Trump Is A Symptom Of A Larger Problem

Nov 2005
8,361
2,880
California
#11
Trump is America’s dr house. He’s a jerk, but he gets the job done.
What job is he getting done?

He told you guys he was going to build a wall, but then he dicked around while he had a Republican majority in Congress. He only acted after he lost a majority in the House and then tried to simultaneously and idiotically accept "credit" for shutting down the government and shift "blame" to the Dems.
He said he would reduce the deficit, but he's been doing nothing but jacking it skyward since he took office.

He said he was cutting taxes in order to stimulate the economy. He actually did cut taxes, but it didn't stimulate the economy.
Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

"Unemployment" has continued with the same trend since Obama left office. Trump had no impact upon that.

What exactly do you think you can give him credit for?
 
Likes: Clara007
Nov 2012
17,136
5,644
Michigan
#12
Republicans and democrats both block the wall. Some is getting built. There will be more.

Done? Mexico will stop the caravans from Central America. China will fold in trade negotiations.

Lowest unemployment in 50 years. Lowest black and Hispanic unemployment ever.
 
Likes: justoneman
May 2019
65
19
USA
#13
I always have to laugh at threads like this which pretend to know the exact reason why 62,984,828 people voted for Trump. Also, it glosses over any reason why 65,853,514 voted for Clinton....

Regardless, when people stepped into the voting booth on November 8th, 2016, they had two effective choices. Trump or Clinton.
They weren't given a choice of saying "Vote for this candidate only if you reject neoliberalism".
They were essentially asked to select between two candidates and just two candidates.

Here's a poll which discusses the top concerns of voters in 2016.
Top voting issues in 2016 election
Without surprise, "neoliberalism" is not on that list. :rolleyes:



The very concept you just proposed is asinine.
Because a pundit (unelected person) shoots off his mouth, people are driven to vote for the party that opposes the pundit's ideology???
That's just stupid.
I voted for third party. People had more choices than "just two candidates". Most people loss-frame vote.
 
Dec 2016
5,086
2,611
Canada
#14
Just ask yourself one simple question: Do you prefer four more years of "fighting back" to a democrat in the white house?[
First, you ask yourself one simple question: if I was still living in the US and voting in US elections, would I owe a vote to whatever piece of crap the controllers of the Democrat Party stuck up there for 2020?

Jimmy Dore did more for Trump than Fox News, because potential democrat voters don't take Fox news seriously.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC did much, much more for Trump than Jimmy or Bernie or Jill or any other malcontent who stayed home and said 'you can't just take my vote because you say vote for us or you get something worse'!'
I'm actually embarrassed to spell it out.

Same for that super duper leftie Jill Stein. It's a very widespread tactic, split your opponent's vote, confuse them, discourage them from voting.

Jill Stein took 1.5 million votes in the last election. Might as well have been the ones you needed for democrat victory.
I'm embarrassed to spell it out, you're a fool and an idiot!
As the Democratic Party progressed from the party of labor under FDR to the party of Wall Street by the 80's, they've become devoid of content...just flash and empty rhetoric. And it's too bad if 80% of adult Americans near or living below the poverty line can't find anything of substance and worth voting for in what the majority of Democrats have to offer. When they do offer something (AOC''s Green New Deal), the leaders, like Nancy Pelosi give them a committee assignment that has no power to bring any proposals or legislation to the floor for a vote! It's the children's table at large family dinners!

I think you deaf, dumb and blind Dems were afraid to read the last post I did in "Dear Democrats" quoting former Sanders outreach director - Nick Brana: https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/dear-democrats.111928/post-1350458

In the Democratic primary, the Party establishment is simultaneously the game maker, the opposing chess player, the referee, and the one who can change the rules mid-game. In those kinds of conditions, the game is just for show.
In fact, if this was not true, the Democratic Party would be of no use to the banks and corporations that invest billions into it for the very purpose of maintaining the status quo. Nor would it be of any use to the nearly 100 lobbyists who run the Party directly from the National Committee. Corporate contributions are not charity.
The stakes for working people and the planet are far too high to entrust change to political parties run by corporations. Bernie himself taught us that there is no such thing as a people’s party that is bankrolled by Wall Street.
 
Likes: Gordy
Nov 2012
10,584
8,744
nirvana
#16
Things were already horrible and most Americans were already treading water before Trump was elected. Trump is a Symptom of 40 years of NeoLiberalism and the Corporate Capture of the U.S. government. ..................................

Yes, with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Sinclair Broadcasting as their official spokespersons.
 
Feb 2014
2,641
1,199
Oregon
#17
Things were already horrible and most Americans were already treading water before Trump was elected. Trump is a Symptom of 40 years of NeoLiberalism and the Corporate Capture of the U.S. government. ..................................

What is NeoLiberalism and why do you say it is only 40 years old? We replaced liberal education with education for technology in 1958 and left moral training to the Church. My daughter was born in 1969, and during her cohort, we had a national youth crisis. Today that cohort is around 50.

I think some concepts may need better definitions. I am quite sure conservatives voted for Trump.
 
Jun 2018
874
284
Toronto
#18
First, you ask yourself one simple question: if I was still living in the US and voting in US elections, would I owe a vote to whatever piece of crap the controllers of the Democrat Party stuck up there for 2020?


Hillary Clinton and the DNC did much, much more for Trump than Jimmy or Bernie or Jill or any other malcontent who stayed home and said 'you can't just take my vote because you say vote for us or you get something worse'!'

I'm embarrassed to spell it out, you're a fool and an idiot!
As the Democratic Party progressed from the party of labor under FDR to the party of Wall Street by the 80's, they've become devoid of content...just flash and empty rhetoric. And it's too bad if 80% of adult Americans near or living below the poverty line can't find anything of substance and worth voting for in what the majority of Democrats have to offer. When they do offer something (AOC''s Green New Deal), the leaders, like Nancy Pelosi give them a committee assignment that has no power to bring any proposals or legislation to the floor for a vote! It's the children's table at large family dinners!

I think you deaf, dumb and blind Dems were afraid to read the last post I did in "Dear Democrats" quoting former Sanders outreach director - Nick Brana: https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/dear-democrats.111928/post-1350458

In the Democratic primary, the Party establishment is simultaneously the game maker, the opposing chess player, the referee, and the one who can change the rules mid-game. In those kinds of conditions, the game is just for show.
In fact, if this was not true, the Democratic Party would be of no use to the banks and corporations that invest billions into it for the very purpose of maintaining the status quo. Nor would it be of any use to the nearly 100 lobbyists who run the Party directly from the National Committee. Corporate contributions are not charity.
The stakes for working people and the planet are far too high to entrust change to political parties run by corporations. Bernie himself taught us that there is no such thing as a people’s party that is bankrolled by Wall Street.

So four more years then, good luck

:)
 
Dec 2016
5,086
2,611
Canada
#19
What is NeoLiberalism and why do you say it is only 40 years old? We replaced liberal education with education for technology in 1958 and left moral training to the Church. My daughter was born in 1969, and during her cohort, we had a national youth crisis. Today that cohort is around 50.

I think some concepts may need better definitions. I am quite sure conservatives voted for Trump.
That's why I actually hate using the term "neoliberalism" to describe the almost completely unrestrained capitalism that has taken over America and the world since the demise of the Soviet alternative in the 80's. Almost no one wants to define it, because in reality it is just the capitalist economic system acting without restraint!

At the turn of the 20th century, when America was running through its most prosperous/fastest growing period in its history, millions of Americans, who were finding themselves victims of the "clearing the commons" phenomena that capitalism first applied in England in the 1820's, they noticed that after they gave up the farm and moved into the cities, that there were lots of jobs...but the working conditions and pay were near slavery levels! Those who took those dirty, deadly and life-destroying factory mill jobs started organizing together and agitating for improved working conditions and pay, either with walkouts or sitdown strikes. The owners and hired bosses sent Pinkertons and other private security goon squads at them, and many men (and women) died in the street battles that took place in many cities over improving working conditions.

What's been lost in the way labor history is taught by both conservatives and liberals is that treating humans as interchangeable with machines and grinding as much work out of them for profit, is the natural default setting of capitalism! The grudging concessions made to the working class like legalized unions and improved working conditions were unwelcomed by the owners of capital - both banking and commerce, but since aggregate wealth was improving through the 30's, the war years and afterwards through the 60's, business was willing to concede higher pay and better work conditions. BUT by the 70's...as profit margins declined a little, and especially in the 80's, as the state-communist world was trying to compete with the west on all fronts, even giving in to ludicrous demands to match western consumerism, it was inevitable that China and the East Bloc nations would have to turn more capitalistic themselves...even borrowing money from western bankers. So, long before the summits between Reagan and Gorby, the business world saw the prospects of a unipolar capitalist world ahead, and the chance for some of their pack to earn almost unlimited returns on investment.

Some "progressive" economists of the modern age, like Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Picketty, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and other disciples of John Maynard Keynes, still talk about reforms to modify or control the worst excesses of capitalism and maintain the middle class....at least somewhat. But no one speaking and writing from the nebulous liberal left, seems to get the point that any reforms of capitalism are only done grudgingly, and capitalists will threaten to move their investments out of the city, state or nation in search of better returns elsewhere. And that's most of the story on how unions have continued to shrink and receeded by making more and more concessions to the forces that demand more and more return from the "surplus value of what workers provide in their businesses." No surprise that earned income from work of any kind can't compete with accumulated wealth of the ownership class.

So, let's just say 'capitalism' instead of neoliberalism then. I would be all for it, because the people who want to use that term most, are the defensive liberal theorists and economists who don't have good answers for why their ideas have failed, and if they get their dreams of another New Deal, how they will prevent an even greater capital flight from destroying it in today's age where they've collaborated with rightwing forces to allow the free movement of untaxed capital across borders.

The youth crisis of 1969...a time when I was very young also, was largely a spiritual crisis caused by the material success of capitalism in the 60's that left many people asking "is this all there is?" Nowadays, with most people (80% and below living in poverty) working themselves to death just to try to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children, many people are just too exhausted and worn down to ask big existential questions about the meaning of life. So, in the present regime, switching back from STEM education to the liberal arts education of the past will not solve the problem for all but the wealthiest 10%...who are the only ones who can still afford a liberal education that provides a full education and teaches children how to think and make choices and decisions.
 
Likes: Athena
Feb 2014
2,641
1,199
Oregon
#20
I like your post but disagree with what you said about education. At the 1917 National Education Association Conference at least one teacher was proud of what education had to do with unionization. They were all preparing to defend democracy even more intensely in the classroom and this education also leads to anti monopoly laws, and strong families, meaning less dependence on government. I am out of time, but if you looked at some of the old books I have, you would see the importance of education for transmitting a culture that empowers the people. It is possible to use democratic values and education to empower the people. :kiss:
 
Likes: right to left

Similar Discussions