Trump’s words have consequences

Post Reply New Topic

That's because Cyberdad has made an obvious effort to grasp American politics better than many Americans.
Think what you will.

Then what is the alternative?

Since when have you been civil to me? Your snide comment here is a good example of how that does not appear to be in your nature.

Seeing things from outside a small box.

I'm afraid you dragged me into this by referring to me as Kraichie's twin

As if not seeing Trump courting racists is viewing things from a bigger view. Are you aware that the KKK had endorsed Trump? Or that he never refuted their endorsement?

That's the funny thing with data: It can be manipulated to say whatever the analyst wants (much like statistics).

Does the data suggest that the majority of the support is from the "alt-right", or that the majority of the "alt-right" support him? These are 2 very different points. In the first (Which is implausable), it would suggest he is targetting this group, whilst in the second it would suggest that although this group is not being targeted, they see him as having more policies with which they agree.


Are your thoughts here based on actual first-hand knowledge/experience, or just your opinion based upon your preffered news sources?


In much the same Pavlovian way in which the left unquestioningly treat any action or statement from the current government there as being racist/misogynist/corrupt/impeachable, you mean?


As the job specifically entails running the USA, naturally he will be trying to do things that he (and his party) believe are in the best interests of the country and it's citizens. That you, and others, may believe differently (or that he should be doing things to support/benefit countries other than the USA) is beside the point. As to the "populism" claim...There was never any chance of the "elite's" supporting him (or his party), so of course he will look to encourage support from the lower classes\general public. This also had the added benefit that these people are more geographically distributed, assisting with the "electoral college" component.

As a side note, if the Democrats were to start taking the "big city"/arts etc. voters for granted and focus on the wants/needs of those who live outside the major population centres, it is highly likely that they would be in a much better location: It is highly unlikely that the former would vote for the Republicans, so doing so would be likely to increase their vote and electoral college results with minimal potential downside, besides meaning they would need to shape their policies in a more central way, as opposed to the left lean they have (and right lean that the Republicans have)...And would potentially drag the Republicans more towards the centre as well. As long as they ignore those who are not "big city"/arts etc. people, they are giving up a lot of ground to the "enemy".

A bigger view goes beyond that. But of course one can not see that from within a box.

You were already in this thread. You on the other hand bring up my name in threads I have not posted to numerous times. You incorrectly accuse others of your own wrong doing presumably because you do not fully understand what you are doing wrong.

And you don't think that KKK endorsement for Trump - or Trump's refusal to refute it - is poignant?

Your response to me talking about having a broader perspective of all things in general is to narrow your focus to a pinpoint.

Sorry that doesn't give you a free pass to have a go at me....

I actually somewhat agree with this. Regardless of what one leader might say, people are still responsible for their own actions. And quite frankly, kids are experts at being cruel and direct, and find stuff to use against each other.

What is it that bothers you so much? That I think you and the person you affectionately call "Kraichie" express virtually identical views? Or that when Kraichgauer basically disqualified someone's view of American politics based on being Australian, you of course instantly came to mind as a contradiction?

The regression statistics simply support what everybody already knew - economically struggling whites in postcodes outside of major capital cities largely voted for Trump. Steve Bannon understood that the reader feedback on Brietbart was more widespread and untapped voting potential needing only promises of taking back white man's jobs, and the usual populist and nationalist crap that Trump is so famous for.

When Trump was using Steve Bannon as his chief strategist it was clear that Bannon knew exactly what demographic trump should aim for based on the exact same demographic who subscribe to Breitbart who would never vote democrat but were disgruntled with the republican leadership. Trump filled the void. The rest is history.

Kraichie is entitled make his points, I'm not his mother