2016 U.S. Presidential election

756 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Nov 20 2016 05:16

That sucks. Thanks for clarifying.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 20 2016 07:17

Jesus you guys--I feel like a broken record, but this thread just keeps getting better and better. I thought I'd responded earlier today, but for some reason it didn't post. So apologies if I push the conversation back a bit. There are a lot of other interesting comments I'd like to come back to later, but for now I would just quickly like to commend Artesian--it takes a certain kind of bravery, I think, to acknowledge when we've gotten the wrong end of the stick. A lot of times it's really easy to dig in our heels, and I think it's important to recognize it when someone gives a mea culpa.

el psy congroo wrote:

USA also seems to be experiencing a racist/nationalist backlash against immigrants and poc since around after 9/11. similar trends happening all over the world.

For sure on the Islamaphobia, but it did feel a bit like this faded somewhat until maybe the Boston Marathon bombing and then the more recent, ISIS inspired attacks in the West--at which point it came back with a vengeance.

As far as the resurgence of white nationalism in general, it's always kind of been there, just under the surface. It definitely moved up a bit after Obama's election, particularly with the Birther movement. Interestingly, it was both coincidental and in many cases, coexistent with the Tea Party movement. Then, as has been mentioned before, open displays of racism just exploded following Ferguson and BLM. Here's another personal anecdote:

I visited a fairly normalish seeming relative the day after the 1st night of the Ferguson protests. The St Louis area is a roughly 3.5 to 4 hour drive from where I live. The guy is an avid gun collector and as I walked into his house he had all 4 of his assault rifles sitting out. When I asked him if he was heading out to the range, he got a real serious look on his face and told me he was cleaning them so he would be ready for when 'they' get here.

I was genuinely confused and it honestly didn't occur to me that he could have been talking about Ferguson since it is so far away. When he clarified I was legitimately speechless for a bit. Finally I was able to muster a response, saying something about it being like 250 some odd miles from here to there and I was pretty sure he needn't worry. But he brushed that aside by talking about how he was 'surrounded' in his neighborhood.

Seeing as the man had 3AK's & an AR-15 within arm's reach, relative or not, I dropped the subject  and decided against mentioning that I was scheduled to carpool to Ferguson the next morning.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 20 2016 07:15

ugh--sorry for the broken-up post...

el psy congroo wrote:
finally theres also the question of climate change. the parts of the USA responsible for most of the commodity manufacturing and food production just made one of the worlds biggest climate denialists the POTUS. does this also reflect their views? four years of non-action or regressive policy by the Trump admin on these issues will have literal catastrophic consequences on the planet. And Trump is personally invested in the big pipelines and fracking operations.

As terrible as all of the open racism is, I wonder if this won't end up being the most consequential aspect of the next four years. To be fair though, Trump is--more or less--pretty much in the mainstream of the Republican Party on climate change.

For instance, Mike Pence is virulently anti-EPA, pro-Coal, anti-net metering, and sued the EPA in attempt to avoid the provisions of the Clean Power Plan. In his last legislative session as governor, he originally supported a "No More Stringent Than" law that would have made it statuarily impossible for the state or individual localities to have environmental standards higher than the EPA's. Environmental groups were able to get it amended, effectively neutering the bill. In conjunction with the Flint water crisis being front-page news at the time, and since the law was no longer the version the utilities wanted, Pence ultimately vetoed the ammended version of the law. (He is nothing if not very politically savvy.)

I've already mentioned how beholden Pence is to investor-owned utilities and the Koch Brothers, and told the story of how he replaced an energy efficiency program with programs written and implemented by the individual utilities. Given how vocally pro-coal both he and Trump are and the outsized role Pence will likely play on energy issues there is very little hope for mitigating climate change issues for the foreseeable future.

The only silver-lining I can see is that the market fundamentals are completely lined up against coal. (The absurdity of a communist pinning hope on free-market capitalism!) Unless the Trump administration ends up massively subsidizing the coal industry these trends may continue, perhaps even exponentially. As far as fracking/natural gas is concerned, my well-considered opinion and analysis is that we are all fucked.

Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Nov 20 2016 11:00
Steven. wrote:
The ideology of "political correctness gone mad" is pretty strong, and affects people across the political spectrum, although mostly on the right, as it has been pushed heavily by the right-wing media since the 80s.

It has developed in different ways across the world. I grew up in the very north of Sweden where there is a very strong culture of dissing Stockholm and the extraction of natural resources. Compared to the rugged individualism of USA there is perhaps a comparable rugged collectivism. Language and attitudes are I guess a bit terse and sort of macho but compared to everywhere else I've lived free from misogyny and racism. The complaints about (usually not refered to as PC as it's a term owned by the right, although this is changing) language control is more about this scepticism of the center than any wish to continue being a bigot. The fluctuations in correct words to use for minorities is an actual problem for people, they feel embarrassed and insecure despite having good intentions. The source of this embarrassement can quite correctly be located in a small group of academics doing fringe stuff att universities not mass movements. It does filter though in a twisted recuperated way.

The point of my previous post and this one is the rural/urban divide and a failure of some posters to understand their position in all this as that of an educated up to date urban person.

Several arguments were made against bsuok that were divorced from his arguments and triggered by details of language and ways of expression supposedly owned by the right. To keep language clean takes huge effort. The narrative that what a few people do on campuses is irrelevant for working people in the periphery is just not true. Yes the media is exaggerating, yes safe spaces are a good idea. However some perverse interpretation of safe spaces will be implemented in workplaces if it hasn't already. The correct minority ultraleft version won't be implemented as it won't serve capital and it no one will get to hear about it. I'm only using safer spaces as it's the current source of idiotic discussions.

Libcom posters could use more intersectionalism as a certain axis seem ivisible around here. The urban educaded perspective (like my own) is way to dominant. We see it all the time with new posters.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 20 2016 11:05
S. Artesian wrote:
Stephen,

I argued pretty aggressively, as I always do. I did not call you a "liberal capitalist stooge."

you're right, I remember now it was "contortionist libertarian communo-market capitalis[t]"

Quote:
I think my argument as harshly presented as it was, was not dismissive of the protection of migrant workers, but that it was pretty much impossible to support an "abstain" argument, or sympathy for a "remain" argument based on the special status afforded to EU country citizens when the EU member countries were so committed to a) supporting military actions that dispossessed hundreds of thousands if not millions and then b) placing those refugees and migrants in camps; hiring Turkey to suppress migration, etc. etc.

Yeah, I get that like we tried to explain we weren't even just talking about EU migrants, as the Leave campaign was primarily based on attacking all migrants, as well as Muslims, ethnic minorities and regulation (which includes things like human rights protections, workers' rights protections, environmental and consumer protections et cetera). Here is a sample of what we were seeing throughout the campaign:




(click for larger version)

This was the kind of thing that led otherwise principled communists and anarchists to vote Remain, as a protest against this sort of demonisation and the likely state repression of migrants in the aftermath.

Anyway I appreciate your clarification now, I won't derail this discussion anymore. I did think the parallels with Brexit were worth touching on though.

Quote:
In the US, I've been arguing for ten years that the key to class struggle in the US; to developing class consciousness is unconditional defense of migrants; no worker is illegal; no child is illegal; no ICE raids on workplaces; stop the deportations.

ditto, and that's good to hear. Although in a UK setting it is important for us to defend EU migrants as well as those from elsewhere.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 20 2016 15:07
jesuithitsquad wrote:
el psy congroo wrote:
finally theres also the question of climate change. the parts of the USA responsible for most of the commodity manufacturing and food production just made one of the worlds biggest climate denialists the POTUS. does this also reflect their views? four years of non-action or regressive policy by the Trump admin on these issues will have literal catastrophic consequences on the planet. And Trump is personally invested in the big pipelines and fracking operations.

