The Trump phenomenon 2

243 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
The Trump phenomenon 2

Continued from here.

Issues Pages: 
mark_alfred

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trump-is-finished-trumpisms-here-...

Good article by Wente.  She argues that Trump is finished, given that he's crazy and the majority can see this.  But the circumstances of his getting as far as he did do need to change.

Quote:
The greatest danger in his defeat would be if both Republicans and Democrats decide they were right all along, and don’t need to change. Because if they don’t, another Trump will come along. And the next one might not be crazy.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that Trump originally got into the race to do a Newt Gingrich. He was a perennial candidate for President who usually made more in fundraising than he spent on campaigning while living the high life during the campaign. It is one of the ways that a politician can make money in their system. Money has corrupted their political system in a myriad of ways.

Quote:

In Presidential politics, winning is no longer everything.  

Especially for Newt Gingrich, who has used his run for President as a kind of savvy marketing campaign built around his political persona.

In the last five years the former Speaker of the House has lived a life of luxury built around his empire, including millions in private jet travel, paid for with donations to a political group he founded. Gingrich's lifestyle also includes a million-dollar home in suburban Washington and jewelry from Tiffany's.

"You can do very well by running for President," said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. "You don't always have to win."  

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newt-gingrich-win-make-money/story?id=1384...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that Trump originally got into the race to do a Newt Gingrich. He was a perennial candidate for President who usually made more in fundraising than he spent on campaigning while living the high life during the campaign. It is one of the ways that a politician can make money in their system. Money has corrupted their political system in a myriad of ways.

Well, there is a similarity, but the details differ. Gingrich was a small time grifter, looking for bigger marks to fleece for political donations which could be used to pay for his luxurious lifestyle. Trump, on the other hand, claimed to be worth $10 billion already, and promised to self fund his campaign. In his case, the scam was that he was increasing the value of his principal asset, his "brand". The price to put "Trump" in front of product X would hopefully increase significantly as a result of his campaign.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that Trump originally got into the race to do a Newt Gingrich. He was a perennial candidate for President who usually made more in fundraising than he spent on campaigning while living the high life during the campaign. It is one of the ways that a politician can make money in their system. Money has corrupted their political system in a myriad of ways.

Well, there is a similarity, but the details differ. Gingrich was a small time grifter, looking for bigger marks to fleece for political donations which could be used to pay for his luxurious lifestyle. Trump, on the other hand, claimed to be worth $10 billion already, and promised to self fund his campaign. In his case, the scam was that he was increasing the value of his principal asset, his "brand". The price to put "Trump" in front of product X would hopefully increase significantly as a result of his campaign.

I wonder if, in the end, he might damage that brand more by this campaign.

If you take the number who presently say they would vote for him and remove those who are voting for him only becuase they dislike Clinton or he is the most right wing on the ballot and consider only those whose opinion of him has improved due to the campaign, I expect that it would be found that this was not worth the effort from a branding point of view.

Those who support Trump the Candidate would be open to his business brand, certainly, but were they before? And are they more likely to buy what he sells in business due to this campaign?

Those who do not support Trump the Candidate are they less likely to want to deal with Trump the business?

I suspect the second is more likely true than the former.

Opening yourself to almost daily examples of being proven unstable or a liar is not a great business branding strategy. Without having gained many people to his brand he may have limited its appeal to a subset of the general population.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Yes, it is quite possible that Trump may have screwed himself. However, as H. L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Yes, it is quite possible that Trump may have screwed himself. However, as H. L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

This is true. But we are the crowd that believes in hope over fear, after all, so let's be optimistic and hope he screwed himself.

NorthReport

As expected scumbag Trump's campaign is now going into major fail, so the racist bully is now flailing about looking for someone besides himself to blame. We haven't seen anything yet of the coming Trump ugliness.

Trump Says “Disgusting and Corrupt” Media Responsible for Weak Poll Numbers

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/14/trump_blames_disgustin...

 

NorthReport

Trump’s Campaign Chief Listed in Ukraine Ledger Detailing Millions in Cash Payments

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/14/trump_campaign_chief_p...

josh

Trump is also expected to propose creating a new, ideological test for admission to the country that would assess a candidate's stances on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. Through questionnaires, searching social media, interviewing friends and family or other means, applicants would be vetted to see whether they support American values like tolerance and pluralism. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-donald-trump-terrorism-speech-20160815-story.html 

 

 

NorthReport

Duh!

As if that lets these right-wing racist shitheads off the hook.

Conservative Pundit Owns Up To Role In Trump’s Rise: We 'Created This Monster’

Charlie Sykes, the influential conservative talk radio host, has done some soul searching in the months since Donald Trump became the Republican Party standard-bearer, saying in a recent interview that he understands conservative media personalities have “created this monster.”

The Milwaukee radio host, who has been strongly anti-Trump, told Business Insider’s Oliver Darcy that conservative media talking heads, himself included, have “spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media.” While Sykes argued some of the criticism is “justifiable,” he said those years of attack have destroyed the credibility of media companies trying to fight Trump’s fact-proof campaign with deep reporting.

“When this is all over, we have to go back. There’s got to be a reckoning on all this,” Sykes said, according to an interview excerpt Darcy tweeted on Sunday. “We’ve created this monster.”

“And I am feeling, to a certain extent, that we are reaping the whirlwind at that. And I have to look in the mirror and ask myself, ‘To what extent did I contribute?’” he continued.

In response to Sykes remarks, conservative blogger Erick Erickson also took stock of his role fostering a movement that led to Trump’s candidacy.

“For some, like me, perhaps we pushed too hard on issues and held too many people to many promises we took more literally than we should. Perhaps we encouraged activists to have too little grace for others,” Erickson wrote at The Resurgent.

It’s worth reading the full excerpt, via Oliver Darcy:

 

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/charlie-sykes-conservative-media-c...

NorthReport

Election Shift: From 'Mad as Hell' to 'Is Trump Qualified?'

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/15/election_shift_from...

NorthReport

These 2 clowns are doing one hell of a job - they are about as useless as Trump is!

IVANKA AND JARED’S POWER PLAY

How the patrician couple came to have an outsized influence on a populist Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/22/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kush...

NorthReport

All he has to do is look in the mirror!

Biting the Hand That Fed Him

The Republican nominee long used the media to project his fairy tale self-image but now blames the industry for his flailing campaign.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/biting-the-hand-that...

NorthReport
NorthReport

----

NorthReport

The Republican party must be shambles to have allowed a scumbag like Trump be their presidential nominee!

Trump's new normal

The floundering Republican nominee packs his foreign policy speech with go-to half-truths and divisive policy ideas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-moral-clarity-227023

NorthReport

Trump’s damage has already been done: He has nurtured a generation of racist bullies

Win or lose, Trump has inspired a new wave of racial hostility in America, and capitalized on it


http://www.salon.com/2016/08/17/trumps-main-damage-has-already-been-done...

NorthReport
josh

Yet those who reduce Trumpism to a giant cultural yawp risk misinterpreting not only the data at hand, but also decades of research on how and why people vote.Survey data shows a strong connection between racial attitudes and Trump support. But economic anxiety also predicts Trump support, and it also correlates with racist attitudes. These factors make much more sense taken together rather than parceled out separately. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/19/stop-blaming-raci...

mark_alfred

Just heard on the news that Trump got a new campaign manager.  From the clip on the news I gather that Trump will be taking a softer tone now.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Just heard on the news that Trump got a new campaign manager.  From the clip on the news I gather that Trump will be taking a softer tone now.

Wrong.  His new campaign manager is Triumph, the insult comic dog.

I kind of want to make more jokes to accompany that, but you can probably make them for yourself, in your head.

mark_alfred

An American rip-off of Ed the Sock.

NorthReport
NorthReport

An International Disaster: Trump Has Shown His True Side, It's Time To Act

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/donald-trump-is-a-threat-to-th...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

An American rip-off of Ed the Sock.

I scrolled down the page and saw your post and immediately thought you were talking about Trump. LOL! Misinterpreted but still funny.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Curt Schilling Is the Next Donald Trump

November looks bad for the white-guy grievance movement, but new filterless dimwits wait in the wings

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/curt-schilling-is-the-next...

josh

Trump, who won the Republican primary in significant part because of a promise to deport all 11 million of America's illegal immigrants, is now musing publicly about allowing most of those people to stay."Incorrect descriptions of this: pivot, softening, moderating. Correct descriptions of this: 180, total reversal, flip-flop," Tim Alberta, chief political correspondent for the conservative National Review, wrote on Twitter. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/25/ann-coulter-fumes-as-donal...

Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pearson on CNN: "Trump hasn't changed his position on immigration, he has changed the words that he is saying." 

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pearson on CNN: "Trump hasn't changed his position on immigration, he has changed the words that he is saying." 

This is the absolute finest admission of lying that I have ever seen from a campaign.

Pondering

It's all a game. The powers that be are getting exactly what they want. A Clinton presidency. The Republican party might care about itself but the powers that be don't. They made sure Sanders didn't get the Democratic nomination so they could safely let the Republican party fail. Of course it will be rejuvenated soon enough to attack the Democrats. As long as the Democrats and Republicans are the only two dogs in the fight all is well in the world. It's all just theatre. Even racism is a distraction from the core problem. We are ruled by royalty (not politicians).

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

It's all a game. The powers that be are getting exactly what they want. A Clinton presidency. The Republican party might care about itself but the powers that be don't. They made sure Sanders didn't get the Democratic nomination so they could safely let the Republican party fail. Of course it will be rejuvenated soon enough to attack the Democrats. As long as the Democrats and Republicans are the only two dogs in the fight all is well in the world. It's all just theatre. Even racism is a distraction from the core problem. We are ruled by royalty (not politicians).

Some of this sounds like intelligent design where intelligence has not proven to exist.

I agree with the effects, and that powerful actors exist here but not sure about the existence of this grand a conspiracy.

Pondering

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/hillary-clinton-he...

It’s almost as if Trump is reading from a textbook on how to invent and disseminate conspiracy theories. First, target those who feel most alienated and disempowered. Then, identify a complex social or political threat to control, which might include stagnant wages, demographic changes or terrorism. Next, identify an outsider group such as China, Latino immigrants, blacks or Muslims who you can blame. Then tell a simple, black-and-white story of conflict between good versus evil, us versus the other. Finally, say the system is “rigged” by the mainstream media or the elite.

Trump is riding a rising tide of alienation and disempowerment, most notably among working class white men. They’re his strongest supporters because uncertainty, anxiety and powerlessness drive the need to reassert control. It’s also perhaps why those with a more authoritarian bent tend to favor Trump.

But the left continues to miss the boat. The very people who should be the left's strongest supporters are supporting the right and it is the fault of the left for refusing to get out of their own bubble, something the right has no trouble doing.

The right is focused while the left plays defence and plays into the narrative of the right trying to assure people the left isn't extremist when it is the right that is extremist.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/hillary-clinton-he...

It’s almost as if Trump is reading from a textbook on how to invent and disseminate conspiracy theories. First, target those who feel most alienated and disempowered. Then, identify a complex social or political threat to control, which might include stagnant wages, demographic changes or terrorism. Next, identify an outsider group such as China, Latino immigrants, blacks or Muslims who you can blame. Then tell a simple, black-and-white story of conflict between good versus evil, us versus the other. Finally, say the system is “rigged” by the mainstream media or the elite.

Trump is riding a rising tide of alienation and disempowerment, most notably among working class white men. They’re his strongest supporters because uncertainty, anxiety and powerlessness drive the need to reassert control. It’s also perhaps why those with a more authoritarian bent tend to favor Trump.

But the left continues to miss the boat. The very people who should be the left's strongest supporters are supporting the right and it is the fault of the left for refusing to get out of their own bubble, something the right has no trouble doing.

The right is focused while the left plays defence and plays into the narrative of the right trying to assure people the left isn't extremist when it is the right that is extremist.

I agree with you in terms of the problem but not really with the root of it. The ordinary people in the states are screwed and they know it.

Trump knows this is the case and is actually saying it directly -- says to African Americans "Vote for me -- I hate you and I am a racist pig -- but what have you got to lose? The Democrats won't do better." And they know, on this, Trump is correrct.

The social justice problem in the US comes from some people having too much. The Democrats don't want to come out and say some need to make do with less and so they maintain the fiction that things can be made better without anyone hurting. They have done this for generations. They have taken good care of wealthy donors along the way.

The right of course have a simple argument -- they say the poor have too much -- they want to cut health care, food stamps, assistance etc. They pretend this will go to the middle and maybe they will throw a couple nickles to the middle as the dollars go to the top.

The middle and low income people are really hurting and things are hopeless. The right want to turn the middle on the bottom. Tell the middle white folk who are suffering they are poor becuase the poor take welfare, becuase of economic migrants, minorities.... This lets the top class get away with taking the booty. The middle stays struggling and vulnerable to support the next money grab from the most disadvantaged. But the Democrats in pretending they can create justice without the rich giving up money lack credibility. Now, increasingly, that's where the money is.

Sanders was popular becuase he has come the closest to telling the truth -- "some of you have so much that other people are not making it and you need to have less." His party are not fond of that message as you can imagine. I don't even know if it could win a general election -- it is possible that it would not.

Since we are in Canada we have the same problem. Both the NDP and the Liberals played this game in the last election. The NDP pretended that you could have social justice without business and the wealthy paying more -- this is a big part of what earned the NDP its greatest loss of sitting members in history. The Liberals played it differently. They pretended to help the middle when they were really helping those close to the top and they pretended that an increase on taxes above $200,000 would be enough. They conned the population into thinking they had real broadbased relief going to the middle. The truth is they helped families with children (not saying that was not worthy) and those who were very well off and some money from the extremely well off helped to pay for it. Everyone else in the middle got little to nothing. Everyone else has to pick up the difference in government debt or lost services.

In both cases Liberals and NDP told the public we will give you social justice but it won't cost you anything. They say the same of the environment. And the Democrats peddle the same shite in the US. This is why nobody in the middle gains -- it is great in theory but those with the cash won't pay for it. And the Democrats need donations from with those with the cash.

mark_alfred

Quote:

But the left continues to miss the boat. The very people who should be the left's strongest supporters are supporting the right and it is the fault of the left for refusing to get out of their own bubble, something the right has no trouble doing.

The right is focused while the left plays defence and plays into the narrative of the right trying to assure people the left isn't extremist when it is the right that is extremist.

Yes, while the right rides the boat the people who should be the left's strongest supports are in the bubble supporting the right rather than leaving the bubble, which the right, recognizing bubbles, certainly does do with no trouble.  The left sits alone on a stool, playing narrative fiddle of the right, assuring the people that the left aren't extremist.  Yet it's the right playing offence of the narrative of left extremism.  In reality they're the ones playing the fiddle of extemism while riding the boat that the left continues to miss.  They've missed the boat and have not gotten out of bubbles. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's all a game. The powers that be are getting exactly what they want. A Clinton presidency. The Republican party might care about itself but the powers that be don't. They made sure Sanders didn't get the Democratic nomination so they could safely let the Republican party fail. Of course it will be rejuvenated soon enough to attack the Democrats. As long as the Democrats and Republicans are the only two dogs in the fight all is well in the world. It's all just theatre. Even racism is a distraction from the core problem. We are ruled by royalty (not politicians).

Some of this sounds like intelligent design where intelligence has not proven to exist.

I agree with the effects, and that powerful actors exist here but not sure about the existence of this grand a conspiracy.

I don't see a grand conspiracy. The uber wealthy, or a subset of them, have enormous influence over politics worldwide. We say corporations but corporations are not people. It is the people who own corporations that are pulling the strings. They don't have absolute power over politicians because we still have a semblance of democracy that forces politicians to bow to strong public opinion but on everything else they are free to give in to pressure from their paymasters.

From the perspective of multi-billionaires that are world citizens everything is going splendidly. They control the media. They could have stopped Trump from getting anywhere near this successful. They could easily have backed one of the more moderate opponents. The more important task was stopping Sanders.

The generationally wealthy worldwide are focused on protecting their wealth and power for generations to come. Their plans are very longterm. 20 year depressions don't impact them permanently. They can afford to punish countries like Greece and even use it as an excuse to scoop up property. Tax havens have been around for as long as I can remember. Are successive governments just forgetful about taking care of that? Why are credit card companies able to forbid stores from offering discounts for cash payment? Why is consumer protection so weak in general? Why are we signing trade deals with shocking rights for corporations? Why do we bemoan worker abuse in other countries then not make mandatory work conditions an aspect of trade agreements? 

I submit because it is not in the best interests of the uberwealthy.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

But the left continues to miss the boat. The very people who should be the left's strongest supporters are supporting the right and it is the fault of the left for refusing to get out of their own bubble, something the right has no trouble doing.

The right is focused while the left plays defence and plays into the narrative of the right trying to assure people the left isn't extremist when it is the right that is extremist.

Yes, while the right rides the boat the people who should be the left's strongest supports are in the bubble supporting the right rather than leaving the bubble, which the right, recognizing bubbles, certainly does do with no trouble.  The left sits alone on a stool, playing narrative fiddle of the right, assuring the people that the left aren't extremist.  Yet it's the right playing offence of the narrative of left extremism.  In reality they're the ones playing the fiddle of extemism while riding the boat that the left continues to miss.  They've missed the boat and have not gotten out of bubbles. 

I hope this is a mixed metaphor parody here becuase I am lost by the end of line 2.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's all a game. The powers that be are getting exactly what they want. A Clinton presidency. The Republican party might care about itself but the powers that be don't. They made sure Sanders didn't get the Democratic nomination so they could safely let the Republican party fail. Of course it will be rejuvenated soon enough to attack the Democrats. As long as the Democrats and Republicans are the only two dogs in the fight all is well in the world. It's all just theatre. Even racism is a distraction from the core problem. We are ruled by royalty (not politicians).

Some of this sounds like intelligent design where intelligence has not proven to exist.

I agree with the effects, and that powerful actors exist here but not sure about the existence of this grand a conspiracy.

I don't see a grand conspiracy. The uber wealthy, or a subset of them, have enormous influence over politics worldwide. We say corporations but corporations are not people. It is the people who own corporations that are pulling the strings. They don't have absolute power over politicians because we still have a semblance of democracy that forces politicians to bow to strong public opinion but on everything else they are free to give in to pressure from their paymasters.

From the perspective of multi-billionaires that are world citizens everything is going splendidly. They control the media. They could have stopped Trump from getting anywhere near this successful. They could easily have backed one of the more moderate opponents. The more important task was stopping Sanders.

The generationally wealthy worldwide are focused on protecting their wealth and power for generations to come. Their plans are very longterm. 20 year depressions don't impact them permanently. They can afford to punish countries like Greece and even use it as an excuse to scoop up property. Tax havens have been around for as long as I can remember. Are successive governments just forgetful about taking care of that? Why are credit card companies able to forbid stores from offering discounts for cash payment? Why is consumer protection so weak in general? Why are we signing trade deals with shocking rights for corporations? Why do we bemoan worker abuse in other countries then not make mandatory work conditions an aspect of trade agreements? 

I submit because it is not in the best interests of the uberwealthy.

I can fully endorse this. Yes I agree with this dynamic.

I would add that this is aided by a public that in the volume of choices is bost the most aware and the least aware in generations. Manipulation has always been there but it is more sophisticated than ever with organizations even being created to do the opposite of what they appear created to do.

And when you follow the money and the Democrat brand it is easy to see that they fail becuase they do not intend to succeed.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I agree with you in terms of the problem but not really with the root of it. The ordinary people in the states are screwed and they know it.

Trump knows this is the case and is actually saying it directly -- says to African Americans "Vote for me -- I hate you and I am a racist pig -- but what have you got to lose? The Democrats won't do better." And they know, on this, Trump is correrct.

I think the same dynamics exist in Canada and the result was Ford.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The social justice problem in the US comes from some people having too much. The Democrats don't want to come out and say some need to make do with less and so they maintain the fiction that things can be made better without anyone hurting. They have done this for generations. They have taken good care of wealthy donors along the way.

The right of course have a simple argument -- they say the poor have too much -- they want to cut health care, food stamps, assistance etc. They pretend this will go to the middle and maybe they will throw a couple nickles to the middle as the dollars go to the top.

Here too. Canada may be less extreme but the line for decades has been that we can't afford our social services.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The middle and low income people are really hurting and things are hopeless. The right want to turn the middle on the bottom. Tell the middle white folk who are suffering they are poor becuase the poor take welfare, becuase of economic migrants, minorities.... This lets the top class get away with taking the booty. The middle stays struggling and vulnerable to support the next money grab from the most disadvantaged. But the Democrats in pretending they can create justice without the rich giving up money lack credibility. Now, increasingly, that's where the money is. 

Absolutely, and the same is occurring in Canada.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Sanders was popular becuase he has come the closest to telling the truth -- "some of you have so much that other people are not making it and you need to have less." His party are not fond of that message as you can imagine. I don't even know if it could win a general election -- it is possible that it would not. 

In polls Sanders beat Trump by a higher margin than Clinton but the party still chose Clinton.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Since we are in Canada we have the same problem. Both the NDP and the Liberals played this game in the last election. The NDP pretended that you could have social justice without business and the wealthy paying more -- this is a big part of what earned the NDP its greatest loss of sitting members in history. The Liberals played it differently. They pretended to help the middle when they were really helping those close to the top and they pretended that an increase on taxes above $200,000 would be enough. They conned the population into thinking they had real broadbased relief going to the middle. The truth is they helped families with children (not saying that was not worthy) and those who were very well off and some money from the extremely well off helped to pay for it. Everyone else in the middle got little to nothing. Everyone else has to pick up the difference in government debt or lost services. 

Again fully agree. That Trudeau was the one to use the language of occupy and the one to say he would tax the wealthy just left me shaking my head. Almost surreal.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In both cases Liberals and NDP told the public we will give you social justice but it won't cost you anything. They say the same of the environment. And the Democrats peddle the same shite in the US. This is why nobody in the middle gains -- it is great in theory but those with the cash won't pay for it. And the Democrats need donations from with those with the cash. 

Yes, although as you noted above, it's not the public that has to pay, it's the wealthy. The right has done a good job of convincing people that it's the wealthy and the middle class against the poor when in truth it is the middle class and the poor who share common cause.

 

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I agree with you in terms of the problem but not really with the root of it. The ordinary people in the states are screwed and they know it.

Trump knows this is the case and is actually saying it directly -- says to African Americans "Vote for me -- I hate you and I am a racist pig -- but what have you got to lose? The Democrats won't do better." And they know, on this, Trump is correrct.

I think the same dynamics exist in Canada and the result was Ford.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The social justice problem in the US comes from some people having too much. The Democrats don't want to come out and say some need to make do with less and so they maintain the fiction that things can be made better without anyone hurting. They have done this for generations. They have taken good care of wealthy donors along the way.

The right of course have a simple argument -- they say the poor have too much -- they want to cut health care, food stamps, assistance etc. They pretend this will go to the middle and maybe they will throw a couple nickles to the middle as the dollars go to the top.

Here too. Canada may be less extreme but the line for decades has been that we can't afford our social services.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The middle and low income people are really hurting and things are hopeless. The right want to turn the middle on the bottom. Tell the middle white folk who are suffering they are poor becuase the poor take welfare, becuase of economic migrants, minorities.... This lets the top class get away with taking the booty. The middle stays struggling and vulnerable to support the next money grab from the most disadvantaged. But the Democrats in pretending they can create justice without the rich giving up money lack credibility. Now, increasingly, that's where the money is. 

Absolutely, and the same is occurring in Canada.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Sanders was popular becuase he has come the closest to telling the truth -- "some of you have so much that other people are not making it and you need to have less." His party are not fond of that message as you can imagine. I don't even know if it could win a general election -- it is possible that it would not. 

In polls Sanders beat Trump by a higher margin than Clinton but the party still chose Clinton.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Since we are in Canada we have the same problem. Both the NDP and the Liberals played this game in the last election. The NDP pretended that you could have social justice without business and the wealthy paying more -- this is a big part of what earned the NDP its greatest loss of sitting members in history. The Liberals played it differently. They pretended to help the middle when they were really helping those close to the top and they pretended that an increase on taxes above $200,000 would be enough. They conned the population into thinking they had real broadbased relief going to the middle. The truth is they helped families with children (not saying that was not worthy) and those who were very well off and some money from the extremely well off helped to pay for it. Everyone else in the middle got little to nothing. Everyone else has to pick up the difference in government debt or lost services. 

Again fully agree. That Trudeau was the one to use the language of occupy and the one to say he would tax the wealthy just left me shaking my head. Almost surreal.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In both cases Liberals and NDP told the public we will give you social justice but it won't cost you anything. They say the same of the environment. And the Democrats peddle the same shite in the US. This is why nobody in the middle gains -- it is great in theory but those with the cash won't pay for it. And the Democrats need donations from with those with the cash. 

Yes, although as you noted above, it's not the public that has to pay, it's the wealthy. The right has done a good job of convincing people that it's the wealthy and the middle class against the poor when in truth it is the middle class and the poor who share common cause.

Yep seems like we are entirely in agreement on all this -- I especally like your last paragraph. It is classic divide and conquer diversion. This is also what is happening in the UK as well. Hopelessness does lead to extremism.

This is being written large across the world as wealthy countries blame developing ones for environmental problems when they are still extracting the wealth from those countries and got rich themselves doing the very thing they want the developing nations to stop doing.

This is the MO for the most wealthy globally.