Young male voters are flocking to Trump – but he doesn’t have their interests at heart
Young male voters are flocking to Trump – but he doesn’t have their interests at heart | Steven Greenhouse
Trump isn’t an icon of positive masculinity. He also did very little for young men during his four years as president
Trump did very little for anyone. Unless you’re rich.
Even then it's not like it was intentional. He only did it for himself, it's just that other rich people also coincidentally benefited.
Yeah Trump is very simple - he punishes anyone who doesn't actively support him and rewards anyone who does. Anything he does for anybody is simply to show others that if you're good to Trump, he'll throw you a bone too.
He spends so much time performing for his base to ensure he has enough political power for that system to work. Once his base gets bored of him he'll be nothing.
I knew guys running their own businesses that benefitted from the 2017 tax breaks. Unfortunately, the dumb fucks didn't notice those were temporary from the outset and staged to revert back after the next presidential election. And those tax breaks directly give Republicans the excuse to say "we don't have money for all these social programs."
and even then he did it for himself in the long run.
Every gen Z kid I know is having an issue trying to pick a pro-Palestine candidate. They seem to dislike Biden more than Harris, but I have never heard of trump support. I'm sure some amount of gen Z are trumpers but they are a minority, saying young male voters are "flocking" to trump is pretty silly. "There are literally dozens of us!"
You should educate them on the dangers of single-issue voting. Pro-life has kept the Republican Party afloat for decades.
I've thought very hard about doing this. I used to be the same way and have changed my thinking. The problem is I don't think I can properly articulate this because 1. I am still trying to swallow that pill 2. I would just feel like a hypocrite so I wouldn't be able to deliver properly.
I do encourage others who do have the capability to try to point out the issues with single-issue voting.
I hate to say this, but you're probably living in a bit of a bubble. I know I was.
A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There's a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms.
It's all bullshit, of course, but at least they're being heard.
Progressive politicians really need to let the 1990s go. Third-way triangulation worked great then, but it's ineffective now.
This exactly. The destruction of third spaces under Reagan was either a genius move to radicalize lonely, isolated Americans or a hell of a coincidence that ended up helping the right.
I say it could be a coincidence because idk if Reagan's administration was looking quite that far ahead but... They were crafty and very intelligent people.
progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties
Terrible is a bit of an understatement. Men complain about bleak social and economic prospects only to be meet with insults that go right to the metaphorical jugular of every mans ego.
I'd go a step further than that. It's not all bullshit.
If right at the moment that young men are starting to figure out, hey it's important to make some money, it's important not to be a coward, I think I'm gonna start working out and waking up early and keeping my house clean, hey I think at least some of these people I see who are downtrodden by life are at least partially responsible for their own situation and problems and I don't wanna be that way... if right at that exact moment all the left has to offer them is getting in their face and saying NO NO NO, FUCK YOU THAT'S ALL WRONG TRANS RIGHTS VEGAN CAT FOOD FUCK YOU ARARGBGLGLLGLGL then they're not gonna wanna join with the left. The left is going to seem stupid and crazy to them, and for a certain segment of the left, they'll have a point about that.
Trump like all fascism is a malicious lie which will bring them only misery. But just being conservative (like authentic conservatism) in your viewpoint isn't automatically wrong or "the enemy."
but you're probably living in a bit of a bubble.
That's pretty fair and probably pretty accurate, what I will say is I live in a deeeeeep red state but most of my interactions are with post college gen Z so that almost certainly skewes it toward the left.
A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There's a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms
Yeah I try to explain this to people who aren't white males, it's definitely a big issue. I didn't mean to downplay this particular issue, and make no mistake I do view it as a major issue, but I do view this as a pretty fringe group % wise. Now that can definitely change very very rapidly but I personally haven't seen it trend towards that yet, I would say the white male -> fascist pipeline started in the mid 2010's and while it's grown gen Z seems to ,as a whole, still be very very progress.
Obviously this is all biased in my opinion and experiences which isn't a good indicator of reality but I do hold this opinion until I see/read something which can change that.
That’s because the US is not only deeply polarized by party affiliation, it’s deeply segregated regionally by political stripe. Look at how few “swing states” there are and how all the rest are “solid red” or “solid blue.”
Increasingly, people know and have personal contact with fewer and fewer members of the other side. We’re witnessing the creation of the Morlocks and the Eloi, groups that neither interact with nor understand one another to the point of being separate species.
It's probably a regional and demographic issue. I'm in Canada in Ontario and our province elected a conservative leader even though we are known as a very liberal/ center/ even left bunch we got a right wing party leading us.
All our highly populated cities and towns with majority populations elected center or left parties ... almost all the rural areas elected the right-wing party.
The thing that tilted the balance was apathy. Not enough people voted. If enough people everywhere had voted, we would have had a center or even a left party leading. But because not enough voted, the right leaning rural areas were able to out balance the few left/center leaning cities.
The thing that wins elections in Canada and the US is general apathy. If you can cut down the number of voters, you have a better chance of deciding who will get into power.
I don't think Trump has the interest of literally any of his voters at heart. He's only interested in helping himself and he legally can't even vote for himself.
Edit: TIL Trump can still vote.
Florida (Trump's home state) Law:
a felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted.
New York (State of felony convictions) Law:
a person convicted of a felony is disenfranchised only while incarcerated for that felony.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/can-trump-vote-now-he-has-felony-convictions
Should be noted that young male voters are some of the least reliable voters to turn out. Yes, he's gone hard on the Joe Rogan demographic with his pandering. Yes, its working (because... advertising works!) No, I don't think its going to be a winning strategy in the end, because them hoes ain't loyal.
Yeah people are too uneducated to vote what is actually good for them, but that is unfortunately by design nowadays.
It's not just the uneducated. There are many young men who want women to become property because they're too goony to find one.
Yeah but guess what, educated men are more attractive to women. At least on average I'd say. So the problem solves itself.
They’re unaware of the fact that many of them are exactly the sort of husband aqua tofana is for
The article completely missed the core reason for young men to vote for Trump. It's ending DEI initiatives.
That's a single issue for some of my conservative friends. The D's will never get their vote.
A spectacular victory for the billionaire class that your friends are focused on the one black kid who gets a leg up and not the legions of white kids who got ahead through their parents' donations and legacy admissions.
LBJ once said: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Clearly, 60 years on, it's still true.
In the UK the Conservative party decided to get rid of DEI initiatives in education. When?
When the minority specifically recommended to be targeted for support became poor/working class white boys.
Conservatives will go out of their way to harm the working class because as long as things are going badly for them they'll be angry enough to vote for the ones with dog whistles pretending it's someone else's fault.
I guess they are just going to have to accept that diversity equity and inclusion are a part of our lives now, and that they don’t get to make decisions about who is included, and that diverse opinions really are valuable, and that we are going to continue spending our public resources to ensure we all have equitable opportunity.
I guess what I mean is, too bad for your conservative friends?
Ehh...they'll be the next generation of old bitter men.
I agree. I am supposed to be just peachy with and validate some notion they are discussing this or any matter in good faith, while they are voting to kill my healthcare, prop up Russia, just so they can be racist? While "cleverly" refusing to sincerely discuss anything, adamantly trying to gaslight sincere prople with whatever the Russian propaganda of the hour is?
Losers are afraid of competition as another older white male the system is still heavily favouring us. People are mistaking equality with discrimination and it's so damn tone deaf.
That said even I bitch about it at time.
The DEI Police are not going to come and kick down my front door at 3 AM because of my hiring decisions.
Well...I've seen that happen. We had a black guy working for one of my previous employers and no one was really sure what he did. Ends up he was working his second job most days.
When said employer found out and fired him, he walked out with a 6 figure discrimination settlement. It was cheaper to settle than fight.
That cost a couple unrelated people their jobs due to budget.
I'm not pro or anti DEI. I've seen it used for good, and I've seen it abused.
