Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

2016 US Election

POST REPLY

Who would you vote for in the US presidential election?

Hillary Clinton (Democratic)
4
25%
Donald Trump (Republican)
2
13%
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
1
6%
Jill Stein (Green)
2
13%
Gloria La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation)
5
31%
Alyson Kennedy (Socialist Workers Party)
0
No votes
Monica Moorehead (Workers World Party)
0
No votes
Mimi Soltysik (Socialist Party USA)
0
No votes
Refuse to vote
2
13%
Other
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 16
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 12 Nov 2016, 08:05
heiss93 wrote:
The Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party sees it as a caucasian working class uprising. They got a lot of criticism form the rest of the Left for their summer article criticizing the anti-Trump protests as anti-free speech. If they just left it at their civil libertarian position, it might not have been so objectionable, but they went much further than that defending Trump as a non-racist legitimate white working class uprising.

This is lunatic. His largest support came from the upper-middle, managerial class. He did win white workers as well, yes, who generally identify as "lower-middle-class." Identifying as "poor" is usually reserved for black people, in the United States. His campaign was also based around attacking immigration from Mexico, immigrants from which are the most blue-collar and unionized demographic group in the country. This was a movement of the petit-bourgeoisie and the upper rungs of workers, guarding their power against perceived threats from above and below. Which is to say the class character of every middle-class populist movement throughout history.

Also the above "middle-class populism/proto-fascism" analysis is the line on Trumpism of PSL, WWP, Kasama, probably others.

Quote:
There have been numerous statements form KPRF leaders not to expect such big changes.

They're smart. I don't expect the warm relations to Russia to last long, considering his vindictiveness and erratic tendencies whenever he's stymied in anything. The changes I would expect are largely for the worse. These include the Cuban embargo-lift being off the table and renewed tensions with Cuba, signaled by their uptick in military drills. Also greater tensions with Iran, signaled by ending the Iran deal being his first priority and picking a longstanding anti-Iran saber-rattler for Secretary of State.

Quote:
There were also people saying that this is actually bad for Putin as he wont be able to blame all of Russia's problems on America anymore.

I think Trump is just the kind of clownish caricature that he can easily use for that purpose, actually. Also retaining the Cuba embargo and ending the Iran deal forces them more firmly into the Russian sphere of influence, as their rapprochement with America ends. It's an example of Putin being the great-power realpolitik nationalist that he is, meanwhile adopting "lesser evilism" of his own in promising to shackle Cuban and Iranian self-determination mildly less than America now will.

Quote:
Its surprising to me, that while Trump launched his political career with extremely vicious and racist attacks against China. The official state newspaper of China, seems relatively friendly to Trump.

They want TPP killed. Not renegotiated to remove the secret-court/corporate-nationhood provisions and add labor protections, outright killed. Bernie was cagey and waffled on which he would do, Trump has been pretty consistent about the latter. Half of the member nations will sign onto RCEP in that event, which is China's deal and offers worse protections for workers and the environment.

Quote:
Not just as better for China, but also on domestic policy that America values equality too much. Ironic having America chastised for its ultra-egalitarianism by an ostensibly Communist Party government. The author is not a nobody in the PRC state institutions.

Oh look, ChinaCorp betrays communism for the billionth time. I wonder what it's like, being a communist party run by investment bankers.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 12 Nov 2016, 09:51, edited 4 times in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 12 Nov 2016, 08:51
Looks like the biggest non-major party to make hay from the election is our friends in the white bedsheets.

David Duke is bigger than ever, rallies are being organized, and new members are presumably pouring in.

Thanks, Hillary.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 12 Nov 2016, 08:59
Presumably, as usual, there are two FBI agents trying to provocateur them into a bust for every three new genuine members.

Although with the increasing vehemence of BLM that started two years ago, the FBI might soon retreat from its post-'80s strategy of disrupting the far-right more than the irrelevant far-left. Because the far-left is far less irrelevant than it once was. In the '60s, they spied on the left about 80% of the time, the right 20%.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 12 Nov 2016, 09:09
I just can't see a President like Trump organizing an initiative against the Klan or other far-right groups, at least until they begin denouncing him violently over his flip-flops on Iran, Mexico, and Muslims. I can definitely see him organizing a major push against BLM, presumably with AG Giuliani in full control of expanded police powers.

Of course, who is more likely to assassinate Trump? A person angered by his rollback on gay or women's rights, or an already paranoid-schizophrenic gun nut who hears voices telling him to kill Trump for being a false prophet in the ongoing holy Christian race war?
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 12 Nov 2016, 09:54
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I just can't see a President like Trump organizing an initiative against the Klan or other far-right groups, at least until they begin denouncing him violently over his flip-flops on Iran, Mexico, and Muslims. I can definitely see him organizing a major push against BLM, presumably with AG Giuliani in full control of expanded police powers.

Agreed. Considering his top pick for Secretary of Homeland Security is a man who became a public figure through opposing them tooth and nail, that actually seems like exactly what he's going for.

Quote:
Of course, who is more likely to assassinate Trump? A person angered by his rollback on gay or women's rights, or an already paranoid-schizophrenic gun nut who hears voices telling him to kill Trump for being a false prophet in the ongoing holy Christian race war?

Right now? The former. A year from now when the disappointment kicks in and the current left-wing tumult has already been subverted into "fighting Trump through official channels" by the Democrats? The latter for sure.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 13 Nov 2016, 02:35
I wonder if Newt is still pushing for a new HUAC behind the scenes. Because everyone knows how the Army, Navy, Hollywood, and the Democratic Party are riddled with ISIS agents and fellow travelers.

Meanwhile, the Internet is burning up with accounts of racist bullying. Mostly of the chickenshit "graffiti on bathroom walls" variety, but quite a few in-person encounters as well.

None of which do I see Hillary taking any notice of as she apparently continues to bewail the influence of Edward Comey, the mean ol' FBI Director who lost her the election.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 13 Nov 2016, 03:03
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I wonder if Newt is still pushing for a new HUAC behind the scenes. Because everyone knows how the Army, Navy, Hollywood, and the Democratic Party are riddled with ISIS agents and fellow travelers.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea here: actual double-agents can have their citizenship revoked, nobody disputes this. HUAC fears are about creeping authoritarianism, they're about concern over someone having the power to decide who to prosecute with the vast power accompanying a congressional investigative committee. Gingrich is proposing bringing back a tragicomical episode in American history, one which was rampant with abuse, where personal enemies of Senator McCarthy basically had their careers destroyed. It also prolonged the Korean War, due to any negotiation leading to accusations of "vast communist infiltration" in the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.

Quote:
None of which do I see Hillary taking any notice of as she apparently continues to bewail the influence of Edward Comey, the mean ol' FBI Director who lost her the election.

For the record, I do think Comey's "there might maybe possibly be something in these millions of emails" crying wolf to the press played a role in the outcome. But he retracted it soon enough before that I doubt it was the biggest factor. That'd be the weakness of Hillary Clinton herself at exposing Trump as the pseudo-populist he is, making economic issues an afterthought. About tied with it is the antiquated electoral college system.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 13 Nov 2016, 03:42
My personal list of reasons why I think Hillary blew it:

3. Republican smearing tactics, going all the way back to the 1990's, which Hillary never did successfully counter.
2. The Electoral College system, which routinely awards the White House to candidates who do not win the popular vote.
1. The DNC, which Hillary packed with paid-off supporters in order to sew up the nomination years in advance, did nothing to paint her as a fully human, likable candidate that really understood or, at least, sympathized with the plight of the kulak in Michigan, the evangelical in Louisiana one generation removed from Klan membership, or the suburban retiree in Pennsylvania pissed off over their high Obamacare bills.

The real culpability here is for being bought off. There's NOTHING they could have done to make Hillary seem human. That face. That SMUG face. That voice. THAT CACKLE. Forget it.

Trump, on the other hand, played straight to this audience with the correct image: Boastful, ignorant, bullying (bullies and Stockholm Syndrome dupes call it "confidence" or, worse, "faith"), and orange like one of the Jersey white trash housewives. Perfect.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jun 2016, 08:12
Pioneer
Post 13 Nov 2016, 04:16
Comey played a big role. These things matter in elections, especially 11 days out. It gave Trump new life and all his surrogates started gloating because they knew they had been handed a gift. It played a huge role in the result. She couldn't fight back because if she does she loses on that, keeping it an issue. If she doesn't fight back she appears to be trying to dodge it. The timing of the letter is the essense of its destructiveness. These battles are vicious and close, so the Comey letter so near to the election was a great help to Trump. This letter's effect is why, so I have heard, agencies don't do this sort of thing at the end stage of campaign cycles.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 13 Nov 2016, 12:07
Reading about these ongoing protests, and the only worrying thought on my mind is: do Soros & co. have the balls to do 'mysterious snipers shoot into crowds' inside the homeland to try and take President-elect Trump down ala Vilnius 91', Syria 11', Kiev 14'? I mean the US is a superpower, and a country of vast regional separation of power at that (heck Washington isn't even the largest city or the central hub of financial power), but I'm seriously concerned at this point that something like this may actually happen.

Also, MissStrangelove, sorry for the late reply, but: you doubt attempts at color revolution would have happened, even though one almost did in Russia in 2011 (during Clinton's tenure) and another in 2014 in Ukraine (coordinated by Nuland, Clinton's surrogate)? The last few months have seen a worrying trend of the leaders of Russian Bandera-style ultranationalists from Moscow suburb Lubertsy suddenly aligning themselves with Muscovite liberals whining about the lack of French cheese. This is something unprecedented, and was certainly a kind of signal to be taken advantage of by Clinton on the one hand, and certain disenchanted oligarchs tired of having limitations put on them about on the other. Here's a video about it for any Russian-speakers out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em972-XlOUA

As for the Trump/Putin Bromance, I'm sure the Kremlin is not naive, and doesn't believe for a second the wild 'Best Buddies for Life' theories floating around out there, but they seem to have figured out a few very simple things: a) Trump is extremely vain, and simply complimenting him will be sure to have a tremendous significance for the US-Russian relationship. b) Secondly, and this is perhaps the most important point: Trump is not an ideologue. For better or for worse, he doesn't give a frag what's going on in other countries, if it doesn't effect the US somehow. He has no burning desire to bring American democracy to the world on the back of a cruise missile. That's good for Russia.

c) As you have repeatedly pointed out, the president is nothing without his advisors constraining him, molding his perceptions and attitudes and basically pigeonholing him into certain choices that the vast bureaucratic and financial establishment wants. In this sense, the fact that he will have guys like Giuliani, Gingrich, Bolton and Christie giving him advice/running elements of policy is simply awful. But as with his predecessor, Trump could (and hopefully will) serve as a brake to some of the establishment's worst impulses. Remember, the difference between Obama and Clinton is that the former had to be dragged kicking and screaming into most of the US's worst entanglements. Clinton on the other hand was the one doing the dragging. If I know these few basic things, I'm sure the Kremlin does too, hence the quiet jubilation over Trump's victory.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 13 Nov 2016, 12:40
soviet78 wrote:
Reading about these ongoing protests, and the only worrying thought on my mind is: do Soros & co. have the balls to do 'mysterious snipers shoot into crowds' inside the homeland to try and take President-elect Trump down ala Vilnius 91', Syria 11', Kiev 14'?

If you mean firing on him: he would become a martyr. Mike Pence is in no sense beholden to Soros or the MoveOn.org crowd, and would have carte blanche to crack down on the center-left almost as much as the radicals if the protests end that way.

If you mean firing on the crowds as a false flag: probable future Secretary of Homeland Security David Clarke appears to have that covered without ZOGlluminati intervention. He wants the National Guard called in to shut it down, faster than you can say "Kent State." Also individual police snipers overreacting are the responsibility of themselves and possibly the bureau that trained them, the only thing approximating a national police force is the FBI. Like Kent State, it'd be a catastrophe that would further tar a presidency that's already tremendously unpopular, but it would only back up preexisting discomfort with everything the Trump experiment represents. It wouldn't be the catalyst for Trump's downfall, which would have to be a personal scandal or failing, unless there were some tape demonstrating a direct Trump link to the shooting.

Quote:
you doubt attempts at color revolution would have happened, even though one almost did in Russia in 2011 (during Clinton's tenure) and another in 2014 in Ukraine (coordinated by Nuland, Clinton's surrogate)?

I think a color revolution is much more expedient to pull off in the non-nuclear already-heavily-divided proxy state of Ukraine than in Russia, yes. That's exactly an example of containing Russia. I see no indication that the American leadership want Putin deposed. Considering the panic mode in the State Department and CIA surrounding the risk of Chechen fanatics getting nukes in the '90s, and the concerns about a Hitleresque far-right movement rising in that power vacuum expressed by Kissinger and Haass. I think it's far more likely that they want his regime boxed in and dependent on the West, and maintaining internal security to keep neoliberalism in Russia on life support.

Quote:
a) Trump is extremely vain, and simply complimenting him will be sure to have a tremendous significance for the US-Russian relationship.

This is true and lasts up to the point where the person complimenting him gets in his way. Then that goes out the window, as in the case of Cruz.

Quote:
b) Secondly, and this is perhaps the most important point: Trump is not an ideologue. For better or for worse, he doesn't give a frag what's going on in other countries, if it doesn't effect the US somehow. He has no burning desire to bring American democracy to the world on the back of a cruise missile. That's good for Russia.

Right, I've never claimed he's a neoconservative. He's part of the broad "realist" school, which ranges from hawkish to dovish but rejects democratization as an inherent good. Although with John Bolton as one of his SecState contenders and James Woolsey a top foreign policy adviser, he certainly has many neocons around him. I do think he is someone who adopts a belligerent stance in any policy conflict as a matter of course though, whenever he lacks personal investment. This can be seen in his stances towards Cuba and Iran. A militaristic aggressiveness is a temperamental bias in his case, along with likely NPD-wrought erraticness.

Also, while she has Samantha Power as an adviser who definitely is a moralistic Wilsonian type, I also don't see Hillary Clinton as an ideologue. She strikes me as someone who likewise takes a Nixonian realist stance of great-game realpolitik, not so much by inclination as by it being beaten into her after decades of failure in politics and it being the default as her husband's own inclination. Her instincts there happen to be more hawkish than Obama's, but considering her lack of concern about authoritarian US allies like the Gulf monarchies (unlike neocons like Paul Wolfowitz I might add), I'd be surprised if she has any concern over democratization as an end in itself. This is also backed up by taking advice from figures like Kissinger and Biden (her top SecState pick as revealed by WikiLeaks) as much as figures like Power and Nuland. So you have a case of two candidates with roughly the same worldview of hawkish realism, but different sets of financial/political interests (Trump pro-Russia/anti-Iran and Cuba, Clinton the reverse) and different temperaments (Trump bombastic and erratic, Clinton calculating).

The Bush administration largely discredited outright Wilsonianism and its deranged bastard child, neoconservatism. The last example of it on a presidential ticket, I'd argue, was John McCain. The only one running on that this election cycle was Marco Rubio. What you do still have is a sea of advisers like Power and Bolton who latch onto every candidate like leeches, who to varying degrees can be described as adherents of that international relations worldview. Who will push for less rational and more ideological foreign policy objectives, and whose pie-in-the-sky reasoning will be used as justification for more cynical (though also more stable/predictable) decisions made in the interest of realpolitik. For example, Cheney using Wolfowitz's "democratization" delusions as cover for "control Iraq's oil reserves to grab China by the balls."

Quote:
In this sense, the fact that he will have guys like Giuliani, Gingrich, Bolton and Christie giving him advice/running elements of policy is simply awful. But as with his predecessor, Trump could (and hopefully will) serve as a brake to some of the establishment's worst impulses.

The fact is, he personally picked these people. They were not foisted upon him.

Rudy Giuliani is a longstanding friend of his. Chris Christie likewise, though I actually don't think he'll have a seat at the table because he's likely to be arrested in the next few months; his top aides have already gone down in the Bridgegate investigation and Trump kicked him aside earlier today. Newt Gingrich has been one of the main people kissing Trump's ass over the course of the campaign, and has emerged as his top surrogate. Jeff Sessions was one of the earliest people to endorse him, on mutual "we want to kick out them thur Mehicans" grounds. Joe Schmitz, an absolute maniac on the board of Blackwater and son of a Bircher who made George Wallace look moderate, was personally hired by Trump a year ago. The Big Oil jackals he's stacking his administration with are longstanding business partners of his. Virulent far-right racist Steve Bannon ran his campaign, and has grown incredibly close with Trump to the point of now having a top advisory position in the White House. And to top it all off, Mike Pence (a man picked for the Vice Presidency by Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort) not only is personally managing his transition team, but has said his model for the Vice Presidency is Dick Cheney.

I think the idea that you're looking at anything but the most craven, ruthless wing of the Republican Party in this administration is misplaced hopefulness that will come crashing down over the next few months. Never forget: Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy's right-hand man and mobbed-up kingpin of the New York ultra-right. A more ghoulish figure is rarely seen in American politics.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 14 Nov 2016, 21:18
We'll just have to agree to disagree on color revolutions MissStrangelove! Fact is, one of the reasons the chill in relations between Washington and Moscow began to brew after 2011 despite the proposed reset is that Putin and his inner circle of 'lets try to join the West' advisors felt insulted that the US directly backed the White Ribbon would-be putchists.

MissStrangelove wrote:
I think the idea that you're looking at anything but the most craven, ruthless wing of the Republican Party in this administration is misplaced hopefulness that will come crashing down over the next few months. Never forget: Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy's right-hand man and mobbed-up kingpin of the New York ultra-right. A more ghoulish figure is rarely seen in American politics.


Perhaps you're right; only time will tell.


Is there anyone in Trump's inner circle who you think is good? And I mean like preferable even to Clinton's top people? Michael Flynn maybe?

Also watching Sanders and his wife talk about the outcome of the race is just heartbreaking. I mean given that Trump won because he took the Rust Belt states filled with angry, disenchanted white working class people. Sanders would have broken off a big chunk of those voters for sure, and gotten the enthusiasm of young people, the Democrats who voted for Trump, plus the left wing of the Democratic Party so disgusted with the DNC that they just stayed home. The only thing the Republicans would be able to field against him is the 'he's a socialist' argument, and I just don't think it'd work this time around, to be honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlmuKtyhDKg
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 14 Nov 2016, 22:31
soviet78 wrote:
Fact is, one of the reasons the chill in relations between Washington and Moscow began to brew after 2011 despite the proposed reset is that Putin and his inner circle of 'lets try to join the West' advisors felt insulted that the US directly backed the White Ribbon would-be putchists.

Indirectly for sure, it got favorable press attention. There's also always the question of whether a movement like this exists to pressure a given leader in a certain direction, or to overthrow them. A coalition that haphazard, combining liberals/soc-dems/communists/NazBols/neo-fascists, doesn't seem like a feasible governing coalition.

Though while based on my knowledge of the situation I'd veer more towards a "pressure" explanation: it also was not yet clear that the Putin regime was permanent considering he was power-sharing with Medvedev (who is a figure our foreign policy leadership seem to have less confidence in to rein in the crazies and ensure security; he inspires nothing but ridicule where Putin inspires a mix of fear and respect) at the time. Passing power on to him or some other Putin surrogate was expected by some. With how highly centralized power has become, unless this is someone who can immediately inspire confidence in the Russian people and cow the Chechen radicals, then you already have a succession crisis with the power vacuum that the Kissingers and Haasses of the world are worried about.

Quote:
Is there anyone in Trump's inner circle who you think is good? And I mean like preferable even to Clinton's top people? Michael Flynn maybe?

Not really. Clinton at least proposed Joe Biden for SecState, keeping Tom Perez at Labor, and Eric Garcetti at HUD. These are all decent picks, though Biden wanted to retire and was unlikely to take the post at State. On balance, her cabinet also would have been pretty bad. Her Treasury Secretary pick was a choice between "asshole who deregulated Wall Street in the '90s" and "guy who wants to restore partial privatization of Social Security," John Podesta is a shady lobbyist who I wouldn't want as Chief of Staff, and I'm not a fan of James Stavridis who would likely have a top national security post.

Trump's list of picks, though, reads like a list of the worst possible people for these positions. Michael Flynn is darling of RT for proposing rapprochement with Russia. Unfortunately he was part of the Petraeus clique during Iraq, he's vehemently pro-torture, and he was all-in in favor of Trump's idea of a special committee to prosecute a single political opponent. He'd need a congressional waiver for SecDef due to having served in the military in the last 7 years, and they prefer to maintain civilian control of the military. It's likely to go to Jeff Sessions instead. He'll probably be National Security Adviser or CIA Director instead, Joe Schmitz or James Woolsey probably takes whichever one he doesn't get.

Quote:
Sanders would have broken off a big chunk of those voters for sure, and gotten the enthusiasm of young people, the Democrats who voted for Trump, plus the left wing of the Democratic Party so disgusted with the DNC that they just stayed home.

Agreed with all of this. Sanders would have done worse in Virginia (which favors establishment candidates), but as someone with elected experience probably still would have taken it over Trump. I'm convinced Sanders would have won, due to disaffected voters having less desire to stay home in the Rust Belt.

That said, "Democrats who voted for Trump" were a perishingly small group, statistically. Trump largely won based on: 1) traditional Republican suburban voters going for him, 2) rural traditional non-voters going for him, 3) many Democrats who voted Obama (largely urban black voters) staying home. His campaign loves the "many people who voted Obama voted for me" narrative, but it doesn't bear out if you look at the numbers. The most important change was vastly lowered turnout, on both sides (Trump had less votes than Romney) but especially the Democratic one.

Quote:
The only thing the Republicans would be able to field against him is the 'he's a socialist' argument, and I just don't think it'd work this time around, to be honest.

It would with older voters who grew up at the height of the Cold War. These overwhelmingly vote Republican anyway, though.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 Nov 2016, 13:51
See that's the thing though Miss; you tell me Trump has not a single even potentially good pick, even bashing Flynn, and then turn around and tell me how great a guy Joe Biden is and how he would be a great pick for Secretary of State. With comments like that, I start to doubt your objectivity.


In potentially (and hopefully related) news: Russian Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukaev has been arrested on bribery charges. I may or may not have posted here in the run-up to the election that there is a Russian economist named Mikhail Khazin who predicted that if Trump won, he would force Putin to clean house of 90s Clinton-era economic officials. Ulyukaev is probably the biggest enchilada in this regard. In other words, if Khazin was right, Trump's election may mean that Russia's blood-sucking liberal economic elite is about to get flushed down the toilet.
Jesus I hope and pray this is true!!!!1
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jun 2016, 08:12
Pioneer
Post 15 Nov 2016, 16:38
soviet 78 Russia probably ought to just go commie again. The whole capitalist thing isn't working and likely won't. The East Germans don't like capitalism very much either, but they obviously cannot go back, excepting a prolonged revolt, a very serious protracted revolt.But Russia could do it, they might be better off. Then they could take back Ukraine, and the Baltics. Right now the Baltics are in the EU and NATO if you can believe that, but NATO cannot guarantee their sovereignty. Impossible, unsustainable.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 15 Nov 2016, 21:39
soviet78 wrote:
See that's the thing though Miss; you tell me Trump has not a single even potentially good pick, even bashing Flynn,

Yes, because I don't make up my mind based on RT coverage. Unlike them, as I'm not a Russian nationalist, I don't consider "friendliness towards Russia" to be the be-all of what makes someone hawkish or diplomatic in orientation. Nor do I have any desire to take a leap of faith for Trump personally if the evidence doesn't warrant it. I was and am very critical of both candidates and the cliques surrounding them, and believe Trump represented the worse option of two bad groups.

Flynn's proposed rapprochement with Russia is a good thing. His support for torture is not. His membership in the Petraeus-led "Warrior Class" clique, as Carly Fiorina called them, is not. Most of these are men who've essentially called for a third Iraq War, Flynn in particular was fired for wanting a strategy of mobilizing the DIA in areas outside of Afghanistan and Iraq (e.g. Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Iran) which would stir up a region-wide hornet's nest. It's akin to Truman's firing of Douglas MacArthur for being a crazy motherfragger. Flynn wants rapprochement with Russia and an end to containment only because he views it as neoliberal/occidental enough to not a real threat to American hegemony. He considers it a distraction from the endless war on the tactic of "terror," and in particular from America's ability to push against Iran.

From a Pat Buchanan-run, paleoconservative source about how he's if anything more hawkish than the neoconservative crowd, key members of which (Ledeen, Bolton) he's personally close with: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... worldview/ He fits in perfectly with a renewal of the PNAC objectives, with a long history of advocating for stepping up action against DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, literally everyone but Russia.

Quote:
and then turn around and tell me how great a guy Joe Biden is and how he would be a great pick for Secretary of State.

He's had some issues in his Senate career, mostly related to the War on Drugs, though his Iraq partition/exit plan also didn't seem feasible long-term at all and through his son Hunter he has a vested financial interest in maintaining the Poroshenko government in Ukraine. But he's pushed for gradual draw-down in Afghanistan and been the main check on hawkish parts of the Obama administration in Syria. If you want to know why ground troops were not put there in late 2013 to take down Assad, it was mostly his influence. Among American foreign policy leaders, yes, that makes him one of the better ones. He's also represented the left of the administration domestically on issues like healthcare reform and infrastructure spending, but that wouldn't be relevant in his role as SecState.

Meanwhile, Trump's SecState options: bog-standard Bush-era Republican Bob Corker is the best option since he'll only push for war when Wall Street wants it, and due to that even he's quite a bit worse than Biden. Newt Gingrich, the most likely one, is a lunatic wannabe mad scientist who included "blockade the Strait of Hormuz" as a central foreign policy plank in his 2012 campaign. John Bolton is even worse than him, as an arch-neocon who's been advocating for continuing PNAC and war with Iran for over a decade.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Nov 2016, 02:15
This just in: Gingrich is out of the running for a cabinet post, because the Congressional Republicans who ousted him for his narcissistic grandstanding ruining their shot at the presidency in '96 are still there and would block his nomination.

The SecState race is now between Bob Corker and John Bolton. Bob Corker was a fervent Iraq War defender, wants no draw-down in Afghanistan, and is a Ukraine hawk. ...and despite being abjectly terrible, he's the better of the two options, as a milquetoast Bush type who doesn't reject diplomacy as a form of policy, who will push for war when the donors want it rather than as a quixotic matter of course. John Bolton has all of Corker's flaws, as well as being most well-known for spending the last decade arguing for war with Iran and being a DPRK/Venezuela/Cuba/Syria hawk as well, and (like Gingrich) having a temperamental quixotic crusader mentality that impedes rational bargaining.

A Corker pick signals slightly ramped up, slightly more militaristic business as usual. A Bolton pick signals intent to move against Iran, since the only reason he'd be given State rather than Defense (where his undiplomatic mindset is more common) is that then there are no diplomatic brakes on the military push. Either way, brace for impact.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2016, 03:24
War with Iraq means war with Russia means war with China. Apparently he means to have it all out in a winner-take-all, Come To Jesus, Wyatt Earp-styled, shoot out at the OK Corral. That always ends well.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Nov 2016, 03:53
Comrade Gulper wrote:
War with Iraq means war with Russia means war with China. Apparently he means to have it all out in a winner-take-all, Come To Jesus, Wyatt Earp-styled, shoot out at the OK Corral. That always ends well.

Who? Flynn or Bolton? I'm a bit confused because that statement could definitely fit Bolton's basic worldview, but matches the "literally everyone who's questioned American hegemony is all in this together" mentality Flynn promulgates as well.

Bolton absolutely does, for the record. Flynn has essentially the same view, but with "Russia is a distraction from our mopping up every little country that resists hegemony... for now" tacked on.

EDIT: Mitt Romney is now in consideration for it as well. I'm not sure what foreign policy experience he has, he's a technocrat who appears to have no interest in foreign policy. What he does have are 2012 campaign statements, which were pretty belligerent across-the-board due to the influence of Bolton. Also a terrible pick. Given he at least has the saving grace of waffling slightly on the Iran deal, I'd actually say Corker is better.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2016, 05:58
The goal of every W-grade hawkish Republican is to mop the floor with The Bad Guys, regardless of what configuration they take or what label we give them. It's a complete turnaround from the days of isolationism (a platform tenet that seems to have been relegated to a B-level Libertarian role).

I was speaking largely of Trump's public rhetoric, which is bound to take on an increasingly harsh and hawkish tone, especially as the snubs, guffaws, and outright insults (across the board from Merkel to Kim Jong Un) begin to come to his attention. Having advisers like Bolton, Flynn, or Bannon at his side won't help matters.

Romney would at least be a potentially calming influence as far as foreign affairs are concerned, although this same individual would be horrendous for domestic policy.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.