Donald Trump - Noam Chomsky discusses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwAWGrCWwK0

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/noam-chomsky-slams-trump-hes-a-clown-literally-he-could-be-in-the-circus/

Please do not infer my opinion on this because I posted it. I have not given it - yet. Part of this is to see if we can discuss it without all Hell breaking loose. Certainly we should be able too. Right?

The discussion is about agreeing or not with Chomsky's theory.


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

It's a US thing clearly, and I have a suspicion the rest of the world sort of reckon Trump is an April Fools joke, but I think Chomsky is simplifying the source of frustration on the right. While Chomsky is sort of guilty of the same thing here - by stating that the generalized anger from his target group (being white-male and associates) is growing to take over the scene (political) and therefore everyone else must rally against it, it's not the first time a political group has rallied surprising momentum behind it - it's quite dramatic with Trump. The concern must, should IMO, be that it is about Trump's anger and aggression as suddenly being acceptable conduct, and having that translate to his conduct in office.

So while I cannot comment on wage growth or how much of a factor nativism actually played, I think fear is used quite a lot by both sides of politics, in different ways at different times. Trump would not last 6 months in an ethical workplace if he behaved the way he does, he'd be performance managed right into the waiting arms of an involuntary redundancy, assuming he didn't get sacked entirely. He is a bad role model IMO, and his antics in campaigning give him an excuse for quite a margin of inappropriate conduct once in office.

It's why I wish politics would be about the issues, and not popularist personality cheerleading. I don't think politics has to be boring, but it should not be gladiatorial... that is what sport and business is for. I am really surprised the Republican's didn't have someone else, as perhaps Trump would have made an interesting VP to a more stable Republican President. All I'll say abut nativism is it seems like a constrained and therefore relatively passive form of nationalism, and its overt nationalism which to me is more akin to the Nazi (and absent Communist) reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut8C_IOqEtU

what i liked about this video was the idea that trump makes perfect sense if you consider the narrative thats been fomenting in the conservative right

which really believes that evil murderous immigrants are hijacking the country, that theres no such thing as UNradical Islam, and all the rest of the rhetoric promoted by the sensationalist right wing media

That anyone would not be as outspoken as trump is the hard part to understand if you believe all of whats being promoted in those circles

(which isnt to say the left wing isnt sensationalist BS too)

Noam Chomsky is one of the great intellectuals of our time and one of the most articulate people I've ever listened to. I respect his opinions because they are not idle chatter. He speaks with purpose and conviction. I don't agree with everything he says, but he always stimulates me to think critically about my own position on any given topic. This time, however, it is a little disappointing. He is focusing on the circus clown aspect of Trump (which I see too btw) but almost completely dismissing the fact that Trump is the only candidate who is not owned or otherwise controlled by corporate interests. Trump may be a ridiculous clown capitalizing on America's irritation with leftist extremism, but at least he's finally succeeding where Ron Paul failed. Namely, breaking into the Republican party and bringing the reform that has been needed since Reagan was elected (maybe even earlier). I also see a guy who has brought more than one company back from bankruptcy. If 19 trillion in debt is not bankruptcy, I don't know what is.

But don't get me wrong. Trump certainly did come out of left field, just like Hitler did and he's winning the hearts and minds of the people by appealing to their patriotic spirit just like Hitler did. He's even laying an inordinate amount of blame on a particular religious group, just like Hitler did. The only thing that he's not doing like Hitler is trying to take away people's guns and pushing for socialism. It's another camp trying to do that.

CableSteele wrote: ...completely dismissing the fact that Trump is the only candidate who is not owned or otherwise controlled by corporate interests.

62% of Bernie Sanders campaign contributions have come from small individual donations. 38% from larger individual contributions. Trump is not the only candidate not owned by corporations.

Source

CableSteele wrote: I also see a guy who has brought more than one company back from bankruptcy.

Who's company/companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy 4 times.

Source

CableSteele wrote: But don't get me wrong. Trump certainly did come out of left field, just like Hitler did and he's winning the hearts and minds of the people by appealing to their patriotic spirit just like Hitler did. He's even laying an inordinate amount of blame on a particular religious group, just like Hitler did. The only thing that he's not doing like Hitler is trying to take away people's guns and pushing for socialism. It's another camp trying to do that.

Give him time. The first time someone takes a shot at him he'll try to take them all by force. I also don't see how the fact that he let's us keep our guns is a good thing when the very people he's keeping armed he's also encouraging to attack each other. I know that he's denied that he incites the violence at his rallies but his words and his rhetoric create an environment in which hate and violence breed like bacteria in improperly stored dairy products.

The fact of the matter is he uses hate and fear to bring people to him. All other things aside that is a dangerous thing to do.

Please, CableSteele, do not view any of this as personally against you. Things can feel like that when discussing presidential candidates and I like you personally and don't want you to feel otherwise.

Another aspect of Trump to consider is that he is a narcissist to an alarming extreme. He genuinely believes the things he says about himself whether they are true or not. He constantly talks about how 'great' everything about him is while ignoring or shouting down any argument to the contrary. People like this are incapable of acting in the best interest of others. It is only a matter of time before he turns on those who currently support him when they happen to disagree with anything he says.

Noam Chomsky makes some very good points when he talks about Trump. Trump is egotistical and he is using people's fear to boost his popularity. What politicians aren't and don't?

I voted for Ron Paul four years ago because I'm completely disenfranchised by the Republican party. I hoped he would at least garner enough support to shock the Republicans out of their cronyist attitudes and back to listening to the people. Now Trump is poised to do just that and that is the ONLY reason I would consider voting for him. Sorry, I just don't trust career politicians. They all lie, but at least Trump is too narcissistic to bow to the Republican leadership.

CableSteele wrote: I hoped he would at least garner enough support to shock the Republicans out of their cronyist attitudes and back to listening to the people. Now Trump is poised to do just that and that is the ONLY reason I would consider voting for him. Sorry, I just don't trust career politicians. They all lie, but at least Trump is too narcissistic to bow to the Republican leadership.

As a Canadian, I'm watching all of this play out from a distance. Lemme tell you, Trump looks even more like a complete farce from here. Yes, he listens to the people - he listens to the xenophobic, the scared, the ignorant and the rich. And then he tells them what they want to hear, whether it's true/reasonable or not. He panders, plain and simple.

While I hold no love for politicians, at least with career politicians, you can look back on what they've done - which policies they believe in, whether they're consistent, if they've been involved in any wrongdoing or scandals, where their loyalties lie (or of they even have any loyalty at all). The best indicator of future behaviour is relevant past behaviour. And there is very little in Trump's past behaviour that makes me hopeful that he could even adequately lead a nation.

“So every time Trump makes a nasty comment about whoever, his popularity goes up. Because it’s based on hate, you know, hate and fear” Chomsky argued. “And it’s unfortunately kind of reminiscent of something unpleasant: Germany, not many years ago.”

“He’s a clown — literally, he could be in the circus,” Chomsky said. “He’s getting huge support from people who are angry at everything. Mostly white males. Working-class, middle-class, poor white males. And their wives and traditional families. They are furious about everything.”

Correlation is not causation. Has Noam actually sat down and done a study on why people are voting for Trump vs. no other candidate? Can he prove that it is not because there is hate on the other side (all those protests that are sparked because of perceived hate from Trump)? Can Noam prove that it’s not simply a matter of the voters preferring Trump not being a career politician? Or that it’s because they simply like his policies? See him as a good leader? Etc?

Or is it all speculation based on what Noam believes he is seeing?

I suspect it is the latter. He’s not provided us with anything which proves he performed Quantitative and/or Qualitative Research to back his claims. He’s spitting out the same information that everyone else is spitting out. Which makes his voice no less important than anyone else’s voice. Not exactly a bad thing, but it’s also why people will not decide their vote based on what he or anyone else like him has to say. It needs to be something completely new, a different approach.

The problems:

Bernie Sanders – Many of the people that are voting for him seem to be in the younger demographic. The older the democratic voters are the more likely they are to vote for Clinton. This suggests that the older generations are completely disillusioned by the concept of socialism because they see what it has led to in other countries that implemented it. Yes, even in Scandinavian countries. This also might suggest why you cannot find a whole lot of Clinton supporters online, the older generations are not getting into the social media scene the same way that younger generations are.

Hillary Clinton – E-mails and Benghazi, need I say more? That seems to be the largest issue people have with Clinton. To be fair to her, I’m still deciding on whether or not Benghazi was merely her fault. I’d need to have more information about the role that Obama played in that one before I condemn her on the issue. The e-mails though? That one is all on her. Many believe that she shouldn’t even be running because she’s under this investigation.

Trump – He’s a jerk. That’s the short of it. He also doesn’t have the foreign policy background that is necessary for handling issues abroad. What he does have, that –might- make up for it, is negotiation capability. But there is no telling that that would be enough to overcome the foreign policy issue. And that is rather major to our infrastructure.

They all have their good points too, and all of them share the same goal:

All of them want to see America’s future improve. They all have different approaches, different ideas on how that works.

You might not see it that way with Trump, but consider this- what is good for Trump’s business is good for America in the long run. In office he would be able to control things in America in a way he can’t control abroad. If he can make it more profitable to do business in America than to do it in another country, that brings jobs back here, and he gets more gains in his own finances.

As for the democrats, I don’t think I have to explain to you how they see themselves as making America better. Seems to me that most of you are democrats already- and therefore should already know.

Anyways, it’s also something to note that just because Trump is being equated to Hitler doesn’t mean that he will be Hitler. People equate Sanders to Hitler as well. Clinton, however, hasn’t….but she’s Clinton….soooooo…..lol.

BUT guess what!!!! President Obama has also been compared to Hitler. Originally posted in 2010, a holocaust survivor speaks on how Obama is just…like….Hitler!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr9777ugCiM

Yet in all of his time in the Oval office- Obama hasn’t become the genocidal maniac Hitler was.