The same point being made by Michael Moore: Donald Trump is a human molotov cocktail that can legally be thrown by the voter at the elite. It seems an attractive proposition to enough of them to keep Don afloat. Will enough Libertardians decide to flip that bird at the last minute? Will the Berners stay home smoking Girl Scout Cookies and surfing the net? Tune in again Wednesday for the startling finale of Celebrity Candidate!

The big mistake here is that he assumes Trump is an anomaly when he's actually pretty representative of a major faction within the GOP, and if he wins they won't be rethinking much at all they'll be getting down to business.

^ this, I say. This.

Yeah, I agree that this isn't really an endorsement. It's just a continuation of what he's been saying for over a year: that the left hasn't created a viable alternative to right-wing populism. Any honest marxist has to come to the conclusion that market-driven neoliberalism is more dangerous than right-wing populism because, as distasteful as they may find the latter to be, it's currently the only political force strong enough to stop the former from turning the world into a borderless corporate plantation.

It's insanely counter-intuitive, but if you want to vote someone in as a protest, America is a pretty good place to do it. The office of the President of the United States is insanely weak without a co-operative congress. Shit, look at the last 8 years. Unless Trump is going to suddenly morph into an LBJ like master of the Senate or unless the Democrats really do have all the backbone of a jellyfish and all the balls of a parthenogenetic lizard and can't even bring themselves to play hardball with the Donald, he's simply not going to be able to do anything of much consequence becuase he's not going to get the legislation or funds from Congress to do so. Domestically of course. He could still blow up the world; but frankly, so could Hillary's plans for Syria.

I agree that there will be enough partisan gridlock to curtail the excesses of both candidates during their first term, but the neoliberal establishment will continue to suppress the socialist/anti-globalist wing of the Democrat Party if Hillary wins. If Trump wins, however, there will be a shakeup within both parties that will potentially allow the Bernie Bros (my people) to grab the reigns and forge a sensible, socialist alternative to Trump's brand of right-wing populism.

Bern victims and 3rd party lifers will never construct a viable alternative because being outsiders and "gutting the system" is all they know and all they respond to. The instant any 3rd party actually laid the groundwork to become a working political force, the base would accuse them of selling out and look to dismantle the system all over again.

"Vote Trump to let the system burn" is a repulsive outlook on so many levels.

It really boils down to whether or not you support corporate colonialism. If you do, feel free to vote for Hillary Clinton, but you shouldn't casually dismiss leftists who think there's a better alternative.

The idiot left's response to right-wing populism in 2016 was a shoot-self-in-foot:
Sanders' campaign crescendo in saying that whites don't know what it is to be poor.

That crescendo was followed by the sound of hundreds of thousands of undecided whites *deciding* to vote against the Democrats, even if they have to vote for Trump to do so.

The left's strategy has been to sell groups their own identity back to them, as a cover for going centrist-elitist. Sure there has been *some* sincerity along the way, but if you look at it in toto, this is what they're doing.

Zizek's takes on things, and his series of ticks, and/or his drug problems, and/or lack-of-drugs problem has gone past South Park levels of nonsense.

It isn't just Sanders, though. The entirety of the Democrat Party has made it very clear that they have no use for working-class whites. As Obama said, these people are 'bitter' because globalists from both parties sent their jobs overseas, so they 'cling' to their guns and their religion. The fact that they're voting for the first candidate in decades to address their concerns makes them 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable', according to Hillary. They couldn't have made their points any clearer if they had affected a comically exaggerated southern accent while wearing a pair of overalls and a straw hat.

Yes, exactly. I wasn't trying to imply that it's ony Sanders.

Both causally and morally, the Dems are part of the cause here, and I can't tell if they don't hear themselves when they say that shit, or they don't care.

Is it because Zizek's profession is to be Professor Edgy?

What vulnerable minorities do you think will start "dying a lot more" if Trump were to be elected?

I'm not being flippant, I'm just curious.

If he was being classically accellerationist, he'd say to vote for Hillary. She's the one who represents the broadening and deepening of transnational capitalism. Trump represents the same thing Brexit does: conservative nationalist populism finding itself opposing international capitalism.

The reason Republicans were endorsing Hillary a woman that they used to routinely accuse of murder (Google Vince Foster kids) is that that his more successful lines of patter were about the need to restrict trade and the movement of people. Now you may see the real threat as conservative nationalism. In which case, okay, voting Trump would be accellerationist.

Ultimately my problem is that I don't think you can have democracy without something like nationalism. Some overriding identity that allows the concept of a 'loyal opposition' to exist. Without that shared sense of identity, allowing for different ideas to exist within it, democracy just becomes tribal warfare by other means. If you want to know how that turns out, look at most of the wars in the last 30 years or so, or google "The American Civil War". Hell, one of the reasons I used to identify myself as a liberal when I was younger was because the right was deliberately cultivating a regressive tribalism that I thought was amazingly dangerous. Now some times I say I'm a small c conservative but mostly I just get sad and want to drink.

Anyway. Zizek, yes this is hardly surprising, but if it is accellerationist depends entirely on what you think accellerationists want to accellerate.

Last I heard, Sarandon was voting for Stein. That's hardly accelerationsim.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-tr ump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html

I'm sure I could dig up more, but frankly, the subject disgusts me too much for that to appeal.

And anyone that isn't being full pedant should know full well that there are additional variants of accelerationism besides the classical strain.

And 15th, I'm not going to answer your question, because curious rather than flippant as you might claim to be, if you have any sense whatsoever, you'll recognize that's actually disingenuous rather than curious.

Fuck this.

LOL "if you have any sense whatsoever, you'll recognize that's actually disingenuous rather than curious" translates to "you called out my insane hyperbole and now I'm going to bail out".

I wonder if any of you Chicken Little's realize how many people you have turned off in this election with that "OMG Trump's gonna start throwing gays into ovens" bullshit. You all are EXACTLY THE SAME as the teabaggers screaming about Obama was a communist Muslim that was going declare himself the dictator.

You know who is secure? Canadians.

I don't know why Russia gets shit for commenting on our elections when it's the Canadians that are full on backseat voters.

We have to live here, assholes.

This is just Bobonne being Bobonne at this point.

This man is exactly how I picture EvilHomer picturing himself.

It's remarkable how many people sat out 2010 and 2014, and gave Republicans the House, the Senate, and several states; yet if you ask progressives you will find that EVERY ONE OF THEM VOTED. What a curious statistical oddity it is, with progressives voting at rates of 100% or greater yet still losing contest after contest.

People living in a democratic government that don't vote make me fucking sick.

Yeah that'll happen when 40% or so of the population never votes at all, and the Democratic machine puts up impossibly horrendous candidates in red states like mine. A whole lot of seats go without a Dem challenger, and when we do get one it's often someone that is as bad or as conservative as any of the Republicans.

In very conservative districts, yeah, it'll be a long time before Democrats can run a non-conservative candidate and win. The problem is that Lefties didn't vote in "purple" districts and handed things to Republicans rather than, you know, winning.

HOLY SHIT, Stanley, do you know how to rate things on poetv?

I didn't think you were this stupid.

>People living in a democratic government that don't vote make me fucking sick.

Then perhaps you should fly your ass to Afghanistan and badger the people there. I guess you wont be able to do that from the safety of your Internet connection, though, so fuuuuuuuck that fledgling democracy. Their recent elections were even postponed, why did you let that happen?

Was the fruit too high up on the tree?

Hey, meme.

Fuck off.