Submitted by dimitrios10 on Tue, 05/29/2018 - 17:10
I am curious if you guys like DonaldTrump, or do you hate him?
Going back to AndyM's podcast would be a good idea. It is really essential listening for the debates we are having. It puts the current situation into a historical context by showing how entwined neoliberal politics have been with the financial systems that have created the current distortions in the distribution of wealth. A lot of what follows is based on it.
Historically most of this goes back to the Reagan and Thatcher era with its shift away from the state taking any significant responsibility for individual welfare. The philosophy was that people got what they deserved. If they were poor it was because they were lazy or didn't plan for the future. The natural flow on from this was that the wealthy, who deserved their wealth, should not be taxed to help the poor. Even at the time many recognised the duplicitous nature of this approach. It ignored the fact that most wealth was actually inherited rather than earned and that many people were poor because of circumstances completely beyond their control.
Another aspect of this philosophy was its belief that free markets were the best economic managers and so should control every aspect of life. Financial institutions then moved in to control areas like health, education, transport and housing. In Australia we were shielded from the worst aspects of this but in the US the control of these areas by large financial organisations, driven by the profit motive, drastically reduced standards in all those areas.
As the power of unions declined and wealth began to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands the wealthy began to exert undue political influence. In particular over time, they forced wages down below the poverty line, reduced access to even basic health care and undermined the education system by increasing teachers workloads and freezing their wages. They were able to do this by their power to influence elections by massively funding their preferred candidates and through their ownership of media platforms.
Along with the other changes almost all regulation of financial markets was removed. This led to reckless behaviour, particularly in the housing market where no doc and low doc loans were sold to probably millions of people who simply did not have the capacity to repay. These loans were then bundled into "securities" which were traded at inflated prices and used as backing by institutions against their own loans. The house of cards finally fell down in 2008 causing the GFC from which there has been only the weakest and most unreliable recovery.
If we look at how this has worked in recent times, we can see that this weak recovery coupled with the appalling social policies begun under Reagan and Thatcher led to the well justified but misdirected populist anger that produced Trump and Brexit. The misdirection of that anger is a direct and deliberate result of the Murdoch media and their related spawn They have consistently over several decades distorted the facts and conspired to maintain or create policies to increase their wealth and the wealth of others of their parasitic ilk. Recently they have put immigration policy front and centre while taking great care not to reveal how effective Trump's corporate tax cuts have become in funnelling an even greater percentage of the nation's wealth to the already wealthy.
Yes blindboy, no dispute there. But where does your liberalism end, and the neo liberalism begin?
A very grey area.
I haven't watched andyms podcast yet, will check it out
"The misdirection of that anger is a direct and deliberate result of the Murdoch media and their related spawn They have consistently over several decades distorted the facts and conspired to maintain or create policies to increase their wealth and the wealth of others of their parasitic ilk. "
The Democrats as Keating said should hang their heads in shame allowing wage rates to be suppressed/reduced and betraying the union movement they are no more than Republican lite.
On another note people talk about the "left" in the US...............there isn't any absolutely SFA zilch, nada, zero.
"On another note people talk about the "left" in the US...............there isn't any absolutely SFA zilch, nada, zero."
I can understand why people say that (hello AndyM!) but I don't really agree with it. For one, 'left' can be a relative term, it doesn't have to be absolute. Politics, like culture, is always shifting so there'll always be progressive perspectives irrespective of where current day politics is anchored.
Also, the original French Revolution use of the left/right dichotomy was to distinguish those who supported the institutions (monarchy, church, hierarchy) and those who didn't (supporters of the people's republic). Though far more complex, it's still possible to see those embryonic ideas in todays politics - even in America.
I wish we had a few American poster her for and against Trump, it would be good to get their take on things.
Yeah sure the USA and it's president effect us to a too, but end of the day it's still the Americans president and has a much bigger influence on them.
For further reference and common sense.
General Social issues: Rita Panahi & Lauren Southern
Indigenous issues: Jacinta Price and Anthony Dillion
Gender: Debra Soh.
Islam: Armin Navabi & Brigitte Gabriel
Population: Dick Smith
@Blindboy, your 2.18 post was excellent.
@Stu, Only in America would Obamacare be labelled as "socialist" by the Republicans as it was.
So you don't have to scroll back.
BB is absolutely correct, to have a discussion we at least need to know the basics of what we're talking about.
Speaking of which, I think he gives a sound summary of neoliberalism.
