Trump Thread

[Don Corleone]

Then you are doomed.

Indeed. The United States is rapidly devolving into a dystopian fusion of plutocracy/theocracy. By my count, we are about 3 months out from the Reichstag fire.

It's not just Trump.

-After World War II, the United States led the world on international agreement for the treatment of refugees. We are now leading the world in terms of destroying those norms and dehumanizing people who seek our aid.

-We talk about "America First", but we then turn around and proudly proclaim any aid to veterans, the elderly, our youth, etc. to be a Socialist evil and must be eliminated. Meanwhile, subsidies and payouts to corporations are at an all time high. To even question such disparity leads to branding as a marxist rabble rouser (rather amusing in my slightly right of center case).

-Our education, patheticly mediocre to begin with, is in a race to the bottom. Evangelical Christians are now allowed to introduce bible study classes (under the guise of literature studies). Science has become a perverse joke... objective, researched and peer-reviewed studies are shelved, in the interest of not wishing to offend the Luddites at the helm.

-Probably more concerning than anything else, we have a stacked court that just enshrined Gerrymandering into law. Citizens v. United was a mortal blow, but this decision will be the coup d' grace of American Democracy.

-Not true... the most concerning of all is how the racism and xenophobia have stripped the veneer off of my friends and family.

We are truly living in an Orwellian nightmare over here.

[Don Corleone]

TBF, Omar's ancestors did originate in Africa. So did mine. And Trump's.

You are giving the 40% FAR too much credit my friend. Remember, roughly 1/3 of the USA holds firm to the assertiation that the Earth is less than 6000 years old, and their ranks are swelling.

[Don Corleone]

From what I can tell, it seems that the United Kingdom is about to join us on the path to destruction. Bring Boris Johnson in and I all but guarantee you'll be joining us in the surreal world of WTAF... I would have thought Trump's support to be the kiss of death for his campaign, but sadly, Johnson appears poised to win out and destroy the UK to boot. Putin must be laughing his ass off.

[rory_20_uk]

Our only hope is that Johnson realises that flattering Trump is the way forward and for 2-6 years that is the way it has to be; whether this changes with the next President - that's going to be the determinant. Small powers have to play nice. And the UK is at best a middle power and if the UK is not prepared to pay protection money to be part of one cartel then one cost is a more pliable external face.

[Montmorency]

The world is endlessly funny.

At a Border Patrol holding facility in El Paso, Texas, an agent told a Honduran family that one parent would be sent to Mexico while the other parent and their three children could stay in the United States, according to the family. The agent turned to the couple's youngest daughter — 3-year-old Sofia, whom they call Sofi — and asked her to make a choice.

"The agent asked her who she wanted to go with, mom or dad," her mother, Tania, told NPR through an interpreter. "And the girl, because she is more attached to me, she said mom. But when they started to take [my husband] away, the girl started to cry. The officer said, 'You said [you want to go] with mom.' "

So, the armed G-men had little Sofi... make a little choice?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sophie’s Choice is the title of a 1979 novel by William Styron, about a Polish woman in a Nazi concentration camp who is forced to decide which of her two children will live and which will die. (Meryl Streep nabbed an Oscar for her starring role in the 1982 film version.)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

TBF, Omar's ancestors did originate in Africa. So did mine. And Trump's.

Lol

'Lucy' was a total badass too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You are giving the 40% FAR too much credit my friend. Remember, roughly 1/3 of the USA holds firm to the assertiation that the Earth is less than 6000 years old, and their ranks are swelling.

Sort of. There is slightly more than that who take the 'creationist' stance, but the strict dating version may be less numerous. source

[Montmorency]

Sofi up there should get more attention, but

Sort of. There is slightly more than that who take the 'creationist' stance, but the strict dating version may be less numerous. source

These figures feel grudgingly acceptable circa 1925, but glancing at global polling on the issue it appears only half the world, tops, is even nominally evolutionist, so America isn't exceptionally bad in this regard.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From what I can tell, it seems that the United Kingdom is about to join us on the path to destruction. Bring Boris Johnson in and I all but guarantee you'll be joining us in the surreal world of WTAF... I would have thought Trump's support to be the kiss of death for his campaign, but sadly, Johnson appears poised to win out and destroy the UK to boot. Putin must be laughing his ass off.

Boris is not an existential threat - Corbyn on the other hand...

In regards to gerrymandering, we've been gerrymandered for a decade and it's Labour who are refusing the necessary re-drawing.

Not to highjack this American thread - but remember, danger comes from both Left AND Right.

[Pannonian]

Boris is not an existential threat - Corbyn on the other hand...

In regards to gerrymandering, we've been gerrymandered for a decade and it's Labour who are refusing the necessary re-drawing.

Not to highjack this American thread - but remember, danger comes from both Left AND Right.

Steve Bannon is the existential threat. Corbyn may become a threat, but his support for Brexit means he won't reach power. Bannon and his acolytes, OTOH, combines all the worst aspects of Corbyn and amplifies them. As much as I despise Corbyn, Farage and Johnson and all the rest of the Brexit bunch abuse democracy far more in pursuit of far right goals, and they are trying their hand in other countries as well. Brexit by itself is disastrous for Britain, but it's the gang who are pushing it who are the real danger. Trump and Brexit are just two arms of Bannon's far right international project.

[Montmorency]

Boris is not an existential threat - Corbyn on the other hand...

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

In regards to gerrymandering, we've been gerrymandered for a decade and it's Labour who are refusing the necessary re-drawing.

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:

In 1979, the Conservative
party won 43.9 per cent of the votes cast and 53.4 per cent of the seats. Four years
later, it won 42.4 per cent of the votes but 61.1 per cent of the seats. In 1987, its
shares of the votes and seats were 43.4 and 57.8 per cent respectively, and then in
1992 its vote share fell slightly, to 42.3 per cent, but its share of the seats fell more
sharply – to 51.6 per cent. Labour won in 1997, with 43.3 per cent of the votes and
63.6 per cent of the seats. Thus over five elections, whereas the leading party’s share
of the votes only ranged between 42.3 and 43.9 per cent its share of the seats varied
more, from 51.6 to 63.6 per cent. With virtually the same share of the votes at four
successive elections the Conservatives won very different shares of the seats, and then
when Labour won with the same vote percentage its share of the seats was larger than
the Conservatives ever achieved.

is real dumb.

Can you give your sources on UK gerrymandering?

Not to highjack this American thread - but remember, danger comes from both Left AND Right.

It's really the Right.

[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.

[CrossLOPER]

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

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

[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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not comfortable with Boris being PM at this point, a couple of years ago I would have shrugged and moved on - now I'm not really very happy.

Having said that, I'm not especially worried about Boris himself so much as the likes of Jacob Reese-Mogg.

The "Brexit Brigade" is not in charge of the education system, the Conservative Government is. I suffered through the National Curriculum in the early 2000's, it taught me I was bad at languages. The idea of Academies is quite clearly a means of establishing a sort of pseudo-Grammar system instead of an actual Grammar System.

Something needs to be done with our education system, it has been deteriorating for decades.

[Pannonian]

I'm not comfortable with Boris being PM at this point, a couple of years ago I would have shrugged and moved on - now I'm not really very happy.

Having said that, I'm not especially worried about Boris himself so much as the likes of Jacob Reese-Mogg.

The "Brexit Brigade" is not in charge of the education system, the Conservative Government is. I suffered through the National Curriculum in the early 2000's, it taught me I was bad at languages. The idea of Academies is quite clearly a means of establishing a sort of pseudo-Grammar system instead of an actual Grammar System.

Something needs to be done with our education system, it has been deteriorating for decades.

IA's education goes back way before New Labour and Cameron's Tories, and his recent posts are an illustration of the deterioration of democratic debate. "You lost, get over it." "The MPs (also traitors) will get what's coming to them." "Nigel Farage represents everything that I support, except when you show him to be a hypocrite, when I'll excuse myself by saying that I don't need to support everything he says." Politicians are allowed to lie as much as they like and their supporters will excuse them everything, as what matters is that their side won and the opposition lost. Where is the accountability?

I believe that governments do not succeed by winning elections. Once they win an election, they are given a go at government, but they're expected to be held accountable for their promises, and they have to continue to present the argument for how what they are doing is good for the country. "Because we won" is not a good enough argument. Am I being unreasonable?

[Tuuvi]

Corbyn's anti-semitism stems from his Marcist readings, which themselves were reflective of Marx's times.

Wasn't Karl Marx Jewish? I find the idea that Marxism made Corbyn antisemitic laughable.