Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

It's Still the Economy, Stupid

YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:12:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The elites are losing their minds. The elites are the people who said all along that Trump would never get the nomination. When he started winning states, crossing demographics in a fashion that had never been done before, they said Trump has a "ceiling" of support. (lol... what is he? A woman trying to be a corporate executive? Nope.) When it proved that Trump didn't have a ceiling of any kind, they said that Ted Cruz would take the nomination at a brokered convention. And now Ted Cruz has dropped out. John Kasich is out. Trump will be the Republican party's nominee. I called it from the day he announced. Everyone on this site with one exception said I was crazy, insane, and delusional.

Whose laughing now?

Yet, the buzz throughout the internet continues with the same predictable stupidity. Everyone struggles to explain what happen, yet none of them know. However, the blogosphere is getting closer, but they're still so far out of touch that they cannot understand what reality means even as it is laid out in front of them. The impulse now is to paint Trump in the same light as Hitler. So much for a measured, rational response.

I'm not even kidding, though. The blogosphere has managed to identify some dude at UMass Amhearst (which is barely worth being called a university) named Matthew MacWilliams, who is writing his Ph.D. dissertation on authoritarianism. Lo and behold, MacWilliams is the man of the hour, because his "research" conveniently provides the learned elites on the left with an "explanation" (read: cop out) for how Donald Trump rose to be the GOP's presumptive nominee.

MacWilliam's research focuses on the extent to which people are authoritarian, and how those views correlate to certain political outcomes. MacWilliams found that among South Carolina votes, the greater the likelihood of support for authoritarian social policies (or, at least, the greater resistance to social progression), the greater the likelihood that those voters would have supported Donald Trump. There's another guy named Marc Herthington (dude from Vanderbilt) and another from UNC named Jonathan Weiler, who called it from even further back than I did (shortly after Barack Obama's inauguration).

Herthington's ideas are the most lucid, because he is the one who sort of first "identified" the authoritarian electorate (which had previously been ignored because, in a democracy, who would be an authoritarian, right?). Turns out there's a lot of people out there who support law and order.

Where Herthington, Weiler, and MacWilliams go wrong is their regarding Trump's rise as a response to social progression, which is "social science speak" for a fairly simple idea: the only people who support Trump (or would have been inclined to support a guy like Trump) are racists, bigots, and homophobes who cling to their guns and their religion in the face of increasing diversity, immigration, and legal recognition of historically disenfranchised groups.

To be fair, Herthington, Weiler, and MacWilliams do not go so far as to say "racists, homophobes, and other bigots." Instead, they use more descriptive language that has meaning, and it's the left wing idiots and right wing establishment that are conflating the terms, mostly for their own purposes but also because they are looking for an explanation of this kind to explain phenomena they do not understand.

The reason this idea is fundamentally stupid is that Trump is socially moderate. He supports the legal recognition of gay marriage, he is opposed to the sort of idiotic laws that Republicans in states that only southern baptists could be so stupid as to think are constitutional (i.e. the bathroom laws), his company is a pillar of supporting women and diversity in the workplace, and the list goes on.

Ok... so if Trump is socially moderate, why is it exactly that only these nefarious "authoritarians" (read: racists, sexists, homophobes, and other bigots) support him? They don't. The idea doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, because there is a CRITICAL DISTINCTION between "support for social order" and "opposition to inclusive society." Those concepts are not correlated, interchangeable, or anything of the sort... but in popular collective consciousness, people *associate* the two in such an interconnected way (mostly due to a superficial understanding of modern history) that they can't separate them. But this is just the reason why the so-called "elites" can't understand why they're wrong. It's not the reason they like the explanation.

The reason the so-called "elites" like the "authoritarian" explanation is that it excuses their incompetence, which assuages the shame of failing to predict the outcome. There are some people in American political culture who are the "real deal" and understood both what was happening and why, but none of these people did because they were out of touch with where "the folks" (see my previous post on this topic) were, politically, at this moment. The elites were out of touch because they were not paying attention to what was going on around them, and, in particular, why what was happening, was happening.

The additional reason the so-called "elites" like the authoritarian explanation is because it does not force them to confront their fundamental misconceptions about how politics work in this country. Despite the fact that they "could not have known" what would happen (as they tell the tale, which is false), this explanation is consistent with their worldview... meaning that these people only support Trump because he's a racist (see comments about Mexicans), a sexist (see comments about women), and probably a bigot and a homophobe too... right? So, the "folks" rally behind a guy who is like them, right? After all, they're just a bunch of socially conservative troglodytes who in their backward way are just reacting to a changing world that left them behind, right?

This explanation is bullsh!t to a degree that is absolutely nauseating. Yes... nauseating, as in just listening to it makes me want to vomit. It's stupid on its face because Trump is a social liberal and we know that. Anyone who isn't a total idiot and who pays attention to the literal words the come out of his mouth (corroborated by the way he runs his business) can understand this.

