Articles like this significantly help his 2024 run.
To regular folks, Trump is like a car accident. He's awful but you tend to be interested in the goings on, despite the distaste.
And yet she got more votes than the other guy...
To some extent, she lost by very little in states where it mattered and won by huge margins in some states where it didn't.
If not of free media coverage[1], he would be a failed right wing fringe politician. Because of this coverage and his polarizing policy, he created conditions where even moderate republicans needed to vote for him. He successfully hijacked the Republican Party, from party working on immigration reform helping Mexican immigrants to party that want to build a wall.
I think if Trump managed to maintain women support, he might win again.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabota...
Consider that Trump is despised in White nationalist circles. Hated and mocked perhaps even more than among radical leftists (with the exception that we appreciate his occasional humorous moments). Yet another grifter, and a traitor to his people.
It will be very interesting to see how his White vote fares next time around.
At any rate, I did not call Trump a racist. I said that he catered to the white nationalist sentiment. Trump is a charlatan and an opportunist. His politics are self enrichment and aggrandizement and if catering to white nationalist sentiment gets him fealty the he desires then he will do so.
Trump is a liar and devoid of redeeming qualities. It is easy to find the ways he is flawed and only deliberate ignorance can explain someone not being aware of the many, many character flaws the man has.
Edit: oops, you used the term 'TDS' in another comment. The jig is up, seems you're not a disinterested party, and you're just here to troll.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...
And while that was for the win in 2016, the fact is Trump got more votes in losing than either Obama win. Yet look at how the media paints each. I don't like Trump but the majority of the narratives spun around him are nonsense, which only fuels the idea that The People are not being served by the system.
Even our dictionary definitions are moving more extreme, someone pointed out a few weeks ago that the definition of anti-vaxer for example now includes anyone that opposes any vaccine mandate.
There's very little engagement on ideas or push to get closer to truth.
That we have sitting members of Congress openly call for secession and the suppression of voting rights without their party condemning them indicates to me that we have tilted too far to the right for common ground to be found.
Which countries allow voting by mail and/or without ID?
We don’t have a national ID system in the U.S. In Wisconsin they mandated voter ID and promptly closed a lot of places to get said IDs. They made it harder for people to get it. In some states Polling places get closed down in poor areas or make things like 1 drop off location per county regardless of population size. Some places put in enough poll workers to make voting fast while limiting the number of poll workers in less desirable locations to make voting slow.
You can get a passport via mail and can file taxes via mail. Selective Service is done by mail. There isn’t any evidence of voter fraud beyond an extremely small number of cases. There are plenty of sources to give you the information on the ways voter suppression is accomplished. They are easy to find.
Who has the Right deplatformed?
This just isn't a path toward finding common ground. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011253354/california-bans-st...
Some republicans definitely seem to have ramped things up but actions like this on the democratic side are nearly as concerning.
Lol.
That takes an enormous amount of brainpower. Not in terms of being particularly intelligent, but just in terms of time required to form a position on every single issue.
This isn't a good time investment, considering the duopoly of politics in the United States. At best you'd be able to get a slightly bigger overlap on your issues by going with one party or another, since independents are unlikely to win in the foreseeable future.
That being said, your position is admirable, if only for developing critical thinking skills and exercising them, something that modern politics is in dire need of.
Before each elections there are even online tools to help you verify which party is best aligned with you.
It has a form of a poll. If responses that party gave match the once you gave then the fit is higher.
The difference between social unrest and civil war is the latter has organized military forces on both sides. In the US it will never be militias going at it, it will be state national guards and other branches of military. Things would need to get very bad to where for example nebraska blocks trains and California blocks trucks to opposing states.
I am not saying the whole blm vs white supremacist b.s. has no place, I am just saying that social unrear would need to be very bad with state gov/police support causing other states to intervene.
One way or the other, a state would need to refuse to cooperate with fed gov even with military intervention.
For perspective, when JFK sent troops to let the first black kid attend school with white kids, the governor did no command his military to resist. Things would need to get worse than that.
Even with the internet, this can't be less than 8-10 years away, by that time the population will change significantly. Boomer deaths but also post 9/11 kids who only knew crisis after crisis either very hungry or repulsed by the idea of an internal conflict.
Meanwhile China, Russia and pals are working very hard to undermine the US economy. My guess is they will somewhat succeed before any serious social turmoil. Also, keep in mind, terror works very well against the US population (sorry NSA guy monitoring this), be it 9/11, afghanistan or vietnam, events that get the people overhwelmed and upset will have lasting and effective change. If that were not the case the US would have invaded pakistan and afghanistan leaving them in ruins very fast and getting out, vietnam would have been a proper invasion instead of supporting south vietnam and it would have lasted as long as it needed to, the military would be much more brutal and cruel like most other non-western military forces (rape, murder,etc... rampant). My point is the US as a whole country is not the same as 156 years ago, serious conflicts will not persist due to weak stomach. It will take a lot (hunger, national shame,etc...)
Horrible things to think about.
After '08/'09 there were daily steady decreases in unemployment through to the 2016 election and steady market increase to ~historic highs by the 2016 election.
What’s really scary is the quiet coup happening. All across the country the GOP is gerrymandering in its favor, putting forward Stop the Steal acolytes for key positions so that when the time comes to not certify they can.
If ya'll want to remember 1/6 as some hate-driven event, I want no part in it.
the left has become obsessed with authoritarianism under the guise of "liberalism". i don't think any of them know what the word means anymore. they rile up imaginary "injustice" to distract and sow discord. people who would do that are far more traitorous than grandma going on a larp in the capitol.
An expert on civil war issues a warning about America - But Barbara Walter exaggerates
Submitted title was "Is America headed for a civil war?"
Edit: My comment was a knee jerk reaction to a misleading post title. In reality the Economist is in agreement with me here, they are reviewing a book that is predicting a civil war and calling it very hyperbolic. Good to see there are still some outlets with journalistic integrity.
