Decency, Trump and Obama.

[hollodero]

(03-14-2017, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I would not say that Trump acts as a mouthpiece for Breitbart or Alex jones so much as I would say both respond primarily to the same political base. 

For them the issue is less Sandy Hook than immigration and Muslims first, then after that a range of threats to white working class masculine identity, ranging from feminism to smart liberals who ignore their issues to gun control.  I am speaking of the "core" here. There are also Trump voters who, uninformed but hurting because their jobs are gone and they lack healthcare, took a leap in the dark and voted for the very party now primed to remove the last social protections they had. They will turn from Trump when his healthcare scam hits them, but the core will not.

That political base are not necessarily all avid followers of Breitbart or Infowars. Many may not even use the internet. but they are fellow travelers in their incapacity to vet conspiracy theories that support policies they would like to see--like the exclusion of (Latino) immigrants and Muslims.

Yes. That's one way to see the core, and I see it the same way.

(03-14-2017, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why the 3,000,0000 to 5,000,000 claim does not undermine Trump's credibility for that group. Rather, for them, the credibility of institutions based upon social science is undermined where they challenge Trump and Infowars. 

If you don't really understand the social skill and "government literacy" it takes to get branches and department of government working together to effect policy, then it may not set off alarm bells when a candidate post's pictures of other candidates' "ugly" wives or parades Clinton accusers at a national debate, or likens the CIA to Nazis or accuses his predecessor of felonious wire-tapping and asks the Senate and House to investigate. A president can just do things, right? Doesn't have to gain support for his policies or even listen to people who don't agree. If 1,000 state department employees sign a letter of protest and critical mid-level managers resign, it is not because they see real problems ahead, but because they are biased, like the MSM.

Right wing radio pounds this audience daily with claims that Trump is resisted only because people (the Democrats and "establishment" Republicans) don't want to see "change," not because knowledgeable people everywhere recognize he is doing harm to the nation.  If anyone pointed out to Trump that his Muslim ban EO would not stand up in the courts, his hangers on could just step up and repeat--"They said he wouldn't run, then they said he wouldn't win the primary, then they said he wouldn't win the election . . . ." --convincing Trump himself that he need not listen.

Also true, but that's my lever.

(03-14-2017, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: What will happen when this guy has to address the N Korean problem now? Will we have anymore leverage with China at all? Maybe he can get Taiwan to stop trading with them.

Leverage, still yes, but it took a severe hit, I'd say. You still have a fancy military, though.
--

Well. In the last days I wrote some of my worst comments, it's just I know I want to say something, I even feel like I know something you don't know yet, but I can't just find the right words. Language barrier, maybe.

It's how to deal with the alt-right voters, and I see a different "core". I agree with Hillary about the "deplorable core" (biiig mistake to say it though, of course, maybe the biggest of them all) which is not to be talked to - and the others who would be open to seeing the points you mentioned I commented with "that's my lever". Your definition is very valid too, it just seperates core from periphery at another point.

But the analogies to my country fail at very important points, the situation is so different. And yet some mechanisms are so strikingly similar, something I never saw in american politics before (similarities I mean). I can only see it as it was taken from Europe, who took it from us, see "Jörg Haider" "HC Strache" or "FPÖ" (you know some of those probably, don't feel prompted to google the others, doesn't matter). What happens in the US, we invented... but again, vast differences, our alt-rights have their own party and didn't need to overtake another one, we don't have a vain dumb-dumb millionaire who is driven by reaching historic immortality they can use as a tool, and we don't have to deal with North Korea and stuff like that.

Our alt-rights... more as if Stephen Miller Kellyanne Conway and many more of those had an own party (we do have Bannons). A typical talking point is the media/leftist/elite conspiracy brain-washing the population (everyone but their supporters), things like they withhold murder, rape and terror attacks from muslims for their "agenda". Many take it as far as saying "...because this media/leftist elites hate our country and want the population to perish". And many people believe it. Either because they are flat-out Nazis (that's what we say here, you might use KKK or whatever) or because they're dumb and/or conspiracists (these two groups are the "deplorables", no point to talk to them) or because their tolerance was only a thin fassade they are now told they could as well let go of. Alt-right brings out the worst in people and aims for that. That's why they are so dangerous.

And then there is hate of the elites and the belief we need to "give someone else a chance", those who vote out of protest to hurt the others. They bring alt-right to success, for the core alone isn't sufficient for winning elections. And there are very decent, intelligent people amongst them, the "moderates" for lack of another word, and the non alt-right society keeps losing them. For we do not talk, we make a constant mockery of them. And the "left" is a very intolerant group of people feeling superior, which regarding their intelligence they often are not.
And very specifically in the US, you have the conservatives too, these people have their own parties here, which is better of course. And of course there are many very decent, intelligent people among them too. They are not "alt-right core" by a long shot. So that completes the picture of the Trump voter, somehow.
In my country we see alt-right success after success, and it's not the "deplorables" that just grow in numbers, it's the moderates that get driven away. And you can bring them to think about it, they often do when alt-right is in power (that's where they ultimatively fail, thank God, or else they would try to get rid of democratic structures). Now what makes your country special amongst other things, you additionally hate the conservatives, and the "anti-liberal" base is very strong, and that's why I feel the alt-right usurpers of the GOP are way more dangerous in the US.

And the alt-right governed administration can have "success", not because of Trump, but in spite of him, for there's a conservative agenda, conservatives who believe they use and play Trump. Which is not the case. They get played and used. And the republican voter base gets played and used, too. They need to see that. Should Trump get reelected, it might be over, and they lose too. That's the mistake, to think you could contain the alt-rights in the long run. In my country, voters ultimatively run away (mainly to the conservatives), but you only have the democrats where they can run to, and many will never bring themselves to do that, not even to being complicit to a democrat win by not voting at all. The notion of "avoiding the liberal win" in the United States might be the biggest alt-right chance to raise to sustainable power and shape the world. That's what's so scary.

That's also why you need to bring out the moderates, maybe even the conservatives - and those who do not vote, which is half the population. Or you need a new party, whatever, but you need to change your ways of thinking and talking politics. Or we all, even in Europe, face a huge danger.

And that's why you need a different way of talking, I see it here and everywhere, I see the "left" making the same mistake over and over again they also make here, which I make as well, which is being arrogant, condescending, the more sensible human being with the better values, all that, and trying to win the argument no matter what. I see the media staring at the phenomena like the rabbit stares at the snake and not knowing what to do - except doing exactly what I described. They all exaggerate things too, don't make the right points, turn to arrogance, get attackable and that's how fascists (for lack of a better term) can raise.

Just use the picture itself is what I'd argue. That is Trump, that is the alt-right, urge people to take a hard look at them, that's all I can say. Maybe also drag Bannon to the surface, again and again. It's way more subtle than that, but you keep losing by thinking to win the argument doing all of the things described before. In the end, respect plays a part, many things do, but that's my drift, that's why I'm here instead of posting twice a month (which would be more my thing).
That's all.

This comment isn't that much better than the previous ones, but whatever. Still took me long enough to write it anyway - I made the thread, so I can spam it.