Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

The problem people have when looking at Anarchists is that the actual political philosophy has a few tenets that are essentially mandatory, but apart from that it's all about voluntary cooperation and organization which by its very nature will vary.

 

[DaveP]

And I'm not the only one having put forth this view on Trump. He really is showing a lot of the traits of a narcissist personality disorder. He's acting like a petulant man-child.

You could well be right.  You might even get lucky and find he will not stand for re-election in 20 20.  He may not want the grey hair that seems to go with the job.

One other factor you may not have noticed.  His every action and tweet is reported and it's overwhelming the media and their ability to get any traction on a story.  No sooner than they get their teeth into something than he says something else and the narrative has moved on.

The media is constantly on the back foot.

How long he can keep this up I don't know, but at the moment the public is transfixed.

DaveP

 

[tands]

OK, that's why I said right at the top -

I don't think it's necessary to place them within a conceptual structure, anarchists aren't really that complicated, and don't really relate to political groupings. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

You could well be right.  You might even get lucky and find he will not stand for re-election in 20 20.  He may not want the grey hair that seems to go with the job.

One other factor you may not have noticed.  His every action and tweet is reported and it's overwhelming the media and their ability to get any traction on a story.  No sooner than they get their teeth into something than he says something else and the narrative has moved on.

The media is constantly on the back foot.

How long he can keep this up I don't know, but at the moment the public is transfixed.

DaveP

Oh I noticed all right. He'll be able to keep it up until he mentally breaks down or does something stupid after which the Republicans ditch him in favor for the vp. Until then the media will struggle.

The most dangerous thing here is what can sneak past the public in all the noise that he's generating.

 

[tands]

The most dangerous thing here is what can sneak past the public in all the noise that he's generating.

Pelosi's helping him do that.

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Thursday called the appointment of Steve Bannon, the President's chief strategist to the National Security Council "stunning," and referred to him twice as "white supremacist."

"It's a stunning thing, that a white supremacist would be a permanent member of the National Security Council," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/pelosi-steve-bannon-white-supremacist/

She starts up a name calling spat to distract from her lousy answer to this guy. Look at her, she's seething being asked this. She's a lot more comfortable calling names back and forth with Bannon, obviously. Funny how that works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR65ZhO6LGA

 

[mattiasNYC]

She starts up a name calling spat to distract from her lousy answer to this guy. Look at her, she's seething being asked this. She's a lot more comfortable calling names back and forth with Bannon, obviously. Funny how that works.

He answer wasn't lousy at all if you stop at what she said first; the Democratic party is a pro-Capitalist party. I've been saying this for years. There are a bunch of Americans who think they're Socialist, but it's just because Socialists in the US has no party or candidate to vote for and just go for the least terrible alternative. It's hardly news.

Of course she's uncomfortable replying, the two parties are relatively similar. They don't want to hear that a large part of the population is no longer as in love with this system as it once was.

However, I don't really see how that's something that carries over to her comments about Bannon. That wasn't the same day or venue. The Democrats will surely not turn Socialist, at least not any time soon, and they wouldn't carry such a debate in public, and certainly not while addressing different issues. If she's asked to comment about Bannon or the administration, why would she talk about the Democrats being capitalists?

More importantly: Bannon IS in power now, and he IS what we should focus on.

By talking about Pelosi you're diverting attention from lunatics that may cause harm to the US that'll last for decades, not to mention other countries.

Start a separate thread about the Democrats instead.

 

[tands]

I didn't say uncomfortable. I said she was seething, which is pretty obvious if you watched it.

These people have been goofing around for the last 16 years, with little effect on really anything. They're obviously not about to do more than call names while they let the reps vote. You're going to need them if you want to stop Bannon and Trump, so you best get busy. There's an election in a year and a half, and you need to figure out what your move is.

Just sayin.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Maybe this will help clarify. (And point taken, JR)

"We do not recognize the right of the majority to impose the law on the minority, even if the will of the majority in somewhat complicated issues could really be ascertained. The fact of having the majority on one’s side does not in any way prove that one must be right. Indeed, humanity has always advanced through the initiative and efforts of individuals and minorities, whereas the majority, by its very nature, is slow, conservative, submissive to superior force and to established privileges.

The constitution defines how law and legislation is promulgated. Some only half joking call this "sausage making", i.e. you like the result but don't want to see how it's made.

The constitution protects the rights of individuals, which by extension protects unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the masses. It also protects free expression and different belief systems ( religion).

But if we do not for one moment recognize the right of majorities to dominate minorities, we are even more opposed to domination of the majority by a minority. It would be absurd to maintain that one is right because one is in a minority. If at all times there have been advanced and enlightened minorities, so too have there been minorities which were backward and reactionary; if there are human beings who are exceptional, and ahead of their times, there are also psychopaths, and especially are there apathetic individuals who allow themselves to be unconsciously carried on the tide of events.

In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each individual so long as he does not violate the equal freedom of others. No one can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is closer to the truth and which is the best road to the greatest good for each and everyone. Experience through freedom is the only means to arrive at the truth and the best solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the freedom to be wrong.

In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and minority should succeed in living together peacefully and profitably by mutual agreement and compromise, by the intelligent recognition of the practical necessities of communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which circumstances make necessary.

As well as their reason and experience telling them that in spite of using all the alchemy of elections and parliament one always ends up by having laws which represent everything but the will of the majority, anarchists do not recognize that the majority as such, even if it were possible to establish beyond all doubt what it wanted, has the right to impose itself on the dissident minorities by the use of force.

Apart from these considerations, there always exists the fact that in a capitalist regime, in which society is divided into rich and poor, into employers and employees whose next meal depends on the absolute power of the boss, there cannot be really free elections."

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-majorities-and-minorities

I find it difficult to accept that anarchists somehow speak with one voice.  The "occupy wall street" group had spokespeople, but no consistent message. Looked more like an excuse to raise hell and party.

Kids like to blow stuff up (I did as a kid, but mostly used firecrackers), reject authority in general, think we know more than we do, and like to meet girls at rallies (while I haven't been a kid for some time now)..  I think some of the appeal of terrorism is resonant with young men being anti-authoritarian and liking to blow stuff up. 

News cameras attract more attention seekers like moths to a flame, and normalizes this bad behavior. Calling riots a protest is spin to capture the energy from this criminal behavior for political purpose.  Ignoring criminal behavior will likely lead to more of the same.

Of course what would I know?  I don't even recognize some of the new names that groups of people are being called (and names I'm called on social media)... I guess identity politics needs to name groups to better characterize them for their divide and conquer strategy.

JR

PS: I saw an interview of the young man who was the excuse for the riot at UC Bezerkly yesterday ($100k property damage). Being a conservative, gay, jew, is an interesting mix of hate targets (lets guess which they were blocking?). It appears that universities have lost sight of their fundamental purpose, the free exchange of new ideas. I can't say that I am a fan, or would buy his book, but he deserves an audience. Boo him, or argue with him, but don't deny him speech, which would be amendment number one.

 

[tands]

Anarchism is definately utopian, which they realize. They live by their beliefs though, whether the world they want comes or not. I can't say they're wrong in that.

They don't accept the state's protection of the guy's speech, John. They don't accept the state. They didn't ask anyone else (you, me) if it should, or should not be ok for him to speak. They thought about whether they wanted him to speak his screeds or not, decided not, and so they shut him down.

An anarchist's view...

""So at heart, we are against democracy because its very existence maintains this division that we’re seeking to abolish. Democracy does nothing but maintain the existence of alienated power, since it requires that our desires be separate from our power to act, and any attempts to engage in that system will only serve to reproduce it. Democracies of any type make decisions via elections, the very essence of which transfers one’s will, thought, autonomy, and freedom to an outside power. It makes no difference whether one transfers that power to an elected representative or to an elusive majority. The point is that it’s no longer your own. Democracy has given it to the majority. You have been alienated from your capacity to determine the conditions of your existence in free cooperation with those around you.

"There is an important distinction here. Parties are political in their claim to represent the interests of others. This is a claim to alienated power, because when someone takes power with a claim to represent me, I am separated from my own freedom to act. In this sense, anarchists are anti-political. We are not interested in a different claim to alienated power, in a different leadership, in another form of representation, in a regime change, or in anything that merely shuffles around the makeup of alienated power. Any time someone claims to represent you or to be your liberatory force, that should be a definite red flag. We are anti-political because we are interested in the self-organization of the power of individuals. This tension towards self-organization is completely orthogonal to democracy in any of its various forms." "

http://anarchy101.org/114/what-is-the-anarchist-problem-with-democracy

Or, another anarchist's view..

