The New American Politics thread

[Swift]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Has anyone posted the Doonesbury Trump Collection yet? Pretty telling holey moley. Say what you want about Garry Trudeau, but he nailed this stuff decades ago.

http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/set/89

Wow, these are prescient. I guess I've never paid attention to Trump before the birther thing and this. Has he always been threatening to run for President?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Yes that is exactly the point. Their choice is irrational. Trump is not fit to be President and would be absolutely disastrous.

The people voting for him are irrational. Just go watch some interviews about why they're voting for him.

There are two viable possibilities:

1. You are wrong, and your inability to be objective is leading you to make very rash generalizations.

2. Your definition of "irrational" is too broad to be useful.

The alternative that you claim is, in itself, not rationale because it would require the same generalizations and assumptions that people claim Trump makes. Although your claims about Trump supporters are probably no more or less defensible than the claims Trump has made vis-a-vis illegal Mexican immigrants or Muslims. This is the grand irony of foolish statements lumping all Trump supporters together: it requires the type of thinking that is precisely the type of thing about which people vilify Trump. Such ironies are lost on you if you are in the bubble, but very clear if you are observing outside the bubble.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'd argue that the vast number of arguments made on both sides are irrational. The number of voters who are actually making their choice as an entirely rational exercise is pretty small. It may be the rationally superior choice to vote for Clinton, but that doesn't change the fact that many of her supporters are supporting her without considering things any further than party affiliation, or that they personally find Trump intolerable.

New York Times Sunday Book Review

Why Won’t They Listen?
‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt

You’re smart. You’re liberal. You’re well informed. You think conservatives are narrow-minded. You can’t understand why working-class Americans vote Republican. You figure they’re being duped. You’re wrong.

This isn’t an accusation from the right. It’s a friendly warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal. In “The #Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. Like other psychologists who have ventured into political coaching, such as George Lakoff and Drew Westen, Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments. But Haidt is looking for more than victory. He’s looking for wisdom. That’s what makes “The Righteous Mind” well worth reading. Politics isn’t just about #manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I do think there is a valid rational argument to be made for Trump: such as that the effect of illegal immigration on America negatively affects the livelihoods of poorly-educated, low-income or unemployed Americans, and that this is not being seriously addressed because the corporate interests that control Washington benefit from that same illegal immigration.

The problem with this argument is that Trump absolutely 100% personifies those corporate interests. If he becomes President, he just skips through the lobbyist middleman part of the equation. He takes full advantage of current policies that allow him to outsource production of his clothing line, etc for pennies on the dollar. He takes advantage of cheap immigrant labor for his casinos and other properties.

He can talk about immigration, but is he likely to change it, when it would negatively affect his bottom line?

If Clinton is out of touch with the low-income, low-education poor white people in rural America--Trump is on a completely different planet from them. He has zero grasp of what it means to struggle to survive.

Trump used his "University" to steal money from low/lower-middle income families to pad his pockets, and when the shady practices were finally being investigated, such as in Florida, he just gave Pam Bondi a hefty donation and held a fundraiser for her, and magically the investigation went away.

Trump does not care about low income Americans outside of saying whatever he can say to get their vote.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Wow, these are prescient. I guess I've never paid attention to Trump before the birther thing and this. Has he always been threatening to run for President?

Yes, it seemed like every election year since the 1980s he would do a little publicity stunt where he would say he was running and would back out. That's why this year, no one really expected it to get far and figured he was just doing it for attention again.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

New York Times Sunday Book Review

Why Won’t They Listen?
‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt

Great book. Haidt was also great at the APA convention this year.

[DiracSpike]

The alt-right isn't an organized group with a goal it's just a bunch of loser fedora wearers that troll on twitter, that got branded the alt-right by the media. I'd love to be the FBI director assigned to keep an eye on them, you'd literally have to do nothing because they're not any kind of threat.

The regressive left is exerting much more control on real life and not enough people are talking about it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The problem with this argument is that Trump absolutely 100% personifies those corporate interests. If he becomes President, he just skips through the lobbyist middleman part of the equation. He takes full advantage of current policies that allow him to outsource production of his clothing line, etc for pennies on the dollar. He takes advantage of cheap immigrant labor for his casinos and other properties.

I'm not sure if you're expecting a debate on this? My post wasn't defending this viewpoint, it was offering an example of what a valid rational argument for Trump would be, to which I said there were valid counterarguments, a few of which you've listed. I'd point out that using personification leans more toward the emotional than the rational, but the way you used it, it's more rhetoric than anything.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The problem with this argument is that Trump absolutely 100% personifies those corporate interests.

I think this is an interesting topic to explore.

Here's what I know, anecdotally, from my area of the world. Without too much detail (as SA says, you should support Clinton for your personal safety), I'm part of a certain area of the financial services that is viewed in an unfriendly way by the public. It's in my best financial interest for Clinton to win. A banker could not ask for a better friend than Clinton.

Literally the only thing I get from a Trump win is the joy of watching the progressives going apoplectic. Everything else would be costly. No, Clinton is certainly the candidate for the establishment.

Trump's economic policies, especially on trade, would hurt the average working class American. Immigration, with proper polices in place, is a great economic driver. Trump would choke that.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm not sure if you're expecting a debate on this? My post wasn't defending this viewpoint, it was offering an example of what a valid rational argument for Trump would be, to which I said there were valid counterarguments, a few of which you've listed. I'd point out that using personification leans more toward the emotional than the rational, but the way you used it, it's more rhetoric than anything.

It wasn't necessarily a debate as much as pointing out that even a "rational" support for Trump isn't really all that rational, as his policies (whatever they might be--likely they would be formed more by Pence and the cabinet he's put together) are not likely going to be helpful for the people whose vote he's courting.

It's really hard to find any good reason to vote for Trump.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Buster

I think this is an interesting topic to explore.

Here's what I know, anecdotally, from my area of the world. Without too much detail (as SA says, you should support Clinton for your personal safety), I'm part of a certain area of the financial services that is viewed in an unfriendly way by the public. It's in my best financial interest for Clinton to win. A banker could not ask for a better friend than Clinton.

Literally the only thing I get from a Trump win is the joy of watching the progressives going apoplectic. Everything else would be costly. No, Clinton is certainly the candidate for the establishment.

Trump's economic policies, especially on trade, would hurt the average working class American. Immigration, with proper polices in place, is a great economic driver. Trump would choke that.

Trump isn't a dictator, he gets bills from Congress and either signs them or vetoes them. The GOP is the most corporate friendly, financial services friendly party there is in America. Trump himself has said the there are too many regulations in America (sounds like textbook GOP to me). So he's not doing anything punitive to anything in corporate America. As far as trade goes, he's signing TPP almost immediately and not doing anything about any other trade deals. You think he's going to side with progressives like Bernie and Liz Warren on these issues? I'm going to say.....not a ####ing chance.

Don't act obtuse Buster. You know deep down Trump is George W. Bush reincarnate. Stop acting like he's going to be a total rebel doing whatever he wants. Remember that Pence is more than likely the real President in that White House. But sure somehow the Dems winning will be better for your career.

[peter12]

It is actually sad that even with all the controversy this election will go down as one of the most fruitless and boring in American history.

There are real policy issues that need to be discussed, and all we get is BS on Clinton's fainting spell or whatever update on the latest insane thing that came out of Trump's mouth.

Immigration, inequality, foreign policy, subsidiarity, NAFTA, drugs.... all of it is being sidelined.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

It wasn't necessarily a debate as much as pointing out that even a "rational" support for Trump isn't really all that rational, as his policies (whatever they might be--likely they would be formed more by Pence and the cabinet he's put together) are not likely going to be helpful for the people whose vote he's courting.

It's really hard to find any good reason to vote for Trump.

Just because something can be disputed (and invalidated) with counter-arguments doesn't mean it's not a rational argument... rational doesn't mean right. And actually I think it's fundamentally important that we understand the difference between the rational and irrational (emotional, ideological, etc.) arguments. Because if two people approach an argument saying "here's my rational reason for thinking this," then there's a hope that those people can have a meaningful discussion that results in someone's mind actually being changed. But a rush to invalidate tends to be counterproductive to that approach. Perhaps this is why so many people cling to emotional voting motives (and why Republicans in particular really embraced the message of how you feel over what you know...): rationality can be disputed, emotion cannot. That said, when we start to have discussions on rational levels, that's awesome... that's something that should be celebrated and used to create understanding, not something that should be used to try and crush the other side as swiftly as possible. Because when you do that, the other side is going to withdraw into an emotional bubble.

That said, I do agree in that any rational argument I can think of for Trump, I can think of better counter-arguments.

[HotHotHeat]

New favorite Clinton corruption story:

In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted on 65 criminal counts, including income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo (at a time when Iranian revolutionaries were still holding American citizens hostage).[7][17] The charges would have led to a sentence of more than 300 years in prison had Rich been convicted on all counts.[17] The indictment was filed by then-U.S. Federal Prosecutor (and future mayor of New York City) Rudolph Giuliani. At the time it was the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history.[18]

Learning of the plans for the indictment, Rich fled[9] to Switzerland and, always insisting that he was not guilty, never returned to the U.S. to answer the charges.[Notes 1] Rich's companies eventually pleaded guilty to 35 counts of tax evasion and paid $90 million in fines,[7] although Rich himself remained on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most-Wanted Fugitives List for many years,[20] narrowly evading capture in Britain, Germany, Finland, and Jamaica.[21] Fearing arrest, he did not even return to the United States to attend his daughter's funeral in 1996.[22]

On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, U.S. President Bill Clinton granted Rich a highly controversial presidential pardon. Several of Clinton's strongest supporters distanced themselves from the decision.[23] Former President Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat, said, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful."[24] Clinton himself later expressed regret for issuing the pardon, saying that "it wasn't worth the damage to my reputation."[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_R...ent_and_pardon

[Buster]

When the New Yorker is willing to do you like this, well...

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most people have always been pretty dumb and emotional. But 100 years ago that didn't matter so much, because what the average person believed didn't matter as much as it does today. The internet has changed everything. Without informed elites (elites aren't always a bad thing) to manage and moderate dialog, we're seeing how truly irrational a great many voters are.

This long Andrew Sullivan piece in New York magazine from back in May caused quite a stir. Worth a read.

Democracies end when they are too democratic

Some highlights:

thanks for posting this and the book, really interesting.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Trump does not care about low income Americans outside of saying whatever he can say to get their vote.

That's been one of the weirder angles in this whole very weird thing. For what reason (other than his transparent bluster) do low-income and disadvantaged people like him?

He's the closest thing America has to a living, breathing version of the monocle-wearing guy on the Monopoly box. Hell, he's no doubt bought and sold property on the real streets in Atlantic City that are in Monopoly. He's not a regular person and never has been and doesn't have a clue about being one.

He's not "for" the little guy and never has been in his entire life. There's no reason for anyone to believe he is, but here we are.

[CliffFletcher]

He's an elite willing to call out and piss off other members of the elite. That's very appealing to a lot of people.

[Flash Walken]

In July of 2010, journalist and provocateur Andrew Breitbart posted a video excerpt of remarks on his site purporting to expose “evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient.” This was an explosive charge. The Tea Party was ascendant then and racial grievance was one of its animating features.

In Obama’s America, “the white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering,” explained Rush Limbaugh. “And of course everybody says the white kid deserved it—he was born a racist, he’s white.” Iowa Republican Representative Steve King charged that Obama has a “default mechanism” that “favors the black person.” Tea Party supporters arrived at rallies charging Obama with endorsing “white slavery.” Now Breitbart purported to have in his hands proof that would prove that it was the NAACP and its allies in the White House who were the real racists.

Breitbart’s “video evidence” was stunningly effective. The NAACP immediately denounced the remarks and the U.S. Department of Agriculture official who’d made them—Shirley Sherrod—was, in short order, forced to submit her resignation via Blackberry. “You’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight,” she was told. The remark was revealing. It was Beck who best channeled the Tea Party’s spirit of racial victimization. The president was a man with “a deep-seated hatred of white people,” claimed Beck. “This guy is, I believe, a racist."

So frightened were the Obama administration officials and the NAACP that they did not bother to ask if Breitbart had honestly rendered Sherrod’s comments. They did not seek to understand their context or meaning. They did not even bother to see who Shirley Sherrod actually was and whether the charge accorded with her history. Instead they dispensed with any pursuit of the truth, allied themselves with fear, and humiliated Shirley Sherrod.

Later, when it was revealed that Breitbart had perpetrated a massive deception, when no less than Glenn Beck defended Sherrod, it was easy to think that Andrew Breitbart had, himself, endured a humiliating and disqualifying loss.

Events on Friday threw that thesis into doubt. Hillary Clinton made a claim—half of Donald Trump’s supporters are motivated by some form of bigotry. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it,” she said. “And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.” Clinton went on to claim that there is another half—people disappointed in the government and economy who are desperate for change. The second part of this claim received very little attention, simply because much of media could not make its way past the first half. The resultant uproar challenges the idea that Breitbart lost.

Indeed, what Breitbart understood, what his spiritual heir Donald Trump has banked on, what Hillary Clinton’s recent pillorying has clarified, is that white grievance, no matter how ill-founded, can never be humiliating nor disqualifying. On the contrary, it is a right to be respected at every level of American society from the beer-hall to the penthouse to the newsroom.

The comment was “a self-inflicted wound” claimed the Washington Post reporter Dan Balz. “It was very close to the dictionary definition of bigoted,” asserted John Heilemann. My colleague Ron Fournier and the Post’s Aaron Blake were both taken aback by the implicit math of Clinton’s statement. “Clinton appeared to be slapping the ‘racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic’ label on about 20 percent of the country,” wrote Blake in a post whose headline echoed that of the Trump campaign manager’s website. “That's no small thing.” Whether or not it was a false thing remained uninvestigated.

The media’s criticism of Clinton’s claim has been matched in vehemence only by their allergy to exploring it. “Candidates should not be sociologists,” glibly asserted David Brooks on Meet The Press. I’m not sure why not, but certainly journalists who broadcast their opinions to the nation should have to evince something more than a superficial curiosity. It is easy enough to look into Clinton’s claim and verify it or falsify it. The numbers are all around us. And the story need not end there. A curious journalist might ask what those numbers mean, or even push further, and ask what it means that the ranks of the Democratic Party are not totally free of their own deplorables.

Instead what followed was not journalism but, as Jamelle Bouie accurately dubbed it, “theater criticism.” Fournier and Blake’s revulsion at the thought that some 20 percent of the country, in some fashion, fit into that basket is illustrative. Neither made any apparent attempt to investigate the claim. No polling data appears in either piece and no reasons are given for why the estimate is untrue. It simply can’t be true—even if the data says that it actually is.

To understand how truly bizarre this method of opining is, consider the following: Had polling showed that relatively few Trump supporters believe black people are lazy and criminally-inclined, if only a tiny minority of Trump supporters believed that Muslims should be banned from the country, if birtherism carried no real weight among them, would journalists decline to point this out as they excoriated her? Of course not. But the case against Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” is a triumph of style over substance, of clamorous white grievance over knowable facts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rt-now/499511/

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

He's an elite willing to call out and piss off other members of the elite. That's very appealing to a lot of people.

Perhaps, but it's gotta be more than that. Anyone with the slightest clue who this guy is knows that he's been an "establishment" player for decades. He comes right out and tells everyone he's been part of the corrupt system in the party debates.

Bah, I can't explain it and won't even try. It seems to be the same dynamic that makes conservative Christians rally behind media personalities and politicians who don't just ignore, but openly flout the values conservative Christians claim to have.

I'll never get it.