getting it.

When you are on the lower rungs, you're not worried about revolution, you're worried about survival.

When you don't have to work to support yourself, you have the time and resources to go do other stuff like this. Al Qaeda being run by a trust fund kid wasn't an accident.

When you're supporting white supremacists (Steve King, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump) this argument doesn't hold water.

I mean if we're talking social movements your line of thought seems to imply the labor movement and the civil rights movement were actually run by upper middle class professionals which seems pretty clearly untrue! If you're talking about actually violent revolts, I didn't know Nat Turner was really a well off individual without much at stake!

A better argument for what you might be trying to argue is that individuals are much more likely to take gambles when they perceive a loss and are more risk averse when they think they've made gains.

 

[The Technomancer]

Please. Bannon and Trump are not remotely close to white nationalists despite what Salon might tell you. Such hyperbole is yet another reason why support for the right is hardening.

Calling Bannon and trump white nationalists holds about as much water as calling Bernie a communist - ridiculous.

Bannon frequently cites from a book which depicts indian immigration as a wave of torrid, ugly, filthy people swarming over and drowning Europe in their rancid lives

 

[boiled goose]

Bannon frequently cites from a book which depicts indian immigration as a wave of torrid, ugly, filthy people swarming over and drowning Europe in their rancid lives

The solution is to kill all immigrants. (In the book)

 

[Nabbis]

The idea that people who feel economically secure get very comfortable and start basing their vote on things other than economics isn't ridiculous in the least.

That's a pretty big brush to paint a picture. Our country become a welfare state nearly five decades ago. Now suddenly after half a century later morons in a country that never had them voted for Trump, something that none of those welfare states have come even close to doing, and yet our policies give birth to far right rhetoric?

 

[kirblar]

I mean if we're talking social movements your line of thought seems to imply the labor movement and the civil rights movement were actually run by upper middle class professionals which seems pretty clearly untrue! If you're talking about actually violent revolts, I didn't know Nat Turner was really a well off individual without much at stake!

A better argument for what you might be trying to argue is that individuals are much more likely to take gambles when they perceive a loss and are more risk averse when they think they've made gains.

We're not. We're talking revolutionaries- those who want to break things down entirely and rebuild. (remember how Trump's supporters weren't actually working-class on the whole?)

 

[The Technomancer]

That's a pretty big brush to paint a picture. Our country become a welfare state nearly five decades ago. Now suddenly after half a century later morons in a country that never had them voted for Trump, something that none of those welfare states have come even close to doing, and yet our policies would make it worse?

The pushback against the wellfare state has been a long time coming, Trump just said it louder. It was originally constructed to exclude black people as much as possible in the beginning and these folks have resented every single inch ceded back towards equitable distribution ever since.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Please. Bannon and Trump are not remotely close to white nationalists despite what Salon might tell you. Such hyperbole is yet another reason why support for the right is hardening.

Calling Bannon and trump white nationalists holds about as much water as calling Bernie a communist - ridiculous.

Bannon is a white nationalist. Period.

 

[kess]

Makes sense, I don't think we are capable of just thriving. Humans tend to hate stability when we have it.

I tend to think that stability gets rationalized as "establishment," rightfully or not, and what is America, if not a constant struggle against the beneficiaries of the status quo?

 

[Liberty4all]

Bannon frequently cites from a book which depicts indian immigration as a wave of torrid, ugly, filthy people swarming over and drowning Europe in their rancid lives

What's the name of the book? I'd be interested in giving it a read so I can draw my own conclusions.

 

[The Technomancer]

What's the name of the book? I'd be interested in giving it a read so I can draw my own conclusions.

Camp of the Saints

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...aints-immigration_us_58b75206e4b0284854b3dc03

The plot of The Camp of the Saints follows a poor Indian demagogue, named “the turd-eater” because he literally eats shit, and the deformed, apparently psychic child who sits on his shoulders. Together, they lead an “armada” of 800,000 impoverished Indians sailing to France. Dithering European politicians, bureaucrats and religious leaders, including a liberal pope from Latin America, debate whether to let the ships land and accept the Indians or to do the right thing — in the book’s vision — by recognizing the threat the migrants pose and killing them all.

The non-white people of Earth, meanwhile, wait silently for the Indians to reach shore. The landing will be the signal for them to rise up everywhere and overthrow white Western society.

