No business person runs their business the way Trump and Musk have attacked the US public sector, at least not for any length of time. They may be engaged in asset stripping, but when a business is taken over by someone wanting to strip it of assets then that's not running that business either.
No sane business person randomly sacks a load of the workforce without first determining what they do, how they benefit the business (or, not) and what the impact on them not being there would be. It costs a lot of money to fire someone, even more if they feel aggrieved and sue for unfair dismissal. It costs even more to find you've just fired someone vital to running the business and you need to hire someone else (and, most people would be going straight to their lawyer if they found out they'd been fired because the boss said the job isn't needed only to find out that they're shortly after looking for a replacement). That way of doing business is just spending a lot of money to significantly reduce business viability.
No legitimate business person runs their business this way. On the other hand this is exactly the kind of "bust out" often seen in fraudulent enterprises or organized crime. The idea is to take over and "hollow out" an existing business and then strip its assets for personal benefit or the benefit of another entity. Most of Trump's pre-political business career was a series of bust outs, using bankruptcy laws to transfer his investors' money to himself an leaving everyone else holding the bag. In that sense it's surprising how many people are actually surprised by what's happening now.
That's paywalled for me, but assuming I get the general gist of it...
I don't think the guy has anything to apologize for. The show was entertainment, and if some voters took it as the gospel truth about Donald Trump, rather than looking into his widely accessible record, that's their problem.
Granted, I have always found it an interesting phenomenon(noted by others besides me) that Trump emerged from a cultural environment pretty alien to most of the people who came to make up MAGA, and then got his common-man creds not by relocating to a different environment(like eg. the Yankee Bushes moving to Texas), but by appearing in a mass-marketed TV show. But it was still the responsibility of the voters, and the voters alone, and the voters alone, to verify that the reality matched the hype.
trump is a narcissist. He's gaslighting and abusing the whole world - and the planet. Those who are asking 'what should Zelensky have done differently?' are asking entirely the wrong question. There is no right way to behave round a narcissist. The best option is to get far away from them and stay away. Sadly that's not an option with the potus.
Narcissistic abuse is trump's way of dealing with everyone. Volatile behavior, lack of empathy, verbal aggression, gaslighting, constant criticism, need for praise and thanks, practicing humiliation, and coercion.
Awareness of this is essential for anyone who has to deal with him.
The Trump/Musk approach is vaguely reminiscent of the approach Murdoch took to The Times when he took it over, but no-one was going to die if bits of The Times stopped working, and there was a reasonable case to be made for inefficiency at London newspapers in the late 70s/ early 80s which is simply not the case with the US federal government.
That's paywalled for me, but assuming I get the general gist of it...
I don't think the guy has anything to apologize for. The show was entertainment, and if some voters took it as the gospel truth about Donald Trump, rather than looking into his widely accessible record, that's their problem.
Granted, I have always found it an interesting phenomenon(noted by others besides me) that Trump emerged from a cultural environment pretty alien to most of the people who came to make up MAGA, and then got his common-man creds not by relocating to a different environment(like eg. the Yankee Bushes moving to Texas), but by appearing in a mass-marketed TV show. But it was still the responsibility of the voters, and the voters alone, and the voters alone, to verify that the reality matched the hype.
Well, I do think he has something to apologize for. He should have apologized a lot sooner. I have been saying for years that "whoever invented The Apprentice has a LOT to answer for". Any success the show had would obviously benefit Trump who was already known to be a pretty dismal character.
Better late than never I guess.
Even without Trump The Apprentice is intrinsically rather unpleasant, though I will admit to watching one series with Alan Sugar. GK Chesterton nailed it over 100 years before it was invented - the final paragraph of his essay might have been written with the show in mind! "An evil poetry of worldliness" indeed.
His horrible face which is the embodiment of evil.
The coiffure is absurd but not grotesque, as is the orange makeup.
So, when you say "His horrible face...", you're referring to things that he has control over?
Absolutely not. His face shows evil intent, aggression and meanness of spirit before he even opens his trap.
You only have to look at him sitting in Washington National Cathedral listening to THAT sermon.
The coiffure and makeup are his choice and serve onlt to make him look ridiculous. Don’t think for a minute that the essential evil is diminished by the absurdity.
But if it weren't Trump, would it be a different, equally obnoxious person sitting in the White House? He's not the US president because someone produced a TV show, he's there because half the US voters are prepared to vote for someone like him. So why did this environment flourish at the expensive of one where voters are choosing between sane, competent, (relatively) incorrupt options as leader?
But is it? For better or for worse the Democrta stuffed up big time when Joe pulled out at the eleventh hour and Kamala had to deliver at short notice. She had no time for an effective campaign as a childless woman of colour against the Trump base who like their women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and white( Hispanic at a push).
Even if all had gone well for the Dems and they had the best candidate in the history of the US there is so much more to the vote than that. Voter turnout, media bias, rumours all count towards any election result
@Boogie 100% correct.
Trying to deal with Mr Trump as if he were a balanced individual with any sense of right-wrong or empathy is madness.
Remember his first term? The only thing that held him back then was that he wanted a second term. Now that brake is off, and if you add to that the personal sense of having been "robbed" in 2020 you have a very dangerous creature indeed. Common sense, courtesy and respect will get you nowhere because he sees those things as weaknesses. The rest of us have the ghastly prospect of yet another state headed by a narcissist. The difference between DT and the other two (Putin and Kim Jong-un) is that Donny is more out-of-control, he is operating in a democracy, he has vast wealth at his disposal, he enjoys genuine popular support (at least for now).
Trudeau, the Canadian state premiers, the European leaders, Mexico et al need to get their act together and quickly. Above all, they must stop signposting what actions they are "considering" and just do it. Yes, we know that as sensible individuals they worry about the effect of, say, cutting power supplies to some northern US states, but the man himself couldn't give a rat's arse if some of his population end up without heat, light or water. The only way to try to deal with Trump is to place a cordon sanitaire around everything to do with the USA - because as POTUS he see himself and the country as one and the same thing.
I've heard this referred to as "backup quarterback syndrome" For those who are unfamiliar with the sport, in American football the most important offensive player is the quarterback. He has more influence on the outcome of the game than any other player on the field. Unless a team is completely dominant in their division the most popular player on a team is usually the backup quarterback. Fans compare the flawed, real world performance of the starting quarterback with the wholly theoretical flawless performance the backup quarterback would have given if only he'd had the chance. It's a kind of fantasy wish fulfillment which @Telford has taken to the next level by inventing a wholly fictitious backup quarterback onto whom he can project his notions of perfection. As always, it should be remembered that @Telford is a self-declared ignoramus about anything to do with the United States so his pronouncements about American politics should be treated as pure fabrication.
For an Englishman to, in effect, say that it's all the Americans' own fault makes me ashamed to share the name nationality as him.
If the election of the American President is not, ultimately, the decision (and therefore fault) of the American people as a whole (which is not the same as saying it's any specific American's personal fault), then whose is it?
I've heard this referred to as "backup quarterback syndrome" For those who are unfamiliar with the sport, in American football the most important offensive player is the quarterback. He has more influence on the outcome of the game than any other player on the field. Unless a team is completely dominant in their division the most popular player on a team is usually the backup quarterback. Fans compare the flawed, real world performance of the starting quarterback with the wholly theoretical flawless performance the backup quarterback would have given if only he'd had the chance. It's a kind of fantasy wish fulfillment which @Telford has taken to the next level by inventing a wholly fictitious backup quarterback onto whom he can project his notions of perfection. As always, it should be remembered that @Telford is a self-declared ignoramus about anything to do with the United States so his pronouncements about American politics should be treated as pure fabrication.
In 2020 I said The USA is a foreign country. Why would I need to know about everything that goes on in all foreign countries
How does that make me a self-declared ignoramus about anything to do with the United States
You need to learn the difference between everything and anything
If anything, Trump won a majority of the electoral college votes. When it came to the popular vote, Trump won 49.8% , Harris one 48.3%--that is a difference of 1.5%. Around 2 percent of the vote were for none of the above like third-party candidates. In addition, about 1/3 of eligible voters did note vote. Those nonvoters had a huge impact on this election.
Moreover, it was not because Harris was a weak candidate. She did step up to the plate after Joe stumbled. I do not think any other Democrat could have done that. People, though, were dissatisfied with the state of the economy. Groceries were climbing. Trump promised he alone could reduce the price of eggs. Joe's apparent inaction dealing with GAZA turned many Arab American voters against him. The lack of Congressional support of immigration reform sealed the deal.
If the election of the American President is not, ultimately, the decision (and therefore fault) of the American people as a whole (which is not the same as saying it's any specific American's personal fault), then whose is it?
As a whole? Huh? When we are deeply divided? We're not acting as a whole over here.
But if it weren't Trump, would it be a different, equally obnoxious person sitting in the White House? He's not the US president because someone produced a TV show, he's there because half the US voters are prepared to vote for someone like him. So why did this environment flourish at the expensive of one where voters are choosing between sane, competent, (relatively) incorrupt options as leader?
I think Trump enjoys a certain amount of support due to his supposedly being a successful businessman who will make the US successful and powerful, which largely hangs on his TV appeal.
Certainly the Tea Party and the Conservative Right existed before Trump, but can you imagine someone like Ted Cruz being able to leverage the same sort of popularism?
The other feature is that the right successfully leveraged trans issues. Consider the conservative media promotion of Riley Gaines (small, blonde, conventionally attractive) in her campaign against having to compete against Lia Thomas (tall, muscular, not so conventionally attractive trans woman), or the sensationalizing of occasional high school sports involving a large trans girl athlete playing against much smaller girls. If you've never really met a trans person, or thought much about them, and then the media presents you with images of muscular "biological men" dominating little girls, it's easy to climb on the bigot bandwagon.
But is it? For better or for worse the Democrta stuffed up big time when Joe pulled out at the eleventh hour and Kamala had to deliver at short notice. She had no time for an effective campaign as a childless woman of colour against the Trump base who like their women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and white( Hispanic at a push).
And the valid critique mixed with ignorance and stereotypes keeps coming.
But is it? For better or for worse the Democrta stuffed up big time when Joe pulled out at the eleventh hour and Kamala had to deliver at short notice. She had no time for an effective campaign as a childless woman of colour against the Trump base who like their women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and white( Hispanic at a push).
And the valid critique mixed with ignorance and stereotypes keeps coming.
I'll take that a step farther because I know these folks, rather personally.
Yeah, I know some self IDing rednecks who supported Trump. I know some who didn't.
I also know some rich white yuppy folks who supported Trump. And I know some who didn't.
So let's kindly refrain fucking classist stereotypes unless you actually know the region you're stereotyping, mmkay? I grew up on the edge of that part of the country and it kinda ticks me off coming from people who think "holler" is only another word for yell.
But is it? For better or for worse the Democrta stuffed up big time when Joe pulled out at the eleventh hour and Kamala had to deliver at short notice. She had no time for an effective campaign as a childless woman of colour against the Trump base who like their women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and white( Hispanic at a push).
And the valid critique mixed with ignorance and stereotypes keeps coming.
. Not so, Nick. It is pretty hard to be as ignorant as you seem to think, having watched the happenings of the last 50 years, sometimes at close quarters. We all knowthat Trump is a rabble rouser who appeals to an increasing number of people who see themselves aa disenfranchised, who are often not well educated, suspicious of government, frankly xenophobic. That describes the broad base of his supporters and admirers; angry, resentful often not well educated people who are struggling. He’s appealed to their basest instincts and I cannot believe that so many could have bought his cheap and nasty rhetoric.
But is it? For better or for worse the Democrta stuffed up big time when Joe pulled out at the eleventh hour and Kamala had to deliver at short notice. She had no time for an effective campaign as a childless woman of colour against the Trump base who like their women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and white( Hispanic at a push).
And the valid critique mixed with ignorance and stereotypes keeps coming.
I'll take that a step farther because I know these folks, rather personally.
Yeah, I know some self IDing rednecks who supported Trump. I know some who didn't.
I also know some rich white yuppy folks who supported Trump. And I know some who didn't.
So let's kindly refrain fucking classist stereotypes unless you actually know the region you're stereotyping, mmkay? I grew up on the edge of that part of the country and it kinda ticks me off coming from people who think "holler" is only another word for yell.
Bullfrog, this is not about you and spare me the indignation.
I am well aware that Trump’s fan base is not confined to the South and I am also aware that rich white folks voted for him. No surprises there; he wouldn’t raise their taxes, would he now? They don’t worry about immigrants taking jobs, do they? But yes, if you want to go down the “classist” line, then it is clear that his broad appeal is to the have-nots who are short on money, skills and education, and who have been fed the lie that the country has been sold down the river by those wicked quasi-communist Democrats and that their jobs are being stolen by immigrants.
But is it? For better or for worse the Democrta stuffed up big time when Joe pulled out at the eleventh hour and Kamala had to deliver at short notice. She had no time for an effective campaign as a childless woman of colour against the Trump base who like their women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and white( Hispanic at a push).
And the valid critique mixed with ignorance and stereotypes keeps coming.
. Not so, Nick. It is pretty hard to be as ignorant as you seem to think, having watched the happenings of the last 50 years, sometimes at close quarters.
I’m watching it at close quarters—much closer quarters than you—365 days a year, and have been for decades. You may not be ignorant, but the generalized stereotype you posted was.
If you don’t want people to think you’re ignorant, don’t post things that demonstrate ignorance.
But is it? For better or for worse the Democrta stuffed up big time when Joe pulled out at the eleventh hour and Kamala had to deliver at short notice. She had no time for an effective campaign as a childless woman of colour against the Trump base who like their women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and white( Hispanic at a push).
And the valid critique mixed with ignorance and stereotypes keeps coming.
I'll take that a step farther because I know these folks, rather personally.
Yeah, I know some self IDing rednecks who supported Trump. I know some who didn't.
I also know some rich white yuppy folks who supported Trump. And I know some who didn't.
So let's kindly refrain fucking classist stereotypes unless you actually know the region you're stereotyping, mmkay? I grew up on the edge of that part of the country and it kinda ticks me off coming from people who think "holler" is only another word for yell.
Bullfrog, this is not about you and spare me the indignation.
I am well aware that Trump’s fan base is not confined to the South and I am also aware that rich white folks voted for him. No surprises there; he wouldn’t raise their taxes, would he now? They don’t worry about immigrants taking jobs, do they? But yes, if you want to go down the “classist” line, then it is clear that his broad appeal is to the have-nots who are short on money, skills and education, and who have been fed the lie that the country has been sold down the river by those wicked quasi-communist Democrats and that their jobs are being stolen by immigrants.
Interesting times indeed.
I've noticed this pattern among political conservatives. They'll say things like "it is clear" and immediately follow it up with whatever they are thinking, as if adding those three words renders whatever follows meritorious and factual. It is clear that you have a very simplistic, grossly stereotypical understanding of American politics. See how that works?
I've read up a lot on public opinion in the USA. I'm kind of a polisci geek. Lazy stereotypes and generalities are fun for yelling at people, but they're not especially useful unless you're just looking for a scapegoat.
But if you want to go all "Saddleback Sam" on this and build a caricature, I suspect the model Trump voter is a white man who is comfortably well off with a particular set of skills, and very little education. He likely got a hand up in the military and went on to start a business. He's a bit calloused about "other people" but he figures he could make some more money if the government just got out of his way and helped him build his local economy. He also has a wife who generally votes the way he does because she's economically yoked to his career. The common mindset is "I worked hard to get here, so anyone else can too." Social darwinism is all the rage on the right these days, veering into eugenics.
I could construct other stereotypes, but I find real people more interesting.
It's a very interesting assumption that educated people are necessarily skilled, and that marketable skills are exclusively the purview of the educated. One can be rich and possess neither of the above, and I'm educated enough to suss all that out. I'm certainly not rich and my skills are very questionably lucrative, personally.
The real have-nots who you sneer at, in my experience, generally don't show up to vote without a very powerful motivation, which wasn't there in this election. Voter suppression, which was well reported last time around, certainly didn't help. Biden's wiffle waffling on matters that cut deep to the heart of particular subsets of the democratic base didn't help. And the general inequity based into the American economy didn't help. And I strongly suspect Musk pulled a stunt that outright stole a state or two. We may never know.
And yeah, lots of Americans are ignorant, but...so are you. Welcome to the club.
And don't get me wrong. Yes, there are people who, as I've joked among internet friends, walk into unfortunate rural stereotypes like a cartoon figure stepping onto the wrong end of a rake. I know a few. There are old folks who just want to keep the world the way they imagined it would be when they were young, and it isn't going to do that anymore, and they're now trying to drag the rest of us down and back in the worst way possible...
I have never had sympathy with such, and I'm burning through the last bits of my empathy. Do not confuse my nuance with apologetics. This kind of discourse feels like diagnosing a cancerous tumor.
But if you must diagnose a tumor, try to get it right.
If the election of the American President is not, ultimately, the decision (and therefore fault) of the American people as a whole (which is not the same as saying it's any specific American's personal fault), then whose is it?
As a whole? Huh? When we are deeply divided? We're not acting as a whole over here.
@Powderkeg They played right into his hands - it was ungracious and childish. By all means stay seated during the whooping standing ovations, sit on your hands as he announces (again) his intention of annexing Greenland, but to refuse to acknowledge the people deserving of being named they immediately put themselves in the wrong.
As for the rest: the chanting of "USA" was, to this Brit at least, more reminiscent of Nuremberg than patriotism.
Watching Trump's address to Congress tonight, and so far Democrats have refused to applaud or acknowledge:
-- Families of military heroes.
-- Victims of murder.
-- A kid with brain cancer.
It's going to be a long, long time before they win elections again. They hate America. They hate heroes. They hate everything.
It must be a miserable existence.
Well, I'm assuming that Trump was using those victims of tragedy in order to advance his political agenda. I'm gonna go out on a limb, for example, and guess that the mention of murder victims had something to do with promoting anti-immigration or tough-on-crime policies.
Now, it might at times still be politically prudent to clap along for the unfortunate individuals, lest someone try and smear you as cold-hearted. But I wouldn't say reluctance to do so automatically equates to "hating America".
Comments
So, when you say "His horrible face...", you're referring to things that he has control over?
No legitimate business person runs their business this way. On the other hand this is exactly the kind of "bust out" often seen in fraudulent enterprises or organized crime. The idea is to take over and "hollow out" an existing business and then strip its assets for personal benefit or the benefit of another entity. Most of Trump's pre-political business career was a series of bust outs, using bankruptcy laws to transfer his investors' money to himself an leaving everyone else holding the bag. In that sense it's surprising how many people are actually surprised by what's happening now.
That's paywalled for me, but assuming I get the general gist of it...
I don't think the guy has anything to apologize for. The show was entertainment, and if some voters took it as the gospel truth about Donald Trump, rather than looking into his widely accessible record, that's their problem.
Granted, I have always found it an interesting phenomenon(noted by others besides me) that Trump emerged from a cultural environment pretty alien to most of the people who came to make up MAGA, and then got his common-man creds not by relocating to a different environment(like eg. the Yankee Bushes moving to Texas), but by appearing in a mass-marketed TV show. But it was still the responsibility of the voters, and the voters alone, and the voters alone, to verify that the reality matched the hype.
Narcissistic abuse is trump's way of dealing with everyone. Volatile behavior, lack of empathy, verbal aggression, gaslighting, constant criticism, need for praise and thanks, practicing humiliation, and coercion.
Awareness of this is essential for anyone who has to deal with him.
Well, I do think he has something to apologize for. He should have apologized a lot sooner. I have been saying for years that "whoever invented The Apprentice has a LOT to answer for". Any success the show had would obviously benefit Trump who was already known to be a pretty dismal character.
Better late than never I guess.
Even without Trump The Apprentice is intrinsically rather unpleasant, though I will admit to watching one series with Alan Sugar. GK Chesterton nailed it over 100 years before it was invented - the final paragraph of his essay might have been written with the show in mind! "An evil poetry of worldliness" indeed.
