Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway really outdid herself yesterday when she told MSNBC that the orange slug has "a 5-point plan to defeat Islam".
Taking a wild guess:
1) Divide (& rule)
3) Divert (attention from scrutiny)
4) Deploy (armed mobs)
Snopes looks at O’Keefe’s four 2016 videos and does a great job of explaining why no media organisation goes near them. He’s a lying, unethical scumbag, basically.
To be very, very charitable, O'Keefe makes Lynton Crosby and Karl Rove look like Seymour Hersh.
The 1860 US presidential campaign featured a fractured Democratic party, a huge and antagonistic sectarian divide, paramilitary groups parading around in support of their party, lots of shots fired at political rallys, all sorts of political violence in local elections, and the main losing Democratic candidate going on to be come a leading general in the Confederate army….
The key difference between 1860 and 2016 is any Trump insurgency would be just that – wild milita groups and crazy individuals might carry out random lynchings and attacks, but Clinton will have full control of and loyalty from the US military and governing apparatus at federal and state level. Nothing like succession, and therefore civil war, will come from this election.
The Weimar Republic was also like that during its short existence, especially after the Great Depression delivered the knockout blow.
It's also potentially raised another question: how far would the 2nd Amendment's most die-hard defenders push its limits? How far would they be prepared to violate the others, especially the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th?
The numbskull Trump voter who wrote this dreck on Stuff today should probably know that when he's muttering darkly about the Clinton Foundation, he's 180 degrees off.
Not that he'd care. I'm done giving these fucking idiots any benefit of the doubt.
Will they only wake up if nuclear warheads start flying?
The Sunday Star Times formed in 1994, so that late-1960s/early 1970s jalopy must have been one of the last remaining company cars of its type. Honestly can't tell from the side profile, but it's probably not a Mk1 Escort, Mk2 Cortina or HB Vauxhall Viva. Doubt it's a Holden Special because the coke-bottle hip is too pronounced for it.
Traditionally conservative papers have gone for Johnson. It is conceivable that no significant newspaper will endorse Trump.
Do the National Enquirer and New York Post count as significant? I'll leave out the New York Observer, which is owned by Trump's son-in-law.
That sound you hear is white American cleaving away from its own institutions.
Hell yes. The WASP establishment doesn't need any existential threats from the outside, it's already doing a sterling job of self-destructing and decaying from within.
It shows that white working class voters are dissatisfied, in part because they're "nervous about cultural changes taking place in the United States" and feel "Christian values are under attack".
It also indicates that as a group they're doing quite well and largely have secure jobs. Also that they're pretty racist.
If you were trying to convince me that culture-war isn't a factor here, I'm not sure this is right survey to do it with.
Irrespective of income and wealth, such voters would have been conservative Dixiecrats in the first place. They became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, and GOP-turned-independent commentator George Will claims that "today they are the Republican base".
It's a sad state of affairs when the traditional working class has balkanised into mutually exclusive factions:
- The loyalists who've kept the faith and still vote Labour or Democrats and belong to trade unions, who sadly are in a slow decline.
- The nouveau riche - including Essex Man - who now support establishment conservatives and tell everyone below them, "I've got mine, so fuck you!"
- The defeatist precariat, who've given up on voting because they feel it makes no difference.
- The angry precariat, who are mad as hell and won't take it anymore, who are swinging behind Trump & Farage on the Right, and Sanders & Corbyn on the Left.
I consider myself part of the new 'precariat' who's been on the minimum wage for some years and finding the career ladder missing all the rungs in the middle. I've managed to earn a few pennies crowd-working on the side, but it's nowhere near enough to ditch the 9-to-5 routine just yet. For all their faults, I've found that the likes of Sanders and Corbyn best speak for people like me. I'm simply too intellectual and high-information to fall for illiberal demagogues likes Trump and Farage.
If Trump wins the White House in November, it could be the end of the Reaganite-Thatcherist winner-takes-all model of the past generation. It's a model that I certainly won't miss, but Trump is a textbook case of the cure being worse than the disease. And I suspect I'm not the only one who's filled with a sense of dread - as in proper Weimar Republic dread - that I didn't have during Dubya's presidency.
Which doesn't really account for the ubiquitous role of race in these movements, in the US and Europe. Why does Trump have a net 14-point lead in approval among white Americans, but little support among black and Latino Americans? Why is Le Pen just as keen on Putin as Trump is?
It seems, more than anything, like the externalising of blame, in quite an alarming way.
Yep, there's both an economic and cultural dimension to the Trump war machine. I look at it partly as a triumph of Rovian/Crosbyite divide-and-rule politics - the blue-collar bloc has been led to blame those below them for holding them back, instead of the rentier hyper-class who caused much of the mess to begin with.
The 12 cookies joke that emerged early on during the Great Recession comes to mind. As does railroad baron Jay Gould's purported remark during a major industrial dispute: "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half."
Some of the local Bernie fans I've interacted with are really not reality-based at all. The time I tried to point out to a couple of them that their ammunition-shortage conspiracy theory was just a lightly-adapted version of a long-running right-wing conspiracy theory was ... memorable.
The alt-left and the alt-right have been on the same page quite a lot lately.
Especially those Bernie-or-bust types who are threatening to cut off the nose to spite the face and vote Trump. Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter sounds like one of them, on the grounds that the Dems are bigger warmongers than the GOP. The firmly reality-based Noam Chomsky has cautioned against such nose-cutting:
He’s less militaristic? Is he really? I mean he says it’s easy to get rid of ISIS — we just bomb the shit out of them. That’s less militaristic? What happens if you do that? You get into a war with the Islamic world. That’s exactly what ISIS wants; they want the West to read their playbook. Like Al-Qaeda, what they’re dreaming of is a major Western attack which will mobilise the whole Islamic world and you’ll have a huge war and maybe they’ll come out of it, so yeah, let’s do that.
What are his domestic policies? Increase the military budget — it’s already more than half of discretionary spending, but let’s increase it. Cut back taxes on the rich — no new resources. It means there’s nothing left for the government, essentially, which is fine by them — at least they’ll have a government for the rich — that’ll stay of course — but any possible beneficial thing that could be done is gone.
Furthermore, you enter into immediate conflicts with other countries. You impose high tariffs on China. What do the Chinese do? Say thanks? They’ll want to react! Kill the Iran deal? Fine, that isolates the United States. Europe will probably continue, so the U.S. is just isolated. So we get into a situation: the line is, everyone’s attacking us, cheating us, we need a bigger military — we’re at war with the world. That’s less militaristic? I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense.