Paul Krugman explains why he cant sympathize with Trump voters

[still_one]

"Last Saturday, the New York Times published a bombshell report detailing the numerous sexual harassment suits filed against Bill O’Reilly over the past 15 years. Within days, Donald Trump had come to his defense, claiming the Fox News host was a “good person” who should never have paid his settlements. Paul Krugman believes this is all you need to know about the 45th president of the United States. In his latest piece, the New York Times columnist takes aim at both the innumerable failures of the Trump administration and the voters who continue to support his agenda.

As far as Krugman can tell, the only thing that distinguishes this presidency from any other Republican’s is its utter incompetence. Trump’s health care bill was a bust, his tax plan is unlikely to get very far off the ground, and his infrastructure plan is virtually incoherent (Krugman makes no mention of Trump’s foreign policy, but his column was written before the administration launched an airstrike against Assad’s forces in Syria.)

“So Trumpist governance in practice so far is turning out to be just Republican governance with (much) worse management,” he writes. “Which brings me back to the original question: Does the appalling character of the man on top matter?”

Krugman believes it does. He argues that Trump’s appeal is rooted not in the substance of his politics but in his crude personality, which gives “outright, unapologetic voice to racism, sexism, contempt for ‘losers’ and so on—feelings that have always been an important source of conservative support, but have long been things you weren’t supposed to talk about openly.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/racism-sexism-and-contempt-for-losers-paul-krugman-explains-why-he-cant-sympathize-with-trump-voters/

I agree with Paul Krugman

[lies]

1. People don't care about character.

No one that voted for Trump did so because they thought he was a saint.

And both sides forgive endless bad behavior... Or just ignore it.

[genxlib]

4. They care about character...

to the extent that it reflects there own.

It makes them feel righteous in their anger and ignorance.

[Cary]

5. No. Both sides don't do it.

This is 100% on Republicans and "conservatives."

[lies]

10. I assume

You realize if I defend my position I'll have my account nuked.

Needless to say I completely disagree, and can easily prove my position, but not without breaking the rules here.

[treestar]

14. LOL the Republicans cared a ton about

character when Bill Clinton seemed to lack it, but now that they support Don the Con, we know they were not sincere.

I will never listen to any right winger again criticize anyone for their sex life, how much they play golf, or anything they do again. Once they accepted Donald as POTUS, they have shown they are completely insincere and only partisan.

[lies]

16. yep

the truth is that very few people - full stop - care about the foibles of their allies... many will endlessly be enraged by those same foibles in their opponents. Human nature I guess... but it makes for dodgy governance.

[treestar]

26. The attempt to create the equivalence

proves the hypocrisy. We don't care about Donald's personal life, or his golfing. It was the right wing that claimed those things were important in the past. We discuss it only to expose how they did not really care about it.

I didn't think Bill Clinton's personal issues were a problem, nor do liberals think anything of Donald's. It was the right that claimed it should be a factor in judging Bill. But now we know they were just using that. They've proven character does not matter to them. So they no longer have any credibility in criticizing a Democrat on those grounds. Lost for good by supporting Donald. What a price to pay. They should have put Cruz or Rubio in - then we might think they still had some standing in sincerity on their feelings about personal morality of one who becomes POTUS.

[Mr.Bill]

68. You are correct.

They have no moral standing and never will again. And they are too stupid to even realize it.

[Cary]

18. What I realize is that the subject was Trump

You cannot compare Trump to Democrats. I won't bother to cite the reasons. You admit that your claim makes you unwelcome here, so you know why as well.

[Cary]

31. What does that have to do with Professor Krugman's column?

You're trying to excuse Trump. You're deflecting. You're offering up a red herring, for what reason?

There is nothing honest about that. Of course Democrats aren't perfect. Perfection isn't a logical standard, or relevant to the topic.

I'm really sick and tired of this nonsense.

[lark]

43. I disagree.

There were lots of folks here who condemned Obama for pursuing a grand bargain. There were also lots of folks who condemned him for putting Lieberman as a committee chair and strongly and verbally disapproved of Obama abandonning single payer. Maybe you weren't around much then and so didn't see all the strong debate on the board about this. Oh yeah, lots of us disapproved of the way Snowden was treated, but that topic was majorly debated with very strong feelings on both sides.

