TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[seemslikeadream]

oh I didn't know Hillary is no longer a woman...GTK

if you guys continue to engage me and throw out personal insults like our dear friend Mr. Base I will answer you back ...that's your choice

when the men here stop putting words in my mouth....maybe then I will stop having to correct them...just like you have...when you stop lying about my intentions I will be able to stop setting the record straight...which is in my right to do...we can continue this as long as you want

[JackRiddler]

For reference, since this is a new page:

oh women who dare to become a heavyweight loose their right to be judged by what they do and gain the wonderful benefit of being judge by what their husbands do

how gracious of you

Hillary Clinton is a woman, but the "universal woman" defense of her with regard to the misdeeds of her important political ally, Bill Clinton, is rather laughable, and if you had not converted so completely to the Official Democratic Underground line (who saw that coming?) you'd be laughing too.

HRC is absolutely being criticized for her own decisions. Bill Clinton is absolutely fair game, because having him front and center in her campaign is one of her decisions.

HRC has touted him as her most important economic advisor in the coming administration. He is out there every day campaigning as a surrogate, doing so as former President Clinton and not simply as the supporting husband.

HRC played a key and active role in WJC's administration and his campaigns, and is acknowledged as a pioneer in making the First Lady role much more important.

She constantly harkens back to WJC's administration as the golden age she intends to restore, with his help. She did so again at the debate yesterday.

Of course he and his character and his alleged sex crimes are all fair game. For acceptable, political reasons.

This has nothing to do with blaming the wife for the husband's sins. Not when the wife is in charge, and choosing to promote the husband as a political ally. Then it's about politics.

The same is true of, say, HRC's announced mentor, Kissinger. Or her embrace of endorsements from the Bush regime's fugitive war criminals, including Negroponte and Rice. Of course you can blame HRC for those, if she embraces them. Just as you can blame her for her close political ally WJC.

Anyway, obviously Trump must be kept out. Fascism is no solution. So instead of wasting your time here, why don't you take these particular efforts to places where you might sway some undecideds or Republicans not to vote for him?

Hint: There as well, negativity about Trump will work a lot better, because it is true, than bullshit purporting to show why Clinton is a wonderful person who loves children, etc. etc.

See your candidate's campaign for tips: It's always hit Trump, hit Trump, hit Trump, and hell rightly so; then, maybe, she trots out the bullshit wherein she takes credit for S-CHIP and other ways she supposedly helped children a million years ago -- carefully avoiding her major votes as Senator or her actual decisions as Secretary of State -- and tells the story about how she heroically rebuilt New York after 9/11 with help from her most excellent friend and really all around good guy George W. Bush.

.

[seemslikeadream]

than bullshit purporting to show why Clinton is a wonderful person who loves children, etc. etc.

AGAIN

NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT WHAT SO EVER

I know you really want to tell me where to go but I ain't leaving so please quit giving me advice....I don't need or want your counsel....and I really don't like you putting words in my mouth so please stop lying about what I have posted or what I believe

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Seems to me many people here have forgotten what this thread is about...

TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Trump may be on the verge of losing the election. So What? Does anyone think that makes him any less dangerous?!

[JackRiddler]

It prevents him from being instantaneously and exponentially more dangerous. It also prevents the even more dangerous Pence presidency, since the Republicans will be able to dump Trump in about six days if the mood hits them.

But the feeling among some here is that Trump should be given a chance! After all, he's never been president, so his kill-numbers really pale compared to Clinton, Bush and Obama. Let's see if a New York sociopath, New Jersey mobster, money launderer, racist, professional misogynist, and open encourager of mob violence, who has the endorsements of the copper unions and the fascists, and who has promised an immediate round-up of 11 million people as well as a move to the Middle East to TAKE THEIR OIL, can tote up the same kill-numbers given the presidency as those guys. (I figure it will take about a year to match Clinton and Obama, two to match Bush. That's an over-under, of course. Place your goddamn bets.)

.

[OP ED]

Ah, but I don't believe so much in the power of the Preznit to do anything aside from whatever they're damn well told to do, so I don't have any hopes that voting for one over the other will have any significant impact on the future death tolls.

[tapitsbo]

AP withdrawing its dishonest ISIS "fact check" was good

I heard someone say Americans are getting the election they voted for. The fraud by Clinton in the Democratic leadership contest means that's a lie

[JackRiddler]

Ah, but I don't believe so much in the power of the Preznit to do anything aside from whatever they're damn well told to do, so I don't have any hopes that voting for one over the other will have any significant impact on the future death tolls.

