yoklov · 9 years ago

Honestly, as someone who finds the current situation a bit abhorrent, and who generally disagrees with most things I've heard come out of Thiel's mouth, there are way worse choices.

He has knowledge of the tech sector and doesn't want to ruin it, he isn't anti-science, he's gay (and thus pro-gay rights), etc.

That said, I think it's profoundly unlikely, since unless I'm not aware of it, he'd be the only supreme court justice with no legal background.

nhaehnle · 9 years ago

The linked article was talking about facts, a dissection of various arguments made by Thiel and Trump. Elections aren't about facts (unfortunately?), so they cannot prove anything about whether that article is right or not.

ant6n · 9 years ago

Let's remember the results: 47.5% vs 47.7%. It was a coin toss decided by the distribution of the votes.

murbard2 · 9 years ago

I bet heavily on a Trump victory so, no, I don't think I'm out of touch.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken

cooper12 · 9 years ago

> I don't believe that the government can solve social problems.

Other than not making it illegal for these people to live their ways of life?

siosonel · 9 years ago

Government cannot solve something like slavery or Jim Crow?

colemickens · 9 years ago

Are you serious? You don't think the lives of LGBT has been different since marriage equality was passed?

You don't think our Vice President supporting electro-shock therapy for gay teens is a bad thing that has real impacts?

God damnit I just can't tell if people in this thread are some ignorant, heartless, or absolutely blinded by privilege.

nostrademons · 9 years ago

Citizens United has had basically zero effect on my life. Before it, rich folks controlled politics. After it, rich folks controlled politics. The only difference is that now they can do so more overtly, and everybody knows that's how the system works.

morgante · 9 years ago

This election offers abundant evidence of how overemphasized Citizens United actually is. Clinton vastly outspent Trump, but still lost.

Kadin · 9 years ago

Citizens United is not the example I would have gone with. It really only effects the ability of corporations to influence politics, so its effects on citizens are indirect at best.

Roe v. Wade and its predecessor cases (Griswold et al.) which legalized contraception and abortion across the US have had an obvious and direct effect on many people.

DanTheManPR · 9 years ago

This kind of attitude is what will bring about the extinction of mankind.

jlewallen · 9 years ago

This kind of cavalier talk about unleashing unfathomable misery on innocent people is one of the things that terrifies me most about the future.

neals · 9 years ago

It's a great point you make. Because we're not allowed to think like that, we can't talk about it. However, we do base our decisions on it. So here we are. Still not allowed to mention the elephant in the room. PC gone mad.

sobani · 9 years ago

On the other hand I wonder how many people voted for Clinton because she was a woman, I would wager that's not 0 as well.

Of course, I don't know whether the yea-woman outweighed the nay-woman.

thesagan · 9 years ago

It's very intense here in Michigan. Personally and via the numbers, and it's definitely the "flyover state" sentiment that did it.

cygx · 9 years ago

He might have. In pre-nomination polling, Sanders did significantly better than Clinton against Trump. He'd also have gotten his share of anti-establishment voters and arguably would have brought to the table far less baggage.

patrickk · 9 years ago

Why not?

Trump and Hillary had historically high unfavourable ratings, and Bernie is quite popular. The socialist label was worn out somewhat on Obama, so it doesn't carry the same sting. He doesn't have anywhere near the baggage that Hillary does, and had policies to address some of the white working class concerns of the rust belt, and shared some of Trump's skepticism about free trade offshoring jobs. He would've gotten all of the "anyone but Trump" votes (as Hillary did), plus he had a bloc of genuinely excited voters who enthusiastically supported him till the end, potentially meaning greater turnout. Not saying he would definitely win, but in head to head polling he did better vs Trump than Hillary did.

rahkiin · 9 years ago

And Trump was once a Democrat

komali2 · 9 years ago

Please. Sanders would have played Trump in the debates like a fiddle. Trump can shout "he's a socialist!" over and over again all he want, but he wouldn't have any of his ammunition like he did against Clinton - the emails, the speeches, etc.

blahi · 9 years ago

Why challenge the US? It's a gamble. Is Trump really serious about not backing NATO or was it just talk? Will he be pressured into fulfilling the obligation by the EU and his staff? That's a lot of unknowns and if Putin falls on the wrong side of them, that will be the undoing of him and probably Russia as it is today. It's all fun and games while it's just talk and signing currency swaps. Not so fun if you poked the bear one too many times.

Much better to try and negotiate backroom deals about withdrawing influence in Eastern Europe.

degorov · 9 years ago

...and it's still 9 times less then US' military budget alone.

xienze · 9 years ago

And you know what? Eventually that changed. It takes time. The approach the left has been taking lately is to make sweeping changes that a lot of people aren't comfortable with RIGHT NOW OR ELSE YOU'RE A BIGOT AND YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR LIFE RUINED. For a large portion of the population it was just too much, too fast and they had enough.

Well, that's the social side of it. The rest of the election was about economic factors.

Scea91 · 9 years ago

Great. You probably belong to the 70 % mentioned by OP.

tajen · 9 years ago

All the other parties' programs say they will add up to laws in favour of women. FN doesn't say anything: It's more than I wanted to hear. Women don't currently have the same positions as men, but they currently have equal chances, which will lead to the same positions in less than one generation, so more laws would be unfair. Other than that, I've decided I decided to dismiss any argument about economics and immigration, because no party proposes to un-debt France, so women is my only criteria. Sounds logical since women have been the primary factor of unhappiness, both in my private and professional life.

tajen · 9 years ago

Lol that comment could come across as insulting ;) Is it? I'll assume it's not. First, you're trying to present it as a problem with me, instead of a problem with society. Although well-intentionned, it is often a liberal bias: "Some people are stupid/bogans/racists/elderly, that's why they vote X". It goes as far as dismissing those people's votes as invalid, and suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Unfortunately, democracy means everyone belongs. We need to take care of needs of all people, even people like me, even though I'm depressed, even though I've had an unpleasant bringing-up with bad girlfriends and hateful leftist highschool friends. Bullying someone because has later consequences in terms of democracy, and it's your responsibility.

Second, Devoxx keeps giving talks about how women are opressed, while my employer keeps promoting women who don't know what an HTTP Header is. Said promoted women keep complaining that they're paid less than their male counterparts who knew what HTTP Headers were because they had to wait 7 more years to be promoted. Is it alright that I feel a dishonest discrepancy? Is it ok that I don't have any hope for my future?

All help goes towards minorities who barely work enough to deserve their spot. Today, I'm the one who needs help. I've worked hard, but now I need a bit of love. Can anyone see that my career has been unfair when I was an employee, bcause promotions were given to women? I've created my company and it succeeded better than competitors, is that a sign that I was competent? What I need today is people who appreciate what I'm giving to the world, both in donations and hard work, and for people to stop depicting me as a white male. Hence my sentence: All I need is a bit of love, especially from liberals, to stop voting against minorities. I'm all for inclusion, and as long as "inclusion" includes shy nerds I'm ready to support everyone else.

4ad · 9 years ago

Oh, so now people who don't agree with your world views are mentally ill?

teibath · 9 years ago

It reminds me of Houellebecq's 'Submission', where one of the main features of islamic France is locking women in home in marriage. Women also serve as "awards" to the backers of the new regime.

I think it is true that some people put gender/sexual tensions into their politics, especially if it is radical. Grandparent might assume that in a more traditional society his chances would be better. I can't judge if it's true.

tajen · 9 years ago

The girlfriend is an example, it's a proxy for "fixing my life".

All my life I've been shamed by leftists, mostly because I'm a white male from a good Christian family and succeeded at schools. It has had impact on my career for example, since companies decided to promote junior women instead. Leftists couldn't get over that and see the guy who needed help to be socially included. Leftists are pretty happy to see a rich person be socially rejected or committing suicide, actually. I bet many people voting Trump feel just the same: Leftists are prompt at shaming people for being privileged while not caring for their problems. We need a return of solidarity, and if not that, then we'll just vote for ourselves.

Hence, I have stopped caring for what leftists say. But if people could get enough solidarity to help me get my life fixed (the girlfriend is just an example), then I'd go back to voting normally.

Yes, I've seen a psychologist. Psychologists can fix the person, not society. If society keeps sending crap because you're a white male, nothing will repair your self-esteem.

tajen · 9 years ago

What proves you that I don't deserve a better consideration? It is certainly possible from what I said to depict me as a bad guy through generalizations, but that would only be generalizations. What if I did give a lot and kept being told off, wouldn't that be unfair?

tajen · 9 years ago

> What political party is going to promise you a girlfriend?

You've unframed and changed my speech so much that it looks stupid. Obviously, you conclude that this is stupid: You're right!

I'm saying: If you don't want me to vote for Trump/FN, then instead of shaming me all the time "because he's from a rich familiy, therefore he doesn't deserve consideration, even if he works hard and donates a lot", try to intervene at the private/social level by having solidarity with people's situation. If you give those people some love, and fix their lives, they'll start voting differently.

NhanH · 9 years ago

> 2. You blame an entire race for your cousin being raped

You are putting words into his mouth. His description of the event was entirely about a fact.

Quote for reference.

> Oh and my 8-year old cousin was raped by an Arab teenager – I still don't know whether that's due to probability or whether he identifies to the Arabs-against-whites cause. It did change a lot for me.

tajen · 9 years ago

You're right, that's why I rally to FN. Your comment says you're incapable of compassion because you conflate my case with your sweeping generalizations, and your comment shows you only see bad things in your opponents, to whom you'll never give any kind of love.

Your strategy has a name: "lutte des classes" (class warfare), and you daily complain that all you get is Brexit, Trump and FN. A little understanding for your opponent's problems would go a long way in having solidarity in a country, but good luck talking about cross-class solidarity to a socialist.

chillwaves · 9 years ago

People make me sick.

henrikschroder · 9 years ago

I'm also Swedish, and the parallells are striking. During the last two general elections in Sweden, my Facebook was an endless litany of "But, but, but, they're racist!!!", same as the mainstream media, and all of it completely useless, because the argument clearly doesn't work.

qb45 · 9 years ago

Or read The Game for case studies and some idea of possible side effects when people thought it can be reduced to few simple tips.

tajen · 9 years ago

I can't do that. Partly because confidence is not me; But partly also because I'm afraid of discovering, after 15 years struggling to interest women, that the answer was that simple. Given how butthurt I am with the topic, I admit that this discovery would hurt me a lot. Do unconfident men, no matter how generous they are and how well they work, get no girl, which gives a major handicap in life?

tlrobinson · 9 years ago

Well, the majority of the population didn't even vote.

sgc · 9 years ago

But there is a valid reason for it. The US is a union of States, and they hold real power. I am not sure they should give up their power because it is too complicated for some people to understand. At the same time, I would prefer States to allot their electoral votes proportionally so that they could properly represent their population. Nevertheless, there would still be rounding errors.

mrweasel · 9 years ago

Right now, Trump actually have the majority popular vote as well, with 700.000 more votes.

henrikschroder · 9 years ago

The US does have universal suffrage, it's just that the President isn't elected by the popular vote. There are ways to achieve that though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

pedalpete · 9 years ago

These were the two people chosen by the parties to represent them. Just because they are the worst in history does not invalidate the election, and it isn't like you can call off an election because you don't have a worthy opponent.

I suspect the democrats are regretting throwing Bernie under the bus.

WillPostForFood · 9 years ago

Are you calling Obama a child? Because he has been the president for the last 8 years while all these problems have been mounting.

inimino · 9 years ago

Trump is not his persona. He has little choice but to be much more moderate than the rhetoric that got him elected.

teekert · 9 years ago

What you mean is: Russia is portrayed as frisky in your media. That is different. Perhaps you should look up alternative news sources, YouTube can be enlightening.

Just one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI

551199 · 9 years ago

This shows the power of media narrative. Clinton said multiple times 'alleged DNC hacking' would lead to a military response against Russia. No fly zone in Syria would mean effectively that.

In case you are curious look at the Wikileaks emails. Obama & Clinton administration stirred up Syria to what it is now and created vacuum for ISIS.

She also told public how long the nuclear response time is which is quite ironic after saying Trump could not be trusted with that information.

leakybit · 9 years ago

And you think Clinton will show restraint? She's a democrat, but her foreign policy is more typical of a neocon republican.

saiya-jin · 9 years ago

Syria, ISIS, and whole effin' arab spring, is something that was initially supported/not constrained enough by US. Yes, conflicts could be worse in middle east, but they could also... not be, if US and west generally just didn't meddle with crappy but relatively stable systems in place.

the_duke · 9 years ago

Whoops, I meant to write macho.

croon · 9 years ago

Which is ridiculous. I'm not diminishing a Sophie's choice here, but that Trump somehow comes out on top in that comparison is a farce of reasoning.

spiderfarmer · 9 years ago

Well, a large part of the world was seeing Trump as very unfavorable. Respect will have to be earned.

We'll see.

the_duke · 9 years ago

I don't live in the US (anymore), so it doesn't really affect me.

You bring up some valid points. But a lot of what you mention is very much bound to state administration and legislation. Of course federal laws and the supreme court can have a big impact, but the states still have a lot of say in the matter.

And even if Clinton had won, with the current climate, she wouldn't get much through Congress or Senate.

Then again, a different candidate than her might have helped to flip the senate.

What I mostly meant by that: it's done, he won. Have to deal with it now.

laughfactory · 9 years ago

Might is the critical word here, and I appreciate that you chose to use it. All of these things are possible, but as the original commenter suggested, I suspect most if not all of your fears will prove unfounded. I very much doubt much will change for Muslims in our country, or that deportations will change much (aren't they actually higher under Obama than previous administrations?), or that diabetics will not be able to afford their medication, etc. You may be right that limits may be placed on when an abortion can be obtained, but there's no way gay marriage will be reversed.

In short, I agree that in all likelihood the most disappointed voters will be those who voted for Trump expecting him to do all those things you're afraid he'll do. They wanted someone to really shake things up, and he'll give them modest tweaks and proposals with great branding.

saiya-jin · 9 years ago

yes it will... in worst case scenario, US will roll back to a state 20-30 years ago. by your descriptions, people were committing suicides en mass or were put down like feral animals or whatever the heck you meant with your emotional outcry.

It seems not so long ago when Obama was criticized for his inability to do many changes he promised to do, simply because the image of US president holding all the possible power in the US is an illusion, for a very long time.

Personally, I don't care much about his racism, bigotry etc, many powerful people are like that, they just don't admit it openly to the media. What I care about is long-term chances of mankind for survival on this beautiful little blue ball, the only home we will have as a mankind for a very, very long time.

And in this topic, he seemed... pretty horrible in every single way. well, fuck.

Chris2048 · 9 years ago

> You might be willing to take those risks that Donald Trump is not the man he says he is

What if the things staying the same are the larger risk? The current status quo (a change from the past) isn't sustainable for many.

> The world might not go on for the Muslim hoping to immigrate to our country.

Be specific - which criteria is keeping them out? Why do they want to come to the US?

> poor pregnant women who might not get access to a safe abortion

You mean who get illegal abort?

> who [sees] a president who brags about sexually assaulting women

because it was publicized as part of a smear campaign. What about the public officials who see the email scandal, and that it didn't hurt president Clinton?

Like Trump said, what of Bill Clintons affair? No moralizing over that?

> trans person who is no longer allowed in the bathroom in which they feel the most comfortable

Lets say this really was a "world-ender"; What about the people who share that bathroom, who are also "uncomfortable"? Are subjective feeling only meaningful if exhibited by the trans community?

the_duke · 9 years ago

He flip flopped on his positions whenever it was convenient.

Just a few years ago, he was a Democrat, pro abortion, etc.

Do you really think a man of that age suddenly completely changes his views? And then again about every month (or hour) during the campaign?

tom_mellior · 9 years ago

> This election is about establishment vs anti-establishment. People over globalisation. Remember Bernie Sanders?

I don't understand the point you are making. If people beat globalization, if voters want anti-establishment more than establishment, shouldn't Bernie have won?

cromwellian · 9 years ago

If it was anti-Establishment, then why did voters re-elect Congress who had a 9% approval rating, and who quite literally, are the permanent establishment, because they're gerrymandered and not term limited like the President, who changes every 8 years?

I don't buy it. anti-Establishment is the story progressives tell themselves, that the Trump voters would have been Sanders voters. But Sanders voters believe bankers and corporations have fucked over their jobs, and Trump voters think Mexicans and minorities are to blame. There might be some overlap, but telling yourself this was merely about anti-Establishment and "draining the swamp" doesn't explain why incumbents scored a huge victory tonite.

toomuchtodo · 9 years ago

If you can't be bothered to get documents from an employee and e-verify their employment eligilbity in 5 minutes on a web app, you shouldn't be permitted to run your business.

danieltillett · 9 years ago

Yes that might be true - the issue is enforcement which is is less than rigorous.

mikeyouse · 9 years ago

Wrongly. They believe that wrongly.

eecc · 9 years ago

This

noobermin · 9 years ago

You could literally say that about any culture. No one is trying to fully emulate your culture. To be honest, when people are curious about me, I am flattered.

notahacker · 9 years ago

I suspect that you're in a minority of Indians that think comments from white guys who's understanding of Indian culture(s) doesn't go much beyond butter chicken and arranged marriages opining on Indian cultural problems with women would be helpful though. Even if we're focusing on Indians that agree that India has unique cultural problems with the treatment of women.

And one of the driving forces behind Trump's success is a whole lot of foreign/liberal/establishment/non-insider figures pontificating about how that sort of person's culture must be pretty messed up if Trump is expected to pick up votes from them. (Just because a point of view is justified doesn't mean it doesn't provoke a backlash)

labster · 9 years ago

Most people would rather not have have their culture attacked. You might be different. Applying this in person could lead to ugly American syndrome or persistent imperialism.

Which is too bad because you sound like a great person. The world would be a better place if we could be hear honest opinions without taking personal offense. But if I go to India and talk to them about the way they treat women, they might recall the last time some white people showed up and started telling them how they should run things.

r00fus · 9 years ago

Maybe they're just being polite because they don't want to randomly critique your culture (and probably don't want you to do likewise)?

People want positive experiences and encounters because, honestly, life can suck and negative feedback loops are a real thing.

I've lost the goodwill of colleagues and friends by being as callous as you want others to be to you. You might want to meditate on that.

oarsinsync · 9 years ago

When I go to a Spanish festival, there is paella and salsa dancing. There aren't broadcasts that censorship is rife and the right to protest the government is being eliminated.

When I go to a Polish festival, there is sausages and beer. It isn't broadcast that the government has gone extreme right wing, that womens right to abortion is being removed and criminalised.

When I go to an Indian festival, there is curry and mendhi. It isn't broadcast that women have few rights, and (gang) rape is more common than it should be.

The point of these festivals are to celebrate the positives, not to focus on the negatives. They're celebrations not protests.

gotrecruit · 9 years ago

erm bro... seriously? if i meet you at a random festival and wanted to have a casual conversation to be friendly with you, you want me to bring up your treatment of women?

rayiner · 9 years ago

Thank you!

My family is Bangladeshi. The food is amazing and the people are generally kind. But we came to the U.S. for a reason. It's worth remembering: 30% of Latinos in Florida voted for Trump. The left is not doing a good job walking that fine line between "we welcome those who want to become American" and "we are willing to give up the aspects of American culture that make people want to come here."

noobermin · 9 years ago

Or how climate change is borne out by the facts, or how blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years by whites, or the crusades happened, on and on and on.

Everyone has their own little safe-space and their own desire to stifle others speech (voter suppression?). Just some hard statements follow from fact and some do not.

toyg · 9 years ago

You are confusing shared ideology with PC. The point of PC is that it's bipartisan (or "hegemon", in a vocabulary we should rediscover). Every group will have its taboos and shared beliefs, that's not PC.

laughfactory · 9 years ago

Gonna have to disagree with you here. Some "right wingers" might, but not all. There's an awful lot of gradient on the right side of the spectrum (just as there is on the left).

Immigrants aren't the problem for most "right wingers." Illegal immigrants are.

Women having the right to choose is only a problem if you expect a woman's right to choose to extend to extinguishing the life of a fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Many "right wingers" are liberal on this up to a point (say the first trimester).

Many "right wingers" (probably not extreme right wing, but still) are socially quite liberal and support gay marriage.

So... I disagree with all your points. But I can see that this election, especially, has polarized people to the extreme. Rather than seeing the gradient on either side, everyone is seeing every person who votes for Trump as an evil person; and likewise, every person who votes for Clinton as corrupt.

In order to move forward we need to come to terms with this gradient in our individual values again. We need to realize that there are fiscally conservative Democrats, and socially liberal Republicans. When we can do that then we can get back to compromising to mutually beneficial outcomes.

And if we cannot do that then we, as a country, are in deep s--t no matter who is running the country.

WillPostForFood · 9 years ago

That's totally not true. The WSJ, one of the leading conservative papers/voices, is very pro-immigration. Senators like McCain and Rubio almost got an immigration bill though Obama. There are pro-choice republican senators (Collins, Murkowski). And there are some that support gay marriage, include Rob Portman, and the reviled Dick Cheney. These are minority opinions, but the discussion is allowed.

imaok · 9 years ago

I think the difference is that if you say those things at a Republican rally you know what you're getting into. The thing that I think is really off-putting about a certain brand of political correctness (which include the post by puranjay) is when well-meaning people with no ill-intention are chastised as ignorant at best, bigots at worst. For example the post by puranjay, what exactly does he want? It's not reasonable to expect everyone to know everything about every other culture. It's just going to make people resentful.

avisser · 9 years ago

> Then watch how quickly right wingers jumps down your throat for not being politically correct.

I heard a great phrase on This American Life last week: Patriotically Correct. The Trumpian inverse of politically correct.

ZenoArrow · 9 years ago

> "The rich make a lot more than the poor... and the GOP is promising more of that, not less, and the GOP won, so the 'it's the economy' model doesn't really fit."

Here's the thing with Trump, he held so many conflicting policy positions over the course of the election, and was held to account so little by the mainstream media, that Trump supporters could basically line up with whichever of his policies they liked the most. People can ignore promises like tax breaks for the rich when he's promising to bring jobs back to the US.

Also, as I said in another comment, this wasn't a pro-Trump victory, it was an anti-Clinton victory, and Clinton has been disastrous with the US economy. She had no compelling rebuttal regarding her support for NAFTA and TPP, the huge (political and economic) disasters of the Iraq war, and had very close ties to Wall Street deregulation that was at the core of the 2008 recession. Clearly business as usual was not going to cut it, and Trump was boosted by that discontent.

ZenoArrow · 9 years ago

It depends on how broad a view you want to take of culture. If you look at music, films, food and sport, I see no evidence that American people are enjoying US music, US films, US food and US sport any less than before, regardless of what's happening politically. However, if you include the economy as part of culture, then people certainly were disillusioned, and I don't blame them, kind of hard to enjoy life to the full if you're having to work multiple jobs just to have a decent quality of life.

leafee · 9 years ago

> while being labeled racist and bigot for wanting to maintain their own.

Could you give a specific example here, as others have asked?

I don't doubt that you feel this way. As an immigrant into the US I initially felt there is too much political correctness going on, which prevented some people from expressing their thoughts clearly, which is never good.

But in terms of culture, I am surrounded by, and happily participate in the celebration of American culture. For instance, just to name a few things:

- trick or treating in costume with my kids on Halloween - pumpkin carving - lots of bbq-ing in the summer - incredible amount of decoration, shopping and eating during the holidays, Christmas trees - meeting extended family in thanksgiving, eating turkey - wearing green on St Patty's day (not sure if that counts)

I also don't meet any Americans who are apologetic about any of these types of cultural expressions. I could argue that diversity and celebration of foreign culture is also a distinctively American trait, but that is a separate point.

So my question again would be - can you give an example of a cultural expression or tradition which you would like to see continued, but is disappearing, perhaps due to media pressure from the left?

StavrosK · 9 years ago

This made me realize that whenever I see "white people" and "black people" online, the author actually means "white/black americans"

It took me years and quite a few misunderstandings to realize this, so thanks for that.

howdyado · 9 years ago

I believe that the left is focused on a wider context and trying to ensure that the worst moments of human nature are not repeated.

(preface: not saying this is going to occur or repeat etc but-) I believe everyone here would not want genocide, rape camps, slavery or other atrocities to exist (they may very well do so today, but we can also hopefully agree this is something that is to be avoided as much as possible).

"The left" is fixated on this. The context of "how did I get here?". How is it that I am having dumplings delivered to my door while there is starvation still rampant in the world? These questions lead to the thread pulling of context and it's interplay with the current circumstances of the (left-leaning) individual.

From here this leads to history, oppressive and forceful spreading of Christianity throughout the world through often violent and culturally dismissive means, exploitation, and the above atrocities.

The left is predominantly concerned with not repeating these same mistakes. While they do suffer from some of the issues that affect "the right" voters - I would vouch on a general scale globally not really as much:

The right usually work highly volatile positions which they are sold as (and rightfully so) adding to the prosperity of their nation and fulfilling of a duty, they feel (also rightfully so) like fodder used by their nation for economic gain and prosperity. The right voter base will react against any entity that is destabilizing this - it is unfortunate that they are treated as such with no opportunity for transition when the industries predominantly aligned with these groups are by their nature bound for a temporary life time.

While the left does often experience the same hardships of economic immobility, job loss, they can abstract themselves from this with the often larger city centres offering alterntives to these downturns. The right is unable to do the same.

I am of the opinion (emphasis on opinion in these very volatile areas that we have to apply utilitarian laws to) that Christianity/left-values are - as you said - group identifiers that allow a sense of belonging.

I personally am left leaning so disagree with the assessment of "legitimization" of Christianity when there are several open cases of heinous instances where it hasn't afforded the same - and has resulted in a highlight reel of the worst humanity has to offer (not isolated of course to Christianity, but it is a hard case to sell that solidifying this group will result in net positives, especially when blatantly used as a tool by politicians to consolidate their own power). Along with this, certain issues regarding race, gender, and other imagined hostilities seem to be purported by 'the right' as concerns, when in reality we are simply serving to undermine the countries we all wish to be their best. We should be openly encouraging performance from skill and shaking our heads at those who would lower another's potential by a bizarre rubric. While there is much to be said for the benefits of community, there is simply too much castigation from the right to misdirected or non-existent perceived threats. As you said "there is no shame in wanting a group identity", I believe that this metric should then be used to not demonise females wanting to belong to "feminism", Latinos wanting to belong to a Latino identity, or the many other groups who have been - throughout history - actively suppressed either through violence, genocide, or structures in place that do not afford them the same opportunities being demanded now. To ask for legitimacy whilst ignoring past (extreme) grievances when the same was requested and then crying foul is remiss.

However I believe that across the globe that left-leaning parties need to do much much more work at re-training, re-educating, and emphasising just what tremendous effort the blue collar - and often right-voting - people of their countries have sacrificed so that the left get their opportunity to learn and mobilize upwards. There is a need to bring them along as well or the country is just as doomed and suffering of citizens just as bad.

We need to work together, support each other, and not be drawn in to crude openly-acknowledged-as-broken party systems.

That being said - if Trump does not destabilize this system in the US and push the country toward a preferential system, he isn't worth the square inch of a used toilet paper. (one final left-leaning comment in there!)

P.S. I genuinely hope he tries to "shake things up", however all rhetoric points to him being more fascinated with self-service - even above those issues of the hard workers in the centre of the US that supported him with their hopes on the line.

humanrebar · 9 years ago

It's more visceral than being tired of being left out. Christians are mapping the trajectory of the cosmopolitan left culture, see things like the Brendan Eich incident, and are genuinely afraid that there's a leftist fascism developing. Maybe they're jumping to conclusions, but that's what they think.

Also, abortion is a really big deal. To some degree, the evangelical/conservative Christian vote was split this time around because Trump had a loud but not very reputable position against abortion. It's remarkable that Trump won despite that shortcoming.

megablast · 9 years ago

That is because you see them as Muslims, the left sees them as people.

rbanffy · 9 years ago

If we pause for a moment to contemplate how well educated, loving people end up building IEDs, blowing themselves up or operating large gas chambers, we realise this is not outside the realm of the possible.

We are all human and we are all subject to the same primal forces. It's our job to fight it.

majewsky · 9 years ago

This is a strawman. "the same attitude as" is a much weaker statement than "just like".

Melk · 9 years ago

You just won the election. I wonder when the right is going to stop playing the victim. I'm sure President Trump will be very accommodating to those who think differently from him.

Singletoned · 9 years ago

> What are you afraid of? Christmas? Accidentally going to mass?

Bombing abortion clinics? Protestors holding signs saying "God hates fags". Systemic child abuse?

fnord123 · 9 years ago

> The left doesn't embrace freedom of speech for those that think differently from them though.

Do you have examples of the left in the US banning free speech for those that think differently from them?

> What are you afraid of?

A ban on abortions for one.

majewsky · 9 years ago

> It's all for making themselves feel better.

Right-wing politics is not much different in that regard.

nommm-nommm · 9 years ago

Gonna have to disagree with that one. The left is very pro social programs to help the poor which includes the homeless, the right wants them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The ACLU fight in court for the free speech rights of racist organizations[1].

[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-sp...

>Not sure how Christianity is shoved down your throat.

Stuff like this - http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146538958/rhode-island-distric...

>What are you afraid of?

Being forced by my government to adhere to a religion I don't want to adhere to. Things like forcing my children prey in school. Being a second class citizen.

>Christmas?

I'm not afraid of Christmas but I don't personally celebrate Christmas (not even in a secular way) and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd also like anyone to celebrate any holiday they would like to celebrate, including Christmas if they want.

> Accidentally going to mass?

Being forced to go to mass.

I think Christianity is harmful but I don't wish to tell other people what to do with their lives and I respect their right to practice whatever VooDoo they want to practice.

snsr · 9 years ago

> The left doesn't embrace freedom of speech for those that think differently from them though.

We do, in fact. That's the whole point.

Helmet · 9 years ago

I disagree - there is nothing complicated or difficult in Pollock's art; he himself states his vision clearly: "I am nature." Likewise, there's nothing complicated or difficult in Hirst's work either because, quite simply, he has nothing complicated, interesting, or difficult to say. To quote the late Bob Hughes:

"his work is both simple-minded and sensationalist, just the ticket for newbie collectors who are, to put it mildly, connoisseurship-challenged and resonance-free. "

microtonal · 9 years ago

Just wondering: you don't find his 'blood coming out of...' comment openly sexist?

If not, I am wondering what is?

rbolla · 9 years ago

what made America to simly make a blanket statemount about HC that they dislike her. Is it the media just being so loud about few RNC voices?

Honestly, I wanted to know what has made the whole country to dislike her.

oselhn · 9 years ago

Actually the same happened in my country. I was thinking if this is a property of voting system. I like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting which theoretically helps to choose compromise candidate for most of the voters. But it is just my opinion I don't know how this works in reality.

Lich · 9 years ago

Um, it has all been recorded and/or videotaped? Why do Trump supporters keep denying the horrible things he has said when there is solid recorded evidence?

howdyado · 9 years ago

Racism - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37230916

Sexist - ... Not going to link it - I'm yet to hear Hillary's version of "I can walk right up to men and grab them on the cock". This is a one way street. I actually would struggle to think of any prominent female who would act in the same manner of openly stating they can abuse a person such (and even to try and recant this later)

Vengeful narcissism - Despite being cleared of any charges, he openly alludes to the imprisonment of his opposition: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/03/trump-ril...

Do you acknowledge any of these? Dispute video evidence? The sources?

I am genuinely perplexed you seem to believe there is no evidence, however it seems you have a shifted-goalposts view of what constitutes "sexism" "racism"or "vengeful narcissism".

If you disagree with my post - which is a high probability - can we try a thought exercise?

Describe a scenario that you believe would be scandalous sexism if Trump mete out that act. I am interested to see the threshold that needs to be met to constitute as "sexism" under your rubric.

oblio · 9 years ago

Russia and Turkey have always been (rampantly) nationalist. Russia had a short failed episode of opening up with Yeltsin while Turkey has been letting Ataturk (and the few reforming sultans in the late period of the Ottoman empire) down ever since he died.

Even the USSR was extremely nationalistic, albeit thinly veiled behind "internationalism".

guard-of-terra · 9 years ago

Putin was never elected in competitive election.

Brexit was competitive, Hillary-Trump competitive, Modi perhaps, Putin elections weren't. Not in 2000, not in 2004 and certainly not in 2012.

ploika · 9 years ago

He's accused frequently of having overly Hindu-nationalist tendencies.

In particular, there were anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat while he was in charge that he didn't do enough to prevent and/or condemn.

For the record, all my information has come from The Economist. I'm not Indian or an India expert.

erklik · 9 years ago

There were riots in 2002 in Gujarat and Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time. He has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them.

The "riots" weren't really riots per se or protests but rather acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing from both Muslims and Hindus in the area due to earlier incidents.

The Majority of victims were Muslims. It is estimated that at least 250 girls and women had been gang raped and then burned to death. Children were killed by being burnt alive and those digging mass graves described the bodies as "burned and butchered beyond recognition". Children were force fed petrol and then set on fire, pregnant women were gutted and their unborn child's body then shown to the women.

In the Naroda Patiya mass grave of 96 bodies 46 were women. The murderers also flooded homes and electrocuted entire families inside.

Violence against women also included their being stripped naked, objects being forced into their bodies and then their being killed. According to Kalpana Kannabiran the rapes were part of a well organized, deliberate and pre-planned strategy, and that this puts the violence in the area of a political pogrom and genocide. Other acts of violence against women were acid attacks, beatings and the killing of women who were pregnant. Children were also killed in front of their parents.

Children and infants were speared and held aloft before being thrown into fires. Describing the sexual violence perpetrated against Muslim women and girls, Renu Khanna writes that the survivors reported "that sexual violence consisted of forced nudity, mass rapes, gang-rapes, mutilation, insertion of objects into bodies, cutting of breasts, slitting the stomach and reproductive organs, and carving of Hindu religious symbols on women's body parts."

Testimony heard by the committee stated that: A chilling technique, absent in pogroms unleashed hitherto but very much in evidence this time in a large number of cases, was the deliberate destruction of evidence. Barring a few, in most instances of sexual violence, the women victims were stripped and paraded naked, then gang-raped, and thereafter quartered and burnt beyond recognition ... The leaders of the mobs even raped young girls, some as young as 11 years old ... before burning them alive ... Even a 20-day-old infant, or a fetus in the womb of its mother, was not spared.

Frontline magazine reported that in Ahmedabad of the 249 bodies recovered by 5 March, 30 were of Hindus. Of the Hindus that had been killed, 13 had died as a result of police action and several others had died while attacking Muslim owned properties. Despite the relatively few attacks by Muslim mobs on Hindu neighbourhoods, 24 Muslims were reported to have died in police shootings

According to official figures, the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus; 2,500 people were injured non-fatally, and 223 more were reported missing. Other sources estimate that up to 2,500 Muslims died.

The US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report quoted the NHRC as concluding that the attacks had been premeditated, that state ( Gujarat ) government officials were complicit, and that there was evidence of police not acting during the assaults on Muslims. The US state department also found that Gujarat's high school textbooks described Hitler's 'charismatic personality' and the 'achievements of Nazism'. US Congressmen John Conyers and Joe Pitts subsequently introduced a resolution in the House condemning the conduct of Modi in inciting religious persection in Gujarat. They stated that Modi's government had a role in "promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his governments support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified". They also wrote a letter to the US State Department asking it deny Modi a visa to the United States.

Moru · 9 years ago

Yes, this has been observed many times here in Europe. People that come to a new culture they hated suddenly find themselves in a spot where the food and culture from the homecountry is more important than it ever was when they lived back home. Even germans start importing stuff to Sweden because that sausage they always hated back home is so much better than anything they can buy here in Sweden. And people that never cooked before start searching for ways to recreate the tastes from grandmas cooking.

People from cultures that wear something over the head does so much more in the new country while the home country is starting to loosen up. Even though this is exactly why they moved away in the first place.

(We have friends from Somalia, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and then some, that describe this for us)

ivan_gammel · 9 years ago

Same happens with many immigrants in USA and Germany who came from Russia. They tend to become more conservative and have very different views from citizens of Moscow or St.Petersburg.

Chris2048 · 9 years ago

It wasn't really stated that this was the case, just that cultures diverge when they emigrate..

7Z7 · 9 years ago

It's pretty clear that the "one" was comparative to the "one" celebrated by the diaspora, rather than "one" to tie all Indian cultures together.

the_duke · 9 years ago

Often your culture isn't apparent and to you at all until you have extended exposure to another one.

And even then, it's hard to pin down.

I, for one, notice that Australians are quite different from Americans and Brits. And of course even more so from the multitude of Asian, South American and European cultures.

YeOakAye · 9 years ago

I'm fairly certain all they meant to communicate was that Indians in India have different types of Indian culture to Indians in Britain, and that they weren't trying to reduce all of India to a singular culture.

known · 9 years ago

India has 4 distinct cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_politics and the current status is http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ino3tfMYVsd6VVGUdWXB8H/The-...

gph · 9 years ago

I disagree. American culture is still very much there, it just doesn't exist within the corporate/commercial realm.

I think something people always seem to overlook is that there never really was a singular American culture. The different regions have had very distinct cultures. I've been to Polish festivals across the Midwest, large bbq/cookouts in the south, and plenty of bluegrass festivals around appalachia.

There's plenty of culture around. It's just not at the surface anymore now that mass media and other interests have sort of taken control of that arena.

marmaduke · 9 years ago

> I've driven across the US three times. American culture is

not found on its interstates? Driving cross-country is not a qualification to make such a negative statement.

code_duck · 9 years ago

Those cookie cutter homes, Wal Mart and strip malls are not an absence of culture... that is the culture.

kriro · 9 years ago

Very much disagree. Check out a small town in the South, some fishing village in the North East, go to Alaska or Hawaii, watch a high school Football game on a nice Friday night in Texas. Enjoy some Jazz in New Orleans...I think the USA is dripping with culture(s). Even the mega cities are very rich. NYC has a very distinct feel, LA has movie culture which is very much a US thing.

But the USA is also a country of immigrants and natives. It seems silly to toss out immigrants who have actually enriched the culture of the country. I think it's fantastic that you feel the German influence in Pennsylvanian, there are Chinatowns in most cities, I've heard rumors that there might be some Irish influence in Boston etc. etc.

I am a little sad that the native culture isn't a bit stronger.

nommm-nommm · 9 years ago

Well if you just drive around on the main roads it can feel that way. Talk to the locals and participate in local culture and you'll feel very different.

laichzeit0 · 9 years ago

Somehow it feels "frowned upon" to celebrate that you're a white male. It's something we can't be proud of. Patriarchy and the fact that white males dominate the corporate world is apparently something that should be "changed". I hope Trump changes that.

seertaak · 9 years ago

One example would be the adoption of European, and "ethnic" literature in lieu of the American literary canon -- even in American Literature courses! There's a comment about this by the late Andrew Breitbart, you can google it. (He studied American Literature.)

That's just one example, there are literally millions. Here's another way of looking at it:

  - if a African American outwardly expresses his cultural origins and identity, this is called "affirmative" -- a word with positive connotations;
  - if an Italian American expresses ties to his cultural origins, it's considered less inspiring, but still ok
  - if an white European American expresses pride at his cultural heritage, then he's usually derided as nativist, racist, xenophobic, or, worst of all -- an old fogey.

welanes · 9 years ago

But that was never the conversation. It was always about how only bigots and deplorables could support him. The concerns powering Trump's rise were shooed away as small-minded. Well, Brexit and Trump are two black eyes.

I really hope the Left tune in to the grievances of the majority now, because I'm fearful of what comes next if they don't.

gph · 9 years ago

>You've been duped.

True, but you could say that about nearly every politician that's been elected recently. At some point you have to vote for the person you agree with and just hope they will hold up at least some part of what they've promised.

JakeAl · 9 years ago

>You've been duped.

Not if you were simply voting against Hillary.

noobiemcfoob · 9 years ago

Many supporters might agree that Trump isn't the man for the job. But you really think Hillary can serve as a symbol of our culture? She's a integral part of the politically correct movement that Trump supporters hate.

They weren't duped - they got what they ordered - but liberals might want to re-examine their mission statement.

TeMPOraL · 9 years ago

Most of the things written in past few years about diversity. The western culture is evil, because it was built by white men.

Regardless of the merit, when you have actual white men talking like that, it seems a tad self-destructive.

sgt101 · 9 years ago

Genuine question lost in the blizzard on this thread... but why would a citation add to this? It would just indicate that someone else agreed; what does this add?

DominikR · 9 years ago

American culture is in many aspects very homogenous. Take for example the fact that there's 50% of the population that wants to cut down on government even if it means that social services are to be cut.

Or the business culture which is very unique, at least I've seen nothing similar anywhere in the world.

Then there's a degree of freedom of speech that nowhere else exists, and rights like being allowed to carry a gun in public which is vigorously defended by large parts of the population.

And yes, there is an American brand of Christianity. Even if you don't see it in population centres it's still there everywhere else and it is more important than Christianity in most other Christian cultures.

There's a kind of attitude among US citizens leaning towards some Classical Liberal or Libertarian principles that can't be found anywhere else in the world. Where ever else you go the majority expects the government to take care of every member of the society from cradle to grave.

atmosx · 9 years ago

I think there's also:

- Scott Fitzgerald - Mark Twain - Herman Melville - John Steinbeck - Wall Whitman - E. Allan Poe - Ginsbert - Bukowski - Charlie Chaplin - Miles Davis - Bob Dylan - (countless others)

Depends on where/what you choose to look. I understand that the average American is not all that knowledgeable but neither is the average European, Australian, Japanese or Nigerian...

Chris2048 · 9 years ago

The Iraq war is the cultivation of American culture?

avisser · 9 years ago

> all the things you said

Fuck yeah?

tdkl · 9 years ago

And that's precisely why people start voting the alternative in EU.

tnones · 9 years ago

Then you should consider that there are plenty of non-traditionalists who feel the same way. Associating white and male pride with traditionalism is exactly the party line that's been pushed, and that created this situation.

Until the humiliating defeats with Brexit and Trump, the progressive left was so high on its own supply, they wouldn't hear it. Some still won't hear it, they're just covering their ears and panicking, because they think the media's image of Trump and his supporters - the same media that predicted a 93% chance of Clinton presidency - was actually an accurate representation of reality.

Think men aren't horrible oppressors? You're a misogynist, sexist MRA who wants to bring women back into the kitchen. Think "white people" are just a convenient but wrong proxy for class, and that blindly inviting uneducated and illiberal refugees into a service-based economy and libertarian culture is a recipe for disaster? You're a racist islamophobe who thinks black lives don't matter.

Respecting white culture means respecting the values that built western society, and that includes rationality, impartiality, and evidence-based inquiry. Valuing male culture means acknowledging meritocracy, understanding that respect is earned - not given - and encouraging confidence to accomplish by yourself.

There is really a stunning amount of projection stemming from the left these days, and it's left otherwise sympathetic people out in the cold. The progressive left repeats the right words, but they don't seem to understand what they mean or where they came from, incapable of self-reflection.

endisukaj · 9 years ago

Really? Didn't know anything about that. Did it start with Brexit?

legolas2412 · 9 years ago

I doubt that.

Theresa May comes to India and talks about better trade relations because of "our shared past".

Either she is naive and stupid or she really loves her colonial loot. Nobody in India wants to be reminded of our servitude in the "shared-past".

cmiller1 · 9 years ago

Yeah, the English are the only ones who are afraid of nationalism...

I think you might be forgetting about at least one other country.

matt_wulfeck · 9 years ago

Many things have been projected this election cycle.

patrickg_zill · 9 years ago

Read up on why the EC exists. I think the term that applies is "concurrent majority".

If you want a counter-example, you can look at small town and rural upstate NY and realize how their concerns are always neglected because the sheer number of NYC voters drowns out any chance they have to be heard as part of the electorate.

moduspol · 9 years ago

> 2/5 last elections won by the loser of the popular vote seems extremely problematic.

Well, no, because it was designed this way. Popular vote is the obvious option when designing a democracy. They decided to go with something else under the specific understanding that any system other than a popular vote would allow this to happen.

> In the 21st century, winning the most votes for president only results in a 50% success rate for Democratic presidential candidates.

It will always affect Democratic candidates more negatively because they don't do as well with rural voters and the electoral college exists almost specifically to give rural voters more power. This is by design--not an oversight or misunderstanding.

thesagan · 9 years ago

According to old diaries in my family collection, even my german ancestors detested working for the English "lord" in the late 1800s.

pm90 · 9 years ago

No conventional republican was selected simply because of the way the GOP selects its candidates. With 30 people fighting each other, the votes were just too split up to allow anyone to get a nice majority.

notahacker · 9 years ago

Trump wasn't a particularly fiscally conservative Republican, but he was the only representative of the most fiscally conservative party on the ticket.

nightski · 9 years ago

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/health-care/

moduspol · 9 years ago

This suggests otherwise:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/as-low-skilled-job...

vetinari · 9 years ago

Because white Europeans were coming from other EU countries and UK is still an EU member. Bangladesh isn't.

For example, Ukrainians and Russians (i.e. also not EU members) have exactly the same treatment as Bangladeshi.

XorNot · 9 years ago

Also because they're confusing the asylum seeker boat-people policy with "immigration policy". Probably quite deliberately.

crummy · 9 years ago

I don't have any actual data but NZ seemed to have a fair bit of anti-Asian sentiment.

ZeroGravitas · 9 years ago

Destroying Wall Street and making life better for working class people are two different things.

I believe that he might destroy big corporations, I don't believe that will be good for the people they employ, or who have their pension invested in them.

Basic left wing ideas of taxing successful and rich people and reducing inequality, supporting those who lose jobs to structural unemployment might have headed this off. I guess we'll never know.

WillPostForFood · 9 years ago

IT and software jobs are as white collar as it gets. Call centers, maybe that's a new economy blue collar.

devonkim · 9 years ago

Lower skill may be the important distinction rather than whether it's manual labor intensive or not like we traditionally view in the US. Sitting at a computer at a click farm in a developing country is completely different than sitting and writing options trading algorithms. On the other hand, I can't think of anyone that became a wealthy by sweeping floors, hammering nails, and greeting customers at the door regardless of their country or region.

saisasidhar · 9 years ago

>...the entire economy is gutted to serve the rich who really don't care where the live as long as it's nice and they can remain rich.

Donald Trump is also rich. What if he also make policies that benefit his organisation and his associates ?

efaref · 9 years ago

Call centers aren't really offices, though. They look like this:

http://www.savalinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Call-Ce...

Which look very similar to this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d4/84/2b/d484...

The main difference is the machine is a calling machine instead of a sewing machine.

Call centers are more like call mills, and those people are definitely wearing shirts with blue collars.

XorNot · 9 years ago

Clinton won the popular vote, and Donald Trumps voters were not mostly the poor: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/el...

endisukaj · 9 years ago

The alternative for most of those people is dying of famine and extreme poverty. Nobody is forcing them to work in those factories, they are doing so because that's the best alternative they will get in their countries.

shoover · 9 years ago

> If anything, in 20 years, we could witness the end of capitalism as we know it because we can produce more with less employment, assuming current tech trends continue.

I have to wonder if a capitalist like Trump can be of much help with such a transition.

threatofrain · 9 years ago

The only way for a rich nation to have metaphorical Shenzhen is if they're okay with Shenzhen-style citizens. Tariffs can't make it more attractive for Foxconn to move their factory plans to the US. I'd also say that worker discontent is one of the major sources of Trump support, but the last thing they want are the ecological reasons for making Shenzhen an attractive manufacturing capital. You need an environment where laborers cannot even fathom leaving or engaging in collective bargaining. China is okay with a scenario where much of the nation profits from the backs of abused workers because they have the might to quash malcontent. In a democracy where these abused workers have voting rights, this translates to instability.

The decentralized nature of the economy also makes it so that an overly internal strategy like tariffs are insufficient. If the US stops buying from China altogether, China is still the manufacturing pit stop of the world. The rest of the world has no reason to coordinate the tariff strategy with you. Only your nation artificially sees increased prices. It's even worse if your nation ups production but nobody wants to buy it because it's too expensive. Your production isn't a power unless you export, and tariffs alone won't make you export.

Manufacturing businesses want an environment where (1) citizens are dirt cheap, (2) citizens can be legitimately abused, (3) government is stable and amenable to these practices, (4) the country is connected to global supply chains so you can integrate that country as part of your production system.

Also, if / when manufacturing does come back to the US, I imagine that it will bear the fruits of every company racing towards applied machine learning. It will be robotic labor that outscales cheap labor.

gxespino · 9 years ago

Intellectual arrogance is just as ineffective as plain ignorance.

alphapapa · 9 years ago

It's actually funny how, when faced with your failure, you double-down on your failed strategy, rather than humbling yourself and reconsidering whether you are actually so much more intelligent than everyone else.

Not only are they idiots, but uninformed as well. That's always the root problem, isn't it? If only they would read what you read, they'd think what you think! Just gotta find a more effective way to brainw--I mean, communicate. Have you considered asking The Riddler for help strategizing? Maybe you could join forces with the Greens...

And leftists say that conservatives are stubborn, sheesh.

alphapapa · 9 years ago

Sorry, but, what's your point?

Scarblac · 9 years ago

That struggle was only the main theme between 1945 and 1990, I'd say the unimaginably destructive wars of the first half of the century dominated.

eruditely · 9 years ago

Maybe if you use logic de la ghetto, but in reality this just makes people go harder all in, it would imply that he is easy to constrain by forced pressure, -EV and probably affects his EV in a second order way. ANyways adult men who are high in power don't respond well to this sort of thing.

pedalpete · 9 years ago

I see what you're saying, and would like to agree, but let's not forget that there are Red States and Blue States, and only a few that swing this way or that. I think that goes some way to prove that people stick to their 'party'.

Trump may not be conventional, but he is only contradictory in some of his policies. 'Pro-life', immigration reform, and other policies are in line with Republican views.

davidgl · 9 years ago

this x10

moduspol · 9 years ago

I think it's kind of up in the air at this point. We'll see what happens.

If you're looking for more than that, I'm not sure what you're asking.

jdmichal · 9 years ago

I did not vote for Trump. But I'll tell you what I hope to see Trump do:

* Simply tax code, both personal and corporate.

* Devolve federal power back to the states.

* Improve incentives for development of US manufacturing base.

lunula · 9 years ago

This long perspective is hard to ignore. It feels like we are walking the same historical path now. Let's hope things move slowly enough with respect to security that the trading networks stay intact.

the_duke · 9 years ago

History is complex. And interesting. And often we (and I) get it wrong. So I always enjoy a good discussion. :)

The US profited hugely from slave trade and labor. (Which most Americans usually conveniently ignore) Which helped it build up. So colonialization and domination was a factor for the US before they became a superpower.

It's true that in the earlier 19hundres the US were more reclusive and isolated.

The US economy wasn't in a good state before and after WW2... The war gave a huge boost to the economy and lifted the US out of the Great Depression. That probably laid the groundwork for the huge military-industrial complex today.

The Marshall plan wasn't just good will and benevolence either. A major goal was to create an export market to trade with. The US economy really took off after WW2! ( I can dig up a paper on that). Of course, building up a power base in western Europe to oppose Russia was also important.

Also, the falling apart of the old, Europe based empires from the late 18th century to 1930 and then the WW2 left a power vacuum, which the US filled, together with Russia.

And the world got a lot smaller then, thanks to airplanes, better technology. Nuclear weapons.

argonaut · 9 years ago

And because of WW2 America accelerated out of the Great Depression and into an even larger and more dominant global economic superpower - an economic superpower that fueled the middle class and all the working blue collar jobs that Trump voters pine for.

patrickk · 9 years ago

Japan gets to claim the US as a major ally though. They get to stay out of foreign affairs in the aggressive way because their friend carries a big stick, protecting them against China (I say this as a non-American by the way.)

oblio · 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

Just sayin'.

mandelbulb · 9 years ago

>The US managed to create the world's largest economy by 1890, through trade and domestic industry, while almost entirely staying out of major foreign affairs. It wasn't until WW2 that the US emerged fully onto the global stage by necessity due mostly to Europe's disastrous politics and ideologies at the time.

All what this explains is that the potential of the domestic trade in large country such a the US is enormous. Duh. Japan just like Germany relied on a post-war recovery, the Cold War, the US and invested back into their own growth instead of the military.

In short, no one denied that domestic trade has a lot of growth potential but that isn't an argument that international trade doesn't rely on one's influence and level of defense.

Also, regarding other comments, you always need to properly consider the full context when comparing the past to the present. For instance, until WW2 wars were consider much more of a political tool rather than a disaster. That is a vital point of view the culture of the West only slowly is developing and still in danger to get overthrown.

laughfactory · 9 years ago

I agree. My impression was that Clinton was at least equally as hawkish as Trump, if not more so. She was (is?) certainly more in bed with defense contractors and the whole military machine--as any lifetime politician really probably is.

Brakenshire · 9 years ago

Trump called for 20-30,000 US troops on the ground in Syria.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-...

jobu · 9 years ago

That is true. Trump's unstable personality could be a stabilizing force if the world is afraid of what he might do.

noobermin · 9 years ago

An agreement is better than no agreement, and it certainly has worked this far. You're right though, whether it works or not remains to be seen, I am making a judgement on its success so far.

maxerickson · 9 years ago

START worked. A couple of countries chose to disarm. Neighbors of Russia gave their nukes (~back) to Russia!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I#Efficacy

It also seems the original non proliferation treaty was at least effective in keeping the list of nuclear powers shorter.

the_duke · 9 years ago

Sadly, elections everywhere are at least as much about charisma as they are about competence.

People usually vote for who they like, not for who's probably competent. Regardless of education.

milcron · 9 years ago

How about https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=nasty%20woman&tbm=isch ?

That's one she managed to spin positively.

broodbucket · 9 years ago

Responding to allegations of not being a real progressive with "well, wouldn't it be progressive to elect the first female president" really rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe I'm not the only one.

pshposh · 9 years ago

So you never saw or heard of "Trump that bitch" shirts?

Edit: just Google image search "Trump that bitch" and tell me again gender has nothing to do with it.

riskable · 9 years ago

I don't think the sexism/racism shouts from progressives at Trump (and his supporters) were related to conservatives' disapproval of Clinton. The folks that voted for Trump did so not because they are sexist; they did it because they just plain hated Clinton (in particular) and the establishment.

I don't think the majority of Trump voters actually believe that Clinton shouldn't be president because she's a woman. They just view her as a corrupt, establishment politician and Trump just seemed like the lesser of two evils in their eyes.

I think the media vastly underreported just how much the Right hates Clinton. The Right wing media has been pushing anti-Clinton rhetoric hard for about eight years now!

mike_hearn · 9 years ago

Yes, political deadlock looks plausible in the Netherlands after the next election.

I haven't heard of Zwarte Piet. Could you describe that a bit more please? It sounds interesting.

politician · 9 years ago

> The American politician system seems to have resisted change remarkably though.

Its designers read Aristotle before you and I existed. Our Constitution is an incredible work.

mcv · 9 years ago

I don't understand claims about Trump's charisma either. I find Clinton far more convincing, and don't believe a single word that comes out of Trump's mouth. But very clearly a lot of people see this very differently. Somehow his badly mangled sentences appeal to them. But I think he says a lot of things that are vague enough to invite people to project themselves onto him.

moduspol · 9 years ago

* Necessity of enforcing borders

* Enforcement of existing immigration law

* Lack of sufficient safeguards in voting process

* Fear of large, primarily-Muslim immigration leading to less safety within our borders

* Political correctness leading to unwillingness to address certain problems for what they are

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. It's also tedious how voting for Trump is itself implied to be racist (because of the borderline-racist and racist things he's said), but that leaves out the context that the alternative was Hillary Clinton.

zigzigzag · 9 years ago

Food is abundant but still grows outside of cities. There's no particular reason to assume that genetic engineering companies are all based in cities. A city state arrangement is one I was thinking about a lot lately but it seems very hard to make it stable.

noobermin · 9 years ago

What will happen to the interiors when they realize their tax subsidies won't exist anymore?

ricksplat · 9 years ago

How would they feed themselves?

MichaelBurge · 9 years ago

Isn't that a fairly concise description of the Republican platform? They usually want to limit the size of the federal government, moving power to the individual states. States are larger than cities, but it's the same idea.

I'm actually a little confused why liberals want to push everything up to the federal level. They have total control over many states like New York and California, and it seems like they could accomplish their goals more efficiently if they weren't sharing senate seats with Alabama on key issues.

You get less federal funding for programs if the federal taxes are cut, but given California's salaries and population you're probably paying more than your fair share anyways.

taurath · 9 years ago

Sorry if you're employing an army of international contractors through upwork you're taking advantage of globalization.

ccozan · 9 years ago

There is a kind of "simulation" here:

https://www.quora.com/If-every-state-of-the-USA-declared-war...

r00fus · 9 years ago

If this little wargame is to be played it would likely be a battle of attrition US warships deploy to restrain trade and cut off the CA economy... assuming the leadership isn't removed somehow by assassination or coup attempts.

CA is a big part of the US economy and culture, but in no way would I imagine that it could resist the rest of the 49 states.

rmc · 9 years ago

This isn't the 19th century anymore. You can just send the drones in to kill everyone. Or use missiles, or nukes in a last resort.

Inconel · 9 years ago

You have to consider that it's highly unlikely that everyone in CA would be in favor of secession. I can imagine that many people in the Central Valley, who tend to be far more conservative than their coastal counterparts and rely extensively on Federal farm subsidies as well as out of state water resources would be less than thrilled at the idea. These people also tend to have high rates of firearms ownership so I could see a nice little insurgency springing up.

Certainly there is a lot of high tech industry in CA but I doubt that Lockheed and the other defense corps are disproportionately reliant on CA, they have plants and R&D centers spread throughout the country.

I agree it's something interesting to ponder.

bobjordan · 9 years ago

The better more workable suggestion for these times is for the Federal Government to give the states back more of their individual powers. The Republican party is certainly more open to that vs. the Democrats.

wfunction · 9 years ago

But I think the point was that it's a (large) city.