…
Are you saying I’m simplifying? Ok, but reform was BIG for both Bernie and trump and it set them apart from the other candidates.
I’ll be packing bagels on my return flight in Feb! 
Over-simplifying, as I mentioned above:
For example:
Do you seriously think reform (in the Sanders sense of the word) was ever a real priority for the latter or for his followers? Even in his rhetoric he avoided the term in favour of ones like “drain the swamp” or “MAGA”, which are more about revenge on his enemies. You might as well say that Qanon is a reform movement.
Drawing that false equivalency based on an over-broad definition of “reform” is an excellent example of the kind of dangerous over-simplification I and others are trying to point out to you.
7 Likes
Thomas’ don’t count.
2 Likes
Also, Manhattan below 116th St. is not the sum total of NYC.
They weren’t even good for the Republic, given that the office of Dictator was eventually used to pursue factional disputes, allowed the users of the position to kill and rob their enemies, and escalating abuse of the position was what eventually felled the Republic and replaced it with the Empire.
So Dictatorship was bad even in this case, because it’s inevitable that the position will eventually be held by someone other than a Cincinnatius.
2 Likes
Bernie yes, Trump no. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from? Because he screeched about corruption? Did you REALLY think he meant that shit and didn’t just say it to get elected?
3 Likes
Trump? That’s absurd, thanks.
His followers? The people who were called deplorable and believed they were abandoned by the establishment? Yeah, they believed in drain the swamp(whatever that is)… and still do. 40% of the voters will believe he is a martyr for the rest of their lives.
You’re arguing here that Trump was pushing for reform? YOU are saying that. YOU seemed to have believed his claims to care about corruption? You JUST said:
So don’t try and gaslight us that you did not argue that.
6 Likes
And yet you said:
[I owe a case of Cokes to @anon61221983, but it bears repeating]
Nope, not his followers either. Their conception of “elites” and “the establishment” is, as is typical of right-wing populism, one grounded primarily in bigotry rather than … say … “economic anxiety” (as their excuse-makers would have it).
5 Likes
5 Likes
The thing about dehumanizing metaphors like “the swamp” is that everyone can project whom they hate the most onto “the swamp.” It is a magic mirror for everything people have come to hate and fear for whatever reasons and bolsters whatever justification they have for their feelings about those people.
Thus “elites” is often coded for “Jews” and so on. Whether they know it or not people who transitioned from anti-establishment ethos to Q simply plugged some of the original values into the signals they already consumed.
This isn’t even by accident. Perhaps the original sentiment could be seen as desiring reform but after that there is a marked inability to identify reform and distinguish it from subjugating and annihilating the enemy “elites,” “useless eaters,” “welfare queens,” “thugs,” “caravans of rape beasts” etc etc etc
6 Likes
And Trump’s rhetoric, from the start was designed with this in mind. It’s always mirrored fascist movements from the 20th century, because it was and is a fascist movement. Anyone who denies that is lying, either to themselves or others, or is so very ignorant that they really should read a book or two to understand how these movements work and think a bit more deeply about what fascism actually is and how it takes over societies.
6 Likes
My god yes. Like those of us who were repulsed by it early would like to move past the tragic vindication phase now and it’s almost weird to see some one kind of not acknowledging it at any level because it just feels surreal. We had a coup. The fucker is up there in an ugly suit talking to a national audience about needing to overtake the US government in order to kill the vermin. He’s the new icon of fascism.
3 Likes
In fact, I’m just watching this interview with Jason Stanley, an expert in the history of fascism…
There seems to be an idea in the popular discourse that fascism is some weird amorphous unknowable, just a phrase that is used to demean the other side. But it’s not. It’s a historically situated term that has meaning that we can intellectually understand and that historical definition can be used to identify that in the present moment. This idea that it’s just a term thrown around to malign people is itself often used to downplay the threat to society from fascists. Just look at this clip from the above video from a Trump rally…
But Trump was crystal clear from the start who he was and what he stood for. Let’s not forget his role in Birtherism prior to him becoming involved in electoral politics. It was the election of a Black man that got him into politics, I’d argue. But sure… he was all about “reform”?!? 
Give me a break…
5 Likes
… Clinton said half the Trump people were “deplorable” — even if you think the other half, consumed by economic anxiety and righteous indignation about corruption, could be won over by some sort of American Hugo Chavez figure, you’re still not talking about the same people
We’ve gone over this before
7 Likes
6 Likes
Only in the same way that the IWW and the Nazis are both “socialist”.
6 Likes
And North Korea is democratic and a republic
5 Likes
I also referred to it as rhetoric. And called Donnie a liar.
I do agree bigotry played a part, for sure, obviously it works for him. And that is where I started.
