Trump Presidency? [Archive]

OnFire

21st August 2015, 10:21

I fear that Donald Trump as President could be just the opening act. Yes, we could live to see a Fourth Reich rising in the USA:

First Rome was Rome
Second Rome was Byzantium
Third Rome was Moscow
Fourth Rome is Washington

First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire
Second Reich was the German Empire
Third Reich was Nazi Germany
Fourth Reich: Anglo-Saxon America ?

Many Americans view their nation similarly to the way that Germans used to view their nation. They saw Germany as "above everything in the world." That proclamation was literally the title of the German national anthem: Deutschland über Alles.

Americans tend to be xenophobic whether most want to openly admit it or not, mostly against third world immigrants and people of colour.

If America decided to go full-on Reich mode domestically, literally nobody could stop them. The American military, when unleashed, is the most lethal killing machine in human history. The US military isn't cucked by a World War. One can be sure that the "charismatic leader" Trump would use the military to its full potential if his rule over the American people was ever threatened.

Armchair Partisan

21st August 2015, 12:04

Woah here, let's not get overdramatic. The almighty US military has already been thwarted by popular insurgencies several times. The modern face of bourgeois rule is not the open dictatorship, but rather the appearance of democracy, the illusion of freedom and choice. As long as the people buy into this, the bourgeoisie will not do us the favor of establishing a dictatorship and showing their true colors. Besides, Trump is just one guy who is chosen as the potential face of America, he does not wield the influence of the likes of Hitler.

LuÃs Henrique

21st August 2015, 18:29

It would interesting to see him discussing with Putin who has the biggest dick.

And scary that both would be able to back their claims with nuclear weapons...

Luís Henrique

Sasha

21st August 2015, 18:42

John Nada

22nd August 2015, 00:22

like i said in the joke thread, even if he could win (and the dems could run a actual donkey against him and still win the general election) he would get a "accident" or fall victim of a "troubled lone gunman" before he would ever be installed as president, if there is one thing capital and the military cant abide is a total failure as a manager, they will support "socialist" bernie sanders before that 4 times bankruptcy clown.Nah, you're overestimating the US bourgeoisie's standards and competence. Remember this is a country that elected a B-movie actor with dementia, and a spoiled, pro-war, draft dodging, deserter and failed oil businessman addicted to alcohol and cocaine. Both elected twice. And the "troubled lone gunman' only shot the former under the delusion that Jodie Foster was into men, him specifically.

The presidency is a role, and politicians are the actors trying out for that role. Doesn't require someone smart or competent, since the cabinet is usually the ones who do the real work. Just a presenter selling it to the public. In fact, the US bourgeoisie seems to prefer ignorant-ass people, for there's not as much power struggle between the state apparatus and them, so easier to control.

The elections are not about individuals, though the media makes it seem that way. Each candidate represents a clique, and that clique represents a faction of the bourgeoisie. Trump represents a faction of the bourgeoisie in real estate, entertainment and the service sector. If he weren't haute-bourgeoisie or at least representing a faction of them, he would be ignored and justly so.

I got to admit, the Spectacle is really stepping up its game this time. A Trump vs. Sanders election would be fucking hilarious.:lol: Of course, Sanders is going to lose, and the Democrats will say that's proof they need to be more right-wing. Trump will be so bad that any Democrat will look good by comparison. Then the next Democrat will be continue the worst policies of Trump, and be so mediocre that everyone will wonder why bother voting Democrat if they're about the same(they are). Then another Republican will win, repeating the process that's gone on for over a hundred years. Why if the USSR just had two "communist" parties that are about the same but enough to trick people to go back and forth, it'd probably still be around!:lol:

blake 3:17

22nd August 2015, 03:08

I think there's a real possibility of a Trump presidency. Where that goes? It'll be fucked.

It's going to be Trump, Bush or Clinton and they're all fucked.

Obama is going to be looking pretty in good in retrospect.

Bala Perdida

22nd August 2015, 04:41

BIXX

22nd August 2015, 07:46

Lol is oneday a troll or just insane?

But seriously, a trump presidency would make a great time for America. Maybe not for like living standards or anything, but comedy.

Antiochus

22nd August 2015, 10:54

Yes, ok, they are all the same but I still feel uneasy thinking about the possibility of this clownish orangutan having nuclear launch codes.

Cliff Paul

22nd August 2015, 12:45

Lol is oneday a troll or just insane?

But seriously, a trump presidency would make a great time for America. Maybe not for like living standards or anything, but comedy.

:wub:

I actually said this the other day on tumblr and liberals lost their shit. Politicians are a joke and the difference between a Clinton presidency and a Trump presidency is probably so meager it doesn't really matter who wins. But a Trump presidency would be comedic gold.

Speaks for the people

22nd August 2015, 13:10

If Obama is the empire's Claudius (Claudius, in this sense, was swept to power with the anticipation of restoring the Roman republic, "change you can believe in", only to actually fully institutionalize the empire and thereby make it enduring), then Trump could be it's Nero...

How would a Trump presidency impact efforts to undermine the capitalist system within the US? Would it help boost the profile of anti-capitalists by revealing the decadence and arrogance of modern capitalism?

Hatshepsut

22nd August 2015, 14:30

The question isn't too worth pursuing as Donald Trump won't get the Republican nomination, which is most likely to go to Jeb Bush (although Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are still in the running). Despite all the pro-business leanings, the GOP has never fielded a businessman outside political office for president; past candidates have been state governors, senators, or vice president.

I think it's naive to dismiss by saying "it makes no difference who wins." Cynicism is tempting but in fact it does matter who's there. Not that the system will change either way: Chances for war, economic meltdown, and other events will change, however. Presidents appoint a lot of people to government posts; some of these are more competent than others. The Reagan Administration was damaging less because Reagan was such a bad guy himself than because his appointees from David Stockman to Alexander Haig to Ed Meese to Sam Pierce were all either thoroughly reactionary or totally corrupt. While Reagan, probably in the early stages of the dementia he eventually died from, proved nearly unable to rein in any of these cronies once the excesses began rolling.

oneday

22nd August 2015, 15:15

Lol is oneday a troll or just insane?

While one of those may be true, I didn't post anything in this thread. ? I guess you meant OnFire.

Asero

22nd August 2015, 15:22

I hope Deez Nuts (http://abc11.com/947054/) gets elected. He will lead America to glory never seen ever before.

BIXX

22nd August 2015, 16:39

While one of those may be true, I didn't post anything in this thread. ? I guess you meant OnFire.

You are correct, my bad.

ComradeAllende

22nd August 2015, 21:56

If Obama is the empire's Claudius (Claudius, in this sense, was swept to power with the anticipation of restoring the Roman republic, "change you can believe in", only to actually fully institutionalize the empire and thereby make it enduring), then Trump could be it's Nero...

So that makes Ronald Reagan our Augustus, Clinton our Tiberias, and George W. Bush our Caligula. Interesting. I can only assume that Richard Nixon played the tragic role of Caesar, no?

Rafiq

22nd August 2015, 22:05

One shouldn't underestimate the possibility of Trump being elected. And one shouldn't downplay, or dismiss how catastrophic this would be because he is a clown.

Trump is like the American Berlusconi. Sure, he's a clown, but it still works. Trump represents the total degradation of American politics (which is saying something) and encapsulates the basic idiosynchric character of American ideology - you make fun of yourself, but the positive aims being made fun of still work. That is to say, many will say 'merica, and the American chauvinism still functions as American chauvinism.

Not even his staunchest supporters take him "seriously" in the sense that they don't see he's a clown. I mean, to be dramatic, why not compare him to Fascism? Fascism was, after all, a clownish spectacle, something that couldn't take itself seriously in the sense that there was always a tacit recognition that it encapsulated a state of emergency - hence its overt irrationalism, posturing, and so on. And what's the basic appearance of Trump? That he's not a "puppet", that he's able to be independent by merit of his wealth, his populist fervor regarding immigration (And frankly from the apolitical, blind standpoint of US capital - it is IRRATIONAL to oppose immigration, anti-immigration politics is ALWAYS by nature demagogic) the US losing global hegemony to China, the latter "taking American jobs" and so on. Of course Trump will probably not make due, seriously, with any of these (perhaps besides immigration of course). The point is that people's anger is being re-directed in such a way that it focuses attention away from the Donald Trump's of our fine country.

Antiochus

22nd August 2015, 22:34

My fear is something akin to Charles VI of France. I mean, yes Trump and Hilary are two sides of the same coin, but that still doesn't change the fact Trump is a fucking moron of gargantuan proportions. This guy represents the lowest denominator of intelligence, rationality and sobriety in politics.

Yesterday I nearly threw my drink at some imbecile when I heard him saying that the reason Trump is so 'beloved' is because he is 'outside of the political mainstream'. Like, WHAT? What kind of a fucking mental eunuch do you have to be to think a billionaire that has received hundreds of millions in state subsidies and who bribes (and brags about it on national T.V) gov. officials is "outside the mainstream".

So that makes Ronald Reagan our Augustus

lol what... Ronald Reagan was, without a doubt, nothing like Augustus. Everything Reagan did ended in absolute failure, he simply lucked out with the fall of the USSR 2 years after his presidency ended (he was already senile by then). The only thing those two have in common is a great propaganda system, its just that Reagan's propaganda was absolute bullshit and not based on any actual 'achievements'.

Ceallach_the_Witch

22nd August 2015, 23:00

frankly i welcome our reptilian overlords

Sibotic

23rd August 2015, 10:11

There's a certain level on which a Trump Presidency could be amusing, you sort of wonder if there aren't other candidates who might represent a better kind of aesthetic flourish and independent subgenre, like for a specific instance Ed Milliband.

Synergy

24th August 2015, 04:06

Redistribute the Rep

24th August 2015, 07:27

ComradeAllende

24th August 2015, 07:47

My fear is something akin to Charles VI of France. I mean, yes Trump and Hilary are two sides of the same coin, but that still doesn't change the fact Trump is a fucking moron of gargantuan proportions. This guy represents the lowest denominator of intelligence, rationality and sobriety in politics.

The sad part is that most of his supporters are (white) working class males with little to no education, which essentially takes up the vast majority of the American proletariat. This illustrates not only the reactionary tendencies of the white proletariat but also the failure of the American left to engage a large segment of its political base.

lol what... Ronald Reagan was, without a doubt, nothing like Augustus. Everything Reagan did ended in absolute failure, he simply lucked out with the fall of the USSR 2 years after his presidency ended (he was already senile by then). The only thing those two have in common is a great propaganda system, its just that Reagan's propaganda was absolute bullshit and not based on any actual 'achievements'.

Only said that to keep it within living memory (and within the neoliberal era). I guess Reagan could be Nero and Truman could be Tiberias (with FDR as Augustus), leaving Nixon as Caligula, and Eisenhower as Claudius (at least in the early years).

ComradeAllende

24th August 2015, 07:48

I think it'd be funny if he won because it would just show everybody what a joke this country is. On the other hand, trump's an annoying man baby and I don't want to give him the satisfaction of winning. He's like that spoiled kid that nobody wants to see get a new toy from his parents.

Part of me wants him to win just to see how he'd rule; honestly, given the candidates already running, Trump seems like the most interesting and the most effective. Sanders and the Democrats can't get anything past a GOP Congress, and none of the Repubs are as insane/ambitious as he is (although a few come close).

piet11111

24th August 2015, 10:24

I am just curious how much damage he can do to american international politics.

Sasha

24th August 2015, 10:42

unless the democrats nominate someone people beyond their core-base cant bother to go out and vote for and the republicans nominate someone most of these people either can vote for or at least dont go out of their way to vote against the repubs cant win a presidential election anymore due to simple demographics, if black and hispanic voters go out to vote the democrats win unless the repubs can win enough hispanic voters.
Trump already pissed off way to many hispanic voters to win, they will not vote for him and if he gets the nomination enough will go out and hold their nose and vote for the democratic nominee just to get back at him.
the only solution the repubs have is either make it so boring that everyone but the two parties hardcore go out to vote (see midterm elections), make it impossible for blacks and hispanics to vote (see midterm elections) or actually engage with at least some of the hispanics (which they hoped to do with Bush and Rubio but failed spectacular thanks to Trump)

Gunsmas

24th August 2015, 12:22

Trump getting the nomination is highly unlikely but even if he does there is no way he'll win the general election. He's way too toxic for the national stage and has said so many awful remarks over the years that the Democrats will have no problem destroying his image.

People keep saying this but his numbers in General polls keep improving. The election is a long way away but some polls have shown him in the lead in Michigan against Hillary.

Comrade Jacob

24th August 2015, 13:21

Deez Nuts 2016!

Gunsmas

24th August 2015, 15:42

Deez Nuts 2016!

Deez nuts has already pulled out.

Ceallach_the_Witch

24th August 2015, 17:11

looking at how crap the future seems to be shaping up anyway I might actually be relieved when this fucking cartoon character provokes nuclear armageddon

Hatshepsut

24th August 2015, 17:58

People keep saying this but his numbers in General polls keep improving. The election is a long way away...

In America's perpetual three-ring campaign circus, welcome to the sideshow called The Year before the Election. In October 2007, Hillary Clinton kept a commanding lead over Obama and the Gallup pulse-takers said,

"Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year."

- http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx

A few weeks later the unexpected came along. In 2011, National Review was talking about then-Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty as the conservative darling of the day.

Trump has the money but not the Republican credentials. Five years ago he was a Democrat singing an entirely different song. If falling behind he may, however, run as an independent, robbing the Republicans of enough votes to cause a Dem win, as with billionaire Ross Perot in 1992. (Ralph Nader had a similar effect on Gore in 2000, although he never tried for the Dem nomination.)

You're right on that the politically uneducated and reactionary American proletariat loves Trump's "send the Mexicans home and wall off the Rio Grande" rhetoric. Yet the middle class, about 35% of the electorate, already know Trump's about as genuine as his bankrupt Florida condo towers are.

Comrade Jacob

24th August 2015, 18:00

Deez nuts has already pulled out.

Is that a pun? lel

Art Vandelay

24th August 2015, 21:44

People keep saying this but his numbers in General polls keep improving. The election is a long way away but some polls have shown him in the lead in Michigan against Hillary.

People keep looking for one of the insane statements he makes to hurt him in the polls, but on the contrary the opposite continues to happen. Rolling Stone had a pretty good article on it recently that could be summed up as: the republican race has turned into a fucking circus and the more a candidate says outlandish things, the further they rise in the polls. The only candidates that seem to get this so far, are Trump and - albeit to a lesser extent - Huckabee. It's impossible to say what will happen and obviously the general election is a whole other ball game, but folks shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Trump. The man has a genuine chance at getting the nomination.

Gunsmas

24th August 2015, 22:38

Is that a pun? lel

Both serious and a pun.

Have you heard about Bofa?

Speaks for the people

24th August 2015, 23:39

Why yes, that is exactly what I was postulating :laugh:. Poor Carter and Ford were I think among those other misc ones from the triumvirate's, like Mark Antony and Crassus. The parallels are indeed rather amusing (or frightening) to consider...

So that makes Ronald Reagan our Augustus, Clinton our Tiberias, and George W. Bush our Caligula. Interesting. I can only assume that Richard Nixon played the tragic role of Caesar, no?

lutraphile

25th August 2015, 03:45

There is legitimately scary potential out of Trump's movement. As for Trump himself, the whole campaign is an ego trip, I doubt he believes half of what he says (he once said Romney was too far right on immigration), but he is laying bare the fact that there is a terrifying faction of the GOP that holds more sway than the media would have you think. If Trump forms a third party as he has threatened to do, or more terrifyingly if the party bosses can't stop him winning the nomination, than there is a real chance the openly racist, overtly nationalistic far-right will take over a lot of the country.

It is easy to discount Trump as a sideshow, but the Democratic Party is in crisis. Clinton, representing the party's center-right wing, is insanely unpopular among independents yet leads the primary by a fair amount and could legitimately lose to Trump if she continues to have corruption scandals and ethical inquiries surround her. Biden, representing the party's centrist wing, is probably the best general election candidate, but isn't polling too well in the primary. The party's center-left wing is obviously where most US socialists' support lies in the form of Sanders, but in a right-wing country like America, he could be portrayed as as far left as Trump is far right. Trump DOES have a shot if he wins the nomination and has a chance to form a far-right movement even if he doesn't. He could destroy the Republican Party, but if it instead embraces him or if his movement displaces it, this could get very bad indeed.

N. Tweed

25th August 2015, 05:35

lol what... Ronald Reagan was, without a doubt, nothing like Augustus. Everything Reagan did ended in absolute failure, he simply lucked out with the fall of the USSR 2 years after his presidency ended (he was already senile by then). The only thing those two have in common is a great propaganda system, its just that Reagan's propaganda was absolute bullshit and not based on any actual 'achievements'.

I can't intelligently discuss ancient Greece, but I'd contest the idea that the Reagan presidency was a failure. Reagan was the face of a corporate coup d'etat and had a long-lasting impact on the logic of the state. we are still mired in Reagan's low-growth, low-inflation, capital-intensive, highly financialized economy.

in the sense of changing the logic of the state, he was the most successful US president since FDR, imo.

Hatshepsut

25th August 2015, 13:05

in the sense of changing the logic of the state, he was the most successful US president since FDR, imo.

I think it’s Rome, not Greece. But Reagan versus FDR in terms of policy upheaval is a more thoughtful comment than most of what’s gone onto the board about Donald Trumptowers. The phase shift to de-industrialization seems to have started about then, with 1985 as the USA’s first postwar current account deficit year and the year when it went from net global creditor to being a debtor country. Much of what Reagan failed to do gained air during the Newt Gingrich “Contract” Congress of 1995-1997, acting “in the Gipper’s dear memory,” so to say.

Gotya

31st August 2015, 08:19

lutraphile

6th September 2015, 07:41

He won't win. His own party does not want him. People in the RNC have money too. I think they uninvited him to an event a few weeks ago. I don't even know if he takes himself seriously. He won't get in Jeb's way because he does not hate the Bush clan like Perot hated them. Trump will get a new piece of ass and will tire of this shortly.

A LOT of the base is rebelling against the party machine. Fiorina, Huckabee, Carson, and Cruz (who I personally think is more terrifying than Trump), combined with Trump are currently polling at 65%. These are all very much not the candidates the RNC wants nominated- Bush, Rubio, Kasich or Walker.

The party is losing control of the monster it has created I think... If, say, Trump wins New Hampshire and South Carolina and Carson wins Iowa, I think the party will be forced to throw itself behind Carson to stop Trump. And if Trump wins all three, I don't know if the party can stop him anymore, though I suspect the RNC's move then would be to try and force all the established candidates but one out or even force them all out and try and get Romney to run.

P.S. I apologize in advance to everyone and to my own ideals, but in a Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Cruz election I would totally vote for Clinton.

Gotya

10th September 2015, 05:12

A LOT of the base is rebelling against the party machine. Fiorina, Huckabee, Carson, and Cruz (who I personally think is more terrifying than Trump), combined with Trump are currently polling at 65%. These are all very much not the candidates the RNC wants nominated- Bush, Rubio, Kasich or Walker.

The party is losing control of the monster it has created I think... If, say, Trump wins New Hampshire and South Carolina and Carson wins Iowa, I think the party will be forced to throw itself behind Carson to stop Trump. And if Trump wins all three, I don't know if the party can stop him anymore, though I suspect the RNC's move then would be to try and force all the established candidates but one out or even force them all out and try and get Romney to run.

P.S. I apologize in advance to everyone and to my own ideals, but in a Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Cruz election I would totally vote for Clinton.

