Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

[newme]

We can't trust self-reported reasons either. Some people will flat our lie and some just won't fully understand their own reasons.

Like that guy who was interviewed and when they asked what he liked about trumps policies he had absolutely no idea and just said I support him.

 

[kabbes]

Like that guy who was interviewed and when they asked what he liked about trumps policies he had absolutely no idea and just said I support him.

That’s actually most people on both sides of party politics, though. When was the last time you read a manifesto cover to cover (alright, maybe the wrong audience). People don’t construct their reality in little logical, consistent steps that lead to a conclusion.

 

[emanymton]

That’s actually most people on both sides of party politics, though. When was the last time you read a manifesto cover to cover (alright, maybe the wrong audience). People don’t construct their reality in little logical, consistent steps that lead to a conclusion.

I think it's more common on the right buy yes the same thing is absolutely going on on the left as well.

 

[kabbes]

To be fair, I just don’t have the time to delve into what people actually do do, so I recognise that I’m spending all my time saying what people don’t do. Which isn’t very satisfying for anyone. So I’ll leave it there. There’s some brilliant analysis out there, though, of political psychology from a social constructionist perspective (ie not looking at people as rational machines making logical, consistent step-by-step decisions with consistent, predictable behaviour as a consequence).

 

[kabbes]

I think it's more common on the right buy yes the same thing is absolutely going on on the left as well.

It’s absolutely the norm among people regardless of voting pattern. It’s how people work — we are meaning-making creatures imbued with purpose and societal connection, not individual logic-boxes.

 

[emanymton]

To be fair, I just don’t have the time to delve into what people actually do do, so I recognise that I’m spending all my time saying what people don’t do. Which isn’t very satisfying for anyone. So I’ll leave it there. There’s some brilliant analysis out there, though, of political psychology from a social constructionist perspective (ie not looking at people as rational machines making logical, consistent step-by-step decisions with consistent, predictable behaviour as a consequence).

I feel at least of bit of actual discussion has been added to the thread.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It's perfectly sensible not to decide who to vote for on the basis of a policies list anyway isn't it. We all know that you're not going to get everything on the list - even if you accept good faith some won't work out and the further you get the more the government is responding to things which are unknowable at the point where you're voting. It's more of a statement of intent. So Trump might not be able to build his wall but he probably will find ways to be vile to immigrants if that's your thing, and that goes for other politicians as well just from different perspectives.

 

[breadandcircuse]

They vote for him because of his vileness. It gives them permission to be as awful as he is. They can say their despicable shit out loud now, whereas in the past they may have had to watch their tongues for fear of other people calling them out on their shit. When the leader of the free world can just target and attack others, they can too. Just look at the amount of Nazis parading around in the open now.

I've lost count of the amount of idiots I've seen being questioned at his rallies etc. The vast majority of them are incredibly stupid, not having a clue as to the reality of the stuff he spouts regarding any policies. But hey, why do they need to understand when their fascist leader allows them to be as vile as he is?

 

[kabbes]

They vote for him because of his vileness. It gives them permission to be as awful as he is. They can say their despicable shit out loud now, whereas in the past they may have had to watch their tongues for fear of other people calling them out on their shit. When the leader of the free world can just target and attack others, they can too. Just look at the amount of Nazis parading around in the open now.

I've lost count of the amount of idiots I've seen being questioned at his rallies etc. The vast majority of them are incredibly stupid, not having a clue as to the reality of the stuff he spouts regarding any policies. But hey, why do they need to understand when their fascist leader allows them to be as vile as he is?

79 million people, 49.9% of voters. Just “incredibly stupid” and “as vile as he is”. There we go, analysis done. Beer, anyone?

 

[smokedout]

Some of the work done on political framing is useful here I think. Essentially the Conservative mindset is that the world is dangerous, society faces constant existential threats both internally and externally, and humans are basically bad and will fall into slothfulness, degeneracy and worse without strong moral hierarchies run by strong men - God, country, the employer, and the father/husband.

In this world view things like feminism or LGBTQ rights are not just annoyances, or a threat to straight male privilege, but threats which are likely to destabilize or even destroy society. George Lakoff (a democrat stooge just btw) call this the strict father worldview.

You write, “remember that voters vote their identity and their values, which need not coincide with their self-interest.” I remember writing a commentary on a poor congressional district, let’s say about 98 percent white, in Kentucky. Most of the residents were on food stamps, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid – or all of them. However, they have voted in recent elections by landslide majorities to re-elect a congressman who opposes food stamps and supports cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Can you elaborate on how this can occur?


A single moral worldview dominates conservative policies in every domain of life – family, personal identity, sex, religion, sports, education, the market, foreign policy and politics – what I’ve called strict father morality. Your moral worldview is central to how you understand your life.


