Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

[Knotted]

Looking at it fairly naïvely Trump won because he was presented by both parties as the candidate of change. He's pulled the same trick he pulled in 2016 and the same trick Obama pulled in 2008 "yes we can". Vote wise it should be no shocker to find the candidate with a bit of buzz around them doing better than polled and getting the vote out on the day. Every time somebody starts talking about Trump as a fascist or an authoritarian or civil war or coups or all the terrible things he's going to do, they transform this bumbling buffoon into a swaggering man of action.

Libs are going to be libs. But the left need to do better, and there needs to be a sober analysis of what his presidency means.

My thoughts are that

1) Easily bullied minorities are going to be bullied. The assault on trans healthcare will accelerate. Expect cruelty towards immigrants.
2) Women's reproductive rights have already been overturned. Trump shows no signs I can see of taking this further.
3) Rolling back action on climate change may be more complex than the rhetoric may lead you to think. There are economic interests at play that both parties are playing to in practice both in the oil industry and green energy. Expect anti-green posturing, but the realities maybe more complex and the Dem alternatives will be hopelessly inadequate.
4) Don't expect much change on the economy or workers rights. Both parties are thoroughly bourgeois.
5) That wall isn't going to happen. Immigration will not be curtailed to any significant degree. Too many business interests involved.
6) Forget the stuff about a civil war. Trump is going to demobilise his base and he's going to play the unity card like every other president. He wants stability. He wants to govern the country. He doesn't want continual crises. Even Hitler got rid of the SA when in power.
7) Foreign policy is going to continue more or less as before. The US has a web of alliances protecting their imperial interests and there is not a cats chance in hell that Trump will disrupt these. Those lunatics who want American imperialism to balance Russian and Chinese imperialism will be well pleased with Trump just as much as they would have been well pleased with Harris. Similarly those hoping for a change of policy are going to be sorely disappointed (cf the disappointment with Obama).
8) I'm cracking open a bottle tonight to celebrate the defeat of that genocidal maniac Kamala Harris. Liberal imperial centrism is in deep crisis in the US and elsewhere. The Dems maybe permanently unelectable now in the US. This is good.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's not about blame though, and I wasn't saying they were, but that the position of sneering and blaming the thick people is similar to the position that authoritarians have. Yes, people can have selfish and bigoted ideas, but reducing it to that is not just not enough, it's part of the problem. We need better politics and ones that lead us in productive directions.

Well, obviously I support politics to the left of that offered by Harris and I agree that such politics would be more effective against Trump. But that doesn’t in any way detract from my horror and disgust at people’s decisions to back megalomaniacal fascist rapists. I’m afraid those decisions to speak to either very unintelligent, uninformed approaches to politics or a form of moral depravity. We’re allowed a period of mourning about that without getting the ‘but, but neoliberalism’ lecture.

 

[LDC]

Well, obviously I support politics to the left of that offered by Harris and I agree that such politics would be more effective against Trump. But that doesn’t in any way detract from my horror and disgust at people’s decisions to back megalomaniacal fascist rapists. I’m afraid those decisions to speak to either very unintelligent, uninformed approaches to politics or a form of moral depravity. We’re allowed a period of mourning about that without getting the ‘but, but neoliberalism’ lecture.

Fair enough. It's a shame that for many on the left the period of blame and looking down at people will be as far as it goes.

 

[scifisam]

I'm sorry, but people who voted for a racist, misogynistic, overall generally bigoted arsehole are themselves racist, misogynistic, generally bigoted arseholes. Most of them are also stupid, because he is going to fuck the US economy, especially for lower income people, and they chose that.

I don't give a shit if that makes some on here wring their hands and say "you're not helping," because guess what? Your ultra-liberal pandering isn't fucking helping either. Most of those voters even know they're bigots, and are proud of it - and being proud of being stupid isn't uncommon either. That's what we have to deal with, not pretending they're all downtrodden misunderstood ickle babies.

If that includes some family members, your family members are bigots (and quite possibly stupid, unless they're rich). They are. Doesn't mean they don't have good qualities in their everyday behaviour, because people are complicated like that, but your feelings shouldn't be hurt by them being called bigots, you should be hurt by them being bigots.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In her very first speech as the official candidate, Harris actually sounded pretty good. As good as you could hope for really from mainstream US politics. She subsequently started backtracking and ended up going on speaking tours with Republicans!

I have no idea if she would have won if she'd stuck to her original line. But initially at least, I thought she was a good candidate. Not condescending and with some actual ideas. Somehow they lost track of that. A case of overthinking?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry, but people who voted for a racist, misogynistic, overall generally bigoted arsehole are themselves racist, misogynistic, generally bigoted arseholes. Most of them are also stupid, because he is going to fuck the US economy, especially for lower income people, and they chose that.

I don't give a shit if that makes some on here wring their hands and say "you're not helping," because guess what? Your ultra-liberal pandering isn't fucking helping either. Most of those voters even know they're bigots, and are proud of it - and being proud of being stupid isn't uncommon either. That's what we have to deal with, not pretending they're all downtrodden misunderstood ickle babies.

If that includes some family members, your family members are bigots (and quite possibly stupid, unless they're rich). They are. Doesn't mean they don't have good qualities in their everyday behaviour, because people are complicated like that, but your feelings shouldn't be hurt by them being called bigots, you should be hurt by them being bigots.

It is a difficult circle to square, for sure. What's the alternative? "I'm not a racist, I just vote for racists"? That would get pretty short shrift if it were posted by someone on here.

 

[Humberto]

I'm sorry, but people who voted for a racist, misogynistic, overall generally bigoted arsehole are themselves racist, misogynistic, generally bigoted arseholes. Most of them are also stupid, because he is going to fuck the US economy, especially for lower income people, and they chose that.

I don't give a shit if that makes some on here wring their hands and say "you're not helping," because guess what? Your ultra-liberal pandering isn't fucking helping either. Most of those voters even know they're bigots, and are proud of it - and being proud of being stupid isn't uncommon either. That's what we have to deal with, not pretending they're all downtrodden misunderstood ickle babies.

If that includes some family members, your family members are bigots (and quite possibly stupid, unless they're rich). They are. Doesn't mean they don't have good qualities in their everyday behaviour, because people are complicated like that, but your feelings shouldn't be hurt by them being called bigots, you should be hurt by them being bigots.

It's not about pandering.

What comes to mind for me is Boris Johnson hammering Corbyn in 2019. Corbyn was the better man, with the better offer for most of the public. But enough people didn't see that. Right wing populism won the day. As it did in the American election.

 

[scifisam]

It's not about pandering.

What comes to mind for me is Boris Johnson hammering Corbyn in 2019. Corbyn was the better man, with the better offer for most of the public, but people didn't see that. Right wing populism won the day. As it did in the American election.

It is pandering. "Oh, they're not really racists, don't be mean." Condescending as fuck, too.

I'm not sure how the right wing succeeding over here as well proves it's not pandering.

 

[emanymton]

Fair enough. It's a shame that for many on the left the period of blame and looking down at people will be as far as it goes.

I don't have an issue with looking down on Trump supporters.

And again people would have no problem looking down on Democrats, but we can't look down on Republicans?

And as for the left, well of the 3 local left WhatsApp groups I read there has been hardly a whisper about it. Apart from 1 meme of the stature of libery crying to which someone replied that thrle US has been fascist since Obama. Fucking great, that's the left.

 

[inva]

It is a difficult circle to square, for sure. What's the alternative? "I'm not a racist, I just vote for racists"? That would get pretty short shrift if it were posted by someone on here.

Virtually everyone who votes votes for racists including most here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Virtually everyone who votes votes for racists including most here.

They're all racists.

Nah, that doesn't work.

 

[emanymton]

It is pandering. "Oh, they're not really racists, don't be mean." Condescending as fuck, too.

This, we can't say they are thick, selfish or biggots, but we can treat them like they don't understand what they are voting for. I know which I think is more insulting.

And I'm not saying calling them these things is a strategy, I'm saying thay if we denny this then I don't think that is understanding anything and is not going to get anywhere.

 

[a_chap]

Without wishing to resort to hyperbole, I believe future historians, such as will exist, will be able to pin point today as the start of the final stage of the implosion of human civilisation.

Listening to the news and someone was referred to "post-war America" and "post-war Europe".

I fear that future historians may well refer to this time as being "the pre-war years"...

 

[pogofish]

If they so much wanted Hillary Clinton to win, then how did she lose in an electoral upset? Was it the fact that some Democrat voters may have turned to the Republican side, out of fear that a woman may mess up more than a man would? Biden had 81 million voters when he won against Trump and now these millions of Democrats whom are most likely men, have turned to Trump since Kamala was nominated to run against Trump. Again, cultural sexism. For Trump to have this unlikely victory has to do something with these former Democrat voters, mostly the men. Cause who are them "anti-woke saints" but none other than mostly men? Now you get it?

In Clinton's case, it was the vagaries of the Electoral College system that denied her victory. She did win the actual vote.

 

[Humberto]

It is pandering. "Oh, they're not really racists, don't be mean." Condescending as fuck, too.

