Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07, @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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:04AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:04AM (#606591)

    Sure, family of 2+3 with an income of 40,000 under the old bill gets 2 standard deductions (6000 each) and 3 child credits (1000 each) and 5 personal exemptions (4000 each), for an AGI of 5000, which at 10% is a bill of $500. New house bill: 2 standard deductions (12000 each) and 3 child credits (2000 each), for an AGI of 10000 at 12% is a bill of $1200. What a gigantic cut for that family!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @03:19AM (4 children)

    Yes, you can cherry pick winners and losers in every proposed tax bracket. Doing so just marks you out as a disingenuous shithead though. You're literally playing "gotcha" politics with actual human people's livelihoods right now.

    --
    We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:33AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:33AM (#606614)

      Would you care to compare their proposed 1.1% tax cut to the ones the poor and middle-class are slated to get?

      That is exactly what I did, compared a 1.1% cut to what many poor or middle class (depending on how you define $40,000 a year) would get under that tax plan. But perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that prompt.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @04:03AM (2 children)

        No, sweety, you cherry picked numbers that allow you to find a small niche that doesn't see much if any benefit while ignoring all the poor and middle-class people that most definitely do see a very tangible benefit. If you can't see that as being full of shit, you really need to work on being honest within your own mind at the very least.

        --
        We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @08:39AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @08:39AM (#606716)

          No, sweety, you cherry picked numbers that allow you to find a small niche that doesn't see much if any benefit while ignoring all the poor and middle-class people that most definitely do see a very tangible benefit.

          Let's not cherry pick then [businessinsider.com]:

          The Joint Committee on Taxation released a new analysis of the Senate Republican tax bill on Thursday.

          The analysis showed that in 2019, households of all incomes would get a tax cut.

          By 2027, however, all households making $US75,000 and under would see a tax increase — and half of the tax cut benefits would go to people making $US1 million and over.

          A-a-a-a... not allowed to cherry pick means you don't put an arbitrary limit to the time the impact is assessed. If the impact can be estimated for longer periods, you go with it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:17PM (#607274)

          While I feel more stupid for reading just about anything you write it is fun to watch you revert to "sweety" when you run out of excuses for being wrong.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:52PM (#606967)

    Uhh no. If you make 40k you're getting money back. If you have kids and non-working spouse, and a house, and bills, you're getting more money back. These changes aren't putting anyone on the other side of the return/pay line.