[Hortensis]

48. This article is pointing out that so many would not

recognize moral and honest leadership if it bit them on the nose. Not that Obama or Hillary ever tried to do exactly that, of course. Nevertheless, it seems that many on both sides of the spectrum took offense at them both for suggesting by their own behavior and example that citizens should, you know, be honest and moral themselves.

Anyway, one thing the interviewees often say is that Mr. Trump is honest, that he tells it like is, which may seem odd given how much he lies about almost everything, policy and personal. But what they probably mean is that Mr. Trump gives outright, unapologetic voice to racism, sexism, contempt for “losers” and so on — feelings that have always been an important source of conservative support, but have long been things you weren’t supposed to talk about openly.

In other words, Mr. Trump isn’t an honest man or a stand-up guy, but he is, arguably, less hypocritical about the darker motives underlying his worldview than conventional politicians are.

Hence the affinity for Mr. O’Reilly, and Mr. Trump’s apparent sense that news reports about the TV host’s actions are an indirect attack on him. One way to think about Fox News in general, and Mr. O’Reilly in particular, is that they provide a safe space for people who want an affirmation that their uglier impulses are, in fact, justified and perfectly O.K. And one way to think about the Trump White House is that it’s attempting to expand that safe space to include the nation as a whole.

And the big question about Trumpism — bigger, arguably, than the legislative agenda — is whether unapologetic ugliness is a winning political strategy.

[cstanleytech]

49. Here is what I know, this is the Democratic Underground if you want to peddle that opinion of yours

then you might want to find a site with people who share that opinion like say FreeRepublic.

[brer cat]

30. Kind of bizarre, isn't it?

"I know the truth but Skinner won't let me tell you" is a peculiar debate position to take here. Imo that stance reinforces our position that any comparison of trump with Democrats would require digging into the sludge of the RW smear barrel.

[Cary]

32. It's the same old same old, packaged in mealymouthedness

And topped with righteous indignation

[NurseJackie]

69. I see that often.

Annoying as hell, isn't it?

[Lil Missy]

21. Not quite true - you don't get your account revoked for defense of your position,...

unless you "prove your case" with opinion strictly from right wing sources, or hate groups. Or if you otherwise make yourself known as a troll/wingnut.

[Cary]

33. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State

She was a diplomat, and she didn't sell anything.

You sound like Peter Schweitzer.

[Cary]

36. I said nothing dishonest

Now you offer ad hominem.

[lies]

37. of course you did

you ignored the SUBSTANCE of my comment, so you could dismiss it, and then you tried to diminish me by comparing me to someone you dislike.

Basic propaganda.

And at any rate DEMOCRATS signed off on selling billions in weapons to DICTATORS, knowing that they would be used against civilians, and then said NOTHING when they were, AND tried to stop the UN from investigating Saudi war crimes.

I don't think that that sums up what the PARTY stands for, but it IS hypocrisy to complain about Trump bombing civilians after staying utterly silent on Obama starving millions of them.

Now you can read that and try and parse it away, but the truth is the truth.

I support and vote EXCLUSIVELY for Democrats, BUT that doesn't mean I have to support behavior I KNOW is immoral.

[Cary]

40. What substance of your comment?

You're deflecting. Why do you decree that I have to go down your rabbit hole?

Explain that to me and I will address your "Clinton Cash" schtick. Explain to me how this relates to Professor Krugman's article. Unless and until you do that to my satisfaction I will ignore your deflection.

[Lil Missy]

53. You mad bro?

[Hortensis]

61. But a sprinkle of baking powder can avoid "post removed"s.

For a while.

: Schmuck.

[Achilleaze]

24. Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha

Put down those Dippin Dots, and back away slowly.

This is not the Spice Boy PropaWhoppa Forum.

[NastyRiffraff]

50. You mean you'd have to cite RW sources?

Or is it bashing Democrats?

[Egnever]

57. Absolutely

4 posts hidden in the last week for doing just that.

[Hekate]

77. And about as many in this thread alone. Amazing, isn't it?

[Alice11111]

58. LOL.I had the same problem. There is one name I have

I have said occasionally, and I get nuked almost everytime. Is there anyway to tell who is alerting?
It feels like someone is a self appointed police person following me.

[Egnever]

59. Yup

I am probably mentioning the same person.

[kcr]

62. Then why are you here? n/t

[Hekate]

63. Bring it on, "lies." You've had this named account since 2007, but only used it since 90 days ago?

Do share your wisdom further -- and I say "further" because I've read the whole thread. Do enlighten us on how your position is not false equivalency.

[brewens]

71. Roger that. But they know. They just have us obstructed here. n/t

[FenwayDonkey]

6. Trump is different level in terms of defective character*

[Cosmocat]

7. That is abjectly false

Character was the very reason this country made this POS POTUS - the lack of it, to specific.

It was VERY cleary, LONG before November 8th, just how horrible he was.

People who voted for him voted for him for one over riding factor - to give "liberals" the middle finger.

He is the latest de-evolution of the republican party, which has been dragging this country into a cesspool of hate and division for the my entire adult life - over a quarter century.

[Alice11111]

64. Yes, many Trumpsters wanted to give the left the finger!

That's why they laugh uncontrollably when he says and does clearly outrageous things and tells obvious lies (says one thing one day and another in direct contradiction the next). They are eating popcorn, watching Fox, and laughing their arses off, complete entertainment, like see what he is doing to them now (the Dems, left, non RWers). The truth is not a factor, they just want to watch him fuck over the left. I'm amazed at how many Dems don't seem to get this, like we can somehow make those trumpsters be rational.

That is only one reason we lost though. It was much more complicated, and there were many, many factors.

[Martin Eden]

8. So then, in your opinion ...

... decades of rightwing attacks to smear the character of Hillary Clinton had no effect on the election?

[lies]

12. It's not that exactly

But I can't explain my position without being critical of some things it's against the rules to be critical about...

so.

[Martin Eden]

13. Compartmentalization

People have the capability to hold diametrically opposing beliefs simultaneously.

Character matters in their loathing of Hillary but Donald's personal character is irrelevant.

An extreme double standard was at work in this election -- not just among Trump voters but in the mainstream media as well.

[paleotn]

17. cognitive dissonance....

thy name is Rethuglican and the rubes who support them.

[Martin Eden]

23. Doublethink

Orwell was a prophet

[Cary]

27. I think it's pure opportunism fueled by rank stupidity

If you haven't read Professor Krugman's column, please do. The "both sides do it" narrative is inappropriate.

[lark]

44. Intellectual dishonesty

is another way of saying this and it was extremely strong this past election.

[Alice11111]

65. that was definitely a factor

[Hortensis]

9. It's not that. Many DO care about character, but

they know they have it and those they oppose don't. A basic frame of belief that doesn't need examining. And if they don't want to scrutinize Republican officials, that's just human, and in any case they know that at their worst they're still better for the country than Democrats.

Research has shown that a lot of these people are critically lacking in self awareness, the ability to scrutinize their own behaviors objectively. They're wearing the right labels, Republican, "independent," Christian, whatever, do the work of the one true god with the code words of those who are saved, etc., so they know they're on the side of right.

Hampering insight is also the little issue of ability to understand moral issues. Like IQ, it varies dramatically, but how many of us know that or imagine there's often, or even usually, something we're really not "getting?" Rarely I've bothered to wonder if there was something I was missing, but I was never able to imagine what it would be.

[paleotn]

15. False equivalence BS.....

A relatively recent example...Anthony Wiener went from a Democratic darling to a zero on the support meter because of his bad behavior. Not so much on the Rethug side...supposedly the party of "family values", whatever the hell that is. Compare Wiener to Rep. Scott DesJarlais from TN. The man tried to force his pregnant mistress into getting an abortion for christ's sake. Last I checked, he's still popular with the rubes. You know, family values, Jesus and all.

SOME people don't care about character. Ironically, it's those who keep blathering on about character and christian morals. I agree, Shit Gibbon's voters didn't care about character. They thought they were going to get something in return.....and like the most basic con, they're not going to get anything. They've been duped. No worries though. Rethugs have been duping the rubes for 3 decades now.

[lies]

20. Check out Yemen

Or the Office of Congressional Ethics.

We care as long as it suits us... we ignore what doesn't.

That is reality.

[paleotn]

39. OK...

show me some examples from the OCE where Dem's transgressions were ignored by our base in the same way that's commonplace for Rethugs.

[still_one]

47. Saudi Arabia is our ally. The US supported and gave arms to SA long before President Obama. To

say that President Obama approved the starvation of Yemen civilians by supporting arms sales to SA is not fair. It also isn't that simple.

There was plenty of criticism against President Obama here and by the media regarding our involvement in Libya, Syria, and other areas in the world. Democrats have never been hesitant to be critical of each other.

There is a huge difference between Democratic administrations verses republican ones

[Cha]

76. "both sides".. Do Not Not Push the Fallacy that

both sides are equal.

I care about character.. President Obama has brilliant character. He's my President.

[Hortensis]

2. Here's Krugman's column, "The Bad, the Worse and the Ugly."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/opinion/the-bad-the-worse-and-the-ugly.html

[dalton99a]

11. +1

[mountain grammy]

22. +1

[Maynar]

38. Excellente.

[angel823]

42. + infinity

Krugman nails it, once again.

[bluedigger]

55. Thanks.

I hate reading some blogger's interpretation of a columnist. They aren't saving me any time.

[Hortensis]

60. At best! Definitely with you.

[Hekate]

67. Love Paul Krugman, as always. nt

[Hortensis]

70. :) Yes. Both Krugman and Reich, regardless of the

pretend, black-and-white dissension played up between them. They both have their eyes open.

Amazingly, even Rump once said the economy does better under Democratic administrations. Hardly a brilliant observation, and it is surpassingly shocking that most of today's house Republicans haven't reached Rump's level of enlightenment on simple economic realities.

[VOX]

72. Thanks for the link. Much appreciated.

[Fast Walker 52]

3. Yes, the problem is the GOP has gone insane and have been programmed to believe

too much nonsense, which Trump tapped into perfectly, despite his many other flaws.

[oasis]

19. Krugman was way too kind to legions of Trump dimwit Deplorables.

Shit for Brains Brigade.

[luvMIdog]

25. many many years ago when I was a child I was taught that no one likes a braggart and boaster

I've always looked upon people that brag on themselves as lacking class or lacking the intelligence not to do it. There are a multitude of reasons I despise Donald Trump but when he brags about himself it makes me want to spew. I can't tolerate listening to him at all - period. I think I was shocked at the very beginning that ANYONE would support a person like that. I felt like America had become the land of the trashy/stupid. I still am shocked by it.

[leftyladyfrommo]

34. That blew me away, too.

Trump never hid who he was. His deplorable character was right out there in plain sight and still people voted for him. And it was the part of the population that makes such a big deal about "Christian Values." Turns out most of those people wouldn't know a Christian Value if it hit them in the head.

It was bizarre.

[Johnny2X2X]

41. They like Trump because he is racist like them

Last edited Sun Apr 9, 2017, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Trump is a racist and a sexist and the majority of his supporters like him just because of that. There is a deeply engrained racism in about 20% of the country and they are pissed off that they have had to hide their racism for the last couple decades while the rest of the country moved forward.

In Trumo they see a White Suprmacist and Misogynist that can be their champion. Simple as that. Bombing or not bombing, jobs or no jobs, he can take their health care, and destroy the air and water they drink. They love him because he's a racist.

[raccoon]

52. Right on target. nt

[Cary]

54. All roads do lead to that

Denial or not.

[Mr. Ected]

45. Everywhere, around the world, 2 out of 10 people are born with a fascist gene

Doesn't matter if you were born in the USA, in Bolivia, or Sweden. There's always a contingent of people willing to ascribe to fascist principles, people who crave to be told what to do, and to tell others what to do, to check their liberties at the door in lieu of a master force creating and enforcing the superiority of the state.

It's those people that Putin is tapping into. It's why he's finding surprising levels of success in places (eg, the Netherlands) that you'd least expect it.

This is merely my theory, but it seems somewhat viable and worthy of future research.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. The difference between "sympathy" and "empathy" becomes important here.

I hope we all empathize with white working class Americans who have been divided and conquered by their corporate masters. That means we feel the pain of their unfulfilled lives, we feel their self loathing, their despair.

To sympathize, on the other hand, would be to agree with their fundamental premise, which is that they have been wronged because they have been denied "white privilege".

[guillaumeb]

51. An excellent response. eom

[Honeycombe8]

56. Agreed. nt

[Nitram]

66. Krugman, as usual, is right on the money..

[SunSeeker]

73. As usual, Krugman slices through the bullshit.

[fun n serious]

75. I love Paul Krugman.

I enjoy his intellectual writings

[Cha]

74. Exactly.. anyone who has sympathy for these idiots who

voted for the sexual predator needs to ask themselves why.

Why would you excuse that for fucking bullshit?

Mahalo, still_one