It's not that the winner is a better or worse person, or has a better or worse record in the past. It is not that the winner is more or less autonomous from the MIC planning and elite policy consensus building.

Rather, I think the nominal meaning of the results matters.

The functional exercise of power is not entirely up to the ostensible elite, and the elite is not fully centralized and scripted. There is dissension among them depending on the conditions they see operant below them, and believe it or not depending on their own views that can vary from assessment of naked class interest. Some of them may be more human than others, I hear.

The rest is up to the amount of resistance that can be mobilized from below.

Under a Trump win there is an understanding that a "majority" backs crushing domestic resistance by any and all means -- that it will be legitimate to unleash the cops on all protest and on the ostensible "chaos" in the cities.

It will also be in his purview, without need of legislation, to order "enforcement" of immigration law in the form of rounding up 11 million people. Imagine the size of that operation. Imagine the chaos that follows as police, ICE and courts are ordered to carry it out, and how many people get swept up in addition, how many fanatics within the police are unleashed, how many people end up shot whether or not they were illegal immigrants.

Under a Clinton win, the same resources will be there for repression, but it will not have the same initial legitimacy, because the nominal meaning of her winning is not the same. It is not a vote for a round-up of the 11 million, even if she might try that (she would not). It is not a vote to unleash the police on the supposed "chaos" in the cities, even if she might try that (very unlikely, though the police will simply continue operating in the same way). It is not a vote for saying that BLM and the movements are terrorist, even if she might try treating them that way (not so unlikely). There is just not initially the same leeway for domestic repression that is considered legitimate. This can change through the development of events, but that's where the struggle comes in.

That means movements of resistance -- against her administration, among other antagonists -- have more room within which to build. That includes potential antiwar movements. So when whatever script is implemented, the cost is potentially higher. That depends on whether there will be mobilization, regardless of outcome.

Trump would come in with the idea that something new has arrived and gets a chance. I do not believe that will be the case with Clinton. It doesn't matter how big her win is -- the bigger the better, in my opinion, even if I'm not voting for her. I've been saying this for 10 years on this damn forum: If you want to see the two-party system break apart, the Republican side has to decline first. They are the real lynchpin, uniting mainly the white conservatives behind an extremism, and causing all the disparate groups who are not white conservatives to band together in fear. Republican power is what keeps the Democratic coalition glued together in fear.

A Clinton victory will be seen mainly as a rejection of Trump, not primarily a legitimation of Clinton. Never mind the corporate media spin, they are also weakening. And instead of fighting this supposedly new but entire scammy phenomenon of Trump, this renewal of the face of the corporate monster, we will be fighting a now visibly united Bush-Clinton establishment that has less legitimacy than ever.

.

[Heaven Swan]

Freitag Wrote:
I think liberals underestimate how much conservatives enjoy making them "extremely anxious". When the Left freaks out over a candidate with hyperbole and histrionics, it makes the candidate more appealing because of the troll factor. I don't think SLAD understands how much I enjoy her posts about lefties hyperventilating over Trump.

What a fascinating statement.

First of all,the anxiety is real and widespread (see article excerpt below) and I don't think that only liberals worry when the country they live in shows strong signs of collapsing into fascism.

What this poster is expressing is a kind of sadistic glee in seeing these anxious reactions.

The mask really is coming off isn't it? The fascists are showing themselves for who they really are. The 'we're all 'nice' civil americans' social glue is melting away. I guess we can thank Trump for that.

When this is all said and done maybe we'll be more like some European and Latin American countries where the political and class differences are much more stark and politics feel much more dangerous.

If only the left wasn't split to pieces by identity politics and rife with misogyny....

In the article below there's a quote that sums it up for me "I can understand that a Trump could exist, but not that all these people could support him," I thought that I could see reality more than most but I would never have thought that so many could support a Trump. It might be too much to hope for and I'm unsure where it might take us but maybe as a country we're growing up.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-do-we-know-america-is-anxious-about-a-president-trump-shrinks-and-massage-therapists/2016/03/03/e5b55a22-e0bb-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Psychologists and massage therapists are reporting ‘Trump anxiety’ among clients

Excerpt from this article:

..Alarmed by another wave of news coverage about Trump’s growing strength, Nancy Lauro, 52, a Brooklyn art teacher, sat at her computer recently and searched Google for information about acquiring Italian citizenship. She also inquired about Ireland, where she has family roots.

“As phobias and fears ago,” Lauro said later of her query, “this is not a pathological response to a normal situation, but a normal response to a pathological situation. Picking up one’s life feels impossible, but I keep flashing on those people who fled Germany when the writing was on the wall and those who didn’t. When do you take action to get out?”

Trump-inspired angst is apparently sufficient that on Super Tuesday, as he was piling up victories, Google recorded a 350 percent increase in users submitting the question, “How can I move to Canada?”...

[OP ED]

Yes, the consolidation of error. Its a major theme in Blake and one of my last few fervently held hopes for our species.

I wasn't saying it wouldn't be different but I don't think the real difference will be so great as you're implying. More like pepsi and classic pepsi.

I also don't think that Donald ever had any real chance at a popular or electoral victory, and if he had it would be stolen from him. He's only there to make the central right of the DNC's diet warmongering seem somewhat less insane.

In that sense, at the least I consider his current downward trajectory a victory insofar as the death of the GOP does allow the very slightest opportunity for a center left party to actually exist and potentially someday, with the blessing of all unicorns, maybe compete.

But that doesn't mean that I take Trump seriously as a dangerous threat to anything other than national dignity which we're being overzealous if we somehow think we still deserve. I would really hate to have to hear him talk all the time. None of his "policies" are even remotely feasible and he has little intention of ever enacting anything. He would just blame his complete failure on the opposition as he has for his entire life and he would be wealthier when it was over. He will be anyway. Probably this is how the Clintons convinced him to run.

[FourthBase]

First of all,the anxiety is real and widespread (see article excerpt below) and I don't think that only liberals worry when the country they live in shows strong signs of collapsing into fascism.

Some of the anxiety is real. Most of the anxiety is only real if you think the anxiety generated by self-inflicted mass-gaslighting counts as real. The neurological effects are identical, I suppose. Anxiety abounded in 1930's Germany, too, and the current American left naturally thinks its anxiety is related to the anxiety Jews and democrats felt back then, and will never for a moment ponder that its anxiety has just as much in common with the widespread anxiety felt by the, uh, "good" Germans.

[JackRiddler]

.

If it's gaslighting to think Trump is a despicable exemplar of inhumanity and violence and a professional misogynist -- one celebrated by the media until the day before yesterday as the image of the good life under American capitalism -- then I've been self-inflicting since the mid-1980s, at a time when I had no inkling about the governor of Arkansas or his wife. Was Trump not famous before them? Do Americans not know him, through direct exposure to him speaking, as well as they know them?

.

[Nordic]

than bullshit purporting to show why Clinton is a wonderful person who loves children, etc. etc.

AGAIN

NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT WHAT SO EVER

I know you really want to tell me where to go but I ain't leaving so please quit giving me advice....I don't need or want your counsel....and I really don't like you putting words in my mouth so please stop lying about what I have posted or what I believe

SLAD, you come across as someone who was deeply hurt by a man, or men, in the past, and your lashing out at everyone around you here. We're not out to get you. We don't want to hurt you. I'm pretty sure most of us care about you. I do. I always have, and long before I realized you were female. You remind me a lot of my wife, who has a deep hatred of a certain type of white American male (she's also 100% Irish) and she has perfectly good reasons for hating them. I understand if you hate Trump. But men aren't all like Trump. Especially here. Even in "locker room" situations the vast majority of men don't talk the way he does. I'm just saying hate Trump if you want but not all men. We're not all like that. And you can relax here. We're friends.

[82_28]

No, most definitely there is no lashing out at you that I have seen. Should that happen, we would have your back -- not like you need men to do it for you. It really sucks that this "election" thing has become a gender issue because it is not. I can only speak for myself but I do not support Clinton, but it's not that she is a woman. I can only speak for myself when I say also that trump is a disgusting pig.

As Nordic says, I too have no friends, colleagues, co-workers etc, who are male, that would ever laugh along with what we understand of trump. I do have friends, colleagues, co-workers etc that would disagree with me if I told them I believe Clinton to be a war criminal et al and she won't be getting my vote.

[82_28]

In fact, in thinking of it, I will be voting for basically all women here in Washington State come the election. Gender does not figure in the equation whatsoever. Our ex governor Christine Gregoire who was a D sucked. But it wasn't because she was a woman. Now we have a male governor who is up for re-election, who I will be voting for and not because he is male.