Trump Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't know how you can walk away from the policies presented by the two sides and think that the 'left' is just as bad as the right.

[Montmorency]

I don't know how you can walk away from the policies presented by the two sides and think that the 'left' is just as bad as the right.

You know, pro-Republican media bias here has asserted itself into my awareness many times over the past couple years, but DAMN - here's Jake Tapper justifying CNN bringing on Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer to talk about Trump's 'racially-sauteed/marinated' tweets and how Trump doesn't go far enough in securing the white homeland or whatever.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You know, pro-Republican media bias here has asserted itself into my awareness many times over the past couple years, but DAMN - here's Jake Tapper justifying CNN bringing on Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer to talk about Trump's 'racially-sauteed/marinated' tweets and how Trump doesn't go far enough in securing the white homeland or whatever.

It's not pro-Republican, it's 'enlightened centrist'.

[Strike For The South]

Imagine telling someone who was born here to go back where the came from lmao. My 4d chess take on this is that Epstien represents a real and palpable threat to Trump in a way his Russian financiers do not.

Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Don Corleone]

Imagine telling someone who was born here to go back where the came from lmao. My 4d chess take on this is that Epstien represents a real and palpable threat to Trump in a way his Russian financiers do not.

Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Give the man a cigar. This is Trump brokering a contract with his base... forgive me my Epstein ties and my illegal electoral payments to my mistresses (which testimony was released today, btw) and I will go full Archie Bunker for your hateful asses. Based on last night's rally, the offer was accepted.

I don't know if Trump is thinking that with 35%/40% he can seize power regardless of the election results or if he thinks he can hate-monger in just the right places to thread the needle on electoral votes. His "Go back where you came from" campaign appears to have gained him an additional 3% support from his base, lost him 10% support from moderate right and Indepdendents. But polls these days are so fickle, it's pointless to read any tea leaves.

Sadly, and I'm embarrassed as an American to admit this, Trump is not wrong... He definitely benefits from the Wallace effect... nobody in polite society wants to sign on for this crap, but inside they are thrilled and in the privacy of the voting booth reward him.

[CrossLOPER]

It's not pro-Republican, it's 'enlightened centrist'.

"I'm not a Nazi; I'm an enlightened, cultured tribalist."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brexit isn't an existential threat, but public ownership of railways is?



What has Labour done, what power has it used to do it, and what are they preventing from being done now?

From a quick search, UK politicians are not directly responsible for districting in the first place, and:

2001 paper on UK apportionment having always been biased in connection to the political geography, Tories benefiting from "cracked" districts with small majorities, and Labour from "stacked" districts with large majorities (the paper argues Labour triumphed in 1997 because factors like targeted campaigning and strategic voting broke the ceiling of safe majorities in cracked Tory districts)
More recent article on Conservative gerrymandering policies (though I would understand this as closer to voter suppression, not gerrymandering)

Sounds like UK districting committees haven't heard of the "efficiency gap", but it's not clear to me that there is actually any active political gerrymandering going on in the UK as opposed to other techniques of electoral advantage-seeking. Also, FPTP is always a wrecker. A system where this can happen:



is real dumb.

Can you give your sources on UK gerrymandering?



It's really the Right.

I don't know how you can walk away from the policies presented by the two sides and think that the 'left' is just as bad as the right.

I respectfully submit that there is nothing that resembles an organised and politically effective Left in the US at present.

If you want to see what dangers the Left presents... well... The Labour Party is currently being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights commission over accusations of an endemic culture of Antisemitism.

[Tuuvi]

I respectfully submit that there is nothing that resembles an organised and politically effective Left in the US at present.

If you want to see what dangers the Left presents... well... The Labour Party is currently being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights commission over accusations of an endemic culture of Antisemitism.

Are they really antisemitic though or did they just have the audacity to criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?

[Pannonian]

Are they really antisemitic though or did they just have the audacity to criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?

Watch the first episode of West Wing. Right at the end you see Toby get riled when a right wing fundie references something that he recognises as a Jewish trope. The current Labour party are far further along that road than what that right winger says. And, this is important, the party institutionally reinforces this. Supposedly independent bodies that are supposed to deal impartially with these things are beholden to the political wing, and there is evidence of the political wing interfering in these processes.

[Pannonian]

I respectfully submit that there is nothing that resembles an organised and politically effective Left in the US at present.

If you want to see what dangers the Left presents... well... The Labour Party is currently being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights commission over accusations of an endemic culture of Antisemitism.

And if you want to see what dangers the Right present, see the Bannon-directed Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK. Trump, Brexit, Corbyn: all present the same antithesis to moderate politics that used to be the accepted norm. All of them see rules not as guidelines for what they should do and how they should conduct themselves, but as legal boundaries where they see if they will be materially punished for what they want to do. I'd also recommend reading on how classical tyrannies came about.

[Montmorency]

I respectfully submit that there is nothing that resembles an organised and politically effective Left in the US at present.

If you want to see what dangers the Left presents... well... The Labour Party is currently being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights commission over accusations of an endemic culture of Antisemitism.

If one were to accept the wildest accusations against the Corbynite leadership of the Labour Party with regard to anti-Semtisim, the "existential threat" would still not appear to be within the same order of magnitude as that posed by Brexit alone.

[Pannonian]

If one were to accept the wildest accusations against the Corbynite leadership of the Labour Party with regard to anti-Semtisim, the "existential threat" would still not appear to be within the same order of magnitude as that posed by Brexit alone.

The worst aspects of Corbynism are shared with the standard modus operandi of Brexit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If one were to accept the wildest accusations against the Corbynite leadership of the Labour Party with regard to anti-Semtisim, the "existential threat" would still not appear to be within the same order of magnitude as that posed by Brexit alone.

I'm sorry, no. Brexit itself is a political inevitability - at some point the UK was going to leave the EU when certain members opted for a real political union. We could have left earlier to later, but it was going to happen. Brexit will (note I say will) damage the UK economy, how much remains to be seen. Brexit will also likely hasten the inevitable breakup of the United Kingdom which began a century ago with Southern Ireland.

None of these things represent an existential threat to our democracy. A Party which entrenches Antisemitism and conflates it with what has become known as "banker bashing" whilst lending tacit support to domestic and foreign terrorists with a leader who is convinced of his own moral goodness... That is a greater threat.

Coybyn reminds me of the Ayatollah of Iran when he lived in exile. Everyone said how piously, how simply, he lived and that therefore he would make a better ruler than the Shah. Likewise, Corbyn has one of the smallest expenses claims of any MP - yet he makes undeclared trips to countries ruled by dictators in order to meet with groups actively supporting terrorism.

The man said that "Zionists" "don't understand English irony" "despite probably having lived her all their lives" (emphasis added)! Before that he wrote a new forward to Imperialism: A Study in which he described the book as "basically right". Well, that book is quite literally part of the academic milieu used to justify the Holocaust.

So, you know what, he's a darn sight more dangerous than Boris - even if Boris has flirted with Bannonism (something he now vehemently denies).

My take on that, btw, is that Boris met Bannon as a political operator when Boris was sort of "in the wilderness" (i.e. not about to become PM) and this is now something he regrets. That speaks to Boris' poor judgement but not, I think, to his actual beliefs. Farage is a different matter, whilst I would describe his as "far right" he's about as close as you can get without actually tripping over into that definition.

[Pannonian]

I'm sorry, no. Brexit itself is a political inevitability - at some point the UK was going to leave the EU when certain members opted for a real political union. We could have left earlier to later, but it was going to happen. Brexit will (note I say will) damage the UK economy, how much remains to be seen. Brexit will also likely hasten the inevitable breakup of the United Kingdom which began a century ago with Southern Ireland.

None of these things represent an existential threat to our democracy. A Party which entrenches Antisemitism and conflates it with what has become known as "banker bashing" whilst lending tacit support to domestic and foreign terrorists with a leader who is convinced of his own moral goodness... That is a greater threat.

Coybyn reminds me of the Ayatollah of Iran when he lived in exile. Everyone said how piously, how simply, he lived and that therefore he would make a better ruler than the Shah. Likewise, Corbyn has one of the smallest expenses claims of any MP - yet he makes undeclared trips to countries ruled by dictators in order to meet with groups actively supporting terrorism.

The man said that "Zionists" "don't understand English irony" "despite probably having lived her all their lives" (emphasis added)! Before that he wrote a new forward to Imperialism: A Study in which he described the book as "basically right". Well, that book is quite literally part of the academic milieu used to justify the Holocaust.

So, you know what, he's a darn sight more dangerous than Boris - even if Boris has flirted with Bannonism (something he now vehemently denies).

My take on that, btw, is that Boris met Bannon as a political operator when Boris was sort of "in the wilderness" (i.e. not about to become PM) and this is now something he regrets. That speaks to Boris' poor judgement but not, I think, to his actual beliefs. Farage is a different matter, whilst I would describe his as "far right" he's about as close as you can get without actually tripping over into that definition.

I was taught at school that the expansion of democratic rights went hand in hand with the expansion of education, with the corollary that education was crucial in making democracy work. Politicians need to be assessed on what they say, and they need to held accountable for what they do. Reasoning and the examination of evidence and consistent arguments is necessary for democracy to work.

Now compare with what Brexiteers have been doing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And if you want to see what dangers the Right present, see the Bannon-directed Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK. Trump, Brexit, Corbyn: all present the same antithesis to moderate politics that used to be the accepted norm. All of them see rules not as guidelines for what they should do and how they should conduct themselves, but as legal boundaries where they see if they will be materially punished for what they want to do. I'd also recommend reading on how classical tyrannies came about.

I feel the need to point out that I'm probably the one in the Backroom most familiar with the development of Tyrannies. The first point to remember is that the first Tyrant of the three is usually deemed necessary, the second autocratic and the third despotic.

Essential to the theory is the proposition that the Tyrant arises out of a failed democratic system, rather than fulling the system down.

I was taught at school that the expansion of democratic rights went hand in hand with the expansion of education, with the corollary that education was crucial in making democracy work. Politicians need to be assessed on what they say, and they need to held accountable for what they do. Reasoning and the examination of evidence and consistent arguments is necessary for democracy to work.

Now compare with what Brexiteers have been doing.

I have to say, I went through New Labour's education system, that was pretty terrible.

[Pannonian]

I feel the need to point out that I'm probably the one in the Backroom most familiar with the development of Tyrannies. The first point to remember is that the first Tyrant of the three is usually deemed necessary, the second autocratic and the third despotic.

Essential to the theory is the proposition that the Tyrant arises out of a failed democratic system, rather than fulling the system down.

I have to say, I went through New Labour's education system, that was pretty terrible.

Your description of successions of tyrannies is a truism. What's more instructive is how tyrannies come to be, and how they develop. A strong man rises to power in response to a perceived need. They usually have popular support. They then cement their power with a monopoly of the organs of power; in ancient times, this means a professional military, preferably mercenary. They then reinforce this with a campaign against a chosen "other".

Modern day nations have professional militaries separate from the ruler in power. However, there are other organs of power, ranging from the executive (the most important in this context) to the lawmakers and the courts and the media. In modern extremist politics, the executive and the media are what is important, as one does the work while the other suppresses dissent. The campaign is for some kind of identity, with any dissenters dubbed traitors.

Trump followers, Brexit followers, Corbyn followers all follow this blueprint.

Corbyn's anti-semitism stems from his Marcist readings, which themselves were reflective of Marx's times. That he's enabled it in the Labour party is because he's used to the workings of the fringes, and institutionalised everything is how they work. He is unpleasant, but his anti-semitism is not an existential threat to the UK. The abuse of democracy by Corbyn on the one hand, but far more so by Bannon's Trump and Brexit brigades on the other, is an existential threat to the UK. I described what I deem to be moderate politics from the voter's perspective. Do you agree with it? Or are you going to handwave it with "I have to say, I went through New Labour's education system, that was pretty terrible." NB. I didn't describe any political position. I described the necessary environment for reasonable politics to exist.