Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I hadn't even reached the one minute mark when I started to wonder, "Why am I inflicting this torture upon myself?"
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
This is ****ing awful.
It's also equally as annoying and as insufferable as it's close relative; the far (alt) right.
Yep.
Red
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but, basically, I have no idea what any of this means, let alone how it relates to anything I've said in this thread.....
Red
Well-Known Member
Good idea, but I'm not sure how soon I'd get around to reading it right now. I'll check out the ebook...
Red
Well-Known Member
I agree and this has been at the heart of my concern and alarm at the rise of Trumpism from the start. I realized, or felt I did, that the United States was absolutely ripe for the appearance of a strong man demagogue who could play on the anxieties and anger developing in a society experiencing culture wars, economic dislocation, and the feeling among some that the US was in a period of decline. Without drawing too close a comparison, I felt conditions in 2016 America were to a degree similar to Germany in the 1930's. Therefore, no surprise that someone would appear with enough cynicism of human nature to manipulate the fear and anger of a significant number of Americans, identify scapegoats upon which that anger and fear could be directed, and self identify to the masses as the strong man who could solve all these developments that were signaling the decline of America, and particularly white America.
And my other concern early on is exactly what you have brought up here. Namely, who was going to realize what was going on while it was going on? How many of the folks attracted to Trump would have enough understanding of history to know conditions were ripe for Trump? Or to realize Trump was using their largely unconscious fears and anxieties to make a grab for power? Too few to prevent him from launching the political movement he has, as far as I was concerned.
I guess one could argue that all politicians are cynical of human nature. Because they use the tools of marketing to sell themselves, and negative marketing to diminish their rivals. And marketing candidates requires the understanding that people are not always conscious of their fears, etc., but one can use marketing ploys to appeal to their unconscious fears, desires, etc. in order to gain power. The demagogue is especially aware of how to use people's fears. As an example, although illegal immigrants commit far fewer crimes then native born Americans, and although the number of illegals crossing the border is at a low, Trump's message is that it's an absolute flood, and they are coming here to kill us. Using fear as the number one selling point for his candidacy. And because it is so hard for people to see these things clearly, or to understand when conditions in a society are what they are in 2016 America, somebody like Trump may use this to his advantage.
Good people, disaffected by the status quo, and bigoted people, encouraged by someone who seems to give voice to their bigotry, will both be attracted to Trump.
With these concerns in mind, it was not difficult for me to conclude Trump, by far, had much greater potential to damage our democracy then Clinton did. He appeals to the darker instincts of human nature. That is the bottom line. I see little good, and much harm, developing out of movements and leaders who appeal to our baser instincts.
You seemed to be implying politicians should pander to certain voting blocks instead standing on principal. You attack Trump stance on illegal migration an attached it to the voting block. Why should this matter? Why to demonize him for cutting off a voting block instead of the wrongness in his stance?
Let it rest on its own merits not some pandering want.
I do not get you young pups afraid of border security. Maybe we have come to complacent in ate North American isolation security. It is a nice perk. I grew out of The Great Generation an I learnt a bit from them not wanting to enter WWII prior to Pearl Harbor. Believe it or not we had similar anti police the world views back then it just was not called that as it was more or less full out warfare instead control. See, we have so much overpowering capacity now an it is not sheer brute strength again brute strength. WWII changed all this with the Germans advancing tech faster than most an even us with the tanks.
That was a turning point in history as we became a superpower an entered are industrial revolution. Point is we never as a society wanted to police the world. We still do not. My opinion is that we should so shoot me for it.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I think the even more remarkable thing is that conditions have become ripe for a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you took the facts from her email case and put a different name on the file I have no doubt that the vast majority of the people who are currently defending and/or voting for this person would instead believe that this person belongs in prison.
Did you see the notes released yesterday from her FBI interview? She repeatedly claimed that she was unaware of the rules regarding her email, even though she had signed several documents verifying that she was. If not for her political power they would have thrown the book at her.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's much closer to the far left than it is to the alt right. The major parties are competing for the nativistic populists votes, not the Libertarians.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You can be relieved right now. Trump can't win. The election is already over. Bernie lost the presidency to Clinton.
Red
Well-Known Member
Well, if you're talking to young pups, you're sure not talking to me
As for your first paragraph, I don't know what you're talking about. I think you're attributing to me positions that have nothing to do with me. My basic stance is not that complicated at all.
Bottom line for me is I have no use for candidates that spend an inordinate amount of time delivering divisive rhetoric and placing the focus on appeals to people's baser instincts. That elicits an immediate "no thanks, next!" response from your's truly. Pretty simple when you come down to it. I'm pretty long winded at times, may seem to use a lot of words to say very little, judge that as you will, but, in the last analysis, emphasizing fear, creating scapegoats, and posing as a strong man savior is going to make me walk away from that without a second thought, and not look back.
Red
Well-Known Member
No, I take the same stance as Gameface. If she's elected, and winds up being impeached, I'll still be glad Trump lost. Why? I'll repeat myself:
Bottom line for me is I have no use for candidates that spend an inordinate amount of time delivering divisive rhetoric and placing the focus on appeals to people's baser instincts. That elicits an immediate "no thanks, next!" response from your's truly. Pretty simple when you come down to it. I'm pretty long winded at times, may seem to use a lot of words to say very little, judge that as you will, but, in the last analysis, emphasizing fear, creating scapegoats, and posing as a strong man savior is going to make me walk away from that without a second thought, and not look back.
In fact, I suspect, should Clinton be elected, that her's will be a term best described as a living Hell. Trump will be the head of a new far right media empire, probably with Roger Ailes running things, and the hounds will be at her heels daily. We're a divided nation, and when the Republicans don't win the White House, they stop playing politics(the art of compromise) and just wait for the next election. But it will be far worse now. Trump has helped legitimize the hate mongers and they will not be going anywhere. And if Trump plays the "rigged election" card, forget about it where civil and smooth transitions are concerned. Better hope for a real landslide.....
Red
Well-Known Member
If you're interested in learning more about our existing border security:
https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176179/tomgram:_todd_miller,_the_great_mexican_wall_deception/
Red
Well-Known Member
I've been told, I think more then once, that I am essentially buying into liberal media exaggerations of Trump's gaffes and rhetoric. But I don't believe I have been demonizing the man at all. I have paid very close attention to his words, his rhetoric, for over a year now. I am capable of being my own judge of the man. And I do not find the negative spins by the media to be exaggerations at all. I simply have no reason not to agree with those characterizations.
Donald Trump has appeared on the Alex Jones show a few times. He has had kind words for the man. Well, what's a guest to do I realize, and if you don't have something nice to say about someone, and yada, yada, yada. But, if one wants to see a candidate demonized, well, for Jones and his paranoid followers, the Clinton's are murdering thugs, and have been every step of the way. Here's Alex Jones, Trump's intellectual kindred spirit, lol:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a48197/alex-jones-hillary-clinton-video/
Edit: personally, all I've concluded is that Trump is a rather classic demagogue. I've tried to place him in a historical context based on my understanding of demagogues throughout history. And I've concluded, did so very early on in this election cycle, that I do not want such an individual in the Oval Office. I'll worry about an America under Hillary when we get there. First and foremost for me is to hope Trump loses. I think he is a dangerous demagogue. I have never said he is Satan incarnate on Earth. Irresponsible to the hilt for the rhetoric he is in danger of making us all numb to, using divisive rhetoric to help enforce our divisions, but that is not demonizing, it's not the same as seeing him as Evil Incarnate.
If I stuck to policy, and left the divisive rhetoric and infantile temperament off the table entirely, the fact that Trump says he would abolish the EPA would be enough for me to oppose him....
Donald Trump has appeared on the Alex Jones show a few times. He has had kind words for the man. Well, what's a guest to do I realize, and if you don't have something nice to say about someone, and yada, yada, yada. But, if one wants to see a candidate demonized, well, for Jones and his paranoid followers, the Clinton's are murdering thugs, and have been every step of the way. Here's Alex Jones, Trump's intellectual kindred spirit, lol:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a48197/alex-jones-hillary-clinton-video/
Edit: personally, all I've concluded is that Trump is a rather classic demagogue. I've tried to place him in a historical context based on my understanding of demagogues throughout history. And I've concluded, did so very early on in this election cycle, that I do not want such an individual in the Oval Office. I'll worry about an America under Hillary when we get there. First and foremost for me is to hope Trump loses. I think he is a dangerous demagogue. I have never said he is Satan incarnate on Earth. Irresponsible to the hilt for the rhetoric he is in danger of making us all numb to, using divisive rhetoric to help enforce our divisions, but that is not demonizing, it's not the same as seeing him as Evil Incarnate.
If I stuck to policy, and left the divisive rhetoric and infantile temperament off the table entirely, the fact that Trump says he would abolish the EPA would be enough for me to oppose him....
Last edited:
Jonah
Well-Known Member
I wish I could be so certain.
In the past few weeks Clinton has slipped from a prohibitive favorite to a solid favorite. Nate Silver once had her at an 85 percent win probability, now it’s down to 70 percent. The fundamentals show the election should be a toss up. Trump is the underdog only because he’s still seen as temperamentally unfit to be president by a solid majority of voters. If he softens that image in the debates the race will tighten even more. Some polls show as much as 25 percent remain undecided. It’s very unusual, at this relatively late stage in the campaign, to still have such a large percentage of undecided voters or those that could go third party. If Gary Johnson is included in one or more of the debates, right now he pulls slightly more potential voters from Clinton than Trump, then anything could happen. We should know in about a week if Johnson is able to hit the 15 percent support threshold he needs to qualify for the first debate.
Red
Well-Known Member
And one potential game changer is whatever Assange plans as an October surprise, if he waits that long. I don't get the sense, from listening to an interview recently, that he himself thinks what he plans to release would prevent Clinton from winning, but we'll see. I also don't necessarily trust the polls, or the sense among some that it's over. It's the electoral college that matters, the swing states that matter. Whatever will be, will be....
It will be interesting to learn who this "sponsor" is that Asange is alleging she secretly funded and, in turn, funded the Clinton Foundation (and ISIS).
The severity, imo, will be how it was funded (define secret) and whether they're a known supporter of terrorism (or it's a more haphazard thing), and how exactly it's been determined money directly funneled back to the CF. If any of it is true at all.
What will it matter? Clintons has been taking money from Saudi Arabia based groups that collect from Iran Iraq Afghanistan Russia for two decades. There supporters have accepted this an do not care long as there hero wins.
I don't think our rhetoric frames the issues right. "Terrorism" is one of those terms that just doesn't mean anything. Iran can be termed the leading "State Sponsor of Terrorism" with about the same meaning as others can label the United States the leading "State Sponsor of Terrorism". The militarists among us can gloat about our "Shock and Awe" exploits with the same meaning as Islamists can gloat about hijacked planes cruising into nationally symbolic towers.
But who frames this rhetoric that drives the two sides? Lord Cecil Rhodes, the one-time colonist Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) was named for, saw pretty clearly that England was too small, had too few people to staff a great military or even a sufficient Navy, to long hold sway over India, Africa, and Asia. Even with Canada and Australia whose natives posed little threat, and even with the United States culturally and financially drawn into sync with the Empire. It has always been necessary to create divisions in the populace around the world, and necessary to employ rhetoric to that end. This hard fact is the mainspring of the modern progressive political movement, inclusive of the League of Nations and United Nations, all tools for mass management of the world in the hands of elitists. No elected representative government, yo.
The United States would be alright, if we had ever taken control of the rhetoric.
Nationalism is a dirty word because it unifies people. Populism is a dirty word because it empowers the ordinary folks. Racism is a dirty word because race is normally a unifying notion of identity, wherein people with obvious similar characteristics can easily create a community. It has always been harder to deny the classifications their place in human dynamics than create higher ideals that are more abstract, and promote them in the public consciousness with sufficient credibility to the masses.
The whole point of rhetoric is to create disturbed mass logic and prevent natural simplistic behavior. Literally speaking, rhetoric is always some form of inciting riot. Or compliance. It's making words function as tools for control and management, as well as the motive for the League of Nations and the United Nations, all institutions of elitist control of the world.
Trump is a tool, too. I found that he met with the head of the Council of Foreign Relations before he announced his campaign, and came out talking about what great people the CFR are, and how much he likes the head of the CFR. And then the CFR declares "War on Trump". That's how clever Management is, always deceiving the masses somehow, and manipulating the little people.
Hillary is a known CFR stooge herself, but so is Trump. This election is a classic management psy-op. It doesn't make any difference who "wins", Management has it all under control. Trump is being used to prevent an actual decent and independent challenge to Management.
I see most of you little JFC folks buying the rhetoric of Management. We gotta stop letting Management divide us. Don't buy the rhetoric. We are not Black or White, we are "People". We are not really impacted in our daily lives one another as much as we are impacted by "Management".
When you go to the colleges, ya gotta realize that the profs are teaching you the rhetoric of Management, and training you to your little task as a cog in the kind of society Management thrives on.
Tribalism and racism have never been so much the barrier to human liberty as elitism. If the rhetoric could be taken over and converted to a discussion of universal human rights, the issues of racism, tribalism, and privileged management would just not be real. It is to deny human liberty that Management pushes the rhetoric of race, nationalism, and other balkanizing notions.