As terrible as all of the open racism is, I wonder if this won't end up being the most consequential aspect of the next four years. To be fair though, Trump is--more or less--pretty much in the mainstream of the Republican Party on climate change.

Chomsky discusses this (and other topics) in a recent interview;

Quote:
Trump has already taken steps to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by placing in charge of the EPA transition a notorious (and proud) climate change denier, Myron Ebell. Trump's top adviser on energy, billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm, announced his expectations, which were predictable: dismantling regulations, tax cuts for the industry (and the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, lifting Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access pipeline. The market reacted quickly. Shares in energy corporations boomed, including the world's largest coal miner, Peabody Energy, which had filed for bankruptcy, but after Trump's victory, registered a 50 percent gain.

He also points out another aspect of the weird diversity of the USA;

Quote:
One of the difficulties in raising public concern over the very severe threats of global warming is that 40 percent of the US population does not see why it is a problem, since Christ is returning in a few decades. About the same percentage believe that the world was created a few thousand years ago. If science conflicts with the Bible, so much the worse for science. It would be hard to find an analogue in other societies. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/38360-trump-in-the-white-house-an-...

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 20 2016 15:56

Now I know that there are a few evangelicals in the US, but that 40% believe in the second coming seems a bit too high. I am also skeptical because I find Chomsky's use of evidence a bit fast and loose at times.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 20 2016 16:23
Khawaga wrote:
Now I know that there are a few evangelicals in the US, but that 40% believe in the second coming seems a bit too high. I am also skeptical because I find Chomsky's use of evidence a bit fast and loose at times.

that figure is from a survey by Pew Research in 2010. http://www.people-press.org/2010/06/22/section-3-war-terrorism-and-globa...

(edited because I have now had a look at the methodology and sample size, they called about 1000 people on home phones and 600 on cell phones, supposedly weighted for geography and demographics. Still I can see how they could lead people to give that sort of answer by questioning, so I doubt it's very accurate)

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 20 2016 16:29
Quote:
One of the difficulties in raising public concern over the very severe threats of global warming is that 40 percent of the US population does not see why it is a problem, since Christ is returning in a few decades.

trump's policies about energy production and the seeming public apathy about it are of course horrifying but this claim is quite overblown. i've never heard eschatology connected with climate denialism. and i just don't believe that 40% of americans expect jesus to return by 2050. (btw if you're a christian of any stripe you're supposed to believe in a second coming. the question is about the possibility of predicting the date.)

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 20 2016 16:45

Thanks Steven

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 20 2016 16:52
Quote:
i've never heard eschatology connected with climate denialism.

While I'd say this is generally true, we shouldn't forget that madness from Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Quote:
Now I know that there are a few evangelicals in the US, but that 40% believe in the second coming seems a bit too high.

I'd back up Petey on this one, as, in theory, all Christians believe in the second coming, this 40% figure doesn't surprise.

That said, I don't actually believe America is as religious as this may suggest. In my experience, while there certainly is a hard-core religious core, most people are only religious when push comes to shove. So, yeah, they'll say they believe in the second coming, but for most those religious beliefs only become relevant when they're asked about them (or, sometimes, when they need justification for some prejudiced belief).

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 20 2016 16:59
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Now I know that there are a few evangelicals in the US, but that 40% believe in the second coming seems a bit too high.

I'd back up Petey on this one, as, in theory, all Christians believe in the second coming, this 40% figure doesn't surprise.

By 2050 though?!

Steven. wrote:
Khawaga wrote:
Now I know that there are a few evangelicals in the US, but that 40% believe in the second coming seems a bit too high. I am also skeptical because I find Chomsky's use of evidence a bit fast and loose at times.

that figure is from a survey by Pew Research in 2010. Haven't looked into the methodology or the sample size… http://www.people-press.org/2010/06/22/section-3-war-terrorism-and-globa...

