Trump: The First 100 Days

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
404

I’m catching up with this thread, not all the way up to current yet, just disclaimer. Treco you’re a smart dude and I like you. I understand your concerns and I think a lot of them are valid as well. However, I would caution you to be careful interpreting things like this at face value–countries have their own definition of “poverty” and it is not often the same from place to place. This makes comparisons difficult.

In addition as USMC said a few posts below your quote here, net worth takes into account debt such as mortgages and loans against home value, investments, retirement. I would submit that the graphic is not complete–many, many people outspend their means and do not save. This is not a function of bad income inequality–it is a function of people’s lack of planning and discipline. Does income inequality exist? Most certainly. But it is compounded by millions of people living beyond their means as well.

Also, as USMC pointed out, it does not take into account how many people have moved tax brackets. I think personally it is less concerning to know whether a certain proportion of people have X amount of wealth than it is to know if that proportion of people is always made up of the same individuals or if new blood is moving in.

Also, as I’m sure you’re aware from your experiences with owning a local retail store prior to Lowe’s moving in–you would probably have been counted among the 1% in this graph there even though you would not have seen all that income (assuming you were LLC). You certainly would be in the top 4%.

Not knowing where you are now (though wishing you the best), I would wager you probably did not think of yourself as the “top 1% or 4%” when you owned that business even though you would be considered up there according to this graphic. There are lots of people in that situation as well–I would not consider them “part of the problem” where income inequality is concerned.

405

Corporatism AND populism. Since you Americans are fairly new to his (or should I say new to this in terms of living memory) this is how it works - a populist’s worst nightmare is actually ending up running the country. He’s accustomed to playing to lose, firing up his supporters with horror stories of high treason, election rigging and a shadowy cabal of all stacked against him, the only man that can save the country and reverse the tide of history.

Consequently, the populist doesn’t know how to govern and basically stays in campaign mode during his entire term, promising a bright future once they are thwarted or defeated. The definition of They is naturally fluid. That’s why Trump’s post election tour looks and feels like a campaign, the only problem being that there isn’t a clear villain in this narrative for his supporters. You can fire up the base against a single person, an opposing candidate, but it’s much harder to fire up the crowd against the abstract concepts of “the media” and “the liberals”.

Now, in Trump’s case, the situation is even worse by the fact that the Republicans are in complete control, thus depriving him of a scapegoat or a “heel” for all the ills allegedly befalling America.

Populists live and thrive on conflicts and Trump is no different. Playing different factions against each other and promoting factional infighting is crucial part of such identity, but you need an easy to identify villain in the narrative. Since Trump cannot fire up his base with foreign policy issues (well, except the wall) he needs a specific person (think HRC). Group concepts such as “immigrants”, “illegals”, “Mexicans” will not suffice.

If such a person is not available among his opponents, he needs to find it among the republican ranks. Romney fits the bill. Regardless of actual policies and their successes, a personification of the “establishment” is ideal for the “good cop” “bad cop” routine and the scapegoat for everything. “I tried to do X, but the Establishment is against us folks”

Think the Carrier deal is strange. Well, prepare for the theatrics of populism in which the Benevolent Leader swoops directly from his throne and disciplines the Establishment and saves the common man. Naturally, the actual “salvation” is highly questionable and of dubious purpose but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter as only the perception is important for the loyalists.

It’s been seen before countless times - Putin/Mugabe/Orban/take your pick hears of a specific new injustice against his people and then on live TV berates the culprits and publicly forces them to backtrack, restoring the previous status quo. Usually, as the populist is directly interfering in business matters, there is a behind-the-scenes part where the offending party is copiously rewarded for their part in the charade.

For example, Russian businessmen were rewarded lucrative government contracts for being insulted by Putin on Russian state TV for attempting to relocate a factory to China.

3 Likes
406

Again, we would need to see that the upper quintile is static–meaning nobody leaves it and nobody (or at least very few) enter into it from below. I do not believe the data bear that out.

407

I didn’t not know it was that high.

It also makes basically impossible to scale back the government when there is an underclass incapable of upward economic mobility dependent upon welfare.

408

Happily. It’s not ENTIRELY wrong, but it is a deceptive figure.

I know where you probably got that number - a Breitbart story that said illegal immigrants accounted for “nearly 40 percent” (37 percent, actually) of federal prison sentencings in 2014.

There are two decent stories on Politifact that cover this.

Noncitizens (who are not ALL illegal immigrants) account for about 22 percent of the actual inmates at any given time, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

"Next, we asked outside experts why it’d be that noncitizens make up 22 percent of inmates of late despite the fact that “illegal aliens” accounted for nearly 40 percent of the people sentenced to federal prison in fiscal 2014.

Their consensus: The standing population of inmates reflects a good number of prisoners serving longer sentences while most noncitizens sent to prison were convicted of immigration crimes, which mostly entail shorter sentences.

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that focuses on lessening immigration, summed up by email: “With immigration offenders, there is high volume but shorter sentences, so faster turnover, which translates to a smaller percentage of the average daily population” in prison."

Notably, this also does not account for state correctional facilities. When you expand to include both federal and state facilities…

"But it does have statistics on inmate citizenship. About 22 percent of the bureau’s inmates are not U.S. citizens, based on information updated June 25, 2016. Its count of noncitizen inmates includes people who may be deported.

As for state facilities, a Bureau of Justice Statistics report published in September 2015 said that by year-end 2014, there were about 1.56 million prisoners in both state and federal correctional facilities. About 69,000 of them — or 4 percent — were not U.S. citizens. But it didn’t break down the noncitizen category by legal or illegal immigration status."

Let it be known that I’m not so much quibbling with your broader point (that illegal immigrants are significantly more likely to be incarcerated than the general population) as I am the specifics of the data. Our pal raj usually doesn’t understand this. If you’re going to use data to support a point, at least use accurate data that’s presented with appropriate context. That “40 percent” number is incredibly deceiving.

2 Likes
409

It is deceiving, and anything published by Breitbart requires secondary sourcing, as it can’t be trusted. A propaganda arm rarely can.

Not surprising Raj continues to peddle misinformation.

410

Nonsense. No, it isnt. It’s biased, but everyone knows this up front.

That’s the problem with people like you - they fear reading ideas that challenge their own.

Disagree with Vox all you want, but it’s good writing and quality analysis.

1 Like
411

K

412

Societal shaming goes a long way to influence the decisions of people

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/804884532671430658

413

In that video, she seems playful and a bit flirty with Trump. I would hardly call that sexually humiliating her. She may not have wanted the kiss, but her actions don’t really convey her not wanting it.

I would give Vox as much value as the Onion in their reporting.

1 Like
414

As I said someone correct me if I’m wrong. As we both know one can make statistics say almost anything. That’s perhaps what Brietbart was doing.

But this from your own data is still alarming:

“More to the point, the government doesn’t sort all inmates by immigration status, which leaves us with its guidance that as of mid-2016, 22 percent of inmates weren’t U.S. citizens. It seems logical to conclude that unauthorized residents comprised a smaller share of all the prisoners.”

415

Well, it does work against the concept doesn’t it?

416

Yeah, I watched the video as well and was waiting for some outlandish sexual attack and it never came. He simply pulled her closer and gave her a peck on the cheek. Now maybe I missed something because the shot was so far away, but it really looked harmless to me.

417

But she didn’t explicitly say the word “Yes” or sign a written consent form. On a college campus that would be considered rape these days. Not even sexual assault, straight up rape no different than the stranger in the back alley kind.

418

Like most things you cite, this doesn’t support your point. It’s opinion and analysis, but it isn’t fake. You just don’t like it because it criticizes your Dear Leader and the words have more syllables than you’re used to.

419

But you’re ok with Breitbart, or not?

420

If the site is extremely tilted in one direction then you’re really just splitting hairs between calling it heavily biased analysis and fake news.

Even when I post breitbart articles I tell people to refer to the source in the article

421

I am ok with the truth, and whomever posts it.

422

Should add: how many unannounced outsourcing plans have been halted by the election of Trump? There’s likely plenty of companies in wait and see mode now that they’re unsure of the ramifications for outsourcing jobs overseas

423

I’ve never really followed Breitbart except I’ve payed more attention to it the last few weeks for obvious reasons. Has it always been that bad? Or is it getting worse especially after Trump won and they started getting more attention from both sides.