Drumpf LIVE!

Written By: - Date published: 2:44 pm, July 22nd, 2016 - 31 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, Globalisation, International, uncategorized, us politics, war - Tags:

The bloke who will come second in the American Presidential election is giving his nomination acceptance speech right now:

http://graphics.latimes.com/videochat-watch-live-republican-national-convention/

The speech has been leaked.

Update [MS]

The speech finished to the song “All right now”. It seems that permission was not given to use the song.

What is it with the right and trashing the intellectual property rights of musicians?

More twitter:

31 comments on “Drumpf LIVE! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    22 July 2016 at 3:04 pm

    I’ve wondered over the last 48 hours whether the uproar at the Republican Convention would more hurt or hinder their electoral chances overall. My view now is it’s been overwhelmingly positive.

    Trump and Cruz are speaking a very precise populist dialect, which has been honed by professional wrestling. It’s about the feuds; whether one wife has perkier tits than the other, their father a wastrel, one family’s makeup and wardrobe tattier than the other, one verbal beat-down more spectacular than the next. This stuff inspires legendary feuds and legendary followers.

    As a reality television star, Donald Trump is the Masked Undertaker taking down the era of austerity, surveillance, neoliberal nightmares, zero class mobility, broken Washington, global anxiety, all mixed with the race hotsauce of rage, guns, and protecting the Poh-lice.

    …. and gets to do it with one arm holding the hot girl, flying the best jets, quaffing the most expensive stuff, and the other hand grasping the pistol that will shoot down anyone stopping America being Great Again.

    Cruz gets all that, and is ready for 2020.

    No, I don’t think Trump’ll win. But it will be close. He’ll lose mostly on the ground-and-pound than on the standup ie he’s left it too late to get up his vote-gathering infrastructure. But he’s a big lesson for the left: forget the facts and become the fictional star we want you to be.

    Ah-Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh
    Ah-Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh

    Ah-RRRRRRR!!!!

    • te reo putake 1.1
      22 July 2016 at 3:17 pm

      Ha! great analogy, Ad. I can just see Trump in the ring, taking down the masked Mexican lucha libre champion with his signature move, the Wall! But wait … just as he has the sneaky Mexican on the ropes into the ring here comes Ted ‘Crusher’ Cruz to trip Trump up. The crowd boos … and we go to commercial.

    • adam 1.2
      22 July 2016 at 5:25 pm

      I’ll repeat what I said earlier, I think you are wrong on the whole infrastructure thought process. The republican machinery is behind him, kicking and screaming I have no doubt. But the machine is there, and the have the bodies and the skill set to win.

      I have to say, I’m glad it has dawned on many on the left this guy is a serious threat. Don’t discount him, ever! And never downplay his theater, he has learnt from the best in his years in/as reality TV.

      I think he will win, and that sickens me. He will get enough of the right votes to win, because of the dam screw ball electoral system the USA has.

  3. Ad 3
    22 July 2016 at 3:21 pm

    The next game will be the Battle of the Presidential partners:
    Prepare for the first game of Who Would You Rather: Bill or Ivanka?

    • One Two 3.1
      22 July 2016 at 4:22 pm

      Well, Bill is a confirmed [deleted] and probable [deleted] that has known pedophiles as close friends

      [Settle down. As far as has been proved, he has only ever had consensual sexual relations and he is not responsible for the behaviour of other people. You’re crossing a line with that comment, so please choose your words more carefully in future. TRP]

  4. mauī 4
    22 July 2016 at 3:23 pm

    I think we’re getting a taste of what Hitler’s speeches were like.

    It was encouraging to hear him say he will stop US regime change in the Middle East. But then he said he is going to stamp out ISIS, and will fully support Israel. Hmm..

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    22 July 2016 at 3:29 pm

    You’re wrong, TRP. It’s an easy win to Trump.

    • Ad 5.1
      22 July 2016 at 3:39 pm

      I’m particularly excited by the spectacle of the Republicans destroying each other; both the skinny whelp candidates who got kicked all over the beach, but also this week seeing Roger Jabba the Republican Ailes getting unceremoniously canned. This is a massive earthquake to the Republicans that is going to keep rolling and rolling, making them weaker and weaker each time. It’s like the 1960s civil rights movement for the right, with exactly the opposite results.

      Whereas the Democrats are well funded, policy-wise and politically united, strong endorsements on bench, ready to unleash gameplan.

      • Andre 5.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 3:47 pm

        I’m enjoying watching the range of reactions from the Republican big cheeses. From the Stockholm Syndrome of the likes of Priebus, the grenade in the long-drop from Cruz, the “I en nnggh…I endor ngggh ….I endorse nnnggghh ……. nope” from a whole bunch of others.

    • Dennis Merwood 5.2
      22 July 2016 at 7:33 pm

      You may have it right Colonial. It’s not going to be too hard for Trump to beat probably the most reviled politician in US political history, HRC.
      I’m a huge lefty, but cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who is surely going to start WWIII. And one who is bought and paid for by Wall Street, and the Military Industrial Complex, and is an Israel-firster.

      • McFlock 5.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 8:06 pm

        So you’ll support trump, who is more likely to start ww3, wants to give more nations in the world nuclear weapons, has been made bankrupt repeatedly yet is still bailed out by his wall st mates, had business interests that are currently being investigated for fraud, wants 28 european nations to drastically increase their defense budgets, wants a database of us citizens based on their religious beliefs, and who thinks that the mistake Obama made in the middle east was announcing troop deployments?

        Oh and, as Trevor Noah likes to remind us, really wants to sleep with his daughter?

      • swordfish 5.2.2
        24 July 2016 at 9:14 am

        “And one who is bought and paid for by Wall Street”

        Jeffrey St Clair
        Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
        (A few key passages)

        Nothing seems to rattle Hillary Clinton quite so much as pointed questions about her personal finances. How much she’s made. How she made it. Where it all came from. From her miraculous adventures in the cattle futures market to the Whitewater real estate scam, many of the most venal Clinton scandals down the decades have involved Hillary’s financial entanglements and the serpentine measures she has taken to conceal them from public scrutiny …

        … The lavish fee from Goldman for Hillary’s speeches was both a gratuity for past loyalty and a down payment on future services. Goldman’s ties to the Clintons date back at least to 1985, when Goldman executives began pumping money into the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a kind of proto-SuperPac for the advancement of neoliberalism. Behind its “third-way” politics smokescreen, the DLC was shaking down corporations and Wall Street financiers to fund the campaigns of business-friendly “New” Democrats such as Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

        The DLC served as the political launching pad for the Clintons, boosting them out of the obscurity of the Arkansas dog-patch into the rarified orbit of the Georgetown cocktail circuit and the Wall Street money movers. By the time Bill rambled through his interminable keynote speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention in Atlanta, the Clintons’ Faustian pact with Goldman had already been inked, their political souls cleansed of any vestiges of the primitive southern populism Clinton had exploited so effortlessly during his first term as governor.

        In 1991, … Goldman’s co-chair Robert Rubin, … soon began orchestrating a riptide of Wall Street money into Clinton’s campaign war chest, not only from Goldman but also from other banking and investment titans, such as Lehman Brothers and Citibank, who were eager to see the loosening of federal financial regulations. With Rubin priming the pump, Clinton’s campaign coffers soon dwarfed his rivals and enabled him to survive the sex scandals that detonated on the eve of the New Hampshire primary …

        … After his election, Clinton swiftly returned the favor checking off one item after another on Rubin’s wish list, often at the expense of the few morsels he’d tossed to the progressive base of the party. In a rare fit of pique, Clinton erupted during one meeting of his National Economic Council, which Rubin chaired, in the first fraught year of his presidency by yelling: “You mean my entire agenda has been turned over to the fucking bond market?” …

        … When the time came to do the serious business of deregulating the financial sector, Rubin migrated from the shadows of the NEC to become Treasury Secretary, where he oversaw the implementation of NAFTA, the immiseration of the Mexican economy, imposed shock therapy on the struggling Russian economy, blocked the regulation of credit derivatives and gutted Glass-Steagall.
        … Nine years later, following the greatest upward transfer of wealth in history, the global economy was in ruins, with Clinton, Rubin and Goldman Sachs’ fingerprints all over the carnage …

        … In mid-May, Hillary announced her intention to make Bill the “economic czar” for her administration. This served to quell any anxiety that she might have been infected during the primary campaign by the Sanders virus. For Wall Street, the Clintons are still as good as Goldman. Quid pro quo.

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/22/good-as-goldman-hillary-and-wall-street/

        • joe90 5.2.2.1
          24 July 2016 at 9:44 am

          “And one who is bought and paid for by Wall Street”

          Recycled wingnut talking point …
          //

          4) Wall Street — First things first. No, the majority of the money Clinton has made from speaking fees did not come from Wall Street. In fact it’s not even close. She has given nearly 100 paid speeches since leaving the State Dept., and only 8 were to “Wall Street” banks. Nearly all of her speeches were to organizations like American Camping Association, Ebay, Cisco, Xerox, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, California Medial Association, A&E Television Networks, Massachusetts Conference for Women, U.S. Green Building Council, National Association of Realtors, American Society of Travel Agents, Gap, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, etc.

          Corporations and Associations pay large fees for important speakers all of the time. And Hillary got booked fairly often because she is interesting and popular, and because there’s a great deal of status attached to having her speak at an event. Ignoring all of this however, a large contingent of anti-Hillary people continue to insist that all speaker’s fees from Wall Street banks were bribes, and that because of this they “own” her. But by that logic shouldn’t we all be asking what the fuck the American Camping Association is up to?

          Also, with the possible exception of one speech given to Deutsche Bank, all of Hillary’s 8 speeches to Wall Street were for a speaking fee of $225,000. That does not even break the top 20 of her highest paid speeches. For example she received over $275,000 each in three speeches she gave to The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, and Canada 2020. So apparently Canadians also “own” her. And I don’t know what those nefarious Canadians are up to, but it probably has something to do with goddamn poutine. Which would really piss me off except I just remembered that I kind of like poutine so never mind.

