If Donald Trump is a metaphor for something, what is that something? I mean to you, — frank

Good question.

I would say Trump is a metaphor for Enfant terrible, but in an American context.

Is that bad or good?

Jacques Chevrier emphasizes the singularity of such "terrible children" in West Africa culture, despite what the phrase "enfant terrible" can evoke among European readers.[1] He explores the fact how initially the enfant terrible although seen as a destructive and malevolent figure can often become the savior.[1] This paradox is explained by the fact that the enfant terrible are from the non-human or divine world and that their actions, no matter how absurd, must be interpreted as signs of superior knowledge.[2] — Wikipedia on enfant terrible

What I always understood enfant terrible as this: One whose startlingly unconventional behavior, work, or thought embarrasses or disturbs others.

It is up to each of us to interpret whether it is good or bad. :smile:

It is up to each of us to interpret whether it is good or bad. — javi2541997

It's like the Fool. Ambiguous and possibly holy.

Let's see how long it will take for the gullible voters to realize that Trump doesn't give a shit about them. — Christoffer

I doubt many Trump voters actually count on Trump doing anything for them. Because the worldview of these people is typically rugged individualism. I surmise they see Trump as a role model, as a type of person they themselves aspire to be. They don't see him as a father figure or someone who will help them, they despise such figures.

Latino sexism maybe. — frank

This is hte kind of comment that gets a scoff and a 'piss off' from me, sorry mate.

This is hte kind of comment that gets a scoff and a 'piss off' from me, sorry mate — AmadeusD

Oh no. I'm deeply wounded now. :groan:

Cool.

:up:

I was very surprised so many women would swallow the insults from Trump/Vance and vote for the pro-life sexual predator. If Harris had talked about protecting men whether they like it or not and bragged about grabbing dick, she would have gotten about 0% of the male vote.

Here's a good take on the failures of the democrats.



As mentioned, the biggest problem with the democrats is catering to right wing voters just granting them a miniscule increase in voters, rather than forming a strong left narrative around things that a majority actually wants.

Most usually just talk about Trump and his people being stupid, but when it comes to marketing and forming a cohesive and strong marketing narrative to campaign on, the democrats are fucking amateurs.

The democratic party needs a total changeover. Take these four years and get rid of the centrist stupid people, find a candidate who's charismatic and gathered around just basic left leaning politics in economy and welfare. Produce a STRONG narrative in marketing with slogans that are quotable and that resonate with the voters who don't understand policy or politics in general.

It's like, minor parts of the democratic party that agree with this should just do a hostile takeover and put all the old demented idiots in retirement homes... except for Bernie. :sweat:

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today released the following statement in response to the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

The rest of us need to look at this result with humility. American voters are not always wise, but they are generally sensible, and they have something to teach us. My initial thought is that I have to re-examine my own priors. I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.

— David Brooks

Gee thanks David. Glad you’re realizing this NOW.

Him, Bret Stephens, and the rest of the anti-Bernie crowd can just shut up now.

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today released the following statement in response to the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. — Banno

Watch the video I posted, he references it.

:up:

The rest of us need to look at this result with humility. American voters are not always wise, but they are generally sensible, and they have something to teach us. My initial thought is that I have to re-examine my own priors. I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.

— David Brooks

Gee thanks David. Glad you’re realizing this NOW.

Him, Bret Stephens, and the rest of the anti-Bernie crowd can just shut up now. — Mikie

:up:

Imho populism + sexism also among Democratic voters = Trump defeats Harris: in 2016 Hillary received 66m votes and 2020 Joe received 81m votes (W) and 2024 Kamala received 68m votes. Apparently, regardless of candidate quality, we 21st century Americans prefer a lawless president / "dictator" (tyranny) to a woman president (liberty). :confused:

I think the crucial, and depressing, point is that the voters don’t think it matters, and/or they don’t believe these things about Trump. Polls show even disapproval of the Jan 6th outrage became muted over the intervening years. The point is, it has been clear from day 1 that many people swallow Trump’s lies wholesale, which is why he puts so much effort into denigrating the media. Fox audiences believe Trump over the NY TImes and WaPo. If the electorate mainly comprised those readers Trump would have been walloped.

We had some people here (in the Philosophy Forum) who argued that only stupids can vote for Donald Trump. I told them that though I am an immigrant myself, I would never call stupid someone who voted for him.

Nonetheless, you don't need to be enthusiastic about the future. I mean, Donald Trump and his voters have my respect right now, but I doubt that this country is going to get any better.

My problem with the democrats are not big spending and high taxes. My problem with them is that they use this money in order to divide families (when you promise 1.7 trillion US dollars to single mothers, in order to buy groceries, is like you are encouraging women to get divorce and their children to be cared by the government), make young people less productive (cause truth be told if someone asks me why I never married I would tell her/him that in the years when I was more fertile like a man, I was looking to get my PHD, instead of making some kids), help out corporations, enable genocides and civil wars, and so on.

Four years with Trump, if we are really lucky, we might see less wars, but there's nothing revolutionary in him. The guy is still promising people cheaper oil & coal (because this is what his friends want him to do in the 21st century, when countries like China and South Korea are leading the total electrification of a new fusion-energy-oriented world), and I am wondering what will happen when his friends in the farming and various industries tell him that with 20 million illegals being deported some of these businesses and industries may collapse. I mean the guy may build a wall and have his ICE officers look tough in front of the cameras, but he won't stop the diversification of this country (which will make USA, UK and Western Europe look like the Balkans or Brazil for centuries to come), he always will have an ear for his rich friends, and he won't transform news outlets, social media, schools, corporations, the judiciary, etc.

In the best case scenario, you will have less wars in the four next years and a big, beautiful wall in the border with Mexico, but you shouldn't expect anything else to change in this country. Inequalities will keep rising, media outlets and social media will keep brainwashing the youth, higher education will make US population older (like is already doing in Europe, where Italians are the nation with the most diplomas and with the less kids), the judiciary will be controlled by the two major parties, our planet will become warmer, dirtier and less habitable year by year.

Elections make many Americans feel better (through releasing some of the anger they have been experiencing), but nothing will get better till we see a real/big revolution in this country and/or in the world. MAGA is not a revolution. MAGA is just a trend to release anger and keep life going on, till the day when the real problems will become irresolvable and will hit all of us in the face.

The democratic party needs a total changeover. Take these four years and get rid of the centrist stupid people, find a candidate who's charismatic and gathered around just basic left leaning politics in economy and welfare. Produce a STRONG narrative in marketing with slogans that are quotable and that resonate with the voters who don't understand policy or politics in general. — Christoffer

Also ditch all the social stuff while you're at it. Nobody cares about identity politics or whether someone says mean words.

The solution isn't that hard, it really isn't. However I worry that the problem isn't that the Dems are incompetent but that they're incompetent by design. It's not like there weren't opportunities these past few election cycles, but the party always made sure that the candidate that was nominated was the candidate that wouldn't rock the boat. Maybe they'll let the party decide next time, though to be honest I'm hoping for more of a dark horse candidate like Obama than some of the obvious options on the table like Newsom.

Yikes.

We had some people here (in the Philosophy Forum) who argued that only stupids can vote for Donald Trump. I told them that though I am an immigrant myself, I would never call stupid someone who voted for him. — Eros1982

The U.S. elections seemed to be an IQ test, and look at the results. Now it depends on the way each of us sees it. Are we entitled to call more than 73 million voters crackpots? There are more voters for Trump than citizens in my country.

Within those 73 million voters, there are women, Latinos, and probably LGTBQ too. What if those voted against Kamala because of a sexist bias? 

Latinos are very sexist; that's 100% accurate. 

I see that feminism is not strong enough as it is in Europe.

I will not understand if Trump obtained some LGTBIQ votes. That would be reckless and crazy, but are they stupid? No, I don't think so.

The solution isn't that hard, it really isn't. However I worry that the problem isn't that the Dems are incompetent but that they're incompetent by design. It's not like there weren't opportunities these past few election cycles, but the party always made sure that the candidate that was nominated was the candidate that wouldn't rock the boat. — Mr Bee

The parties are in disarray. 2016 saw two populists make waves, Trump and Sanders. If I recall, when Sanders was checked by the powers of the DNC, 4/10 Sanders voters moved to Trump. Of the two populist hijackings of 2016, one worked and one didn't, and the effects were predictable. The Democrats paid a price in votes and palatable candidates, and the Republicans paid a price in policy. There is pressure to reshape the two parties. For the Republicans the reshaping is already well underway; for the Democrats it looks inevitable.

But Trump moderated the conservatism of the Republicans and he now holds the center. So I don't agree that "the solution isn't hard" for the Democrats. Concede to Trump and adopt the same core positions? Move left and abandon the center? Oddly, the Democrats find themselves in a strange pickle just 8 years after Obama left office. Their only grievous mistake was running Clinton in 2016.* I don't think they would've won the election any other way in 2020, given Sanders' head start. (Cue the Bernie Bros' protestations...)

* And perhaps letting Sanders run as a Democrat in 2020. But they did not want to risk him running as an independent.

What if it’s just because Harris sucked as a candidate, was never voted on to be the nominee, ran towards the right and away from Bernie, couldn’t talk without a teleprompter and endless coaching, and had no vision or policy to offer other than a pathetic “$25 thousand down payment” for homebuyers and that she wasn’t Donald Trump.

Now she, like Hillary, can also fuck off forever. Along with Biden.

But Trump moderated the conservatism of the Republicans and he now holds the center. — Leontiskos

I disagree that Trump has moderated alot of his positions. In fact he seems to be moving to the extremes on issues like immigration (where he wants mass deportations) and trade (where he wants to impose a global tariff on all goods). The only area where he's moderated is on abortion and social security but apart from that he's a standard Republican and governed like one in his first term.

Concede to Trump and adopt the same core positions? — Leontiskos

The Democrat platform isn't the problem since it remains popular (while Trump's ironically enough isn't) but Democrats aren't able to sell it as well as Trump is able to sell himself which goes back to the main problem I see for Democrats.

Last I checked Harris in the closing stretch of the election avoided going into any policy specifics while using the same old "Trump bad" line of attack that's been used since 2016. It's not surprising why she lost.

I suppose if I were to look on the bright side of things it's better off for the Democrats that Trump won this time since they were in major need of rebranding anyways. Even if Harris won, I would imagine she'd be a mediocre president who wouldn't accomplish anything and likely lose reelection putting the party in the same spot in 4 years. Losing to Trump twice after barely eeking out a win in 2020 when they ran their "safe" candidate should be a clear sign that what they're doing isn't working. Also puts them in a good position if Trump inevitably screws things up now that he's in power again.

It is true that Kamala's nomination was awful, and everything happened very fast. But it was that, or continuing with Biden, and the result would have been even worse, honestly.

I think it is important to do self-criticism, but on the other hand, I think we should look at what the people really have as values. They voted against a system. Donald Trump is charged with multiple felonies, but surprisingly, people decided to believe that the problem is the judiciary system and not him. Let's see what happens in the next four years. Time passed by more quickly than we thought. But, in my opinion, the key would be to switch the mindset of the people and help them to believe and respect the system again.

Sounds about right.

Though, what meaningful change could have been expected from an establishment candidate?

The US establishment has grown so problematic that its interests run diametrically opposed to anything that could be seen as meaningful change.

Let's hope this is the final nail on their coffin, but after four years of Orange Doofus I'm sure Frankenstein's monster will rise again.

Kamala is no deal. She made Trump look genius.

Speaking for myself, I didn't bother to vote Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, but I would love to vote Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren and maybe Ocazio-Cortez.

However, I agree with you on that sexism does play a big role. Telling from UK, Germany, Israel, and Italy, there's only one path for women to lead countries: they need to be (very) conservative women.

It seems that men need to see a mother model when they vote. This is why conservative women have more chances to get the male vote, than the liberal ones. So, either Ivanka or Tulsi might become our first female president :rofl:

This is why conservative women have more chances to get the male vote, — Eros1982

Like Margaret Thatcher, yea. I've long thought that the first female president would be a Republican, but I thought Harris would prove me wrong.

It seems that men need to see a mother model when they vote. — Eros1982

I couldn't have said it better. :up:

I detect curious amounts of resentment towards men in the comments. :chin:

Gee, I wonder why people don't vote for that.