The economic consequences of a Trump US Presidential Victory?

TrickyTree83

I find the irony of those claiming the higher popular vote for Hillary means she should challenge the result (as yet to be conclusively determined) are some of the same on here who want to deny the popular vote in the UK for Brexit. Interesting.

I propose that the left's brand of politics has become toxic and it is this that is being rejected. In the same way that in history toxic politics on the right has been roundly rejected by the majority in favour of the left for many decades, they've now become too arrogant to succeed, in my belief the support for this brand of politics now reflects this too. The politicians, the politics, the manifestos and policies, the support of the left appears to have gone too far and can no longer claim to be anywhere near the centre politically. Those who used to be liberal are now increasingly authoritarian, one case in point regarding the US election is Trump's proposal to deport illegal immigrants. The left in the US claim this will tear apart families, they're probably correct, however Trump is just suggesting that they uphold the law of the land. Where is the controversy in that? When did the politics of the left become more powerful than law?

I'm sure even those with only a minor interest in what happens in the US, UK and politics in general can point to problems the so called "liberals" on the left have with the following definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Masomnia

zagubov wrote: »

Would it be time for all democracies to consider compulsory voting?

I don't see what is to be gained really.

If people don't care enough to think about the candidates and their policies and then vote then it doesn't seem a good idea to force them to. If they disagree with the system then it seems unfair to force them to take part.

Masomnia

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I find the irony of those claiming the higher popular vote (as yet to be conclusively determined) are some of the same on here who want to deny the popular vote in the UK for Brexit. Interesting.

I propose that the left's brand of politics has become toxic and it is this that is being rejected. In the same way that in history toxic politics on the right has been roundly rejected by the majority in favour of the left for many decades, they've now become too arrogant to succeed, in my belief the support for this brand of politics now reflects this too. The politicians, the politics, the manifestos and policies, the support of the left appears to have gone too far and can no longer claim to be anywhere near the centre politically. Those who used to be liberal are now increasingly authoritarian, one case in point regarding the US election is Trump's proposal to deport illegal immigrants. The left in the US claim this will tear apart families, they're probably correct, however Trump is just suggesting that they uphold the law of the land. Where is the controversy in that? When did the politics of the left become more powerful than law?

I don't know if it's exclusive to the left or if it just seems more pronounced at the moment because they're on the back foot.

I think it is just another form of bigotry and the inability of some people to see how or why others will think differently to themselves, coupled with very simplistic and tribal thinking. A lot of Clinton supporters (not all of them of course) write off Trump supporters as racists, xenophobes, idiots etc and can't grasp why people think differently, and then wonder why they lose the contest. Similar to Brexit here.

As I saw the attitude summed up 'I called them racists, xenophobes, idiots and morons, and they still won't vote how I tell them to.' The way to win an argument is to engage with people.

mrginge

The rambling desperation of a sore loser egomaniac who loves democracy right up the point it doesn't deliver the answer that he wants.

Thrugelmir

mrginge wrote: »

The rambling desperation of a sore loser egomaniac who loves democracy right up the point it doesn't deliver the answer that he wants.

Detachment created by a lifetime spent on Twitter and Facebook perhaps.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Masomnia wrote: »

I don't like Trump and I wouldn't have voted for him, but he won under the system that they have. If America wants to change the system it's up to them.

America doesn't need to change the system.

The system already allows some members of the electoral college to vote for candidates other than the ones they're pledged to.

Whether they do or not remains to be seen.

Conrad

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I propose that the left's brand of politics has become toxic and it is this that is being rejected.

The left is terrified it might actually be wrong. and is scrabbling around for scapegoats such as over-turning democratic votes and dismissing their opponents voters as ignorant.

Conrad

An interesting point to keep in mind is Reagan was dismissed as a clown and a B Movie actor that didn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran.


Lyndon B Johnson and Nixon had nasty flaws but history overall judged them to have made a lot of good calls (no, not all, yawn)

TrickyTree83

Conrad wrote: »

The left is terrified it might actually be wrong. and is scrabbling around for scapegoats such as over-turning democratic votes and dismissing their opponents voters as ignorant.

I wouldn't go as far as saying they're 'wrong', centre-left has some good ideas to improve everyone's lot in life, some of it pragmatic in my opinion. But the current state of affairs with safe spaces, trigger warnings, the rise of the radical feminist (see Ghostbusters remake where men are ridiculed), amongst many other "progressive" agendas which are actually regressive, particularly against white males who are to be branded as whatever derogatory term the "liberal" left want and are expected to just accept that society sees them this way unless they agree with the "progressive" agendas.

Winning rights is a good thing (same sex marriage), fighting for equal rights under law in a secular state can only be good. Demonising those who disagree is not, they too have the right to be heard, calling people who voted for Brexit, racist, xenophobic, stupid, illiterate, etc.. is symptomatic of a politics on the left that is failing to connect with the "normal" voter. Looking at Labour under Corbyn could also corroborate this I believe. Core support is falling away at the expense of a committed hard line support from a minority who proclaim they're right and everyone else is wrong and therefore evil. Labelling people has become fashionable again, I think we're seeing a wider reaction to this across Europe and in the US, so typically western liberal (in the true sense) democracies.

zagubov

Masomnia wrote: »

I don't see what is to be gained really.

If people don't care enough to think about the candidates and their policies and then vote then it doesn't seem a good idea to force them to. If they disagree with the system then it seems unfair to force them to take part.

I'm more wondering about the effect it would have on politicians if they had to earn the trust of the electorate, including all minorities.

In fact it made me think of why Australia doesn't overall seem to have our cynical attitude to politics (and society in general, as discussed in this recent Freakonomics podcast). I wondered if that was due to their compulsory voting system.

As regards forcing people to do things, we force them to pay taxes (well up to a point), decide which of their peers are guilty in court of law, protect their kids future by educating them, and so on. Forcing them to help us to collectively decide who our lawmakers should maybe be seen as a kind of four-yearly jury service.