But yeah honestly he's a dreadful person, petulant child given a pedestal to stand upon to look taller.
Good post. Thought provoking, and that was a good article to read.Seeing the likes of Cenk Uygur melting down at this result has almost been worth Trump being President.
Honestly, I gotta say that I bought into the narrative that he didn't have a chance. From Australia, it's hard to really gauge how America is feeling (and I'm not too convinced by polls a lot of the time) but I thought Moore's article on Huffington post about Trump winning was enlightening and felt true at the same time.
I also think that both sides of the political isle are responsible for this. There are many issues of disagreement but I think the one in recent years that has shaped this election was political correctness. The Rs never hid from their xenophobic core but the Ds got ridiculous with their political correctness on the other hand. I think people have gotten tired of being called stupid and/or bigoted. The reality is that the average person is going to have a problem with things like trans toilets, even if it is argued for fairness. The left kept shoving their virtues down the throats of others. You can name many examples that became big issues (gay cake another one) and became an excuse for virtue signalling. People have lost the capacity to disagree and get on with their lives. Government has not only corrupted the politicians but also the people who vy for that power through their representatives.
Good article: Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash - Hit & Run : Reason.com
In a democracy, people can either vote for their values (the cliche left-right spectrum) or they can vote their identity (religion, ***uality, ethnicity). I believe that identity democracy is dangerous, and a significant threat to the western world.
Once an identity group has a majority, it is relatively easy for them to retain power, and they can safely ignore those groups that don't have power. Identity-democracy has a very weak incentive for politicians to be inclusive or informed, since their power is unrelated to policy, and entirely based on maintaining the demographic dominance of their identity group. As a couple of examples, the vote in South Africa tends to follow ethnic lines and the vote in Iraq follows religious divisions.
The western world has been lucky enough to have value-based democracy through most of our history, with the perpetual struggle between the vague concepts of "centre-left" and "centre-right"... but I fear this is currently changing. The so-called SJWs (aka regressives, or PC-brigade, or "cultural Marxists", or left-authoritarians) have pursued a policy of intersectionality, where they promote grievances based on identity groups and then the merging of those identity groups to fight against the "white het-cis patriarchy". This sort of identity politics has given the SJWs a short-term political advantage. Unfortunately it has also spawned a reaction, with a growing number of white het-cis men accepting the new reality of identity politics, feeling their identity group is under attack, and voting accordingly.
Both the SJWs and the alt-right see politics as a battle of identity groups. Those of us who continue to focus on values (whether left-liberal, libertarian, socialist, or conservative) are being sidelined by the increasingly acrimonious identity-politics of race, religion, ***, and ***uality. I miss the "good old days" where people disagreed with me on values, because at least with a debate about values it's theoretically possible to change people's mind... not so with identity politics... and that's dangerous.
Is calling somebody 'white' supposed to be one of these new sjw insults? I'm assuming so.zinzan is the whitest poster in this thread after watson and im the one who rides the ****ing horse
im the red crayonIs calling somebody 'white' supposed to be one of these new sjw insults? I'm assuming so.
And do you grant yourself a special colour too, and if so, what does that make you?
I think he would have crushed Trump
Would have liked to have thought he would have won.
Yep, I think Biden would have won.I would have thought Biden would have done better than Sanders. Sure he would have been establishment but you'd think he's less polarising, and would have got two of Michigan, Penn and Ohio
I do wonder if this is more effect than cause; I'm thinking a lot more carefully about the leftist thesis that centrist liberal-conservative economic consensus has given us no new ideas or no fundamental explanations for what's been going on in the last 30 years, and absent that true contest of ideas, politics has become entirely a game of numbers via assembling coalitions, which naturally lends to more identity style politics.One of my friends posted this on Facebook about the (undesirable) shift away from values politics and towards identity politics and how the alt-right and Trump more generally is more or less just a specific manifestation of that. It really ties in to Ikki's post (which shouldn't surprise me given who wrote it, really):
Yeah, as much as antiestablishment still would have been a thing for Trump vs, Biden, Biden still would have had enough support to win...Yep, I think Biden would have won.
Someone with the exact same policies as Hillary but less baggage would have won IMO. Narrowly, with similar swings in those rust belt areas, but they would have won.