2016 U.S. Presidential election

756 posts / 0 new
Last post
petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Aug 13 2016 02:14
jesuithitsquad wrote:
Hugh Hewitt gave him a chance to walk it back by offering your explanation above. Trump rejected the explanation and reiterated 'Obama founded ISIS.' This morning he claimed he was being sarcastic, instead of offering the above explanation.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/

Quote:
Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."

Trump objected.

"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is "not sympathetic" to ISIS and "hates" and is "trying to kill them."

"I don't care," Trump said, according to a show transcript. "He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?"

so he seems to be speaking metaphorically and at the same time denying it, which would be very like him.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Aug 13 2016 05:53

Yeah exactly. It's the Palinesque "paling around with terrorists" move. It works because there is a small element of truth to it, but the intention--stoking racist hatred--has pretty much nothing to do with those elements.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Aug 13 2016 15:32

Looks like election day and the aftermath could be pretty ugly. Trump's been going pretty hard to delegitimize the likely Clinton victory by talking about how the election'll be rigged and more recently how if he loses Pennsylvania (which is probable) it'll definitely be because it was stolen. Now his campaign's looking to recruit "election observers" who would be sure to try to intimidate any "suspicious" i.e. non-white voters I would think.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Aug 13 2016 20:30
Tyrion wrote:
Now his campaign's looking to recruit "election observers" who would be sure to try to intimidate any "suspicious" i.e. non-white voters I would think.

I briefly heard this reported last night, and yeah election day could get really ugly.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Aug 13 2016 20:31

.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Aug 13 2016 22:23

There have been some interviews with old-style ideological conservatives who say that Trump's politics are a blatant appeal to white nationalism or white identity politics and this is the chickens coming home to roost, as far as the Republican party's post-1964 appeal to the former Dixiecrats and other racist elements. The conservatives who don't agree with the ugly racist dimension of the Trump phenomenon are looking askance at the "base" their politics has accumulated.

There was a report on a series of interviews with Republican women who really dislike Clinton but are voting for her, due to their utter distaste with Trump and his followers.

And there was this piece at Black Agenda Report on just how Clinton has been accumulating massive conservative, war hawk and ruling class support:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/hillary_big_nasty_tent

I don't agree with the author's advocacy of a social democratic party of course, but I think he did a good job of making it clear how Clinton is the ruling class consensus candidate.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Aug 14 2016 22:57

Found some of the response to the FACTS that the Green Party VP candidate, Ajamu Baraka, appeared on the radio show of and had a piece in an anthology edited by a Holocaust denier pretty disgusting. Reminded me of the Michael Schmidt affair with some of the same sort of rhetoric used in defense. It's certainly possible that he just did not know anything about this guy, but the response could have just been left at that, instead of "it's a liberal/Zionist conspiracy!!!".

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Aug 15 2016 00:52

The stuff about that was mentioned earlier in this thread about Trump people saying that election will be illegitimate if Hillary wins seems to be picking up some speed. Pat Buchanan, a sort of spiritual predecessor of the Trump campaign and possibly living confirmation of the statement, "the good die young", suggested that the election would be a fraud if Hillary wins.

I wonder if this is some kind of strategy to enrage people who hate Hillary into making sure they go to the polls. It seems that inside the Trump campaign, there is worry and exasperation over Trump's unwillingness to stay on message and avoid controversy as he sinks in the polls.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Aug 15 2016 04:38

So a bit more on Ajamu Baraka, he has also appeared on the radio show of Kathleen Wells. It's been pointed out me that she is also known for Holocaust denial. I was not familiar with her, so I spent some time trying to track the roots of this accusation down and found some a borderline Facebook post on her page and a sort of 'Jews are the exploitors of blacks' type post on her personal FB profile. I had to really dig around though, I couldn't find it in a normal Google search, but instead found it on someone's Twitter.

About Barrett's radio programs that Baraka appeared on 5 (not 2, like has been repeated) separate times, according to Owen R. Broadhurst on Twitter, Barrett goes on a few antisemitic rants during the shows Baraka is on. For example, on the 10/3/2013 show, Barrett says AIPAC and Likud orchestrated 9/11, the term 'Holocaust' was Allied Power agit-prop, and he uses the phrase "official version of the Holocaust". On the 7/19/14 show, Barrett he goes off about Israeli money running power brokers and nazis in Ukraine become "Zio-Nazis" funded by "Jewish oligarchs". At no time does Baraka object to this stuff. Again, this is according to this guy, Owen Broadhurst's Twitter, I have not found the time to listen to these programs myself.

On the 7/19/14 show, the guest before Baraka is James H. Fetzer, who peddles quite a few antisemitic conspiracy theories.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Aug 15 2016 21:27

I don't know about Barrett but Kathleen Wells claims to be a "progressive" but "Jews exploiting blacks" is a theme with a long history in black nationalist circles. The more comes out about Baraka finding nothing objectionable about anti-semitic riffs in his presence, the less plausible his denials become.

Some pundits are starting to say that the seemingly destructive rants of Trump show he isn't really interested so much in becoming president but in giving vent to...and encouraging development of...white nationalism or white identity politics. They are suggesting it's not just because he's an amateur who doesn't know how to run a winning campaign, but that this is what he wants to do.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Aug 15 2016 22:14

Yeah I can understand not knowing about Wells but Barrett? I have a hard time buying that.

You're right that "the Jews are the exploiters of blacks" is an old black nationalist trope. I don't think its excusable, and consider it an Americanized version of the traditionally European antisemitist "the Jews exploit the worker". However, I think that one FB status with this trope is different than being actively in the Holocaust denial/conspiracy milieu.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Aug 15 2016 22:34

When I say I don't know about Barrett, I mean I've not studied him at all and don't know if he claims to be a "progressive" or on the left as Wells does. that is all. Given what you've reported, I agree that his anti-semitism is obvious and Baraka should have been aware of this.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 15 2016 22:46
jesuithitsquad wrote:
teh wrote:
Its not a new attack line. He's been saying that since he began campaigning last year. Medias just trying to finish him off so he cant inch over the finish line in the fall.

On this particular point hes completely correct (though I'm sure his reasoning, whatever it is, to get to this conclusion is wrong). Al-Qaeda in Iraq was a defeated underground armed struggle group in Western Iraq in 2011. Today it controls territory the size of the UK and has international reach for guerrilla attacks.

Right, but that's not really his point. He's firing up his racist base, the Birthers who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who actually, literally founded ISIS. Hugh Hewitt gave him a chance to walk it back by offering your explanation above. Trump rejected the explanation and reiterated 'Obama founded ISIS.' This morning he claimed he was being sarcastic, instead of offering the above explanation.

Two Points (I'll respond to the ISIS stuff in the next post). First you're (and the subsequent thread posts are) repeating the line of the Democratic Party where "the Republican Party is the party of racism and the Democratic Party is the party of anti-racism,or at least mitigating racism." Which is one of the main ideological foundations of the Democrats mass support as a party, complete with a distortion of post-60's electoral alliances and a foundation myth around "realignment". US was founded as a white settler colony and until there is regime change the nature of its state will remain the same. Its unwavering in belief in global anglo supremacy (the 'five eyes') and that 'the west' (ie white nations) are the model that others have to submit to. There is no anti-racism to be found within this political system. Also there is nothing Trump has said he will do that Obama hasnt done in his eight years to the cheers of the sections that are in outraged by Trump. (Before Trump ran for president he was a darling of the liberal media that now berates him and would go to sports events/clubs with Al Sharpton and play golf with Bill Clinton).

For example, the thing that took of Trumps presidential run was his statements on illegal immigration. Democrats that are now going around saying that Trump is going to carry out "ethnic cleansing" at the very moment that Obama is out campaigning for Clinton claiming that he "lowered illegal immigration to 70's levels." Obama carried out millions of deportations (some partisans argue the numbers are skewed by new methodology but even if its not more than all the presidents of the 20th century combined its still millions nonetheless). Bill Clinton, who's now installing his wife in the presidency, militarized the border in 1994 expecting the NAFTA economic consequences there. Thousands died in harsher desert routes from the consequences. When Hillary Clinton was asked by a right wing anti-Trump journalist during one of the debates whats the difference between Trumps "The Wall" and her proposal for "The Fence" she could not come up with the answer. Same could be said about the last Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who literally made a nationally televised speech where he called Trump Hitler ("1930's") because of his immigration policies. Yet when he ran for President, in the Republican primaries he took what NYT called a "hard line" on illegal immigration calling for "self-deportation"- i.e. denying jobs and housing to coerce an illegal to leave.
And needless to say Obama and Clinton have majority approval ratings amongst USA's Hispanic population in the polls. Because voting choices dont happen over illegal immigration policies but top-down alliances between party heads and ethnic 'leaders' (businesses, local machine bosses, churches, etc).

When there is no difference between candidates policies (and there isn't- only tactics), but there is a huge amount of money at stake for various competing business blocks then elections become about personalities and language etiquette takes central importance. Trumps explicit tactic (though its exaggerated) of discarding language etiquette and making the implicit explicit has certainly disquieted many Democrats and Republicans as it serves the purpose of hiding social contradictions and preserving stability. But I don't buy the Trump or Republican exceptionalism.

On the same thought:

syndicalistcat wrote:

Some pundits are starting to say that the seemingly destructive rants of Trump show he isn't really interested so much in becoming president but in giving vent to...and encouraging development of...white nationalism or white identity politics. They are suggesting it's not just because he's an amateur who doesn't know how to run a winning campaign, but that this is what he wants to do.

I dont believe the recent cases are a response to Trumps destructive rants but rather selective focus on him by a concentration of media monopolies that has decided to finish him off. However, though attacks on Trump by the media are on Saddam levels its pretty normal, if not by degree.

For instance Hillary Clinton was denounced as anti-semite for going off on "effin jews" by rival campaigns when she ran for governor:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/18/uselections2000.usa

Obamas campaign, successfully, colored Hillary Clinton as racist and anti-muslim when he ran against her in 2008 (Clinton started the "birther" thing):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/26/barackobama.uselections2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7263783.stm

Quote:
"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," [Clinton's campaign manager ] said.

And so on. You can color anyone a racist & so on, cause in a world system thats operates on inequality people will form ideas to rationalize it. And sooner or later someone, especially in the media eye, will say something unappropriate. I cant easily give examples of Obama being a hardcore racist (like lamenting to the Atlantic that he cant replace Mideast potentates with Scandanavian technocrats, of viewing "Muslims" as a homogeneous racial group and potential 5th column). New Labour smearing Corbyn as an anti-semite has been quite sophisticated (though bullshit).

About White Nationalism: I think the only difference between Democrats identity politics and the particular racialism of the New Right is which racial groups they fetishize for their political campaign. Its the same zoology thinking. Since Democrats identity politics is the only thing that seems to be working on the elite ideological level post-2008 in the US I think its inevitable that white identity politics will grow out of the same logic. US seems to me to be going through a tentative Japanification of it politics & political culture following a similar perpetual stagnation of the economy.
--
Whats surprised me about Trump is for a guy who sold himself as a self-funding candidate hes not interested in spending his billion. He must know that in the US who spends the most money will win, but he appears to be wanting to finish the campaign with a small profit. I honestly expected him to spend a couple of hundred mill on tv ads with all the ex-employees Bill Clinton sexually harassed calling Hillary "a rapist" for being in charge of covering it up and then ride into the White House on reduced turnout amongst female Democrats. Or if hes going to be so outspoken at insulting the elite, go full steam with populist bullshit. Instead he seems content with being a punchingbag and complaining about it.

One last thought on Trump: Only difference I see between him and the rest is the tactical difference that while US strategy in recent decades has been to offset its relative economic decline (as % of global gdp) by using its military might to wipe its competitors of the map, Trump believes (falsely imo) that this has been a failure and the war must be fought through economic war from the home front. Since a lot of oligarchs would be threatened by "anti-globalization" they freak out and consider him Hitler.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 15 2016 23:47
jesuithitsquad wrote:
teh wrote:
jesuithitsquad wrote:
It's probably worth noting here that Trump's dog-whistle is more like an air horn at this point with his new line of attack that 'Barack Hussein Obama founded ISIS.'

Its not a new attack line. He's been saying that since he began campaigning last year. Medias just trying to finish him off so he cant inch over the finish line in the fall.

On this particular point hes completely correct (though I'm sure his reasoning, whatever it is, to get to this conclusion is wrong). Al-Qaeda in Iraq was a defeated underground armed struggle group in Western Iraq in 2011. Today it controls territory the size of the UK and has international reach for guerrilla attacks.

Right, but that's not really his point. He's firing up his racist base, the Birthers who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who actually, literally founded ISIS. Hugh Hewitt gave him a chance to walk it back by offering your explanation above. Trump rejected the explanation and reiterated 'Obama founded ISIS.' This morning he claimed he was being sarcastic, instead of offering the above explanation.

My second point: I have no idea what Trump means because hes using Obamas 2008 be-everything-to-everyone campaign approach but ex-DIA head Flynn is part of his campaign so I assume it approximates something of the DIA memo (whose contents and pdf can be found here:
https://levantreport.com/2015/08/06/former-dia-chief-michael-flynn-says-rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-and-defends-accuracy-of-2012-memo/ )
On the other hand Flynn, not wanting to burn bridges, denied US support for Al-Qaeda to Der Spiegel so maybe Trump does mean something else.

Point is I think Obama "literally founding ISIS" is correct.
From the 2012 memo:
"If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers of the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

"ISI [i.e. Islamic State of Iraq- i.e. ISIS] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory."

Here's Charles Lister, of the Brookings Institution, hes basically a lobbyist for the Qatar wing of the US led insurgency and appears regularly on CNN and Mother Jones and etc as the expert on Syrian affairs. This is from the summer of 2013, when ISIS was already going rouge but hadn't fully broken ranks yet:

ISIS using NATO territory as the springboard to wipe out government forces held up in Northern Allepo

Free Syrian Army/ISIS attack on the very same Manbij that was just retaken by PKK this week!

And so on:

Obama might not have expected ISIS to go rouge and he dismissed it contemptuously as a grade school sports team but without his policy it would have remained an underground Iraqi guerrilla group. Furthermore as he bragged to Thomas Friedman, in the NYT, he refused to help Iraq when ISIS attacked from the Syrian border (that NATO helped it take over) until they toppled Maliki. So Mosul being taken was entirely his decision. Now, with Iran bested, US is building a patchwork of military bases in West Iraq for the next phase of the war with Iran/etc.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Aug 16 2016 01:22
teh wrote:
Also there is nothing Trump has said he will do that Obama hasnt done in his eight years to the cheers of the sections that are in outraged by Trump.

Obama's carried out terrible atrocities, but this is really just nonsense. Obama (despite a high level of deportation) hasn't made any attempt to expel over eleven million people nor has he reevaluated natural born citizenship nor has he built a giant wall on the Mexican border nor has he banned Muslims from entering the country nor has he instated the tariffs that Trump talks about. This is incredibly reductionist and the fact that all politicians basically serve the interests of the capitalist order doesn't mean that their methods of doing so are all exactly the same. The Trump candidacy has obviously been perceived by the white supremacist scene as a massive boon for it and for good reasons--the Stormfront admins themselves have spoken of how much their traffic has increased because of Trump-related activity, and the social climate Trump has encouraged should be clear to anyone living in the US.

As for Obama "literally founding ISIS" this is, of course, incorrect. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would probably be very disappointed to be losing out on the credit. What you posted does not indicate that Obama literally founded ISIS. That is not what "literally" means. What you posted indicates that Obama's actions contributed to the situation in which ISIS was able to ascend. This is exactly what Hugh Hewitt suggested Trump meant and that Trump then flatly denied in favor of further reasserting that Obama was, apparently literally, the founder of ISIS (prior to deciding he was "sarcastic" but "not that sarcastic). Again, to anyone living in the US who is familiar with the endless stream of right-wing conspiratorialism over the last eight years about Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim, it should be clear what Trump is playing to.

This is a perfect example of sloganeering about elections being meaningless and all politicians serving the interests of capital replacing any analysis of a specific situation and, more disturbingly, downplaying Trump's flagrant racist shit stirring and doing his best to spur on racial pogroms--"You can color anyone a racist & so on"--in order to make some point about how shitty the Democrats are.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 16 2016 01:41
jesuithitsquad wrote:
Also, unless my memory is failing me I don't recall him couching this argument with such overtly racist overtones before now. I think he's said Obama is responsible for allowing ISIS' growth and so on, but you can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think he's ever said "Barack Hussain Obama founded ISIS."

Oh yea I forgot to respond to this part.

Heres Trump in January saying "Clinton created ISIS with Obama"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcEMH5YuI6E
This particular comment was covered widely in the press. Like CNN here:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-created-isis/

It was definitely part of his stump speech cause I remember hearing it when cable news channels covered his speeches live. Do you mean "founding" as opposed to "create" being more inflammatory? That honestly didn't occur to me. I took the statement when I first heard it to mean both "responsible for allowing ISIS" and "created it" as political speeches are wont to do.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 16 2016 03:57
Tyrion wrote:
teh wrote:
Also there is nothing Trump has said he will do that Obama hasnt done in his eight years to the cheers of the sections that are in outraged by Trump.

Obama's carried out terrible atrocities, but this is really just nonsense. Obama (despite a high level of deportation) hasn't made any attempt to expel over eleven million people nor has he reevaluated natural born citizenship nor has he built a giant wall on the Mexican border nor has he banned Muslims from entering the country nor has he instated the tariffs that Trump talks about. This is incredibly reductionist and the fact that all politicians basically serve the interests of the capitalist order doesn't mean that their methods of doing so are all exactly the same.

Obama has done all of this. US is not a multi-party democracy, its a republic (democrats are the oldest political party in the world) based on elite consensus. Its institutions are structured around this. This good-cop bad-cop routine that Democrats and Republicans repeat ad nauseam about Nazis/Klan and Socialists taking over it if they dont win this one elections is how they've been going for 270+ years.

I dont understand this logic when Trump gives the same stump speech about illegal immigration that Republican presidential nominees have been giving longer than I've been alive and the response from Democrats and those that lean towards their half of the aisle is "they're going to attempt to expel eleven million people" but when Obama boasts that he lowered illegal immigration into the US to the lowest levels in half a century (Do you think this was an act of nature? If Central American governments are payed/ordered to prevent arrivals thats a different logic than expulsions?) its "X carried out terrible atrocities, but Stormfront." How many elections is this going to repeat?

Look expulsions grew and peaked among Bill Clinton and fell sharply among from Bush 2000. Using Democrat agitprop logic this would make Bill Clinton the most reviled figure among US Hispanics yet any poll will show that's not the case.

And Obamas record deportations.

And from whose policy did Trump get the idea for his "rapists and murders" comment

The Wall: Maybe you could answer what Hillary couldn't: What is the difference between The Wall and The Fence? And why has twenty+ years of the militarization of the border starting in 1994, and resulting in thousands of deaths, not created the hysteria about Hitler/David Duke from the media and Democrats that Trumps Wall has?
---
Citizenship
Obama revoked Awlakis passport before assassinating him:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/us-revoked-anwar-al-awlakis-passport-six-months-before-death-150521
Do you really think Trump is going to be able to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of "natural born citizenship"? Why even bring this up? Because he mentioned off-hand that he doesnt like it? This is pure election nonsense.
---
Muslim Ban
After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks Obama implemented a new law banning people that have visited Muslim countries (including Iran, which has no major armed struggle salafist movement) from entering the US under a visa-free agreement (with the resultant damage to tourism and other industries from people being deterred from visiting these places). But unlike Trump who made his so-called "Muslim Ban" speech a few days later Obama didnt use the word "Muslim" so that makes it ok.
---
Tariffs

The tariffs comment is the most bizarre when we are in the middle of a global trade and currency war.

Quote:
The general trend is widening. In its report last year, the GTA ( Global Trade Alert) noted that 28 product groups had each accounted for 0.5 percent or more of the fall in the value of world trade. This has now increased to 38.
The stagnation in global trade is being accompanied by a rise in protectionist measures. Tracking the total number of trade liberalising and protectionist measures since 2009, the report said the results were “striking,” with the number of discriminatory measures imposed in 2015 some 50 percent higher than in 2014. By this measure, the resort to protectionism last year was “far higher” than in 2009 “when world leaders openly fretted about threats to the global trading system.”
The steel industry is the most prominent expression of this trend. According to the report, the number of discriminatory measures implemented in 2015 was 118, exceeding the two worst years since the financial crisis, 2009 and 2013. Since November 2008 a total of 740 measures had been documented in the steel industry discriminating against foreign interests with the number of such measures outnumbering liberalising measures by a ratio of 4.5 to 1.
The shift towards protectionism goes across the board. The use of protectionist measures overall in 2015 was up by 50 percent over that of 2014 and the number of initiatives harming foreign commercial interests outnumbered trade liberalisation measures in 2015 by three to one. Since 2010, in the first four months of each year, between 50 and 100 protectionist measures were implemented. In the first two months of 2016 the figure was 150.
Significantly, in the light of its repeated declarations eschewing protectionism and warnings about the descent into the kind of beggar-thy-neighbour policies that characterized the 1930s, the report pointed out that members of the G20 were responsible for 81 percent of protectionist measures in 2015, with the United States and Russia topping the list of countries most responsible.
.....
The ever-more aggressive trade policies of the major powers, especially the US, were underscored within a day of the GTA’s report release with the decision by president Obama that he was initiating a formal complaint against China over nine key industrial commodities which the US says are being unfairly priced for American manufacturers.
The rising tide of economic nationalism in the US was evident in a speech delivered by vice-president Joseph Biden in San Diego on Thursday on the latest initiative. He said the Obama administration had issued more than 300 antidumping actions, launched 62 trade investigations last year and would continue to be aggressive in trade enforcement.
In a definite pitch towards the strident economic nationalism at the centre of the Trump campaign, he said “not all the effects of globalisation” were good but Americans had always “bent reality to the benefit of Americans.”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/15/trad-j15.html
(I'd give more links but my internet connection is very slow)

Quote:
The Trump candidacy has obviously been perceived by the white supremacist scene as a massive boon for it and for good reasons--the Stormfront admins themselves have spoken of how much their traffic has increased because of Trump-related activity, and the social climate Trump has encouraged should be clear to anyone living in the US.

This is such nonsense. Whats giving 'the white supremacist scene a massive boon' is almost a decade of stagnant or declining living standards combined with the Western "workers parties" (like the US Democrats) disposing of any pretense of caring about the working class. Just follow some Democrat activist/journo bigwig on social media and see their unvarnished hatred of labor.

The stuff about the Klan taking over if we dont win this is what the party repeats every election. Do you remember 2004 and if Bush won reelection we would have 'fascism,' 'last chance to save the republic'? I do. As for Stormfront, those same people were gun-ho about freaking Ron Paul last time. US doesnt have free elections theres only Republicans or Democrats to choose from. This is no different than 2004's "anarchists for Kerry" news articles or CPUSA telling a meeting of Marxist-Leninist parties in Turkey a few years ago that Hilary Clinton is building the road to socialism. That some Nazi's chose the Republican candidate is supposed to be shocking and say something about that candidate? Why? (Oddly when some fringe clansman endorses a Democrat its not taken as a big deal). I guarantee you if the election was between Jeb! Bush and Bernie Sanders those very Nazi's would be campaigning for Sanders.

Quote:
As for Obama "literally founding ISIS" this is, of course, incorrect.

No this really happened.

Quote:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would probably be very disappointed to be losing out on the credit.

As I wrote twice in this thread already in 2011 AQI was a defeated underground guerrilla force in Western Iraq, not a rebel force controlling an area the size of the UK and with international reach for its operations.

Quote:
What you posted does not indicate that Obama literally founded ISIS. That is not what "literally" means. What you posted indicates that Obama's actions contributed to the situation in which ISIS was able to ascend. This is exactly what Hugh Hewitt suggested Trump meant and that Trump then flatly denied in favor of further reasserting that Obama was, apparently literally, the founder of ISIS (prior to deciding he was "sarcastic" but "not that sarcastic). Again, to anyone living in the US who is familiar with the endless stream of right-wing conspiratorialism over the last eight years about Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim, it should be clear what Trump is playing to.

Well if me stabbing my friend to death were not "actions that contributed to the situation in which" my friend died from organ failure caused by stab wounds then I guess I'm wrong about Obama being the founder of ISIS.

I'm familiar with Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign starting a rumor that Obama was a "secret Kenyan Muslim" and that for this elections the nations prestigious civil rights leaders and Democrat activist base bestowed upon her honorary woman of color status just as her husband who electrocuted a mentally retarded black man so that he could win the New Hampshire primary and ride into the White House was labeled Americas "first black president" by these same groups of people. I'm also aware that Democrats have milked the "birther" issue for a decade to show their voters just how bad Republicans and those demographics and geographic areas that tend to vote for them are. And yet when Hispanic-American Ted Cruz was attacked by Donald Trump as not being a real American and illegible to run for President Democrats laughed at Ted Cruz for being made a fool of and said he masturbates too much (The New Republic) and has a punchable face (NY Magazine/etc).

Quote:
This is a perfect example of sloganeering about elections being meaningless and all politicians serving the interests of capital replacing any analysis of a specific situation and, more disturbingly, downplaying Trump's flagrant racist shit stirring and doing his best to spur on racial pogroms--"You can color anyone a racist & so on"--in order to make some point about how shitty the Democrats are.

Obama wiping Africa's wealthiest country off the map was flagrantly racist and so were the pogroms against dark skinned Africans that his allied forces carried out there. Trump has yet to compare Ukrainian Neo-Nazi militias to 1960's Selma human rights marchers like Obama did and he's yet to say "I don't want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese" like Hillary Clinton did but I dont see why he wouldn't. The same people who are saying that Trump is Hitler are the same people who said Noriega is worse than Hitler, and that Chavez is Hitler, and Saddam and Milosevic and Ahmadinejad are Hitler. They intend to go on like this forever. If you except narratives your enemy gives you give them an ideological foundation to stand on and rationalize their rule and you just become a political satellite of theirs regardless of what qualms you have about them.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Aug 16 2016 04:48

While I don't know enough about U.S. support for the forces that eventually became ISIS anymore than to be skeptical of the growing leftist conspiracy accusations around it, I think teh posts some challenging questions about the difference between the two major American parties and how much even the radical left has become alarmist about a potential Trump presidency.

Immigration is a complex issue here. Yes, deportations may have increased, but they are a different kind of deportation. As far as I'm aware there haven't been any massive, spectacular show of force raids like there were in the final years of the Bush administration. For example, in Postville, Iowa, during the spring of 2008, the raid at Agriprocessors ended up with the arrests of almost 400 people, or around 18% of the entire town's population. All of these people were held in cattle pens in nearby Ceder Falls. This was followed by an even larger raid in Mississippi a few months later. Along with the brutal LAPD crackdown against immigrant protesters in 2007, these huge raids put a culture a fear in the Latino immigrant community that contributed to the dissipation of the incredible movement that sprung up during May Day 2006, arguably the first national general strike in the United States. The Obama administration did away with these sorts of raids. It also has made some efforts towards protecting certain kinds of immigrants from deportation, including attempting to sign executive orders giving some 5 million undocumented workers papers and a "path to citizenship". In any case, as most people (yes, including Latinos) vote on the basis of who is the lesser of two evils (even if it is just a shred of difference), I'm somewhat confused on what you're arguing here. Blaming Latino Democratic Party leaning solely on "top-down alliances between party heads and ethnic leaders" seems like another version of screaming at people and calling them sheeple.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Aug 16 2016 15:01

So, I don't have the time to respond in depth today but just quickly on a couple things.

teh wrote:
First you're (and the subsequent thread posts are) repeating the line of the Democratic Party where "the Republican Party is the party of racism and the Democratic Party is the party of anti-racism,or at least mitigating racism."

I've done no such thing and in the future if you want an honest conversation, please refrain from assigning to me your idea of what you think I think (but haven't said). Pointing out the exceptional flaws of one candidate is not an inherent endorsement of the other.

It just so happens that I think the racism of the democrats is more insidious because it's so well hidden. There are ample examples of times in which the Clinton's have used racism to further their aims.

That said, Trump's overt racism has shifted the Overton Window so that out and out White Nationalists are more emboldened, and other racists who may not share the supremacists entire program now feel it's acceptable to air their vitriol.

Just because both parties are awful for the working class in their own way, doesn't mean they are the same. That analysis has worked for years in the past. But it's not the case this time around, and trying to shoehorn that analysis on this situation makes us look like nutters.

On the rest, I think Tyrion's post covers it pretty well, but i will come back if i find the time.

The Pigeon's picture
The Pigeon
Offline
Joined: 16-06-15
Aug 16 2016 18:13
teh wrote:
Obama wiping Africa's wealthiest country off the map was flagrantly racist and so were the pogroms against dark skinned Africans that his allied forces carried out there. Trump has yet to compare Ukrainian Neo-Nazi militias to 1960's Selma human rights marchers like Obama did and he's yet to say "I don't want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese" like Hillary Clinton did but I dont see why he wouldn't. The same people who are saying that Trump is Hitler are the same people who said Noriega is worse than Hitler, and that Chavez is Hitler, and Saddam and Milosevic and Ahmadinejad are Hitler. They intend to go on like this forever. If you except narratives your enemy gives you give them an ideological foundation to stand on and rationalize their rule and you just become a political satellite of theirs regardless of what qualms you have about them.

Aren't you saying Obama/Clinton are like Hitler?

What are we talking about again? That what Trump said is right and the Democrats are just as Hitler as anyone else? Maybe a little less Hitler, but still Hitler?

It actually seems kind of stupid to say Obama is the founder of ISIS when that takes away from the fact that American imperial power and its contingents have fomented ISIS and global terrorism throughout the past several decades. But it is not wrong to emphasize that Democrats are as equally involved, and if the point is to rally against them as well so we can condemn the entire US political system, then yes! Fuck all the candidates.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Aug 17 2016 18:59

The presidential election is also having an impact on the election of the US Senate. The Democrats need to take four or five seats to take back control of the Senate. In recent polls the continuing fall in Trump's poll numbers are going hand in hand with worsening situ for the Republican Senate candidates. Dems seem certain to retake Wisconsin and have small leads in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Harry Reid is retiring in Nevada and the Republican candidate had been leading but now it is more of a tie in the polling. This is all discussed here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-chances-of-holding-the-senate-are-following-trump-downhill/

A poll just came out showing Bayh with a 7 point lead for the Senate in Indiana. If this holds, Democrats could pick up five or six seats in the Senate, giving them a majority.

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Trump is going down to a major defeat. His poll numbers have been getting worse. Clinton already has a sizeable lead in states with 273 electoral votes. 270 are needed to win.

In the history of modern polling since the '50s no candidate has come back to win after being this far down in the polls several weeks after the party conventions.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 17 2016 20:36

I don't know too much about the US elections. I think that the line-up in the present US circus shows the growing difficulty that even the advanced capitalist countries have in managing the democratic myth and the electoral process.

It's patently obvious that the bourgeoisie, even national bourgeoisies, are made up of different factions, factions which, in particular circumstances, can reach the point of civil war.The bourgeoisie only truly unifies when faced with a threat from the working class: 1871, 1917-20, early 1930's, instances in 43 and 44 during the war, 1945 coherence around the Western Bloc and, across blocs, the mass strike in Poland, 1980.

A national bourgeoisie usually unifies around its imperialist interests though there can be different factions within the ruling class that represent different imperialist interests. But the dominant faction will also, usually, have the backing and involvement of the military and other important layers of the state apparatus.Obama and Clinton didn't create Isis but the actions of US and other imperialisms did, just as they created the Taleban before. Trump's not likely to say that. He may be a bit of a "Manchurian Candidate" but he won't go that far.

Marx-Trek's picture
Marx-Trek
Offline
Joined: 13-11-11
Aug 23 2016 13:27

I have become very interested in the "pro-Russian" connection within the Trump campaign. As the news has recently covered:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439164/donald-trump-paul-manafort-ties-russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trumps-russia-connections-foreign-policy-presidential-campaign/

http://www.redstate.com/kylefoley/2016/08/20/watch-navy-senior-chief-trump-campaigns-ties-russia-story-yet-even-open/

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11142048/dugin-russia-trump-endorse

http://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/russia/vox-one-of-russias-looniest-far-right-ideologues-endorses-donald-trump-409197.html

Also, the current European-Russian media misinformation campaign currently ongoing, it seems that the Russians are testing the US/NATO resolve in Eastern Europe. The most interesting aspect of it all is following "Russian capital" and the ideological ramblings of Alexander Dugin being played out by Putin and Trump (probably completely unconsciously). With Putin's recent association with European right-wing parties, who all seem way to happy to quickly align themselves with Russian due to their blind nationalism, I wonder if Trump has stupidity shifted the GOP position to a pro-Eurasian Duginist position. With the Trump family and Trump organization seemingly addicted to Russian money, I wonder if the Trump(ist) position is to follow the money even if that weaken's America's position globally, because after all, whats good for Trump has to be good for America???

Whats amazing is that Trump seems to have single-handedly dismantled the GOP and shifted the GOP's position from bullshit to insanity. At the end of the day, the future of the GOP depends on Trump winning, and as it looks today, Trump is loosing and loosing badly. I hope that the most recent re-organization of the Trump campaign will only guarantee more scandal, I don't think you get any more "presidential" shifting for Russian lobbyists to Brietbart News pundits steering the campaign, but we will see just a different form of entertainment idiocy. Can't wait!

