Quantcast
Trump winning is to be blamed only on the left

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump winning is to be blamed only on the left

bdbdbd said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The greens are a wild card, most of them are socially left, but some eco-modernist can be quite right-wing. But I think Jill stein is left. The only "alt" movement I hear of is the alt-right and I don't think I need to explain their position, regressive is a term that's frankly useless in a political debate, the "multiculturals" can be both socialist (as in trying to unite all people for collective betterment, irrespective of culture) and liberals (defend certain moral or decency standards concerning culture, unless these people attack them on economic terms, then they're the devil) and anarchists are left, always on the left.

I mean generally in Europe.

Multiculturalism is actually anarchism by itself, but I think your view on anachism is a little narrow. As a Marxist you're an internationalist, that's pretty much the other side of the the same coin that I am on (nationalist), but we both view equality as some sort of a goal. Anarchism, how it views itself in today's society is having different rules for different people, that would be the opposite to nationalism and internationalism.

Regressive is a good term because of the policies for example of fighting discrimination with more discrimination, and segregation with more segregation, etc.

The alt-left is there - maybe not in it's own group, but inside different groups.

The same (more or less) collective group is called by different names in different countries, hence the long list of names. 

I find regressive to be used quite willy-nilly and very poorly defined, that's why Idon't like the term.

Marxists can be nationalists, in a liberatory sense, like Fidel Castro ;)



Around the Network

Hillary was centre-right, so you should blame the centrists instead. The left were against both Clinton and Trump.



WolfpackN64 said:
bdbdbd said:

I mean generally in Europe.

Multiculturalism is actually anarchism by itself, but I think your view on anachism is a little narrow. As a Marxist you're an internationalist, that's pretty much the other side of the the same coin that I am on (nationalist), but we both view equality as some sort of a goal. Anarchism, how it views itself in today's society is having different rules for different people, that would be the opposite to nationalism and internationalism.

Regressive is a good term because of the policies for example of fighting discrimination with more discrimination, and segregation with more segregation, etc.

The alt-left is there - maybe not in it's own group, but inside different groups.

The same (more or less) collective group is called by different names in different countries, hence the long list of names. 

I find regressive to be used quite willy-nilly and very poorly defined, that's why Idon't like the term.

Marxists can be nationalists, in a liberatory sense, like Fidel Castro ;)

Well, the people who put "right" in the same basket, are also being put in the same "left" basket too.

I guess so. Though, Marxism saw itself as a global force to counter the cosmopolitan capital. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

"We have an USA facing an horrendous crisis where many families are unsure about their surviving"

Wow.



Bet with bluedawgs: I say Switch will outsell PS4 in 2018, he says PS4 will outsell Switch. He's now permabanned, but the bet will remain in my sig.

NNID: Slarvax - Steam: Slarvax - Friend Code:  SW 7885-0552-5988

you say democrats should have talked about the economy and job. You're right. While Trump was lying about the economy and jobs,75% of Trump voters falsely believe the Dow Jones went down and the unemployment rate went up, The Democrats should have been telling the truth. Under Obama the Dow Jones went from 7000's to 19000's and the unemployment rate went from 7.4 to 4.6. If more than 40 million Americans have not voted based on the assertions of a political slogan, We have to " make America great again" because it's not great now.



Around the Network
bdbdbd said:
ShadowSoldier said:
Not solely...I mean the racist fucks that voted for Trump are to blame as well you know.

Oh the irony. I mean Clinton campaign was nothing but fueling racism and sexism, and then the fucks go on to make a 180 turn and vote for Trump who's campaign focused on jobs and socioecomy.

Insidb said:

This is a HUGE component; she was a terrible candidate, and only Trump was worse.

Except that I seriously don't know which one was worse.

WolfpackN64 said:

As any real leftist knows, the economy is the foundation of society, and if you're right on economic issues, you're right-wing. Doesn't matter how far your social policies go.

US has one party on the right and another even more on the right. I think you're right to an extent. But before discussing it further, where would you put today's green/alt/regressive/multicultural left (or whatever you're used calling it) anarchists on a political scale?

WolfpackN64 said:

The problem is that these debates, with the rise of social media has been very polarized. Most liberals I know here think Trump voters are all just "dumb people". As a Marxist, I often have to defend the American electorate. Most people didn't vote for Trump for his racist or sexist talk, but for what he stood for economically and in some cases socially (I can't see conservative people in the US voting for Hillary anyway). That's why the Democrats needed Sanders. Someone who's really on the left and who runs on an economical platform. But they persisted in Hillary and they lost.

It's not just social media, but media in general. What media around here told us about the US candidates campaigns, everything Trump did or said was perceived as bad by the media, and everything Clinton did or said was perceived as good.

Sanders would have been a no-brainer as a populist, but his age had also been an issue. Not that Clinton or Trump would be young, but not as old as Sanders.

irstupid said:

First, we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Always have been.

Second, more votes does not equal the will of the people. The U.S. is huge. It is spread out. Yet the majority live in a FEW clustered cities. If we were a pure democracy and went vote majority wins, the presidential canidates woudl spend their entire time sitting in New York, LA, Houston and Chicago. They would "buy" their votes with campaign promises that woudl solely benefit the people who live in those cities.

Finally someone who actually gets this, it actually might be a bigger problem than the current system. Also, didn't Trump skip some of the states he thought he had no chance of winning anyway? This is important when you think of the popular vote, that he actually gave up on some voters that might have won him the popular vote in the end. Of course, this is just speculation.

Being presented with both options, I favor with competence, stability, and economic policy (The Republicans always seem to get this wrong.).



bdbdbd said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I find regressive to be used quite willy-nilly and very poorly defined, that's why Idon't like the term.

Marxists can be nationalists, in a liberatory sense, like Fidel Castro ;)

Well, the people who put "right" in the same basket, are also being put in the same "left" basket too.

I guess so. Though, Marxism saw itself as a global force to counter the cosmopolitan capital. 

I know, capitalism is a global force, you can only try to fight it on a global scale. But what I meant is that Marxism can be global and local at the same time.



irstupid said:
Nem said:
The only thing to blame is how the US still manages to prance around democracy and liberty when they don't have a democratic system and throw completely appauling notions like "tiranny of the majority" to justify it. You know what tiranny of the majority is called? Democracy. And it's the fairest governing system there is.

While the US doesn't adopt it and keeps using outdated electoral systems created with a whole different reality in mind (aka how it was impossible to get results in just one day and different states would have to send news of their results by horse) these situations will keep happening. And i don't care wether it's left or right. It's downright shameful for the so called bastion of freedom to not even have a working democracy.

This is very simple. More votes = the will of the people. Not those guys voting over there are worth more than the ones voting over here. It completely ludicrous and the fact that it's still around is proof of the damage it has already done. The US is in a spiral of degradation due to that system and with presidents like Bush and Trump benefitting from it, it is very likely progress won't happen and even more americans are raised without proper educations, wich in turn lead to more of said president's getting elected and more lack of progress.

First, we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Always have been.

Second, more votes does not equal the will of the people. The U.S. is huge. It is spread out. Yet the majority live in a FEW clustered cities. If we were a pure democracy and went vote majority wins, the presidential canidates woudl spend their entire time sitting in New York, LA, Houston and Chicago. They would "buy" their votes with campaign promises that woudl solely benefit the people who live in those cities.

I have heard what you have said on the subject before and i disagree. Thats not what history says, especially if you look up under WW2.

Regardless of tactics, you cannot at your own discretion decide that one person should be more valuable than another. That is not democratic or egalitarian. Its is therefore socially and moraly reprehensable.



LivingMetal said:
Soundwave said:

Well the first point is not really logic, it's a fact, more people did vote for Clinton. 

The second part is sure yes ... every time you have a president in power for 8 years or so there's a group of people who will automatically just vote for the "other guy" just because they feel like changing it up. 

In the case of those 80,000 votes that swung the election result basically could that have been a factor? Sure I think so. That's a very small amount of the population, but when you're talking a tiny amount like this, every little bit can swing the result. 

You're right.  The first point was not logic.  I wasn't even fact.  A more accurate statement would have been.  "Clinton won the overall vote by a huge margin. More people who voted in the United States wanted her as president than Trump."  But I digress because Iwas referring to YOUR conflict of logic in which the two statement conflicted each other.

What is your evidence, or at the very least your reason for suspecting, that more people who didn't vote wanted President Trump compared to President Clinton, when you do not dispute that of the people who did vote more wanted Clinton vs. Trump?  (If the people who didn't vote don't care at all, or are equally split, then the claim "more wanted Clinton than Trump" would still be true.  So logically you must believe that the non-voters favored Trump by a huge margin.) 

And I would argue that there is no logical conflict whatsoever between "more people wanted Clinton than Trump" and "there is a group of people that just mindlessly votes against whatever party has been in power when the second term expires".  He never said that this group was a majority of the country.  Just enough to make a swing.  Please explain how you think these two claims are in logical conflict with each other. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

WolfpackN64 said:
ratuscafoarterea said:

No, you're wrong. That's not how she presented herself on the campaign, especially on the social policy’s. 

As any real leftist knows, the economy is the foundation of society, and if you're right on economic issues, you're right-wing. Doesn't matter how far your social policies go.

You didn't read, but that's fine.