Obama, Trump and the Great Unravelling

Submitted by Pachamama

 

President (elect) Trump (l) and President Obama (r)

President (elect) Trump (l) and President Obama (r)

Dr. Anthony Monteiro has recently delivery a magisterial analysis of our current circumstances, the way forward. He has concluded that we are in the 5th major crisis of capitalism; sees the generalized failure of the capitalist elites; believes there is no way to prevent a total, systemic, collapse; sees these global crisis as beyond fascism, beyond neo-fascism, in severity. However, he thinks that broad, grass root political formations may have a chance of charting a new way for what ‘future’ there could be. That analysis starts about 15 minutes in.

http://prn.fm/black-agenda-radio-01-16-17/

Advertisements

Tags: ,

324 Comments on “Obama, Trump and the Great Unravelling”

  1. de pedantic Dribbler January 23, 2017 at 5:17 PM #

    @chad45 re your 3:52 PM ….Of course they have. But you live in the same alternative fact universe as Spicer does.

    The facts….

    ” According to Nielsen ratings, 30.6 million viewers tuned in across 12 networks to watch Trump’s inauguration…. That falls well SHORT of … the 37.7 million who watched Obama’s 2009 inauguration…

    “Millions of viewers also tuned in for livestreams of Trump’s inauguration, and CNN says that there were 16.9 million livestreams on its site and apps across the day.

    “But Obama’s 2009 inauguration drew then-record online audiences, with CNN reporting more than 25 million livestreams across the day —and so much demand during Obama’s speech that many viewers were shunted to online waiting rooms.”

    Thus…

    TRUMP: Worldwide 40 mil (who knows) + US TV 30.6 and Online 16.9 + 1.5 mil on mall

    Obama: Worldwide 40 mil (?) + US TV 37.7 and Online 25 + 1.9 mill on mall

    In the black trunks hardly breaking a sweat the factual winner by KO in the first round, Barry O!

    I left out this.

    ALTERNATIVE FACTS: Trump; Fox Live stream 40 M….Obama 10 M

    So the Alternative Facts are that Trump’s crowd was bigger around the world. Period.

    And so too the world-wide protest marches against Obama in 2009 were quite larger particularly those very angry folks in Kenya and Hawaii.

    What a way to start a Presidency…ISIS should be on his backside like a bad pimple just about now…if they could. Let’s see what these stupid tricks for children mean when that happens.

    Like

  2. de pedantic Dribbler January 23, 2017 at 5:42 PM #

    @Colonel Buggy January 23, 2017 at 12:22 PM …Your service is honored by us all but the nexus between military service and political appeal has been lost. The current generations do not see war as a ‘holy and good’ thing.

    The fact that Trump is US president after demeaning a US war hero as he did; after so shamelessly accepting the medal from the soldier (a Lt Col, no less) and with a sloppy grin saying ‘I always wanted one of these’ for an award received for being wounded in combat and STILL was elected unfortunately pours cold water on your worthy argument.

    The officer who gave him the medal said he would make a good Commander in Chief.

    Now put that picture of the strapping 6 footer and his special deferments in context and tell me (rhetorical) how he was not lambasted as a two-faced con man….remember also he went to military school.

    Just saying…those are the indisputable facts.

    Frankly, Trump likely be less willing to send troops into danger than Bush 43 was.

    We perceive him as a war-monger but as pugilistic as he is I do not see him presiding over body bags at Andrews….bombings like a crazed man are likely but he will be wary about deploying troops into fighting zones.

    Like

  3. chad99999 January 23, 2017 at 5:45 PM #

    Dribbler

    I am 99% sure you are using data from a story reported on politico.com.
    That story includes the following line:

    “Calculating the overall global viewership for Trump’s inauguration would be nearly impossible.”

    Stay tuned!

    Like

  4. Colonel Buggy January 23, 2017 at 6:00 PM #

    Lets wait and see what tricks Trump has in his magic bag to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth without the use of American troops on the ground.

    Like

  5. Artax January 23, 2017 at 6:27 PM #

    @ de pedantic Dribbler

    The following excerpts were taken from the New York Times – January 22, 2017:

    1) “Speaking later on Saturday in the White House briefing room, Mr. Spicer amplified Mr. Trump’s false claims. “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,” he said.”

    “There is NO evidence to SUPPORT this claim. Not only was Mr. Trump’s inauguration crowd FAR SMALLER than Mr. Obama’s in 2009, but he also drew fewer television viewers in the United States (30.6 million) than Mr. Obama did in 2009 (38 million) and Ronald Reagan did in 1981 (42 million), Nielsen reported. Figures for online viewership were not available.”

    2) Mr. Spicer said that Washington’s Metro system had greater ridership on Friday than it did for Mr. Obama’s 2013 inauguration. “We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama’s last inaugural,” Mr. Spicer said.

    NEITHER NUMBER IS CORRECT, according to the TRANSIT SYSTEM, which REPORTED 570,557 entries into the rail system on Friday, COMPARED with 782,000 on Inauguration Day in 2013.

    3) Mr. Spicer said that “THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual.”

    In fact, SIMILAR COVERINGS WERE USED DURING THE 2013 INAUGURATION TO PROTECT THE GRASS. The coverings did not hamper analyses of the crowd size.

    4) Mr. Spicer said that it was “the first time that fencing and magnetometers went as far back on the Mall, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the Mall as quickly as they had in inaugurations past.”

    The Secret Service said SECURITY MEASURES WERE LARGELY UNCHANGED this year. There were also few reports of long lines or delays.

    Perhaps chad99999 drank from the same cistern as Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer. No matter how many statistical facts you present to substantiate Donald Trump suffers from “pseudologia fantastica,” the resident misogynist will refute them as “fake news.”

    Like

  6. chad99999 January 23, 2017 at 6:46 PM #

    Artax

    is a dummy. We are not arguing about the crowd at the Inaugural ceremony. Obama’s was bigger. We are not arguing about the US TV audience. Obama’s was bigger.

    WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE ONLINE AUDIENCE AND THE TV VIEWING AUDIENCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. GET IT? NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE.

    Like

  7. de pedantic Dribbler January 23, 2017 at 6:47 PM #

    @Artax not only did Chad45 drink from the same cistern he likely gets his Trump cuts of bloated beef and veal from the same farm too. He is all in.

    In my brief take off above he noticed the FACTS from the Politico news – which could have been taken from any other source – but he did not give any credence to my Alternative Facts re the Fox streaming data which ‘CLEARLY” took Donald over the top.

    That was quite rude of him. LOL.

    Good luck with getting him to accept data from the Trump labelled ‘failing’ rag called the NYT which is filled with all those dishonest journos.

    Chad definitely fills out that letter R (for ridiculous) in an end of day “Relaxation”!

    Like

  8. de pedantic Dribbler January 23, 2017 at 6:59 PM #

    Chad, LOLLL. You are classical funny. Were you trained at Julliard or Harvard to offer riffs like 6:46.

    Obama bigger in 1. Bigger in 2. Bigger in all metrics we have. But Trump will be so much bigger in the one we don’t have. Gotcha!

    Oooops. You meant in worldwide protests. Ok. All good.

    Classic Chad. Just classic alternative programming.

    Like

  9. are-we-there-yet January 23, 2017 at 7:09 PM #

    Chad99999;

    You said at 5:45 above

    “Calculating the overall global viewership for Trump’s inauguration would be nearly impossible.”

    Yuh realize that calculating the global viewership for previous inaugurations would ALSO be nearly impossible. So what is your point? What was the yardstick that Spicer, Kellyann and Trump used that reliably indicated that the Trump Inauguration was more watched overseas than Obama’s inaugurations or earlier ones?

    Perhaps you might be thinking that Trump’s global notoriety would ensure a much greater global viewing of the Inauguration than Obama’s and you might be right but such assessments are subjective only and collide against the objective fact you stated in your post and which I copied in my second paragraph in this post.

    The whole thing is baloney. The only reasonable measurement of attendance is the attendance that was captured in the various images and using whatever means is reasonably accurate (even the unaided eye) to assess the peak numbers of the two inaugurations. The Obama crowd was clearly the winner in that case.

    Get over it. Trump was once again caught in a gratuitous lie. ….and it won’t be the last!

    Like

  10. Hants January 23, 2017 at 7:23 PM #

    Any of you want to join me in buying local….Canadian, Bajan and caribbean ?

    Like

  11. are-we-there-yet January 23, 2017 at 7:26 PM #

    Here’s a reasonably balanced article on the Inauguration watching numbers from the Washing Post

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/01/23/theres-no-evidence-that-trumps-inauguration-was-the-most-watched-in-history-period/?utm_term=.abeb02c58833&wpisrc=nl_politics-pm&wpmm=1

    Like

  12. Alternative blogger - TheGazer January 23, 2017 at 7:28 PM #

    Chad command of the use of ‘alternative facts’ is simply amazing. One would think that it would take some time to master this technique, but he is already at full speed. When one counts the ‘uncountables’ (so far), Trump is the winner.

    Like

  13. are-we-there-yet January 23, 2017 at 7:41 PM #

    Yes TheGazer;

    He also shows a facile grasp of the minutiae of the Geopolitics related to Trump’s positions on everything that might be suggestive of his possibly being a professional consultant involved in the development of strategies in that area. But that’s clearly impossible!

    Like

  14. Artax January 23, 2017 at 8:06 PM #

    chad99999 January 23, 2017 at 6:46 PM #

    “WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE ONLINE AUDIENCE AND THE TV VIEWING AUDIENCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. GET IT? NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE.”

    @ chad99999

    And chad is a bigger dummy; one that cannot read and understand at the same time.

    Had he thoroughly read what I posted, he would have seen:

    “FIGURES FOR ONLINE VIEWERSHIP WERE NOT AVAILABLE.”

    Like

  15. William Skinner January 23, 2017 at 9:10 PM #

    I am extremely impressed that a journalist of Carl Moore’s standing engages on BU. I have read dozens of Carl’s contrbutions/columns. As a matter of fact many many years ago he used to be part or appeared on a radio jazz show, I think, and I learned quite a bit. over the years and he has has always acted with high ethics. As a Black Barbadian, I am exceptionally proud of Carl Moore , Harold Hoyte, Al Gilkes, Trevor Evelyn , the late Trevor Clarke, Charles Harding and all the others , who gave birth to the Nation newspaper . To describe Carl Moore as a failure is exceedingly unkind. We can disagree without sinking to such levels. Carl Moore has made an outstanding contribution to our country. I have also listened to him on radio, where he again displayed excellence.I have always enjoyed Jeff Cumberbatch’s writings as well. Caswell Franklyn, Hal Austin, Walter Blackman and others have all made very informative contributions to BU. I try my best to direct people both locally and overseas to follow BU.
    It is also evident that Pachamama, Well Well.., de pedantic traveller, are we there yet, Chants.., Chad999, and all the others including ac are men and women of high intelligence and they do drive the blog and keep topics going. I would also like them to give their names, so that if I run into them we can extend greetings as part of the BU family but they have elected to not to give their names. So be it.
    Let us take a page from Sir Garry Sobers and remain polite and respectful when dealing with others. That is the hallmark of human civility. If a secondary student reads BU, we want him or her to walk away with insightful offerings and information that would encourage them to want to write or contribute. They certainly would not want to read puerile attacks on each other. We can agree to disagree without adopting the same inferior posture that we often accuse the political class for exhibiting.

    Like

  16. David January 24, 2017 at 12:13 AM #

    @William

    The bottomline is that Carl has decided NOT to make constructive contributions to BU. This is how the BU family will measure him.

    Like

  17. de pedantic Dribbler January 24, 2017 at 8:01 AM #

    @William Skinner January 23, 2017 at 9:10 PM …of course Carl Moore’s and the team at the Nation have done some excellent business development in the newspaper business. The story of the Nation’s birth and growth in Barbados and then the region is an exciting business study of success.

    However the fact that bloggers assail Moore’s achievements (I too used to listen to the bro expound on Jazz) is a reality of existence.

    I always recall when Errol Barrow called the Pres. of the USA ‘a cowboy’ in order to demean and delegitimize him. Regardless of the man’s life trajectory and career as an actor he was duly elected. Our PM was out of place.

    So do you really think that average Joe’s like me or you or Moore needs to get unhinged about a few nasty barbs from some anonymous spite-filled person when brickbats, envy, jealousy and caustic vitriol is a steady drumbeat of life!

    Re your example of a secondary student; he or she must be able to take the wheat and leave the chaff.

    Life is too filled with puerile chaff behavior; BU is no different.

    Like

  18. William Skinner January 24, 2017 at 9:39 AM #

    de pedantic Dribbler
    “So do you really think that average Joe’s like me or you or Moore needs to get unhinged about a few nasty barbs from some anonymous spite-filled person when brickbats, envy, jealousy and caustic vitriol is a steady drumbeat of life!”
    Thanks for your response. I just agree that disagreeing with anybody and so on is a part of life but saying that a person who has clearly achieved is some failure or has not contributed anything to his profession , is like saying if BU folds tomorrow that it made no contribution to debate or that the principals behind BU were nothing more than underachievers. Your broader point about the need to be thick skin is taken.

    Like

  19. Hants or Chants January 25, 2017 at 4:06 PM #

    William Skinner January 23, 2017 at 9:10 PM # ” so that if I run into them we can extend greetings as part of the BU family ”

    If I run into you I will identify myself. lol

    Like

  20. 555dubstreet January 25, 2017 at 5:34 PM #

    Like

  21. are-we-there-yet January 26, 2017 at 8:26 AM #

    dpD;

    Looks like the nuclear button debate is back on the agenda.

    Two US congressmen have tabled a motion on the Nuclear first strike law that would outlaw the ability that modern US presidents have of being able, on their own, to order a nuclear first strike without reference to anyone else.

    The bill would only allow a first strike if it is approved by a congressional committee. Such a new law now seems imperative after a slew of actions by President Trump in his first few days of office strongly suggests that he might be out of touch with reality and could precipitate a global nuclear cataclysm.

    Obviously such a bill carries the danger of provoking an unbalanced mind to do the thing which it tries to proscribe but does anyone on BU think that the world is a safer place since Trump took up office as president?

    Like

  22. de pedantic Dribbler January 26, 2017 at 10:34 AM #

    @are-we January 26, 2017 at 8:26 AM…I would agree completely with the two congressmen that the option for a nuclear first strike should be removed from the hands of one man: the president.

    A true FIRST strike should sit only in the hands of the President’s Security Council including of course the Joint Chiefs and the six or eight Legislative leadership group.

    The process is now an out-dated relic of a different time and dare I say supposedly more sane Chief Executives (was Nixon any more ‘sane’ than Trump?).

    However this needs broad bipartisan support but I suspect it will get shaky as current Republicans will see it as a curb on their President’s ability to act quickly (response strike) to another’s first strike.

    Thus I fear it will become a stupid political debate.

    Let’s hope that Trump’s scatter shot approach can actually force the US leadership of the importance to revisit the flawed psychology of this process.

    And re your last statement….yep, it’s somewhat safer. Obama bombed many terrorists with drones. MANY. But the Don has warned these folks that he will bomb them AND their families to oblivion…until the day his bluster meets reality it’s a safer world. They are scared. LOLLL.

    Like

  23. are-we-there-yet January 26, 2017 at 2:46 PM #

    dpD

    Good point in your last paragraph!

    But might we not be now dealing with a madman vs. a number of madmen? How can we be certain that the stage isn’t now being set for increased terrorism with Trump continuing his Electioneering rhetoric of perhaps the US should take the Muslim nations oil if they see some chance to do so in the near future and correct a gross error that Bush presemably made.

    If you add the increased injury to the Palestinians and Al Quaeda and ISIS that Trump seems to be telegraphing in a possible move of the US embassy to Jerusalem and agreeing with Netanyahu’s accelerating development of settlements and God knows what other indignities, it seems that the rapidly increasing temperature in the middle east could spawn some perhaps unintended consequences.

    I wonder when it will become accepted that Trump is in a totally different mental class to Nixon. He he’d ent gud!

    Like

  24. are-we-there-yet January 26, 2017 at 11:47 PM #

    The hold on Trump by Putin may be in the process of being unravelled and it looks bad. The underground Russian news media has some clues that could lead to a swift impeachment for Trump.

    Meanwhile the resistance is building apace.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: