- This topic has 38 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
If English has any meaning, it’s pretty obvious what Trump was saying. Look at the context. Look at the word order. He is talking about a Clinton presidency. The voting has already happened. She now gets to name judges. He says there is noting you can do about it at that point — except for “second amendment people.” They, unlike actual sane Americans, might nullify the election using “second amendment remedies.”
That latter term is already in the air, and Sharon Angle wasn’t or isn’t alone in saying it on the right. That term was also “coy” in a sense, passive-aggressive, cowardly, as was Trump’s entire speech. Cowardly, especially, because he (and she) didn’t have the guts to spell out their desire to assassinate fellow Americans who just don’t interpret the second amendment as they do. Passive-aggressive in that they want to appear to talk tough without actually having the courage to go for it.
Everyone knows what he was saying, if they’ve been paying any attention to the far right in America in recent decades. No one was fooled by his trademark “I don’t know”. And it really doesn’t matter at all if Trump (himself) wants assassinations of judges or HRC to occur. He put it out there for consumption, in a context of fearmongering about something that NO Democrat would ever do:
Get rid of the truly vile, racist and totally unnecessary second amendment, which has never given any individual America the “right” to “keep and bear arms” outside the context of state militias — which no longer exist. No Dem has ever talked about getting rid of it. None would. And no gun control legislation goes against it as written or interpreted for more than two centuries.
OK, I’m saving that post. I cut it and pasted it in a folder.
The polls all show Trump losing big.
So, we will see in what, three months?
Here’s where you are wrong imho, bnw — You think the undecideds
are as angry at the system as the rightwingers. They are not.
And they are not as white or as male, either.w
vThere is another factor in play, WV, IMO. Leftists. I think leftists are more angry at the system than any rightwinger. From decades of discussing these things with arch-righties, they really don’t want wholesale changes to the system. They just want it to return to the way they think it used to be. We, OTOH, want a completely new framework, and an end to capitalism, if we’re in that camp.
We want full on democracy, inside and outside the workplace.
Righties don’t. They want capitalism unleashed. They want the “good old days” of the 1890s and the first Gilded Age . . . or, if they’re of the neo-confederate persuasion, pre-Civil War. If they’re of the minarchist persuasion, they want it unleashed with just a “night watchman’s” government in place . . . All of which would lead to far, far less democracy, far, far more inequality and injustice, etc. etc.
But, they’d have their unfettered, unrestrained businesses, guns and Jesus. And Ayn Rand.
Trump will win. For some of the very reasons mentioned in this thread, mainly he’s not the establishment.
I surface long enough to say this (without debating it) then go back under. And I am still cranky.
Yeah he is. He is a typical republican right-wing version of all the establishment stuff. And therefore much worse. Fight women’s choice, make the rich richer through tax policies, deny climate science, promote white nationalism, cut back corporate taxation. He is a supply side type who wants to increase economic inequality, fight gun control, fight police reform etc.. He will have a right-leaning supreme court and will always be saying stupid things (which is why I am baffled at this idea that he’s “trying to lose” recently. He’s no different now than he ever was. Nothing has changed.)
He’s just a particularly ignorant and outspoken version of all that, as a personality. But then not that much more ignorant than GW II. But his republican style economic policies alone will virtually guarantee the lives of the majority will be worse, whereas the dem version of economic policy will actually fix some of that.
Some of my leftist friends don’t see all that but then mostly we’ve been discussing personalities and not policies so it’s easier to not see things that way.
In fact I suppose I will just have to start some policy threads and see if anyone contributes to them.
And you’re wrong as you have been from the beginning about Trump. Consistently. That is what fascinates me about his detractors. They ‘know’ yet they are always proven wrong. It is a real movement for change. The entire establishment is against him yet you claim he is the establishment? That makes no sense. The establishment is threatened to its core by a Trump presidency while Hildabeast in office keeps them fat, happy and very much in control. The change agent in 2016 is Trump.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
Unlike you I don’t buy into the lie. The polls showing him down double digits I do not believe for a second. The establishment is throwing everything against him and it won’t work. Especially the race baiting you bring into every discussion. Obama benefited from it to especially the blacks detriment. Trump stays on message about jobs and Hildabeast criminality he won’t lose.
He is the establishment, bnw. He’s benefited tremendously from being a part of that establishment, getting away with stuff you and I could never do, like refusing to make payments on massive loans and eventually shafting his workers and creditors. Another case of this has just cropped up. Hannity lied about Trump helping out some marines back in 1991:
Too good to check: Sean Hannity’s tale of a Trump rescue
And that “focus on jobs”? What is it, exactly? He has never come out with a plan to add even one single new job, anywhere. But he has told us he’s going to slash the tax rates for himself and his billionaire friends, and put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of his heirs.
There is literally nothing new in his trickle down scheme. It’s warmed over Laffer, Cheney, Reagan/Thatcher, Bush (neoliberal) nonsense, and it’s never worked for anyone but the super rich.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
