MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Starbucks guy: "billionaire" is offensiv...

Starbucks guy: "billionaire" is offensive, should be called "people of means"


Is he trying to link himself to "people of color"? Can you imagine Trump saying something like this? Trump is proud of his wealth, and recognizes it as a privlidge not to be taken for granted.

The left has a Jewish problem. The idea of a wealthy cabal of people pulling all the strings doesn't sit well with Jews. Whether it's Hollywood celebrities or Wall Street CEOs, they seem to harbor guilt for their wealth and so are extra sensitive to attacks on it, just like insecure teenage boys don't like having their sexuality questioned. Calling one a homosexual is a test and seeing how they react shows us what they a made of. Starbucks guy just passed... with flaming colors.

reply

The majority of billionaires are liberals.

Bezos?

reply

I keep reading about how the majority of upper-earners are Trump supporters and how the 'poor economically-anxious Trump supporter' theory is a myth.

But if you look at the CNN 2016 election polls, the number of voters earning over $250,000 per annum is split equally between Clinton and Trump supporters, and whilst the very poorest voters (i.e. those earning under $50,000 per annum) are Clinton supporters, middle-income earners (i.e. those earning between $50,000 to $200,000 per annum) tend to be Trump supports, whilst those earning between $200,000 to $250,000 per annum support Clinton.

What I extrapolate from these stats is that the poor and working-class still tend on balance to support the Democratic Party by a large margin. However, if you were to exclude POC and welfare recipients from these stats, my hunch is that white working-class voters in work tended to back Trump (hence the GOP's success in winning the rustbelt states in 2016 from the Democratic Party). There's no doubting that Trump's racial rhetoric disgusts black and Latinx voters, as one would expect, and that the GOP's reduction of the state will understandably turn-off most welfare recipients, of any colour.

But the stats seem to indicate that middle to upper-middle class earners supported Trump, on balance, whereas those at the particularly high end of the upper-middle class earners tended to back Hillary.

And as you suggest Bubbathegut, the mega-rich, the one-percenters/billionaires, including the likes of Bezos, Cuban, Gates and Buffett, tend to be Democrats, or, at the very least, no fans of Trump (if their various anti-Trump pronouncements are anything to go by). Of course, when you're that rich and comfortable with your own capacity, ability and flexibility in terms of making money, you have nothing whatsoever to lose from a Democratic government imposing (slightly) higher taxes than the GOP.

reply

Why do you keep blaming Jews for everything?

There are plenty of rich gentile 'liberals' in Hollywood (most of the big stars are still gentiles, since they have traditionally been seen as more 'marketable' to the general public) and Wall Street, and various gentile billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet among others.

If you dropped your anti-Semitic narrative, you might actually have something interesting to say about liberal hypocrisy among the one percent.

For instance, even though I am a liberal and personally despise Trump, I do find his relative honesty concerning his wealth (if not perhaps the means by which he came by it) oddly refreshing. He isn't sheepish about his privileges and doesn't pretend to feel the pain of the poor, which is something genuinely poor people (and I speak as someone who is working-class if not completely destitute) resent coming from the type of rich idiots who are so absurd they now want us to use 'politically correct' terminology to describe billionaires.

This is precisely why the so-called 'left' has lost its way. Too much pandering to the one percent and fears about hurting the feelings of over-privileged celebrities and Wall Street bankers, and too much focus on mealy-mouthed identity politics instead of socioeconomic fairness and living standards. Thank goodness for people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for at least attempting to bring economics back to the fore (although it's a shame that Warren had to blot her copybook with her ridiculous Native American claims - less than 6% possible Native American DNA does not entitle you to talk about your Cherokee roots).

reply

Thrillhouse is the resident poor white trash anti-semite Trump supporter with a chip-on-his-shoulder victim complex and suffers delusions from playing too many video games. He's a hardcore Steve Bannon acolyte. The remedy to his quagmire is to get a job yet he remains too hapless to help himself.

reply

Lols! Welcome back eYeDEF! We missed you.

reply

y0h Dogg1e! Good to be back. :)

reply

It's a shame, because if he was able to drop his irrational hatred of Jews, he might actually have something interesting to say about 'liberal' hypocrisy among the one percent, and the need for the left to distance itself from the socioeconomic elite and start speaking for the common man and woman.

But many common men and women are Jewish, and many elites are gentile. He needs to stop conflating elitism with Judaism. It's that type of anti-Semitic rhetoric that gives populism, of all stripes, a bad name.

Left-wing socioeconomic populism needs to completely eradicate any association whatsoever with anti-Semitism. One can criticise the current Israel government without resorting to any sort of anti-Semitic narrative, and the populist left really needs to expel anyone from its ranks who talks of global Zionist conspiracies. There are many populist left-wing Jews who would be shocked to be told they are part of a 'network of Jewish elites'. It's complete and utter BS.

Trump, a gentile, is part of the socioeconomic elite. As are the Clintons, also gentiles. Where Thrillhouse might have a point is in recognising that the socioeconomic elite is not confined to one political party in the US. They are represented among the Democrats just as they are represented among the GOP.

reply

All good points. But I wouldn't put Thrillhouse into the category of 'left-wing socioeconomic populism'. There has always been a racist tinged socioeconomic populism among the disaffected right that Steve Bannon and Trump have tapped into and is now better understood as "magatard right".

reply

Thank you for your respectful reply.

I know I have alienated some other liberals on these forums through my civil engagement with cons and right-wingers, of all ilk, but I'm pleased you understand where I am coming from.

If what you say is true, and I believe it is, Thrillhouse belongs to a particular nutty strain of the political right (one that is even nuttier than the average MAGA-cap wearer) which is entirely propelled by self-contradicting and paradoxical conspiracy theories. That said, I do think it's a shame, because some of those people on the disaffected right, who currently turn to anti-Semitic bigotry and tinfoil hat theories, could easily channel this disaffection into a much more constructive form of populism (i.e. socialism), and, instead of bogging themselves in nonsensical ethnocentric division, focus on targeting the relevant socioeconomic elites who currently stand in the way of a fairer, more equal, and less economically divided society.

reply