If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)

[Liberty]

Some posters here need to lighten up and get a bit of a sense of humour. My post was in response to Cardboard’s post.

 

Thinking about Mr. Trump doesn't bring out my sense of humor, sorry. If he was still just some guy on a reality TV show, sure, it's all just a joke. But when he's a guy who came seriously close of being the president of the US, and who could still be put in office by some game-changing unforeseen even between now and next month, that feels more serious to me.

 

I wrote something about Trump, mentioned in passing that I'm Canadian. Cardboard suddenly made it about Canada rather than about Trump, a classic diversionary tactic ("Hey, look over there!"). So when you cut & pasted 10 pages of stuff about "Yay Canada" it felt like the diversion had worked, so I wanted to point it out.

 

I also happen to think that this "my country is better than yours" stuff is BS, but that's beside the point. I can't know how seriously you take that tribalistic stuff, but many people do.

[Cardboard]

"a classic diversionary tactic " LOL

 

That can't beat your tactic of only bashing one candidate and not being able to see the evil in the other.

 

Cardboard

[cwericb]

The funny thing about being Canadian is that in many ways the choice of US President is just as important to Canadians as to Americans but we don't get to vote. Also we certainly have our fair share of a$$holes running in politics. It is very unfortunate that the GOP got saddled with Trump. Hopefully they will be able to avoid that next time.

 

I should have pointed out that the article that I pasted about Canadians vs Americans was from MacLean's Magazine.

[Liberty]

"a classic diversionary tactic " LOL

 

That can't beat your tactic of only bashing one candidate and not being able to see the evil in the other.

 

Cardboard

 

I explained it here:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/if-american-which-presidential-candidate-will-you-vote-for-(oct-edition)/msg277403/#msg277403

 

Hillary is just another politician, and the other side will always claim that a politician is terrible. Obama was the socialist antichrist, Mitt Romney was this... McCain was that.. Kerry was, well, forget about it. And what about Bush and Al Gore? So many terrible things that they are...

 

But Trump is on another level. He's pure human garbage in uber-salesman form, a pathological liar and sociopathic ur-narcissist type fermenting real long-lasting trouble by encouraging all types of conspiracy theories and real hatred from one of the biggest soapboxes of all time. It's mind-blowing how he's ready to say just anything to get power (remember, he used to think he might run for president as a democrat and had many positions in the past that are the opposite of what he has now; he constantly says he never said stuff that we have on tape, etc). That's what brought me out of my apathy about politics, because some things you can't easily ignore.

 

If I think Trump could be a genuinely scary person with the level of power that the presidency brings (in good part because it gives you a huge megaphone and the stature of the position gives everything you say more weight, but it can go all the way to major wars and even nuclear war with someone like that) and that Hillary would be a pretty status quo politician, am I supposed to write equally negative things on both? Is that your version of "Fair and Balanced?"

 

Being fair and rational in this case is actually trying to make people realize just how much of a human piece of garbage Trump is and help them see through his peacock salesman tricks.

[valcont]

"What did she do? Benghazi(No indictment) , emails (ditto),part of global elite to bring down the americans(exactly). I am really honest here , what is it that she did that is soooo threatening?"

 

You are really dishonest. She did not get indicted because of the system while Petraeus and others were for much less.

 

She did not accomplish anything good as Secretary of State. Everything has turned into a failure: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran nuclear deal, etc. And now you want to give her more responsibilities?

 

She is corrupt. She loves power. She has provoked Russia and China. She is extremely dangerous.

 

You can trash Trump and be 100% correct that he is far from being an example. However, to give a pass on Hillary for everything that she has done, then you can only be really dishonest.

 

Cardboard

 

You are really dishonest. She did not get indicted because of the system while Petraeus and others were for much less.

No dishonesty here. I am comparing her misdeeds with Trump. She may have gotten away in the email scandal because of the democratic admin but you can say the same thing about Cheney who lied about the nuclear Iraq. Petraeus is a different case altogether. He was banging the biographer of his book(appropriately titled "All In") and sharing confidential information VOLUNTARILY. That's what got him. Imagine a head of the espionage unit sharing secret codes with his paramour fully aware this is criminal. This is not an apples to apples comparison with Hillary's situation despite what the

Fox news channel tells you. If anything , his was a case of getting away with a slap on the wrist. He got two year probation.You and I would have gotten 20+ years.

 

She did not accomplish anything good as Secretary of State. Everything has turned into a failure: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran nuclear deal, etc. And now you want to give her more responsibilities?

Oh yes, the middle east . How dare she messed up the good work done by the Bush/Cheney!! And Iran deal, yes wish they had done as great a job as Reagan with the Contra deal. She killed Bin laden and that's more than you can expect from the other side. Honestly, Middle East is a huge waste of time

no matter which party. You can't change the people who swore allegiance only to their tribe and have been fighting each others for generation. Let them

figure out what every civilization has figured out in the end. No point in shedding blood there.

 

She is corrupt. She loves power. She has provoked Russia and China. She is extremely dangerous.

Yes she is corrupt and she loves power. She is also very lucky to get Trump as her opponent.Wrong on Russia and China. They don't need provocation to hate us. Extremely dangerous?? I would use Trump's logic here. If she hasn't caused any harm in 30years of public life, chances are she won't in the next 4.

[rb]

No dishonesty here. I am comparing her misdeeds with Trump. She may have gotten off in the email scandal because of the democratic admin but you can say the same thing about Cheney who lied about the nuclear Iraq.

Lol not to mention how Cheney got away with shooting his friend in the face.

[Uccmal]

No dishonesty here. I am comparing her misdeeds with Trump. She may have gotten off in the email scandal because of the democratic admin but you can say the same thing about Cheney who lied about the nuclear Iraq.

Lol not to mention how Cheney got away with shooting his friend in the face.

 

that's too good.... 

 

This thread is priceless.  If I am not mistaken Cardboard is Canadian.  We have Cdns arguing Cdns. 

 

On a side note.  Trump is looking to lose the presidency, and possibly cause the loss of both chambers.  How the hell did the GOP drum up this creep.  And he is going to get himself sued from women, all over the place, and possibly criminally prosecuted.  All for a publicity stunt.  That's all it ever was to him.  He doesn't give two sh*ts about those who are supporting him.  If the Dems had had anyone but Clinton running this would be even more one sided. 

 

And I never get this party loyalty thing among average people.  I am a democrat... I always vote democrat... huh... What's the point of having an election then? 

[Liberty]

 

"he was egged on"

 

Edit: "Melania: Billy Bush retroactively egged my husband on to sexually assault women for decades. He is a Looper and must be stopped."

 

 

"If Billy Bush somehow egged on Donald Trump to admit he's a serial sex offender, maybe he's actually the best journalist in this election?"

[valcont]

 

This thread is priceless.  If I am not mistaken Cardboard is Canadian.  We have Cdns arguing Cdns. 

 

 

I should have listened to the wise old American saying  "Ignore Canada. Nothing interesting ever comes out of there" .

 

Even the oil trickles out from the sand. No gusher. How boring!!

 

Seriously why are Canadians so interested in this election. Its not like Trump is building a wall on the northern border.

 

[rb]

Lol, no he's not gonna build a northern wall, but Canadians may build it if he wins. This comes to mind:

 

 

Now in all seriousness, just a few points in no particular order of why Canadians may be interested:

1. US is in great proximity to where most Canadians live

2. US is by far Canada's biggest trading partner

3. US is by far the largest destination for Canadian foreign investment both primary and especially secondary

4. US and Canada share the largest border in the world

5. Canada is a founding member of NATO

6. US has a large cultural influence over Canada. In other words if you US comes out with crazy some of that will be exported north

7. The old adage that if the US sneezes the world catches a cold. The US is world's greatest power economic and military power. With great power comes great responsibility. However Americans are behaving very irresponsibly which I suppose worry almost every country but countries will such close ties to the US as Canada does have a lot of reasons to be very interested

[EliG]

Lol, no he's not gonna build a northern wall, but Canadians may build it if he wins.

 

I am Canadian. I want to build a wall even if he loses. 48-50 million Americans are about to vote for a mentally unstable near-fascist. This is scary as hell.

[ccplz]

Lol, no he's not gonna build a northern wall, but Canadians may build it if he wins.

 

I am Canadian. I want to build a wall even if he loses. 48-50 million Americans are about to vote for a mentally unstable near-fascist. This is scary as hell.

 

Why is that a surprise?

 

The country was founded on racism.

 

And you have people, who are not only not embarrassed by Trump, but are actually publicly bragging about their support for him, even on a forum like this (just look at that guy Cardboard's posts). It's incredible.

[rb]

I actually like Nebraska quite a bit. even though for some reason they are thoroughly confused when i order my coffee with milk rather than cream. They can't process that.

 

And you have people, who are not only not embarrassed by Trump, but are actually publicly bragging about their support for him, even on a forum like this.

I keep hearing these things about the mysterious silent Trump supporter. I never met a silent Trump supporter. I haven't even met one that uses an inside voice. Has anyone?

 

In all fairness (and respect?) to Cardboard he's not supporting Trump anymore because he went too far even for Cardboard.

[alwaysinvert]

I keep hearing these things about the mysterious silent Trump supporter. I never met a silent Trump supporter. I haven't even met one that uses an inside voice. Has anyone?

 

In all fairness (and respect?) to Cardboard he's not supporting Trump anymore because he went too far even for Cardboard.

 

I don't know, has any of the bourgeoisie in this thread met and talked to any of the hundreds of thousands of middle-americans who attend Trump's rallies? Seems not.

 

I have witnessed the rise of a populist party in my country and this has happened in pretty much every Western European state. Maybe you are so insular that you don't notice this over there, but the theme is well-established in Europe. This is not a one-off to do with only the unique characteristics of Trump. You just, for once, are about a decade behind us Europeans. And you are making the exact same mistake that we have done in analyzing the situation.

 

It is not about Le Pen. It is not about Farage. It is not about Wilders. It is not about Strache. It is not about Kjaersgaard. It is not about Åkesson. It is not about "charismatic" leaders using their demagogic magic to enchant the public. It is about a ruling class that has tilted more and more in favor of special interests and certain lobby groups at the expense of serving the citizens of the country which they ostensibly are sworn to.

 

At that point, what choice do the voters have? In my country for years and years 60-70% of the voters wanted lower immigration. At the same time 7 of 8 political parties in parliament didn't and actively pushed for higher numbers. Immigration rose every year for over a decade and then finally came to a screeching halt last year during the refugee crisis. Now we have a drag on our economy of 1-2% of GDP yearly despite the voters never asking for any of it. Some accountability. 

 

We had 163 000 asylum seekers last year in a country of 10 million people and the voters were firmly against increases when the figure was 1/5 of that. Despite being forced into a 180 by practical circumstances (i.e the imminent downfall of the system) there has been no mea culpa from anyone in charge. That is not a well-functioning democracy.

 

Even if the issues are somewhat different from country to country in the West, the patterns of non-accountability for politicians are the same. That is what the complaints about "globalism" in the US stems from and not, for the majority of people, some resurgence of jingoism.

 

The very concept of the state rests on the premise that it favors its own citizens. This contract has been broken in the West and people protesting it is not an expression of white supremacy or nationalism or anything of the sort per se. But it could very well devolve into tribal conflicts if elected officials keep actively undermining their own constituents. The essence of all practical politics is tribalism, it's just that where the tribal lines are drawn will change if the incentives are there. The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

Trump will probably lose but there will be new challenges to the system if nothing changes. Probably by more competent and polished people, hopefully not by anyone more sinister than a blustering 70 year old TV star with an ego.

 

This whole thread is upper middle-class, college-educated, financially savvy people complaining about having to watch the symptoms of a problem they don't acknowledge or aren't impacted much by. The politics of non-accountability hurt the people on the margin, not you. Use empathy.

[ccplz]

The very concept of the state rests on the premise that it favors its own citizens. This contract has been broken in the West and people protesting it is not an expression of white supremacy or nationalism or anything of the sort per se. But it could very well devolve into tribal conflicts if elected officials keep actively undermining their own constituents. The essence of all practical politics is tribalism, it's just that where the tribal lines are drawn will change if the incentives are there. The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

What primitive thinking.

 

This whole thread is upper middle-class, college-educated, financially savvy people complaining about having to watch the symptoms of a problem they don't acknowledge or aren't impacted much by. The politics of non-accountability hurt the people on the margin, not you. Use empathy.

 

Yea, blame the politicians. Blame the government. Blame the bankers. Blame the Chinese, the Mexicans and of course the Muslims.

 

Blame everyone but yourself for not studying or working hard or smart enough.

So much for non-accountability...

 

What a joke.

[alwaysinvert]

The very concept of the state rests on the premise that it favors its own citizens. This contract has been broken in the West and people protesting it is not an expression of white supremacy or nationalism or anything of the sort per se. But it could very well devolve into tribal conflicts if elected officials keep actively undermining their own constituents. The essence of all practical politics is tribalism, it's just that where the tribal lines are drawn will change if the incentives are there. The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

What primitive thinking.

 

This whole thread is upper middle-class, college-educated, financially savvy people complaining about having to watch the symptoms of a problem they don't acknowledge or aren't impacted much by. The politics of non-accountability hurt the people on the margin, not you. Use empathy.

 

Yea, blame the politicians. Blame the government. Blame the bankers. Blame the Chinese, the Mexicans and of course the Muslims.

 

Blame everyone but yourself for not studying or working hard or smart enough.

So much for non-accountability...

 

What a joke.

 

Let them eat cake!

[vox]

I keep hearing these things about the mysterious silent Trump supporter. I never met a silent Trump supporter. I haven't even met one that uses an inside voice. Has anyone?

 

In all fairness (and respect?) to Cardboard he's not supporting Trump anymore because he went too far even for Cardboard.

 

I don't know, has any of the bourgeoisie in this thread met and talked to any of the hundreds of thousands of middle-americans who attend Trump's rallies? Seems not.

 

I have witnessed the rise of a populist party in my country and this has happened in pretty much every Western European state. Maybe you are so insular that you don't notice this over there, but the theme is well-established in Europe. This is not a one-off to do with only the unique characteristics of Trump. You just, for once, are about a decade behind us Europeans. And you are making the exact same mistake that we have done in analyzing the situation.

 

It is not about Le Pen. It is not about Farage. It is not about Wilders. It is not about Strache. It is not about Kjaersgaard. It is not about Åkesson. It is not about "charismatic" leaders using their demagogic magic to enchant the public. It is about a ruling class that has tilted more and more in favor of special interests and certain lobby groups at the expense of serving the citizens of the country which they ostensibly are sworn to.

 

At that point, what choice do the voters have? In my country for years and years 60-70% of the voters wanted lower immigration. At the same time 7 of 8 political parties in parliament didn't and actively pushed for higher numbers. Immigration rose every year for over a decade and then finally came to a screeching halt last year during the refugee crisis. Now we have a drag on our economy of 1-2% of GDP yearly despite the voters never asking for any of it. Some accountability. 

 

We had 163 000 asylum seekers last year in a country of 10 million people and the voters were firmly against increases when the figure was 1/5 of that. Despite being forced into a 180 by practical circumstances (i.e the imminent downfall of the system) there has been no mea culpa from anyone in charge. That is not a well-functioning democracy.

 

Even if the issues are somewhat different from country to country in the West, the patterns of non-accountability for politicians are the same. That is what the complaints about "globalism" in the US stems from and not, for the majority of people, some resurgence of jingoism.

 

The very concept of the state rests on the premise that it favors its own citizens. This contract has been broken in the West and people protesting it is not an expression of white supremacy or nationalism or anything of the sort per se. But it could very well devolve into tribal conflicts if elected officials keep actively undermining their own constituents. The essence of all practical politics is tribalism, it's just that where the tribal lines are drawn will change if the incentives are there. The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

Trump will probably lose but there will be new challenges to the system if nothing changes. Probably by more competent and polished people, hopefully not by anyone more sinister than a blustering 70 year old TV star with an ego.

 

This whole thread is upper middle-class, college-educated, financially savvy people complaining about having to watch the symptoms of a problem they don't acknowledge or aren't impacted much by. The politics of non-accountability hurt the people on the margin, not you. Use empathy.

 

The difference is that the U.S. does not have a recent broad influx of immigrants. The number of admitted refugees has been less than 80,000 per year since 2000. Independent studies conclude that there has been a significant decrease in illegal immigration from Mexico since 2009, and the net balance shows a loss of Mexican immigrants since 2005.

 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

 

[DonFanucci]

The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

That ideal is the exact opposite of the founding principles of the United States. The declaration of independence isn't about feeling like you belong to a tribal collective. It's about the INDIVIDUAL and his inalienable right to live his life as he sees fit, no matter what the tribe says. The right has lost all understanding of this. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin. Sanders thinks your life exists to serve the worse off and Trump thinks your life exists to serve the nation. Who today says that your life belongs to you, and that this freedom to live it is inalienable- even if 99% of people disagree with your choices- even if it means not buying health insurance, or not saving for retirement- even if it means hiring a Mexican?

[valcont]

The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

That ideal is the exact opposite of the founding principles of the United States. The declaration of independence isn't about feeling like you belong to a tribal collective. It's about the INDIVIDUAL and his inalienable right to live his life as he sees fit, no matter what the tribe says. The right has lost all understanding of this. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin. Sanders thinks your life exists to serve the worse off and Trump thinks your life exists to serve the nation. Who today says that your life belongs to you, and that this freedom to live it is inalienable- even if 99% of people disagree with your choices- even if it means not buying health insurance, or not saving for retirement- even if it means hiring a Mexican?

 

+1

[alwaysinvert]

The difference is that the U.S. does not have a recent broad influx of immigrants. The number of admitted refugees has been less than 80,000 per year since 2000. Independent studies conclude that there has been a significant decrease in illegal immigration from Mexico since 2009, and the net balance shows a loss of Mexican immigrants since 2005.

 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

 

If that is your rebuttal to my post, you failed to understand it. It was not about immigration.

 

The point is not to argue the effectiveness of one policy versus another either, but rather that you can only go so far with promoting policies with which great swathes of the population disagree. At least if you are going to keep some kind of democratic legitimacy.

 

Arguing for the "correct" policies is all fine, but implementing them against the people's will is neither smart nor democratic in spirit. Milton Friedman, despite being a staunch libertarian who wanted to repeal just about everything, understood this perfectly well half a century ago. I'm flummoxed by how educated people don't do it now.

[alwaysinvert]

The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

That ideal is the exact opposite of the founding principles of the United States. The declaration of independence isn't about feeling like you belong to a tribal collective. It's about the INDIVIDUAL and his inalienable right to live his life as he sees fit, no matter what the tribe says. The right has lost all understanding of this. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin. Sanders thinks your life exists to serve the worse off and Trump thinks your life exists to serve the nation. Who today says that your life belongs to you, and that this freedom to live it is inalienable- even if 99% of people disagree with your choices- even if it means not buying health insurance, or not saving for retirement- even if it means hiring a Mexican?

 

Well, that depends on the emphasis you put on it. American national identity from my perspective entails being proud of individual liberty and embracing as American people willing to subscribe to that notion. That is a form of tribalism too - one which has made possible individualism. The US originally was the banding together of the free people as free people in an all new tribe.

 

edit: I should also say that I agree with your point about Trump/Sanders, but I think you failed to grasp what I was saying. It was not a sanctioning of tribalism, it was an argument for widening it to the whole nation from its current state of dividing up the nation in different constituencies with colliding interests. Essentially, it is an acknowledgement of and accomodation to how humans behave throughout history.

[vox]

If that is your rebuttal to my post, you failed to understand it. It was not about immigration.

 

The point is not to argue the effectiveness of one policy versus another either, but rather that you can only go so far with promoting policies with which great swathes of the population disagree. At least if you are going to keep some kind of democratic legitimacy.

 

Arguing for the "correct" policies is all fine, but implementing them against the people's will is neither smart nor democratic in spirit. Milton Friedman, despite being a staunch libertarian who wanted to repeal just about everything, understood this perfectly well half a century ago. I'm flummoxed by how educated people don't do it now.

 

The majority of people in the U.S. do not support: building a wall along the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigrants and refugees, and trade protectionism. You are misreading a vocal minority for a majority.

[alwaysinvert]

If that is your rebuttal to my post, you failed to understand it. It was not about immigration.

 

The point is not to argue the effectiveness of one policy versus another either, but rather that you can only go so far with promoting policies with which great swathes of the population disagree. At least if you are going to keep some kind of democratic legitimacy.

 

Arguing for the "correct" policies is all fine, but implementing them against the people's will is neither smart nor democratic in spirit. Milton Friedman, despite being a staunch libertarian who wanted to repeal just about everything, understood this perfectly well half a century ago. I'm flummoxed by how educated people don't do it now.

 

The majority of people in the U.S. do not support: building a wall along the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigrants and refugees, and trade protectionism. You are misreading a vocal minority for a majority.

 

I have never claimed there were a majority behind those issues. You are misreading what I have written.

[vox]

If that is your rebuttal to my post, you failed to understand it. It was not about immigration.

 

The point is not to argue the effectiveness of one policy versus another either, but rather that you can only go so far with promoting policies with which great swathes of the population disagree. At least if you are going to keep some kind of democratic legitimacy.

 

Arguing for the "correct" policies is all fine, but implementing them against the people's will is neither smart nor democratic in spirit. Milton Friedman, despite being a staunch libertarian who wanted to repeal just about everything, understood this perfectly well half a century ago. I'm flummoxed by how educated people don't do it now.

 

The majority of people in the U.S. do not support: building a wall along the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigrants and refugees, and trade protectionism. You are misreading a vocal minority for a majority.

 

I have never claimed there were a majority behind those issues. You are misreading what I have written.

 

Your claim is that the government is implementing policy counter to the will of the majority of the people. Your example to prove that was that in certain European countries, the majority disfavored increased immigration even though the government pushed it through, resulting in a drag on GDP. My claim is that 1. your example is not applicable in the U.S. because there has been no disruptive increase in immigration and 2. the policies that Trump support are not favored by a majority of Americans. Therefore, I don't see evidence that the will of the people has been systematically subverted.

[Uccmal]

I keep hearing these things about the mysterious silent Trump supporter. I never met a silent Trump supporter. I haven't even met one that uses an inside voice. Has anyone?

 

In all fairness (and respect?) to Cardboard he's not supporting Trump anymore because he went too far even for Cardboard.

 

I don't know, has any of the bourgeoisie in this thread met and talked to any of the hundreds of thousands of middle-americans who attend Trump's rallies? Seems not.

 

I have witnessed the rise of a populist party in my country and this has happened in pretty much every Western European state. Maybe you are so insular that you don't notice this over there, but the theme is well-established in Europe. This is not a one-off to do with only the unique characteristics of Trump. You just, for once, are about a decade behind us Europeans. And you are making the exact same mistake that we have done in analyzing the situation.

 

It is not about Le Pen. It is not about Farage. It is not about Wilders. It is not about Strache. It is not about Kjaersgaard. It is not about Åkesson. It is not about "charismatic" leaders using their demagogic magic to enchant the public. It is about a ruling class that has tilted more and more in favor of special interests and certain lobby groups at the expense of serving the citizens of the country which they ostensibly are sworn to.

 

At that point, what choice do the voters have? In my country for years and years 60-70% of the voters wanted lower immigration. At the same time 7 of 8 political parties in parliament didn't and actively pushed for higher numbers. Immigration rose every year for over a decade and then finally came to a screeching halt last year during the refugee crisis. Now we have a drag on our economy of 1-2% of GDP yearly despite the voters never asking for any of it. Some accountability. 

 

We had 163 000 asylum seekers last year in a country of 10 million people and the voters were firmly against increases when the figure was 1/5 of that. Despite being forced into a 180 by practical circumstances (i.e the imminent downfall of the system) there has been no mea culpa from anyone in charge. That is not a well-functioning democracy.

 

Even if the issues are somewhat different from country to country in the West, the patterns of non-accountability for politicians are the same. That is what the complaints about "globalism" in the US stems from and not, for the majority of people, some resurgence of jingoism.

 

The very concept of the state rests on the premise that it favors its own citizens. This contract has been broken in the West and people protesting it is not an expression of white supremacy or nationalism or anything of the sort per se. But it could very well devolve into tribal conflicts if elected officials keep actively undermining their own constituents. The essence of all practical politics is tribalism, it's just that where the tribal lines are drawn will change if the incentives are there. The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature.   

 

Trump will probably lose but there will be new challenges to the system if nothing changes. Probably by more competent and polished people, hopefully not by anyone more sinister than a blustering 70 year old TV star with an ego.

 

This whole thread is upper middle-class, college-educated, financially savvy people complaining about having to watch the symptoms of a problem they don't acknowledge or aren't impacted much by. The politics of non-accountability hurt the people on the margin, not you. Use empathy.

 

Interesting perspective, thanks. 

 

I agree that Trump is just a symptom of a greater problem.  And I may be entirely wrong in the assertion that the Dems could have had anyone but Hilary and easily beaten him.  The problem(s) may be deeper than that.  There is an insecurity for the future, especially since 2008, that exists for many. 

 

We see it here in Canada, over and over, in smaller towns.  Key industries or companies that used to hire less lucky people (undereducated, and those born in less than ideal circumstances) have completely disappeared.  For awhile these jobs moved overseas - now they are just gone and will never reappear anywhere).  Some people are just plain lazy as well, which doesn't help.

 

These people used to get great unionized jobs in Steel Mills, pulp and paper companies, furniture companies, and so on.  This is not a new phenomena in Canada.  My first job out of University sometimes involved helping decommission factories that were closing.  The people still left at the factories were always sad cases, who had worked there their whole lives in a union shop, and never planned for the future at all.  Talking to them gave me part of the incentive to engage in life long learning and decouple myself from the indentured servitude of having an employer. 

 

The problem is only going to get more acute in the near future.  Automation is going to kill jobs everywhere, in every business.  I dont know how people adapt.  Governments have a responsibility in all this, and many have failed miserably, so far. 

 

Take this message board as a microcosm.  Many members here work in some area involved with software.  I keep seeing headlines that everyone needs to learn to code (typically fighting the last battle).  We can't be more than a few years away from computers that will take instructions verbally, from technical dummies like me, eliminating the middle man, which is everyone who codes and programs.  The decline in manufacturing jobs has been gradual over 40-50 years.  The decline in codIng and programming jobs will happen in an instant.  What that leaves us with is an ever greater populist uprising. 

 

Governments are very seldom proactive.  In fact they are just the opposite.  We need leaders with vision who can see that:

1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are.  As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. 

2) Idle hands do the Devil's work.  People need a place to go and a purpose every day.  Even, us 1% era need the same. 

 

We definitely don't need populist regimes in power.  They lack foresight and only care for the now.  Venezuela anyone?