It has become almost common place for some Americans to just not care that the American President is a serial liar….
Things that would have brought down any Democratic President or even George W. Bush are now regularly met with a shrug….
An investigation into lying by a President ios met by a President who has be restrained from firing the cops that are checking on his lying…
What goes on here?
Is ….’he’s one of us’…. so vitial that people will look the other way in acceptance…No Matter what?’
As it turns out, the sociologist Seymour Lipset predicted that this kind of disconnect could happen, triggered by what he called a “crisis of legitimacy.” The legitimacy of democracy might be undermined, Lipset envisioned, if a large part of society came to feel abandoned by the political establishment. Or, if a group felt a loss of power as leaders shifted their favor to new social groups. The white working class today — Trump’s base — fits both descriptions, as policies furthering globalization and offshoring of jobs have robbed them of economic opportunity, and immigration and demographic trends have visibly altered American society.
Lipset suggested that a crisis of legitimacy would have psychological consequences — and set the stage for a lying demagogue to be perceived by many people as bravely speaking suppressed truths. In normal conditions, voters shun any candidate who obviously lies and abuses widely shared social norms. But in a crisis, Lipset argued, disenfranchised voters may see such violations as a symbolic protest, and a deliberate poke in the eye to the elites they have come to despise.
This would explain how many Trump supporters, ordinary people, could actually cheer when he bragged about grabbing women’s genitals, or mocked Senator John McCain for having been shot down in the Vietnam War. This is not to say that Trump supporters approved of his behavior. Rather, they delighted in the profound irritation of the press and the political establishment.
Hahl and colleagues went further, with some experiments designed to assess how the political landscape can affect people’s perception of lies. They split volunteers into two groups, one of which they manipulated to feel marginalized, neglected by a powerful establishment group. They then presented the groups with two candidates, one of whom blatantly lied and made misogynistic comments. The vulgar behavior repelled the “establishment” group, but actually attracted the marginalized group — irrespective of previous political leanings. Lying helped form a bond of solidarity, by challenging the establishment’s authority to define what was true or correct….
image…bloomberg.com
This merely goes along with what some of us have been saying,yet you seem to want to push back on..
These”some people” as you call them are the base of the Republican Party and ,despite your repeated insistence that they are turning away from Trump, the evidence is all to the contrary.Indeed Trump maintains overwhelming support among these “some people” of yours.
As I posted yesterday,these are the ones who don’t give damn about the Mueller investigation or it’s findings,To believe that Mueller is going to do anything to break their support for Trump is mere wishful thinking.
Lying?Hell no they don’t give a damn if the boor lies.Anything,,,Anything is acceptable in their war against “libruls” and the media.
Wake up and smell the roses!
I have acknowledged the Trump base ….
That base has thinned slightly
I will continue to point out that GOP lawmakers pay lip service to their party leader but continue to often go there own way in legislation
Your “point out” is irrelevant to their support of Trump.
So they vote contrary to him on a few issues? That happens all the time with a President and members of his party.Some Democrats didn’t Always vote as Obama wished? So? That has nothing to do with their overall support of their President.
As we all know, your obsession with “pointing out “ the obvious is one of the running jokes(of many) on this site.
Further, your using this well known historical fact(that Congress people of a Presidents Party may occasionally vote contrary to his wishes) as indicative of anything ,shows a continuing lack of understanding of the American political process.
Lucky for us you”know your stuff” though,just think where we would be if you didn’t?
It isn’t me that keeps peddling the idea that Trump, as the Republican party leader, has his party and party lawmakers following lock step behind him….
No James you are not peddling that idea, and that’s because you appear to be too stubborn to final admit, after all these months, that Trump is the Republican Party. The next round of primaries on Tuesday are exhibit one in that fact. They are all competing to out-Trump the other candidate vying for the nomination.
Now, please tell us where the Republicans in Congress have crossed Trump on any issue. Please provide examples — and budget resolutions don’t count.
What lawmakers say vs what they DO I have pointed out here many times...
Again?
Of COURSE the budget counts!
I can see how rural America finds Trump appealing. This area has fallen far behind. Jobs have left and the fast food jobs that remain don’t pay well. Talking about “fairer wages” won’t help them much. They want more jobs and the Republicans promise that with tax cuts, which is more than the Democrat promise. Talking about the environment only means that it makes it less likely to get more jobs. They hear about immigrants coming here and getting jobs – and that is a convenient excuse to them for why their job options are so poor. Talking about women, black or gays? Isn’t that missing the whole point? So now comes someone who talks like them, and who largely shares their values. Who cares if he lies somewhat. He is their only hope.
And he’s a multi-Millionaire?
I honestly have no idea why that should matter. And if it does, then why would it not apply to the Clintons? The only difference is that Trump likes to lie that he is exceedingly wealthy. Hillary lied that she was broke.
We used to have that part about….
‘the truth and nothing but the truth’……
But Donald Trump buried THAT one from the Nations White House…..
“It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.”
Truth?
If you mean that?
It actually depends on what Universe you are in….
Trump’s and his supporters and lackys?
Or the rest of the world….
Clearly, you missed the reference and the point.
It’s getting tougher and tougher to stick it out here.
Hey CG?
I understand you’re holding up the fort for the ‘right’….
As for my stubbornness?
It is NOT going away….
You just do the best you can for as long as you can…..
Some people are more compfortable hanging among those with their own views….
Props to you for hanging here for as long as you have….
By the way?
I heard from SE….
He’s doing fine….
Yes, we know you are stubborn. But you also either don’t understand the conversation or you act like you don’t. Everyone finds your comments frustrating. Not just CG.
He, he, he
I work hard at that Z!
I guess it shows….
I’m not holding up any “fort” but you simply have to accept your limitations and I have to try to understand that you have so many of them.
When it comes to definitions though, such as what the word “majority” means, you do not get to alter it to fight what you want it to mean. That is something the Trump Administration would do. The definition is actually a black or white thing.
This is one where James (almost by accident) is technically just as correct as anyone else. Americans today are careful to distinguish between “majority” (greater than the total of everything else) and “plurality” (greater than any other one element).
But the British use “majority” (as opposed to “absolute majority”) much more loosely, and neither Webster’s nor Chambers’ Dictionary offers any useful guidance. Fowler’s Modern English Usage (in both the British & American versions) is just confusing, while my other style guides (including surprisingly, The New York Times’) offer no guidance at all.
The Constitution itself (Article II, section 1) carefully specifies, for example, “a Majority of the whole number of Electors”.
But it’s clear what everyone means, and it’s just silly for James to quibble over words. More people did not vote for Al Gore than did vote for him in 2000. More people did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 than did vote for her.
This is true even though even fewer voters supported George Bush in 2000 than supported Al Gore (let alone the sum of all non-Republican votes). And even though even fewer voters supported Donald Trump in 2016 than supported Hillary Clinton (let alone the sum of all non-Republican votes).
Thanks for constitution offer DSD….
I think i clarified my comment
More voters voted for the loser in the Gore and Hillary elections
The technical view is bull shit….
I don’t know what percent of the American population vs the voting numbers are….
I’m interested in knowing how people here view the elector vote walk around?
The technical is b.s.
What a fitting statement for today’s politics. Trump should hire you to back up Sarah Sanders.
Should the NFL adopt a rule change to reward the Super Bowl trophy to the team that gained the most yards?
Should the World Series be decided by cumulative runs scored?
Ah?
The NFL gives the WIN AND THRPHY to the
Team with the MOST Points!
Gosh CG?
You are getting desperate to prove ur point?
I have always favored a straight popular vote.
If no candidate wins a majority(more than 50%),Then two weeks later there would be a runoff between the top two vote getters.
This has been argued over endlessly however; and I see no reason to believe that the present method will change.
While Trump was stingy and spent very little of his own money in the general election, a direct national popular vote would make it much easier for a future Trump to win.
A controversial billionaire with nebulous political views and policy information, lack of campaign skills, and a tendency to say politically dangerous things can simply hang out at home and spent untold sums blanketing the airwaves with ads, (plus SuperPACs) since the concept of battleground campaigning and appealing directly to persuadable voters will all but go away. That is a recipe for such a figure to win, especially after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that the left sometimes claims is the worst thing to ever happen to the country.
Maybe he would,Maybe he wouldn’t.
It’s still in my view the fairest way to elect a President.
That’s what we are after,right?
As I have said, the argument that it is “fairest” can certainly be made, but in as large and diverse country as we are, I think there would be very negative unintended consequences that would make us more divided than ever and have people feeling like the whole system was more “unfair.”
And of course, it would be just as fair to get rid of the Democrats’ strong reliance on Superdelegates in deciding their nominees, I suppose.
and just imagine how insane a complete national recount would be and all the various problems and outright political warfare that could arise from the need to have to do that.
I’m for getting rid of the superdelegates too.
That’s not relevant to the discussion of course.
As to which system is “divisive?”
It depends on who is determining what is or isn’t “divisive.”
I think people in the middle would find Presidential politics even more “divisive” if candidates never stepped foot in any area of the country other than the high population places where they were extremely popular and had rock solid support and if ran on even more outright ideological appeals, simply to drive up their base, as “swing voters” in “swing states” no longer mattered.
It would be no more uh “insane” than what is currently going on in this country with a President elected under the Electoral College system.
It is rather surprising though that a Republican like you is exhibiting so much opposition to a system that you earlier said would result in continuing Republican victories.
Since it isn’t going to happen though ,it’s rather a pointless discussion.
Exit..
Yes, the Electoral College system is not ever going to change. Both parties ought to accept that and formulate strategies that make victory possible.
Let’s think though, is there a large country that has the people directly elect a President or Chief Executive? It does not seem like there are very many countries, even small ones, that have such a system.
I suppose unless one wants to claim that Presidential elections in Russia are fair and free.
I think things would get more “insane” under your system, and yes, I am looking at this in terms of what would be best for the democracy, not simply what would be the best for electing Republican Presidents (which I think would be your system), or the factor that because of where I live, I have never had a chance to vote for a winner (one that I was willing to vote for.)
He isn’t a British dog.
As a former prospective dog-catcher yourself, CG, are you basing that on a a detailed study of his AKA pedigree, or just some general Trump-like assumption about his nationality?
As the saying goes, “Think Yiddish and dress British.”
I don’t think jamesb likely does either and thus he should stick to the standard American definition of what constitutes a “majority.”
A majority is 50 % plus one.
And that is indeed different than the common American statistical habit of rounding up in crunching numbers so that a total equals 100 percent.
For example, if a race had a result of:
Raisa DeTacksus (D)- 53.7%
Cletus “More Trumpian than Trump” Conway-Sanders (R) 44.1%
Assorted third party candidates and protest votes- 2.2%
We would all say the Democrat won 54-44%, and thus achieved a “double digit victory.”