[Peace-discuss] The best account of the election that I've seen

[C. G. Estabrook]

The arguments seem pretty clear (if not poetic) to me, Mort.

Where particularly do you think he’s wrong?

—CGE

> On Nov 20, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
> 
> This article indeed seems like theatre, not quite coherent, like bad poetry, or drama. Conflated with truths not always correlated to the reasons why Trump triumphed. So many gross assertions about why people rejected Hillary were more reflections of his own biases/ideas than with any verifiable analytical reasons why the poor whites (and others) turned to Trump and/or spurned Hillary. 
> 
> I don’t think its worth while parsing the whole piece. Its elements of truth (for me) are corrupted by incoherence, irrelevance, and exaggeration. 
> 
> —mkb
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2016, at 12:19 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com <mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> It's perhaps not an accident that it comes from a playwright. The poets often get there first (even if they sometimes don't know where they've got to).
>> 
>> The election enacted the surprising split between neoliberals and neoconservatives. (And Trump was the Agent of History because he is neither.)
>> 
>> http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/10/the-big-split/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.counterpunch.org_2016_11_10_the-2Dbig-2Dsplit_&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=RbDT1tYJGukRYhPt5oNtCeRe3p2Bp2sx7Qk4TWFvItM&m=gfsvkWAeedfTXsZUKLtAyCuRmdEWzVyqAqOrXMatBNM&s=2JnpZmBi-e7355m4iphDNigximQEYD0DHTvdKZH2gvI&e=>
>> 
>> —CGE
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20161120/4ab9ef29/attachment-0003.html>