People are not rebelling at all. People will end up voting for the same bland, vanilla candidates year after year. The people who do well with this pre-election populism just don't get elected. Even though Trump is another ho-hum flavor of vanilla, he has no chance. Clinton will also not get nominated. Biden will be the nominee against Bush.

lutraphile

10th September 2015, 17:44

I doubt Trump will get the nomination. But I can see it getting to the point where Carson or Cruz is the "compromise" candidate pretty easily. In fact, I think Cruz is the most likely nominee.

nomoba

10th September 2015, 19:20

http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2015/09/trump-et-al-pure-sample-of-neoliberal.html

BIXX

10th September 2015, 19:27

Care to give a concise summary?

willowtooth

11th September 2015, 04:57

I love donald trump and so should you

Os Cangaceiros

11th September 2015, 07:50

I think it's pretty funny how fast Hillary Clinton's political fortunes have taken a turn for the worse.

Antiochus

11th September 2015, 21:56

I doubt Trump will get the nomination. But I can see it getting to the point where Carson or Cruz is the "compromise" candidate pretty easily. In fact, I think Cruz is the most likely nominee.

That would be worse, imo. Cruz and Trump are both, more or less, insane. However, Trump is fairly comical and funny. It would be like watching those vines with people almost killing themselves doing stupid shit.

Synergy

12th September 2015, 02:52

Can't stump the Trump.

MarxSchmarx

12th September 2015, 03:27

Can't stump the Trump.

You're new here, so I won't harp on it, but perhaps you'd care to elaborate? In general we discourage people from regurgitating empty slogans.

My own view is that there is some truth to this. The guy is obviously in it for the publicity, so he's on a "there's no bad publicity" binge and whatever is done to take him down can't damage his brand any further in North America.

Plutocracy at its finest.

Anywho, we have a rule against one-liners, so for future reference perspectives like this should have some greater depth or you risk it being classified as spam on the board.

WideAwake

12th September 2015, 07:29

Yeah, I think you are right about the excess of conformism in the general population of America, specially in the lower classes. By the way today I was watching a speech in channel 9415 Free Speech TV in a show called Pirate Television, about the excess of avoidant mentality of people. I think that people in America hate reality and love to avoid problems, people in America are not dumb, they know that Republicans, Democrats, capitalism (Some people call it corporatism), CIA, FBI, wars and the whole US government and corporations are evil but they just hate to face that fact, and avoid it completely and escape to a more comfortable world thru movies, hobbies, sports and pleasures.

I think another cause of why people in America are not rebelling is that there is not an objective revolutionary situation in U.S right now. I think we need to see a worse economic crisis, in order for poor americans to rebel

People are not rebelling at all. People will end up voting for the same bland, vanilla candidates year after year. The people who do well with this pre-election populism just don't get elected. Even though Trump is another ho-hum flavor of vanilla, he has no chance. Clinton will also not get nominated. Biden will be the nominee against Bush.

Hatshepsut

12th September 2015, 12:51

If, say, Trump wins New Hampshire and South Carolina and Carson wins Iowa, I think the party will be forced to throw itself behind Carson to stop Trump....

We can dismiss Ben Carson here. To see one of his mistakes, Google up his campaign website which starts with “Endorse Me and I'll Send You a Bumper Sticker.” This is a full page ad where you have to fill in blanks before you can see the rest, so I won’t see any more. He’s probably losing a couple thousand older voters each hour he leaves that up on his server as result of this bit of political inexperience.

Campaign web site, retrieved Sep. 12, ’15
https://www.bencarson.com/landing/sf/page-ga?gclid=COvP7oqx8ccCFVc2aQodJXwIdg

Next he disses the black voters, whose BLM shindig is too narrow in his opinion:

MSNBC Sep. 12, ’15: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-black-lives-matters-scope-too-narrow

LuÃs Henrique

12th September 2015, 14:21

As recently as a month ago, statistics wizard Nate Silver was telling us that Trump is unelectable because of his favourability ratings. And Trump was doing much worse when matched against Hillary in the polls, when compared to Bush or Paul. According to conventional wisdom, Trump was a "surge" candidate like Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Ginrich or Santorum were in 2011/12.

I always smelled fish with such line of reasoning. Romney, with all his enormous un-charisma, was always a viable candidate in the last election cycle. He was always either leading, or at a rather stable second place. Republicans realised that he was their only chance of winning the election, and while they were not fascinated by the perspective, they went with it, because they reasoned that winning with Romney was a lesser evil than losing with anyone else.

But Romney lost anyway, so they probably now think they should have sticked with one of the crazies, and lost with some dignity.

And so something is likely to have cracked in the period. The Republican rebellion in 2011 was expressed by demagogues - but demagogues who happened to be also professional politicians. The least qualified of them (and the one who made the least impressive run) was Michelle Bachmann, a longstanding House representative.

Today, all the professional politicians are far behind Trump and Carson. This is not a coincidence, I think. There is not just a rejection of moderation and reasonability, but a rejection of politics as a whole.

I am certainly not saying that Trump or Carson will be the nominee; but the task of getting someone else nominated seems much more herculean now than in 2012. I can't see Bush, Kasich, Rubio, or even Cruz, being able to stand to such task (I could have seen Walker or Paul, but the former seems to have been seriously damaged by something I failed to notice, and is becoming an ex-candidate at an impressive speed; and the latter, rather stupidly, seems to have chosen a tactic of pretending to be a mainstream Republican, exactly when the rank-and-file seems to be fed up with anything that remotely resembles mainstream).

In 2011, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Ginrich, Santorum, all rose and fell; they rose as a result of the deep discontent in the Republican base, and they fell as a result of realisation that they were not, after all, the adequate vehicle for such discontent.

My impression is that today the discontent prefers to be expressed by an inadequate vehicle than to not be expressed at all. Such impression is reinforced by two phenomena that Nate Silver couldn't predict: first, Trump favourability rates have improved with his increased exposition - and his gaffes, if gaffes they are, seem to reflect positively on him. Cain or Perry wouldn't be able to publicly discuss the menstrual cycle of a TV journalist; Trump seems to be, and to capitalise on it. Second, and most worrysome, Trump now compares favourably with Bush or Kasich or any other "moderate" (man, does it sound awful to call a guy surnamed "Bush" a "moderate"...) when matched against Hillary or Biden or Sanders. So even the "electability" argument seems now gone.

Hopefully, Trump gets the nomination and the GOP splits, with its "establishment" wing going with Bush or Christe or a resurrected Romney, spoiling the right's campaign, and perhaps putting the Republicans in their deserved path to extinction.

Not so hopefully, we get a Trump or Carson presidency, with renewed State jingoism and completely crazed foreign policies. It may become unhealthier than it already is to be at the wrong end of American missiles and drones.

Luís Henrique

Hatshepsut

13th September 2015, 00:56

Romney, with all his enormous un-charisma, was always a viable candidate in the last election cycle.

Romney had actual credentials Trump lacks, however. He had been Governor of Massachussets, where he put through an Obama-like health care plan, and he salvaged the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic bid from Tom Welch's kickback corruption and wife-beating. This gave him possibilities to garner Dem switch voters. His constant waffling that culminated with the famous "47% comment" probably did him in at last.

While an upset Trump win cannot be ruled out, early polls are notoriously poor predictors for election year and I suspect voters are marking him up right now over dissatisfaction with lack of clear, simple visions in today's politics, a thirst he assuages. Trump's theatrics will hurt him when he has to get down to business next year against establishment opponents who will savage his positions at that time. And his integrity, when they point out he hires undocumented immigrants. As reactionary as Americans are, few are behind Trump from a philosophical standpoint. He wants to play old-school conservative cards the conservatives have long since abandoned.

WideAwake

13th September 2015, 02:28

Wow, what a great analysis about Donald Trump and The Republican Party, you are right on how that crazy party will be destroyed. However since millions of americans have deep ingrained in their brains the thinking that in the free markets they can become as rich as Bill Gates by working real hard. And that mental virus is still in the minds of millions of people in U.S. along with many other anti-communism mental viruses, (along with the economic failures of many socialist experiments (USSR, Venezuela, Brazil, etc.) people are still a little bit affraid (And they have a right to be, because many communist experiments have failed in 20th Century and even in 21st Century).

And also because most radical leftist parties of America do not have a great marketing image, since most leftist parties,leftist leaders and representatives of the marxism and radical left are so unknown, so hidden from public eye, americans like most humans who are economically desperate choose the only visible options. That's like people in interstate highways who eat at Mcdonalds and the other famous fast food restaurants. Because those are the only available political options.

And in the whole world things are like that, the marxist left, the ultra-left is still unable to get their act together, to unite, and to offer the masses an alternative to capitalist parties, and an alternative to social-democratic parties

As recently as a month ago, statistics wizard Nate Silver was telling us that Trump is unelectable because of his favourability ratings. And Trump was doing much worse when matched against Hillary in the polls, when compared to Bush or Paul. According to conventional wisdom, Trump was a "surge" candidate like Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Ginrich or Santorum were in 2011/12.

I always smelled fish with such line of reasoning. Romney, with all his enormous un-charisma, was always a viable candidate in the last election cycle. He was always either leading, or at a rather stable second place. Republicans realised that he was their only chance of winning the election, and while they were not fascinated by the perspective, they went with it, because they reasoned that winning with Romney was a lesser evil than losing with anyone else.

But Romney lost anyway, so they probably now think they should have sticked with one of the crazies, and lost with some dignity.

And so something is likely to have cracked in the period. The Republican rebellion in 2011 was expressed by demagogues - but demagogues who happened to be also professional politicians. The least qualified of them (and the one who made the least impressive run) was Michelle Bachmann, a longstanding House representative.

Today, all the professional politicians are far behind Trump and Carson. This is not a coincidence, I think. There is not just a rejection of moderation and reasonability, but a rejection of politics as a whole.

I am certainly not saying that Trump or Carson will be the nominee; but the task of getting someone else nominated seems much more herculean now than in 2012. I can't see Bush, Kasich, Rubio, or even Cruz, being able to stand to such task (I could have seen Walker or Paul, but the former seems to have been seriously damaged by something I failed to notice, and is becoming an ex-candidate at an impressive speed; and the latter, rather stupidly, seems to have chosen a tactic of pretending to be a mainstream Republican, exactly when the rank-and-file seems to be fed up with anything that remotely resembles mainstream).

In 2011, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Ginrich, Santorum, all rose and fell; they rose as a result of the deep discontent in the Republican base, and they fell as a result of realisation that they were not, after all, the adequate vehicle for such discontent.

My impression is that today the discontent prefers to be expressed by an inadequate vehicle than to not be expressed at all. Such impression is reinforced by two phenomena that Nate Silver couldn't predict: first, Trump favourability rates have improved with his increased exposition - and his gaffes, if gaffes they are, seem to reflect positively on him. Cain or Perry wouldn't be able to publicly discuss the menstrual cycle of a TV journalist; Trump seems to be, and to capitalise on it. Second, and most worrysome, Trump now compares favourably with Bush or Kasich or any other "moderate" (man, does it sound awful to call a guy surnamed "Bush" a "moderate"...) when matched against Hillary or Biden or Sanders. So even the "electability" argument seems now gone.

Hopefully, Trump gets the nomination and the GOP splits, with its "establishment" wing going with Bush or Christe or a resurrected Romney, spoiling the right's campaign, and perhaps putting the Republicans in their deserved path to extinction.

Not so hopefully, we get a Trump or Carson presidency, with renewed State jingoism and completely crazed foreign policies. It may become unhealthier than it already is to be at the wrong end of American missiles and drones.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

13th September 2015, 22:09

Romney had actual credentials Trump lacks, however. He had been Governor of Massachussets, where he put through an Obama-like health care plan, and he salvaged the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic bid from Tom Welch's kickback corruption and wife-beating. This gave him possibilities to garner Dem switch voters. His constant waffling that culminated with the famous "47% comment" probably did him in at last.

Well, of course Romney had actual credentials, that was the point. Just like Jeb Bush, Kasich, Christie, even Walker, have. But unlike Romney they don't look like viable candidates.

What the Republican rank-and-file seems to want, as of now, is exactly a candidate with no credentials.

Luís Henrique

Hatshepsut

14th September 2015, 00:05

What the Republican rank-and-file seems to want, as of now, is exactly a candidate with no credentials.

Leaving only the question of whether they'll still want that in January. There's an interesting switch to proportional polling in some early GOP primaries, where more than one candidate can win delegates at New Hampshire, noted in

Howard Gold @ Market Watch, Jul. 29
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-separate-the-viable-presidential-candidates-from-the-trolls-and-also-rans-2015-07-29

Gold didn't think Trump had what a nomination requires. I'm unsure how much additional strength Trump has now compared to 7 weeks ago; his and Carson's current lead is really quite impressive:

Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Polling attention is heavily centered on Iowa, New Hampshire, & S. Carolina, the first states. Florida, Georgia, & Pennsylvania have been covered once in the last month. Despite the lead, we only know, for instance, that 27% are for Trump now; a win requires 50%. That's part of what makes early results unreliable; much better pictures come when a poll has fewer choices on the menu.

Is Trump's lead a function of voters seeing so much more of Trump's own stumping right now? Everything Trump says or does pretty much goes unchallenged. The other candidates have given him a lot of slack; attacks I expect later haven't come yet. I think the reason is that an attack, like a cartridge in a gun, is good once. So Bush and Cruz don't want to use their ammo this early; they'll wait until closer to primary time when attacks and revelations about Trump's past are more effective against him in the actual polls.

Os Cangaceiros

14th September 2015, 00:24

Hopefully, Trump gets the nomination and the GOP splits, with its "establishment" wing going with Bush or Christe or a resurrected Romney

I believe that Romney has stated publicly that he won't be involved in this election cycle.

Hatshepsut

15th September 2015, 15:10

We've heard a continuous drumbeat of "Teflon Trump" since he mounted his first soapbox, but unlike the Rose Law Firm and the womanizing stories with Clinton in 1992, Trump's shady business dealings have fairly good chances of destroying him when they are recalled to voter attention, perhaps around mid-November. Just follow the real estate trail:

Trump Tower N.Y.C., 1980s

Using fake name in business negotiations. Not illegal, but questionable.
Undocumented Polish immigrants w/o safety gear on demolition of Bonwit Teller
Hired concrete firm owned by Gambino crime family. And oddly, this building uses more concrete than most skyscrapers do.

Trump Tower Toronto, 2015

Being sued for overstating potential resale profits to investor-buyers of apartments and his company may face criminal charges in Canada pending results of investigation.

lutraphile

15th September 2015, 22:57

Just a chart I made for non-Americans of candidates

Candidates (Who have held major office, generated major news, and/or have polled at 1% or more)

Democratic:
Former Sen. Jim Webb (VA) Campaign Site (http://webb2016.com/) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) Campaign Site (http://berniesanders.com/) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders)
Former Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY) Campaign Site (http://hillaryclinton.com/) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)
Former Gov. Martin O'Malley (MD) Campaign Site (http://martinomalley.com/) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O'Malley)
Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee Campaign Site (http://www.chafee2016.com/) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee)
Professor Larry Lessig Campaign Site (http://lessigforpresident.com/) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Lessig)

Last national poll: Clinton 42% Sanders 24% Biden 21% O'Malley 2% Webb 1%
Last Iowa poll: Sanders 43% Clinton 33% Biden 10% O'Malley 5% Webb 1%
Last New Hampshire poll: Sanders 43% Clinton 36% Biden 13% O'Malley 2% Webb 1%
Last South Carolina poll: Clinton 46% Sanders 23% Biden 22% Webb 1% O'Malley 0%

Republican:
Former Gov. Jeb Bush (FL) Campaign Site (jebbush.com) | Biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush)
Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) Campaign Site (tedcruz.org) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz)
Sen. Rand Paul (KY) Campaign Site (randpaul.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul)
Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) Campaign Site (marcorubio.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio)
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson (MD) Campaign Site (bencarson.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson)
Businesswoman Carly Fiorina (CA) Campaign Site (carlyforpresident.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina)
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR) Campaign Site (mikehuckabee.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee)
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) Campaign Site (ricksantorum.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum)
Former Gov. George Pataki (NY) Campaign Site (georgepataki.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pataki)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) Campaign Site (lindseygraham.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham)
Businessman Donald Trump (NY) Campaign Site (donaldjtrump.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump)
Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) Campaign Site (bobbyjindal.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal)
Gov. Chris Christie (NJ) Campaign Site (chrischristie.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie)
Gov. Scott Walker (WI) Campaign Site (scottwalker.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker)
Gov. John Kasich (OH) Campaign Site (johnkasich.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich)
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore (VA) Campaign Site (gilmoreforamerica.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilmore)
Former IRS commissioner Mark Everson (MS) Campaign Site (markforamerica.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Everson)
Gov. Rick Perry (TX) Campaign Site (rickperry.org) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry)

Last national poll: Trump 27% Carson 23% Bush 6% Rubio 6% Huckabee 6%
Last Iowa poll: Trump 29% Carson 25% Cruz 10% Rubio 6% Walker 5%
Last New Hampshire poll: Trump 28% Carson 17% Kasich 11% Cruz 8% Bush 7%
Last South Carolina poll: Trump 36% Carson 21% Cruz 6% Bush 5% Graham 5%

Other:
Activist Jill Stein (MA) Campaign Site (jill2016.com) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein)
Activist Nathan Norman Campaign Site (https://citizennorman.wordpress.com/) | Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Norman)
CIA agent Robert Steele Campaign Site (robertdavidsteele.com) | Biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele)
Activist Gloria La Riva Campaign Site (http://www.votepsl.org/) | Biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_La_Riva)

General election match ups:
Clinton 46% Trump 43%
Bush 49% Clinton 47%
Biden 54% Trump 44%
Biden 52% Bush 44%
Trump 44% Sanders 40%
Bush 41% Sanders 40%

Synergy

16th September 2015, 01:45

You're new here, so I won't harp on it, but perhaps you'd care to elaborate? In general we discourage people from regurgitating empty slogans.

Anywho, we have a rule against one-liners, so for future reference perspectives like this should have some greater depth or you risk it being classified as spam on the board.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood my post as being serious. I originally came from the Something Awful forums (in specific the LF subforum aka laissez faire) which was dedicated largely to making fun of right-wing politics. It got very popular with thousands of people viewing it at any given time and eventually the libertarian owner closed it so we were forced to find other leftist communities. I picked Revleft despite it having a reputation for being very serious. I was hoping to lighten this place up a bit by introducing more humor but if that isn't welcome in Politics I guess I can keep it in Chit Chat.

contracycle

16th September 2015, 09:13

Those things only matter if the people who vote for him pay attention to reportage on them, and they won't. If they ever hear of them, they will dismiss them as lies of the "liberal mainstream media."

He's been courting the evangelical vote, but when asked to cite his favourite biblical verse, he blatantly flanneled and refused to answer. This has not diminished his popularity one iota.

I don't think Trump should be written off, terrifying as the prospect may be.

Hatshepsut

20th September 2015, 17:16

The Trump submarine may have opened its tanks for the dive to the bottom of the ocean. Latest polls:

Politico, Sep. 20
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/cnn-poll-donald-trump-carly-fiorina-scott-walker-213859

lutraphile

20th September 2015, 18:27

2 new polls today show Trump still with a large lead- once again, his candidacy defies the party's attempts to kill it.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

20th September 2015, 20:18

Synergy

21st September 2015, 03:52

John Nada

21st September 2015, 08:21

[
A question for American comrades: what is the actual state of Republican politics in the US? I mean, is it actually for real that the majority of grassroots Republicans actually want Trump as President?

