Originally Posted by radind

Unfortunately, that may require a major war like WWII.

For now the economic order remains in 3T mode: a big chunk of most people's lives is to meet the imposed costs of economic rent, essentially paying off economic elites for the dubious privilege of living in a world that they own.

In view of the more horrible weapons now in arsenals and the greatly-reduced time for delivering those weapons to intended targets, a war like WWII can make some American city look like Rotterdam, Hamburg, Warsaw, or worse. This is especially so if America should become an Evil Empire.

RE: The meme of Trump as a "businessman" and / or potential "international business mover and shaker."

I honestly don't understand how anyone can be so stupid to buy such a meme. Sure, the dude has done some real estate speculation, flipped properties (usually unsuccessfully) and more than anything else, licensed his name. But in terms of real business (making things, logistics, services, etc) he hasn't done diddly squat. He wouldn't know where to begin. He's the classic "wanna be my own boss" type writ large, but is a horrible team player. This is the pathology that can't handle normal corporate operations. People like this have only limited international impact. At best, they manage to use some international personal contacts to get a few modest things done. Ironically, I see this the most with immigrants, most especially Chinese immigrants. They get small businesses going that leverage their ethnicity and international personal connections. However, people like this rarely succeed at any grand level internationally. People like this are disasters when they attempt to negotiate with large overseas partners / firms not to mention foreign governments. In fact they tend to be liabilities.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

RE: The meme of Trump as a "businessman" and / or potential "international business mover and shaker."

I honestly don't understand how anyone can be so stupid to buy such a meme. Sure, the dude has done some real estate speculation, flipped properties (usually unsuccessfully) and more than anything else, licensed his name. But in terms of real business (making things, logistics, services, etc) he hasn't done diddly squat.

He is definitely not a great businessman. The really-good ones do not dabble in what they do, establish a startup in a saturated industry, and sell off a successful business to others. The really good ones as a rule stay in the same business for a very long time. Thus C. Vanderbilt, A. Carnegie, E. Harriman, J. Rockefeller, H. Morgan, H. Ford, J C Penney, A. Giannini, R. Kroc, S. Walton, R. Perot, T. Pickens, B. Gates, etc. D. Trump is not in that league. I see him likely to dabble in the Presidency much as he dabbles in one business at a time. That would be a bad Presidency, one that has a one-year-at-a-time focus.

He wouldn't know where to begin. He's the classic "wanna be my own boss" type writ large, but is a horrible team player. This is the pathology that can't handle normal corporate operations. People like this have only limited international impact. At best, they manage to use some international personal contacts to get a few modest things done. .... People like this are disasters when they attempt to negotiate with large overseas partners / firms not to mention foreign governments. In fact they tend to be liabilities.

That will not work in dealing with Russian or Chinese political leadership. Probably not Indian, Japanese, or Brazilian leadership, either.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

5. Donald Trump can lose this election, but that hardly changes a basic reality: America has rifted severely along lines of class and ethnicity. If he should fail this time, then someone else will offer much the same in 2020... and 2024... and maybe 2028 as well should Donald Trump not lose in a landslide. America needs to go through the harsh ordeal of a Crisis that compels Americans of all classes, religions, and ethnic origins to find themselves in a shared danger that they can meet successfully but only if working for a shared purpose.

This pretty much aligns with my own thinking. Even if Trump loses out in this primary season/general election, depending on what happens during the next four years, he could come back even stronger in 2020. He will be the same age (74) as Bernie Sanders is now.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

This pretty much aligns with my own thinking. Even if Trump loses out in this primary season/general election, depending on what happens during the next four years, he could come back even stronger in 2020. He will be the same age (74) as Bernie Sanders is now.

That's two election cycles - his base will have dropped another 4% of the total electorate.

