Remove ads

MakeAmericaSaneAgain. A 2016 political campaign.

Reader mode
Dark as Silver said:
If the Democrats controlled even one of the institutions I'd be alright, I'm sure that they'd be able to stall any ludicrous ideas Trump comes up with.
I rember a quote I read once that said something like "The purpose of Checks and Balances is to insure that the President is not the most powerful man in the world, the Vice President is."
I'm just really concerned that the Checks are only in place for this as long as Trump doesn't have the support of his party.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Absolutely. But as it is, America isn't going to slide back that much. I only hope it encourages something. I don't want to think that having 2016-2020 be a disaster is the answer (Trotskyism), but this needs to be a boot in the ass. Old-guard is gone, now, and we have to see Democrats become something new.

I also think Trump himself won't be a factor of this term. The all-Republican congress is going to have an opportunity to pass what they want, and Trump won't care enough to stop them. That's horrifying.
 
I suppose thats something we might add to our plank somehow if we ever find the opportunity. Modification of the Electoral College.
I don't know how the other US offices are appointed, however making that representative is as easy as making it so that seats must be distributed in proportions as near as possible to the states votes.
 
I don't whether this is the place to ask this but as an outsider viewing this year's USA elections I am curious on the reasons for such powerful support for Trump.

I have friends from across Asia, America and Europe from my university and most of them have little pleasant things to say about either candidate. Though, most apparent was the view that "at least Hillary is/isn't...". As such, it baffles me that the results are as it is.

And if you're wondering why I'm not asking my American friends, I did, but they weren't the ones in a position to vote being outside USA in the university and all.

So I want to pose this question here, why so much support for Trump? A man, to me, of dubious character and integrity with what seems to have aplenty unfeasible if not false promises. Compared to Hillary who despite the scandals attributed to her, has at least a history of competent governance, and relatively more practical ideas and policies.

That is my opinion. So sorry if I offend. As an outsider that is my view and the results of this election are really not encouraging, both for Americans and the rest of the world.
 
Fabula Amanti said:
I don't whether this is the place to ask this but as an outsider viewing this year's USA elections I am curious on the reasons for such powerful support for Trump.

I have friends from across Asia, America and Europe from my university and most of them have little pleasant things to say about either candidate. Though, most apparent was the view that "at least Hillary is/isn't...". As such, it baffles me that the results are as it is.

And if you're wondering why I'm not asking my American friends, I did, but they weren't the ones in a position to vote being outside USA in the university and all.

So I want to pose this question here, why so much support for Trump? A man, to me, of dubious character and integrity with what seems to have aplenty unfeasible if not false promises. Compared to Hillary who despite the scandals attributed to her, has at least a history of competent governance, and relatively more practical ideas and policies.

That is my opinion. So sorry if I offend. As an outsider that is my view and the results of this election are really not encouraging, both for Americans and the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As an Englishman I understand your confusion, in Europe such a candidate would not survive for more than ten seconds before being chased out by Liberals or Socialists, hell even Conservative parties in Europe would view him with extreme scorn.

However, America is extremely noticeable for two reasons, it's exceptionalism/nationalism and its elitist politics. These two have been in conflict for a while now, nationalist non college educated white Americans have interests that are in direct conflict with the more liberal elite who make up most of their politicians, what Trump has managed to do is implant a vision of an America, that hasn't existed since the roaring twenties and in a period shortly after World War 2, into these peoples. He appeals to the nationalism of the 'neglected' white American, and he also gives them the ability to tell the 'Washington Elite' to bugger off.

In essence, much like Brexit (of which I was actually a supporter), Trumps victory is a revolution against the constantly Liberal world of modern politics and a strike back by the lower class white peoples of the western world, who feel neglected by said Liberal politics.

The reason most of the intellectual world does not understand this is because many who go to college or university gain a Liberal bias, thus becoming disconnected from the generally right leaning common man.
 
Is it still childish to be considering emigrating after this...if you already wanted to go somewhere less shit before this election cycle even started, so this is just a confirmation of an existing goal?
 
Megaolix said:
This is pretty much not the place for it indeed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sorry should I remove it? And is there somewhere in the forum where this would be relevant.
McLuvin said:
The reason most of the intellectual world does not understand this is because many who go to college or university gain a Liberal bias, thus becoming disconnected from the generally right leaning common man.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I see, I must admit if that is truly the case Trump might be more cunning or competent than what the media and I personally have given him credit for. I guess living as one of the "intellectuals" made me miss that as a point.

