Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

[Kris Silver]

I think people are engaged with politics - indeed it is their engagement with politics that is driving some to vote for the hard right. Politics is not knowing the names of party leaders/cabinets, or watching NewsNight. Politics is the actions of people living and working together - you don't stop the hard right by putting politics to one side, you fight it by recognising it is at the core of what is happening to them everyday.

As for being the worst for inequality well that certainly is not true of Farage, it was/is the Labour and Tory parties that are having the greatest effect on increasing the inequality in our societies, that are increasing poverty and worsening the working conditions for people. (I'd have to check the data but I'd suspect that inequality rose more during Reagan/Bush/Clinton than it did under Trump.)

Voter turnout is not fantastically high in the UK and not really on the increase. What's further key is how engaged they are beyond the headlines and punchy slogans. We're busier than ever, and our attentions spans in this increasingly fast moving western lives, not exactly growing. I think you're at odds with reality here slightly, if, you are suggesting there's perfectly enough engagement of the public in politics, in the detail, in voting. I would equally challenge that apathy is not a big issue in the UK. It most certainly is, and it also isn't on the decline, therefore de facto it's an issue needing addressing.

I didn't suggest putting Politics to one side. That's misportraying what was said. What I'm emphasising there being a bit more focus on (not exclusively) is short sharp, factual, punchy strategies to raise awareness of what's driving inequality and some potential solutions, with stats that make people reflect on what parties or politics would really resolve them, Vs have done worst in those areas.

As for making an argument that Labour and the Tories are worse for delivering inequality than Reform. At that point I again question your good faith here. Reform have obviously never been in power. The vast majority of the time Labour or Conservatives have run the country. So of course only they can have been the worst for inequality, because they are the only ones to have been able to have done it.

Hard right policies be they past or future policies, are frequently shown to more significantly enrich the rich and worsen inequality for millions of people.

I'm not up here saying Labour are the solution, but we're not going to make headway by telling people they are all bad, all exactly the same, there's no levels, are only hope whatsoever is PR and X party or X party. That's a) too complicated a message, b) depressing, c) unrealistic a target, and d) trying to achieve step 37 in your aims when steps 3+4 aren't even remotely close to being achieved.

 

[Humberto]

Long time regulars treat each other with absolute contempt. Why should expect new posters to behave differently.

A fine tradition. Glad they're here.

Returns to lurking

 

[teuchter]

You're not arguing any point. You think that because someone like Reeves says that the only way to help the poor is to make the rich even richer, somehow the policies that are designed to make the rich richer are not intended for that but rather for helping the poor.

If I'm not arguing any point then neither are you. It just comes down to beliefs about primary motivations. I can say:

You're not arguing any point. You think that although someone like Reeves says that the only way to help the poor is to make the rich even richer, somehow the policies that are designed to help the poor are not intended for that but rather for making the rich richer.

I'm pointing out that policies intended to help the poor are policies intended to help the poor, whatever other aims may come beyond that. That I'm reduced to tautology only highlights the lack of a point in what you are saying.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I'm not up here saying Labour are the solution, but we're not going to make headway by telling people they are all bad, all exactly the same, there's no levels, are only hope whatsoever is PR and X party or X party. That's a) too complicated a message, b) depressing, c) unrealistic a target, and d) trying to achieve step 37 in your aims when steps 3+4 aren't even remotely close to being achieved.

The thing is people don't think they're bad because of messages from us (fairly loosely defined here - I think this applies to any possible definition of 'us') they think it because of what they see them doing and saying. I think they're shit but I doubt anybody else who also thinks that does so because I told them so tbh, much as I'd love to think I'm that influential. Ultimately people are only going to come round to them if they actually do something different, which I don't see any sign of.

 

[Dystopiary]

I apologise to people who've heard me bang this drum repeatedly already, but to those who don't know -

It was the Labour Party who brought in devastating changes to the benefits system which the Tories only ran with when they succeeded them:

This is the same person who was warned by the Child Poverty Action Group, as well as disability-focused charities, that implementing planned changes to the benefits system would have a devastating impact on people, but she chose to ignore them and oversaw the horrendous Welfare Reform Act 2009. It was her and the Labour Party that started all that shit, not the Tories, smoothing the path for their successors to roll with it.

The same year she was busy plunging people further into poverty, she and her husband, that nice Ed Balls off the telly, bought a four-bedroom house in North London and registered it as their second home (rather than their home in West Yorkshire); this qualified them for up to £44,000 a year to subsidise a reported £438,000 mortgage, of which they claimed £24,400. An investigation in MPs' expenses found they had both received overpayments of £1,363. They were ordered to repay the money.

That's Yvette Cooper. She'll shit on anyone she can.

Over 11 years ago, Rachel Reeves said:

Nobody should be under any illusions that they are going to be able to live a life on benefits under a Labour government

and

Labour will be tougher than the Tories when it comes to slashing the benefits bill

This was despite the punitive measures already in place to make claiming benefits incredibly difficult and humiliating, in a system which had killed people [content warnings for all sorts] and would continue to do so.

Many people who need disability benefits to survive don't see it as in their interest to vote Labour; it's not because they're stupid or apathetic.
In fact many people who have voted Labour seem not to know (or care) about their contempt for benefit claimants.

 

[Wilf]

There's a sliding scale of people's interest levels, in all topics, isn't there. So that's a non question.

We're motivated to be on a politics forum engaging in the topic, so yes, we're likely above average interest in the topic.

I didn't say more informed voters produces drifts from the right to the left. But given much of the recent rights electoral successes have been born out of misinformation, portraying themselves as good for the poor, blaming various groups of people's wealth shrinking, rather than the rich.

With it a media that doesn't hold that to account enough. In many cases are firmly right leaning influencing the public (papers, Fox, GB News, others). Yes given all that, I would objectively say in that climate, being more informed on these things naturally steers more people away from those hard right parties.

I suppose, just to take an example, there's the notion in America that whilst the economy is growing, a lot of working class voters are not feeling it. This kind of stuff, though I'm not getting into the detail, just using it as an example:

Why Democrats couldn’t sell a strong economy, in 3 charts

Top-line indicators pointed to cooling inflation and a strong economy. What did Democrats miss?

www.vox.com

Clearly, a significant number of people are not feeling secure or prosperous and that translated into some voting for Trump, Now obviously, I think they are profoundly wrong to do that and that everything about Trump is hideous. But their feelings about their own lives are as valid as mine, their take on the world is as valid as mine. I happen to have different values and politics and that's the lens I bring to it, not more or better knowledge. And 'those people' may well spend more time than me reading about current affairs (inc. videos ), for that matter I've hardly watched a news bulletin in the last 20 years. Maybe different sources of information, but not necessarily less information.

But again, let's not blame the voters, let's look at the world and the economy. Let's think about the parties and whether they even have a presence in people's lives. Whether their leaders and even the activists come from a professional strata. What all of that does to the opinions of voters who are looking for something amid these shitty times. Don't get me wrong, if I had a vote in the US I'd be voting for the Taylor Swift/Kamala Harris lot rather than Trump, but am not that surprised when people turn to something different to business as usual.

....and ultimately, my point here is that 'yeah, but Trump is worse' doesn't make the above wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have finally reached the point where I simply don't care if it's Labour or the Tories in power. In some ways the current labour party is even worse than the populist tories of the last few years. At least the populist tories wanted to be liked.

 

[Skinny Ethel]

Fuck me i thought this was Orange freak fred but its morphed into Starmer central.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck me i thought this was Orange freak fred but its morphed into Starmer central.

Threads meander. So what? At least it's ideas-based. We're not arguing endlessly about fucking videos any more.

And it is tangentially relevant. The process by which neoliberal agendas are served by centrists who thus fail to offer any kind of alternative worth describing is relevant around the world.

 

[breadandcircuse]

Fuck me i thought this was Orange freak fred but its morphed into Starmer central.

Yeah, funny that. Some would be accused of derailing the thread .

 

[smokedout]

At the end of the day, Trump and Farage very clearly, objectively, care very little for the poor, and very much for corporate moneys, enriching them and their mates. Not to say others are great. But they are some of the absolute most guilty, so we need to address how so many people have been fooled they are the MOST, for them.

Reform policies at the last election included raising the income tax threshold to 20,000 pa within the first 100 days, scrapping VAT on energy bills, cutting fuel taxes and special tax breaks for frontline NHS and care staff. None of the major parties was making an offer like that to the poorest. That these savings were allegedly going to be made by scrapping regulations, or ditching net zero, or wild claims about curbing unemployment and came alongside a host of authoritarian and jingoistic policies is besides the point. As is the fact that they are probably lying and wouldn't do any of those things if they actually got near power.

The traditional conservative (hard) right have realised that there is a large constituency of the working class that is suffering, and are offering to alleviate that suffering via conservative means - tax cuts rather than increased social spending. And the poorest do pay too much tax, they often pay a far higher chunk of their income than the better off all things considered. People really need to get to grips with this, all the other parties have got to offer is more austerity and more pain. And as we are seeing the two pronged approach of fostering and capitalising on base prejudices and making a really concrete offer of higher living standards to the lowest paid is working electorally everywhere it is being tried.

 

[Skinny Ethel]

Ahh i see stalwarts can meander but if i post a picture of bellypork thats the colour of Trump i will be in the wrong . Its a sin and a shame what the worlds coming too.

 

[breadandcircuse]

Threads meander. So what? At least it's ideas-based. We're not arguing endlessly about fucking videos any more.

And it is tangentially relevant. The process by which neoliberal agendas are served by centrists who thus fail to offer any kind of alternative worth describing is relevant around the world.

Sounds like a subject for Mastermind.

The arguing over videos was pathetic, but at least they were related to the orange creature.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ahh i see stalwarts can meander but if i post a picture of bellypork thats the colour of Trump i will be in the wrong . Its a sin and a shame what the worlds coming too.

I've always been the one to blame for everything I long to do no matter when or where or who has one thing in common, too.

 

[Kris Silver]

I suppose, just to take an example, there's the notion in America that whilst the economy is growing, a lot of working class voters are not feeling it. This kind of stuff, though I'm not getting into the detail, just using it as an example:

Why Democrats couldn’t sell a strong economy, in 3 charts

Top-line indicators pointed to cooling inflation and a strong economy. What did Democrats miss?

www.vox.com

Clearly, a significant number of people are not feeling secure or prosperous and that translated into some voting for Trump, Now obviously, I think they are profoundly wrong to do that and that everything about Trump is hideous. But their feelings about their own lives are as valid as mine, their take on the world is as valid as mine. I happen to have different values and politics and that's the lens I bring to it, not more or better knowledge. And 'those people' may well spend more time than me reading about current affairs (inc. videos ), for that matter I've hardly watched a news bulletin in the last 20 years. Maybe different sources of information, but not necessarily less information.

But again, let's not blame the voters, let's look at the world and the economy. Let's think about the parties and whether they even have a presence in people's lives. Whether their leaders and even the activists come from a professional strata. What all of that does to the opinions of voters who are looking for something amid these shitty times. Don't get me wrong, if I had a vote in the US I'd be voting for the Taylor Swift/Kamala Harris lot rather than Trump, but am not that surprised when people turn to something different to business as usual.

....and ultimately, my point here is that 'yeah, but Trump is worse' doesn't make the above wrong.

Agree with most of this.

I've not said voters feelings aren't valid, or some more than others. Everyones feelings are valid.

But, Politics as a lot of things, needs to also have a lot of objectivity and fact involved.

If I can cite some posters saying I FEEL like Trump and Farage would improve my wealth rather than me feeling poorer. My citing policies they do achieve the opposite in power, or have policies that literally can't be implemented and if they do cause them to be LESS well off.

I'm not responsible for them maintaining wedded to FEELING they stick to their guns with those parties and dismiss other parties or solutions are objectively, logically, factually better placed to.

I sympathise with some voters plights, I do. Not every perspective can be shifted. Especially when you're up against a corporate media, career politicians, lobby groups, rich individuals and corporates influencing our politicians (generally right as it favours them). But any way any one can shift assessments, however they do it, I'm all for it. I'm not all that fussed on the methods. Various people can do various things. At all levels. I do think we'll be a junction soon of people feeling extra sick of both main parties. But by not having messaging on this dumbed down. I'm afraid by trying to boil the ocean, we'll risk ending up with our Boris MK2 like America has with Trump MK2. Only ours could be Farage being king maker or in some way in Government, even if in coalition.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Reform policies at the last election included raising the income tax threshold to 20,000 pa within the first 100 days, scrapping VAT on energy bills, cutting fuel taxes and special tax breaks for frontline NHS and care staff. None of the major parties was making an offer like that to the poorest. That these savings were allegedly going to be made by scrapping regulations, or ditching net zero, or wild claims about curbing unemployment and came alongside a host of authoritarian and jingoistic policies is besides the point. As is the fact that they are probably lying and wouldn't do any of those things if they actually got near power.

The traditional conservative (hard) right have realised that there is a large constituency of the working class that is suffering, and are offering to alleviate that suffering via conservative means - tax cuts rather than increased social spending. And the poorest do pay too much tax, they often pay a far higher chunk of their income than the better off all things considered. People really need to get to grips with this, all the other parties have got to offer is more austerity and more pain. And as we are seeing the two pronged approach of fostering and capitalising on base prejudices and making a really concrete offer of higher living standards to the lowest paid is working electorally everywhere it is being tried.

* shakes head *

Don't you understand that the only way to raise the living standards of the lowest paid is to ensure that the economy has the right conditions to attract international capital to provide the investment that will create growth?

Clearly there is a communication problem here...

I mean I wish that this were satire, or at least me describing some mad right winger.

 

[Dystopiary]

Yeah, funny that. Some would be accused of derailing the thread .

I think it's relevant tho, talking about why people may vote seemingly against their own interests, or why others don't vote at all. I reckon it's a good direction the thread's gone in tbh.

 

[emanymton]

Ahh i see stalwarts can meander but if i post a picture of bellypork thats the colour of Trump i will be in the wrong . Its a sin and a shame what the worlds coming too.

Quite right, learn your place newbie, and maybe in 20 years you will get to go a little off topic.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sounds like a subject for Mastermind.

The arguing over videos was pathetic, but at least they were related to the orange creature.

You don't think this is relevant to why the orange creature won?

Give us some of your ideas. Engage with the ideas of others.

 

[Wilf]

Quite right, learn your place newbie, and maybe in 20 years you will get to go a little off topic.

Yeah, we have guard rails to stop that kind of thing!

 

[stavros]

A decent dissection of Trump's speech on Monday.

 

[planetgeli]

It's an old r/w idea and it has been proven time and again to be really rather rotten at 'tricking down' wealth, but Reeves thinks she can do it better. And increased inequality is the intended outcome. It's what is worked for. Inequality is not seen as something to be avoided or to be reduced. It is seen as something to be increased.

“It is our job to glory in inequality and to see that talents and abilities are given vent and expression for the benefit of us all.” – Margaret Thatcher

(I'd have to check the data but I'd suspect that inequality rose more during Reagan/Bush/Clinton than it did under Trump.)

It depends how you measure it but these people basically say (for various reasons) you'd be wrong.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/535239-how-trump-fueled-economic-inequality-in-america/

As Trump and Harris Tout Their Economic Records, What Do the Numbers Say?

Wealth inequality cannot be attributed to either a Biden or Trump presidency — it is an endemic problem in the US.

truthout.org

Both make the point that,

The issue cannot be attributed to neither a Biden nor Trump presidency; wealth inequality is an endemic problem in the U.S. Since 1979, household income growth has skewed heavily toward the top.
But that also

Trump did not create these problems. Inequality has deep, diverse roots. Trump’s failure is allowing them to worsen. Growing inequality is a predictable consequence of key Trump-era policies.
And the 2017 Tax cuts and Jobs Act has wayyyy disproportionately favoured the rich and the increase in equality. Added to this, Trump gutted workplace safety rules, opposed increasing the federal minimum wage, rolled back wage protections for tipped workers and made anti-union appointees to the same board tasked with protecting organized labor. None of this is designed to decrease inequality is it? It's plain good ol' union bashing.

he championed the idea of market deregulation and prioritized crony capitalism over national welfare. Look no further than Trump’s dedication to repealing labor regulations. His attack on Obama-era regulations transferred power away from workers and toward firms and diminished the rights of organized labor.

At the same time, redistributive polices have become less progressive under the Trump administration. Taxes are supposed to help make up for wide disparities in income. Yet, it is now clear that tax cuts, sold as a way to stimulate economic activity, favored the wealthiest Americans.

Tl;dr? Any perceived decrease in inequality under Trump actually came from the super rich losing some pennies, while the working class gained sod all of any consequence.

 

[Sue]

I think it's relevant tho, talking about why people may vote seemingly against their own interests, or why others don't vote at all. I reckon it's a good direction the thread's gone in tbh.

Of course. And it least it's a discussion about politics (with a small p) rather than just 'Trump is a bad man' on rinse and repeat.

 

[danny la rouge]

Give us some of your ideas.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

There’s no need to retreat into in-group and out-group identities. There’s an ongoing discussion in which there’s disagreement. That’s fine. It’s actually what we want!

While some of this current discussion has been a bit like Panto season: “oh yes it is! Oh no it’s not!”, that is at least better than “oh yes it is! Oh yes it is!” Which can get even more boring.

It’s not the case that the “newbies” (if 6 months is “new”) are a monothought clique. There have been several of their number that I’ve enjoyed the posts of very much. They fitted in very well. And if they maintain their collective sub-group identity a little, why not? They and we are all Urban now. Do we want to be non-diverse?

I think we could in some cases do with a little less fragility on both sides. But that’ll smooth out.

What do we share? A dislike of the far right, of racism, of Trump. That seems a pretty good starting point.

We should also remember that we don’t know what’s in other peoples heads, so we make up stories to make sense of things. But we need to remind ourselves that those stories are not reality. They’re tools we made in order to try to make sense of what’s going on around us.

 

[Wilf]

Agree with most of this.

I've not said voters feelings aren't valid, or some more than others. Everyones feelings are valid.

But, Politics as a lot of things, needs to also have a lot of objectivity and fact involved.

If I can cite some posters saying I FEEL like Trump and Farage would improve my wealth rather than me feeling poorer. My citing policies they do achieve the opposite in power, or have policies that literally can't be implemented and if they do cause them to be LESS well off.

I'm not responsible for them maintaining wedded to FEELING they stick to their guns with those parties and dismiss other parties or solutions are objectively, logically, factually better placed to.

I sympathise with some voters plights, I do. Not every perspective can be shifted. Especially when you're up against a corporate media, career politicians, lobby groups, rich individuals and corporates influencing our politicians (generally right as it favours them). But any way any one can shift assessments, however they do it, I'm all for it. I'm not all that fussed on the methods. Various people can do various things. At all levels. I do think we'll be a junction soon of people feeling extra sick of both main parties. But by not having messaging on this dumbed down. I'm afraid by trying to boil the ocean, we'll risk ending up with our Boris MK2 like America has with Trump MK2. Only ours could be Farage being king maker or in some way in Government, even if in coalition.

I think your post deserves a long response, but I'm currently fighting a losing battle against the last posting day for 2nd class mail.

So just one quick point, I'm not a postmodernist and I do like to think there is some kind of truth. However if that leads to political campaigning tied to the expert, what works best, objective analysis.... you lose. 'Feelings' of security, of optimism and other 'emotions' are really important. Fact checking is certainly important, though it isn't a sword of truth that wipes out conspiracy theories as we've seen. I don't know whether we live in a post truth society nowadays, but politics has always drawn heavily on how people feel.

 

[BigMoaner]

I have finally reached the point where I simply don't care if it's Labour or the Tories in power. In some ways the current labour party is even worse than the populist tories of the last few years. At least the populist tories wanted to be liked.

When labour appear just like the tories I always think “well at least the tories were honest in fucking me over”

 

[breadandcircuse]

You don't think this is relevant to why the orange creature won?

Give us some of your ideas. Engage with the ideas of others.

Every time I do try to engage, I'm jumped on by the old guard.

I still say his supporters and voters are stupid, hence his position now, but get pounced on for daring to say that.

I'm also pretty tired of the lazy crap about perpetrating "Trump is a bad man, rinse and repeat", as posted down thread. Everything I posted is relevant to the thread, and could get a discussion going on his latest antics, but I just get sneered at, with snarky remarks.

It seems to be the equivalent of the old boys club, or a student common room in here, with the quality of some of the posts. But hey the newbies just deserve a kicking for daring to think they can join in a forum without being patronised or laughed at.

 

[maomao]

But hey the newbies just deserve a kicking for daring to think they can join in a forum without being patronised or laughed at.

The trade off for a very light moderation system is that everyone is free to comment on the quality of other people's posts.

 

[danny la rouge]

But hey the newbies just deserve a kicking for daring to think they can join in a forum without being patronised or laughed at.

I really don’t think that’s what’s going on. I do think a lot of your viewpoint is coming from a liberal stance, in the sense that you tend to frame things in terms of individual morality, whereas some of the “old guard” (though by no means all) see things more structurally. And some - though not all - will laugh at the “individual morality” standpoint as lacking rigour. But they’d do that of long term posters too.

 

[weltweit]

..
I still say his supporters and voters are stupid, hence his position now, but get pounced on for daring to say that.
..

Just thinking of the millions of voters that voted Trump suggests that can't be likely. There can't be that many stupid people in America. They voted in a different way to you, yes. And they probably voted for different reasons to ones you would vote on.

Welcome to my thinking about Brexit. I can't fathom what the people who voted against me were thinking, their choice was just crazy and based on a lot of rubbish put about by the politicians on that side.