A new view of Trumpism

Do Tou agree or disagree with Tumpism as Circus as catharsis?

  • Agree
  • Disagree
0 voters

The new vision of Trump:

The Trump circus served as a catharsis to deconstruct the evils of Capitalism, The so called myth named The New World Order, of the Real definition of Demicracy, of the sublimation of recurrent anxiety of Conservatism, and ideology generally.

Trumpism is a derogatory unspoken comment on the 1%'s view of how the choosing a president has become more of a wild free for all, that Which the powers to be see as beyond their capacity unravel.
This includes their view that not only has Democracy as it has been known, but the ideals for which it stands , no longer correlate to the reality of the capacity of the constituency.

For those who disagree , would you comment why you do?

However this is not a binding request.

A premature question which really should not be asked for another four years
And so let him be judged on his actual time in office and not on anything else

We should check in here from time to time: thebulletin.org/timeline

Wouldn’t it be fascinating though if, on the day he enters the Oval Office, every American was hooked up to a device that allowed them to push a button whenever Trump’s policies either benefitted them or harmed them?

Me, I am most curious to see if Trump actually [u][b]does[/u][/b] take a whack at either 1] the global economy [embodied in current trade deals] or 2] crony capitalism [embodied in the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas and their ilk].

Even Bernie Sanders points out that should Trump actually go there he would support him.

Finally, however you feel about Trump’s actual policies, there is no way that this is not going to be an extraordinary spectacle. No one really knows – not now – what the hell is actually going to happen over the next four years!!

I suspect it is only a matter of how dumbfounded we will be.

Trump saved your ass from annihilation and all the rest is just ingrates complaining they aren’t dead or growing two heads. From their ass.

Of course you’re just paraphrasing Jacob, right? :wink:

The word on the street is that come December, the Electors may vote as a matter of conscience, rather than from the obligatory requirement per states’s popular requirement.

Since some states have been observed per voting irregularities when using electronic voting, it was observed by academic statisticians as being irregular to the point of a rigging of some kind.

In addition , the Clinton lead has swelled to a point, where her victory would have been assured, given a fair distribution of votes through the electoral college.

Given these revelations, perhaps, the votes cast in this survey may change.

The votes cast here are not cast in granite, and they can be changed at any time. ( In this poll)

Do you mean that Trump will fulfill the deconstruction of the “evils of capitalism” and the “New World Order”?

And before I vote: What do you concretely mean by “circus as catharsis”?

Just the opposite, in any case.

This is a tough one. The fact dawning on his boisterous constituency,is that most of his campaign promises have been at least modified. Reminds me of the play, All to do about nothing.
The guy is so rich, that he must realize by now that the presidency is run by experts, all They needed was to put a face on it. Reagan was an actor not a politician. Is this enuf to give credibility to what substantially is going on? NOT.

What is deconstructed is the negative type that capitalism represents, and if he fails, wheather he succeeds in his programs or not. Is a second look at the New World Order. So, the preliminaries already point to his failure, y his own admissions.

Who?
Like gimme the lentils Esau?

Maybe, but I’m thinking of the other one.

The “serious philosopher” floating up on the scholastic clouds with Satyr and his ilk.

Really, can you tell them apart? :wink:

We are dumbfounded as we are, it is only a after of being more so. And, it is really beyond belief that a republican president supported by a republican house and senate, supported by a probable republican court,would become totally detached from the majority who voted against him. But if this happens, look for anarchy. But of course factored his reality show acting talents as a bonus. So it is really an interesting coming of future attractions.

PS

Yesterday I overheard two lesbians chatting over the looks of the soon to become First Lady, while waiting in the checkout line with my groceries. One commented her beauty, noting she will outdo even Jackie Kennedy. I wonder if, this as anything to do with his popularity, after all it was repressed middle class professional whites who tipped the balance.

This is an election where the soon to be president will be entering the Oval Office having lost the popular vote to his rival by [so far] over two million votes!

Again, what intrigues me is the extent to which Trump actually meant what he said on the campaign trail or only said what he thought he needed to say in order to win the election.

The Democrats always promise the working class “change that we can believe in”, but once in office they basically embrace the Wall Street/military industrial complex agenda of the Bilderberg Group and the Council On Foreign Relations. That’s capitalism with a capital crony down to the bone.

Also, as I brought up on the US Election 2016 thread, the part embedded in this:

[b]From the Bullfrog Films review of the film “The American Ruling Class”:

The American Ruling Class is one of the most unusual films to be made in America in recent years–both in terms of form and content. The form is a “dramatic-documentary-musical” and the content is our country’s most taboo topic: class, power and privilege in our nominally democratic republic.

At bottom the film is a morality tale, the story of two Yale students (played by Harvard men) who seek their opportunities upon graduation. As the renowned essayist, author and longtime Harper’s magazine editor Lewis Lapham conducts them through the corridors of power: Pentagon press briefings, the World Economic Forum, philanthropic foundations, Washington law firms, corporations, banks, the Council on Foreign Relations, and New York society dinners–our two representative graduates “one rich and the other not so rich” must struggle with their responsibilities in “a world collaterally damaged by the magic of money and the miracles of science.” The real-life luminaries they meet on their journey become characters in a story about power, its responsibilities and abuses.

All the while “the Mighty Wurlitzer” plays on, a reference to the massive propaganda apparatus invented by the CIA’s Frank Wisner, here used to signify the nocturnal philosophy of acquisition and imperial hubris which continually calls to the young men, the siren song of careerist myopia that was bred into their bones at school.

As we watch these two young men wend their way through what is only a slight fictionalization of their actual lives and choices, as we meet former Secretaries of State and Defense, directors of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, the publisher of The New York Times, Kurt Vonnegut, Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Altman and a host of others, we have to ask along with Mr. Lapham: “To what end the genius of the Wall Street banks and the force of the Pentagon’s colossal weapons? Where does America discover the wisdom to play with its wonderful toys?” The possible answers move beyond the empty distinction of party affiliation and into the heart of American Oligarchy itself. By film’s end, the young men must decide: Should they seek to rule the world, or to save it?
[/b]
But many of the white working class voters who embraced Trump’s economic promises are still wedded to racist, sexist, heterosexist etc., cultural values. They are “for all practical purposes” the “deplorables” that Clinton foolishly spoke of. Here she forgot the part about her “public self” and her “private self”.

As for anarchy [like “fascism”] that is more or less always embedded in the historical events that precipitate them. A major economic calamity at home or another world war.

And barring that it all comes down to 1] whether Trump really does intend on bucking “the establishment”, and 2] if he does, the extent to which “the establishment” is able to “tame” him.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

More to the point, will she outdo Michelle Obama?

You know, whatever that means.

Men or women, the only thing that matters to me is how intelligent they are. I really don’t know much about Trump in that regard. But how smart can any woman be to marry Donald “grab them by the pussy” Trump.

Or was it all about the money?

Unfortunately the feminine mystique lay a dark cloud over trying to find out what mattered in this instance,
and my gut level tells me that hidden under that stupendous exterior lays a very calculating ambiguous interior, veiling a lit of things vastly hidden even from her. Don’t forget. Slovenia has a depth of structural ambiguity of it’s own. And in this case I hate to venture that opposites repell , and she is just one bird of a feather coming home to roost, if you can call this her home.

But as you say, we shall see. It will keep some up, way late into the night,burning their candles at Both ends.