RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:OK, so we are all a lot happier that a nicer couple inhabit the top tier of American politics (or soon will) and the orange nutter will soon be forgotten about.

Except I don't think he will be.

Trumpism (for want of a better term) is a load of bollocks. But the reasons why it was popular enough to get 70m votes are still there. Not everyone voted for Trump out of tribal loyalty or because they were scared or reds under the bed. In the same way that some politicians celebrated the demise of communism in much of the world but gave no thought to the social-economic rationals for its existence in the first place, the same is true of Trump's America.

I hope the Democrats have a plan to address many of the issues that matter to these people, rather than just sign them off as gun nut racists (some undoubtedly are of course) but if Trump 2 is to be avoided then some sensible policies for economic and social renewal/improvement need to be found.

We have a better term, it’s called fascism and it’s more than just Trump, it’s Orbán and Duda and Bolsonaro and Duterte and Erdogan and Modi and many more.

And until we do something about it, we’re disgracing ourselves.

I agree it’s unacceptable whether it’s this right wing populism or indeed fascism. Or communism for that matter. All extremist ideologies are unacceptable.

So, how to ensure that people are attracted to the centre of politics, or at least away from extremes? There are socio economic reasons why these fringe parties become popular. Find what the contributory factors are and concentrate on eradicating them.

It's quite simple really. Class conflict is not only between capitalist and non-capitalist classes. There are classes within capitalism that seek to establish or maintain their power structures. What we saw in the Trumpist and Brexit popularist revolutions is simply the manifestation of a disempowered capitalist class trying to change the economic rules of the game to rules that favour it, just like the transnational capitalist class did from the 70s to 90s. Such classes do not only consist of those at the top who own capital, but also all those who benefit from that class and are dependent on it.

I quite like the following analysis back from 2000 that appeared in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, that looks at the Transnational Capitalist Class.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/globalizat ... ation.html

In other news, apparently around half of this beautiful, democratic country I call home believes that there were watermarks on the ballots and Biden cheated...

I mean, wtf people. Jeez.

You know, I feel so alone here now? Over the past year, our friends have outed themselves as people I do not want to associate with, who cannot have a conversation about anything without turning it to libertarian bullshit, and now my wife is saying the same thing, and she's usually the best person in the world at ignoring people's negatives to focus on their positives.

Sigh.

No wonder people turn to the internet more and more.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
We have a better term, it’s called fascism and it’s more than just Trump, it’s Orbán and Duda and Bolsonaro and Duterte and Erdogan and Modi and many more.

And until we do something about it, we’re disgracing ourselves.

I agree it’s unacceptable whether it’s this right wing populism or indeed fascism. Or communism for that matter. All extremist ideologies are unacceptable.

So, how to ensure that people are attracted to the centre of politics, or at least away from extremes? There are socio economic reasons why these fringe parties become popular. Find what the contributory factors are and concentrate on eradicating them.

It's quite simple really. Class conflict is not only between capitalist and non-capitalist classes. There are classes within capitalism that seek to establish or maintain their power structures. What we saw in the Trumpist and Brexit popularist revolutions is simply the manifestation of a disempowered capitalist class trying to change the economic rules of the game to rules that favour it, just like the transnational capitalist class did from the 70s to 90s. Such classes do not only consist of those at the top who own capital, but also all those who benefit from that class and are dependent on it.

I quite like the following analysis back from 2000 that appeared in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, that looks at the Transnational Capitalist Class.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/globalizat ... ation.html

Wait, what?

No, no, no. While I agree with the concept that class conflict is a thing, I definitely disagree with the idea it is the be all and end all. In fact, it's an incredibly shallow and 1 dimensional way of looking at the world that requires no nuance at all. You can just lump all the billionaires together, Bill Gates is the same as Carlos Slim, who's the same as Soros, who's the same as Sheldon fucking Adelson.

No, they're not.

In fact, if a traditional capitalist was alive today to see what is called capitalism, he'd be aghast. This is post-capitalism, neo-capitalism, or whatever you want to call it. And the people who vote for populists are not people who are supported by neo-capitalism, but people who are held back by it.

So, perhaps, it's not about class at all. Perhaps it's about a sense of identity, of self.

Sociologically, we've moved further and further away from a system where the individual can get to know themselves and toward a place where people do not understand their own urges, thoughts or feelings. That leaves them grasping at any means to identify themselves.

So identity politics becomes a thing.

I'm a liberal!
I'm a conservative!

People just attach themselves to whichever group better represents what thoughts they do have about themselves. And because they've never learnt to know and understand themselves, they gradually become more and more radicalised by it.

So much so they will follow the same people who want to take away everything they own, they will shout down and vote down any policy designed to help them, and they will destroy their own lives because it does not fit the image they have created.

Popularism is just a symptom of a wider disease: people do not know themselves and the education system fails to provide them with the tools to do so.

That's why we get Brexit and Trump, not fucking capitalism.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:you'd love to see how he pissed away his campaign war chest such he now needs to retire debt

I would imagine it's because any money he spent himself was counted as a loan to his campaign, which he's now repaying. Or, even better, I'm willing to bet that the campaign needs to repay the fees incurred by use of Trump properties, Trump employees, probably the Trump brand as well. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if his campaign needs to pay him an appearance fee for speaking at his rallies.

Puja

Me neither.

Stom wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I agree it’s unacceptable whether it’s this right wing populism or indeed fascism. Or communism for that matter. All extremist ideologies are unacceptable.

So, how to ensure that people are attracted to the centre of politics, or at least away from extremes? There are socio economic reasons why these fringe parties become popular. Find what the contributory factors are and concentrate on eradicating them.

It's quite simple really. Class conflict is not only between capitalist and non-capitalist classes. There are classes within capitalism that seek to establish or maintain their power structures. What we saw in the Trumpist and Brexit popularist revolutions is simply the manifestation of a disempowered capitalist class trying to change the economic rules of the game to rules that favour it, just like the transnational capitalist class did from the 70s to 90s. Such classes do not only consist of those at the top who own capital, but also all those who benefit from that class and are dependent on it.

I quite like the following analysis back from 2000 that appeared in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, that looks at the Transnational Capitalist Class.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/globalizat ... ation.html

Wait, what?

No, no, no. While I agree with the concept that class conflict is a thing, I definitely disagree with the idea it is the be all and end all. In fact, it's an incredibly shallow and 1 dimensional way of looking at the world that requires no nuance at all. You can just lump all the billionaires together, Bill Gates is the same as Carlos Slim, who's the same as Soros, who's the same as Sheldon fucking Adelson.

No, they're not.

In fact, if a traditional capitalist was alive today to see what is called capitalism, he'd be aghast. This is post-capitalism, neo-capitalism, or whatever you want to call it. And the people who vote for populists are not people who are supported by neo-capitalism, but people who are held back by it.

So, perhaps, it's not about class at all. Perhaps it's about a sense of identity, of self.

Sociologically, we've moved further and further away from a system where the individual can get to know themselves and toward a place where people do not understand their own urges, thoughts or feelings. That leaves them grasping at any means to identify themselves.

So identity politics becomes a thing.

I'm a liberal!
I'm a conservative!

People just attach themselves to whichever group better represents what thoughts they do have about themselves. And because they've never learnt to know and understand themselves, they gradually become more and more radicalised by it.

So much so they will follow the same people who want to take away everything they own, they will shout down and vote down any policy designed to help them, and they will destroy their own lives because it does not fit the image they have created.

Popularism is just a symptom of a wider disease: people do not know themselves and the education system fails to provide them with the tools to do so.

That's why we get Brexit and Trump, not fucking capitalism.

I don't think that you can call the pro-Brexit leaders as disenfranchised capitalists either. In fact Brexit made a bit of a mockery of tradition lclass arguments in that traditional working class voted alongside posh boys to leave, uniting both the left and right of the political spectrum. And whilst there has been anti-EU propaganda for decades in most of the popular newspapers, neither was that decision a top down driven piece of propaganda. There was plenty of bottom up resentment, which was magnified and expanded by the last crash. Likewise, many who voted fro Trump we 'left behind' by globalisation and would have resorted to any politician who claimed to take them seriously. In the US that's Trump as the left doesnt exist at any national level; in the UK it was Corbyn and Farage.

Stom wrote: Wait, what?

No, no, no. While I agree with the concept that class conflict is a thing, I definitely disagree with the idea it is the be all and end all. In fact, it's an incredibly shallow and 1 dimensional way of looking at the world that requires no nuance at all. You can just lump all the billionaires together, Bill Gates is the same as Carlos Slim, who's the same as Soros, who's the same as Sheldon fucking Adelson.

No, they're not.

'be all and end' all is a misrepresentation of my point, and my point is also pretty much the opposite of 'lumping all the billionaires together'.

Stom wrote:In fact, if a traditional capitalist was alive today to see what is called capitalism, he'd be aghast. This is post-capitalism, neo-capitalism, or whatever you want to call it. And the people who vote for populists are not people who are supported by neo-capitalism, but people who are held back by it.

This is just too irrelevant and incoherent to find a point in it. Again arguing against something I never claimed. Try actually reading my post before replying.

Stom wrote: So, perhaps, it's not about class at all. Perhaps it's about a sense of identity, of self.

Sociologically, we've moved further and further away from a system where the individual can get to know themselves and toward a place where people do not understand their own urges, thoughts or feelings. That leaves them grasping at any means to identify themselves.

So identity politics becomes a thing.

I'm a liberal!
I'm a conservative!

People just attach themselves to whichever group better represents what thoughts they do have about themselves. And because they've never learnt to know and understand themselves, they gradually become more and more radicalised by it.

So much so they will follow the same people who want to take away everything they own, they will shout down and vote down any policy designed to help them, and they will destroy their own lives because it does not fit the image they have created.

Popularism is just a symptom of a wider disease: people do not know themselves and the education system fails to provide them with the tools to do so.

That's why we get Brexit and Trump, not fucking capitalism.

And now you're pushing your rant against identity politics. The only relevance it has is in the effect it has in creating false consciousness in people so that they identify with a class that they are not a part of.

Sandydragon wrote: I don't think that you can call the pro-Brexit leaders as disenfranchised capitalists either. In fact Brexit made a bit of a mockery of traditional class arguments in that traditional working class voted alongside posh boys to leave, uniting both the left and right of the political spectrum.

If you look at the backers of Brexit you will see that they are members of a class of capitalists who are relatively disempowered by the status quo (relative disadvantage matters a lot in a competitive market system of course). In the case of Brexit it is of course a slightly different class to those backing Trump, and therefore have different interests. Predominantly it is a mixture of those who have their investments in non-EU countries or would benefit from such trade (think importing dirt cheap goods from commonwealth countries etc) or they have domestic interests (think fishing rights holders and other domestic capitalists that would benefit).

Sandydragon wrote:And whilst there has been anti-EU propaganda for decades in most of the popular newspapers, neither was that decision a top down driven piece of propaganda. There was plenty of bottom up resentment, which was magnified and expanded by the last crash.

Capitalism is top down, and anything that seeks to change opinion or incite to action is propaganda. Effective propaganda is based on truth, hence the fact that is is not manufactured out of thin air. Therefore I absolutely agree that the actual resentment existed, and that's also my point. Those people were those who were losers from the transnational capitalist class' attainment and consolidation of power (economic and political) over the last few decades.

Sandydragon wrote: Likewise, many who voted fro Trump we 'left behind' by globalisation and would have resorted to any politician who claimed to take them seriously. In the US that's Trump as the left doesnt exist at any national level; in the UK it was Corbyn and Farage.

Yes, agree here, and it is in line with my point.

I have no way of knowing anything about routes to the White House, or possible options for Trump, I just have a very uneasy feeling that he's so unconventional and everyone who's saying he has no possibility of staying in the WH is thinking in conventional terms and just maybe, like a rat up a sewer, he'll just find a way that no one else would've ever thought of or countenanced of actually staying there for another term.

It's possible I just need to get some sleep mind.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

He is far too thick for that. There is no way in, even he knows it. He is doing two things. One, milking government and ignorant people for as much as they both will give. Two, covering his tracks for as long as possible before the new tenant comes in because the actual state of government once revealed will be a sight to behold. There will be so much unaccounted for expenditure, so many smoldering fires, and so much incompetence laid bare. Little tastes of this have surfaced, like the billions in construction contract given out to idiots to build a small section of fence on the southern border and Kushner's spunking money into thin air with his coronavirus efforts. It will not be pretty.

Weren't all the early problems between the Republicans and trump I.e. he wasn't going to spend a penny on the campaign?

there was also talk that he might step down and pence would pardon him for whatever crime he might have committed

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote: Wait, what?

No, no, no. While I agree with the concept that class conflict is a thing, I definitely disagree with the idea it is the be all and end all. In fact, it's an incredibly shallow and 1 dimensional way of looking at the world that requires no nuance at all. You can just lump all the billionaires together, Bill Gates is the same as Carlos Slim, who's the same as Soros, who's the same as Sheldon fucking Adelson.

No, they're not.

'be all and end' all is a misrepresentation of my point, and my point is also pretty much the opposite of 'lumping all the billionaires together'.

Stom wrote:In fact, if a traditional capitalist was alive today to see what is called capitalism, he'd be aghast. This is post-capitalism, neo-capitalism, or whatever you want to call it. And the people who vote for populists are not people who are supported by neo-capitalism, but people who are held back by it.

This is just too irrelevant and incoherent to find a point in it. Again arguing against something I never claimed. Try actually reading my post before replying.

Stom wrote: So, perhaps, it's not about class at all. Perhaps it's about a sense of identity, of self.

Sociologically, we've moved further and further away from a system where the individual can get to know themselves and toward a place where people do not understand their own urges, thoughts or feelings. That leaves them grasping at any means to identify themselves.

So identity politics becomes a thing.

I'm a liberal!
I'm a conservative!

People just attach themselves to whichever group better represents what thoughts they do have about themselves. And because they've never learnt to know and understand themselves, they gradually become more and more radicalised by it.

So much so they will follow the same people who want to take away everything they own, they will shout down and vote down any policy designed to help them, and they will destroy their own lives because it does not fit the image they have created.

Popularism is just a symptom of a wider disease: people do not know themselves and the education system fails to provide them with the tools to do so.

That's why we get Brexit and Trump, not fucking capitalism.

And now you're pushing your rant against identity politics. The only relevance it has is in the effect it has in creating false consciousness in people so that they identify with a class that they are not a part of.

You just made my point...

Why the hell is someone's mental state their class? What does it have to do with class? Voting preference does not have anything to do with class anymore. Marxist theory is irrelevant.

Why?

Because everyone has gained a certain level of literacy and education and everyone has access to more information than ever before. Suddenly people can be billionaires or on the dole and have access to the same internet websites and YouTube conspiracy theorists.

You seem to be talking a lot about those same things Peterson talks about when he's not making much sense, while ignoring the bits when he has made sense: about the problems with growing up and skipping certain key parts of childhood and what that has to do with your ability to identify your self.

It's the same things, said in a very different way, to what Rudolf Steiner talked about, and those are 2 veeeeery different people. And it's why there are so many Trump voters, Modi voters, Bolsonaro voters, etc.

At essence, tribalism. Nothing to do with class. In fact, what is class in the 21st century?

morepork wrote:He is far too thick for that. There is no way in, even he knows it. He is doing two things. One, milking government and ignorant people for as much as they both will give. Two, covering his tracks for as long as possible before the new tenant comes in because the actual state of government once revealed will be a sight to behold. There will be so much unaccounted for expenditure, so many smoldering fires, and so much incompetence laid bare. Little tastes of this have surfaced, like the billions in construction contract given out to idiots to build a small section of fence on the southern border and Kushner's spunking money into thin air with his coronavirus efforts. It will not be pretty.

He's obviously too thick to even wipe his own backside... but some of those around him who are compromised?

There's clearly a +99% chance I'm talking out of my arse. I just wouldn't be surprised if he/someone one his behalf comes out with the weirdest plan ever to keep on keeping on.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:He is far too thick for that. There is no way in, even he knows it. He is doing two things. One, milking government and ignorant people for as much as they both will give. Two, covering his tracks for as long as possible before the new tenant comes in because the actual state of government once revealed will be a sight to behold. There will be so much unaccounted for expenditure, so many smoldering fires, and so much incompetence laid bare. Little tastes of this have surfaced, like the billions in construction contract given out to idiots to build a small section of fence on the southern border and Kushner's spunking money into thin air with his coronavirus efforts. It will not be pretty.

Yep, agree with this...although I'm not sure he knows he has no chance yet.

I really think his brain is telling him the 6-3 Conservative majority in the SC will bail him out based on hearsay and conjecture.

I read on Twitter (I think) that a Republican turd said he was contacted anonymously by someone who witnessed a van with Biden/Harris on the side roll up at an election counting centre. Unloaded some ballot boxes, then opened up sealed ballots and replaced votes for Trump with votes for Biden. All in plain sight too.

I mean, come on.

Pretty sure no judge, regardless of their political beliefs will rule in favour of that as credible evidence of fraud.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

That sounds like a job for Scooby and the team.

Running around robbing banks all whacked off of Scooby Snacks sounds like a reasonable description of Trump. Whether we now get the details of his taxes and deals with Russian financing and deals with Deutsche Bank remains to be seen, but theft involving banks whilst high on drugs wouldn't surprise as a charge

Zhivago wrote:there was also talk that he might step down and pence would pardon him for whatever crime he might have committed

No idea of the rules here but I wonder if he can be pardoned preemptively for things he may be accused of in future (once the Biden team gets a look at the books)?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:there was also talk that he might step down and pence would pardon him for whatever crime he might have committed

No idea of the rules here but I wonder if he can be pardoned preemptively for things he may be accused of in future (once the Biden team gets a look at the books)?

Presumably he has prosecutors who can levy the charges to be pardoned.

There was also a suggestion that he might retire to Scotland for the rest of his days if he becomes persona non grata

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:there was also talk that he might step down and pence would pardon him for whatever crime he might have committed

No idea of the rules here but I wonder if he can be pardoned preemptively for things he may be accused of in future (once the Biden team gets a look at the books)?

