Pro-Trump Skaters?

[Lurper]

This has to be the absolute worst thread on SLAP. It is basically an example of what happens when blue and red Facebook feeds collide.

All sorts of strong opinions that just repeat common sense talking points. Most posters seem to have little no idea what they are talking about. Few appear to have a strong understanding of US economic or social history. And certainly, no understanding of the actual theories that underline the dominant economic philosophies in the West. Not one person has mentioned Keynesian economics nor has anyone mentioned Friedman's free-market economics (right). No one has mentioned the Fordist era of production or the post-Fordist era (1970-ish to today). Most amazingly, neo-liberalism, the dominant economic philosophy (derived from a bastardization of Friedman's work), is conspicuously missing from the "researched" discussion. Neo-liberalism has been the dominant way of governing ever since the late 70s (see http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf). It was cemented into Western politics when Thatcher and Reagan (the right) weakened labor and again when Clinton and Blair (the left) followed suit after Dukasis's devistating defeat to Bush in 88 (a presidential race that also including a great deal of race-based fear-baiting see Bush's Willie Horton advertisement and see http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14624740222228536).

The notion that everyone got along in the 80s is nothing short of absurd and this idea shows a poor understanding of social history in the US. In 85 over 50% of whites agreed it was ok to discriminate against buyers of homes based on race, and nearly 30% favored laws against interracial marriage and 30% thought it a good idea to segregate neighborhoods. Reagan enjoyed a 25% approval rating from black Americans and 56% of black Americans thought he was racist. In 1990 40% of Americans would object if a close relative married a Latino.  (https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/white-racial-attitudes-over-time-data-general-social-survey, http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/, https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-perspective/ppscan/12/12012.pdf, and http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9910.pdf).

Furthermore, the 80s marked an important moment in relation to race relations. It was when the already weak social safety net dropped away from the inner city blacks, the black economies continued to crumble (the inner city went from a segregated labor pool to segregated pool of superfluous labor), and the prison system really started filling up with minorities. Around 1950 prisons were 70% white by 1989 blacks made up the majority in prison system. Not to mention the tough on crime/war on drugs, which overwhelmingly affected black citizens that correlated with intense moral panic surrounding the " wellfare queen," a stereotype that was a useful tool to assist Reagan in dismantling the welfare state that had existed from the 30s to the mid 70s (see http://loicwacquant.net/assets/Papers/DEADLYSYMBIOSISPRISONGHETTO.pdf.) None of this strikes me as a time "when everyone got along."
  
Even beneath the broader themes, few PALS seem to be informed about any of the candidates or their supporters. Instead, it seems to be nothing more than base level hatred of the candidates, their supporters, and each other. If you are looking for easy politicians to vilify, Clinton and Trump are probably the two easiest (no other presidential candidates have had their levels of unlikability and fewer than half of their supporters "strongly supported them. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/).

Clinton. Came in as a legacy politician, which was a rather unappealing image. She represents the business side of the democratic party (possibly, this has something to do with her past as a republican Goldwater Girl). Her ties to Wall Street and big donors did not make her appealing. Moreover, her E-mail server was inexcusable. (Sadly, this is just use to vilify Clinton and not create a mass movement to make sure all politicians and gov employees/politicians are using their .gov E-mails). Her "America is great already" comment wasn't a good thing to say to the large number of Americans who have basically no savings (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/can-you-guess-how-many-americans-have-absolutely-no-savings-at-all/). Moreover, she carried the stigma of Benghazi, which a 7 million dollar republican congressional inquiry came to the conclusion it was not her fault (see http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/benghazi%20report.pdf or http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html?_r=0).