"Democracy is a specialised form of political domination deployed as a universal objective value, it is set in place as a political end or ideal for society by an elite whose real power over society is not political at all but is grounded in an all-pervasive economics exploitation."

http://anarchy101.org/114/what-is-the-anarchist-problem-with-democracy

 

[dmp]

PS: I saw an interview of the young man who was the excuse for the riot at UC Bezerkly yesterday ($100k property damage). Being a conservative, gay, jew, is an interesting mix of hate targets (lets guess which they were blocking?). It appears that universities have lost sight of their fundamental purpose, the free exchange of new ideas. I can't say that I am a fan, or would buy his book, but he deserves an audience. Boo him, or argue with him, but don't deny him speech, which would be amendment number one.

While I am for freedom of speech and disagree with preventing this guy from speaking (better to just ignore him), there has been a normalization of extreme hate views that this guy is a part of. Protesting these messages are important.
He is gay but against gay rights, for example - I'm sure he is well compensated for his public positions. Here's an article he wrote today for example. Do you agree with him? Should we cap women enrolled in science and math to limit their opportunity?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/

Calling riots a protest is spin to capture the energy from this criminal behavior for political purpose. 

This month we saw the largest protest in the history of the USA that was almost entirely peaceful.  Do you think there was a political purpose to calling it a riot by your news outlets?

 

[JohnRoberts]

While I am for freedom of speech and disagree with preventing this guy from speaking (better to just ignore him), there has been a normalization of extreme hate views that this guy is a part of. Protesting these messages are important.
He is gay but against gay rights, for example - I'm sure he is well compensated for his public positions. Here's an article he wrote today for example. Do you agree with him? Should we cap women enrolled in science and math to limit their opportunity?

I probably don't agree with him.... I don't care enough to learn more about what he thinks, or says he thinks to sell books.  This riot will be a PR success for him, so rather than being a victim (like some were,,, 100k property damage) he will gain name exposure to help sell tickets and books. I did not mention him by name or promote his message on purpose. 

-deleted link-
This month we saw the largest protest in the history of the USA that was almost entirely peaceful.  Do you think there was a political purpose to calling it a riot by your news outlets?

My news outlets? Almost entirely peaceful? Probably matters to those injured but some local governments treat these event differently for effect.

FBI civil rights division is "reportedly" investigating the mayor of Berkeley for "allegedly" telling police to stand down yesterday.  Too much reportedly and allegedly in early reports from partisan news sources to give it complete weight, I kind of believe the damage estimates from visual reports that did not look like a peaceful protest, I doubt police would just ignore street violence (I hope), but they may be reluctant to go on campus unless invited. There were barricades set up so it appears protests were expected. I expect the police responded to the reports later when campus police could not control the situation.

Protest is protected speech, violent protest and property damage is criminal behavior... legal distinction not political, while language is often used loosely in media to amplify or downplay events (I will resist giving other examples to create more veers). 

I suggested in my comments that people should boo him and/or argue with him, not prevent him from speaking. I hope you agree with that? 

JR

 

[dmp]

I suggested in my comments that people should boo him and/or argue with him, not prevent him from speaking. I hope you agree with that? 

I do agree. Better still, just ignore him.

I guess identity politics needs to name groups to better characterize them for their divide and conquer strategy.

Speaking of identity politics, Fox News was quick to report (wrongly) that a Morrocan man was the shooter in the Quebec terror attack.  It appears now it was actually a french canadian man with right wing, anti immigration, (pro Trump?) views.  Is the US leadership unconcerned with homegrown right wing radical christian terrorists?

 

[DaveP]

Is the US leadership unconcerned with homegrown right wing radical christian terrorists?

No real Christian would become a terrorist and for that matter, no real Muslim would become one either.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I do agree. Better still, just ignore him.

Speaking of identity politics, Fox News was quick to report (wrongly) that a Morrocan man was the shooter in the Quebec terror attack.  It appears now it was actually a french canadian man with right wing, anti immigration, (pro Trump?) views.  Is the US leadership unconcerned with homegrown right wing radical christian terrorists?

I always wondered who watches Fox news or reads breibart?  ;D

According to google Fox has deleted an erroneous tweet about the identity of the shooter.  :-[ I find social media sources less than trustworthy for breaking news events. TV is just as bad as talking heads show blinky police car lights on TV and repeat how little they actually know for hours on end if the story is considered important enough to displace normal programming.

The police have not released a motive for the shooting that I can find (yet). Some kid who claims to be his classmate called the shooter a "pro-trump" troll.  [sarcasm] Another case solved by the internet.  : Now if the shooter voted for Trump as a Canadian citizen that might be a story. [/sarcasm]

I do not hear much about right wing radical christian terrorists, but I am opposed to all terrorism, no matter the excuse du jour.  If anything Christians seem to be under violent attack in the middle east, while radical islam is equal opportunity and happy to kill muslims too. (Interesting to hear that Iraqi special forces tracked down and assassinated ISIS executioners used to make recruiting videos.)

No shortage of crazy people around the world. I don't blame Trump for this tragic event.  A wave of nationalism seems to be sweeping the world. He is just surfing that wave. Pretty smart for a non politician.

JR

PS: Speaking of Iraq military, a high level Iraqi general who moved his family to the US to reduce the risk of them becoming kidnapped or killed, was unable to come visit them here due to the temporary travel ban.

 

[dmp]

I was making a tongue in cheek comment about identity politics.
Trump and Republicans were crying about how the left wouldn't call terrorism "radical islamic" - i.e. they wanted the religion implicated.
Of course, with a Dylan Roof, or this guy in Canada, the right doesn't see the need to jump out and call it radical Christian.
Wise people don't jump to conclusions and make immediate reactionary statements.
Trump jumps on Twitter, as evidenced this morning:

"A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S."

 

[JohnRoberts]

I was making a tongue in cheek comment about identity politics.
Trump and Republicans were crying about how the left wouldn't call terrorism "radical islamic" - i.e. they wanted the religion implicated.

If you refuse to name the enemy how can you possibly defeat them?

Radical Islamic groups declare that religion is the basis for their struggle (to reform the caliphate). Any student of history can see that caliphates are not good for non-believers (they do not practice peaceful coexistence).

It is a fair argument that most(?) Muslims do not embrace the violent extremism but that is different from actively rejecting it (some do) .

Of course, with a Dylan Roof, or this guy in Canada, the right doesn't see the need to jump out and call it radical Christian.
Wise people don't jump to conclusions and make immediate reactionary statements.
Trump jumps on Twitter, as evidenced this morning:

Its what politicians do... and some media speculation is really out there. I saw Robert Reich (a democratic spokesman and Clinton administration  labor secretary) on TV suggesting that the violent agitators at Berkeley were paid right wing thugs, because he didn't recognize them (they were wearing masks Robert).  Of course that is possible, but very unlikely IMO, and far from responsible commentary.

"A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S."

Europe is the poster boy right now for unintended consequences of welcoming too many un-vetted migrants. ISIS has openly declared that they will use the migrant flow to move soldiers into place to carry out future terrorism in western Europe.  German police are rolling out a new strategy to better predict which migrants are likely to participate in attacks (Radar-iTE?).

In the US Comey has shared that the FBI has active investigations in all 50 states, but this is just reactive. We need to engage radical Islam pro-actively on the psychological battlefield to win the hearts and minds of all those with more heart than mind. A good start to that end is to kill the obvious bad guys where they live (Syria/Iraq). This end game will get nasty as the rats scatter, but we can't end it until we decide to and make a serious effort.

JR

PS: The terrorist(?) who attacked soldiers outside the Louve with machetes, brought his knives to a gun fight. This is part of the psychological battle being waged. Sacrifice one terrorist to interfere with normal citizen's lives and dominate the news cycle for another day or more. Until we understand and engage them on that level they will have free run.  This will be hard.  I was actually impressed by the Brit comedians who did a skit called the "real housewives of ISIS". This should not offend peaceful Muslims, but belittling ISIS may hurt their recruitment efforts. I'm sure the PC crowd went berserk.

 

[tands]

A little girl was shot the other day.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/

 

[JohnRoberts]

One US navy seal was killed in the raid against al qaeda in Yemen. Reportedly some civilians were "likely killed" too. The US bends over backwards to not hurt innocent civilians while the bad actors routinely surround themselves with innocent human shields. The seals were pinned down and taking fire from a building. It didn't end well for the building and people inside.

Clearing Mosul Iraq of ISIS fighters is taking so long because ISIS has embedded themselves in highly populated civilian neighborhoods, classic asymmetrical warfare.

I do not know the full details of this one operation but yes Yemen is chaotic after years of proxy warfare between Saudi Arabian and Iranian backed factions. "Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula" based there is actually pretty effective directing attacks against the west elsewhere.  So this is one of several countries where Pres Obama has ordered drone attacks against high level leadership individuals in the past.  There was some controversy over President Obama directing a targeted drone strike against the US born Al Awlaki.... Ok to release bad guys from Gitmo to re-enter the fight, but likewise OK to pop them in their beds without due process. Some lawsuits about killing that US born cleric, but the widespread use of drones has been mostly ignored by media. 

This Yemen attack was the first military operation approved by pres Trump so is under the media microscope because of that (OK that's their job).  That attack happened almost a week ago and the navy seal's body has already been returned to the US. I suspect there will be more.

It is sad whenever a civilian is caught up in ballistic warfare. I am still waiting for effective non-lethal force weapons to be practical but these seem more in the realm of science fiction than modern combat use.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

The constitution protects the rights of individuals, which by extension protects unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the masses. It also protects free expression and different belief systems ( religion).

Though  curiously there still are laws on the books against atheists.

I find it difficult to accept that anarchists somehow speak with one voice.  The "occupy wall street" group had spokespeople, but no consistent message. Looked more like an excuse to raise hell and party.

To conservatives that's probably how it looked. Regardless, by and large that group was most certainly NOT anarchist. I'd bet infinity dollars that almost all who protested were in favor of having a state and government, just weren't in favor of what the current one was doing.

Kids like to blow stuff up (I did as a kid, but mostly used firecrackers), reject authority in general, think we know more than we do, and like to meet girls at rallies (while I haven't been a kid for some time now)..  I think some of the appeal of terrorism is resonant with young men being anti-authoritarian and liking to blow stuff up. 

I have absolutely no idea how you link these things. You leap from anarchism to 'occupy wall street' to 'kids like to blow stuff up' to terrorism being appealing to anti-authoritarian... I mean... ???

Calling riots a protest is spin to capture the energy from this criminal behavior for political purpose.  Ignoring criminal behavior will likely lead to more of the same.

Ironically, some would say that calling police brutality 'criminals resisting arrest' "spin", and would also argue that the criminal behavior by those cops leads to more of the same.

Funny how that works.

Fortunately, the most massive anti-president protests this country has seen in a very long time, maybe ever, were for the very most part entirely peaceful. Lumping it all together and complaining about the odd riot being called a protest, which typically doesn't happen, is just silly.

Lastly, I find this notion on "the right", by "conservatives", that we absolutely need law and order and civility and politeness, a bit short-sighted and ironic. Destruction of property obviously sucks, unless it's the Boston Tea Party. Then it's ok. Or bombing abortion clinics, then we look the other way or don't tally that up in a column of terrorism. Neither do we talk about the unreasonable nature of the chaotic streets and riots of earlier decades that led to greater justice and equality for all Americans.

So, what I'm saying is that there's this knee-jerk reaction by "the right" to complain about the lack of law and order, exactly because they are conservatives and don't want change. But in principle they too would be ok with violence as long as it's in their favor. Heck, "the right" by and large is the violent-advocating group when it comes to international relations. Solutions appear to come in the form of lead in a lot of cases.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Anarchism is definately utopian, which they realize. They live by their beliefs though, whether the world they want comes or not. I can't say they're wrong in that.

They don't accept the state's protection of the guy's speech, John. They don't accept the state. They didn't ask anyone else (you, me) if it should, or should not be ok for him to speak. They thought about whether they wanted him to speak his screeds or not, decided not, and so they shut him down.

So again, and I apologize if I missed this if you guys mentioned it, but how do you know what the political views were of the people that were violent? Were they part of some group that organized the protest? Did they reveal who they were and what their views are?

Lumping together actual real anarchism in the vein of actual intellectuals of the past century with houligans who want to destroy stuff under any pretext, or some other political ideology, is just doing everyone a huge disservice.