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Aug 23 2016 17:08

Marx-Trek,

You may find this discussion interesting re: US and Russian imperialism.
http://libcom.org/blog/recent-interview-clinton-aide-indicates-disturbing-hints-wars-come-02082016

Marx-Trek's picture
Marx-Trek
Offline
Joined: 13-11-11
Aug 23 2016 18:15

That was a good and very interesting summary of the past few decades and more recent develops in Europe and the Middle East as it relates to US-Russian geopolitics.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 26 2016 02:48

Half of Sanders stafferrs quit his "revolution" movement after deciding it was going too corporate:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/25/fleeing-the-bern-half-of-staff-quit-sanders-legacy-project-before-it-begins

There's a lesson in there for Sanders supporters.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 26 2016 21:43
Juan Conatz wrote:
For example, in Postville, Iowa, during the spring of 2008, the raid at Agriprocessors ended up with the arrests of almost 400 people, or around 18% of the entire town's population. All of these people were held in cattle pens in nearby Ceder Falls. This was followed by an even larger raid in Mississippi a few months later. Along with the brutal LAPD crackdown against immigrant protesters in 2007, these huge raids put a culture a fear in the Latino immigrant community that contributed to the dissipation of the incredible movement that sprung up during May Day 2006, arguably the first national general strike in the United States. The Obama administration did away with these sorts of raids.

The chart above shows that "returns" (deportations from the country) exploded under B.Clinton and collapsed under Bush. The Washington Post article it comes from says there was a cumulative 11.4 million "returns" under Democratic Clinton and 8.3 million "returns" under Republican Bush. There were much less "returns" under Obama but I'd argue this was the result of the success of Bush's policy as well as the collapse of the pre-2008 crisis global economic model/system (Obama certainly has nothing against fighting immegal immigration- as I wrote he's campaigning right now on lowering it to "70's levels").

Net migration from Mexico to the US has reversed under Obama. 1) Global capitalism is in crisis and world trade is in stasis 2) the expulsion from Mexico of workers made extraneous by NAFTA has been completed 3) The Fence and the militarization of the border that began under Clinton has made border control more effective (at least in terms of people smuggling), hence the record "deportations" under Obama (which includes people caught at border not inside the country), 4) US exporting immigration control to Central American countries which prevent people fro arriving to the US border (especially refugees from states under US pacification programs like Honduras or past pacification programs like in El Salvador) Mexicos “Southern Border Program” is one example.

So I would argue Obama doesn't need to carry out the same strategies because they largely fulfilled its tasks, at least at the given moment. So differences between parties have been tactical based on circumstance rather then policy differences. The rest is partisanship, sort of how Democrats 'opposed' Iraq 2003 war and Republicans 'opposed' Libya 2011 war.

As far as raids heres two articles from past 6 months:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-plans-raids-to-deport-families-who-surged-across-border/2015/12/23/034fc954-a9bd-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/us/us-continues-to-deport-central-american-migrants.html?_r=0

Not sure if I understand the lingo in the NYT article but I think they said in the end of it that 100,000 were "returned."

Quote:
It also has made some efforts towards protecting certain kinds of immigrants from deportation, including attempting to sign executive orders giving some 5 million undocumented workers papers and a "path to citizenship".

There has been no amnesty ("pathway to citizenship"). The two programs are deferrals of deportation orders hence: Deferred Action for Parents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Deportation deferrals are renewed at two year intervals. I believe only 40% of eligible have signed up for DACA and DAPA is blocked in the courts. With temporary work permits and no federal social benefits this formalizes another low wage layer and allows the government to focus deportation proceedings on higher priority targets. If Democrats wanted to pass amnesty like Reagan in 1986, they would have done it between 2008 and 2010 when they controlled both houses of congress including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, as well as the White House. It would have never passed Congress.

Quote:
In any case, as most people (yes, including Latinos) vote on the basis of who is the lesser of two evils (even if it is just a shred of difference), I'm somewhat confused on what you're arguing here. Blaming Latino Democratic Party leaning solely on "top-down alliances between party heads and ethnic leaders" seems like another version of screaming at people and calling them sheeple.

What people consider a lesser evil is largely dictated which party is dominant where they live and the rest is party tribalism and piety. "Top-down alliances" is a reference to Communalist politics which has always existed to some extent in the US but have been getting a bigger role in US politics as social-democratic rhetoric around the "New Deal" and the old Reaganomics coalition become untenable in current economic dynamics. That social life is competition between races or nations (sometimes euphemistically called values) and not classes (to the extreme that class is largely irrelevant) has become much greater since 2008 (even with Sanders with his "we gotta be like europe we gotta take down the chinese" plank). I certainly dont consider it "sheeple" behavior, its "socialism or barbarism" (ie tribalism) and in the absence of even pseudo worker internationalism its in the self interest of people to stick to their tribe (in the same sense that its better for ones material conditions when ones country does not lose a war.)

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 26 2016 22:55
jesuithitsquad wrote:
So, I don't have the time to respond in depth today but just quickly on a couple things.
teh wrote:
First you're (and the subsequent thread posts are) repeating the line of the Democratic Party where "the Republican Party is the party of racism and the Democratic Party is the party of anti-racism,or at least mitigating racism."

I've done no such thing and in the future if you want an honest conversation, please refrain from assigning to me your idea of what you think I think (but haven't said). Pointing out the exceptional flaws of one candidate is not an inherent endorsement of the other.

It just so happens that I think the racism of the democrats is more insidious because it's so well hidden. There are ample examples of times in which the Clinton's have used racism to further their aims.

That said, Trump's overt racism has shifted the Overton Window so that out and out White Nationalists are more emboldened, and other racists who may not share the supremacists entire program now feel it's acceptable to air their vitriol.

Just because both parties are awful for the working class in their own way, doesn't mean they are the same. That analysis has worked for years in the past. But it's not the case this time around, and trying to shoehorn that analysis on this situation makes us look like nutters.

I just don't see Trumps exceptionalism. I'm assuming on the racism you're referring to his immigration policies but as I said its the same old. Here's John Mccain about Mexico sending "rapists and murderers" in 2008:

In fact if one imagines Democrats as a political "center" hes pretty "moderate" for a Republican (albeit Democrats are always moving to the right). Democrats are only calling Trump "racist" louder than in previous election cycles because they feel more threatened by him (polls be damned just listen to Dem operatives on social media- they are scared, frustrated and sad as they talk of GOPs supposed "demise").

"It's not the case this time around, and trying to shoehorn that analysis on this situation makes us look like nutters" is what was said about W.Bush (and very passionately) yet things stayed the same after he went and today Richard Armitage, Scowcroft, Wolfowitz and Max Boot are for Clinton and Clinton is praising the wisdom and moderation of Bush on the campaign trail. In fact she seems pretty Bushish, maybe Jeb!ish to me.

Overton Window is idealism. Trump is nothing special, just look at Nick Sarkozy this week. As I wrote in the previous post "White Nationalists" are emboldened by the collapse of the global economic order post-2008, the crisis of rule in EU, and the discarding of social-democratic fig leaves by center-left and new left parties in the "west." I also think the white nationalists that have always been in power in the 'west' are not a lesser threat domestically or abroad even if they use language etiquette and dislike populism.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 26 2016 22:27
The Pigeon wrote:
teh wrote:
Obama wiping Africa's wealthiest country off the map was flagrantly racist and so were the pogroms against dark skinned Africans that his allied forces carried out there. Trump has yet to compare Ukrainian Neo-Nazi militias to 1960's Selma human rights marchers like Obama did and he's yet to say "I don't want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese" like Hillary Clinton did but I dont see why he wouldn't. The same people who are saying that Trump is Hitler are the same people who said Noriega is worse than Hitler, and that Chavez is Hitler, and Saddam and Milosevic and Ahmadinejad are Hitler. They intend to go on like this forever. If you except narratives your enemy gives you give them an ideological foundation to stand on and rationalize their rule and you just become a political satellite of theirs regardless of what qualms you have about them.

Aren't you saying Obama/Clinton are like Hitler?

What are we talking about again? That what Trump said is right and the Democrats are just as Hitler as anyone else? Maybe a little less Hitler, but still Hitler?

It actually seems kind of stupid to say Obama is the founder of ISIS when that takes away from the fact that American imperial power and its contingents have fomented ISIS and global terrorism throughout the past several decades. But it is not wrong to emphasize that Democrats are as equally involved, and if the point is to rally against them as well so we can condemn the entire US political system, then yes! Fuck all the candidates.

US media likes to call US enemies abroad Hitler (above examples are what top US government officials like presidents have said in the past) as part of war mobilization. The media has employed the same tactic domestically against Trump. Former government media employee Jamie Kirchick have even called for a military coup against him. Its hard not to see the Saddam media treatment in use (which tells me things are going pretty bad internally).

I was talking about that Trump is really no different than his competitors for power or in power right now and his tactical differences matter more for the upper layers and not so much for the lower layers of society.

Calling Obama the founder of ISIS is stupid because other presidents deserve credit too? Ok, fair enough but like I said ISIS/AQI was a underground guerrilla group in 2011 and it became what it is now because of the explicit policies and "willful" decisions of the regional hegemon, the US (whose armies commander in chief is Obama).

US political system seems pretty fucked, I wonder whether they'll temporary split the 2 party system like in the beginning of the 20th century in order to stabilize the whole enterprise.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 27 2016 00:39
Marx-Trek wrote:
I have become very interested in the "pro-Russian" connection within the Trump campaign. As the news has recently covered:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439164/donald-trump-paul-manafort-ties-russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trumps-russia-connections-foreign-policy-presidential-campaign/

http://www.redstate.com/kylefoley/2016/08/20/watch-navy-senior-chief-trump-campaigns-ties-russia-story-yet-even-open/

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11142048/dugin-russia-trump-endorse

http://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/russia/vox-one-of-russias-looniest-far-right-ideologues-endorses-donald-trump-409197.html

Also, the current European-Russian media misinformation campaign currently ongoing, it seems that the Russians are testing the US/NATO resolve in Eastern Europe. The most interesting aspect of it all is following "Russian capital" and the ideological ramblings of Alexander Dugin being played out by Putin and Trump (probably completely unconsciously). With Putin's recent association with European right-wing parties, who all seem way to happy to quickly align themselves with Russian due to their blind nationalism, I wonder if Trump has stupidity shifted the GOP position to a pro-Eurasian Duginist position. With the Trump family and Trump organization seemingly addicted to Russian money, I wonder if the Trump(ist) position is to follow the money even if that weaken's America's position globally, because after all, whats good for Trump has to be good for America???

Whats amazing is that Trump seems to have single-handedly dismantled the GOP and shifted the GOP's position from bullshit to insanity. At the end of the day, the future of the GOP depends on Trump winning, and as it looks today, Trump is loosing and loosing badly. I hope that the most recent re-organization of the Trump campaign will only guarantee more scandal, I don't think you get any more "presidential" shifting for Russian lobbyists to Brietbart News pundits steering the campaign, but we will see just a different form of entertainment idiocy. Can't wait!

Dugin is about as relevant in the Putin administration as Chomsky is relevant in the Obama Administration (their realist geo-politics polemical posturing are pretty similar actually). The above articles are of the same style as Birchers revelation that Eisenhower was a fifth-columnist for the socialist bloc and all of it will be forgotten once its no longer useful. Whats particular about the Grand Godfather Putin trope is that its all inclusive politically: for right-liberals in EU it can be applied to the new left like Syriza and Corbyn as well as the far-right like Golden Dawn, for new left in EU it can be applied to the new right like National Front, for Sunni Islamists in EU & Mideast it can be applied to Shia Crescent, for Latin American center it can be applied to the regions left nationalists, in US I've seen it for all four top presidential candidates (edit: forgot about the eu center like germany's spd and italy's dems and forza, etc.)

Topic locked