cphite wrote:What I am proposing is that a lot of them are angry because they don't believe the people they elected to represent them, are actually representing them. A lot of them don't believe that the EU has their interests in mind, or the interests of their country in mind. A lot of them are upset by the fact that, when they express legitimate concerns about immigration for example, they're dismissed as racists and xenophobes and ultimately ignored. They're upset by what they see as too much power over their lives being handed to people in a central government that neither knows them nor cares to know them.
As an aside, I believe this same thing explains how in USA we have so many people supporting someone as awful as Trump. Sure, some people may like him; and some may even like what he's proposing... but I think a lot of people are just enticed by the notion of having someone other than the long list of horrible people who keep getting into power.
I agree. I don't think it's so much that people *actually* like Trump, as that they're pleased to see the folks they generally dislike getting some comeuppance. It's the nature of an anti-establishment drive.
Diemo wrote:Wlso, immigrants are on the whole beneficial to the UK. So when someone in the UK is anti-immigration, that is an immediate red flag for racism.
Immigrants are, on the whole, beneficial to the US too. That doesn't mean I assume everyone who is anti-immigration is racist. For instance, they may simply not be aware of that. A *lot* of people do not comprehensively understand economics, and default towards some sort of zero sum view, where whatever the immigrant gets must be lessening what they get. It isn't necessarily race based.
It's also not necessarily entirely wrong. Just because immigration is good for the country at large doesn't mean it's good for everyone in that country. It's likely that at least some people ended up worse off. And the media *does* love to fixate on exceptionally negative outcomes. So, what someone sees may be highlighting exactly that, and people will naturally suspect that these will become more frequent if immigration becomes much greater. One can of course blame the media for portraying things badly, but that's different from saying that the viewers are racist.
CorruptUser wrote:Except both Kentucky and Vermont are pro-gun and anti-big government. I get what you are saying, but choose states with less in common.
Maryland and West Virginia should suffice. Despite being neighboring states, they have significantly different interests. It's *somewhat* complicated in that the interests of a given area follow lines that are not state lines, exactly(and thus, western MD is essentially identical to WV, but it's utterly irrelevant in any political sense).
In any case, regardless of which two you pick, it's certainly obvious that US states definitely have divided interests relatively frequently, given our high rate of partisanship, and just how few of our states are actually swing states. If I had a dollar for every time I heard a coastal Democrat dismissively refer to the Midwest as "flyover country" or for a Midwestern Republican to half wish for California to "get the big one and fall off the face of the earth", I'd be pretty well off, I think.
People seem to be pretty good at dividing themselves even when race isn't present.
I'm following the discussion of individual candidates, but don't really know the individuals involved well enough to add much to that conversation, I think. I do enjoy the differences between the US system and ya'lls, though. The idea that someone here would turn down power merely because it would be divisive, and make him an ineffective leader is...strange, I think. It makes sense in context, but it would probably not happen in the US.