|
Trabisnikof posted:I think if you put Trump, Ryan, McConnell and 3 random Trump voter in a room you'd get 8 different ideologies. You don't get that when you put a bunch of radical leftists together? However, they will all agree on a few key points, albeit phrased slightly differently: 1) More money for me, gently caress you 2) White power and male dominance 3) Power through strength The last is the most important but it fuels the other two (i.e. money begets power which allows for displays of strength, white and male privilege provide avenues for power and displays of strength).
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think if you put Trump, Ryan, McConnell and 3 random Trump voter in a room you'd get 8 different ideologies. The old politics where 'prominent' Demos and Republicans go on the news shows and say stern things about the other sides policy proposals, then all laugh about it at the fundraisers as they cash checks from the same Wall Street companies, is dead as gently caress. There will be more bodies in 2018 and the greatest hope for America now is that the left embraces this same ideological purity because then we might do crazy poo poo like pass single payer healthcare. cheese fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
So here's an essay from a few years ago that I've just run across http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11299 I think the one take away is how Neo- Liberalism has redefined talking about Class issues as meaning you don't care about social issues. This was 4 years ago and we saw it brought to a crescendo this past election. It's always been a false dichotomy that has been foisted upon us by the Liberals pay masters. The divide had always been between the people fighting for the rights of the working class and oppressed minorities and the people like Schumer and Clinton who have forced this wedge so that they can appeal to be socially conscious while doubling down on the retrenchment of the capital class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK let's see your numbers on how many Bernie supporters voted for Hillary. You do have those right, this isn't just speculation to support your narrative. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/about-a-third-of-bernie-sanders-supporters-still-arent-backing-hillary-clinton/ These polls were contemporaneous with the 90% survey, there's quite a range. quote:Obama-to-Trump voters existed, union turnout was down for Democrats, union leaders were warning Hillary's campaign that their members were pro-Trump, and Trump won rural counties that haven't voted Republican in 100 years. The neoliberal narrative is that those people are all just fiscally conservative and if the Democrats scoot more to the right, and give more tax cuts and blow jobs to Wall Street, and nominate pro-choice Governor Romney then they'll get all the votes. I don't know what a neoliberal is and I'm certainly not defending that strawman narrative. quote:But you know who did worse in those critical rust belt states than Trump. Mitt fuckin' Romney. Trump broke with fiscal conservatism in important ways: he promised protectionism, he promised regulation and tariffs, he promised universal health care that would "take care of everybody" and shrugged off Ted Cruz when Cruz called him a socialist for it, and he promised to get rid of the loopholes in the tax code that benefit the rich. The Republicans running on nothing but tax cuts and deregulation went down in flames to an orange idiot even among Republican voters. At the debates he bashed Hillary Clinton from the left on carried interest and blamed her for not fixing it. quote:People want government regulation that they think helps them. Trump promised to do that. It's more likely that Obama-to-Trump voters just don't care about more environmental regulation and Dodd-Frank at all, they were fine with Obama doing that as long as he promised to use the government to help them, and then they voted for Trump who promised to use the government to help them. Trump said he would tax the gently caress out of the companies screwing them over with offshoring and stick it to the elites. quote:lmao yeah the Democrats have been doing this poo poo since Carter, that proves it's working out fine, just look at notable electorally successful fiscal conservative President Jimmy fuckin Carter Yes, Carter's fiscal policy was poo poo. Indeed, it was so poo poo that Bill Clinton's looks positively progressive when you compare them. And Obama looks like Eugene Debs. And Hillary ran to Obama's left. Carter was the nadir of fiscal conservatism among democratic presidents. That doesn't mean all democrats forevermore are immune from critisism. But it does mean that your narrative is counter-intuitive; why would democrats choose 2016 to jump ship, and not 2008, or 1992? We've been moving left consistently ever since. Did rust belt union guys all get a psychic signal that after 40 years incremental progress wasn't enough? Trump's protectionism makes more sense (but democrats are more free trade than any time in recent memory, so that's not a really satisfying answer, either). Trump's racist fearmongering seems more plausible. quote:I'm sure that's just because Ted Kennedy stabbed him in the back and depressed the left by pointing out the things Carter did wrong