Fwiw the full report (p.17) says they sampled 1,546 adults by selecting random telephone numbers (1,006 landlines and 540 cellphones), then weighted the results by gender/age/race/other demographics to match a census for the general population, giving a +/-3% margin of error. (There's more info on their sampling methods here. It says only about 3% of the population don't have access to a landline or cellphone, so in the extreme case the margin of error could double to +/-6% I guess.)

I'm not an expert at this stuff, but it seems like they've controlled for a lot of common pitfalls. One thing that could skew it might be response rate - if people with e.g. evangelical religious beliefs are more inclined to talk about their beliefs to a cold caller, but atheists hang up, or something like that. That might introduce a sampling bias that isn't controlled for by the census weighting. They also didn't seem to control for employment status, so maybe people who are able to take a call are disproportionately not in employment - i don't know if that's a group who'd disproportionately believe in a near-term second coming though.

On the climate stuff generally, it's pretty bad. 2020 is meant to be the window to ratchet up the (non-binding) commitments under Paris Agreement, which currently fall significantly short of what's needed to limit warming to 2 degrees. Even if other countries stick to it, it's unlikely they'll ratchet up commitments much with a such major polluter as the US ramping up it's emissions. Eric Holthaus has counselled against despair, fwiw:

Holthaus wrote:
That’s because the pollution that leads to climate change is a zero-sum game. Every ton of carbon emitted stays there for hundreds of years, effectively permanently from a civilizational perspective. But that also means every pipeline we block, every coal plant we shut down, every solar panel we build, is a net win. We have agency; we are powerful.

My guess is the environment movement will double down under President Trump, ramp up protests, ramp up legal action, and gets in the way. That task will become increasingly physically dangerous for those involved. That’s frightening. But it’s a fight worth continuing. The momentum on climate is depressingly slow, but it’s in the right direction. Trump is a big setback, but it’s not game over.

But locking in dangerous levels of climate change that could make large parts of the Earth uninhabitable is certainly looking pretty likely. That's not end times stuff, but we could be talking hundreds of millions of displaced people towards the end of the century, desertification in the Mediterranean, increased agricultural and water stresses, that kind of thing. That was already quite likely before Trump though.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 20 2016 17:16
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
i've never heard eschatology connected with climate denialism.

While I'd say this is generally true, we shouldn't forget that madness from Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

yyyikes

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 20 2016 19:29

Going back to something Hieronymus asked me:

Hieronymous wrote:
Steven. wrote:
Hieronymu[o]s, I think that stuff Barnes wrote was good, but in terms of determining where the Trump phenomenon has come from, TBH I think some people are overanalysing it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this right-wing populist switch in white working class loyalties has its roots in things like Nixon's "New Majority" and George Wallace's overtly racist presidential campaigns in 1968 and 1972. But the Republican rebound started even earlier…

Yes I totally get that, and I agree that a proper understanding of why workers vote for such anti-worker candidates is important. I also agree with what you say here. My point was more directed at those who don't see Trump as pretty much a continuation of quite standard Republican (and Democratic, to a lesser extent) racism and populism, and see him is something uniquely terrible, and uniquely supported by the working class.

Quote:
Steven. wrote:
Okbus [bsuok] or whatever his name was unfortunately got sidetracked with some personal slagging and some weird hangup about "safer spaces"*, but I think the bulk of what he said in his initial posts was pretty accurate.

Again time to respectfully disagree. From his first post, many of us who live in the U.S. could easily peg him for someone who either doesn't live here or hasn't lived here in years. Which turned out to be an accurate assessment.
jesuithitsquad did an excellent job of refuting many of bsuok's other flagrant inaccuracies.

Steven., care to articulate what you found accurate with bsuok?

TBH I thought that the talk about him not being based in the country for some time totally ad hominem and unfair. In terms of the inaccuracies, yes there were a couple of minor ones (like confusing McCain with Romney), but in general I thought the bulk of his 12 numbered points were a useful summary of some key facets of the election and its result. However that is not to say that it is not also true that the vote for Trump, while it may not have been exclusively driven by racism, it was obviously an important factor, as people who were actively anti-racist would not have been able to stomach a vote for him. That said, I don't really see how an active anti-racist could stomach a vote for Hillary, who not only has said racist things like Trump (super predators), but has also done massively racist things, like support the mass incarceration of black males, and help kill hundreds of thousands of people of colour around the world.

