Somehow I don’t think that a public “there there now, you have reasonable concerns” will do the trick. Validation may be a good starting point but it only goes so far. Got any other ideas? — praxis

When the forum has acted on what's already been suggested, which you seem to agree is a good starting point, I'll see if I have any other ideas.

I'm OK with them feeling insulted when I insult Trump. — Michael

Ok, fair enough, that's your choice to make. I'm just trying to alert you to what the price tag is.

The way the previous secretary of defense general Mattis commented the actions of Trump shows the seriousness of the situation:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society.

An immature leader which tries to divide the American people.

Mattis has refrained from telling the truth about Trump for a long time, perhaps out of the courtesy the the Presidency itself, but now he came out.

And then he says the obvious:

Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part.

The present secretary of Defence, that succeeded Mattis (if we skip the brief acting secretary Shanahan) is unfortunately backtracked after the White House hinted at his removal. Trump just yearns to get those paratroopers to patrol the Capital.

Yet I think that now really the back is broken of the Trump presidency. I think that simply there are too many Republicans who have before never voted for Democrats and they'll do that now in the next elections. The handling of the pandemic was bad, but this thing is not working also.There of course his base and this has a big enough echo chamber to live in La-la-land. Trump's performance is so absurd and he's showing his inability so clearly that it's hard not noticing it. But of course, things can also just get worse.

I don’t follow, there really are no Trump supporters on this forum of the sort you describe.

Sorry to go off like a bomb on this subject. My experience of having to face the fact that even very intelligent well educated nuclear weapons experts, all of them that I could find, don't get that they need Trump voters kinda freaked me out a bit. I do realize there's nothing I can do about tribalism, and am just suffering one of my little wishful thinking fantasy episodes.

I don’t follow, there really are no Trump supporters on this forum of the sort you describe. — praxis

Right. And so the rational point of Trump bashing with those who already agree is.... what exactly?

The answer is somewhat inconvenient. Preaching to the choir operations serve as a mutual validation society which helps bind the tribe together in the illusion that they are the "one true tribe", ie. superior to those people over there. It happens on a billion sites on a billion subjects, one of the primary uses of the Internet. Tribalism serves a useful purpose emotionally, but is typically an obstacle to achieving one's public policy goals.

The fact that there are no Trump voters here does not stop us from considering how we might productively engage them when we do encounter them. That's not a matter of being nice. It's a matter of realistically appreciating that little of significance can be accomplished without them.

The fact that there are no Trump voters here — Nuke

There are.

Trump's performance is so absurd and he's showing his inability so clearly that it's hard not noticing it. — ssu

And yet, he is President, and we are not. Perhaps what we're seeing here more clearly than before is that it is the fate of democratic societies to be ruled by salesman.

The real damage that he does is making the government not to react properly. Trump cannot control his White House, it's chaos there, and surely he cannot just roll over the federal state. He is incapable of doing that. Trump isn't a dictator who's absurd policies someone tries to put in practice only to save his or her life. The real havoc he creates is the void which this little tweeting self-centered man does.

Of course when what should be reacted are things like a global pandemic, then it does have an effect.

Trump kills.

My take is that Trump's success arises from the fact that he is a ruthless business man from NYC, arguably the media capital of the world. Trump instinctively gets that corporate media is not a public service, but a profit seeking business. He gets that the business model of corporate media is to use drama to build audience, and thus ad revenues. And so Trump supplies the drama, and is rewarded with many billions of dollars worth of free advertising he wouldn't get otherwise.

Here's a little story to illustrate how the game works.

Remember that preacher a few years back who got a lot of attention for threatening to burn the Koran? That happened about a mile from my house. That guy was a complete total nobody. He led a congregation of about 50 people, and made his living selling used furniture on eBay. He wasn't at all influential even locally here in town. Just a little crackpot total nobody.

But he knew how to play the media game. He supplied the media with the drama they crave, and worked it from the local media, to state, to national, to international. He went from local nobody to global somebody based on one simple trick, threatening to burn a book.

Terrorists do the very same thing. They provide drama to the media, and in return are rewarded with millions to billions of dollars worth of free advertising.

Trump is a realist. He knows how it works, and he works it.

