The last time Donald Trump was president, he travelled to Youngstown, Ohio, among the most depressed of America’s rust belt cities, and promised voters the impossible.
The high-paying steel, railroad and car industry jobs that once made Youngstown a hard-living, hard-drinking blue-collar boom town were coming back, he said. “Don’t move. Don’t sell your house,” he crowed to a rapturous crowd in 2017. “We’re going to fill up those factories – or rip ”em down and build brand new ones”.
None of that happened. Indeed, within 18 months, General Motors (GM) announced that it was suspending operations at its one remaining manufacturing plant outside Youngstown, throwing 5,000 jobs into jeopardy in a community with little else to cling to. Trump’s reaction was to say the closure didn’t matter, because the jobs would be replaced “in, like, two minutes”.
That, too, did not happen. People moved away, marriages broke down, depression soared and, locals say, a handful of people took their own lives.
“The Democrats and the Republicans are all a den of crooks. Only one side lies about being crooks, and one doesn’t. If you’re going to be a crook, I’d rather know it than be lied to.”
I assume they mean the Democrats are lying about not being crooks, but given that the article is about Trump breaking promises, that makes him the liar and obvious crook. Which means he’s the preferable candidate somehow?
I guess it’s just comfortable lies vs. difficult truths. Times change, if you don’t change with them you’ll be left behind in a ghost of a town.
Yeah, the electorate also punished Carter for being straight with Americans about oil dependence and energy security. And instead of following the path of energy transition, they went with Reagan who promised Americans everything while undermining the middle class.
A lot of voters are basically like children that want to be lied to.
Exactly this. Trump won both times by lying about helping the working class. So did Obama. Promise Americans that you care about the working class and will help them, and the “swing voter” dumbasses are more likely to vote for you regardless of your past record.
This is a great analogy for people to think about: we’re all recognizing Carter as one of the great ones, someone who lived a life of helping people, someone whose heart was always in the right place, someone with a higher sense of morals and ethics than most of todays politicians. All of that’s true, but it’s also true he was voted out of a second term. He told some uncomfortable truths, he was not photogenic, he did not just say what people wanted to hear. And we voted him out. Hindsight makes it easy to see that we voted for the face-eating leopard party all along
I like this take. I think it makes sense, even though I don’t agree with the reasoning of the speaker in the article. There is so much difference between the policies and actions being enacted that to claim an comfortable lie is somehow comparable to a difficult truth is asinine. Both are stupid! Do not vote based on this premise! Have actual policy reasons behind your position. But that’s just my opinion.
Sure, that makes sense for an informed voter and a rational actor… but real people rarely are.
This is the core problem with most analyses. People are emotional. Whoever pissed them off last might just be who they vote against. Or they may act out to hurt the party that’s least bad for them because they’re angry the most they’re willing to offer is to be less bad. It’s irrational, but no amount of complaining about irrationality is going to make it not true.
What truth is the Democratic party telling again? They’re crooks all the way.
So theyre all crooks and we’re all just gonna sit around and argue about whos better? Lol