[Newsbot]

Title: Trump the destroyer could herald an unintended revolution: Don Pittis
Category: Political
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2016-10-03 09:53:40

[andyt]

$1:

Canadian pollster and author Frank Graves, president of Ekos Research, recently showed me some data collected this year that might horrify many Canadians.

It showed that a growing trend toward inequality means a large majority, an astounding 57 per cent, fear that we are heading for a period of "class conflicts" if things don't change.

"I take it with a grain of salt but I also think it's a really important indicator of just how concerned and upset the public increasingly are," said Graves in a phone interview.

In a book coming out next week, Graves says there are solutions, but the changes he proposes to create greater equality and "a shared prosperity" are not Trump's. He says inequality, which is even worse in the U.S., needs something more like the New Deal, the Depression-era reforms that helped restart the postwar North American economy.

"This was not a matter of tinkering," says Graves. "This was a matter of dramatic, bold reform."

While Trump's own reforms purport to make America great again, the short-term effect, making the rich richer through tax cuts, pulling the rug out from under international trade, sending global currency markets into confusion, could exacerbate a growing sense of class conflict.

Despite calls for bold reform by people like Graves, history shows that making changes in wealth distribution has been difficult, usually requiring a major crisis.

By precipitating such a crisis with untried radical reforms, a victorious Trump could be the catalyst for even greater change.

[BartSimpson]

"Redistributing wealth" means stealing it and then putting in the trustworthy hands of government officials like Hillary Clinton.

That always turns out well.

[martin14]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

"Redistributing wealth" means stealing it and then putting in the trustworthy hands of government officials like Hillary Clinton.

That always turns out well.

Democrats have already had 8 years of 'redistributing', look at the mess.

The solution is not more Communism.

[DrCaleb]

It's a sad state of affairs when the only benefit one candidate has over another is that they suck less than the other parties candidate. Well, that's the state of things when there are only two parties and no one else is allowed to play. And when the total substance of debate comes down to who tells fewer lies.

If the US really wanted substantive change, they'd vote for or write in a candidate not from the choices the two parties offer. Bernie. Ralph Nader. Harambe the Gorilla. Anyone else!

[Thanos]

Cthulhu. Deez Nutz. Giant Meteor. Cecil the lion. The gator that ate the kid down at Disneyworld. All of them would have been better choices.

[ShepherdsDog]

Should Trump become POTUS, we can drop the T & U from the acronym.

[DrCaleb]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Should Trump become POTUS, we can drop the T & U from the acronym.

I'm actually leaning toward Trump now. I mean, he's still the worst candidate. But there would be a certain "WTF" factor immediately after the election, and then a daily enema of "you got exactly what you wished for" after that.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Should Trump become POTUS, we can drop the T & U from the acronym.

I'm actually leaning toward Trump now. I mean, he's still the worst candidate. But there would be a certain "WTF" factor immediately after the election, and then a daily enema of "you got exactly what you wished for" after that.

Yep, there'd be a certain satisfaction. But also as the article says, it could bring unintended consequences that finally get people pissed enough for real change to the system. With Hilary things would just keep dragging on. The whole global economy is in patch mode, trying to apply patch after patch hoping things will turn around. Instead it may be better to just tear off the patches, let it bleed and hope something better comes out of it. Of course it's just as likely that something worse comes out of it.

[Thanos]

Most likely worse as all the western institutions are clearly on an accelerated course towards disintegration. Clinton might stabilize and slow it down for a while, Trump would set off sheer chaos and speed it up. Regardless of either of them all the assumptions/beliefs/myths that underpinned this civilization are sick to core and no longer redeemable so the question becomes what is crueler to do? To keep them going even though it's pointless in the long term? Or to put a pillow over the comatose patient's face and get it over with quicker?

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Should Trump become POTUS, we can drop the T & U from the acronym.

I'm actually leaning toward Trump now. I mean, he's still the worst candidate. But there would be a certain "WTF" factor immediately after the election, and then a daily enema of "you got exactly what you wished for" after that.

Or he could end up being the best President we've had since Reagan. I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.

Maybe.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Or he could end up being the best President we've had since Reagan. I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.

Maybe.

Why "since Reagan"? You've already had 3 presidents better than Reagan since Reagan.

[fifeboy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Or he could end up being the best President we've had since Reagan. I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.

Maybe.

False premise: that Reagan was a good president. You've already had 3 presidents better than Reagan since Reagan.

Actually, my dog...a Shih Tzu, if it had been alive at the time would have made a better Pres. than Raygun!

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

"Redistributing wealth" means stealing it and then putting in the trustworthy hands of government officials like Hillary Clinton.

That always turns out well.

Democrats have already had 8 years of 'redistributing', look at the mess.

Yes Look at the mess

$1:

The solution is not more Communism.

Look at the Communism











Do you even know what the word communism means?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm not being facetious when I say that I'm just noting that traditional politicians created the mess we're in and they're not going to fix it. Maybe Trump will.

Maybe.

He could become the heralder of change that's needed. I don't know. It could happen.

To me, he's the same born-with-a-silver-spoon trust fund rich boy that got the state of Presidential politics to where it is today. All I see is someone who flings insults around, and doesn't seem to have much of an actual plan to identify let alone change the things that people actually care about. He like to use 'win' and 'winning' a lot in speeches, but I don't see how this 'winning' is to become. Or even, "win" . . . at what? I notice too, in his speeches, that as I start to ask questions like that - he changes the thought process. I think you posted an article by Scott Adams on what he's doing there - manufacturing consent?

I hope that he'd (or whoever) becomes the change needed, but I'm not going to bet on it. I think getting someone from outside the system, someone who is not part of the 'old boys' club that is needed to obtain that office is elected. But that's the problem, is in a two party system you have to be part of the club in order to attain that nomination. And the people that put you there expect somethign in return.