 

[kirblar]

Please. Bannon and Trump are not remotely close to white nationalists despite what Salon might tell you. Such hyperbole is yet another reason why support for the right is hardening.

Calling Bannon and trump white nationalists holds about as much water as calling Bernie a communist - ridiculous.

Would you call Trump racist?

 

[Liberty4all]

Would you call Trump racist?

Nope.

 

[kirblar]

Nope.

Then you are either delusional or in denial.

Repeatedly calling for Obama's birth certificate.

The Muslim Ban.

Refusing to believe that the Central Park 5 are not guilty.

And plenty more where that came from. If you can't look at that pattern of behavior and say "He's racist.", than no pattern of behavior will ever be racist to you.

 

[Trojita]

I've pointed this out before, but the US has been in a 30-year cycle of electing Republicans after the Democrats fixed the economy that they previously fucked up. Such short memories.

In some ways Bush Sr. was the only one who didn't on his side.

 

[FStubbs]

Then you are either delusional or in denial.

Repeatedly calling for Obama's birth certificate.

The Muslim Ban.

Refusing to believe that the Central Park 5 are not guilty.

And plenty more where that came from. If you can't look at that pattern of behavior and say "He's racist.", than no pattern of behavior will ever be racist to you.

Nah. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the real racists in his book. And Obama.

 

[Spectone]

This article is such garbage, with logical leaps all over the damn place. He acts like the european social democracy parties are still actively promoting social democracy, rather than standard neoliberal austerity. Then he acts like the republican party is akin to a european center-left party to suit his agenda. He also fails to assess the Republican party compared to european center-right parties (which have a lot in common with the *Democratic party* fwiw). The GOP IS a far-right party. Not as far as Golden Dawn, but certainly more than the Tories.

In all seriousness, the argument is not worth reading.

I agree, the far right in Australia has very little power and our mainstream conservative party is not as far right as the Republicans they are almost centrists in comparison.

 

[zorlaczerohero]

When talking to people who voted brexit the core issue isn't how well they are doing, it's how well others are doing who they perceive as less deserving. Cutting off your nose to spite your face as the saying goes. The left wing tends to help the unemployed, the immigrants, the disabled, minority's etc. they even help the working and middle classes, but many in the working and middle classes hate the fact they also help everyone else. Stick a couple of right wing news articles under their noses and it validates everything they suspected. My own brother uses the argument that EU immigrants are responsible for rent increases in his area, not poor housing supply, swathes of empty properties or the destruction of council housing, but immigrants... I've given up speaking to him, he just can't see that things will get much worse for him as well.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Then you are either delusional or in denial.

Repeatedly calling for Obama's birth certificate.

The Muslim Ban.

Refusing to believe that the Central Park 5 are not guilty.

And plenty more where that came from. If you can't look at that pattern of behavior and say "He's racist.", than no pattern of behavior will ever be racist to you.

-Asking a black reporter to set up a meeting with the CBC.
-Only referring to black people in the context of saving them from themselves from committing inner city violent crime.
-Broadly paints Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.
-Sued for housing discimination

There's a reason David Duke loves the guy. And there's a reason Trump thrived with white people.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Would you call Trump racist?

Nope.

Then you are either delusional or in denial.

Repeatedly calling for Obama's birth certificate.

The Muslim Ban.

Refusing to believe that the Central Park 5 are not guilty.

And plenty more where that came from. If you can't look at that pattern of behavior and say "He's racist.", than no pattern of behavior will ever be racist to you.

He's also a Steve Bannon supporter.

He thinks breaking up families by deporting undocumented immigrants who've lived i. The US for 20 years and have five American kids is a "refreshing deterrent" against illegal immigration.

The only thing he thought to post in the Quebec mosque shooting thread was a link pushing the narrative that it was carried out by Muslims and not the neo Nazi who did it.

And he doesn't believe Trump has a racist bone in his body. Surprised?

 

[Red Blaster]

lol corbyn (a man who's never been in power) is to blame for the right-wing turn in the uk?

 

[shamanick]

lol corbyn (a man who's never been in power) is to blame for the right-wing turn in the uk?

It's easy to twist the narrative to support your view. Of course Blair had nothing to do with the right rising in the UK /s

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

We're not. We're talking revolutionaries- those who want to break things down entirely and rebuild. (remember how Trump's supporters weren't actually working-class on the whole?)

