In the last report, it is said:
> Secondly, Trump's election result shows that about half of the population shares his ideas and in particular his aversion to political elites.
Do you really mean this when you say it, or is just that the bourgeoise press hammering this kind of "deductions" day and night are succeeding?
First of all, only 239 million were eligible to vote, from a population of 328. That's 72.87% of the population. The turnover was 66.1%, which means only a 48% of the population voted. And from those, a 46.8% voted for Trump. Which brings us to a 22.46% of the population having voted for Trump, a far cry from "about half".
Second, and much more importantly, since when are democratic elections a faithful reflection of "what the population thinks"? Even many democracy apologists know very well that that's utterly false, and that there are many factors in play other than "sharing ideas", which likely is far from the main factor.
Can election results give an idea of current tendencies? Yes, that can't be objected to. Do election results show "the ideas of the population"? Only in the minds of the naive... And in propaganda.
It's in bourgeoise propaganda where I have met this idea once and again, very particularly in this case of "oh noes, half the US population agrees with Trump". Has this slogan inadvertently gotten into the article? Or the ICC really means what it's saying there?
As an aside, I would also like to know what those ideas are supposed to be, because apart from the hatred towards a certain specific wing of the bourgeoise (the "elites"), protectionism and blunt nationalism (as opposed to the more refined nationalism of his opponents), I don't see many ideological differences that would make worse if "half the population" supported his ideas instead of his opponents'. Yes, the attitude and ways of talking are very different, but the rest? Not so much. The famous wall was already started in the Obama era, the "kids in cages" about which the democratic party used to shed their crocodile tears six months ago are still there, and the most substantial differences are in exterior policy (that is, they differ in what they do to try ensure the preservation of US supremacy).
I just don't really understand why this specific bourgeoise leader would deserve constant extra condemnation, and I think that's playing right into the hands of leftist and not-even-leftist propaganda.