National Review takes on Trump Supporters

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,447
7,616
136
I read this yesterday. This was David French defending the text cited in the OP, which was written by Kevin Williamson, who is probably one of the best writers NRO has.

I haven't been a supporter of Trump, but if it comes down to him vs Clinton, he's getting my vote.

At any rate, French's defense of this seems legit.



I don't see how this is any different than what conservatives have been saying for years - that an excessive welfare apparatus is an incentive to laziness and sloth.

So..why do you think many of these hard working, lower class conservatives have been forced to "the welfare apparatus"?

What happens when someone in another country is willing to work for less of a paycheck than you are? Or the enterprise where you work is no longer as productive as competition overseas?

Do you think that people like Donald Trump or the Koch brothers share the interests of the people who work for those enterprises or the people who own them?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
I read this yesterday. This was David French defending the text cited in the OP, which was written by Kevin Williamson, who is probably one of the best writers NRO has.

I haven't been a supporter of Trump, but if it comes down to him vs Clinton, he's getting my vote.

At any rate, French's defense of this seems legit.

I don't see how this is any different than what conservatives have been saying for years - that an excessive welfare apparatus is an incentive to laziness and sloth.

I remember when months ago Paul Krugman noted that while conservatives were calling Trump the destruction of the Republican Party, irresponsible, an ignoramus, mentally unbalanced, totally unsuited to the presidency, etc, that as soon as it came down to him vs. a Democrat the vast majority of them would suddenly decide that Trump wasn't so bad after all.

Totally intellectually bankrupt, craven pieces of shit, haha.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So..why do you think many of these hard working, lower class conservatives have been forced to "the welfare apparatus"?

What happens when someone in another country is willing to work for less of a paycheck than you are? Or the enterprise where you work is no longer as productive as competition overseas?

Do you think that people like Donald Trump or the Koch brothers share the interests of the people who work for those enterprises or the people who own them?

Offshoring isn't the only factor. Automation plays a huge role as do improved engineering & materials in durable goods. Cars & everything else are lower maintenance. The price of many other consumer goods is so low that repairing them isn't worth the effort because they're not designed for repair at all. Robot factories will just make more.

Remember when we were told that computers would provide more leisure & less work? It's true. We've dealt poorly with the unanticipated consequences of that. It's great if you're a member of the ownership class but not so hot if you need to work for a living. It's hard to enjoy leisure when you're broke all the time. It's not really leisure at all but rather boredom.

People who write for the NRO don't really give a fuck about that. They've got theirs from worshipping at the altar of greed & somehow find moral superiority in it.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
Perhaps, I have a different view on this issue due to where I live and who I know. For example, my brother's fiancee is from Eastern Kentucky. Her parents are very bad off, but her and her siblings have moved away. They went to college with the help of the "welfare apparatus" and one is now working in banking while the other is a successful writer. Their community is constantly getting smaller and smaller due to people leaving, being educated, and assimilating into other communities.

In my area we had a coal boom in the 50's-80's. IL has high sulfur coal, so it was shut down during the 90's. Other industry came in to fill the void. We now have tire, boat, and bit factories. There aren't as many jobs as there used to be from coal, but the towns shrunk accordingly.

The article is too cut and dry. A few people in Eastern Kentucky aren't the cause of the US's problems. The transition of the US job market from plentiful low skill well paid work to high skilled technical work left many people displaced and many families without the network to transition.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
I remember when months ago Paul Krugman noted that while conservatives were calling Trump the destruction of the Republican Party, irresponsible, an ignoramus, mentally unbalanced, totally unsuited to the presidency, etc, that as soon as it came down to him vs. a Democrat the vast majority of them would suddenly decide that Trump wasn't so bad after all.

Totally intellectually bankrupt, craven pieces of shit, haha.

Whereas the vast majority of Bernie supporters will support Clinton when she gets the nom, having spent the entirety of the primaries calling her all manner of things.

The election will come down to two people, and you get to choose one. There's nothing intellectually bankrupt for choosing the one that most aligns with you when there's no other choice.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Just imagine how much better off they'd be if the Job Creators! had their way entirely.

Neither major party has a platform that will address the concerns of voters like this or improve their lives in any meaningful way. I'll stipulate that without problem, but you will no doubt persist in the mistaken belief that IF ONLY they would vote Democratic Party that would benefit them somehow and their lives would be better via some partisan magic thinking.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
The phrase "need to die" was overcooked, but the article has a point about white working class people blaming outsiders - i.e. Washington and/or brown people - for all their troubles. Conservatives have been saying that black people shouldn't blame all their problems on white racism but the truth is that white people - the sort that are Trump supporters - have been blaming their woes on anyone but themselves for a long while.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Whereas the vast majority of Bernie supporters will support Clinton when she gets the nom, having spent the entirety of the primaries calling her all manner of things.

The election will come down to two people, and you get to choose one. There's nothing intellectually bankrupt for choosing the one that most aligns with you when there's no other choice.

What's going on in the dem party is a healthy debate about issues. What is going on in the GOP is something entirely different.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The phrase "need to die" was overcooked, but the article has a point about white working class people blaming outsiders - i.e. Washington and/or brown people - for all their troubles. Conservatives have been saying that black people shouldn't blame all their problems on white racism but the truth is that white people - the sort that are Trump supporters - have been blaming their woes on anyone but themselves for a long while.

If these towns and the people in them don't change they will die (and not in the "we all die someday" sense). Attempting to preserve in amber a particular lifestyle or area at the height of its former glory is neither the responsibility of government nor a desirable role for them or other taxpayers to be forced into doing. We already have enough places dedicated to preserving the past like Old Town Williamsburg, we don't need to do that on epic scale to maintain every single former mining or factory town forever.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Whereas the vast majority of Bernie supporters will support Clinton when she gets the nom, having spent the entirety of the primaries calling her all manner of things.

There's some truth to that, but Bernie supporters are mostly little known internet commentators. I really don't mean that as an insult, just as a statement of fact. The people who were saying Trump is unacceptable are people who are paid a lot of money to be elite opinion leaders for conservatives. People that have been linked to and quoted on here zillions of times for their supposedly sage opinion. It turns out they are just ethically bankrupt hacks. To keep the gravy train going they have to support the nominee.

That, and if someone's already used such hyperbole against the person they are voting for, how is it possible to believe them when they try to use it against the other party's candidate?

The election will come down to two people, and you get to choose one. There's nothing intellectually bankrupt for choosing the one that most aligns with you when there's no other choice.

I agree, however I have no idea how you would know what Trump actually aligns with you better. It's funny that people say that Clinton is a liar, but she has nothing on Trump. I mean in your heart do you actually believe that in the last decade Donald Trump has done a complete 180 and now believes all the things he claims?

Hell, do you think he will believe next week what he claims to believe now? If you do, I have an EskimoSpy University course to sell you, haha.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,447
7,616
136
The phrase "need to die" was overcooked, but the article has a point about white working class people blaming outsiders - i.e. Washington and/or brown people - for all their troubles. Conservatives have been saying that black people shouldn't blame all their problems on white racism but the truth is that white people - the sort that are Trump supporters - have been blaming their woes on anyone but themselves for a long while.

I don't think the author of the piece used the phrase "need to die". He phrased it as "deserve to die".
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Neither major party has a platform that will address the concerns of voters like this or improve their lives in any meaningful way. I'll stipulate that without problem, but you will no doubt persist in the mistaken belief that IF ONLY they would vote Democratic Party that would benefit them somehow and their lives would be better via some partisan magic thinking.

Yeh, feeding America's children & putting a roof over their heads benefits nobody. Neither does providing for the elderly, the sick, lame, crazy & even the children of the lazy has no value. Govt jobs have no value, either. Nor do govt lands, obviously, not to mention public education & health services.

Better to keep them divided with wedge issues & reap the profits as long as possible.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Yeh, feeding America's children & putting a roof over their heads benefits nobody. Neither does providing for the elderly, the sick, lame, crazy & even the children of the lazy has no value. Govt jobs have no value, either. Nor do govt lands, obviously, not to mention public education & health services.

Better to keep them divided with wedge issues & reap the profits as long as possible.

Sure, keep up the false dichotomy. Saying help shouldn't be open-ended in scope or duration is exactly the same thing as saying "nobody benefits". That's not really the question, we already know the recipients of aid benefit as that's kind of the point. You seem to forget the rest of us who provide that benefit from our own pockets have rights and a vote also.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
Whereas the vast majority of Bernie supporters will support Clinton when she gets the nom, having spent the entirety of the primaries calling her all manner of things.

The election will come down to two people, and you get to choose one. There's nothing intellectually bankrupt for choosing the one that most aligns with you when there's no other choice.

And what do you do if none of the two candidates align with you? Let's take Hillary for example. I do not want any more wars in the Middle East, she's for them with voting and campaign records to prove it. I want to stop unconstitutional NSA data collection, she's for it with voting record to prove it. I'm pro 2A, she's against it, with voting record to prove it. If that's not enough there is a whole slew of other issues where she just happened to conveniently flip flop on. The TPP, the Marijuanna, the gay rights, universal health coverage, student debt relief, wall street reform. Now, while her current stance on these issues more or less aligns with mine, I don't believe she's genuine about those issues. I believe she flip flopped because it was politically advantageous for her campaign. I have zero faith she's actually going to do anything about them. The best she'll probably do is some superficial gesture before giving up and saying "well, we tried".

I'm not even going to discuss potential Republican candidates.

When there is so little alignment between you and the candidate, then yes, it absolutely is intellectually bankrupt to vote for the candidate just because he or she has D or R in front of his/her name.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
What's going on in the dem party is a healthy debate about issues. What is going on in the GOP is something entirely different.

Really? Mostly it seems to be about "It's time for a woman in the White House" and calling people BernieBros or calling Sanders a misogynist for shushing Clinton when she won't stop interrupting him during debates. I'll grant you that the conversation on the Democrat side has at least not fallen so far as to discussing penis size, but it's not really about issues either.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,209
594
126
I do think Sanders v. Clinton has been a debate about ideas, yes. Idealism v. Pragmatism or deontologist v. consequentialist depending on how you look at it. There are no doubt voters - maybe even majority of them - who vote on personalities, but the debates between the two have been largely about policies, iirc.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
GOP establishment just needs to go away. No one is buying their trickle down BS anymore.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,209
594
126
As for the article, color me surprised. I have always thought Kevin Williams is amongst one of those folks he now excoriates, albeit with better odds and connections.

Following the lead of Ted Cruz's recent invocation of LIV&#8482; (Low Information Voters) more and more GOP luminaries are taking it to the people. Who knew?
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
There's some truth to that, but Bernie supporters are mostly little known internet commentators. I really don't mean that as an insult, just as a statement of fact.

I think you'll have to offer up a little more than that if you expect others to view it as fact, sounds more like the musings of the Clinton faithful. I'm having a hard time reconciling the bolded above with the level of and type of funding Sanders has received, as well as winning numerous states. I will not dispute that he lacks the corporate support Hillary has, but that hardly makes him unpopular. I think you're confusing him with Ron Paul.

Bernie hasn't had a fair shake at this from the get go btw, the pro-Hillary media has been doing their part in trying to limit his exposure.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I do think Sanders v. Clinton has been a debate about ideas, yes. Idealism v. Pragmatism or deontologist v. consequentialist depending on how you look at it. There are no doubt voters - maybe even majority of them - who vote on personalities, but the debates between the two have been largely about policies, iirc.

You can use noble sounding Greek terms to describe the argument all you want, in practice things like "consequentialism" is realized in very crude appeals to emotion like "the rich don't deserve their wealth as they stole it from the poor, thus we are justified in taking it from them." It's an argument about whether the iron fist of the state should be wielded against the perceived enemies using a velvet glove or bare handed.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
GOP establishment just needs to go away. No one is buying their trickle down BS anymore.

I agree, but seems to me bullshit is still very much in fashion for their voters. Probably why this is turning into a long, embarrassing, drawn out affair.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I agree, but seems to me bullshit is still very much in fashion for their voters. Probably why this is turning into a long, embarrassing, drawn out affair.

The amount of emotional investment the left has in demonizing lowered taxes is truly astounding. You would think that the leftists were the ones being subjected to new confiscatory and punitive taxes rather than removing the same from others. Oh how they pine for the days of the mythical 90% bracket.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,209
594
126
You can use noble sounding Greek terms to describe the argument all you want,..

The conversation was about how the debates within the Reps and the Dems compare in this primaries. Not why the Dems suck all the time. But your usual "libertarian" rant is noted. (Oh, I did not think "consequentialism" was a noble Greek term, btw.)

Bernie hasn't had a fair shake at this from the get go btw, the pro-Hillary media has been doing their part in trying to limit his exposure.

I disagree with this last sentence. The media loves to pick on both the Clintons, and has largely been gentle to Sanders. Sanders has gotten an essentially free pass on his records that are rich grounds for potential GOP attacks if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Clinton receives more attention, yes, but she also gets attacked in such proportion to media exposure. (see Fox, for example)