Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Estebonrober, Nov 2, 2020.
Such charisma, much election power.
I really wonder what polls like this in the United States, especially at times such as this where the leadership of both Duopoly Parties is so wretched (in their own ways) would look like if more Parties than just the Duopoly Parties were realistically competitive and an option that would be allowed by the electoral engine to possibly take Government (that is, the voters had real and meaningful choice at the ballot box)...
What do Donald Trump, Jr. or Ivanka Trump offer. Considering "Trumpism," in it's entirely, is pure vitriolic, sensationalist, incendiary populism, toxic charisma, and a specific personality, and not really based on ideology, policy, or platform, there is no possible way that any of the Trump siblings, or Pampeo, could carry on that movement - but they seem to have absolutely nothing of their own. This is why Monarchialism (at least of the sort where the Monarch still has real power) is a failed form of Government...
My big fear is that regardless of whether or not Trump runs in 2024, that he has created a pattern of behavior in the political realm of the US that will stick around. I am also worried about how much he has eroded trust in the electoral process, thus opening the door for someone far more competent to undermine the election and carry out a bloodless coup.
Yesterday I heard that about 70% of registered Republicans think that this election was corrupt/stolen and yet about 80% of those same people think that their own vote was counted correctly/fairly. Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug and it may only get worse to the point where we may fight over every election going forward in the courts until eventually the corrupt side wins.
Half of Trump's supporters think top Democrats are involved in child sex-trafficking | YouGov
Half of his supporters now truly believe the other side is the literal expression of evil at this point. I'm pretty sure the ability to go back is completely controlled by GOP leadership's willingness to walk this madness back. Considering that they are in full wag the dog mode and that tail is sensationalist cable new and talk radio that is based on saying the most insane things possible to keep people listening, I have little faith, but am trying to stay optimistic.
Edit: removed something I didn't mean to post
The Canadian Rhino party did something very similar recently, and I must admit that I thought it was hilarious, instead of a travesty against democracy. So, I think I was expressing some bias when I thought it was funny.
That said, the Rhino party did it much more brazenly and openly, but it still should have triggered something in me
A large number (though not all, certainly) of high-profile Democrats AND Republicans - including apparently BOTH Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump - were reportedly "guests," on Eppstein's island...
The idea that opinions from the populace have a bottom-up character and that therefore bottom-up populist movements are fundamentally "right" is a dogma.
If you believe in that dogma you believe that you can win the influencers competition and/or you are principally opposed to the representative democracy
So I take it you believe in this conspiracy of a cabal of wealthy child molesters?
I'm not sure what you mean here? I didn't mean conspiratorial nonsense was jsut stuck in the right side of politics jsut that it has taken over their politics in a way that is completely corrosive to governance.
Trump administration finds time for something other than the election.
They've moved the completion date for an environmental review of a proposed mine at Oak Flats 1 year forward to Dec 2020.
so the influencers (Trump et al) are able to have their base believe in total nonsense that is indeed corrosive to governance.
and in extenso bad for the country as a whole.
And this base is living up to their beliefs: initiating their own information, discussion, opinioning exchange... and build up their "own" populist movement. And yes... they vote as well.
What we see is a populist movement easily "guided" by a few influencers and gaining momentum all over the GOP because of the threat or power of their votes in regional-local elections.
When Trump was just President and many GOP politicians had not yet fallen in line, Trump intimidated those politicians with the promise that whomever was not supporting him, would feel the wrath of his voterbase. In fact he already made those "promises" before he was chosen as President.
Just look at that from the socialist movement angle of the years, decades before WW2 in Europe (when all male, and therefore all classes were allowed to vote)
The socialist influencers had exactly the same strategy.
A populist bottom-up movement being entitled to take over their government regardless whether the arguments were correct or not, or governance would be nonsensical or not.
When faith rules the waves without internal critcising or institutional reality hurdles then what we saw with Trump is normal.
If you do not want your country to be exposed to such risks (or opportunities) you have to build in inertia that is in conflict with the dogma that the people are always "right" also when they vote based on nonsense from influencers.
I think Trump just made a speech to the media. It lasted for one minute, in which he went on about how the stockmarket passed 30.000 points and the vaccines were amazing.
The book. It's a cook-book!
I do not know if my parents are in the group of republicans who have accepted the loss, or the group who still think it was stolen.
A week before the election, we had a family gathering for birthdays, and unfortunately the topic of conversation turned to politics.....my dad asked if I'm going to vote. "Yes, actually I am... in person" "who you voting for?" A bit of hesitation, then made it clear i wasn't voting for Trump, he asks if I'm a 'socialist' now, and knowing his definition of it, and meaning it as an insult, i inform him (again) socialism is not communism and then after a few more exchanges it devolves into me telling him basically he is an idiot for believing everything Fox and Limbaugh feed him. Though of course they think I'm the one fed with disinformation.
So with Thanksgiving coming up, they ask if its "safe" to get together.
"Sure, if nobody brings up politics"
"By 'safe' we were talking about Covid...."
People who subconsciously believe in vote suppression have long-supported a 'literacy test'. I wonder if they can more easily dismiss things like this under "well, it's like a literacy test". So, it will bother them less.
I didn't say what I, PERSONALLY, believed in that statement, did I. I merely recalled a number of sources, which may be reliable or may be dubious. But, quoting sources with a wide net, even if dubiosity is to be risked, versus inserting a large dose of personal bias, opinion, and belief to make sure everything you say on such matters MUST conform to a socio-political and ideological line and view of the world is what separates respectable, reliable, credible, and high-brow journalism from the schlock of modern U.S. (and a few other nations') excuse for news media nowadays, for instance.
And, when you say the "right-side of politics," I believe you mean the Republican Party of the United States. Many right-of-centre parties and organizations in the world, or even otherwise in the U.S. (such as the powerful and leading Centre-Right on the spectrum branch of the Democratic Party of the United States, like Biden, Kerry, and the Clintons, for instance), do not have such a form of politics "completely taken over," though, again, there are exceptions - and there are left-wing parties out there seized by wonky conspiracy mentality. Speaking of the two American Duopoly Parties as "the Left," and "the Right," as absolutes, is an inaccurate, misleading, disingenuous, and VERY sloppy, arrogant, presumptuous, and absolutist way of terming things that people should REALLY get out of the toxic habit of.
But, the fact that BOTH major U.S. Duopoly Parties unrepentantly and without plan to reform or recognition it's a problem support another whole long-standing form of electoral suppression that also hurts voter choice, government accountability, the socio-political dialogue, and a democratic process - that, of course, being the institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates and all viewpoints not within the bailiwick taken up by either major party. It doesn't look at all good, or at all to have true integrity, to claim to be the "party of democracy," for opposing one form of electoral suppression, but gleefully continue to be a contributor to and beneficiary another form of electoral system right along with the party you just accused and excoriated for the first type.
With such support he can win enough of the individual staggered primaries to build such a lead that most other candidates will drop out because the donors will focus on him and thus secure the nomination.
But will he have that support in 4 years, when GOP in Congress and Governor's Mansions are actually politically active to make cases for their own candidacies. Populism is a phenomenon that tends to burn bright and hot, but die out quickly - it never has any longevity at all as a political force. And neither any of Trump's children nor Pompeo has the charisma or personality to be an inheritor to the populist and personality part of "Trumpism," - of which there's really not much left without, as it's not big on coherent or consistent policy, frankly.
Yes, he won through most of the 2016 primaries with just 20-ish% of the vote, because the rest was split among so many other contenders.
From the description in the article, the Rhino party thing was fairly substantially different. One involved fueling large amounts of political money to undermine one mainstream party to the benefit of the other in a race that ended razor thin.
The other involved one fringe party running a candidate with the same name as the candidate of another fringe party (it's not like the People party got anyone elected), in a race that was won by a wide margin by the party that has won the last several elections in that riding, also by large margins.
Again, you and @Takhisis are assuming, in defiance of the overwhelmingly proven trends of populism, that Trump will command a great deal of support among GOP voters in 4 years, to the degree that quoting 2016 Primary trends will at all be relevant and meaningful, and that his flame of populistic fervor won't have sputtered immensely, or even died out. Populism is not a socio-political phenomenon with longevity as one of it's features.
Separate names with a comma.