Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Turner]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/960492998734868480

"@realDonaldTrump "Little Adam Schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper! Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped!"

What a ridiculous mess that just goes on and on and on ...

[Christabel]

This horror show is courtesy of the 'liberal (regressive) left'.  This is what Trump is on about too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8usd6SN0giM

[bwv 1080]

This horror show is courtesy of the 'liberal (regressive) left'.  This is what Trump is on about too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8usd6SN0giM

yes, and New Zealand wont let disabled children immigrate with their parents, but we are the bad guys

[SimonNZ]

This horror show is courtesy of the 'liberal (regressive) left'.  This is what Trump is on about too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8usd6SN0giM

Heh. I don't think that Al Jazeera special comes to any of the same conclusions you do. Nor does it in any way show the rightness of the Trump agenda. Try watching it to the end instead of deciding from the title given by the uploader and the first few minutes that you've found something that supports your worldview.

Glad to see your sources are improving, though.

[SimonNZ]

Donald Trump says Democrats who didn't applaud during his State of the Union speech are 'treasonous'

"Donald Trump on Monday suggested that Democrats could be guilty of treason because of their reaction to his State of the Union address.

Trump complained during a speech in Ohio that Democrats had not applauded during his State of the Union. He said it was "un-American" of Democrats not to give him an ovation when he spoke about unemployment.

"Someone said 'treasonous.' I guess, why not?" Trump said. "Can you call that treason? Why not. They certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."

[amw]

Which particular "identities" lack political rights in America? If the critique of identity politics is laughable, how will identity politics specifically advance economic or political rights?

Well "identity politics" isn't real, it's just a term people use to talk about political movements they don't like. One such political movement people on the right are obsessed with is Black Lives Matter and the whole athletes protesting during sports games thing and so on. At its core though, that movement is one that seeks to liberate black Americans (and by extension everyone else) from the authoritarian power of the police force and justice system. Obviously the police kill, maim and imprison black people at disproportionately high rates in America, but the goal is not to free just the black prisoners and leave the rest in jail but to ensure that nobody is murdered on the street or locked in a cage and that the US Government is stripped of the structural power that allows it to do so with impunity.

Or for another example the right loves, transgender people in bathrooms. This one should be pretty straightforward for anyone who remembers why public accommodations were created for women (eg bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital wards, etc): until those things existed women could not fully participate in public life because of the risk of being attacked or harassed in or barred from existing bathrooms, hospital wards, etc. This is still an issue in parts of the developing world that don't have bathrooms or whatever for women or girls and therefore they are vulnerable to things like rape and this in turn prevents them from going to school or entering the workplace. Creating women's bathrooms was an important plank in the platform of the women's liberation movement. So obviously it's important within the transgender rights movement for similar reasons—creating safe school/work/housing/hospital/etc environments so that transgender people can participate in society without fear of violence.

I'm curious what economic program you advise to thread the difference between race-to-the-bottom capitalism and market socialism. Living in Asia, I can see how much improvement there is in some countries over the last decades and I wonder if this is a zero-sum game or if there is an alternative tide to lift all boats.

There is not a big difference between race-to-the-bottom capitalism and market socialism apart from that the former is planned by large corporate monopolies and the latter is planned by large state monopolies. The PRC is a good example of market socialism—certainly moving to a market-based system from the feudal system of the imperial days has lifted many people out of extreme poverty, but the largest benefits flow to a very small elite, the majority of people may have marginally more resources but less security, and most of the wealth entering the country is extracted from third world areas where conditions are getting drastically worse by the year.

I'm not sure there is a tide that "lifts all boats". Fossil fuel market socialism seems to work the best to lift people out of poverty without hurting anyone else (Venezuela, Norway) until the fossil fuels run out, and then it collapses pretty quickly (Venezuela). It seems likely that any system that actually improves people's lives is going to have to redistribute a lot of wealth and resources and have pretty hard limits on how much capital any individual or group is allowed to accumulate. That would lift most boats and sink a few that really shouldn't have been seaworthy in the first place.

[Todd]

liberalism...offers no alternative to fascism.

Of course it does.

There is not a big difference between race-to-the-bottom capitalism and market socialism apart from that the former is planned by large corporate monopolies and the latter is planned by large state monopolies.

What is "race-to-the-bottom capitalism"?  (The phrase "market socialism", like its first cousin Red Capitalism, always makes me chuckle.)

An overreliance on the word "monopoly" offers a too simplistic and misleading an analysis by several orders of magnitude.  Also, the phrase "third world" is a bit dated. 

[Daverz]

Donald Trump says Democrats who didn't applaud during his State of the Union speech are 'treasonous'

"Donald Trump on Monday suggested that Democrats could be guilty of treason because of their reaction to his State of the Union address.

Trump complained during a speech in Ohio that Democrats had not applauded during his State of the Union. He said it was "un-American" of Democrats not to give him an ovation when he spoke about unemployment.

"Someone said 'treasonous.' I guess, why not?" Trump said. "Can you call that treason? Why not. They certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."

[milk]

Well "identity politics" isn't real, it's just a term people use to talk about political movements they don't like. One such political movement people on the right are obsessed with is Black Lives Matter and the whole athletes protesting during sports games thing and so on. At its core though, that movement is one that seeks to liberate black Americans (and by extension everyone else) from the authoritarian power of the police force and justice system. Obviously the police kill, maim and imprison black people at disproportionately high rates in America, but the goal is not to free just the black prisoners and leave the rest in jail but to ensure that nobody is murdered on the street or locked in a cage and that the US Government is stripped of the structural power that allows it to do so with impunity.

Or for another example the right loves, transgender people in bathrooms. This one should be pretty straightforward for anyone who remembers why public accommodations were created for women (eg bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital wards, etc): until those things existed women could not fully participate in public life because of the risk of being attacked or harassed in or barred from existing bathrooms, hospital wards, etc. This is still an issue in parts of the developing world that don't have bathrooms or whatever for women or girls and therefore they are vulnerable to things like rape and this in turn prevents them from going to school or entering the workplace. Creating women's bathrooms was an important plank in the platform of the women's liberation movement. So obviously it's important within the transgender rights movement for similar reasons—creating safe school/work/housing/hospital/etc environments so that transgender people can participate in society without fear of violence.

There is not a big difference between race-to-the-bottom capitalism and market socialism apart from that the former is planned by large corporate monopolies and the latter is planned by large state monopolies. The PRC is a good example of market socialism—certainly moving to a market-based system from the feudal system of the imperial days has lifted many people out of extreme poverty, but the largest benefits flow to a very small elite, the majority of people may have marginally more resources but less security, and most of the wealth entering the country is extracted from third world areas where conditions are getting drastically worse by the year.

I'm not sure there is a tide that "lifts all boats". Fossil fuel market socialism seems to work the best to lift people out of poverty without hurting anyone else (Venezuela, Norway) until the fossil fuels run out, and then it collapses pretty quickly (Venezuela). It seems likely that any system that actually improves people's lives is going to have to redistribute a lot of wealth and resources and have pretty hard limits on how much capital any individual or group is allowed to accumulate. That would lift most boats and sink a few that really shouldn't have been seaworthy in the first place.

I think I've gradually become more boring. My left-of-center orientation boils down to stuff like universal healthcare (not even left-wing in some countries), affordable education, getting out of the drug war, protecting social security...I'd like to see some sensible criminal justice reforms in the States - perhaps with regard to the bail system and legal representation, and ending of the death penalty. I honestly don't know what stripping the government of "structural power" means. It's too abstract for me. I'm happy to now live in a country that doesn't have guns but I have no idea if it's even a possibility in the States. Maybe not. But I guess the "authoritarian power" of the police force comes down to having so many guns around. I disagree that identity politics isn't real. It seems to me that the left is a lot about stuff like "patriarchy," and that defeating Tump will hinge on a sensible alternative that has broad appeal. If I am being brutally honest, the BLM website seems like a lot of gobbledygook to me mixed in with some concerns I can certainly understand. I am always for freedom of people to express themselves however they choose but I think issues involving transgender people, perhaps 1/2 of 1% of the population, are not very important - so BLM's desire to "dismantle cisgender privilege" just seems obscure at best. I do agree that the distribution of wealth on planet earth is bizarrely out of whack but I don't know of any example of a place that has "redistribute[ed] a lot of wealth and resources" successfully. I've heard there is some law in Sweden that a CEO can only make so many times what the lowest worker is paid and maybe that's sensible. I don't know. I don't buy that trickle-down economics ever worked so I don't skew right. Still, the far left doesn't convince me that they can either win or succeed at improving society. I'm certainly against the policing of words and ideas (and de-platforming) that seems to be fashionable amongst left-wing millennials.     

[bwv 1080]

I'm not sure there is a tide that "lifts all boats". Fossil fuel market socialism seems to work the best to lift people out of poverty without hurting anyone else (Venezuela, Norway) until the fossil fuels run out, and then it collapses pretty quickly (Venezuela). It seems likely that any system that actually improves people's lives is going to have to redistribute a lot of wealth and resources and have pretty hard limits on how much capital any individual or group is allowed to accumulate. That would lift most boats and sink a few that really shouldn't have been seaworthy in the first place.

Venezuela still has the largest oil reserves in the world, so running out of fossil fuels is not the source if its problems

You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it and improve peoples lives.  How does redistribution help a  society with per capita GDP in the hundreds of dollars like Niger or premodern Europe?

[SimonNZ]

Theresa May rebukes Donald Trump over NHS comments

Fox and Friends mischaracterizes NHS marches as anti-NHS. Trump of course tweets his pleasure in learning Britons hate NHS

.



"

[Florestan]

You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it and improve peoples lives.  How does redistribution help a  society with per capita GDP in the hundreds of dollars like Niger or premodern Europe?

I am reminded of Churchill's dictum: Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty., which is basically correct except that in socialism (I mean the real one as lived 24/7 for decades by hundreds of millions of people, not the one dreamed of, and talked about, by some spoiled offsprings of the Western bourgeoisie while drinking their whisky of choice or listening to their favorite op. 131/133) the ruling class, ie the party nomenklatura, is rich and powerful.

[Karl Henning]

I don't see how the US stock market falling back to the level it traded at way back in December 2017 constitutes "shattering long-term momentum"

Nor I.

[Karl Henning]

Careful, it's starting to sound as though you are gloating over financial losses.

No, I see the change reflected in my own accounts.

That said, it will be interesting to see how the Trump crowd managed to give Trump credit for the run-up and somehow blame Obama for the correction...

Just like Fearless Leader:  he takes credit only for the good, all the bad, thanks, Obama.

[SimonNZ]

Hannity blames stock market slide on Obama

[Karl Henning]

(I mean the real one as lived 24/7 for decades by hundreds of millions of people, not the one dreamed of, and talked about, by some spoiled offsprings of the Western bourgeoisie while drinking their whisky of choice or listening to their favorite op. 131/133)

Oh, you do not understand the People's Republik of Cambridge at all, at all 

[Karl Henning]

Hannity blames stock market slide on Obama

Yes!!!

[Florestan]

Oh, you do not understand the People's Republik of Cambridge at all, at all 

I do confess scratching my head over it.   

[Christo]

socialism (I mean the real one as lived 24/7 for decades by hundreds of millions of people, not the one dreamed of, and talked about, by some spoiled offsprings of the Western bourgeoisie

In much of Western & Central Europe, democratic socialists were the leading political movement of the 20th century; after WWII together with christian democrats (liberals mostly in third place). Basically, this has been and still is the composite of the European Parliament til the present day. In other words: socialists and christian democrats were for 20th century Europe what liberalism had been during the 19th century: the backbone of constitutional democracy. (In the late 20th century, democratic socialists showed a tendency to call their parties "social-democrat" for this reason; which I always found confusing, as this was the very name used by pre-WWI revolutionary socialists and communists). To discredit this democratic legacy thus lightheartedly isn't very wise IMHO, especially now that we're witnessing decidedly anti-democratic forces once again. 

[Florestan]

(In the late 20th century, democratic socialists showed a tendency to call their parties "social-democrat" for this reason; which I always found confusing, as this was the very name used by pre-WWI revolutionary socialists and communists).

The Social Democratic Party of Germany, established 1863. (incidentally, a SPD government crushed mercilessly the 1918-19 Communist uprising in Germany)

The Social Democratic Party of Austria, established 1899.

The Social Democratic Party of Finland, established 1899.

The Social Democratic Party of Sweden, established 1889.

The Social Democratic Party of the Romanian Workers, established 1893 (incidentally, outlawed by the Communists in 1947, many of its leaders imprisoned, some of them died in jail)

Is this your idea of "late 20-th century"? 

To discredit this democratic legacy thus lightheartedly isn't very wise IMHO, especially now that we're witnessing decidedly anti-democratic forces once again. 

If that's how you understood my post, then you should read (and think) again.

Anyway, it's interesting that you talk about "democratic socialists", thus obliquely acknowledging that there are also "undemocratic socialists". It's the latter I was referring to, in case a second reading of my post still doesn't make sense to you. FWIW, I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania.