Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
:confused: what happened in the last ten days? :


That was from Las Vegas 2012, when Trump was endorsing Romney. He's not exactly returning the favour right now.:) Sorry if that was what you were saying (the snippet didn't make it clear) & I've got the wrong end of the stick.
 

whether fabricated or not, that was an interesting read.

I have jokingly said similar to this.

"...I voted for Trump with the faint hope that his election would actually be good for the country. If he were elected, it would perhaps teach more to the country than all the high school civics lessons in the our nation’s brief history.

If elected, Trump would accomplish very little to none of his vacuous agenda. His congressional agenda would be as dead on arrival as that of Bernie Sanders’s. So what good could result? Perhaps more people would begin to realize that members of Congress, governors, mayors, and members of the state houses have the real power. That the framers of the Constitution created this wonderfully balanced system in which no one person holds the kind of power that Trump claims he could wield. That democracy is messy and frustrating. That change involves more hard work than just voting for somebody who says the right things"



I do think it would be funny and eye-opening as an experiment, if only it weren't so dangerous.
The thing that seems most dangerous to me about a Trump presidency is the license it would (continue to give) people to act out their frustrations & racist inclinations as we're already seeing...
 
whether fabricated or not, that was an interesting read.

I have jokingly said similar to this.

"...I voted for Trump with the faint hope that his election would actually be good for the country. If he were elected, it would perhaps teach more to the country than all the high school civics lessons in the our nation’s brief history.

If elected, Trump would accomplish very little to none of his vacuous agenda. His congressional agenda would be as dead on arrival as that of Bernie Sanders’s. So what good could result? Perhaps more people would begin to realize that members of Congress, governors, mayors, and members of the state houses have the real power. That the framers of the Constitution created this wonderfully balanced system in which no one person holds the kind of power that Trump claims he could wield. That democracy is messy and frustrating. That change involves more hard work than just voting for somebody who says the right things"



I do think it would be funny and eye-opening as an experiment, if only it weren't so dangerous.
The thing that seems most dangerous to me about a Trump presidency is the license it would (continue to give) people to act out their frustrations & racist inclinations as we're already seeing...
It being fabricated is a bit important isn't it? You can't go on with the rest if it's made up.
 
It being fabricated is a bit important isn't it? You can't go on with the rest if it's made up.

why? couldn't people have just lied / made something up anyway that wasn't how they truly felt? not that I condone lying by journalists in any form or degree of seriousness, but since we'll never really know in this case whether those were real interviews, I'm choosing to focus on what I actually was able to get out of it.
 
why? couldn't people have just lied / made something up anyway that wasn't how they truly felt? not that I condone lying by journalists in any form or degree of seriousness, but since we'll never really know in this case whether those were real interviews, I'm choosing to focus on what I actually was able to get out of it.
This a really obvious example of it. Do you really not care?
 
There are 9 stories right now on the NYT about the GOP establishment attacking Trump. I'm surprised they got it together so quickly.
 
It would be like voting for the pimlico plumber shitbag.....I was laughing earlier, but now it's even more amusing.
 
Should people be held accountable for the way they vote in an election? That's the basic thing being challenged here.

If you say 'no', you're being incredibly fucking condescending.
 
That was from Las Vegas 2012, when Trump was endorsing Romney. He's not exactly returning the favour right now.:) Sorry if that was what you were saying (the snippet didn't make it clear) & I've got the wrong end of the stick.


no I was going on the date on to youtube which seemed to fit with what happened last week. Sneaky bastard (but we knew that)
 
Fucking hell, what absolute fucking shite. Same type of liberal sneering that's played such a significant role in the rise of Trump, UKIP and others.

The tweet you respond to is certainly liberal sneering but I'm not sure it's played as significant a role as made out. Someone like Trump has been coming for a long time and now it's finally arrived. Trump, IMO, has come about as a result of who the republican party has increasingly had to appeal to as a base, nativists, racists, christian fanatics, conspiraloons etc. Since Bush Jr and, no doubt before him, that base of people have been growing in the party because the party is so naked in it's subservience to corporate power that in can't appeal to the wider population, so it has had to appeal to and mobilise those groups who have always existed but have never really been mobilised by a major political party. Since the crash the tea party have basically infiltrated the republicans and now their day has come. If Trump dropped out all his votes would go to Cruz who's just as vile, if not worse, than Trump and comes from that same base.

So yes I think the sneering has played a role but not too significant. I think where it will play more of a role is when he's contesting the general election as the republican candidate. In fact I think it will really play into Trump's hands as Bush Jr used an element of it in his campaign and the mood and circumstances of the country were significantly different then.
 
There are 9 stories right now on the NYT about the GOP establishment attacking Trump. I'm surprised they got it together so quickly.

I quite like the fact that a lot of assholes are laying into each other, highlighting each other's deficiencies. It kind of makes me glad Trump is in this game, just for the chaos it's causing in the right-wing establishment. Plus also the potential of seeing him lose.
 
Apologise there's a lot to read here so I'm not caught up.

But isn't it just a case of Trump's presence meaning Clinton will win in the end ?

Now not everybody would like that outcome, and I'm not much of a supporter. But at least she has some common sense and decency ? That will do for me for four years.
 
......aside from the general tactic of insulting his supporters as idiots this John Oliver attempt to ridicule or undermine him for having the family name Drumpf seems pretty misjudged in a country where there must be millions of families who changed their non-anglo names or had them changed for them on Ellis Island...(...although his resemblance to Ben Elton maybe slightly putting me off... )
 
......aside from the general tactic of insulting his supporters as idiots this John Oliver attempt to ridicule or undermine him for having the family name Drumpf seems pretty misjudged in a country where there must be millions of families who changed their non-anglo names or had them changed for them on Ellis Island...(...although his resemblance to Ben Elton maybe slightly putting me off... )

I didn't think he was ridiculing Trump for changing his name, he was ridiculing Trump for the hypocrisy of doing that, and then criticizing Jon Stewart for doing the same.
 
Donald Trump's Policies Aren't Anathema to U.S. Mainstream but an Uncomfortable Reflection of It

The political and media establishments in the U.S. – which have jointly wrought so much destruction, decay, and decadence – recently decided to unite against Donald Trump. Their central claim is that the real estate mogul and long-time NBC reality TV star advocates morally reprehensible positions that are far outside the bounds of decency; relatedly, they argue, he is so personally repellent that his empowerment would degrade both the country and the presidency.

In some instances, their claim is plausible: there is at least genuine embarrassment if not revulsion even among America’s political class over Trump’s proposed mass deportation of 11 million human beings, banning of all Muslims from entering the country, and new laws to enable him to more easily sue (and thus destroy) media outlets which “falsely” criticize him. And his signature personality brew of deep-seated insecurities, vindictive narcissism, channeling of the darkest impulses, and gaudy, petty boasting is indeed uniquely grotesque.

But in many cases, probably most, the flamboyant denunciations of Trump by establishment figures make no sense except as self-aggrandizing pretense, because those condemning him have long tolerated if not outright advocated very similar ideas, albeit with less rhetorical candor. Trump is self-evidently a toxic authoritarian demagogue advocating morally monstrous positions, but in most cases where elite outrage is being vented, he is merely a natural extension of the mainstream rhetorical and policy framework that has been laid, not some radical departure from it. He’s their id. What establishment mavens most resent is not what Trump is, does, or says, but what he reflects: the unmistakable, undeniable signs of late-stage imperial collapse, along with the resentments and hatreds they have long deliberately and self-servingly stoked but which are now raging out of their control.

Two of the most recent, widely discussed anti-Trump outrage rituals – one from Wednesday and the other from last night’s Fox News debate – demonstrate the sham at the heart of the establishment display of horror. This week, American political and media figures from across the spectrum stood and applauded a tawdry cast of neocons and other assorted war-mongers who are responsible for grave war crimes, torture, kidnappings, due-process-free indefinite imprisonment, and the worst political crime of this generation: the attack on and destruction of Iraq.

These five dozen or so extremists (calling themselves “members of the Republican national security community”) were the toast of the town because they published an “open letter” denouncing Trump on the ground that his “own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world.” This was one of their examples:

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

Most decent human beings, by definition, would express this sentiment without including the qualifying word “expansive.” Even Ronald Reagan, whom virtually all the signatories claim to idolize, advocated for and signeda treaty in 1988 which stated that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture” and that “each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.” The taboo is on “all acts of torture,” not its “expansive use”: whatever that means.

But the group signing this anti-Trump letter can’t pretend to find an embrace of torture itself to be “inexcusable” because most of them implemented torture policies while in government or vocally advocated for them. So instead, they invoke the Goldilocks Theory of Torture: we believe in torture up to exactly the right point, while Trump is disgraceful because he wants to go beyond that: he believes in “the expansive use of torture.” The same dynamic drove yesterday’s widely cheered speech by Mitt Romney, where the two-time failed GOP candidate denounced Trump for advocating torture while literally ignoring his own clear pro-torture viewpoints.

Here we see the elite class agreeing to pretend that Trump is advocating views that are inherently disqualifying when – thanks to those doing the denouncing – those views are actually quite mainstream, even popular, among both the American political class and its population. Torture was the official American policy for years. It went way beyond waterboarding. One Republican president ordered it and his Democratic successor immunized it from all forms of accountability, ensuring that not a single official would be prosecuted for authorizing even the most extreme techniques, ones that killed people – or even allowed to be sued by their victims.

Many of the high officials most responsible for that torture regime and who defended it – from Condoleezza Rice and John Brennan – remain not just acceptable in mainstream circles but hold high office and are virtually revered. And, just by the way, both of Trump’s main rivals – Marco Rubioand Ted Cruz – refuse to rule out classic torture techniques as part of their campaign. In light of all that, who takes seriously the notion that Trump’s advocacy of torture – including beyond waterboarding – places him beyond the American pale? To the contrary, it places him within its establishment mainstream
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom