Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason for them voting for FPÖ? The left can't deliver anymore. And that's where what's going on in Europe is significantly different then what's going on in the US. It's certainly not a conservative revolution. Those people voting for FPÖ are usually one or all of the following: (i) protest voters, (ii) former social democrats with little education that think the system has failed them, and/or (iii) people that really don't like foreigners.
The voters that typically vote Democrat but voted for Trump fit similar categories, (ii) in particular in the de-industrializing Midwest.
Quote:
The beauty about populists is that they can never deliver. Many examples for that exist already. So fortunately, their reign is usually short-lived.
As for populists being unable to deliver, part of the issue is those with experience to help work populists into actual policy are few; they don't like the populists. Most of the Republican Party is avoiding working in the Trump adminstration, leaving it filled by fringe or less successful Republicans
Staffing up an administration is difficult for any transition team, but for Trump it is proving immensely difficult. His support among Republican elected officials was hardly genuine or deep. His ability to attract the finest policy minds on the right is practically non-existent. His foreign policy advisers during the campaign were D-listers and cranks.
As for populists being unable to deliver, part of the issue is those with experience to help work populists into actual policy are few; they don't like the populists. Most of the Republican Party is avoiding working in the Trump adminstration, leaving it filled by fringe or less successful Republicans
Staffing up an administration is difficult for any transition team, but for Trump it is proving immensely difficult. His support among Republican elected officials was hardly genuine or deep. His ability to attract the finest policy minds on the right is practically non-existent. His foreign policy advisers during the campaign were D-listers and cranks.
The reason why they don't get capable people to help implement their policies is that those that are able to do so are well aware that it's a bad idea.
The voters that typically vote Democrat but voted for Trump fit similar categories, (ii) in particular in the de-industrializing Midwest.
As for populists being unable to deliver, part of the issue is those with experience to help work populists into actual policy are few; they don't like the populists. Most of the Republican Party is avoiding working in the Trump adminstration, leaving it filled by fringe or less successful Republicans
Staffing up an administration is difficult for any transition team, but for Trump it is proving immensely difficult. His support among Republican elected officials was hardly genuine or deep. His ability to attract the finest policy minds on the right is practically non-existent. His foreign policy advisers during the campaign were D-listers and cranks.
Because any policy maker with a shred of sanity or self-respect for his/her reputation wouldn't go anywhere near a 10-mile radius of the White House starting Jan 20.
Earlier, there was a rumor that Trump wanted J.P.Morgan's renowned CEO Jamie Dimon to head the Treasury Department.
Those safety nets we have here, are much of the problem, in that they encourage illegal immigration, because until someone is proved to be illegal, they have full access to them. Even then though, appeals can take years, so all these benefits can still be accessed. (Not sure this is the reason for getting rid of them there though).
.
I want to address this because many in the US are completely clueless about our social programs. What you mentioned is the main difference; in the US, you must first prove citizenship before you can even begin to collect anything. They make you bring in a copy of both your birth certificate, the official one, not just the one with information, as well as your social security card, two things you will not have if you're a non citizen. If you can't produce both of those, you are disqualified.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,466,576 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Return2FL
They voted for Trump too. He handily won the white 65+ voters. Those were the Vietnam protestors. The simple reality is that throughout modern American history, young voters lean Democrat and older voters lean Republican and this election was no different. A very wise Frenchman said it:
That is backed up by this interactive chart from the NY Times. White voters vote Democrat when young and Republican when older. Would be interesting to see it updated for 2016 results, it goes up to 2012.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,466,576 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
I want to address this because many in the US are completely clueless about our social programs. What you mentioned is the main difference; in the US, you must first prove citizenship before you can even begin to collect anything. They make you bring in a copy of both your birth certificate, the official one, not just the one with information, as well as your social security card, two things you will not have if you're a non citizen. If you can't produce both of those, you are disqualified.
The problem with America's safety nets are they reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. SS Disability takes every penny of wage out of the check you get and if you work too much you will loose all benefits. That encourages people to get the check and never try to work. To save SS we should encourage as many people to work while on it as possible.
While I agree with the other poster that non citizens should not get safety net programs I disagree that they are causing the system to go bankrupt. Some non citizens get benefits but others pay taxes and get no benefits. I'll call it a tossup.
The problem with America's safety nets are they reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. SS Disability takes every penny of wage out of the check you get and if you work too much you will loose all benefits. That encourages people to get the check and never try to work. To save SS we should encourage as many people to work while on it as possible.
While I agree with the other poster that non citizens should not get safety net programs I disagree that they are causing the system to go bankrupt. Some non citizens get benefits but others pay taxes and get no benefits. I'll call it a tossup.
If someone is on disability, they probably should not be working but the amount is so little that they have to. That's just me though I guess.
Also, what benefits are non citizens getting? It most certainly isn't SNAP (Food Stamps) because I've qualified for that and the hoops you have to jump through can be nerve wracking.
If someone is on disability, they probably should not be working but the amount is so little that they have to. That's just me though I guess.
Also, what benefits are non citizens getting? It most certainly isn't SNAP (Food Stamps) because I've qualified for that and the hoops you have to jump through can be nerve wracking.
People who are on disability are on it for many different types of reasons- some have severe illnesses, some mental illnesses that incapacitate them, some slight illnesses. Some want to work and do, others are just trying to get money any way possible. Its not easy getting disability though, you need to go to many doctor evaluaciones and be communicating with disability evaluators constantly.
Refugees and asylees do get SNAP benefits. Legal Permanent refugees qualify too, but if they were sponsored, its pretty near impossible, and most were sponsored. Undocumented citizens do not qualify, but if they have US born children, the children can get benefits.
If what you're getting at is Bush's attack on Iraq, yes, but the US had been a target of Islamic terrorism long before Bush. It didn't make any difference the party affiliation of any given sitting President at the time. It's had everything to do with a variety of US foreign policy issues over time, not the least of which is the creation of, and relationship with, Israel.
US has been a target simply because it has always supported pro-Israel anti-muslim foreign policies, and that's because pro-Israel lobby in the US is so strong - US Jews control all mass media and largest financial outlets.
The US annexation of Iraq has been the key point in this muslim genocide by US and its NATO allies, which resulted in creation of ISIS.
So if you want to know who created current refugee crisis and elevated terrorist threat in EU, don't go too far, they created it themselves by supporting the muslim genocide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