So a "They took our jobs!" kinda thing.
Day tok ma job!
My take is that they vote for him because he is angry. These young men are largely angry and have had media of all sorts telling them that they should be. They don't want someone telling them how they will boost the middle class and have equitable tax. They want someone who says they will burn every problem to the ground and break things. They want someone screaming at someone to blame.
Why we have a huge chunk of young men desperatly angry is a choose your own adventure of societal issues where we have provided almost no healthy outlet for healthy aggression or the physicality that comes with being a young man. Everyone is free to come up with their own reasons, but for me it is the lack of outlet or the feeling of societial participation for young men.
Whatever the reason, a culture who sweeps the problems of frustrated young men under the rug for long enough I feel will live to regret it.
Cough Arab Spring cough
These young men are largely angry and have had media of all sorts telling them that they should be.
They've had two decades of socio-economic bedlam. Its not like people are just angry for no reason. Sucks out there to be a Zoomer during one of the most on-paper rapid increases in domestic prosperity, while your demographic is entirely cut out of the gains but expected to assume all the costs.
Trump's selling snake oil. But he's got a target rich environment of suckers precisely because the labor movement in this country has been abandoned by both parties and the Democrats have (correctly) identified this group as the most expensive to turn out during election season so not worth the effort.
If you're going hard in the paint for the culture war, you're better off aiming for middle aged women. They vote. They donate. They organize. And they stay loyal to their party. Young men are only good for the next hype cycle before they give up or lose interest. The economy for Zoomers isn't looking much better in the next four years, so Dems can come back around for them after Trump is gone.
Whatever the reason, a culture who sweeps the problems of frustrated young men under the rug for long enough I feel will live to regret it.
These aren't problems unique to young men. They're structural and societal. Young men are just the demographic that produces the most immediate feedback and engagement. And the current GOP is entirely embedded in the social media hype cycle, so they're as along-for-the-ride as their turnout target.
The real people profiting off this mess aren't Republicans, but the social media advertising market who actually get to generate revenue off the bad decisions of deluded young people.
Right-wing incels, hot off their carnivore diet, roids, and worship of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson wondering why women flee from them and yet continue to double-down on the likes of worshiping shitheads like Trump and Andrew Tate.
It's the exploitation of the ignorant and vulnerable; naturally, right-wing puppeteers are telling them it's everyone else who is the problem.
I don't care really for either side tbh, but an argument I've heard somewhat recently is; they are at least talking to that demographic, not calling them incels, losers etc. Again, team red can drown in an oil fire, but it's about the only thing that approaches making some sense.
I think a lot of it is because there's so many more well-funded right-wing influencers/grifters than genuine liberal or left-wing influencers. It's much more profitable to take advantage of young men's anxieties and insecurities (to sell fungus pills, get-rich-quick plans, or whatever), than to genuinely discuss things from a liberal or especially left-wing perspective.
Its a cliche but they also promise easy answers to hard questions, blame others for problems they caused themselves or at least did nothing to get out of. The old tell 'em what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.
He isn't even masculine. Like not even close.
yeah im like. positive maculinity? I mean im positive that is not masculinity.
Is their interest racism? Because he's got that covered.
If theyre angry and frustrated then yes, identifying a scapegoat is a great way to manipulate them
He does have an interest in young girls at heart though... Just like his good friend Jeff Epstein, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy, He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
Can you link that quote?
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/
It's part way into it as the article is about Epstein not Trump, but it's exactly as they wrote it.
This seems like the education gap rather than a gender gap. Women have been going to college in greater numbers for a couple of decades.
Title xi has been used for decades as well to justify accepting men into college with lower qualifications so that the male female ratio stays anywhere close to 50/50.
Edit: i am not working in college admissions but I believe it is more of a situation where if the applicants have equal merit, every effort will be to accept the men into the university to do their best to maintain more of an equal ratio. I know it’s true that colleges are having to seriously deal with this issue but I don’t believe they are accepting less qualified males over more qualified females, but if they didn’t take any steps the discrepancy between female and male acceptance rates in colleges would be even more disparaging than it already is, simply because boys are being left behind in the education system in many ways.
He's masculine?
He's the most masculine. Many have said that he is the most masculine, ever. He has some friends that also consider themselves to be the most masculine, but secretly they all agree that he is in fact the most masculine, ever.
I saw the most masculine guys cry at how masculine Trump is.
If your idea of masculinity is to be tall and yell at people, yes.
Scared little boys need a daddy
And somebody to hate. It's so ugly how young men easily come together to hate a person or group. It gives them a sense of togetherness and 'not it' at the same time.
In many ways yes. They’re being a bunch of pathetic losers, and could probably use some men helping show them how not to be pathetic losers. Hell they could probably use some women to explain how to stop being pathetic losers.
For my part I stopped being a pathetic loser around the point that I realized that I needed to become someone I liked more than learning to like myself. When I realized that a partner wasn’t going to fix me. I did deep reflection, actually went out and talked to people, and did the slow hard work of improving my material and emotional wellbeing. Anger never solved half as much as asking if I’m acting like someone I’d like to be around did. And I don’t know anyone who’s benefited from anger as much as me, why sometimes it looks like it’s benefitted me even a portion of as often as it’s hurt me. And yeah that’s how I went from a whiny loser to a woman with a good career, happy marriage, and positive reputation in the communities I take part in
This all comes back to supporting young men and men in finding positive social groups and support systems that don't have extreme ideology attached. In the absence of a general, common avenue to community for men, it seems like these edge groups will continue to leverage that component to lure them in.
Literally Steve Bannons plan.
Get "rootless" white men (he aimed for gamers) angry and get them "on your side."
I blame Bannon and Reich wing media for this bullshit now where ANY NEW GAME is guaranteed to have a "WoKe GaMe?" post in the steam discussions.
They can't even think for themselves... They need to be told it's woke so they know to be mad at it...
That's not bannon that's his shithead radio predecessor Rush Limbaugh and before that Reagan then Nixon so on and so forth right up until the party fracture.
He shares a lot of their same values, such as misogyny and racism.
But he has their prejudices, incel misogyny, and hatreds on public display. That’s good enough for many.
Also, there are far too many that see the world burning as some kind of entertainment. I hate to be the old guy yelling at people on the lawn, but I don’t know if the popular social media theme of destroying or damaging things, or doing mean shit to people for lols, is a symptom or a display that encourages or makes that behavior ok. There’s no consequences for that behavior, it’s entertainment, and some of that same attitude seems to bleed over into real-life actions.
I have definitely worked with people who voted for trump for no other reason than lols and to stir shit up.
WHAT
something with the education and upbringing must be f up, if young men are impressed by him
is this based on facts? the last thing i saw of him was a train wreck, he can't pull of a 2 !!!!!!!! minute interview
Some may see him as a "counterculture"...thumbing the nose at establised rules youngsters naturally want to rebel against through causing outrage and stupid jokes. It's like any other stupid manufactured fad in that respect.
This 20-year-old documentary about marketing to teens sort of reminds me of it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYRoiJvhJ4&list=PL_pPc6-qR9ZwlDyyk6o-X_gib47lpqlGP&index=15&pp=iAQB but now applied to ideas in the internet instead of products.
Feminism has done a great job of bringing woman and girl issues of importance into the public dialogue.
Men and boys have definitely been left in the dust.
Until we have a movement that represents men’s issues similar to feminism, this trend of men falling off the deep end will continue.
It can be argued that feminism is part of the problem, and has exacerbated many of the problems facing young men today. This is the entrance to the rabbit hole, and again, until we have a movement that represents men and boys similar to a feminism that just means equality and or equity, this trend will continue.
Your commwnt seems like it comes from a men/women us/them perspective that's really confusing for me.
The problem isn't feminism. Feminism hasn't been damaging. Toxic masculinity has been damaging. The feminist movement would have had a real hard time existing without the suffrage movement that proceeded it. And that movement would have been totally unnecessary without patriarchy/toxic masculinity convincing men of the time women were not human enough to vote.
So ... your explanation, to me, at best seems ignorant of a decent chunk of recent history.
If you think the situation before the 19th amendment was ratified was 'men could vote and women couldn't', you're carrying around an elementary school level understanding of that history.
There were demographics of men who still weren't allowed to vote after the 19th, who the suffragettes gave zero shits about enabling.
This narrative of 'feminism fights for men's issues too' needs to die. It has never been true on any significant scale, and this rhetoric only started as a means to devalue and justify attacking movements that do seek to address misandry and injustices with primarily/exclusively male victims.
What I’m saying is that men can critique the harms feminism has caused without being misogynist.
What I’m saying is just what I said, that men need a movement similar to feminism that advocates for the issues facing men and boys (in much the same way) that the feminist movement which has advocated (and accomplished some very tangible and positive change regarding) issues facing women and girls. (Edited for clarity)
Feminism is not the answer for the issues facing men and boys. So in that sense, it is kind of an us versus them.
But in much the same sense that equality seems like something is being taken away when you are the oppressor, it can feel much the same way to feminists when they are told that feminism is not the answer to issues facing men and boys.
Equity and equality really are a give and take, and life isn’t always fair. But we can remove systems of oppression for all, and we can work on this together where our issues intersect. But feminism can not speak for the issues facing men and boys, and as the only elephant in the room, it is definitely going to feel like something is being taken away when men and boys and their advocates begin to take steps toward solutions that will help them and their families (which also includes women and girls, so in that sense, advocates for issues facing men and boys also address issues facing women and girls).
You're close to getting it but you're not quite there. The patriarchy oppressed men AND women. It oppressed white people AND minorities.
Feminists, LGBTQ+, and black rights activists have each fought against the hierarchal structure for an end to their oppression and to enshrine their own rights. These people fight for equality, but they obviously do it when they're the ones harmed by inequality. They also support eachother in their respective fights as allies.
None of these groups will fight on behalf of other groups for many reasons, not the least of which is that they DON'T KNOW what it's like to be in a group they don't belong to. The most they can do is support eachother's fights.
Unfortunately many of the advantages that the patriarchy offered men was through oppressing others. For example if you were a "manly" man you could attract a "feminine" woman to do chores and raise kids for you. Nowadays women have better deals available. So men are at a unique crossroads, they can work on their own fights: the freedom to express human emotions, the freedom to participate in "feminine" pursuits like being in the lives of your kids, taking paternity leave, fighting for an education system that doesn't leave boys in the dust, among other things. OR they can try to go back to the hierarchal ways of life, adopting the "manly alpha" persona and hoping to find a "feminine" wife to take care of the house and kids. The latter FEELS easier, but success is difficult.
Nobody else got that choice because no one else thought that taking apart the hierarchy was as painful for them as much as it is to men. It lays bare all of our limitations and removes all the privileges. But if we understand that the hierarchy is what CREATED those limitations and gave the privileges at the cost of operating others, then we know the right thing is to start fighting our fights and stop being left behind.
It's not feminism's fault we're left behind. Why would women fight men's fights against the hierarchy/patriarchy FOR us, when women don't even live the problems we live. We're left behind because we stayed behind. Because it felt good. Now it doesn't. Now we fight for our freedom from the hierarchy.
This is an article about young men.
But yes, if feminism changed our classrooms and our dialogues in such a way that young woman are now able to achieve in way that they were not even allowed to before, to the detriment of young boys, then yes. This is feminisms fault especially as a group that claims to advocate for equality. Especially as a group that claims to also be fighting to help men and young boys out of the patriarchy.
Yes, feminism can be critiqued. If it has failed our men and young boys, it has also failed our women and young girls.
Even people in this thread have said that feminism fights for men as well. You can’t say that feminism fights for men until someone says the men and boys have been let down and then all of a sudden feminism is not fighting for the men.
Otherwise feminism is an ethereal veil of bullshit.
You’re either fighting for equality and equity or you’re fighting for superiority and some weird idea of revenge.
We need to find solutions that help both our boys and our girls succeed in an equitable environment.
If you’re saying well, we removed patriarchy it’s not our fault the boys are failing. I find that morally repugnant and an example of harm caused by feminism.
Feminism does represent men's issues, more than any other movement I would argue, and definitely more than any MRA ever has, it just doesn't centre men's issues, which is what you are used to, so you reject it because, for a change, something is entirely cantered around you.
You don't care about equity and equality (which is what feminism is for), you care about maintaining your privilege which entitles you to everything in society being first and foremost aimed at and cantered around you. It's the small token the patriarchy rewards you with to ensure you never join the fight against it as it fucks you up with shit like toxic masculinity and blames it all on feminism, and it's obviously working.
Thank you. You have made my point 100 percent.
You will not be able to fem splain that you know more about issues facing men and boys than men. Now is the time for you to sit down and listen.
Sigh. There was a moment when I first joined lemmy that I was impressed how liberal of a space it was. And then I wandered into the comments of posts concerning gender. Fuucking depressing. Really, people would benefit from a gender studies class, or even anthropology or family and society, but for some everything is an attack and I doubt they'll listen.
When legislation 'threatens' to make shared custody the default (re: neither parent is unfit, and both want custody) instead of maternal, feminists fight it. NOW put out press releases saying that the only two reasons a man would ever fight for custody is 1) they're abusing the mother and want to retain access to her 2) they're a deadbeat trying to avoid child support payments. Men are so dehumanized in the feminist mind that the very notion that a man actually wants to raise his child does not even register as a possibility to them.
When lifetime alimony (specifically alimony that never expires) is challenged, feminists fight to keep it.
When men significantly outnumbered women in college (though only because they got free college via the GI Bill after being forcibly conscripted into the military, something women were never subjected to--in the years just before World War I, the rate of men and women in college was the same at ~9%), feminists were outraged, and countless programs/grants/incentives were created to fix this 'injustice'. But presently, when women significantly outnumber men in college, feminists magically stopped giving a shit about sex disparity in universities, and they definitely made no attempt to either create any such incentives for males, nor discontinue any of the ones for the females who were now the majority who clearly had no more need to 'catch up'.
When Erin Pizzey helped create domestic violence shelters for female victims of male abusers, she was a heroine to feminists. When she realized there are also male victims of female abusers, and wanted there to be shelters for them as well, she became 'the enemy' in their eyes, with not only censorship attempts by feminists, but her dog was fucking shot, on her property, on Christmas Eve that year.
Feminists point to a stat showing that 11% of journalists killed are women, to put out a "stop targeting women journalists" message. Similar happened with 1 of 4 women being homeless.
And that's just what I care to mention while I'm on mobile.
Feminists have proved many times over that they don't give a shit about men, nor about women who don't fall in ideological line with them, for that matter. They're just another special interest group that wants as much as they can get for themselves, no matter at whose expense it's of. There is a good reason there is a huge gap between the percentage of the population that believe in sex equality, and the percentage that self-identifies as "feminist".
Not like the DNC is pro masculinity. Trump's only positive is that he's not outright hostile.
LOL. LMAO, even.
-- a man who isn't an insecure piece of shit
The US will get the leader they deserve.
Too bad the rest of the world will feel the consequences as well while they have no say in the matter.
Nor does half the country. I just don't understand why trump appeals to young men at all. He's just some horrifically uncool geezer.
Because all of the aggrieved male content on yt, TikTok, podcasts, etc. There's an entire normie-to-nazi pipeline ffs, and the social media algorithms continually promote stuff that's just slightly more "edgy", and suddenly kids have gone from Joe Rogan to Andrew Tate. Because all of the white males behind social media - spez, Zuckerberg, Musk, etc - agree with that content and continue to find excuses to "free speech" it.
They are Nazis, treat them as such.
Look at 99% of media before 2001 AD. White male hero. Star Trek TOS was a giant ground breaker showing Uhura, but all the real critical leaders were males. Think on this; the James Bond movie Thunderball has a scene that's pretty much rape; they were selling little kids' toys based on that movie. There's a John Wayne movie where Wayne throws someone else's kid into a river to teach the boy how to get over his fear of water.
This is what these young men and their fathers consume. And Trump plays to that. He's a macho hero who plays by his own rules and doesn't take crap from anyone.
Muhammed Ali did more in real life than Clint Eastwood ever did in all his movies put together; guess which one these folks admire?
The Alt-right Playbook: How to Radicalize a Normie
Yep, he's a very weird old man. I think they might think rallying around him is a way to reclaim their manhood.
That's the problem with colts from the outside you don't get it.
From the inside they don't get it either but they still keep going.
You’re not paying enough attention if you think Trump winning means “too bad the rest of the world will feel the consequences.” Germany just elected their first far right government since WWII, France had a massive right wing that is now in the EU council, Austria… well they keep making shitty right wing choices, down into South America Argentina shifted right, and other countries continue to do so as well. We’re not special or alone in this.
Oh I'll definitely give you that! My own little corner of the world has been ruled by fairly hard-right nutjobs for over a decade, and while not quite as dramatic as elsewhere, almost all metrics for a positive society have gone down, except employment. We too suffer from insurmountable housing costs and low wages, which is not a coincidence at all.
There were elections in two states in the east of Germany last weekend. In one of them the far right party AfD gained most votes compared to others. In the other state they finished second largest. There is nothing decisive however. Other parties have been called to set up a firewall "Brandmauer" to prevent the AfD to govern.
Exactly. In the last few decades Austria , Turkey and Hungary were among the first to shift to far right party based governments in Europe. An interesting read is this book by Turkish journalist Ece Temelkuran (Who fled the country) which is about Turkey going downhill from democracy to dictatorship. This book also reflects on Trump winning in 2016. At some point also Poland had a far-right government but the damage from that is slowly being repaired by a new government. By now among others Slovakia, Italy and the Netherlands have far-right government coalitions. Outside Europe there was Bolsonaro in Brazil. Still, Trump winning (legally or not) would be bad for the rest of the world, especially for Ukraine.
This is very misleading
I vote my hardest but my brothers are stupid.
I get this way of thinking, but just to be clear: the US didn't get the leader it deserved when Trump "won" the first time, despite receiving millions of fewer votes than Hilary. And almost certainly here, even if Trump "wins," he will have gotten less votes.
That's because there is a 2-3% bias in the current presidential electoral system, the Electoral College. We're founded under a "1 person, 1 vote" ideology that our elections ignore.
So yes, I get the frustration. But we (the sane people) are all in this together, and the majority of voters in the US appear to still be sane, even if that doesn't win the election by default. Solidarity would be the better move here.
In 2016 voters had the excuse that they didn't know how a Trump presidency would play out. They don't have that same excuse in 2024. Anyone who votes for him knows what they're doing. If he wins, even with electoral college shenanigans, it will be a symptom of a much deeper malaise than just Trump.
I think the EC is an outdated system that needs to die, but it was explicitly created because they didn't want presidential elections to be one person, one vote. There is no ignoring here, it's by design.
I agree with everything you're saying, except:
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, delegates debated between Congress choosing the next president vs a straight popular vote. The former risked corruption between the legislative and executive branches, and the latter gave too much power to the uneducated, sometimes-mob-esque populous. After several debates, a compromised was reached - electors. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent electors who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.
Overall, though some founders agreed with a "1 person, 1 vote" ideology, they were not the majority... unfortunate though that was.
Most of us do not deserve the orange monster. Most of us are actually good people who are just trying to survive. Don’t wish harm on the whole country because a bunch of assholes use a shit electoral college system to their advantage.
What about the majority of us who will vote dem. Like, that’s basically a given.