I mean again, if you're talking armed revolt this also isn't true. Do you think Nat Turner was actually some affluent upper-middle class type? Do you think the French Revolution wasn't driven by the bottom rungs of society? Do you think the Women's March on Versailles was all affluent people with nothing really at stake?

And I mean if Trump/Sanders supporters (Sanders was the original example here where you tried to explain why he did poorly with minorities) count as revolutionary, supporting the Civil Rights or Labor movements were far more revolutionary. Virtually no one was getting shot at for supporting their preferred political candidate.

 

[Liberty4all]

I'm moving in the morning across the continent... But I'd like to take some time to research Bannon myself using both left and right sources.

A quick google search pulls up mostly left leaning (imho) sites.

Right off the top just based on the extremely quick google search it appears he feels western civilization threatened by mass illegal immigration and many have interpreted this to be racist (based on him quoting from that book?).

I'm willing to reexamine my thoughts on him, obviously there is a lot of controversy around him. I'll definitely read up more using both left and right wing sources.

As for my feelings on Trump I truly believe he means it when he says he wants a great America for all Americans. Black, white, all colours.

 

[Cocaloch]

Revolution is something driven by the upper classes

I know someone else quoted this and said lol, but I am also going to quote this a say lol.

What a silly thing to say, it's completely historically unaware.

I tend to think that stability gets rationalized as "establishment," rightfully or not, and what is America, if not a constant struggle against the beneficiaries of the status quo?

What is with this site and the word establishment. You don't need scare quotes around it. Establishment wings of parties exist. They aren't always bad, but they certainly do exist.

As for my feelings on Trump I truly believe he means it when he says he wants a great America for all Americans. Black, white, all colours.

Err why? Also are you British?

I mean again, if you're talking armed revolt this also isn't true. Do you think Nat Turner was actually some affluent upper-middle class type? Do you think the French Revolution wasn't driven by the bottom rungs of society? Do you think the Women's March on Versailles was all affluent people with nothing really at stake?

And I mean if Trump/Sanders supporters (Sanders was the original example here where you tried to explain why he did poorly with minorities) count as revolutionary, supporting the Civil Rights or Labor movements were far more revolutionary. Virtually no one was getting shot at for supporting their preferred political candidate.

Lower class resentment was important in the French Revolution, but it was really driven by middling sorts, excuse my lack of knowledge of the french term for this, who were able to tap into that resentment. Of course those people were hardly the upper class either...

 

[Sunster]

Our economy is structured around the idea of private property. This doesn't mean your toothbrush, or your Playstation. Private property are goods used to make a profit: factory machines, offices, medical equipment, shipping boats, rental homes, etc. Even if you own your own home, it's not really property in the sense I mean if you're personally living in it. Property used in this way is also called "Means of Production".

If you don't own means of production, then your only alternative is to sell your labor time. This makes you a worker, or working-class. The vast majority of people fall into this category. You sell your labor time, and produce a good or service, which is sold for a profit by the person who owns the property. Crucially, whatever you produce during your labor time is relinquished to the owner, you have no claim to it.

The owners have disproportionate economic power in this arrangement. They have total control over wage paid to the worker, they have total control over the market price of the good produced by the worker. Furthermore, they can do whatever they want with the means of production itself. So they can close that factory, or change that shipping route, or buy newer equipment which requires fewer workers to operate.

Over time, this disproportionate economic power also manifests as political power. Politicians cater to the interests of the owners because they're dependent on them for campaign money. News outlets tend to articulate the preferences of the owners. Universities tend to promote professors who teach the preferred ideas of the owners, and so on.

This is a very simplified version, but hopefully you can see how our economy is structured to empower a tiny minority of people. I advocate for a system where the means of production are not owned by a small number of people. Instead, the workers would administer the means of production democratically on the basis of one worker, one vote. I think such a model would stop producing a tiny minority of people with disproportionate power in society.

Isn't that communism?

 

[Cocaloch]

Isn't that communism?

No.

I guess I should make what I'm getting at clear. It's socialism. The distinction is important.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

As for my feelings on Trump I truly believe he means it when he says he wants a great America for all Americans. Black, white, all colours.

Actions speak louder than words, and Trump's actions prove that his words are lies.

No one who gives even the slightest of fucks about black people in America would make the attorney general someone who was too racist for the Reagan administration's liking.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Isn't that communism?

Mostly, it's a basic version of Marx's analysis of Capitalism.

The distinction between socialism and communism is not always clearly articulated. Personally, I think socialism is broadly a government where the workers administer the means of production democratically. Communism would be a progression on socialism where the state is effectively obsolete.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Revolution is something driven by the upper classes, because they have the time/resources to invest in it and are least affected by the fallout.

We just celebrated International Women's Day last Wednesday. It was the 100 year anniversary of the women's textile strike which led directly to the overthrow of the Russian monarchy.

These women struck, demanding bread and the end of the Tsar. Here's The Guardian on the class character of the demonstrations:

On 24 February as many as 150,000 workers had taken to the streets. They marched from the industrial areas, crossed the bridges, and occupied the Nevksy, looting shops, and overturning trams and carriages. There were fights with the police and Cossacks on the bridges. By mid-afternoon the crowds on the Nevsky had been swollen by students, shopkeepers, office workers and spectators. Balk described the crowds as “consisting of the ordinary people”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...d-russian-revolution-international-womens-day

 

[Lev]

Our economy is structured around the idea of private property. This doesn't mean your toothbrush, or your Playstation. Private property are goods used to make a profit: factory machines, offices, medical equipment, shipping boats, rental homes, etc. Even if you own your own home, it's not really property in the sense I mean if you're personally living in it. Property used in this way is also called "Means of Production".

If you don't own means of production, then your only alternative is to sell your labor time. This makes you a worker, or working-class. The vast majority of people fall into this category. You sell your labor time, and produce a good or service, which is sold for a profit by the person who owns the property. Crucially, whatever you produce during your labor time is relinquished to the owner, you have no claim to it.

The owners have disproportionate economic power in this arrangement. They have total control over wage paid to the worker, they have total control over the market price of the good produced by the worker. Furthermore, they can do whatever they want with the means of production itself. So they can close that factory, or change that shipping route, or buy newer equipment which requires fewer workers to operate.

Over time, this disproportionate economic power also manifests as political power. Politicians cater to the interests of the owners because they're dependent on them for campaign money. News outlets tend to articulate the preferences of the owners. Universities tend to promote professors who teach the preferred ideas of the owners, and so on.

This is a very simplified version, but hopefully you can see how our economy is structured to empower a tiny minority of people. I advocate for a system where the means of production are not owned by a small number of people. Instead, the workers would administer the means of production democratically on the basis of one worker, one vote. I think such a model would stop producing a tiny minority of people with disproportionate power in society.

I've heard of this type of socialist-based company structuring from Richard Wolff, who seems to promote a bit of Marxist beliefs from the little of content I've seen from him.

I'm not sold on this type of company structuring since every employee would have a vote of their own to use in the decision-making process, which echoes the same problem that societies who embraced direct democracy had: ill-informed and uneducated citizens using their votes to support harmful and ineffective policies. To remedy this problem, societies adopted representative democracy to prevent the ill-inform from supporting poor decisions, as not every citizen is capable or interested in making the most optimal decision that benefits the majority of people.

Or is that people who are incapable of succeeding in such a company structure are unfit to work? What happens then to these "unemployable" people?

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

This article is garbage. Why do people link to blog networks? The author goes over elections in multiple countries in europe and us states with their own history, issues, culture, and economics narrowly focusing on economic policy in the most simplest way. He completely disregards everything else about the politicians and parties. Jason Kander ran a decent campaign against an opponent that took his state for granted. He didn't lose by a smaller margin than the other two campaigns based solely on his economic views which I'm not even sure if they were even relevant.

If the voters don't care about the welfare state and only care about race than why did they elect Obama twice? Why is there currently so much pushback against weakening or repealing obamacare that is scaring some republicans?

 

[kirblar]

I mean again, if you're talking armed revolt this also isn't true. Do you think Nat Turner was actually some affluent upper-middle class type? Do you think the French Revolution wasn't driven by the bottom rungs of society? Do you think the Women's March on Versailles was all affluent people with nothing really at stake?

