Will liberals start catering to the white working class vote now?

The Trump win was NOT a MANDATE!!

he won only cause dems did not get out and vote

.

- - - Updated - - -

can you give me an example of what you consider the left using identity politics then

 

No White House, no congress, no Supreme Court picks and obama cost you 700 some odd elected seats since his first election. If you don't consider it a mandate, ok, but CAN YOU HEAR US NOW? GOOD!

 

Somehow the whiners of the millenials can't see that.
And the person I was posting with seems to have run. I think he has a millenial child or grand child and became embarrassed.

 

You are right about that. One has to wonder when those white working class voters will stop voting against their own economic interests.

I suspect most blacks vote Democrats due to economic issues, as well as the issues of civil rights (liberal vs conservative). Your point about voting blocs is interesting, although in whites case, I don't think you will ever see such a thing. Sure more whites vote for the GOP, but will that always be that way? Hell, the guy you just elected is basically a liberal, and while he probably won't govern like the liberal he used to be due to the fact that he has to please his base, one could argue that the direction and type of candidates that will lead the GOP may change in the future. Then again, it's too early to tell.

 

You're caught in the trap of "ownership" when, with only one exception, in nature the person doesn't own anything but instead people as individuals can possess things. You can't "own the land" but a person can establish a right to possess land and that right to possess land is limited.

To truly understand requires a person to understand the rational foundation for Natural Rights that originate from the Natural Laws of survival of a species. Nature only grants ownership of one thing to any member of a species and that is ownership of it's "self" but nature does grant a right to possess but there are caveats related to what member of a species can possess and how they secure the right to possess.

For a species to survive and not become extinct each member must individually and/or collectively secure from nature and possess that which is required for survival. Nature does grant a right to possess as little or as much as is necessary for survival but not more than what any member can use for survival. To possess more than you can use is by definition useless. Survival is comprised of two components. That which is necessary for "support" that covers the basic essentials but also what is required for "comfort" that makes existence easier for the member of the species.

Omitting a lot of the rational argument what we really have is a Right to Survival and survival requires that possess that which is necessary for the "support and comfort" our household. When an employer hires a person it's based upon an exchange of what is necessary for each person, the employer and the employee, to provide for the "support and comfort" (survival) of their household. The Natural Right is non-transferrable but that which is required (property) for the "support and comfort" (survival) is transferrable. The person doesn't "own" the property because nature does not grant ownership to anyone except their "self" but nature does allow everyone to "possess" that which they can "use" for their survival.

The employer doesn't purchase the labor of the employee but instead it is an exchange between the employer and the employee of that which is necessary for survival between the employee and the employer.

It is for this reason that FDR was correct (even though I hate quoting FDR) when he stated, “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

So it's more than just a minimum "living wage" but instead it's a "decent wage" that provides enough compensation so that the employee can provide for the "support and comfort" of their household. There's no valid argument against this because we know, for a fact, that the people of the United States are producing 3-4 times more than is necessary for every household to enjoy a "decent living" with more than enough left over for many to enjoy a luxurious living while also remembering that no person has a Right to Possess more than they can actually use because, once again, to possess more than you can use is "useless" by definition.

There's a thread on this that you might enjoy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...9-natural-rights-interpreting-john-locke.html

 

Liberals always have catered to the white working class...it's just conservatives have convinced them otherwise. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

 

We make the mistake of expecting too much from the typical voter. They're not economists or political scientists or social scientists but instead they're just the "average person" going about the daily things of life. The get a general picture of what's going on but rarely get down to the details because of the time involved and they just don't have that much time. As noted we tend to divide into two groups, conservative and liberal, and there's really an easy reason behind that.

Conservatives = These are the people that the "system" (social, economic, and political institutions) is basically working acceptably for them. This overwhelmingly tends to be white (WASP) Americans because our social, economic, and political institutions have always controlled by white (WASP) men throughout American history. They're basically the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Americans that want to keep things the way they are because they've benefiting from it since the nation was founded.

Liberals = These are the people that the "system" (social, economic, and political institutions) isn't working very well for. They both want and need change in the social, economic, and political institutions so that they have the same opportunity as those where the system is, and has always been, working well. These tend to be the non-white (non-WASP) Americans because the "system" was never designed to accommodate them.

This is where the term "white privilege" originates because the "system" was created and controlled by whites to benefit whites so that's a "privilege" they enjoy while it wasn't designed for the non-whites that are therefore "under-privileged" in America.

Creating parity is what the "liberals" seek to achieve while the "conservatives" believe that is only accomplished by "taking something away" from them. That isn't true but it's an easy assumption to make. In actuality many of the "liberal" causes have helped both the liberals and conservatives equally. The power of organized labor benefited all American workers because it was a counter-force to the downward pressure of the market on compensation. This results in a belief that anything the conservatives "lose" or any "problems" they encounter must be caused by the "liberals" that are overwhelmingly "non-whites" taking it away from them or causing the problem for them. The logic is, "What else can it be because everything was going so well until the liberals changed it." Conservatives opposed organized labor not because it "cost" them anything, because conservative workers also benefited with higher compensation as well, but because it was "liberal" to support the unions so "obviously" the unions had to be screwing the conservatives

Of course the "loss" or "problem" can be caused by many factors other than the changes that the "liberals" bring in attempting to achieve parity within the white society. As we know many of the problems, especially economic problems, are really being caused by the "conservatives" that have always retained the long term control of our economy. The average "conservative" American is not going to blame themselves for the problem of course so they blame it on the liberal (or "under-privileged") instead.

Donald Trump played this to the hilt because instead of addressing the actual economic problems he simply went with the general "conservative" belief that the problems are always caused by someone else (that isn't a WASP) so it had to be the Mexicans, the Chinese, the Muslims, or just the "Damn Democrats" because it could "never be the white conservatives" that are responsible for the problem.

We actually know why real wages stagnated and then began to decline for working Americans. It started in about 1970 when the power of the unions, backed by organized crime, was dramatically reduced by the removal of organized crime from the unions in the 1960's. It was 1973 when the correlation between hourly wages and compensation (a correlation that built middle-class white American) began. Since then it's been the anti-union efforts of conservatives that have all but destroyed the unions that resulted in "stagnant real wages" turning into "negative real wages" starting in about 2000 but becoming very evident with the 2008 Recession.

The "white" conservatives are suffering just like the rest of Americans but they "blame someone else" because they would hate to admit that unions were actually good for Americans, all Americans, and not just the liberals.

Slow GDP growth and recovery from the Recession. This is a result of the increased disparity in income between the wealthy and working class American. Workers spend all or most of their money on goods and services while the wealthy that see an increase in income don't use that increased income to purchase more goods and services. The wealthy invest the additional income and investments don't produce or consume anything. The GDP is a measurement of the goods and services produced and sold and the wealthy, by taking more money out of the economy that's used for "consumption" (purchases of goods and services) reduced the GDP growth. Between 2009 and 2012, the first four years of recovery from the Recession, the wealthy received 95% of the increase in income during that period. Virtually none of the 95% increase in income going to the Top 1% was used to purchase goods and services so the GDP growth, and the recovery from the Recession, was dramatically reduced. And why did so much of that money go to the wealthy? It's the Republican belief in "trickle-down" economics that bloomed during the Reagan administration but that money doesn't "trickle down" because it's invested and 99.9999% of the investments don't even provide capital for expansion of enterprise. It's just money that's basically taken out of the economy and invested in securities that profit from the production of the wealth created by the workers. They keep repeating the same old chant "The wealthy are over-taxed" while the wealthy are taking the food off of their table. What they ignore is that when the government taxes the wealthy, taking money from the wealthy, that the wealthy don't really need anyway, the government re-introduces that money into the economy where it's spent and it's the spending that creates the jobs and expands the economy. Conservatives even missed the point in Trump's tax proposal where 47% of the money from the tax cuts up in the hands of the Top 1%. Why would the wealthy that don't need more money require 47% of the money from a tax cut? Wouldn't it be more logical for the bottom 90% to end up with 90% of the money from the tax cuts? Why would anyone support giving more money to the people with the most money in America? How is giving all of that money to the wealthy going to benefit the "working conservative" that's seeing their real wages decline today?

So the "white" conservatives are suffering just like the rest of Americans but they "blame someone else" because they would hate to admit Republican tax favoritism for the wealthy is actually hurting all of the workers.

 

Except the water democrats have led to turned out to be p!ss.