If I understand things correctly -Ford's AG thought not when pardoning Nixon; and also thought that only federal level crimes could be forgiven by the president - but as far as I'm aware, it's never actually been tested, so no-one can be t sure - which means it comes down t the Supreme Court's opinion the first time it's tried and challenged.
Equally, it's possible that Trump might try to pardon himself, rather than giving Pence a few days in office to do it for him - again, without case-law, it basically ends up in the Supreme Court the first time it's tried and challenged.

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:there was also talk that he might step down and pence would pardon him for whatever crime he might have committed

No idea of the rules here but I wonder if he can be pardoned preemptively for things he may be accused of in future (once the Biden team gets a look at the books)?

If I understand things correctly -Ford's AG thought not when pardoning Nixon; and also thought that only federal level crimes could be forgiven by the president - but as far as I'm aware, it's never actually been tested, so no-one can be t sure - which means it comes down t the Supreme Court's opinion the first time it's tried and challenged.
Equally, it's possible that Trump might try to pardon himself, rather than giving Pence a few days in office to do it for him - again, without case-law, it basically ends up in the Supreme Court the first time it's tried and challenged.

Being pardoned also implies some guilt in the first place which Trump may not be so keen on doing, given his protestations of innocence to his base thus far.

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:there was also talk that he might step down and pence would pardon him for whatever crime he might have committed

No idea of the rules here but I wonder if he can be pardoned preemptively for things he may be accused of in future (once the Biden team gets a look at the books)?

Presumably he has prosecutors who can levy the charges to be pardoned.

There was also a suggestion that he might retire to Scotland for the rest of his days if he becomes persona non grata

That would require him to admit to all the things he's done wrong, which Donald Trump is categorically incapable of doing. Not to mention that I doubt he'd enjoy the obloquy that followed such a confession.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: No idea of the rules here but I wonder if he can be pardoned preemptively for things he may be accused of in future (once the Biden team gets a look at the books)?

If I understand things correctly -Ford's AG thought not when pardoning Nixon; and also thought that only federal level crimes could be forgiven by the president - but as far as I'm aware, it's never actually been tested, so no-one can be t sure - which means it comes down t the Supreme Court's opinion the first time it's tried and challenged.
Equally, it's possible that Trump might try to pardon himself, rather than giving Pence a few days in office to do it for him - again, without case-law, it basically ends up in the Supreme Court the first time it's tried and challenged.

Being pardoned also implies some guilt in the first place which Trump may not be so keen on doing, given his protestations of innocence to his base thus far.

It seems unlikely, but if he knows he's guilty he'll just paint it as protecting himself from corrupt, Democrat, lefty, communist, snowflake, liberal lawyers.

If anything gets to the supreme court the 6-3 split will see him right.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:If anything gets to the supreme court the 6-3 split will see him right.

I don't know that's necessarily true. Supreme Court judges can't be fired (especially not by an ex-president) and, while he is undoubtedly a despicable human being who holds some awful views and is absolutely guilty of sexual assault, Kavanaugh has shown very few signs that he's going to be a puppet for Trump. Same with Gorsuch. While I wouldn't trust them to vote on gay rights or racial justice, I think I would trust this Supreme Court to not uphold baseless Trump frothing.

Puja

I wouldn't be too worried about any of these law suits getting as far as the supreme court. They are spurious at best it would appear. Each one that has made it to a court room has been discounted (the PA one where the observers were found to be there and allowed to move a foot closer for instance).

In my opinion this is all about Donny paying off the debts his campaign ran up.

He can't afford to litigate - Get Bill Barr to use public body officials to try and do so.

They won't find anything, but in the meantime Don can keep on sending email out to his base asking them to fund the legal challenges (which are now funded publicly, due to Barr) and keep paying off debts with the money that comes in. They even say on the email that 60% of any donation will go to paying down existing debts.

It's a grift, plain and simple.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:If anything gets to the supreme court the 6-3 split will see him right.

I don't know that's necessarily true. Supreme Court judges can't be fired (especially not by an ex-president) and, while he is undoubtedly a despicable human being who holds some awful views and is absolutely guilty of sexual assault, Kavanaugh has shown very few signs that he's going to be a puppet for Trump. Same with Gorsuch. While I wouldn't trust them to vote on gay rights or racial justice, I think I would trust this Supreme Court to not uphold baseless Trump frothing.

Puja

Hope you're right, or it doesn't get as far as that. You have more faith in them than I do.

(NB I'm talking about the SP ruling on Trump's use of the presidential pardon, not these election lawsuits.)