Jump to content

US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows


Datepalm

Recommended Posts

Its been hours of back reading to catch up on all the Gen Forum Election threads since last Monday.

I'm just going to go ahead and apologize to the World in advance, as I have little doubt Le Donald will soon pull something outrageous and offensive to most of humanity and millions around the globe will just have a "smh" moment.  Its just a matter of time till our new Narcicist in Chief goes off script and embarrasses everyone.

RBPL put it well when he commented-

Nah, Fascism has come to America wrapped in a dodgy toupee.
 
Our very own "Triumph of the Will" moment 
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the last thread, unnmester said:

Quote

Why isn't Obama saying something to the people about this? We hasn't he made a public address disavowing violent protest?

I've seen videos people are posting on youtube, beating up Trump voters, using it as an excuse for violence. Your country needs to do something before the other side starts getting violent as well.

Quote

They aren't in the news as much as the kids burning Trump dolls in the streets - the aggressive protest here seems to be pretty one sided.

As was pointed out, Obama has addressed the need for peaceful transition.   But I don't think this is on Obama to defuse.  

Trump is the one who threw the red meat of xenophobia, misogyny, and racism to his supporters, who took Trump's anti-PC message as "anything goes," extending the hateful rhetoric to every historically otherized group (even ones Trump has not necessarily spewed hate toward directly).    Trump let this out of the box.  He provoked and then rode this stream of hating with impunity into power.  

So he's the only one who can effectively defuse this-- it needs to come from him.   The protesters-- provided they remain peaceful-- are absolutely in the right for protesting against open discrimination.  He needs to correctly identify this wave of "telling it like it is"/ "anti-PC bullshit" as bigotry, and renounce it.  He needs to admit he was completely in wrong on this matter.   He needs to tell the currently exulting KKK to go fuck themselves.   He needs to not give Steve Bannon (who is super anti-semitic, for the record), Giuliani and various other openly bigoted cronies staff positions.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

He needs to tell the currently exulting KKK to fuck themselves.

This above all else. I know he cannot control their adulation nor their endorsement of him, but it's utterly disgusting that it took him weeks to disavow them. He was either courting racists or genuinely appreciated the assistance. He cannot claim ignorance given his earlier tweets specifically reviling them and David Duke, who he said, "I don't know about any David, or who he is."

A simple statement, really firm and forthright will do. I have two possible options:

Option 1

"The President-Elect rejects the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan, does not agree with any of their positions and does not believe his election gives them any cause for celebration."

Option 2

"The KKK should shut the fuck up. Forever."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, I was at a dinner with a bunch of other "coastal elite assholes" last night (most of us leaning predictably liberal, but a few Paul Ryan-style Reps).  Well, I definitely encountered an "extremely proud" Trump supporter in the elusive 25-35 year old white woman demographic.  She is a unionized school teacher in a posh suburb, and her husband is a "Wall Street guy."  They, as well as all of their family and friends, make substantial money.  And again, they are part of that Wall Street elite Trump supposedly stands against.   And she's unionized.  And part of urban, rather than rural, America.

Her rationale was a combo of racism with a heaping dose of misogyny thrown in.  Not that she'd ever see it as such.  So that answers some of that mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Her rationale was a combo of the R word with a heaping dose of the M word thrown in.  Not that she'd ever see it as such.  So that answers some of that mystery.

I understand you're trying not to be offensive, but while I have a pretty good idea what R is, I have no idea what the "M-word" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Inigima said:

I understand you're trying not to be offensive, but while I have a pretty good idea what R is, I have no idea what the "M-word" is.

oh, sorry.   Misogyny and Racism were her primary drivers.   She is a good example of a women who harbors anti-woman feelings, but doesn't see it that way.  Nor does she see her racist views as racism.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

from the last thread, unnmester said:

Trump is the one who threw the red meat of xenophobia, misogyny, and racism to his supporters, who took Trump's anti-PC message as "anything goes," extending the hateful rhetoric to every historically otherized group (even ones Trump has not necessarily spewed hate toward directly).    Trump let this out of the box.  He provoked and then rode this stream of hating with impunity into power.  

 

The leaked emails now show that Team Hillary's original strategy was to push the media into helping Trump or Cruz win the Republican primary. The strategy was to push the Republicans to the far right and lock them into far right positions before the general election. Hillary would then move toward the center as Bill Clinton always did during his winning elections.

This reminds me of how the Germans secretly sent Vladimir Lenin back into Russia near the end of WWI to serve as a "plague bacilus" as Winston Churchill put it. It obviously back-fired over the long run.

Team Hillary's morally inept strategy has also back-fired. The evidence clearly shows that Team Hillary was at least partiallly responsible for Trump winning the Republican Primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

The leaked emails now show that Team Hillary's original strategy was to push the media into helping Trump or Cruz win the Republican primary. The strategy was to push the Republicans to the far right and lock them into far right positions before the general election. Hillary would then move toward the center as Bill Clinton always did during his winning elections.

This reminds me of how the Germans secretly sent Vladimir Lenin back into Russia near the end of WWI to serve as a "plague bacilus" as Winston Churchill put it. It obviously back-fired over the long run.

Team Hillary's morally inept strategy has also back-fired. The evidence clearly shows that Team Hillary was at least partiallly responsible for Trump winning the Republican Primaries.

This has nothing to do with the point I was making.   Hillary Clinton did not put Trump up to running on a racist, xenophobic platform.   He announced his candidacy by declaring Mexican immigrants rapists for gods sake.

Trump is fully responsible for making hate and bigotry mainstream, and for exploiting whitelash as a driving force of his campaign.  His followers have amplified and diversified the targets of hate, and he has not denounced it.  He has further stoked it, and has made purveyors of bigotry part of his inner circle.

People are protesting the bigotry that Trump has rendered less taboo.   Trump unleashed it.   He needs to put a lid on it.   He's really the only person in a position to do this effectively.  It has to come from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Glasner is one of my favorite non-Keynesian sorts. He's a bit of a righty, but always has something interesting to say.

Comments about the ACA and reflexive "free market fundamentalism".

Quote

So in health markets there are doctors treating ill-informed patients whose bills are being paid by insurance companies that try to monitor doctors to make sure that doctors do not provide unnecessary services and treatments to patients. But since the interests of insurance companies may be not to pay doctors to provide services that would be beneficial to patients, who is going to protect policyholders from the insurance companies? Well, um, maybe the government should be involved. Yes, but how do we know if the government is doing a good job or bad job of looking out for the interests of patients? I don’t think that we know the answer to that question. But Obamacare, aside from making medical insurance more widely available to people who need it, is an attempt to try to make insurance companies more responsive to the interests of their policyholders. Perhaps not the smartest attempt, by any means, but given the system of health care delivery that has evolved in the United States over the past three quarters of a century, it is not obviously a step in the wrong direction.

 

Quote

But even if Obamacare is not working well, and I have no well thought out opinion about whether it is or isn’t, the kind of simple-minded critique that my friend was making seemed to me to be genuinely cringe-worthy. Here is a Ph.D. in physics making an argument that sounded as if it were coming straight out of the mouth of Sean Hannity. OMG! The dumbing down of America is being expertly engineered by Fox News, and, boy, are they succeeding. Geniuses, that’s what they are. Geniuses!

Quote

I have been a fan of free markets ever since. I oppose government intervention in the economy as a default position. But the lazy thinking that once led people to assume that government regulation is the cure for all problems now leads people to assume that government regulation is the cause of all problems. What a difference half a century makes

And the empirical evidence that the ACA has caused premium increases for employer sponsored healthcare to rise above it's historical average, at this moment in time, is non existent. Maybe there is a case for user cost, but that too is doubtful.

And those who get their insurance through their employer and are complaining about the ACA need to check themselves a bit. They are not getting their insurance through their employer because of their Galtian awesomeness, but because of a tax exclusion for healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Datepalm said:

SNL's Clinton-singing-Hallelujah was...something.

I just saw this. I think she thought it was going to strike the right cord and get people to talk about it. I found it overly dramatic and to not match the reality of the situation. It felt like that skit would have made more sense after an assassination attempt or something. Whether she meant it or not it came off as though they were trying to elevate Hillary's persona to deity stature. We all know thats a pipe dream and does not match reality. This presentation is exactly the type of shit that caused Hillary to lose the election. SNL was one of the chief offenders in the media that created a narrative that Clinton had an assured victory. Their arrogance created a complacent electorate that falsely assured liberals that they should not be concerned about Trump. SNL used to be an equal opportunity comedy show. They clearly have not learned a lesson from this or shown any willingness to own their own responsibility for HRC's defeat. 

Chappelle on the other hand absolutely crushed it. Struck a perfect balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise Leonard Cohen, who wrote Hallelujah, died this week and that skit was as much about paying tribute to him right? I don't think I'm going to hold someone struggling to hold back tears against them as "smug arrogance".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...