This European travels to the US all the time, having probably spent an average of 1-2 months or so there yearly over the past couple years.
With very few exceptions I've never met people there who outwardly seemed like they'd like someone as a leader who habitually lies and tries to usurp democratic institutions for personal gain.
What the hell is going on there guys? Are you just voting for the person who promises the most "interesting" times, for better or for worse?
> What the hell is going on there guys? Are you just voting for the person who promises the most "interesting" times, for better or for worse?
I think the name-calling really hurt them.
Calling half the voting population bigots of some type just makes that half dig their heels in to give you a bloody nose.
If your main priorities, when running in a political race, does not match the main priorities of the voting masses, it's easier to change your main priorities than to change the main priorities of the voting masses.
For a long time now, the Dems have been trying to change the priorities of the voting masses instead of aligning with them.
They are so used to preaching at their voter base ("This is what a real man is, not what you think it is") that they forgot what the aim of running is - to win.
> Good on the Dems for trying to change the world instead of accepting the hateful and unfair place it is.
You can't change the world by losing.
Their primary goal should have been to win. The primary way to do that is to (ugh) pander to the voters' will.
It's because they are so out of touch that we are seeing the result that we see. Politicians that are disconnected and disengaged from the voting masses deserve to lose.
Dictator on day one in the land of the free with the biggest military of the world — but on the other hand the libs were really mad, so that was worth it, right?
No, they get a vote, obviously. You've focussed on the vote part of the quote when the important information was in the racism. It's racism that must be constantly pointed out, that people must be educated about, and racism should be rooted out when found. I'm not saying you support racism in any way, of course, I really don't think that. I just think you misunderstood what needs doing to prevent these unforced errors (Brexit was an unforced error of the UK government).
> It's racism that must be constantly pointed out, that people must be educated about, and racism should be rooted out when found.
As I pointed out in a different post, trying to shame people into silence doesn't magically change their vote.
Unfortunately, when you are going to call every Rep supporter a racist with no evidence other than who they voted for, they are going to stop answering your polls honestly.
Racists don't need shaming into silence. They need to understand what's wrong with their beliefs.
Going back to the original quote, you need to see that it's not calling all voters a particular thing. There's a simple Venn diagram, one circle of racists inside a larger circle of a particular block of voters.
Educating people out of racism, and removing racism from your society, will change votes as racism is only one aspect of a person's beliefs.
> Racists don't need shaming into silence. They need to understand what's wrong with their beliefs.
They already know, they don't care, because that specific belief is not rooted in reason or rationality.
> Going back to the original quote, you need to see that it's not calling all voters a particular thing. There's a simple Venn diagram, one circle of racists inside a larger circle of a particular block of voters.
> Educating people out of racism, and removing racism from your society, will change votes as racism is only one aspect of a person's beliefs.
I somewhat agree with the first part[1], but vehemently disagree with the second: I don't think that eradicating racist thoughts will move the needle on who gets elected, as there are, IMO, simply too few racists around to influence an election.[2]
[1] IOW, I don't believe that education will change a racist's belief, but I do see value to society in eradicating discriminatory stereotypes and discriminatory actions, of which racism is merely one.
[2] There aren't even enough racists to form a party of their own, so I doubt that them moving from red to blue is going to be any difference from statistical noise.
I don't get this argument, since Trump has called tens of folks nasty names, called Harris a communist, marxist, etc. and called Democrats the "enemy within". Why is the standard different for Dems?
>I don't get this argument, since Trump has called tens of folks nasty names, called Harris a communist, marxist, etc. and called Democrats the "enemy within". Why is the standard different for Dems?
I dunno how relevant it is to say "Well, Trump gets away with it" because he stayed on message with his name-calling: the economy. Calling someone a communist is just a hyperbolic way of saying that they don't care for the economy.
OTOH, calling half the voting population stupid has nothing to do with the platform the politician is running on.
I mean, as stupid as it sounds, something like "They're coming for yer guns!!!" is still platform-relevant, while "They're threatened by strong women" isn't.
I guess the takeaway is that targeted and on-topic insulting works but random digressions into personal attacks that have no relevance to the platform don't?
I've also spent plenty of time there over the years, and while most people I interacted with did seem perfectly fine, there were glimpses of something quite wrong.
A woman who worked at the hotel I was staying at had never visited the centre of the city the lived in, because she was afraid of being "knifed". This was Dayton, Ohio. Downtown Dayton is lovely.
A colleague who appeared reasonably intelligent and competent absolutely did not believe that Evolution occurred. I explained that this while this view might be common in the US - and it is - the rest of the world mostly considers this settled science.
Religion is absolutely far too influential a force in people's lives. This is decreasing, but it's still problematic I believe.
The Armed Forces are idolised. Airports have special lines for service personnel. You get to board early if you're in uniform. This is almost unique in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
He's promising reindustrialisation to a bunch of the Midwest and less competition for jobs to a bunch of poorer people. It's sort of rational, even though I disagree.
He is not trustworthy with either facts or consistent opinions, so voting for him for something he's /said/ he would do is the stupidest thing anyone could do.
I think the ultimate answer as an American is that policy simply does not matter. For reference, here's a couple conflicting data points:
* Voters approved measures that would protect abortion in their state (with the exception of Florida, which only got 58% out of the 60%) needed. Said voters did not consistently vote for Kamala Harris.
* Another set of voters thought Kamala Harris was too progressive, and had no opinion on Donald Trump
* But at the same time, in local elections democratic candidates generally sweeped the ballots
I think ultimately the presidency is just an election purely on the basis of 'vibes' and whatever is directly in front of you. It doesn't matter if you can achieve your promises nor do said promises even really matter. And people vibe more with the reality TV president because they've already forgotten 2016-2020. Maybe Trump directly crashing the economy will be the thing to snap people out of it, maybe not.
No, of course not. But my sample seems to be so starkly different from the election results that that in itself is puzzling. He's picking up a sizable fraction of the votes even in blue states, after all.
You're not meeting the people hurt really bad by the system who stopped giving a shit, and a lot of people that vote for Trump had Harris/Waltz signs on their lawns but really want to pay less in taxes and don't like transgender people.
> I think that this election almost definitively demonstrates that trans issues are not important to the voters.
I don't know about the politics of your state, but in mine over half the ad campaign of the Republican senator who just won was focused on transgender issues. His losing Democratic opponent did not touch that issue.
> Or abortion
Statewide ballot measures aimed at abortion rights succeeded even in many states where Democrats lost.
No, just a massive failure by the Democrats who decided too late to run Harris. Any candidate who won a party primary would have beaten Trump today. Harris lost because she wasn't popular enough with her own party's voters to win.
Trump will be older and weaker than Biden today in 2028.
JD Vance hopefully can 25th Amendment the Trump before senile behavior wrecks the office. But I'm worried that Trump stays in all 4 years and does irreparable harm.
25th Amendment powers have never been used before. So it's not clear how far Trump will degrade while still holding onto power.
With very few exceptions I've never met people there who outwardly seemed like they'd like someone as a leader who habitually lies and tries to usurp democratic institutions for personal gain.
What the hell is going on there guys? Are you just voting for the person who promises the most "interesting" times, for better or for worse?