Trump's not "in your face" about being a social liberal, as some other people we know (such as, for example, the "learned elite leftists" who make a big show about how morally superior they are to social conservatives), but he is without question NOT one of the Ted Cruz type "ban all the gays" and "let's protect the right to discriminate against transgendered people under the law" type of lunatics.

In fact, the ONLY people who could possibly be categorized as the kind of social authoritarians that the "elites" want to regard Trump as are the very people who would have supported Ted Cruz. And yet... they were just "establishment Republican voters." What unabashed idiocy.

The reality is that social issues have nothing to do with anything even related to Trump's popularity. As James Carville correctly observed back when Bill Clinton first ran, "It's the economy, stupid!" It was the economy then, and it's the economy now. What people care about is being able to provide for their families and take home a living wage. That's what matters more than anything else, to this band of knuckle dragging troglodytes that the so-called "elites" want to condemn so harshly.

Trump is in the position that he is in for one reason: American workers resent the the trade agreements and social policies of corporate liberal democrats, which have depressed real wages for the American middle and working classes since the 1970s. It's the economy, stupid... that's what it always has been about, and that's what it always will be about. It's not about religion or guns. It's about economics, and personal financial security.
Tsar of DDO
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:54:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 5:12:42 PM, YYW wrote:
The elites are losing their minds. The elites are the people who said all along that Trump would never get the nomination. When he started winning states, crossing demographics in a fashion that had never been done before, they said Trump has a "ceiling" of support. (lol... what is he? A woman trying to be a corporate executive? Nope.) When it proved that Trump didn't have a ceiling of any kind, they said that Ted Cruz would take the nomination at a brokered convention. And now Ted Cruz has dropped out. John Kasich is out. Trump will be the Republican party's nominee. I called it from the day he announced. Everyone on this site with one exception said I was crazy, insane, and delusional.

Sanders definitely attracts the same kind of momentum (popular movements, anti-establishment, jobs-centric, etc) that won Trump the nomination. But why is Sanders struggling the way he is as compared to Trump in becoming elected? Are Sanders' voters different - do they not care about the economy?

And, In light of your eureka moment here, I ask: would you favor Trump over Sanders?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:57:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 5:12:42 PM, YYW wrote:
Whose laughing now?

*Who's

Finally found a spelling mistake! :P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 6:00:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 5:54:34 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:12:42 PM, YYW wrote:
The elites are losing their minds. The elites are the people who said all along that Trump would never get the nomination. When he started winning states, crossing demographics in a fashion that had never been done before, they said Trump has a "ceiling" of support. (lol... what is he? A woman trying to be a corporate executive? Nope.) When it proved that Trump didn't have a ceiling of any kind, they said that Ted Cruz would take the nomination at a brokered convention. And now Ted Cruz has dropped out. John Kasich is out. Trump will be the Republican party's nominee. I called it from the day he announced. Everyone on this site with one exception said I was crazy, insane, and delusional.

Sanders definitely attracts the same kind of momentum (popular movements, anti-establishment, jobs-centric, etc) that won Trump the nomination. But why is Sanders struggling the way he is as compared to Trump in becoming elected? Are Sanders' voters different - do they not care about the economy?


And, In light of your eureka moment here, I ask: would you favor Trump over Sanders?

It's not a "eureka" moment at all. It's something I've been consistently saying since the day Trump announced.

Obviously I support Sanders over Trump, but Sanders will almost invariably not be the nominee.

Sanders is struggling because of the structure of the primaries, which differs considerably form those of the GOP.

If the primaries were open, Sanders would have seen a much higher showing.
Tsar of DDO
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 6:09:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 5:12:42 PM, YYW wrote:
Trump is in the position that he is in for one reason: American workers resent the the trade agreements and social policies of corporate liberal democrats, which have depressed real wages for the American middle and working classes since the 1970s. It's the economy, stupid... that's what it always has been about, and that's what it always will be about. It's not about religion or guns. It's about economics, and personal financial security.

And with that final paragraph, you gained some of my respect. :P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 6:56:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Thank you.

"Nauseating" really is the most fitting word to describe the stupidity of what cuckservatives and PC democrats say about Trump and his supporters. This post is required reading for all of them. Of course, it won't make much of a difference, since the only way they've arrived at their current beliefs is through willful ignorance (or inherent cognitive disability, in the case of Haroush).
#TrumpTriumph2016
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 8:56:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This analysis is true as far as it goes but it's only half the story. It explains (in part) where Trump's base of support is coming from but not why it was enough to carry him to victory, because at the end of the day Trump did not win by a landslide and his base of support was quite low historically speaking (to date he's only won something like 40 percent of total primary votes). The fact that Trump had a ceiling of support was never seriously in doubt; the question was always whether it was above or below what he needed to win. This is because every candidate has a ceiling of support, and there was good reason to believe that Trump's was lower than usual -- that Trump already had the support of most of his potential backers. Why? For one thing, Trump's unfavorability rating was the highest of any Republican candidate (nearly half of Republicans dislike Trump) and in head to head match ups against Cruz he was not favored to win (implying that a winnowing of the field would hurt Trump). For another thing, Trump obviously differs quite sharply from the other candidates. If a voter resonates with Trump's message then what are they doing voting for another candidate? This implies that as candidates drop out of the race their supporters will flow disproportionately to the other non-Trump candidates and not Trump himself. As is happened, this process took a long time and never really completed which allowed Trump to pick up many delegates he had no business winning. To ignore the role that the crowded field played in Trump's success is pretty crazy. I also don't know what evidence there is for the claim that Trump's support crossed demographic lines to an usually high degree. As far as I know the opposite is the case, with most of Trump's support coming from one sector of the population: uneducated whites of modest financial means.