And so the rational point of Trump bashing with those who already agree is.... what exactly? — Nuke

Is what I wrote on the Joe Biden thread nothing more than unfactual, or misinformed, "Trump bashing"? :mask:

The fact that there are no Trump voters here does not stop us from considering how we might productively engage them when we do encounter them. — Nuke

There are, as Michael pointed out, but the few hardcore ones of the kind you've been describing tend not to last long, and their motivations are dubious. That's my experience anyway.

You've been promoting the idea of reaching across the aisle to this 'tribe' but have yet to offer any good ideas about accomplishing this difficult task aside from validation, which, by the way, can come off as condescending.

It's a matter of realistically appreciating that little of significance can be accomplished without them. — Nuke

Actually, I think they only account for about 30-40% of Americans. Half the nation didn't vote in 2016.

You've been promoting the idea of reaching across the aisle to this 'tribe' but have yet to offer any good ideas about accomplishing this difficult task aside from validation, — praxis

If you want more ideas, why not get off your butt and share some?

Nobody has said that Trump is incapable of getting himself into the media limelight. Where his inability lies in having the ability to lead a myriad of people and organizations that compromise the federal state. The position is not the tweeter-in-chief, but the chief of the executive branch.

Showmen can be OK Presidents. Reagan was an actor, but then again, he did have been a governor of the largest state in the US, and before that had been the President of the Screen Actors Guild. Trump had a rich dad and many bankruptcies and nothing similar abilities to lead. Sure, he's the teflon entrepreneur that bounces back from failure after failure, but that really doesn't say anything about his leadership skills.

Which he hasn't got any.

Nobody has said that Trump is incapable of getting himself into the media limelight. Where his inability lies in having the ability to lead a myriad of people and organizations that compromise the federal state. — ssu

I completely agree. But saying it over and over and over again is unlikely to accomplish anything. The fact that we already know that, and keep doing it anyway, illustrates where Trump is smart. He knows we're not serious people, even if we don't. Trump is a realist, that's his gift.

Well said. Many former democrats and independents who voted for Obama have voted for Trump, myself included. This isn’t because we abandoned the left, but because the left abandoned us. Once our former political allies trended towards the illiberal and globalist, there was no home for us in that space.

If you want more ideas, why not get off your butt and share some? — Nuke

Cuz I'm not sitting on any.

have voted for Trump, myself included. — NOS4A2

I live in the capital of British Columbia, Canada. The rules here are not as hard elsewhere in the country.
— NOS4A2

Is there a point there?

So you lived in the US and then moved to Canada? I was just always surprised at your level of interest in US politics.

Really? It seemed pretty clear you were trying to point out a contradiction. So quoting those two separate posts was your way of...asking him if he moved to Canada from the US? Or just as a roundabout and non-sensical way of expressing surprise about his interest in US politics?
You expect anyone to believe that?

I was born in the US and I moved here in 2008. Canadian women can be quite convincing.

Trump is President because the Democratic Party has not only ignored it's traditional base, it seems to often enjoy insulting them. There is a regrettable passion among we lefties for snotty superiority poses which are often directed at the very people we need to be winning over. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comes to mind as a quick example. — Nuke

What is the democrats traditional base at this point? Studies suggest it's college-educated people, young people, women and minorities. Trump is president mostly because the Republicans have successfully used voter suppression to get a candidate with no majority support elected. Running against Hillary Clinton of course helped.

Also, I am pretty sure the democratic party employs strategists who know what voters to target better than we do.

1) Immigration - The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. Over the same period the population of Florida (where I live) has grown from 3 million to over 21 million, a seven fold increase. It's certainly reasonable for any citizen to question how much farther we wish to travel in that direction. Politicians on all sides have generally ignored such questions for decades and so, no surprise, large segments of the population are attracted to any national figure who won't ignore them. — Nuke

But the national figure they did gravitate to didn't offer any reasonable take on immigration. He instead pandered to fears and misconceptions. There is no reason to suspect that these voters could be won back with a nuanced take on immigration. The US already had fairly restrictive immigration policies prior to Trump.

2) Abortion - Many religious people held their nose and voted for Trump due to their concern about abortion. It's not unreasonable for them to have serious concerns about the mass killing of babies. Who's next, inconvenient old people like me? — Nuke

I don't think it's strategically viable for Democrats to appeal to the religious right. But even if it were, a more fundamental questions occurs: is politics about doing what is right, or doing what people want? To what extent is building a broader coalition worth encroaching on your principles?

I completely agree. But saying it over and over and over again is unlikely to accomplish anything. The fact that we already know that, and keep doing it anyway, illustrates where Trump is smart. He knows we're not serious people, even if we don't. Trump is a realist, that's his gift. — Nuke

Let's see how the elections will go. Biden has a lead.

Well, Trump isn't an existential threat to the US or it's constitution, he likely won't go get into a catastrophic war with China or do something really disastrous. The outcome is just that the executive branch doesn't work at it's best, the US is a bit more polarized and the US has lost a huge ground in international relations. How many thousands more of Americans died because of Trump lagged in the pandemic response, who knows. Questions like those cannot be answered.

The world is getting to be basically more multipolar and the Pax Americana after the Cold War is over. Trump is just increasing the tempo of the US withdrawal from the Superpower status. You can see for example from the Libyan civil war that allies of the US are backing up different sides. That would be totally unthinkable during the Cold War, but the doesn't care about it's alliances or that's it's basically starting to resemble pre-20th Century politics. Now many American's argue that is a great thing. Well, one Superpower leaving it's place creates a vacuum. And this we are seeing all around.

What is the democrats traditional base at this point? Studies suggest it's college-educated people, young people, women and minorities. — Echarmion

For decades that included the working man. Democrats largely abandoned those folks, so they found a new home. That's not Trump's fault, that's our fault.

Many former democrats and independents who voted for Obama have voted for Trump, myself included. This isn’t because we abandoned the left, but because the left abandoned us. Once our former political allies trended towards the illiberal and globalist, there was no home for us in that space. — NOS4A2

There you go, that's it. Thanks for saying it better than I could.

It's not just policies, it's culture too. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment sums up the snotty superior mindset of so much of leftie culture pretty well. We need to face that attitude squarely and do something about it.

"Many former democrats and independents who voted for Obama have voted for Trump, myself included." NOS

I was born in the US and I moved here in 2008. — NOS4A2

How did he vote for Trump in 2016? No ad hom here.

I don't think it's strategically viable for Democrats to appeal to the religious right. But even if it were, a more fundamental questions occurs: is politics about doing what is right, or doing what people want? To what extent is building a broader coalition worth encroaching on your principles? — Echarmion

This is a good question. I'm not asking any Democrat to give up their principles. I'm suggesting we dial down the tribalism and show those with different views more respect. You know, the urban leftie mindset which thinks of rural citizens as country bumpkin bozo yahoos. Stuff like that has to go.

I tried to offer some examples, and would encourage members to think of more. We don't have to agree with Trump's immigration policies to acknowledge that being concerned about immigration and population is a reasonable concern. Same for abortion. Same for guns. Same for religious freedom. What else? What am I missing?

Also, I am pretty sure the democratic party employs strategists who know what voters to target better than we do. — Echarmion

Then why did they lose the last election to a comic book character who boasts about assaulting women? Why were all the Democratic candidates in 2020 second rate figures who don't even know that a Presidential candidate should have something useful to say about nuclear weapons? Why did Bernie and Warren not grasp that "all angry all the time" is a recipe for failure, as has now been proven?

I don't share your confidence obviously.

In a way Trump supporters are like supporters of Hugo Chavez... and those that support the present Venezuelan government still.

What got them to vote for the guy, who tried several times a coup but then got elected in 1998, was their disappointment in the earlier government. It had left many lower middle class people falling in hard times. Afterwards Venezuela has been a trainwreck, but why then do they still support their "revolution"?

The real success has been what Trump is trying to do in the US: division and polarization at such level that there's no turning back. Chavez was a master in this. Populism was the basic ingredient of Chavez: every failure was because of the evil imperialists and their evil henchmen inside the country. And some people believe it. That absolutely catastrophic socialist experiment and totally reckless policies don't matter. The supporters have alienated themselves so much that they have as their only option to support the government (or if matters are inbearable, move away). But admitting the policy failure isn't something they are willing to do.