Trump and the concept of an elite.

"Remember that Trump only intends to govern for the benefit of the US. This intent differs from other presidents that only governed for corporate US."

Do you honestly believe that Blowin?
Looking at his cabinet and the man himself and his record?

You honestly believe he is not going to govern for Corporate America?

If you do, fair play. I don't doubt your sincerity but at Bernie Sanders observed: On CBS Face the Nation, the senator who ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination calls Donald Trump’s inaugural speech ‘somewhat amusing’. Sanders pointed out how Trump blasted the establishment while behind him ‘sitting in the VIP sections were billionaire after billionaire after billionaire … who have become much much richer while the middle class has shrunk’

Mate, if you can honestly look at those facts and still believe what the guy says and not what he does or who he appoints to positions of power then good luck to you.

Trump desperately needs enemies to maintain the rage amongst his supporters and to prevent them from examining too closely what is happening to them.
He's got mexicans and muslim terrorists but he's obviously going to need someone much bigger to justify the military buildup and placate the masses.
Hello China.

First this... "Remember that Trump only intends to govern for the benefit of the US. This intent differs from other presidents that only governed for corporate US."

Then this...."Even a small gasp of air tastes sweet after you've had a boot on your throat."

Thought you said don't ever go full retard.

I don't believe you people ;-)

Fr "Trump desperately needs enemies to maintain the rage amongst his supporters and to prevent them from examining too closely what is happening to them."

USA has always needed an enemy, FR..... It's part of their psyche, like tall poppy is part of ours... From Indians to eachother, Mexico to Japan to germany to Russia to Korea to Vietnam, to "name a south american country" to the middle east to now China..

Do you know that in the past 30 years, the USA has spent a STAGGERING nearly 15 TRILLION on war? Not on defence... on War....

No doubt he will govern for corporate America first and foremost, but he might throw a bone to his supporters to further that idea of himself as the People's Champion.

And the slight chance of a break is a lot more than the general population is looking at up till this point , so why not vote for it with fingers crossed ?

And the China deal- that's one issue that's been in the pipeline too long to derail now.

Another thing. The US owes China trillions correct ? So if the US were to engage China in a war, what would become of this insurmountable debt ?

Moments of truce giving the US an opportunity to hand over truckloads of greenbacks ?

Or maybe.....the debt evaporates.

Sounds like a nice option for a nation with the upper hand militarily.

Benski - if you've ever been in a situation where you are living week to week with zero opportunity for improvement you will realise that it's akin to having a boot on your throat.

And then you get sick....welcome to the existence of the working poor.*

* The author has never been in this situation involuntarily so this statement may be regarded as Full Retard by proxy if you so wish.

But the bit about other Presidents.....if Bush wasn't governing exclusively for big business, then who was he governing for ?

He invaded a foreign country that posed zero threat to the US, killing hundreds of US soldiers in the process. Who was that for ?

the US has a sizeable govt debt. he can (and will) help the rich and he can help the poor. but he cant do both...especially not while boosting the military.

so where is he going to get these "better deals" from? what. china is just going to roll over now are they?

Despite the fact the few if any have correctly understood Trump or importantly why he was able to ascend to the presidency, most here - BB and the likes, feel they have got his measure. Doubt it. hence the wild fanciful statements. Most, are not sure and hence need to see exactly what he will do. For too long, there and here, the ordinary taxpayers, workers and families have been taken for granted by elites who preach and decide, but never have to suffer the real consequences of their decisions — be it jobs, immigration, political correctness, safety in our communities, Islamic fundamentalism, poor standards in schools, green activism masquerading as care for the environment or real wages failing to keep pace with the cost of living. It is hoped is that President Trump will provide his critics wrong yet again. With any luck, he just might put democracy back into the hands of the people.

Tony Barber I read that exact comment word for word in a comment thread in the Australian.

Was that you (hopefully) or did you rip it off and claim it as your own?

And you're full of absolute shite btw......because those elites you rail against are exactly who he has stacked his cabinet with. The very same ones who will be governing the country.

