Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: May 24 2016 at 10:36
The T wrote:
emigre80 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Oh Trump, god who knows! I figured he's hidden $ offshore/has shady things stuff that would look bad given his intensely pro America, populist rhetoric. It could be he's less rich than he claims, guy lies about everything else Maybe it's both.
I suspect it's both, plus paying low or no federal tax.
A friend of mine has theorized that the big reveal on Trump will be his ties to the mob, which heavily controlled many construction-related industries in NY back in the day. Maybe still, I don't know. I'm not sure that people that swallowed deporting all illegal immigrants and banning all Muslims from entering America would care about whether he worked hand-in-glove with the Mafia, but this election has been so odd that who knows.
I can almost with total certainty predict that, short of documents showing that Trump actually killed Jesus, nothing will make his hardcore voters change their minds. And many of the not so hardcore ones will not change their minds either.
Remind them that Jesus wasn't white and they'd support him even more.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 24 2016 at 11:08
^Haven't seen the video but I wouldn't be surprised if Nader, after giving the world the gift of 8 years of W. Bush, now wants to give the gift of Trump.
Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Posted: May 24 2016 at 12:12
There are left-wingers who sincerely believe that electing disgustingly right-wing or fascist leaders will set off the catalyst for "the revolution." Susan Sarandon recently advanced this theory. I would not be surprised if Nader secretly believes it.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 24 2016 at 12:36
emigre80 wrote:
There are left-wingers who sincerely believe that electing disgustingly right-wing or fascist leaders will set off the catalyst for "the revolution." Susan Sarandon recently advanced this theory. I would not be surprised if Nader secretly believes it.
And it's something I have found extremely stupid from day one. Or worse: stupid but incredibly selfish. "So what if the country's screwed up with 4 years of Trump? My ideas come first!!". Of course it's easy for Hollywood stars and rich college kids in their palaces not to feel the consequences of a bad presidency.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: May 24 2016 at 12:45
emigre80 wrote:
There are left-wingers who sincerely believe that electing disgustingly right-wing or fascist leaders will set off the catalyst for "the revolution." Susan Sarandon recently advanced this theory. I would not be surprised if Nader secretly believes it.
That's called accelerationism and I think it's an awful idea.
Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Posted: May 24 2016 at 12:54
Oh, I think it belongs way at the top of the Bad Ideas in History list. I just was speculating whether it might be motivating Nader, who I don't pretend to understand.
I agree that those who believe in this are usually those who don't understand revolution or think they can survive it unscathed.
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Posted: May 24 2016 at 13:06
We owe almost twenty years of Berlusconi to some parts of the left as well as to the right. Unfortunately it seems that those people still haven't learned their lesson. The damage Berlusconi did to my country didn't consist in the implementation of particularly right-wing policies (though there were a few, especially as regards immigration), but in his being mainly interested in his own affairs (as shady as Trump's) rather than in the welfare of the country. We are still paying for those twenty years, and will for a long time.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 24 2016 at 13:12
^Wasn't Berlusconi at least in his forms and behavior a little more balanced (or less unbalanced) than our Orange? I mean Silvio wasn't one to be insulting women, adversaries and people in general, was he?
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Posted: May 24 2016 at 13:23
He made lots of sexist remarks, and was obsessed with Communism, but he was never as violent in his utterances as Trump has been since the start of his campaign. Then again, he left most of that dirty work to his allies of the Northern League (Lega Nord). It's not a coincidence that, a few weeks ago, the Orange One met with Salvini, the current leader of the Lega Nord, in Philadelphia. In any case, as I said time and again, Berlusconi never wielded the kind of power Trump would if elected.
Written about the US election but could apply to the general breakdown of the neo liberal consensus and the simultaneous rise of populism.
Oh absolutely.
I made that one blog post noting how, as I called it, laissez faire/the Reagan revolution has created politically and economically this rise in both left and right wing populism, and that similar things are happening in the UK (Corbyn), Canada (Trudeau) Spain (Podemos) and most strikingly in Greece with both Syriza and Golden Dawn I was lazy though and missed the numerous other examples all over Europe. It's really quite fascinating how similar this feels to the 1930s in how widespread the rejection of major parties and global integration is, as well as xenophobic/anti muslim sentiment (though I've read via NF anti semitism has been on the rise as well in France). Neoliberalism is to blame for both the political and economic problems.
