What Trump Showed Us About America

[vegas giants]

Only barely and it’s not even given it was a legitimate result. In any event 51 percent of the population heaping endless abuse on 49% and locking them out of power and calling them racist bigot homophobe as the democrats do is not a recipe for a sustainable society.

Its actually quite sustainable.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Its actually quite sustainable.

No, it’s really not. I can’t think of any historical examples of such.

 

[dairyair]

The first time in a while that they have. Woodrow Wilson was a racist, and many if not most presidents before him were.

Most of the country has been racist up until perhaps the 1990s. We are almost 2 generations into not being a racist country.
We have another 40 yrs or so where it won't be a big deal what skin color someone has. IMO

 

[dairyair]

The elite will not change now that their enemy has been defeated, and they still own the media. The bureaucracy, the Deep State, rules and they can get rid of a President any time they want.

This president got rid of himself.
His failed handling of the pandemic. Splitting America on the issue instead of uniting Americans around a common objective.

 

[dairyair]

The elite is the same as it ever was. What has changed is that they've become the scapegoats for people who feel left out of the changing world. This con is perpetrated by those who defending the corporations that moved out and left them jobless. These folks were ready to hear it, lash out at someone. So its the elite: the media, academia, But what can the elite do for them?

What dId Trump do for them, but give them a voice for their frustration in order to illuminate his own name?

The elite negotiated the trade deals and signed them and laws to allow jobs to leave.
And it took near 30 yrs, but we recovered.

 

[vegas giants]

No, it’s really not. I can’t think of any historical examples of such.

I can. The US

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I can. The US

No, you can’t. Because a society like this doesn’t exist and we dont have functional one party rule. But if we did the society would soon fall apart.

 

[vegas giants]

No, you can’t. Because a society like this doesn’t exist and we dont have functional one party rule. But if we did the society would soon fall apart.

Sure it does. America has been like this for generations. We have been far more divided than we are today. This is nothing

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Sure it does. America has been like this for generations. We have been far more divided than we are today. This is nothing

We’ve been more divided during times where the federal government did not assume near autocratic rule through agencies where one side is outright declaring they will make no compromises.

 

[dairyair]

The election was rigged.

It was? Show your proof. Do something tRUMP can't.

 

[vegas giants]

We’ve been more divided during times where the federal government did not assume near autocratic rule through agencies.

Yeah this is nothing.

 

[dairyair]

Who lost seats in the House?

Must be a rigged election. How could they lost house seats if it wasn't rigged agaisnt them. Republicans cheated. To use trumps excuse.

 

[dairyair]

The judges are in on the fix.

Yes, tRUMP appointed judges are in on it. What a fool to put in judges that are against him. Bush judges also, are against him. Why are republican judges against tRUMP?

 

[Rudy]

The elite will not change now that their enemy has been defeated, and they still own the media. The bureaucracy, the Deep State, rules and they can get rid of a President any time they want.

LOL they tried and failed so that shoots holes in your "theory" (such that it is).

 

[Rudy]

Your cultural revolution reference will, most likely, go right over the heads of the Trump crowd.

Everything goes over the head of the Trump crowd.

 

[apdst]

Must be a rigged election. How could they lost house seats if it wasn't rigged agaisnt them. Republicans cheated. To use trumps excuse.

They were too busy rigging the presidential election. Now that they perfected that, congressional elections will be next.

 

[dairyair]

They were too busy rigging the presidential election. Now that they perfected that, congressional elections will be next.

LOL. The candidates are on all the ballots. You did not know this?

 

[NWRatCon]

We have had those people in our midst all throughout our history. This is the first time they’ve ever had their hands on the levers of power.

Sadly, very incorrect. They are "in power" far too frequently. It's just becoming more farcical. Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson... in 1858, every Republican bill (they were then the anti-slave party) passed was killed by southern votes in the Senate or a Presidential veto. The Federal Government reached a stalemate. Sound familiar? Nixon and Reagan rode anti-elite waves into the White House well before Bush Junior and Trump. It's the modern Republican thing.

 

[RealityNow]

The World has seen..... and The World can't and won't un-see what it has come to know!!!!

The Smart People are on the Side of American Democracy and; WE Are Moving Forward To Build The 21st Century, and will not be drug back in the 70 yr in the past, 1950's !!!!

 

[rahl]

They were too busy rigging the presidential election. Now that they perfected that, congressional elections will be next.

What evidence do you have this election was rigged? Trump doesn’t have any. His lawyers don’t have any. Maybe you do?

 

[NWRatCon]

How many people here keep a plunger in your bathroom? Why? Every so often the pipes get so plugged with turds that the plumbing won't work. That's what has happened in Congress for decades, and Trump was one gigantic turd. This election used the plunger of democracy, but, sadly, we'll need Roto-rooter to clear the rest of the crap out of the system. Then we get the usual crap-spewers in these threads, throwing turds around worse than the gorillas at the zoo, and gumming up the conversation. "Cleanup in thread twelve. Bring the disinfectant - the industrial-strength stuff. This one's a doozy."

 

[weaver2]

Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 was a trauma for the elites. Why? Because he showed that people in charge of major U.S. institutions weren’t as elite as they liked to believe. … Ordinary Americans looked at the elite zones of academia, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington itself, and saw a bunch of self-serving, not very competent individuals sitting pretty, who had enriched themselves and let the rest of America slide...... (Trump) pinpointed them as the problem—the reason factories and small stores had closed, unemployment was bad, and PC culture had cast them as human debris. ....... scorn for men and women at the top of our country is now widespread and frank. It’s not going to pass any time soon.

Grievance is a powerful motivator. But what's the point? They aren't job providers. They don't create policy. Shouldn't the non-elites' ire be directed at those people?What is the elite supposed to do to? Are they supposed to become nicer, act more graciously and differentially toward the non-elite? And if so, what does that look like?

The elites of each sector mentioned, education, entertainment, technology, business and politics are not known to the public. They are too small in number, are seldom in the public's eye or in the news.
There are 4,000 college and university presidents in the US. They are almost never in the news or quoted.
There are under 200 famous or notable people in entertainment. Occasionally, some from both make political news.
There are 12.1M people employed in technology industries. Few make political statements.
There are 118,889 Google employees only a few of them are administrators. None of them make the news except the owner.
There are several hundred financial executives that manage American business. They are almost never in the news
There are about 15,000 registered lobbyists in Washington. They seldom make public statements.
None of the above make the financial and political policies that created the problems mentioned: the closing of factories and small stores, high unemployment, and PC culture had cast them as human debris.

Factory and small business closing came about because Congress changed financial and banking laws so they rewarded the exportation of jobs, bankruptcy as a tool for financial gain, the selling off of corporate assets needed for future productivity, hiring of imported workers and penalized long term, goal oriented businesses and manufacturers. Who did this? Not university presidents, not elite actors, not employees in technology, not Wall Street tycoons. Lobbyists may have crafted some of the financial and banking changes but Congress listened to lobbyists not workers and voted the changes into laws.
So, who cast conservatives as human debris? For more than 30 years conservative radio has been saying teachers, Hollywood stars, Silicone Vally types, Wall Street and Washington operatives think conservatives are ignorant, uneducated, and stupid. One of Limbaugh's most used lines is "Liberals think you're stupid".

Talk radio can make people believe lies but it doesn't change laws. Congress does that and the Congressmen and women who changed the financial and banking laws that closed factories and businesses are the Congress-members voted into office by conservatives.

"College presidents, celebrity actors, Google VPs, D.C. operatives and the rest" are not the problem. Even Trump is not the problem. The people we elect to Congress are the problem.

 

[NWRatCon]

The elites of each sector mentioned, education, entertainment, technology, business and politics are not known to the public. They are too small in number, are seldom in the public's eye or in the news.....
"College presidents, celebrity actors, Google VPs, D.C. operatives and the rest" are not the problem. Even Trump is not the problem. The people we elect to Congress are the problem.

I agree with all of this, but I have to point out one other thing (that I repeat too often):

Congress is unalterably skewed to ignore the majority. 70% of the Senators represent 30% of the people. Congress has been getting less and less representative since 1920. There is a natural 4% skew to the benefit of less populous Districts in the House. This is exacerbated by partisan gerrymandering.

Single-member districts mean that a vote cast for a losing candidate will not be represented. Similarly, a vote cast for a candidate over the threshold needed to win is electorally useless. Both of these votes are, to use a harsh term, “wasted votes.” Democrats cast more wasted votes than Republicans due to an imbalance in how party members are distributed among districts. This imbalance is a result of both natural sorting and political gerrymandering.

Natural sorting describes how members of the two parties are distributed across the country. Democrats are heavily concentrated in cities and urban areas; Republicans tend to be scattered among rural, exurban, and suburban districts. There are more districts with very high concentrations of Democratic voters than there are districts with very high concentrations of Republican voters. This Democratic density makes it easy to win individual seats but creates lots of wasted votes. Research by political scientists Jonathan Rodden and Jowei Chen, as well as Rodden’s new book, Why Cities Lose, show that geography and natural sorting are the root of Democrats’ electoral challenges.

Political gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral districts to favor one party over another. States where one party controls the process often attempt to maximize their party’s representation using tactics called “packing” and “cracking.” Packing is drawing districts to heavily overrepresent the opposition party, wasting as many votes as possible over the winning threshold. Cracking is the opposite: diluting the opposition’s voters into districts so they cannot reach the threshold. Most statewide gerrymanders are a combination of packing and cracking.

Natural sorting and gerrymandering can only distort House representation away from the national popular vote because we use single-member districts. Together, single-member districts, natural sorting, and gerrymandering form the origin of bias in the House.

The House’s Republican Bias: Does it Exist? (Center For Politics). In 2016 the Republicans took 62% of the seats in Wisconsin with 46% of the vote. That was ENTIRELY the result of gerrymandering. Misrepresentation in the House of Representatives. (Brookings).

As the chart below shows, the total vote differential between the two parties for elections to the House in 2016 was 1.2 percent. But the difference in the number of seats is 10.8 percent, giving a total of 21 extra seats to Republicans.

The Congressional Map Has A Record-Setting Bias Against Democrats (FiveThirtyEight):

In 2016, Trump lost the national popular vote by 2.1 percentage points, but Republicans won the median House seat by 3.4 points and the median Senate seat by 3.6 points — that’s the widest Senate gap in at least a century and tied with 2012 for the widest House disparity in the last half-century. That doesn’t mean Democrats can’t win the House and Senate back — they won control of both chambers in 2006 despite a Republican-bias that year, for example — but they’re starting from a truly historic geographic disadvantage, even with the political wind at their back.

That is the reality that has to be overcome.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I agree with all of this, but I have to point out one other thing (that I repeat too often):

Congress is unalterably skewed to ignore the majority. 70% of the Senators represent 30% of the people. Congress has been getting less and less representative since 1920. There is a natural 4% skew to the benefit of less populous Districts in the House. This is exacerbated by partisan gerrymandering.
The House’s Republican Bias: Does it Exist? (Center For Politics). In 2016 the Republicans took 62% of the seats in Wisconsin with 46% of the vote. That was ENTIRELY the result of gerrymandering. Misrepresentation in the House of Representatives. (Brookings).

The Congressional Map Has A Record-Setting Bias Against Democrats (FiveThirtyEight):
That is the reality that has to be overcome.

This is a good thing, as a properly structured minority rule is far more stable than a narrow majority one.

 

[Peter]

This is a good thing, as a properly structured minority rule is far more stable than a narrow majority one.

As long as they're Conservatives I suppose.
The gerrymandering in the US is pretty disgusting and why it isn't a huge issue is beyond me as it's basically a way for the people doing it to cheat the system for their own benefit.

It should not be allowed and any changes should be done only as a last resort and by people who have no political affiliation.