In a strict father family, the father is in charge and is assumed to know right from wrong, to have moral as well as physical authority. He is supposed to protect the family, support the family, set the rules, enforce the rules, maintain respect, govern sexuality and reproduction, and teach his kids right from wrong, that is, to grow up with the same moral system. His word defines what is right and is law; no backtalk. Disobedience is punished, painfully, so that children learn not to disobey. Via physical discipline, they learn internal discipline, which is how they become moral beings. With discipline they can become prosperous.


If you are not prosperous, you are not disciplined enough, not taking enough personal responsibility and deserve your poverty. At the center is the principle of personal responsibility and moral hierarchy: those who are more moral (in this sense of morality) should rule: God over man, man over nature, parents over children, the rich over the poor, Western culture over non-Western culture, America over other countries, men over women, straights over gays, Christians over non-Christians, etc.


On conservative religion, God is a strict father; in sports, coaches are strict with their athletes; in classrooms, teachers should be strict with students; in business, employers rule over employees; in the market, the market should decide – the market itself is the strict father, deciding that those who have financial discipline deserve their wealth, and others deserve their poverty; and in politics, this moral system itself should rule.


Conservatives can be poor, but they can still be kings in their own castles – strict fathers at home, in their personal identity: in their religion, in their sex lives, in the sports they love. Poor conservatives vote their identity as conservatives, not their lack of material wealth.

I think this really needs to be understood. Calling them thick, or stupid, or immoral or intolerant isn't really of any use. They aren't those things, and they don't see themselves as being those things. Quite the opposite in fact, they care very much and have thought quite deeply, and are worried that the structures they feel keep them and their families and communities safe are under threat.

According to Lakoff the solution to this is for the left to do the same kind of long term strategising to change this framing that the right have done to fortify it via think tanks like the Heritage and Koch foundations. I disagree and think what is needed is grassroots organising that demonstrates that collective action can improve lives and that these hierarchies are entirely self serving.

But it also needs to be understood that on both sides of the Atlantic we are seeing a resurgence of traditional conservatism which doesn't map as perfectly onto neoliberalism as neoliberals might like. Trump understands this and has capitalised on it. I wonder if in the longer term we may see a return in the UK to Whigs/Tory dominated politics with Labour representing neoliberalism and the Tories pushing for a more paternalist and authoritarian model of capitalism. Either way the mainstream left is dead and needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up.

 

[klang]

I've lost count of the amount of idiots I've seen being questioned at his rallies etc.

I once got interviewed at an anti war demo. After seeing it on the telly later I had to admit I wasn't doing the cause any favours. I reckon I'm partly to blame for ongoing wars

 

[emanymton]

I once got interviewed at an anti war demo. After seeing it on the telly later I had to admit I wasn't doing the cause any favours. I reckon I'm partly to blame for ongoing wars

It's hard isn't it, I had a news crew turn up just to interview me before the big anti-war demo. Thankfully I apparently did okay but probably because I had a warning.

 

[emanymton]

So just spit balling ideas here.

We all hold contradictory ideas in our heads, and it is important than we can do that otherwise we would risk being paralysed into inaction.

But I guess some people are, "better" at it than others and I think that might be what's at work with the Maga types (and similar people on the left), they just don't care that there are stark contradictions between their ideas.

A slightly silly example of this is the way they treat the US constitution like some kind of holy document while also thinking that there should be more religion (well more Christianity) in schools, despite the separation of church and state being part of the constitution.

I don't think I could cope with this level of contridiction but it doesn't bother them at all.

Oh and the part played by religion is another factor we haven't even touched on.

 

[two sheds]

A lot of older Americans in the south particularly resent their heritage being 'trashed' by the north. They've had a lifetime of being told they can't say certain things, tell their favourite jokes, can't fly their flag, that their bible is nonsense, their church is crooked, their grandparents were evil for keeping slaves which was quite normal at the time, their heroic soldiers which were fighting the evil of communism but actually killed innocent people when they invaded far off countries where they had no business to be, that marriage which used to be sacred is open to all sorts of people instead of just man and woman as prescribed by the Bible, ...

 

[breadandcircuse]

79 million people, 49.9% of voters. Just “incredibly stupid” and “as vile as he is”. There we go, analysis done. Beer, anyone?

Red wine for me please.

If you think that the vast majority of his supporters are not extremely stupid, then I have a bridge to sell you. They are also vile. Anyone who listens to his claptrap, and supports it, cannot be called decent people.

 

[smokedout]

I realise there's a certain hypocrisy in saying this but I've always thought that those who dismiss those who disagree with them as just being stupid are not generally the sharpest tools in the box themselves.

 

[two sheds]

.

 

[breadandcircuse]

People can disagree with other people on many issues, without thinking their opposition are stupid. We are talking a whole new level here with the orange lunatic and his supporters though. Anyone who thinks they aren't all as thick as pig shit, must be on the wind up.

 

[danny la rouge]

Red wine for me please.

If you think that the vast majority of his supporters are not extremely stupid, then I have a bridge to sell you. They are also vile. Anyone who listens to his claptrap, and supports it, cannot be called decent people.

Were people who voted Biden last time but Trump this time stupid this year but clever four years ago? If they vote Democrat next time (assuming there is a next time) will they be clever again? If so, what does “stupid” mean beyond “have disappointed me”?

 

[Monte]

Were people who voted Biden last time but Trump this time stupid this year but clever four years ago? If they vote Democrat next time (assuming there is a next time) will they be clever again? If so, what does “stupid” mean beyond “have disappointed me”?

Did that happen in significant numbers or did Trump win due to Dem voters staying home like in 2016?

 

[danny la rouge]

Did that happen in significant numbers or did Trump win due to Dem voters staying home like in 2016?

No idea. But that doesn’t invalidate the point.

 

[Wilf]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/14/politics/trump-abc-news-defamation-lawsuit-settle/index.html

Tldr?

An alleged litigious rapist awarded 15 million dollars because he was described allegedly as an alleged rapist by an alleged news anchor on an alleged news channel. Allegedly.

'Yeah, yeah, the judge said I was a 'rapist', but didn't say I was a rapist. Important distinction, give me $15000000'
'Ok'

'Justice'

 

[Monte]

No idea. But that doesn’t invalidate the point.

It kinda does if it never actually happened.

I'd say that the really stupid people are the 100 million who never vote.

 

[Wilf]

Do wonder if he's aware that both Hitler and Stalin received the same "accolade",?

Plus the Ayatollah.

 

[hitmouse]

A lot of older Americans in the south particularly resent their heritage being 'trashed' by the north. They've had a lifetime of being told they can't say certain things, tell their favourite jokes, can't fly their flag, that their bible is nonsense, their church is crooked, their grandparents were evil for keeping slaves which was quite normal at the time, their heroic soldiers which were fighting the evil of communism but actually killed innocent people when they invaded far off countries where they had no business to be, that marriage which used to be sacred is open to all sorts of people instead of just man and woman as prescribed by the Bible, ...

Demon Copperhead is good on this from what I remember, but I think you're slightly understating it - it's not just that they're told that they can't tell their favourite jokes, it's that when they turn on the tv they get to watch programmes made by people who live in California and New York which tell them that they are everyone else's favourite joke.

 

[maomao]

It kinda does if it never actually happened.

I'd say that the really stupid people are the 100 million who never vote.

I'd say they're the smart ones.

 

[danny la rouge]

It kinda does if it never actually happened.

I'd say that the really stupid people are the 100 million who never vote.

I frequently don’t vote. Nice to know where we stand.

 

[hitmouse]

Anyway, if we're doing "are all Trump voters stupid racists?" yet again, I think it's worth considering what this level of analysis would look like if we applied it to Democrat voters. Like, I don't think that anyone here would deny that Israel is currently carrying out genocidal policies in Gaza, and that the Democrat position has been firmly pro-Israel; or that climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions is the single greatest threat to human civilisation, while Biden has increased US oil production further than at any previous point in history, including the Trump administration.
Fuck Democrat voters, absolute evil bunch of pro-genocide environment-hating cunts, right? Except that no-one (well, almost no-one, and I don't think anyone on this thread would seriously argue it) actually thinks that, we're willing to display a bit of nuance and understand that people can have complicated, justifiable reasons for voting for the weapons-for-genocide, expand-oil-production-further party, but for some reason that complexity disappears when we're talking about people who support the red genocide team instead of the blue genocide team.

 

[breadandcircuse]

Were people who voted Biden last time but Trump this time stupid this year but clever four years ago? If they vote Democrat next time (assuming there is a next time) will they be clever again? If so, what does “stupid” mean beyond “have disappointed me”?

I can't believe there are that many that did that, possibly those who were voting over Gaza and Israel. But even those have proven their stupidity. There are many crying all over the place now at what they did, believing the bullshit he spouted. Apparently there have been loads of searches about how to retract their votes. Now that proves their stupidity, thinking that could be a thing. Any one thinking that the madman would do anything to help the situation there, were definitely stupid. Just take a look around at the remorse. FAFO as they say. Very stupid. And of course the results were very close, even though the cunt keeps lying that it was a landslide.

A survey has proven their stupidity. Farron's got the details. Let's not forget the conman even stated how much he loves the uneducated. Just do a search online to see dozens of examples of their idiocy.

Spoiler

 

[weltweit]

I don't think Trump supporters are stupid. Well some of them must be, but in the main I think they voted Trump because he claims to be hard on immigration, strong for the economy, to stop wars and prevent USA getting embroiled in new wars. He didn't offer a large change to healthcare which for those in work and able to pay the subs is probably desirable (if stupid looking from a UK perspective) and because some of them just couldn't see a female President in the White House. It would have been the first time.

Plus, Trump already did the job, and many voters will be happy with what they saw back then.

Finally I think they voted Trump because he didn't take their votes for granted and instead campaigned so much he was often doing three rallies to Harris's one and these never ending rallies also generated news items which produced more publicity. If the UK is anything to go by he would have gotten massive daily US TV coverage.