I'm not sure how the right wing succeeding over here as well proves it's not pandering.

I haven't asked you 'not to be mean'. Like it or not right wing populism is surging in many places. People will be pulled into that for many reasons, in many cases not particularly rational ones that are actually in their self-interest.

 

[emanymton]

Listening to the news and someone was referred to "post-war America" and "post-war Europe".

I fear that future historians may well refer to this time as being "the pre-war years"...

I was considering starting a thread a week or so ago asking if this was the most important US election for the last 50 years (more?) It has that feel to me, like the world just steeped over a line it's be hovering around for a while now. But maybe I'm wrong obviously it is terrible but maybe it won't be seismic as it feels it could me at the moment. I hope not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is pandering. "Oh, they're not really racists, don't be mean." Condescending as fuck, too.

I'm not sure how the right wing succeeding over here as well proves it's not pandering.

Yep, I've often thought this.

It is actually possible to say that those on the left need to ensure that they work for a society that works for everyone and that those who knowingly vote for racists are revealing themselves to be at least a little bit racist.

Sadly, there are a lot of people in the world who are at least a little bit racist, racist enough to vote for racists like Trump. Within a democracy, if you want to defeat the populist right, you do need to offer such people something positive to vote for. But that doesn't excuse their racism. That's a sorry fact that they and we unfortunately have to live with.

And no, I don't buy the line sometimes put about that all the major parties are racist/white supremacist. I just don't think that is true at all in any useful way, and I don't even believe those who say it are really convinced by the argument.

 

[tommers]

He lost last time. So what's the difference? More racists got to voting age?

 

[pogofish]

Every fucking time some two bit Nazi gets elected the jerk urban reflex is to blame everybody but the ones who actually voted for them.

Bluntly, this.

Opposing Menie revealed plenty of people who would happily support Trump because he pandered to certain specific aspects of their greed/self-interest, whilst actively holding their collective noses over all his more reprehensible aspects. Which made it pretty clear to me they still knew exactly what he was all about.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He lost last time. So what's the difference? More racists got to voting age?

Handled the pandemic spectacularly badly.

This time around, they're coming out of an economic crisis and people are still feeling the pinch.

I do think these 'traditional' economic considerations are still major determining factors.

 

[emanymton]

He lost last time. So what's the difference? More racists got to voting age?

Fewer rascists willing to vote for the other candidate? Rascists don't just let racism decide how they vote.

 

[Nylock]

That's a nice, simple idea for a study. I wonder if being forced (well, incentivised) into naming the lies had any lasting effect on that second group, or did they go straight back to 'believing' the lies afterwards? How conscious are the people of their own behaviour in this context?

If they had to be bribed into being truthful, then the mutability of their beliefs is pretty much a given.

A US voter interviewed on the radio just now said he voted for Trump because he had such good relationships with overseas political leaders. I mean like who? (Apart from Putin that is.)

That is pathetic (in the literal sense of the word). The voter you quoted BTW, not you.

Here’s where the nuance lies. And it’s a hard balance to strike.

I’ve not seen the stats, but I’m pretty sure it won’t turn out that only the privileged voted for Harris and only the unprivileged voted for Trump. So there are just going to be some privileged bigots voting for bigotry. I don’t know that my understanding will help with them much.

And also I do get why the disenfranchised are won over by the far right, but I’m also certain we must oppose the far right. So the liberal howl of “you’re stupid” doesn’t help at all. But at the same time we (as in those of us who are not liberals) do need a response.

As has been said, many of us have our battles in life yet don’t support far right demagogues. We have a political grounding that prevented that. But how and why? And how do we replicate that throughout our class?

And once someone has been won over by a far right demagogue? On a one to one basis I might be able to appeal to them, knowing that “there but for the grace of Marx etc”, but I fear that if the only response we can come up with is one to one conversations, we aren’t going to get anywhere.

There is a gap between punching fascists on the street and hoping to reason with people won over by fascism. There are inconsistencies there that I personally haven’t bridged.

This is a similar place to that in which I found myself during the far right pogroms this summer. I still haven’t resolved it.