I was reading a book lately about a totally unrelated topic, but one line struck me, a very passing minor line, that said "The German middle class was wiped out" and thus the rise of Hitler/Fascism came. I don't know the state of the middle class in other countries, but when I think of the US, it really is a bit scary.
I still think Trump is a panderer, who knows what can be believed with him and I certainly don't trust him, but even if it's empty rhetoric he HAS tapped a conservative rejection of laissez-faire. I mean his platform is anti slashing the safety net, trade bill and open border. That is basically the anti Reagan I think it has scared the sh*t out of the Republican Party. Even though he continues to abandon his positions, and I think he was always a mainstreamer in outsider clothing. He's now meeting with Henry Kissinger of all people, and his Supreme Court list was picked out by the Heritage Foundation. I think he basically trolled the country. He's even now accepting big money donations Because despite his claim he'll spend "up to $1 billion" of his own money to self finance, he obviously has no want to do that with his precious fortune.
Great point. I don't see Trump as being the new Hitler, by the way, in spite of all that he has said. Methinks he's just a sheep in wolf's clothing. Why I am concerned, even as an outsider, about the possibility of his becoming President is what after Trump. What after he proves to be a failure. The crushing of all that hope is what could ignite something really dangerous. And I am concerned about that because USA is so powerful. You don't want a real Hitler reincarnate to take charge of Star Wars as Reagan used to call it. Yes, I noticed that Kissinger part too. Now that he's getting close to it, Trump's already desperate to become President and behaving like a typical weak, needy politician. It's really too bad if USA has to settle for Hilary Clinton but I probably echo an opinion held in large parts of the outside world that that would still be a relief. Status quo will not help USA but the alternative is not Trump.
Oh dont get me wrong, HOW Trump has done this sickens me. In a way it's almost worse if it's empty pandering, because it'd mean he's used this disturbing rhetoric, opened up this pandora's box, solely for his political gain. I do think it's a Pandora's box too....the levels of vitriol, xenophobia, dismissal of democracy and cult of personality a large number of Americans have proven OK with is quite scary. Not sure it's a one time thing that can just be put back inside.
That is a very good point, we all kind laugh at the thought of Trumpers being duped and laugh at their expense for how funny it'll be if he pulls a total 180..but you're right that could be a lot of unimaginably angry, heartbroken people. I mean look how angry they already...damn I never thought of what if Trump waffles. My gut wants to say they wont care/will continue to worship him but could be a powder keg absolutely.
Yeah man, that's basically this election in a nut shell, status quo vs an unknown terror, the former is crappy but the latter is too potentially horrifying to consider.
Though I would really imagine Trump 180ing...cant you picture it now? He "grew" into the Presidency, matured, dropped all his w**kery and became a good, compromising leader that worked with anyone etc etc get stuff done blah blah and his smug face would be beaming at how he won again. He's truly infuriating!
To get off this current topic for a bit, some good news recently!
The Department of Labor has updated US overtime rules. Salaried workers who make up to a certain amount, 47k a year I believe, will now have to be paid OT for all hours worked over 40 a week. It sure took long enough, Obama and the DoL floated this idea ages ago...but better late than never. This may be the first pro labor Obama has done since 2009, arguably his whole administration.
Anyway, an EPI report estimated 12 million workers would benefit from this, and that if an employer doesn't want to pay OT either wages could be raised to meet this threshold, or hours can be cut to 40 which would not harm pay but give more free time...could even increase employment a bit since people would need to be hired to fill these hours. No matter how it's sliced, I'd say a good thing.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 25 2016 at 09:18
Too much is said about how Clinton (Bill) is not the ideal adviser or this that and the other... Much of that is then reflected on Hillary and how she is virtually indistinguishable from Trump (really?). Imagine if in 2000 people would have said that of Al Gore, evidently not a perfect candidate (not even close), imagine we would have ended with G.W.Bush as president, and all the great things he did for labor, the environment, foreign policy, etc. Imagine that... wait... There's no need. Bush became president. And you know what happened next. Iraq. Tax cuts for the rich. Recession. Social backwardness. Neocons to power. Cheney. Religious backwardness. Katrina. Etc, etc...
Yet some wise people are ready to throw an election to Republicans again under the empty angsty oh-so-insightful platitude of "all politicians are the same"...
Is a shame Nader played spoiler, probably forever (or at least for a generation) did damage to the idea of third parties and the real shame is I believe the overwhelming majority of Nader voters said they wouldn't have voted at all without him. He was bringing people into politics which is only a good thing BUT the race was so close in FL and NH that yes, Nader did give us GWB. Very sad.
One could argue if Gore was less terrible, it wouldn't have mattered, or that if so many weren't "accidentally" listed wrongfully as felons, if there wasn't that one confusing ballot, if people were capable of punching a f**king hole through a piece of paper Gore would've won.
With all the worry about Sanders supporters, yet another poll has Gary Johnson polling in double digits. Honestly if there's gunna be ANY third party spoiler effect, it's gunna be conservatives who simply refuse Trump that vote for Gary, and if enough did so it would actually guarantee a Democratic victory.
IF Trump wins, I think it'll be because of very low turnout....and if that happens I'm sorry to say but it's because of Clinton/the Dems.
Though I do gotta say in regards to a hypothetical Gore Presidency, I highly doubt he would've been pro labor. There is zero reason to believe that and while I oppose HOW Bush and Repubs did it...at least they didn't use fiscal restraint in a recession. Gore and Dems could've potentially been worse if they stuck to Clinton-esque fiscal restraint. Like I said in a previous post, the 90s were a pretty weak recovery which fueled the 94 Republican landslide, it wasn't until the bubble things took a good turn.
As for the rest, who can know. 9/11 would've happened anyway and we have to believe Gore would've handled it better. HOPEFULLY, no Patriot Act, no Iraq war, a generally better foreign policy since he wouldn't have held the US vs the world, shoot first ask questions never tough guy neocon attitude but who can know.
I do know, the recession also would've happened anyway, and I think the response would've been exactly the same as happened in 2008.
We also forget economically, Bush left things largely intact. He made that half assed attempt to discuss social security changes, but never tried and never brought it up again. He really made no cuts to the social safety net at all. Economically... I think not much difference would be between Gore and Bush.
If one wants to play historical fantasy, why can't it be said a Gore Presidency ends in economic turmoil like Bush's and we get a Republican in 2009...to handle the post recession, fueled by THEIR mandate by the people and not Obama's.
It's easy to say oh no Bush? Man what a paradise but its never that easy.
As for Trump and Clinton being the same, that's the ? No one knows what Trump really is
He WAS pro choice, gay marriage, universal healthcare, not too hot on the Iraq War and in 2000 actually ran on a platform of taxing the wealthy higher (seriously check it out). He was a moderate Repub that, like others from NYC, really are kind of in the middle.
It wasn't until Obama he jumped on the birther bandwagon and is suddenly a social and moral conservative.
He waffles and is vague on all, we simply have no idea what Trump is. He's most likely a pragmatist, like Clinton. He's donated tons to the Clintons and is a long time friend. I could see a hypothetical Trump Presidency being basically no different from Clinton. Especially if Dems take the Senate as expected. He has big $/wall st ties and a history of going with whatever is hot. Trump could no different from anyone else, possibly a saner choice than Cruz and Rubio.
This is of course no reason to back him, just since we're speculating gotta be fair and say we can't just assume Trump would be the next Hitler. If anything, if tried that he'd get zero done, would be despised in ways Bush couldn't imagine, would be a worthless, one term President...I could see Dems and some Reps trying to impeach him So really, I think Trump moderation is far more likely than him maintaining this insane natavism. He's already backtracking anyway
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
American Politics the 2016 edition
Topic Options
The T wrote:
Maybe it's both.
. I'm just mentioning Nader's past accomplishments as... W. enabler... 
I was lazy though and missed the numerous other examples all over Europe. It's really quite fascinating how similar this feels to the 1930s in how widespread the rejection of major parties and global integration is, as well as xenophobic/anti muslim sentiment (though I've read via NF anti semitism has been on the rise as well in France). Neoliberalism is to blame for both the political and economic problems.