Again you show your arrogance quite well. — ssu

Feel free to refute the counterpoints I provided! The irony is the circle jerk that devolved in this thread over the arguments made in the video, despite no substantive research to support them (including a women presented as an expert who was caught lying and fabricating interviews)

True, Italy wasn't defeated.

Feel free to refute the counterpoints I provided! — Maw

Ok,

So you refute the video by saying that it is "laughably awful, unsurprisingly shallow, biased, and filled with discredited presumptions and absurd claims that we're somehow meant to accept at face value". And then you give examples why this would be so by then stating for example:

It's been nearly three years since Trump won the 2016 election and we have ample evidence to confirm that racism in fact played a key role in mobilizing votes for Trumps. Not "economic anxiety" - The video claims that Trump voters have been struggling financially while Hillary voters mainly comprised of coastal elites, a majority of voters with income <$50K voted for Hillary (53%) over Trump (41%), while voters with an income over $100K were split 47% vs. 47%. — Maw

Well, places where Trump was very popular were places in the rust-belt and not the most well off prosperous places. (And white, of course) From this chart you can see that typically the more well off households did vote for Clinton than Trump. All I've read about the differences in Trump and Clinton voters support this view.



Now, we can argue about the statistics and have a discussion about them, but what I'm just saying is that dismissing totally the video with such ferocity and hurling so many accusations of being biased and absurd etc. come off to me as quite arrogant.

And saying that "Most of you clearly don't read any relevant political material, and it shows in your comments" I do find a bit condescending.

Well, places where Trump was very popular were places in the rust-belt and not the most well off prosperous places. (And white, of course) From this chart you can see that typically the more well off households did vote for Clinton than Trump. Now, we can argue about the statistics and have a discussion about them, but what I'm just saying is that dismissing totally the video with such ferocity and hurling so many accusations on it comes off to me as quite arrogant. — ssu

As the Washington Post article from which you ostensibly pulled this from notes, Trump won in poorer counties, but did better with wealthier voters over Hillary Clinton (and of course not everyone within a given county voted at all!). Even the percentage difference between the median HHI of counties that voted Trump vs. voted Hillary is quite low: just 8.5%. But regardless of the precise statistics or the framing between counties vs. individual voters, the thesis of the video was that there was a potent dyad between how the working class voted and how the wealthy elite voted, and with economic anxiety being the prime motivator for Trump voters. This is at best vastly overstated, and at worst simply incorrect.

↪unenlightened
Does the label matter ?
— Amity

the body politic under threat from foreign bodies and so on. I reject the framing of the crisis in terms of us and them
— unenlightened
Nevertheless,, this is precisely our situation: it is the formation of different "foreign bodies" within our societies through various gradations of hatred: dehumanization, labeling, delegitimization, and intolerance. Essentially, the true borders are not the outer ones, but the invisible internal barriers, so that the extreme partisanship has been advancing. — Number2018

Yes, labels matter, fuck wit. I seem to have labeled one of you 'fuck wit'. In this case it is unimportant because I am unimportant. but if I were your defence lawyer in court, it matters a great deal.

And whenever someone uses 'true' as an adjective like that, one can be sure that they are bullshitting. The classic case of the bullshitter is Simon Cowell, the world famous transformer of original musical creative talent into bland mediocrity, "...and I genuinely mean that."

No, the true borders are the one people die trying to cross.

I'm a deplorable. you may talk to me. — ozymandias11111

Will you vote for Trump again? What policy has decided you for or against that decision?

Imagine I responded to your post like this: 'Oh here's another person who thinks every one who voted for Trump should be treated as a literal nazi. Big surprise.'

That's not what you were saying, but it does certainly make categorization easier. And it prevents me from getting bogged down in nuance.

I pose this challenge to you. Reject my hypothetical response to you, while defending the substance of your post, and all without using undue nuance. (As an added challenge explain how your rejection and defense is different than what I was saying when responding to Maw.) — csalisbury

I don't advocate treating Trump supporters as literal Nazis. I advocate treating them as literal Trump supporters. That is, treat them as if they knowingly support all the things Trump is doing, insofar as they are a matter of public record or otherwise obvious. This, of course, only applies to current Trump supporters. But it applies regardless for their stated reasons for intending to vote for Trump again.

Voting for Trump is voting for Trump to continue what he has been doing. Trump's policies and behaviour are bad. To argue whether it's fair to claim Trump supporters are racist is, IMHO a distraction from the actual issue - that Trump is a bad president that supports bad policies. If all you worry about is whether or not your support for Trump is wrongly interpreted as evidence for racism, you're already part of the problem.

So, I don't think it matters whether or not it is entirely fair to every Trump supporter to call them racist. Because if you support Trump, you're so obviously supporting "bad things" that it's not a debate worth having. The only debate worth having is how to get enough people to vote for someone who will do less harmful stuff.

Yes, labels matter, fuck wit. I seem to have labeled one of you 'fuck wit'. In this case it is unimportant because I am unimportant — unenlightened

:smile: That would be me. And yes, it is unimportant not because you are unimportant but because I am not affected by it. When a child is labelled as being 'slow' or a 'half wit' then there can be long term consequences. Whole lives can be ruined by labelling. So, of course, the use of labels matters.

My question was related to the adjectives 'fascistic' v 'protofascistic' and how significant were the actual differences between them.

Here is original exchange:

Should we consider it as a fascistic or proto-fascistic attack against a democratic institution?
— Number2018

I don't know. What do you think ?
Does the label matter ?
Arguably, the contempt for and attacks on democratic institutions, the rule of law; incitements to mob violence; attacks on the press, etc. are similar enough to warrant concern. — Amity

My question was related to the adjectives 'fascistic' v 'protofascistic' and how significant were the actual differences between them. — Amity

Sorry, I did not understand your question.Probably, so far, there is no
workable model, based on a research of the real historical fascistic regimes. Are you interested in my view of fascistic vs. proto-fascistic tendencies?

Yes, labels matter, fuck wit. — unenlightened

Does the label matter ? — Amity

The answer entirely depends on the context of the labeling. When GOP Minority Leader starts accusing Nancy Pelosi of abusing her power, and when he says that leading democrats in congress manipulate and distort the formal procedures of impeachment, it is not labeling. Yet, he supports Trump’s labeling allegations, including "which hunt" and "coup". As a result, the trust in democratic institutions has been damaged. When Clinton labeled Trump’s supporters deplorable, she meant to disqualify their right to decide who will be the next president. If deplorable voters elected Trump, he is not the legitimate president himself. All these examples of labeling can lead to a growth of violence and civil disobedience. The question about fascistic vs. proto-fascistic tendencies requires much more serious effort. Yet, when somebody labels some aspects of Trump’s presidency as proto-fascistic, the real intention is once again to question his legitimacy.
When you write :

Democratic institutions are at risk. I am thinking of recent events in the UK.
Following the court decisions on the prorogation of Parliament, there were hostile accusations against both Parliament and the judiciary.
There are extreme right wing forces gathering, using similar tactics and chipping away... — Amity

you are not labeling, but you tacitly assume that one side is more responsible for
the current crises than the other. Similarly, when Timothy Snyder in his interview tries to lay out his vision of Trump’s phenomenon - in addition to his academic qualities and analytic resources applied, he involves some rhetorical arguments and personal judgments. So, his attempt should be reduced to a level of another partisan intellectual project. In the current hysteric atmosphere, taking a partisan position prevents a deeper understanding and blocks the conditions of a dialogue.

Maybe they don’t. But like I said, my immigration views are my own. — NOS4A2

In what sense are they your own? Like all of us your knowledge, views and opinions, ideology, morality, values, and even emotions are dependent on others. Did you spontaneously pop into existence? No, you developed within a human culture. The most relevant question is the degree to which you've developed independent agency. That you can't see a difference between your views and your fellow Trump followers views, while simultaneously claiming that your views are your own, and being so apparently comfortable with this juxtaposition, indicates a doublethink that is indicative of group conformity and not a sign of independents. Nothing wrong with group conformity in itself, of course, but in some instances submitting to group pressure isn’t always in the best interest of the group.

A recent example of conflicting interests, and apparent comfort with the resulting inner contention, involves how Trump's followers process the two main approaches the Trump administration has taken on the Southern border crisis. In the last government shutdown, Trump claimed that the only solution to the crisis was his wall and circumvented Congress by declaring a national emergency. This was unprecedented in that none of the 58 previous emergency declarations made by U.S. presidents involved circumventing Congress to spend money it had expressly refused to authorize or allocate.

A Trump follower like yourself must realize this precedent could have serious consequences, such as a future Democratic administration circumventing Congress in this fashion to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on what they may generally regard as *socialistic* solutions to national "emergencies."

The other approach the Trump administration has taken on the border crisis is to negotiate with Mexico and other Latin American countries. According to the acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, more than 52,000 migrants were taken into custody in the month of September, an 18% decline from August. It represents a 65% decline from the peak in May when more than 144,000 migrants were detained at ports of entry or in between.

"This administration's strategies have brought about results, the Commissioner told reporters in a White House briefing. "Dramatic results."

"Dramatic results" without a border wall. But a border wall was supposed to be the only solution. The wall funding is not only costly in taxpayer dollars, it's also costly in the manner of its seizure, essentially giving more power to the executive branch and less liberty to citizens. How does a Trump follower like yourself feel about this?

I am an immigrant to my current country, and most of what I know about immigration is related to my own experiences of it. It’s a long and difficult process. It makes it all the more difficult knowing that others want the same citizenship and benefits without doing it legally. Illegal immigration is anti-immigrant for this reason: it devalues and makes a mockery of those who put in the time and work to become legal citizens.

The reason I am not willing to say where my views diverge is for the simple reason that I do not know all the views.

So please, where did you get your views on immigration? From others? Who exactly?

As for apprehensions at the border, it is those who were never apprehended I worry about. What are the figures on those people?

I believe in walls and fences for the same reason we have walls and fences around our houses. This is something I agree with Trump on. Walls work. Are there better solutions? Sure. But these solutions, such as removing incentives to illegal immigration such as welfare programs, have far worse negative effects than a wall.

I believe in walls and fences for the same reason we have walls and fences around our houses. This is something I agree with Trump on. Walls work. — NOS4A2

White picket fences primarily function to demark property lines. They can also be decorative. If someone wants to cross them they can easily do that. If a neighborhood is concerned with burglaries, for example, a far more effective and practical solution would be a neighborhood watch program. It would also be far far less expensive than everyone in the neighborhood building a mote, complete with snakes and crocodiles :razz: , around their homes.

I kid with the last part, but seriously, if a con artist prayed on homeowners' insecurities and managed to sell an entire neighborhood on expensive security systems that were less effective than managing the problem through other means, and the homeowners denied their gullibility with the evidence staring them in the face, what does that say about these homeowners? It says they lack independent agency.

Barriers of all sorts have been used to great effect since time immemorial right until today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_barrier#List_of_current_barriers

This is exactly what I’m talking about. No mention of efficacy in the link you provide because, for a follower like yourself, that’s not the important part. Solidarity and fitting in is primary. That’s how you’ve been conditioned to be.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. No mention of efficacy in the link you provide because, for a follower like yourself, that’s not the important part. Solidarity and fitting in is primary.

What is easier to cross, a border with a wall or a border without a wall? I’m not sure why I have to argue the efficacy what seems blatantly obvious.

You’re deliberately avoiding the overriding point, and thereby inadvertently indicating it’s validity, which is that Trump followers such as yourself have been conditioned in such a way that they comfortably hold multiple contradictory beliefs. For instance, you know that if someone wants to cross a border, a fence will be a minor obstacle, and you just acknowledged that there are better solutions. Negotiations resulted in a 65% decrease within only a handful of months, for instance. It’s not so much that you favor the irrational choice, it’s that you’ve been conditioned to do it with such ease.

You’re deliberately avoiding the overriding point, and thereby inadvertently indicating it’s validity, which is that Trump followers such as yourself have been conditioned in such a way that they comfortably hold multiple contradictory beliefs. For instance, you know that if someone wants to cross a border, a fence will be a minor obstacle, and you just acknowledged that there are better solutions. Negotiations resulted in a 65% decrease within only a handful of months, for instance. It’s not so much that you favor the irrational choice, it’s that you’ve been conditioned to do it with such ease.

A 30ft metal wall is a minor obstacle? What a dangerous lie. Tell that to the woman who impaled herself n the same wall. Tell that to the man who broke both legs climbing the 30 ft fence in California, or the severed limbs in Arizona. Those kinds of lies will get people hurt, or worse.

Why do you believe a 30ft metal fence is a “minor obstacle”? Not because I said it, but because you’ve been trained to say it.

It's actually very easy to climb a 30 ft. wall, I've done it several times without any training. Child's play.

I don't advocate treating Trump supporters as literal Nazis. I advocate treating them as literal Trump supporters. That is, treat them as if they knowingly support all the things Trump is doing, insofar as they are a matter of public record or otherwise obvious. This, of course, only applies to current Trump supporters. But it applies regardless for their stated reasons for intending to vote for Trump again.

Voting for Trump is voting for Trump to continue what he has been doing. Trump's policies and behaviour are bad. To argue whether it's fair to claim Trump supporters are racist is, IMHO a distraction from the actual issue - that Trump is a bad president that supports bad policies. If all you worry about is whether or not your support for Trump is wrongly interpreted as evidence for racism, you're already part of the problem.

So, I don't think it matters whether or not it is entirely fair to every Trump supporter to call them racist. Because if you support Trump, you're so obviously supporting "bad things" that it's not a debate worth having. The only debate worth having is how to get enough people to vote for someone who will do less harmful stuff. — Echarmion

In terms of tactics, I think one puzzle piece is to not alienate roughly half of the US population( of voters.) If you begin with an attack, the person will get defensive. This is the same reason leftist attacks on moderate liberals, like Obama, tend to fail. If voting for Obama means knowingly supporting everything he did, then you're in trouble. There are, I'm sure, many people who voted for Trump who are queasy on certain policies. That's the populace you need to sway. If you write off the entirety of active voters who votes for trump, you automatically hand him the win.

[the cheeky meta stuff: your post is too bogged down in justificatory nuance. You make these conceptual distinctions between how you actually see things and how you need to argue things from a tactical standpoint. For me, its handier to categorize you as what I, hypothetical responder, already did from the get-go, namely : [Someone who acts as though he thinks all trump voters are actual nazis] ]

I didn't do that, and that's the only way I was able to respond.

In terms of tactics, I think one puzzle piece is to not alienate roughly half of the US population( of voters.)

There are, I'm sure, many people who voted for Trump who are queasy on certain policies. That's the populace you need to sway. If you write off the entirety of active voters who votes for trump, you automatically hand him the win. — csalisbury

There are about 250M Americans who are of voting age. Of that, only ~138M voted in the 2016 election, (or 55% of the total voting population). Of those who voted, ~63M voted for Trump, (or 46% of those who voted). So those who voted for Trump only account for ~25% of the general voting population, which isn't "roughly half". And what percentage of this 25% would never ever vote for a Democrat? Despite this, it's curious that it's demanded of democrats/liberals/leftists to seek the favor of Trump/conservative voters by moderating their otherwise left-leaning policies, rather than the Trump/conservative voters being asked to moderate their extreme positions so that they are more palatable to moderate/left of center voters. Seems like this demand is simply subterfuge in an attempt to temper the growing popularity of leftist policy by advocating for fallacious "electability" arguments.

I don't ask that anyone be more centric ('limp' is the background connotation.) I think it makes sense to get real and precise about what policies help people, which could very well be leftist options (in fact I think this is the case!) But introducing these leftist options after shaming many of the people they'd benefit, means they won't vote for them. so its a bad approach. I don't know why this is controversial. But I do have my crackpot conspiracy theories around why people on the forum over-value being smarter than dumbies, at the expense of political tactics.

Also @Maw I was really careful here so its frustrating when you bulldoze over it. I wouldn't have qualified population with 'active voters' if I didn't understand the stats you posted. Maybe I should have said 'those who vote' instead?

This is demanded by people who don’t want Trump to win. If you wish to encourage Trump to moderate his tone to pull in people leaning more in the other direction then you’re effectively in favour of Trump winning.

Frankly I don’t think there is much hope for US politics due to a culture of ‘how do we win?’ rather than simply offering the public well constructed plans with actual thought put into them - not chants and dreams.

The US, for as long as I’ve been alive, has voted based on personal popularity not policy. Once someone actual comes along with real plans for policies that can be implemented then things might start to shift - this didn’t happen with Sanders because everyone backed who they thought was more popular not who had an actual planned policy.

Even so, I think Sanders made enough of an impact. It reminds me of Paddy Ashdown in the UK. His party set out plans that the public didn’t like, and so didn’t vote for them, then the winning party would effectively raise taxes - as planned by the Lib Dems.

I’m fairly convinced Trump will win a second term because the opposition don’t seem to realise they’ve been perpetuating the system because it favoured them rather than trying to improve the system. Now someone’s come along and stepped it up a level and they’re at a loss.

Long term it may be better if Trump wins again. Maybe it will force people away from directionless outrage and toward practical solutions? Or maybe it will just enflame the opposition into more silly sensationalist posturing and deepen the the lack of trust the public have for the administrative powers?

At least people seem more concerned with political issues today than in the past - or rather people are able yo more readily engage with each other now. Maybe this has always been there, but ignored. Now we’ve got the internet people cannot hide so easily from what they don’t wish to know.

I think it makes sense to get real and precise about what policies help people, which could very well be leftist options (in fact I think this is the case!) But introducing these leftist options after shaming many of the people they'd benefit, means they won't vote for them. so its a bad approach. I don't know why this controversial. — csalisbury

As I said, only about 25% of the voting population voted for Trump. Layer on the fact that a certain percentage of people within this segment will not vote for any Democrat whatsoever, and you start to get a fairly slim voting block, relative to the general voting population. Why then focus on or appease this voting block that is simultaneously become more irrelevant with time (given age and demographic shifts)? As you yourself point out, we should "get real and precise about what policies help people", which, as we both agree, are leftist policies, in order to organize and stimulate a voting block that is not only above Trump's voting block, but beyond Hillary's as well (which had about 4 million fewer voters than Obama did in 2008). There is simply no need to appease Trump supporters or moderate our condemnation of the policies they advocate, thereby normalizing them.

EDIT: And again, Trump supporters belittle and shame liberals in their own ways as well, and yet....crickets. Why isn't this a "bad approach"?

Also Maw I was really careful here so its frustrating when you bulldoze over it. I wouldn't have qualified population with 'voting' if I didn't understand the stats you posted. — csalisbury

Not sure what you mean here.

This is demanded by people who don’t want Trump to win. If you wish to encourage Trump to moderate his tone to pull in people leaning more in the other direction then you’re effectively in favour of Trump winning. — I like sushi

Sure, which is why no one is saying this, other than perhaps "Never Trumpers". Certainly democrats/liberals/leftists aren't suggesting that Trump moderate his tone and policy because they know he won't so why bother, and his supporters aren't about to encourage it either because it's precisely why they support him.

Here they are. Edited: [previously: condensed history of the forums. not the right time to post]

Long term it may be better if Trump wins again. Maybe it will force people away from directionless outrage and toward practical solutions? Or maybe it will just enflame the opposition into more silly sensationalist posturing and deepen the the lack of trust the public have for the administrative powers? — I like sushi

Most likely the latter.

I do not know if Donald Trump has an actual strategy. Maybe He is merely acting out his personal kinks. The effect however -- planned or not -- is to derail rational discussion. Why derail rational discussion? Because people won't buy a straightforward, honest presentation of Trumps intentions. Much better for someone who has unspeakable plans is to play games of uproar; to lie, speak nonsense; pursue policies which have no rational basis but which may serve some interest.

Better to make idiotic non sequitur statements, like "The Kurds didn't help us in Normandy" to justify pulling out US troops from a relationship that had (apparently) restrained Turkey. The Turks have invaded northern Syria, and the Isis prisoners held by the Kurds are likely to get loose. Isis emerged from hiding almost immediately, upon the commencement of the Turkish invasion.

Better to fill one's allies with the same kind of extreme nonsense of the sort I heard from some moron at the Texas State Fair on NPR: "There's no point in working with the center, because the only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill." Never mind whether that is the case or not; the point is that compromisers get run over.

Better to make a boogeyman out of Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden: Or... Joe Blow. Anybody.

Lower the level of discourse long enough (it wasn't stratospheric before Trump decided to run in 2015) and the people will be left dazed.

Will respond in the morning.

Strategy? I think its more like instinct. He isn’t stupid, but he certainly loves to make himself look stupid, to say outrageous things, and to play the media like a fiddle.

Or he’s simply insane - honestly, I don’t think so (no more than most of us anyway).

Either way I’ve been saying the same thing for a while now in terms of global politics. We’re going through a revolution at we’re only at the start of it. The internet had changed everything - my generation, and those after will begin to show the fuller effect it’s had on politics. At the moment older generations are still able remember days without TV’s. Once I’m an older man I don’t expect the political landscape will look anything like it does now - for better? I believe so because I think kids having direct experience of ‘click-bait’ will be better able to discern bullshit, posturing and sensationalism than previous generations.

It seems to me the current generations are basically caught in the no man’s land between and that this is being expressed with fear and hope in many ways.

To argue whether it's fair to claim Trump supporters are racist is, IMHO a distraction from the actual issue - that Trump is a bad president that supports bad policies. — Echarmion

This is a true distraction, but perhaps the worse outcome isn't that the politicians themselves are accused in this way (to be racist etc.), it is that those who voted for him are all tagged as a group represented by the worst, the most eccentric and ludicrous fringe there is. As if all Trump supporters are racist whites fearing losing their 'white priviledge' and as if all Democrat voters are all AOC fanboys and fangirls craving for social democracy, sorry, democratic socialism. And do notice that this is exactly the strategy of Trump too and this isn't anything new. What is new is how headlong Americans fell for this and how the "silly-season" of the election 2016 never went away. This creates the toxic and vitriolic political environment where the US is now in. This is the way you erode social cohesion and divide the people into separate camps, which then you legitimize by saying that they belong to separate 'tribes' and explain that people are tribal.

Hillary Clinton's gaffe of speaking about the deplorables was one of the contributing events that helped Trump (apart from the FBI's October suprise). Making accusations about the voters of your competitors is basically a taboo in a democracy. Yet it can be very, very successful strategy and can get divisive politicians elected who have absolutely no desire to keep the country together.

I wouldn't be so worried if this was only an American phenomenon. Unfortunately this is mimicked in Europe and a similar process is happening here too.

I sincerely hope that the current generation of 'click-bait-wise' youth will be more resistant to being dazzled by bullshit than past generations. I am just slightly pessimistic about how well they will resist. Isn't this the generation that spends hours and hours and hours playing on-line games? On-line games designed to hook and keep players at their consoles? A generation seduced to buy as much stuff on line as the elder generation was seduced to buy in brick and mortar stores?

There is always SOMETHING bright and shiny to dangle in front of the masses that the masses will decide they really, really want. AND NEED! RIGHT NOW!

See, all the wizardry of mass merchandizers works on the wizards of mass merchandizing just as well as it works on everybody else. One may be in charge of manipulating the masses for United Consolidated & Amalgamated Retailers of The World and be really good at it, but then, you know, you're walking down the street (or the mega mall) and you happen to look into the window and there it is: the perfectly displayed object, designed to reach into your brain and grab your amygdala by the balls and cause you to reach for your wallet and BUY something you definitely do not need.