If he losses the general, the GOP will make sure he's not on any ballot again.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Well, like him or not, trust him or not, he could bring in highly talented negotiators from the private sector to renegotiate trade deals more in our favor that were written more in favor of others in order to get our business's into foreign markets. We have a much stronger position to renegotiate now because our business's are in and have been in their economies for years and are contributing to their economies and their tax revenues and their pockets. Trump does business all over the world. He's not opposed to international trade. He's opposed to unfair trade deals that have seriously impacted the United States.

This is wishful thinking. Trade deals get negotiated for mutual benefit, and any give-back we get will require one by us.

And no, the private sector has no lock on great talent, so their amazing skills won't get it done either.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Not as long as the white lower-middle continues to vote in mass and continues to impact elections that it has been doing. The way I see it, why vote through the Democrats when you have the power to vote to get what you want (hopefully jobs and a shot at a better future for your area) from the Republicans directly.

I don't think either party is predestined to support the worker-bees, because they don't supply the money needed to run elections. That said, the GOP is the party of money, so anything they do "for the workers" is really intended to increase profits.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's two election cycles - his base will have dropped another 4% of the total electorate.

If he losses the general, the GOP will make sure he's not on any ballot again.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a third-party run in 2020, which I would not rule out even this year, if Trump is denied the GOP nomination in a contested convention where he comes in with a plurality--not majority--of delegates.

Also, when it comes to talk about "base," let's not forget that 93 million eligible voters in 2012 sat out the presidential election. That's a huge pool of disaffected voters that could be tapped by Trump or some other populist, especially if that group feels disenchanted with "politics as usual." It's that vast pool of non-voters that could defy the experts on who turns out and who doesn't in this general election and the next.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

This pretty much aligns with my own thinking. Even if Trump loses out in this primary season/general election, depending on what happens during the next four years, he could come back even stronger in 2020. He will be the same age (74) as Bernie Sanders is now.

New belligerence in the elderly is often a symptom of senile dementia. Until this year I never thought of Donald Trump as 'belligerent'.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

New belligerence in the elderly is often a symptom of senile dementia. Until this year I never thought of Donald Trump as 'belligerent'.

Possible.

He might just be playing a different role. He's usually the host / moderator of the reality TV show. Now he's among those trying to avoid getting voted off the island. Different tactics.

Originally Posted by Normal

As a person of color who grew up working class, I've long said that white working class people should be on the same page as the rest of us in the 99% in asserting our political power and making sure the wealthy don't screw the rest of us. The problem is that poor whites constantly vote against their own economic interests in favor of politicians who tell them that the problem is black people, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. so frankly I've stopped feeling sorry for them whenever people make a point about how "invisible" poor whites are. If they stop subscribing to bigotry and quit voting against their own interests, maybe I'll feel more empathy for them. Until then, they can go to hell.

The other side of that is the ongoing drumbeat of the SJWs. The poor whites are pushed away as much as they push away. Groups like BLM raise the hair on all those red necks, and no politician has really bridged the gap.

A MarketWatch article today underscored what most of us already know: the corporate media has unwittingly aided and abetted Trump's candidacy:

"Trump’s earned $1.9 billion in ‘free’ advertising, report says"

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tru...ays-2016-03-15

Republican front-runner Donald Trump has received the equivalent of $1.9 billion in free advertising due to intense media coverage, a report said Tuesday.

The New York Times, using data from mediaQuant, says Trump’s free advertising is based on media coverage and the equivalent advertising rates.

Trump’s coverage pales to his nearest rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has earned $313 million.

The free media has helped Trump vault to the top of the Republican presidential standings despite the paltry $10 million in paid advertising, which is only the sixth highest of all candidates...

But it's not only the "free" advertising that broadcast- and cable news-networks have provided Trump, it's the time slots and full interviews that he's been consistently granted on TV. He's the lead story virtually every time. He couldn't have benefitted more if he were Rupert Murdoch himself. Trump would be the envy of even Silvio Berlusconi.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Democrats raise taxes that loose jobs. The Democrats increase regulations of business that loose jobs. The Democrats vote for higher wages that loose jobs. The Democrats support free trade agreements that loose jobs. The Democrats take your job away and your future away and blame it on Republicans. Unfortunately, most Democrats are either foolish or dumb enough to believe it.

Every item on your list is false ... and proven false. Taxes, regulations and higher wages have been shone to actually correlate with economic growth, and trade agreements are nearly 100% business sponsored.

You batted 1000 on that one ... just for the other team.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Democrats raise taxes that loose jobs. The Democrats increase regulations of business that loose jobs. The Democrats vote for higher wages that loose jobs. The Democrats support free trade agreements that loose jobs. The Democrats take your job away and your future away and blame it on Republicans. Unfortunately, most Democrats are either foolish or dumb enough to believe it.

Workers' wages themselves make a consumer society possible. That applies to government employees too. Business regulations can keep people from losing jobs to industrial accidents.

Take your choice -- the George W. Bush economy or the Obama economy. The first relied heavily upon a speculative boom that, like all others before it, was sure to go bust. The second one has no speculative boom.

Trump claims that the people he asks to be beaten up are big strong thugs who attack his supporters. This video gives the lie to Trump's claims. Trump is a thug who threatens free speech. If you support him, take a look at what you support; if you can.

From CREDO action:

Recently, CBS CEO Les Moonves came out and said it: Profiting from hate is not only more important to him than the good of the country — he wants to do more of it.

Speaking on a panel in San Francisco, Moonves said Trump’s campaign “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS” and that “The money’s rolling in, this is fun.” He went on to say, “it’s a terrible thing to say, but bring it on, Donald, go ahead, keep going.”1

Having the CEO of one of the nation’s most powerful corporate media outlets blatantly admit that profits and ratings are driving the non-stop, wall-to-wall coverage of Donald Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is not only a damning indictment of corporate media, but also incredibly dangerous for the country. We need to make it clear to Moonves, CBS, and all traditional corporate media that Americans hold them to a much higher standard when it comes to racism and intolerance and the media’s responsibility to accurately and fairly inform the public.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The bulk of the manufacturing jobs relocated to right to work states in the south and else where during the 80's. I was around during the 80's. My father in law was a union president at the time. This may comes across as sympathetic, most people my age had no desire to enter manufacturing. So, we didn't care that it packed up and moved else where during the Reagan years.

You're off by a decade. The rush to the South started in the '60s, and coincided with the union-busting in the North. When I entered the service in 1966, my little rust belt city was doing just fine. When I returned in 1970, unemployment was over 30%. Almost everyone of those unemployed factory workers was never going to get another good paying job ... even the ones who followed the jobs South. My Uncle followed his job to South Carolina, for 2/3 of what he made in Upstate NY, and then watched it leave the country as he entered retirement. He was actually one of the lucky ones.

So you decided that 'screw them I got mine' was the motto of your generation. Don't be surprised if the Millies take that personally.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I'm thinking more along the lines of a third-party run in 2020, which I would not rule out even this year, if Trump is denied the GOP nomination in a contested convention where he comes in with a plurality--not majority--of delegates.

Also, when it comes to talk about "base," let's not forget that 93 million eligible voters in 2012 sat out the presidential election. That's a huge pool of disaffected voters that could be tapped by Trump or some other populist, especially if that group feels disenchanted with "politics as usual." It's that vast pool of non-voters that could defy the experts on who turns out and who doesn't in this general election and the next.

The demographics are about potential voters; turnout is actual voters. And yes, turnout is critical and varies but it has an upper limit to it imposed by the demographics of potential voters. There is a synergy of mass of potential voters that provides a multiplier for actual voting, both up and down. As the base of potential voters declines, it will reduce actual voters by more than a one-to-one ratio (same on the upside as long as the total potential is not breached). This is not to say that events and the gestalt of the times can change that translation in direction as well as magnitude (e.g., 2010 disappointed Obamatrons sitting out while t-baggers took over polling stations), but predicting those effects for just Ohio tonight, let alone four years from now for the 2020 general elections, is pretty tough.

What we do know is that there will be far less of the demographic potential of Trump-type voters to excite. And hopefully, at some point, that decline in potential power is going to disappoint them enough that a negative feedback loop sets up and they disperse as a national political force. Fingers crossed for good luck.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I'm thinking more along the lines of a third-party run in 2020, which I would not rule out even this year, if Trump is denied the GOP nomination in a contested convention where he comes in with a plurality--not majority--of delegates.

Also, when it comes to talk about "base," let's not forget that 93 million eligible voters in 2012 sat out the presidential election. That's a huge pool of disaffected voters that could be tapped by Trump or some other populist, especially if that group feels disenchanted with "politics as usual." It's that vast pool of non-voters that could defy the experts on who turns out and who doesn't in this general election and the next.

That's a lot, and that's true.

I must dissent again, however, from the abuse of the word "populist." Populist refers to a political party that spoke out and advocated policies that benefit the people as opposed to the powerful. To apply that word to Donald Trump, refers to the definition of a "populist" as a candidate or politician who appeals to the lowest common denominator among the people; as if some people among the "population" can be appealed to that are not like the usual people who vote. By the Trump definition, any candidate is a "populist" who appeals to "popular" sentiments. As if majority rule by the most popular choice is somehow a demeaning thing, and means that the degenerate rabble has taken over.

But "popular" sentiments among "lower-middle class" people who don't usually vote, do not necessarily have anything to do with policies that benefit the people and challenge the powerful. These sentiments and slogans are used to buttress and strengthen the hold of the powerful over the people. That's what Trump is doing; it's what George Wallace and Hitler did. And it's demeaning to the "lower middle class" who are assumed automatically to be easy prey to such appeals, as if they don't have the capacity to think for themselves and vote based on what is in their interest, instead of for those at the top who perpetuate these lies.

I think lower middle class people are as capable as anyone else of voting based on real issues, and not just popular anger and fear aroused by demagogues. And those who are NOT capable of such voting, whatever their class, are just fools. And politicians and candidates who appeal to fools, are NOT "populists," they are demagogues pure and simple. The interests of the people, of the many rather than the few, are not the interests of fools deceived by appeals to their hatred and fear. Sorry, I will keep hammering at this.

More of what Classic Xer and Einzige support. "Let them eat steak!" The art of the con man.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's a lot, and that's true.

I must dissent again, however, from the abuse of the word "populist." Populist refers to a political party that spoke out and advocated policies that benefit the people as opposed to the powerful. To apply that word to Donald Trump, refers to the definition of a "populist" as a candidate or politician who appeals to the lowest common denominator among the people; as if some people among the "population" can be appealed to that are not like the usual people who vote. By the Trump definition, any candidate is a "populist" who appeals to "popular" sentiments. As if majority rule by the most popular choice is somehow a demeaning thing, and means that the degenerate rabble has taken over.

But "popular" sentiments among "lower-middle class" people who don't usually vote, do not necessarily have anything to do with policies that benefit the people and challenge the powerful. These sentiments and slogans are used to buttress and strengthen the hold of the powerful over the people. That's what Trump is doing; it's what George Wallace and Hitler did. And it's demeaning to the "lower middle class" who are assumed automatically to be easy prey to such appeals, as if they don't have the capacity to think for themselves and vote based on what is in their interest, instead of for those at the top who perpetuate these lies.

I think lower middle class people are as capable as anyone else of voting based on real issues, and not just popular anger and fear aroused by demagogues. And those who are NOT capable of such voting, whatever their class, are just fools. And politicians and candidates who appeal to fools, are NOT "populists," they are demagogues pure and simple. The interests of the people, of the many rather than the few, are not the interests of fools deceived by appeals to their hatred and fear. Sorry, I will keep hammering at this.

Never thought of it that way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's a lot, and that's true.

I must dissent again, however, from the abuse of the word "populist." Populist refers to a political party that spoke out and advocated policies that benefit the people as opposed to the powerful. To apply that word to Donald Trump, refers to the definition of a "populist" as a candidate or politician who appeals to the lowest common denominator among the people; as if some people among the "population" can be appealed to that are not like the usual people who vote. By the Trump definition, any candidate is a "populist" who appeals to "popular" sentiments. As if majority rule by the most popular choice is somehow a demeaning thing, and means that the degenerate rabble has taken over.

But "popular" sentiments among "lower-middle class" people who don't usually vote, do not necessarily have anything to do with policies that benefit the people and challenge the powerful. These sentiments and slogans are used to buttress and strengthen the hold of the powerful over the people. That's what Trump is doing; it's what George Wallace and Hitler did. And it's demeaning to the "lower middle class" who are assumed automatically to be easy prey to such appeals, as if they don't have the capacity to think for themselves and vote based on what is in their interest, instead of for those at the top who perpetuate these lies.

I think lower middle class people are as capable as anyone else of voting based on real issues, and not just popular anger and fear aroused by demagogues. And those who are NOT capable of such voting, whatever their class, are just fools. And politicians and candidates who appeal to fools, are NOT "populists," they are demagogues pure and simple. The interests of the people, of the many rather than the few, are not the interests of fools deceived by appeals to their hatred and fear. Sorry, I will keep hammering at this.

Don't want to get into an argument over semantics. (Feels too much like dancing on the head of a pin oftentimes.) Some politicians have been both a populist and a demagogue. Huey Long was definitely an economic populist, but his enemies considered him a demagogue, too.

A prominent political pundit weighed in on the distinction thusly:

“There’s a fine line between populism and demagoguery,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for American Politics. “Both words describe rabble-rousers. Populism can be used for good, to invoke the little guy versus big business or big government. Demagoguery is a kind of extreme populism that preys on peoples worst fears and often hidden emotions.”

Bernie Sanders is clearly an economic populist, akin to William Jennings Bryan. But one would be hard-pressed to dispute the observation that, when he continually harangues billionaires, he dances pretty close to the edge of demagoguery himself. Most politicians do, especially in their negative TV ads, which I abhor.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Don't want to get into an argument over semantics. (Feels too much like dancing on the head of a pin oftentimes.) Some politicians have been both a populist and a demagogue. Huey Long was definitely an economic populist, but his enemies considered him a demagogue, too.

A prominent political pundit weighed in on the distinction thusly:

“There’s a fine line between populism and demagoguery,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for American Politics. “Both words describe rabble-rousers. Populism can be used for good, to invoke the little guy versus big business or big government. Demagoguery is a kind of extreme populism that preys on peoples worst fears and often hidden emotions.”

Bernie Sanders is clearly an economic populist, akin to William Jennings Bryan.

Yes, I don't disagree; but I would say that populism is not something that can be USED to invoke the little guy versus big business; it IS invoking the little guy versus big business.

And maybe, possibly big government too, but NOT Reagan and his followers doing that.

Speaking of my prophetic astrological system, I noticed a rare thing: that Bryan had a great score for getting elected; better than his opponent McKinley. Sanders has a great score, but he's an underdog despite this, even though he has gone a lot farther than anyone expected. As has Trump, who also has a great score. They had the ability to appeal to the people, as indicated in their score. But Clinton, who represents a more mainstream view, may well defeat them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...I would say that populism is not something that can be USED to invoke the little guy versus big business; it IS invoking the little guy versus big business.

Well put. And that's the difference between the genuine article (Bernie Sanders) and the con artist (Donald Trump).

Originally Posted by naf140230

I have found this article on Mauldin Economics. It can be found here.



What do you think?

This is exactly why I think Clinton's use of the race card in this election has been so dangerous. A lot of working class white people increasingly feel like the Clinton campaign is implying that they don't matter, it risks increasing the racial resentment that fuels the Fascist sentiment behind Trump.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Well put. And that's the difference between the genuine article (Bernie Sanders) and the con artist (Donald Trump).

That's right.