If you want to dump Trump....

[Corso]

so in summary, im really not as interested in which side people support, im interested in WHY people support the side they do, does that make sense?

To expand on this a bit, and not to challenge your curiosity, but how many people voted for Obama simply because he is African American? Or how many voted for Hillary simply because she's a woman?

How many will vote for (anyone) who runs against Trump, simply because they don't like him? Not his policies, not his record, but him?

I suppose this happens all the time, JFK was a handsome dude who many voted for him for that reason. Or even because he was Catholic.

I'm not sure on the percentage of Americans who actually vote on issues, vs who they "like" of "dislike".

It's tragic actually.

[jclay]

I'm not sure on the percentage of Americans who actually vote on issues, vs who they "like" of "dislike".

It's tragic actually.

I don't know either but it's damn low. And it's way more than tragic, it's how civilizations lost.

[mzilliox]

Sympathetically looking at historical contingencies and a clear-eyed look at social change over time might show a lot about why someone would or wouldn't vote for Trump. It's not that mystifying. I shouldn't be typing at 12:30AM but take a little Horatio Alger rags to riches mythology, a mesmerizing postwar theology that was too optimistic about the human condition, add in the rise of Evangelicals and the Moral Majority syncing up with Reaganism after Carter's disappointing term, reduce over low heat with robots taking people's jobs and Liberalism kinda failing at a lot of things, socially and economically, then bake it against the backdrop of a Machiavellian strong man promising to restore what's been lost in regions that have objectively been left behind economically speaking, then throw in the critical element: American apocalypticism (American literature, and, I suspect, political economy has always been about the Apocalypse, since its promise of Revolution as turning point in history finally freeing the dignity of man from both scepter and crozier, to the ominous war between the States - "mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord") ... and voila you get Tronald.

Look, I'm not wild about Tronald D., to say the least, but sh** happens, and that's where history took us. I get wanting to get him out of office, etc. but all this talk about "How could anyone ...?" and "I'm incensed at my fellow man down to the rhyzomes in my mitochondria" is a bit overwrought, no? I spelled out one way to look at the recipe for Trump - it's not all pure ideology and reasoned judgments and it turns out reasoned judgments take people otherwise at a relative parity of reasonableness or unreasonableness to starkly different conclusions. People can't think apart from their own minds. Sympathy is probably the bridge to understanding the choices other people make.

Thanks for a cool headed look at reality we find ourselves in. It still leaves me curious as to why people come to certain conclusions in their minds. I have spent plenty of time trying to understand the way people think. I am much more fascinated by that topic than politics itself.

[jclay]

I feel a tad more optimistic than the other day. Interesting analysis: Sanders is leading the pack in Iowa – and that's good news for Democrats | Bhaskar Sunkara | Opinion | The Guardian

[mzilliox]

This article was posted elsewhere and got me thinking....

Interesting tie in to the trump voters within.

Opinion | Who Killed the Knapp Family? - The New York Times

Good article, hits home, basically describes my town here in southern Oregon just as well as Yamhill.

This sticks out to me, and is another reason i do not support Donald Trumps POLICY.

"The United States wrested power from labor and gave it to business, and it suppressed wages and cut taxes rather than invest in human capital, as our peer countries did. As other countries embraced universal health care, we did not; several counties in the United States have life expectancies shorter than those in Cambodia or Bangladesh."

But when you can predict wretched outcomes based on the ZIP code where a child is born, the problem is not bad choices the infant is making. If we’re going to obsess about personal responsibility, let’s also have a conversation about social responsibility.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. Both political parties embraced mass incarceration and the war on drugs, which was particularly devastating for black Americans, and ignored an education system that often consigned the poor — especially children of color — to failing schools. Since 1988, American schools have become increasingly segregated by race, and kids in poor districts perform on average four grade levels behind those in rich districts.

and these are the sorts of things i do support in a candidate, because id like to see even more Americans doing better.
"Bravo for philanthropy, but the United States would never build interstate highways through volunteers and donations, and we can’t build a national preschool program or a national drug recovery program with private money. We need the government to step up and jump-start nationwide programs in early childhood education, job retraining, drug treatment and more."

[colker]

But when you can predict wretched outcomes based on the ZIP code where a child is born, the problem is not bad choices the infant is making. If we’re going to obsess about personal responsibility, let’s also have a conversation about social responsibility.

^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^. Bingo

If we want to be honest about equal rights and opportunities there is some serious work to be done in so called "western democracies".

[deano]

Thanks for a cool headed look at reality we find ourselves in. It still leaves me curious as to why people come to certain conclusions in their minds. I have spent plenty of time trying to understand the way people think. I am much more fascinated by that topic than politics itself.

You bet, I am glad you interpreted it that way, as I didn't want to be perceived as throwing stones at those throwing their hands up in disgust (VS makes me believe online friendship is possible?). But yeah, we're all embedded in our cultures, our systems of meanings, etc. From where I sit, I guess I lament that there's no shared teleology for us Americans, few ties that bind us together, if any. What if we had a destiny, like, together? Neither Jew nor Greek, Californian nor Kentuckian, etc. Anyway. I guess that's baked into the cake of our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, yadda yadda, probably makes me a belong in the Papal states in the 1300s or some crap -- or France! at least they have liberty, egality, but especially fraternity baked into their ideological cake -- whatever who cares. It's a wild world.

Yakhov Smirnov could have a new moment resurrecting the "What a country!" bit he did in the 80s.

[deano]

@mzilliox, you also wrote: "But when you can predict wretched outcomes based on the ZIP code where a child is born, the problem is not bad choices the infant is making. If we’re going to obsess about personal responsibility, let’s also have a conversation about social responsibility."

I love that you put it like "social responsibility," esp. vis-a-vis my point above about fraternity and a shared destiny... I am definitely now stepping into controversial territory, but I think we are seeing the limits (failures) of "rights" as properties of individual citizens to assert over other individual citizens - e.g. the right to bear arms, the right to offshore jobs, the right to treat money as speech, even other social rights I won't get into, etc. Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the net effects of many of our rights, freedom of speech, of religion, etc.

But what if we recovered a sense of obligation. Like, healthcare is probably not a "right" you can go in and demand someone give you, but what if it is the obligation of a benevolent and wealthy society? The constant assertion of one's rights about one thing or another leads to a pretty atomized society, and I wonder what if instead, we had all been habituated to having responsibilities and obligations to our fellow citizens? That also makes me archaic, but like jeez-o-pete, even in serfdom, the King had obligations to the lords who had obligations to peasants and so on ... it wasn't the wild west. People got like 86 feast days off per year, protection from marauders, etc. Now everyone owes a bank 3.5 times the sale price of their home to live somewhere, and takes 10 paid holidays a year. Like, what's our duty to each other? Like, what do employers, the government, etc. owe one another and owe the children of the citizenry?

There, that's like 3x I've violated my no politics on the web rule, but this is a pretty good place eh? Also, I'm just drifting and drifting this thing like a '92 Civic, so I'ma shut up.

[theflashunc]

Rick Wilson's of the same Never Trump ilk that fails to realize everything they dislike about him is a symptom, rather than the disease, affecting the party today, and the result of the last 40 or so years of work in the GOP post-Watergate.

But I doubt he'll ever have that kind of self-aware reckoning. Rick Wilson should trying to make Rick Wilson happen.

[King Of Dirk]

Dumping Trump isn't really all that hard. Step one is identifying the key levers to move the result. For over three years now, many of my friends who wish 2016 had gone the other way have been bleating about "SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE." Congratulations, y'all; you won a contest no one was holding. Find the purple-est red states and focus your efforts there. Flip Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

There's not a single 2016 blue state that's going red in 2020. Period. You've got 232 electoral votes in the bag (by 2016's value). You only need 38 more. If you can't flip FL and PA you simply don't deserve to win.

I truly believe Trump will struggle to hold Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - and likely fail in at least four of those.

Sam Harris - a man who would like to see Trump leave office as much or more than any person I know - has been saying for months (maybe a year or two) that the Democrats are focusing on too many things, and that most people don't give a flying (ahem) about most of them. He's right. If you wish to effect change as much as you claim to, maybe just postpone some of the more...(how shall I say? Stereotypically hare-brained?)...initiatives you have and focus on the damn goal. Save your passion for ferreting out "dogwhistles" and having the Marine Corps pay for gender reassignment surgery until after the election, and start hammering issues where Trump is weak and moderate Republicans/independents can be swayed, e.g. the structural damage being done to the economy, the crumbling infrastructure, overspending on defense, restoring some fucking dignity to the Oval Office. Sing that song and you'll win. Keep calling us deplorables and you won't. Quit pretending winning California by seventy million votes matters. It doesn't.

It's up to you. You've got a natural majority in several states that went red in 2016. You've got a good number of conservatives who aren't terribly thrilled with the President's demeanor - they aren't going to vote for Bernie, but they just might stay home. You've got an impeached Chief Executive. This is the most winnable election the democrats will ever, ever see. Too many democrats are insisting on ideological purity, to the tune of Only The Woke Need Apply. You're not going to win by trying to force people to believe men have periods.

[mzilliox]

@mzilliox, you also wrote: "But when you can predict wretched outcomes based on the ZIP code where a child is born, the problem is not bad choices the infant is making. If we’re going to obsess about personal responsibility, let’s also have a conversation about social responsibility."

I love that you put it like "social responsibility," esp. vis-a-vis my point above about fraternity and a shared destiny... I am definitely now stepping into controversial territory, but I think we are seeing the limits (failures) of "rights" as properties of individual citizens to assert over other individual citizens - e.g. the right to bear arms, the right to offshore jobs, the right to treat money as speech, even other social rights I won't get into, etc. Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the net effects of many of our rights, freedom of speech, of religion, etc.

But what if we recovered a sense of obligation. Like, healthcare is probably not a "right" you can go in and demand someone give you, but what if it is the obligation of a benevolent and wealthy society? The constant assertion of one's rights about one thing or another leads to a pretty atomized society, and I wonder what if instead, we had all been habituated to having responsibilities and obligations to our fellow citizens? That also makes me archaic, but like jeez-o-pete, even in serfdom, the King had obligations to the lords who had obligations to peasants and so on ... it wasn't the wild west. People got like 86 feast days off per year, protection from marauders, etc. Now everyone owes a bank 3.5 times the sale price of their home to live somewhere, and takes 10 paid holidays a year. Like, what's our duty to each other? Like, what do employers, the government, etc. owe one another and owe the children of the citizenry?

There, that's like 3x I've violated my no politics on the web rule, but this is a pretty good place eh? Also, I'm just drifting and drifting this thing like a '92 Civic, so I'ma shut up.

i like your take man, its not so political, more philosophical, more getting to the root of things rather than playing political games. I think we need to have this discussion, what does a wealthy country owe its citizens, what do citizens owe the country, and what do we owe each other? what does having this amount of wealth and comfort obligate us to? anything? nothing at all? I like the idea you present of not thinking of these things are rights so much (seems very selfish) as obligations of excess.

I think we owe more to each other and the country (and environment), and i think the country has much more to give us if we allow it.

[AngryScientist]

@mzilliox, you also wrote: "But when you can predict wretched outcomes based on the ZIP code where a child is born, the problem is not bad choices the infant is making. If we’re going to obsess about personal responsibility, let’s also have a conversation about social responsibility."

I love that you put it like "social responsibility," ....

just for clarity, that quote is straight out of the NYT article i linked upthread. it'w worth a read if you havent.

[mzilliox]

Dumping Trump isn't really all that hard. Step one is identifying the key levers to move the result. For over three years now, many of my friends who wish 2016 had gone the other way have been bleating about "SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE." Congratulations, y'all; you won a contest no one was holding. Find the purple-est red states and focus your efforts there. Flip Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

There's not a single 2016 blue state that's going red in 2020. Period. You've got 232 electoral votes in the bag (by 2016's value). You only need 38 more. If you can't flip FL and PA you simply don't deserve to win.

I truly believe Trump will struggle to hold Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - and likely fail in at least four of those.

Sam Harris - a man who would like to see Trump leave office as much or more than any person I know - has been saying for months (maybe a year or two) that the Democrats are focusing on too many things, and that most people don't give a flying (ahem) about most of them. He's right. If you wish to effect change as much as you claim to, maybe just postpone some of the more...(how shall I say? Stereotypically hare-brained?)...initiatives you have and focus on the damn goal. Save your passion for ferreting out "dogwhistles" and having the Marine Corps pay for gender reassignment surgery until after the election, and start hammering issues where Trump is weak and moderate Republicans/independents can be swayed, e.g. the structural damage being done to the economy, the crumbling infrastructure, overspending on defense, restoring some fucking dignity to the Oval Office. Sing that song and you'll win. Keep calling us deplorables and you won't. Quit pretending winning California by seventy million votes matters. It doesn't.

It's up to you. You've got a natural majority in several states that went red in 2016. You've got a good number conservatives who aren't terribly thrilled with the President's demeanor - they aren't going to vote for Bernie, but they just might stay home. You've got an impeached Chief Executive. This is the most winnable election the democrats will ever, ever see. Too many democrats are insisting on ideological purity, to the tune of Only The Woke Need Apply. You're not going to win by trying to force people to believe men have periods.

you have a strange but honest take on the party you support. it almost seems like a love/hate relationship. You sound like you dont even like that which you vote for...?

and i agree with the points you make, i am not in love with the democratic party either. they need to find an ID, but thats tricky, because republicans have moved right of center, so democrats feel the need to cover centrist as well as left leaning politics. Its making for something of a representation crisis. its something the party has to solve. because you are right, as highlighted by this article, and the last election, the battle ground is only in a few places (what that says about the efficiency of our democracy is another topic), and the democratic party is too worried about trying to govern, before they even have the opportunity to govern. they are making the mistake of assuming of voters far too much sophistication, as has been mentioned many times here (even though nobody seems to like this truth).

Your solution is simple, yet its not. it requires putting aside a certain amount of idealism, and for many who get involved in politics, this is the challenge, keep your ideals and maybe lose, or bend your ideals and maybe win.

its not ideal

[mzilliox]

just for clarity, that quote is straight out of the NYT article i linked upthread. it'w worth a read if you havent.

yes, thank you, i forgot to put quotes on a couple of my pasties

often the words here are not mine specifically, but the ideas of the articles we are sharing here. i assume when somebody posts an article, and i respond directly to the article with quotes, we are both speaking about the article, i have realized through some of the replies, that the words are being taken as mine at times, and people dont always read/understand/open the articles, they just respond, when really im speaking about the ideas presented in the articles we are posting.

ill try to be more diligent with my quotes to minimize confusion.

[Ras72]

These threads - the ones that dig deeper than surface level conversation have been interesting to me. Frustrating at times but more informative than anything else.
I appreciate the honest thoughts and input from those willing to take part. Thank you.
And yes, @zambenini online friendships are possible. I feel like I have many here on VS.

[deano]

i like your take man, its not so political, more philosophical, more getting to the root of things rather than playing political games. I think we need to have this discussion, what does a wealthy country owe its citizens, what do citizens owe the country, and what do we owe each other? what does having this amount of wealth and comfort obligate us to? anything? nothing at all? I like the idea you present of not thinking of these things are rights so much (seems very selfish) as obligations of excess.

I think we owe more to each other and the country (and environment), and i think the country has much more to give us if we allow it.

Yep - pretty important; there was a time when Kennedy could say "ask not what your country can do for you" and so forth. Unthinkable now. That could change, though! I'm not a party politics guy, but a couple dems on the left are asking what it means to work, and what it means to have workers working for you. That's a very good thing. And, there are a few representatives on the right (Marcio Rubio and Josh Hawley) that are trying to stake out, with legislation they have introduced, what this country's obligations are to families. Also a good thing! The French are going through it right now, and how they'll emerge will be interesting, but the French state and its society has always understood itself in a very Aristotelian sense to be based on the family. That has guided a lot of policy for them. What makes a community? It's not just a bunch of individual monads that came from nowhere.