yeah? Carter was just a bad campaigner, let's nominate his VP and change absolutely nothing. Oh poo poo, a leftist insurgency kept the anointed successor from locking up the convention, lucky we have superdelegates to push him over the top. Got a new messenger, same message, let's get a lady VP in here because women vote with their vaginas and boom we'll walk right into the white house without having to change a thing. Mondale secured the most pledged delegates, superdelegates could have taken the win away from him, but didn't. Mondale also ran to Carter's left and promised to raise taxes and help the poor, shockingly this did not defeat Ronald Reagan. quote:"We've been doing it since Carter so it can't be a problem" lmao you can't make this poo poo up. Then how can you explain Clinton and Obama's massive victories and two terms each if you think Democrats have all been the same since 1976? The pattern just isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Someone can't even bring themselves to be original with these goofy titles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
The only way Hillary runs to the left is if she sees a union worker coming from the right
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know what a neoliberal is and I'm certainly not defending that strawman narrative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Meh, I don't know. Schumer is at least acting like he perceives a threat from the left. Booker did a thing too, apparently. Surprisingly Warren seems to be mostly talk, so far anyway unless I've missed something. Warren's been doing a pretty good job of excoriating Trump's nominees so far IMO. Her one misstep, as far as I can see, was voting for Carson, and that was a comparatively minor one. cheese posted:You are unaware of the broad, dominant cross party economic ideology of the last 30 years? Makes it hard to take you seriously when you write things like "Carter made Obama look like Eugene Debs". Tbf, the boundaries of the "neoliberal" definition do seem to vary between posters here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Tbf, the boundaries of the "neoliberal" definition do seem to vary between posters here. Tbf, no one is saying this isn't the case. That doesn't mean that the term is completely without meaning. Nor does it mean that JC can deflect criticism of his worldview by pretending said worldview doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Tbf, no one is saying this isn't the case. That doesn't mean that the term is completely without meaning. Nor does it mean that JC can deflect criticism of his worldview by pretending said worldview doesn't exist. True, no arguments there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
cheese posted:You are unaware of the broad, dominant cross party economic ideology of the last 30 years? Makes it hard to take you seriously when you write things like "Carter made Obama look like Eugene Debs". If neoliberalism means "free trade and balanced budgets", then every Democratic president since FDR was a neoliberal. Carter was a hardcore fiscal conservative, much more so than Obama, and he pissed away universal healthcare and guaranteed public employment due to a mixture of incompetence and budget hawkishness. If those facts are blowing your mind, maybe the narrative you've constructed is false? readingatwork posted:Tbf, no one is saying this isn't the case. That doesn't mean that the term is completely without meaning. Nor does it mean that JC can deflect criticism of his worldview by pretending said worldview doesn't exist. It's a term that certainly has a meaning in economics, but it doesn't describe my economic worldview. It's a strawman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If neoliberalism means "free trade and balanced budgets", then every Democratic president since FDR was a neoliberal. Carter was a hardcore fiscal conservative, much more so than Obama, and he pissed away universal healthcare and guaranteed public employment due to a mixture of incompetence and budget hawkishness. If those facts are blowing your mind, maybe the narrative you've constructed is false? Should taxes return to their historical rates of 90% or more? Should essential industries such as the energy industry be nationalized?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
I support higher taxes, I think 90% is probably past the revenue-maximizing point but effective tax rates were never that high anyway. I'd support nationalizing industries on a case by case basis, but I think well regulated markets usually do a good job delivering goods and services. Like nationalized nuclear power plants makes sense to me but why nationalize wind and solar?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I support higher taxes, I think 90% is probably past the revenue-maximizing point but effective tax rates were never that high anyway. same reason a lot of poo poo should be nationalized: scale, consistency, and fairness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
i don't think we even need to go as far as full scale nationalization, but making things like internet a utility and subsidizing nationwide wifi would be an excellent step in the right direction
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I support higher taxes, I think 90% is probably past the revenue-maximizing point but effective tax rates were never that high anyway. Of course it was at 90% http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
At the very least, I support a public option in a lot more places. Health insurance, broadband internet, banking, maybe even car insurance who knows
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i don't think we even need to go as far as full scale nationalization, but making things like internet a utility and subsidizing nationwide wifi would be an excellent step in the right direction Public utilities ought to be the norm rather than the rare exception, because the cost of extending rural infrastructure is too much for the private sector to handle in a non-discriminatory manner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:same reason a lot of poo poo should be nationalized: scale, consistency, and fairness. Also affordability. You save a lot of money when you don't have to pay shareholders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Of course it was at 90% He said effective; the actual net tax rates paid didn't come out to that high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/about-a-third-of-bernie-sanders-supporters-still-arent-backing-hillary-clinton/ OK so you're cherry-picking the surveys you like to support your narrative and ignoring the others, while complaining everyone else's argument isn't "evidence-based" like yours. Cool. JeffersonClay posted:I don't know what a neoliberal is and I'm certainly not defending that strawman narrative. JeffersonClay posted:Trump promised tax cuts, privatization, and rolling back regulations. If voters thought these policies would help them, that's not consistent with more leftism being the solution to winning their votes. Trump promised to massively cut corporate taxes! If this argument is correct that tax cuts, privatization, and deregulation were what these voters wanted most, Romney would have won. He didn't. JeffersonClay posted:He also wasn't hesitant at all to blame lazy brown people for taking their jobs and killing their children with heroin and drunk driving. Trump was also a completely standard republican in regards to tax cuts and deregulation. Now you're contradicting yourself with a different argument that jobs is what these voters wanted most. If this is correct, then there is no need to run to the center on tax cuts, privatization, and deregulation, you can just promise the jobs. JeffersonClay posted:This narrative you guys are trying to construct where protectionism means that Trump wasn't a bog standard republican on deregulation is ludicrous. JeffersonClay posted:Yes, Carter's fiscal policy was poo poo. Indeed, it was so poo poo that Bill Clinton's looks positively progressive when you compare them. And Obama looks like Eugene Debs. And Hillary ran to Obama's left. Carter was the nadir of fiscal conservatism among democratic presidents. That doesn't mean all democrats forevermore are immune from critisism. But it does mean that your narrative is counter-intuitive; why would democrats choose 2016 to jump ship, and not 2008, or 1992? We've been moving left consistently ever since. Worth noting that despite running to the left, Obama immediately started breaking promises and lying that he never made promises like the public option, and did worse in the next election and got annihilated in the midterms, so maybe it's moving to the center and breaking promises that's electoral poison and not running a leftist campaign. So running yet a third campaign on "four more years (of lying on the campaign trail and breaking promises in office)" is probably a bad idea. JeffersonClay posted:Did rust belt union guys all get a psychic signal that after 40 years incremental progress wasn't enough? Trump's protectionism makes more sense (but democrats are more free trade than any time in recent memory, so that's not a really satisfying answer, either). Trump's racist fearmongering seems more plausible. If true, then moving to the center on economic issues will not win back these voters because they want the racism. Well, really they want what you said: " their jobs" and to stop seeing their children die "from heroin and drunk driving" and they hope putting the boot on immigrants will achieve it. Since Democrats can't embrace the racism and keep their coalition, it would make more sense to promise these voters "their jobs" and a good life for their children. Probably a better plan than going on the campaign trail aping Republicans' hagiography around Ronald Reagan and comparing yourself to him, the Ronald Reagan whose presidency created the term "Rust Belt". JeffersonClay posted:Mondale also ran to Carter's left and promised to raise taxes and help the poor, shockingly this did not defeat Ronald Reagan. And again, you're accidentally destroying your own point here because you also said Bill Clinton ran to the left of Mondale and won, so that would support the conclusion that Mondale's problem was not running far enough to Carter's left. JeffersonClay posted:Then how can you explain Clinton and Obama's massive victories and two terms each if you think Democrats have all been the same since 1976? The pattern just isn't there. Actually I don't know what point you're trying to make about history because you also claimed that Obama is to the left of Johnson and FDR because look how big the nondiscretionary budget was under him. But of course that same argument applies to Carter (and incidentally, George W Bush), and you also called Carter a "lovely centrist compromiser" so your historical narrative does a 180 every time you try to make another point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Also affordability. You save a lot of money when you don't have to pay shareholders. Fairness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Trump promised tax cuts, privatization, and rolling back regulations. If voters thought these policies would help them, that's not consistent with more leftism being the solution to winning their votes. Trump promised to massively cut corporate taxes! It's not the taxation and regulation part of fiscal issues that makes Trump different, most people like that part after all, it's the spending part. Most people like the idea of cutting income taxes and are ambivalent about cutting corporate taxes. The unpopular part is the Paul Ryan strategy of spending cuts and gutting Social Security and Medicare, that's the part that Trump explicitly campaigned against.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Trump proposed to cut income taxes BOTH on the top end and the bottom end (he wanted a $20,000+ minimum deduction). Basically, he proposed to cut taxes for both the working class/lower middle class and the rich at the same time. Also, he made up a story about "tax amnesties" making up the difference the for corporate tax cuts. He also was very coy about minimum wages and health care, literally contradicting himself every other week. Ultimately, he worked hard to create the illusion of sort form of economic populism, I think fair to say at this point it was almost entirely a lie but it was clear what he was doing. In all honesty, I think people just want their lives to get better (at least the lean voters) and will listen to anyone who creates any narrative that gives them some hope in the matter. Look at Obamacare for example, I don't think the problem at least some people have with it is the fact it covers pre-existing conditions or gives subsidizes but the fact that the choices for plans is very low in some states/there are no control of premium increases. The subsidizes make it better but it is often barely affordable (if not worse). Trump hammered the Democrats on this even though people who follow politics constantly know he was lying. The Democrats didn't even need to go as far as Sanders but they needed a plan to give some people hope. Also, yeah a 90% tax bracket probably isn't that workable just because of the tax avoidance that is going to happen, which is far easier now that it was in the 1950s. You might be able to get up into the 50-55% range and you would also need to double the funding of the IRS. Sweden right now has a 56% top bracket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's not the taxation and regulation part of fiscal issues that makes Trump different, most people like that part after all, it's the spending part. Most people like the idea of cutting income taxes and are ambivalent about cutting corporate taxes. The unpopular part is the Paul Ryan strategy of spending cuts and gutting Social Security and Medicare, that's the part that Trump explicitly campaigned against. Yeah people (ignorantly) voting Trump to support populism is something I can understand. Everyone to the left of McCain predicted and called out Trumps past and impending hypocrisies, but he hammered in the protectionist rhetoric so strongly that people didn't care, they don't trust politicians anyways, and the right doesn't trust media outside their crazy bubble. What I can't fully understand is how Republicans have survived the last three decades. I understand the courted racists, jingoism fueled by an extensive propaganda machine in the form of RWM, and just plain tradition keeping their voters showing up to the polls. However, they haven't done anything positive in the last few decades that I can think of. They haven't helped any Americans with the exception of the ultra wealthy. I've been wracking my brain and I cannot think of a single positive thing Republicans have done on a national level in recent memory. Disastrous foreign policy, monstrous social policy, and domestic policy that has objectively hurt Americans and their economic opportunities. Iraq war I and II, repeatedly trying to gut social security and Medicare, among other popular and helpful programs. Crony capitalism gone wild. Debt ceiling assfuckery, obstruction of the courts, voter suppression, and deregulation that has directly lead to Americans dying from irresponsible corporations. They even try to gently caress over our veterans. They do all of this and more and do it while whining like babies and being obtuse. How have people not abandoned the party in droves? Why do they get any media coverage that isn't framing how lovely they are? Seriously I fee like this narrative needs to be at the forefront of the next election. What have they done to help America? Nothing, and we need that idea to take hold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Yeah people (ignorantly) voting Trump to support populism is something I can understand. Everyone to the left of McCain predicted and called out Trumps past and impending