No, the White Working Class is NOT responsible for Donald Trump
The narrative from liberal blogs and pundits is that poor, white-trash rednecks turned out in huge numbers to elect Donald Trump because they are stupid, or racist, or both racist and stupid.
The reality is that this narrative is not only wrong, but shows a distinct richsplaining class bias.
There is also the narrative that millennials are also responsible because they didn't get a pony, but that's for another day.
"The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin."
- National Review
“Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous wave of support among working-class whites.”
- NYT, Nate Cohn
Here's how the trick is performed.
The white working class has received enormous attention since Election Day thanks to its critical role in electing Donald Trump the next president. Exit polls show he won this group — defined as white adults over 25 without a four-year degree — by an overwhelming margin of 39 percentage points.
The obvious question is "who in their right mind would define it that way?"
Nobody, that's who.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg never got a bachelor’s degree.
Class is about income and wealth, not education.
Trump voters were not more likely to be unemployed, compared to non-Trump voters. Income-wise, the single largest group of Trump supporters was comprised of individuals hailing from households earning incomes of more than $100,000 a year—which made up 35 percent of all his voters. Those earning between $75,000 to $100,000 a year accounted for 19 percent of Trump voters, meaning that 54 percent of the president’s supporters came from households earning over $75,000 a year. Another 20 percent of Trump supporters earned between $50,000 to $75,000 a year, putting them over the national median household income, which has long hovered around $50,000. In sum, approximately three-quarters of Trump voters were from households earning more than the national median income, while just one-quarter earned less than the median.
Of households earning over $100K, Trump got a marginally higher percentage of the vote than Hillary.
In other words, upper-income groups were overrepresented in the voting electorate as a whole, and both candidates drew a disproportionate part of their vote from the well-to-do, with Trump a bit more reliant on high-income voters.
Of the 135.5 million white Americans without degrees, only about a fifth voted for Trump.
So you see the problem.
The election that gave us Trump wasn't the result of racist, white, Archie Bunker hicks.
It was the result of well-off middle-class and upper-class voters, who may very well be just as racist as the stereotypical poor 'deplorable' redneck.
However, this factoid doesn't fit into the upper-class narrative.
It's also the same voters that the Democratic Party is pandering to so hard today.
There are some seventeen million small-business owners without that degree. As a 2016 survey by the National Small Business Association tells us, 86 percent of small-business owners are white, they are twice as likely to be Republicans as Democrats, almost two-thirds consider themselves conservative (78 percent on economic issues), and 92 percent say they regularly vote in national elections.
They drew an average salary of $112,000 in 2016 compared to $48,320 for the average annual wage. Add in the spouses, and this classically petty-bourgeois group alone could more than account for all the twenty-nine million of those lacking a college degree who voted for Trump.
The petty-bourgeois store-owner. Hmm. I believe Marx had something to say about them, and who they self-identify with.
“But the idea that it is the mostly poor, less-educated voters who are drawn to Mr. Trump is a bit of a myth.”
- Economist
That's not to say the Dems don't have a serious white working class problem.
It's just that the problem is that the Dems don't have a product worth buying.
The decline of working-class Democratic voters between 2012 and 2016 was much bigger than the rise of working-class Republican voters in the “Rust Belt Five.” Among those earning less than $50,000 a year there, the decline in Democratic voting was 3.5 times greater than the rise in Republican voting. Among white voters in general, the decline in Democratic voting was 2.1 times greater than the growth in Republican voting.
So then why did liberals embrace this myth that Trump won the white working class?
Even to the point of saying Democrats should give up on them and let them go?
For starters, there is a useful class element.
At the same time, many progressive thinkers are touchy about how little they’ve done to connect with, and fight for, working-class folks—the people who clean their offices, make their shampoo, take their blood pressure, haul their garbage and sell them their garden furnishings. The notion that those people have been turned into a bunch of right-wing racists, nativists and misogynists is perhaps subconsciously useful when it comes to rationalizing that failure.
...Establishment Democrats find it useful to continue smearing the white working class as a bunch of despicably racist and sexist rubes and reactionaries. This absolves them, they think, from their ongoing refusal to properly address the needs of the nation’s economically embattled working-class majority.
Except that it doesn't absolve them at all.
It doesn't change their election failures, nor will it prevent their election failures to come.
The only ones buying it are already in the Amen Choir.
On the other side of the coin, Republicans are eager to embrace the myth that Trump has the support of a great, popular, heartland “base”.
If you get told the lie enough times you might start believing it.
In the end, the real story here isn't a shift of Obama voters switching to Trump.
It's a story of the white working class not voting because the Dems didn't offer them anything.
Compared with 2012, three times as many voters in the Rust Belt who made under $100,000 voted for third parties. Twice as many voted for alternative or write-in candidates. Similarly, compared with 2012, some 500,000 more voters chose to sit out this presidential election. If there was a Rust Belt revolt this year, it was the voters’ flight from both parties.
In short, the story of a white working-class revolt in the Rust Belt just doesn't hold up, according to the numbers. In the Rust Belt, Democrats lost 1.35 million voters. Trump picked up less than half, at 590,000. The rest stayed home or voted for someone other than the major party candidates.
Make no mistake - voters and non-voters think very differently.
Non-voters tend to be poor and politically progressive.
So the narrative is right about one thing - Dems should give up on white working class Trump voters.
Instead they should focus entirely on motivating the non-voters to vote.
To do that they must stop telling people what can "never ever happen", and start creating a positive vision of the future with a message for everyone, not just for certain identity groups.
Comments
It's not just the whites,
working class voters of all races had lower turnout than might have been expected, likely because they fully realized that both major choices sucked.
Black turnout was low enough to be considered the primary culprit in Her loss, but no one dares breathe a word about that.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
but people of color LOVE Hilary!
But, but, but the HRC machine smeared Bernie with racist accusations, and machine Dem's, even including the likes of John Lewis, backed HRC, so she MUST have got the non-white working class to turn out, right? Right?
The least inspiring, most negative hack candidate since, what, Ted Cruz?
"Fear is the mind-killer" - Frank Herbert, Dune
@dervish It's not b/c they're
It's not b/c they're afraid of pissing off Black people--it's because they have to maintain the narrative that they are the defenders of racial justice and justice for LGBTQ people. And for women, of course. Without those monikers, they will have no reason for being. So they have to strip those movements of all actual concerns with money and power (guns, politics, laws) and make them solely about imagery, symbolism and manners. After the social justice movements are reorganized, they can then use them as their justification for being a political party, because they can oppose word choices and imagery without having to piss off the rich (who don't actually give a shit what words the little people call each other or how they depict each other)
[M. & MME. THENARDIER]
Watch 'em run amuck,
Catch 'em as they fall,
Never know your luck
When there's a free for all,
Here's a little 'dip'
There a little 'touch'
Most of them are goners
So they won't miss much!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Can the Democratic Party actually do that?
I mean...
The faction of the plutocracy that owns the party would have to put away its neoliberal dreams of universal conquest, for one. And as long as they're less put out by having the neofeudalist plutocrats who own the Republican Party in charge, that's not bloody likely. Which is why, IMHO, Bernie Sanders is presently running off down entirely the wrong path in his attempts to reform the beast from within. The conciliationist wing of the plutocracy that was so influential in the 1930s through the 1960s is now so small and powerless that reform is no longer possible, because it simply is not being allowed.
If and when there is an actual left that can seriously advocate and organize around such positive goals as universal, on-demand healthcare as a human right, a decent job with a living wage as a human right, thorough and complete education as a human right, then maybe we will start to get somewhere.
Not holding breath, though...
Movements like Occupy
have a greater chance of effecting change than the Democratic party does, and we don't need anyone's permission to get started.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Not just the Democratic Party, but any party
Occupy made a bunch of serious mistakes, but staying away from electoral politics wasn't one of them. If and when we get a serious, nationwide, independent grassroots movement, that movement can decide if we need a political party and then start one. Anything else is a waste of time & energy that we don't have much of. It's a horse-before-the-cart kind of thing.
@Tak If we have a party, I
If we have a party, I'd like it to be more like the Black Panthers. They had a political arm, but obviously that wasn't even half of what they did.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Bernie Has A Primary Opponent
because he is"too divisive" for the Democratic party and helped Trump win. Where do they find these people?
Riiiight. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-won-because-bernie-sanders-124001330.html
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
The long reach of Vlad the Putin.
Svitavsky is a Russian name. Therefore, Russians, under the direction of Vladimir Putin, are once again trying to manipulate our election, this time in favor of a Russian Democrat. It must be true because Russia/Putin is responsible for everything concerning US elections.
@Meteor Man
Lotsa cheating planned there, obviously... hope Vermont is savvy enough to work out a way to combat it.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Tak The Democratic Party can
The Democratic Party can't do what we want it to do. It would have to be wrested from the grasp of the people who actually control it, and they're no joke (as far as power is concerned; in all other ways, they pretty much are a joke, a bad one). So far, no reasonable plan has been offered for how to pry the power out of their hands and everyone who even criticizes them ends up kissing their collective asses as soon as their criticisms get pervasive enough to be noticed.
In fact, no plan has been offered that even bears the most casual scrutiny, or comparison with the actions of the people proposing said plan.
For instance, if you propose a political revolution based on primarying right-wing/corporate Democrats with progressive Democrats, and eventually gaining enough seats to take the leadership away from those who have controlled the party since the mid-1980s at least, and probably since the late sixties--and then you ditch Tim Canova and refuse to endorse him in his race against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Democrat who went to bat for the payday loan industry, to say nothing of all the other incredibly dirty shit she's done, guess what? Your plan is then revealed as not only unworkable, but actually fake.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
bing. bing. and bing.
Dead nuts. There were a Ton of reasons not to vote for HRC, and nary one to vote for Her. Didn't matter the class difference, the money difference, or who didn't have a college degree. There were enough voters and non voters in those various groups that Did Not vote for Her for a ton of reasons (or at least one). The biggest one, I'm guessing, is that many thought she didn't represent them, instead represented the Establishment wing of the party. In an election cycle that Clearly showed Dems were looking for something to break the losing streak "the party" served up the same ol' lame ol'. Then pointed fingers at the Rank & File as the traitors that failed their Hillary. No, DNC, you failed the rank & file. And got exactly what you deserved.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
@Wink
Hillary got the psychopath voters and some uniformed ones...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
What few are willing to discuss is that this political system
is responsible for Donald Trump. The American people were given a "choice" between Trump and Clinton under a duopoly party system. That's what we're going to get until we change it and that's why one of them won.
Choice
People have a choice and they have shown to never use it. If a person doesn't have a D or R they don't vote for them.
Other parties exist, but people don't vote for them. If people didn't want Democrats or Republicans, they could have voted Libertarian or Green. But no. People either are pre-programmed to vote for the duopoly or simply not vote.
I don't know, it seems very simple to me somehow. You continue to get the same things, as in things getting worse and worse, because you continue to vote for the same people over and over and over again. So...perhaps you should stop voting for those people and go for someone else?
We're trapped. Everything is funneled into this two party
system. Look at the way things are reported, like the health care issue, it's republicans vs democrats. Those that control us refuse to allow it to be any other way.
We can't fight it with a third party, we have to take it down, which means some serious action outside the election process. But that can't be done unless enough people who keep talking about it, like us, get together and decide that's what needs to be done.
Course that's my opinion and that's a big part of the problem, everyone's got one.
@Big Al I guess overall is
I guess overall is that so often people are sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans; however, these same people then go to the voting booth, look down the list, ignore everyone that doesn't have a D or R and then votes for the D or R. They then leave said voting booth shaking their head.
So Al, I guess my point is if we can't even get people to just not vote for the duopoly and vote for someone else on that ticket, a simple checkmark on a piece of paper -- how do we get people to go with the more arduous task of going outside the political system and taking it all down?
That's what we're working on my friend.
Eventually there will be a spark that starts it.
Really good analysis.
These numbers were revealing themselves over the summer, leading up to the election. They were going in the opposite direction of the "narrative" however.
There was a open message board I was following closely called, "Ask a Trump Supporter." Anyone could ask or answer questions, but it was nothing like Free Republic or other right-wing enclaves. For one thing, many of the Trump supporters did not seem to know a lot about politics. But they were doing their best to explain how they felt. Sure, there were ideologues and right-wing narrative-types who were spouting the party line, but not as much as you might think. Many times a commenter would say that this was the first time they could discuss Donald Trump in public because there was so much damaging pushback from family, friends, and coworkers in their community. From them I learned about the bumper stickers and yard signs that Americans were too scared to display in 2016.
I think the way the Republican primaries were handled was a significant part of this story. Every week during Fall 2015 and continuing throughout the 2016 primaries, one major media barker would pop off this headline: "Trump is Toast, Now!" Instead, Trump blew past 16 challengers for the Republican nomination. People were voting their hearts out to put Trump over the top. The Republican Establishment was indignant and confused after their convention. The Democrats were arrogant. The Pollsters were increasingly wary and suspected they were being had. They were.
I don't think anyone knew for sure who the voters were. The Parties were selling narratives, not policies. And they still are. For example, the Republican leader's fall back narrative, when challenged on their utterly preposterous health care replacement bill is: "We are exercising the will of the People" and "The American people are overwhelmingly against single payer health care." The Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are still neck-hung with the ridiculous "Russia Russia Russia" albatross and have nothing else to offer.
They are both completely clueless.
Mission accomplished, I guess.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
I was nervous about my Stein bumper sticker
I was seriously concerned that someone in deep blue Seattle would trash my car during the election season. I finally put it on and of course nothing happened. It actually feels good now to have it out there. And maybe having it on the road for the next 4 years will raise more awareness.
One thing I think the greens are really bad at is marketing. The bumper sticker I have is one that I couldn't order from the campaign store for about two months after it was announced ("Choose the greater good"). It was by far the best slogan they had. Eventually I got tired of waiting and downloaded the jpg and printed my own at a business fulfillment website.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
I felt the same about having a Bernie sticker in Illinois.
I had no qualms about my old Howard Dean sticker. But Clinton and Emanuel are so -- criminal.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Hillary Clinton is the very embodiment
of a neoliberal establishment which, after eight years of controlling the White House, had revealed itself to be: Arrogant, self-righteous, privileged, condescending, hypocritical, and largely ineffectual.
Clinton offered the US public nothing new and original, because there was nothing either new or original about her. She was a walking talking billboard for business-as-usual and more-of-the-same. In the upper reaches of Neoliberal Land, a region in which bad things do not often occur, her message and persona were well-received, and her candidacy was widely celebrated.
Elsewhere, not nearly so much... or at least not quite enough. For a wide variety of different and often unrelated reasons, way too many Americans considered Obama's reign to have been an utter failure. This was not eclusively, or even primarily a class-based opinion. Trump's voters considered that a one-man wrecking crew was preferable to yet another phoney, neoliberal do-gooder. This may not have been the wisest choice, but then again, how much choice did anyone actually have?
native
@native
Seems to me that policy on both sides of the Two-Faced Corporate Party is being dictated by major corporate interests and billionaires and that whoever is selected to enact these merely does so.
The whole tottering, corrupted mess needs to come down - neatly, into its own footprint, as though by its own internal destruction, so that it doesn't take out anything that might be still worth saving.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
ok but income is clearly not the only issue either.....
Why would 25% of Trump voters who are below the median income, support Trump. You are clearly indicating that Trump also only won the top income bracket marginally as well.
What percent of the 25% of Trump voters who are below the median income are also white? I would guess 80-90%? I am not sure why you are posing this question because unless Latino, African American and Asian Americans below the Median income also voted at the same rate as White voters below the median income, there really is no argument to be made that white voters aren't more racist. It really can't be about "Morals" because we know Trump has none.
You make several big assumptions
I never said anything about race, except to mock the liberal narrative. This essay is about class, which you seem to dismiss as not important.
I would say that upper-class people voting for a billionaire might disagree with you.
I don't know. Why would 27% of latinos vote for Trump?
You know it doesn't all depend on race.
you said yourself the highest income bracket voted against Trum
So the fact that the highest income bracket nearly voted themselves a tax increase rather than a tax decrease has no meaning either? I guess it shouldn't be too surprising. The highest income bracket are probably very smart people who understand that they only are rich because they sell stuff the rest of us want.
You seem to make assumptions about the reasons people did not vote. I do not. I think there is a myriad of reasons including laziness, and lack of knowledge of the voting process.
@kidfrumcleveland
Trump was Not-Clinton. Not The Mad Bomber. There was no choice given, and Trump's very unpredictability and lack of 'political' (warmongering) connections gave some slim chance for survival of the next 4 years, so some voted for the shit sandwich to avoid the arsenic-sprinkled shit sandwich otherwise shoved down their throats.
We are close to becoming, but not yet, radioactive slag, which I think we'd likely have been before now under the Clintons, and where there's still life on the planet, there's still hope.
We cannot ever again vote for any evil.
The people of various countries will have to, if required, create their own governments of, by and for the people by forming new parties which, when in opposition, will wrangle over ways to best benefit the public, rather than the best ways to screw them over the most.
And not tolerate or honour any suspicious results of any more non-transparent, non-independently-overseen, privately run elections.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
This narrative is pushed because it sets the Dems up to lose
next time and still be bewildered and righteous in their angry bewilderment at "how can these exceptional Americans betray us again?" security blanket of failure.
I wonder how they will react when a new progressive party wins CA's electoral college votes in 2020, which will effectively lock Dems out of the presidency forever
I can actually see that taking form in the future
…and it's not wishful thinking. In fact, it's a melancholy turn of events that will usher in progressiveness, because it represents collective survival.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Millenials
Looking forward to your analysis on millennials:
And why they reject capitalism: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp...
Very interesting.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Is anyone here familiar with the work of Jordan Greenhall?
I find it to be absolutely fascinating. He has a brilliant and I think very accurate analysis of what the "Trump phenomenon" really is all about. It's not about Trump himself, but about a deep and historical transformation of our entire system of social control. Google "the blue church" for a doorway into this line of thinking.
https://medium.com/rally-point-journal/understanding-the-blue-church-e47...
and
http://bigthink.com/videos/jordan-greenhall-how-russias-election-meddlin...
regarding the Russian hacking narrative
native
@native I'm reading the first
I'm reading the first article you linked now and agree, this is fascinating.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
The Blue Church
Aptly named since religion was the original means for social coherency before the advent of media.
Good read. Will follow Jordan's work.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Yes, I think so too.
His analysis cuts through a lot of the murk surrounding contemporary political events, in a very original way. It reaches what appears to be a fairly firm dialectical foundation. The comments to his article also are generally well-informed, and echo the thoughts of many here at caucus99percent.
native
Second link didn't work
Try this one.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
That's got it. Muchas gracias.
native
Greenhall is brilliant
I'm slowly absorbing his stuff as we speak.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
I've heard of him now.
I took time to deconstruct the Blue Church so I got it right. It's a very useful paradigm. Thanks, native, for posting the links. The reader's comments were rich, as well.
Working within his premise, I arrived at a somewhat more optimistic conclusion than he did. (I know. Right? I give good doom.) His lens on the Democratic Party (and its cohort in the Deep State) as they used the inherent authority of mass media to promote narratives to guide society through increasing complexity — was a pretty awesome endeavor. It worked pretty well for everyone, almost all the way through the 20th century — until they got insanely drunk on Power and Greed. When the people collectively notice their lives are deteriorated, in a rich state, you better run for the hills.
When I think about how much trouble they are in right now, I am afraid for them. They lost their cover.
I almost feel bad as I watch that Party, a part of history, rapidly unravel.
They're never coming back, you know.
Little wonder they can't "see" it.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
I won't miss them
What's happening now isn't much different than what happened after Gutenberg. People shared and processed information differently, so society had to rearrange itself accordingly. Few believed in the priests in quite the same way. The Church survived Gutenberg, albeit in very different circumstances.
Likewise, the oligarchs will survive too, but not without trouble and struggle, and hopefully a loss of some power. What won't survive are hollow, naive forms of information exchange (the MSM), and the political structures that depended upon them. We'll dance on the grave of the Democratic party, but the Left will thrive.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
The "Did Not Vote" piece is astounding.
Here's a link to the original post and to an update.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
Key excerpt :
https://medium.com/rally-point-journal/situational-assessment-2017-trump...
native
Here's another problem.
The Left's contempt for small business is so counter productive.
The reason more small business people don't vote for Democrats is not a class issue. Quite the opposite, as most small business peoples' average salaries are less than $75000.
Small business believe (with ample justification) that 'liberal' policies simply add more burdens without ever returning consummate benefits - that they are looked upon simply as tax farms for big government programs that do nothing for them.
Not that they like the Republicans any better - since the Goopers are all about helping big business screw small business - but the policy consequences are less direct, so when given a Hobson's choice between a present cash taking and a future erosion of prospects, the small business owner typically chooses to defer payment.
Yet small business people can be natural Progressive allies. They just need a good reason to vote. Universal Health Care can be a potent carrot. There are others.
What doesn't help is 19th century name calling. Just sounds like the same old, over educated, elitist rationalization for why a certain group of people should not vote in their own best interest.
Never a winning argument.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It IS a class issue.
Income does not determine class. Although often class determines income.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
They are part of the 99%.
Same as you and me.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
But they don't identify with us.
They are owners, businessmen. They identify with Rockefeller and Sam Walton and Trump.
The people who work for them are tools, lazy slobs who could be businessmen if they weren't so dumb.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Maybe they need an attitude adjustment.
They can write off every damned thing under the sun, and they pay among the lowest tax rates in the world (according to Forbes misery index).
I think they have a case of AM Radio brain rot. WATB's are probably skimming off the top, as is their entitlement. I know that type.
We don't need them. We need to do right by their employees and make sure they are protected by strong labor regulations and a proper income. Wage theft is completely out of control in the US, especially in small businesses. They need representation — along with health care for their families and a ticket to education as high as they can go. We serve them.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
(1) Hillary was the War candidate
(2) She wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare (that we've largely paid for ourselves) for all us "greedy geezers" - "I think Simpson and Bowles [of the Catfood Commission] had about the right idea."
(3) She said she was agreeable to further restrictions on abortion.
(4) She insisted that we would "never ever" have single payer health care.
(5) She opposed the $15 minimum wage.
(6) She didn't bother to actually campaign for our votes.
Etc. Lots of good reasons to not vote for her, despite all the big media acting as part of her campaign.
As is so common with your
As is so common with your essays, this was The Best Of The Best, right up to here:
Please, don't suggest that these psychopaths start lying to Americans again.
The psychopaths need to be cleaned out of office, not repeatedly voted back in on a rotating basis to maintain the fictions of 2 different parties both invariably creating further and worse disaster (profitable for them and their paymasters) for not only their own people and country but everyone else's as well... There's no time left any more... not that my measly 2 cents is worth anything.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
thanks for saying that and the amazing graphs
and
and
The did not vote graph was awesome.
All true, imo. Thanks for the analysis, gjohnsit.
https://www.euronews.com/live
So, the real story is:
only in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine--8 states out of 50--did the people consider it worth their while to vote.
Sounds like it's time to call time of death on this experiment and try another one. It was promising, but it failed. Or, rather, it showed itself exceedingly vulnerable to sabotage, perhaps because of certain devil's deals it made in the beginning, but more likely because it never factored money into its considerations beyond asserting a general right to own private property. Money as a source of power was not factored in to the checks and balances, but was rather considered something roughly equivalent to the weather: a morally neutral, inevitable force.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
If Kim Kardashian runs
the voter base will likely get fired up enough to get out and vote.
I like Robert Heinlein's poll test. A voter walks into a booth and has to solve a differential equation before they are allowed to choose our leaders.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish
Ahhh, but would would-be leaders need to be able to solve differential equations before they could run?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Yes,
but I would add integral calculus as well, the bar is higher for elected officials.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish
My criteria would include things like trying to survive on minimum wage with nothing beyond what they earn for a year prior, something that I'd consider an understanding of as being more essential to governance. If they've already done that and are provably not now insulated from being of, by and for the people by wealth - or the desire to be, at any cost (to others) - then they're good to run.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal I'm curious on these 8
I'm curious on these 8 states (I'm one of them Minnesota). Why was it worth it to vote?
A high turn out? I guess I haven't looked at the data. I don't know, I'm curious now.
@Strife Delivery that's what the map
that's what the map suggests.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver