|
U-Know! Forum » Election Day......... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Nov 12, 2016, 15:38
|
||
|
Sin Agog wrote: I've been strangely haunted by Trump choosing to pilfer the Stones' You Can't Always Get You Want for the music played straight after his acceptance speech. It completely belied the bromides about unity and Hilary's hard-fought campaign uttered just before it. You can only really interpret it as a puckish middle-finger to the world, really. Trump had been using that song at least since the RNC convention, so it wasn't just whipped out after his acceptance speech. There's multiple ways to interpret it's intended meaning, but I don't see "a middle-finger to the world" as one of them. Whether we like it or not, Trump inspires / speaks to considerable segments throughout the world. Perhaps the song in its context is meant as a middle finger to the establishment which arrogantly decided that the "deplorables" aren't worthy of consideration?
|
|||
spencer 3068 posts |
Nov 12, 2016, 16:44
|
||
'Not lasting the distance..' : I predict a Wilkes Booth moment. Others I've spoken to agree.
|
|||
Stevo 6664 posts |
Nov 12, 2016, 21:38
|
||
|
A couple of pieces from The Guardian today. 1) women writers on Hillary Clinton's election defeat https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/we-are-witnessing-the-politics-of-humiliation-siri-hustvedt-joyce-carol-oates-and-more-on-the-us-election 2) fictional representation of the female president or women in power including some history of who's run over time. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/hillary-clinton-we-failed-her-sarah-churchwell
|
|||
|
Stevo 6664 posts |
Nov 12, 2016, 21:40
|
||
& Mike Pence gets to be president which I've heard isn't exactly conducive
|
|||
laresident 861 posts |
Nov 13, 2016, 00:57
|
||
I'm concerned Trump will delegate a lot to him anyway and just do the reality show bits himself. Echoes of Chaney and gang.
|
|||
|
laresident 861 posts |
Nov 13, 2016, 01:08
|
||
I've been getting a lot of stick from my wife and friends about not going to the protests. Seems all I do is complain about the closing of the freeway, while listening to Leonard Cohen records. Some wise words in those songs I reply. They say I should be there with them, showing the children how to demonstrate and march.
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Nov 13, 2016, 09:27
|
||
But Trump is about as anti-establishment as Farage, in that they're both businessmen, and the world has been run by businessmen ever since Hitler combusted and the bilderbergs got together and said, "Let's ensure this never happens again and replace ideological politics with the free market.". He may have convinced swathes of the population otherwise, but the fact is there's no such thing as an anti-establishment billionaire. Trump picked up the exact same amount of votes republican candidates usually get; it was Hilary who haemorrhaged voters. If Trump does speak to anything anti-establishment, it's a retort to the "Social Justice Warriors" of the youngest couple of generations, who in trying to clean up the way we interract with one another, perhaps in a little too brutal a manner, have made their elders feel totally at sea. Voting for someone who espouses the ideology of being rich and materially successful as being tantamount to "winning at life", whilst showing a proven distaste for the disabled and disempowered, is voting for yet more remorseless capitalism, and that has been the true establishment for decades.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Nov 13, 2016, 11:16
|
||
|
Good article by Masha Gessen. http://www2.nybooks.com/daily/s3/nov/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival.html
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited Nov 13, 2016, 16:33
Nov 13, 2016, 16:29
|
||
|
I find your analysis generally true, but not appropriate for this specific venture in time. Relatively speaking, Trump is an anti-establishment candidate; certainly more so than Clinton, and also more so than any major candidate in my lifetime (the closest would be Ross Perot from '92). It's not a simple case of "he's a billionaire so he must be tied with the establishment." That would be like saying "Obama's black so he must be anti-establishment." One-size-fits-all thinking only allows the elite to perpetually control us. Unless we learn how to judge people based on their policies, and the way the elites respond to these policies, we will never be able to overthrow our "masters." In Trump's case, once it became clear during the Republican primaries that he wasn't just a "joke candidate", nearly the entire Republican establishment turned against him. And once he won the Republican nomination, nearly the entire media denounced him. Previously, the corporate-controlled media would always appear "neutral." (That's because it didn't matter who won - the result would be the same.) Newspapers would be fairly evenly divided over which candidate to endorse - Obama or Romney, Obama or McCain, Bush or Kerry, ho hum... But this time, over 90% of the media endorsed Clinton. And even Republican "stars" such as Bush, Graham,etc. were saying they were going with Clinton. Because they knew that Clinton represented their interests. So the fact that Trump received the same amount of votes as Romney does not mean that it was just the same Republicans who voted for Trump. Lots or Republicans jumped ship to Clinton, or voted Libertarian. At the same time, lots of Democrats and first-time voters went to Trump. The reason they did so is because they realized that the propaganda they've been indoctrinated with is nothing but BS. That so many people voted for Trump despite the media overwhelmingly telling them not to is truly remarkable. It suggests that people are finally waking up. Will Trump keep his promise to "drain the swamp"? I think he ran predominately to stroke his own ego, and in order to carve a path toward victory, tapped into a lingering pool of resentment that other politicians had arrogantly ignored. But now that Trump has unleashed that anger, it's going to be hard to put it back down again. Ideally, we will go on to drain the swamp with our without Trump. Finally, we should ask ourselves - does the liberal elite really care about the downtrodden and dispossessed? No, they only engage in their PC shenanigans as a form of cognitive dissonance;to shield themselves from the extent of their crimes. Despite their talk of "inclusion", white flight is still an issue, America has the largest prison population in the world, many of the inner cites are in a state of near collapse, and (in my mind worst of all)we continue to economically strangle and/or bomb to oblivion any "non-white" country that dares to defy us. The reason why the US has an immigration "problem" is because we've destroyed the global South. If Trump keeps his promise of isolationism - even if he cloaks it in racist "America first" rhetoric - the result is going to be better for the global oppressed than any amount of fake-leftist PC mumbo-jumbo spewed out by Obama, Clinton, or the like. It's time we judge our "leaders" by the effects of their actions, not the pretty sounds of their words.
|
|||
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Nov 15, 2016, 16:58
|
||
|
Excellent funny short (6 min) video. This is exactly why we are where we are... https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs Not trusting a lying warmonger like Hillary doesn't make you a chauvinist. Not trusting big corporations doesn't make you "Anti-Islam" or "homophobic". A "like" on Facebook is not the same as political discussion or engagement. Why calling anyone who questions you a "deploreable" will not win you votes from anyone. Fine.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
