Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

the joke was implying - but never asserting- that i was rendering a professional opinion as opposed to merely the observations of a fellow human being. if that wasn't obvious, i apologize for the implication.

can we try to interact as fellow human beings, woodsman? not archetypes or symbols but as individuals each seeking his own way forward? individuals using this community not as a soapbox but as a platform to examine and clarify what is happening in the world?

Sure, doctor. Happy to do that. Apology accepted.

Would you and Santa mind going first? It would serve as a confidence building measure, don't you think? We might start by acknowledging the legitimacy of Trump skepticism, the absurdity of the apocalyptic view of Trump (or equating a strategic desire for a Trump victory as a wish to "destroy the world") and the reality of a massive and ongoing propaganda and psychological operation run on the American electorate for the benefit of the neoliberal/neoconservative alliance?

I think that would be a great starting point for us to examine and clarify the actualities of the day, don't you?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Would you and Santa mind going first? It would serve as a confidence building measure, don't you think? We might start by acknowledging the legitimacy of Trump skepticism,

i can't speak for santa, who i think is more positive than i about clinton. as i've said before, there is a running joke in my family about how much i despise her and her hypocrisy.

i am not sure what you mean by "Trump skepticism." if you mean skepticism of the legitimacy of the current bought-and-paid-for republicrat system and its ever increasing tilt towards enriching the rich, immiserating the poor, comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, then i am in total agreement. if you mean something different, please clarify.

the absurdity of the apocalyptic view of Trump (or equating a strategic desire for a Trump victory as a wish to "destroy the world")

i think trump would take this country in a bad, authoritarian direction, and would not in fact remedy the issues i listed above as "skepticism" of the current system. so i would hope he would be just a step in a bad direction. i worry about how far it could go, but i don't think he would "destroy the world." sorry i was being "poetic" in referring to the famous quote from the vietnam war. but nonetheless, the mentality of "we destroyed the village in order to save it" does express what worries me about your position. you referred to yourself as now a political anarchist, and i fear you are engaged in traditional anarchic bomb throwing.

and the reality of a massive and ongoing propaganda and psychological operation run on the American electorate for the benefit of the neoliberal/neoconservative alliance?

absolutely agree. e.g. i have ever diminishing trust and respect for the ny times. i have trouble finding any outlet to be trusted, so i read from the conservative media as well as from the liberal. that's how i know about the issues re hillary's health being bruited about on the right. there is not a murmur from the hillary-leaning press. i am skeptical as to the legitimacy of those issues, but have no way to know the truth. frankly, these days i'm skeptical about everything

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...Trump followers may be in denial but they cannot choose their facts. Now that Trump has added Steve Bannon to lead his campaign we will more clearly see how angry, fearful and hateful these people are.

Leaving aside the presumption that we have the means of peering into the minds and hearts of Trump supporters, individually or as a cohort, let's establish the facts by answering the following questions:

• What is neofascism?
• What are the elements of the neofascist ideology?
• What is authoritarianism?
• Are authoritarianism and neofascism synonymous?
• Which persons and organizations represent neofascism in America?
• How much influence do these neofascist organizations and personalities have on the American national discourse?
• For the sake of argument, if we were to accept the assertion that Trump is a neofascist, which of his proposals or policies represent neofascist ideology and policy?
• Of those policies and proposals, what makes them neofascist?
• What specific evidence exists that confirms Steve Bannon is a racist and operates from racial animus?
• Do Trump supporters have any legitimate grievances, or is the entire movement motivated by white racism?
• Does Trump offer any proposals intended to address legitimate grievances, or are they prima facie illegitimate fronts for white racial animus organized on neofascist lines?
• Are black folks attending Trump rallies as supporters racist neofascists?
• Are black folks working in the Trump campaign racist neofascists?
• Recognizing the overwhelming majority of black affiliation with the Democratic Party, is this the only legitimate viewpoint Black people can maintain?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

still looking forward to your response to my post #902 [902!] but in the meantime find your questions to santafe quite legitimate and worth addressing.

for myself:

re authoritarianism- i'm concerned with trump's incitement of mob violence - e.g. "in the good old days we'd rough up" someone protesting [not exact quote, i think, but close].

i'm concerned with choosing muslims as hate objects - we've all read stories about violence towards people with turbans, the wrong complexion or dress, etc. i'm not ascribing that to trump, but between his approval of mob violence and his encouragement of suspicions towards muslims i think it's a legitimate concern.

"what the cities need now is MORE police" or words to that effect. i don't think more police is in itself a bad idea, but combined with a lack of recognition of the legitimacy of black complaints about police behavior, it sounds like the object is suppression of a community, not its support.

trump's expressed desire to rein in freedom of the press sounds unconstitutional, but also bespeaks a vision of society with an official "reality" imposed by the state.

these are just the issues that come immediately to mind.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

The primary goal is the destruction of the Democratic and Republican Parties and the upending of the political status quo. The secondary goal is ending the political viability of HRC.

Woodsman,

Assuming Trump is elected, how likely is the primary goal?
Isn't it likely that the Parties will minimally adapt and survive? Reverting in 4 or 8 years?

Would Trump's election just be the start of the "destruction"?
How exactly does the "destruction" follow?

While I'm not with you, I find your writing very persuasive. Perhaps finding a larger
audience for it would have more impact than putting up yard signs.

LB

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i am not sure what you mean by "Trump skepticism."

To be skeptical about Trump, his proposals, sincerity, etc. I mean to say that I acknowledge that reasonable people of good intent can be skeptical of Trump generally as they would any other politician.

I think the same intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge the unreasonable claims made against Trump - that he is insane, a fascist in the image of Mussolini, a neofacist, a racist, an antisemite, an agent of the Russian state, a Putin agent, or that he suborns assassination, violence, or similar extralegal acts. And most especially, intellectual honesty demands that we reject the presumption that his voters represent a monolithic block of bloodthirsty troglodytes with no legitimacy and no virtue.

What I reject is the premise that Trump's election would mean a radical, extreme or otherwise revolutionary departure in American life, generally. Politically, it means an upending of the old order and a period of anarchy and this is my aim, yes. But to think a Trump administration represents a wholesale restructuring of our way of life under neofascist lines is preposterous and other than base partisanship and tribalism, I can't fathom folks who believe this as an article of faith.

Now as surely the lives and careers of the folks running the GOP and Democratic parties are going to change and radically so, ours will barely register it. It's not the existential risk the media and Democrat/Republican alliance - the neoliberal party - intend for us to believe. The fact that with one side of their face, Trump haters say he is a radical departure from all political and social norms, and with the other they criticize him for being the same-old-supply side Republican should inform us sufficiently.

Perhaps this is too much to demand. If that's the case, we can either accept the partisan back and forth and do our best to judge what is legitimate and what is not in the spirit of free speech. Or, we can as a community decide to close this topic and speak of it no more. Or do something else.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman,

Assuming Trump is elected, how likely is the primary goal?
Isn't it likely that the Parties will minimally adapt and survive? Reverting in 4 or 8 years?

Would Trump's election just be the start of the "destruction"?
How exactly does the "destruction" follow?

While I'm not with you, I find your writing very persuasive. Perhaps finding a larger
audience for it would have more impact than putting up yard signs.

LB

It's already happening to the GOP. It is irreparably split and exists in name only. If Trump prevails, he will determine what the GOP becomes based on the demands of its membership. How that shakes out is anyone's guess at this moment. Neoconservatives were once Democrats and there's nothing preventing them from returning home. Neoliberals share more in common with neoconservatives than they do with the traditional base of the Democratic Party. And both of them totally despise the left, so it would be an easy shift as the "50 necons for Hillz" show us.

The Democratic Party will immediately commence an internal civil war, with the Clinton people fighting for their political lives against the Sanders people. A struggle for the mind and soul of the Democratic Party is at hand even if HRC wins. But should she lose, the powers that be in the party will have to account for the most lopsided, underhanded, undemocratic selection process in its modern history and they will be tossed outside the circle. Most importantly, the period of Clintonism will come to its end. The Democratic Party too may survive in name only, but it will never, ever be the same. What it becomes is open to speculation.

It's kind of you to say, but I have no interest in any larger audience. I like fishing and sailing and surfing and chatting you good folks up, or the folks at the tavern. That's enough.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Trump to win? --why

It appears that the Saudis are on the way to reach their real goal - a trump win?

Bye bye democrats.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...mocrats-217855

The atlantic has an article on why people like Trump are gaining ground.

This articles focuses on the fact that the party apparatus is much weaker than it used to be, meaning that discipline and coherence
are much harder to achieve. Gadflies like Trump and Cruz get a lot of votes without accomplishing anything. Formerly, politicians and candidates were dependent on the party to finance campaigns, so they could not afford to piss off the party. But the finance rules
have changed so that the parties do not have much influence. Rather, wealth groups or individuals can fund candidates they like.
Also, the fact that the primaries really do control the choice of candidate has totally backfired---since only 20% of the party members vote in a primary, the primary winner represents only ~ 10% of the total electorate. Hence an election nominated by fringe candidates.

The atlantic has had several articles on US political dysfunction, this is one of the better ones.

It does not treat another fundamental problem ----the two party system. I believe it is largely dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties
that is making Trump possible. Until we get to proportional representation, many of these problems just cannot be solved.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

To be skeptical about Trump, his proposals, sincerity, etc. I mean to say that I acknowledge that reasonable people of good intent can be skeptical of Trump generally as they would any other politician.

i am not skeptical that trump wants to shake things up, that he thinks he can do a good job as president, and that he thinks he can do a substantially better job than any presidents in living memory. i don't think he's faking. otoh, he says a lot of contradictory things. some, like scott adams, see that as a feature, not a bug, but it makes it hard to know what, if anything, he really believes. that phrase "if anything" is NOT meant as a slam, since it is also conceivable to me that his interest is not in any policy in particular, but in brokering deals among the competing interests circling around each policy.

I think the same intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge the unreasonable claims made against Trump - that he is insane, a fascist in the image of Mussolini, a neofacist, a racist, an antisemite, an agent of the Russian state, a Putin agent, or that he suborns assassination, violence, or similar extralegal acts. And most especially, intellectual honesty demands that we reject the presumption that his voters represent a monolithic block of bloodthirsty troglodytes with no legitimacy and no virtue.

i don't think he's a fascist but it's hard to be sure given his recent policy shifts. a fascist wishes to join corporate and state power. in this sense, at least, hillary is a fascist. the usual fascist package includes a suppressive, authoritarian state however, and this appears more applicable to trump than clinton. about the latter, though, i'm aware of how the gov't under both dem and republican admins have gone after leaks and leakers, seeking to suppress as much information as possible. i haven't seen either party as an exponent of transparency.

What I reject is the premise that Trump's election would mean a radical, extreme or otherwise revolutionary departure in American life, generally. Politically, it means an upending of the old order and a period of anarchy and this is my aim, yes. But to think a Trump administration represents a wholesale restructuring of our way of life under neofascist lines is preposterous and other than base partisanship and tribalism, I can't fathom folks who believe this as an article of faith.

i think when he says that the solution to community-police problems in places like milwaukee or baltimore rests on having more police without acknowledging excess in police behavior, that's a problem. if i lived in those communities i would expect that a trump justice dept would not be investigating metropolitan police depts in the ways obama's does. whether more suppression and police violence in inner cities would represent a radical departure from current circumstances can be debated, but by my lights it wouldn't be good.


in a similar way, if trump were able to get restrictions on the press by broadening libel laws, as he hopes, the change would be one of degree, since the press is already self-censoring and slanted in various ways, but it wouldn't be good.

these changes are not the same as troops goosestepping down main street, but would be steps in the wrong direction.

Now as surely the lives and careers of the folks running the GOP and Democratic parties are going to change and radically so, ours will barely register it. It's not the existential risk the media and Democrat/Republican alliance - the neoliberal party - intend for us to believe. The fact that with one side of their face, Trump haters say he is a radical departure from all political and social norms, and with the other they criticize him for being the same-old-supply side Republican should inform us sufficiently.

Perhaps this is too much to demand. If that's the case, we can either accept the partisan back and forth and do our best to judge what is legitimate and what is not in the spirit of free speech. Or, we can as a community decide to close this topic and speak of it no more. Or do something else.

there is a really good piece in today's ny times by thomas edsall, examining the suppressed schism within the democratic party- between the urban professional elites and the minorities - especially as centered on issues of affordable housing. both parties are in trouble. it's just that the republicans troubles are on the surface at the moment, while the democratic ones await their moment.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

absolutely agree. e.g. i have ever diminishing trust and respect for the ny times. i have trouble finding any outlet to be trusted, so i read from the conservative media as well as from the liberal. that's how i know about the issues re hillary's health being bruited about on the right. there is not a murmur from the hillary-leaning press. i am skeptical as to the legitimacy of those issues, but have no way to know the truth. frankly, these days i'm skeptical about everything

The Hillary health scare stuff has become a complete joke. If she hesitates for 1 second during an hour long speech there will be some anti-Hillary website claiming that she had a mini-stroke. If she is slow going up a staircase she is somehow medically disqualified from being President. It's especially hilarious coming from Trump supporters. The guy is 70 years old. He's probably more likely to die in office than Hillary. And if weird facial expressions are indicative of health problems, he's certainly giving at least as much reason to be concerned.

This isn't to say she doesn't have a serious health problem. And I'm sure that most of the media would gladly sweep it under the rug if it hurt her chances. But it's not like they are applying to be astronauts. Not only can they be replaced in office, but you actually vote for their replacement at the exact same time.

It's the same old story: "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right".

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

The Hillary health scare stuff has become a complete joke. If she hesitates for 1 second during an hour long speech there will be some anti-Hillary website claiming that she had a mini-stroke. If she is slow going up a staircase she is somehow medically disqualified from being President. It's especially hilarious coming from Trump supporters. The guy is 70 years old. He's probably more likely to die in office than Hillary. And if weird facial expressions are indicative of health problems, he's certainly giving at least as much reason to be concerned.

This isn't to say she doesn't have a serious health problem. And I'm sure that most of the media would gladly sweep it under the rug if it hurt her chances. But it's not like they are applying to be astronauts. Not only can they be replaced in office, but you actually vote for their replacement at the exact same time.

It's the same old story: "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right".

Consider the source, but Americas TV doctor seems to think she has brain damage and is getting substandard care.

TV personality Dr. David Andrew Pinsky said Wednesday that he is “gravely concerned” about Hillary Clinton’s health and the treatments she’s received, which he described as “1950-level care.”

Appearing on KABC’s “McIntyre in the Morning,” Dr. Pinsky, a board-certified internist more commonly known as Dr. Drew, said he and another doctor reviewed Mrs. Clinton’s medical evaluations and came to some startling conclusions.

“Based on the information that she has provided and her doctors have provided, we were gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care,” he said in the interview, transcribed by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Both of us concluded that if we were providing the care that she was receiving, we’d be ashamed to show up in a doctor’s lounge. We’d be laughed out,” he added. “She’s receiving sort-of 1950-level care by our evaluation.”

Later in the interview, Dr. Drew mentioned that Mrs. Clinton suffered from two episodes of deep vein thrombosis, or DVT, which he described as a very common problem that normally results in blood clots in the leg.

“She also has hypothyroidism, and she’d been treated for hypothyroidism with something called Armour Thyroid, which is very unconventional and something that we used to use back in the ‘60s,” Dr. Drew said. “And by the way, wow, Armour Thyroid sometimes has some weird side effects.

So she goes on Coumadin,” he continued. “That’s weird, because Coumadin really isn’t even used anymore. Now we use Eliquis or Xarelto, things like this. Certainly the presidential candidate would get one of the newer anti-coagulates. Then she falls, hits her head, and as a complication of that has something called a transverse sinus thrombosis. This is an exceedingly rare clot. I’ve only seen one of these in my career, which is a clot in the collecting system for the cerebral spinal fluid, and it essentially guarantees that somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system. Well, she’s had two clots, a transverse sinus thrombosis.”

“And oh, by the way, Armour Thyroid associated rarely with hyper-coagulability. So the very medicine the doctors are using may be causing this problem, and they’re using an old-fashioned medicine to treat it. What is going on with her health care?” he asked. “It’s bizarre. I got to tell you. Maybe they have reasons, but at a distance, it looks bizarre. There ought to be some sort of standard for people that are going to lead the country or are going to making these important decisions.”

Another issue that “gravely concerned” the doctors is that Mrs. Clinton had to wear prism glasses after she fell and hit her head, suffering from a concussion in 2012.

“That is brain damage, and it’s affecting her balance,” Dr. Drew said. “Now clearly, it hasn’t affected her cognition, but tell us a little more about that. That’s profound. And then number two, when they screened her for heart disease, again, they did an old-fashioned screen. It just seems like she’s getting care from somebody that she met in Arkansas when she was a kid, and you’ve got to wonder. You’ve got to wonder. It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern. It’s that the care she’s getting could make it a concern.”
Dr. Drew’s comments have fueled ongoing speculation by conservative and alt-right media outlets about Mrs. Clinton’s state of health.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump twice this week questioned whether Mrs. Clinton had the mental and physical “stamina” to take on the Islamic State terror group.

Dr. Drew ‘gravely concerned’ about Hillary Clinton’s ‘1950-level’ health care

FYI, Rassmusen has Trump 2 points behind Clinton. LA Times has him closing the gap to less than a single point. Wait until Labor Day weekend to see if these cluster.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

here's a list of recent national polls, along with a grade for their historical accuracy.

of course there's no higher medical authority than "dr drew" but e.g. some people are deficient in the enzyme which converts some of your t4 [thyroxine] to t3 [triiodothyronine]. armour thyroid is a convenient way to give people both in a physiologic ratio.

btw, do we really know whether clinton has ever taken armour thyroid? just askin'.

and if dr drew has really seen these medical records, why haven't we? just his secret?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

trump currently running behind romney's numbers with white males.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us...white-men.html

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

scott adams: trump's "third act" will change everything

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...%80%99s-health