US elections - may the polls be ever in your favor

[Castel]

7 hours ago, ummester said:

This is another good point. So the best hope for the world is that they don't re-stabilise and descend fully into civil chaos.

From this perspective, Trump is not being controversial or incitive enough. The world needs the US to have an effective demagogue - c'mon Trump, don't stop now!

Dude...what are you talking about? 

[A wilding]

23 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

We're in a very odd time, where peoples lives are generally ok, but the perception of society and the state of things is very negative and people are getting highly reactionary and angry. Hard to know why that is, I think the media and the internet are partly to blame here, it stokes tensions, creates sides and tribes and sets people off against each other. I can see it as a Brit, who is dealing with Brexit, those who were most outraged by immigration or Europe had very little interaction with those elements, but the concept of what was happening was making them angry. You can see the same thing with Trump, its ideas and tribes that are fuelling it.

Surely the reason for the widespread anger is fairly clear?

Economically the West may be doing ok, but the benefits are not being evenly spread. The gap between the wealthy and everyone else is steadily widening, and a large proportion of people are not seeing any of the benefits and/or are living close to the edge. Many see democracy as having been hijacked by the wealthy, who are ensuring that their interests come first. For the first time in generations, many are seeing that their children are likely to be less well off than they are.

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, A wilding said:

Surely the reason for the widespread anger is fairly clear?

Economically the West may be doing ok, but the benefits are not being evenly spread. The gap between the wealthy and everyone else is steadily widening, and a large proportion of people are not seeing any of the benefits and/or are living close to the edge. Many see democracy as having been hijacked by the wealthy, who are ensuring that their interests come first. For the first time in generations, many are seeing that their children are likely to be less well off than they are.

 

Thats what we all are told, and is probably true. But we really only know about it and are upset about it because its constantly being rammed down our throats that this is the case. I would suggest that in reality the effect isn't that noticeable. . Before the 2008 crash inequality wasn't even talked about and most people didn't really even think about it, now suddenly its the one thing that everyone is upset about, yet their lives are essentially not much different to how they were.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

39 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yes when was the last time a war truly affected the US, they've never been invaded, Pearl Harbour was the closest they've ever come to actually experiencing it in the last century or so. Wars are far away things, that are almost abstract to most people. Its easy to survive that. Other countries experience true hardship, Western countries not so much, not for the everyday person.

We're in a very odd time, where peoples lives are generally ok, but the perception of society and the state of things is very negative and people are getting highly reactionary and angry. Hard to know why that is, I think the media and the internet are partly to blame here, it stokes tensions, creates sides and tribes and sets people off against each other. I can see it as a Brit, who is dealing with Brexit, those who were most outraged by immigration or Europe had very little interaction with those elements, but the concept of what was happening was making them angry. You can see the same thing with Trump, its ideas and tribes that are fuelling it.

The US has been invaded.  Canadian troops burned the White House in 1814 then moved north to be repulsed by Fort McHenry (hence the "Star Spangled Banner").  The US simply hasn't been invaded in a very long time.

[A wilding]

I agree that the 2008 crash represents some sort of turning point. Possibly increasing prosperity until then was masking the effect. But I have seen enough anecdotal evidence in the UK to be confident that the effects have become noticeable, however coloured by perception.

I do think that modern social media, being relatively out of control of the mainstream/elites, may be partly responsible for the spread of this mood though.

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

19 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I agree that the 2008 crash represents some sort of turning point. Possibly increasing prosperity until then was masking the effect. But I have seen enough anecdotal evidence in the UK to be confident that the effects have become noticeable, however coloured by perception.

I do think that modern social media, being relatively out of control of the mainstream/elites, may be partly responsible for the spread of this mood though.

 

I think that inequality only becomes a problem when people are aware of inequality. In the UK its debatable that poverty even exists any more, though it depends on your definition. But there is widespread outrage at the standards of living, blaming it on immigration or Europe for example. I think there is a huge disparity between expectations and reality, for most people in Western society. We see hugely rich individuals living a seemingly amazing life and we wonder why we don't have that. Being average simply isn't an option any more. 

Social media like Facebook and Instagram only increases this feeling. Now everyone is frustrated. 20 years ago having the exact same life would probably have been fine, now its a disaster and you are a failure, and its someone elses fault. 


 

[mormont]

I assure you that, by any definition, poverty exists in the UK. (And in the US.)

But let's get back to the topic of the US Presidential election. I'll say this for Donald Trump: he's made it a lot easier to explain the concept of 'toxic masculinity'. You just have to say 'you know, like Donald Trump'.

This latest just-kidding threat is wholly typical of how he sees and talks about the world. It's rhetorical, sure, but all of his rhetoric fits that model. If you made a top ten list of Trump words, it would be littered with entries like 'hitting', 'fighting', 'winning', 'shooting' (the top word would, of course, be 'me').

But under the surface... there's a guy who hides his net worth (likely because it's much less than he claims), who has never verifiably been in a physical fight in his life (except for once at school, when the kid he was bullying fought back), and who always gives himself an 'out' when he says something outrageous, even if it's on the level of a ten-year-old explaining that no, dad, he didn't say that bad word, he said he has an itch.

I'm sure we'll shortly be moving on, if we haven't already, to the bit where Trump uses the entire incident as further proof that the media are biased against him.

[ummester]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Do what? You know a lot of countries are economically very reliant on the USA for their own prosperity and progress. The US becoming insular and unstable would be terrible for the world.

Initially, in some isolated places, it could be terrible for finite time periods - I think it is more correct to say the world used to be reliant on the USA for prosperity and progress, I don't think it is still the case. I think the world would do just fine and likely better free of the US now.

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

People who are anti-globalisation are talking nonsense. We are already globalised and there are huge potential socio-economic benefits from globalisation. The question is how you manage it not whether to have it.

What socio economic benefits exactly? The only reason the average standard of living increased globally, previously, is because of Chinese growth. Take China out of the equation and the global standard of living has gone backwards.

I do agree that globalisation, in some way shape or form, is impossible to stop without a technological reversion. I also agree that it depends how it is managed, or rather what is leading it. I would not hate the idea of a TPP, for instance, if it was just between Oceanic countries and had nothing to do with the US.

3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

There is absolutely nothing broken about American society. If anything American society is incredibly strong given the fact we're in year thirteen of an unending war and are still recovering from a Main Street depression despite republicans sabotaging the recovery efforts for the past six years. And in terms of domestic social issues everything is pretty rosy relative to other recent periods. 

It's a culture in decline - the writing is so obviously on the wall and has been there for at least 20 years for all to see.

[ummester]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

We're in a very odd time, where peoples lives are generally ok, but the perception of society and the state of things is very negative and people are getting highly reactionary and angry. Hard to know why that is, I think the media and the internet are partly to blame here, it stokes tensions, creates sides and tribes and sets people off against each other. I can see it as a Brit, who is dealing with Brexit, those who were most outraged by immigration or Europe had very little interaction with those elements, but the concept of what was happening was making them angry. You can see the same thing with Trump, its ideas and tribes that are fuelling it.

It's because people know something wrong even if they don't know what's wrong.

Sure, the media and internet stoke fires of various side issues but seldom focus on the underlying cause - which is is a massive demographic shift. It's the first time in as long as anyone can remember in the West that children face a worse future than their parents. We previously paved the way for a better tomorrow, now we only try to keep the status quo at the expense of tomorrow. We don't have any choice because the largest demographic has been promised (and promised themselves) perfect retirements (just no-one did the maths on how that was going to work, or, if they did, they decided it was easier to kick the can than try and resolve it).

There is a bit of what's going on in Greece going on everywhere and everyone can smell it, even if they can't quite quantify it. It feels wrong, it feels uneven, unbalanced - like it is not going to work - and it isn't going to work. That is why anyone who has the power to do so (banksters and the like) are making as much as they can (by hook or crook) and getting out while they can.

Xenophobia and immigration are just diversionary focal points and byproducts of the only solution we offer to the actual problem - increasing immigration and fitting more people into less space but then we take our own space and by default happiness away. (People are happier in smaller social groups than large). But we can't afford to decentralise and give people quality of life because we only have just enough in the slush fund to hopefully cover retirements. It's a viscous circle, stealing from tomorrow to try and save a today we are to gutless to admit is already lost.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Please take the discussion of the decline of Western Civilization to another thread. This thread is specifically about the US Election. Thank you. [/mod]

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The US has been invaded.  Canadian troops burned the White House in 1814 then moved north to be repulsed by Fort McHenry (hence the "Star Spangled Banner").  The US simply hasn't been invaded in a very long time.

Those were British Regulars Scot, while some of them may have been born in Canada, they primarily wouldn't have been from Canada. That said the Canadian militia did a fine job defending Canada.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm sure we'll shortly be moving on, if we haven't already, to the bit where Trump uses the entire incident as further proof that the media are biased against him.

He already did; this is a tweet from last night:

Quote

When is the media going to talk about Hillary's policies that have gotten people killed, like Libya, open borders, and maybe her emails?

 

[ummester]

1 minute ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

[mod] Please take the discussion of the decline of Western Civilization to another thread. This thread is specifically about the US Election. Thank you. [/mod]

Fair enough - but they are very closely related and entwined.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

28 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Those were British Regulars Scot, while some of them may have been born in Canada, they primarily wouldn't have been from Canada. That said the Canadian militia did a fine job defending Canada.

TM,

I thought they were mostly Canadians lead by British Regulars.  

[Angalin]

45 minutes ago, ummester said:

Fair enough - but they are very closely related and entwined.

The radioactive rainbow cat has declared no topic creep, therefore there shall be none. 

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TM,

I thought they were mostly Canadians lead by British Regulars.  

No War of 1812 topic creep either!

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The US has been invaded.  Canadian troops burned the White House in 1814 then moved north to be repulsed by Fort McHenry (hence the "Star Spangled Banner").  The US simply hasn't been invaded in a very long time.

Ha! Beat me to it Scot.

[Angalin]

I liked the NYT piece on why calling all Trump supporters racist is unhelpful (cf. Brexit voters who voted out for reasons other than immigration). There is definitely, definitely an element of that - but there's also a lot of people who feel angry and left behind. Trump offers a vision of control to people who feel like they've lost all say: "I am your voice." He's not, he just makes them feel heard. 

[LongRider]

Alot of people have lost much due the recession, which was partly caused by the housing bust.  Many working class and middle class people were cheated out of their homes.  Many became 'underwater' in their mortgages, businesses contracted which meant many lost jobs by layoffs and plant/business closings.  Wages dropped, part time and temp working became more common. 

GOP polices such as 'Right to Work' and working 'At Will' strip workers of their rights.  Companies hire more temps so there are fewer with permanent jobs and benefits.  Lowered taxes mean less money for the social safety net. It can be very hard to be a working person in the US right now and this has created alot of anger. 

There has been a lot of 'divide and conquer' in the Repub politics with their racism and xenophobia.   So along comes Trump and he blares his crap out with his 'I'm not PC!' racist horseshit and it's an easy sell.  It's easier to beat up on Mexicans and Muslims than it is to really work to solve problems in this country.  That's what I see him tapping into.

It's acting out, when we really could some thoughtful, well tempered action.  The obstructionist congress/senate that has gone against Obama has really hurt this country, and Trump has tapped into that anger.  But he doesn't offer anything real for the people, only old tired racism, nationalism and supply side fantasy. 

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats what we all are told, and is probably true. But we really only know about it and are upset about it because its constantly being rammed down our throats that this is the case. I would suggest that in reality the effect isn't that noticeable. . Before the 2008 crash inequality wasn't even talked about and most people didn't really even think about it, now suddenly its the one thing that everyone is upset about, yet their lives are essentially not much different to how they were.

Before he revealed himself to be a disgusting scumbag, John Edwards used to speak movingly about the growth of inequality and the collapse of the middle class. I recall him saying something, maybe during the 2004 VP debate, about a "light going out" for middle class families. I gave him credit then for bringing up an issue that no one else seemed to want to address.

However, I think we need to give some credit to the Occupy Wall Street movement if we're talking about when inequality became part of the national civic discussion. Certainly the housing bubble, financial crisis, and bailouts led to a lot of populist anger (which the moneymongers and their surrogates in politics and media tried to blame on poor people taking out bad loans). But I think the word "inequality" itself came out of the Occupy movement. They were mocked and derided, but I think the succeeded in getting people talking about the issue.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

It matters somewhat that it's a Presidential candidate and not, say, a Republican candidate for US Senate -- but this again is a case of Trump simply making Republican subtext into text. He's brought common Republican thinking into undeniable focus for discussion, instead of the usual Republican plausible deniability about whatever shitty thing they dog-whistle out.

Trump has clearly discarded the dog whistle for the megaphone and exposed a lot of repugnant beliefs on the right, but I don't think that's the case here. I think most Republicans are genuinely disgusted with his comments.  

15 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

See what I mean?

 

Yes, Trump is the Presidential Candidate and so there is more gravitas to when he says this, but honestly, this is garden-variety right-wing talk. And if the outrage is at the lack of civility or decency of Trump and not the content, then are we not just perhaps a tad hyper-reactive?

I don't think encouraging violence against your political opponents is typical Republican rhetoric. The people who voice those beliefs have always been at the fringes, which makes Trump's comments more troubling for this specific reason which I failed to address:

14 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Because while there are no direct links between the two, the use of the language of violence, and gun violence in particular, in political discourse contributes to an atmosphere that legitimizes the concept. Do we really think Trump is going to organize some crazy people to go shoot Clinton? No. But him saying it in public is probably going to make those who already want to do that feel vindicated and perhaps emboldened. Similarly, the type of "paint a target" method probably emboldened and encouraged people already thinking about using violence against politicians whose politics and ideas they disagree with.

Trump's comments carry a lot more weight than Angle's, and it can legitimize those beliefs, even if they just exist at the fringes.