I'd add something extra to this, to emphasise how neoliberalism is more than a political ideology, it's a raison d'être for all elites.
Keep in mind how the following applies to Trump as he continues to blur the lines between federal politician and global businessman.
Actually, that's kinda bullshit - Trump barely blurred the line, he was always about maintaining power for a section of the elite, maybe at the expense of other elites which may explain part of the reason why he's so reviled.
"the [goal of the] élites is the same as always: they seek to isolate the general population from important decision-making processes, the difference being that the centers of power are now transnational corporations and supranational banks. ... transnational corporate power is "developing its own governing institutions" reflective of their global reach."
But we know this, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, we don't really think the government is running the country do we?
Hmm, Stu I agree a little but mostly disagree. Left and right are somewhat relative but left wing has a definition and it is that it favours social equality, egalitarianism and a degree of collectivism.
This isn't absolute but is an agreed-upon definition.
Please don't go all regressive left or alt right and change definitions to suit you ideology or agenda ;)
The U.S. Democrats clearly don't fit this definition. Like Australia's Labor, they occasionally pay lip service to left wing ideals and then, surprise, it's all too hard when they're in power.
Business as usual goes on and as far as I'm concerned, it's powers far larger than political parties that are responsible for this.
Consider what Obama and his supporters regard as his signature [most left wing] achievement, the Affordable Care Act. At first, a public option (effectively, national health care) was dangled. It had almost two-thirds popular support. It was dropped without apparent consideration.
And the legislation barring the government from negotiating drug prices was opposed by some 85 percent of the population, but was kept with little discussion. The Affordable Care Act is an improvement but not by much, and with fundamental flaws.
Any claims that the Democrats are "left" are well wide of the mark - they clearly do not believe in social equality, egalitarianism or collectivism.
And it looks like we're still struggling with the concept of liberalism.
- liberalism - a commitment to individualism, freedom (including economic), reason, justice and toleration
- the Liberal Party of Australia - may have been liberal under Menzies but haven't been since possibly Fraser.
- the American concept that the Democrats are liberal, which has become a pejorative term for a left wing bleeding heart, non-patriot etc. when used in that country. This further confuses the discussion.
So to the point, apart from outliers like this guyhttps://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11265092/jacobin-bhaskar-sunkara
and anomalies like Sanders (who, according to Bob Carr, may yet influence Democratic Party policies and take them towards the left), where is the Left in mainstream American politics?
Saying that either of the two majors is left because they believe in a republic is incredibly, unsustainably weak!
So, according to you Reagan didn't win the Cold War but Gorbachev gave up.
Why did the soviets give up?.
The soviets lost because your leftist utopian dreams can't come true unless you crush the human spirit.
As in East Germany Vs West Germany
Capitalism thrives by freedom while the lefts agenda must be forced.
The communists shot anyone who tried to get out.
Your philosophy has failed everywhere.
As usual you dodge my main point : that the progressives called Reagan an idiot while they have been proven to be the real cretins.
Reagan .....he ditched detente and reversed Carters reactive containment for an aggressive offensive strategy.
Reagan....invested in a massive defence build up. The Soviets had to go to 27% of GDP to try and keep up (one reason Reagan is seen as a big spender)
Reagan....instituted the Strategic Defense Initiative 'Star Wars', which demonstrated US technical superiority. The soviets threw in the towel.
Reagan....turned Afghanistan into Russias' Vietnam, costing them $8 billion a year.
He demoralised Russia.
Reagan put downward pressure on the oil price, starving the USSR of revenue.
He bankrupted Russia
Reagan....fought a PR war that had him labelled as dangerous by the cleverer ones.
.....'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall'
The USSR did collapse under its own weight, and Gorbachev was the man for the moment, but Reagan pushed it over. If wimpy Carter, not an adversary like Reagan, was still in power in Washington when Gorbachev was kidnapped by the hardliners do you think the military still would have saved him?.
The parallels to Obama, Trump and today's lefty mob are startling.
And the Left is always wrong
You keep making rebuttals that are empty of content.
I suppose you are less likely to be wrong when you never say anything.
Challenge me with something you believe makes your case.
I haveing trouble understanding you.
Help me out.
Are you saying Trump is an 'establishment' Republican or is he part of the Tea Party 'insurgency'?.
Are you aware that the Koch Bros. are for large scale immigration while Trump is against it?.
On the deficit
Are you aware of how much Obama added to the deficit?
Hint: Read previous posts
Are you aware tax cuts do not always increase the deficit?.
Only by the dictionary definition would Obamacare be defined as socialist
Blob there is no doubt a school of thinking in the US that it was all down to Reagan, but as Taubman's detailed and extensively documented account shows, Gorbachev was much more significant. He was making the running by establishing good relations with Thatcher before Reagan was even elected and it was Thatcher who smoothed his path to Reagan with whom he had a warm and friendly relationship. Gorbachev did not set out to dismantle the Soviet Union his goal was to prevent nuclear war. He had experienced the damage at Chernobyl and understood how catastrophic even a limited nuclear exchange would be. For that reason he made an offer of complete bilateral nuclear disarmament to Reagan which was refused. The Soviet Union collapsed under the burden of its inefficiency but the idea that its failure indicates that authoritarian command economies must always fail has been completely disproved by the long term success of China's economy. Can I suggest that you not fall into the trap of believing anyone with left wing views must support communism. I have not now nor have ever been a member of any communist party. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state that was in many ways a mirror image of Nazi Germany. If you persist in ascribing such extreme views to me I will go back to my tried and true kindergarten strategy of ignoring you. I would prefer not to do that as I appreciate the diversity of these forums, to which you contribute.
Only in a dictionary would obamacare be called socialist
By Definition It is 100% Socialism So·cial·ism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Synonyms: leftism, welfarism;
Government control of markets to whatever degree is socialism to that degree.
Further to BB's post on neoliberalism.
"a primary ploy has been the co-opting of the global economic institutions established at the end of World War II, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which have increasingly adhered to the "Washington Consensus", requiring developing countries to adhere to limits on spending and make structural adjustments that often involve cutbacks in social and welfare programs [in order to receive loans].
IMF aid and loans are normally contingent upon such reforms.
The construction of global institutions and agreements such as the World Trade Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment constitute new ways of securing élite privileges while undermining democracy.
These austere and neoliberal measures ensure that poorer countries merely fulfill a service role by providing cheap labor, raw materials and investment opportunities for the developed world.
Additionally, this means that corporations can threaten to relocate to poorer countries, which can be used as a powerful weapon to keep workers in richer countries in line."
Too late on that last point.
Thanks andym for the podcast.
Brilliant and timely.
I never really understood the term neoliberalism, but it is a lot clearer now.
Trump's only real achievement so far was getting corporate tax cuts in play. Like Guy Smiley said, Trump was never going to drain the swamp, he is part of the swamp, and one day hes going to wish he took those how to swim classes.
I kept going on about Obama locking up children because you wouldn't answer a question.
You told me to prove it happened,
...then when I did you did everything to avoid admitting it,
...then you went into damage control rationalisation about how it was different to Trump, which was off the point
...then you admitted you were clueless, which proved your opinions Rely on fake news
...and now you have the front to ask why I go on and on
So now it's 'Gorbachev was more significant '
And 'there is a school of thought crediting Reagan?'
I like it when you change your tune
...and I'm perfectly aware of the difference between progressives, leftists, socialists and communists thanks.
Socialism is communism lite
Lenin said ' the goal of socialism is communism
You yourself expressed a dream of a global, borderless, wealth equality society.
I'm not defining you.
Simple, taking a step back. The shit got bad when corporations, with little resistance and insufficient checks and balances, began to fund, infiltrate and manipulate the political system with party embedded influential lobbyists at the expense of America's voting citizens. This really exploded during the atrocious George 'Dubya' Bush epoch. Bush was played like an Appalachian banjo by those who new the game. The paradigm trajectory for greed, chicanery and the wholesale manipulation of Washington dealings was set. Watch the documentary Capitalism - A love affair - easily viewable gratis on line.
Blindboy's more extreme but rather interesting (theoretical) take on things regarding Trump's bizarre, risible and disturbing incumbency as a means to undermine US institutions may well be Manchurian Candidate like in nature. Nothing is out of the realms of possibility methinks. Right now, one could be forgiven for thinking a drover's dog or one of Mike Moore's potted ficus plants would be more effective in the Whitehouse.
And what? China disproves the idea authoritarian command economies must always fail.
You amaze me
China's economy has succeeded by becoming capitalist
Did you miss that?
Your argument is completely self defeating
China has succeeded by throwing out what you say you want - the elimination of wealth inequality
Thanks Blob, to date you have completely failed to amaze me but keep trying. As for China's economy, I think your hero Mr Trump would be closer to my position than yours as he has complained, with justification, about the role of the Chinese government in managing exchange rates and various other issues. Let's agree that it is a hybrid ...... or not, as you like.