Early on I was one of the people who thought Trump's chancing of winning the nomination were very low. But once Trump established himself as the clear front runner (which happened shortly after Iowa) I regarded it as a definite possibility. I (and many others) didn't criticize people when they suggested that Trump could win the nomination, we criticized people who acted as if it were a sure thing (which, incidentally, is an accurate description of virtually all Trump supporters), and whose only evidence for this claim were the overly simplistic data-free narratives they kept telling themselves.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 8:58:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 6:00:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:54:34 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:12:42 PM, YYW wrote:
The elites are losing their minds. The elites are the people who said all along that Trump would never get the nomination. When he started winning states, crossing demographics in a fashion that had never been done before, they said Trump has a "ceiling" of support. (lol... what is he? A woman trying to be a corporate executive? Nope.) When it proved that Trump didn't have a ceiling of any kind, they said that Ted Cruz would take the nomination at a brokered convention. And now Ted Cruz has dropped out. John Kasich is out. Trump will be the Republican party's nominee. I called it from the day he announced. Everyone on this site with one exception said I was crazy, insane, and delusional.

Sanders definitely attracts the same kind of momentum (popular movements, anti-establishment, jobs-centric, etc) that won Trump the nomination. But why is Sanders struggling the way he is as compared to Trump in becoming elected? Are Sanders' voters different - do they not care about the economy?


And, In light of your eureka moment here, I ask: would you favor Trump over Sanders?

It's not a "eureka" moment at all. It's something I've been consistently saying since the day Trump announced.

Obviously I support Sanders over Trump, but Sanders will almost invariably not be the nominee.

Sanders is struggling because of the structure of the primaries, which differs considerably form those of the GOP.

If the primaries were open, Sanders would have seen a much higher showing.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

Under current standings, Sanders loses considerably (~300 dele regardless of the superdelegates).

For open/closed primaries, I would think that independents' missing votes in favor of Trump would have also hampered his progress. Despite this, he experienced overwhelming success. I can only conclude, then, that the republican voter base has disparate needs relative to the democrats and/or the GOP are wildly disconnected from their voters. But if the latter is true then that would mean that registered republicans DO care about more than just the economy, which seems to be the case. The Republican establish as we know it is done for mainly because of non-economically related issues (i.e., social issues).
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 2:58:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You are right on some respects. It's not immigration - majorities in virtually every GOP state support legalization. It's not the Muslim ban (which is popular but not a major selling point). It's not the women stuff (because it hasn't really hurt him with female Republicans). It does boil down to his views on trade and economics. He appeals to the Republican who isn't a fan of multiculturalism, is not opposed to economic intervention (ie. fiscal moderate/liberal), and is at best skeptical of trade. The problem is majorities in all parties - including independents - support free trade. And it's not even close. (http://www.gallup.com...)

In general, the only people who reject free trade are those who believe they are harmed by it - namely, the uneducated working class. They believe the reason you can't raise three kids and own a home performing a manufacturing job that requires no skill anymore isn't international changes (ie. recovering industry in Europe and emerging industry in the developing world), efficiency increases (ie. you don't need as many workers to do as much work), increasing cost of labor (ie. pensions that need to be paid, minimum wage hikes), inflation, or technological improvements (ie. robots and machines). It is 100% the fault of trade deals, and will be reversed by tariffs.

For pretty much everyone else, trade is either a non-factor or a requirement for business. What Trump has managed to do is make trade an issue again, providing a channel for these people. Unfortunately, he'll find little sympathy for this argument in suburbia - where he needs to do competently to win. He will stomp in rural areas. He might do better than average in some white working class urban areas like Pittsburgh (although these types have been trending Republican anyway - Romney won the Pittsburgh metro area on a decidedly pro-trade platform). But his views are either unappealing or outright toxic in suburbia. This is a problem because to win states like Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia, he needs to return the GOP to pre-1992 suburban margins. Economic populism is decidedly not the way to do that. Even if he were to pick up, say, 30,000 voters in Allegheny County (that would half the GOP margin of loss), if he loses 20,000 in the suburbs it's not a gain. He needs to find a way to appeal to people who don't care about immigration or trade. And frankly, that's a wide majority of the county now.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:45:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
So I both agree and disagree.

Trump is socially moderate in that he rejects the traditional social conservatism of the "moral majority" type conservatism that is now even more moribund than anybody thought possible just a few years ago. And he doesn't reject those issues out of some desire to cede ground to the left in order to appeal to kids, he rejects those issues because he simply doesn't care about them. At all. His worldview is not conducive to handwringing over Bruce Jenner using a ladies room. And just like we don't have time for political correctness, we no longer have time for this kind of nonsense either.

But some of the issues that drive Trump are definitely social issues--they're the new social issues. For example, it's just wrong to dismiss the impact that immigration had on Trump's rise. GOP voters do not like the current rate of immigration and they do not want to give citizenship to millions of illegals.

I'm a bit puzzled by the polls of GOP voters, because the polls say that they support amnesty but their voting behavior is very, very different--like so different that I wonder if the majority of people have no idea what "pathway to citizenship" actually means when asked in a poll. Perhaps their version of "pathway to citizenship" is amnesty for those who agree to serve in the military and deportation for the rest. I honestly have no idea. But the argument that GOP voters support amnesty and do not oppose immigration is just wrong given their voting patterns where the two immigration hardliners, Trump and Cruz, survived to the very end whereas Rubio and betaboy Yeb! were roundly rejected. Eric Cantor lost his house seat because of amnesty.

White identity politics absolutely has something to do with Trump. I made a post recently that Trump absolutely *destroys* among whites in minority-majority congressional districts winning almost all of them. This is not a coincidence. Whites who suddenly find themselves to be minorities and unwelcome in their formerly homogenous neighborhoods vote for the immigration restrictionist. The difference is I do not find this bigoted. It's one thing to rudely exclude and belittle the one black family in your neighborhood, it's quite another to feel resentful about becoming a minority in your own country. This idea that whites, who for centuries made up 90% of the country, would just quietly accept becoming a minority and if you're not okay with that you're just a bigot, is absurd. There was always going to be a backlash. This is neither right nor wrong, it simply *is*.

These white identity politics are exacerbated by the left. I take a less rosy opinion on the nature of human conflicts and group dynamics than you probably do as a leftist, but if there is any country that could effectively handle the kind of diversity that America will have in the near future it is the United States. And we could maybe do it, too. Maybe. But we definitely can't do it when you have a large faction of the left that is engaged in constantly attacking white people and stoking up racial conflict where it wouldn't naturally exist.

Trump plays a massive part in this evolving force. And he knows. Believe me, he knows. He read Ann Coulters book. He spoke about liberalizing our immigration policy with Europe as early as 2011. It isn't just about the economy.

However I do agree with the point that trade also had a huge impact--perhaps an even bigger impact than immigration. But these issues of culture changing mass immigration and trade are inexorably linked--they are both the products of globalization. Americans are tired of watching our jobs shipped overseas--despite the rationalizations about how trade deals are good for all, everybody knows what is going on and they are angry about it.

That is what the real battle of the future is going to be about--globalization vs. nationalism. I'll be honest and say what I really think about what is happening in the U.S. and Europe--especially Europe. I think it is evil. I think it's genuinely, authentically demonic and satanic. A hostile ruling elite is going about actively erasing the populations that they are governing and destroying all of the sacrifices that their ancestors made. If things don't stop extremely soon in 100 years there will be no Germany. There will be no England. There will be no Sweden. Just various geographic territories inhabited by nondescript humans, lacking any sense of identity and heritage.

I'm with Trump on this one. Nationalism all the way.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:58:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
And it also helps Trump that his enemies were so repulsive to ordinary Americans. All he did was exercise his right to speech--and in response, violent protestors burned the American flag and waved the Mexican one. If that doesn't trigger you, I don't know what will. And his opponents were stupid enough to not take his side.

The race was over the moment Ted Cruz blamed Trump for the Chicago riot on national television. If he hadn't done that he would've won North Carolina, Missouri, and possibly Illinois.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:06:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:45:06 AM, thett3 wrote:
The difference is I do not find this bigoted. It's one thing to rudely exclude and belittle the one black family in your neighborhood, it's quite another to feel resentful about becoming a minority in your own country. This idea that whites, who for centuries made up 90% of the country, would just quietly accept becoming a minority and if you're not okay with that you're just a bigot, is absurd.

The problem is more with your underlying assumptions. You assume that being white gives someone more of a claim to be American than any other race. The ninety percent statistic came about because European immigration gradually destroyed the native population which is nothing to be proud of.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:13:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
For the record, I don't believe Trump's rise has anything to do with the economy. Anyone thinking that is kidding themselves. It has to do with frustrations and misperceptions of "political correctness." Angry white rednecks are mad that they can't own slaves any longer or treat people of other races with contempt. Trump gives them the alternative to speak their minds. He embodies the idea that "those Mexicans are thugs and thieves here to steal our jobs" and "to hell with the liberals who get offended when you say it like it is."\

Finally, I don't understand the complaints about "having your jobs shipped overseas." Conservatives are hyper-capitalists who have been calling Obama a re-distributionist, socialist, communist, and what not. So, why does your capitalism apply only the United States? If someone abroad can do your job for less money, tough luck, right? Find a job that can't be effectively shipped overseas and put productivity into the economy that is deserving of your wages. Asking for artificial protections while also crying about how Obama is socialist is hypocritical and contradictory.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:15:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:06:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:45:06 AM, thett3 wrote:
The difference is I do not find this bigoted. It's one thing to rudely exclude and belittle the one black family in your neighborhood, it's quite another to feel resentful about becoming a minority in your own country. This idea that whites, who for centuries made up 90% of the country, would just quietly accept becoming a minority and if you're not okay with that you're just a bigot, is absurd.