"real wages failing to keep pace with the cost of living." get a tiny grip on reality mate, it's his labour secretary who has railed against a decent minimum wage, who is directly responsible for that almost uniquely american scourge, the one Australian conservatives seem so keen to emulate : the working poor.

Yeah mate.

I'm right up there with Trump and Hitler.

Have I ever told you my feelings on sanctimony, Blindboy ?

Blowin, I'm a little more aware of life for the working poor in America than you imagine. And I am fairly confident Trump isn't going to help them. His party aren't about that, and as others pointed out here, the houses of parliament are controlled by the Repubs. But you know, maybe eh? Also, the working poor didn't vote for him. The mid-west working class did, but remember those people displaced by Hurricane Katrina? People like that, the actual working poor, they are the ones who are truly screwed in the US and they aren't getting any help no matter how much faux concern trump and the opportunistic right display. It is part of their policy to maintain groups like that.

tonybarber, first blindboy didn't accept the result (which you're yet to show as true) now you say he thinks he trump's "measure"? I don't know where you come up with this stuff.

If by some miracle trump manages to increase wages ahead of the cost of living, he'll be reversing the policy of the repubs, sein' as the right is all about increased productivity (i.e. get more out of the workers for less pay). He's doing his best to get rid of political correctness, that's true. So far at least one republican polly has taken the pussy grabbing literally because it's so PC to be prevented from doing that...not to mention we can finally laugh at the spazzoes again after years of suppression of free speech on that one.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/news-features/this-republ...

Democracy is always in the hands of the people and it works beautifully, just as it has in this case. People are deluding themselves to think any differently. As for trump and whatever "is hoped" (what's with the passive voice all the time tonybarber?) since he's so different, don't forget that Hilary was so out of touch that she gave a speech to Goldman Sachs, Trump just gave them cabinet positions.

That swamp looks pretty full these days, but you know, the elites are gone...or something.

Benski writes "Blowin, I'm a little more aware of life for the working poor in America than you imagine. And I am fairly confident Trump isn't going to help them"

Well he's already saved thousands of jobs and added at least 700 more directly, and I'd day another few hundred indirectly..... And he wasn't even president yet.. So I'd say the working class of Detriot would probably disagree with you, Benski...... Just sayin...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-autos-idUSKBN14N1T0

"Democracy is always in the hands of the people and it works beautifully, just as it has in this case."

Such a dry sense of humour Benski.

Sheepdog, why did they bail on Mexico? Because of a decline in demand for the cars they planned to make there. The last line of the second paragraph...

"He said Ford would have made the same decision even if Trump had not been elected."

But hey, as they say in south Detroit, don't stop believin!

AndyM, I was actually serious!

Benski.... A Ford executive said that.... Ok then..... We know executives are honest folk. lol.

Yeah I wasn't sure Benski so I thought I'd take a stab!

I don't have much faith in democracy especially in an entrenched two-party system.

If you'd said that the people get the politicians that they deserve I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Well that's true too, AndyM. Trump is a microcosm of America so I can see how he came to be.

Sheepdog, they're about as honest as politicians, Donald Drumpf included, but I don't think they'd move a plant on the basis of tariffs that might come in if the pres-elect could somehow manage to reverse decades of his party's policy and break NAFTA and WTO rules. Protectionism isn't going to happen in the US and the execs know that. If I'm proved wrong I'll happily admit it but too many vested interests have too much to lose. Including Donny's mates at Goldman Sachs.

Sept 2016 - "CEO Mark Fields told investors the move is part of plans to make production simpler and less expensive"

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/09/14/mexico-ford-shiftn...

Nov 8 Trump wins election...

Nov 15 - "Ford CEO Wary of Trump’s Talk About Tariffs and Nafta.
Mark Fields reiterates plans to increase production in Mexico; won’t close Michigan plant"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-ceo-looking-forward-to-working-with-pre...

Nov 15 - "Ford going ahead with moving small car production to Mexico: CEO"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-ceo-idUSKBN13A2LK

But 6 weeks later, just 6 weeks, "He said Ford would have made the same decision even if Trump had not been elected"

Yeah, Benski...... Don't stop believin.... lol ;)

wont protectionism be a move away from consumerism?

