Trump General Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This x10000.

I have recounted my own experience here a number of times. I was a child refugee, separated from my parents and in foster care in another country with strangers and a language I did not speak. I had my 8 year old brother that I had to take care of and nobody and nothing else. We were eventually reunited and came to Canada with nothing, not a penny to our name and not anything other than the clothes on our backs. As an extra bonus point, and you can't make this shit up if you tried, Air Canada lost our one checked suitcase and never recovered it, I think we got $600 at some point later on. Again we didn't speak the language. My Mom went to graduate school in Toronto, became a very successful education consultant and published a pretty successful book (if you're a teacher anyway). My Dad never quite recovered because of language barriers and worked hard at manual labour jobs until he retired at just over 65. I became a corporate lawyer, I graduated first in my elementary school (despite arriving in the country 2 years prior without speaking English), first in my high school and third in my law school. Became a corporate lawyer and worked in probably the best Canadian corporate firm and worked as a corporate lawyer for them in NYC as well. My brother is a teacher. We worked hard and were poor as fucking dirt. Everything I have now, I mean everything, came from a combination of my own ambition and hard work and the help I received from the country that owed me nothing but gave me everything. That is why I have a deep sense of duty to people who maybe weren't as lucky or maybe were just too tired to fight as hard. If I can help them then that is what I have to do. My husband and I do really, really well, not as a point of bragging but to conclude the story.

So when these people, whether they be rural Canadians or rust belt Americans start telling me about how hard their lives are and how I am the smug elite who doesn't get them - fuck right off, guys. Because you didn't see death first hand as a child, because your economic situation growing up was roughly a thousand times better than mine. I could be very smug now and look at you and conclude that maybe if YOUR ass pulled itself up by the bootstraps like you like to preach at the "welfare queens" maybe you'd have put 2 and 2 together and realized that you're living in a dying town with a dying industry and done something about it. Maybe you wouldn't be waiting for the government to save you like some sort of lazy socialist. But no, instead I keep voting and behaving in ways to assist you and frankly I'm kind of getting tired of it. So maybe it's really time you go out there and fend for yourselves and I throw off the shackles of noblesse oblige and go off hand in hand with those elites that you despise.

Holy crap. I did *not* know that story. Wow. Ever thought of writing a book?
People have to mire themselves in debt even to have a fighting chance at economic comfort. IMO the only candidate who understood that and made it a campaign priority was Sanders, and that's why I supported him while he was around.

I--What? Clinton's entire campaign from 08 revolved around debt-free public education and the only reason she wasn't as vocal about it this time was because the debates prevented it. It was still at the forefront of her site, her social media presence, her stump speeches, etc.

This is why I feel like no one ever listened past "EMAILS!" on either side of the aisle. It seems like no one ever actually paid any attention whatsoever to what her policies were. It wasn't like she hid them.
 
I--What? Clinton's entire campaign from 08 revolved around debt-free public education and the only reason she wasn't as vocal about it this time was because the debates prevented it. It was still at the forefront of her site, her social media presence, her stump speeches, etc.

What I read - directly from her website - was temporary interest reprieves and possible renegotiation of rates for student loans, which isn't a hell of a lot in the long run. Plus no specific plan on how she would fund free community college aside from the usual tax the rich, close corporate loopholes rhetoric. Nothing that I can recall either about the massive disparities in public secondary school funding based on property taxes etc. I think you're being quite charitable to her in this regard.
 
What I read - directly from her website - was temporary interest reprieves and possible renegotiation of rates for student loans, which isn't a hell of a lot in the long run. Plus no specific plan on how she would fund free community college aside from the usual tax the rich, close corporate loopholes rhetoric. Nothing that I can recall either about the massive disparities in public secondary school funding based on property taxes etc. I think you're being quite charitable to her in this regard.

I know this is from 2007, but this is the education reform plan I associate her with, the one that she preached constantly back in 08 and that I went and listened to Bill Clinton campaign for in person as well:

Hillary Clinton: Speech on College Affordability at Plymouth State University in Plymouth, New Hampshire

I don't know how much of it changed between then and now, but most of it sounds like what I've been under the impression she was still pushing for and then some. I'll do a bit more research, because if I'm wrong, I'd like to know it. Don't want to make a claim and not be able to back it up.

EDIT: A quick look at the fact sheet for her current education plan seems to be her 08 plan on steroids. Probably Bernie-induced steroids, but you can see the skeleton of her original plan right there if you read both back to back: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...nt-a-debt-free-future-for-americas-graduates/
 
This is why I feel like no one ever listened past "EMAILS!" on either side of the aisle. It seems like no one ever actually paid any attention whatsoever to what her policies were. It wasn't like she hid them.