Quote:
I'm interested where your opinion diverges from that of Artesian, jesuithitsquad or myself.

I don't really think that it does. TBH I'm not really sure what the opinion difference is between you guys and bsuok is either, ultimately, as the debate you got into didn't seem to be around anything that substantial, it seemed to revolve around quite peripheral issues (like people's individual circumstances/jobs, spelling/grammar, safer spaces etc)

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Nov 21 2016 04:18

Since everything in the U.S. pivots around race, I'd suggest everyone read Walter Benn Michael's The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality. His analysis demonstrates how in the U.S., at all levels of society, race trumps class. His basic premise is that across the political spectrum, from right to left, people prefer culture war over class war. And this plays out in diversity for its own sake, where it actually masks economic equality -- and hence, obfuscates that we live in a class-divided society. He critiques activists who uncritically call it a step forward when more of the "underrepresented" (i.e. people of color, women, queers, etc.) are admitted to elite universities and corporate board rooms, while downplaying -- and deliberately ignoring -- poverty and the needs of the working class.

He lucidly articulates how anti-racism plays a conservative role in U.S. politics and the universities, which he calls "the diversity avant-garde," reproduce these conservative ideas. Which creates this tautology:

    for someone painted into a corner as a racist, then racism becomes the only solution
    for the anti-racist stuck in their ideological cul-de-sac, racism as the only problem

Class gets denied or relegated to another oppression, and "it reassures us that the problem of poverty is like the problem of race and that the way to solve it is by appreciating rather than minimizing our differences" (p. 89)

This spells the final death knell for the last remnants of New Deal social programs that attempted to -- with varying degrees of success -- more equally distribute wealth, through social safety nets and welfare programs to alleviate poverty. But these ideas are confused and contradictory: remember the Tea Party signs saying "Keep Government Out of Medicare!"?

Then the terms of debate begin with "entitlements" being something to eliminate to reign in the excesses of the "nanny state," rather than contested class terrain and part of the social wage to be fought for.

This gave rise to the Tea Party and its challenge to the Republican establishment. And when entitlements are removed, things like education gets further and further commodified, which gave rise to many indebted youth being drawn to Occupy.

And here were come to the rise of Donald Trump. At first many evangelicals were horrified by his infidelities, his mocking of the disabled, and his hawkish rhetoric. But his attraction went much, much deeper, tapping into emotions and white working class aspirations to the American Dream.

I've read in several places a pretty accurate metaphor that goes something like this: you're waiting in line and at the end -- your ultimate goal -- is the American Dream. But the line isn't moving, although you've done everything that you're supposed to, everything society expects of you.

Then you watch as people are cutting into line ahead of you and they're black, women, immigrants, queers, who are occupying jobs that had been exclusively for white men. Barack Obama, the line supervisor, is actually signaling to the line-cutters to keep moving ahead of you. He's endorsing all this; he's actually a line-cutter himself.

Soon the realization sets in that the U.S. is being run by these people, the line-cutters are running the show themselves. And Obama is one of them, and he's supporting and enabling all the other line-cutters. He's responsible for your own marginalization, and he's not only holding you back in line, he's pushing you backwards. To add insult to injury, someone ahead of you in line looks back and call you "____________" [insert smears like: a redneck, privileged, a racist, white trash, a white supremacist, uneducated, a cis male, etc., etc.]

Being a hardworking white worker, your self-esteem plummets. You're also mourning a better day, a lost identity and way of life, when you had good-paying unionized industrial jobs and life was pretty decent. But no one is listening. No one hears your pain and your cries of distress. You've been in line for a long time and each of the line-cutters seems to say, through affirmative action, entitlements, or identity politics, "Poor me, oh, poor suffering me!"

You live by the Protestant work ethic and never ask for a handout, sympathy, or -- the worst -- the pity of others. You've always worked hard and played by the rules. You'd never say "I'm a white man and I'm waiting in line too." There's something dishonorable about that. You would never use your identity to cut in line.

Yet the crux of your conflict is that you do feel like a forgotten minority group, a stranger if your own land. Even though you don't believe in the culture of victimhood, you feel like a victim. Along comes Donald Trump, saying "Hey, you are a victim, and it's O.K. You've been displaced from your own land, I'm your guy, and we're going to take our country back." This speaks to something very deep within you.

The subtext of Trump's campaign were super racially charged attitudes about Obama. It dated back to Trump's delusional Birther challenges to Obama's legitimacy. And his three signature racially coded themes were immigration, terrorism, and crime. Many Trump voters felt "objectified" by being branded as racists for their choice, often making the claim that it's much more complex -- which is true -- and they don't agree with everything he's saying. In the South, there's a reluctance of conservative whites to talk about the black-white divide for fear of moralists from the North pointing their accusatory finger at them and calling them "deplorables," "racists," "backward," and "uneducated." And they're not all racists and prejudiced, but they did buy into the trope that "I'm deserving, and those others aren't." Which is a deeply bigoted idea.

What's also lacking in so many of the discussions I've seen are the changes in global capitalism and transformations in its methods and locations of production. Chinese Foxconn workers didn't steal jobs from American workers because they're making products that were never produced in the U.S. (i.e., iPhone, tablets, etc.). Those kinds of electronic assembly jobs were offshored decades ago to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, before being displaced from those countries to China -- and elsewhere. If you have a big-screen TV, look at the label on the back because if you bought it in North America it's most likely assembled in the massive electronic assembly cluster in Tijuana, Mexico -- and big-screen TV capital of the world (having been offshored there from Asia).

Should jobs ever get reshored to the U.S., they're not going to bring thousands of jobs, they are going to bring robots and automated assembly lines. The programming jobs will probably remain in Bengaluru, and the profits will continue to flow through offices in New York or Silicon Valley, but not many jobs will be needed in modern high-tech factories.

Lastly, some of us have friends, family, and co-workers who voted for Trump for the conflicted reason that they're part of the disaffected, marginalized working class. As working class militants ourselves -- whether anarchist, communists or anti-capitalists of various tendencies -- it's our responsibility to not only listen to these sisters and brothers and hear their pain and fears, but also to remember that they're our proletarian brethren and our struggles are dependent on them -- and their success in class struggle is dependent on us. Some of them are against us because they think we're on the side of the line-cutters. We've got to make clear to them we don't advocate eliminating lines, we want to abolish the whole system that requires lines. And our fortunes are their fortunes, which are inextricably tied up with all workers the world over, regardless of where they come from or what they look like.

Sorry for such a long rant. I'll take a break from this thread for a while. But thanks for all the thoughtful comments by everyone.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 20 2016 19:48
Hieronymous wrote:
Since everything in the U.S. pivots around race, I'd suggest everyone read Walter Benn Michael's The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality.

i can recommend this also

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 20 2016 20:38

The primary issue when it comes to evangelical climate skepticism has less to do with The Rapture, and is more closely connected to the notion that Earth was created for 'man's' use. And while at first blush this can appear to be incredibly ego driven, there is also another side of it that they would describe as humility--in that there is the idea that it is impossible for humans to impact god's massive creation.

This aspect of religious-based climate skepticism also falls firmly into the rural-urban divide. While there has been an upsurge in the past decade or two of the urban, evangelical mega-church, these churches are typically much more ecumenical than the fundamentalism you're likely to find in small towns.

I grew up in a very small apostolic-pentecostal church. Without going into too many details, the bottom-line with this world-view is that they literally believe that only people who accept exactly their tiny denomination's doctrine will go to heaven--in The Rapture. At various points in my childhood we studied multiple predictions/prophecies by different 'theologians' claiming The Rapture would occur THIS year. With each failed prediction, there really was no self-awareness amongst any of us that the last 5 predictions had been wrong, and if it registered at all, only encouraged the notion that it was right around the corner.