Furthermore, she represented a continuation of the present. This was a good and terrible all at once. America's unemployment rate was less than 5% (what many economists view as the ideal number), America's investment in clean energy was improving (note: roof top panels seem to be an inefficient way to spend gov $ on solar, however, solar plants end up being a good investment), housing prices (good for old people) and the stock market have returned to pre-recession levels, and Obamacare helped quite a few people, and off shoring has slowed and manufacturing jobs have slowly started to return to the us (http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-manufacturing-jobs-and-china). However, Clinton representing a continuation of the present was an extreme negative in the sense that income equality is continuing to rise, cost of housing has increased significantly (bad for young people), no solid solution for healthcare issues, low skill manufacturing positions aren't coming back, service jobs don't pay enough to live, the "gig-economy" and automation are threats to workers of all skill levels, the boomers are rightfully anxious about retirement (because pension plans are a thing of the past and they have done a poor job of saving), and she was a soft continuation of the neo-liberal policies (free-trade, tough on crime, and no social safety net) that began in the late 70s and when productivity in America began to drop off (http://www.gallup.com/reports/198776/no-recovery-analysis-long-term-productivity-decline.aspx?g_source=Report&g_medium=sidetop&g_campaign=tiles). A slightly progressive status quo offered a mixed bag of good and bad things, however, I'd say it is reasonable that people would be bummed on her and what she represented.

Trump on the other hand was a terrifyingly terrible candidate. Trump represented someone who hated unions (his Vegas casino employees voted to unionize and he ignored the vote see http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hotel-workers-say-boss-isnt-fit-to-be-president-2016-11). His multiple bankruptcies left everyone getting the short of the end stick except him (investors, contractors, and workers got fucked see http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html). He had a history of using his financial power (i.e. lawyers) to cheat his workers and contractors out of the money he owed them (see http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-business-plan-left-a-trail-of-unpaid-bills-1465504454). Trump University was a scam that bilked normal people out of money and when he recently settled for 25 million, it might just be another tax write off for him(http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/11/18/trump-gets-25-million-tax-write-off-for-trump-university-settlement/#38b770b45c6a). His campaign to get his Scottish golf course was built on the villianization of the local working class residents, it included a development plan that threatened the local environment, and his promises to create "thousands of jobs" never materialized (see ). This wasn't unique as his golf course in the Bronx never materialized the jobs that he promised either. Even though he does a great job of getting others to foot the bill (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/08/25/taxpayers-built-this-new-york-golf-course-trump-reaps-the-rewards/?utm_term=.9ef8c18fa398). It was just another luxury space for the ultra wealthy that the average person could never even hope of using. He called global warming a hoax. He regularly flip-flopped on various issues, and when confronted with concrete evidence he refused to concede (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/trump-camp-denies-muslim-ban-registry). Moreover, his connection to Bannon (of Goldman Sachs and farrightclickbait.com) is unnerving when coupled with Trump's white supremacists supporters and Trump's statements that have overt racist, sexist, etc. messages (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon). Not to mention his ideas that more nations should have nukes (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/06/should-more-countries-have-nuclear-weapons-donald-trump-thinks-so/?utm_term=.70e89b55709d) and support of authoritarian and ultra violent leaders like Duterte (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/15/philippines-senators-duterte-impeached-killing-confession). Moreover, his lack of transparency (taxes) and obvious conflicts of interest are unnerving (hotel near White House, loans for foreign banks, property developments in foreign countries see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/) do not offer confidence. The fact that he rarely donated to his own foundation and spent Trump Foundation money on pictures of himself and to settle lawsuits against him (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-spent-more-than-250k-from-foundation-to-settle-lawsuits/), doesn't bode well for his character. Finally, the idea that a man who was born a millionaire and imports his products from China, directly benefits from globalization, and the gentrification of society is going to save America is difficult to believe. It seems unlikely he really identifies with people who have bills and real worries. Not to mention, his bullshit attack on McCain, which was disgusting. His strange mix of anti-free-market (regulation of global trade and his intervention in the free market) and his pro-free-market (no minimum wage, no formal regulation internally, no environmental regulation, no regulation of wall street) is also worrisome. His leadership and reliance on "loyalty" reminds me of the "great" political machines of the past. Tammny Hall Part 2: The Presidency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall).

His positives were being an outsider (that appointed overt racists, wall-streeters, billionaires and big oil insiders to his cabinet) and that he was at least willing to admit some of the problems America is facing (even though he made quite a few problems up, i.e. day before birth abortions, immigrants and crime (immigrants engage in less crime than native populations, it is the second generation immigrants--1st born generation americans--who are more likely to commit crime, and illegal immigration has drastically reduce post-recession) (see the conservative CATO institute report https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says). Also, his pro-torture agenda may feel good as a form of revenge to Americans who fear/hate terrorists (as well as the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world), but probably won't do any good to protect anyone from anything. Trump's biggest positive (if we can call it that) was that he represented a return of the sovereign (see Foucault's Discipline and Punish http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/disciplinepunish/). He portrays himself as a "powerful" leader who is always visible who expects awe and admiration from his followers, opposed to the less visible "governmentality" power, which indirectly and inconspicuously directs the behavior of citizens.

America had three options. Bernie Sanders's New Deal, Clinton's soft neo-liberalism, and Trump's authoritarian cult-of-personality nationalistic neo-liberalism. Sadly, America picked the absolute worst option. Trump's closest political peer is a cross between Rob Ford, William Tweed, and Berlusconi (if not Mussolini). Both Clinton and Trump were garbage. However, Trump is significantly scarier than the other.

Finally, the notion that people voted for Bernie "cause they wanted free shit" is nothing short of absurd and insulting. I donated to Bernie because I, as someone who loves his union and his union job, I try my best to support other workers (and those hoping to find decent work). For the past 40 years the majority of economic gains have gone to those at the top and the majority of economic gains post-recession went to the richest Americans. The notion that if we just lowered taxes a bit more and they just had a bit more money, they'd allow some to trickle down to the rest of us doesn't seem to be working out so well. Instead, it seems taxation will be a good way to reduce inequality.

Furthermore, I viewed the best way the American gov could get the American economy working for those who actually labor (whether in service, manufacturing, education, health, construction, or whatever) was for significant government investment in the country and the people of the country. We see government investment (Keynesian economics) playing an important role in Haussmann's Renovation of Paris (1853 under Napoleon), Robert Moses redevelopment of NYC (1930ish with La Gaurdia and under Gov. Roosevelt), Pres. Roosevelt's New Deal (1933ish), and government investment in the post-WWII prosperity (G.I. Bill being huge a benefit to many white Americans). However, Trump's idea of doing this while lowering taxes will only result in insane levels of debt.

Moreover, Trump's infrastructure spending plan appears to also privatize our nations infrastructure. Public goods should remain public goods.The notion that everything is run better by business is a myth. For example, both the federal government and the conservative state of Arizona have realized that private prisons costs more than public prisons. The private prisons in AZ cost more than the public prisons and even refuse the most difficult inmates. Moreover, working in a private prisons usually means less pay, less security, and shittier benefits, unless one has an admin job near the top, which means executive perks/pay. Also, when it comes to parks, the skate parks in Phoenix are amazing and the majority (if not all of them) of them have been funded through taxes/city bonds. (see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37124183 and http://archive.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20131204arizona-private-prisons-growing-cost.html )

Adam Smith pointed out that regulation could occur via the government as well as though the businesses themselves (ex. monopolies/oligopolies). Businesses can collude to fuck over competitors and consumers. Trust that market will regulate itself or that corporations that don't act in their customers' best interest will go out of business forgets that power plays a role in every interaction. Wells Fargo (opening fake accounts on the customer's dime), Ford (exploding cars, cheaper to pay law suits than fix all cars), GM (faulty ignition, cheaper for lawsuits again), Sarah Lee (knowing sold listeria tainted meat), etc. all fucked over their customers and they seem to be doing just fine. How many people who are now afraid of getting fucked over by Wells Fargo are going to shut down all their accounts, risk lowering their credit scores, find another bank, and go through the hassle of setting all their shit up again? Considering Wells Fargo's stock has risen since the scandal broke, I'm going to guess they'll be just fine. (And, since Trump wants to dismantle the federal consumer protection agency, I'm certain the bank will be just fine.) I donated to a person who I believed would actually regulate the large businesses in a way that would protect the average consumer.

In addition, I am uncertain how it became unpatriotic to pitch in and assist others. It disgusts me that Trump hasn't paid taxes in over a decade, while I pay my fair share to help keep my neighbors and my country plugging along. Also, the notion that people only work for money is bullshit. If that was the case, skateboarding would be nothing more than a bunch of Berras and Dyrdeks. Also, if people refused to live places within high taxes, it doesn't explain why the wealthy Chinese are choosing to move to Canada instead of Russia, which has a 17% flat tax rate. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/story/chinas-millionaire-migration). Hell, if low taxes were the most important factor, Russia's economy would be based on more than oil. Moreover, the notion charity that will solve all the problems doesn't seem to add up, because the rate of charitable giving has stayed at roughly 3% over the decades (https://www.philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481). Moreover, charity given by the wealthiest plays a role in increasing their power in society (remember why everyone was so upset about the Clinton Foundation/Trump Foundation).

This thread bums me out beyond belief. I'd given up long ago any belief that skaters were the political anti-conformists rebels that I assumed they were when I was 12, but this level of base level mainstream horseshit is devastating.

[fulltechnicalskizzy]

holy fuckin shit

[Esquivel]

Proofreading this must have taken at least 3 weeks

[stabbedbywiggers]

Lurper, can I have some adderall?

[Turtle Boy]

Thanks Lurper, I really enjoyed your elaborated comment.

[Abyss1]

holy fuckin shit

Pretty much what i said after first paragraph

[20matar]

6 pages and no confirmed names of Pro-Trump Pro Skaters... that's a shame. At least I learned who Michael Dukakis is from reading this thread.

[Iceman]

lurper, your passion and efforts will only be appreciated if you drop the verbosity.


"it is with words as with sunbeams. the more they are condensed, the deeper they burn." - robert southey

"it is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book." - friedrich nietzsche

"writing is 1 percent inspiration, and 99 percent elimination." - louise brooks

[HungUp]

The fact that Lurper's comment can't be condensed to meme form is why I have no hope for America.  Even if it could, politics are religion now and people aren't interested in facts.  They just want their narrow biases confirmed.  Trump is the beginning, not the end.  Anybody celebrating or even brushing off the upcoming 4 years has their head firmly shoved up their ass.

[Jerkstore]

Lurper your use of malenfornism and virtuosicism is quite fellancocious

[Still Tippin]

Lurper your use of malenfornism and virtuosicism is quite fellancocious

i'm mad i googled those words just on the off chance they were real and i was stupid

[shark tits]

Expand Quote

Lurper your use of malenfornism and virtuosicism is quite fellancocious

[close]

i'm mad i googled those words just on the off chance they were real and i was stupid

me too. damn you to hell, trump! damn you to hell!

[h00man]

Lurper, I'm gonna do my best to read your entire post. I'm also at work so....

[Dirtymac]

I tried to reply with Lurpers quote and that shit said it was too long to post. Over 20,000 words or some shit. I'm like, "so my one little sentence pushed it over the line?...You've got to be shitting me!" All I was going to say Lurpey baby is that you do realize over half the people here are borderline regular teens?

[tortfeasor]

6 pages and no confirmed names of Pro-Trump Pro Skaters... that's a shame. At least I learned who Michael Dukakis is from reading this thread.

whenever someone would try to engage me in a conversation about the election i would immediately tell them i'm a dukakis supporter and if they didn't pick up on the joke i would just end the conversation right right there.


Curious to know if there are any Pro- Jim "kill em dead" Webb skaters?  i felt so alone during the primaries.  where my other WebbHeads at??

[pabloalvarado]

Hey Lurper can you elaborate, please !

[not_ericricks]

I read lurpers post on opiates.

I feel like I really wasted my entire day.

I also puked, a few times. Booty booty

Opiates

[Tracer]

Hey Lurper can you elaborate, please !

Is it really that difficult to read 2 minutes of text? I take it you're not very well read.

[pabloalvarado]

Expand Quote

Hey Lurper can you elaborate, please !

[close]

Is it really that difficult to read 2 minutes of text? I take it you're not very well read.

[Madam, I'm Adam]

Lurpey baby

[Pauly Walnuts]

Expand Quote

6 pages and no confirmed names of Pro-Trump Pro Skaters... that's a shame. At least I learned who Michael Dukakis is from reading this thread.

[close]

whenever someone would try to engage me in a conversation about the election i would immediately tell them i'm a dukakis supporter and if they didn't pick up on the joke i would just end the conversation right right there.


Curious to know if there are any Pro- Jim "kill em dead" Webb skaters?  i felt so alone during the primaries.  where my other WebbHeads at??

I loved Jim Webb as soon as he hit his closing statement on the first(?) debate. Seemed like a very centered no-nonsense kind of guy during the debate too, I liked that about him, and he had experience serving with the military. After reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb#Exchange_with_President_Bush I grew to respect him. He had the constraint to hold back, but if he would've punched Dubya that would only make him even cooler . Nice to see they made up. I'm a little bummed he never gained traction, but it's clear he is not the cookie cutter mold Democrat they would want in the first place.
RonPaul2020
Jim Webb2024
Jesus "Son of Our Lord and Savior" Christ???

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

yo, imma need a bibliography for dat essay brah

[calvinsdream]

[GinosGroceries]

Yo we need to get back to derailing threads with pictures of food. Someone upload some sweet and sour chicken please

[Lurper]

I'm glad you guys didn't hate the post. I deleted it a couple times before finally posting.

Lurper, I'm gonna do my best to read your entire post. I'm also at work so....

But, don't read too closely, there a million typos  

One thing (of many) that I forgot to mention was about Social Security and Medicare (which I view Paul Ryan as a significant threat to both of these). Often we think of these as being benefits to for the old. It actually helps us out a lot as well, because we don't need to spend a significant amount of the money we earn supporting our grandparents'/parents' bills. And according to Gallup (see the big Gallup study above), America's healthcare costs are the highest in the West, even though we don't get the best care. According to Gallup, our healthcare is super expensive due to administrative costs. (Note: Citizens in the USA and Cuba have basically the same life expectancy - 79 years)

I don't know. It seems America is facing some serious issues. I hope that I'm wrong and everyone will benefit in the coming years, but my guess is that finance won't be reigned in and Trump will play the role of the "sovereign." The richest will do exceptionally well, while the rest of us will continue to experience anxiety about the future/present, and the right hand of the state (police, prison, etc.) will gain a significant amount of power and due process will be continue to be weakened in favor of "crime control."

Finally, if anything, I just suggest reading the key parts of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" as well as Marx's key responses to Smith. Also reading Von Hayek as well as John Rawls' responses to Hayek/Friedman (). David Harvey's work on Neo-liberalism (see above or or ). David Garland's reinterpretations of Foucault are helpful and Loic Wacquant is unparalleled in his understanding of neo-liberalism, crime, and race.  Also, for race William Julius Wilson and Bonnilla-Silva do a great job of discussing racial issues (https://anth1001.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/eduardo_bonilla-silva_racism_without_racists_color-blind_racism_and_the_persistence_of_racial_inequality_in_the_united_states_2nd_edition__2006.pdf). Also, Google Scholar is pretty awesome. For example, Tobey and Eric both mention the electoral college their recent posts. People have been debating whether we should reform the electoral college at least as far back as 1801. Maybe there is an interesting political science paper that they could draw on to support/poke holes in their arguments? I'd be curious to see what they find out.

[Level 60 Dwarf Paladin]

And I thought I was the only one forced to choke down Wacquant... 28 word sentences.

[doublesteveburger]

Wait... has that girl in Pablo's sig always had panties on? 

[Tracer]

A lot of slap voted Trump, you can't blame them for keeping their vote to themselves.... look at this AIDS of a thread

[fulltechnicalskizzy]

A lot of slap couldn't vote because we forgot to register in the measly 597 days they gave us before election day. Voting system was rigged to keep slap down.

[Tracer]

No excuse not voting.