![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsP8ixTWEAA37sU.jpg)
"you've never seen class struggle like this before! it's gonna be YUGE!"
some things just aren't ever gonna happen man.
Guyovich posted:We don't collectivize anymore, folks. We don't. China, they're killing us. They've expanded their productive forces! Their party is a workers' party! Beating us bad. Beating us real bad. But we're gonna build socialism again, people. Beautiful socialism, you won't believe how good it's gonna be. Believe me. Believe me.
angelbutt_dollface posted:what if trump just did a 180 out of nowhere and became woke af and started calling for full communism and apologizing for america's history of murderous interventionism and wearing huge hipster glasses
"you've never seen class struggle like this before! it's gonna be YUGE!"
Pervert alert. @RepWeiner is back on twitter. All girls under the age of 18, block him immediately.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
presidential candidate "donald trump" continues as prescient vanguard of anti-chomo line in north america; liberal crybabies continue to weep fatly
Edited by le_nelson_mandela_face ()
Edited by le_nelson_mandela_face ()
Donald: Durr build the wall and make mexico pay for it
ilmdge posted:hillary is going to do wonk jujitsu in the debate and totally eviscerate donald!!
i was thinking about this too
donald trump: shattered manufacturing. riots. mass addiction. terrorist attacks. whole cities broken and rusting. an out-of-touch globalist government that's betraying you at every turn.
ezra klein: actually, if you look at these statistics,
MEXICO CITY — Long before becoming president, when he was a soldier, Hugo Chávez organized cultural activities, most notably beauty pageants. On a stage, microphone in hand, Mr. Chávez served as host, pumping up the audience and announcing the winner. The showman in him already struggled to emerge from under the uniform. Mr. Chávez said he imitated the proceedings he had seen on television in these improvised contests. This is how he learned to play to an audience.
When he tried to seize power through a coup d’état years later, in 1992, the resulting media frenzy sent him another sign. His military failure turned into a political victory: When Mr. Chávez appeared on TV to call for his colleagues to give up, he won over the audience. One minute on the screen was more effective than tanks, machine guns and bullets.
That was the start of his political career. He didn’t rise to power through social struggles. He became president without ever holding public office or a representative position that would have required him to negotiate or compromise. From his first election as president, in 1998, to his last one, in 2012 — shortly before his death at age 58 in March 2013 — Mr. Chávez became an expert in using television as a form of government.
Now Donald J. Trump is proposing the same thing to the United States.
Beyond their ideological differences, Mr. Trump, a populist right-winger, and Mr. Chávez, a leftist strongman, share the same telegenic vocation. They both built a career via television spectacle. Every Sunday, Mr. Chávez appeared on a program called “Aló Presidente,” in which he would sing, talk about current events or appoint and dismiss ministers — reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s television catchphrase “You’re fired!” There was no time limit for “Aló Presidente.” The longest episode lasted eight hours and seven minutes.
Not only that, Mr. Chávez could decide to appear at any time through mandatory broadcasts transmitted over all the country’s airwaves. By 2012, he had appeared in 2,377 of them, adding up to 1,642 hours. Every day, Mr. Chávez was featured for an average of 54 minutes as the main character of some kind of television broadcast. His true utopia appeared to be the consolidation of a telegovernment.
Mr. Trump’s campaign wouldn’t be possible without television. Not only because of the coverage, worth hundreds of millions of dollars he has enjoyed, but also because of the reality show “The Apprentice,” on which he was host, judge and prize. From there, he began associating his image with the idea that financial problems could be resolved easily, authoritatively, in one hour of television. His campaign is also like that. To him, democracy is a reality show contest.
Mr. Chávez and Mr. Trump are expert provocateurs. Their narratives are closer to audiovisual fiction than to political debate.
An eloquent example is Mr. Trump’s visit with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico. Mr. Trump appeared conciliatory and diplomatic in Mexico City. Hours later, in Phoenix, not only did he say that Mexico would pay 100 percent of the cost of a border wall, but he also unleashed another ferocious attack against immigrants. His coherence depends on the audience. The only thing that matters to him is the emotional effect he has on the people listening and the impact it has in the media.
Even when it comes to reporting on his health, Mr. Trump goes into showman mode. Why does he need to release his medical records if everyone can see him admitting he is overweight on “The Dr. Oz Show”? There is no problem too big to be tackled on TV.
Mr. Chávez also used controversy as bait. He was able to invent or magnify a conflict to keep his audience hanging. He knew perfectly well the power of language. In 2011 he said: “Obama, you are a fraud, a total fraud. If I could be a candidate in the United States, I would sweep the floor with you.” These are words that are reminiscent of a TV reality show. Mr. Trump also knows these tricks well and, like Mr. Chávez, has no scruples when it comes to using them. He said of President Obama: “He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS.”
There is no substance behind these words, just a media fire. Their narrative is also very similar. They both denounce an unfair present and invoke a glorious destiny that has been taken from us by an enemy force.
It’s a flattering fantasy, but it’s also a dangerous story: It legitimizes violence.
Mr. Chávez’s and Mr. Trump’s speeches raise the possibility that violence may be the best solution. Mr. Chávez routinely made threats. He always reminded others that his revolution was “peaceful but armed.”
Charisma like that of Mr. Chávez or Mr. Trump is also a symptom. It reflects what exists in their own societies. Mr. Chávez emerged in a country that had nurtured the certainty of being rich, although it lived in poverty. Mr. Trump speaks to Americans who are suffering the consequences of an economic crisis and globalization, who see their country as being contaminated by Latin Americans and Muslims.
Mr. Trump and Mr. Chávez spread the idea that social problems have easy and quick resolutions. They represent the mirage of magical solutions and the triumph of television over politics.
In Venezuela, the consequences of having opted for a media demagogue are evident in Mr. Chávez’s legacy: Inflation forecasts for 2016 exceed 700 percent. Almost two million Venezuelans have been forced to migrate. The country is on the verge of a humanitarian crisis. Voting for Chávez meant voting for the destruction of the country.
Like Mr. Chávez, Donald Trump used to organize beauty pageants. Like him, he may get a chance to remake a country.
The complexity of United States politics would make Mr. Trump’s journey to destruction more difficult. But Mr. Chávez’s parable is also a cautionary tale about voters’ vulnerability to the spell of charisma and media banality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/what-hugo-chavez-tells-us-about-donald-trump.html?_r=0
'leftist strongman' is my favorite ideology/dating profile about-me-section
herbsaint posted:to me it's insanely badass that shes managing to slip the lead through the powerful combination of maybe being actively dying and also the worst personality of all time
it's not just that she was sick it's also that they did the classic clinton move of taking a relatively minor issue, covering it up, and then having it blow up in their face
Like Mr. Chávez, Donald Trump used to organize beauty pageants. Like him, he may get a chance to remake a country.
US political discourse hasnt been this amazing in decades
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:leftists, don't vote for donald trump. he is an anti-imperialist who sounds like noam chomsky and is a lot like hugo chavez. *makes daffy duck bebebebe motion*
I'm gonna cast 2500 votes for Trump. It's gonna be huge. I am not a crook.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtECdmHW8AA-QgG.jpg)
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/El Rato.....
votecha conscience
Last week, after I delivered a speech at the impressive campus of Morgan State University, a historically black college in northeast Baltimore, a woman approached the mike during the question-and-answer period to raise an issue that she and I both found frustrating: What to say to young people, particularly young African-Americans, who have decided either not to vote in the forthcoming presidential election or to cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate who will most assuredly lose?
This is a very real issue this cycle. Many of these young people feel that there is no good choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
On Sept. 4, The New York Times published an article pointing out the devastating impact this lack of enthusiasm could have on Clinton’s prospects:
“Young African-Americans, like all voters their age, are typically far harder to drive to the polls than middle-aged and older Americans. Yet with just over two months until Election Day, many Democrats are expressing alarm at the lack of enthusiasm, and in some cases outright resistance, some black millennials feel toward Mrs. Clinton.”
The article continued:
“Their skepticism is rooted in a deep discomfort with the political establishment that they believe the 68-year-old former first lady and secretary of state represents. They share a lingering mistrust of Mrs. Clinton and her husband over criminal justice issues. They are demanding more from politicians as part of a new, confrontational wave of black activism that has arisen in response to police killings of unarmed African-Americans.”
Furthermore, as Farai Chideya pointed out on FiveThirtyEight:
“An ABC News/Washington Post poll released last week found that among black Americans of all ages, Clinton is leading Trump 93 percent to 3. But an August survey of young voters by GenForward found that 60 percent of black Americans aged 18 to 30 supported Clinton — or about 30 percentage points less than African-Americans at large. Fourteen percent of black millennials said they would not vote, 5 percent said they would vote for the Green or Libertarian candidates, and 2 percent planned to vote for Trump.”
When I am confronted by the “not voting” or “protest voting” crowd, their argument often boils down to one of principle: They can’t possibly vote for Trump or Clinton because both are flawed in their own ways.
I know immediately that they have bought into the false equivalency nonsense, and additionally are conflating the casting of a ballot with an endorsement of a candidate’s shortcomings.
Continue reading the main story
Both ideas are incredibly problematic and potentially self-destructive.
First — and this cannot be said enough — Clinton and Trump are not equally bad candidates. One is a conventional politician who has a long record of public service full of pros and cons. The other is a demagogic bigot with a puddle-deep understanding of national and international issues, who openly courts white nationalism, is hostile to women, Mexicans and Muslims, and is callously using black people as pawns in a Donnie-come-lately kinder-gentler campaign.
Second, a vote isn’t just about the past — although comparing these two candidates on their pasts still leaves one as the clear choice — but about the present and the future.
There is a simple truth here: Either Clinton or Trump will be the next president of the United States. Not Jill Stein. Not Gary Johnson. Clinton or Trump.
There is another truth: That person will appoint someone to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court (assuming that the Senate doesn’t find religion and move on Merrick Garland before the new president takes office) and that person will also appoint federal judges to fill the 88 district court and court of appeals vacancies that now exist (there are 51 nominees pending for these seats).
These judgeships alone could cast a long shadow — not just for one or two terms of a presidency, but for decades, until those judges retire or die.
This election isn’t just about you or me, or Clinton or Trump. This election is quite literally about the future, all of our and our children’s and their children’s futures.
You can’t say you’re upset about police interaction with minority communities and not understand that the courts are where police tactics are challenged and where precedent is set.
You can’t care about this issue and risk having those judicial seats filled by a man who allowed Sheriff David Clarke to speak at his nomination convention. Sheriff Clarke has called Black Lives Matter “a separatist movement” comprising “slimy people” with a “hateful ideology” that should be added “to the list of hate groups in America.”
You can’t care about this issue and risk the ascendance of a man who last week was endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, a group that in its questionnaire to candidates claims: “Fringe organizations have been given a platform by the media to convey the message that police officers are a ‘militarized’ enemy and it is time to attack that enemy.” The questionnaire goes further: “There is a very real and very deliberate campaign to terrorize our nation’s law enforcement officers, and no one has come to our defense.” This, of course, is cop fantasy, but this group is the nation’s largest police union, representing some 330,000 officers.
You can’t care about this issue and risk the ascendance of a man who said of black people this week that they are “absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before” and has said before that his key to restoring safety in black communities is in part “more law enforcement.”
You can’t have taken part in a march for Eric Garner, chanting “I can’t breathe,” and risk the ascendance of a man who has as one of his chief advisers Rudy Giuliani, the grandfather of the very “broken windows” policing strategy that sent officers after low-level offenders like Garner.
You can’t have supported the marching in Ferguson, and applaud the Justice Department’s findings that the city was systematically oppressing its black citizens, and allow Trump to pick the next attorney general.
You can’t have been enraged by the video of Freddie Gray and risk the ascendance of a man who tweeted about the unrest that followed: “Our great African-American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!”
You can’t be irate about the environmental injustice in Flint and risk the ascendance of a man who didn’t set foot in that city this cycle until the final stretch of the campaign, when he was engaged in his fake black outreach. And even after he did, he attacked the pastor who interrupted him and lied about details of the visit. You can’t allow that man to pick the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
You can’t have cried about Tamir Rice’s case and allow the ascendance of a candidate who would have his convention in the city where Tamir was killed and not even once reach out to Tamir’s mother or invite her to the convention. You can’t allow the ascendance of a candidate with the audacity to return to Cleveland to tape a town hall with his television booster Sean Hannity about issues facing the African-American community — taped in front of a largely white audience judging by the pictures — and still not reach out to Tamir’s mother to participate. Tamir’s blood cries out for better.
You can’t detest racial-dragnet-policy stop-and-frisk policing as not only morally abhorrent but thoroughly unconstitutional and risk the ascendance of a man who on Wednesday reportedly suggested that he would consider using stop-and-frisk more across the nation.
You can’t pretend to be “enlightened” or “woke” or “principled” and sit idly by and allow real and sustained damage to be done to the very causes you hold dear.
You can’t in good conscience compare Trump to the candidate who has embraced the “Mothers of the Movement,” has an expansive racial justice agenda outlined on her website, has been engaged with Flint for months and has won the praise of that city’s mayor, and will surely appoint more liberal judges.
As Bernie Sanders himself said last week: “This is not the time for a protest vote.”
Protest voting or not voting at all isn’t principled. It’s dumb, and childish, and self-immolating. I know you’re young, but grow up!
guidoanselmi posted:voting at all isn’t principled. It’s dumb, and childish, and self-immolating. I know you’re young, but grow up!
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:watch trump utterly purge and humiliate the political class
naive optimism really doesn't suit you goat.