He's not only extreme, he really is an extreme idiot. One of the bird shits that simply got lucky in life.Perfect candidate for the Republicans. This embodies everything they represent. A rich, racist, sexist, entitled, ignorant fuck and demagogue who's only platform is blaming everything on Mexicans.

"Grassroots"(it's not a mass party) Republican supporters tend to support them on a few issues alone, like religion, taxes, "help small business owners", "tough on crime", racism/jingoism/xenophobia(it's the party of white people), nationalism, ect. Not for some deep philosophical and logical reasons, but because their ideology is simplistic demagoguery that appeals to "common sense" that can come across as smarter than it really is to a political layperson. It's a party of the petit-bourgeoisie, haute-bourgeoisie and sections of the labor aristocracy, whitest part too.

To put things in perspective, all the Republican canadidates claim to be creationists, including Rand Paul and Ben Carson, both doctors: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_g uide/

lutraphile

2nd October 2015, 02:55

A question for American comrades: what is the actual state of Republican politics in the US? I mean, is it actually for real that the majority of grassroots Republicans actually want Trump as President?

He's not only extreme, he really is an extreme idiot. One of the bird shits that simply got lucky in life.
Yes. Paleoconservatism and neo-fascism have become increasingly mainstream in political discourse in the US. The majority of Republicans are very receptive to Trump's ideas and those that aren't, honest to god, have the main complaint that he is not right wing enough (due to him being a moderate in the past). The party has lost control of its constituents, and the Republicans are in danger of moving from the right-wing space they already occupy to the far-right. The vast majority of Republicans on the street are on board with stopping all immigration and removing rights from minorities. In North Carolina (a swing state), 72% of them believe Obama is waging a war on Christianity. That same number wants to make it illegal for a Muslim to be president. 40% of them want to make Islam illegal altogether- an equal number do not. (Source (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_92915.pdf))

The plus side of this is that the Democrats will probably win Presidential elections for the forseeable future and open the door for a party to their left. The down side is that we're one shitty Democratic presidential candidate away- and Clinton is a pretty bad one- from the GOP controlling all three houses.

WideAwake

2nd October 2015, 07:19

And I think that the way most right-wing white european nationalist xenophobic americans behave (specially Republican Party baseball, soccer, hockey and football family-narcissist mothers and fathers) behave is a lot worse than the way nationalist anti-jewish germans behave. Because at least the nationalist germans were honests about their ultra-nationalism. But most right-wing white europeans americans behave like if they were internationalists, tolerant, non-racists, but are closet-nazis. There is still a lot of hatred of white americans, specially white european americans with blonde hair and blue eyes to preserve the physical looks of Anne Coulter and Taylor Swift in their families, by not hanging around with non-white people and by voting into the US government anti-immigrations, anti-food-stamps, anti-welfare services, politicians.

In other words because racist americans do not want to come out of their racist closets and because they are either too shy or too scared to hate themselves latinos, blacks and non-whites. What they do is that they use politicians, the US Armed Force, the ultra-right wing national police departments, pro-death penalty politicians etc. To kill black, muslims and non-white people.

You know there are lots of high-wage middle class workers like doctors, lawyers and even nurses who are ultra-right wingers. I have a female cousin who is a doctor and lives in the ultra-right wing state of North Carolina and she donates a lot of money to The Republican Party. I think that she (like most doctors, lawyers and high income workers) hates lower-class people, but instead of physically hurting lower-class people herself, what right-wingers do is to vote into the US government politicians who will repress and hurt those people that Republican Party voters hate (muslims, blacks etc)

There is a lot of hatred in America, because the country is not a united nation with all americans feeling like they are part of one big family. Most people in USA do not have national identity and they only care about their own family

I fear that Donald Trump as President could be just the opening act. Yes, we could live to see a Fourth Reich rising in the USA:

First Rome was Rome
Second Rome was Byzantium
Third Rome was Moscow
Fourth Rome is Washington

First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire
Second Reich was the German Empire
Third Reich was Nazi Germany
Fourth Reich: Anglo-Saxon America ?

Many Americans view their nation similarly to the way that Germans used to view their nation. They saw Germany as "above everything in the world." That proclamation was literally the title of the German national anthem: Deutschland über Alles.

Americans tend to be xenophobic whether most want to openly admit it or not, mostly against third world immigrants and people of colour.

If America decided to go full-on Reich mode domestically, literally nobody could stop them. The American military, when unleashed, is the most lethal killing machine in human history. The US military isn't cucked by a World War. One can be sure that the "charismatic leader" Trump would use the military to its full potential if his rule over the American people was ever threatened.

Emmett Till

2nd October 2015, 21:01

They're pretty much the embodiment of capitalism in the flesh, with a smile. They can get away with lying about everything because the media conglomerates here give them softball questions and even if they get asked something important they can just avoid it or lie outright again without a follow up. Most Republicans are probably single issue voters (anti-abortion) or are so filled with misinformation from right-wing media that they end up voting against their own best interests. Just consider that some 43% of Republicans still think Obama is a Muslim. The propaganda is strong here.

So yeah, a lot of Republicans actually want Trump as president because he doesn't hold back his openly racist/sexist/etc thoughts that resonate with some of the more bigoted parts of the population.

This is true, but it leaves out something important. Except for Sanders, he is the only candidate calling for taxing the rich. White racist male chauvinist xenophobes in America who are willing to actually say what they are thinking tend to be working class, and are not as stupid as many American leftists think.

Most of the actual bourgeoisie are slicker. And most Americans of whatever persuasion think, correctly, that all politicians are liars, so Trump actually saying out loud what everyone knows the rest of 'em are thinking comes off as a breath of fresh air.

However, as the financial scams he is involved in are coming out, like "Trump University," I think his popularity will decline. That stuff really bothers working class people of all persuasions, as it hits 'em in the wallet, where it hurts.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

2nd October 2015, 22:43

A question for American comrades: what is the actual state of Republican politics in the US? I mean, is it actually for real that the majority of grassroots Republicans actually want Trump as President?

He's not only extreme, he really is an extreme idiot. One of the bird shits that simply got lucky in life.

His political line is definitely viewed with hostility by America's conservative hierarchy. He threatens an important pool of labor (undocumented workers), his diplomatic proposals show little consideration of the important relations the US has built with economic and military allies. Basically, he really threatens to undermine their interests.

The problem for them is that they've been using an increasingly embittered white working/small business class in parts of the country as a vote bank. The GOP elites do this by whipping up the prejudices of this population, without actually offering a means to realize their objectives (i.e, demonizing illegal immigrants without ever actually working to deport them or to solve the situation). Rightwing news outlets were complicit in this too (particularly Fox, but others as well). Thus, they politicize the base to the right of where they actually stand. As such, the elites have created a great opportunity for "outsider" conservative figures who seem more committed to these beliefs to challenge the "insider" candidates.

If Trump were to actually be elected, it would be a sign of severe systemic dysfunction in the US. Previous presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, have been fairly consistent hands on the wheel. The elites don't want someone like Trump since he will destabilize an internal and international status quo they spent decades to cultivate, and a fairly sizable portion of the general electorate doesn't, either. There are parts of the country where Trump is nothing more than a joke. The question is whether or not he can leverage his wealth to survive at the top of the Republican race (which seems plausible, though hardly inevitable today), and whether he can then go on to defeat the Democrat candidate (unlikely, but with a couple misstatements or scandals it could still be a possibility)

Aslan

3rd October 2015, 01:52

actually there was a president who took over a country and was quite similar to Trump success. His name is Silvio Berlusconi and he was a complete joke. I doubt Trump will win. He seems like him...

-=56=-

4th October 2015, 13:15

Hahaha. Can't believe you Americans get so riled up by his campaign. I don't think this guy knows what country he currently resides and lives in to begin with. I would be surprised if he knew left from right, both the directions and political positions.

God damn, where I come from they do not even have clowns in circus like that, hence my request: ship people like that, I will make proper use of them.

Synergy

7th October 2015, 02:27

God damn, where I come from they do not even have clowns in circus like that, hence my request: ship people like that, I will make proper use of them.

If we give you Trump then what are you going to give us? Would a Golden Retriever be fair?

-=56=-

8th October 2015, 18:59

If we give you Trump then what are you going to give us? Would a Golden Retriever be fair?

Even if you would want a shrubbery, then I would get you a shrubbery for Trump.

Don't get me wrong, but it is not often I come across a walking, breathing and talking contradiction. Fine addition to my circus and since I do not use animals for entertainment, Trump is a sought acquisition.

I have it all figured out. I am going to showcase him and whenever people are going to want to hear what he has to say on certain topic, they're going to have insert a coin in the slot machine.

OnFire

7th November 2015, 14:50

http://2new3.fjcdn.com/pictures/Future+of+america+kanye+for+pres+x_9c69f0_5683642. jpg

Synergy

8th November 2015, 01:15

I personally will be voting for the inanimate carbon rod in 2028 and I hope you will too.

http://i.imgur.com/Weh835N.jpg
http://imgur.com/Weh835N

Aslan

8th November 2015, 03:46

Here's whats in store for the presidency:

Quote from the telegraph from interview to Dr. Carson about who built the pyramids:

During his 1998 speech, Carson told graduates: "My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain.
"Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it.
"And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain."

In another interview about it:

Ben Carson: "I think the pyramids stored grain, not dead people."
"They found dead people in it."
"Uh, maybe Egyptians were bad at it?"

I am not kidding about this and this is not a joke, in fact the link is here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/11976681/Ben-Carson-Republican-candidate-has-theory-about-who-built-the-pyramids.html

OnFire

9th December 2015, 08:06

http://hiddenlolcdn.com/i460/54452.jpg

Antiochus

9th December 2015, 08:36

Eh, Trump isn't Hitler or has anything to do with Hitler. Yes, there are passing "similarities", nothing more. It is an analysis devoid of any historical context. For example, in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, the leftist movement was not only strong, it was strong enough to make actual demands that couldn't be ignored. There was the threat of "Bolshevism", and while not entirely serious, there was also the threat of the USSR expanding into Eastern Europe.

Furthermore, there was a strong sense in the 1930s that Capitalism was "doomed". Which is why none of the major fascist parties in Europe advocated for it. Trump and the scum behind him call for a "free-er" Capitalism, "unchained" from the "gubmint".

I think people in this thread and elsewhere totally underestimated the possibility of him being elected. His poll numbers just keep going up. He has cash to burn and the pockets of other rich people. Furthermore, he has behind him cohorts of intransigent insurgents who have been pumped with right-wing rhetoric from talk radio so far up their ass, their colon can recite the latest Benghazi controversy.

Alan OldStudent

9th December 2015, 09:49

Trump makes Berlusconi look like a sheer genius. Romney may well enter the race for the Republicrat, and the Republicrats may well beat the Demopublican. It's "I'll kiss your donkey if you kiss my ass" and it's an open question as to which kind of kink wins.

Burzhuin

9th December 2015, 15:06

I think after his last statement about Muslims enter into the USA his chances for Republican party nomination as of now between slim and none.

Antiochus

9th December 2015, 16:48

I think after his last statement about Muslims enter into the USA his chances for Republican party nomination as of now between slim and none.

And yet... his poll numbers go up.

The thing is, the Republican nomination is off course, a fucking sham. It isn't democratic. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, if all the mechanisms to ensure that democracy doesn't occur (money; propaganda; outright lies; backroom deals etc...) fail, you have to deal with the vote numbers. Trump is winning. And as of today (Little less than a month till polls open), he is the overwhelming favorite.

Trumps statements about Muslims and Latinos etc... work because that is EXACTLY what those who vote in the Republican nomination want to hear. You need to realize that the bulk of those voters are over 50 years old; many of them at one point being explicitly racist. They think its a 'breath of fresh air' for someone to finally tell them they are right.

OGG

9th December 2015, 17:57

The real question is do "moderates" and "independents" support Trump. He will need voters from those groups.

VukBZ2005

9th December 2015, 19:00

The real question is do "moderates" and "independents" support Trump. He will need voters from those groups.
I believe his economic positions will decide that. If he can show that they have a chance of producing viable solutions, it will then become possible that he could win considerable chunks of both.

blake 3:17

15th December 2015, 01:23

I think after his last statement about Muslims enter into the USA his chances for Republican party nomination as of now between slim and none.

I think there is a very good chance he wil win the presidency.

Some quote from his base: http://news.yahoo.com/quotes-trump-supporters-muslim-proposal-084741385--election.html

OGG

15th December 2015, 02:31

^ Trump strikes a chord with people who already hated Muslims. That's not surprising. When they say that Trump is saying what "everybody" has been thinking. They're not lying. Well, what they really mean is that Trump is saying what they are thinking. They're repressed white supremacists. They may not publicly proclaim their views, but they are still racists, xenophobes, etc. These people don't have many degrees of separation from the overt racism of the 50s and 60s, especially considering the climate of the civil rights movement.

Finally, we need to remember that it takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. I doubt Trump will be able to do that now that he has narrowed down his crowd to a ever decreasing portion of the voting population.

Sibotic

15th December 2015, 03:49

Trump's campaign strategy is basically decry immigration -> Some immigrants are Muslim -> Decrying Muslims is popular in the media -> Decry Muslim immigration. It seems fairly obvious that if they get through, it's essentially because someone wanted them to. All the same, it seems quite stale, there isn't any real perspective on Muslim actions or beliefs, they're just attributed that by association. Realistically if they come off as 'offensive' in any capacity at this point, it's generally (either their face or) just because their campaign message is ridiculously irrelevant - they dislike immigration - and they need to disguise this by phrasing it in various particular ways which don't add that much but come off as weirdly targeted attacks.

The hype that had to be manufactured, albeit fairly artificially, in order to promote this has probably also helped Hilary Clinton, the expected Democratic candidate, who has also shifted somewhat away from political issues and now really seems to have little promoted 'platform' beyond: she was attacked on the Benghazi thing and also the e-mail scandal. It doesn't necessarily help Sanders, who mostly seems to kneel and obey on this issue, but in any case a worthwhile reminder that the two Parties were always quite closely linked even in such specifics, and hence in that sense the 'election' decided unilaterally while each side at least pretended to be highly different when supporting the same thing back in the day. It's not that democratic a portrait, but hey.

Obviously the Democratic candidate being helped by simply being a favoured candidate who was hyped up as such probably helps the Republicans, but it does mean that things might at least seem to start off even or indifferent between the 'candidates' of both Parties, as it happens. At the same time, 'moderates' might well be considered relevant to this election because neither candidate really has a base or any real promotion so far as political issues of any sort go - other than Sanders, obviously, who did - and this seems to firstly imply that the 'moderates' in this case are artificial or identified merely with the 'media,' who had to keep such a guise in their own publications, and that it's a fairly marked retreat from elections such as 2008 where they attempted to involve such by increasingly amorphous promises such as 'hope' or 'change,' or anonymous Republican candidates, instead being based mostly around the candidates instead having retreated from having any positions in an inverse motion, which is pretty marked in terms of what has 'occurred' in terms of participants' popularity or whatever, as well as their statements, and the 'candidates' currently participating.

Antiochus

15th December 2015, 08:58

Choice quotes from above that more or less prove what I said about his supporters before:

That's what people want! They're not going to say it, but that's what they want. I mean, I hate to say it ... but that's the way it is. This is a different age then it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago.

It's hitting the nail in the head. .... He's right, he's absolutely right

I think he's pretty much right on track actually on that. I think we are kind of at war with the Muslims, in a sense.

What is most striking is how the ethos of the U.S comes crashing down. I can't really remember a time in U.S history when there was a major anti-refugee (as opposed to immigrant) movement.

I mean technically the Irish immigration during the potato famine; but this was in a completely different context/scale/reaction.

VukBZ2005

15th December 2015, 09:20

What is most striking is how the ethos of the U.S comes crashing down. I can't really remember a time in U.S history when there was a major anti-refugee (as opposed to immigrant) movement.

I mean technically the Irish immigration during the potato famine; but this was in a completely different context/scale/reaction.
IMHO, the reason why the "ethos" of this country has reached the point of collapse is that an increasing segment of the majority ethnic population has concluded that they're "losing their country", i.e., they are becoming a minority. That, in turn, leads them to embrace positions that would seem counter to the historical pattern of their ethnic group's reactionary tendencies. Trump has seen and chosen this as his main point to push continuously.

VukBZ2005

15th December 2015, 09:39

Finally, we need to remember that it takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. I doubt Trump will be able to do that now that he has narrowed down his crowd to a ever decreasing portion of the voting population.

You are too optimistic. Despite being a decreasing segment of the population, the reality is that most of those that will push the minority populations of the US into a collective majority status by 2050 (if current trends continue) are not old enough to vote yet.

Moreover, many of those "Whites" now entering their senior citizen years are going to be more likely to vote for the remainder of the electoral cycles they're alive for, especially when you have forces like Trump getting into the "mainstream" and drilling it into their heads that they're becoming a minority.

That means they can, even that this late "hour", can put into power people inclined to slowing the demographic decline of "White America".

Full Metal Bolshevik

15th December 2015, 16:13

He's unlikely to be president, Hillary is favorite by far, followed by Marco Rubio and only then Trump close to him.

bricolage

15th December 2015, 17:36

No, Donald Trump is not a fascist, and yes it matters very much that he is not one.

Fascism arose in countries that had mass militant left parties aiming at the transcendence of capitalism, were excluded from the spoils of imperialism, had very large backward agrarian sectors, and possessed very weakly developed capitalist states. Out of this context arose mass party formations of the far right that displayed some organizational and tactical similarities to the parties of the far left. None of these features obtain in the US today.

The Left, far from being well-organized and militant, is electorally irrelevant. The United States is the only great power left in the world. The agrarian question is non existent, and the American capitalist class enjoys the strongest capitalist state in history. The rise of Trump can be explained by the combined unravelling of the Republican Party, and the utter failure of the Democrats to offer anything to the white working class.

One of the most important class struggles today is unfolding within the Republican Party between the East Coast establishment and the party’s petty-bourgeois and partly working-class base. George W. Bush, because of his peculiar biography, was the last figure able really to hold these wings together. Trump’s rise is possible only because of the shift in the balance of class forces toward the enragé base.

In historical terms this process of disintegration opens up opportunities for the Left. The collapse of a major US political party, if it were to happen, can only be welcomed. In this context we should reject absolutely the hysterical lesser-evilism implicit in calling him a “fascist”; it is both historically inaccurate and politically disastrous because it plays into the logic of supporting whomever emerges from the Democratic Party primary.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/donald-trump-fascism-islamophobia-nativism/

The Intransigent Faction

15th December 2015, 18:17

I think after his last statement about Muslims enter into the USA his chances for Republican party nomination as of now between slim and none.

Hahahaha...nope! You give them too much credit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-majority-of-republicans-support-trumps-proposal-to-ban-muslims-from-the-us-2015-12

blake 3:17

15th December 2015, 18:53

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/donald-trump-fascism-islamophobia-nativism/

So the big hope against fascism is the weakness of working class?

This is insanity.

ChangeAndChance

16th December 2015, 00:41

Emmett Till

16th December 2015, 01:20

Today marks Trump's highest average poll number amongst Republicans (1/3rd of the vote) since his campaign started.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

What the fuck is going on?

Well, he is the last Republican candidate left standing who is actually white by American standards. Despite "Ted" (real name Rafael) Cruz's foam flecked denunciations of Mexican immigrants, and his looking a lot whiter than Rubio, the Republican base are probably by now figuring out that he's actually half-Latino.

And of course the imperial hysteria going on over Paris and San Bernardino, making his calls to bomb Muslims into the stone age popular. Indeed it's reflected here on Revleft, with more and more posters wanting to sign up for the Great Anti-ISIS Crusade.

Synergy

21st December 2015, 00:11

Today marks Trump's highest average poll number amongst Republicans (1/3rd of the vote) since his campaign started.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

What the fuck is going on?

He's not afraid to say all the racist/sexist/etc things that the Republican base loves. He hardly ever apologizes and he has no problem insulting everyone which makes him a "strong leader" unlike those weak candidates that couldn't survive a boxing match if their lives depended on it. Also, he "wins" a lot and America is currently not "winning."

Rafiq

21st December 2015, 01:06

Antiochus

21st December 2015, 02:33

What many are under-appreciating here is the fact that Bernie is doing quite well in the polls. If it comes to a showdown between Trump and Bernie, Trump would be slaughtered. Or, more specifically, many on the establishment would switch over to Trump.

Trump would be slaughtered? I doubt that. Most polls show Trump doing well (not necessarily winning) against Hillary, who is a 'centrist'. I dont see how Bernie (a "commie") could win or even hope to win head to head.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

21st December 2015, 04:49

Emmett Till

21st December 2015, 13:43

Trump gaining the nomination, let alone winning the election, would be an utter failure of American political institutions. His illberalism (not to mention his delusional egotistical personality) is something few of America's political and economic elites are really sympathetic with. It's not in the GOPs interests, its not in the interests of major international capital, and its not in America's interests, either. Even the GOP is doing their best to pull for other candidates.

Trump has moved so far to the right that he's alienating many voters, despite the fact that he has picked up significant support on the GOP's rightwing

Trump is the candidate according to the polls who would be doing worst of the 4 top repubs vs. Clinton. He would clearly lose, the others all more or less tie, including Carson (though anyone who really thinks the Republicans could ever nominate a black candidate for Prez is delusional). But it wouldn't be a real landslide.

Sanders is being clobbered by Clinton in all the polls, not surprising being that the debates have made clear that the only real difference between him and Hillary is that he still goes the Harry Truman pseudo-Populist route on domestic issues, and in terms of war & peace there is really little difference.

Anybody see the latest debate? Sanders tried to get her for supporting regime change, and she answered, hey, you were down with regime change with Q'addafi, so what's your problem. And his response was ... yeah Hillary, ya gotta point.

in the latest Trump vs. Sanders poll, they are mathematically dead even.

BTW, if Trump does get elected, he won't be the first whacko extreme president. That was Ronald Reagan, now an icon, who was an utter nutcase talking about nuking the Russkies when first elected. After the KAL 007 shootdown when he realised that the Russkies would nuke us back, he cooled his jets.

If Trump is elected, expect something similar, that is if Trump even means the stuff he is saying now. He might well just appoint a cabinet, turn it all over to them, and spend his 4 years jetsetting.

Comrade #138672

21st December 2015, 15:40

Rafiq

21st December 2015, 19:18

Trump would be slaughtered? I doubt that. Most polls show Trump doing well (not necessarily winning) against Hillary, who is a 'centrist'. I dont see how Bernie (a "commie") could win or even hope to win head to head.

People aren't backing trump out of some logic derived from the political spectrum. This has little impact on how actual politics work.

Bernie would absolutely destroy Trump. He knows this. Trump's popularity has its basis in him being a perceived alrernative to "the politicians" like Hilary. He is a populist.

With Bernie, who has won the support of thr most ignorant, backward working class - that of Appalachia, in Vermont, there will be no competition. Trump's strength derives from his ability to expose the very formal, 'elitist' nature of his opponents. But it is Bernie who would expose Trump as shill of the 'elites' trying to distract ordinary people from their real problems, and Bernie will be the one, if it happens, to call him out on those.

Bernie gets no media attention. And he does very, very well. What would Trump have over Bernie? Nothing. Trump has plenty over Hilary, surely. But he can't play that game with Bernie.

Antiochus

21st December 2015, 19:44

I just think you are making unrealistic assumptions about the way people vote in the U.S.

I've heard many comments from people stating that Trump isn't part of "politics" because he "isn't in government" or "he can't be bought because he is so rich".

. But it is Bernie who would expose Trump as shill of the 'elites' trying to distract ordinary people from their real problems, and Bernie will be the one, if it happens, to call him out on those.

You act as if it will be some fair "contest" or perhaps you imagine this being some sort of high school movie where the underdog shows everyone what a dipshit his opponent is. That isn't going to happen. Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist in the United States. The fact is, Sander's position isn't much more tenable than Trump's as far as ideological coherence goes. All Trump has to do is point out the "der 100 million dead, Khmer Rouge, Stalin" and he will win over a lot of people.

U.S elections aren't so much about politics but a bad reality show. And who is better suited to that than a reality star?

George_Dugas

21st December 2015, 20:02

Well, I think that there are aspects to a Trump presidency that may undermine the capitalist system in the United States, but the power of the rich is too strong in the United States to let fascism occur here.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

21st December 2015, 21:23

BTW, if Trump does get elected, he won't be the first whacko extreme president. That was Ronald Reagan, now an icon, who was an utter nutcase talking about nuking the Russkies when first elected. After the KAL 007 shootdown when he realised that the Russkies would nuke us back, he cooled his jets.

Reagan might have been a wacko, but there's a difference between being a militarist (as all the other GOP candidates are - several indicated in the last debate that they would risk war with Russia over Syria) and openly calling for legal ethnic and religious restrictions.

Reagan, after all, was the guy who threw money and guns at Islamic fundamentalists to fight the USSR, and gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He was in many respects a more traditional anti-communist American conservative than Trump, whose policy proposals mix explicit racism with a call for a more authoritarian state.

You act as if it will be some fair "contest" or perhaps you imagine this being some sort of high school movie where the underdog shows everyone what a dipshit his opponent is. That isn't going to happen. Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist in the United States. The fact is, Sander's position isn't much more tenable than Trump's as far as ideological coherence goes. All Trump has to do is point out the "der 100 million dead, Khmer Rouge, Stalin" and he will win over a lot of people.

This may be true, but it's also the case that red-baiting has not always been a successful way of stopping anti-communist/non-marxist "socialists", like those in Europe.

bricolage

22nd December 2015, 16:37

You lot are tripping if you think there's any chance in hell the election will be trump vs sanders.

Rafiq

22nd December 2015, 17:35

I've heard many comments from people stating that Trump isn't part of "politics" because he "isn't in government" or "he can't be bought because he is so rich".

This doesn't contradict my point - in fact it affirms my point. Trump's popularity has nothing to do with people caring about the political spectrum as such - and the same goes for those like Alex Jones. Speaking of whom, he fully supports and backs Trump - we're talking about a self-proclaimed Libertarian and a rabid conspiracy theorist. What does it tell you about the malleability of 'political identities' in the face of real political movement that Alex Jones is backing Donald Trump?

Both are populists that have their ideological basis primarily to the petty bourgeoisie while subsequently appealing to sections working class.

You act as if it will be some fair "contest" or perhaps you imagine this being some sort of high school movie where the underdog shows everyone what a dipshit his opponent is. That isn't going to happen. Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist in the United States. The fact is, Sander's position isn't much more tenable than Trump's as far as ideological coherence goes. All Trump has to do is point out the "der 100 million dead, Khmer Rouge, Stalin" and he will win over a lot of people.

It is not a fair contest, but it isn't an abstract debate either. The understanding ordinary people have of socialism is based on something which is dead. In fact Bernie would give it a totally different and new meaning (which he has, already) by giving it life. Identifying with a term, is not enough for people to associate you with the pre-conceived connotations of that term. The fact of the matter is that how Bernie RELATES to the term 'socialism' as a figure, through his policies, and by what he represents, makes the political language to call him potentially another Stalin laughably ridiculous. It was easier to call Obama this, than Bernie Sanders - and why? Because Bernie is not scared to directly approach the poor, ignorant and backward sections of the working class. With Obama, there was kind of a disconnection present - with Bernie, you are directly engaged with him and what he 'stands for' in a very sobering way.

But the ultimate, only evidence we really need that this is untrue is some peculiar facts: Bernie has managed to gain the support of the most reactionary working class voters of Appalachia - they are voting for a self-proclaimed socialist. During the Bush elections, it was not uncommon to find "Bush" and "Bernie" posters on teh same lawns. Why? Because what a person represents politically IS NOT based on how he relates to pre-conceived associations with this or that idea.

One must understand political language in relation to ideological, social and historic processes. The connotations of political terms are not ossified, eternally true. Nor do they require 're-education' on them. What they require is the association with such terms with something different.

U.S elections aren't so much about politics but a bad reality show. And who is better suited to that than a reality star?

You're right, of course, I am not saying that if should Bernie win, he will keep his promises. I am just saying that US elections do accentuate a degree of political debate, especially this one. They are significant only in that regard - they get people talking about issues in a political way.

Sanders will beat trump, if they face off, and both are well aware of this. Again, if Trump was some establishment figure with the same exact policies, he would not have any popularity. Trump has been very vague with these. All Sanders would have to do is simply expose what Trump proposes in relation to ordinary people - and Sander is no 'stooge', he is no Hilary. People love how Trump insults all these figures of prominence and power. They love it. But Trump can't do this with Bernie - because Bernie is not some 'legitimate' figure of power like Jeb, Hilary and so on.

Even if the full extent of the media attacks Sanders, better for us. But that is wishful thinking, because the media by now - not to be paranoid - is most likely aware of the fact that many citizens don't trust it. A Trump vs. Sanders campaign would actually bring back politics to the US, this would be infinitely polarizing. The outcome of such a debate would thoroughly be in our favor alone, it would create a new political context which we could relate to.

Rafiq

22nd December 2015, 17:37

Trump is no Reagan. The only example I need to illustrate this is a difference of campaign slogans:

Reagan said "Let's make America great"

Trump said "Let's make America great again"

Trump, unlike Reagan, is the herald of a new Fascism in the US. He is not himself a Fascist, but he gives Fascist discourse a political language for the American context.

You lot are tripping if you think there's any chance in hell the election will be trump vs sanders.

I doubt it. Just as I doubt the viability of Sanders being elected. But hypothetically, if it happened, Trump would not stand a chance.

Emmett Till

22nd December 2015, 22:37

People aren't backing trump out of some logic derived from the political spectrum. This has little impact on how actual politics work.

Bernie would absolutely destroy Trump. He knows this. Trump's popularity has its basis in him being a perceived alrernative to "the politicians" like Hilary. He is a populist.

With Bernie, who has won the support of thr most ignorant, backward working class - that of Appalachia, in Vermont, there will be no competition. Trump's strength derives from his ability to expose the very formal, 'elitist' nature of his opponents. But it is Bernie who would expose Trump as shill of the 'elites' trying to distract ordinary people from their real problems, and Bernie will be the one, if it happens, to call him out on those.

Bernie gets no media attention. And he does very, very well. What would Trump have over Bernie? Nothing. Trump has plenty over Hilary, surely. But he can't play that game with Bernie.

"Bernie" gets plenty of media attention, and most of his populist rhetoric has been coopted quite effectively by Hillary. You should watch the debates, where she basically comes off as the politician who can do everything practical out of Bernie's programs. And he continually emphasizes how loyal he is to the Democratic Party and how much he'll support her when she wins the nomination.

Where did you get the idea that Vermont is in Appalachia? The social and political gulf between New England and Appalachia is even bigger than the geographical distance. Burlington, the tiny capital, is like a frozen mini version of Marin County. Vermont is the least religious state in America, with the highest percentage of... Buddhists? in America. A sizeable percentage of the population is aging former members of defunct hippie communes who'd fled to the countryside from nearby New York City when the Sixties ended. And the most totally lily white state.

Which is why Hillary has been much more successful at coopting "Black Lives Matter" than Sanders.

Emmett Till

22nd December 2015, 22:57

Reagan might have been a wacko, but there's a difference between being a militarist (as all the other GOP candidates are - several indicated in the last debate that they would risk war with Russia over Syria) and openly calling for legal ethnic and religious restrictions.

Reagan, after all, was the guy who threw money and guns at Islamic fundamentalists to fight the USSR, and gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He was in many respects a more traditional anti-communist American conservative than Trump, whose policy proposals mix explicit racism with a call for a more authoritarian state.

This may be true, but it's also the case that red-baiting has not always been a successful way of stopping anti-communist/non-marxist "socialists", like those in Europe.

Now "Islamic terrorism is the enemy for the American ruling class, back then it was the Soviet Union and... black people. Sure he gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants, they weren't black and he hoped a lot of them would vote Republican if they got citizenship, and besides they were cheap labor. Back then America was divided into whites and blacks, Latinos and especially Asians were far, far fewer than now, and Muslims in America barely existed.

Reagan got elected on the crest of a white suburban revolt against all the concessions to black people of the civil rights movement. He essentially conducted an all out assault on black rights. And, by the way, until some of his old Hollywood friends started croaking, the basic position of the Reagan administration on AIDS was that it kills gays, drug addicts and Haitians, and therefore is basically a good thing.

Reagan was *more* anti-black racist than any of the current Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Christie, who wants to barbecue Black Lives Matter. Now the Republicans have turned MLK into an icon. Back then, he was still a dangerous radical who was probably a commie for them.

Back then, the FBI wasn't going after Muslims, it was going after the American left, a lot bigger then than now.

And whereas the sabre rattling of the Republicans at the debates is largely for show, and interestingly Trump is less of a sabre rattler positionwiwse than several of the others once you get past the rhetoric, the Reaganauts were deadly serious. Even VP Bush Sr., supposedly the rational one, at least once publicly proposed a nuclear *first strike* against the Soviet Union! Ever read "With Enough Shovels"?

http://www.amazon.com/With-Enough-Shovels-Reagan-Nuclear/dp/0394414829

Emmett Till

22nd December 2015, 23:02

Trump is no Reagan. The only example I need to illustrate this is a difference of campaign slogans:

Reagan said "Let's make America great"

Trump said "Let's make America great again"

Trump, unlike Reagan, is the herald of a new Fascism in the US. He is not himself a Fascist, but he gives Fascist discourse a political language for the American context....

Neither one is a fascist, but you can make a much better case for Reagan as a fascist, or "herald of fascism," than Trump, indeed a lot of the left at the time thought he was a fascist.

Trump was actually a Democrat until a few years ago. The man has no actual political principles. Reagan had been the candidate of the extreme right wing in America for more than a decade before he was elected, and he had lots of John Birchers and some outright fascists on his campaign staff.

Synergy

23rd December 2015, 17:19

I'm kind of surprised the establishment hasn't warmed up to Trump yet. He loves power, money, big business and he's really hard to take out. I mean what more could you want?

I guess his electability in the general election is still a bit unknown but even if he loses, they still win.

Rafiq

23rd December 2015, 19:04

"Bernie" gets plenty of media attention, and most of his populist rhetoric has been coopted quite effectively by Hillary. You should watch the debates, where she basically comes off as the politician who can do everything practical out of Bernie's programs. And he continually emphasizes how loyal he is to the Democratic Party and how much he'll support her when she wins the nomination.

Bernie only started getting some media attention recently because of how well he has been doing without them. Hilary's propensity to 'co-opt' his populist rhetoric must depend on her ability to instill trust in voters that are already distrustful of her and what she represents. No talk of their practicality will fix this.

Where did you get the idea that Vermont is in Appalachia? The social and political gulf between New England and Appalachia is even bigger than the geographical distance. Burlington, the tiny capital, is like a frozen mini version of Marin County. Vermont is the least religious state in America, with the highest percentage of... Buddhists? in America. A sizeable percentage of the population is aging former members of defunct hippie communes who'd fled to the countryside from nearby New York City when the Sixties ended. And the most totally lily white state.

It is well known that Bernie does very well in sections of such places. I am not entirely sure if they are in Vermont, given my poor geographic knowledge - but I know he does well among some counties in Appalachia of the very poor. He also does well with the poor working classes of his own state, Vermont.

http://caucus99percent.com/content/wow-bernie-appalachians

There was even an RT segment on it. The phenomena of working class republicans voting for Bernie is a very, very well known one:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32391-why-republicans-vote-for-bernie

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-republicans_5616668ce4b0dbb8000d3581

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-lifelong-conservatives-who-love-bernie-sanders/417441/

and so on.

Which is why Hillary has been much more successful at coopting "Black Lives Matter" than Sanders.

Hillary has been successful because she has been able to reach out to black voters. If sanders was able to broadcast his message to them, they would not vote for Hillary.

But it is true Sanders has largely failed to address much of the particularities of the grievances of peoples in the ghettos as such.

Rafiq

23rd December 2015, 19:13

Trump was actually a Democrat until a few years ago. The man has no actual political principles.

All the more reason why he should be read as a proto-fascist. He has no pre-ordained 'establishment' political principles but certainly his ad hoc reactionary populism counts for something.

LeninsDenim

26th December 2015, 14:30

What im wondering is what the heck a Single Payer Commie Vegan Hippy system is doing in Trump's campaign. Or taxing the rich more. I think he is following his fuhrer, who I think did that.

Anyway, the election is gonna be Cruz/Trump or Trump/Cruz against Hillary/OneofHerPawns. And hillary (or any dem) destroys.

Double H

26th December 2015, 17:47

Problem with a Trump presidency is he will intensify the economic capitalist system of America. The man is so wealthy, he'll blend capitalism and corruption into another economic crisis.

Then again, maybe his mistakes will open the eyes of the masses.

Sadly, I doubt it since USA has dealt with other incompetent presidents such a Bush jr for example. The left side should unite more efficiently

JaffaRed

30th December 2015, 09:09

Electing Trump would be highly damaging to the long-term interests of the U.S. ruling class. The main thing he would do is further the alienation of the working class from the state and from the bosses' system. In that case, good luck winning millions of workers to fight and die on foreign shores for the sake of the finance capitalists' profits.

Sanders, on the other hand, has a huge potential in winning masses of workers to support the system, buy into it - and be willing to kill and die for it.

Бай Ганьо

22nd January 2016, 20:21

5 reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump.

1. He’s more fanatical. Trump is a bully and bigot but doesn’t hew to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue: He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns, doesn’t believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, opposes international agreements, embraces a confrontational foreign policy, rejects immigration reform, demands the repeal of “every blessed word of Obamacare,” and takes a strict “originalist” view of the meaning of the Constitution.

2. Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz really does detest the federal government, and has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views. When Cruz said “we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation,” he wasn’t referring to jihadist terrorism but to Obamacare.

3. He’s Smarter. Trump is no slouch but he hasn’t given any indication of a sharp mind. Cruz is razer-sharp: It’s not just his degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law, along with an impressive record at Harvard, or even his winning arguments before the Supreme Court. For his entire adult life he's been a fierce debater with a intensely-logical debater’s mind.

4. He’s more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz hews to a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game (as he’s shown in Iowa). Cruz’s legal career entailed a sustained use of the courts to achieve conservative ends, and he plots his moves carefully.

5. Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. Most of his Republican colleagues in the Senate detest him. And Cruz is eager to destroy: He has repeatedly crossed to the other side of the Capitol and led House Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the Fall of 2013, Cruz’s strident opposition to Obamacare – including a 21-hour talking marathon -- led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

Both men would be disasters for America, but Cruz would be the larger disaster.

What do you think?

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/photos/a.404595876219681.103599.142474049098533/1138953589450569/?type=1&theater