Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

@redking: It's going to start hurting him as soon as the field narrows down and the other candidates have better chances to show their policy and attack him for not having policies.

It absolutely WILL hurt him in the general though, which is where policy details matter, Hillary would rip him to shreds.

[RedKing]

@redking: It's going to start hurting him as soon as the field narrows down and the other candidates have better chances to show their policy and attack him for not having policies.

It absolutely WILL hurt him in the general though, which is where policy details matter, Hillary would rip him to shreds.

I wish I believed that. But if a large enough portion of the electorate doesn't care about policy specifics or is willing to brush aside criticisms as "partisan attacks", then his scheme works.

[wierd]

So, a cuckservative is similar to a "rino"? (republican in name only)

The cuckservative and the rino both appear to be something they are not, or at least percieved to be something different from what they profess being.

These kinds of childish edpithets do not really work for me, so please understand my position- I dont really want a rhetoric drenched explanation with baked in villification, just a more stolid, straight answer that keeps personal opinions out.

In regard to Trump's lack of stated policy objectives, this tactic is far from unique from a a recent historical perspective. The Gore campaign several years back was similarly vague on policy. Let's not pretend that being vauge is something only "the other guys" do, or worse yet, "OK as long as it is our candidate."

Personally, I have observed that it is mostly the elderly or at least the "over 50" crowd that seems to favor Trump politically.  I have a conjecture as to why this is, but it certainly wont be seen favorably here, due to its nature.  That said, I will share that conjecture anyway.

Basically, the "Over 50" crowd that supports Trump is experiencing a very negative form of culture shock from the rapid pace that modern progressive movements have been working at-- This demographic is demonized and sidelined as "racist", "bigoted", and a number of other epithets.  This group feels disillusioned and disenfranchised in the wake of such progressive action that has happened in their lifetimes, but still have a voice politically in the form of their voting power.  When a group gets marginalized, they also tend to become radicalized. This is one of the major failures of the modern progressive movement in my opinion. Rather than actually winning people over, they instead use the same tools as a propoganda ministry to reprogram the younger generation to favor a new mindset. It does this while simultaneously marginalizing and sidelining dissenting views, stating that they are obsoleted (at best), or downright wrong or unethical (at worst) and thus simply unfit for consideration. Doing that to a large percentage of the population and hoping for them to just die out so the new engineered cultural ideology takes over is callous and politically irresponsible, especially from a society fostered on democratic ideals.

When an openly adversarial political figure appears that appeals to that demographic, all that dirt swept under the progressivist's area rug in the hopes of it eventually decaying from entropy gets tracked out in the open-- the usual tactics of ostracism, sidelining, and marginalization are ineffective.

In short, 20 years from now, it is likely that Trump (or at least his political equivalent) would simply be unelectable, because the "over 50" crowd of today would then be the "Over 70" crowd. Old age would have neutered the voting base, and the majority of the voting pool would be the artificially selected for progressivist culture. His antics would be seen with as much love as if he had gone to the debate armed with a sack of dog poop and a potato gun.

Therein lies my own issue with this matter-
I dont take offense to the goals of such modern progressivism. What I take offense to is the methodology employed to bring it about, and the timetables used. It is irresponsible to change the world completely in just one or two generations; it causes problems like this one, and has side effects (such as, causing people to think that just because the message is good, and the intentions are pure, that the means are justifiable. History is replete with examples of why holding such a view is disasterous.)  Kinda like cooking, just because something is delicious but labor intensive to make, does not justify rushing the preparation to get something on the table.

In terms of a culinary themed metaphor, we have people raised on meat and potatoes being told that they must eat soy and rice instead (because it's healthier, you selfish prick! Think about the costs your lifestyle has on society, with your increased cardiac health risks, and proclevity for colon cancer! Insisting on meat and potatoes is just plain sick!) with no outlet to complain or seek redress for the greivance of being forced onto such a diet.

Trump's popularity is a side effect of rushed progressivism, enacted through political "top down" mandate, rather than incremental changes wrought with actual social reform obtained with real winning of hearts and minds. (No, you cant just tell people they are wrong and just ignore them, in other words.)

Naturally, this conjecture will be sumarily dismissed, due to its low popularity.

But how else do you also capture the demographic makeup of his constituency, if not to accept solemnly that people with old-generation values (which simply do not coincide with progressivist values) still hold to those old cultural norms, in spite of the changes in the legal system, (you know, things like abortion, gay marriage, and all that ball of wax) and thus still have a significant power to enact counter-political movement through their votes?

