Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 533273)

What's happening is those folks are becoming perhaps the most important part of the Republican party because they are highly motivated and well financed; remember, Republican primaries in 2020, a high-turnout year, totaled about 18 million voters. Now revisit the "maybe 10 million" number you had - that's a number that, with high motivation, can dominate that process.

Today, I suspect you can count on one hand the Republicans who can be elected without enthusiastic backing from that constituency. Certainly here in Massachusetts, they chased an otherwise popular Republican governor from oiffice.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533272)

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533263)

Sensitivity? I just described them as clueless and credulous.

I also noted that they are not the most downtrodden in borrowing the descriptive “Upper Precariat.”

If you’re in constant fear of being downsized, you’re in a bad place. Pick an adjective.

You just want to call them all racists. I actually agree many of them are. But as I noted earlier, the interplay between economic anxiety and racist attitudes is complex. You’d rather see it bluntly, call them all racists and being done with it. This of course allows you to avoid the discussion of how neoliberalism is one of the biggest causes of Trumpism.

Your version of capitalism is, “Fuck the middle; charity for the bottom.” That’s fine. I don’t really give a fuck because I don’t think the situation is solvable. But at least I own that corner. You want to be an apologist for monopolies and neoliberal polices that fuck the poor and the middle and absolve yourself of being selfish by saying “I’m in favor of greater redistribution…”. That’s crumbs for the desperate. And your bullshit in that regard is the definition of transparent.

You’re as selfish as any of the rest of us, including me.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 533215)

Someone with your track record should be very careful about typing those words. You only think you're correct because of your incorrect stereotype of who the Trump backers are.

They are not the economically downtrodden. They are just white people.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533275)

One: Trump was not elected by racists. Millions of racists voted for him, but he was elected by people who voted third party.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533264)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533266)

But since Ty insists, consider this. If the best gauge of racist sentiment on this list is immigration, which is true, it still ranks 14 percent below the economy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2016-election/

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533268)

And this is probably the most significant hole in Ty's argument. It is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. Most notably, the unsupported and unsupportable assumption that because Trump voters aren't uniquely destitute, they must be racist.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533276)

Stop changing the subject. Here's Adder's post that you and Hank objected to:



Adder was right. Trump's supporters are not "the economically downtrodden." Do they have grievances? Sure? Plenty of people have grievances and aren't the economically downtrodden. Elon Musk for example. Might they feel economically vulnerable? Sure, who doesn't? It is very clear that support for Trump generally correlates with income, not the reverse. If you look at the population and try to figure out where Trump's support is, it is exactly *not* the economically downtrodden.

Among other things, I think it's hysterical that you think I'm an apologist for monopolies. But that's a whole different conversation.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533279)

I don't believe I've said that Trump voters are racists in this thread, and it seems like you are bringing it up in order to change the subject. Whatever else is true, Trump voters are white and more affluent than Biden or Clinton voters, in general.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533282)

My response to you was regarding your assertion I’ve no love for the dirt poor. Neither of us does. Your charity is largely performative. For us to make real redistributions that would help the truly poor and middle, people like us would have to seriously downgrade our lifestyles. The economy would have to be radically altered.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 533281)

You defended certain of the FAANGS in prior conversations about them being monopolies.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533284)

Amazon -- not sure they are a monopolist, and tend to think that the things they do are generally consistent with consumer welfare

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533285)

Why/how does it help human welfare?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 533286)

They deliver all kinds of goods to your door. I certainly have many books on my shelf that I've never seen in a bookstore. In their core business, they compete by giving people what they want. When are you forced to transact with them for lack of options?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 533285)

Why/how does it help human welfare?