[King Of Dirk]

you have a strange but honest take on the party you support. it almost seems like a love/hate relationship. You sound like you dont even like that which you vote for...?l

Matt, I don't like very many of them at all (the GOP). I struggle with whether I should participate in elections, but ultimately I end up unhappy with myself when I don't (as opposed to the unhappiness I feel when I do). I am not proud of the fact that President Trump is in the Oval Office. I am repulsed so much by his behavior that I'm almost embarrassed when he does something I agree with. I keep telling myself about blind chickens and corn and all of that shit. But man, I'm tired of having to spout the equivalent of "Donald Trump likes pancakes, nevertheless I intend to continue liking pancakes." I've always liked pancakes. I'm not going to stop liking them because he enjoys them, and liking them doesn't make me a Trump supporter.

For example, I think the United States has failed to develop a sensible immigration policy. I think every country has the right to decide who may enter (and remain within) its borders if not already citizens, and to enforce those laws as it sees fit. So Trump and I have some thoughts in common. But he uses the rhetoric and vitriol to gin up support. He isn't going to do a damn thing about it, and if he thought the other position would benefit him better he'd switch by sundown. I will be left frustrated.

Look friend, I'm square and out of step. I know that. And I've voted Democrat (or Other) many times when I know the candidate (local) or believe the candidate to be an honorable person I can respect, if not agree. My philosophy is that which governs least governs best - but I acknowledge that "least" is a moving target; some issues will necessitate more government than others. I'm glad we have an FDA, and an EPA, and a DoD, and an SEC...

Ironically, my small government views get me in trouble with Republicans. I want a government so limited it can't poke its nose into your bedroom or interfere with a woman's uterus. GOP types tend to be annoyed by that.

[RSCROSS]

Say and believe what you all will, fact is that NOT many people like Trump and for that reason alone the countries business has ground to a halt!

Plus the world is having a bit of a chuckle at the expense of the USA - he's not fit for the office period

My rant....sorry

[jclay]

All of you Trump supporters who trumpet how he's reduced the unemployment rate have a look-see at the U-6 unemployment chart, link at the bottom.
1) The real UE rate is always much higher than advertised by any administration 'cause they like to advance the U-3 "happy chart", not the U-6 which is much more telling.
2) If you bother to look at the chart you'll see that it was under Obama that the UE rate(s) dropped steadily from 2010. It was the policies enacted under his administration that made it happen. I seem to recall the conservative folks denigrating how he did it but now it seems fine, and all the credit for goodness is given to Trump.
3) The astronomical stock market valuations are indicative of a bubble, long in the making. The notion that it indicates that our economy is fundamentally wonderful is pretty silly; our economy is so so ok. What it really indicates is that the Fed Rates are crazy low and a whole bunch of money is being shoved into equities. I can't know when the other shoe will drop but unless inflation corrects it gradually over a very long term it shouldn't end well.

Now, lest you think that I think that the policies of Bill Clinton and Obama we wonderfulness, I assure you that I have big probs, particularly with Glass Steagal repeal which was directly responsible for the economic meltdown around 2007. That said, and from memory, when I checked the Senate vote on GS repeal, which Clinton and his business buddies championed, only 1 Republican opposed it while 8 Democrats did. Those are the folks who got it right. The big business Ds and Rs sold us down the river and nobody has had the stones to reinstate it 'cause there's too much money behind keeping things as they are. Bernie got it right, and he got the Iraq war right as well as NAFTA. Hmmm. I'd want to hire the folks who have track records of making correct calls over the long haul rather than the folks who spin happy tales.

There used to be a better interactive chart at the BLS site but I can't find it for the U-6. Here's the best I can find right now, check it out, It includes the U-6, U-3 and U-5: U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends

[Bob Ross]

I want a government so limited it can't poke its nose into your bedroom or interfere with a woman's uterus.

We can hang.
:::beer:::