Here you go BB, Jonathan Pie giving it to Trump with both barrels.

Enjoy comrade.

You might get a giggle out of it too Blowin.

So good.

Wish I remembered enough to quote it ( plagiarise lines from ).

American carnage ....the title of a wrestling match haha !

Not sure about this " Pie " fellow .
Can't stand still ( I'm dizzy after watching him ) .
Also a seriously bad dresser , an Englishman that can't tie a Full/ Double Windsor knot ....

On the other hand he swore a lot and got emotional , of course I believe him ....

And that is why the undemocratic process of compulsory voting is the best thing this country ever did.

Meanwhile trumps opposition just loses credibility by the day as they indulge in "...mutually reinforced paranoia."

Rather than perfecting the all in hissy fit, they really should be working on rebuldng some credibility after hilary's emails...but no let's blame trump...for ...for....something...it's not quite clear...

https
://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/01/21/the-pointless-paranoia-of-the-womens-marches/

"There is an obvious irony in the use of brownshirt tactics by people who think of themselves as “anti-fascist.” The thugs on the street are not the only ones who are hypocritical here, however: many a liberal pundit—for that matter, certain NeverTrump neoconservatives, too—has irresponsibly likened Trump and populist movement behind him to fascism. The independent left-wing journalist Michael Tracey has documented many such statements and rhetorically asked whether these liberals understand what they are saying: if you really, truly believe the country is on the verge of a fascist takeover, isn’t violent resistance necessary?"

http
://nationalinterest.org/feature/beware-the-rise-left-wing-authoritarianism-19145

You don't see any irony with your authoritarian lefty dogma blindboy?

"Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing, and I suspect it will have counterproductive results for a party that might want to win back the White House someday (which would, presumably, require convincing at least some Trump voters to switch sides).
Here’s the problem: The more Hollywood liberals produce condescending videos, the more pretentious and preachy celebs like Madonna (or replace her with Lena Dunham or Meryl Streep… they’re basically interchangeable) lecture us at rallies and awards ceremonies, and the more protesters with signs and placards with the word “p*ssy” on them—the more I find myself liking Donald Trump."

Yep!

Half of these people are nobodies and the other half are has beens.

Fucking madonna, gone from offering blowjobs for votes to blowing up the whitehouse

So classy, so cool...baarrrfff

Imagine the outrage...the full blown no holds barred meltdown ...if someone in trump's camp made such statements

How's your objectivity serving you blindboy?

Capcha's gone all nazi again...maybe go to work on that...

http:
//www
.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/23/great-march-you-had-there-liberals-you-alienated-millions-of-regular-americans.html

Sypkan, objectivity etc... "many a liberal pundit—for that matter, certain NeverTrump neoconservatives, too—has irresponsibly likened Trump and populist movement behind him to fascism."

That is of course cleverly disguised crap. The populist movement behind trump has never been described as fascist by the average lefty. Trump has for sure as well as the extreme elements behind him. But the extremists are as representative of the mid west working class as the bandana wearing teenagers protesting are of me.

Everyone is drumming up an overblown enemy for their own purposes, including whoever wrote that bit. Thing is though, trump himself has said and is starting to do a bunch of things which are not consistent with the typical democratic standard of a free and open press. That's not hyperbole it's in his campaign statements throughout and now in his press secretary's performances.

I totally agree that the Hollywood peeps are not helping they're own cause and they're so out of touch they don't realise it. But I think that says more about their opponents than themselves. Who abandons their principles or takes issue with an argument because they don't like the wankers who agree with them?

I think we should protect the environment but sea shepherd are too hard core for me, but I'm never gonna get onboard with Exxon.

And sheepdog, I don't have time for a full blown link battle with you right now but I'll get back to it :-)

Was on the midnight train goin anywhere...

Well I like to agree with you benski because... well... I generally do, but regarding trump being associated with facism and described as a nazi I have to vehemently disagree, we've been hearing 18 months of it.

Yes, one could possibly draw some loose relation from what he has said about the press, but in the wider context of what he says about the press, he's generally right. The msrepresentations and manipulations have been beyond disgraceful. This has been happening for years but trump has just drawn attention to it, and that's a good thing. As andym and many others have pointed out regarding other issues, there are enough checks and balances to ensure we don't need a civil war just yet.

The comparisons to 1930s germany have just been extreme hyperbole. Hyperbole so lazy it doesn't even make any attempt to contextualise technology and education levels. Nevermind the now very fluid nature of movement of people,trade and finance due to education and technology. It's a ridiculous argument totally void of context, but hyperbole is king in the new game.

I'm just bitching about hollywood and the bitching because I just see a bunch of irrational morons undermining my political beliefs. I'd probably vote with blindboy no matter how much he screams like a banshee, belief is a bit dumb like that.

But most people are swingers, centrists, fence sitters etc. who've been drifting but voting with their hearts for a long time. They've shifted, and all this carry on is just pushing them away. Keep this up and the left will lose the bigger culture war.

whether there are enough checks and balances in the american system to contain a man like Trump is a really pertinent question to ask at the start of his administration.

There probably are, but Trump is making it perfectly clear that accountability and the normal restraints on power are going to be a very uncomfortable fit with him.

I read thousands/millions of words by the US press during the campaign. Some brilliant, thoroughly researched long form pieces on Trump. If anyone should be accused of misrepresentations and manipulations, not just now, but over his business lifetime and now his time in politics it's Trump.
This guy has made a career out of blatant misrepresentations, deliberate falsehoods and startling 180 degree direction changes.
I'll take CNN, Washington Post, The Atlantic, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the rest of America's Fourth Estate over Trump every day of the week.
There's never been a president since Nixon who needs the accountability of the Press scrutinising their every move.
And Trump has made it quite clear he sees this scrutiny as an existential threat and plans to wage war on it.

Sorry freeride I see same same.

They just use different words to describe their 'truths'

Whoever it is, you've got to read between the lines more and more, an unfortunate maladaption of the internet.

But yeh, he's a shyster of a business man, luckily now he's just a figurehead for a movement. 'A movement' means a lot in society/politucal terms, the democrats should look it up.

Great article on news.co. this morning which sums up the whole situation brilliantly.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/this-is-why-it-doesnt-matter-...

Basically Trump could be a 3 headed communist wearing a white hood and an SS uniform and people would still vote him regardless as they hate the establishment that much at the moment.

And people that didn't vote for him still can't comprehend that are there other voters out there with different views to their own who also outnumber them.

Trump wasn't only voted in because of his great ridiculous promises, he was also voted in because they actually WANT him to tear down the existing political hierarchy and send a clear & rude message.

sypkan, I'm not disagreeing with you that trump has been portrayed as a fascist or displaying traits of fascism. I'm disagreeing that the "the populist movement behind him" has been portrayed that way. The populist movement behind him is one of protectionism, anti-immigration and anti-PC culture. All those things are classic working class left wing positions held by the folk in the Mid-West and South and I don't think they've been portrayed as fascist.

The extreme elements, like those nutters filmed calling out Heil Trump while standing in a nazi salute, they have been quite rightly portrayed as fascist but they're the extreme elements who don't represent the broader movement behind him. Trump himself, when saying he is going to restrict press freedoms and open up libel laws so that you can sue the media more, is talking like he wants to implement fascistic ideas. So yes, he's been portrayed as a fascist or doing things that head that way. Isn't that fair enough? I mean restricting freedom of the press is not a democratic thing to do.

As for misrepresentations of the media etc, the trouble here is he is accusing them of doing so despite them actually being correct. It's the most recent example but it ain't the only one, look at the inauguration reporting stuff. Accusing the media of misreporting and sending out his press secretary to tell the media what they "should be reporting" and that they're wrong...despite the media being demonstrably correct. It was later described by Trump's people as offering "alternative facts." It was funny actually.

Fox news has spent the last 8 years misrepresenting and misreporting news about Obama. Remember the polls around the late noughties that showed fox viewers were the most consistently misinformed news consumers? People who didn't watch any news at all knew more accurately what was going on in the world than fox viewers. Obama didn't piss and moan like a baby because freedom of the press and free speech that they have over there means you can say what you want without fear of reprisal from the government. He took the piss out of them for sure (in press conferences and the white house correspondents dinner), as did Jon Stewart etc, but he didn't try to curtail their freedom.

Now we have the new prez wanting to do just that. Reducing the freedom of the press because you don't like what they print, is the kind of thing fascists, or at least dictators, do. He might not have done anything yet, but he's talking about it and how he'll do it pretty often and has been for the last 18 months. The regular peeps supporting him, as opposed to the extremists, they've not been portrayed that way as far as I can tell and if they have that ain't cool.

For anyone that questions the bias and very often unfounded media tirade against the Orange Combover , read this piece from SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-eyes-opportunity-as-us-pulls-out-of-tr...

A single paragraph in the whole diatribe recognising that the deal is a sham and we are better off without it.

With paragraph after paragraph bemoaning the fact that Trump has done something ...even though its in his and our , best interest.

Not to mention it raises the awareness of the depths that our government and those around the world will stoop to appease big business.

Let a communist country with shameful human rights dictate our labour, environmental and legal rights as a sovereign nation ?

No worries !!

Or we could just not sign up ....oh, wait. That's not an option is it ?

Actually I got it wrong, it seems trump has mastered the playbook

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/23/updating_alinskys_r...

FR, yes your right some , only some text was ripped, not from the Australian. Why, because it stated what I believe seems to be the case. With respect to 'elites'. Yes, it would be shit by your understanding. I should have been clearer. In my the case, the 'elites' are diametrically opposite to what you think they are. The 'elites' in my context are those who are not the working battlers, the young trying to make a life, or elders you who wish to life what's left, the anti-politically correct followers. The bourgeoise who are mowing decisions for the rest. They are the 'elite' in my case. In this case, Trump is a conundrum, few if any are able to fully understand his tactics, his methods. As George Bernard Shaw, said, this may make him an effective leader since few understand him.

"The 'elites' in my context are those who are not the working battlers, the young trying to make a life, or elders you who wish to life what's left, the anti-politically correct followers. The bourgeoise who are mowing decisions for the rest. "

Any chance you could translate that into English? I think I understand but the bourgeoisie mowing is problematic.

very great article gaz1799.

It's all so obvious...to some...

The irony of this is hilarious

'Besides, it was the left who invented post-truth in the first place. Long before the internet started throwing up conspiracy theories or bogus stories, postmodern academics were encouraging their students to challenge notions of rationality or objective reality. Trump and his supporters are just doing the same thing off campus.'

Much of the left's whole philosophy is based on post modernist ideas, where absolutism and objectivity is challenge, and now they've gone all 'truth' and 'facts' on us, while both sides drift into the post modernist abyss

it's a joy to watch... but the outfall...not so good...

and yes, kevin rudd is a cunt...but a smart cunt

FWIW, all this talk of 'celebrity' endorsements, I find it very telling that I cannot think of one one cool person that has actually supported either candidate

except Chachi of course...

"'Besides, it was the left who invented post-truth in the first place. Long before the internet started throwing up conspiracy theories or bogus stories, postmodern academics were encouraging their students to challenge notions of rationality or objective reality. Trump and his supporters are just doing the same thing off campus.'"

Fuck me, what a generalised, self-serving statement.

Totally generalised and self serving, almost misleasing on a deeper level. But the link isn't totally tenuous, and a worthy point if the writer wasn't so clumsy

I read that between the lines too

Yeah, well, the notion of challenging 'facts' started with Socrates and was passed to the Stoics and became the Socratic Method upon which much of Western thought is founded. As the writer correctly points out, that occurred sometime before the internet started (!).

The difference between Socrates, the academics, and the current plague of bogus news sites, is the first two train students how to question a proposition before you act, while the last deliberately propagates lies.

There is no crossover.

To blame 'the left' - fuck I hate that cover all insult - for false news is patently ignorant and as I said, self-serving. It's the argument of a dolt.

Well the left kinda came up with this 'fake news' idea.

I'm not blaming the left, I'm saying its been most interesting watching public policy develop through a post modern lens, advocated by the left. A lens with a lot of merit in my bias perspective, but not a perfect lens.

Then when things don't go their way, they are lost in the wilderness, desperate for solid landmarks, crying for facts and truth and reality. When the post modern lens tells us these things are totally subjective and not absolute. All good stuff, in my opinion, but not beyond criticism, which is where the left seems to struggle.

I've said it before, I don't see 'the left' as an insult. It's interesting that many do.

Depends how it's used, though lately I've noticed a preponderance of it employed as an insult. Weak-willed, bleeding heart, blind to reality etc etc. For all that though, I take greater umbrage when it's used as a lazy generalisation especially by columnists who should know better.

Interesting comments regarding left & right. Tabloid news is garbage regardless of which side it's on so I try to avoid most of it, although it often takes me half an article to catch on.

I've always felt that our current political systems seem to keep us divided on purpose to their own benefit, particularly the Westminster system. Example: Kevin07, Gillard, Abbott, Big Mal have all done a shit job (although personally I think Rudd was the worst of the lot because his repetitive scripted answers used to drive me up the wall. I'd put Abbott & Gillard above Mal).
We should be able to say the whole bunch are useless pricks but nope the faithful will always vote left or right rather than man up and say "My side really do suck, I'm gonna vote the other way for a change."
Perhaps there needs to be more middle and less left & right. I'd be interested to know just what percentage of voters are permanently rusted on and which are swingers, particularly in Oz.
Granted we have compulsory voting but I daresay that this is one of the factors that swept Trump in, either that or the Democrat voters were so disenchanted by Hillary they decided to sleep in on voting day.

After reading stunets recent comment, perhaps its the journalists who are dividing us by putting us into groups, because it certainly is lazy. I think every person regardless of background can see benefits in both conservatism & socialism so its a shame people are forced to be one or the other.

Oh trust me, that article is still hard for me to read also, the lazyness and gooness is grating

But he still makes some good points

"...daresay that this is one of the factors that swept Trump in, either that or the Democrat voters were so disenchanted by Hillary they decided to sleep in on voting day."

Polls have shown exactly that.

Which is kind of encouraging

But its also encouraging so many misfits came together against a terribly corrupted system, against all odds, against all players, including their own party.. if not miraculous....momentous

I don't dispute any of that blindboy

It does't mean some news.com hack can't make some decent observations

I wouldn't have read it if it wasn't posted....but I'm glad it was,

I try not to be snobby like that

I found it to be quite a frank assessment of the situation, regardless of source. The author was Joe Hildebrand if that makes any difference. (Edited Comment, Soz bb)

BB. ".....One of the few consistent themes in Trump's rise to power has been his attack on the Washington elite. By this he appears to mean those who have the power to make policy, and those who profit from that policy. His promise to "drain the swamp" resonated with many voters who understand that their share of the US national wealth has been decreasing, while that of the elite has been increasing."

and so the people hand control a billionaire with massive interests through various capitalist markets and industries to tell them 'elites' are running their lives. and starts fixing it through appointments such as Tillerson as prestigious secretary of state but having massive conflicts of interest.

he created the enemy in mexico and china. now as trump pulls out the protectionist stops all he is doing is setting the scene for a state run national capitalism where he gets to 'make the rules he plays by'. this doesnt sound like shifting power back to the people.

Of course it isn't Happyas.....it's the exact opposite. He's shifted power as far away from the people- into the hands of the uber-rich billionaires and scions of corporations- as it is humanly possible to do.

It's the sheer size of this deception and the brazenness with which he is executing it which is so fascinating.

"It's the sheer size of this deception and the brazenness with which he is executing it which is so fascinating."

It's incredible, it will be studied for a very long time.

The other thing I find fascinating is trying to figure out where national borders really end these days, and how much influence those companies who wouldn't want any disruption to trade with China really have.

Maybe the economic heavy hitters, including the Chinese, are sitting back laughing at the political confusion that's been caused.