Is it really so hard to admit that a good portion of the population does not share the politically correct world view, and when given a candidate choice that openly rejects such, that they would latch on with both hands, despite the clear and present risk factors?

Trump is real, as are his constituency.
Reflect on that.

[RedKing]

Welp, race relations is about to become a front-and-center topic again (see: Virginia shooting).

[wierd]

I hate to sound cynical, but race relations will continue to remain strained and troubled as long as there is excessive attention placed on it. Propoganda is a thing, and so is shock news, and its ability to stir up public outrage in the name of ratings.

As long as the race relations issue continues to be reactionary instead of equality and ethics based, they will always be so strained, and thus a target for media sensationalism.

While it is another of my less than popular views, "affirmative action" is not a viable solution. You do not combat institutional racism with yet more institutional racism. You combat racism by making race a non-issue.

[Flying Dice]

Okay. How would you deal with institutionalized discrimination and bigotry in a realistic way? (AKA "just make people not be racist/sexist" doesn't count).

Affirmative Action, I've noticed, tends mostly to be opposed by the white-hetero-male demographic that is no longer guaranteed a better shot than everyone else at a position due to their whiteness or maleness. Curious, that.

Besides, personal connection-based nepotism at least takes some effort.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Welp, race relations is about to become a front-and-center topic again (see: Virginia shooting).

So far it seems more personal than racial, as the shooter was an old employee and sent a manifesto beforehand.

[Owlbread]

Watch as the Democrats propose restrictions on scary looking guns with too many bullets rather than actually restricting handguns, i.e. the gun that was used in the shooting. In fact, they're used in pretty much every shooting in America, apart from school shootings involving more than one white child as victims, despite what the US media would have you believe.

[wierd]

Okay. How would you deal with institutionalized discrimination and bigotry in a realistic way? (AKA "just make people not be racist/sexist" doesn't count).

Affirmative Action, I've noticed, tends mostly to be opposed by the white-hetero-male demographic that is no longer guaranteed a better shot than everyone else at a position due to their whiteness or maleness. Curious, that.

Besides, personal connection-based nepotism at least takes some effort.

Introduce policies that do not introduce nor permit favoritism.

EG, racial profiling is forbidden, and incarceration or prosecution statistics that deviate sharply from the population ethnicity composition are indicators of institutional bias, and thus immediately get heavily investigated. Hiring practices that result in a labor force that sharply deviates from the population demographic likewise should be heavily investigated.

Your race or gender does not make you more or less suited to any vocational track. As such, there should not be any contributory factor in employment. As a consequence, if an employer has a clearly anomalous workforce, it means illegal cherry picking has happened.

This can be done with pure mathematics and good policy. No affirmative action required. Just enforced equal treatment.

[mainiac]

Watch as the Democrats propose restrictions on scary looking guns with too many bullets rather than actually restricting handguns, i.e. the gun that was used in the shooting. In fact, they're used in pretty much every shooting in America, apart from school shootings involving more than one white child as victims, despite what the US media would have you believe.

Body count of three including the shooter.   I doubt Democrats will even propose that.

Introduce policies that do not introduce nor permit favoritism.
...
This can be done with pure mathematics and good policy. No affirmative action required. Just enforced equal treatment.

That is using loaded language to carry your argument.  The thing about affirmative action is we know it works at correcting imbalances.  The thing about "equal treatment" is that it's impossible to achieve even with Maoist levels of invasive government.

Any policy that is succeeding is one that the skeptics will label unnecessary.  "Why do we need SNAP food assistance when people aren't starving?  Well they aren't starving because of SNAP..."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Apparently the shooter isn't dead, or at least not right now. Shooting yourself has a surprisingly low success rate.

[mainiac]

Only two dead?  I expect the democrats will propose loosening gun laws in this case.

[Owlbread]

I have heard that if you try to shoot yourself under your chin, you can just destroy your jaw, and if you try to shoot yourself in the temple there's a good chance you'll just blind yourself and survive. You really need to hit your brain stem but that seems very difficult to do with a handgun.

[mainiac]

Oh man, think about all those people in zombie movies saving the last bullet for themselves.  Instead of getting eaten alive, they get eaten alive while blind.

[Owlbread]

Oh man, think about all those people in zombie movies saving the last bullet for themselves.  Instead of getting eaten alive, they get eaten alive while blind.

Yes, it's a very grim thought. Joking aside I heard something similar about bear attacks and keeping a pistol to shoot yourself with if you get attacked. I think if you use a shotgun like Kurt Cobain did you should be alright, but that's easier said than done.