The tipping point is now

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 29 Aug 2016, 14:49

You guys are over-estimating the powers of the "establishment".

They managed to stop Sanders but they will struggle against Trump, should he get elected, on a populist uprising.

Trump is a hard ass bastard and he won't play nice with the Wall Street oligarchs or the Washington insiders.

If needs be, he will play dirty. Rally the gun-toting bikers, armed militias and the angry pitchfork crowds to Wall Street and Washington if the special interests try and stop him reforming Wall Street.

If you want change you need to play dirty. That is the real lesson.

And you won't get any change if Hilary Clinton gets elected president. You folks need to get real. Trump is the only candidate offering the promise of change and he will break the rules to get it, if needs be.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 29 Aug 2016, 16:13

Agreed. Change is not going to come without some bloodshed or the very real threat of it. I just wish it wasn't someone like Trump who was the person to do it. But, then, maybe it takes some like Trump to do it.

I find myself keeping returning to Oswald Spengler's predictions. That what we need or, rather, what is inevitable is the rise of a new Caesarism. I certainly don't think Trump is that. But, he is a sign of things to come.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 30 Aug 2016, 05:45

LJ you've quoted an article from a year ago saying that the tipping point for climate change is here now and that Hanson thinks that we can avoid this drastic change by reducing our carbon output yet you are supporting Trump who is a climate change denier and a supporter of the US coal industry!!

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 30 Aug 2016, 07:21

Fortunately LJ's support of Trump will probably make little difference to the election outcome.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Aug 2016, 08:10

kenneal - lagger wrote:LJ you've quoted an article from a year ago saying that the tipping point for climate change is here now and that Hanson thinks that we can avoid this drastic change by reducing our carbon output yet you are supporting Trump who is a climate change denier and a supporter of the US coal industry!!

I didn't say I supported Trump. However, I am saying I don't support Clinton even more than I don't support Trump because she is even more dangerous than he is due to being a fully paid-up, card-carrying supporter of BAU. By BAU, I refer to the endless Yank wars and military expansionism in the Middle East and beyond and a rising escalation of a renewed Cold-War between America and the East. In particular Russia and now, it would also seem, China. I am saying that BAU is definitely going to take the world over the edge and so, whatever else is true, BAU has to be broken. In an ideal world, this would be via democratic mechanisms. However, it is becoming clearer by the day that those in charge of BAU are more than prepared to usurp the democratic process in oder to keep things as they are. Therefore it is going to take a demagogue to break it. Again, in an ideal world, I would have a demagogue of the Left. but, this world is far from ideal, so we will get the demagogue we deserve.

I am saying that this system is already broken. But, it will take a demagogue to smash it. What comes after that is then up for grabs. I am saying that I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that it could only ever end up this way. That this is what it was always going to take.

That the rise of Oswald's Spengler's new Caesarism is inevitable

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Aug 2016, 08:20

woodburner wrote:Fortunately LJ's support of Trump will probably make little difference to the election outcome.

Pack it in Woodburner. You are better than that. That comment is on a par with the likes of John Hemming.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 30 Aug 2016, 19:45

Like Little John, Trump is certainly not my ideal candidate.

In my case, I would prefer an experienced centre-right politician with sensible realist views on foreign affairs (who has opposed the post 9/11 wars), who understands the importance of combating climate change and managing resource scarcity/peak oil but is able to communicate to the public in a sensible, common-sense manner and reaches out to all folks, whatever their creed or color. Plus, he or she would want to rollback the trend of the American global military empire abroad which is crippling the US economy.

My ideal candidate would be distant from the establishment and would be prepared to take on the "liberal elite" on issues like radical Islam and refugees but in a toned if "populist" manner. I'm sure the chattering classes would condemn my ideal candidate as a racist and extremist but hopefully his overall serious, policy focused and sound manner would make such claims frankly ridiculous.

Clearly Trump is a quite far from being my ideal candidate but he kind of gets some of what my ideal candidate would articulate (radical Islam, risks of refugees, anti-war position and a more isolationist take on America's crippling global empire ambitions) and is slowly toning down some of his rhetoric.

Trump is a flawed candidate in many ways, but he is definitely a lesser evil to Hilary Clinton, who is nothing more than George Bush in drag.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 30 Aug 2016, 22:38

Little John wrote:
woodburner wrote:Fortunately LJ's support of Trump will probably make little difference to the election outcome.
Pack it in Woodburner. You are better than that. That comment is on a par with the likes of John Hemming.

I see you have changed your reply from "Grow up". Perhaps you should take your own advice and pack it in LJ. If you were not so busy being agressively defensive you might have worked out my comment was a light hearted reply to kenneal's post and not directed at you.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Aug 2016, 23:46

woodburner wrote:
Little John wrote:
woodburner wrote:Fortunately LJ's support of Trump will probably make little difference to the election outcome.
Pack it in Woodburner. You are better than that. That comment is on a par with the likes of John Hemming.

I see you have changed your reply from "Grow up". Perhaps you should take your own advice and pack it in LJ. If you were not so busy being agressively defensive you might have worked out my comment was a light hearted reply to kenneal's post and not directed at you.

I thought I might cut you some slack. But I can change it back if you'd prefer WB.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 31 Aug 2016, 20:57

kenneal - lagger wrote:LJ you've quoted an article from a year ago saying that the tipping point for climate change is here now and that Hanson thinks that we can avoid this drastic change by reducing our carbon output yet you are supporting Trump who is a climate change denier and a supporter of the US coal industry!!

There is an argument that nothing will change until the total grip of the Wall Street establishment on Washington is broken.

Voting Trump inis giving the possibility of a loosening of Wall Street's power a go, which in the long-run could unleash even more powerful populist and establishment forces (I'm thinking the Sanders "revolution" army) to reshape American politics in a more sustainable way with a politics better attuned to the requirements of climate change and resource scarcity.

Trump may be a populist on the Right but Clinton is the pure BAU candidate who will do nothing challenge the total control of special financial oligarchs on the US system.

Trump could be a opening to a more resurgent populism on the left going forward.

It is therefore logical for voters on the Left to vote for Trump, (1) to discredit Clinton and the centrist establishment politics she represents and (2) open the way for post-Sanders populism of the Left to takeover the Democrats.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 31 Aug 2016, 22:25

woodburner wrote:
Little John wrote:
woodburner wrote:Fortunately LJ's support of Trump will probably make little difference to the election outcome.
Pack it in Woodburner. You are better than that. That comment is on a par with the likes of John Hemming.

I see you have changed your reply from "Grow up". Perhaps you should take your own advice and pack it in LJ. If you were not so busy being agressively defensive you might have worked out my comment was a light hearted reply to kenneal's post and not directed at you.

In many senses "pack it in" is worse than "grow up". Pack it in implies an attempt to silence someone rather than simply to criticise what they say. LJ is, however, not a supporter of freedom of speech for those who disagree with him.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 05 Sep 2016, 10:27

Lord Beria3 wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:LJ you've quoted an article from a year ago saying that the tipping point for climate change is here now and that Hanson thinks that we can avoid this drastic change by reducing our carbon output yet you are supporting Trump who is a climate change denier and a supporter of the US coal industry!!
There is an argument that nothing will change until the total grip of the Wall Street establishment on Washington is broken.

Voting Trump inis giving the possibility of a loosening of Wall Street's power a go, which in the long-run could unleash even more powerful populist and establishment forces (I'm thinking the Sanders "revolution" army) to reshape American politics in a more sustainable way with a politics better attuned to the requirements of climate change and resource scarcity.

Trump may be a populist on the Right but Clinton is the pure BAU candidate who will do nothing challenge the total control of special financial oligarchs on the US system.

Trump could be a opening to a more resurgent populism on the left going forward.

It is therefore logical for voters on the Left to vote for Trump, (1) to discredit Clinton and the centrist establishment politics she represents and (2) open the way for post-Sanders populism of the Left to takeover the Democrats.

That is quite the convoluted path you propose there LB. Vote for the loose cannon and hope he causes disruption enough to bring in his far opposites after him? Seems pretty risky to me. If a Trump presidency causes as much disruption as I think it will, I expect a flight back to establishment leadership, not a hail Mary to other radicalism.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 05 Sep 2016, 12:04

Sometimes the riskier strategy is not taking the risk.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 05 Sep 2016, 12:19

Snail wrote:Sometimes the riskier strategy is not taking the risk.

And if the establishment fights back? Well, good. A fight is needed.

And if nothing changes, despite voting for trump or corbyn. Well, either that in itself will say a lot about democracy. Or, they weren't radical enough in the first place.

Or simply that voting for impossible things does not suddenly make them happen.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 05 Sep 2016, 12:24

You replied before I edited.

In reply, I say so what? Keep on voting for the option promising the most change. Play the game. Just don't be overly disappointed if little changes.

The strategy for the thinking man