@Stu understand your point and agree in part given the complexity and contradictions of the US Republic political spectrum but I would be closer to AnyM's opinion.
I think left and right are absolute in regards to the distribution of wealth/ workers rights, remuneration/ drawing up of and application of laws/passing laws that are in line with a social conscience etc.
What changes is the overall wealth, accepted social norms, technology etc and the various groups that represent factions within which can splinter across the left and right divide.
When I say there is no left in the US power wise effectively there isn't.
The Federal Republicans hold the Senate/House and majority of the states. The Democrats have not represented the left for many decades although some states have gone close.
The Supreme court is always conservative in nature but is certainly more so now.
All this and you hear of the threat from the left.....crazy people believe it.
BTW Blob is a perfect example and representation of members the peasantry who are converted by words false and support with jihadist zeal and religious fever leaders / the very group that remove their wealth/power etc while throwing them bread crumbs.
This even though the actions point to the obvious.
Quite extraordinary to be witnessing this real time.
On a lighter note, Donald goes surfing and makes tube riding great again...... https://youtu.be/nRVb5HR_jF4
If I'm the ignorant peasantry what are you?
I don't know what Trump thinks of your opinions but I do admire you for being able to admit being wrong....again.
...and I'm not being nasty or competitive in saying that. Facts are important.
If didn't admit to being wrong Blob. I said the Chinese economy was an authoritarian command economy, which is a fair description of an economy in which an unelected government takes a major role. You said it was capitalist, which is also true though not as purely as in most western countries as the government exercises significant control over the activities of corporations.
Re. Workers and the poor gaining under Bush etc. being baloney
...and in developing nations
The oft repeated mantra about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer only works if you focus not on real incomes, but on the gap
By that figuring the 'poor' could all be millionaires and still below the poverty line if the top 10% were all trillionaires.
Yes women work now and real estate is expensive, so what?, we want more, and it is balanced by lots of things that are incredibly cheap now.
People on welfare now typically have bigger houses than workers had in the past....they also have enough food to get fatter and fatter, flat screen TVs, mobile phones, better health care, private cars and better cars etc.
People on welfare now make a virtue of de cluttering....you know, getting rid of stuff because they have too much.
My grandmother never threw away an elastic band....but you say we are now poorer than her...that's crazy.
I'll tell you who is poorer: Venezuala and North Korea
These are the facts you can see with your own eyes.....and it happened because of free markets, not big government or socialism.
Where inequities exist, such as exorbitant CEO renumeration, they should be addressed without killing the goose that lays golden eggs.....Venezuelans used to be in the top 10 per capita income before they voted in someone who thinks like you.
Why do I have to keep joining the dots for you?
I'm tired of your games
Playing with words doesn't change facts.
You lumped China in with other oppressive regimes to make the point that its economic success proves 'authoritarian command economies' - as in communism can work.
I made the point that it wasn't communism but capitalism that has made China wealthy.
The left are wrong on everything
So Blob, the Communist Party rules China as a one party state .... but they're not communist. The world isn't black and white. The Chinese economy allows capitalism within the context of an authoritarian command economy. Now, for your own sake, let it go! Have another dummy spit at me if it makes you feel better but unless you can bring some serious supporting evidence that my description is wrong I will not reply again ....... but I am sure there are lots of other things we could argue about.
Trump is so much of a Republican he is calling on "his people" to vote Republican in the mid-terms. The mid-terms that could either energise or neuter the man-child Republican president. New era/wave president Trump is not. Wonder if Mueller's investigation will land the killer blow anytime soon?
This discussions nearly as bad as the ones me and Herc have.
I watched Planet America (abc) the other week and it was interesting to see how the mid terms are shaping up for the Republicans. According to the information that was being presented the Republicans have 39 seats in the lower house that are deemed to be of serious concern. The democrats need to win at least 23 of them then it's all over for Republican control of the lower house...ahh god bless democracy and god bless the USA!
"...Wonder if Mueller's investigation will land the killer blow anytime soon?"
I don't think so.
Looking more and more like pure fabrication from the democrats. An 18 month investigation with the biggest scalp doing a big 14 days hard jailtime, for an unrelated incident. Hardly the ground breaking constitutional crisis we were promised.
The only constitutional crisis really being the 18 months, and billions of dollars spent, chasing a dodgy fruitless lead, that popped up from their own corrupt research. You really couldn't make this shit up...
Looking like a fizzer.
A very dangerous fabricated fizzer.
Yesterday peterb mentioned the ICC and Trumps man, John Bolton. Today there is this. https://theaimn.com/doctrines-of-impunity-john-bolton-and-the-icc/
Is not Bolton the physical manifestation of the neo liberal agenda expressed as the ultimate neo con? What a real piece of shit this guy is, Trump's so called National (in) Security advisor.
If I'm the ignorant peasantry what are you?"
We are all peasants (resources in the corporate world) particularly in Trump's orbit who believes in the zero sum games only winners and losers.............your status by the way using Trumps measurement makes you a loser.
Trump is a criminal who will likely not go to trial but he will sully reputations of his supporters such as yourself.
You make me want to pull out my hair nut I'll use baby talk instead
I'm not saying China isn't communist
I'm saying communist China got rich by employing capitalist economics.
....but everyone who can read know that already.
Tell me. How successful do you think socialism and communism are at raising living standards compared to free market democracy?.
And how good is their human rights record compared to free market democracy?.
Thank you. For making it clear.
Your last post lets me know you are totally clueless about the Republican Party.
'Wonder if Muellers investigation will land the killer blow anytime soon?'
Sypkan dealt with that, and the question shows how brainwashed you are.
The fake news media invent a fake crisis on a weekly basis, all aimed at destabilising Trump with lies....the separation of children at the border is a good example.
But you can't wait for your next meal of confirmation bias.
What they are really doing though is compromising democracy and stable government with tactics that will bite them on the rear when they gain power.
The lies and disdain of the voters shown by the democrats and the media in their anti trump hysteria will be returned with interest
That hate will deliver a karma they will not enjoy.
Stay gleeful though....when it all blows up you will still blame Trump.
You talk like an antifa basement dweller
I was not a Trump supporter initially.
He has a progressive record and seemed too volatile....but I'm more interested in results than rhetoric, and he is getting fantastic results while dealing with a vast criminal conspiracy.
I now see he is the high risk unreasonable man that was needed to shake up a corrupt system.
I also admit to a dislike of once trusted institutions and individuals lying through their elitist teeth and thinking the deplorables are too dumb to notice.
However it turns out one side always blames the other....and people will then invent history so they can believe what they want.
"What they are really doing though is compromising democracy and stable government with tactics that will bite them on the rear when they gain power.
That hate will deliver a karma they will not enjoy."
Don't agree with a lot of what blob says. But I couldn't agree more with this statement.
The 'deplorables' will be much better at tearing shit up than a bunch of preppie antifa kids. Be careful what you wish for...and encourage....
You ain't seen nothing yet!
The dalai lama...
“I think Europe belongs to the Europeans,” he added, saying “they ultimately should rebuild their own country.”
The spiritual leader’s comments likely struck a chord with locals, as Sweden has experienced an explosion in violent migrant gang-related incidents, many of which involved military-grade explosive devices, since 2014 when over 100,000 asylum seekers from predominantly Muslim countries settled in the area.
The Dalai Lama also made similar comments concerning refugees in Germany in 2016, saying that “Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country.”
The dalai lama. His best days behind him? Or adjusting to a new reality?
Either way, the more 'mindful' of the social justice warriors types might feel the need to rethink shit...or not....
"The dalai lama. His best days behind him? Or adjusting to a new reality?"
Well he does have first-hand experience of unwelcome guests.
In a discussion you can usually recognise those of limited knowledge by their absolute inflexibility and refusal to acknowledge the validity of a point raised against their position, regardless of its obvious truth. They also tend to express themselves in absolutes. X is always wrong.
These are serious deficiencies but their most irritating and time wasting characteristic is the way they are unable to focus on specifics. Mention that you dislike beef and you will receive a tirade of abuse against vegetarianism. Mention a dislike of a particular piece of music and you will be accused of demeaning the whole genre.
This is not to suggest that they have nothing to contribute just that their contribution will always be limited to peripheral matters as they have insufficient knowledge to see the larger picture. Sadly that severely limits the amount of time it is worth engaging with them. There quickly comes a time when the only worthwhile response is silence.
Well worth a listen if you have any interest in Trump's relationship with Russia.http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/russia-if-youre-listening/
There is a lot of it but that alone tells you something. Just as a little taster did you know tha Trump was refused a casino licence in NSW in 1986 on the grounds of his poor character - read links to the US mafia.
