Crunchy MAGA: The New Right of the 2020s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what proportion of the Democrat messaging this cycle is bashing Trump, as opposed to substance?

From reading DCUM the ratio is about 99:1, and in real life, it is probably not too different.

They have literally nothing to say, AND a candidate who is a disaster, so all they can do is smear and fear monger about the other guy.

Clearly you didn’t watch the 2020 debates. Dems were constantly talking about policy, but it’s not as sexy as a sound bite. Can you please explain how so many people voted for Trump in 2020 when there was NO GOP platform. They literally voted for nothing. So, you can’t now claim you want policy. GMAFB. Always moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As for the vaccine, you’re darn right that was a tipping point. Some of us don’t want government telling us what to do with our bodies. It’s weird how that’s completely understood when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to vaccines. Biden lied to us and said the vaccines were necessary to reduce deadliness of COVID and its spread and more people caught COVID and died of COVID during his administration than during the Trump administration

The vaccines did reduce the deadliness of COVID and reduce its spread you nitwit.

Did not reduce spread. Pfizer never tested whether they prevented transmission.

The vaccine reduces the replication of the virus, therefore it reduces the ability to spread. Now STFU.

Thus

Reducing replication does not necessarily reduce the spread. 1) If it increases the frequency of asymptomatic infections that are still contagious this could actually increase the spread. 2) If the viral load is reduced but still sufficiently high enough to cause infections in others it might not have a meaningful impact on transmission rates. The evidence is very clear that covid vaccines are effective at reducing symptoms and fatalities. However, the COVID vaccines do not appear to be very effective at reducing the spread of COVID. Only around 70% got two or more doses of the vaccine and the virus mutates quickly, so preventing the spread with covid vaccines won’t work well if at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your friend has lots in common with disillusioned Democrats like myself. We are far left progressive but are tired of the failures and empty promises of the Dem Party .

Much like the Reagan Democrats, the Trump Democrats are real. We are here and we are anti war and pro American labor not for cheap illegal migrant exploitation/labor or outsourcing . Donald Trump is a one man walking and talking labor Union and anti war activist for America and that’s just enough for some of us progressives to make him better than Biden or Hillary

Do you realize that the Republican Party has done irreparable harm to unions? Do you really believe that Trump actually cares about the working class? His own business use migrant laborers - his golf courses were found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants. He supports heavy offshoring of jobs …. I mean, are you paying attention to what this guy actually DOES and not just what he says?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know people like this too. One of my friends might be a little surprised how much she misses government if it stops working, given her personal situation, which I won't get into.

The Democrats completely sold out back in 1992. Ross Perot has been proven right, as goofy as the man was.

But really, the USA couldn't possibly maintain the 50s and 60s economic position, which was because of the resolution of WWII. We won. Big time. So did the USSR, but they took so much more damage and economic communism kinda sucks.

However, the Democrats sold out and created this neoliberal mess. So here we are. It's just too late.

Uh, I think you mean neocon mess.

If the US had wanted to get back to the 1950's and 60's prosperity, then it needed a tax regime to match, but the Reaganites demolished that opportunity.

Yup. That's true. Reaganism took the mess created by the 70s economic shocks and turned the US into a more unequal society. But in 1992, the Democrats capitulated to win an election. And they came up with their own version--neoliberalism with welfare reform. Oh and NAFTA. And here we are.

I don't expect anything from Reagan. But the gerontocracy that sold out in the 1990s is mostly still there! Is there any reason to think they would excite the average voter?

NAFTA was started under Reagan, under a different name. I am old enough to remember the maquiladora program (my father's factory job went there).

It was negotiated under Bush Sr, then completed in 1992, which was then signed by Clinton. (I voted for Bush Sr).

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

The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She sounds very much like some of my Calif. and Illinois friends.

What they all see is that globalization under Clinton/Obama has hurt our working class which includes themselves. One is a black truck driver, some are into reiki, crystals, etc.

They also don’t like the far left demented ideology that there is no such thing as gender, among many things.

I dislike the far left disrespect of conservatives who make up half of the US, and disrespect of traditional families including parents who choose to stay at home to raise their own kids.

um.. which party supports paid family leave?

Or access to affordable healthcare so moms and their unborn babies are healthy? Hint: It’s not the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what proportion of the Democrat messaging this cycle is bashing Trump, as opposed to substance?

From reading DCUM the ratio is about 99:1, and in real life, it is probably not too different.

They have literally nothing to say, AND a candidate who is a disaster, so all they can do is smear and fear monger about the other guy.

They have a lot to say and are saying it. The media isn't listening because they LOVE the Trump chaos.

-turning the economy around and the growing it
-getting meaningful infrastructure legislation passed - something Trump couldn't do even when the GOP controlled the House and Senate
-CHIPs act has already had a measurable positive impact on manufacturing jobs in the US
-Re-establishing the US role in global affairs after Trump was literally laughed at at the UN and literally bowed to a dictator
-expanding healthcare for millions of americans
-getting the US to be energy independent while also growing the green economy


I could go on, but things are much better today than 4 years ago when people couldn't even get toilet paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread already confirms what I have suspected for a long time. Bernie and Trump supporters are the same people. They hate what America is and want it to be something else and they don’t care what it becomes as long as it screws the establishment.

No, we (Trump supporters) love America and hate what you (the left) are trying to turn it into. And to op, I have a lot in common with your friend.

I am middle aged mom and have been on both sides of the political spectrum. I (unlike the left) have an open mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know people like this too. One of my friends might be a little surprised how much she misses government if it stops working, given her personal situation, which I won't get into.

The Democrats completely sold out back in 1992. Ross Perot has been proven right, as goofy as the man was.

But really, the USA couldn't possibly maintain the 50s and 60s economic position, which was because of the resolution of WWII. We won. Big time. So did the USSR, but they took so much more damage and economic communism kinda sucks.

However, the Democrats sold out and created this neoliberal mess. So here we are. It's just too late.

Uh, I think you mean neocon mess.

If the US had wanted to get back to the 1950's and 60's prosperity, then it needed a tax regime to match, but the Reaganites demolished that opportunity.

Yup. That's true. Reaganism took the mess created by the 70s economic shocks and turned the US into a more unequal society. But in 1992, the Democrats capitulated to win an election. And they came up with their own version--neoliberalism with welfare reform. Oh and NAFTA. And here we are.

I don't expect anything from Reagan. But the gerontocracy that sold out in the 1990s is mostly still there! Is there any reason to think they would excite the average voter?

NAFTA was not a democrat thing. It was created by Reagan/Bush and left for Clinton to sign soon after he became president in 1992. He didn't have a choice but to sign it.

[Anonymous]

OP, the OC is a Republican bastion and always has been. It’s crunchy, wealthy, and racist as all hell. So the yeah, they love Trump for the tax breaks and they agree about policies that primarily benefit wealthy white people. Also, there are places like Humboldt County CA full of old hippies and young growers that are rural/crunchy and also anti-Big Brother and pro 2A and also pretty racist. Not new, and not a big shift.

The political spectrum is more like a circle than a straight line. The anti-vax/anti-big brother is where the L and R meet. It’s wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread already confirms what I have suspected for a long time. Bernie and Trump supporters are the same people. They hate what America is and want it to be something else and they don’t care what it becomes as long as it screws the establishment.

No, we (Trump supporters) love America and hate what you (the left) are trying to turn it into. And to op, I have a lot in common with your friend.

I am middle aged mom and have been on both sides of the political spectrum. I (unlike the left) have an open mind.

For someone who purports to love America, you seem to support a candidate who truly hates a huge portion of Americans.

And don't come back with Hillary's 'deplorable" thing because that has been totally mischaracterized if you actually read the full quote in context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know people like this too. One of my friends might be a little surprised how much she misses government if it stops working, given her personal situation, which I won't get into.

The Democrats completely sold out back in 1992. Ross Perot has been proven right, as goofy as the man was.

But really, the USA couldn't possibly maintain the 50s and 60s economic position, which was because of the resolution of WWII. We won. Big time. So did the USSR, but they took so much more damage and economic communism kinda sucks.

However, the Democrats sold out and created this neoliberal mess. So here we are. It's just too late.

Uh, I think you mean neocon mess.

If the US had wanted to get back to the 1950's and 60's prosperity, then it needed a tax regime to match, but the Reaganites demolished that opportunity.

Yup. That's true. Reaganism took the mess created by the 70s economic shocks and turned the US into a more unequal society. But in 1992, the Democrats capitulated to win an election. And they came up with their own version--neoliberalism with welfare reform. Oh and NAFTA. And here we are.

I don't expect anything from Reagan. But the gerontocracy that sold out in the 1990s is mostly still there! Is there any reason to think they would excite the average voter?

NAFTA was started under Reagan, under a different name. I am old enough to remember the maquiladora program (my father's factory job went there).

It was negotiated under Bush Sr, then completed in 1992, which was then signed by Clinton. (I voted for Bush Sr).

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

The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA.

forgot to add.. Clinton may have signed the deal but he put provisions in there to protect workers and the environment.

Before sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton added two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and to also allay the concerns of many House members

Trump, with his great negotiating skills (/s), got rid of NAFTA, and replaced it with " United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA)", but "The new law involved only small changes", because in the end, Trump capitulated to corporations and some of the red state politicians that wanted to keep NAFTA.

John Murphy, vice-president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce declared that a number of the proposals tabled by the United States had "little or no support" from the U.S. business and agriculture community."[138] Pat Roberts, the senior U.S. senator from Kansas, said it was not clear "who they're intended to benefit", and called for push back against the anti-NAFTA moves as the "issues affect real jobs, real lives and real people". Kansas is a major agricultural exporter, and farm groups warned that just threatening to leave NAFTA might cause buyers to minimize uncertainty by seeking out non-US sources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She sounds very much like some of my Calif. and Illinois friends.

What they all see is that globalization under Clinton/Obama has hurt our working class which includes themselves. One is a black truck driver, some are into reiki, crystals, etc.

They also don’t like the far left demented ideology that there is no such thing as gender, among many things.

I dislike the far left disrespect of conservatives who make up half of the US, and disrespect of traditional families including parents who choose to stay at home to raise their own kids.

The bolded is not leftism, it's liberalism. The real issue is that Americans don't know the difference. Leftism is not about the culture war. It's about the economics of the working class.

These people fall into the right wing pipeline because the right wears "working class" as a costume, but in reality their policy stances are antiworker. Democrats aren't much better, and thus people find themselves without a political home, and they fall for populist figures like Donald Trump.

Most Americans agree on what we want to see policy-wise. The two main parties give those issues lipservice, but look at what they actually do, not what they say. They put on a show and pretend to be gridlock on issues concerning regular people, but always manage to cross the aisle when it comes to power grabs for themselves, and tax breaks and money give aways for their donors.

[Anonymous]

What exactly is "crunchy"? Is this some secret keyword for a constant fraction of one's neurons going missing?

[Anonymous]

The hippies were geared towards "get the man off our backs" and Reagan ran on a platform of getting big government out of people's lives.

So the OP's post makes sense in that context.

The problem is that on social issues, the MAGA GOP is all about government intrusion - no gay marriage, no women's health care choices, dictating what books can be read, banning porn, dictating what messages a company can express (eg Disney) and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She sounds very much like some of my Calif. and Illinois friends.

What they all see is that globalization under Clinton/Obama has hurt our working class which includes themselves. One is a black truck driver, some are into reiki, crystals, etc.

They also don’t like the far left demented ideology that there is no such thing as gender, among many things.

I dislike the far left disrespect of conservatives who make up half of the US, and disrespect of traditional families including parents who choose to stay at home to raise their own kids.

The bolded is not leftism, it's liberalism. The real issue is that Americans don't know the difference. Leftism is not about the culture war. It's about the economics of the working class.

These people fall into the right wing pipeline because the right wears "working class" as a costume, but in reality their policy stances are antiworker. Democrats aren't much better, and thus people find themselves without a political home, and they fall for populist figures like Donald Trump.

Most Americans agree on what we want to see policy-wise. The two main parties give those issues lipservice, but look at what they actually do, not what they say. They put on a show and pretend to be gridlock on issues concerning regular people, but always manage to cross the aisle when it comes to power grabs for themselves, and tax breaks and money give aways for their donors.

I am not sure how you can claim the bolded.

Dems support unions, support higher minimum wages, support safe working conditions, support affordable healthcare, support public education...I could go on, but the GOP doesn't support any of these things.