Why Nazis are coming out now.

[Jaskalas]

Yes, the people who have been voting to destroy the country out of hatred and ignorance need a place at the table...now, more than ever.

Oh boo hoo, you called them deplorables and they didn't vote for a meek status quo that has failed them. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

Did Roosevelt give Republicans a seat at the table? Did Reagan give one to Democrats? Were their watershed moments tarnished by reaching out for and attaining broad appeal? Leadership in those moments meant setting the table. The promise of prosperity that can only be realized through real, meaningful, changes. Carried by a gravitas that pulls in the blue dogs and company. You don't beg them for votes, no, it was the opposition who begged for scraps at the table. I sure as hell did not say it would be the conservative agenda.

Yet you'd rather raise your fist than throw the dog a bone. It's a wonder you still think you care about politics. How far down the rabbit hole can you go, before "us vs them" necessitates, in your mind, the use of force?

^ Goes for several posters in this topic.

 

[cytg111]

For starters we can stop victimizing ourselves. It is ypur own words that put you in the extreme as "the US'es little bitch", stop blaming others and look in the mirror.

Secondly, realize that we are at war. Someone is actively funding and sourcing both sides for the mere reason of civil unrest and revolt, revolt that leads to broken alliances and treaties. This information must be settled and communicated to the people but firstmost you gotta stop the funding and support for these groups. We gotta strike back, cause we are in fact at war. Unprecedented cause what is a proper response here? Putin has amorede himself against the same kind of attack.

Third, dont play into the hand, realize who it is that wants you to brexit, what is the sourcing of the propaganda I am reading, dont float ideas about leaving NATO, the immigration crisis that has put these things on the scale including le pen, wilders and all the other right wingers politicians in play(who is funding them?), where did it start? A continious flattening of civil Syria, not ISIS, that just so happended to create the biggest shockwave of refugees that ultimately that by its very definition is gonna test our alliences, push brexit, and fuel right wing fucktards in politics.

Look inwards, look in the mirror, dont be a tool for those who aims to divide us. And realize we are at war!

 

[maddie]

nvm

 

[maddie]

I'm sorry but that is just not good enough for me. I've raised two children and have a grandchild growing up and all I see is how badly things are going.

It's not OK. My life is almost to an end anyway and THIS is what I'm forced to leave them with? I'll fight it for as long as I live and I do have some hope that liberalism will prevail, it has for a long time and people have to understand that it is absolutely vital to create a functioning society.

I think I like you though... how rare.

That brought a smile, the surprise in the last statement.

By the way, I'm from Trinidad, ex British colony. Wikipedia has a fairly accurate brief article. If the word Liberal retains it's traditional meaning, the extremists could learn a lot from here.

I agree. True Liberalism is vital for the future.

 

[maddie]

For starters we can stop victimizing ourselves. It is ypur own words that put you in the extreme as "the US'es little bitch", stop blaming others and look in the mirror.

Secondly, realize that we are at war. Someone is actively funding and sourcing both sides for the mere reason of civil unrest and revolt, revolt that leads to broken alliances and treaties. This information must be settled and communicated to the people but firstmost you gotta stop the funding and support for these groups. We gotta strike back, cause we are in fact at war. Unprecedented cause what is a proper response here? Putin has amorede himself against the same kind of attack.

Third, dont play into the hand, realize who it is that wants you to brexit, what is the sourcing of the propaganda I am reading, dont float ideas about leaving NATO, the immigration crisis that has put these things on the scale including le pen, wilders and all the other right wingers politicians in play(who is funding them?), where did it start? A continious flattening of civil Syria, not ISIS, that just so happended to create the biggest shockwave of refugees that ultimately that by its very definition is gonna test our alliences, push brexit, and fuel right wing fucktards in politics.

Look inwards, look in the mirror, dont be a tool for those who aims to divide us. And realize we are at war!

Someone or someones? Meaning disparate groups, not a monolithic entity. How does one fight billions of $ in resources? Not a rhetorical question. For certain the modern internet has introduced an unforeseen disruptive element into the plans of oligarchs. There is an old video of Brzezinski warning the audience that the old days of the political class being able to make decisions out of the public's view is ending and that other ways must be found.

I once had a long talk with a Cuban doctor on the political situation in Cuba concerning opposition parties. He said that there were numerous opposition parties, but that most of the members were state secret agents. Infiltrate, misdirect and ultimately destroy or disempower. Very effective tactics.

When you say "we are at war", it's important to be sure whom exactly we are at war with and what is the purpose of the war.

I sometimes wonder if the end of new geographical frontiers in the 20th century inevitably leads to this present situation. A final fight for the whole pie. The gathering rush to colonize space appears to show some support for this.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh boo hoo, you called them deplorables and they didn't vote for a meek status quo that has failed them. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

Did Roosevelt give Republicans a seat at the table? Did Reagan give one to Democrats? Were their watershed moments tarnished by reaching out for and attaining broad appeal? Leadership in those moments meant setting the table. The promise of prosperity that can only be realized through real, meaningful, changes. Carried by a gravitas that pulls in the blue dogs and company. You don't beg them for votes, no, it was the opposition who begged for scraps at the table. I sure as hell did not say it would be the conservative agenda.

Yet you'd rather raise your fist than throw the dog a bone. It's a wonder you still think you care about politics. How far down the rabbit hole can you go, before "us vs them" necessitates, in your mind, the use of force?

^ Goes for several posters in this topic.

I disagree that these people voted for Trump because they were frustrated "with a system that failed them." The economy has been pretty good for several years, and was borderline excellent last year. Doesn't mean everyone was doing well. Yet I'm sure that the vast majority of Trump voters were gainfully employed.

This vote was a big "f you" to liberals. It was really about social issues and cultural differences. Trump's appeal was about xenophobia and crime, and opposing political correctness. He may have just barely gotten the votes he needed in those rust belt states by opposing free trade, but there's no reason to assume this was the primary motivating factor for the bulk of his supporters.

In exit polls, Trump voters rated immigration and terrorism as their top 2 issues, well ahead of the economy. Clinton voters rated the economy as higher in importance than did Trump voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/?tid=a_inl

 

[cytg111]

Someone or someones? Meaning disparate groups, not a monolithic entity. How does one fight billions of $ in resources? Not a rhetorical question. For certain the modern internet has introduced an unforeseen disruptive element into the plans of oligarchs. There is an old video of Brzezinski warning the audience that the old days of the political class being able to make decisions out of the public's view is ending and that other ways must be found.

Someone(s). Hard to say but it is what Putin sort of does, he finds the Mercers, the white supremacists and the Trumpsters, which all at best becomes useful idiots, at worst traitors, when he backs black lives matters next week instead... sanders over clinton when its clear sanders has lost etc. How do you fight this? A damned good question and I dont have a good answer. While in eastern Ukraine it was relatively easy to deploy spetsnaz to incite unrest and revolt, for the western front we have to keep social media accountable, that might mean a slight regression on our belowed freedom of speech but I cant see it any other way. We need oversight.

When you say "we are at war", it's important to be sure whom exactly we are at war with and what is the purpose of the war.

Putins interpretation of Russia is surely spearheading this, from meddeling in europe to america to the middle east, it is all powerplays in efforts to pit us against eachother, psycological warfare if you will. While this is getting spearheaded by Putin right now, when it all is over and done with, the attack pushed back, what worries me is that this method, this vector, will surely be copied by other nations, companies, parties and methods and strategies honed even further, it will be a mess and I am afraid it is the death of free flow of information. Looking upon a piece of information people will have no concept of wether its a true piece of journalism or constructed propaganda. The truth is dying.

I sometimes wonder if the end of new geographical frontiers in the 20th century inevitably leads to this present situation. A final fight for the whole pie. The gathering rush to colonize space appears to show some support for this.

You and me both. How else can it play out? (if it is going to play at all that is...)

 

[MrDudeMan]

Sure you see anti-US bias, others see you as anti-American and who is to say who is right, can't critique a nation or it's policies without having some fucktard get on your back about how you suddenly hate it... So ... hypocrite, do you agree with everything or is there such a thing as legitimate criticism?

What if you disagree with that criticism, does that mean anything? What if others disagree with your criticisms? Does that mean anything? Are both you and me anti-US, are neither of us and who is the fucktard you have put in place to determine what kind of criticism is OK and what isn't?

Just stop it with that bullshit, it's just something you use to ignore criticism you don't like and you are actively being an extremist by not accepting my replies on how criticising the spread of demonstrably false history is just bullshit.

I get it, you have always thought that the US is über alles and when someone points out that you murdered hundreds of thousands of people by dropping nukes rather than saving people or that your nation was founded by puritans who fled the UK because they couldn't oppress people then it's hard to take but truth is truth no matter how much it hurts.

That is where all this bullshit between you and I started and until you get over that you'll just continue with this complete bullshit version of me being anti-US for providing demostrable facts and you feeling bad about me doing so.

There are ways to end extremism through information and education, the question is why this has been given up on completely.

And don't worry, my observations were regarding the US and the UK, I've presented our problems in numerous posts but apparently you missed that I have no problem condemning the UK for our stupidity along with the US.

I suppose the primary issue with your biases is how it colors your comments. I would probably feel more aligned to your point of view if I didn't know about your underlying biases and opinions. Being anti-anyone contradicts the content of your message because it makes you sound like the very people you condemned as having ruined the world for your grandchild. I'm not saying I think that's true, but the way in which a message is delivered is just as important as the actual message. I'm glad you're willing to try to look objectively at your own country, but I rarely see that in your comments. Whenever I see your avatar, I'm now looking for anti-US or anti-American comments and I usually find them. I'm not interpreting the meaning of that; I'm merely relaying my own observation.

 

[maddie]

Someone(s). Hard to say but it is what Putin sort of does, he finds the Mercers, the white supremacists and the Trumpsters, which all at best becomes useful idiots, at worst traitors, when he backs black lives matters next week instead... sanders over clinton when its clear sanders has lost etc. How do you fight this? A damned good question and I dont have a good answer. While in eastern Ukraine it was relatively easy to deploy spetsnaz to incite unrest and revolt, for the western front we have to keep social media accountable, that might mean a slight regression on our belowed freedom of speech but I cant see it any other way. We need oversight.


Putins interpretation of Russia is surely spearheading this, from meddeling in europe to america to the middle east, it is all powerplays in efforts to pit us against eachother, psycological warfare if you will. While this is getting spearheaded by Putin right now, when it all is over and done with, the attack pushed back, what worries me is that this method, this vector, will surely be copied by other nations, companies, parties and methods and strategies honed even further, it will be a mess and I am afraid it is the death of free flow of information. Looking upon a piece of information people will have no concept of wether its a true piece of journalism or constructed propaganda. The truth is dying.


You and me both. How else can it play out? (if it is going to play at all that is...)

I'm not an American so my view of the world will be different to most here.

At the risk of ruining a discussion, I'm asking you to read this article and see if it fits your worldview. One at least written by someone definitely on the democratic party side. I'm not asking you to believe the words but to use the arguments and facts presented to ask some more penetrating questions. I never accept the consensus view anymore without personal research. The critical thing is to also read opposite viewpoints and either see the flaws or realize that one's understanding might be incomplete or possibly wrong. We all have access to information now that was simply impossible before. We can verify ourselves and not take anyone's word.

Robert F Kennedy Jr: http://www.politico.eu/article/why-...s-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/


Did I learn anything new?
Do I really have all the facts or am I coming to conclusions too quickly?
How do I really learn the truth or at least more of it? --------------- Read as much sources as possible and look for flaws in their arguments.

The Nazis are coming out now because someone or someones, want them to.

As an aside, my country, Trinidad & Tobago, experienced an attempted Islamic armed coup many years ago. The parliament was stormed and the prime minister shot + another minister and others killed, the country had a state of emergency declared, so I know Islamic terrorism 1st hand. Pretty much all of the coup members were converts. Friends of mine were inducted to guard critical gov sites. BBC, CNN and others were here but Iraq invaded Kuwait the following week and all departed for the bigger story.

 

[cytg111]

I'm not an American so my view of the world will be different to most here.