hypocrisies, but he hammered in the protectionist rhetoric so strongly that people didn't care, they don't trust politicians anyways, and the right doesn't trust media outside their crazy bubble. The Reagan years are remembered extremely fondly and whether you liked it or not forged a new consensus in the country White people identity politics and channeling of anger towards coastal liberal elites who looks down on flyover country (kinda hit a boiling point in 2016) Far greater ideological flexibility than the left: if you think about it the GOP ran very different candidates in 3 electoral cycles: In 2008 it was compassionate conservative a bit to the left of GWB Ok that didn't work so in 2012 they tried tea-party style economics candidate with a libertarianish economic message Ok that didn't work so in 2016 they ran nationalist protectionist populist strongman Whoa that worked I think the only time the Democrats have shown comparable flexibility was 1992 Meanwhile in 2020 the Democrats are prob gonna run some predictable blend of center-left politics which the Republicans will rip apart
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:What I can't fully understand is how Republicans have survived the last three decades. I understand the courted racists, jingoism fueled by an extensive propaganda machine in the form of RWM, and just plain tradition keeping their voters showing up to the polls. Ingroup tribalism is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Yeah people (ignorantly) voting Trump to support populism is something I can understand. Everyone to the left of McCain predicted and called out Trumps past and impending hypocrisies, but he hammered in the protectionist rhetoric so strongly that people didn't care, they don't trust politicians anyways, and the right doesn't trust media outside their crazy bubble. They did abandon it -- for Trumpian populism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:They did abandon it -- for Trumpian populism. The people who put Trump into office (as oppose to the nom) did it reluctantly because they thought if they didn't vote Trump a literal criminal was going to become POTUS this turned out to be referendum on Hillary more than Trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:The Reagan years are remembered extremely fondly and whether you liked it or not forged a new consensus in the country Even though Reagan was poo poo, he's remembered fondly and I factored that in. That was basically the cutoff point of 30 years (28, but whatever that's basically three decades). I think my heart just has trouble accepting that so, so many of my neighbors and fellow Americans could be so terrible. Hieronymous Alloy posted:They did abandon it -- for Trumpian populism. Except "they" didn't abandon them at all. All the downticket Republicans were the same chucklefucks that always mess things up. And Trump then, predictably, chose the same old guard, terrible appointments and will gleefully fulfill RNCs wet dreams on corporate and tax policies. I think we need to pressure our representatives and the media to endlessly call out the Republicans in their entirety for being obstructionist assholes that are actively ruining America and are hell bent on crushing the American Dream (tm). In addition to nurturing future national leaders, we should make this a point of attack on Republicans. It's a smear campaign without being petty and avoiding divisive social issues like abortion. Ask every Republican why no legislation they passed has been good for America? Why do all your policies end up hurting working Americans? Why do you hate taking care of veterans? Why do you want to allow companies to poison our children? Hammer them on their continuous shittiness until it becomes accepted fact, just keep repeating it over and over until it sticks. This tactic works for the right, it can work from the left too, especially when it is actually true. If we repeat it enough people become ingrained with the idea, and maybe start distancing themselves from the rapidly growing dumpster fire that is the Republican Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Ask every Republican why no legislation they passed has been good for America? Why do all your policies end up hurting working Americans? Why do you hate taking care of veterans? Why do you want to allow companies to poison our children? These questions could just as well be directed towards democrats the last couple of decades... I mean one big ticket item why Hillary lost was her technocratic attitudes and her steadfast commitment to the status quo. RasperFat posted:This tactic works for the right, it can work from the left too, especially when it is actually true. If we repeat it enough people become ingrained with the idea, and maybe start distancing themselves from the rapidly growing dumpster fire that is the Republican Party. Trump had rhetoric on his side, yes, but many of his actual policies were unthinkable even among his own party ( binning TTIP, the reevaluation of NAFTA, standing up to China) and their radical nature made him extremely popular (as well as his own party sidelining him, effectively him an outsider, a rebel, a eccentric strongman rather then the dopey Cheeto puff he is). VitalSigns posted:If true, then moving to the center on economic issues will not win back these voters because they want the racism. Well, really they want what you said: " their jobs" and to stop seeing their children die "from heroin and drunk driving" and they hope putting the boot on immigrants will achieve it. Since Democrats can't embrace the racism and keep their coalition, it would make more sense to promise these voters "their jobs" and a good life for their children. If the voters see their actions as being in their economic self interest, they will never accept that their actions are racially discriminatory. If they are convinced that stopping immigration will help them economically and will benefit their community, even if it hurts the immigrants, then that's a "trade off" level decision in their minds. No amount of moralization can convince them otherwise. You can't win against a populist with anti racial arguments. You can win on an economic level. If you argue too them that most of these racial policies are totally are counterproductive while giving your own economic policies that will actually benefit them (say tariffs on manufactured goods to promote industry, universal coverage of healthcare, increasing corporate taxes and putting the money as a small basic income etc). That being said, calling out Trump on being a racist is good. He is one. You just gotta follow it up with something tangible, policies that address the underlying concerns of the citizens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Even though Reagan was poo poo, he's remembered fondly and I factored that in. That was basically the cutoff point of 30 years (28, but whatever that's basically three decades). It might have started earlier during the second energy crisis during the Carter years. High inflation due to soaring oil prices and a largely ineffectual Democratic president led to a considerable up swell of anger towards the Democrats, which Reagan took advantage of and we have been paying for it since. Ultimately, Carter couldn't control OPEC (much less the Saudis) but he didn't make it easy on himself. Also, Carter was generally much more of a centrist than people remember him for (and if anything he went much farther to the left when he left office). Basically, Republicans do very well when Democrats really gently caress up and/or the planets align during an economic crisis. Al Gore was given a pretty plum opportunity and blew it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
There are two reasons people vote republican. The first is that there's a lot of propaganda and bad info out there that makes sense if you don't think about it too hard. The second is that conservatives actually have a good point on a couple issues, and these issues tend to be things that hit fairly close to home for certain people (free trade for example). It doesn't matter if you're right about 90% of the issues when that 10% is the difference between a voter feeding their family or not. Also it's worth mentioning that most Republicans realize that their party hates them and is not at all representative. That's why the Tea Party caught on in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
I'm confused, you say conservatives vote Republican because they like free trade, yet they elected Trump?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I'm confused, you say conservatives vote Republican because they like free trade, yet they elected Trump? No because they don't like it. Sorry should have been clearer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Americans are slowly wisening up to the fact that they've been getting served poo poo sandwiches by Democrats and Republicans for 40+ years. They don't know exactly who to blame(introspection is not possible) so the establishment is going to deflect the blame to immigrants, poors or whatever other group they can find to keep their own neck from getting put under the guillotine. They'll probably get another decade or two of this working because we've still got globalist shitheads everywhere defending their actions like their life depended on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:What I can't fully understand is how Republicans have survived the last three decades. I understand the courted racists, jingoism fueled by an extensive propaganda machine in the form of RWM, and just plain tradition keeping their voters showing up to the polls. The RWM machine didn't just court poo poo heads. It is creating new ones by the thousands. I laugh at anyone who thinks the hard right will just die of old age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:The RWM machine didn't just court poo poo heads. It is creating new ones by the thousands. I laugh at anyone who thinks the hard right will just die of old age. They will, old age will just get younger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:No because they don't like it. Sorry should have been clearer. I see. Bit ambiguous because they are the party of free trade generally speaking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Mozi posted:I see. Bit ambiguous because they are the party of free trade generally speaking. This is the problem they face and what Democrats can capitalize on(hahaha they won't). Any meaningful economic improvements for Americans requires backtracking on 40 years of right wing economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:30
|
|