 

Yep, the same party the conservatives are voting for are the ones screwing them over. But then they call everyone else low information voters. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad

 

And thus, you agree that your post does not support the claim you made.

 

actually it does, you just disagree...

 

You and I both know that YOU know citing the lower Dem turnout in no way supports your claim for the reasons behind that lower turnout.

You made a claim you know you cannot support, and you know it.

 

In what way did the white working class vote against their interests? The two biggest Trump issues were trade and immigration. They were both pretty standard working class issues.

I keep hearing how Trump is such a liberal, but I've not seen the left this enraged and apoplectic over a Presidential election in my lifetime, and yes I'm including 2000 and 2004. As a liberal, why are you so upset that a liberal is President elect? Shouldn't you be celebrating the success of liberal values taking over both parties? Just a mystery I guess...

As far as bloc voting by whites, I don't see it in the near future, although in a sense, the majority of whites has been going GOP for a long time. However it's not by a big majority. Of course who knows what happens in the magic year of 2044, the year every SJW is waiting for, when non Hispanic whites are in a demographic minority?

 

Why should they since they never have.

 

By blindly supporting the GOP every election cycle.

Re-read my post. I said Trump has a history of supporting liberal positions, however since he was elected by self-proclaimed "conservatives" chances are he'll govern at least somewhat like a conservative in a way to appease them. With Trump though, you never know. It would be amusing if in four years from now, the Democrats ended up supporting Trump, while the GOP voters want him thrown out of office. I've certainly seen weirder things.

As for the backlash to Trump, he's a divisive character in a very divisive era of politics. If John Kasich were president elect, I doubt you'd see such a backlash.

Honestly, the ones i generally seeing rambling on about 2044 are usually the far right wing/white nationalists types who are thoroughly convinced that America is solely a white nation built by and only for whites. Regardless, "non hispanic whites" is a joke of a "label", and will probably in the future be thrown in the trash bin. Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz are all white Americans. The fact that two of them are regarded as "non whites" because they happen to be Cuban and speak spanish is hilarious.

 

Average people are average people and it doesn't matter if they're conservatives or liberals. They go about their daily business of living their lives which is what they should be doing.

It's the politicians that are the problem because they should be highly informed but either they're not (many) or they're corrupt (some). What is disturbing is that so many of the politicians either don't know or ignore the actual political ideology and the Constitution. Republicans always accuse the Democrats of this but this is a smoke-screen. Republicans want "original government" because that's what conservatives do. They want what worked for them in the past and for the White Americans the original government of White (WASP) Male Supremacy where all other people were subordinate to the point of being literally enslaved was the "Best it Ever Was for Whites" in America.

Just remember one fact. The original government in the United States was not the "Constitutional" government nor was it the "intended" government of the founders. Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and other's that lead the ideological revolution knew that they could never change both society and the government to achieve the ideological foundation of a nation based upon Natural Rights. Too many people with too much money and political power stood in the way. All the founders could do was to plant a seed and hope that future generations would help that seed grow. Since 1776 we've had "progressive liberals" trying to feed the tree of freedom and liberty with the "conservatives" fighting against that. 2016 is really no different than 1816. The "(Progressive) Liberals" were striving to achieve the American dream where "All People Are Created Equal" in a society that is based upon the "Natural Rights of the People/Person" that the founders envisioned and the "(Regressive) Conservatives" seeking to maintain their power of White Supremacy in the United States.

"Make America Great Again" is just another way of saying "Restore White Supremacy to Benefit White People" which is why the Alt-Right white nationalists and the KKK were huge supporters of Donald Trump. I'm sure that most people didn't miss that fact regardless of whether they were Democrats or Republicans. The problem is it won't work because not even White Supremacy can't restore what they've lost.

 

when President Trump says make America great again, he is referring to the time after world war 2 when the rich paid the highest tax rates for the American middle class to defend their money from the nazi germans.

President Trump is not making any reference to race, and his followers are not all national socialists or nazi's, their poor of all races.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a socialist, not a national socialist nazi, his socialism made America great for all races.

President Trump has stated he will repeat all of those socialist protectionist polices such as in trade and immigration, with the exception of higher taxes on the rich. since congress is bought and paid for by the rich, the President may not be able to accomplish this, but should be praised for speaking up for the poor and oppressed Americans.

