So Trump won [Archive]

View Full Version : So Trump won

Antiochus

9th November 2016, 05:23

Right so Trump won the American election. I said so about 8 months ago and I told Rafiq as much in a PM a few weeks ago. Can we please stop pretending now that this represents the rise of American proto-fascism and not some "old populist racism" nonsense? Second I think now illegality is a must. Which means more than ever Americans need to turn to tactics pioneered by Anarchists and Bolsheviks

willowtooth

9th November 2016, 07:54

Trump is not going to win. Don't fall for the CNN nonsense. Hillary Clinton is the next president of the USA. I predicted Bernie Sanders would lose the primary, I predicted Trump would win his primary and I predicted even before the first primary debate that anything short of a heart attack or an assassination Hillary would be the next president.

The Intransigent Faction

9th November 2016, 07:58

Trump is not going to win.

Don't fall for that CNN nonsense. Open mouth, insert foot.
I predicted months ago that Trump would be the President-elect, and guess what...he is.

willowtooth

9th November 2016, 08:03

Don't fall for that CNN nonsense. Open mouth, insert foot.
I predicted months ago that Trump would be the President-elect, and guess what...he is.
He can't be

GLF

9th November 2016, 08:47

Trump won. I know I said that it could potentially be for the better in the long run... I think the reality is starting to set in for me. I never dreamed repubs would keep control of both houses.

We can't have a far-right populist in power and a republican controlled congress and supreme court. Can we? This can't be real. If he gets congress in his back pocket we could very easily be seeing the Enabling Act 2.0.

I should have gone out and voted for Clinton. It makes me sick to say that. I honestly don't know what I was thinking before. I must be walking around in a dream right now.

Please wake me up from this nightmare.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

9th November 2016, 09:46

I wouldn't put too much credibility in any of your predictions. I don't think they were any better than all the predictions from the liberal mainstream media that the Trump campaign was doomed to failure. There are always unexpected events that drastically change the course of an election, as well as strategic missteps made by one or both campaigns (for instance, Clinton not campaigning enough in Pennsylvania, or Republican efforts to suppress black voters). The election was in no way determined 6 months ago.

That said we need to highlight to the godawful liberal commentariat and the center-leftists who get fed their ideas that they fundamentally failed to misread this election and the political situation we find ourselves in. It is just a phenomenal epistemic and moral failure on the part of the liberal mainstream that they were SO certain he would lose, that nobody as bigoted, vulgar and sexist as he is could possibly win.

John Nada

9th November 2016, 09:48

The US left needs to get its shit together. This isn't something to wait out. If you're not organized already, form a group of at least 3-10 like-minded people.

Some suggested readings, taking in an abstract manner:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PSRW36.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PW38.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PSGW38.html

IbelieveInanarchy

9th November 2016, 09:58

This is awful...

BorisBandit

9th November 2016, 11:12

I wouldn't put too much credibility in any of your predictions.

America has taken twisted turns in the past & in recent history. But it's losing its superpower status. The ruling class wants to maintain its position in the world & they want to keep the masses align with that agenda.

So, they get a wild card & decided to play their hand using it.

Isn't that what's really happening here?

This all didn't just happen. This is the result of maneuvering. They normalized a mad man, & got enough people to say, "Why not? USA! USA! USA!".

ckaihatsu

9th November 2016, 12:59

(A)

9th November 2016, 13:07

America has spoken. The one of the most Nationalistic country's on earth just Elected a walking symbol of Americanism. An openly fascist fat-cat. The perfect American.

I am wondering about the TPP and other trade agreements. Will President Elect Trump actually try and stop the TPP and repeal NAFTA or will he just tow the Party line?
What do you guys think?

The real question now is if we are going to sit around for the next 4-8 years and whine about Trump or if we are going to actually do something productive.
I was really disappointed in the lackluster response on the streets. I was expecting bombings and riots and Direct action. At least one attempt on one of the candidates life.
What has the Left devolved to if we dont even try and kill Fascists anymore.

When Marx said First as Tragedy; then as Farce he was right.
This second rise of Fascism and our response to it is laughable.

IbelieveInanarchy

9th November 2016, 13:13

Riot

9th November 2016, 16:06

It's like watching a broke gambler play poker in a casino and the house going all in Joker high with a straight face. Joker's are 'wild' right? Unfortunately, the house always wins, and this Joker is a rabid right-wielded ideologue, now with very little in his way to shatter the last vestiges of American social liberty in his attempt to re-nationalize the country with pseudo early-20th century imagery and discourse. Accelerationism is a very tempting answer here. Organization, as John says, is also important. For, at the very least, hellfire has far less bite if you've got someone to make plans about, if not turning it into Eden, at least making the land somewhat arable. However, to use a vulgar Americanism: 'We've gotta keep our eyes on the money'. This election cycle has produced lots of people looking for "alternatives". I expect this sites membership to rise, for one thing. Though, most are more likely to go either into "counter Trump !" mode or will slide into some bullshit nationalistic discourse or another. Fuck Trump and his sniveling ilk. I bet Silicon Valley will be pleased. Husslers, landlords, and demagogues of the world unite!

However, with his Midas-like ability of turning everything he touches into lifeless shiny pieces of worthless shit -- like he's now done for the DNC -- the backlash from the more organized radicalized left, depending on how well we do our work these next few years, could very well lead to a radical leftist (or at least a Bernie Sanders) next round at the helm. Or even more, perhaps by then that helm will be recreated not as a mere farce in a spectacle of nonsense and the utter ridiculousness of reactionary nationalism, but as something in the line of a Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the United States of America.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

9th November 2016, 16:15

America has taken twisted turns in the past & in recent history. But it's losing its superpower status. The ruling class wants to maintain its position in the world & they want to keep the masses align with that agenda.

Most of the ruling class backed Clinton, and Trump lost the popular vote. Yes, the historical patterns of revanchism and reaction play a role but it was hardly an outcome which was easy to predict.

Recuperation

9th November 2016, 16:59

Yeah I have to agree, the overwhelming majority of the ruling class picked Clinton not Trump, this is evidenced by the markets completely losing their shit last night as soon as the race tightened. A few months ago I would have agreed with the "First as tragedy then as farce", but this situation seems to not fit neatly into the usual kind of historical analysis. You'll notice that the ballot measures which passed tended to be fairly progressive; legal weed, assisted suicide, etc. and yet they coincide with a real political victory for the right. Very unusual.

BorisBandit

9th November 2016, 17:36

Most of the ruling class backed Clinton, and Trump lost the popular vote. Yes, the historical patterns of revanchism and reaction play a role but it was hardly an outcome which was easy to predict.

If most of the ruling class backed Clinton, then how could she have lost? No, there was a power struggle within the ruling class & the faction that got the upper hand enabled Trump. Trump riding down that escalator & gaining a hold on people the way he did was unpredictable but once that got going forces within the ruling class got behind that & enabled it.

Well, that's my take on it, at any rate.

Recuperation

9th November 2016, 17:43

If most of the ruling class backed Clinton, then how could she have lost? No, there was a power struggle within the ruling class & the faction that got the upper hand enabled Trump. Trump riding down that escalator & gaining a hold on people the way he did was unpredictable but once that got going forces within the ruling class got behind that & enabled it. Well, that's my take on it, at any rate. The markets tanked for a week when the FBI made the announcement about Wiener's laptop and then rebounded immediately when she was cleared again. Then they tanked again when the race tightened last night. Trump is a member of the ruling class so of course this represents an internal struggle, as every election represents an internal struggle within the bourgeoisie, but it is undeniable that the vast majority of the ruling class backed Clinton who is also a member of the ruling class. Shit, she had the entire neoliberal establishment and all their media companies behind her. She lost because the elections are not rigged in the sense that you seem to be implying, the methods of control deployed within the US are more nuanced than simply stuffing ballot boxes and that seems to have backfired on the establishment this time around. This by no mean suggests that the ruling class will reject Trump's victory, they will respond to it the same way they respond to any crisis.

MaximMK

9th November 2016, 20:04

https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14925802_10210042280309416_7272398433301971044_n.j pg?oh=e6a68054be1e5e5efc1e5ad83bed9db6&oe=58CE8E1F

Balcan right-wingers are all overjoyed dreaming of an ultimate world right - wing coalition supporting all small nationalist parties here with putin or something.

GLF

9th November 2016, 20:04

Recuperation

9th November 2016, 20:18

The thing is, I completely misjudged everything. I never in a million years expected Trump's support to be this high. I never in a million years expected the GOP to remain in control of both houses. I readily admit that I was wrong - and not just about this. I've been admonished on this site many times for underestimating and understating the right-wing threat and I can only hope I get to live long enough to rectify it. With that said, here's what we're up against: Trump has the white house. GOP controls an aging, centre-right congress in fear of changing demographics (and likely to betray us faster than you can say "Enabling Act"). They're about to have the highest court in all the land filled with their lackeys - with more appointments to come. They've got the armed forces behind them, and the police force overwhelmingly behind them. Trump has a constituency that is armed to the teeth and ready to fight, some of which have already pledged loyalty to him with an outstretched right arm (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLmh8ck0yk). They've got what amounts to an online army - a massive army of trolls and hackers. Oh, and media is already starting to suck up to him, too. What a difference a day makes. I guess the "EVERYTHING IS AT STAKE" stuff wasn't really hyperbole after all. Can someone, anyone, please tell me I'm exaggerating? Pretty please? No you are not exaggerating. This effectively blocks even the very idea of advancing progressive politics via the electoral system. Trump will likely appoint 3 justices to the supreme court during his term, even if he only gets the one. Between that court and congress, they will likely overturn all the progressive legislation from the past 50+ years. Abortion and marriage rights as well as environmental, financial and education regulations, not to mention Obamacare. Even Obama's administration was unable to prevent the voting rights act from being gutted, so it is likely that many other pieces of legislation associated with civil rights will face the same fate as well. This is pretty much as bad as it could get.

almost

9th November 2016, 20:34

It's as if The Left had itself been lulled by the spectacle, to only now be in disbelief that the nightmare they talk about is real.

Wessex Way Monster

9th November 2016, 21:06

lol @ everyone itt going "I PREDICTED THIS SEE LOOK AT MY ANALYSIS POWERS I KNEW TRUMP WOJLD WIN I CALLED IT EARLIER THAN YOU AND I KNEW EVERYTHING THATD HAPPEN IN THIS ELECTION"

get over yourselves nerds

Tankie

10th November 2016, 00:29

Well no war with Russia.

Maybe it's good to mobilize the masses to start the revolution! :lol:

John Nada

10th November 2016, 01:00

In terms of the U.S. nation-state this is mostly a turn *inward* -- a new bid for isolationism -- in the wake of a general populist anti-war sentiment that hasn't been finding expression in the U.S. establishment and its foreign policy.

Domestically this could be *culturally* bad, since the cut against international entanglements tacitly means a revival of a *national* context, out-of-the-blue, with no recent history or trajectory of such. For comparison, the post-WWII prosperity in the '40s and '50s was a major turn to the domestic sphere, which meant increased civil polarization in regards to *internal* colonies (the black diaspora, etc.), rather than maintaining an orientation to *external* colonies internationally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionismI don't think this will merely effect the US. Isolationism has long been a staple of the far-right in the US, and reasserted itself in prominence on that side of the spectrum after the Cold War. In fact, I remember many liberals thought Ron Paul was good merely because they mistook his isolationism for anti-war. It was not anti-imperialist but based on conspiracy theory nonsense. The far-right has recuperated much of the rhetoric from the anti-globalization movement in the 1990s-early 2000s.

As you may know, imperialism is not just some policy but an integral part of the base. Still, his policies and rhetoric are 100% in line with imperialism. If things get worse and he needs a distraction, such as another recession(which is possible), the Trump regime will lash outwards. I don't see how he'll be less interventionist than basically every President.
Well no war with Russia.

Maybe it's good to mobilize the masses to start the revolution!No Soviet Union to save us from US fascism:crying:. Besides, I'm not sure that Trump will let up on SCO, and could easily imagine him escalating things for political gains.

BorisBandit

10th November 2016, 01:25

The markets tanked for a week when the FBI made the announcement about Wiener's laptop and then rebounded immediately when she was cleared again. Then they tanked again when the race tightened last night. Trump is a member of the ruling class so of course this represents an internal struggle, as every election represents an internal struggle within the bourgeoisie, but it is undeniable that the vast majority of the ruling class backed Clinton
...

If that had been actually the case, she would have won. She wouldn't have been harassed about emails & there wouldn't have been an FBI investigation a few days before the election. Get real.

who is also a member of the ruling class. Shit, she had the entire neoliberal establishment and all their media companies behind her.

(1) You're misusing the term neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism is the current manifestation of imperialism, "the highest stage of capitalism".
(2) The mass media gave Trump 2 billion of dollars worth of free media access, hanging on to his every flatulence. Why would the media do that if they were in Clinton's pocket?

She lost because the elections are not rigged in the sense that you seem to be implying, the methods of control deployed within the US are more nuanced than simply stuffing ballot boxes

I never said nor implied anything about the stuffing of ballot boxes nor about the election being rigged by illegal means.

Obviously, Trump was normalized by the media in spite of his lacking any real qualifications. They built a cult of personality around them.

Molotov1848

10th November 2016, 02:19

This entire thing is a joke, fuck Trump, fuck democracy, and fuck every bourgeois party and politician. What is this "not my president" bullshit and why are self proclaimed 'socialist' organisations like SAlt showing up to these rallies?
Don't get me wrong Trump is exceptionally shitty, but this sudden call for mass rage against him tainting your precious just and democratic system is full of shit. Trump is exactly what you get for having any sort of faith or hope in the system.
Now I'd really love to see some mass militant action by the working class, and Trump's presidency collapsing could only be a good thing as it would be under anyone else, but to call for a movement against Trump just because he is Trump and not the highest representative of the bourgouise state is the work of moronic petty activists.

GLF

10th November 2016, 03:14

In looking for a bright side, Molotov, that's sort of what I've been hoping for - for things to get so shitty that the people revolt. The problem is, it's going to be very hard to get them to that point as long as they still have the coca-cola and iPads. Ditching class is one thing. Revolution is another. We can only hope Trump will screw it all up until it gets to that point - the point to where the chickens finally come home to roost.

Another possibility, falling somewhere between the worst case scenario (fascism), and best case scenario (revolt), is the idea of Trump consolidating by moving towards the center. Right now, people are scared. People are vulnerable. And so many people would jump onto just about anything if it means that maybe things won't be so bad in their minds. It's human nature.

If Trump goes into sweet talk mode, moves center, says he wants to unify - this man behind "Art of the Deal" - with the press in his pocket and the wind at his back....there is absolutely no hope of a true revolt. And that is what I feel is most likely scenario in the coming days. It's better than a fascist takeover, but that's not saying much.

xxx6 returns 2

10th November 2016, 03:54

If Trump goes into sweet talk mode, moves center, says he wants to unify - this man behind "Art of the Deal" - with the press in his pocket and the wind at his back....there is absolutely no hope of a true revolt. And that is what I feel is most likely scenario in the coming days. It's better than a fascist takeover, but that's not saying much.

The "Art of the Deal" was written by a Ghostwriter:

“The Art of the Deal” made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.

http : / / w w w . newyorker . com /magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

willowtooth

10th November 2016, 04:42

A couple thousand are protesting tonight

https://www.rt.com/usa/366168-nyc-trump-protest-march/

Antiochus

10th November 2016, 04:46

I think militias need to be formed on a local level as quickly as possible. In the US it is very easy because gun ownership is so lax and guns are very cheap. Also, if the opportunity presents itself, I think no one should shy away from beating a Trump supporter until he is in a coma.

xxx6 returns 2

10th November 2016, 05:19

I think militias need to be formed on a local level as quickly as possible. In the US it is very easy because gun ownership is so lax and guns are very cheap.

I may add if you can not buy guns, try to buy 80% receiver kits with full jigs for "Assault weapons" like ak-47's and AR-15's also complete firearms parts kits are relatively easy to find, also make sure you stock up on the right ammo like 7.62 for the ak's and 5.56 for the m16(ar-15) weapons. You can also get 80% uzi receivers and other guns with full auto parts kit.

You can also get full untraceable firearms kits online, like polymer80 with jig system with PF940 polymer pistol frame as your sidearm.

For bulk ammunition you can try surplus ammo . com and other websites (if you have other ideas please share) for ordering large quantities of ammo, make sure you get reload-able ammo if you are reloading the cases after use (not all ammo cases can be safely reloaded after use), and protect them, don't think you can salvaging ammo: if you know history you may know about Project Eldest Son (also known as “Italian Green” or “Pole Bean”) Small arms ammunition sabotage had previously been employed by the British in the Second Matabele War(1896-1897) and Waziristan campaign (1936-1939) In both cases, ammunition sabotage had been effective because the tribesmen were heavily reliant on salvaged ammunition rather than an industrialized supply chain of newly manufactured ammunition. Don't repeat history.am

Also, you may want to get gas masks with tinted (darken) outsert lens to help conceal your identity like for MSA Millennium CBA/RCA Gas Mask in case Trump supporters attacks with tear gas. Also remember to get spare working filters with pouches to carry them, and lots of spare parts and extra tools in general, remember Murphy's Law: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong".

Bayonets and/or rescue knives and multitools should also be acquired, and also duct tape just in case.

If you are not fearing gas attacks you can get Level IIIA Ballistic Face Masks and other gears for protection like Infidel body armor (you can buy from them online) and other bulletproof vests and plates to protect yourselves if this becomes a full blown war.

Also, spare cash should be stockpiled so you can buy stuff as needed for militias, in case your bank accounts gets frozen.

Make sure your sights works for you guns get Boresighter Kits like laser boresighters, or even better go to the firing range and fire off the ammo you plan to use (different ammo have different ballistic characteristics so keep that in mind as you are sighting your weapons) to make sure your gun sights are right, you don't want Trump supporters to laugh at your lack of accuracy. (Don't shoot like stormtroopers)

You will also want to work on communications and small unit tactics like the US Army Field Manuals FM 7-8 and the Ranger Handbook.

Sorry but its time to put that "Lets stop theorizing and do something" attitude to use and fucking do something.
I assume your armed or capable of becoming armed quickly as an American. Well this is the rise of Fascism in america so its time to do as the left does and kill fascists.
Join your local Anti-Fa, start one if you need to.
You ready to fight die for your comrades of color?
There is already an Armed Black Block rally setting up for inauguration.
You said you used to be an Anarchist. What would an Anarchist do if a fascist came to power...
Hint it usually involves bombs.

Yes and learn as much about snipers as possible, learn about anti-materiel rifles and build your own with 80% receivers AR-15 lowers (try websites like 80 - lower . com / ar-15 - kits or a search on the web) and large caliber uppers like Tactilite T2 magazine-fed upper receivers (Product Code: T2 from http : / / www . tactilite . com)and be sure to test them on the firing range when you are finished (use the ammo you plan to use in real combat, don't try to save on ammo budget as different ammo have different characteristics, as I've mentioned before)so you can blow out the engines of those right wingers when they come for your, read up on the IRA's South Armagh Snipers (1990–97) who used .50 caliber weapons against the British forces during the Troubles.

With the use of drones you may make better use of improvised mortars and other weapons you may devise (like use of drones by Ukraine and ISIS/ISIL/whatever, anyone?), just remember to search for real-time live-feed video RC drones, not all drones send back live video feeds right away. If you fear a suicide explosive-packed drone attacks you may want to stockpile on Anti-Drone UAV Jammers and other anti drone equipment.

Night vision systems should also be acquire, not just for night combat, but for spotting enemy IR devices and for picking out IR Reflective patches at night (somewhat popular for airsofters).

Antiochus

10th November 2016, 05:44

xxx6 returns 2

10th November 2016, 06:04

Militias like Hezbollah are quite effective and relatively low-budget. With $3,000 you can outfit a person with good tactical gear. Of course money is always a problem but one should not have to tow the 'legal' line to make those ends meet.

Everything I've mentioned from the 80% receivers to 50 caliber ammo is fully legal in most states. If you do a search for 80% receivers you will find Receiver blanks do not meet the definition of a “firearm” and are not subject to regulation under the GCA. The ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, “castings” or “machined bodies” in which the fire-control cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not reached the “stage of manufacture” which would result in the classification of a firearm per the GCA.

Also you may want to visit websites like http : / / www . the home gun smith . com for more weapons made from legal materials.

You may also want to get night vision devices that combines the light amplification capability of image intensifier night vision devices with the heat-sensing capability of thermal imaging systems. like ITT Exelis AN/PSQ-20 DSNVG Fusion Dual Sensor Compact Night Vision Goggle which is actually legal for civilians. Search for fusion night vision devices like for AN/PSQ-20 Dual Sensor Night Vision Goggle (DSNVG)It allows for observation, detection, and target identification under adverse conditions including light rain, light smoke, light snow, and low light to total darkness. As a fusion system it can also work as an early warning systems to alert you to IR devices that are invisible to the naked eye, which could be a sign an attack is coming. Just remember to also stockpile lots of batteries and spare parts.

Also remember: "camouflage" you don't want to be like those Hamas naval commandos who landed Zikim beach only to be quickly spotted and killed by the Israeli Defense force.

And most important: safety, if you do a search on Hamas naval commandos you may find out that some of the drowned during training and "Jihadi mission", so keep that in mind.

Most important Important: communications make sure you can communicate as you can get help make sure you have reliable internet access and other forms of communications, heck, hijack a TV station when Trump's followers come for you so you can send your message to the world so others can send you aid (hopefully). Remember most crackdowns takes place during a Media Blackout, remember those Wall Street protests?

Also, if you get Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) shoulder launched surface to air missiles (SLSAMs) make sure the battery works because that is usually the source of most failures (ok, MANPADS missiles is towing the legal line, but did you know you can get in the United States, M203 grenade launcher attachments fitted with the standard rifled 40mm barrel are classified as "Destructive Devices" under the National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11,because they are a "non-sporting" firearm with a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter. M203s are on the civilian NFA market but are limited as most manufacturers have quit selling to the civilian markets. New M203 Launchers sell for approximately $2,000 plus a $200 transfer tax, and new manufacture 40mm training ammunition is available for $5 to $10 per cartridge, as of March 2011. High explosive 40mm grenades are available for $400 to $500 per cartridge; however, they are exceedingly rare on the civilian market, as each grenade constitutes a Destructive Device on its own, and must be registered with the Federal government, requiring payment of a $200 tax and compliance with storage regulations for high explosives. There are also sub-caliber adapters available for the 40mm M203 (and M79) grenade launchers, which will allow the use of standard 12 gauge shotgun shells and .22 Rimfire ammo.)

Molotov1848

10th November 2016, 06:08

xxx6 returns 2

10th November 2016, 06:48

Armed self defence of workers and groups that could face serious violence from the far-right (lgbt people, immigrants, etc) is good considering the violent attacks that come from the far-right. But all this wannabe Che shit needs to stop, not only is that not how revolutions happen but I highly doubt American leftist LARPers are even going to be as successful as the PKK or Naxalites at engaging in a decades long low intensity conflict of sporadically taking potshots at the state.

Defence and retaliation against the state and fascists is important, and a monopoly over weapons by the revolutionary proletariat during an actual revolution is necessary, but playing soldier is in no way useful for anything.

What makes you think that "American leftist LARPers are (not) even going to be as successful as the PKK or Naxalites at engaging in a decades long low intensity conflict of sporadically taking potshots at the state."

We shouldn't try to take potshots at the state but to completely overthrow the state, otherwise the fascists will keep coming and we must to fully stockpile the means, while it is still legally to do so, like grenade launchers if you can afford them (remember it is still legal in the US) so we can be ready when they come for us.

Remember Karl Marx wrote that Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

And to do this, we should try to take over Government Buildings like Police Stations and TV Stations so we can get our message to our fellow citizens as soon as possible, not hide out and take potshots, but to engage and destroy them if they ever try harm our comrades of color of any minority for that matter.

Also, we should stockpile anti-tank weapons like explosively formed penetrators (EFP's) and armor-piercing rounds like for rifles (you will find you can legally buy ARMOR PIERCING INCENDIARY rounds online just do a search) that you can get legally get all thanks to the "Obama is coming for our guns" craze that the Right Wing had going on in the Obama era.

Actually thanks to the Right Wing's "Obama is coming for our guns" fears and legal battles you can actually find a lot of viable military-grade weapons if you search for them.

Please, my comrades, stockpile weapons because you can be sure our enemies have done the same.

You can also use flying drones to take down aircraft, read up on all the fears of future unmanned threats by the US military, and buy some 3d printers with materials so our comrades can 3d print spare parts as needed. Practice guiding drones to attack vulnerable areas like the tail rotors of helicopters.

For rocket motors for missiles there are Estes model rocket kits are other ready-made stuff out there like BulletSafe Bulletproof Baseball Caps so we can take the state and fascists head-on if Trump supporters dare to come for us.

As for fuses for the warheads you can buy fuses from http : / / www . the fuse company . com as for explosives you can get from https : / / explosives . k2si . com just pretend you have a legal use for the when you make a request for quote, or you can buy Tannerite exploding targets which explode when shot.

By the way you can legally buy Tannerite, just so you know. Though can try your luck with more blasting stuff like Dyno AP from Dyno Nobel.

almost

10th November 2016, 07:51

these demos suck

Wessex Way Monster

10th November 2016, 07:56

xxx while another of what you said isnt wrong it strikes me as showing off and posturing without any real acknowledgment of the risks associated with bringing firearms into the equation (which I am not opposed to). For one, in many states all firearms transfers require a background check. This can be evaded. Also, firearms are not cheap u less you go with an AR platform in the US, otherwise youre looking at 700-1000 for anything that won't get you killed (even with AKs). I strongly recommend, if you are gonna get into firearms, watch lots of reviews. Frequent gun boards to learn everything you can about firearm function and put ricing and reliability. Make a wise purchase, not one that is quick and without forethought.

xxx6 returns 2

10th November 2016, 08:03

these demos suck

Unless you known where to put the demos, read up on the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) from World War II, and remember since we are so dependent on computers and advanced software it is actually rare for modern advanced vehicles to be able to take many hits and keep working like in World War II: if you know where to place your demos.

Actually, since we want to end the conflict as quickly as possile, I would recommend stockpiling on Thermites so we can cut through locked doors like on TV stations and Government building so as to take control of working mass communications as soon as possible. To get Thermites check out websites like Buy Thermite . com

xxx while another of what you said isnt wrong it strikes me as showing off and posturing without any real acknowledgment of the risks associated with bringing firearms into the equation (which I am not opposed to). For one, in many states all firearms transfers require a background check.

As I've mentioned before 80% receivers (and even some 90% receivers and 80% pistol frames with jigs)are not considered firearms and thus do not require a background check. You can do a search to confirm this.

almost

10th November 2016, 08:11

Unless you known where to put the demos, read up on the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) from World War II, and remember since we are so dependent on computers and advanced software it is actually rare for modern advanced vehicles to be able to take many hits and keep working like in World War II: if you know where to place your demos. Actually, since we want to end the conflict as quickly as possile, I would recommend stockpiling on Thermites so we can cut through locked doors like on TV stations and Government building so as to take control of working mass communications as soon as possible. To get Thermites check out websites like Buy Thermite . com this is a thread about trump and the demos mentioned are referring to the demonstrations going on around the country the past couple nights the forum does have a diy section that would be more appropriate for your posts, but only an idiot or a pig would discuss that type of thing on an internet forum imo

John Nada

10th November 2016, 08:26

MANPADs and all this shit. This thread's fucking derailment:laugh::laugh::laugh: Having firepower means nothing if you have shit politics and no support from the masses. Hell, a lot of revolutionary guerrillas started out with jack shit and expropriated most their gear along the way. Putting politics in command and gaining support of the workers and peasants is how orgs like the PKK, CPP-NPA-NDF, and Naxals lasted so long while others got crushed, turned into gangs, burned out or sold out. There's a very strong non-military component. The subjective factors are key too.

RedAnarchist

10th November 2016, 20:45

Admin message - People are rightfully angry about Trump being elected, but can we please not discuss anything illegal in relation to the election on the public forum? Thanks.

xxx6 returns 2

11th November 2016, 03:46

Ok, Sorry everybody:crying: I supposed I have an overactive imagination.

Anyway, about Trump, I'm surprised truly damaging facts, like how Tony Schwartz was the real author of "The Art of the Deal" are not well known.

GLF

11th November 2016, 04:48

The "Art of the Deal" was written by a Ghostwriter:

“The Art of the Deal” made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.

http : / / w w w . newyorker . com /magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-allI know that. That's why I said "the man behind..." rather than "the man who wrote...".

The point is, I think the most likely scenario is the GOP and Trump make a move towards the center because they're about to be without a constituency - by 2020 enough will have already changed demographically to ensure their defeat. They have to go center. Had Clinton won, she would've gone right. Trump won, the GOP has to go center. I mean they don't have to. They can perish instead if that's what they want to do.

The thing is, for now, they get to keep their capitalism. That means fascism is useless to the ruling class. After Fascism is off the table, there's not many possibilities left.

Perhaps people more read up on Marxian methodologies can weigh in on this, but from a materialist standpoint I don't see a way to justify a fascist takeover at this point.

Antiochus

11th November 2016, 05:36

Perhaps people more read up on Marxian methodologies can weigh in on this, but from a materialist standpoint I don't see a way to justify a fascist takeover at this point.

I don't think anyone argued this at all. You are missing the point entirely. Trump isn't some "Hitler" or even Mussolini. No one serious is arguing that the SA is coming to your house and smashing the windows. What Trump represents is a very real and very desperate attempt to salvage Capitalism from total insolvency. In case you haven't noticed, Capitalism is in DIRE fucking straits. And no, that hasn't 'always been the case', for the first time since the inter-war period, Capitalism in Western liberal democracies is really really really unable to cope with globalization and this has been the turn they have taken in virtually every developed country. It isn't just Trump. Its the FN, its the Swedish Democrats, its Berlusconi, its Putin, its that insane Hungarian anti-semite (forgot the name). This isn't some phenomenon that is happening just because. Its a REACTION, but a reaction to what? To the failure of liberalism as a political and economic ideology. And that is big. Because this is the ideology that has formed the bedrock of many of these countries since the late 1848.

Second, please stop with the demographics nonsense. I am so tired of hearing it. If I have to hear one more time how there will be fewer old white people and that will somehow lead to the fucking collapse of racist reactionary filth, I will literally shoot myself. Trump won a greater share of Latino votes than Romney. Now why do you think that an explicitly racist monkey won all of these Uncle Ruckus' over? What if the next fascist isn't an explicit racist at all? What if he is Black? Does this sound weird? Why should it. The face of the alt-right scum is a peroxide dyed homosexual that brags about interracial gay sex. It isn't far-fetched.

xxx6 returns 2

11th November 2016, 06:44

Second, please stop with the demographics nonsense. I am so tired of hearing it. If I have to hear one more time how there will be fewer old white people and that will somehow lead to the fucking collapse of racist reactionary filth, I will literally shoot myself. Trump won a greater share of Latino votes than Romney. Now why do you think that an explicitly racist monkey won all of these Uncle Ruckus' over? What if the next fascist isn't an explicit racist at all? What if he is Black? Does this sound weird? Why should it. The face of the alt-right scum is a peroxide dyed homosexual that brags about interracial gay sex. It isn't far-fetched.

But the "demographics nonsense" doesn't have to be "old white people" or any of the types you've mentioned, it could be a change in mass psychology (with people of all races). For example: it could be that people finally woken up to the American debt and wants to change it and to do this Trump turn fascist to appease the crowd (by going after undesirables who are "responsible" for the US debt).

To be honest I have curiosity about Trump, for example http : / / www . counterpunc h . org /2016/11/10/in-bleak-times-portland-serves-as-an-example-to-the-world/

said:

"Because real progressives are as frustrated and angry about the status quo as are the poor, vulnerable and disillusioned who turned to Trump. And they had no choice but to vote for Trump because there was no one aside from him in the presidential race articulating anything that approximated the truth."

I wonder what do you all think and what is really the truth?

Molotov1848

11th November 2016, 07:40

I don't think Trump's success even really indicates much of a change. In the primaries he was going up against impotent tired old men like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush with both coming off as nothing more than a diet Romney, and then Trump came along dropping one liners and saying exactly what Republicans wanted to hear. When the 8th of November came all the usual republicans went out and voted for their party like they always have whilst the democratic party fielding a deeply unpopular candidate relied on scaring and guilting people into voting for the "lesser evil". If you look at the results Trump actually got slightly less votes than Romney did in 2012 despite there being a slightly higher (but still really low) voter turnout. Of course there were some changes notably in Michigan and Pennsylvania over Trump's promise to bring back industry and those people probably would otherwise not bother or maybe passively vote democrat but threw in their ballot for Trump since he was at least claiming to offer something.

Like seriously this isn't much more than the usual electoral bullshit game.

(A)

11th November 2016, 09:29

Looking over the numbers it is not a rise in republican voters but is a drop in Democratic voters that won Trump the election.
It shows that the majority of non-voters is rising (And that Sanders could have won if the DNC had not backed the wrong horse).
Disenfranchisement from the Neoliberal party of Democrats; while having severe negative impacts on the result of the election is a good thing if it means lessliberals and
more real Leftists.

ckaihatsu

11th November 2016, 13:09

MANPADS: For that time of the month, for guys -- just in case.

x D

---

On the Sanders thing, that's worth mentioning, because, going by the popular vote, we can almost put Sanders, Clinton, and Trump side-by-side -- the voting results show that there's a significant 'left-populist' sentiment that wasn't given due expression through the electoral process. That *empirical* mood is going to continue to be there, and maybe grow, through the next 4+ years of the Trump presidency.

Candidate_______Hillary_Clinton_____Bernie_Sanders
Home_state______New York____________Vermont
Delegate_count__2,842_______________1,865
Contests_won____34__________________23
Popular_vote____16,914,722[a][1]____13,206,428[a][1]
Percentage______55.2%[a]____________43.1%[a]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_prima ries,_2016

Nominee_____________________Donald_Trump________Hi llary_Clinton
Party_______________________Republican__________De mocratic
Home_state__________________New_York____________Ne w_York
Running_mate________________Mike_Pence__________Ti m_Kaine
Projected_electoral_vote____306[3][4][5]________232[3][4][5]
States_carried______________30_+_ME-02__________20_+_DC
Popular_vote________________60,116,240[6][7][8]_60,556,142[6][7][8]
Percentage__________________47.3%_______________47 .6%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

ckaihatsu

11th November 2016, 13:55

Communiqué on the U.S. Elections by La Tribune des Travailleurs [Workers' Tribune], France; ALSO Some Facts on Voter Turnout and Related Matters; ALSO Editorial of October 2016 Issue of The Organizer Newspaper

Communiqué of La Tribune des Travailleurs [Workers' Tribune], France

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States heralds yet more brutal blows against the U.S. workers, against the youth, against Black people, against immigrants. It also heralds yet more blows in every domain against democratic rights, women's rights, trade union rights, etc. And it heralds further attacks against the peoples of the whole world.

In France, the announcement of Trump's election is being seized on by representatives of the "left-wing" parties to call for unity against "populists and the far-right".[1]

For the workers and activists in France, who are legitimately worried as they follow events on the other side of the Atlantic, it is important to re-establish the facts.

Here are the facts: The main responsibility for Donald Trump's election lies in the choices made by the leaders of the U.S. labour movement and the main Black organisations. Abandoning an independent working-class policy, those leaders gave their support to the candidate of Wall Street and the capitalist class: Hillary Clinton.

This strategy is not new. In 2008, the leadership of the biggest trade union confederation, the AFL-CIO, had been mandated to demand the introduction of single-payer healthcare, a health insurance system based on deferred wages, which was a crucial issue at a time when 52 million Americans were denied any healthcare coverage. And yet, those same leaders decided to give their support to the Democratic Party candidate, who rushed to establish a private insurance system for the greater profit of the capitalists. That system -- "Obamacare" -- has left more than 20 million uninsured and, beginning in 2017, it will result in a significant increase in healthcare premiums and other expenses for working-class families; concerns about such increases, in fact, contributed to the rejection of the Democratic Party candidate on 8 November 2016.

More generally, during Obama's presidency the programmes for dismantling industry continued, as did the efforts to privatise the healthcare and education systems. During the Obama presidency, the policy of war spread to the whole planet, resulting in the dismantling of entire nations and the exodus of millions of people. Under Obama, the number of murders of Black people by the police grew at an unprecedented rate, while the number of immigrants deported to Mexico and Central America reached record levels.

In these conditions, should we be surprised that broad sectors of Black youth -- who had mobilised in the Black Lives Matter movement -- refused to vote?

Should we be surprised that broad sectors of the working class abstained? Should we be surprised that others, driven by despair at the continuous economic and social downturn, allowed themselves to be swayed by the reactionary and populist demagoguery of someone who presented himself as the anti-establishment candidate?

Let us repeat this point: Once again, we have the proof that "lesser evil" politics, in the name of which the representatives of the labour organisations called on people to support Clinton, has resulted in practice in what they presented as the "greater evil": the election of Trump.

This has happened before in the past. And those who today in France would like to justify an alliance with the government parties, in the name of the struggle against the "lesser evil", are simply preparing the conditions for the French "greater evil".

In France, as in the United States, defending democracy and labour gains, and advancing the struggle against war, racism and the massive roundups of immigrants requires the independence of the labour organisations.

In the United States, the refusal to submit to capitalism's twin political parties and its various institutions means that the working class and the Black organisations need to lay the foundations for their own political representation, one that will be faithful to working-class interests. In France, that means fighting for a break with the European Union and the Fifth Republic, for the repeal of all the anti-working class counter-reforms, and for a sovereign Constituent Assembly.

Against the worst forms of reaction, the united front of the workers and their organisations, on a class basis and in complete independence, is the only appropriate response.

9 November 2016 at 5 p.m.

- - - - - - - - -

Endnote

(1) The same terms have been used in the statements issued today by both the French Communist Party and the Socialist Party.

Note: The 16 November issue of La Tribune des Travailleurs will publish a special dossier on the significance and consequences of the U.S. presidential election, prepared jointly with our correspondents in the United States.

* * * * * * * * * *

Additional Notes by The Organizer Newspaper
On Voter Turnout and Related Matters

[More complete analysis by Editorial Board of The Organizer is forthcoming.]

FACTS: VOTE TOTALS AND VOTER TURNOUT

* The results of the popular vote are in: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are neck and neck in the popular vote (Trump won the electoral college vote by a large number).

No network of official agency is yet able to confirm the final popular vote totals. At this writing (Nov. 9 at 12 noon EST), Clinton is 161,741 votes ahead of Trump in the popular vote, but Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire, among others, are still tallying up final numbers -- and some states will be receiving absentee ballots for weeks that could change the popular vote.

At any rate, with an estimated 99.7% of the total votes counted: these are the vote totals:

Hillary Clinton: 59,293,087 (47.65%)

Donald Trump: 59,131,346 (47.65%)

Gary Johnson: 4,012,356 (3%)

Jill Stein: 1,207, 974 (1%)

Other: 795,000 (0,7%)

TOTAL VOTES CAST (pending final adjustment for states listed above and absentee ballots)

124,439,763

- - -

* Voter Registration and Turnout

On October 18, the New York Times reported that for the first time in history, there were now more than 200 million registered voters in the United States -- more than 50 million new voters over the past eight years.

Most Democratic Party pollsters had projected a Hillary Clinton victory based on a projected voter turnout of 135 million.

But even accounting for updated vote tallies in a few states and some absentee ballots, the actual voter turnout was far short of the projected 135 million. In fact, the vote total is not expected to exceed 125 million votes cast -- or roughly 10 million votes short of most projections.
The voter turnout was thus 62.5% of registered voters. This is a much lower turnout, both in real numbers and as a percentage of registered voters, than in 2008.

In 2008, the total number of votes cast was 131 million; in 2012 the total number was 129 million. The number of registered voters in 2008 was almost 50 million votes lower; in 2012 it was roughly 27 million votes lower.

What accounts for the lower-than-expected voter turnout?

Some liberal newspapers and online blogs such as Politico, attribute this to the voter anger at both the Republican and Democratic candidates. Many people just voted with their feet and stayed home. They also point out that the Black vote was lower than expected because of the distrust in Hillary Clinton but also because in some states, such as North Carolina, the Republican officials imposed new restrictive voting laws targeting African American voters specifically. These laws restricted access to early voting.

And let's not forget the "felony disenfranchisement" in countless states -- that is, the New Jim Crow laws that ban prisoners and ex-felons from voting. The total is 3.9 million people who could otherwise vote. This is 13% of the adult Black male population.
Another reason for the lower voter turnout, it appears, was the lower-than-expected millennial vote (which, at one point, had been galvanized by Bernie Sanders but was later largely ignored by Hillary Clinton).

As far as the Latino vote, it was far higher than in 2008 or 2012 (because of the fear of Trump's anti-immigrant stance) but it was not as high as expected, according to the New York Times. (For example, the Latino vote was expected to carry Clinton in Florida, but this did not occur.)

* * * * * * * * * *

SOME INITIAL REACTIONS

"An Imperfect Vessel for their Anger and Frustration"

From the San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 9) lead article:

'To millions of Americans who feel the system isn't working for them, who haven't been part of the economic recovery . . . their choice was clear: Donald Trump was the imperfect vessel for their anger and frustration." . . . It was a gut-level frustration by Trump's working-class, white, less-educated voters over the outsourcing to overseas workers, over the closed plants where they used to work. . . .

"Clinton lost in the Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Voters there said they viewed Trump unfavorably, but they voted for him nonetheless.

"The message to the elites is of both parties is, 'You're out of touch," said Mo Fiorina, a professor of political science at Stanford University and author of 'Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics.' 'If you're leaning toward giving the middle finger to the elites, then a vote for Trump makes sense.'"

* * * * * * * * * *

"Perhaps Not and Issue in the Media, But Definitely an Issue Around the Dinner Table"

Asked by the PBS reporter at the Republican election-night gathering at the Hilton Hotel in New York City on election night, as the vote totals were indicating that Trump would win, Jack Kingston, a former Georgia member of Congress, explained the main reason, in his opinion, that Hillary Clinton lost the election. He said the following, in summary:

One of the most neglected stories in the media is the widespread anger and concern among workers in the Rust Belt, in particular, but not only there over the rising costs of healthcare under Obamacare. It might not have been in the media, but a main discussion at the dinner table in working-class and middle-class households across the country, a discussion that has worried families day and night, Kingston said, is the fact that premiums and healthcare costs are going to soar in 2017 under Obamacare. "When Trump said that Obamacare had to go, he got a real hearing."

* * * * * * * * *

From the Blog of Labor Journalist and Analyst Jack Rasmus

* From his article on Nov. 4 (four days before the election), titled, "Election 2016: Is Another Contested Election in the Works":

The Democratic Party has become the party of the upscale, suburban, and college educated. The union labor movement cannot deliver their white working class members' votes in those swing states any longer. Thanks again to free trade, job offshoring, and the collapse of manufacturing in those states.

The US electorate has been quietly turning upside down since 2000, and the Democratic Party elite have no one to thank for that but themselves. (Obama's record Latino deportations may have also had the same effect for the tens of millions potential voters in that group as well.) . . .

What the preceding analysis suggests is that Trump's ability to turn out a highly disaffected white working class base in the Pennsylvania to Wisconsin geographic 'arc' may prove the determining factor in the election. Whether Hillary can neutralize that turnout by counter-mobilizing suburbanites, minorities, and millennials (the least likely) in those same great lakes region 'swing states' is the fundamental question in this election.

* * * * *

* From Rasmus' Blog on November 9, 2016

This election was, as I continually have said since summer, a 'rebellion of the working class' against the political elite of both Democrat and Republican parties. Trump was able to mobilize and turn out his base of non-college educated working class (combined with the traditional conservative rural, small town, small business base) more effectively than Hillary Clinton was able to turn out her base of suburbanites, minorities, college educated, and women.

More white non-college workers switched from Democrat and voted Trump in 2016 than they switched and voted for Reagan in 1980.

Clinton Latinos turned out to vote significantly less than they did for Obama in 2012. Obama's Latino margin over Romney was 44%; Clinton's only 36%. Women over 45 went for Trump, and millennials turned out in less percent for Clinton in 2016 than for Obama in 2012.

The states that put Trump over the top were once heavily working class and Democratic Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, with Michigan and Minnesota likely to follow as well when the final vote is tallied. These are the states most severely impacted by free trade, offshoring of jobs, and declining living standards.

* * * * * * * * *

IMPORTANT BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

CLINTON vs. TRUMP:
NONE OF THE ABOVE

(Editorial of the October 2016 issue of The Organizer)

As we go to press [Oct. 22], the nation -- or, to put it more aptly, the dwindling number of people across the nation who bothered to tune in -- was treated for a third time to the sorry spectacle of a "debate" (call it mud-slinging) between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hot words about "rigged votes" and "acting as a puppet of Putin" were bandied about, with little, if any, discussion of the substantive issues facing working people.

Throughout the 18-month presidential election campaign, the working class majority expressed its deep-seated rejection of the traditional politicians of the twin parties of capitalism: the Democrats and Republicans. This took many forms.

Inside the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders, who presented himself as an "outsider" (but was really an insider), was seen by a large number of discontented voters, primarily among the youth, as a means of expressing their aspirations. Fourteen million people turned to Sanders because they wanted single-payer healthcare, a real wage increase, an end to Wall Street hegemony over the body politic, a halt to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and more.

Within the Republican Party, Trump presented himself as the outsider, the "non-politician," which earned him a stronger following than most people expected. All the traditional G.O.P. politicians -- from Jeb Bush to Jon Kasich -- fell by the wayside, as a rightwing populist upsurge, fueled by massive job losses and white-supremacist racism, came to the fore.

But now that's all a thing of the past: Sanders has delivered on his promise to turn over his 14 million voters to the candidate supported and financed by Wall Street and Big Business: Hillary Clinton.[1] Long forgotten is Sanders' tirade against Wall Street. For her part, Clinton has made little effort to court the Sanders voters or even voice their concerns.

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is imploding.

As the election campaign comes to a close, the Republican Party, to quote The New York Times, is "on the verge of civil war," with G.O.P. leaders distancing themselves from Trump as fast as they can run. Trump's rating are dropping so quickly that the G.O.P. leadership is now worried that their party will lose its majority in the House and Senate on November 8.

Trump's tirade against Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan is no less vicious than his tirade against Hillary Clinton, expressing Trump's growing understanding that his ship is sinking. Even his own ticket is in shambles: While Trump warns that he may not accept the outcome of the November presidential election, his running mate, Mike Pence, has stated that, of course, the G.O.P. will honor the results of the vote.

This unprecedented election campaign -- where a largely unknown Bernie Sanders took the Democratic Party frontrunner almost to the wire and where a TV celebrity outscored all the Republican Party frontrunners -- is a sign of the growing discontent with the two-party system, but it is also a refraction of a capitalist system in deepening crisis.

Karl Marx wrote that, "government is nothing but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole capitalist class." Today, this administrative committee in the United States is in profound disarray, with a much-reviled, unpopular presidential candidate as its only viable candidate.

Ruling-Class Drive to Elect Clinton in Full Throttle

As we approach the final weeks of this seemingly interminable 18-month presidential election campaign, the U.S. ruling class is putting its electoral machinery into overdrive to get Hillary Clinton elected to the nation's highest office. From the vantage point of the ruling class, Trump is a serious liability.

According to an op-ed piece in the October 10 issue of the New York Times by Steven Rattner, a Wall Street executive and Times contributing opinion writer, "not a single chief executive of a Fortune 100 company has donated to Trump's campaign or endorsed it," while more than half have supported and donated generously to Clinton's campaign, particularly in recent weeks.

A Wall Street Journal survey of 45 former members of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers found not one who would endorse Trump. All are supporting Clinton.

If anyone is still not convinced that Clinton is THE candidate of Wall Street in November, the recently released emails in the files of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta should put those doubts to rest.

In the documents made public by WikiLeaks -- none of which has been disavowed -- Clinton tells a gathering hosted by Goldman Sachs that "as a Senator I represented and worked with so many on Wall Street, and I did all I could to make sure that they could prosper."

At another moment, Clinton told the Wall Street banksters not to worry about her public declarations in opposition to TPP or in support of Social Security. In her line of business, she insisted, it is necessary to have a "public" posture and a "private" one. She needed to take a "public" stance on many issues dear to the working class majority to get elected, she told them, but once in office she would carry out her "private" policies, in sync with her Wall Street donors.

This last point is particularly important to the trade union movement. Throughout her presidential campaign, Clinton has insisted that, "I oppose the TPP. I'll oppose it after the election. And I'll oppose it as president." But in a $225,000 speech to the Wall Street banksters in San Diego, she said that her "dream is a hemispheric market, with open trade."

Can there be any doubt that Clinton, once in office, will do everything possible to enact the TPP -- mind you, with a few cosmetic changes to make it appear that she is really on the side of the working class?

Can there be any doubt that she will move to promote the "reforms" to Social Security that the speculators have all been demanding, or that she will continue to promote, even deepen, the privatization and deregulation policies of all past administrations, including that of Bill Clinton?

Can there be any doubt that she will accelerate the drive toward war, with more U.S. troops on the ground, throughout the Middle East?

A Crisis Rooted in the Capitalist System Itself

The dispute between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not over ultimate objectives; rather it's over how to implement them. The crisis that has dislocated the summits of political power in this country is due to the fact that the economic basis of the capitalist system itself has been profoundly destabilized by the 2008 crisis, with no recovery in sight.

It's a fact: Despite the Obama administration's $8 trillion-plus bailout of the major banks and financial institutions, despite the astronomic sums injected into the economy in the name of Quantative Easing, despite the massive number of jobs cut in industry after industry, despite all budget cuts in social services -- despite all of this, there has not been an economic recovery.

The IMF has recognized this situation, declaring: "The U.S. economy has lost its vitality over the course of the most recent trimesters; the expansion predicted for the second semester of 2016 did not materialize." Even the $5.4 trillion invested in shale oil have only gone to inflate a speculative bubble that is even greater than the sub-prime bubble.

The root of it all is the very crisis of the capitalist system. It's a system that's incapable of developing anything other than parasatic fuel rods to keep the economy afloat: the military-industrial complex and war, on the one hand, and unbridled financial speculation, on the other.

The ruling class's inability to surmount the crisis of the capitalist system is what spurs its growing political crisis.

Once Again on "Lesser-Evilism"

In this context, it is especially troublesome to see the top trade union leadership, even its most progressive wing, urge its members to mobilize to elect Hillary Clinton.

Josh Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), one of the most progressive unions in the country, wrote the following in an editorial published in California Teacher (Sept-Oct 2016):

"We can't be cavalier about who will be the next president. Š Unfortunately there is no viable labor party in this country, so we know the next president will either be a Democrat or a Republican. Electing Donald Trump would be a catastrophe. Hillary Clinton is our best choice to advance a progressive agenda, and her election must be our number one goal."

And Pechthalt concludes: "We can't be complacent about our vote for president. Even if our electoral votes are not in doubt, this is not the time to squander a vote on Jill Stein or any third-party candidate."

This decades-old "lesser-evil" argument has been used time and again to justify support for one candidate of the corporate class against the other. Today it's the fear of Trump's "hate-filled views" that is being raised to justify a vote for Clinton.

There can be no doubt that Clinton and Trump have sharp disagreements on a number of subjects. Trump openly spouts the most reactionary, racist, and war-mongering rhetoric. Clinton's discourse is different.

But once elected, will Clinton not pursue the war without end, will she not continue the very same policies of social and racial discrimination which, under the Obama administration and all previous administrations, have triggered the police killings of Black people?

Isn't it a fact that the reactionary wave that has lifted Trump is simply the result of the anti-working class policies implemented over the past eight years by the outgoing Democratic Party president?

The inconvenient truth (for some) is that Clinton is really a traditional Republican masking as a "centrist" -- at times even as a "progressive" -- and that she only has a chance of winning this election because she is facing a buffoon named Donald Trump.

The inconvenient truth is that we are faced in this election with a choice of two of the most unpopular political figures in U.S. history because of the continued policy, pursued over decades by the top leaders of the U.S. labor movement, of "lesser-evilism." With each consecutive election, "lesser-evil" politics has only pushed the political spectrum further and further to the right.

The view that Clinton will be a vehicle for workers to "advance a progressive agenda," as Pechthalt argues, could not be further from the truth.

How Do We Get There From Here?

Like many progressive labor officials, Josh Pechthalt is in favor of a Labor Party, at least in theory. But if this is your goal, the question becomes, how do you get there from here?

Many labor partisans of a Clinton vote argue that we must first stop Trump, and only then can we confront Clinton and compel her administration to meet working people's most pressing demands, including the demands of the Black Lives Matter movement. This, they argue, will ultimately create a mass social protest movement that can become the cauldron for the creation of a third-party movement, including for a Labor Party.

But this logic is not borne out by historical experience. The record shows that when the Democrats are in office, the top leadership of the labor movement exerts all the pressure it can muster to quash all social protest movements.

The lesser-evil arguments used to rationalize a vote for Clinton in November will be wielded, in a different form after her election. Social protest movements will be urged to hold back in their criticisms of -- and mobilizations against -- Clinton, lest this add fuel to the grist of the Trump rightwing forces. Any actions that could be seen as "destabilizing Clinton" will be portrayed as doing the work of Trump and his minions.

No! If the working class -- and especially its most oppressed Black and Latino sectors -- is to prevail in defending its rights and interests, and if it is to make new gains, it will have to affirm its independence at all times; it will have to act on independent class grounds both in the electoral arena and in the streets. This has to happen before and after the November 8 election

Working people are ready and looking for a change. Reports from our readers speak of general scorn in the workplace for the two mainstream candidates. They speak of widespread unwillingness by labor activists to take Hillary Clinton door-hangers when getting out the vote for ballot propositions and candidates for local, state and national office. They speak of anger by Black activists, particularly Black youth, with all politicians, whatever their political stripe.

While it is a fact that this aspiration for an authentic working class political alternative cannot be expressed at this time in the electoral arena for all the reasons explained above, these reports from our reader -- and there are countless others -- underscore a simple truth: the deep aspiration for independent working politics is not going away; in fact, it will continue to seek every avenue to find a way forward.

No doubt, many, if not most, of the unionists and activists will vote for Clinton, but their contradictory attitudes express a great frustration with ruling class politics and a search for a real working-class alternative.[2]

The road to independent working class party will not be linear. The formulation by Karl Marx that the emancipation of the working class will be the task of the workers themselves rings true.

The working class will need its historic organizations -- primarily the trade unions -- to break with their reliance upon the Democratic Party to champion the interests of the working class majority and chart the way forward toward a Labor Party.

Linked to this struggle, Blacks will need a Black working class party to advance their immediate and national interests, such as advocated by Nnamdi Scott, the independent Black candidate for city council in Baltimore of the Ujima People's Progress Party (UPP).

"It is necessary to understand the relationship of the Black workers to capitalism," Scott stated in the interview with The Organizer published in this issue. "What this means is that the political organization of Black workers as a class needs to take place. It is not enough to have a movement. There will be no Black liberation without our organization."

Scott argued for stopping to "petition or leverage the capitalist parties" and to "plot our way toward independent political struggle, be that in the electoral arena or in the grassroots arena; there has to be a conscious effort by Black workers to have their own political independence and confidence in their own strength as a class."

These words apply not only to Black workers, but to the entire working class. Never has the task of advancing independent working class political action been more urgent.

- - - - -

Endnotes

[1] Whether Sanders succeeds in his venture of turning all his voters over to Clinton is far from certain, however. While most Sanders voters will no doubt "hold their noses" and vote for Clinton, many others will vote for other candidates running for high office -- or they will simply not vote at all.

[2] Others will vote for Jill Stein, not necessarily because they support the Green Party, but because they see a Stein vote as the most effective protest vote against the two-party system. Others still will vote for one of the many socialist candidates running for president -- be it the Socialist Party, the Party of Socialism and Liberation, or others.

But Stein and the Green Party are not the alternative that working people need if they are to win their demands. The Green Party is not a working class party; it does not view society as divided into opposing social classes with contradictory interests; the Stein and Green platforms are based on the notion of a "civil society," where class lines are blurred.

Although many of the planks put forward by Jill Stein point in the direction of progressive social change, working people -- especially the oppressed Black masses fighting against police brutality and for self-determination -- will need a class party to prevail.

* * * * *

EDITORIAL SIDEBAR

"A Hard Rain of Increased War Is About to Fall"

If there were even the slightest doubt about the increased war drive being prepared by the top brass of the U.S. military, with the approval of Hillary Clinton, one need only read the speech by Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley on October 4, 2016. Warning that wars will be spreading across the globe, Milley threatened to crush militarily any nation or force that might oppose U.S. policies. He targeted in particular those voices that have spoken out in favor of "dismantling NATO and the European Union."

Milley went on to add:

"All the countries, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea went to school on us. They closely watched how we fought in 1991 and 2003. They studied our doctrine, our tactics, our equipment, our organization, our training, and our leadership. And in turn, they revised their own doctrines, and they are rapidly modernizing their military today to avoid our strength in hope of defeating us at some point in the future. Š

"Unfortunately, war between nation states, in my view, is very unlikely to remain relegated to the history books. And because there is no higher authority, and because security is the primal interest of each State, conflicts between nation States are virtually guaranteed at some point. And today, today we are in the middle of yet another major geopolitical change. Š

"So in short, the next 25 years are not going to be like the last 10, and not like the last 25. The keen challenge that we face is the changing character of war; it is unlike anything our actual force has ever experienced in intensity and lethality.

"A noted class historian (Victor Dadid Hanson), recently wrote that he sees an increase in nationalism and regional armed forces, unresolved territorial claims, sectarian and disputes, and return to 18th Century balance of power politics of spheres of influence. And he concluded that there is a light breeze in the air, and it may turn into a storm. And he concluded at the end of his essay that a 'hard rain is about to fall'."

This warning could not be clearer. Both presidential candidates are tearing each other apart. But the Army Chief of Staff knows full well that whichever of the two candidates is elected, this war without end will continue and deepen.

Statesponsoredterror

11th November 2016, 14:26

Wait until Trump builds a wall greater than the Great Wall of China, hires you, the unemployed, and makes Mexico pay your wages.

Antiochus

11th November 2016, 16:30

Wait until Trump builds a wall greater than the Great Wall of China, hires you, the unemployed, and makes Mexico pay your wages.

Besides this idiot being a troll. I hope you do realize that ultimately Trump will fail. Fascism is built upon failure. Even if global fascism had won in 1939-1945, they could never have lasted. Fail-safe switches (which is what Fascism is for Capitalism) aren't meant to last. Even if Trump kicks out every Mexican in the US, builds his ridiculous wall and so on, every single facet of life that makes the white-working class poor, uneducated, dying at a higher rate than they used to in the past and so on, remains.

Oh and bud, since I know history isn't your forte: The Great Wall of China failed lol. But hey, its a good tourist attraction.

GLF

11th November 2016, 17:10

I don't think anyone argued this at all. You are missing the point entirely. Trump isn't some "Hitler" or even Mussolini. No one serious is arguing that the SA is coming to your house and smashing the windows. What Trump represents is a very real and very desperate attempt to salvage Capitalism from total insolvency. In case you haven't noticed, Capitalism is in DIRE fucking straits. And no, that hasn't 'always been the case', for the first time since the inter-war period, Capitalism in Western liberal democracies is really really really unable to cope with globalization and this has been the turn they have taken in virtually every developed country. It isn't just Trump. Its the FN, its the Swedish Democrats, its Berlusconi, its Putin, its that insane Hungarian anti-semite (forgot the name). This isn't some phenomenon that is happening just because. Its a REACTION, but a reaction to what? To the failure of liberalism as a political and economic ideology. And that is big. Because this is the ideology that has formed the bedrock of many of these countries since the late 1848.

Second, please stop with the demographics nonsense. I am so tired of hearing it. If I have to hear one more time how there will be fewer old white people and that will somehow lead to the fucking collapse of racist reactionary filth, I will literally shoot myself. Trump won a greater share of Latino votes than Romney. Now why do you think that an explicitly racist monkey won all of these Uncle Ruckus' over? What if the next fascist isn't an explicit racist at all? What if he is Black? Does this sound weird? Why should it. The face of the alt-right scum is a peroxide dyed homosexual that brags about interracial gay sex. It isn't far-fetched.

You make some good points but I honestly feel you are underestimating the effect of the changing demographics. The right-wing fight this not because they "want to preserve their race", as white people have never been even the least bit threatened anywhere in the world. The only thing that's threatened, whether it be America, Europe, South America, South Africa, etc, is the capitalist agenda - of which white supremacy is an extension. So I don't put too much stock in the fact that people of color voted for Trump. The vast majority came out in force for Clinton, for one thing. For another thing, sexism is very real and effects all demographics. Had Clinton been a white male, I believe she would've completely trashed Trump by a landslide.

Exterminatus

11th November 2016, 17:29

ckaihatsu

11th November 2016, 17:39

GLF

11th November 2016, 21:20

What do our American members think of Sanders' plan to reinvent the Democratic Party as a party of working-class? This would undeniably be a step in the right direction (i.e. further polarization of social antagonism, normalization of the word "socialism" and so on), but is this even possible given how deeply entrenched big businesses are in that party? If this doesn't work, what then? Given that prospects for a strong third party in the US seem to be nil.
This is just my opinion and it may sound a little moonbatty, but I believe Sanders was permitted to run, and given just enough exposure, in order to test just how receptive the populace would be at this particular time to leftist politics. He was never going to be president because the powers that be didn't want him president - they're the ones who gauged his level of his support so as to decide just how drastic their wildcard, Trump, would have to be. Had Sanders received even more support than he ended up receiving, I think the media would have been even more forgiving of Trump, and I think Trump would have in turn posed an even greater threat than he poses today. Yes, I know that may seem a little far-fetched but I've learned not to underestimate just how utterly scripted and controlled our society happens to be.

But the "demographics nonsense" doesn't have to be "old white people" or any of the types you've mentioned, it could be a change in mass psychology (with people of all races). For example: it could be that people finally woken up to the American debt and wants to change it and to do this Trump turn fascist to appease the crowd (by going after undesirables who are "responsible" for the US debt).

To be honest I have curiosity about Trump, for example http : / / www . counterpunc h . org /2016/11/10/in-bleak-times-portland-serves-as-an-example-to-the-world/

said:

"Because real progressives are as frustrated and angry about the status quo as are the poor, vulnerable and disillusioned who turned to Trump. And they had no choice but to vote for Trump because there was no one aside from him in the presidential race articulating anything that approximated the truth."

I wonder what do you all think and what is really the truth?

I agree with the first part of your post - that the demographic shift isn't just about old white people and there is a change in the the psychology of the nation. But I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with the notion that progressives would turn to Trump. I became indifferent out of hostility to Clinton's cronyism, but I never would've dreamed of voting for either one of them - and especially Trump. I will be the first to admit that at one time I believed a Trump presidency might be the lesser evil, as I thought we would end up with a deadlock in Washington. But then the democrats failed to win control of either house, and now I am extremely concerned.

Statesponsoredterror

12th November 2016, 08:16

Besides this idiot being a troll.

Ahh yes, what would Revleft be without ad-hominems swung left and right.

I hope you do realize that ultimately Trump will fail.

Since you put it this way, I hope you realise that ultimately every one fails. Every one dies. Sorry to break it to you.

Fascism is built upon failure.

Okay, once is enough, but I don't really know nor can comprehend how the heck can you equate Fascism with Trump, for it seems you're doing it right know. Non sequitur at best.

Even if global fascism had won in 1939-1945, they could never have lasted.

Third time already. ZzZzZzZzZ...

Even if Trump kicks out every Mexican in the US, builds his ridiculous wall and so on, every single facet of life that makes the white-working class poor, uneducated, dying at a higher rate than they used to in the past and so on, remains.

Thanks for the accurate(?) prognosis of 'Days of Future Past' profesor Xavier, but it seems sense of humour is totally lost on you.

Oh and bud, since I know history isn't your forte: The Great Wall of China failed lol. But hey, its a good tourist attraction.

No comment...

willowtooth

12th November 2016, 10:43

xxx6 returns 2

12th November 2016, 11:13

MANPADS: For that time of the month, for guys -- just in case.

Yes!! Someone who reads what I say and agrees with me!:thumbup1::thumbup1: Yes! Everyone MUST stock up on MANPADS!!!

Ok, I've been more or less wondering what would a good US Presidential Candidate be like? (if there every was one)

I've been reading around and a number of you said there are no "real" left party in the United States on some of the other threads, so what would a real left party be like?

Also, about the Anti-Trump protests; it is quite worrying (at least to me) that Trump might use those "demos" (how come "demo" can't mean demolition? Oh well...) as an excuse to assume dictatorship. After all the protests did threaten to prevent Trump from his presidency.

xxx6 returns 2

12th November 2016, 11:36

Okay, once is enough, but I don't really know nor can comprehend how the heck can you equate Fascism with Trump, for it seems you're doing it right know. Non sequitur at best.

You do realized that Trump’s incendiary verbal attacks on Mexican immigrants and Muslims – even his reluctance to distance himself from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan – follow the older fascist script? Remember Hitler after leaving prison in the aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch? (Even though Eric Trump, son of President Trump, said that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke deserves “a bullet.” Trump supporters, according to some news sites, have attacked Muslims, the homeless, and African-Americans – and Trump has all but excused their behavior.)

Statesponsoredterror

12th November 2016, 12:50

You do realized that Trump’s incendiary verbal attacks on Mexican immigrants and Muslims – even his reluctance to distance himself from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan – follow the older fascist script? Remember Hitler after leaving prison in the aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch? (Even though Eric Trump, son of President Trump, said that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke deserves “a bullet.” Trump supporters, according to some news sites, have attacked Muslims, the homeless, and African-Americans – and Trump has all but excused their behavior.)

1. Let me preface this by saying I am not Amerikkkan and no offence to yous Amerikkkans, but to me (a foreigner) Trump is like a woman. Francesco Maria Piave once said that "woman is fickle as a feather in the wind, she changes her tune and her thoughts. A sweet, fair face, in tears or in laughter, always deceive us". That's Trump in a nutshell from where I am standing. If you do not think Trump didn't change his mind on some of his policies repeatedly, you're dumber than him and deserve each other.

2. And come on, we all know he won't ban Moslems, unless he changes the U.S. Constitution, of course. So far such actions are unconstitutional. Moreover, I am not sure you're aware how deep is his support for Israel and many Zionist groups - this is what mainly drives him to utter stuff like "ban Moslems" from U.S. soil, etc. Some people get scared when they hear about bombings or shootings conducted on their people in faith, they can't do business and so on - this is how it works. You certainly do not hear him yap about deporting the Jewish population or how much of a threat they are. Wonder why. Same goes for Breivik, the moment the Norwegian Labour Party started the boycott of Israel, guess what happened. Silly media nearly shat themselves trying to pin the blame on some imaginary "nazis", when the culprit is Zionist who even tried to 'work' with (zionist) EDL.

3. As for Mexicans, I think it is Ann Coulter talking through Trump and Trump being under her literary influence, so to speak.

4. Comparing Trump to Hiter is, simply, reductio ad Hitlerum. If my memory serves me right Hitler was Catholic, while Trump is Protestant. Besides, it was Hillary that swam in the cash provided by banks - same goes for Hitler, who was funded by international banks and, moreover, trained for the role he was about to play. I mean, you seriously do not think that a post-war, bled out and economically drained Germany miraculously becomes the second largest industry in the world just like that, out of thin air...

ckaihatsu

12th November 2016, 13:00

MANPADS: For that time of the month, for guys -- just in case.

Yes!! Someone who reads what I say and agrees with me!:thumbup1::thumbup1: Yes! Everyone MUST stock up on MANPADS!!!

Just in case males somehow slough off an unfertilized egg -- ?

(It was a *joke*.)

[T]he protests did threaten to prevent Trump from his presidency.

Trump Trump!

= D

The Intransigent Faction

12th November 2016, 21:48

almost

12th November 2016, 23:31

I'd like to discuss these anti-Trump protests. They could present a delayed yet real opportunity for the left, if seized upon in the right way. Shattering the illusion of "democratic" legitimacy behind bourgeois elections is a crucial first step in building a movement for a genuine democratic alternative, which embraces democracy in all aspects of society's affairs rather than slapping ballots on top of economic autocracy. I haven't heard much from organizers or protesters, yet, about what exactly they're out to accomplish beyond vague notions of building "a movement" and condemning racism and sexism. The focus around Trump as a specific individual also shows these protests' limitations. Still, it's a good place to start, and these people clearly aren't going to sit back and wait on state-driven reforms. How accurate would it be, though, to describe Trump as the last gasp of traditionalist economic nationalism from a declining, primarily white, manufacturing sector? If this is a fair statement, it's a roadblock the left needs to overcome. A movement left to disgruntled students and disadvantaged minority groups with real concerns, but influenced ideologically by liberal or at best social democratic intellectuals, will have limits we've all seen in past movements. Maybe it's different city to city but the protests are still very much about participation and an identity within spectacle and I don't think this is very surprising or anything. I think people are sitting back and waiting on state-driven reforms in this regard, as protests and other activism, and its culture, is a part of that, there has been no significant break that I have seen. The size of the protests seems imo to be about what it would be with other larger events, war, other 'bad' presidents, etc.. There is the typical strategy being employed by activist/union god-heads to work with the state, speaking on behalf of huge amounts of people/everyone, condemning non-permitted events, assaulting people for peace, helping to identify agitators and suspects, and lying at the podium next to political leaders in PAs to 'the community'.

GLF

13th November 2016, 00:13

The anti-Trump protests are not helping. The vast majority of these people are not communists - they're not fighting for revolution. They're fighting for Clinton to take office instead. So I won't get my hopes up.

If Trump were really and truly a fascist, then he would be so glad that these people are doing this, as they are pushing everyday working class Americans to the point to where they will be willing to accept an enabling act. They are burning down the proverbial Reichstag and are too stupid to realize it.

If they want to burn something down why not start with the DNC? They're the ones who singlehandedly elected Trump by putting a cronyist, neo-corporatist shill on the democratic ticket. If Sanders had run he would've wiped the floor with Trump.

(A)

13th November 2016, 03:50

I'd like to discuss these anti-Trump protests. They could present a delayed yet real opportunity for the left, if seized upon in the right way. Shattering the illusion of "democratic" legitimacy behind bourgeois elections is a crucial first step in building a movement for a genuine democratic alternative, which embraces democracy in all aspects of society's affairs rather than slapping ballots on top of economic autocracy.

I haven't heard much from organizers or protesters, yet, about what exactly they're out to accomplish beyond vague notions of building "a movement" and condemning racism and sexism. The focus around Trump as a specific individual also shows these protests' limitations. Still, it's a good place to start, and these people clearly aren't going to sit back and wait on state-driven reforms.

How accurate would it be, though, to describe Trump as the last gasp of traditionalist economic nationalism from a declining, primarily white, manufacturing sector? If this is a fair statement, it's a roadblock the left needs to overcome. A movement left to disgruntled students and disadvantaged minority groups with real concerns, but influenced ideologically by liberal or at best social democratic intellectuals, will have limits we've all seen in past movements.

"if seized upon in the right way."
I think a focus on Anti-fascism would be the best way right now to bring more people left and away from Liberalism/Social Democracy.

Anti-fascism is easy to swallow; no one but Nazis like Nazis so will be easy for non-radicals to start with.
Anti-fa as a movement is Anti-capitalist and waves the flags of both Socialism and Anarchism separately but together.
They are not Social Anarchists but seem Bipartisan; between the two.

If you are not already a member of an Anti-Fa group now would be the time to join or start one for yourself. I am looking to do so locally but we dont really have a Fascist presence where I live. To remote.

"How accurate would it be, though, to describe Trump as the last gasp of traditionalist economic nationalism from a declining, primarily white, manufacturing sector?"

In what way? As in he was voted in because of that? It does not match up with the numbers.
He won ONLY because Clinton Lost. If you look at the numbers the republicans did not make any significant gains; the democrats just lost so many voters they lost.
Their is no great rise in Fascism; the Fascism already alive in america has just become more visible due to him.

The biggest challenge now is turning Liberal Pacifism into Revolutionary action.
Now is the time for the Propaganda of deed. People are going to die and if we are not the ones doing the killing then it will be us doing the dying. We have already lost several people since the election. I dont think we have taken any of theirs and that's the biggest shame.

almost

13th November 2016, 07:42

A certain city is starting to look a lot like wto seattle as if that's saying anything, i mean that for reference I mean whens the last time really, at least tonight, built off several nights, but I resent its class composition. They did a good job playing cat and mouse with the pigs tonight and pushing it to the limit though. Hearing PEACEFUL PROTEST while being grabbed, accosted, and punched is emotionally draining but hearing a round of applause and liberal in fighting is okay too. As far as demos go.

Exterminatus

13th November 2016, 08:31

We shouldn't see Sanders as being anything more than a piece of litmus paper, since he had no foreign policy to begin with, and after losing the nomination immediately capitulated to the Democratic Party, and now to the status quo.

What his campaign *showed*, though, is that there's now a significant undercurrent of people wanting a 'political revolution', which I seriously doubt has changed / been co-opted.

I don't think it's fair to say that his campaign merely showed that when Sanders is the one who mobilized these people in the first place. Without his campaign, who can say this popular rage would even exist in it's current form? I know leftists are eager for some "revolution" right now, but there are absolutely no conditions for this. There's nothing close to the Communist party (or it's modern equivalent) that will lead this (still extremely vague) popular discontent. What we should hope for at this moment is further polarization of american politics and society. And i think what Sanders is doing with Democratic Party does have potential to give us just that.

Of course, i admit that my understanding of American politics may still be severely limited (i.e. is it even possible to break DP from big businesses and so on). But still, even if this attempt ultimately fails, it will serve as a powerful catalyst for the creation of a popular socialist movement which the Communists can eventually (after getting our shit together theoretically and in practice) hope to take over and lead. So Sanders is, in the grand scheme of things definitely still on our side.

(A)

13th November 2016, 09:24

know leftists are eager for some "revolution" right now, but there are absolutely no conditions for this.

As the revolutionary left is it not our specific role to help facilitate the conditions for this?
IF leftists call for revolution then perhaps that is cause to create more groups/party's/movements with the aim of revolution.
Is that not our goal? To organize and push for revolution. This forum is the revolutionary left. I would be dismayed if no one here was pushing for Revolution and the organization to facilitate it?
If we are not the vanguard then who will be?

There's nothing close to the Communist party (or it's modern equivalent) that will lead this (still extremely vague) popular discontent.

That depends on what the modern Equivalent is going to be. Reforging a dead political party or trying to usurp the role of several already existing socialist party's in america seems past the point of pointless
Perhaps the movements that we have seen forming are the beginnings of the next wave of Socialist party's.
Anti-Fa
BLM
RASH & SHARP
International Freedom Battalion
IWW
and I have seen lists longer then I care to recite of smaller local and larger international groups all sharing the same basic goals.

Anti-fascism & Anti-Capitalism.

None of these are perfect but it is possible that these groups are the makings of the future "Communist party".
The party system itself may not be the best form as we move forward. Smaller independent but federated organizations/cells have proven to be effective against tyrannical odds.
The system of Democratic confederalism being practiced in Kurdistan could be an example of a new form of Socialist politics that could work in the US.

Each city and state housing independent movements that are flexible enough to adapt to the changing landscape of a country as nationalistic and tyrannical as the states.
As these groups grow and act in more revolutionary actions this can lead to more and more groups and actions. A snowball effect starting with a handful of revolutionary willing to fight and kill for their community's.

And i think what Sanders is doing with Democratic Party does have potential to give us just that.
Sanders pushing for social democracy and class collaboration is not polarizing in the least bit.

The assassination of state officials
Attacks on police and Military installations
The destruction and seizing of capital

These are polarizing. Siding with liberals is way in the wrong direction. Historically Liberals side with Fascists. Obama, Sanders and Clinton have all Backed Trump in one way or another.
Breaking from liberalism in the USA is the only path forward. The attack on Fascism will be over the dead body of Liberalism.

ckaihatsu

13th November 2016, 13:04

I don't think it's fair to say that his campaign merely showed that when Sanders is the one who mobilized these people in the first place. Without his campaign, who can say this popular rage would even exist in it's current form? I know leftists are eager for some "revolution" right now, but there are absolutely no conditions for this. There's nothing close to the Communist party (or it's modern equivalent) that will lead this (still extremely vague) popular discontent. What we should hope for at this moment is further polarization of american politics and society. And i think what Sanders is doing with Democratic Party does have potential to give us just that.

Of course, i admit that my understanding of American politics may still be severely limited (i.e. is it even possible to break DP from big businesses and so on). But still, even if this attempt ultimately fails, it will serve as a powerful catalyst for the creation of a popular socialist movement which the Communists can eventually (after getting our shit together theoretically and in practice) hope to take over and lead. So Sanders is, in the grand scheme of things definitely still on our side.

I agree with your *empirical* assessment, but I don't see what Sanders is doing that is left-ward -- he went to the Clinton camp, which is a *right*-ward direction from his initial nationalist-reformist position. You'd have to name *one* thing or statement of his that could conceivably reflect *any* kind of 'left' credentials for him at this point.

The problem with 'personage' organizing is that the resulting movement, if any, takes on the characteristics and flavor of that 'leader', whereas we aim to *build class consciousness* (an objective reality) in everyone, so that 'everyone is a leader' and any resulting movement isn't *dependent* on just one personage, if at all possible.

ckaihatsu

13th November 2016, 13:19

[unac] NO to TRUMP and his Racism. No to War at home and abroad

NO to TRUMP and his Racism!

NO to the War at Home!

We stand in solidarity with all oppressed people under attack at home and abroad!

We urge full participation in the anti-Trump demonstrations!

In reaction to Donald Trump’s election victory, tens of thousands of people, most of them youth, have taken to the streets across the country in militant protests to condemn the racism, sexism, Islamophobia and anti-immigrant bigotry that Trump represents. Many are fearful, especially immigrants, Muslims and LGBT people. Their rage and that of their supporters signify the movement that needs to be built to end racism, wars and the attacks on working people endemic in the U.S. today.

As thousands have protested, the corporate news media, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other leading Democrats who expected their party to continue in office now tell us we must make friends with Trump, that maybe he isn’t so bad after all.

UNAC planned post-election protests regardless of who won the election. Our view has always been that all social progress – for labor's rights, civil and democratic rights, women's rights, immigrant rights and against all U.S. wars – has been the product of working people and their allies among the oppressed mobilizing in democratic, united and massive movements that challenge the institutional powers and parties. In these struggles everyone is needed and welcome.

It was clear from the start that the antiwar and general progressive movements could not win in this election.

On the one hand was the war hawk Hillary Clinton, who has aggressively supported all U.S. military actions during her entire political life. She promoted the mass bombing of Libya, cheered the lynching of its president, supported the right-wing coup in Honduras and called for a no-fly zone in Syria that would put the U.S. military in direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia. Here at home, she supported the 1994 crime bill that led to mass incarceration of the people she called “super predators.” She supported “welfare reform” that took food from the mouths of poor children. She has loyally served Wall Street, sat on the board of Walmart and supported globalization schemes that have cost millions their jobs.

On the other hand was Donald Trump, a racist, misogynist, crooked billionaire who spouted venom toward people of color, undocumented workers, Muslims and women, has a history of supporting anti-labor policies and has raised the specter of the U.S. actually using nuclear weapons.

THE WARS HAVE COME HOME

For years, the 1 percent that runs this country has been ratcheting up its war against working people here at home. Income inequality has never been greater. Wages have been stagnant for many years. Many of the unionized industrial jobs have been automated or moved overseas. Police killings of Black and other people of color has become endemic. The prisons are bursting with workers, most of them people of color, for whom this system no longer has any jobs.

There was no way for working people, youth, the Black community or antiwar activists to win in this election. Clinton represented the establishment. Trump was projected as anti-establishment, but he reserved his fiercest attacks for people victimized by that establishment. Too many were sucked in by his demagogy showing deep divisions, much of it caused by racism. The antiwar movement and all fighters for justice must fight against this racism.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have worked hard over the years to create an atmosphere in which Trump’s racism, Islamophobia and immigrant bashing are acceptable. Under Obama, more undocumented workers have been deported than at any time in U.S. history. Under both Bush and Obama, mosques were infiltrated and Muslims framed in schemes wholly invented by the FBI to brand them as terrorists and justify their wars against Muslim countries. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, killer cops are left on the streets instead of being sent to prison.

If there is a silver lining, it’s that the electoral system as a whole along with the corporate media have been exposed before millions. As tens of thousands have risen up in spontaneous actions, we can see the future fight-back that UNAC along with many others will help to organize to end this system of exploitation and war.

Join and organize anti-Trump protests!

Stay in the streets to mobilize against war and hate-mongering in all their manifestations!

Come to Washington in January to protest Trump’s inauguration!

NO to the Wars at Home and Abroad!

Money for human needs, not war!

End racism, sexism, Islamophobia & xenophobia!

Support our undocumented sisters and brothers in their fight against deportation & for human rights!

And make plans now to attend the next fight-back conference of the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC): April 21-13, Richmond, Virginia. “Stop the Wars at Home & Abroad!”

Please make a contribution to UNAC: https://www.unacpeace.org/donate.html

If your organization would like to join the UNAC coalition, please click here: https://www.unacpeace.org/join.html

To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [email protected]

Exterminatus

13th November 2016, 16:20

I agree with your *empirical* assessment, but I don't see what Sanders is doing that is left-ward -- he went to the Clinton camp, which is a *right*-ward direction from his initial nationalist-reformist position. You'd have to name *one* thing or statement of his that could conceivably reflect *any* kind of 'left' credentials for him at this point.

Well since i apparently can't embed tweets:

People have a right to be angry but we have got to channel that anger against the people who caused the decline of the middle class.

You can't be a party which on one hand says we're in favor of working people but we don't have the courage to take on Wall Street.

We must have the courage to take on the greed and power of Wall Street, drug companies, insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry.

https://twitter.com/sensanders?lang=en

Also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/opinion/bernie-sanders-where-the-democrats-go-from-here.html

In the coming days, I will also provide a series of reforms to reinvigorate the Democratic Party. I believe strongly that the party must break loose from its corporate establishment ties and, once again, become a grass-roots party of working people, the elderly and the poor. We must open the doors of the party to welcome in the idealism and energy of young people and all Americans who are fighting for economic, social, racial and environmental justice. We must have the courage to take on the greed and power of Wall Street, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry.

Mere fact that this sort of discourse is becoming normalized is a sign that there's great potential for intensification of social antagonism in United States.

I also want to highlight how smart Sanders is playing this:

I will keep an open mind to see what ideas Mr. Trump offers and when and how we can work together. Having lost the nationwide popular vote, however, he would do well to heed the views of progressives. If the president-elect is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families, I’m going to present some very real opportunities for him to earn my support.

He's openly offering Trump his hand, IF Trump is serious about delivering promises he made to the rural white workers. Of course, Sanders already knows Trump won't and can't do anything for the working class. In this way, he will appear as the most honest politician even in the eyes of the rural whites, certainly far more honest than Trump.

The problem with 'personage' organizing is that the resulting movement, if any, takes on the characteristics and flavor of that 'leader', whereas we aim to *build class consciousness* (an objective reality) in everyone, so that 'everyone is a leader' and any resulting movement isn't *dependent* on just one personage, if at all possible.

There's no disagreement here. What i'm merely saying is that it doesn't make sense at this moment for some ultraleftist criticism from a position that objectively doesn't exist at the present moment: "i.e. there's a radical class conscious movement which Sanders is subverting by proposing reformist demands". We should be glad and satisfied at how things are developing. I don't know the atmosphere on the streets given that i don't live in the US, but from reading various media outlets and other people's experiences, i get the sense that egalitarian leftist spirit hasn't been this strong in the US in a long, long time. There's no place for cynicism.

ckaihatsu

13th November 2016, 16:37

There's no disagreement here. What i'm merely saying is that it doesn't make sense at this moment for some ultraleftist criticism from a position that objectively doesn't exist at the present moment: "i.e. there's a radical class conscious movement which Sanders is subverting by proposing reformist demands". We should be glad and satisfied at how things are developing. I don't know the atmosphere on the streets given that i don't live in the US, but from reading various media outlets and other people's experiences, i get the sense that egalitarian leftist spirit hasn't been this strong in the US in a long, long time. There's no place for cynicism.

Okay, then my concern is what kind of *traction* does Sanders have at the moment -- ? In other words what is the *meaning* and potential-results of being a reformist in a country that now has a rightist-isolationist president at the helm -- ?

If leftist egalitarianism and reformism is feeling solidarized-from-without, what would its political *conclusions* be -- to wage defensive battles for the recent status-quo of the liberal welfare state (such as it may be), without any consensus for anything further-left, as into *our* (revolutionary) camp -- ?

Are you suggesting that renewed grassroots activism would give people personal political experiences that would facilitate them to become *class conscious* and possibly revolutionary-leftist (perhaps akin to the late '90s) -- ?

I assure you I'm not trying to be pessimistic or cynical for its own sake -- I'm just wondering what Sanders' *relevance* is now, and how-far-left people are seriously willing to go considering the extant Trump threat.

GLF

13th November 2016, 19:39

I also want to highlight how smart Sanders is playing this:
...

He's openly offering Trump his hand, IF Trump is serious about delivering promises he made to the rural white workers. Of course, Sanders already knows Trump won't and can't do anything for the working class. In this way, he will appear as the most honest politician even in the eyes of the rural whites, certainly far more honest than Trump.

Trump don't give two shits about working class whites. He merely exploited their xenophobia for personal gain and Sanders knows it. Sanders is doing the right thing on this. Give Trump every opportunity to benefit the workers - that way there are no excuses when he almost certainly fails to deliver. Maybe then white workers will finally realize that racial rhetoric and identity politics cannot save them. Of course, if Trump and the GOP possess even the tiniest sliver of self preservation, they had better swing center, and right fast. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...

almost

13th November 2016, 20:27

Mere fact that this sort of discourse is becoming normalized is a sign that there's great potential for intensification of social antagonism in United States. There's no disagreement here. What i'm merely saying is that it doesn't make sense at this moment for some ultraleftist criticism from a position that objectively doesn't exist at the present moment: "i.e. there's a radical class conscious movement which Sanders is subverting by proposing reformist demands". We should be glad satisfied at how things are developing. I don't know the atmosphere on the streets given that i don't live in the US, but from reading various media outlets and other people's experiences, i get the sense that egalitarian leftist spirit hasn't been this strong in the US in a long, long time. There's no place for cynicism. I think pessimism is okay. Anti-war and global justice events were similar in size and tone, as was Occupy.

contracycle

15th November 2016, 11:24

As the revolutionary left is it not our specific role to help facilitate the conditions for this?
IF leftists call for revolution then perhaps that is cause to create more groups/party's/movements with the aim of revolution.
Is that not our goal? To organize and push for revolution. This forum is the revolutionary left. I would be dismayed if no one here was pushing for Revolution and the organization to facilitate it?
If we are not the vanguard then who will be?

But a vanguard is not the whole movement. It doesn't have to encompass the movement, it has to be able to talk to it, influence it, and demonstrate its credibility.

The problem is that there isn't any such body in the US as far as I am aware. Extravagant acts are more likely to solidify the reaction than generate excitement among workers. It may well come to that, but I don't think that's the place to start. They're going to have to virtually reinvent everything themselves, and I don't know if that can be done.

Raul Castro

16th November 2016, 03:41

GLF

16th November 2016, 06:26

You're right. I was pretty much in shock at the time I wrote that comment. I was waking up to the reality that America is now for all intents and purposes a single-party State at the federal level. The repubs are nasty. They'll lock out the dems completely and have their vile way with this country. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if they start shitting out law after law that serve only to consolidate their hold on the federal government. And the press better not protest lest they be nationalized. These fuckers are dangerous and half of America would goosestep right along with it. You think I'm exaggerating?

This country is up shit creek without a paddle.

ckaihatsu

7th December 2016, 15:02

You could be charged with terrorism

Urgent action needed: a proposed new law would allow authorities to charge nonviolent protesters with “economic terrorism.” Click here to sign the petition to stop this! (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6wA/ni0YAA/t.22w/u1e-RyZGRVmFD4uVKoOZ-g/h0/WQ-2BlIwq7W2eCmkkcwbDiBV0Frf8aO-2BhheoIczpshG3B4xPoLTbslTp9pig7bdxDiCkzyjB7te6oZ9U koekl3D7BSWU9o6lhdiuBR9S7t-2B2AkyhVE9AF7o7ZQ2bTA4IdbmelUIjwRiB9AXFRVrMdlYs232 Rnxy-2FxS5OAtheEAap2f-2FpuRO9F-2BMd5D-2BxjSjOaz3yta4p52ykGUWKD6jYrZ31QF61uLzMMMcYP-2BFNi9bUpHEk8jwGmlwLpit8vv2zMdj9R9BPSM56c4K4wki-2FPyNtQf6LVsvyydk8CT-2BvdsfZqlk4WviLvF0qSIAbok7HB1ypxEenFzbDuZwc3FcpzwN j57lR44kATSeUi9eJiXzmRzIkg59-2Fm-2FVWDKtU2jFx1A1eQo9hkoNjSs-2BXFAZunggQ-3D-3D)

A new law proposed by a State Senator in Washington would allow prosecutors to charge protesters with "economic terrorism," and slap them with serious felony charges that could lead to jail time, just for making their voices heard. [1]

The outrageous proposed bill would make any form of protest that causes an "economic disruption" a class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. It wouldn't just apply to people who engage in illegal acts or vandalism, it could be used to prosecute any person or group who organizes a protest that authorities deem as "disruptive." Broadly interpreted, this law could apply to honored American traditions of nonviolent dissent like boycotts and civil disobedience.

We don’t have to support every protest or every cause, but we cannot allow overly broad legislation to to undermine our Constitutionally protected freedoms.

Click here to sign the petition demanding lawmakers drop this dangerous attack on our basic right to free speech and assembly. (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6wA/ni0YAA/t.22w/u1e-RyZGRVmFD4uVKoOZ-g/h1/WQ-2BlIwq7W2eCmkkcwbDiBV0Frf8aO-2BhheoIczpshG3B4xPoLTbslTp9pig7bdxDiCkzyjB7te6oZ9U koekl3D7BSWU9o6lhdiuBR9S7t-2B2AkyhVE9AF7o7ZQ2bTA4Idb3dQwbbCEENqZ-2Ff0YWKDp-2BvMldha5lF-2F1AWufkQbhErsKz7cGbTCKdcRdhbQmIG9HJzZHP-2Bi1yqUCXyhC1A0dbr5N-2FvaxK6FJaR1EUK-2BHOqeDGe9Lc2mopFnNJojV9yaRnYRc8tE4F16t9nqD0Nr1iIH W9MBtQ1814GqbJWEpc907Reo-2F7r9bBRfjlw5r8AIvY1OWHQaK6xXGSKTPEb27awnGjeUVvVDf JGb-2BO89PMmLz2BGRU-2BESwLJKd3eyrxPq997-2BJjMnY-2B3fN-2FcWyGYtfw-3D-3D)

Charging protesters with terrorism clearly violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to silence legitimate dissent. Please sign the petition telling lawmakers to reject this dangerous legislation.

We need everyone to speak out right now so we can shut down this terrible proposed legislation before it spreads to other states. This affects all of us. Will you sign the petition to stop it?

Click here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/urgent-new-law-would-charge-protesters-with-terrorism/

We need to remain vigilant. No matter who is in power, protecting our right to dissent is imperative for the future of our society.

Thanks for reading,
-Evan at Fight for the Future

[1] The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/306580-washington-republican-floats-charging-protesters-with-economic-terrorism

Fight for the Future works to protect your rights in the digital age.

Click here to learn more (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6wA/ni0YAA/t.22w/u1e-RyZGRVmFD4uVKoOZ-g/h4/YOHIY5TWc8sl5xspef3RzQ-2FYgqJQd1Vga-2BMzMU565Pr0OOt8HsxjGz3ZEfjrYWUwerGKwRZzANssWAmKzy 98yYldt6ucpnSi8rQwbWNpdiiZ7OXOHItj5rEd2U839m7acLHT 7bYYom0ACupc64Caevjs-2BRQ4hsX8ow7yqYZj5CEsPnZq9cx0gobcWEXB5xkgUJAcyhs3T ZhInQ5nLH1EEWkoBp8OMGy978NTs9rTrdx-2BWOwdn7Ktzsmv5a9OIYWL3Y6dIgfro1JVUcjlP1mo-2BKbSPAqpkVpdPwQpMlNBn3oA01FlQEB4OTbiVSGMlZQA)
Donate $3 to keep us going (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/6wA/ni0YAA/t.22w/u1e-RyZGRVmFD4uVKoOZ-g/h5/Pa8otjfmmhIzvTMTCB8ZJJUXf-2BRddPW57EVXPeuxLv-2FV-2BnUVSroGJ4HSbjDbfWaq7lGIalRmvZS80DiCGb8YGkwfSJE3r RxznJpGNTiKEphs-2Fq3kQLZgB0iMRDmOOog1v6UMifF62UqhoN08FUf3ONHF6at9O APnnNmU09dcoRlBHVq4lB-2FcHwSY-2FA2hx45DJWXbXoiXrdKDuo3kTJ9Dygxwl-2BttLTpem5XzL1FcPn4usT2-2BsIUCvDYa3WE6rCosyEBfG81lmbXYWmV0V4TUItwlMoe12Fx1 O1V4rwD8U66MFpJhY6SdHgUSua1TErL-2FJCM8gad6y1-2F38OAP5Mtd2DVUVLbNWhrAMXSqgfB1-2BhQ-3D)
Click here to receive fewer emails from us
Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from Fight for the Future, please click here.

Klaatu

10th December 2016, 01:02

Courts halt presidential election recount in Michigan
By Patrick Martin
9 December 2016

The recount of the presidential election in the state of Michigan halted Wednesday, after three days of ballot-counting, when a federal judge announced he would defer to a state court ruling against it.

The Michigan Court of Appeals decided Tuesday that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein did not have standing to seek a recount. By a 3-0 vote, the Republican-dominated court accepted the claim of Republican state Attorney General Bill Schuette and the state Republican Party that since Stein trailed Donald Trump by more than two million votes in Michigan, she could not reasonably expect to win the state in a recount, and therefore was not an “aggrieved party” under state law.

In effect, the state court found that only the campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton was entitled to seek a recount, since she lost Michigan to Trump by only 10,704 votes, the narrowest margin of victory for Trump in any state. The Clinton campaign was an observer to the recount once it began, but it has not initiated any request of its own for the ballots to be scrutinized and re-tabulated.

Federal District Judge Mark Goldsmith, who rejected the legal arguments of the Republicans opposed to the recount at a weekend hearing, issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday night after the state court ruling, compelling the state Board of Elections and local county clerks to continue the recount.

On Wednesday night, however, he dissolved that order, declaring that he would defer to the state court in interpreting Michigan state law. “Because there is no basis for this court to ignore the Michigan court’s ruling and make an independent judgment regarding what the Michigan Legislature intended by the term ‘aggrieved,’ plaintiffs have not shown an entitlement to a recount under Michigan’s statutory scheme,” he wrote.

Attorneys for Jill Stein said they would appeal both court decisions. The state Court of Appeals ruling will be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, while Judge Goldsmith’s ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Stein’s lead attorney, Mark Brewer, a past chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, filed a separate motion to disqualify two state Supreme Court justices, Robert Young Jr. and Joan Larsen, from hearing the case, because Trump has named both of them as potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia.

Neither court is likely to look favorably on Stein’s appeal. The Michigan Supreme Court has a 5-2 Republican majority, and would still have a Republican majority if Young and Larsen were to recuse themselves.

A three-member panel of the Sixth Circuit upheld Goldsmith’s initial order for the recount, ruling Tuesday that he had not abused his discretion. But the panel effectively required him to accede to state court decisions, writing, “If subsequently, the Michigan courts determine the ... recount is improper under Michigan state law for any reason, we expect the district court to entertain any properly filed motions to dissolve or modify this order in this case.”

Significantly, the panel added that it had made no decision yet on such questions as whether “there is a freestanding constitutional right to a recount or that plaintiffs validly invoked a recount under Michigan law, or that plaintiffs should necessarily prevail on the merits of this suit.”

The three days of recounting the nearly 5 million ballots cast in Michigan have not produced any reports of significant changes in the vote count because no county has filed any results. But there is already massive evidence of a dysfunctional and antiquated electoral system which is at its worst in the poorest areas of the state, particularly inner-city neighborhoods of Detroit and Flint.

Many precincts have been barred from recounting ballots under a state law which permits recounts only when the total number of ballots cast coincides exactly with the roster of voters recorded in pollbooks. If these two counts do not match—frequently because of a voter who tore up his or her ballot and walked out without requesting a replacement—the initial precinct count stands. Discrepancies arise from other causes, including human errors like misfiling of spoiled, challenged or blank ballots or transposing numbers.

Stein issued a statement denouncing the legal claims of the Republicans and the Trump campaign. “Donald Trump and his cronies are doing everything possible to try to stop this exercise in our democracy, this effort to validate our vote,” she said, adding, “it suggests that Donald Trump is very afraid that his vote is not valid, that he's very afraid of this process of democracy.”

Stein also noted the indifference of the Clinton campaign and the Democrats. “When the Clinton team weighed in, which was, shall we say, minimalist and a day late,” she said, it was “about as passive an expression of interest as one could imagine.”

One of the major legal issues in the Michigan case is the same as that involved in the notorious 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore: whether state courts are the final authorities in interpreting state laws.

In Bush v. Gore, the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court overruled the Florida state Supreme Court in its interpretation of Florida state election laws, in order to achieve its desired result, shutting down the Florida recount and awarding the White House to Bush.

This was a gross violation of federalism, which the right-wing majority ordinarily claimed to support in countless rulings upholding Republican-led state governments opposing federal policies. To cover up the contradiction, the court majority simply declared that Bush v. Gore should not be used as a precedent.

And in the Michigan case, Judge Goldsmith has taken the diametric opposite position from Bush v. Gore, deciding that he is bound to accept a state court interpretation of state law, no matter how much he may disagree with it, on the grounds of federalism.

The anti-democratic character of these legal maneuvers is demonstrated by the fact that both “federalism” and anti-federalism have been asserted as overriding principles in order to achieve the same practical end: shutting down a recount and preserving a Republican victory in the presidential election.

A recount of the presidential election is continuing in Wisconsin, one of the three states narrowly won by Trump where attorneys for Jill Stein have filed legal challenges. Trump led by 22,557 votes in the state, and with about 70 percent of the votes recounted, Clinton has gained only 82 votes. The Wisconsin Elections Commission reported Wednesday that half the counties had completed recounts and the others would finish before a December 12 deadline.

No recount has yet begun in Pennsylvania, although Trump’s margin of victory has been slashed substantially, to just over 44,000 votes, after county clerks completed tabulation of overseas and challenged ballots. This is down sharply from the 126,000-vote margin reported in initial returns, and the 69,000-vote margin at the time Stein filed for a recount.

The 44,000 figure is still slightly above the state’s automatic trigger for a statewide recount, which is 0.5 percent of the vote, about 30,000 votes in the case of the presidential contest.

Federal District Judge Paul Diamond in Philadelphia has scheduled a hearing for Friday, December 9, on Stein’s request for a recount, only four days before the federal deadline for states to certify their election results. State Republican Party officials and the Trump campaign have deliberately dragged out the legal proceedings so that they can then argue that there is not enough time to conduct a recount before the deadline, which is six days before the formal meeting of the Electoral College on December 19.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/09/elec-d09.html

marxistleninist

10th December 2016, 23:09

I'm still completely shocked. Say what you will, we elected a fascist and this is not going to end well.

(A)

11th December 2016, 06:05

Four years of Trump will change the tone of things for a while. Lots of people better get woke now.

ckaihatsu

11th December 2016, 12:51

Will chanting 'U - S - A' become a mandatory ritual every morning -- ?

(8^p

GLF

12th December 2016, 08:19

I'm still completely shocked. Say what you will, we elected a fascist and this is not going to end well.

I am starting to doubt Trump is truly fascist. With what I know about fascists, I must admit that if a fascist had an opportunity to break free of the centre-right establishment and stab them in the back, they'd take it. Everything Trump has done so far seems to indicate that he is going in the opposite direction. Whereas Hitler and Mussolini looked for ways to get out from under their enablers, eventually elbowing them aside in a move towards totalitarianism, Trump seems all too willing to name them to prominent positions.

At this point I see Trump as more of a hyper-capitalist phony who masqueraded as a nationalist/populist in an effort to take advantage of popular sentiment of poor white America and ultimately use it to preserve power for privileged few. Fascist he is most likely not.

ckaihatsu

12th December 2016, 13:10

Minnesota protests Trump on International Human Rights Day (http://fightbacknews.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a29530af96a02fc55d345e735&id=9461118ae0&e=d323598fe4)

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/12_1016%20Protest.jpg

By Meredith Aby-Keirstead

Minneapolis, MN - Dec. 10 marks International Human Rights Day. The Minnesota Anti-War Committee had a short rally at Lake Street and Nicollet Avenue, followed by a march of 200 people to denounce Trump's agenda of hate and racism.

Around the world, Human Rights Day day is known for people rising up and speaking out. The MN Anti-War Committee organizes a Human Rights Day protest every year, but Anti-War Committee member Jennie Eisert notes that this year organizers felt a pressing need for a protest for human rights, “We know that the anti-war movement needs to be a part of the growing movement against Trump and his agenda of bigotry and racism. We need to stand firm against his rhetoric of fear and hate both at home and abroad. We’ve heard his beating the drums of war to bomb the Middle East out of existence. We’ve already seen an increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes. We will not stand aside and wait to see what he has in store for this nation. We will be a part of the world’s voice in saying ‘No’ to Trump and we will continue to do so through his whole presidency!”

At the rally speakers from the Anti-War Committee, Black Lives Matter Saint Paul, People of Color Union Members, the MN Immigrant Rights Action Committee and the Council on American Islamic Relations spoke out against Trump’s promises of war, increased police powers, union bashing and anti-Muslim bigotry.

Marchers then took the streets on a cold, brisk day and got honks and cheers from folks in cars and on the sidewalks. Signs and chants demanded rights for immigrants and Muslims and an end to bigotry and war. The march concluded with an indoor rally at All God’s Children Church in Minneapolis’ Powderhorn neighborhood.

Sarah Martin, of Women Against Military Madness, was the first speaker at the indoor rally. “Last Sunday I and others here today were lucky enough to be at the Oceti Sakowin camp at Standing Rock as the announcement came that the Army Corp of Engineers had denied the permit to the Dakota Access Pipeline Company to drill under the Missouri River and ordered a new environmental impact study. This is a great victory and it happened because of the resistance of the water protectors - the Standing Rock tribe, hundreds of tribes and native nations from around the world as well as non-native supporters. But the Water Protectors understand and know the struggle is not over and the company will use every possible means to complete this $3.8 billion pipeline. And it will have the full support of Trump.” She concluded with, “We need jobs, healthcare, education and an end to racist police violence here at home, not U.S. wars abroad and not new pipelines.”

Craig Wood and Barry Reisch from Veterans for Peace Chapter 27 and JR Bobick, a leader in the Native Lives Matter movement, who had all recently returned from North Dakota also spoke about the human rights abuses they witnessed committed by the U.S. government at Standing Rock.

Stephanie Taylor from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at the University of Minnesota also spoke about the dangers of the upcoming Trump presidency, “Women have fought for centuries for control over our own bodies, especially when it comes to reproductive rights and we continue to struggle. Trump seeks not to claim these victories that we’ve created for ourselves, like many politicians do, but instead, to toss them out into the dust bin of history, destroying futures, families and quality of life for many individuals.” Taylor continued, “It there is a silver lining presenting itself in the fact of an incoming racist, sexist and homophobic president-elect, it is this: it is the people, not politicians, who are the makers of history. Our movements will become emboldened to move this country forward – this is just a challenge and we will win!”

The event concluded with speakers from Saint Paul Public Schools who spoke out against the expansion of JROTC programs in their schools and from the Committee to Stop FBI Repression to encourage protesters to travel to Detroit for Rasmea Odeh’s upcoming trial on Jan. 10.

The Anti-War Committee called for everyone to mobilize to march with the immigrant rights movement in the twin cities on Jan. 20, Trump’s inauguration day.

The protest was organized by the MN Anti-War Committee and was endorsed by Black Lives Matter St. Paul, Blue Lies Matter, MN Immigrant Rights Action Committee, MN Neighbors for Justice, MN Peace Action Coalition, Natives Lives Matter, Native Lives Matter.org, Rad Azns, St. Paul for Justice, Welfare Rights Committee, Women Against Military Madness, Women's Prison Book Project, Veterans for Peace, UMN Students for a Democratic Society, and the Young Muslim Collective.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]