Trump v. Harris - US election-a-polooza

[Benzin]

Some Americans think the world of Handmaid's Tale is a goal rather than a stark warning.

The concern is that a constant lurch to the right will be replicated across the world (which is kinda already happening in Europe anyway). That is a bad sign if anything.

Also wouldn't be surprised if they started looking at that max second term ruling. Just to keep the foot on the throat.

 

[mo237]

November 2016: Donald Trump wins the US Election and Planet Coaster releases

November 2024: Donald Trump wins the US Election and Planet Coaster 2 releases

November 2032: Donald Trump enters his illegal fourth term as President/High Lord of the US and Planet Coaster 3 releases

 

[Bert2theSpark]

Also wouldn't be surprised if they started looking at that max second term ruling. Just to keep the foot on the throat.

The two-term ‘rule’ is more of a convention than a hard rule. FDR bucked this trend during the intra-war and WW2 period. Trump will 100% aim at running again for another term, whether his health will let him is another story however…

 

[Plastic Person]

The two-term ‘rule’ is more of a convention than a hard rule. FDR bucked this trend during the intra-war and WW2 period.

But surely it'll be difficult for Trump to meet this precedent, at least without another World Wa... oh.

 

[Matt.GC]

November 2016: Donald Trump wins the US Election and Planet Coaster releases

November 2024: Donald Trump wins the US Election and Planet Coaster 2 releases

November 2032: Donald Trump enters his illegal fourth term as President/High Lord of the US and Planet Coaster 3 releases

November 2040: Donald Trump's brain in a jar orders General Musk to annex Mexico with an army of Space X androids, enslaving it's citizens into labour camps and feeding them daily rations of cats and dogs. UK supreme ruler Farage, feeling he suspended democracy in the UK too late after leading a coup against President Boris Johnson, has his pleas for military assistance declined, as the Soviet Union 2: Russia's Revenge (TM) reaches Normandy.

Planet Trump 3 releases for TrumpStation (Personal Computers are now banned), a world management simulation game dedicated to it's supreme ruler.

 

[DanJB]

A sex pest, a convicted felon and a racist walk into a bar. The barman says ‘congratulations on your reelection Mr Trump’,

 

[GaryH]

A sex pest, a convicted felon and a racist walk into a bar. The barman says ‘congratulations on your reelection Mr Trump’,

“I’ll get the next round” - oh that’s very kind of you Mr Farage

 

[GaryH]

Trump got in the same reason Hitler got in - he says what the people want to hear. Next up we will have Farage for PM for exactly the same reason.

 

[rob666]

We won't, because the people in this country don't have the same damn yankee macho vision of themselves.

Boris was a complete prick hard right populist liar...in a major, real party...and how long did he last in the end.

 

[Benzin]

Tactical voting is also more easier to use in our system, purely because it's not a completely 2 party one.

 

[Matt.GC]

Trump got in the same reason Hitler got in - he says what the people want to hear. Next up we will have Farage for PM for exactly the same reason.

Actually, if Farage became PM it would require something more similar to Hitler than Trump. Hitler was originally part of a coalition government. Farage would have to merge Reform UK Ltd with the Conservatives. Not far off his Canadian style plan actually, which is for Reform to keep their feet on the throat of the Tory party until they can merge/hostile takeover.

But I understand the point you are making. Saying things people want to hear, regardless of how realistic or truthful it is. That's normally the route of populisms success and failure in equal measure. That cycle happened in Spain, Brazil, and here and the UK.

The conundrum here is that hasn't really happened in the US. After a disastrous first term, he didn't actually get pummeled at the polls when he lost in 2020, and his reaction to it and subsequent behaviours have worsened even more. Yet here we are and they've not only elected him for round 2, but actually given him the strongest and most decisive mandate he's ever had.

I'm trying to understand the issue and I'm struggling with my own past assesments of populism now. Perhaps it isn't that populism is destined for permanent failure, but just follows a boom and bust cycle?

Trump a car crash, makes a comeback. Brexit now an empirically proven disaster, it's cheif instigator is now leader of a new insurgency and more popular than the current PM. Corbyn disgraced, re-elected as an independent and forming his own little commons grouping. George Galloway has been popping up around the country winning seats and then loosing them again for years, and will probably win another one on the future. Johnson, awful back stabbing cabinet minister launched a coup and became PM, forced out after scandals, jumped before being pushed out of the commons in disgrace. Still lying, but selling a lot of books, large newspaper column readership base, still has a large group of admirers in his old party.

It seems to be the case that when your original lies are proven to be lies, you just have to find a set of new ones to tell? Populism seems to have the powerful ability to shape shift with zero shame, whereas neo-liberalism is always more of the same. A solution must be in there somewhere.

 

[jon81uk]

Still lying, but selling a lot of books

He got a massive advance for the book but sales have been poor. Its out-sold Cameron, but is no where near the sames of Blair or Thatcher despite Johnson getting paid far more in advance for it. The publisher won't be getting their £2million back.

 

[Benzin]

Actually, if Farage became PM it would require something more similar to Hitler than Trump. Hitler was originally part of a coalition government. Farage would have to merge Reform UK Ltd with the Conservatives. Not far off his Canadian style plan actually, which is for Reform to keep their feet on the throat of the Tory party until they can merge/hostile takeover.

But I understand the point you are making. Saying things people want to hear, regardless of how realistic or truthful it is. That's normally the route of populisms success and failure in equal measure. That cycle happened in Spain, Brazil, and here and the UK.

The conundrum here is that hasn't really happened in the US. After a disastrous first term, he didn't actually get pummeled at the polls when he lost in 2020, and his reaction to it and subsequent behaviours have worsened even more. Yet here we are and they've not only elected him for round 2, but actually given him the strongest and most decisive mandate he's ever had.

I'm trying to understand the issue and I'm struggling with my own past assesments of populism now. Perhaps it isn't that populism is destined for permanent failure, but just follows a boom and bust cycle?

Trump a car crash, makes a comeback. Brexit now an empirically proven disaster, it's cheif instigator is now leader of a new insurgency and more popular than the current PM. Corbyn disgraced, re-elected as an independent and forming his own little commons grouping. George Galloway has been popping up around the country winning seats and then loosing them again for years, and will probably win another one on the future. Johnson, awful back stabbing cabinet minister launched a coup and became PM, forced out after scandals, jumped before being pushed out of the commons in disgrace. Still lying, but selling a lot of books, large newspaper column readership base, still has a large group of admirers in his old party.

It seems to be the case that when your original lies are proven to be lies, you just have to find a set of new ones to tell? Populism seems to have the powerful ability to shape shift with zero shame, whereas neo-liberalism is always more of the same. A solution must be in there somewhere.

The grift never ends. There's always a new batch of marks and new methods to convince them to listen to you. Just ignore the previous dealings and goings on and you'll be fine.

All about personality and raw emotions. Add in a good dose of the blame game and you're set.

 

[Squiggs]

We won't, because the people in this country don't have the same damn yankee macho vision of themselves.

Boris was a complete prick hard right populist liar...in a major, real party...and how long did he last in the end.

The danger of course being that Boris wasn't voted out.

He didn't last long because the political class kicked him out, not the people who voted for him to be the PM.

 

[Matt N]

Following Trump’s victory, I’ve been thinking about why the left seems to be struggling to cut through with the masses against right wing populism. I apologise if this is a controversial view, but my theory is that it’s because the left wing political parties have grown out of touch with working class people and their concerns.

I myself would say that I hold somewhat left leaning views (albeit not strongly entrenched), but one thing I’ve always been uncomfortable with about left wing political circles is that there often seems to be an inability to accept opposing views and an assumption that left wing political views are in some way morally superior. Many average people on the street may not hold strong views on issues like immigration and such, but they may have legitimate concerns. The present strategy in left wing political circles, instead of listening to those concerns and calmly addressing them and/or setting out a left wing solution, seems to be to vilify these people as “bigots” or “idiots” for not instantly accepting the “accepted” left wing viewpoint. What this ultimately does is pushes people who have some concerns, but are on the fence and not strongly ideologically entrenched in either direction, into the arms of the likes of Trump. Think of it this way; if you had concerns about an issue, would you vote for the people who acknowledged your concerns and set out a vision to address them, or would you vote for the people who hurled insults at you for daring to express concerns at all?

On a semi-related note, I also think left wing politicians can sometimes come across a bit… condescending, for lack of a better term. Being left wing is an increasingly elite and privileged political position; as an example, the Labour Party, even though they started as the party of the working class, increasingly seems to have become a party of rich elites and privileged, highly educated people. There isn’t anything wrong with this in itself, but I think it does, rightly or wrongly, breed a sense that a privileged sort of leftism, often referred to as “champagne socialism”, has taken over left wing politics. By this, I mean holding sympathy for a position rather than empathy with a position, and a sense that left wingers are rich people believing in left wing politics to feel better about themselves rather than because they genuinely empathise with working class people. This also often manifests as a strong focus on policies that don’t really matter to average working class people. For instance, some left wing political activists may have strong stances on issues like Gaza, identity politics and such, but these are arguably quite privileged issues to base a core part of your vote on. Working class people who are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes don’t really care about these issues; they have far bigger fish to fry. They care about the cost of living and what the political class are going to do about it, and to his credit, Donald Trump made this a core part of his campaign and set out quite clear economic policy, with (seemingly) a clear intent to address people’s issues.

So in summary, I think what the left needs to do to fight back against right wing populism is to get back down to earth a bit and listen to regular people’s concerns. Give them a sense that the left hears their concerns and is going to do something about them rather than vilifying people for expressing those concerns or brushing off those concerns as unimportant.

As this is (generally) quite a left-leaning site politically, does anyone else agree with me? Or am I alone in thinking this?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Following Trump’s victory, I’ve been thinking about why the left seems to be struggling to cut through with the masses against right wing populism. I apologise if this is a controversial view, but my theory is that it’s because the left wing political parties have grown out of touch with working class people and their concerns.

I myself would say that I hold somewhat left leaning views (albeit not strongly entrenched), but one thing I’ve always been uncomfortable with about left wing political circles is that there often seems to be an inability to accept opposing views and an assumption that left wing political views are in some way morally superior. Many average people on the street may not hold strong views on issues like immigration and such, but they may have legitimate concerns. The present strategy in left wing political circles, instead of listening to those concerns and calmly addressing them and/or setting out a left wing solution, seems to be to vilify these people as “bigots” or “idiots” for not instantly accepting the “accepted” left wing viewpoint. What this ultimately does is pushes people who have some concerns, but are on the fence and not strongly ideologically entrenched in either direction, into the arms of the likes of Trump. Think of it this way; if you had concerns about an issue, would you vote for the people who acknowledged your concerns and set out a vision to address them, or would you vote for the people who hurled insults at you for daring to express concerns at all?

On a semi-related note, I also think left wing politicians can sometimes come across a bit… condescending, for lack of a better term. Being left wing is an increasingly elite and privileged political position; as an example, the Labour Party, even though they started as the party of the working class, increasingly seems to have become a party of rich elites and privileged, highly educated people. There isn’t anything wrong with this in itself, but I think it does, rightly or wrongly, breed a sense that a privileged sort of leftism, often referred to as “champagne socialism”, has taken over left wing politics. By this, I mean holding sympathy for a position rather than empathy with a position, and a sense that left wingers are rich people believing in left wing politics to feel better about themselves rather than because they genuinely empathise with working class people. This also often manifests as a strong focus on policies that don’t really matter to average working class people. For instance, some left wing political activists may have strong stances on issues like Gaza, identity politics and such, but these are arguably quite privileged issues to base a core part of your vote on. Working class people who are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes don’t really care about these issues; they have far bigger fish to fry. They care about the cost of living and what the political class are going to do about it, and to his credit, Donald Trump made this a core part of his campaign and set out quite clear economic policy, with (seemingly) a clear intent to address people’s issues.

So in summary, I think what the left needs to do to fight back against right wing populism is to get back down to earth a bit and listen to regular people’s concerns. Give them a sense that the left hears their concerns and is going to do something about them rather than vilifying people for expressing those concerns or brushing off those concerns as unimportant.

As this is (generally) quite a left-leaning site politically, does anyone else agree with me? Or am I alone in thinking this?

I strongly encourage you to bin off your Daily Telegraph subscription and beg you to stop watching GB News.

The right perform well because of scaremongering. People, as a rule, don't like responsibility. They like to see themselves as the victim. They like to blame others for their destitution. The right is incredibly good at playing into this. The left isn't, because the left is about society helping itself.

Immigration isn't actually an issue anywhere, think about how preposterous that is. Where do you even draw the line? Continent? Economic bloc? Country? County? City? Neighbourhood? Immigration is useful, for the right, because the problems of the people are because of somebody else.

Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Sunak, Badenoch, they're all self serving. They will all say the most ridiculous things to get elected, and not because they believe it, but because they want to be in power and further their own individual capital. They will play to people's fears. They will play against the innate humanity that's supposed to be in ever person. They will tell you that society doesn't exist and the only way forward is self sufficiency and selfishness. They play on fear.

The left is shit because it doesn't do this. It goes against the founding principles of the leftist movement to be for everyone, even those at the bottom.

Socialism is for society. It is for the people. Fascism is about the cult of the leader, the singular and their vision.

Go to bed.

 

[Matt N]

I strongly encourage you to bin off your Daily Telegraph subscription and beg you to stop watching GB News.

The right perform well because of scaremongering. People, as a rule, don't like responsibility. They like to see themselves as the victim. They like to blame others for their destitution. The right is incredibly good at playing into this. The left isn't, because the left is about society helping itself.

Immigration isn't actually an issue anywhere, think about how preposterous that is. Where do you even draw the line? Continent? Economic bloc? Country? County? City? Neighbourhood? Immigration is useful, for the right, because the problems of the people are because of somebody else.

Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Sunak, Badenoch, they're all self serving. They will all say the most ridiculous things to get elected, and not because they believe it, but because they want to be in power and further their own individual capital. They will play to people's fears. They will play against the innate humanity that's supposed to be in ever person. They will tell you that society doesn't exist and the only way forward is self sufficiency and selfishness. They play on fear.

The left is shit because it doesn't do this. It goes against the founding principles of the leftist movement to be for everyone, even those at the bottom.

Socialism is for society. It is for the people. Fascism is about the cult of the leader, the singular and their vision.

Go to bed.

I clearly seem to have touched a nerve, and I apologise for that. That was not my intention.

For clarity, I don’t hold a Daily Telegraph subscription and I don’t watch GB News. I formed this viewpoint myself without being unduly influenced by right wing news sources, I feel. I also read the likes of The Guardian regularly, as well as more impartial sources like the BBC.

I don’t disagree with much of what you say. I do think the right thrives on fear, and I vehemently disagree with much of the rhetoric espoused by the likes of Donald Trump. I feel that the right gets overly venomous towards very vulnerable groups at times.

However, my point is that I don’t think the left are always paragons of virtue and light either, and rightly or wrongly, I think they may put people off voting for them by coming across condescending or insulting at times. You may feel that immigration is not the major issue it’s made out to be. To be completely honest, I agree with you. However, a lot of people clearly disagree and have some concerns about it. I feel that the right thing for the left to do would be to address those concerns, either through calmly and compellingly setting out a positive case for immigration or through proposing a left wing solution to the discussed immigration “issues”. What is instead frequently done in left wing circles is that people are instantly vilified as “stupid old racists” or similar for daring to express the slightest concern about immigration and deviate even slightly from the “morally superior” left wing viewpoint.

This is not going to convince anyone with mild concerns about immigration, and it pushes them into the arms of people like Trump who propose solutions, but also ramp up the venomous rhetoric, exaggerate issues, and ultimately make people even more concerned. You catch a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, and that saying currently seems to be lost on some in left wing political circles.

It’s the same with other issues, such as identity politics. Instead of calmly addressing any concerns and setting out the positive case for things such as trans rights, the left often instantly goes on the attack against people who dare to have even the slightest concern or deviance from the “morally acceptable” viewpoint, deeming them a “bigot”, “TERF”, “transphobe” or similar, which pushes them into the arms of the more extreme right.

I think it’s sometimes forgotten that being left wing is simply a political view. It does not make you morally superior to people with right wing political views. Left wing political circles often direct considerable vitriol at people who disagree with them; look at the insults and venom hurled towards people who voted for Trump both times, people who voted for Boris in 2019, people who voted for Brexit in 2016, people who voted for Farage in 2024. I’m not saying that the right is perfect in this sense either (the 6th January insurrection is truly damning evidence against the right in this regard), but it does seem like some in left wing political circles have a particular issue of being really venomous towards people who don’t agree with them 100%.

My view is that instead of insulting these people, the left needs to try and understand them and try and see where they’re coming from. If the left understands people’s concerns and either sets out a compelling positive case against them or sets out a compelling solution, people will be far more inclined to trust left wing politics and vote for left wing parties. People vote for right wing populists for a reason, and the left needs to try and listen to them and understand what that reason is rather than insulting these people.

 

[Matt.GC]

I'm sorry if I upset 2 of my favourite posters, but I disagree with the pair of you (personal opinion of course). It sounds like all 3 of us aren't far off being politically aligned by modern standards, but I think the left/right spectrum is dead and has been for some time.

This has been talked and written about since Third Way politics came into vogue following the revolution of Reaganomics and Thatcherism, yet is often ignored. The rules were broken in the 80's. Ron and Maggie were ardent free market globalists. Both wrote the rules of how modern capitalism and trickle down economics should work, and it gave western democracies the fake prosperity renaissance, and associated inequality, which we now look back upon as a golden era. A system we look back on with rose tinted nostalgia, and subsequently tried to make fairer with Third Way social democracy (mostly with Clinton and Blair). It's all failed us, and we're trying jump start it up again repeatedly, to pretend that it'll deliver the results it once did, whilst completely ignoring the fact that authoritarian regimes have stolen our methods, and are enforcing economic growth with iron fists.

These alternative right nut jobs aren't "right wing" or "conservatives". Maggie and Ron would be spinning in their graves at the thought of it. There's hardly a cigarette paper between the alt right and alt left. Both preach divisiveness, both preach authoritarianism, both both preach protectionism, and both lie repeatedly.

"The Left", as they seem to be called, just haven't done a good enough job of being as populist as the right wing lot.

Think about how anyone can vote for an odeous, racist, rapist, fascist criminal. Many millions of people are probably voting for a guy who promises easy answers, blames someone else, smashes heads together, and sells a vision. A guy who they believe will stick up for them whilst making someone they don't care about pay the price. Left and right wing populism is unrealistic, but doesn't half sell well. Just think of more outrageous lies and flog it to people who feel that things aren't as good as they used to be.

Something for nothing. World class public services with low taxes. Prosperity without poverty. Freedom and democracy, but government intervention when it suits us. Foreigners are cool when they're providing us with cheap labour and goods, not so cool when we don't build more houses and infrastructure to maintain their presence. Trade with other countries but no return competition. "Drill baby drill" for us, but how dare those developing countries poison the lungs of our children. War must end, until we wage it for our own interests. Have our cake and eat it.

The Trump presidency will end in disaster. America and the rest of the world will be worse off because of it. But some people will gain some short term wins from it. And the way you don't fight that is promising to basically just keep things as they are. Despite the USA economically outperforming most of the western world during the Biden presidency (we could only dream of such a fate in the UK), people want to believe that car manufacturing will return to Detroit. That the Chinese communist regime will be swept away with few trade tariffs. That taxpayers money can stop being spent in Ukraine if a president phones both parites and tells them to behave themselves and pack it in. That the Mexican guy livng down the street is waiting to tuck in to their pets having already taken their job and welfare money aware from them and needs to be rounded up and deported.

Populism has never been about left and right. It's been about globalisation vs protectionism. Democracy vs authoritarianism. Fantasy and lies vs realism. Radicalism vs the status quo.

The way to fight it is real world radical change. A sensible settlement that ignores old fashioned left Vs right ideology and delivers for the majority at the expense of the fortunate minority. Not pretending that the good times will roll again if we could only recreate the past.

 

[BarryZola]

Immigration absolutely IS an issue for some people, and it's the blind denial of that which allows certain parties to flourish. You can't just keep ignoring it and belittling people who do have an issue and hope it will just go away. It won't. It's not just the idea of immigration per se, it's the sometimes speed of it and how people are seeing the cultural landscape shift in areas they grew up in within their lifetimes. Some people don't like that. That's without mentioning the feeling that services such as doctors, hospitals, roads etc are being made even more busy. Yes, I know you have answers for why this is all the fault of the last government for not putting enough money into these services, but the fact is that the population is growing rapidly through people not born in the country and some people don't like it, especially when it's concentrated into certain areas. Then you're going to keep pushing these people who complain away, and tell them that they're stupid for having concerns. Then they go to someone else who will listen to them (for whatever reason).

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

There's only so many times you can tell a diabetic that the reason why they're losing their leg has nothing to do with the nationality of the person providing them care, but everything to do with not exercising, adapting their diet and managing their medication. The person providing them care may be a foreign national, but it's the mismanagement of their own condition which is the problem.

Perhaps there is a level of moral righteousness, but is exists all over the spectrum.

the left often instantly goes on the attack against people who dare to have even the slightest concern or deviance from the “morally acceptable” viewpoint, deeming them a “bigot”, “TERF”, “transphobe” or similar, which pushes them into the arms of the more extreme right.

The right historically, and instantly, goes on the attack too. "Remoaner", "snowflake", "woke" being recent examples. It has an issue with telling people who they can, and can't, love. It has issue with telling people who they are, what they can and can't do with their bodies. Their own righteousness stems not from a care about society, but their own stance on morals derived from conservative interpretation of religious texts.

My view is that instead of insulting these people, the left needs to try and understand them and try and see where they’re coming from. If the left understands people’s concerns and either sets out a compelling positive case against them or sets out a compelling solution, people will be far more inclined to trust left wing politics and vote for left wing parties.

Donald Trump was elected on a ticket, and a campaign, which consistently attacked people. He hasn't listened to where anyone is coming from, he hasn't created a balanced proposition. He instigated a ban on abortion not because of research or evidence, but because it appealed to a section of his base vote. He banned transgender people from operating in the military, not for safety reasons or as a care for concern, but because of bigotry. He outright demonstratably lies and people don't care. It's the cult of the personality.

When you look at the 2024 campaigns run by both Labour and the Democrats, they weren't about attacking people or blaming others (who weren't responsible). They gave consistent positive messages. They were still vilified.