And I mean if Trump/Sanders supporters (Sanders was the original example here where you tried to explain why he did poorly with minorities) count as revolutionary, supporting the Civil Rights or Labor movements were far more revolutionary. Virtually no one was getting shot at for supporting their preferred political candidate.

Do you see a whole bunch of unemployed people sitting around?

Yes, you get mass revolt w/ widespread oppression and economic disenfranchisement of a massive % of the population. Those conditions aren't present today. Low unemployment is very good for stability. That means the ones who are left seeking the radical change are not, by and large, your working class- it's conservative reactionaries

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I've heard of this type of socialist-based company structuring from Richard Wolff, who seems to promote a bit of Marxist beliefs from the little of content I've seen from him.

I'm not sold on this type of company structuring since every employee would have a vote of their own to use in the decision-making process, which echoes the same problem that societies who embraced direct democracy had: ill-informed and uneducated citizens using their votes to support harmful and ineffective policies. To remedy this problem, societies adopted representative democracy to prevent the ill-inform from supporting poor decisions, as not every citizen is capable or interested in making the most optimal decision that benefits the majority of people.

Or is that people who are incapable of succeeding in such a company structure are unfit to work? What happens then to these "unemployable" people?

Yeah, Richard Wolff is a good communicator of these ideas. And he is unambiguously a Marxist. I disagree with your criticism on several grounds. Right off the top, I'm talking about workers making decisions about their own workplace. It seems to me that the workers in any workplace are the most informed about its functioning.

You link your argument to advocacy of a representational form, but really it's the same argument that monarchist apologists made against democracy. It's the same argument that was made against abolition of slavery:

4. The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. This idea was popular in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries among people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who regarded slavery as morally reprehensible yet continued to hold slaves and to obtain personal services from them and income from the products these ”servants" (as they preferred to call them) were compelled to produce. It would be cruel to set free people who would then, at best, fall into destitution and suffering.

https://fee.org/articles/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/

But even if our society has failed to produce individuals capable of deciding their own work-life matters, that's not a defense of the status quo. Democratic government brought about the demand for universal basic education. You can't be a competent participant in democracy without some education. Socialism may too require new thinking about education. We should be thinking about those reforms and demanding them now.

Finally, if representation is necessary for the smooth functioning of the enterprise, then workers should elect them. Even though I would discourage this, it's clearly more democratic than the status quo.

 

[The Albatross]

It's not uneducated voters, its voters with racial resentment (who happen to be more likely to be uneducated.) When you control for that in surveys the gap vanishes.

It's much more uneducated voters than it is white voters, as the quote I posted is arguing. Uneducated white voters went for Trump nearly 40 points more than Clinton. White voters alone went for Trump 9 points greater. In so far as "Racial resentment" is difficult to measure and quantify, education seems to be the clear differentiator here.

I think, as an educated white voter in the North East who voted against Trump twice (I'm registered independent and voted in my state's primary as a Republican to vote against Trump in the GOP primary), I take small umbrage with the argument that White voters are against policies that could help black or Latino Americans. No, uneducated white voters are against those policies, as states with educated white voters (The coasts) have the strongest, most egalitarian social programs in the country.

 

[kirblar]

It seems to me that the workers in any workplace are the most informed about its functioning.

Are the citizens of the United States, on average, highly informed about how it works? (The answer is no.)

Involuntary democracy is not a good solution for business ventures for a myriad of reasons, the primary one being that people are generally ignorant about most things and you do not want to give them authority over decisionmaking! This doesn't mean that the individuals who do get power will necessarily be any better, but some of them will be, and will be able to succeed while if they were consistently voted into the minority, they would never get the opportunity to do so.

Not to mention that the "Owner"/"Worker" thing is completely out of date and misguided- everyone is in it for themselves and owns their own time.

It's much more uneducated voters than it is white voters, as the quote I posted is arguing. Uneducated white voters went for Trump nearly 40 points more than Clinton. White voters alone went for Trump 9 points greater. In so far as "Racial resentment" is difficult to measure and quantify, education seems to be the clear differentiator here.

I think, as an educated white voter in the North East who voted against Trump twice (I'm registered independent and voted in my state's primary as a Republican to vote against Trump in the GOP primary), I take small umbrage with the argument that White voters are against policies that could help black or Latino Americans. No, uneducated white voters are against those policies, as states with educated white voters (The coasts) have the strongest, most egalitarian social programs in the country.

