What Are the Options for Trump Voters Who Don't Feel Listened to by the Democratic Party?

[Valjean]

My support for Trump is simple: Meat and potatoes. That's it, it's not complex or aloof or difficult to grasp.

And he'll make the trains run on time!
Sorry if you can't relate to complex, and think those who can are aloof elitists.

I think that Democrats have been pounding the pavement for things that sound great, but don't translate into a workable reality or are so expensive that they're not realistically achieved. I find myself in agreement with many of the social concerns Dems have, but I don't know how they can do them without destroying us in the process.

Please name some of these democratic pipe-dreams.

That's not saying I reject the ideas, but rather I don't know if they're the one's to implement them. (I feel that they've been historically bad at this.) I prefer a gradual more conservative and organic process of change than what they seem to believe in. My concern is usually they're 'going too fast with that' and it's just because I feel it takes time to acclimate to new things. There are certain things where I think they're specifically barking up the wrong tree.

"All deliberate speed," eh? When has that ever worked? If the Republicans had their way we'd still be living in caves.

We've already fallen behind every other developed nation. Why so fearful of change -- especially when we have so many examples of how to do it successfully?
Remember FDR in the early '30s? He had no such examples, but that didn't stop him from implementing all kinds of novel social programs. Some worked, some didn't. The ones that didn't were tweaked or dropped. No harm done.

1) LGBT rights - This has to come organically to stick and not build resentment. It's much better than it was, but to go further is really just takes time.

This is a major Democratic social initiative?
Why do you think this too expensive or complex to work on?

2) Abortion - Ideally, we have the means to have zero of these. We should make that happen and discourage the practice. It's not something to be celebrated or even sought. It should be something we are doing only in medical emergencies to save someone's life.

Wasn't this was already addressed in '73?
Republicans have been chipping away at it for 40 years, causing all sorts of social problems. And, strangely enough, they block any attempts to reduce the need for it as well, rejecting reproductive education in school, access to contraception, &c.
This isn't a major social initative, either.

3) Climate - I agree with much of what the concerns are with Dems, but I also disagree on implementation. They've sort of pushed for a heavy-handed approach. I don't want pollution at all, but at the same time I realize we're not at a sum zero in technology where we can do that. -YET-. Meanwhile, people gotta eat. I'd favor an approach which is much more cognizant of both the economic and human concerns. Do whatever we can w/o cutting our throats in the process, etc.

You so, so, underestimate the magnitude of this problem, and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing it.

4) Race - Nonsense. If your life sucks at the moment, I guarantee your race has nothing to do with it. I won't even entertain that dialogue in the affirmative, or not. This is similar to the LGBT issue in that any actual remaining racism needs to get worked out over time/acclimation. But, I still think it's 1% of what it was in the 60's and it's to the point of diminishing returns. Resources spent here presently don't really translate into results... It's a dead issue for me, and not something I vote in consideration of.

Again, hardly a major Democratic initiative, and, again, I don't think you realize how deeply ingrained racism is in American culture or how much it impacts the lives of minorities.

5) Proxy wars, globalism, etc. - Totally against these things in entirety. Trump rejects it, Tulsi rejected it, and so on. I'm so over the endless useless conflicts. The Dem donors are the war hawks and they are going to have to appease this constituency. I'm against Biden mostly on this issue and the meat & potatoes. I don't think Biden can do better than Trump on the economy... He's had his shots and never took them.

Here you have a good point. We spend more on the military than we do on social programs. There is no external, existential threat to the US, and the UN, not the US, is supposed to be the 'world's policeman'. But we have a wolf by the ears. Precipitously pulling out of our military adventures could be catastrophic.

How about some real problems, like healthcare or education or housing?

 

[PureX]

There is only one way I can think of to get the democratic establishment to pay attention to the needs and desires of their constituents instead of the needs and desires of the wealthy conglomerates that pay them. And that is to vote against every incumbent candidate in every election regardless of party affiliation until you get someone in office that will ACT to stop the legalized bribery that as so thoroughly corrupted both parties. Once they see that they will not be allowed to keep their positions of power unless they ACT to stop the corruption, they will grudgingly begin to do so. But if we do not force them, by rejecting them in every election, they never will.

