Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07 2017, @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.

    --
    "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:33AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @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.

      --
      "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:39AM

        by c0lo (156) on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @05:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @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.