• paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I could vaguely understand the allure of Trump the first time around (outside of the racist anti-immigrant stuff). There was actually something slightly refreshing in the first Primary debate he had against other Republicans that year (~2016), when he was still just a joke. He was saying things that politicians in general don’t normally say, he wasn’t following “the script”. It only took him opening his mouth and his stupid policies after that though for that feeling to turn to disgust, but for a brief shining moment it seemed like he might’ve been a semi-positive influence that could’ve shaken up US politics for the better. Instead, he’s just shown himself to be the absolute worst person possible for the position.

    • Icalasari@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      And considering how the average person doesn’t pay that much attention and often needs to see the person in action, it’s why I don’t fault people for voting for him in 2016

      After that, however, there was no excuse

      • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I also wanted a non politician to take the presidency, but when it turned out it was Trump who would get the nomination for 2016 my reaction was

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m about to throw a word salad out here about how I can sympathize (never thought I would say that) with Trump supporters in a sense. Hopefully someone chimes in and can challenge a couple of my views here, because i think they could probably be honed a bit, or explained further, but…

      It’s very easy to blame his allure all on racism, all on stupidity, all on nationalism, because certainly Trump espouses all of that. But his populism is also due largely to working-class people seeing (rightly) the Democratic party as corrupt. They see people like Gates and Soros, Hollywood elites like Clooney hanging out with Pelosi and, understandably, get upset seeing all these ultra rich people walking in and out of the private/public sector. They see political dynasties like the Clintons and the Obamas and Bidens as antithetical to the idea that anyone can serve their country in politics, and rightly so. Even Harris – it was essentially “her turn” for the nomination – and they see that as undemocratic and bullshit, which – can I blame them?

      Now, where they go wrong (and, ironically, where hardcore Democrats also go wrong) is thinking that their party isn’t also participating in the same bullshit. Trump isn’t anti-establishment, he’s literally a billionaire property magnate. He is part of the ruling class in America that consists of landlords, bankers, and company shareholders. Both parties would uphold our current system of rule by the few, and back up that rule with the monopolization of violence by the police.

      This isn’t to say the two parties are completely the same. In terms of willingness to uphold capitalism (ultimately the extraction of money from labor), the military-industrial complex (see, Palestinian genocide), and American hegemony internationally (again, genocide), and police violence, they are similar. But then you also have Republicans trying to ban books, surveil women’s bodies, control what people do in the bedroom, or medical care they receive, espouse various forms of hate, etc. So I do see them as worse, but think you’d be hard pressed to find a person in the US, democrat or republican, who didn’t agree with the statement that “all politicians are corrupt.” It’s just the nature of our political system, which has essentially legalized bribery.

      Being able to say to my conservative-ass family, “Yeah, dude, Obama bombed Syria and bailed out the banks – I feel what you’re saying,” gives us that little bit of common ground to start a conversation about the drastic change that needs to happen in the US.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hilary Clinton, ok sure I guess, but how are the Biden’s and Obama’s political dynasties? That’s just one guy in politics.

        • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          In those cases, maybe dynasties isn’t the right word – although I do sort of see Michelle Obama as a bit of a politician, herself, even though she hasn’t held office. She at least has more power than, say, you or me. Still, I’m more thinking about Obama and Biden in the sense that I am thinking of Biden and Kamala – it was sort of Joe Biden’s turn. Conservatives see that sorta stuff – they rightly see these people as elites, and it gives them more reason to think the Democratic party is corrupt. The reality is it would be difficult to find a politician who isn’t corrupt in a system that has legalized bribery and has necessitated the solicitation of those bribes by our “leaders.”

      • Random123@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Youre completely right and this should be the essential example of two group of idiots fighting for the same cause but too brainwashed to realized theyve become tribal and dogmatic with their differing ideologies.

      • The Octonaut
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Do you understand what the word “dynasty” means? It isn’t “famous family”. Definitely not “famous because dad got elected to high office”.

        • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hey, no need to be rude. I’m using the word colloquially, not in the technical sense. Besides, in another comment I admitted maybe dynasty wasn’t the right word, at least for Obamas and Biden. It’s more appropriate (though, you’re right in that it is still not technically accurate) for people like the Clintons and Bushes.