Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

[qldfrog]

There is something in what Obama said, but it's not the complete picture.

First, you can't say, because it is not true, that Trump is winning because he lies better and will be more confrontational against Democrats.

Yes it is factually true that Trump lies, and lies like a psycho... and yes, his supporters support him not knowing he lies. But the real reason they support and like Trump, is of his perceived outsider status; like him for wanting to bring the jobs back; for making America great again; for caring for the little guys; for fighting for them; savings their jobs from Mexicans and saving their children from Muslims.

It's true that the Republicans, from what I as a simple observer can see, just go against whatever it is Obama and Democrats want to do... But that's not why people support Trump. They don't support him because he'll make the gov't even more unworkable. They want him so that he could make the gov't work again, and working for them.

So I wouldn't be blaming the supporters, or the Republicans, or Trump, for people wanting a gov't that represents and work for their interests.
---

Obama came to power during the GFC... he got a great disaster, he got a country and a people behind him... he could change the entire trajectory of the country. He just didn't. Didn't do it because of opposition, sure; but a lot of it got to do with him picking bad advisors and following the money and winning elections than doing what is right by the common people.

I still think he's a decent guy wanting to do good. But fact is, he just don't do good and that's just moral cowardice.

IF I run a country for 8 years and the things that made it worst just got worst and the people that suffer just suffered more... I wouldn't be blaming other people for my administration's failures.

What's happening, I actually fully agree with all what luutzu says above, am I soon going to praise uncontrolled immigration and rejoice at the show of social integration and hopes brought by the benefits of diversity after the riots of this week end...

 

[luutzu]

Most people consistently over estimate the power of a US President in peacetime.

In wartime he has the authority to blow up the world but as far as domestic affairs are concerned he has to get legislation passed by Congress which has been controlled by his political opponents (in the House of Reps) for most of his Presidency.

So yes he can blame other people to some extent, just just Abbott and Turnbull blame our Senate for not passing their legislation.

True that the US is a sort of parliamentary gov't with branches of power - so power is divided among the few instead of the one true king. True too that from what we all can see, the Republican hasn't been debating and compromising so much as simply doing the opposite of Obama and their main mission, as Mitch McConnell or that dude that look like a turtle said, make the failure of Obama their main goal.

So yes, Obama couldn't get all he wanted partly because of those... BUT, but he is the president with all that power. He is the head of one arm of gov't. He is the only person who would sign and seal a Bill into Law... so he can't blame people.

That and from listening to Chomsky and other historians, such as Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader etc., Obama has been bought off and sold off to Big Business the moment he got into power. Much like Bill Clinton has.

For example, at the immediate aftermath of the GFC, Obama could have bailed both the big banks and the big corporations as well as bailing out small time homeowners. Instead some $800 billion, and then some more hundreds of billions that we don't know much about, are handed to big corporations and bankers to bail them out. And all but $1B, that's 1 out of at least 1000 Billion, were set aside for the homeowners.

Of that $1B, I think it was economist Stiglitz who said this, very very little was claimed by homeowners because the conditions attached made it almost impossible to claim.

So countless of American homeowners lost their home. Sure they are partly to blame for it too, but so were the bankers and financial wizards to almost crash the world... But one got bailed out, and got all the bonuses and then some while the mass of people got kicked out of their home and either rent some motel or live in car or set up a tent somewhere.

I've seen tent cities right now... not as large as during the Great Depression, but there are tents and cities fine or kick people out of it to clean up the place. Then there are empty houses decaying and people's wealth being wiped out from repocession of their home.

A lot could be done, as a lot had been done by Roosevelt, to balance and help the poor. But nope. As Obama's head economic advisor said, it is fair and we all must be civil and follow the contractual obligations to bail out and let CEOs of big banks that ruin everything, must let them have their bonuses for the year or two after because that was agreed to in their contract. But for the people and the pensioners whose savings were wiped out by those bankers? Free market and every man for himself, or something no one give a crap.

Then of course very little to no regulations that matters happen to stop it from happening. The bankers and corporations got bigger, their executive pays and compensation remain the same... and if they fail again, the public will foot the bill. But til then, they get to keep all the returns from all the high risks and "entrepreneurial" skills in finance they can muster.

---

Or take gun control. Seriously, how many crazy gun owners are there? Not as many as we are made to believe. Not as many as the more saner parts of America that would rather have some safety ahead of this liberty to carry and stuff. If Obama really wanted it fixed, he could. Make it hell for the republican and the gun lobby. Nope.

