https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/...son-of-brexit/Elites (outside of populist right-wing circles) aggressively unified across ideological lines in opposition to both. Supporters of Brexit and Trump were continually maligned by the dominant media narrative (validly or otherwise) as primitive, stupid, racist, xenophobic, and irrational. In each case, journalists who spend all day chatting with one another on Twitter and congregating in exclusive social circles in national capitals — constantly re-affirming their own wisdom in an endless feedback loop — were certain of victory. Afterward, the elites whose en lement to prevail was crushed devoted their energies to blaming everyone they could find except for themselves, while doubling down on their unbridled contempt for those who defied them, steadfastly refusing to examine what drove their insubordination.
The indisputable fact is that prevailing ins utions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much — when they caused a ruckus — and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.
“both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years.” Bevins went on: “Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.”
Truth tbqh
And its the elites who are creating d confrontation
Between the crackalakaz vs the purple haired emo s
And the stupid lemmings too stupid to realize they being played on both sides
All of these hindsight liberal think pieces are nice and all but are we going to see any written from the conservative perspective about how the best they could do for the working class was a buffoonish reality TV star?
I'm a little tired of only seeing introspection from one side after the most embarrassing two-sided Presidential race in the modern era.
Last edited by Spurminator; 11-11-2016 at 01:02 AM.
1. Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find — everyone except themselves — for last night’s crushing defeat of their party.
You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it’s impossible to express in words.
When a political party is demolished, the principal responsibility belongs to one en y: the party that got crushed. It’s the job of the party and the candidate, and nobody else, to persuade the citizenry to support them and find ways to do that. Last night, the Democrats failed, resoundingly, to do that, and any autopsy or liberal think piece or pro-Clinton pundit commentary that does not start and finish with their own behavior is one that is inherently worthless.
What introspection do you want to see from the winning side?
Electing Trump was little more than throwing a Molotov tail in to the room.
Trash isn't a Molotov tail. He's not a disrupter. Noting For The People will come from him.
He's an elitist 0.1%er, an establishment insider, he will sign every pro-1% / anti-99% bill the Repug Congress sends him, and that is ALL the Repugs will send him.
He feels no obligation
His only sociopathic objective is the glorification and enrichment of himself, which is exactly the ethics of the current establishment (both parties): running for office to get (more) wealthy.
There's no way the 99% can get to 60 (or even 51 after the Repugs kill the filibuster bull ) in Senate or 218 in House, couldn't even get 1/4 of that.
If the people can't get control of the legislatures, they can't transform the system in their favor, For The People.
In the next couple year, the Repugs will up SCOTUS with more VRWC prick worse than their current 4, a up that will last DECADES, AND be out of the reach of The People. Not wild to assume SCOTUS will be 6 VRWC - 3 progressive by 2020.
America has been for a couple decades what has been the case for 1000s of years, a few powerful, wealthy men controlling society to maintain/increase their own power and benefit. Tribe, oligarchy, royalty (+ corrupt Religions), dictator/autocrat.
And they want EVERYTHING that they don't already have:
taxpayer cashflow $Ts diverted from public schools to for-profit corporate schools,
$Ts of citizen retirement funds diverted from SS to BigFinance thieves.
I've been telling you people, America (of the 99%) is ed and un able.
And it ain't gonna just "swing back". The 1% has grabbed the pendulum on their side, and they ain't lettin go.
The Trash voters who foolishly, ignorantly voted Trash as some kind savior with kingly powers also voted in nearly every Repug in bent, while voting out a few "moderate" Repugs, replaced with extreme rightists.
"the most telling number this year was voter income—and yes, economic anxiety."
Democrats do still win overall with low-income voters. But the key lies in the difference between 2016 and 2012: Trump did better with this bloc than Romney had in 2012. Despite several unconvincing and contorted analyses suggesting that Trump’s voters did not suffer from economic hardship, in the end
Trump enjoyed a 16-point advantage over Romney among those earning less than $30,000 a year.
He also performed 8 points better than Romney among those making $30,000 to $50,000 annually.
Regardless of what may have driven Trump voters emotionally, overall turnout was down, particularly among core Democratic groups. Trump received 1.2 million fewer votes than Mitt Romney and 300,000 less than John McCain, but
Clinton received a full 10 million fewer votes than Obama had in 2008.
it’s worth noting that liberal populist ballot measures won big in much of America, including in red and purple states.
It’s clear that there is still a hunger for issue-oriented progressive politics in America.
Trump has been a successful con artist his entire life,
and most voters don’t delve into an election’s policy details.
Most only knew that Trump promised to “make America great again,”
http://prospect.org/article/trump-may-be-sexist-and-racist-%E2%80%99s-not-only-reason-he-won
Trash will not make America Great Again for his conned, duped, ignorant, desperate voters.
Yet electinh ler would have been like throwing a molotov tail into a gas tanker parked next to the room
So now that the Republicans won, we're just going to forget about what a disaster other high ranking republicans said he would be? Winning is everything, now it's business as usual?
If you say so.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...inton-liberalsPut this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.
The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these Democrats are the “last thing standing” between us and the end of the world. It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!
Repugs were pissed they didn't get one of the tools as candidate, but they are hyper pleased that they kept control of Congress AND got a Useful Idiot, easlily manipulable now that his ego is happy, in the WH who will sign everything they send him.So now that the Republicans won, we're just going to forget about what a disaster other high ranking republicans said he would be? Winning is everything, now it's business as usual?
If you say so.
How many vetoes, IF ANY, will Trash sign in 4 years?
This is just my personal read on the situation, but I don't view this as a Republican win. I know people like Paul Ryan are clinging to Trump to save their necks, but I view his election as much a repudiation of the Republicans as the Democrats. I think that's the idea behind Moore's molotov tail comment.So now that the Republicans won, we're just going to forget about what a disaster other high ranking republicans said he would be? Winning is everything, now it's business as usual?
If you say so.
Those Republicans were consistently and aggressively wrong throughout the entire campaign. Even worse, they tried their hardest to undermine their own party's nominee because he wasn't their choice. Why should they be listened to? As far as I'm concerned, they can either swallow their pride and work with Trump or get the out.So now that the Republicans won, we're just going to forget about what a disaster other high ranking republicans said he would be? Winning is everything, now it's business as usual?
If you say so.
Those neocons didn't care about everyone else's feelings when they took over our party. So why should we give a about theirs now that we've reclaimed it?
any molotov tail didn't burn the Repugs. They now control all three branches, a "repudiation" the Dems would love to be afflicted with.
Paul Ryan may be ousted by the Freedom Caucus like Boner was. At very least they will continue to give him .
Micheal Moore is a liberal version of Glenn Beck. They're both ing grievance mongers. They make a fortune off of flat-earthers and end-of-worlders. They've both been pimping Armegeddon, in one way or another, for decades. I always think it's funny when people like that scream about the evil rich people who are ruining the world, while they count their stacks of cash. And there are always sheep out there willing to follow them.
The only think Jabba The ing Hut has ever been right about is that this election was the biggest " You" in history.
They'll get their tax cuts, Obamacare is done, and Medicare probably is too. They'll get another Scalia on the bench. This is an enormous win for the Republicans.
I'm not a Moore fan at all (Fahrenheit 9/11 was such a paranoid piece of ) but he made a convincing case about where the rust belt stood and he was absolutely right.
I got as far as his ty fiction on the 2000 election, and then the big ing deal he made out of Bush reading to children when the first WTC tower went down, and I left. I'm not fan of Dubya, but that was some stupid he was trying to sell. Seriously Pravda-level . Like a Little Golden Book for socialists.
He's a grievance monger. He's gotten filthy rich, and filthier fat, off of feeding fairy tales to willing adults. I admit to not watching the whole thing, but your comment about the "rust belt" sounds like his style. He specializes in demonizing segments of the population, to whip the lemmings into a frenzy. "It's all those stupid people in the Midwest and the south that are the real enemy here." Not like the brain surgeons in Compton.
Walk into any grocery store, book store, Starbucks, or courthouse in any city in the country and you'll find a pretty evenly-distributed share of ignorance. Moore's specialty is to give one group of ignorant people reason to be mad at another.
He never said they were stupid or tried to demonize the rust belt. Now you're strawmanning his argument.
Actually he does. All the time. A lot of it is by inference, but there's no doubt what he's inferring. I admitted that I didn't watch the whole of Farenheit, so don't throw that in my face. But his body of work in incredibly consistent, and he doesn't hide what he's getting at - ever. What I said was that pointing his attention at the "Rust Belt" would be consistent with his shtick.
You're trying to make a reasoned argument, at least, so I don't mind agreeing to disagree. But you have to admit that Michael Moore going to Occupy protests, and condemning "those one-percenters" is almost too ironic for words.
I don't think it is. The "one-percenters" was a stupid catchphrase since it tries to make anyone wealthy seem corrupt, but protesting Wall Street and financial innovation crashing our economy was justified.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
