Trump 2.0

[billvon]

I don't look at Trump voters and think they're all white racists, or they're all MAGA types.

Well, most of them are MAGA types since that's his slogan. I agree they're not all racists - but he does attract most of the racists out there.

It seems like the Republican party in general, is trying to change its image, and evolve into something resembling diversity.

By ending diversity, equity and inclusion? By hiring people who only want white males in charge? I think the opposite; he has banked on white grievance and so far that's worked well for him. I know several people who support him just because he won't "kowtow to the blacks and the Muslims and the women." Which, of course, is the latest dog whistle for "get rid of the blacks."

Personally, I'd like to see a ballot of the top important issues that we can vote on in the national election

But you just demonstrated the problem with that:

Voting for one person who promises rainbows and unicorns but then gets in and does the opposite...it's not a ''system'' that's really working, in my humble opinion.

Both candidates, of course, will say they support rainbows and unicorns. (Or, more realistically, lots of jobs, a strong economy, an effective border and less crime.) Trump did the opposite of a great many campaign promises last time and he was still re-elected.

 

[wegs]

But this is in no way the Republican party "evolv(ing) into something resembl(ing) diversity". Arguably, in a cynical and perverse sort of way, even the Southern Strategy could be said to be more that; though that (the Southern Strategy) would more accurately be described as the Republican party "chang(ing) it's image"--by donning sheep's clothing, of course. What we've got presently is almost wholly antithetical to the Southern Strategy in that they are now so emboldened as to say pretty much exactly what they are thinking and what they believe.

Yes, well said - trying to change its image, although Trump has always remained the same. His personality and ego have stayed relatively constant, yet the party’s image seems to be morphing into something else, beyond the MAGA ideologues.

 

[exchemist]

I was referencing who voted for Trump; supposedly, he gained more Blacks this election than his first time around, and from a political stance, I think he swung over some moderates. Important to note that not only whites identify as Christians/Catholic, so that may have impacted who voted for him.

Eh? “Christians/Catholics” is like saying “human beings/women”.

 

[wegs]

Eh? “Christians/Catholics” is like saying “human beings/women”.

Oops, I meant ''Evangelicals/Catholics,'' but of course this doesn't cover all the bases. But those seem to be the easy-to-apply labels given when we discuss the ''religious right,'' and the voting issues around them.

 

[Seattle]

Oops, I meant ''Evangelicals/Catholics,'' but of course this doesn't cover all the bases. But those seem to be the easy-to-apply labels given when we discuss the ''religious right,'' and the voting issues around them.

Maybe Protestant/Catholics? Are Catholics generally to the right in religious discussions?

 

[Pinball1970]

Maybe Protestant/Catholics? Are Catholics generally to the right in religious discussions?

Catholics do not have a great record on anti Semitism, homosexuality, contraception and abortion. I think they are ok with Evolution and cosmology these days.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe Protestant/Catholics? Are Catholics generally to the right in religious discussions?

In the US they would generally be to the left of them on social issues, I think. But hard to generalise.

 

[Pinball1970]

Maybe Protestant/Catholics? Are Catholics generally to the right in religious discussions?

Trump apparently, is non-denominational now, previously Presbyterian. Here he is being all righteous and stuff.

 

[wegs]

I think that Catholics, at least from those I know who identify this way, the abortion issue is what tends to split them away from voting Democrat. But, it seems like we do a disservice to many voters by assuming they are in love with a specific candidate, simply because they agree more on some issues than others. I wish the US would list the issues on the ballot for us citizens to vote on, and not just the person running for office.

 

[Sarkus]

Maybe Protestant/Catholics? Are Catholics generally to the right in religious discussions?

Is there a Left and Right of religious discussions? Are not "left" and "right" more about politics? Sure, politics and religion cross on many points, and certain political parties might adopt a more religious view than other parties. E.g. in the US pro-life seems to be adopted by the Right, and pro-choice by the Left. But in the UK such a matter is generally seen as a matter of conscience, and no mainstream political party would really want to adopt it as theirs - unless they are an overtly religious-based party. The Republicans are certainly pushing themselves as the party of religious belief, heck, even promoting the male-dominated subservient-woman Christian Nationalist idea, so in that regard they are tending to push the label of "right wing" onto religious people.

In the UK it is different. We are far less driven by religious considerations, although parties may well adopt policies that speak more to the religious than not. There are certainly left- and right-wing candidates on both sides of the abortion debate, for example. It is a matter of conscience, not necessarily political. So the idea of left/right is not really one of religion here. But then we're a far more "left" country than the US.

 

[exchemist]

I think that Catholics, at least from those I know who identify this way, the abortion issue is what tends to split them away from voting Democrat. But, it seems like we do a disservice to many voters by assuming they are in love with a specific candidate, simply because they agree more on some issues than others. I wish the US would list the issues on the ballot for us citizens to vote on, and not just the person running for office.

There are also plenty of Catholics who don’t fully accept the church’s teaching about abortion and euthanasia etc. People are not automata. They tend to make their own minds up. So it will be a complex picture, I think.

 

[Seattle]

I think that Catholics, at least from those I know who identify this way, the abortion issue is what tends to split them away from voting Democrat. But, it seems like we do a disservice to many voters by assuming they are in love with a specific candidate, simply because they agree more on some issues than others. I wish the US would list the issues on the ballot for us citizens to vote on, and not just the person running for office.

It wouldn't be practical to have a vote on every issue as it came up. You could have a party platform that you voted on and then the candidate was whoever go the most votes but that wouldn't change anything.

You would still (for example) vote for business or wealth friendly policies and you would still get Trump, a guy you might not like at all.

It's all more disjointed, full of drama and confrontational now but ultimately people have always mainly voted of whether they were a landowner, had some wealth, ran a business, wanted less government vs wanted more from the government because they had less and wanted someone other than them to be taxed more.

You have an oligopoly where more wealth goes to the free or a democracy where more wealth goes to the poor until everyone is poor.

 

[Seattle]

Is there a Left and Right of religious discussions? Are not "left" and "right" more about politics? Sure, politics and religion cross on many points, and certain political parties might adopt a more religious view than other parties. E.g. in the US pro-life seems to be adopted by the Right, and pro-choice by the Left. But in the UK such a matter is generally seen as a matter of conscience, and no mainstream political party would really want to adopt it as theirs - unless they are an overtly religious-based party. The Republicans are certainly pushing themselves as the party of religious belief, heck, even promoting the male-dominated subservient-woman Christian Nationalist idea, so in that regard they are tending to push the label of "right wing" onto religious people.

In the UK it is different. We are far less driven by religious considerations, although parties may well adopt policies that speak more to the religious than not. There are certainly left- and right-wing candidates on both sides of the abortion debate, for example. It is a matter of conscience, not necessarily political. So the idea of left/right is not really one of religion here. But then we're a far more "left" country than the US.

I don't know, ask Wegs.

When I was growing up religion, at least in my community, was more of a personal thing and your politics was your own business as well. At a certain point the evangelicals got on TV and things go more political and that spread to other groups to an extent.

Presidents have always been videoed coming out of a church holding a Bible even if that was the only time they were in a church that year.

People didn't talk about religion or politics in "polite" society. Things have changed a lot. In my area the Baptists were more "conservative", the Evangelicals were nuts, the Methodists and Protestants were more reserved and the Catholics (not so many in my area) were liberal socially except for where abortion was concerned but even then most privately accepted it and when the church preached something less liberal they just said, in effect, that's good in theory and something to shoot for but it didn't change their personal behavior.

They weren't supposed to have abortions or use birth control but most didn't have 10 kids so they weren't really following the church.

 

[Seattle]

There are also plenty of Catholics who don’t fully accept the church’s teaching about abortion and euthanasia etc. People are not automata. They tend to make their own minds up. So it will be a complex picture, I think.

That probably explains Trump being in power as well?

 

[wegs]

There are also plenty of Catholics who don’t fully accept the church’s teaching about abortion and euthanasia etc. People are not automata. They tend to make their own minds up. So it will be a complex picture, I think.

There are, I'm just giving my perspective. And you're right, that's why we have to be mindful of issues, and not just identity politics.

 

[exchemist]

I don't know, ask Wegs.

When I was growing up religion, at least in my community, was more of a personal thing and your politics was your own business as well. At a certain point the evangelicals got on TV and things go more political and that spread to other groups to an extent.

Presidents have always been videoed coming out of a church holding a Bible even if that was the only time they were in a church that year.

People didn't talk about religion or politics in "polite" society. Things have changed a lot. In my area the Baptists were more "conservative", the Evangelicals were nuts, the Methodists and Protestants were more reserved and the Catholics (not so many in my area) were liberal socially except for where abortion was concerned but even then most privately accepted it and when the church preached something less liberal they just said, in effect, that's good in theory and something to shoot for but it didn't change their personal behavior.

They weren't supposed to have abortions or use birth control but most didn't have 10 kids so they weren't really following the church.

Sounds very similar to the UK then.

 

[wegs]

It wouldn't be practical to have a vote on every issue as it came up. You could have a party platform that you voted on and then the candidate was whoever go the most votes but that wouldn't change anything.

You would still (for example) vote for business or wealth friendly policies and you would still get Trump, a guy you might not like at all.

It's all more disjointed, full of drama and confrontational now but ultimately people have always mainly voted of whether they were a landowner, had some wealth, ran a business, wanted less government vs wanted more from the government because they had less and wanted someone other than them to be taxed more.

You have an oligopoly where more wealth goes to the free or a democracy where more wealth goes to the poor until everyone is poor.

Agreed. Personally, our government here in the US is starting to resemble a Reality TV show, more than a government. No matter who's in office. That could be due to the 24/7 coverage and opinions broadcast across social media. *shrug*

 

[Seattle]

Agreed. Personally, our government here in the US is starting to resemble a Reality TV show, more than a government. No matter who's in office. That could be due to the 24/7 coverage and opinions broadcast across social media. *shrug*

Yes.

 

[Sarkus]

Agreed. Personally, our government here in the US is starting to resemble a Reality TV show, more than a government. No matter who's in office. That could be due to the 24/7 coverage and opinions broadcast across social media. *shrug*

It's also possibly just because of the sheer amount of money in US politics. I mean, $1bn (iirc) spent by the Democrats alone at the last election??

 

[billvon]

Trump apparently, is non-denominational now, previously Presbyterian.

Yep. A Presbyterian bishop had the unmitigated gall to call on him for mercy. Trump is not having any of that sh!t.

Surely there's a religion somewhere that preaches intolerance, doing unto others before they do unto you, division, keeping all your own money instead of wasting it on the poor etc,