Instead of voting based on abortion, and jobs, and the stock market, we need to start voting based on the sole criteria of stopping the corruption by stopping the legalized bribery of the house and the senate. Nothing else can or will ever change until we do this.

 

[pearl]

Let's go beyond the President, for a minute. At issue is also Court Justices (which I think is important). If another vacancy comes up... I would love another originalist and Constitutionalist and get back to what these Unites States is about.

That's really a loaded statement. What, specifically, does 'what these United States is about' mean to you and your support for Trump as opposed to Biden since it is the president who nominates a justice?

 

[pearl]

Trump said he was going to bring back manufacturing jobs, restore America's industrial base, and repair our crumbling infrastructure.

So what's he been doing for the last four years?

 

[Valjean]

So what's he been doing for the last four years?

Watching Fox News and tweeting.

 

[bobhikes]

A recent thread I made where I asked Trump voters/supporters why they supported him has led me to the conclusion that some Trump supporters plan to vote for him because nobody has addressed their most pressing, everyday concerns such as finances, employment, etc.

So my question is this: Even if a Trump supporter is mistaken in the perception that Trump is going to address their concerns, what is the alternative? Realistically, the Democratic Party is the only other option, and a Trump supporter isn't going to vote for them if they feel their everyday concerns aren't going to be addressed.

I'm not talking about the white supremacists or gun-toting extremists who support Trump for clearly malicious reasons. I'm talking about the subset of his supporters who are average Joes/Janes with middle- or working-class jobs and are concerned about how they're going to pay their bills next month because, as far as they can see, Democrats won't make things any better for their situation.

I would like this thread to be an opportunity to see more perspectives because discussions about Trump often seem focused on the most morally bankrupt portion of his base. This one focuses on a different portion thereof, so hopefully it could help me gain a better and more realistic understanding of how other politicians could best address their concerns and perhaps win their votes.

They don't have to there are many 3rd party candidates. If enough people actually voted 3rd party it would change both the Democrats and the Republican parties. The problem is that everyone see's it as an either or problem. I've read articles that indicate if just 9 percent of the population would vote 3rd party it would change the whole system.

 

[Stevicus]

So what's he been doing for the last four years?

Along the lines I was talking about, he renegotiated NAFTA and imposed tariffs on China in an attempt to reduce the trade deficit. It's almost as if both parties did a 180° turn from what they were 30 years ago, when Democrats were more inclined to support labor and tariffs, while the Republicans opposed them. Now, it seems they're both supporting the opposite of what they used to support.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

6 Negative Effects of NAFTA

Interesting. I like the author’s succinctness.
However, back at her home base in thebalance.com she writes a more ....wait for it......
balanced article on the same subject, here ->. 6 Pros and Cons of NAFTA

....in which she points out that while some 600k US manufacturing jobs were lost due to NAFTA, roughly 5M US jobs were gained due to NAFTA.
So yes, many US workers had to move and/or retrain for different jobs, and we prit much destroyed Mexican small farms with US big-Ag taking over, which in turn worsened pollution in Mexico and increased illegal immigration to the US.

She has a nice table in that article, but I cannot cut and paste it here on my ipad.


NAFTA's Pros May Outweigh Its Cons
NAFTA's disadvantages are significant. Can anything justify the loss of entire industries in New York or Michigan? Worker mistreatment in the maquiladora program is also concerning. NAFTA may also be responsible for environmental damage along the border.

But from an economic perspective, NAFTA is a success and that without it, the impacts of competition from the growing economies of the European Union or China would be worse. That's critical now that both of these trade areas rank above the United States as the world's largest economies.15

Evaluating NAFTA's value is not an easy or simple question. However, many experts believe that free trade agreements are a necessity for the United States when competing in an ever more globalized world.


Late edited PS - after we effectively nuked the Mexican Ag economy, Trump made minor tweaks to NAFTA because he thought Mexico was getting too much from the US.

 

[tytlyf]

Well, I admit it is superficial, but she smiles too much. Hard to tell if she is taking any of this seriously.

So you don't support Harris because she smiles too much...got it.
Do you know why she was smiling so often interacting with Mike Pence during the debate?