Absolutely not. His face shows evil intent, aggression and meanness of spirit before he even opens his trap.
You only have to look at him sitting in Washington National Cathedral listening to THAT sermon.
The coiffure and makeup are his choice and serve onlt to make him look ridiculous. Don’t think for a minute that the essential evil is diminished by the absurdity.
A better candidate would now be president.
Could any other president have won over the MAGAts?
Who would you suggest?
Louise you can do better than that.
@Telford - for shame! That is surely one of the most crass and unfeeling posts you've ever posted.
For an Englishman to, in effect, say that it's all the Americans' own fault makes me ashamed to share the name nationality as him.
Johnny Unbeatable rides again!
Trying to deal with Mr Trump as if he were a balanced individual with any sense of right-wrong or empathy is madness.
Remember his first term? The only thing that held him back then was that he wanted a second term. Now that brake is off, and if you add to that the personal sense of having been "robbed" in 2020 you have a very dangerous creature indeed. Common sense, courtesy and respect will get you nowhere because he sees those things as weaknesses. The rest of us have the ghastly prospect of yet another state headed by a narcissist. The difference between DT and the other two (Putin and Kim Jong-un) is that Donny is more out-of-control, he is operating in a democracy, he has vast wealth at his disposal, he enjoys genuine popular support (at least for now).
Trudeau, the Canadian state premiers, the European leaders, Mexico et al need to get their act together and quickly. Above all, they must stop signposting what actions they are "considering" and just do it. Yes, we know that as sensible individuals they worry about the effect of, say, cutting power supplies to some northern US states, but the man himself couldn't give a rat's arse if some of his population end up without heat, light or water. The only way to try to deal with Trump is to place a cordon sanitaire around everything to do with the USA - because as POTUS he see himself and the country as one and the same thing.
I dare not say. Who said said it was all the American's fault? Name them so I can also be ashamed.
I've heard this referred to as "backup quarterback syndrome" For those who are unfamiliar with the sport, in American football the most important offensive player is the quarterback. He has more influence on the outcome of the game than any other player on the field. Unless a team is completely dominant in their division the most popular player on a team is usually the backup quarterback. Fans compare the flawed, real world performance of the starting quarterback with the wholly theoretical flawless performance the backup quarterback would have given if only he'd had the chance. It's a kind of fantasy wish fulfillment which @Telford has taken to the next level by inventing a wholly fictitious backup quarterback onto whom he can project his notions of perfection. As always, it should be remembered that @Telford is a self-declared ignoramus about anything to do with the United States so his pronouncements about American politics should be treated as pure fabrication.
If the election of the American President is not, ultimately, the decision (and therefore fault) of the American people as a whole (which is not the same as saying it's any specific American's personal fault), then whose is it?
In 2020 I said The USA is a foreign country. Why would I need to know about everything that goes on in all foreign countries
How does that make me a self-declared ignoramus about anything to do with the United States
You need to learn the difference between everything and anything
--chrisstiles, Hell Host
Moreover, it was not because Harris was a weak candidate. She did step up to the plate after Joe stumbled. I do not think any other Democrat could have done that. People, though, were dissatisfied with the state of the economy. Groceries were climbing. Trump promised he alone could reduce the price of eggs. Joe's apparent inaction dealing with GAZA turned many Arab American voters against him. The lack of Congressional support of immigration reform sealed the deal.
As a whole? Huh? When we are deeply divided? We're not acting as a whole over here.
I think Trump enjoys a certain amount of support due to his supposedly being a successful businessman who will make the US successful and powerful, which largely hangs on his TV appeal.
Certainly the Tea Party and the Conservative Right existed before Trump, but can you imagine someone like Ted Cruz being able to leverage the same sort of popularism?
The other feature is that the right successfully leveraged trans issues. Consider the conservative media promotion of Riley Gaines (small, blonde, conventionally attractive) in her campaign against having to compete against Lia Thomas (tall, muscular, not so conventionally attractive trans woman), or the sensationalizing of occasional high school sports involving a large trans girl athlete playing against much smaller girls. If you've never really met a trans person, or thought much about them, and then the media presents you with images of muscular "biological men" dominating little girls, it's easy to climb on the bigot bandwagon.
I'll take that a step farther because I know these folks, rather personally.
Yeah, I know some self IDing rednecks who supported Trump. I know some who didn't.
I also know some rich white yuppy folks who supported Trump. And I know some who didn't.
So let's kindly refrain fucking classist stereotypes unless you actually know the region you're stereotyping, mmkay? I grew up on the edge of that part of the country and it kinda ticks me off coming from people who think "holler" is only another word for yell.
Bullfrog, this is not about you and spare me the indignation.
I am well aware that Trump’s fan base is not confined to the South and I am also aware that rich white folks voted for him. No surprises there; he wouldn’t raise their taxes, would he now? They don’t worry about immigrants taking jobs, do they? But yes, if you want to go down the “classist” line, then it is clear that his broad appeal is to the have-nots who are short on money, skills and education, and who have been fed the lie that the country has been sold down the river by those wicked quasi-communist Democrats and that their jobs are being stolen by immigrants.
Interesting times indeed.
If you don’t want people to think you’re ignorant, don’t post things that demonstrate ignorance.
I've noticed this pattern among political conservatives. They'll say things like "it is clear" and immediately follow it up with whatever they are thinking, as if adding those three words renders whatever follows meritorious and factual. It is clear that you have a very simplistic, grossly stereotypical understanding of American politics. See how that works?
I've read up a lot on public opinion in the USA. I'm kind of a polisci geek. Lazy stereotypes and generalities are fun for yelling at people, but they're not especially useful unless you're just looking for a scapegoat.
But if you want to go all "Saddleback Sam" on this and build a caricature, I suspect the model Trump voter is a white man who is comfortably well off with a particular set of skills, and very little education. He likely got a hand up in the military and went on to start a business. He's a bit calloused about "other people" but he figures he could make some more money if the government just got out of his way and helped him build his local economy. He also has a wife who generally votes the way he does because she's economically yoked to his career. The common mindset is "I worked hard to get here, so anyone else can too." Social darwinism is all the rage on the right these days, veering into eugenics.
I could construct other stereotypes, but I find real people more interesting.
It's a very interesting assumption that educated people are necessarily skilled, and that marketable skills are exclusively the purview of the educated. One can be rich and possess neither of the above, and I'm educated enough to suss all that out. I'm certainly not rich and my skills are very questionably lucrative, personally.
The real have-nots who you sneer at, in my experience, generally don't show up to vote without a very powerful motivation, which wasn't there in this election. Voter suppression, which was well reported last time around, certainly didn't help. Biden's wiffle waffling on matters that cut deep to the heart of particular subsets of the democratic base didn't help. And the general inequity based into the American economy didn't help. And I strongly suspect Musk pulled a stunt that outright stole a state or two. We may never know.
And yeah, lots of Americans are ignorant, but...so are you. Welcome to the club.
I have never had sympathy with such, and I'm burning through the last bits of my empathy. Do not confuse my nuance with apologetics. This kind of discourse feels like diagnosing a cancerous tumor.
But if you must diagnose a tumor, try to get it right.
Accepted.
-- Families of military heroes.
-- Victims of murder.
-- A kid with brain cancer.
It's going to be a long, long time before they win elections again. They hate America. They hate heroes. They hate everything.
It must be a miserable existence.
As for the rest: the chanting of "USA" was, to this Brit at least, more reminiscent of Nuremberg than patriotism.
No, they do not hate those things. Good grief. Talk about gross extrapolation from tiny numbers.
Well, I'm assuming that Trump was using those victims of tragedy in order to advance his political agenda. I'm gonna go out on a limb, for example, and guess that the mention of murder victims had something to do with promoting anti-immigration or tough-on-crime policies.
Now, it might at times still be politically prudent to clap along for the unfortunate individuals, lest someone try and smear you as cold-hearted. But I wouldn't say reluctance to do so automatically equates to "hating America".