This.

And anitram, I think I've heard parts of your story before, but don't know that I heard the whole thing. I admire your family for doing what they needed to do to make it, and I appreciate you for actually understanding and having sympathy for others who find themselves in similar situations.

I could be very smug now and look at you and conclude that maybe if YOUR ass pulled itself up by the bootstraps like you like to preach at the "welfare queens" maybe you'd have put 2 and 2 together and realized that you're living in a dying town with a dying industry and done something about it. Maybe you wouldn't be waiting for the government to save you like some sort of lazy socialist.

This is what's killing me about the poor/working class Trump supporters in this part of the country. They have the audacity to sit there and gripe about other people being on welfare, and cheer on the politicians who call those on welfare "lazy moochers"...

...and yet here they are legitimately believing that Trump is going to save them from THEIR economic woes? Like you said, why aren't they just "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps", like they expect everyone else to do?

And then there's people like a cousin of mine, who's extremely conservative, very anti-Obama, who's been consistently unemployed and living off unemployment checks. Yet he has the nerve to yell at Obama for "giving people handouts". Uhhhh, hello?

I wholeheartedly agree that there can indeed be some condescending rhetoric from the left. The teasing about those of us in "flyover country", acting legit shocked when any part of this area of the country actually supports some progressive idea (I remember people on the left being stunned that Iowa was one of the first states to legalize same-sex marriage, and I'm sitting here like, "...yeah? We're not ALL backwards-thinking people here." There's probably other examples, too, that I'm blanking on at the moment.

But I also think that a lot of people in this part of the country tend to bring a lot of their problems on themselves by voting against their self-interests, and sometimes bring those negative stereotypes on themselves. After seeing how utterly red Iowa went the other night, I can't help but think my state basically proved so many of the stereotypes many have about this part of the country, and that upsets me. I thought we were so much better than this.

Anytime a politician starts going around blaming some minority group-gays, Hispanics, blacks, Muslims, you name it- for all of society's ills, that is a sure sign the politician in question has absolutely no substantive policy to offer. They have no plans. They don't care about people-if they did, they wouldn't stand up there insulting them. You would think more people would catch on to that fact, but of course they won't, because the voters who support those candidates are just as fearful and, yes, ignorant, as the very politicians they support.

It's possible to talk about immigration reform without resorting to calling Mexicans druggies and rapists, or insulting the Hispanics who live in this country, whether here legally or illegally.

It's possible to talk about welfare reform without calling the people who use it lazy moochers who just want handouts.

It's possible to talk about the struggles that tear families apart without blaming gay people for "destroying traditional Christian values", or insulting single parents, or so on.

It's possible to talk about the very real threat of Islamic terrorism without making it seem like all Muslims are violent and ready to attack this country at a moment's notice.

If voters don't get that and vote for a politician who spouts racist, sexist, xenophobic bullshit in the end, then I have no sympathy for them. They brought the inevitable troubles that result on themselves.
 
Last edited:
I say this with a lot of respect, because honestly I see you as the most intelligent poster in this forum. But I think there is a danger in this type of thinking that because someone had it really bad, that "Middle America" types aren't also in rough situations.

There is a very real economic malaise underlying the rise of Trump. And I sure as hell don't see him as the solution, but neither was Clinton. Essentially there has been a mass corporatization of paths to establishing a stable livelihood: especially higher education, professional training, and parenthood. People have to mire themselves in debt even to have a fighting chance at economic comfort. IMO the only candidate who understood that and made it a campaign priority was Sanders, and that's why I supported him while he was around.

As I said before, Trump is peddling the easy, short-term solution: keep the plant open another year through tariffs, dig up a coal mine, etc. But that shit is not a long-term solution for the folks he purports to represent.

I take issue with an economic explanation of the rise of Trump. It sounds compelling, but the logic is quite flawed in many ways. The fact that people in the old industrial areas have economic difficulties is not a sufficient explanation of why they join a populist movement. There is an almost post-marxist tendency of attributing the outcome to class, but that completely overlooks that ethnic/racial distinctions and the more granular data that is available.e Why isn't the non-white working class joining the populist movement? Or why is it that you see consistent support to Trump across class?

I spent a lot of my academic life doing research on why people join social movements. My subject matter is mainly recruitment by rebel groups, and not simply political participation, but the underlying theories are similar. And personally, I feel that the class/economic explanation to social mobilization has been basically disproven since the mid-1970s, even though it continues to pop up from time to time.

I subscribe more to a cultural approach to social mobilization, i.e. the consolidation - and subsequent instrumentalization - of a collective identity that a certain group of people share as a means to get them to participate in a political process. Basically, many social movements start by creating a concept of "us" (some of them good - like the civil rights movement or the LGBT movement more recently - but many of them bad, like ethnic mobilization). That concept then supersedes any other social bounds that would normally tie people together. For example, gender identity can become less important than ethnic identity (see white women voting predominantly for Trump).

This, to me, is quite clear in Trump. The exclusionary rhetoric creates a concept of "us" - white people - that is shared across class divides. The dog whistles and slogans - Make America Great Again - further point to that collective identity it tries to create. And that is, ultimately, an exclusionary identity of white supremacy/privilege. People of different backgrounds join for different reasons, but I think it is a mistake to ascribe it simply to economic status. The data shows that it wasn't the case. Without the exclusionary rhetoric, I very much doubt Trump would have built this base.
 
I take issue with an economic explanation of the rise of Trump. It sounds compelling, but the logic is quite flawed in many ways. The fact that people in the old industrial areas have economic difficulties is not a sufficient explanation of why they join a populist movement. There is an almost post-marxist tendency of attributing the outcome to class, but that completely overlooks that ethnic/racial distinctions and the more granular data that is available.e Why isn't the non-white working class joining the populist movement? Or why is it that you see consistent support to Trump across class?

I spent a lot of my academic life doing research on why people join social movements. My subject matter is mainly recruitment by rebel groups, and not simply political participation, but the underlying theories are similar. And personally, I feel that the class/economic explanation to social mobilization has been basically disproven since the mid-1970s, even though it continues to pop up from time to time.

I subscribe more to a cultural approach to social mobilization, i.e. the consolidation - and subsequent instrumentalization - of a collective identity that a certain group of people share as a means to get them to participate in a political process. Basically, many social movements start by creating a concept of "us" (some of them good - like the civil rights movement or the LGBT movement more recently - but many of them bad, like ethnic mobilization). That concept then supersedes any other social bounds that would normally tie people together. For example, gender identity can become less important than ethnic identity (see white women voting predominantly for Trump).

This, to me, is quite clear in Trump. The exclusionary rhetoric creates a concept of "us" - white people - that is shared across class divides. The dog whistles and slogans - Make America Great Again - further point to that collective identity it tries to create. And that is, ultimately, an exclusionary identity of white supremacy/privilege. People of different backgrounds join for different reasons, but I think it is a mistake to ascribe it simply to economic status. The data shows that it wasn't the case. Without the exclusionary rhetoric, I very much doubt Trump would have built this base.

What an insightful and, i suspect, correct summation.
And that's what the left must do. Find leaders, champions who pull along a movement. Bernie did that. Hillary didn't.

I saw Michael Moore suggesting the Dems go for star power, as opposed to the same old same old. One name he suggested was Oprah. Whether you like her or not, chances are she'd be president elect right now, had she run in Hillary's place.

And hasn't it always been this way? History is full of charismatic leaders who pulled movements along with them.

Sent from my SM-G920I using U2 Interference mobile app
 
There are nearly zero celebrities that I would want for president. There was a time I thought Jon Stewart could maybe do it, but I've completely changed my mind on that.
 
I take issue with an economic explanation of the rise of Trump. It sounds compelling, but the logic is quite flawed in many ways. The fact that people in the old industrial areas have economic difficulties is not a sufficient explanation of why they join a populist movement. There is an almost post-marxist tendency of attributing the outcome to class, but that completely overlooks that ethnic/racial distinctions and the more granular data that is available.e Why isn't the non-white working class joining the populist movement? Or why is it that you see consistent support to Trump across class?

I spent a lot of my academic life doing research on why people join social movements. My subject matter is mainly recruitment by rebel groups, and not simply political participation, but the underlying theories are similar. And personally, I feel that the class/economic explanation to social mobilization has been basically disproven since the mid-1970s, even though it continues to pop up from time to time.

I subscribe more to a cultural approach to social mobilization, i.e. the consolidation - and subsequent instrumentalization - of a collective identity that a certain group of people share as a means to get them to participate in a political process. Basically, many social movements start by creating a concept of "us" (some of them good - like the civil rights movement or the LGBT movement more recently - but many of them bad, like ethnic mobilization). That concept then supersedes any other social bounds that would normally tie people together. For example, gender identity can become less important than ethnic identity (see white women voting predominantly for Trump).

