Donald Trump Has Broken the Mold of a Deeply Corrupt Political Order & Even If You Despise Him, You Should Be Grateful
DiscussiePro and Con
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1proximity1
Donald Trump Has Broken the Mold of a Deeply Corrupt Political Order & Even If You Despise Him, You Should Be Grateful
In evaluating the candidacy of Donald Trump we should consider something too easily overlooked.
The national press is now a full partner of the right -wing conservative political establishment and anything but a public tribune holding powerful people and groups to account. As such, the national press works together with political insiders to manage and manipulate the electoral processes starting from before candidates even announce their intentions.
The press softens up, primes, the public to dispose people to favor or oppose the potential candidates according to the whims of the people who are in the most powerful positions. This is a completely deliberate process.
Anyone who falls outside the strict norms of establishment criteria of what condtitutes a "good candidate," ( I.e. fully amenable to the needs and interests of the establishment) will be either ignored, written off as having no chance of being elected or will be maligned, attacked, lied about and demonized.
Had Trump not started out breaking all the conventional rules of campaign "good behavior," the press would have dismissed him with its usual tactics. It is only by his grabbing attention by his deliberately outrageous early campaign statements that he was able to break through the news media's noise-machine and capture the attention of the public.
There's a simple reason that the press allowed Trump such early exposure by giving his outrageous public comments heavy coverage: news editors and corporate press managers believed that they were giving Trump the means to self-destruct even as his behavior won a huge following by readers and viewers. In short, managers, editors and political pundits were caught completely off guard when, contrary to all their long-standing assumptions about their own use of public manipulation, their coverage of Trump's statements did not ruin his appeal--instead, for many, his breaking the rules helped secure and validate his place as a challenger to a widely despised political order regarded by many as hopelessly corrupt.
This, Trump had understood when the cream of the establishment's political analysts had failed to see it at all--until it was both very clear and too late.
In evaluating the candidacy of Donald Trump we should consider something too easily overlooked.
The national press is now a full partner of the right -wing conservative political establishment and anything but a public tribune holding powerful people and groups to account. As such, the national press works together with political insiders to manage and manipulate the electoral processes starting from before candidates even announce their intentions.
The press softens up, primes, the public to dispose people to favor or oppose the potential candidates according to the whims of the people who are in the most powerful positions. This is a completely deliberate process.
Anyone who falls outside the strict norms of establishment criteria of what condtitutes a "good candidate," ( I.e. fully amenable to the needs and interests of the establishment) will be either ignored, written off as having no chance of being elected or will be maligned, attacked, lied about and demonized.
Had Trump not started out breaking all the conventional rules of campaign "good behavior," the press would have dismissed him with its usual tactics. It is only by his grabbing attention by his deliberately outrageous early campaign statements that he was able to break through the news media's noise-machine and capture the attention of the public.
There's a simple reason that the press allowed Trump such early exposure by giving his outrageous public comments heavy coverage: news editors and corporate press managers believed that they were giving Trump the means to self-destruct even as his behavior won a huge following by readers and viewers. In short, managers, editors and political pundits were caught completely off guard when, contrary to all their long-standing assumptions about their own use of public manipulation, their coverage of Trump's statements did not ruin his appeal--instead, for many, his breaking the rules helped secure and validate his place as a challenger to a widely despised political order regarded by many as hopelessly corrupt.
This, Trump had understood when the cream of the establishment's political analysts had failed to see it at all--until it was both very clear and too late.
2RickHarsch
Yeah, Trump's a genius.
3lriley
FWIW for those 35 and under--television and newspaper non-journalism is a thing pretty much of a past--is being buried by online and usually much more independent and real journalism. It's just lots of older folks haven't caught on to that...yet. More and more will. 24-7 television news media doesn't focus all that much on real issues or substance---they do focus on personality and celebrity. Both Trump's and Clinton's political agenda in large part remains undescribed and under analyzed. We're to assume in Hillary Clinton's case that if she were to win that we'll get a mix of the best of the Obama/Bill Clinton administration. Those nostalgic for the highs of sky-rocketing Dow Jones averages leveraged off the trading away of American manufacturing and industrial jobs. Until fairly recently Bill Clinton being good for the economy has largely been an assumption of many democrats but it's an assumption that collapses when put in the broader perspective of deregulation and deindustrialization and the part all that played in the 2008 economic collapse.
For conservative voters we see in Trump their disillusionment towards the republican party elite/establishment. It's an elite/establishment that has played them for fools for decades but not this time around. This time the right wing electorate nominated a clown instead of just another lying/deceiving Ivy league bullshitter. Well?...to be honest I don't like Donald or right wing politics but I get it. He's not one of the elite/establishment and neither are they. The thing is he's not one of the electorate either--he's a billionaire used car salesman and he's offering not much more than pie in the sky.
We're also beginning to see something very interesting in some recent polls that have the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson at 10% in a national election--a Johnson pretty much sight unseen and sound unheard. That's really fucking astounding.
Sanders has always been the real choice to be made here. He's not going to win. I think the electorate and particularly the younger part of the electorate is moving to the left but not necessarily the left that the democratic party thinks it is. There are tons of them willing to be free agent--prove it to me leftists. I find that both comforting and encouraging.
For conservative voters we see in Trump their disillusionment towards the republican party elite/establishment. It's an elite/establishment that has played them for fools for decades but not this time around. This time the right wing electorate nominated a clown instead of just another lying/deceiving Ivy league bullshitter. Well?...to be honest I don't like Donald or right wing politics but I get it. He's not one of the elite/establishment and neither are they. The thing is he's not one of the electorate either--he's a billionaire used car salesman and he's offering not much more than pie in the sky.
We're also beginning to see something very interesting in some recent polls that have the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson at 10% in a national election--a Johnson pretty much sight unseen and sound unheard. That's really fucking astounding.
Sanders has always been the real choice to be made here. He's not going to win. I think the electorate and particularly the younger part of the electorate is moving to the left but not necessarily the left that the democratic party thinks it is. There are tons of them willing to be free agent--prove it to me leftists. I find that both comforting and encouraging.
5prosfilaes
Yep, because plutocrats with wild plans are so much less corrupt and scary than professional politicians in bed with people who have a vested interest in not causing too much chaos.
6BruceCoulson
At least, chaos on the home front. Keep in mind that many of the vested interests behind the politics as usual crowd are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo and current trends. Which is great if you're part of the wealthy class, but not so much for the rest of us.
7proximity1
>5 prosfilaes:
A fine example, if I needed one, of why I usually ignore the worthless bullshit you post.
But in this case I make an exception.
Trump is not a "plutocrat" in the sense of being a regular actor in the exercise of political power within the plutocracy. At most, he's a publicly-known figure within the class of plutocrats. Unlike Trump, the Koch brothers and others like them are regular political actors in the system and are rightly described as members of the political plutocracy.
And, as for Trump actually being a dangerous and worrisome example of a "corrupt and scary" candidate, Trump is, yes, as a matter if fact condiderably less "scary" than professional politicians in bed with people who have a vested interest in" what you call "not causing too much chaos," by which I suppose we're to understand you actually dare to mean Hillary Rodham Clinton.
A fine example, if I needed one, of why I usually ignore the worthless bullshit you post.
But in this case I make an exception.
Trump is not a "plutocrat" in the sense of being a regular actor in the exercise of political power within the plutocracy. At most, he's a publicly-known figure within the class of plutocrats. Unlike Trump, the Koch brothers and others like them are regular political actors in the system and are rightly described as members of the political plutocracy.
And, as for Trump actually being a dangerous and worrisome example of a "corrupt and scary" candidate, Trump is, yes, as a matter if fact condiderably less "scary" than professional politicians in bed with people who have a vested interest in" what you call "not causing too much chaos," by which I suppose we're to understand you actually dare to mean Hillary Rodham Clinton.
8theoria
The Harlequinade Candidate https://twitter.com/mikeryan/status/738965747557371904/photo/1
9lriley
#5---those politicians and the people they're in bed with can create a lot of chaos on their own.
I was watching Josh Fox---noted for his Gaslands documentary and he has a new movie out--How to let go of the world and love all the things that climate can't change.
Fox talked about global warming and the rising of sea levels which some day in the not very distant future might wash away many of our coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, New Orleans, etc. etc. As well about the numbers of coastal nuclear power plants--plants that would take 30 years to decommission--and if something is not done to stave off rising sea levels these power plants would be smack dab in the middle of those coastal cities being washed away and if anyone were to go back a few years to the Japanese power plant getting hit by a Tsunami--how did that work out?---and how it would it be if there was a chain reaction of multiple power plants one right after the other in the middle of a major evacuation?
Bernie Sanders has said that climate change is the biggest threat to not only the United States but the world. Hillary Clinton takes money from fracking companies. She's been for fracking and she's been for pipelines and she's been for building new fracked gas power plants---well many of the people she's in bed with are heavily invested in all that--so why wouldn't she be? For those who are comfortable with the status quo--with the corrupting influence of the rich and corporations on our political life--you're a major part of the problem.
To go a little further---there is a lot of methane leakage that comes from processing fracked gas. Methane leaked into the atmosphere is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Fracked gas is noted for his high levels of methane. If you wanted to warm the planet really fast you'd go to town on fracking gas---and we are. There is chaos coming from this maintaining of the status quo. It might not arrive during the next presidency but it's coming and doing nothing about it or giving lip service to environmental concerns while at the same time getting in bed with the oil and gas people is not putting off the day of disaster--it's going to make that day arrive much sooner.
I was watching Josh Fox---noted for his Gaslands documentary and he has a new movie out--How to let go of the world and love all the things that climate can't change.
Fox talked about global warming and the rising of sea levels which some day in the not very distant future might wash away many of our coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, New Orleans, etc. etc. As well about the numbers of coastal nuclear power plants--plants that would take 30 years to decommission--and if something is not done to stave off rising sea levels these power plants would be smack dab in the middle of those coastal cities being washed away and if anyone were to go back a few years to the Japanese power plant getting hit by a Tsunami--how did that work out?---and how it would it be if there was a chain reaction of multiple power plants one right after the other in the middle of a major evacuation?
Bernie Sanders has said that climate change is the biggest threat to not only the United States but the world. Hillary Clinton takes money from fracking companies. She's been for fracking and she's been for pipelines and she's been for building new fracked gas power plants---well many of the people she's in bed with are heavily invested in all that--so why wouldn't she be? For those who are comfortable with the status quo--with the corrupting influence of the rich and corporations on our political life--you're a major part of the problem.
To go a little further---there is a lot of methane leakage that comes from processing fracked gas. Methane leaked into the atmosphere is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Fracked gas is noted for his high levels of methane. If you wanted to warm the planet really fast you'd go to town on fracking gas---and we are. There is chaos coming from this maintaining of the status quo. It might not arrive during the next presidency but it's coming and doing nothing about it or giving lip service to environmental concerns while at the same time getting in bed with the oil and gas people is not putting off the day of disaster--it's going to make that day arrive much sooner.
