Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Surely a prohibitive favourite, since a] she is really well-known, b] her father was the governor and is Arkansas' second-most famous living former politician, and c] it's a deep-red state.

I don't think it has much to do with the candidate any more. Just the "team" they say they represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jimmygreaves said:

I don't think it has much to do with the candidate any more. Just the "team" they say they represent.

Just as it is over here. And it's at least partly due to social media. Back in the day, people may have discussed their voting behaviour with a few friends down the pub, but it was largely a private matter, of no great interest to the wider world. The current trend is to nail your colours to the mast on Facebook, and treat it like supporting a sports team - complete with aggressive opposition to the 'other side'. And once you've gone down that path, you're unlikely to admit to a change of heart - to the world or even to yourself. You're either on Team Blue or Team Red, and there's no nuance, no middle ground, no going back. It's a worrying development. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AXD said:

Would you care to elaborate? I know it says ‘borderline’ but I would like to know why you feel it being close to fascism.

Fascism is the marriage of corporate and state. The goose stepping nonsense is far beyond that and played again and again for us to obscure the reality of the closeness of modern societies to the definition of fascism.

Mandatory voting is the forced endorsement of those in power by the population. Given the neo-liberal doctrine by which things currently run (see the current Davos goings on), this in no way empowers the people, but simply results in a nice frock on a pig. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the question will have been asked many times in relation to Donald Trump...but is this normal?

Setting up an "Office of the former president" complete with what looks to a rip off of the presidential seal (is he allowed to use that anymore!?)

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-opens-his-office-of-the-former-president-in-florida-12199271

Quote

Donald Trump has begun his new venture following his stint in the White House - opening an office that will handle his duties as a former president.

Mr Trump has opened the 'Office of the Former President' in Florida, which will handle his duties in his official capacity as an ex-commander-in-chief, as well as aiming to further his administration's agenda.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I know the question will have been asked many times in relation to Donald Trump...but is this normal?

Setting up an "Office of the former president" complete with what looks to a rip off of the presidential seal (is he allowed to use that anymore!?)

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-opens-his-office-of-the-former-president-in-florida-12199271

 

Completely normal, every ex-president has one. It is tax-payer funded. One of the points of the Senate Trial is to remove from him his rights as a former President, like his $200,00 a year pension, the funding for his former Presidents Office, His $1mil a year travel allowance etc.

If he's convicted by the Senate, they can remove these from him, the only thing they can't remove is his Secret Service attachment, he can thank Obama for that, as prior to Obama's Executive Order, they could remove that too.

Former Presidents are still entitled to security briefings etc, this is one of the purposes of the Office of the Former President.

The really ironic thing is he can build a Presidential Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, villakram said:

Go read some history.

I have and lets get something straight. FIrstly, Mussolini was a believer in Marxist Economic Theory and secondly that means the state taking over control of buisness and NOT business taking over the State

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Completely normal, every ex-president has one. It is tax-payer funded. One of the points of the Senate Trial is to remove from him his rights as a former President, like his $200,00 a year pension, the funding for his former Presidents Office, His $1mil a year travel allowance etc.

If he's convicted by the Senate, they can remove these from him, the only thing they can't remove is his Secret Service attachment, he can thank Obama for that, as prior to Obama's Executive Order, they could remove that too.

Former Presidents are still entitled to security briefings etc, this is one of the purposes of the Office of the Former President.

The really ironic thing is he can build a Presidential Library

Wow, didn't know that. Amazing that they'd legislate to allow (and fund) an ex-president to continue to shout from the sidelines. Especially when he could run again in 4 years - impeachment not withstanding. They're basically paying for him to go on campaign for next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

Wow, didn't know that. Amazing that they'd legislate to allow (and fund) an ex-president to continue to shout from the sidelines. Especially when he could run again in 4 years - impeachment not withstanding. They're basically paying for him to go on campaign for next time.

That isn't what they are doing. There will be rules as to what the state funding can be used for. But this being Trump he could but in American political funding terms the money is chicken feed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, villakram said:

Fascism is the marriage of corporate and state. The goose stepping nonsense is far beyond that and played again and again for us to obscure the reality of the closeness of modern societies to the definition of fascism.

Mandatory voting is the forced endorsement of those in power by the population. Given the neo-liberal doctrine by which things currently run (see the current Davos goings on), this in no way empowers the people, but simply results in a nice frock on a pig. 

 

How is that? Would politicians say 'everyone voted and I won, so they must like what I'm doing' as oppossed to the current 'people voted and I won, so they must like what I'm doing'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

I have and lets get something straight. FIrstly, Mussolini was a believer in Marxist Economic Theory and secondly that means the state taking over control of buisness and NOT business taking over the State

Is this strictly true? I'm happy to be corrected (and this may be something for another thread) but I thought that whilst Mussolini was originally a Socialist, by the time he had founded his newspaper and party, he'd denounced orthodox Marxism and deemed it a failure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bickster said:

I have and lets get something straight. FIrstly, Mussolini was a believer in Marxist Economic Theory and secondly that means the state taking over control of buisness and NOT business taking over the State

Yeah, but go and read some other history.....innit......

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this quite a fascinating read if you have a spare 15-20 minutes

Quote

How Early Trump Supporters Feel Now

The former president’s 2015 backers, in their own words

Now that Donald Trump’s presidency is over, how do the Americans who supported him at the beginning of his political run feel about his performance in the Oval Office? I put that question to 30 men and women who wrote to me in August 2015 to explain their reasons for backing his insurgent candidacy.

Among the eight who replied, all in the second week of January, after the storming of the Capitol, some persist in supporting Trump; others have turned against him; still others have lost faith in the whole political system. They do not constitute a representative sample of Trump voters. But their views, rendered in their own words, offer more texture than polls that tell us an approval rating.

The Atlantic

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bickster said:

First of the ex-Trump staffers out of the blocks is this wretch. See here her opening shot in her campaign to be Governor of Arkansas

As someone commented, Arkansas, if she's the answer, the question was f***ing stupid

If you watch this, I reccommend having a bucket close at hand

 

To be fair I think that is a very effective video, an example of how you can dress up right-wing Trumpian policies in a more political way that will convince any Republican voters that finally turned on the party to come back again.  It's probably more dangerous than if Trump or one of his vermin family tried to run again either as a Republican or independent as they would surely lose heavily.  I wonder what odds you can get for her running for President in 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bickster said:

I have and lets get something straight. FIrstly, Mussolini was a believer in Marxist Economic Theory and secondly that means the state taking over control of buisness and NOT business taking over the State

That is, respectfully, crying out for qualification. Please explain how Mussolini’s fascist Italy was based on Marxist economic theory, and indeed how Marxist exonomic theory can possibly be detatched from Marxism in general and reemerge in fascist colours with any meaningful degree of similarity? 
 

If it’s too far off topic for the thread, I’ll accept that, but that’s a pretty big statement you just made without any real explanation. 

Edited by Michelsen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mjmooney said:

You're wrong, @bickster's right. 

I have a degree in International History and Politics, btw. 

As pertains to saying corporate+state=communism, then I’m really not sure that he is. That is, as @villakram  says, basically the very definition of fascist economic theory (typically called corporatism or corporative statism). Communism, or Marxism, very much goes in the opposite direction as its ultimate goal is the perenially misunderstood concept of the dictatorarship of the proletariate. Very little marrying going on there, in the violent overthrow of capitalism, whilst the goal of fascism is obviously to supress the proletariate with the systematic criminalization of and active opposition to class struggle through fascist anti-democracy practices and corporative economic structures. 

Edited by Michelsen
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â