At the risk of ruining a discussion, I'm asking you to read this article and see if it fits your worldview. One at least written by someone definitely on the democratic party side. I'm not asking you to believe the words but to use the arguments and facts presented to ask some more penetrating questions. I never accept the consensus view anymore without personal research. The critical thing is to also read opposite viewpoints and either see the flaws or realize that one's understanding might be incomplete or possibly wrong. We all have access to information now that was simply impossible before. We can verify ourselves and not take anyone's word.

Robert F Kennedy Jr: http://www.politico.eu/article/why-...s-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/


Did I learn anything new?
Do I really have all the facts or am I coming to conclusions too quickly?
How do I really learn the truth or at least more of it? --------------- Read as much sources as possible and look for flaws in their arguments.

The Nazis are coming out now because someone or someones, want them to.

As an aside, my country, Trinidad & Tobago, experienced an attempted Islamic armed coup many years ago. The parliament was stormed and the prime minister shot + another minister and others killed, the country had a state of emergency declared, so I know Islamic terrorism 1st hand. Pretty much all of the coup members were converts. Friends of mine were inducted to guard critical gov sites. BBC, CNN and others were here but Iraq invaded Kuwait the following week and all departed for the bigger story.

Interresting read indeed.
No I dont agree on a great many points, a few I do.
In terms of the west not behaving this is a far from a complete list, for example (and as hinted in the text) noone would be super surprised if it turns out that islamic fundementalism in central Asia is in one way or the other 'encouraged' by western capacities, covert or not.
I do not in any capacity think us, the west, better than anyone else, we are *the same* people, take a look out over the globe, this is what people do, not america, not russia, not china... but people, what people do to other people. I firmly beleive this to be true.
I also believe that our methods of governing ourselves improves and includes even bigger alliances of people over time, with the occasional setback to overcome, even bigger alliances that again -in turn- limits the ways in which we screw eachother over.
This is key.
All in all it is just another brick in the wall(sorry, had to go there) and if this experiment homo sapiens is gonna be anything else than a blip in the grand cosmos of things we will have to unite.
See Catalonia, russian information warfare showing its teeth again. It has got to stop. Anything that seeks to divide us has got to stop. I am almost at the point where i reccomend conventional warfare against Russia, move NATO into eastern Ukraine, see whats up at the border.
Insist that russia stop the information warfare at gunpoint. If we dont, we will have to erode/dispel our freedom of speech privileges in efforts to withstand coming onslaught - and that is a win for the enemy as well.
At the end of the day when its all over and done with, invite them(Russia) to tea and trade again. But this bullshit has got to stop.

 

[Jaskalas]

I disagree that these people voted for Trump because they were frustrated "with a system that failed them." The economy has been pretty good for several years, and was borderline excellent last year. Doesn't mean everyone was doing well. Yet I'm sure that the vast majority of Trump voters were gainfully employed.

If you think people have been doing well, then you haven't been paying attention.

Rural Ruination

• Is the American dream really dead?
• A Hospital Crisis Is Killing Rural Communities. This State Is ‘Ground Zero.’
• Appalachia: The big white ghetto
• Among rural Trump supporters, an America that has lost its way
• Trump’s Promises Will Be Hard to Keep, but Coal Country Has Faith

I understand the need to defend it. Another year of Trump and Dems will finally switch off the notion of an "Obama economy".

Income inequality, do you think it was "borderline excellent last year"? To help wrap your head around 2016, you need to appreciate the pain that is already out there. It has been slowly building since, arguably, sometime between Carter and Reagan. It's a deadly combination of trickle down and offshoring. Capitalism is quite simply devouring itself by divesting from laborers who, in turn, are supposed to be its consumers. This is a vicious cycle.

The effect is a massive wealth gap, which $15 an hour would only cover half of. My rough guess is you'll need $25 minimum wage to feel the economy the baby boomers enjoyed. This is bigger than a President. Bigger than a political party. This is the rural ruination of America where people have been devastated and left destitute across the nation. America has a growing industry of the working poor.

You are measuring it by Wall Street's numbers. Yeah, the 1% are doing just fine. We don't care, and neither should you.
And all this is before the labor market is hit with the pending nuclear holocaust that is modern automation.

The economy has failed people. It's about the fail them even harder. We need to focus our message and our solutions there.

 

[Zaap]

...and then there's reality.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138...ory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class


The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Back in May, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver punctured the myth of the “working class” being Trump’s voter base: In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins.

While it is true that many rural voters who backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump this year, these voters hardly comprise the majority of Trump’s 60 million votes, as rural voters made up only 17 percent of this year’s electorate. Most rural voters generally vote Republican anyway. Clinton’s decision not to target these voters may seem foolhardy in hindsight, but these voters have not been a key Democratic demographic for many decades. Moreover, as a longtime member of the Washington establishment, Clinton was always going to be a hard sell to these voters in a change election.

The voters Clinton really lost—the ones she was targeting and relying on for victory—were college-educated whites. Most polling suggested she would win these voters, but she didn’t, according to exit polls: White men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton.

Clinton’s strategy made sense. Trump’s negatives among this group, which normally leans Republican (Romney won them by six points), were pretty high in polling. What’s more, these people hadn’t suffered under Obama; they’d thrived. The kind of change Trump was espousing wasn’t supposed to connect with this group. A massive Gallup study in August revealed that the typical Trump supporter has “not been disproportionately affected by foreign trade or immigration. The results suggest that his supporters, on average, do not have lower incomes than other Americans, nor are they more likely to be unemployed.”



And income inequality? Set course for San Francisco and New York City. San Fran beat out Rwanda in that measure! You could say it's a mixed bag, but really I'd say CA, NJ and NY tip the scale in favor of "STFU and do something about it then" from the left side.

 

[cytg111]

...and then there's reality.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138...ory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class


The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Back in May, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver punctured the myth of the “working class” being Trump’s voter base: In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins.

While it is true that many rural voters who backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump this year, these voters hardly comprise the majority of Trump’s 60 million votes, as rural voters made up only 17 percent of this year’s electorate. Most rural voters generally vote Republican anyway. Clinton’s decision not to target these voters may seem foolhardy in hindsight, but these voters have not been a key Democratic demographic for many decades. Moreover, as a longtime member of the Washington establishment, Clinton was always going to be a hard sell to these voters in a change election.

The voters Clinton really lost—the ones she was targeting and relying on for victory—were college-educated whites. Most polling suggested she would win these voters, but she didn’t, according to exit polls: White men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton.

Clinton’s strategy made sense. Trump’s negatives among this group, which normally leans Republican (Romney won them by six points), were pretty high in polling. What’s more, these people hadn’t suffered under Obama; they’d thrived. The kind of change Trump was espousing wasn’t supposed to connect with this group. A massive Gallup study in August revealed that the typical Trump supporter has “not been disproportionately affected by foreign trade or immigration. The results suggest that his supporters, on average, do not have lower incomes than other Americans, nor are they more likely to be unemployed.”



And income inequality? Set course for San Francisco and New York City. San Fran beat out Rwanda in that measure! You could say it's a mixed bag, but really I'd say CA, NJ and NY tip the scale in favor of "STFU and do something about it then" from the left side.

Thats the thing I dont get, why was the polling that much off? Did the white men and women simply lie through their teeth or wtf?

 

[MajinCry]

Let's take a wonderfully conservative source, shall we? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Oh dear.

 

[pmv]

I have to say I find the last few posts of conflicting poll data and electoral statistics to be quite confusing.

There's a critical issue in there (put very crudely - 'race vs class'), but so far the data (all of which is either small-sample poll dependent, or is entirely indirect) doesn't help figure out what is going on.

And I don't get Zaap's last point - are US states really capable of reconfiguring their political economy entirely independent of the rest of the country? Aren't elites national, rather than state-based? Is the US not an integrated economy?

And surely 'the average Trump voter' isn't the point? Surely the point is the changes at the margins, who made the difference by voting differently from how they might have done? It's the swing votes that count, not the hard-core who were always going to vote that way.

Also - is generation not a factor at all in the US? Here in the UK the evidence seems to suggest that generation has become a bigger determinant of voting behaviour than even class. It's not even just Millennials, Gen X behaviour is actually very close to them. The Tories are increasingly the party exclusively of pensioners.

(On the one hand I consider that good because it means Tories are a diminishing group, on the other hand its bad because politics is not supposed to be about generational conflict and its not at all clear what happens once the old shuffle off the stage - new divisions are bound to emerge, and who knows what they will be?).

 

[Zaap]

What conflicting data? The article I quoted states that Clinton was expected to win college educated whites, but didn't. The later chart shows Trump had a 4 point lead of college educated whites.

And yes, practically speaking its pretty absurd to constantly crow about haves and have nots and not examine it on a state/regional basis.

No one living in New Mexico for example gives a practical flying rip that they can't afford to live in ultra rich fuck-the-poor San Francisco.

If people really give a shit about income inequality, then littterally put your money where your mouth is and do something about it. Just realize... you'll be starting in some pretty deep blue supposedly 'progressive' meccas that are the worst offenders. So have at it.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm not an American so my view of the world will be different to most here.

At the risk of ruining a discussion, I'm asking you to read this article and see if it fits your worldview. One at least written by someone definitely on the democratic party side. I'm not asking you to believe the words but to use the arguments and facts presented to ask some more penetrating questions. I never accept the consensus view anymore without personal research. The critical thing is to also read opposite viewpoints and either see the flaws or realize that one's understanding might be incomplete or possibly wrong. We all have access to information now that was simply impossible before. We can verify ourselves and not take anyone's word.

Robert F Kennedy Jr: http://www.politico.eu/article/why-...s-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/


Did I learn anything new?
Do I really have all the facts or am I coming to conclusions too quickly?
How do I really learn the truth or at least more of it? --------------- Read as much sources as possible and look for flaws in their arguments.

The Nazis are coming out now because someone or someones, want them to.

As an aside, my country, Trinidad & Tobago, experienced an attempted Islamic armed coup many years ago. The parliament was stormed and the prime minister shot + another minister and others killed, the country had a state of emergency declared, so I know Islamic terrorism 1st hand. Pretty much all of the coup members were converts. Friends of mine were inducted to guard critical gov sites. BBC, CNN and others were here but Iraq invaded Kuwait the following week and all departed for the bigger story.

That's a very looooooong article, almost a book. cliff notes?

 

[Jaskalas]

...and then there's reality.

6 in 10 Americans don't have $500http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings/index.html
Unemployment? America is a nation of the working poor. As evidenced by all the things I've linked.

As pvm stated, national stats do not tell the story of the 70,000 voters who swung the election in swing states. Granted, it's not just them... and it's not just 2016's Presidential election... but there's a growing voting bloc out there who need help. They look for solutions and they find none. Obama promised them hope and change, he had their vote. Trump promised #MAGA, he had their vote. They may be tired of broken promises from a broken system, but they're too desperate for help to ignore it if we offer.

The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed

I believe @MajinCry covered that nicely. His stats show the less educated, the more they voted for Trump. Those are the folks most likely to categorically fit into the working poor. You think there is data to disprove my message... but there is plenty of data to support it as well. Let alone the news articles I provided to detail the growing trickle down plight across the nation.

The voters Clinton really lost—the ones she was targeting and relying on for victory—were college-educated whites. Most polling suggested she would win these voters, but she didn’t

Again, @MajinCry shows us the results broken down by education. Democrats gained +10 from the college-educated whites. Mission accomplished. Only, Democrats LOST -14 from those in the lower education bracket. The working poor are a greater factor.

And I'll tell you this. It's not about whether you classify them as poor or not. It's about that $500 they do not have. They are one sick day away from being fired and homeless. It's about income inequality. These people cannot get ahead and the American dream is dead to them. They're just looking for help, clawing for survival.

And income inequality? Set course for San Francisco and New York City.

You cannot compare anything in America with what we can offer, and should be pushing for. The economic solution to all of this is unlike anything America has seen before. My plan for Basic Income and Medicare, essentially eliminates the cost of housing, transport, education, and greatly reduces the cost of healthcare while also providing a $1000/mo income. In exchange for a tax rate between 40 and 50%.

It is radical, but transformative. As automation begins to fully materialize, more people will realize Capitalism needs a true safety net. But first, our people need hope for change. And I will vote for those who recognize the economic need, and are most open to solutions.

 

[pmv]

What conflicting data? The article I quoted states that Clinton was expected to win college educated whites, but didn't. The later chart shows Trump had a 4 point lead of college educated whites.

And yes, practically speaking its pretty absurd to constantly crow about haves and have nots and not examine it on a state/regional basis.

No one living in New Mexico for example gives a practical flying rip that they can't afford to live in ultra rich fuck-the-poor San Francisco.

If people really give a shit about income inequality, then littterally put your money where your mouth is and do something about it. Just realize... you'll be starting in some pretty deep blue supposedly 'progressive' meccas that are the worst offenders. So have at it.

But the economy is a national one. And rich people are very mobile, and will tend to go to certain areas. The New York and California rich are not just the New York or California rich, they are the American rich. Their wealth is not simply a product of the states where they reside. I really don't get your point. If you are saying that some supposed 'liberals' are rich beneficiaries of the system (that they don't really want to change too much), then I don't disagree, but I still don't see where states acting independently comes into that.

Also 'crow' doesn't make sense in that sentence. Who 'crows' about the haves and have-nots? That would imply someone is boasting about the existence of those two groups.

Finally, there seems a lot of confusing data, as to whether Trump voters are economically disadvantaged or not, whether economic problems or threatened racial privileges are the driving force for many. I have no idea, myself, at this point. I've had similar arguments over Brexit (and there I remain of the view that at the margins it was both economics and immigration, depending on which margin you look at - without either factor the result would have been different)

E.g. there's also this sort of data

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-vote-results-drug-overdose-deaths-2016-11

 

[urvile]

...and then there's reality.






https://newrepublic.com/article/138...ory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class


The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Back in May, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver punctured the myth of the “working class” being Trump’s voter base: In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins.

While it is true that many rural voters who backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump this year, these voters hardly comprise the majority of Trump’s 60 million votes, as rural voters made up only 17 percent of this year’s electorate. Most rural voters generally vote Republican anyway. Clinton’s decision not to target these voters may seem foolhardy in hindsight, but these voters have not been a key Democratic demographic for many decades. Moreover, as a longtime member of the Washington establishment, Clinton was always going to be a hard sell to these voters in a change election.

The voters Clinton really lost—the ones she was targeting and relying on for victory—were college-educated whites. Most polling suggested she would win these voters, but she didn’t, according to exit polls: White men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton.

Clinton’s strategy made sense. Trump’s negatives among this group, which normally leans Republican (Romney won them by six points), were pretty high in polling. What’s more, these people hadn’t suffered under Obama; they’d thrived. The kind of change Trump was espousing wasn’t supposed to connect with this group. A massive Gallup study in August revealed that the typical Trump supporter has “not been disproportionately affected by foreign trade or immigration. The results suggest that his supporters, on average, do not have lower incomes than other Americans, nor are they more likely to be unemployed.”



And income inequality? Set course for San Francisco and New York City. San Fran beat out Rwanda in that measure! You could say it's a mixed bag, but really I'd say CA, NJ and NY tip the scale in favor of "STFU and do something about it then" from the left side.

That's actually very interesting. Because the perception outside of the US is that the average trump voter is non-college educated, feels threatened by mexicans and is more likely than the average citizen to have far right political leanings. That's what we get in the media. You have to wonder why there is such a discrepancy in the stats and where the bias is being introduced?

I guess it is fair to say that if you earn an above average income then voting for trump because of the tax cuts he is trying to introduce would make sense. Also obamacare is irrelevant to you in that position. Because you can afford top health insurance or it is part of the compensation package from your employer.

 

[pmv]

That's actually very interesting. Because the perception outside of the US is that the average trump voter is non-college educated, feels threatened by mexicans and is more likely than the average citizen to have far right political leanings. That's what we get in the media. You have to wonder why there is such a discrepancy in the stats and where the bias is being introduced?

I guess it is fair to say that if you earn an above average income then voting for trump because of the tax cuts he is trying to introduce would make sense. Also obamacare is irrelevant to you in that position. Because you can afford top health insurance or it is part of the compensation package from your employer.

Don't know where you get that from. I don't think that is a universal perception outside the US at all. Certainly not the first bit (it's blindingly obvious that a lot of Trump voters are college educated, because a lot of traditional Republican voters - who mostly stuck with their party - are. Most rich people went to college, that's part of how class works, and the majority of rich people are Republicans, and most of them stuck with them - possibly in spite of Trump).

The second two points are much more arguable. Where is your evidence that 'college educated' and 'far right political leanings' are mutually-exclusive? At this point anyone who still supports Trump could be argued to have 'far right political leanings' by definition as Trump is far right.

The question is how to reconcile Zaap's figures with Majincry's, and also with that in the link I gave in my previous post. It seems like the reality is complicated.

 

[cytg111]

That's actually very interesting. Because the perception outside of the US is that the average trump voter is non-college educated, feels threatened by mexicans and is more likely than the average citizen to have far right political leanings. That's what we get in the media. You have to wonder why there is such a discrepancy in the stats and where the bias is being introduced?

I guess it is fair to say that if you earn an above average income then voting for trump because of the tax cuts he is trying to introduce would make sense. Also obamacare is irrelevant to you in that position. Because you can afford top health insurance or it is part of the compensation package from your employer.

Looking at his campaign I dont see the appeal to that segment? 53% of white college educated women voted for the pussygrabber. Why? I'd love to hear the rationale.

edit : I have a hard time coming to terms with anyone college educated is so easily bated that they fall to trumps rethoric.

 

[pmv]

Looking at his campaign I dont see the appeal to that segment? 53% of white college educated white women voted for the pussygrabber. Why? I'd love to hear the rationale.

Possibly it might be that race (and their class interests) is more important to them than gender. Not sure if they'd admit that.

 

[cytg111]

Interresting read indeed.
No I dont agree on a great many points, a few I do.
In terms of the west not behaving this is a far from a complete list, for example (and as hinted in the text) noone would be super surprised if it turns out that islamic fundementalism in central Asia is in one way or the other 'encouraged' by western capacities, covert or not.
I do not in any capacity think us, the west, better than anyone else, we are *the same* people, take a look out over the globe, this is what people do, not america, not russia, not china... but people, what people do to other people. I firmly beleive this to be true.
I also believe that our methods of governing ourselves improves and includes even bigger alliances of people over time, with the occasional setback to overcome, even bigger alliances that again -in turn- limits the ways in which we screw eachother over.
This is key.
All in all it is just another brick in the wall(sorry, had to go there) and if this experiment homo sapiens is gonna be anything else than a blip in the grand cosmos of things we will have to unite.
See Catalonia, russian information warfare showing its teeth again. It has got to stop. Anything that seeks to divide us has got to stop. I am almost at the point where i reccomend conventional warfare against Russia, move NATO into eastern Ukraine, see whats up at the border.
Insist that russia stop the information warfare at gunpoint. If we dont, we will have to erode/dispel our freedom of speech privileges in efforts to withstand coming onslaught - and that is a win for the enemy as well.
At the end of the day when its all over and done with, invite them(Russia) to tea and trade again. But this bullshit has got to stop.

Russian meddeling unravelling these days, lets hope media doesnt drop the ball.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/repo...in-houston-orchestrated-by-russians/481410660

Clinton has the right idea
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...tacks-should-be-an-act-of-war/article/2636822

 

[urvile]

Looking at his campaign I dont see the appeal to that segment? 53% of white college educated women voted for the pussygrabber. Why? I'd love to hear the rationale.

edit : I have a hard time coming to terms with anyone college educated is so easily bated that they fall to trumps rethoric.

It does seem odd that there would be an almost universal misconception about trump voters being primarily non-college educated and working class. The media here doesn't generally make this sort of thing up. However I could see more affluent voters electing trump simply out of self interest but yes his rhetoric is fairly simplistic and sends the basic message that foreigners are bad and they are stealing your jobs. So we should build a gigantic wall and vilify all muslims. Actually can someone tell me how that wall is going? Has it been completed yet?

Apparently making health care more accessible is bad too. I still don't see why more accessible health care would be a problem but then I am not an american.