Remove ads

MakeAmericaSaneAgain. A 2016 political campaign.

Reader mode
McLuvin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
*cough*Berlusconi*cough*

Seriously, I'm still surprised nobody made a parallel between them during the election.
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. I guess living as one of the "intellectuals" made me miss that as a point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not cunning in itself, it's that he's culturally part of the same intellectual strata as his electors: he knows just as little and thinks just as superficially as those who vote for him. He is cunning, undoubtedly, but in this case attributing his appeal to it is akin to praising a cat for looking remarkably like a feline.
 
Last edited:
Walkin' Man said:
It's not cunning in itself, it's that he's culturally part of the same intellectual strata as his electors: he knows just as little and thinks just as superficially as those who vote for him. He is cunning, undoubtably, but in this case attributing his appeal to it is akin to praising a cat for looking remarkably like a feline.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...Hillary Clinton's solution to the Syria question was enacting a no-fly zone and continuing a proxy war with Russia and Iran using the CIA.

She favored the TransPacific Partnership, which could have potentially competed with NAFTA for exporting american jobs and importing cheap foreign goods to benefit the wealthy and screw the middle class.

Naturalizing illegal immigrants, while a nice idea in the short term, would cost 48 billion dollars in the short term and the costs in terms of welfare after five years could potentially be disastrous. Talk about how the 14,000 per household illegal immigrant families cost the US in taxpayer dollars as 'anchor babies' collect welfare and foodstamps is usually dismissed with the idea these children will be great assets to the country in the future- despite the economic realities we've seen with african americans suggesting generational poverty is not so easily dismissed and these children face even greater hurdles.

From the Democratic standpoint, it's easy to dismiss the Republicans as callous money-grubbing reactionary assholes. From the Republican standpoint, it's easy to dismiss the Democrats as money-grubbing snakeoil salesman appeasing the plebs with bread and circuses while Rome burns. Dismissing the platforms of one side or the other and their backers categorically as uninformed or misled is a mistake.
 
Last edited:
drake_azathoth said:
snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How does anything in this post correlate to mine? I answered a poster saying that Trump had cunnigly courted the less educated by saying that his appeal was not fabricted, that he genuinely speaks, acts and thinks like the less cultured and is thus honestly relatable to them.

You answered that the interventionist wants to keep intervening, the corporate-backed wants to back corporations, the latino-courting wants to court latinos. Then somehow inferred I'm dismissing the opposite political positions.
 
Walkin' Man said:
How does anything in this post correlate to mine? I answered a poster saying that Trump had cunnigly courted the less educated by saying that his appeal was not fabricted, that he genuinely speaks, acts and thinks like the less cultured and is thus honestly relatable to them.

You answered that the interventionist wants to keep intervening, the corporate-backed wants to back corporations, the latino-courting wants to court latinos. Then somehow inferred I'm dismissing the opposite political positions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are you engaging in sophistry? You pretty clearly dismissed the opinions of those who support Trump.
Walkin' Man said:
It's not cunning in itself, it's that he's culturally part of the same intellectual strata as his electors: he knows just as little and thinks just as superficially as those who vote for him. He is cunning, undoubtedly, but in this case attributing his appeal to it is akin to praising a cat for looking remarkably like a feline.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What I am saying is that those who support Trump on Syria, trade, and immigration may not be as ignorant or thinking as superficially as you suppose. That many of his platforms are morally dubious does not mean they don't have legitimate pragmatic arguments backing them.

Certainly, from a game context, it's probably safer to suppose the people voting for Trump aren't all idiots and look for issues we can woo them away from him toward Pataki with in addition to the typical 'noise and fury signifying nothing'. If there ARE serious voters with serious issues, they may find Pataki more attractive than Trump so long as he recognizes their cause and vocally supports it.
 
Last edited:
drake_azathoth said:
Are you engaging in sophistry? You pretty clearly dismissed the opinions of those who support Trump.
What I am saying is that those who support Trump on Syria, trade, and immigration may not be as ignorant or thinking as superficially as you suppose. That many of his platforms are morally dubious does not mean they don't have legitimate pragmatic arguments backing them.

Certainly, from a game context, it's probably safer to suppose the people voting for Trump aren't all idiots and look for issues we can woo them away from him toward Pataki with in addition to the typical 'noise and fury signifying nothing'. If there ARE serious voters with serious issues, they may find Pataki more attractive than Trump so long as he recognizes their cause and vocally supports it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The majority of Trump voters, like the majority of voters of all the anti-establishment movents and parties from the Ukip to the Movimento Cinque Stelle and the Front National, comes from the lower strata of the population, which are marked by a lower education and income. Those in these conditions often have very little time and occasion to inform themselves and think about the political situation, thus basing themselves on their life experiences and general inherited values. In other words, their political positions are taken with very little and very superficial thought and their votes cast for the candidate they feel most genuinely in line with them. This is one core mechanism of populism and protest votes.

This doesn't mean their concerns and the platforms themselves are invalid or that they don't have good points and arguments, nor that their morality is dubious.

As a game, poaching voters of these voters from Trump could actually prove more difficult than we think because, as I said, he isn't trying to woo them but he actually acts like one of them.
 
Last edited:
Walkin' Man said:
The majority of Trump voters, like the majority of voters of all the anti-establishment movents and parties from the Ukip to the Movimento Cinque Stelle and the Front National, comes from the lower strata of the population, which are marked by a lower education and income.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're incorrect on that point, actually. The lowest income and presumably least-informed voters went for Clinton almost uniformly, Trump won by winning the middle class AND the rich.
The Mythology Of Trump's 'Working Class' Support
Also, several studies have shown that Republicans (and conservatives) tend to be if anything more well-informed on the issues than Democrats and liberals. Which shouldn't be a surprise- conservative talk radio is a slanted view of politics, but it's still political radio and if you listen to it you'll be better informed on current issues.
Surveys: Republicans more open-minded, better informed than Democrats
 
drake_azathoth said:
You're incorrect on that point, actually. The lowest income and presumably least-informed voters went for Clinton almost uniformly, Trump won by winning the middle class AND the rich.
The Mythology Of Trump's 'Working Class' Support
Also, several studies have shown that Republicans (and conservatives) tend to be if anything more well-informed on the issues than Democrats and liberals. Which shouldn't be a surprise- conservative talk radio is a slanted view of politics, but it's still political radio and if you listen to it you'll be better informed on current issues.
Surveys: Republicans more open-minded, better informed than Democrats
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh, I'll concede on the first point, as I don't recall any hard data about it and can't comment.

About the second point: my posts are about general social strata and education, not political leanings, so I don't know how much these data count as a counterargument, since like you said poor doesn't translate to conservative. I can only attest from what little I experienced that the political information I've seen come from the average american conservatives is of dubious quantity at best and doesn't seem to diverge significantly in quality from that of my country's counterparts, which is abysimal. It's probably because most of it doesn't actually come to the ear of the international listener, though.
 
drake_azathoth said:
Okay. I've thought about a way to spin the nuclear issue to the Coal Belt.

Instead of talking about nuclear power as a solution to various ills, simply state that it is likely to become a realistic alernative as the U.S. explores alternate sources of energy- and then talk about how the US mines only 7% of it's uranium internally, and that we do not need to involve ourselves in fights or production of foreign sources of uranium internationally when it can be mined in the US with less worries about our energy being cut off at the source. 'The US should not be dependent on 'foreign uranium, foreign oil, or foreign rare earths.'

The Coal Belt won't exactly be happy about the reminder of alternative energy, but stressing the issue as a need to develop mines and industry domestically in a 'preparing for the future' way will play a LOT better with them than just touting the environmental benefits of nuclear energy. The implication that we'd be interested in encouraging domestic oil is also going to play well with the south.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are the Uranium and rare earth mines in the coal belt?
 
skaro said:
Anyone think build more rail road or infrastructure will improve the stituation?.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Railroads are good in some ways, but I believe most shipping is now done by trucks- Not because trucks are more efficient on a per-pound basis, but because they're more logistically versatile.

Of course, Pataki is the Science Republican now, so maybe if we were to promote building bullet trains and such on key routes? It might be valuable for expedited shipping if nothing else.
 
Vindictus said:
Railroads are good in some ways, but I believe most shipping is now done by trucks- Not because trucks are more efficient on a per-pound basis, but because they're more logistically versatile.

Of course, Pataki is the Science Republican now, so maybe if we were to promote building bullet trains and such on key routes? It might be valuable for expedited shipping if nothing else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hyperloop FTW!
 
Walkin' Man said:
About the second point: my posts are about general social strata and education, not political leanings, so I don't know how much these data count as a counterargument, since like you said poor doesn't translate to conservative. I can only attest from what little I experienced that the political information I've seen come from the average american conservatives is of dubious quantity at best and doesn't seem to diverge significantly in quality from that of my country's counterparts, which is abysimal. It's probably because most of it doesn't actually come to the ear of the international listener, though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Unless you have some actual hard data on this claim, your personal experience is pointless at best.

EDIT: If anyone wants some stats on the demographics of the election, Pew Research has a great breakdown here with comparisons to previous years. Some highlights include practically no difference in the female vote, higher support amongst Hispanics and young people for Trump and higher support for Clinton amongst college educated voters.
 
Last edited:
Ian Drash said:
And long story slightly longer? Because there must be some reason why there are no major uranium and rare earth mining there right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
no there isn't, in the reality ALOT of inventions, etc are ignored in favor of what's currently making a profit.
 
I think even China still spend money on alternative energy source but yeah other alternative is not cost effective in current stage.
 
Research and development cuts into profits. But in the long term R&D is what enables profit in the first place, or it should at least. Too bad it is so easy to profit off status quo, that is consolidate wealth over creating new wealth.
 
Ian Drash said:
Not being profitable is a reason. Actually it is generally the reason in a free capitalist economy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Erm an analogy for what Cybandeath is talking about comes up in With this Ring, I haven't researched it independently so this is a third hand description but basically, Mr Dyson invented the cyclone vacuum cleaner, he then went to try to sell it to Hoover. Hoover declined because the market was just how they liked it at the moment. Dyson made his own company and the present ensued. A Hoover exec later told Dyson that if they'd known how this whole series of events would pan out then they'd have bought the copyright and just sat on it.
 
Vindictus said:
Railroads are good in some ways, but I believe most shipping is now done by trucks- Not because trucks are more efficient on a per-pound basis, but because they're more logistically versatile.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A good deal of truck transport is now either to a rail hub or from a rail hub, so I don't think it makes sense to think of them as completely adversarial in the market. Also, the US rail system is operating very close to capacity, so it makes sense to spend money on simple upgrades to the freight rail and commuter rail systems to open the bottlenecks those systems are currently imposing on the country.

You just need to keep the commuter rail off the freight rail tracks!

For anyone who is curious about a deeper analysis of the system, the Economist ran an article on it a few years back.

fasquardon
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top