The primary role of a leader in any field or activity is to unite people and resources in a common direction. In politics terms like Prime Minister and President hold very special meaning as they require the leader to firstly unite a team of senior politicians (a cabinet) and senior officials (the public service executive) around him/her and together they move forward in a common direction. So its the personal qualities, values, principles and strength of that leader that will dictate the success or otherwise of executive government. Sadly our experience in AU would suggest the last PM that had these leadership qualities was Howard. Like him or loath him Howard lead a pretty much united team for a decade and his government achieve much in a legislative agenda sense.
But how is this all going for Trump? How united is his team? how many of his senior team have resigned or have been sacked? how united is the Republican Party behind their man and the Senate and Congress how united are they for the common good of the American people? And lastly and most importantly how does Trump represent the values of all Americans and how united is the country behind him?
Now some here will argue its the press, its the democrats, its the judiciary that are all trying to de-stablise Trump but his Republican Party once held sacred a free press, the judiciary and the workings of government and yet these are precisely the pillars of a fair and free society that America claims to be that Trump attacks on a seemingly daily basis.
So America is deeply divided and Trump is guaranteed by his actions and words to leave it more so.
"...But how is this all going for Trump? How united is his team? how many of his senior team have resigned or have been sacked? "
how united is the Republican Party behind their man and the Senate and Congress how united are they for the common good of the American people? And lastly and most importantly how does Trump represent the values of all Americans and how united is the country behind him?"
His team is all over the shop, and yep, its a constant stream of firings and resignations. I'd say the republican party is split down the middle in terms of supporting trump, deeply divided, just as they have always been, nothing new there.
What you overlook on this point though, is how much that means trump has support elsewhere. It really was a miracle trump got elected, he had a huge portion of his own party openly campaigning against him, and saying they would vote for Clinton, yet trump still got elected, despite this opposition from his own side. Truly a miracle, not a pleasant one, but a miracle. Traditionally, thats not how you win elections.
So he has this big cohort within working against him. And then the democrats from outside working against him, of course it's a bloody mess. Revolution's often are, this one- so far largely a bloodless little revolution - could almost be regarded as a success...so far...
What's saddening is that the 'resistance' democrats are cosying up with the 'resistance' republicans (formerly known as the dastardly neo-cons.) desperately trying to maintain some semblance of power. I find it quite sad that you guysmiley, and blindboy, find more in common with this band of resistance republicans - the worst of the worst neo-con scum (in my eyes) - and think that now its actually the donald who's doing the devil's work. It's just bizarre from my perspective.
"....Now some here will argue its the press, its the democrats, its the judiciary that are all trying to de-stablise Trump but his Republican Party once held sacred a free press, the judiciary and the workings of government and yet these are precisely the pillars of a fair and free society that America claims to be that Trump attacks on a seemingly daily basis."
All those things are trying to destabilise trump. This misinformation campaign against him is beyond belief. Institutions, democrats, and their "liberal lying press" have misinformed just as much as fox, sky, and the murdoch co. in general. Both sides of the press have long squandered what little trust there was.
"...So America is deeply divided and Trump is guaranteed by his actions and words to leave it more so."
Probably. But not sure you can blame trump.
The country isn't united behind trump, you're right there. But they sure seem united against a certain stench that's been festering for years. The fact you guys seem to have no inclination to address the stench of this corruption of process is just puzzling.
I can understand that view sypkan but I think you over estimate my support for both the Republicans (non existent) and the Democrats (the slightly lesser of two evils). If you went back through my pre Trump posts you would find comprehensive criticism of US governance and political culture.
The reason Trump was the worst possible outcome is that he lacks the most basic qualities necessary in any political leader. He is a liar who can't even be bothered to remember his lies. He has no knowledge of history, science or economics. He has removed a swathe of basic environmental regulation on everything from air and water pollution to climate change. He is sexist and racist. He has been responsible for six corporate bankruptcies. In a breach with a precedent followed by every President since 1980 he has refused to release his tax returns. There is also significant evidence that his businesses have been involved in laundering massive amounts of money for Russian criminals as well billions stolen from governments in Central Asia.
Of perhaps greater concern is his admiration for autocratic, even totalitarian leaders, and his many statements indicating that he considers himself above the law. It is an absolute delusion to believe that facism cannot rise again. Look around, the far right us on the rise across Europe. Listen to some of the podcasts I provided links to, then maybe read a little history about the 1930s descent into facism.
Yeh he's an abomination
But I still can't see trump as worse than bush. Even bush senior.
Same with Marco Rubio and the rest of the star wars bar alternatives, I'd still take trump