The problem is more with your underlying assumptions. You assume that being white gives someone more of a claim to be American than any other race.

That spectacularly misses the point. I assume that the population currently living in a nation has more of a claim to being a part of that nation than another population. If this was happening to, say, Nigeria, you would see the exact same dynamics. Look at the messes that still litter the globe when short sighted European empires divied up territory without consideration for the different populations that lived within.

Group dynamics matter. I'm open to being proven wrong but I've never seen any compelling argument for why we shouldn't expect a backlash to mass immigration--and Trump pretty much confirmed what I had been privately expecting for a long time.

The ninety percent statistic came about because European immigration gradually destroyed the native population which is nothing to be proud of.

Native Americans were never part of the American nation until they surrendered and later became citizens, so this is false. The colonists and the indians were competing sovereignties inhabiting the same geographical territories...the 90% statistic came from importing slaves, which was obviously immoral. Otherwise the figure would've originally been 100%.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:17:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:45:06 AM, thett3 wrote:
So I both agree and disagree.

Trump is socially moderate in that he rejects the traditional social conservatism of the "moral majority" type conservatism that is now even more moribund than anybody thought possible just a few years ago. And he doesn't reject those issues out of some desire to cede ground to the left in order to appeal to kids, he rejects those issues because he simply doesn't care about them. At all. His worldview is not conducive to handwringing over Bruce Jenner using a ladies room. And just like we don't have time for political correctness, we no longer have time for this kind of nonsense either.

But some of the issues that drive Trump are definitely social issues--they're the new social issues. For example, it's just wrong to dismiss the impact that immigration had on Trump's rise. GOP voters do not like the current rate of immigration and they do not want to give citizenship to millions of illegals.

I'm a bit puzzled by the polls of GOP voters, because the polls say that they support amnesty but their voting behavior is very, very different--like so different that I wonder if the majority of people have no idea what "pathway to citizenship" actually means when asked in a poll. Perhaps their version of "pathway to citizenship" is amnesty for those who agree to serve in the military and deportation for the rest. I honestly have no idea. But the argument that GOP voters support amnesty and do not oppose immigration is just wrong given their voting patterns where the two immigration hardliners, Trump and Cruz, survived to the very end whereas Rubio and betaboy Yeb! were roundly rejected. Eric Cantor lost his house seat because of amnesty.

White identity politics absolutely has something to do with Trump. I made a post recently that Trump absolutely *destroys* among whites in minority-majority congressional districts winning almost all of them. This is not a coincidence. Whites who suddenly find themselves to be minorities and unwelcome in their formerly homogenous neighborhoods vote for the immigration restrictionist. The difference is I do not find this bigoted. It's one thing to rudely exclude and belittle the one black family in your neighborhood, it's quite another to feel resentful about becoming a minority in your own country. This idea that whites, who for centuries made up 90% of the country, would just quietly accept becoming a minority and if you're not okay with that you're just a bigot, is absurd. There was always going to be a backlash. This is neither right nor wrong, it simply *is*.

These white identity politics are exacerbated by the left. I take a less rosy opinion on the nature of human conflicts and group dynamics than you probably do as a leftist, but if there is any country that could effectively handle the kind of diversity that America will have in the near future it is the United States. And we could maybe do it, too. Maybe. But we definitely can't do it when you have a large faction of the left that is engaged in constantly attacking white people and stoking up racial conflict where it wouldn't naturally exist.

Trump plays a massive part in this evolving force. And he knows. Believe me, he knows. He read Ann Coulters book. He spoke about liberalizing our immigration policy with Europe as early as 2011. It isn't just about the economy.

However I do agree with the point that trade also had a huge impact--perhaps an even bigger impact than immigration. But these issues of culture changing mass immigration and trade are inexorably linked--they are both the products of globalization. Americans are tired of watching our jobs shipped overseas--despite the rationalizations about how trade deals are good for all, everybody knows what is going on and they are angry about it.

That is what the real battle of the future is going to be about--globalization vs. nationalism. I'll be honest and say what I really think about what is happening in the U.S. and Europe--especially Europe. I think it is evil. I think it's genuinely, authentically demonic and satanic. A hostile ruling elite is going about actively erasing the populations that they are governing and destroying all of the sacrifices that their ancestors made. If things don't stop extremely soon in 100 years there will be no Germany. There will be no England. There will be no Sweden. Just various geographic territories inhabited by nondescript humans, lacking any sense of identity and heritage.

The European Union is the best example of this. I believe that the U.S. should be a diverse place where no race is favoured over another, but as far as Europe goes I could be called a White Nationalist. Given this, the idea of a united Europe is appealing to me. However, I hate what the European Union is in practice. They're forcing member countries to accept Muslim refugees and I've actually heard that now they're going to punish member states which refuse to comply with this. By this point it's literally a bunch of elites forcing the locals to welcome an endless wave of immigrants with a totally different race, culture, religion and value system, which is why I think that the EU should cease to exist and be replaced by the former system of many nationalistic European states.

I'm with Trump on this one. Nationalism all the way.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:18:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:13:27 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:


Finally, I don't understand the complaints about "having your jobs shipped overseas." Conservatives are hyper-capitalists who have been calling Obama a re-distributionist, socialist, communist, and what not. So, why does your capitalism apply only the United States? If someone abroad can do your job for less money, tough luck, right? Find a job that can't be effectively shipped overseas and put productivity into the economy that is deserving of your wages. Asking for artificial protections while also crying about how Obama is socialist is hypocritical and contradictory.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post which completely misses the point of mine and is entirely uncharitable to your political opponents but I'll answer this part. This election has proven what most conservative wonks have long suspected and feared--the Republican base really isn't that conservative.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:19:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
On-topic: http://i.imgur.com...

At 5/5/2016 4:06:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/5/2016 3:45:06 AM, thett3 wrote:
The difference is I do not find this bigoted. It's one thing to rudely exclude and belittle the one black family in your neighborhood, it's quite another to feel resentful about becoming a minority in your own country. This idea that whites, who for centuries made up 90% of the country, would just quietly accept becoming a minority and if you're not okay with that you're just a bigot, is absurd.
The problem is more with your underlying assumptions. You assume that being white gives someone more of a claim to be American than any other race.
You know you have no refute when you have to outright make sh!t up to attack.

The ninety percent statistic came about because European immigration gradually destroyed the native population which is nothing to be proud of.
Pretty much
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:23:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:15:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
That spectacularly misses the point. I assume that the population currently living in a nation has more of a claim to being a part of that nation than another population. If this was happening to, say, Nigeria, you would see the exact same dynamics. Look at the messes that still litter the globe when short sighted European empires divied up territory without consideration for the different populations that lived within.

Group dynamics matter. I'm open to being proven wrong but I've never seen any compelling argument for why we shouldn't expect a backlash to mass immigration--and Trump pretty much confirmed what I had been privately expecting for a long time.

The United States is built on a constant flow of immigration over hundreds of years though. It is atypical to other countries in that regard. Perhaps your argument could apply to Europe - I don't have strong feelings on that matter but it doesn't apply to the United States.

The ninety percent statistic came about because European immigration gradually destroyed the native population which is nothing to be proud of.

Native Americans were never part of the American nation until they surrendered and later became citizens, so this is false. The colonists and the indians were competing sovereignties inhabiting the same geographical territories...the 90% statistic came from importing slaves, which was obviously immoral. Otherwise the figure would've originally been 100%.

Native Americans were part of the land much before European immigration. They've always been a part of the land which is now the United States. That arguably gives them more claim over the land than any other group. I'm not necessarily stating that they have such a claim, but to say that Europeans have that claim shows willful cherry-picking of history.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:24:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:13:27 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Finally, I don't understand the complaints about "having your jobs shipped overseas."
Because you don't understand absolutely anything about the Trump situation to begin with
Conservatives are hyper-capitalists
Internet conservatives and GOPE/media, sure. They're also frantically attacking Trump - despite his popularity among their base - about as much as the left is.

It's almost as if though, *gasp*, the vast majority of real people vote with their interests in mind and are not uncompromising ideologues!

Asking for artificial protections while also crying about how Obama is socialist is hypocritical and contradictory.
Not really. Inaccurate? Sure. I don't need to be a pro-redistribution Marxist to have some reservations about free trade.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:28:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:45:06 AM, thett3 wrote:
So I both agree and disagree.

Trump is socially moderate in that he rejects the traditional social conservatism of the "moral majority" type conservatism that is now even more moribund than anybody thought possible just a few years ago. And he doesn't reject those issues out of some desire to cede ground to the left in order to appeal to kids, he rejects those issues because he simply doesn't care about them. At all. His worldview is not conducive to handwringing over Bruce Jenner using a ladies room. And just like we don't have time for political correctness, we no longer have time for this kind of nonsense either.

But some of the issues that drive Trump are definitely social issues--they're the new social issues. For example, it's just wrong to dismiss the impact that immigration had on Trump's rise. GOP voters do not like the current rate of immigration and they do not want to give citizenship to millions of illegals.

I'm a bit puzzled by the polls of GOP voters, because the polls say that they support amnesty but their voting behavior is very, very different--like so different that I wonder if the majority of people have no idea what "pathway to citizenship" actually means when asked in a poll. Perhaps their version of "pathway to citizenship" is amnesty for those who agree to serve in the military and deportation for the rest. I honestly have no idea. But the argument that GOP voters support amnesty and do not oppose immigration is just wrong given their voting patterns where the two immigration hardliners, Trump and Cruz, survived to the very end whereas Rubio and betaboy Yeb! were roundly rejected. Eric Cantor lost his house seat because of amnesty.

White identity politics absolutely has something to do with Trump. I made a post recently that Trump absolutely *destroys* among whites in minority-majority congressional districts winning almost all of them. This is not a coincidence. Whites who suddenly find themselves to be minorities and unwelcome in their formerly homogenous neighborhoods vote for the immigration restrictionist. The difference is I do not find this bigoted. It's one thing to rudely exclude and belittle the one black family in your neighborhood, it's quite another to feel resentful about becoming a minority in your own country. This idea that whites, who for centuries made up 90% of the country, would just quietly accept becoming a minority and if you're not okay with that you're just a bigot, is absurd. There was always going to be a backlash. This is neither right nor wrong, it simply *is*.

These white identity politics are exacerbated by the left. I take a less rosy opinion on the nature of human conflicts and group dynamics than you probably do as a leftist, but if there is any country that could effectively handle the kind of diversity that America will have in the near future it is the United States. And we could maybe do it, too. Maybe. But we definitely can't do it when you have a large faction of the left that is engaged in constantly attacking white people and stoking up racial conflict where it wouldn't naturally exist.

Trump plays a massive part in this evolving force. And he knows. Believe me, he knows. He read Ann Coulters book. He spoke about liberalizing our immigration policy with Europe as early as 2011. It isn't just about the economy.

However I do agree with the point that trade also had a huge impact--perhaps an even bigger impact than immigration. But these issues of culture changing mass immigration and trade are inexorably linked--they are both the products of globalization. Americans are tired of watching our jobs shipped overseas--despite the rationalizations about how trade deals are good for all, everybody knows what is going on and they are angry about it.

That is what the real battle of the future is going to be about--globalization vs. nationalism. I'll be honest and say what I really think about what is happening in the U.S. and Europe--especially Europe. I think it is evil. I think it's genuinely, authentically demonic and satanic. A hostile ruling elite is going about actively erasing the populations that they are governing and destroying all of the sacrifices that their ancestors made. If things don't stop extremely soon in 100 years there will be no Germany. There will be no England. There will be no Sweden. Just various geographic territories inhabited by nondescript humans, lacking any sense of identity and heritage.

I'm with Trump on this one. Nationalism all the way.

Immigration is an economic issue with social implications, but it's an economic issue first.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:29:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:13:27 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
For the record, I don't believe Trump's rise has anything to do with the economy. Anyone thinking that is kidding themselves. It has to do with frustrations and misperceptions of "political correctness." Angry white rednecks are mad that they can't own slaves any longer or treat people of other races with contempt. Trump gives them the alternative to speak their minds. He embodies the idea that "those Mexicans are thugs and thieves here to steal our jobs" and "to hell with the liberals who get offended when you say it like it is."\

Finally, I don't understand the complaints about "having your jobs shipped overseas." Conservatives are hyper-capitalists who have been calling Obama a re-distributionist, socialist, communist, and what not. So, why does your capitalism apply only the United States? If someone abroad can do your job for less money, tough luck, right? Find a job that can't be effectively shipped overseas and put productivity into the economy that is deserving of your wages. Asking for artificial protections while also crying about how Obama is socialist is hypocritical and contradictory.

The average conservative is opposed to communism and (at least they claim) to socialism. Simultaneously, however, this only tells what they're opposed to, not what they are for. They like "American freedoms", but this does not mean that they like the ideas of most industry in the country being run by a few giant corporations. The words "free trade", "open markets", and "globalisation" will come mostly from the mouths of Rightist intellectuals, not the common man.
What they really want, it seems, is a ton of small businesses with little government regulation which employs local Americans to do all the work. They do not like outsourcing or the increased shift to machinery. They want jobs. They want to get a paycheck and live their lives with minimal interference. They want to personally know who they're working for. They want to work hard but not be ripped off or mistreated by their employers.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:29:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:13:27 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
For the record, I don't believe Trump's rise has anything to do with the economy. Anyone thinking that is kidding themselves.

Translation: YYW's narrative makes Trump supporters sound more intelligent than I am comfortable with admitting, and it doesn't mesh with my perception of them as backwards racists. Therefore, I'm going to ignore the evidence behind YYW's narrative and continue screaming "bigot" because any other approach to dealing with Trump supporters would require me to actually think.

Angry white rednecks are mad that they can't own slaves any longer or treat people of other races with contempt. Trump gives them the alternative to speak their minds. He embodies the idea that "those Mexicans are thugs and thieves here to steal our jobs" and "to hell with the liberals who get offended when you say it like it is."

A truly insightful & unbiased portrayal of Trump supporters.
#TrumpTriumph2016
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:29:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I do not support white nationalism in any form, but I oppose most immigration from any conflict-prone area at this time. This includes Mexico, the Middle East, etc.
Tsar of DDO
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:30:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:23:08 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The United States is built on a constant flow of immigration over hundreds of years though. It is atypical to other countries in that regard.
Who were (until recently) generally similar, at least racially. And it's not like the cultural differences were inconsequential in the long term. The Know-Nothings were a thing for a reason.

And of course, those were just differences between European groups. What do they and Hispanic mestizos have in common - Catholicism? Not even that.

