Trump's Suicide Mission

Zooey wrote:

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/06/trumps-suicide-mission-he-is-not-trying-to-destroy-his-own-campaign-the-destructive-urge-he-represents-is-much-bigger-than-that/?scrlybrkr

This is interesting.

There is something rough about the ideas in here. It doesn’t seem completely convincing as it stands, but the idea behind the article intrigues me somewhat. I can’t quite put a finger on what appeals to me here, and what just doesn’t seem to click into place. It’s like an unfinished conversation at the end of the evening in a bar, I guess.

That is a good article, Zooey. Thanks for linking to it. You probably already know this, especially with your background, but O’Hehir is a really good movie critic too. Very astute at picking up on hidden gems among foreign and indy films, or pointing us in the direction of films we should know about that are well-known in other countries.

Anyway . . . his overall picture of America made me think of Rick Moody’s Purple America and pretty much everything by Don DeLillo. America really is in big trouble, and he’s right to say the Dems aren’t helping matters with that happy happy joy joy nonsense, though it’s preferable to the GOP’s End of Days rhetoric.

There is, of course, no “happy medium.” But we’re somewhere between our best and an actual Armageddon. Perhaps too close to the latter for comfort, but it’s not happening for the reasons given on Fox news, Breitbart, Alex Jones or Trump.

Neither party has the answers. None of our “leaders” do. In short, we’re rudderless. Maybe that’s something we can work with?

As we meander towards November, the race for the biggest liar is turning into the vicious nudge near Newark.

Latest left hook landed tonight by NY Times. Can the Donald land another right to Hillary’s soft mid-section? Can Trump keep his toupe from denting? Will he smote her crookedness viciously and with extremeness again tomorrow? Will he be able to keep our national secrets? Perhaps the start of the NFL season save us all?

Just more interesting stuff. “http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/trump-chris-christie-casinos.html?_r=0′

By the time Chris Christie became governor of New Jersey, the state’s auditors and lawyers had been battling for several years to collect long-overdue taxes owed by the casinos founded by his friend Donald J. Trump.

The total, with interest, had grown to almost $30 million. The state had doggedly pursued the matter through two of the casinos’ bankruptcy cases and even accused the company led by Mr. Trump of filing false reports with state casino regulators about the amount of taxes it had paid.

But the year after Governor Christie, a Republican, took office, the tone of the litigation shifted. The state entertained settlement offers. And in December 2011, after six years in court, the state agreed to accept just $5 million, roughly 17 cents on the dollar of what auditors said the casinos owed….

• This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by sdram.

Well, he had some interesting words, but all-in-all, I’d give the article a C-

He noticed some problems but he never traced any of it to corporate-capitalism. The C word was absent from the article. Not one singe mention of the C-word.

As for this, you could say it about Reagan, Bush…ya know:
“…Trump traffics in pseudo-uplifting nostrums about making America great again and how much “we” will “win” once he is president…”

———-
As for this, he seems to be blaming the poor. No mention of the ‘system’ that might be implicated in all this ‘obesity’ :
“…America is experiencing a health crisis on an enormous scale — a crisis that is simultaneously physical, psychological and spiritual… For starters, this crisis encompasses epidemic rates of obesity and epidemic rates of suicide, dramatic evidence of a wealthy country that is literally killing itself. It’s about a nation of worsening social isolation and individualized info-bubbles and pathological delusion, a nation that spends more per capita on healthcare than any other major Western power to achieve worse outcomes, and where Baconator Fries are $1.99 at Wendy’s…”

————–
This was interesting. Didn’t know this:

“….about 70 percent of the Americans who kill themselves are white men. Middle-aged white men with lower incomes are at particular risk — the group most likely to support Trump, and to express the incoherent racial and societal grievances he has channeled so expertly. (For reasons that are not entirely clear, blacks and Latinos are much less likely than whites to commit suicide.)

Some researchers have identified a troubling spike in preventable and more or less self-inflicted death among lower-income white people in America, the group that provides nearly all Trump’s support. This phenomenon includes suicide, alcohol poisoning, liver disease and drug overdoses, closely related to the waves of prescription-drug abuse and heroin addiction now visible in virtually every suburban or exurban community across North America….”

————-
Now, here he comes close to actually recognizing the C-system might have something to do with all this. But he cant use the C-word. He has to use “electronic consumer society”. Now what exactly is ‘that’ ? Is he blaming the ‘consumers’ ?

“…I’m saying that the state of borderline psychosis produced by electronic consumer society leads to OxyContin addiction and Baconator Fries and a suicide epidemic and Donald Trump. Those things are not all the same, but they are interconnecte

…Fox News viewers believe that Muslims, feminists and gays have joined forces to abolish the Constitution and institute Sharia law; MSNBC viewers believe a cabal of hateful bigots and the super-rich are conspiring to roll back all social reforms since roughly World War I. But the physical landscape of America, with its intense isolation and intense socioeconomic and racial segregation, creates competing realities as well.”
================

w
v

I think that Trump may be doing something even worse.

He’s sort of hijacking a progressive message, at least on some issues–and in the future when a true progressive brings up things like trade or companies leaving the United States not being rewarded for that, people will roll their eyes and say, “Trump.”

When he says some of the same things Bernie says–lobbyists, etc. he may be somewhat killing that message by making it come from the mouth of a crazy guy. Maybe this is even intentional. Maybe he is a Clinton plant. Probably not–he’s probably just using what works for him.

But you have to wonder.

bnw wrote:

Trump is most closely following Pat Buchanan’s 2000 campaign and his earlier campaigns and the Reform Party campaigns of Perot.

—————
Well, not everyone agrees that Trump and Perot are similar:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/8/1512900/-Donald-Trump-Is-No-Ross-Perot

At any rate, why will Trump succeed when Perot
and Buchannon failed?

w
v

w
v

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

Trump is most closely following Pat Buchanan’s 2000 campaign and his earlier campaigns and the Reform Party campaigns of Perot.

—————
Well, not everyone agrees that Trump and Perot are similar:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/8/1512900/-Donald-Trump-Is-No-Ross-Perot

At any rate, why will Trump succeed when Perot
and Buchannon failed?

w
v

w
v

Trump will fail because his unabashed white nationalist appeals will fail. Most of the country rejects them. Perot never went there, though I have no idea what his personal views on the matter are. But Trump has stoked up the racist fears, resentment and rage of white Americans in order to build his base, and with the new addition of Bannon from Breitbart, this is all on the table now. Trump’s merger with the Alt-Right tells us in no uncertain terms that he’s chosen white supremacy and white nationalism as his vehicle to the White House.

Zooey wrote:

Trump, who is on to something, will still probably fail to win simply because he’s an asshole.

So we can debate his opinions all we want, but the plain truth is that he expresses his opinions in such an irresponsible way that many people will refuse to vote for him.

————–

He’s toast. He’s Linehan. Remember when Linehan was losing the team
he kinda tried to change his style a bit, near the end. Trump is doing that.
Its a sure sign of desperation.

It is done. President Hillary Clinton.

I’m hoping Jill breaks five percent. I’d like to see that.

w
v

wv wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Trump, who is on to something, will still probably fail to win simply because he’s an asshole.

So we can debate his opinions all we want, but the plain truth is that he expresses his opinions in such an irresponsible way that many people will refuse to vote for him.

————–

He’s toast. He’s Linehan. Remember when Linehan was losing the team
he kinda tried to change his style a bit, near the end. Trump is doing that.
Its a sure sign of desperation.

It is done. President Hillary Clinton.

I’m hoping Jill breaks five percent. I’d like to see that.

w
v

Trump draws crowds in the tens of thousands everywhere while Hildabeast can’t fill a school gymnasium. Get used to it. President Trump!

Another key here (IMO). Trump is only within striking distance to begin with because of Clinton. Had the Dems nominated any of a dozen other candidates, Trump would now be so far behind, he would have given up months ago. I think a Warren or a Biden would be crushing him right now, for instance. Not that they necessarily represent my own views, though they’re closer to them than Clinton’s. They just don’t have her baggage. And it’s that baggage that enables Trump to “only” be down by roughly 7 points nationally, with no real chance in the electoral college as things stand. As things go right now, it looks like HRC doesn’t even need to win the swing states in order to get to 270.

In short, the Dems picked the wrong year to nominate a Clinton. With a shattered, reeling GOP, a better candidate would have given the Dems Congress too. With HRC, they likely get the White House and the Senate, but then probably lose the Senate again in 2018. A different Dem would likely get them the White House, Congress and keep the latter throughout their first term at least.

ZN,

On policy: Clinton used the State department to ram American capitalism down the throats of several Central and South American nations, forcing open their commons. Ongoing “primitive accumulation,” etc. etc. (which Marx erroneously thought would end in the 19th century). Of course, she’s not the first to do this. It’s been SOP for our government for generations. But if she wanted to go against the neoliberal tide, she could have ended the practice.

She also has a very hawkish record on war and empire. Again, this is policy, not personality. This is her record, not the fever-swamp creation of the far right.

Her coziness with Wall Street is also her record, not a matter of personality or just right-wing smears — though they definitely have their own version of that coziness.

In short, I think there IS a way to separate “personality” issues, right-wing smears and fever-swamp attacks from her own reality as a public figure. I’m no expert on the subject, and don’t pretend to be. But I have read (and seen) enough — and broadly enough — to make me not like her policy record. Though I think her husband’s is worse, and he obviously had far greater power to implement his vision, etc. etc. Though he was also subject to insane attacks from the right.

IMO, the Clintons really are unique when it comes to baggage they bring to the table — and that’s after we remove the Scaife-led attack machine and all its competitors for abject lunacy. That’s after we remove the irrelevant aspects of “personality.”

