JRant wrote: » Found this fascinating read, it's on the long side but well worth it.http://quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/ It highlights voter behaviour and dives into the reasoning behind it.
But what about temperament, character, and fitness for office? Surely it was irrational to vote for Trump if temperament is relevant, Democrats might say. But this argument is not a slam-dunk from the standpoint of rationality. It is simply not self-evident how people should trade off temperament versus worldview in their voting choices....
Clinton represented what I will term the Global and Groups perspective (GG) and Trump represented the Country and Citizen perspective (CC). Clinton signalled to the electorate that she represented the GG perspective by emphasizing global concerns (climate change and global climate agreements; increasing US refugee intake; rights and protections for noncitizens) and continually addressing groups in her speeches (the groups of Democratic identity politics: LGBT, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.). Trump signalled to the electorate that he represented the CC perspective by continually emphasizing country in his speeches (“make America great again”) and addressing his audiences as citizens with nation-level interests rather than group interests (trade deals that disadvantaged American workers; securing the country’s borders; etc.). These two candidates (Clinton and Trump) more sharply differentiated these worldviews than any other combination of candidates in 2016. Bernie Sanders would have watered down the GG perspective, because his criticism of some trade deals made him less of a globalist than Clinton, and Sanders placed less emphasis on the Democratic identity groups.
recedite wrote: » Good article, thanks for that. The recognition of CC V GG mentality is spot on. As is the whole rationality/irrationality of "voting for a clown" ... You can see the same kind of divison in Ireland whenever somebody brings up the idea of "the gender pay gap" or mandatory minimum quotas for female candidates in an election. The fact is that women as a group get paid less and have less TD's. The GG mentality will see this as evidence of inequality between the groups that needs some kind of positive discrimination as redress. On the other hand the CC mentality sees that all citizens have equal rights, and views positive discrimination as discrimination. Hence the GG's will always view the CC's as being "obviously" misogynists and racists, which accusation the CC's will always shrug off.
pitifulgod wrote: » He has a long history of misogyny.
Samaris wrote: » No president should be "exploiting" national tension for either fun ("it's really caught on") or for their own gain. That is just irresponsible "leadership".
Exiting the agreement means the U.S. can lead with strength in promoting energy and environmental policies, protecting U.S. jobs and easing the costly regulatory burden across the country.
recedite wrote: » [Trump] may be disgusting at times, but he's still better than Clinton.
recedite wrote: » Obama pursued policies such as the the Paris climate agreement even though they were harmful to the USA and not necessarily beneficial to the planet.
recedite wrote: » Every politician exploits their own comparative advantage. Obama pursued policies such as the the Paris climate agreement even though they were harmful to the USA and not necessarily beneficial to the planet. Signing that executive order gained credit for Obama with his own GG followers, but alienated those with a CC worldview. He did not dare to present it to Congress as a whole for approval (which is why Trump was able to overturn it). The notion that a politician will suddenly become a leader for all the people when he/she becomes the Leader is more idealistic than realistic. The best you can hope for is that they will carry on with the same kind of agenda that their campaign pledges focused on.
Samaris wrote: » It's also incorrect, or at the least highly unlikely to be related to pulling out of the NON-BINDING agreement that the US -stated its own terms for- to start with.
recedite wrote: » It wasn't the USA that agreed to it, it was Obama. That was my point. An executive order is not considered adequate for that kind of decision; it has to be ratified by the parliament of the country. Whether binding or not is a different question. Trump has threatened to pull out of the Iran agreement which is supposed to be "binding", but at the same time there is no international policeman around who is going to enforce it. But pulling out of a binding agreement results in damage to reputation, so that would be unwise for both his own reputation and that of the USA. My second quote earlier was from the link.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Did you know that her organisation doesn't believe in climate change?
pitifulgod wrote: » It does matter whether it was non binding. You're claiming that it would negatively hit the US, there's no reason it should because it's non binding.
recedite wrote: » So Trump should have recommended the deal to Congress because its only BS anyway? Despite the fact that its the kind of BS that plays well to Obama's support base and not to his own? I think Trump has more than enough of his own BS to be getting on with. He has no need to borrow Obama's.
recedite wrote: » Climate change is a complex question No it's not. First there is the question of global warming, which almost everyone agrees is happening. Everyone except for Trump and a few other selfish and stupid billionaires. Next is the question of whether this is part of a natural cycle (and the geological and fossil evidence shows that Earth's climate has varied wildly over the aeons) There is no question to be answered. Recent climate change is a man made phenomenon. Next is the question of whether industrialised countries "owe" developing countries for all the carbon they have burned over the last few hundred years, and how much money they have to pay, if any. I'm all for sharing wealth and resources more equitably across the globe. However, it's a moot point. The planet has been damaged beyond repair. The only question is how do we slow the process of inevitable catastrophic decline. Lastly is the question of whether citizens and countries can reduce their CO2 emissions without flying around the world to attend numerous climate conferences, and signing up for various mickey mouse "non binding" agreements and photo-ops And your alternative to these "mickey mouse non binding agreements" is?
Climate change is a complex question
First there is the question of global warming, which almost everyone agrees is happening.
Next is the question of whether this is part of a natural cycle (and the geological and fossil evidence shows that Earth's climate has varied wildly over the aeons)
Next is the question of whether industrialised countries "owe" developing countries for all the carbon they have burned over the last few hundred years, and how much money they have to pay, if any.
Lastly is the question of whether citizens and countries can reduce their CO2 emissions without flying around the world to attend numerous climate conferences, and signing up for various mickey mouse "non binding" agreements and photo-ops
Awesomeness wrote: » https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/914497947517227008 Doing his best to keep the north korea issue going
BabyCheeses wrote: » Remember the days when Trump supporters, sorry, I mean totally not Trump supporters, but he is totally doing a great job, the best job, used how Trump wouldn't go around starting wars as a plus? Where have they gone now?
The mayor of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico cast serious doubt Saturday on the claims made by San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz, who has repeatedly attacked President Trump and accused him of abandoning Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. Guaynabo’s mayor, Angel Perez, said in an interview with The Daily Caller that his experience with the federal government has been different from Cruz’s, in part because — unlike Cruz — he has been participating in meetings with officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies. Mayor Perez told TheDC that the story Cruz is telling the media doesn’t mesh with what he has seen from the federal government. “My experience is different. I have been participating in different meetings at the headquarters of FEMA and our government and the help is coming in and right now my experience is different from hers. I’m receiving help from the government, we are receiving assistance from FEMA
Nody wrote: » Now here's an interesting twist for 2020 election; how about Trump vs. Oprah? Now it sounds outlandish as a starting point but thinking about it from a Democrat point of view it would make sense; you have a woman of color who's got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge network already who's very popular. Will help engage the base and non whites alike and someone who can easily handle Trump in a debate or showdown.
Celticfire wrote: » So it seems that when San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has been busy spending her time getting t shirts and hats printed up (a remarkable feat considering the lack of power on the island) she hasn't bothered participating in any meeting with FEMA or other federal agencies. But it also seems that she's not the only democratic politician using the hardship that Puerto Ricans are going through to try to make Trump look bad. A police officer has called into a radio station to expose how aid is being held back. If this is found out to be true this is an absolute disgrace.
Celticfire wrote: » So it seems that when San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has been busy spending her time getting t shirts and hats printed up (a remarkable feat considering the lack of power on the island) she hasn't bothered participating in any meeting with FEMA or other federal agencies. But it also seems that she's not the only democratic politician using the hardship that Puerto Ricans are going through to try to make Trump look bad. A police officer has called into a radio station to expose how aid is being held back. If this is found out to be true this is an absolute disgrace.]
Manic Moran wrote: » Dear, God, no. I'll be as happy as the next man if Trump is pushed out in three and a quarter years by someone who actually acts vaguely presidential, but look at what you have proposed. Criterion #1. Woman of Colour. I thought we were supposed to be beyond categorizing people by race or gender, especially on the left, Criterion #2. Popular/famous. Oh, fantastic. Let's nominate Kim Kardashian or Taylor Swift for her running mate. Even more famousness. Criterion#3. Can handle Trump in a debate. Well, there's a high standard to set. Anything in there about policies? Working methodology? Legislative or governmental goals or priorities? Or just "can beat Trump", which I would state any good candidate can do. You are swinging too far the other direction from "political elite." Kamela Harris is unlikely to make it. A San Francisco liberal? I don't see it happening on the national level.
Inquitus wrote: » She's living in a cot in a shelter with 300 other people as her home is unliveable, please take your BS back the /r/the_donald and stay there.