I'd argue this is because Urban areas have more educated populaces in general, highly educated people are more likely to be open to new ideas, and the fact that blue cities lead to less racists because growing up exposed to non-white people strongly helps curb those ideas.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Are the citizens of the United States, on average, highly informed about how it works? (The answer is no.)

Involuntary democracy is not a good solution for business ventures for a myriad of reasons, the primary one being that people are generally ignorant about most things and you do not want to give them authority over decisionmaking! This doesn't mean that the individuals who do get power will necessarily be any better, but some of them will be, and will be able to succeed while if they were consistently voted into the minority, they would never get the opportunity to do so.

Not to mention that the "Owner"/"Worker" thing is completely out of date and misguided- everyone is in it for themselves and owns their own time.

This is mostly misanthropy and not interesting. It's funny that you argue against "involuntary democracy" and in doing so implicitly argue for involuntary dictatorship.

 

[neurosisxeno]

As for my feelings on Trump I truly believe he means it when he says he wants a great America for all Americans. Black, white, all colours.

I like the reality that you live in, can I move there?

 

[Lois_Lane]

I like the reality that you live in, can I move there?

No! Its a trap. Meaning something doesn't mean doing something. Just like a criminal meant to return the car they stole.

 

[Valhelm]

I think that "look how well racist populism just did! If we run on socialist populism we'll do so well! After all our message is so much better!" is really misguided. It just...it just seems to ignore a lot of realities about the American electorate

Populism is the worst buzzword of 2017

 

[kirblar]

This is mostly misanthropy and not interesting. It's funny that you argue against "involuntary democracy" and in doing so implicitly argue for involuntary dictatorship.

It's not misanthropy to point out that people specialize into very specific areas of expertise and that having doctors vote on what iphone design to go w/ doesn't make any sense.

Hell, look at Ben Carson. Brilliant Neurosurgeon, completely and total moron in a billion other ways.

We do this with public government because we don't have a better option, but even then we explicitly include the non-democratic judiciary as a bulwark against crap like Trump.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

It's not misanthropy to point out that people specialize into very specific areas of expertise and that having doctors vote on what iphone design to go w/ doesn't make any sense.

Hell, look at Ben Carson. Brilliant Neurosurgeon, completely and total moron in a billion other ways.

I'm asking people to make the decisions about the thing they specialize in. We're talking about workplaces here. I'm not asking Ben Carson how to run an iPhone factory, I'm asking him how to run a neurosurgery wing of a hospital.

 

[pigeon]

I'm moving in the morning across the continent... But I'd like to take some time to research Bannon myself using both left and right sources.

A quick google search pulls up mostly left leaning (imho) sites.

Right off the top just based on the extremely quick google search it appears he feels western civilization threatened by mass illegal immigration and many have interpreted this to be racist (based on him quoting from that book?).

I'm willing to reexamine my thoughts on him, obviously there is a lot of controversy around him. I'll definitely read up more using both left and right wing sources.

As for my feelings on Trump I truly believe he means it when he says he wants a great America for all Americans. Black, white, all colours.

Yeah, wow, so weird that many people interpreted it as racist when Bannon says immigration is destroying America's Christian character.

Trump is a white supremacist who ran a white supremacist campaign. You might feel like he isn't, but that's less about the truth and more about you feeling whatever you have to feel to justify your choices to yourself.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Yeah, wow, so weird that many people interpreted it as racist when Bannon says immigration is destroying America's Christian character.

Trump is a white supremacist who ran a white supremacist campaign. You might feel like he isn't, but that's less about the truth and more about you feeling whatever you have to feel to justify your choices to yourself.

Wait until he tries to explain away the video of Bannon saying he wants to start a Christian War against Islam to bring about the endtimes so the world can be purged and recreated by our loving God. Before anyone laughs, this is an actual thing he said (paraphrased).

 

[Liberty4all]

.

Err why? Also are you British?...

Canadian but have family in Detroit. A city devastated by years of its working class being ignored by the federal government, multiple trade deals that screwed the working person.

Have any of you visited downtown Detroit? I have, multiple times. Downtown literally looks like a bomb went off.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Canadian but have family in Detroit. A city devastated by years of its working class being ignored by the federal government, multiple trade deals that screwed the working person.

That's quite a misleading simplification of what happened...