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

ZN,

On policy: Clinton used the State department to ram American capitalism down the throats of several Central and South American nations

You mean she acted no differently than any other american regime has for decades (and wasn’t even the chief policy-maker unless we think Obama had nothing to do with it.)

Remember I was hotly and bitterly decrying that stuff, specific to south and central america, in the first round of huddle political debates back in early/mid 2000. So, yeah.

To me a policy discussion is balanced, well-rounded, complete, and addresses all policies including economic and so on. It’s dialectical. Even with Trump.

I mean no disrespect, BT, but I could repeat Hillary slams in my sleep by now.

That’s not what I mean by policy discussion.

ZN,

Did you miss where I said this?

Of course, she’s not the first to do this. It’s been SOP for our government for generations. But if she wanted to go against the neoliberal tide, she could have ended the practice.

And when you say this:

“I mean no disrespect, BT, but I could repeat Hillary slams in my sleep by now.

That’s not what I mean by policy discussion.”

What slams? Did I say anything that wasn’t true? And did I not differentiate between her actual policies and right-wing slams, plus “personality” issues? Um, yes, I actually did.

Here’s what I mean by policy discussion.

What would all 4 candidates approach all issues. Economic, social, legal (the courts) and so on. The list of issues would be complete, and it would include a look at all 4 on each issue. I would even toss in Sanders just for the sake of comparison (although, fuck Cruz…I would include Sanders, not him).

I am very good at being an outspoken left “ideologue” when I want to (I used the word in scare quotes with irony, finesse, and humor).

But I also know that everywhere I turn, including among my politically-engaged friends here in the real world, the policy discussion is lacking. I PERSONALLY (speaking just for myself) take that as being as empty as anything we get from national media. IMO it IS what we complain about most of the time.

I really could care less at this point if people hate Hillary, or Trump, or both. It’s starting to sound like inter-team fan sports discussion (“9ers suck.”)

I want to know what they will do if elected. All of it, to the extent that can be stated with any relative certainty. Taxes, for example. Education. Blah blah blah.

Hint: and that won’t or can’t come from just one person, and it won’t and can’t be about just one candidate.

…

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Another key here (IMO). Trump is only within striking distance to begin with because of Clinton. Had the Dems nominated any of a dozen other candidates, Trump would now be so far behind, he would have given up months ago. I think a Warren or a Biden would be crushing him right now, for instance. Not that they necessarily represent my own views, though they’re closer to them than Clinton’s. They just don’t have her baggage. And it’s that baggage that enables Trump to “only” be down by roughly 7 points nationally, with no real chance in the electoral college as things stand. As things go right now, it looks like HRC doesn’t even need to win the swing states in order to get to 270.

In short, the Dems picked the wrong year to nominate a Clinton. With a shattered, reeling GOP, a better candidate would have given the Dems Congress too. With HRC, they likely get the White House and the Senate, but then probably lose the Senate again in 2018. A different Dem would likely get them the White House, Congress and keep the latter throughout their first term at least.

Trump isn’t behind in the honest polls. His huge crowds attest to that. BTW business bankruptcies are not personal bankruptcy. While I do not agree with stiffing anyone for product or services rendered that is the law with which both parties in a transaction operate.

He’s behind in every poll.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

The above link shows all the major polling outfits.

Another aggregator:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Same thing. Trump is losing in every poll.

Huge crowds don’t show anything but diehard support. You can’t win general elections with just diehards. And you’re talking thousands of people in a nation of 321 million. Sanders had bigger crowds than Trump, and he lost to HRC.

Bankruptcies. Anyone with six to his name has no business being in business, and especially no business bragging about how awesome he is at business.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

He’s behind in every poll.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

The above link shows all the major polling outfits.

Another aggregator:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Same thing. Trump is losing in every poll.

Huge crowds don’t show anything but diehard support. You can’t win general elections with just diehards. And you’re talking thousands of people in a nation of 321 million. Sanders had bigger crowds than Trump, and he lost to HRC.

Bankruptcies. Anyone with six to his name has no business being in business, and especially no business bragging about how awesome he is at business.

No he isn’t. Rueters poll was BS since it polled 15% more registered democrats and thus showed Hildabeast up by double digits. The establishment is pulling out all the stops and only the naive will continue to believe the lie.

bnw,

I gave you the proof that he’s losing in all the polls. Do you have proof to the contrary? And, again, Trump IS the establishment. I have no idea why you think he’s this anti-establishment crusader who will go against the status quo. He’s supposed to be a billionaire, which makes him a plutocrat. He’s even more “establishment” than the Clintons. He’s not a threat to anyone in the ruling class. He’s a part of it.

And all of his policies would help his fellow plutocrats get much, much richer. He’d personally pocket tens of millions, as would his heirs and all of their ruling class buddies, just from his proposed tax cuts. And all the multinational corporations sending jobs overseas would also benefit from his massive tax cuts and deregulation.

I honestly don’t understand how you can see him as a champion for anyone but the 1%.