I think part of the problem is when you combine this worldview with the physical perspective of rural areas. In rural towns, it's just difficult to imagine the scale required for enough carbon to be released to make an impact. (Even though, as I mentioned before, four of the US's 22 super-polluters occupy a 30 mile radius of a relatively rural portion of my state, an area that produces more pollution annually than all of Sweden.
--highly recommend reading this investigation).

*It is important to make a distinction between The Rapture and the 2nd Coming. As petey said, technically all christians believe in the latter, whereas The Rapture is a concept specific to many evangelical groups.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 20 2016 20:52

Yo, H # 677-- that ABSOLUTELY should be plastered all over the front page of libcom.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 20 2016 21:52

I think what Hieronymous is saying is very important. Few peple see their privilege, especially if you're a blue-colar worker whose privilege amounted to a better union job than a black guy (when they existed). I agree completely about the use of culture wars, and I think it's an extension of the idea of religion as the opiate of the masses. Ideologies tend to exist to make us swallow capitalism and then get dropped when the tail starts wagging the dog and they encourage people to do anti-capitalist things. It's hard to tell someone who feels like what they're owed is slipping away from them that they're privileged and don't even deserve the place in line that they currently have. Obviously we realise the whole point of the line is that you don't get to the front, but for most people, who probably haven't even thought of it in that way it just comes out as "why should they get what I have, I worked hard for it" or "they complain about discrimination, they should try and get hired around here."

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 20 2016 22:00

Yeah, that's a great post by Hieronymus.

But I do think it's worth holding in mind on the other hand that actually Trump didn't get that many votes, and did lose the popular vote by at least 1.3 million (although now it looks like he did get slightly more votes than Romney and McCain, now more have been counted), but just won the election because rural votes count for more than urban ones in broad terms.

Edited to add: something which hasn't come up yet in this discussion is the Green party. Don't really have the inclination to look through the results fully, and they are not all done yet, but it certainly looks like some states Trump won because the Greens increased their vote share and probably took votes from Clinton, like Wisconsin.

(By suppose to a bigger extent the Libertarians took even more votes from Trump, so that would probably more than cancel that out)

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 04:45

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 21 2016 04:07

just quickly wanted to share the link to the post-election bannon interview. i've quoted a few choice bits, but it's definitely worth reading the whole thing.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview...

Quote:
He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," he tells me. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years."

Quote:
"Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

Quote:

"I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 21 2016 10:37

"It will be as exciting as the 1930s", Jesus Christ that is actually unbelievable!

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 04:46

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 21 2016 19:13

Try this link for Insurgent notes:
http://www.insurgentnotes.com/

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Nov 21 2016 19:22
Steven. wrote:
"It will be as exciting as the 1930s", Jesus Christ that is actually unbelievable!

Its what 95% of the US political left and the political wing of the labor movement have been demanding (at least rhetorically) for the past generation or two. You reap what you sow.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 21 2016 20:42

teh,

That image is stunning--do you have a link? Your comment is spot-on.

On that 1930's quote, it really is a great example of the trolling mentality behind Breitbart et al. If called out on it, I have no doubt Bannon would've responded with something about the New Deal and feigning victimhood for the 'misinterpretation.'

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 04:47

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 22 2016 03:30

Since nothing bad at all came from giving Donald Trump an open mic for a year and a half, most american news outlets have spent the day showing footage of Richard Spencer giving a speech at a white nationalist conference in praise of Trump. What could go wrong?!

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 23 2016 14:07

A short 'Post Trump' response from 'Internationalist Perspective' adds to some of the common points made elsewhere on this thread with some historical comparisons perhaps better judged by other USA comrades and some informed guesswork about the future:
http://internationalist-perspective.org/blog/2016/11/22/this-is-what-dem...

Topic locked