This, to me, is quite clear in Trump. The exclusionary rhetoric creates a concept of "us" - white people - that is shared across class divides. The dog whistles and slogans - Make America Great Again - further point to that collective identity it tries to create. And that is, ultimately, an exclusionary identity of white supremacy/privilege. People of different backgrounds join for different reasons, but I think it is a mistake to ascribe it simply to economic status. The data shows that it wasn't the case. Without the exclusionary rhetoric, I very much doubt Trump would have built this base.

In Trump economic stagnation and xenophobia were tied into a tidy and frightening package, which was his mantra from day one with the rhetoric about Mexico taking jobs, China manipulating currency, etc. The "other" was cast as the thief, basically. I am not denying the role of entrenched racism and sexism in his rise, but it's too easy of an explanation to cast huge swaths of his supporters in that light alone.

Another major difference between this election and a united effort toward LGBT rights, for example, is the latter group is acting toward a cohesive long-term goal, whereas most voters (IMO) are looking for immediate gratification - their job saved, their corporate taxes lowered, or whatever. I don't see those as analogous. A rich gay person who can't marry has a vested interest in social change and is likely to be mobilized within a movement, but that same person has no reason to fear a Mexican immigrant taking his job and likely won't be affected by such rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
That was most likely done by someone on the left,
Just like that the article about the Muslim woman that claimed trumpeters beat her with a pipe, until her story collapsed.
 
Friday Night Barstool Thought: can we get that damn album already so we have some fun together !!!

It took me a month to process the Romney loss. I understand the pain.

I texted "Love you" to my sister for the first time in awhile when she was coping with the loss of her side. She's nervous. Our families will come back together.

Our U2 family will have something to celebrate soon




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Said this on Facebook and Twitter:

I can't in good conscience go and protest Trump. I've said a lot of arguably regrettable things in the last few days, but when he has a lone supporter turn up in Auckland who damn near gets assaulted, and people are lowering the discourse to his level - I can't be associated with that.

I may still mutter things under my breath, but I'm better than what we've seen from Trumps campaign and supporters. Besides, I'm the brownest white person I know.
 
People on the Internet are SO weird.

tyUPEHj.jpg
 
interesting article i read a few days ago, more in the Brexit context, but also touches on Trump and the US

the really interesting bit is his thoughts on the "switch", interesting analysis... will be interesting to see how Trump plays the mob now he is in power...

"Across the world, a succession of near-catastrophes has over the past two years begun to drain progressive politics of its resilience. Anti-racists, globalists and believers in the virtues of science over mumbo-jumbo are still winning elections. But the effort is going to exhaust us unless we become more radical.

In America, whether he wins or loses, Donald Trump’s candidacy – by sidelining the respectable right and creating a mass movement based on hate – has eroded American democracy to a new and fragile baseline. All the right needs to do in 2020 is to find a more respectable candidate and, until then, unleash a resistance struggle against the legitimacy of Clinton, her supreme court appointments and any Democratic majority in Congress that emerges.

It’s important to understand the new cross-fertilisation that has begun between Trump’s white-supremacist revolt and the revolt being planned by Ukip. Virtually nobody in mainstream politics a decade ago used the term “white working class”. Now it’s common to hear even BBC presenters parrot the phrase, as if the separation between white and non-white populations in Britain’s post-industrial towns were an accomplished fact, not a far-right fantasy.

In Britain, since the high-court decision, and with the tabloids ramping up their attack on the judiciary, people have been asking: what do Jonathan Harmsworth, owner of the Daily Mail, and Rupert Murdoch want? What would make them stop?

The answer is: they want Britain ruled by a xenophobic mob, controlled by them. The policies are secondary – as long as their legal offshore tax-dodging facilities are maintained. They also want a Labour party they can control and a Tory party they can intimidate.

In pursuit of that, they have created what the sociologist Manuel Castells calls a “switch”. You create a constituency of angry rightwing voters, assembled around using language no respectable politician could utter, and you switch them on, or off, against the government of the day as long as that government does your bidding.

It’s facile to call Trump and Farage “fascists”. They are elite, rightwing economic nationalists who have each stumbled upon the fact that a minority of working-class people can be fooled by populism – especially when the left refuses to play the populist game. And they are moving forward fast."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...traders-trots-mumsnet-left-centre-farages-mob
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom