Are there any post coup attempt EX-trump supporters here?

Post Reply New Topic

Your assumption seems to be that all Republican policies are anti 'peaceful lives'.
Under the Republican administration, the coloured demographic benefited enormously, in some ways.

Speak for yourself I should say.

Perhaps, but that process isn't automatic. It's a political choice, to write off valid protest by focussing on the illegal actions of an extreme minority.

Saves having to acknowledge that there are genuine problems that need to be solved.

The same is now happening with the Trump protests, and the (predominantly white, male) right wing have been surprised by it, I think. Whereas it would come as no surprise to quite a few other people out there who suffer this ALL the time.

I'm sure there are some valid concerns among the wider Trump movement, unfortunately they're now easy to invalidate simply because they're associated with Trump, and he lies like a cheap watch.

While the disgruntlement is clearly real, I'm also not convinced it's being aimed at the right people. Yes there is some deep-seated unfairness in American society, but is that all the fault of a "Democrat elite" rather than a "Republican elite"? Is there even a distinction to be made between the two, or should it be US financial elite (rather than a given political party) vs. everybody else?

It seems to me that more profit is being extracted from the US economy than is sustainable in the long term. The void is being papered-over by an ever-increasing national debt. But that's like bailing out a sinking boat with a bucket rather than plugging the hole in the hull.

Political choice is incredibly limited in the States. It seems to largely revolve around slightly higher or lower taxes for the wealthy and slightly higher or lower Government spending on welfare programmes. It's further clouded by a libertarian / bureaucratic split. Where's the party that has more progressive social and economic policies, but based around a non-intervention-whenever-possible framework? Set things up to be simple and manage themselves, rather than muddying the waters with pen-pushers and red tape. That option doesn't seem to exist, but perhaps it should.

Even if it did, though, I think Americans have been lied to for so long that anything which might actually help would be rejected on ideological grounds. And conversely a destructive culture will continue to be worshipped, and irrelevant factors will continue to be blamed for its failure.

Are you talking to me?
I do speak for myself.
Do you, or are you following a narrative?

You're not a constituent of the politics you've been going on about. Your perspective is entirely elsewhere.

I don't, and most non-partisan objective individuals wouldn't, either.



I believe American society has major social problems.
Do you think my intent is to invalidate this?



Speaking for myself, I have *always* made the point that there are a$$holes on either side of the political divide.
What I find flabbergasting is that there are some who will argue against this self-evident observation.



'Valid' concerns can never be 'invalidated'.
Irrational/emotional people simply ignore the validation.

The problem is not reality.
The problem is people denying reality and embracing a groupthink, partisan narrative.

So?

I think it would be fair to say that every white person who voted Trump "tolerated" his dog whistling to the far-right (who could forget his sincere reference to white supremacists as "fine folks" or his "standby" call out to the proud boys). Every black person who voted Trump was exercising cognitive dissonance and/or ignorance. Trump hand selected Steve Bannon, as his chief strategist - a far right editor of Breitbart and a man with known sympathies to white supremacists.

To Americans this is coming off like an endorsement of a product you've never touched.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the key players in American Society (which is almost entirely those with the most money, whether individually or in companies) and the politicians and media outlets that represent them. It is surprisingly easy for these people to limit debate so all discussion takes place within tight boundaries which they themselves have established, so the real issues never get discussed.

There are lots of "red flags" for this controlling of the narrative. For example the way mainstream news often repeats as gospel truth Government logic that prioritises money-making "for the greater common good" but at a price - for example mass unemployment in a particular region or sector. None of the logic there is ever challenged. Does trickle-down work? Do we really need this change? Is this really for the greater common good, or the benefit of a select few? And is it worth it, can we really justify potentially ruining the lives of those affected? And why is money-making automatically regarded as better for society, even when we're clearly playing God (and not in a good way) with some of the people in it?

I'm not making any judgement about the answers there, BTW, I'm just pointing out that the discussion is never allowed to occur. We're just told this stuff as an absolute truth, when it really isn't. Why are we told that? Because those who benefit the most out of how things are now, are by definition the people who want to change things the least. There's an inherent tendency towards political statis and conservatism with a small 'c'.

It's not just a question of individuals ignoring problems. There's a lot of effort going into shielding people from the root causes of many social issues, and a lot of the everyday symptoms are also hidden, and the debate controlled. In the long run that causes a sharp divide between those who've been suckered and those who haven't. But it also makes the latter group more prone to reactionary extremism. If your faith in normality has been shattered then suddenly every crackpot theory COULD be valid. And of course there are people out there wishing to take advantage of those feelings of alienation, for their own purposes.

Disagree.

And why is that a problem?
Don't change your views if you don't agree.
Point out the faulty thinking, if there is evidence of this.

It staggers me that people have actually wanted to cancel non-Amerikans participating in American political discussion.
I'm mean seriously.
This is, ironically, coming from the land who purportedly venerates freedom of speech.

By engaging in discussion, my information/knowledge base increases, and I become more enlightened on the subject.
I learn where my thinking is faulty and readjust my thinking.
This is the scientific methodology in action.

Some people ridicule this.
For the life of me, I can't understand why.
It is irrational to criticise a rational approach.

Disagree with what?

It's funny though, because of the whole Trump/Capitol thing, I keep hearing other Americans say stuff like, "We're the laughing stock of the world...non-Americans think we're a joke, oh no!" etc. But now, suddenly, it no longer matters what foreigners think when they're opinions actually don't align with that premise.

When the dust settles you yanks still have the world's biggest army and biggest arsenal of weapons. Nobody is going to laugh in your faces.

A summation of Pepe’s politics over the last couple pages = he’s coming across a little too “white privilege is just fine with me,” and “the coloured folk in America have nothing to complain about,” for my personal liking.