The USA isn't going to last forever. 5000 years from now we'll just be remembered as a blip at the end of the British Empire.

Enjoy it while it lasts. — frank

This assumes that there will be anyone around to remember. And this is not too far off topic since Trump's indifference to the environment may be an existential threat.

This assumes that there will be anyone around to remember. And this is not too far off topic since Trump's indifference to the environment may be an existential threat. — Fooloso4

Nice doomful comeback. But you're making him into a much more powerful demon than he actually is.

China.

It's extremely terrifying how normalized white ethno-nationalism is becoming.

What's terrifying to me is the way white nationalism subsumes an otherwise perfectly warranted attitude about whose best interest a government and other elected officials should act upon. Guilty by association, anyone who seems like a white nationalist will seem to be simply by expecting a government to act in the best interest of it's everyday ordinary citizens...

What underwrites that issue underwrites many. The general public tends to think in the terms served to them... That's a big problem when those who determine the terms do not have the best interest of the public in mind... but rather their own and that interest conflicts with the common everyday citizen's.

Trump gained power - in large part - due to a largely marginalized segment of the American population, not all of whom have racist attitudes. Those people who did not and/or could not attend college, although some did. These people used to be able to just follow the rules, work hard, and still be able to buy a house and live comfortably with some sort of retirement(pension or what have you).

That's the American Dream for many people, and it's realization was happening for generations. That's what "Make America Great Again" meant to some people who believed Trump when he said things like he wanted to put America and American's first, and talked about trade wars, manufacturing, and building trades jobs. Those people have been marginalized. Not all of them are racist.

For a long list of reasons(different legislation spanning the last fifty years or so) that's just not the cae anymore, and that change is the result - the inevitable consequence - of the government's own doing, along with the unwitting willingness of the general public to consume important topics in whatever terms they are fed.

So...

Here, just like most elsewhere, the understanding of Trump and the conditions allowing Trump to happen, is based upon inadequate understanding. After all this is over, the issues that gave rise to Trump, will be even harder to address, because too many legitimate and valid points have been subsumed by Trump in his speech acts(although he does not always speak sincerely or even know what he's talking about) and anyone afterwards who attempts to raise these issues will be judged by association to Trump, and quite mistakenly.

To be clear, I loathe that man. I'm not defending him in the least.

Trump is not the problem. He's merely a symptom.

The United States of America has always had the best justice system money could buy. Now it has the best government money can buy, and it's been that way since Ronnie Raygun(arguably long before). Citizens United has made it legally possible for foreign entities to buy some of it. It's a shit-show on multiple levels.

The problem with this analysis and explanation for Trump is that it is predominantly a materialist one, i.e. that people who voted for him did so because they wanted economic results. Myriad research shows, however, that there's no correlation between so called "economic anxiety" and voting for Trump. However, racial antipathy was correlated, and to a lesser extent, white racial solidarity. As I've said elsewhere, Trump's election was the result of the white identity, along with socio-cultural, economic, and political status slowly being questioned and balanced, and we are experiencing that backlash to this.

Think what you like Maw. I'm not at all denying the racial vestiges that remained in America prior to Trump. I'm not denying that white nationalism remains. I'm not denying the existence of the KKK. They have a rally every year in Cincinnati, for God's sake. I'm simply pointing out that those people - and plenty of others - were marginalized in real financial terms, by means of less and less opportunity. If it were not for that, Trump would not have had the foothold needed. The racists alone did not elect Trump.

As I've said elsewhere, Trump's election was the result of the white identity, along with socio-cultural, economic, and political status slowly being questioned and balanced, and we are experiencing that backlash to this. — Maw

That's a part of it. Unfortunately, as I've already mentioned above, it's just not enough of the whole story.

Sure, but economically marginalized people also voted for Clinton or supported Sanders so you're not making a meaningful point.

The point was made. Just in case in seemed unclear in any way...

There are a very large portion of United States citizens who no longer think/believe that the government is acting in their best interest, and justifiably so. Some of those people were/are white people with no college education who used to be able to live comfortably by following the rules, working hard, and saving their money. They could realize the American Dream just by doing that.<-----That is no longer the case.<------------That is the problem.

This describes - roughly and generally - the conditions that led up to Trump. Trump is not the problem. Racists are not the problem. The legislation passed over the last fifty or so years has pulled the rug out from underneath of far too many Americans. This legislation is not exclusive to either party. Both parties, and nearly every president since Jimmy Carter has had such bills passed during their administrations. Those pieces of legislature caused demonstrable, quantifiable unnecessary harm to everyday ordinary average people, not all of whom are either white or racist, but all of whom used to be able to follow the rules, work hard, and be successful by their own standards. They used to be able to realize their American Dream.

Disagree all you like. There's nothing illegal about being wrong.

The other problem is that the real problem(set out above) will be very hard to bring to light - even after Trump is gone - without being associated with/to Trump and white nationalists.

That's a bigger problem than Trump, who is not the problem, but rather a symptom.

I don't dispute the point that social mobility is nearly non-existent, or that worker wages have stagnated, that economic inequality has erupted, or that certain material gains such as buying a house is out of reach for many Americans. All that is undeniably true; most Americans feel economic anxiety. The question is whether or not these conditions have, in your words, "led up to Trump" or explain Trump. There is nothing to suggest that this is the case and this frequent talking point masks a pressing concern confronting the country: white racial antipathy and ethno-nationalism.

Confronting the country? As if it's new?

Her eyes must've been closed for a long time.

That's not the problem. If you do not agree that the things you just mentioned paved the way for Trump by virtue of securing enough non racist votes for him to squeak by, then there's not much more I can say. Everyone is entitled to their own belief.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief. — creativesoul

In this case, only if it can be substantiated.

I'll tell you what Maw. I love a good debate. You may know that about me already. Let's have one. Shall we?

We could do it in the debate forum. It deserves that kind of attention, in my mind. This site hasn't has one yet. And... as a bonus, the debate forum has better rules of engagement. We could come to agreement about the debate topic/statement, who will argue in the affirmative/negative, and the other terms.

Interested?

not at all

It’s useless for people to keep condemning Trump’s racism. it’s one of the things that got him there - he gives voice to things that nobody is supposed to say, but that clearly enough people believe to keep him in office. Trump’s racist comments should just be completely ignored; as long as they’re news, you’re just playing his game.

Too bad. With that comment about substantiated opinions and all, I figured you meant it.

There is no point getting into a debate with someone who can't provide a single bit of justification from the onset.

That sort of rhetoric won't cut it. We can let the readers decide. What's the topic statement?

And, at the end of the day it's still the same old crap with this guy. But, you know... Things could always be worse...

Most people I've been around are surprised at the sheer amount of support Trump had around the fringes of non college educated white males. Many of these 'outliers' are like me, except they're neither white nor male. They are the group of people who have intimate and negative personal experience with the results of America's push for globalism at the expense of a very large swathe of it's own populations' well-being.



Lobbyists write American law.

Lobbyists work on behalf of corporate interests.

Lobbyists are not elected.



I've heard the argument given that the reason lobbyists and other unelected individuals are allowed to write(or help write) American legislation is due to the highly specialized knowledge and/or background of any particular subject matter that the law has purview over(jurisprudence).

In other words...

Some law involves deep considerations/knowledge involving highly specialized subject matters such as global economic and/or environmental impacts. Those are the most serious sorts of consideration, and we ought approach such concerns using the most knowledgable, honourable, admirable, and reasonable minds available.

Those are excellent reasons to seek counsel and character standards to satisfy, but...

I would argue against the forwarding of all positions bearing any significant resemblance. I mean, such a position does not constitute adequate justificatory ground for allowing an unelected individual to write the laws that our elected officials are supposed to write. The need to seek counsel does not justify seeking just any counsel, especially one who advocates on behalf of those whose best interests are in direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of the general American public.



That's a real problem that reflects others.



The elected official has the sole responsibility of representing those who elected him/her. That is to partake in exactly that promise:To act on their behalf. Acting on their behalf is acting in their best interest. When an elected official is seeking counsel who's deliberately and intentionally acting on behalf of conflicting interests we have another very real problem.

Trump is not the problem.

Now...

What were you saying earlier Maw?

And, at the end of the day it's still the same old crap with this guy. But, you know... Things could always be worse. — Wallows

Indeed they could...

:wink:

It could also be the case that 48 or 49 of the 50 United States have enacted laws that force an individual private citizen to sign away his/her own intellectual property rights as an agreement of future employment.

The actual events preceding and influencing/affecting/effecting the social climate are many. The descriptions we accept and allow of those events must be scrutinized in terms of relevancy and/or adequacy.

Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom.

Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom. — creativesoul

He can be both. And more besides. So many nouns and adjectives. Either way, he is a dangerous preacher of hate and division. This latest is an atrocious development.

Goaded on by the president, a crowd at a Donald Trump rally on Wednesday night chanted “send her back! send her back!” in reference to Ilhan Omar, a US congresswoman who arrived almost 30 years ago as a child refugee in the United States.

Trump used the 2020 campaign rally in Greenville, North Carolina, to attack Omar and three other Democratic congresswomen – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan – calling them “hate-filled extremists”.

SEND HER BACK, SEND HER BACK,’ is ugly. It’s ignorant. It’s dangerous,” tweeted Joe Walsh, the conservative radio host and former Republican congressman. “And it’s un-American. It’s flat out bigotry. And every Republican should condemn this bigotry immediately. Stop this now.” — Tom McCarthy

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/17/trump-rally-send-her-back-ilhan-omar

He is a symptom. — creativesoul

Like dying being a symptom of a terminal illness....

Evil is winning in America; the bad guy is winning. The sheriff has been run out of town, or bribed to remain silent, while the mob cheers. You're watching the office of the Presidency being destroyed, live, in real time, on 24 hours per day news coverage.

Every so often I paste this Wiki definition here so we all remain clear what we dealing with:

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser[2][3] is a leader who gains popularity in a democracy by exploiting prejudice and ignorance to arouse the common people against elites, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.[1][4] Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.[5]

Historian Reinhard Luthin defined demagogue thus: "What is a demagogue? He is a politician skilled in oratory, flattery and invective; evasive in discussing vital issues; promising everything to everybody; appealing to the passions rather than the reason of the public; and arousing racial, religious, and class prejudices—a man whose lust for power without recourse to principle leads him to seek to become a master of the masses. He has for centuries practiced his profession of 'man of the people'. He is a product of a political tradition nearly as old as western civilization itself."[6]

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.[7] Demagogues usually advocate immediate, forceful action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty. Once elected to high executive office, demagogues typically unravel constitutional limits on executive power and attempt to convert their democracy to dictatorship.

People who are surprised of all this just haven't spent enough time in the US...