Or healthcare. As Chomsky said, it's practically written by the insurance industry itself. The public option, one like ours, were first put on the table but very quickly it was removed. Why? Most surveys have shown that the majority of the public want it, those that don't would probably want it once it's explained to them what it is. But it was remove from consideration because it benefits insurance companies to sell more insurance, benefit big pharma and private hospitals.

Or Guantanamo... Bush capture and torture them, Obama just drone them and create more enemies and hatred around the world. He probably it will put the fear of God into them but yea... fear and hatred is good for all our safety.


----

Then there's the water and poisoning of an American city... the crumbling infrastructures with not much being done about it... riots and mass shooting.

Sure we can't all blame Obama for it... but it's incredible how little progress was made to change the country's inequality and bring the poor hope when such promise and such disaster and public outcry will made it possible with some spine and some thought for the public good.

It wasn't easy for Theodore Roosevelt to crack down on monopolies. He did take donations from rich people to run for office... but once in he does what is right by the people. Sure he was also a warmonger...

anyway... poor form for a president to blame the opposition. At least use the old "i'm the boss so of course it is my fault" line. Meaningless but at least it sounds a bit better.

 

[McLovin]

Most people consistently over estimate the power of a US President in peacetime.

In wartime he has the authority to blow up the world but as far as domestic affairs are concerned he has to get legislation passed by Congress which has been controlled by his political opponents (in the House of Reps) for most of his Presidency.

So yes he can blame other people to some extent, just just Abbott and Turnbull blame our Senate for not passing their legislation.

It cuts both ways. The President can veto any bill he wants and then both houses need to pass it with a 2/3rds majority in order to by-pass the President. It's why Washington is in a permanent state of grid-lock these days. I think the US political system is totally broken.

It actually leaves you wondering what the purpose of a political HoS was in the minds of the framers of the US Constitution. Australia is, in many ways, the Washington with an apolitical HoS.

 

[wayneL]

Nice of you to acknowledge that the 'Left' is preaching tolerance.
?

Preaching yes, practising no.

 

[dutchie]

What's happening, I actually fully agree with all what luutzu says above, am I soon going to praise uncontrolled immigration and rejoice at the show of social integration and hopes brought by the benefits of diversity after the riots of this week end...

Nooooooo qldfrog. Don't go over to the dark side!

 

[luutzu]

What's happening, I actually fully agree with all what luutzu says above, am I soon going to praise uncontrolled immigration and rejoice at the show of social integration and hopes brought by the benefits of diversity after the riots of this week end...

qld, kuuuhhhhh shuuuhhhh, frog, kuuuhhh shuuhhhh. Come over to the darkkkk sideee. Kuuhhhh suuhhhh... come see that all Man are brothers. Kuuhhh suuuhhhh... See how we all butchered one another, kuuuhhhh suuuhhhh... regardless of race or colour or, kuuhhhh suuhhh religion.... kuuhhh suuuhhhh or state and territory of Austaya.

kuuuhhh suuhhhh... that we breathe.... kuuhhhh suuuhhhh... the same, kuuhhh suhhh... air. Dam it's getting hotter than usual under this black cape and helmet.

 

[basilio]

Another interpretation of Drumph. Some new ideas that are worth considering (IMO)

Donald Trump Poses an Unprecedented Threat to American Democracy
By Jonathan Chait
Follow @jonathanchait


Last month, I made the case that a Donald Trump nomination would be better for America than the nomination of one of his Republican rivals. I no longer believe that. I began to change my mind when a report circulated highlighting his 1990 interview with Playboy in which he praised the brutality of the Tiananmen Square crackdown

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...cedented-threat-to-democracy.html?wpsrc=nymag

 

[Knobby22]

Basilo
The Donald is there because of Democracy.
The truth is that the Republican party has lost its way.
Even many Hispanics are backing him.
Don't believe what Murdoch and the rest of the establishment want you to believe. The US people know better as they are used to the propaganda.

 

[luutzu]

Basilo
The Donald is there because of Democracy.
The truth is that the Republican party has lost its way.
Even many Hispanics are backing him.
Don't believe what Murdoch and the rest of the establishment want you to believe. The US people know better as they are used to the propaganda.

Hitler got there because of democracy too.

He consolidated power and became Dictator in some 53 days. I bet the German people back then didn't think their republic would ever settled for a dictatorship but ey, the guy made good speeches about glory and stuff and he got some 100 000 well dressed and mean looking soldiers behind him.

Though I think we're all hoping that Bernie Sanders would win the Democrats, take on Trump and maybe delay, or better yet, stop for a couple generations, the current spiral into violent revolt.

If Clinton win, it'll be just the same old crap and people are sick of it.

If Sanders win and he can't get anything done because of one reason or another... the American republic is going to head into serious trouble a decade or two down the track. Especially when their Middle region runs out of water and wars on all continents and also with China.

Not a good thing when you wage war on all fronts while your people are sick of you. And you know they're sick of you when even the Hispanics and Latinos would rather vote for a Trump than the other Latino candidate.

 

[Knobby22]

Hitler got there because of democracy too.

Not a good thing when you wage war on all fronts while your people are sick of you. And you know they're sick of you when even the Hispanics and Latinos would rather vote for a Trump than the other Latino candidate.

The Hitler thing is a furphy pushed quite hard by the "money". It doesn't equate.
Trump is now getting wall to wall advertising against him. Huge amounts of money to try to stop him getting in.
As you state, the people would rather vote Trump than the other Republicans because there is at least some chance he will act in their interests.

Trump is a poor choice but as stated by a Latino activist on the 7:30 report he is the only one who can break up the Republican establishment. Rubio won't.

 

[Tisme]

Basilo
The Donald is there because of Democracy.
The truth is that the Republican party has lost its way.
Even many Hispanics are backing him.
Don't believe what Murdoch and the rest of the establishment want you to believe. The US people know better as they are used to the propaganda.

Have we forgotten the foreign press being flummoxed by the perceived imbecile in our last Prime Minister elect? That worked out pretty well for us. We can debate the USA quality of leaders, but do we really have any credibility?

 

[Logique]

No less dangerous than Trump or Sanders if you ask me

Over the Hillary
Michael Copeman - March 13th 2016, http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/03/hillary/

Pity those poor Americans in this presidential election year. In one corner, the bizarre figure of Donald Trump. In the other, the woman who excused her husband's sexual predations, achieved nothing in the Senate and made cowardice her guide as Secretary of State. Some choice, eh?

Listening to one of Hillary Clinton’s stump speeches as she pursues the Democrats’ presidential nomination, you could be forgiven for suspecting that, taken at her word, she has been personally responsible for the liberation of women.

In truth, her vapid and dismissive response to Bill Clinton’s history of abusive affairs likely set the women’s movement back many years...

 

[Knobby22]

Didn't know you cared so much about women's rights Logique.
Oh well since Hilary has set them back so far everyone better vote for Trump. Does he still run Miss Universe?

 

[SirRumpole]

No less dangerous than Trump or Sanders if you ask me

Who cares really about Hilary and Bill's personal affairs ?

It's what she intends to do to/for the US that voters will vote for, or vote for Trump.

 

[Tisme]

I'm trying to work out why Trump is getting a bad rep

 

[luutzu]

The Hitler thing is a furphy pushed quite hard by the "money". It doesn't equate.
Trump is now getting wall to wall advertising against him. Huge amounts of money to try to stop him getting in.
As you state, the people would rather vote Trump than the other Republicans because there is at least some chance he will act in their interests.

Trump is a poor choice but as stated by a Latino activist on the 7:30 report he is the only one who can break up the Republican establishment. Rubio won't.

I know the media and Fox pundits tend to call everyone they don't like a Hitler, so that's a bit much. But whether Trump could be a Hitler or not who knows... he sounds like he'd make a good dictator though - perfect for the role.

I think we're comparing Trump to Hitler more on the fact that the current environment in the US is getting, it appear so anyway, dangerously ready for a fascist dictator.

It was only 5 years ago that Reich's documentary showed 400 people having the equivalent of half of American's wealth. Now it's 20.

Those big banks and big corporations that's too big to fail... just got bigger and control a bigger chunk of the country's financial assets.

That kind of concentration of wealth and power have serious consequences. One of it is not just the poor getting poorer and the so-called middle class is really the working poor now. But a major consequence is with so much wealth in so few hand, it's that much easier for a revolution.

When the mass of people don't have much to lose from the current system being overthrown, who's going to fight against the rebellions? They the people are the rebellion and them rich folks better hire mercenaries or something.

This kind of revolutions have happen many many times throughout history. And it happen because the masses aren't well served.

In a dictatorship and them third-world regimes... yea it's a bit tougher for the poor to rise up seeing how dictators tend not to care too much about cracking heads and all that. But in a "democracy" like the US, people can peacefully march on the streets and the country better change or else.

There's a recent Saturday Night Live skit about HIllary Clinton turning into Bernie Sanders - saying and adopting whatever he said that is now popular. It's for laughs but I'd imagine a lot of American won't find it too funny when they vote and watch as their jobs and their children's future get stuffed while the rich keep on getting richer and the poor across the country couldn't even drink water they actually paid for to the gov't.

There's only so much hate you can have for Muslims and Mexicans; only so much love you can have for guns and God. In the end, the belly talks and need to be filled. And if only 20 families' wealth are enough to redistribute the wealth, well let's hope they smarten up and spread it at their choosing rather than having it done for them like those European, Chinese monarchies and nobilities got their heads handed to them not too long ago.

Problem is, if Trump win the presidency, inequality will get worst. Same with Clinton. Sanders might not get much done either but if he fail, we don't really want a much weakened US with domestic disturbance against a rising China and all those enemies they created daily in other parts of the world.

 

[Knobby22]

Well written.
if Trump gets in he might act in the public's interest. That is why he is popular.

One part of the fascist definition which seems somewhat relevant to today's USA is:

Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. The aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[6] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[7] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.

 

[Tisme]

I know the media and Fox pundits tend to call everyone they don't like a Hitler, so that's a bit much. But whether Trump could be a Hitler or not who knows... he sounds like he'd make a good dictator though - perfect for the role.

I think we're comparing Trump to Hitler more on the fact that the current environment in the US is getting, it appear so anyway, dangerously ready for a fascist dictator.

It was only 5 years ago that Reich's documentary showed 400 people having the equivalent of half of American's wealth. Now it's 20.

Those big banks and big corporations that's too big to fail... just got bigger and control a bigger chunk of the country's financial assets.

That kind of concentration of wealth and power have serious consequences. One of it is not just the poor getting poorer and the so-called middle class is really the working poor now. But a major consequence is with so much wealth in so few hand, it's that much easier for a revolution.

When the mass of people don't have much to lose from the current system being overthrown, who's going to fight against the rebellions? They the people are the rebellion and them rich folks better hire mercenaries or something.

This kind of revolutions have happen many many times throughout history. And it happen because the masses aren't well served.

In a dictatorship and them third-world regimes... yea it's a bit tougher for the poor to rise up seeing how dictators tend not to care too much about cracking heads and all that. But in a "democracy" like the US, people can peacefully march on the streets and the country better change or else.

There's a recent Saturday Night Live skit about HIllary Clinton turning into Bernie Sanders - saying and adopting whatever he said that is now popular. It's for laughs but I'd imagine a lot of American won't find it too funny when they vote and watch as their jobs and their children's future get stuffed while the rich keep on getting richer and the poor across the country couldn't even drink water they actually paid for to the gov't.

There's only so much hate you can have for Muslims and Mexicans; only so much love you can have for guns and God. In the end, the belly talks and need to be filled. And if only 20 families' wealth are enough to redistribute the wealth, well let's hope they smarten up and spread it at their choosing rather than having it done for them like those European, Chinese monarchies and nobilities got their heads handed to them not too long ago.

Problem is, if Trump win the presidency, inequality will get worst. Same with Clinton. Sanders might not get much done either but if he fail, we don't really want a much weakened US with domestic disturbance against a rising China and all those enemies they created daily in other parts of the world.

Fess up luutzu, are there two of you writing posts and I don't mean Jekyll and Hyde?

 

[qldfrog]

but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.

in the same way here, I have nothing against billions of profit for rio/bhp/etc or woolworth as long as it serves the national interest.
The day Ford's interest dissociated from the US interest is when super profit inflated but also when the corporations signed their death sentences IMHO

 

[luutzu]

Fess up luutzu, are there two of you writing posts and I don't mean Jekyll and Hyde?

Oh ey, I was going to ask the same of you a few times. But manners and stuff got in the way

But no, there's only me, myself and I.

Quality and sentiment are generally fair and balance. Well, quality depends on time of day and day of the week...