It is kinda ironic, I have seen many instances of the upper crust exploiting those at the bottom for their own benefit by fanning prejudice and inciting dissidence and abusing the system they themselves set up to benefit themselves. And now, one rogue used that same idea, same methods for himself but with dangerous consequences for everyone, involved or not.
 
at least we know there will be serious anti hillary support I mean a sizable portion of the liberal spectrum went trump cause fuck hillary alone....
 
Fabula Amanti said:
I have friends from across Asia, America and Europe from my university and most of them have little pleasant things to say about either candidate. Though, most apparent was the view that "at least Hillary is/isn't...". As such, it baffles me that the results are as it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are two things that I need to point out.
First of all, the people you associate with very likely have similar political leanings and education to you. They are not a representative sample. This is an effect that people sort of spotted during Brexit but didn't really grasp the extent of it. Look at some of these pretty graphs for comparison. How Brexit vote broke down
Secondly, its not an unknown phenomenon for people to lie. This is my explanation for why the internet and phone surveys where so much more accurate than the conventional ones. It was the difference between anonymously saying associating yourself with a bigot and saying it to someones face.

This is obviously far from a complete answer however but I feel these are often overlooked factors.
 
Dark as Silver said:
I suppose thats something we might add to our plank somehow if we ever find the opportunity. Modification of the Electoral College.
I don't know how the other US offices are appointed, however making that representative is as easy as making it so that seats must be distributed in proportions as near as possible to the states votes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think we could push that through very easily; seriously changing up the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Plus it'd probably be easy to spin it as us trying to gain some sort of advantage compared to the current rules.
 
It's also not advantageous to Republicans to make such a change, because the system advantages the low-population states that constitute the generally Republican interior of the country.
 
changing the electoral college would be even harder than money out of politics.....
 
Chengar Qordath said:
I don't think we could push that through very easily; seriously changing up the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Plus it'd probably be easy to spin it as us trying to gain some sort of advantage compared to the current rules.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Agreed. For any president, I think that's something that gets worked on in a second term or through proxies.
 
Fabula Amanti said:
I see, I must admit if that is truly the case Trump might be more cunning or competent than what the media and I personally have given him credit for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One of the major factors is, it doesn't matter if they catch you in a lie, if they report it to the public before they clarify it. People will remember it and some will believe it. Go nuts with your unsubstantiated claims that reaffirm gut feelings and validate current beliefs. Repeat it often enough, and implicate everyone who rejects it, and you have a new truth.

The media can't resist a spectacle.
 
We've been plugging away at the populist angle for a while.

I think one lesson to take away is that we don't need to make policy so central. That sounds like it's an easy mistake to make in a quest.
 
Most people don't get it, but NAFTA killed Clinton IRL 2016. A lot of people have not forgotten it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA.

If anything, it wasn't conservative politics that got Trump elected over Clinton. (He's actually kinda moderate on conservative hot-button issues). It was indeed populist politics. It's hard for many to admit that free trade and equal opportunity and global community were pure economic poison for many in the middle class, but it was fucking horrific for a lot of low income midwesterners. Trade is not always good for everyone, and the middle class lost out on it. Big time.

It was directly responsible for the loss of 700,000 jobs to Mexico AND more importantly it strengthened the ability of management and corporate america to keep people from unionizing and maintain a low minimum wage. On several occassions companies would start loading up equipment onto trucks they said were bound for Mexico during labor negotiations. The 'benefit' for farmers is it did provide a market for american food and especially produce south of the border- which left numerous mexicans employed in agriculture unemployed and with few job prospects. Guess where they went to seek out a better life?

So yeah, the support of another big-capital-letter 'free trade agreement' that would presumably mean further loss of jobs and further exploitation of the middle class for the benefit of the rich was not popular. To say the least. Especially in the midwest and the south. Oh, things were pretty bad for people there before NAFTA, and a lack of NAFTA wouldn't have saved them, but it was a kick in the balls they haven't forgotten.

We should publicly explore the downsides of the TransPacific Partnership in 'plain language', preferably in a way that sets aside political correctness for a frank tone. The midwest will eat it up. We can ask our good buddy Rudy Giuliani to help explain why he opposed NAFTA back in 1993.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top