Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump to win?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ellen Z
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by jk View Post
    i, too, oppose trump but i do think there is a "trump phenomenon." it is the rebellion of those who have lost out from globalization, technological advancement and cultural change.... and i think it is to our shame that globalization was sold as an unalloyed good while all its benefits went to the upper few percent, and all its costs were paid by those in the lowest socio-economic strata.
    I also think there is a real Trump phenomenon. Regardless of the results of this election, we’ll deal with versions of this phenomenon going forward.

    At the start of 2016, John Michael Greer posted an essay, "Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment." JMG looks at the United States electorate in terms of four groups: those whose income is based on investment returns, monthly salary, hourly wages, or a government welfare check. "It’s meaningful to speak of the American people as divided into an investment class, a salary class, a wage class, and a welfare class," he writes.

    After a couple of paragraphs on economic history, he says "and the wage class? Over the last half century, the wage class has been destroyed....The catastrophic impoverishment and immiseration of the American wage class is one of the most massive political facts of our time—and it’s also one of the most unmentionable. Next to nobody is willing to talk about it, or even admit that it happened."

    He continues: "attempts by people in the wage class to mount any kind of effective challenge to the changes that have gutted their economic prospects and consigned them to a third-rate future have done very little so far. To some extent, that’s a function of the GOP’s sustained effort to lure wage class voters into backing Republican candidates on religious and moral grounds."

    Then he adds Donald Trump to this picture:
    "The man is brilliant. I mean that without the smallest trace of mockery. He’s figured out that the most effective way to get the wage class to rally to his banner is to get himself attacked, with the usual sort of shrill mockery, by the salary class."

    Greer’s conclusion:
    "It’s by no means certain that Trump will ride that resentment straight to the White House, though at this moment it does seem like the most likely outcome. Still, I trust none of my readers are naive enough to think that a Trump defeat will mean the end of the phenomenon that’s lifted him to front runner status in the teeth of everything the political establishment can throw at him. I see the Trump candidacy as a major watershed in American political life, the point at which the wage class—the largest class of American voters, please note—has begun to wake up to its potential power and begin pushing back against the ascendancy of the salary class."

    That’s how I see it also.

    The complete essay is available here: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.c...esentment.html

    At the start of the year Greer said it was likely Trump would be elected. I don’t know whether he still thinks that. For myself, I thought this was a competitive race until the first debate. During the week after that debate, Trump voluntarily acted in ways that made his election much less likely. Since he’s a smart person, and he did this consistently, now I think he probably doesn’t really want to be president.

    I’ve been reading John Michael Greer regularly since 2009. (All of his blog posts since 2006 are available on his website.) I don’t agree with everything he says, but he has certainly shaped my view of where we are now and what might happen over the next 50 years.

    There’s an experience we’ve all had, when you read someone and you suddenly understand something for the first time. You say to yourself "how did come I never noticed that before?" I have that experience more often when reading John Michael Greer then anyone else.

    He covers a lot of subjects. He likes to generalize, and I suspect he sometimes gets details wrong, or puts an emphasis wrong. He predicts a dark future, so I often read him and hope he’s mistaken! But if those quotes interest you, you might want to browse around his website and see what else he has to say.

    Leave a comment:


  • jk
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by Woodsman View Post

    I don't believe either party is getting their Supremes through without cobbling together something near a super majority, not on the first or even third try. Barring some universally accepted unity nominee, I think we are going to have a 4/4 court for the foreseeable future.
    i think it may be a long time before ANY supreme court nominee is approved. we should start an over/under on how low court membership will go. 7? 6? 5?? i think 5 is actually a possibility. the oldest members are ginsberg 83, kennedy 80, breyer 78.

    in the natural course of events, we will likely have a 3 to 2, conservative majority 5 member court. however, since it takes 4 votes to grant cert, that court might not have much to do.

    this problem is already manifest in the non-supreme federal courts, as the republican senate has refused to consider nominations. there are now 97 vacant non-supreme court federal judgeships. i expect the federal court system to continue to gradually depopulate at all levels.

    what a country!
    Last edited by jk; October 09, 2016, 11:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bpr
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
    What you posit is in the realm of the possible, but other than the certainty of gridlock, who can say what will happen?

    I don't believe either party is getting their Supremes through without cobbling together something near a super majority, not on the first or even third try. Barring some universally accepted unity nominee, I think we are going to have a 4/4 court for the foreseeable future. We haven't passed a constitutional budget in years and so the idea of us passing any sort of tax reform, never mind cut, in a post 2016 election is really doubtful to me.

    I am more curious as to why you conflate political gridlock with "total stagnation?" Is government merely "doing something" synonymous to "progress" or "advancement." I think the history of the last 20 years has show otherwise. Given the circumstances, gridlock would be an improvement. And if it puts off Hillary's plans for WWIII with the Russians, all the better.
    Well, maybe I'm just naive, but I don't believe that the extreme wing of the right is large enough to continue the gridlock on the court, and I don't think the moderates (left or right) would force such a gridlock. Not sure what you mean by a constitutional budget, but tax cuts have nothing to do with budgets anyway: they're gifts to benefactors, under the guise of economic growth (the persistent trickle-down myth). Plus, both sides have wealthy benefactors, so it's a bipartisan fleecing.

    You make a good point, though, in that gridlock can be better than an administration that acts recklessly, though we likely differ on what that means... Certainly IMO GWB's reckless administrations were a regression, and we'd all be better off if the legislative and judicial branches grounded him to a halt. But that's not something we should aim for, IMO.

    This country can be better than it is now, and we don't have to shut down offices and burn it to the ground to do it. It's been worse before and our grandparents' generations overcame it; what's so weak about us now that we can't do the same without totally destroying the framework?

    EDIT: I also don't believe that HRC is aiming for war (especially not with Russia), though much of our electorate is, even if they're not willing to admit it. While she's no dove, we haven't had a dove since Carter, and I don't believe we will in the foreseeable future. I don't see her jumping into major actions like, say, GWB, though.
    Last edited by bpr; October 09, 2016, 09:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thailandnotes
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    There was an interesting conversation today on a 4-4 supreme court if the election devolved into the bush gore hanging chad legal battle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Woodsman
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by bpr View Post
    I have some friends who hold this view...
    What you posit is in the realm of the possible, but other than the certainty of gridlock, who can say what will happen?

    I don't believe either party is getting their Supremes through without cobbling together something near a super majority, not on the first or even third try. Barring some universally accepted unity nominee, I think we are going to have a 4/4 court for the foreseeable future. We haven't passed a constitutional budget in years and so the idea of us passing any sort of tax reform, never mind cut, in a post 2016 election is really doubtful to me.

    I am more curious as to why you conflate political gridlock with "total stagnation?" Is government merely "doing something" synonymous to "progress" or "advancement." I think the history of the last 20 years has show otherwise. Given the circumstances, gridlock would be an improvement. And if it puts off Hillary's plans for WWIII with the Russians, all the better.





    MAGA! GO TRUMP! DEFEAT THE WAR WITCH OF GOLDMAN SACHS. GO TRUMP! MAGA!

    Leave a comment:


  • bpr
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
    But as the political wreaking ball to the status quo, we couldn't ask for a better guy if we made one up from scratch.
    I have some friends who hold this view, but IMO our republic is strong enough to withstand four years of total stagnation (as I don't believe he would get much of anything other than tax cuts for the wealthy through congress).

    There is one thing he'd be able to do: change the trajectory of the Supreme Court for the worse for a generation. You don't like Citizens United? Get used to far worse... Likely limits on the First Amendment like we've never seen before (or at least more $=speech decisions), given Trump's opinion of the media.

    It would be the slowest wrecking ball in history.

    Leave a comment:


  • bpr
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by shiny! View Post
    If the majority of people who despise both candidates voted their conscience by writing in "None of the Above," we would win. What would happen if "None of the Above" got the majority of popular votes?
    If nobody gets enough electoral votes, the House picks the "winner" from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. All bets are off on who Ryan's House would select.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...faq.html#no270

    If you had that many friends in Congress no one would trust you anyway, VT.

    Leave a comment:


  • Woodsman
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by shiny! View Post
    ...PS: I still love you, Woody!
    Big smiles on the love! While I'm disappointed that the bastards seem to be bamboozling you I'm betting you'll think again once in the voting booth.

    And for sure if ever the guy runs for Pope or Pastor I'll be right there on the barricades with you, Shiny! But as the political wreaking ball to the status quo, we couldn't ask for a better guy if we made one up from scratch.

    The bastards are in a full-out panic. I say, lean into them. Now that Clinton has set the bar, it's time to take the gloves off and meet the attacks head on. So no more holding back because of Chelsea.



    Oh and, before I forget...




    MAGA! GO TRUMP! DEFEAT THE WAR WITCH OF GOLDMAN SACHS. GO TRUMP! MAGA!

    Leave a comment:


  • lektrode
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
    The pearl clutching and phony outrage is hilarious. ...
    sho am glad i had most of me third one down when i scrolled into this one....
    another masterpiece!, Sir!

    Leave a comment:


  • shiny!
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    Hey Shiny, just write in VT.

    I've outlined my independent third party; the New Majority Party. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Plus unlike Gary Johnson I know where Aleppo is and the names of world leaders.

    We only need 34% and hold the unpopular jerks to 33% or less.
    Hiya, vt. Most people who take The World's Smallest Political Quiz fall into the libertarian category of being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Since the Libertarian party is already established, you might consider joining them and attempting to moderate some of their more extreme, impractical positions.

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Hey Shiny, just write in VT.

    I've outlined my independent third party; the New Majority Party. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Plus unlike Gary Johnson I know where Aleppo is and the names of world leaders.

    We only need 34% and hold the unpopular jerks to 33% or less.

    Leave a comment:


  • shiny!
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by jk View Post
    there have been a lot of comments from pols and journalists about his LANGUAGE. how about his behavior? he describes [and has been described by women with whom he interacted] as committing sexual assault. i hope that at the town hall some questioner asks trump what he'd think if someone grabbed ivanka's crotch.
    I sincerely hope someone asks him that, just as I hope someone asks HRC how she say she supports the dignity of women while at the same time seeking financial donations from mysogenistic Arabs, enabling her serial rapist of a husband and threatening his victims.

    As far as I'm concerned, both Trump and HRC should be disqualified. Again, if this was about racial slurs and assaults instead of sexual slurs and assaults, there would be no question! To rationalize Trump's behavior towards women by saying, "they all talk like that" and "HRC is worse" is basically telling women to just "lie back and think of England."

    The same people who support Trump because they're fed up with the political elites', "Vote for us even though you know we'll screw you over, because the other side will screw you over worse," are now using this same rationalization when it comes to sexual assault.

    I violated my principles and ignored my conscience when I saw Trump encourage the ouster of a peaceful Sikh gentleman during one of his rallies, but decided to overlook it for the "greater good." I'm not going to do that anymore. With these two candidates, we're in a Siberian Dilemma. I'm going to vote for "None of the Above."

    If the majority of people who despise both candidates voted their conscience by writing in "None of the Above," we would win. What would happen if "None of the Above" got the majority of popular votes?

    PS: I still love you, Woody!

    Leave a comment:


  • Woodsman
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by jk View Post
    there have been a lot of comments from pols and journalists about his LANGUAGE. how about his behavior? he describes [and has been described by women with whom he interacted] as committing sexual assault. i hope that at the town hall some questioner asks trump what he'd think if someone grabbed ivanka's crotch.
    The pearl clutching and phony outrage is hilarious. Bill gets a hummer in the oval office, grabs Kathleen Willey's crotch and left boob in the same venue, Hillary and her surrogates harass Bill's rape victims Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones, and these freaks are lecturing Americans about virtue?

    The way it works is one alpha-male gets a pass from the media for rape, the other gets raked over the coals for unguarded lewd dude-talk. One is literally a serial rapist and the other said he likes "pussy." Well Katie bar the door! I hate to break it to you folks, but one of the big reasons boys like to grow up and become chief executives and heads of state is access to "pussy." I know us regular guys hate the thought of it, but we've seen it enough, haven't we boys? It seems like 9 times out of 10, wealthy and powerful men can get as grabasstic as they want to be with practically any woman and it seems most of these women - married or otherwise - have a fine time with it. I've seen it, I've lived it. It's not nice, but whoever told you the real world was nice wasn't your friend.

    Anyway, titillating as the sexual mores of the rich and powerful may be, I think people see through the double standard and the desperate dirty tricks. Even with the Clinton people putting out one of these hit jobs a day, I don't think it's going to work as they expect. Remember, this was supposed to be a coronation, a walk in the park. And still she can't put Donald "fascist pussy lover" Trump away.

    It's not over. It's just getting started. Hell, it won't be over the morning after election day and that's especially if Trump manages a win.
    Last edited by Woodsman; October 08, 2016, 07:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jk
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    Originally posted by shiny! View Post
    The recording of Trump bragging about how he objectifies and assaults women is going to do a lot of damage, and it should! He apologized but he's not sorry. He's only sorry he got caught.

    !
    there have been a lot of comments from pols and journalists about his LANGUAGE. how about his behavior? he describes [and has been described by women with whom he interacted] as committing sexual assault. i hope that at the town hall some questioner asks trump what he'd think if someone grabbed ivanka's crotch.

    Leave a comment:


  • lektrode
    replied
    Re: Trump to win?

    this just in...

    Dilbert's Scott Adams Outlines 14 Reasons Why 'The Trump Tapes' Don't Matter


    "Today America united as a nation to decide how many alleged Trump gropes equals one alleged Bill/Hillary Clinton rape. "
    • Oct 8, 2016 2:55 PM
    along with this:

    Trump Issues Midnight Apology To Contain Tape Fallout As Republicans Pull Support, Call For Trump To Withdraw


    Donald Trump sought to stem an uproar that threatened his campaign by apologizing in a midnight video for obscene sexual remarks caught on tape in 2005. Trump’s apology came as he was under intense pressure from GOP leaders, amid an unprecedented outpouring of anger from conservatives, some of whom are demanding he pull out of the race entirely.
    • Oct 8, 2016 9:20 AM
    and this:

    Trump Tells WSJ There Is "Zero Chance I'll Quit"


    In an interview with the WSJ, Donald Trump has said there’s "zero chance I'll quit" adding that his campaign is not in Crisis and that ‘the support I’m getting is unbelievable."
    • Oct 8, 2016 2:18 PM
    and this...

    Dead People And Illegal Immigrants Are Being Registered To Vote All Over America


    Without free and fair elections, what hope is there for the future of America?

    • Oct 8, 2016 3:50 PM
    and never mind this:

    Podesta Emails Reveal Illegal Coordination With David Brock Super PAC


    These Podesta emails clearly show coordination between the Hillary campaign and the David Brock Super PAC, "Correct the Record", which we believe is technically a felony.
    • Oct 8, 2016 4:20 PM
    things are 'heating up' now tho...

    Russia Responds To Formal Cyberattack Accusations, Calls Them "Unprecedented Anti-Russian Hysteria"


    Russia has responded to the first official accusation by US intelligence services that Moscow was behind the recent spike in political cyber attacks, saying the US lacked any proof and the formal charges were an attempt by Washington to fan "unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria", the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said.
    • Oct 8, 2016 10:55 AM
    along with the admin's 'brilliant' foreign policy (with hill and john F(raud) K's 'masterful oversight')

    "Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong"


    What's really going on in Aleppo? Are Assad and Putin exterminating the population for sport? Is it a war against US-backed "moderates"? That is what the mainstream media would have us believe.
    • Oct 8, 2016 12:30 PM
    with some 'interesting' developments, 'courtesy of' the above 'masterful oversight', of course:

    Russia Deploys Nuclear-Capable Missiles To Kaliningrad, Near Polish Border


    Russia shipped its nuclear-capable Iskander missile system toward Kaliningrad, its territorial enclave bordering Poland, according to Western government officials, "introducing a powerful military asset into an already tense region and prompting expressions of concern by allied officials."
    • Oct 8, 2016 3:18 PM
    but NOTHING TO SEE THERE, likely NONE of which will make the C...N...N...
    (clinton news network) evening edition

    nope... likely nothing, except for trump's latest 'deplorable' actions

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X