3 ms·

> It's just a matter of time before people revolt Trump was the first warning sign IMO, and some are still not taking it seriously, blaming the voters themselv

> It's just a matter of time before people revolt Trump was the first warning sign IMO, and some are still not taking it seriously, blaming the voters themselves for being so dissatisfied with the status quo that they would take a chance on someone like that.

krapp 4y ago
>blaming the voters themselves for being so dissatisfied with the status quo that they would take a chance on someone like that. It is the fault of the voters. Especially after it was obvious Trump was just a grifter who couldn't care less about the common man, and they voted for him again because they were scared of the immigrants and black activists with whom they should have had class solidarity. And it will still be the voters' fault when they vote for him a third time in 2024, based on whatever batshit QAnon lunacy their conservative truth-bubbles drip into their eyeballs. And Trump wasn't the first warning sign by any means. Arguably Occupy was the first warning sign in recent memory. We don't recognize that because the current narrative is that "the left" supports the status quo of the elites, neoliberalism and capitalism while "the right" are the anti-capitalist, anti-statist underdogs.
- naasking 4y ago
  > It is the fault of the voters. Especially after it was obvious Trump was just a grifter who couldn't care less about the common man You mean like most other politicians? > and they voted for him again because they were scared of the immigrants and black activists with whom they should have had class solidarity This racist trope is propaganda. Also, "class solidarity" is not a thing anymore thanks to the dominant parties who have been squashing it for over 50 years. > Arguably Occupy was the first warning sign in recent memory. Occupy didn't accomplish anything, it was a weak protest. Electing Trump definitely accomplished something and proved the discontent runs deep and can affect the cushy established class. Then came the messaging about baskets of deplorables and ultra-maga threats to democracy.
- esarbe 4y ago
  Voters in the US have very little actual influence when it comes to national politics. Yes, they have one final vote, but their vote is highly distorted due to systemic issues, like e.g. first-past-the-post. There are 300 million people in the US. How come the voters only get to make a binary decision? Simple; because the two parties have designed everything so that the voter only gets to make that decision. So, I'd say that blaming the voters is a bit short-sighted when it comes to a quasi-aristocracy like the US.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Then why should Trump voters be considered a "warning sign" of anything? Either Trump's election was a successful populist repudiation of the status quo - as they themselves will often claim - in which case voters clearly had power (albeit extremely limited by the system) or they don't and he was in essence elected by the system, despite for some reason not being the best candidate for the party.
esarbe 4y ago
Indeed! Trump winning was to a large degree just a sign of the times; too many people were unsatisfied with the status quo. 2016 had two outsider candidates (Trump, Sanders) and while the Democrats managed to smother their revolt, the Republicans - because of existing structures, see "Tea party" - didn't. In his term of office, Trump managed to address few of the problems that got him elected to office - the discontentment is still there, brewing and festering.

krapp 4y ago

>blaming the voters themselves for being so dissatisfied with the status quo that they would take a chance on someone like that. It is the fault of the voters. Especially after it was obvious Trump was just a grifter who couldn't care less about the common man, and they voted for him again because they were scared of the immigrants and black activists with whom they should have had class solidarity. And it will still be the voters' fault when they vote for him a third time in 2024, based on whatever batshit QAnon lunacy their conservative truth-bubbles drip into their eyeballs. And Trump wasn't the first warning sign by any means. Arguably Occupy was the first warning sign in recent memory. We don't recognize that because the current narrative is that "the left" supports the status quo of the elites, neoliberalism and capitalism while "the right" are the anti-capitalist, anti-statist underdogs.

naasking 4y ago
> It is the fault of the voters. Especially after it was obvious Trump was just a grifter who couldn't care less about the common man You mean like most other politicians? > and they voted for him again because they were scared of the immigrants and black activists with whom they should have had class solidarity This racist trope is propaganda. Also, "class solidarity" is not a thing anymore thanks to the dominant parties who have been squashing it for over 50 years. > Arguably Occupy was the first warning sign in recent memory. Occupy didn't accomplish anything, it was a weak protest. Electing Trump definitely accomplished something and proved the discontent runs deep and can affect the cushy established class. Then came the messaging about baskets of deplorables and ultra-maga threats to democracy.
esarbe 4y ago
Voters in the US have very little actual influence when it comes to national politics. Yes, they have one final vote, but their vote is highly distorted due to systemic issues, like e.g. first-past-the-post. There are 300 million people in the US. How come the voters only get to make a binary decision? Simple; because the two parties have designed everything so that the voter only gets to make that decision. So, I'd say that blaming the voters is a bit short-sighted when it comes to a quasi-aristocracy like the US.
- krapp 4y ago
  Then why should Trump voters be considered a "warning sign" of anything? Either Trump's election was a successful populist repudiation of the status quo - as they themselves will often claim - in which case voters clearly had power (albeit extremely limited by the system) or they don't and he was in essence elected by the system, despite for some reason not being the best candidate for the party.

esarbe 4y ago

Indeed! Trump winning was to a large degree just a sign of the times; too many people were unsatisfied with the status quo. 2016 had two outsider candidates (Trump, Sanders) and while the Democrats managed to smother their revolt, the Republicans - because of existing structures, see "Tea party" - didn't. In his term of office, Trump managed to address few of the problems that got him elected to office - the discontentment is still there, brewing and festering.