Why the Working Class Is Choosing Trump and Sanders

[What if...?]

Conservatism does not equal authoritarianism.... despite your misguidd opinion to the contrary.

Here is how exactly how liberals drive income disparity:

1) liberals destroyed the family creating millions of poor single Mom's

2) liberal unions drove 30 million jobs off shore

3) highest liberals corporate tax rate in world drove 20 million jobs off shore

4) liberal deficits encourage China and Japan to buy our debt rather than our products with their dollars

5) Obamacare prevents businesses from hiring and growing recessing 20% of our economy

6) Liberal union war on our schools has destroyed them rendering many of our kids fit for work!!

Jobs were offshored because it became economically feasible to do so.

$2 a day labor drove the activity. Unions had NOTHING to do with it.

 

[What if...?]

The working class has abandoned the Democrats because the Democrats abandoned them. From a recent book review:

". . . political historian Thomas Frank is more interested in why the president disappoints. It’s not that Obama has abandoned liberalism; it’s that liberalism has abandoned the working class. Over the past four decades, Frank argues in his new book “Listen, Liberal,” the Democrats have embraced a new favorite constituency: the professional class — the doctors, lawyers, engineers, programmers, entrepreneurs, artists, writers, financiers and other so-called creatives whose fetish for academic credentials and technological innovation has infected the party of the working class. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, is a member in excellent standing of this class and a natural protector of it. “When the left party in a system severs its bonds to working people — when it dedicates itself to the concerns of a particular slice of high-achieving affluent people — issues of work and income inequality will inevitably fade from its list of concerns,” Frank concludes. . . . "

So the working class has NO representative party anymore.

Wonderful.

 

[Jack Hays]

So the working class has NO representative party anymore.

Wonderful.

That is why Trump and Sanders are successful.

 

[What if...?]

why not legislate? That's what govt is for? Now that liberals have killed religion the govt must take its place. Look at what liberalism did to the black family? It was a near genocide that govt must correct. Do you understand?

Two posts up you said republicanism is the only chance for freedom and then here you say its appropriate to dictate how a person lives their life through legislation.

Which is it?

Or is it "you are free to live as I say".

 

[Lafayette]

We are forging an aristocracy here. Not awarded by kings but obtained by amassing of capital.

Past tense.

We have forged an aristocracy. It has amassed capital.

We are the pigeons. Dollar-wise, it has been the biggest rip-off ever of one class by another ...

 

[Lafayette]

Add to that focus group tested words and phrases from the persuasion guys and you can't really have discussions here.

Mostly just using debate opponents to make points to other members of your side/spectators.

Just plain English without the asinine jargon would do.

My point is made rather well in this piece: Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America Excerpt: Washington Post,

Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces.

These include the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

And the person making highly effective use of that phenomenon is a certain Donald Frump who is gathering the ignorant hordes to his side. Should he win, America will have elected the worst PotUS in its history. Even James Buchanan, presently that prize-winner from a survey (see here), will smile in his grave ...

 

[Lafayette]

THE ULTIMATE FOOL

Because were the rubber meets the road no one else in Washington has acted like they give a damn about the little people in the longest time.

And you think the Donald does?

Nowhere in his history has he had a single-day of political management experience showing how he might act "on behalf of the little people".

In fact, he he has made multiple asinine pronouncement indicating he has no idea whatsoever of the extent of political limits of the presidency - or the basic foundational notion that our governance has three powers: the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary (Supreme Court). The viability of our nation rests upon those three supporting pillars of governance.

Note that this tripartite system exists to give a Balance of Powers amongst the three. Why? To assure that not just one power - clearly the Executive - would try to obtain TOTAL POWER over the nation.

Furthermore, even in his own career he has had multiple failures due to bad business-judgement. Excerpt from PolitiFact as regards Florina's charge against Trump during the debates:

Our ruling [i.e., PolitiFact]

Fiorina said Trump was "forced to file for bankruptcy not once, not twice, four times."

While it is accurate that Trump filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, Fiorina’s statement doesn’t tell the whole story.

In context, Fiorina’s phrasing suggests Trump was personally responsible for the failures of these businesses, but in reality, much was out of Trump’s control -- such as a struggling casino industry. But Trump is certainly not blameless.

We rate Fiorina’s statement Mostly True.

Or what about this report from Politico: 1988 The Year Donald Lost His Mind. Excerpt:

Shortly after its release [His book, "The Art of the Deal"], a few weeks into January of 1988, Trump’s book was at the top of the New York Times’ list of best-sellers, surprising even his publishers. “Everyone has been astounded,” the director of publicity of Random House told the Associated Press. The scathing critiques, she said, “don’t seem to be making much of a difference.”

This was the beginning of a stretch of time that can be seen as peak Trump—at least until this unprecedented and Trump-centric presidential campaign. He had shrugged off his critics and risen to the top of a new field. He had never been hotter, or more famous, than he was at 41 years old, at the start of 1988.

But his response to his surging celebrity was a series of manic, ill-advised ventures. He cheated on his wife, the mother of his first three children. In business, he was acquisitive to the point of recklessness. He bought and sold chunks of stocks of companies he talked about taking over. He glitzed up his gaudy yacht, the yacht the banks would seize less than three years later. He used hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed money to pay high prices for a hotel and an airline—and his lenders would take them, too. And he tussled for months with game-show magnate Merv Griffin for ownership of his third casino in Atlantic City, the most expensive, gargantuan one yet, the Trump Taj Mahal, which led quickly to the first of his four corporate bankruptcy filings.

The man who now says he would be a good president because of his ability to make good deals made bad deals; 1988 was the year in which the candidate whose pitch is success sowed the seeds of many of his signature failures.

The guy is trying to tell you (plural) that he is a Successful Businessman and therefore has such good judgement that he deserves to be PotUS?

And you actually believe him? Then which one of you is the Ultimate Fool ... ?

 

[Kushinator]

Conservatism does not equal authoritarianism.... despite your misguidd opinion to the contrary.

I cannot help that you are ignorant of the topics you wish to discuss.

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

To argue conservatism doesn't have branches that adhere to authoritarianism is hilarious!

:2wave:

 

[James972]

Two posts up you said republicanism is the only chance for freedom and then here you say its appropriate to dictate how a person lives their life through legislation.

Our, free, conservative and libertarian society was not founded as an anarchy, it has things,values and culture in common that it wishes to preserve with a constitution, and modernize with legislation. Within the context of a our founding we want relative freedom to the maximum extent possible while liberals, socialist and communists want the exact opposite. I fear this may be too subtle for you?

 

[James972]

Conservatism does not equal authoritarianism.... despite your misguidd opinion to the contrary.

exactly it is the opposite. Conservatives sign the pledge to shrink the govt and thus make it less capable of authoritarianism. A child in America would know that.

 

[James972]

To argue conservatism doesn't have branches that adhere to authoritarianism is hilarious!

social conservatives often want to restore proper social values. For example, they want to restore the black family that liberals have attacked and destroyed so thoroughly. They don't want to it authoritarinly but rather they want a consensus to remove the liberal influence and programs that have so crippled American Blacks. Do you understand?

also, it is absurd to talk of conservative authoritarianism when liberal Communst nazi authortarianism is 1000000% more pronounced.

 

[What if...?]

Our, free, conservative and libertarian society was not founded as an anarchy, it has things,values and culture in common that it wishes to preserve with a constitution, and modernize with legislation. Within the context of a our founding we want relative freedom to the maximum extent possible while liberals, socialist and communists want the exact opposite. I fear this may be too subtle for you?

I see a bit of interpretive license there.

I see it as free to live as you see fit, not how others see fit.

You feel it appropriate to tell people they can't do things that you simply don't approve of and sustain no actual harm from, right?

 

[Kushinator]

social conservatives often want to restore proper social values. For example, they want to restore the black family that liberals have attacked and destroyed so thoroughly. They don't want to it authoritarinly but rather they want a consensus to remove the liberal influence and programs that have so crippled American Blacks. Do you understand?

also, it is absurd to talk of conservative authoritarianism when liberal Communst nazi authortarianism is 1000000% more pronounced.

You posted this nonsense:

Hitler was head of the national Socialist Party and he hated capitalism just like Sanders!! You don't know any more about socialism today than the Germans did in the 1930's.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” ~ Adolf Hitler, May 1st, 1927

:lol:

Your participation in these debates is a detriment to your ideology.

 

[Thrilla]

What about social conservatism. Its not a point of view, its an attempt to legislate. Its all about forcing others to live the way someone else sees fit. Which is by nature authoritarian, because authority will force compliance.

I understand its about votes, but that's why people conflate the two.

Both fiscal conservative and social conservative both have "conservative" in them.

it's still just a political philosophy... as opposed to an ideology.

 

[Thrilla]

I cannot help that you are ignorant of the topics you wish to discuss.



To argue conservatism doesn't have branches that adhere to authoritarianism is hilarious!

:2wave:

I can help if you fail to read and understand my points.... but color me surprised that you decided to call me ignorant yet again, as you do every single time you stick your nose into a discussion.

I didn't argue conservatism doesn't have branches that are, or can be, authoritarian... I specifically stated that conservatism DOES NOT EQUAL authoritarianism.... (were you able to read it that time?.. or do i need to make it bigger and more colorful?)
proponents of authoritarianism can be found all across the spectrum.. from left (commies) to right ( fascists), and everywhere in between.

you're still talking apples and Cadillacs though.. authoritarianism is not an ideology ( like liberalism) or a political philosophy ( like conservatism).. authoritarianism is a specific system of government ( relating to politics) or a state of mind (relating to psychology)

 

[Thrilla]

exactly it is the opposite. Conservatives sign the pledge to shrink the govt and thus make it less capable of authoritarianism. A child in America would know that.

no it's not an equal, and it's not an opposite..

like a few others in here, you're simply talking apples and Cadillacs.

btw , the opposite of conservative is "radical".. it's not liberal, it's not authoritarian... it's radical.

there's is also no correlation with conservatism and small government... except in dishonest political rhetoric.

 

[James972]

no it's not an equal, and it's not an opposite..

like a few others in here, you're simply talking apples and Cadillacs.

btw , the opposite of conservative is "radical".. it's not liberal, it's not authoritarian... it's radical.

there's is also no correlation with conservatism and small government... except in dishonest political rhetoric.

so you would say the Republicans sign the pledge to never raise taxes because they want to make govt bigger and more authoritarian???? See how easily trapped and defeated a liberal is? Liberalism is not based on reason so it is easy.

 

[James972]

there's is also no correlation with conservatism and small government... .

exactly, conservatives sign the pledge because they want big govt and liberals don't because they want smaller govt!!!!! as liberal you always make liberal sense!!

 

[James972]

authoritarianism is not an ideology ( like liberalism) or a political philosophy ( like conservatism).. )

totally mistaken of course. Our Founders were geniuses who studied all of human history and political philosophy. They saw human history only as the battle between freedom and govt!! Do you understand? They did not care what rationale a govt used for centralized power, they made all the rationales in human history illegal here!! Only freedom was to be allowed here. Now do you understand these basics? Do you understand what Jefferson meant when he said "now there is something new under the sun."

Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

notice how govt and liberty are seen as opposite. What does that teach you?

 

[Thrilla]

exactly conservatives sign the pledge because they want big govt and liberal don't because they want smaller govt!!!!! as liberal you always make liberal sense!!

that was a poor excuse for an argument... at least put some effort in it next time.

and yes, i'm a liberal... so are you.... nearly everyone one of us is a liberal in the US.....you'll have to be a bit more specific if you're trying to insult me.

 

[James972]

and yes, i'm a liberal... so are you.... nearly everyone one of us is a liberal

Was William Buckley Jr a liberal? You lack the ability for substance so you play like a child.

 

[Thrilla]

totally mistaken of course. Our Founders were geniuses who studied all of human history and political philosophy. They saw human history only as the battle between freedom and govt!! Do you understand? They did not care what rationale a govt used for centralized power, they made all the rationales in human history illegal here!! Only freedom was to be allowed here. Now do you understand these basics? Do you understand what Jefferson meant when he said "now there is something new under the sun."

Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

notice how govt and liberty are seen as opposite. What does that teach you?

....it teaches me that you are just pulling stuff you don't understand out of our ass and presenting it as fact.

authoritarianism is NOT an ideology or a philosophy.... end of story.... it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, it is what it is.

 

[Thrilla]

Was William Buckley Jr a liberal? You lack the ability for substance so you play like a child.

yes, he was a liberal too.

are you tryign to argue that he adhered to an ideology other than liberalism?.. if so, be specific as to which ideology you have in mind.

 

[James972]

..

authoritarianism is NOT an ideology or a philosophy....

sorry to rock your world:

The Ideologies of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism
404 Not Found
The principles of authoritarian political ideologies are abstruse and sophisticated. They can require years of study to fully comprehend. But Aengus Song's print

The Ideologies of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

 

[Thrilla]

sorry to rock your world:

The Ideologies of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism
404 Not Found
The principles of authoritarian political ideologies are abstruse and sophisticated. They can require years of study to fully comprehend. But Aengus Song's print

The Ideologies of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

:lamo.. yeah... that "rocked my world"
you literally linked me to some unknown self titled " scholar" hack selling CD's

well done :lamo

if you wish to educate me, you had better bring me prime time scholarly works... I don't do amateur hour.

if you really want to learn about authoritarianism, I suggest Juan Linz's Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes
or
John Duckitt's Authoritarianism and Group Identification: A New View of an Old Construct

Linz's work on authoritarianism is cited by just about every scholar who attends to the topic, btw.