Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did anyone else notice the bust behind Trump:

trump_obama_161110.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg


I have to wonder if that was placed there on purpose.
 
Protestors across America say "Not My President".

We must come together to stem the rising tide of fascism around the world. Join our movement to build the progressive alternative ➝ join.peoplesmomentum.com


Momentum are now calling, i think, Trump' supporters fascists, if they mean groups like Jobbik, Golden Dawn, yes, but ex union steelworkers in Ohio?
 
Momentum are now calling, i think, Trump' supporters fascists, if they mean groups like Jobbik, Golden Dawn, yes, but ex union steelworkers in Ohio?

The correct term as we all know is 'The Deplorables' - which they consider a badge of honour.

Cs1_tKhWYAEY93f.jpg
 
Government approved turd polishing begins...


As laughable as that it, it very deliberately appeals to a classic conservative political troupe: 'the strict father model' of government. As George Lakoff says:

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don’t have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

What Conservatives Really Want
 
Cw83jY5WIAEqPAD.jpg


This just in. More proof that American liberals don't understand the nature of politics.
"save your compassion" - because it's a finite resource...? :confused:

"They didn't do it so why should we" is a shoddy argument. Understanding someone's position is not the same as agreeing with it. How can you expect to combat something if you don't understand it? How do you expect to win someone over if you don't understand them?

Dismissing 'the other side' is nice and easy, but it's just going to keep perpetuating the violent swing from one to t'other every decade or so. It's bullshit.
 
"Vancouver, which Lena Dunham said she'd flee to, is currently experiencing record housing prices, thanks to foreign buyers like Dunham who love its idyllic climate, as well as record homelessness, thanks to owners of expensive houses who think homeless people are an inconvenient eyesore blighting the idyllic climate."

What Canada Thinks Of You Threatening To Move There

Johnny Canuck3

Someone better warn the Americans that Vancouver is very multi-ethnic, before they start talking to real estate agents.
 
Once again, you're arguing as if this were an intellectual exercise.

'Who was vindicated' becomes rather insignificant in the face of a rejection of the Paris Accord, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the reversal of Roe v Wade, and the further division and strife between the races.

These are real issues that will have large effect on many lives.

If feeling some sort of intellectual satisfaction at achieving 'total vindication' is a sufficient offset for you to the human destruction about to happen, then good luck to you.

So you don't think there's any value in analysing how and why this happened in order to learn lessons that might help ensure its not repeated?
 
America needs genuine class solidarity politics

And in the end, it was precisely those votes that didn’t matter, those retrogrades, and deplorable and vulgar working class bigots whom Hillary Clinton needed most, but it wasn’t only them. It was Latinos and young voters and poor voters, too. It was union households. It was the groups that she won but did not win enough that made an election in which Donald Trump outperformed Mitt Romney among nearly every category of the maligned.

Within the past twenty-four hours, despairing liberals debated about the proper apportionment of blame. White supremacy was the cause, or perhaps the ignorance of the working class. The election was spoiled by third party voters, or by non-voters, or by white women who narrowly betrayed one of their own. It was the fault young voters who stayed home. Maybe, others argued, it was all of the above. All of these arguments were merely variations on an old consensus: that the Democratic Party cannot fail, it can only be failed. In each case was a rage that said the world ought not to be this way. That it isn’t just, it isn’t right, it isn’t fair. It is difficult to disagree. The world should be better, even just enough to keep going as it has.

We have no need for a politics of oughts. It was those that got us here. It was a politics of technocratic sneering, of class spite, a politics concerned less with victory than with the bland moral sorting of the polity into the Good and the Bad, insisting that the Good should triumph in virtue of positive GDP charts. A politics that said Donald Trump should not be able to win an American election.

What is necessary moving forward, what is essential if the future can yet be won, is a politics that can win the world as it is. Yes, great swaths of the electorate appear misguided, baffling to liberal sensibilities given to overt bigotry. Many were just unmoved. “Hillary Clinton had nothing to offer people; all she could give them was fear and herself,” writes Sam Kriss. Given a choice between the mundane and the abyss, many voters could not but look upon the ordinary dull horror of their lives and find themselves unwilling to defend it. Yes, this ought not be, but it is, and it is enough to win an election for a parody fascist, a dilettante who will not even run the trains to his gulags on time. This is the world that a viable politics must reckon with.
 
Cw83jY5WIAEqPAD.jpg


This just in. More proof that American liberals don't understand the nature of politics.
We'll see a lot of this stuff because people are concerned that the reaction of the Democratic establishment will be what they've seen before, and what we see regularly from liberal parties everywhere - take the "encourage and exploit reactionary sentiment" aspect and try to compete on that basis. During the Bush II presidency, after 9/11, the Democrats did this consistently. Of course, people may misconstrue the motivations and divorce it from systemic behaviour to pretend that it's an individual reaction (perhaps stemming from "being too nice").
 
How you lost the world

Hillary Clinton had nothing to offer people; all she could give them was fear and herself. Her campaign was the most cack-handed and disastrous in recent decades, managed by a gang of simpering imbeciles pretending to be Machiavellian strategists; it was all on the flimsy depthless level of TV. Now watch her whip, now watch her nae nae. Yaas kween, slay kween, slay. Clinton was to be carried through her path to the White House on the shoulders of irritating media celebrities; Lena Dunham’s Instagram feed, Beyoncé’s stage shows, Robert De Niro’s menacing monologues. Clinton strategists actively and deliberately abetted Trump at every stage of his rise through the Republican primaries, dignifying his candidacy with every statement of disapproval, because they thought that he was the enemy she had the best chance of beating. Clinton spent the final weeks of her campaign against a parody toddler obsessing over weird conspiracy theories, painting her opponent as a secret Russian agent. Clinton decided, as a vast country fumed bitterly for something different, anything, that she would actively court the approval of a few hundred policy wonks. Clinton all but outrightly told vast swathes of the American working classes that they were irrelevant, that she didn’t need them and they would be left behind by history, and then expected them to vote for her anyway. Clinton was playing at politics; it was a big and important game, but it could be fun too; it was entertainment, it was a play of personalities. Her campaign tried to reproduce the broad 500-channel swathe of TV: an intrigue-riddled prestige drama and a music video and the 24-hour news; they forgot that trashy reality shows always get the highest ratings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom