Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:47AM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:47AM (#606580)

    The top tax bracket gets no cut at all

    I don't know what you think you were reading but it wasn't the tax bill that was voted on. All of the tax brackets, at least in the short term, get cuts. What makes the top bracket different is those cuts don't expire. The tax cuts on the rest of the brackets expire, starting with the second from the top and working down over time such that the lowest bracket's cuts last the longest. After expiration the tax rate goes up for each of the brackets (except the top which doesn't expire).

    Now, the top tax bracket's cuts may be the smallest, but they're permanent. Everyone else's tax cuts are offset by a later increase that takes the money back (and then some) after 5-10 years. This tax bill is a tax cut for the .01% and a tax increase for you and everyone else reading this site. If you think you're actually going to have more money in your pocket in the long run because of this bill you're either a multi-billionaire or a clueless idiot.

    I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on one side when the other side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

    Oh look, more whataboutism. Are you gonna start screaming about buttery males next? The only problem with your particular whataboutism is it could be twisted both ways. Watch:

    "I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on [the Republican] side when the [Democrat] side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment." That fits with current events.

    "I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on the [Democrat] side when the [Republican] side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment." That also fits with current events. Actually, that fits better than the other way around because the Democrats are at least trying (but failing, sadly) to clean up their mess. The Republicans are doubling down on their child sexual predators. Trump himself has come right out and said a known pedophile is preferable to a "liberal" or a "Democrat." (Makes me wonder if some of the illegible scribbles in that insult of a tax bill do away with age of consent laws, but I digress...)

    The sexual predator problem isn't a Democrat problem. The sexual predator problem isn't a Republican problem. The sexual predator problem is a wealthy piece of shit problem. These shit stains commit mass sexual harassment and sexual assault because it has been proven time and time again that they are somehow above the law simply because they are wealthy. Roy Moore creeps in a mall and they put up "watch out for the creep" signs like it's all a big joke. If you or I did the same exact thing we'd have three hots and a cot in a place a great distance from the mall.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=1, Informative=4, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:34AM (13 children)

    The sexual predator problem isn't a Democrat problem. The sexual predator problem isn't a Republican problem. The sexual predator problem is a wealthy piece of shit problem.

    Really? You don't think a ratio of double digits to one on which party they're coming from shows any correlation whatsoever? You're not that big on the science, are you?

    I don't know what you think you were reading but it wasn't the tax bill that was voted on.

    The House bill had no change to the rate of the top tax bracket last I read it. If it's changed since then or if you're thinking of the Senate bill, that's another story entirely.

    If you think you're actually going to have more money in your pocket in the long run because of this bill you're either a multi-billionaire or a clueless idiot.

    I not only think I will, I flat out know I will. I'm not fool enough to decide live my life paycheck to paycheck. Money I have now is and will always be more valuable than money I'll earn in the future. If you can't figure out why, that's your problem.

    --
    My favorite Trump protest sign: All in all you're just another prick with no wall
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:08AM (#606649)

      I not only think I will, I flat out know I will. I'm not fool enough to decide live my life paycheck to paycheck. Money I have now is and will always be more valuable than money I'll earn in the future. If you can't figure out why, that's your problem.

      There is absolutely nothing in that statement that comes anywhere close to being a response to the part of my post you quoted. Here, let me emphasize the relevant part of my post since you obviously lack the reading comprehension to find it yourself:

      "If you think you're actually going to have more money in your pocket in the long run because of this bill you're either a multi-billionaire or a clueless idiot."

      So, tell me, what part of that bill will put more money in your pocket in the long run? By long run I mean 10-15 years out, after all the tax cuts have expired. Please, explain it to me.

      Or are you just another clueless idiot?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:08AM (11 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:08AM (#606650) Journal

      Really? You don't think a ratio of double digits to one on which party they're coming from shows any correlation whatsoever? You're not that big on the science, are you?

      No, all it shows is that Republicans don't care about sexual abuse.

      Exhibit No. 1: Trump -- pussy-grabber in chief.

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:01AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:01AM (#606669)

        The important words were "they let you", which is consent.

        FYI, sometimes women like it when you grab them by the pussy.

        • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:40PM

          by Kilo110 (2853) on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:40PM (#606781)

          lol so you expect he’d just come out and say he forced himself onto women?

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Sulla on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:35AM (1 child)

        by Sulla (5173) on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:35AM (#606677) Journal

        Interesting how with everyone working against him and trying to find every little flaw they have only found success in eating their own.

        --
        "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Sulla on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:32PM

          by Sulla (5173) on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:32PM (#606881) Journal

          Truth hurts

          Senator Al Franken
          Representative John Conyers
          Matt Lauer

          --
          "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:13PM (5 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:13PM (#606791) Journal

        No, all it shows is that Republicans don't care about sexual abuse.

        Exhibit No. 1: Trump -- pussy-grabber in chief.

        Have you not been paying attention to the march of the headlines these past two months at all? Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Kevin Spacey, NPR producers, etc etc. At this point to even cast these behaviors as the purview of one party or another is remarkably blinkered. You mean this is the first time a person who takes sexual liberties with women has sat in the Oval Office? Seriously? Ever hear of Bill Clinton?

        Sexual harassment and abuse are endemic to people in positions of power and privilege, no matter what political or cultural label they might fly under. That is what has been laid bare. Don't willfully miscontrue it as anything else or you will be an agent trying to defeat this society-wide catharsis and preserve the status quo where this abuse continues, because "it's only other guys, the bad ones, who do it."

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:37PM (4 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:37PM (#606931) Journal

          Have you not been paying attention to the march of the headlines these past two months at all?

          Weinstein - Fired and currently being sued
          Matt Lauer - Fired
          Al Franken - Probably resigning today
          Kevin Spacey - Fired
          NPR producers - Fired

          Meanwhile...

          Trump - Crickets...
          Moore - Crickets...

          There is a very clear difference there you are refusing to see.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:04PM (2 children)

            by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:04PM (#606944) Journal

            After decades and decades of condoning it? Hell, Democrats ran the lady who ran the bimbo squad for her husband's presidency for president herself last year. They still defend those POS'es.

            There's no moral high ground there at all. It's simple, "Take the beam out of your own eye" dynamics. It's pure "our" team vs. "their" team.

            The Democrats would have a leg to stand on if they had cleared out the Clinton cronies from the corrupt DNC, called for Hillary and Bill to be prosecuted, and had gone after Conyers and Franken and all the others they've all know about for years on their own instead of being dragged into it, but they didn't. Instead, they doubled down on everything that's wrong there.

            I've actually read headlines on the Huffington Post like, "The case for Hillary in 2020" as recently as last week. That's how clueless the media and the DNC still are.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:10PM (1 child)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:10PM (#606946) Journal

              Child molestation is totally fine because Clinton. Got it.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:23PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:23PM (#607277)

                I think the Trump presidency is slowly eroding Phoenix666's mind.

          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday December 08 2017, @02:24AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Friday December 08 2017, @02:24AM (#607069) Homepage

            No, no, Mr.Franken, please don't resign... we LIKE having a discredited and therefore powerless dude warming a (D) chair...

      • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 08 2017, @06:33PM

        by arcz (4501) on Friday December 08 2017, @06:33PM (#607330) Journal

        I think that it has more to do with the fact that they care less about his sexual behavior than they care about issues.
        As a Trump over Hillary supporter, I found that Donald Trump's positions (a positive) to be more important than his sexual behavior (a negative).
        Hence, I supported Donald Trump even though I don't personally like the guy, because I supported him on more of the issues. That doesn't mean I don't care about sexual abuse, I do, but I cared about it less than:
        1. Protecting free speech, including workplace speech.
        2. Protecting due process, including in sexual harassment/sexual offense related cases.
        3. Restoring the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

        My main reason for supporting Donald Trump was the fact that I don't like the concept of students being expelled from University based on only a preponderance of evidence. I thought that a republican appointed Supreme Court judge would be more likely to overrule that terrible precedent, hence I supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Does anyone really care who the president is after all?