          Listen, does Wall Street have influence with Hillary? Grow up, of course they do. Wall Street is one of the key engines of the American economy, and as such has enormous influence with everyone. EVERYONE. Don’t kid yourself on that point. And aside from anything else, she was a 2-term Senator of New York, and this made Wall Street an important corporate member of her constituency. The issue is not influence. The issue is whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption. And they’re not. And the last time I checked there was an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander.

          And again: why is Hillary being held to a standard that never appears to be applied to her male counterparts? Am I not supposed to notice that a media frenzy has been aimed at Hillary Clinton for accepting speaking fees of $225,000 while Donald Trump has been paid $1.5 MILLION on numerous occasions with hardly a word said about it? Am I supposed to not notice that we are now in an election season in which Donald Trump, a proud scam artist whose involvement in “Trump University” alone is being defined by the New York Attorney General as “straight-up fraud”, is regularly calling Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” and getting away with it?

          What the actual fuck is going on here? What’s going on is what we all know, but mostly don’t want to admit: presidential campaigns favor men, and the men who campaign in them are rewarded for those traits perceived as being “manly” – physical size, charisma, forceful personality, assertiveness, boldness and volume. Women who evince those same traits however are usually punished rather than rewarded, and a lot of the negativity aimed at Hillary over the years, especially when she is seeking office, has been due to these underlying biases. There is simply no question that Hillary has for years been on the business end of an unrelenting double standard. And her battle with societal sexism isn’t going to stop because of her success anymore than Obama’s battle with racism stopped once he was elected. These are generational issues, and we are who we are.

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

  6. joe90 6
    22 July 2016 at 3:49 pm

    I’ve heard this sort of speech a lot in the last 15 years and trust me, it doesn’t sound any better in Russian.— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) July 22, 2016

  7. whatisis 7
    22 July 2016 at 4:14 pm

    You ppl just seem to not get it. Trump can say and or do anything, attack NZ attack Belgium, it doesn’t matter, He’s not one of them, Clinton, Bush etc even Obama tricked everyone with his change meme…

    Trump is the change we don’t want but know we need, cuz in 4 yrs they will have to put up real candidates or we’ll vote for another nut again.

    He’s an enema for the establishment failing our society.

  8. One Two 8
    22 July 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Somewhat a surprise that those who frequent a poltical blog site have little to no political nous whatsoever

    Watching a pantomime, believing that it’s ‘real’….

  9. Jenny 9
    22 July 2016 at 8:48 pm

    Establishment candidate and billionaire Donald J Trump is delivering his acceptance speech at the RNC.
    Teo Putake

    The establishment candidate is Hilary Clinton.

    Donald Trump is the anti-establishment candidate. That is his strength and his attraction.
    In an age when the establishment has been discredited and is held in contempt by millions of Americans. Donald Trump is the only anti-establishment candidate the establishment would allow.

    Unfortunately the establishment will suffer for this choice. (Alongside everyone else).

    • Te Reo Putake 9.1
      24 July 2016 at 9:35 am

      Jenny, Clinton may be part of the Washington establishment, but as you know, politicians don’t have a great deal of control. The real establishment is capital, not the Capitol. Trump represents money. He is the banker’s candidate par excellence.

      • Jenny 9.1.1
        24 July 2016 at 11:16 am

        “Jenny, Clinton may be part of the Washington establishment, but as you know, politicians don’t have a great deal of control.”
        Te Reo Putake

        Really?

        Politicians choose how much control they have.

        Reference the first Labour Government.

        Politicians choose how much control they have.

        Reference leaders like Churchill (or even on the negative side of the ledger, Hitler).

        Or closer to home, Rodger Douglas.

        Or Rob Muldoon.

        Now tell me with a straight face that, “politicians don’t have great deal of control.”

        Politicians choose how much control they have.

        Ask President Erdogan of Turkey who just stared down a coup.

        If our political leaders are determined enough, if they have a clear enough vision of what they want to achieve, and (most importantly), the political will to push it through, politicians can, and do, exert a hell of a lot control, if they choose to.

        Some don’t, instead make excuses for why they can’t do anything.

        If our political leaders lack vision, lack any political will to make the hard decisions, they will choose to do nothing, except of course to make excuses why they can’t do anything.

        Instead of being leaders such politicians become victims of events, discredited and despised by the general populace.

        “We can do nothing about the economy, we can do nothing about the climate, we can do nothing about the housing”
        “In the face of the banks and financiers and big business we are powerless.”

        (And we like it that way)

  10. Jenny 10
    22 July 2016 at 11:15 pm

    Climate change is the defining issue of our age. Where political parties stand on this one issue will increasing become the delineation line in, and between, political parties.

    From the headless chicken party.

    “Republican Delegates Split on Climate Change”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/republican-delegates-split-on-climate-change/

    Reactions here to the issue of rising temperatures swing sharply between rejection and acceptance, with many falling somewhere in the middle. ClimateWire asked 51 delegates and alternate delegates attending the Republican convention if they agree with scientists that climate change is happening and whether people contribute to it.