Native Americans were part of the land much before European immigration. They've always been a part of the land which is now the United States. That arguably gives them more claim over the land than any other group. I'm not necessarily stating that they have such a claim, but to say that Europeans have that claim shows willful cherry-picking of history.
The geographical territory is not the nation is not the geographical territory
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:30:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:19:19 AM, someloser wrote:
You know you have no refute when you have to outright make sh!t up to attack.

That's exactly what he said though. He basically said, "why shouldn't white people feel threatened when they are becoming a minority in their own country?"

So, the problem isn't even the argument he's making. He started off with an assumption that the United States belongs to white people and is then arguing while assuming that his assumption is true.

To be frank, I find that more ridiculous than flat-out stating that American = white because by stating it, you are arguing it. By assuming it, you are pretending that it is true while using it as a premise for a different argument.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:34:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:23:08 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/5/2016 4:15:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
That spectacularly misses the point. I assume that the population currently living in a nation has more of a claim to being a part of that nation than another population. If this was happening to, say, Nigeria, you would see the exact same dynamics. Look at the messes that still litter the globe when short sighted European empires divied up territory without consideration for the different populations that lived within.

Group dynamics matter. I'm open to being proven wrong but I've never seen any compelling argument for why we shouldn't expect a backlash to mass immigration--and Trump pretty much confirmed what I had been privately expecting for a long time.

The United States is built on a constant flow of immigration over hundreds of years though. It is atypical to other countries in that regard.

Because we had an open frontier for people to self segregate. Few areas were truly diverse--even within major cities people lived in ethnic enclaves. Moreover the melting pot narrative is just not historically accurate. The 19th century waves of migration that national mythology is based around were actually too much for the nation to handle, caused much conflict, and severely diluted the British derived cultural heritage of the nation. It's not a coincidence that the mass immigration of the 1880s and the 1890s was followed by a long period of closed borders, isolationism, and national introspection.

The U.S. has never been truly "diverse" in the sense that it is becoming now, and the closest thing we had to it in the 1880s and 90s was an unmitigated disaster.

But ignore all that. Let's take it in a vacuum...do you honestly think that there would be no side effects to white people becoming a minority in a country as race obsessed as the United States?

What do *you* think caused Trump? Judging by your other post, you agree with me so I don't see what we're arguing about. I just don't make moral judgements on this...because it was inevitable. It's the future the political establishment chose.

Perhaps your argument could apply to Europe - I don't have strong feelings on that matter but it doesn't apply to the United States.

The ninety percent statistic came about because European immigration gradually destroyed the native population which is nothing to be proud of.

Native Americans were never part of the American nation until they surrendered and later became citizens, so this is false. The colonists and the indians were competing sovereignties inhabiting the same geographical territories...the 90% statistic came from importing slaves, which was obviously immoral. Otherwise the figure would've originally been 100%.

Native Americans were part of the land much before European immigration. They've always been a part of the land which is now the United States. That arguably gives them more claim over the land than any other group. I'm not necessarily stating that they have such a claim, but to say that Europeans have that claim shows willful cherry-picking of history.

I said the American nation, not the American landmass. It has nothing to do with who "deserves" what.

Seriously you are completely missing my point. This is about pragmatism. It's about what we can expect to happen if we take certain steps, not about how things should be if we could go back and change history.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:35:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:29:32 AM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 5/5/2016 4:13:27 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
For the record, I don't believe Trump's rise has anything to do with the economy. Anyone thinking that is kidding themselves.

Translation: YYW's narrative makes Trump supporters sound more intelligent than I am comfortable with admitting, and it doesn't mesh with my perception of them as backwards racists. Therefore, I'm going to ignore the evidence behind YYW's narrative and continue screaming "bigot" because any other approach to dealing with Trump supporters would require me to actually think.

Angry white rednecks are mad that they can't own slaves any longer or treat people of other races with contempt. Trump gives them the alternative to speak their minds. He embodies the idea that "those Mexicans are thugs and thieves here to steal our jobs" and "to hell with the liberals who get offended when you say it like it is."

A truly insightful & unbiased portrayal of Trump supporters.

Well, bigots have this tendency to say bigoted things and then bitch about being called bigots so. "Economy" is a post-hoc rationalization for supporting Trump. That's not remotely the real reason for Trump's support.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:37:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:30:46 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/5/2016 4:19:19 AM, someloser wrote:
You know you have no refute when you have to outright make sh!t up to attack.

That's exactly what he said though. He basically said, "why shouldn't white people feel threatened when they are becoming a minority in their own country?"
Yes... which doesn't mean what you think it means: http://lmgtfy.com...

He started off with an assumption that the United States belongs to white people
F16 logic: "White people don't want to be a minority" = "the US should belong/belongs to white people" ??

To be frank, I find that more ridiculous than flat-out stating that American = white because by stating it, you are arguing it.
America (the nation/country, not the geographic location) is majority white. It has been historically majority white too, and was intended for a particular subset thereof initially. That's just a fact. We can disagree as to whether that's a good thing or not.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw