This Whole Thing Reminds Me Of Racism And Discrimination

[Dante92]

That said it's clear that a large part of his support was a protest vote against some recent trends.

That's what most people here in Europe believe as well.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

That's what most people here in Europe believe as well.

You guys would know lol.

Who's going to win in France?

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

LOL They'll never let Le Pen win, no matter how much vote rigging it's going to take, that's for sure. They don't want an "European Trump" and set a precedent for all the other European countries, the EU and liberals don't want all their dirty businesses be spoiled, you know, especially concerning immigrants.

Was speaking to a relative who grew up in France. He works in finance in NY.

He supports Le Pen. The way he put it, the euro has been a disaster for France, and has been a disaster for most of Europe outside of Germany. He said France contributed 23% of European manufacturing prior to the euro, and now they're down to 12%. Living standards are down, the economy is down, etc. The euro is just not working out.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Greetings,

Scandinavia is in no way isolated, doesn't fit this conversation. Social engineering notwithstanding, the Scandinavian countries are, of course, right on top of each other, and Europe. As is the UK.

I'm guessing that you've never lived in Japan, right? If you had you would never, ever say this: "Watching foreign films with subtitles, or dubbed, still counts as watching foreign films. It's a piece of art from a culture separate from your own and thus there's a good shot that it will have different biases and different markers."

Japan is 98.5% Japanese. You will not find a more homogenous society on the globe culturally, linguistically, or in population, besides NK. The fact that they enjoy dubbed Batman makes them about as global as my General Tso's Chicken dinner at the mall a couple of weeks ago makes me Chinese. Sure, there are different biases and markers to be found in movies, but the two hours spent watching a western action flick every couple of months does not a global citizen make, it is the tiniest drop in the bucket and the tens of millions of foreigners living and working in the USA and the much higher rate of immigration and accepting refugees there have a much, much greater impact on making people "global", of course. Please remember that being "global" first and foremost is about communicating with and knowing living, breathing foreigners, and the US has no shortage of them. As is true of Canada and Australia which are better comparisons and yes in certain ways quite "global".

1) I already acknowledged that Japan has problems as well, which is not a big secret that I'm revealing. Japan's issues, and continued stagflation, zombie banking system, low birth rates, etc are widely discussed in the international media. There are many contributing factors to this. If you believe, as is plausible, that the insularity contributes to these issues, then it supports the general point I'm making as to the harm of insularity.

Reiterating, this was a book written in 1991, by one of the most respected foreign policy analysts in the USA:

Does it look kind of stupid now? Perhaps, hindsight is 20/20, but the world appeared different when it was written. Even though it's "wrong", I think I'd enjoy reading it, as it was written by a brilliant mind in a different era, and thus might still be elucidating.

Japan actually did import a lot of western ideas and methods between the 1850s and today, it helped propel them to being one of the richest countries in the world, I think they're ranked third now. But they're stagnating, and it's widely argued that the insularity contributes to the stagnation.

You're arguing against American insularity by pointing out that some other countries are insular as well. I agree. Some of them are even more insular. However, for those countries it's also a detrimental attribute, and is likely contributing malaise.

2) As for the Scandinavian countries, yes they have social engineering (so does every society) and as far as I an tell it's mostly working out very well for them. I like the fact that children are fed vegetables rather than pizza in school, that they learn multiple language, that parents get subsidized day care, and that the justice system is focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment thus making it more effective.

3) Watching foreign films is a modest form of internationalism, which I'm using only because it's a subject I know a little bit about. You scorn the idea of Japanese getting any internationalism from Hollywood, but the fact is they do get somewhat of a glimpse into America. American audiences scorn foreign films, whether dubbed or subtitled. The trend is one of less foreign viewing than ten years ago, and I think this trend is due to cultural changes, as it's obviously not due to geographic changes.

Yes I know General Tso's chicken ain't authentic Chinese, and that was part of my point. What is authentically foreign is a living breathing foreigner, of which we have many many millions in the USA.

It ain't Chinese but it sure is delicious

I know, I was just goofing off, hence the use of smileys

 

[pjhair]

Was speaking to a relative who grew up in France. He works in finance in NY.
He supports Le Pen. The way he put it, the euro has been a disaster for France, and has been a disaster for most of Europe outside of Germany.

@David_MPN and @Dante92 , what's your opinion on Germany? Do you feel like they often swing from one extreme to another and bring the entire Europe down with them? In second world war they shifted to extreme right wing. Now they have shifted to extreme left and are attempting to force down their suicidal immigration policies on other European countries. It's as if they struggle to strike the right balance. In the past, they forced down their policies using army and now they use EU. I haven't studied European history in detail so I may be completely wrong here.

 

[yetti]

1) I already acknowledged that Japan has problems as well, which is not a big secret that I'm revealing. Japan's issues, and continued stagflation, zombie banking system, low birth rates, etc are widely discussed in the international media. There are many contributing factors to this. If you believe, as is plausible, that the insularity contributes to these issues, then it supports the general point I'm making as to the harm of insularity.

Reiterating, this was a book written in 1991, by one of the most respected foreign policy analysts in the USA:

Does it look kind of stupid now? Perhaps, hindsight is 20/20, but the world appeared different when it was written. Even though it's "wrong", I think I'd enjoy reading it, as it was written by a brilliant mind in a different era, and thus might still be elucidating.

Japan actually did import a lot of western ideas and methods between the 1850s and today, it helped propel them to being one of the richest countries in the world, I think they're ranked third now. But they're stagnating, and it's widely argued that the insularity contributes to the stagnation.

You're arguing against American insularity by pointing out that some other countries are insular as well. I agree. Some of them are even more insular. However, for those countries it's also a detrimental attribute, and is likely contributing malaise.

2) As for the Scandinavian countries, yes they have social engineering (so does every society) and as far as I an tell it's mostly working out very well for them. I like the fact that children are fed vegetables rather than pizza in school, that they learn multiple language, that parents get subsidized day care, and that the justice system is focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment thus making it more effective.

3) Watching foreign films is a modest form of internationalism, which I'm using only because it's a subject I know a little bit about. You scorn the idea of Japanese getting any internationalism from Hollywood, but the fact is they do get somewhat of a glimpse into America. American audiences scorn foreign films, whether dubbed or subtitled. The trend is one of less foreign viewing than ten years ago, and I think this trend is due to cultural changes, as it's obviously not due to geographic changes.


I know, I was just goofing off, hence the use of smileys

I know the book, of course it's extremely famous.

Ya, being insular is surely bad... I'm not arguing that insularity is not bad, of course it is. Really I'm arguing against something you already apologized for when you said "The way I phrased my post was lacking precision and is thus unfair in paintbrushing Americans rather than too many Americans , etc.". So there's no point at this point, probably.

Japan's stagnation, by the way, isn't that bad. It's a very rich and safe country with low unemplyment, spectacular infrastructure, and a lot of active people seeing and doing things. And shopping. But yeah it would be a richer country in many ways, not just economic, if it weren't so insular. And the future isn't going to be pretty if Japan keeps depopulating and does not vastly increase its rate of immigration.

"You scorn the idea of Japanese getting any internationalism from Hollywood, but the fact is they do get somewhat of a glimpse into America."

Sure, but, so? This isn't a conversation about "somewhat of a glimpse". Sure it would be better if Americans watched more foreign films, as they would also get "somewhat of a glimpse" into foreign countries from doing that. But immigration and accepting refugees is a billion times more important in making people "global" and America has plenty of that. I think sometimes people undervalue human beings when they talk about "globalization". Watching a Bollywood movie is OK, but having an Indian neighbor is what it's all about.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

@David_MPN and @Dante92 , what's your opinion on Germany? Do you feel like they often swing from one extreme to another and bring the entire Europe down with them? In second world war they shifted to extreme right wing. Now they have shifted to extreme left and are attempting to force down their suicidal immigration policies on other European countries. It's as if they struggle to strike the right balance. In the past, they forced down their policies using army and now they use EU. I haven't studied European history in detail so I may be completely wrong here.

I don't have a satisfactory (to me) understanding of German behaviour as I do with the USA. I think they're trying to consolidate their dominion over Europe (and succeeding), as Hitler failed to do in the 1940s. Margaret Thatcher correctly warned against German reunification, she jokingly said "I love Germany so much that I want there to be two of them!" However, the Germanys united regardless, became stronger, and now dominate Europe.

There's also the issue that removing Russian influence from Eastern Europe (a policy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama and a reason for the current hostilies with Russia), with NATO now taking in the mighty military power of Montenegro as an ally (lol), means that those countries are likely to fall under German influence.

Between the fact that Germany has been able to hold on to manufacturing in spite of China's rise (unlike America), that it's wiped out the PIIGS via the Euro, that it's consolidating a hold over Eastern Europe due to the US military removing Russian influence, and that Frankfurt may inherit the city of London financial centre once the UK leaves the EU, Germany is basically an emerging superpower with a very strong foundation. It's very impressive.

I consider Angela Merkel to be the smartest and wisest leader of the G7 countries, admittedly, the competition is very weak.

They've had a good run of increasing their influence. The strength of German manufacturing means that American manufacturing is squeezed at both ends: Germany and South Korea produce the fancy stuff, China and India produce the low-tech stuff, which leaves the USA producing much less. They also fought an impressive proxy war against the USA in Iraq. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder led the international diplomatic opposition to the Iraq invasion, which ultimately made that war a lot more difficult and expensive for the USA. Masterful chess move which weakened the USA.

I am not sure why they are taking in so many refugees. I think that 1 million went to Germany, 150,000 went to Sweden, I forget about the rest of Europe. I can speculate. Without plans for integration, which a lot of Europe doesn't have, this will promote instability. Instability can be good as it can encourage the population to support a police state and greater military spending. Alternatively, Germany may just want the cheap labour (as America has with 'illegal' hispanic migrants) to help deal with its coming construction boom. The city of Frankfurt will need a sh*t ton of construction workers and service sector workers to welcome the city of London. My friends living in Germany tell me that there's an unprecedented construction boom in Frankfurt, so Germany is aware of this issue, but this boom is not being reported anywhere in the international media.

It is impressive that they're building a superpower and nobody's talking about it. Contrast that to current discussions of China, or that of Japan in the 1980s.

 

[hairblues]

Really, though, do you know why Trump won? The white Christian vote, including both men and women. They are the only groups who voted for him, obviously in big enough numbers to offset everyone else.

Respectfully though,
The christian Right has always been voting right-wing since Regan years.
Thats not new to me to be honest.
They are voting for Supreme Court always in the front of their mind as well as policies that can be perceived to (overly?) support LBGT.

The tipping scale in my opinion was 3rd party candidates protest voting and the blue-collar democrats in the industrial areas that are now ghost towns.
If you look at the votes in the Blue states that flipped Red and the breakdown in numbers--the amount that Trump won by is smaller than the amount of votes for Jill Stein alone..Add to that the Gary Johson (which is more debatable how many would have gone for HRC vs Trump).
I think this is first time those two 3rd parties did that well (could be wrong, I am lazily assuming) in actual vote count in that many states. (not counting Ross Perot as he was a true independent I believe not green or libertarian) I know Nadar/Green party in past did well but I don't know off hand if he pulled that many votes.

I think it is also fair to include something that cannot be quantified as a possibility--That Russia interference via hacking as well as the mass promotion of fake news... I do believe this had a real effect on the minds of some voters. I do not think there is any way to actually prove this. It's just reasonable to assume it had at least some effect.

And I do think its as the Ginger Rogers, Fred Astair quote goes--'She did everything he did but in heels backwards'--it's not unfair to say that her being a woman, an unlikeable woman, did not indeed bug some people more so than if she had been a man..and if people were not more forgiving of Trumps (oh, those boys will be boys) bad behavior than they would have had he been a woman doing and saying the same things.
Women themselves are very unforgiving about 'unlikeable' women, it is not just men. Where men in high positions of power, if they are 'unlikeable' they seem to get away with more from both genders..it seems that way at least in politics--I honestly don't know if it plays into everyday life as well. This last part is not 'fact' it is my observation so of course it's debatable.

 

[hairblues]

I know the book, of course it's extremely famous.

Ya, being insular is surely bad... I'm not arguing that insularity is not bad, of course it is. Really I'm arguing against something you already apologized for when you said "The way I phrased my post was lacking precision and is thus unfair in paintbrushing Americans rather than too many Americans , etc.". So there's no point at this point, probably.

Japan's stagnation, by the way, isn't that bad. It's a very rich and safe country with low unemplyment, spectacular infrastructure, and a lot of active people seeing and doing things. And shopping. But yeah it would be a richer country in many ways, not just economic, if it weren't so insular. And the future isn't going to be pretty if Japan keeps depopulating and does not vastly increase its rate of immigration.

"You scorn the idea of Japanese getting any internationalism from Hollywood, but the fact is they do get somewhat of a glimpse into America."

Sure, but, so? This isn't a conversation about "somewhat of a glimpse". Sure it would be better if Americans watched more foreign films, as they would also get "somewhat of a glimpse" into foreign countries from doing that. But immigration and accepting refugees is a billion times more important in making people "global" and America has plenty of that. I think sometimes people undervalue human beings when they talk about "globalization". Watching a Bollywood movie is OK, but having an Indian neighbor is what it's all about.

Also they are not paying to see foreign films...How do we know they are not watching on TV via cable which is filled with foreign films all the time. I don't know if it is as expensive to see a film in a French movie theater as it is to see a film in an American movie theater? (i honestly don't know)
An average American family wants to get their money worth when attending a film I suspect. Small budget talking head film with subtitles vs the latest Pixar or big budget thriller/action film with visual effects? meh.

Edit
I found this after i posted my curiosity of theater ticket price differences

An average full-price ticket to a Paris movie theater is about €10. But Paris residents who want unbridled movie-going access can sign up for monthly unlimited passes with mega-chains Gaumont/Pathé or UGC/MK2 for around €20 per month.

I mean 20 euro for unlimited pass monthly is great deal if it is without exceptions.

this shows Italy is doing similar thing since 2016, as it seems film attendance was 'down' and needing a boost
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/italy-unveils-monthly-2-euro-930988

 

[yetti]

Respectfully though,
The christian Right has always been voting right-wing since Regan years.
Thats not new to me to be honest.
They are voting for Supreme Court always in the front of their mind as well as policies that can be perceived to (overly?) support LBGT.

The tipping scale in my opinion was 3rd party candidates protest voting and the blue-collar democrats in the industrial areas that are now ghost towns.
If you look at the votes in the Blue states that flipped Red and the breakdown in numbers--the amount that Trump won by is smaller than the amount of votes for Jill Stein alone..Add to that the Gary Johson (which is more debatable how many would have gone for HRC vs Trump).
I think this is first time those two 3rd parties did that well (could be wrong, I am lazily assuming) in actual vote count in that many states. (not counting Ross Perot as he was a true independent I believe not green or libertarian) I know Nadar/Green party in past did well but I don't know off hand if he pulled that many votes.

I think it is also fair to include something that cannot be quantified as a possibility--That Russia interference via hacking as well as the mass promotion of fake news... I do believe this had a real effect on the minds of some voters. I do not think there is any way to actually prove this. It's just reasonable to assume it had at least some effect.

And I do think its as the Ginger Rogers, Fred Astair quote goes--'She did everything he did but in heels backwards'--it's not unfair to say that her being a woman, an unlikeable woman, did not indeed bug some people more so than if she had been a man..and if people were not more forgiving of Trumps (oh, those boys will be boys) bad behavior than they would have had he been a woman doing and saying the same things.
Women themselves are very unforgiving about 'unlikeable' women, it is not just men. Where men in high positions of power, if they are 'unlikeable' they seem to get away with more from both genders..it seems that way at least in politics--I honestly don't know if it plays into everyday life as well. This last part is not 'fact' it is my observation so of course it's debatable.

Ya, no, as usual I agree with most of what you wrote, including the tipping point. But what I mean when I say that white Christian America is the reason Trump became president, is exactly that. He won in a landslide with white Christian America, and lost in a landslide with everyone else. So one can get into the details and say it was blue collar democrats in ghost towns and Comey and protest votes that pushed it over the line, and that's important and all true, but the bottom line is that white Christian men and women supported Trump for president, and everyone else strongly opposed him. Here it is:

 

[hairblues]

Ya, no, as usual I agree with most of what you wrote, including the tipping point. But what I mean when I say that white Christian America is the reason Trump became president, is exactly that. He won in a landslide with white Christian America, and lost in a landslide with everyone else. So one can get into the details and say it was blue collar democrats in ghost towns and Comey and protest votes that pushed it over the line, and that's important and all true, but the bottom line is that white Christian men and women supported Trump for president, and everyone else strongly opposed him. Here it is:

But did that white christian support 'increase' over past elections in voting block?
Like did they show up in the same numbers for republicans in past 25 years?
Or is it increasing?

I thought it was that the same numbers from the other groups did not show up for HRC as they did for Obama or even Gore.
and that the white christians were just annoyingly consistent..(I honestly don't know)

 

[pjhair]

I don't have a satisfactory (to me) understanding of German behaviour as I do with the USA. I think they're trying to consolidate their dominion over Europe (and succeeding), as Hitler failed to do in the 1940s. Margaret Thatcher correctly warned against German reunification, she jokingly said "I love Germany so much that I want there to be two of them!" However, the Germanys united regardless, became stronger, and now dominate Europe.

There's also the issue that removing Russian influence from Eastern Europe (a policy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama and a reason for the current hostilies with Russia), with NATO now taking in the mighty military power of Montenegro as an ally (lol), means that those countries are likely to fall under German influence.

Between the fact that Germany has been able to hold on to manufacturing in spite of China's rise (unlike America), that it's wiped out the PIIGS via the Euro, that it's consolidating a hold over Eastern Europe due to the US military removing Russian influence, and that Frankfurt may inherit the city of London financial centre once the UK leaves the EU, Germany is basically an emerging superpower with a very strong foundation. It's very impressive.

I consider Angela Merkel to be the smartest and wisest leader of the G7 countries, admittedly, the competition is very weak.

They've had a good run of increasing their influence. The strength of German manufacturing means that American manufacturing is squeezed at both ends: Germany and South Korea produce the fancy stuff, China and India produce the low-tech stuff, which leaves the USA producing much less. They also fought an impressive proxy war against the USA in Iraq. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder led the international diplomatic opposition to the Iraq invasion, which ultimately made that war a lot more difficult and expensive for the USA. Masterful chess move which weakened the USA.

I am not sure why they are taking in so many refugees. I think that 1 million went to Germany, 150,000 went to Sweden, I forget about the rest of Europe. I can speculate. Without plans for integration, which a lot of Europe doesn't have, this will promote instability. Instability can be good as it can encourage the population to support a police state and greater military spending. Alternatively, Germany may just want the cheap labour (as America has with 'illegal' hispanic migrants) to help deal with its coming construction boom. The city of Frankfurt will need a sh*t ton of construction workers and service sector workers to welcome the city of London. My friends living in Germany tell me that there's an unprecedented construction boom in Frankfurt, so Germany is aware of this issue, but this boom is not being reported anywhere in the international media.

It is impressive that they're building a superpower and nobody's talking about it. Contrast that to current discussions of China, or that of Japan in the 1980s.

That was quite informative David. Thanks.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

@Guzam is a poster who is likely to have an informed opinion on Germany's increasing global geopolitical strength, and their subjugation of the rest of Europe.

 

[yetti]

But did that white christian support 'increase' over past elections in voting block?
Like did they show up in the same numbers for republicans in past 25 years?
Or is it increasing?

I thought it was that the same numbers of other groups did not show up for HRC as they did for Obama or even Gore.
and that the white christians were just annoyingly consistent..(I honestly don't know)

Yeah I think you are right, though maybe Trump did get a little bump from them. In any event they made Trump president... and yeah, Republicans would win every presidential election if there were only white Christians voting.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Ya, no, as usual I agree with most of what you wrote, including the tipping point. But what I mean when I say that white Christian America is the reason Trump became president, is exactly that. He won in a landslide with white Christian America, and lost in a landslide with everyone else. So one can get into the details and say it was blue collar democrats in ghost towns and Comey and protest votes that pushed it over the line, and that's important and all true, but the bottom line is that white Christian men and women supported Trump for president, and everyone else strongly opposed him. Here it is:

Thank you.

I wasn't aware that ~24% of Jews and ~30% of Hispanics had supported Trump.

 

[RegenWaiting]

It's worth remembering that during the campaign Trump's numbers did crash after the pussy remarks. He was about ten or fifteen points behind. However he subsequently got more traction due to campaigning in the right places, and Comey reopening and closing the email investigation.

That said it's clear that a large part of his support was a protest vote against some recent trends.

Yes, you are indeed right about the initial response of the public. Howewer, in the long run, it's also important to remember that, it probably gave him even more ''credit'' within groups of his most loyal voters. If you look at the voting system in America, it may (partly) explain why it also was very crucial for his victory. Also, we now know to take those numbers you're reffering to with a grain of salt. Sponsoring and significant variance are two of the factors which warrant this.

Cheers

 

[RegenWaiting]

You guys would know lol.

Who's going to win in France?

If the right wing populists in Europe emerge as victors, it won't nearly be for the same reason as Trump. While Europe has much bigger immigrant-problems than USA, it would indeed be an easy win for them if they voted ''right'' for the same reasons. But they don't, and they won't. In Europe the problems emerge from a more practical, everyday-sensing reality. It's not a protest vote. It's a vote against the very people they are sorounded by and live with. Against their unability to blend in.

Cheers

 

[RegenWaiting]

Ya, no, as usual I agree with most of what you wrote, including the tipping point. But what I mean when I say that white Christian America is the reason Trump became president, is exactly that. He won in a landslide with white Christian America, and lost in a landslide with everyone else. So one can get into the details and say it was blue collar democrats in ghost towns and Comey and protest votes that pushed it over the line, and that's important and all true, but the bottom line is that white Christian men and women supported Trump for president, and everyone else strongly opposed him. Here it is:

If you just look at gender though... Throughout every race...

 

[RegenWaiting]

@Guzam is a poster who is likely to have an informed opinion on Germany's increasing global geopolitical strength, and their subjugation of the rest of Europe.

While it may very well be the end result, I don't believe Germany's subjugation of the rest of Europe is intentional. Rather it's a product of the system they (we) live in. Capitalism. Place one apple between two rivals and see if they end up splitting it, if hyngry. Hardly. Congratulations, we've done it. Survival of the smartest. Carl Marx had it all figured out?

Cheers

 

[hairblues]

If the right wing populists in Europe emerge as victors, it won't nearly be for the same reason as Trump. While Europe has much bigger immigrant-problems than USA, it would indeed be an easy win for them if they voted ''right'' for the same reasons. But they don't, and they won't. In Europe the problems emerge from a more practical, everyday-sensing reality. It's not a protest vote. It's a vote against the very people they are sorounded by and live with. Against their unability to blend in.

Cheers

This is s good point

In USA, for most part, refugees are integrated very well.
I remember in Miami in the early 80s (i lived there partially growing up over many years) we were dealing with Cuban immigrants and Haitan later years...and their were some bumps in road not going to lie but within a few years even just in Miami community they integrated really well.

Now with refugees that came here i think we USA handle them from Mid East so much better than Europe...

So when on this forum for example ALL the guys in Europe who were dealing wth the negatives of their own countries taking in refugees and its negative effect on country--they were so supportive of Trump and his pro American message...MEanwhile this is all 'emotion' because factually USA taking those refugees would have been better then them going to Europe.
We are ruthless with following and monitoring our refugees in comparison to Europe..Europe is NOT set up for it.
And we intergrate mid east Refugees so much better than in Europe.
So Now you have Trump winning so what happens? those refugees that would have come here probably won't and they will wind up MORE so in Europe. So why the European guys were so Pro Trump..I don't understand.
And this Pro Russian Anti Nato stuff I really don't understand from European interests.
I understand what they 'think' but it's not realistic to actuality.
Maybe they are too young and don't remember USSR agenda..and no one is more the 'sprit' of old USSR than Putin.