I think sometimes the left's messaging lacks the simplicity of the far right's. The left (rightly) looks at structures and systems as a largely abstract (to the layman) root cause of a societal problem, the far right fixates on easily otherable groups and makes it personal -even with the structural stuff they make it personal and appeal to fear and distrust. Whether it's the othering of refugees/immigrants in a "look at those illegals coming over here and stealing YOUR jobs, making YOUR streets unsafe with their sharia law and strange ways -they don't even speak the same language so YOUR taxes are going on hotel rooms, immigration lawyers and translators whilst YOUR public services are getting asset stripped!" kind of way (regardless of their actual immigration status, grasp of the local language, eagerness to assimilate to their adopted country etc.). Or the othering of people from the same ethnic group as the supporters of the far right but whose politics they find repellent like the tired trope of the censorious wokey blue-haired liberal finger-wagging snowflake. It's all corruptly internalising stuff aimed at a broad swath of the population who have internalised a bunch of other things over the years and see no way out of their increasingly shitty day-to-day existence and so are looking for a metaphorical (and sometimes physical) face to lash out at. I suppose what i see as the left's problem is that when they rhetorically fight fire with fire and boil everything down to a simpler, more personal message, the people who they are rightly holding to account (such as corrupt politicians, dodgy billionaires, the usual parade of late-stage capitalism's army of ghouls), are also people who have all the money and control 90% of the media, state power and messaging. I know you already know this and I don't even know why I was compelled to respond. I don't even have a clue how to address the issue or even turn the tide. Sorry. Just processing I guess... What a time to be alive

 

[inva]

They're all racists.

Nah, that doesn't work.

Of course it does, if we as cuddly liberals feel no responsibility for the actions of parties/politicians we vote for, why should anyone else? The Democrats are actively engaged in genocide, even that apparently wasn't crossing the line for the morally just voters.

 

[story]

We had some high spots! We got to the Moon after all, someone will realise that in a few million years time, and they'll be dead impressed.

I'm not sure that wasn't part of the problem too.

As impressed and awed as I am by the venture, as proud I feel that we managed it, and with computers far less sophisticated than the phone I'm typing this on, I also think it contributed to our collective hubris, in every aspect of this weird human endeavour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course it does, if we as cuddly liberals feel no responsibility for the actions of parties/politicians we vote for, why should anyone else? The Democrats are actively engaged in genocide, even that apparently wasn't crossing the line for the morally just voters.

If he'd been in power at the time, Trump would have been equally as actively engaged. I haven't seen the relevant numbers, but that issue might have cost Harris dearly.

That still doesn't mean there is an equivalence. Voting for one of the two options you're presented with doesn't mean total agreement either. But in this instance, the two options were Trump and Harris. If you plumped for Trump when given that choice, that does say something not very nice about you.

And I agree with Sam that insisting that you mustn't say that is the height of condescension. Allow people their agency.

 

[Knotted]

It is a difficult circle to square, for sure. What's the alternative? "I'm not a racist, I just vote for racists"? That would get pretty short shrift if it were posted by someone on here.

But then the Dem voters get away with "I'm not in favour of genocide but I'll vote for Hitler Harris."

No excuses for either side.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But then the Dem voters get away with "I'm not in favour of genocide but I'll vote for Hitler Harris."

No excuses for either side.

Trump is enthusiastically pro-genocide. tbh refusing to vote out of disgust for both options I can respect. But putting the cross next to Trump?

 

[emanymton]

If he'd been in power at the time, Trump would have been equally as actively engaged. I haven't seen the relevant numbers, but that issue might have cost Harris dearly.

That still doesn't mean there is an equivalence. Voting for one of the two options you're presented with doesn't mean total agreement either. But in this instance, the two options were Trump and Harris. If you plumped for Trump when given that choice, that does say something not very nice about you.

And I agree with Sam that insisting that you mustn't say that is the height of condescension. Allow people their agency.

Yes, it isn't like chosing between Stammer and Sunak where the difference is pretty minor. And voting for Harris would really be voting against Trump and what he represents.

 

[inva]

If he'd been in power at the time, Trump would have been equally as actively engaged. I haven't seen the relevant numbers, but that issue might have cost Harris dearly.

That still doesn't mean there is an equivalence. Voting for one of the two options you're presented with doesn't mean total agreement either. But in this instance, the two options were Trump and Harris. If you plumped for Trump when given that choice, that does say something not very nice about you.

And I agree with Sam that insisting that you mustn't say that is the height of condescension. Allow people their agency.

My point is, I suspect there's a very large chunk of voters who voted Republican for much the same bunch of reasons they always do and it should be no surprise Trump's corruption and barbarism doesn't put them off, because it doesn't for anyone else either (except for those it does obviously ). If the point of irredeemability is always just over the horizon of the Democratic Party platform then, well its easy to see why the argument doesn't land.

 

[gentlegreen]

I'm not sure that wasn't part of the problem too.

As impressed and awed as I am by the venture, as proud I feel that we managed it, and with computers far less sophisticated than the phone I'm typing this on, I also think it contributed to our collective hubris, in every aspect of this weird human endeavour.

And like Afghanistan a way to get at Russia.