 

Well I thought we were talking about this election cycle. In any case, the white working class has not been supporting the GOP every election cycle. So how is voting for Trump's trade and immigration positions working against the interests of the working class?

I've no doubt if Kaisch had gotten the nomination, you guys would be calling him a racist murderer or some such. I've not forgotten how Romney, a boy scout if there ever was run to run for President, was treated by you guys.

Well I would say you just have not been paying attention. Hillary's entire campaign strategy was based on demographics, and the Podesta hacked emails confirmed it. Certainly on this forum the "die white man die" crowd on the left has been pretty clear that the future belongs to the left because of demographics.

However I agree that the entire Hispanic label is a bit of a joke. The term was created by the census in the 70's for no good reason. I would get rid of that census category because it makes no sense. But it seems important to you guys so that seems unlikely.

 

Funny. You agree with the other poster that the term hispanic is a joke and then tell him it won't go away cuz his guys want it.

 

The white working class does support the GOP every election cycle, especially as of recent. As for why...I'm sure they have their reasons, as does the black working class for voting the way they do.

And whoever got the Democrat nomination, even including Jim Webb, your ilk would be calling he or she an anti white racist socialist hell bent on taking from the "producers" and giving it to the so called "lazy people". You guys are every bit as bad as the Democrats with the name calling and labels, if not worse.

Hell, with all the things your crew has called Obama over the years, I don't think you are in any position to complain.

I have been paying attention. It's generally your side that's obsessed with whether or not whites becomes a minority. Every so often a thread pops up here from the forum right wingers complaining about how the "decline" of America coincides with the supposed decline of "non hispanic whites", and how "white children" will be a minority in their supposed "home countries". We can easily dig these up if you like, though I have no doubt you'll claim those are "leftists" posing as conservatives.

Glad we agree on something.

 

With only a limited exceptions all of the above is false.

If we refer to the time period after WW II it was an economy shaped by Democratic economic policies from the Roosevelt domestic economic policies and the Truman international economic policies. In 1954 the union membership peaked statistically based upon per capita membership. Income inequality for the Top 1% plunged -27.6% after WW II based upon Democratic economic policies. Income inequality increased by 119.6% starting with the Reagan administration's "trickle-down economics (favoritism for the wealthy) by 2012 as Republican economics of low taxes for the wealthy and it's anti-union campaign took it's toll on organized labor that now less than during the FDR administration. Donald Trump's tax cut proposal results in 47% of all the money going to the top 1% basically doubling-down on "trickle-down" that has created the stagnation and decline in real wages for working class Americans and the increase in income inequality. Trump's opposition to free trade, established by the Truman post-WW II economic plan that contributed to the building of the American middle class, will result in even fewer jobs and less money for the average American.

The only part of the "Great America" from past that the Trump administration promises is a return to the racism and discrimination of the pre-civil rights era of the 1950's with his selection of Stephen "Turn on the Hate" Bannon, a white nationalist advocate, as the White House Strategist and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, that has a history of racism and arguably the most anti-civil rights (and anti-environment) Republican in Congress, as Attorney General. Civil Rights in America, with Bannon and Sessions, are going to be plunged back into the dark ages of the pre-civil rights movement of the 1960's. This is why white nationalist hate groups are fully behind Donald Trump because he's promised that the Good Ol' Days of White Male Supremacy and racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious discrimination will be fully restored to America just like in the 1950's.

 

trickle down economics can work if the money made by the rich stays in America, instead of being invested in other countries from trade.

'liberals' or democrats will never get the white working class vote if they allow skilled and unskilled immigrants from other countries to take jobs from them. there are still not enough immigrants to sway the election, it was a ruse and they fell for it. President Trump won easily in the swing states which is only what matters in elections of a republic that protects the minority.

America can invest in its own people so it does not have to bring talent from other countries to fill jobs with foreigners who work for less, or send those jobs to other countries.

 

Right. His guys. The left. What's so confusing?

 

Apparently they have not been supporting the GOP every election cycle or Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin would be regular red states instead of Trump pick ups. Now, I keep asking this and you won't address it, but since you said that the working class votes against their interests by voting GOP, how are Trump's issues of immigration and trade against working class interests?

Actually that might be interesting, although Gorn Captain is no conservative.

 

Sometimes I wonder if people read what they right.