 

[Stevicus]

But from an economic perspective, NAFTA is a success and that without it, the impacts of competition from the growing economies of the European Union or China would be worse. That's critical now that both of these trade areas rank above the United States as the world's largest economies.15

This is the argument I find the least convincing, since the goal should be to improve and enhance the standard of living within the United States. We don't have to be the largest economy in the world in order to do that. Much smaller economies have managed to do quite well, so the idea that bigger=better isn't all that convincing.

One point that's been made lately is, that during this coronavirus pandemic, our supply chains were affected because a lot of necessary equipment and materials had to be imported from China - because we don't make things in the United States anymore. That put us at a serious disadvantage caused by the short-sightedness of those who wanted to outsource just so they can earn higher profits.

That's why I believe we'd be far better off by abandoning the FIRE economy and return manufacturing back to the United States. The only things we should import are those things which can not be mined nor grown in the United States. We do not need to import any manufactured goods, since we should be doing that ourselves for the sake of autarky, or economic independence.

It doesn't really matter if we "compete" or have the largest economy just for bragging rights. What matters more is whether we have enough stuff for ourselves in the U.S. We might have to give up on certain sacred ideas such American exceptionalism and the idea that America is the center of the universe, but I'd be willing to give that up for a better and more just economic system.

 

[Nakosis]

So you don't support Harris because she smiles too much...got it.
Do you know why she was smiling so often interacting with Mike Pence during the debate?

Yeah, I don't read minds.

However, it is not only that, the entire Democratic party didn't want her in the position to be president. I didn't pay too much attention to her at the time but now I'm a little curious as to why.

 

[tytlyf]

-Public Education = Democrat support = and Republicans. Republicans defund public education = anti-middle class policy
-Minimum wage increase = Democrat support = middle-class = no, only those below poverty line for which there is ample help. Republicans are against increasing the middle wage at every opportunity = anti-middle class policy
-Workers rights and protections = Democrat support = middle-class - I support workers rights and protections - don't see where republicans don't Republicans are against workers rights and protections = anti-middle class policy
-Health care for all = Democrat support = middle class - we reject only the one for all - not the concept Republicans are against ANY healthcare that covers pre-existing conditions = anti-middle class policy
-Lower taxes on middle-class = Democrat support = middle-class - That is EXACTLY what Trump did. Republicans lowered taxes on capitalist elitists and corporations = anti-middle class policy
-Climate Change = Democrat support = middle-class - has nothing to do with middle class Republicans call the science a hoax to increase profits = anti-middle class policy
-Unions = Democrat support = middle-class - toss up - I agree with them until they become the one that makes business go down as my Uncle said when he worked for GM. Republicans are never in support of Unions when it comes to policy = anti-middle class policy
-Small Business = Democrat support = middle-class - also Republicans but Democrat supported Nafta... not exactly a small Business in mind Republicans support corporations like Walmart regardless of impact of small business = anti-middle class policy
-More safety laws (regulations) = Democrat support = middle-class - depends what you mean by that Republicans are always against regulations because they hurt profits = anti-middle class policy
-Equal rights for all = Democrat support = middle-class - Republicans position too. Republicans do not support equal rights for those in the LGBTQ community = anti-middle class policy

Doesn't seem like there is that much of a difference Depends where you get your information from doesn't it?.

My comments in red

 

[tytlyf]

Democrats = NAFTA.

You sure about that? I get that it's a talking point floating around social media without any context to back it up. Take a look at the bolded parts below. Seems you should direct your distaste towards a different party.

United States
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. The U.S. required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[citation needed] After much consideration and emotional discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38.[21] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Republican Representative David Dreier of California, a strong proponent of NAFTA since the Reagan Administration, played a leading role in mobilizing support for the agreement among Republicans in Congress and across the country.[22][23]

Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[24][25] At the signing ceremony, Clinton recognized four individuals for their efforts in accomplishing the historic trade deal: Vice President Al Gore, Chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura Tyson, Director of the National Economic Council Robert Rubin, and Republican Congressman David Dreier.[26] Clinton also stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[27] NAFTA replaced the previous Canada-US FTA.

 

[tytlyf]

Yeah, I don't read minds.

It's a political strategy. Pence was attempting to get her annoyed so they could have video for their propaganda campaign later. (Fox was disappointed, so they used a couple video's of her saying "excuse me" "I'm talking", etc) RW media wanted a lot more. Harris knew that tactic and wasn't falling into the trap. (The right wanted to paint her as an "angry black woman.")
Before the debate started, the RW narrative was to paint her as that. So they went into the debate to get a reaction on TV. She smiled when she could tell they were attempting that. So she played it cool.
Harris knew this narrative was going to be used before the debate.

However, it is not only that, the entire Democratic party didn't want her in the position to be president. I didn't pay too much attention to her at the time but now I'm a little curious as to why.

Never heard that before.....outside of RW gossip.

 

[Nakosis]

It's a political strategy. Pence was attempting to get her annoyed so they could have video for their propaganda campaign later. (Fox was disappointed, so they used a couple video's of her saying "excuse me" "I'm talking", etc) RW media wanted a lot more. Harris knew that tactic and wasn't falling into the trap. (The right wanted to paint her as an "angry black woman.")
Before the debate started, the RW narrative was to paint her as that. So they went into the debate to get a reaction on TV. She smiled when she could tell they were attempting that. So she played it cool.
Harris knew this narrative was going to be used before the debate.

Not only the debates I'm finding out. Seems to be her SOP if criticized in an interview as well. Interviews for non-RW media.

Never heard that before.....outside of RW gossip.

I haven't heard it from anybody. Everyone seems to be focused on Trump and Biden. Although the interview I'm recalling was on CNN. Jake Tapper was a bit critical of her position.
Not really being a political pundit I'm a little curious how this is all going to work out.

 

[tytlyf]

Not really being a political pundit I'm a little curious how this is all going to work out.

Everything will work out fine, always does under democratic administrations. You'll also see the middle class start making a comeback. The republican capitalists won't like that.

 

[pearl]

(The right wanted to paint her as an "angry black woman.")

That's exactly the same tactic they tried on Michelle Obama.

 

[tytlyf]

That's exactly the same tactic they tried on Michelle Obama.

I'm sure it was. Remember, the republican elitists know it's good to rile up their base. Playing racial stereotypes. "Calves the size of cantaloupes from carrying drugs across the border"

 

[Kenny]

I know its highly unlikely that anyone will read past their own biases, but here is a big splash of reality anyways.

Middle class economy and taxes. Ten actions that hurt workers during Trump’s first year: How Trump and Congress further rigged the economy in favor of the wealthy
How Trump has betrayed the working class | Robert Reich
It wasn’t China that ruined the middle class; it was Republican policies

Small business. The Big Lie that Conservative Policies Are Good for Small Business - Center for American Progress
Republican Tax Plans Would Largely Exclude Small Businesses — and Could Even Hurt Them

Public education. Why the Right Hates Public Education - Rethinking Schools
Why Republicans have long wanted to shut Education Department
What the Republican platform says about education This one is probably a big factor in why the GOP refused to publish a new platform this year. Scary.

Workers’ rights and protections. How President Trump and congressional Republicans are undercutting wages and protections for working people
Trumping Labor: The Republican Plan to Gut Workers’ Rights – BillMoyers.com
Democrats have an ambitious plan to save American labor unions

Equal rights. The Trump Administration Human Rights Tracker
President Trump’s Alarming Human Rights Agenda at Home and Abroad - Center for American Progress

To be honest... I didn't look these up and this is the reason why....

It seems too much politically motivated. If I were to believe all of that, I would think the Republicans are nothing but devils and Democrats are nothing but saints.

With limited time... it is just too much to weed through (though I might just look one up with a comment to it)

 

[Tumah]

For the first time in my life, yesterday I watched some political commentators. Namely, Ben Shapiro, Cenk Uygur, Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan. Ok maybe the last guy doesn't really count.

Maybe my experience in NA politics (or any politics at all) is rather limited, but it seems like the Republican - Democrat gulf is too wide to be described as "not listened to". There seems to be significant differences in the approach to the place of government in a society and the responsibilities of society to itself that really can't be crossed by the unity of a "not Trump" approach by anyone who care deeply about their respective ideologies.

But I'm literally like 24 hours into this, so maybe I'm wrong.