How Donald Trump Could Serve Animal Rights

TRUMPDonald Trump does not give a damn about animals. He supports trophy hunting. He buys fur for his wife. He has a business called Trump Steaks that sells animal body parts. He doesn’t personally hunt, but thinks it is perfectly OK. Not a likely animal rights person, let alone an animal rights president.

But Trump, by positioning and serendipity, could set the stage for animal rights to become politically relevant. More than that, he could hand the left the opportunity to launch a political party. Trump could blow up the status quo as has never been done in the history of the United States’

Donald Trump could singlehandedly force a re-alignment of the US political parties.

Until Donald Trump, the GOP was the party of free trade agreements, military adventurism, cutting capital gains taxes, corporate welfare, tax loopholes, trickle-down economics, super pacs, and lobbyist influence in campaigns and government.

No more.

Trump has ignored establishment orthodoxy and repudiated establishment priorities.

Trump has been able to take his message condemning military intervention and perpetual war to the people without the need to raise campaign money from the arms manufacturers, munitions lobbyists, warship builders, and the aircraft industry.

Trump has been able to fight trade agreements like NAFTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) because he does not need bribes from multinational corporations, Wall Street, and banking lobbyists.

Trump is too rich to be bribed and doesn’t need to steal.

Donald Trump may well be the most talented and effective politician since Abraham Lincoln. Most scholars credit FDR with the mantle of the most skilled politician in modern times, but critical analysis has handed the mantle to Bill Clinton. In light of this election cycle, the title belongs to Donald Trump.

I have been a political strategist and consultant to politicians for over 40 years. Donald Trump is the most effective candidate I have ever seen. He has an almost prescient capability to read a room and an audience. He is a brilliant and well educated man who has the ability to speak to crowds using the lowest common denominator of communication. He understands what will play in the media and what will not. He has dominated the news, the discussion, the polls, the primaries, and the delegate count since he announced his candidacy last year.

Nothing in modern political history even comes close to Trump’s domination of the media, the issues, and the voters.

His populist, anti-establishment message is resonating with a growing segment of the American public.

Take me, as a case in point. I disagree with Trump on almost every issue. He wants to build a border wall, I favor open borders. He wants to build up the military, I want it drastically reduced. He calls himself a conservative. I call myself a state socialist. He is in favor of the police. I think police are generally thugs. Not much of a political match, right?

Wrong.

I support Bernie Sanders for president, and certainly prefer him to Trump. But what happens if Hillary is nominated?

Like a great many progressives, I see Hillary as the enemy. She is a Wall Street puppet, a tool of the banking industry, and a proponent of trade agreements. She has indicated she will continue Obama’s policies. And I have contempt for most of those very policies. Wild horse roundups, the killing of wildlife for the cattle ranchers, the drone strikes that kill innocent civilians, the appointing of industry executives and lobbyists to regulatory positions within the government which oversee their very industries, the sell out of the environment to Royal Dutch Shell, the massive deportations of undocumented Hispanics, And the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Sanders opposes the TPP. Hillary has favored NAFTA, trade deals with China, Korea, and Viet Nam. She called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade agreements until Sanders entered the race against her. Then she decided that there were “problems” with it, not specifying what they are or what she will do about them.

Trade agreements make is easier and more profitable to kill animals. They encourage and reward live export. They make it cheaper to produce corpses. They override US cruelty standards, such as they are. They make it impossible for the US to ban the import of even the most horribly exploited and slaughtered creatures.

The differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are fundamental, and profound. And on trade, Sanders voters are much closer to Donald Trump than they are to Hillary Clinton. I know I certainly am.

Which is why trade will be the penultimate issue in the general elections, and why, as things presently stand, Donald Trump would be my candidate if Bernie is not nominated.

Should Donald Trump be defeated in November, it is more than likely the Republican party will return to being a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business and billionaires. But if he is elected, the Republican party will become a populist party, free of the control of right wing ideology and corporate bank accounts. Trump will be under no obligation to appoint industry executives and lobbyists to positions in his administration which oversee their very industries. Obama, Bush, Clinton, pappy Bush, Reagan, etc, all towed the line for Wall Street and the special interests, and populated their administrations with industry hacks and special interest bagmen.

For years, middle class, lower income, and poor Republicans have voted against their own economic interests, because their social values have been held hostage to the interests of billionaires and Wall Street. Doctrinaire conservatives extorted support from evangelicals, anti-abortionists, gun nuts, and bigots with their checkbooks.

“You want your conservative social issues advanced? You need to vote for our guy!”

The Donald trumped that political norm.

Trump is appealing to a populist base that is distinguishable from the populist left only on social issues. And Trump is far more attractive to blue collar Democrats and left wing populists than is Hillary Clinton.

Hillary supports trade agreements. Trump does not.
Hillary supports military interventionism. Trump does not.
Hillary supports corporate welfare. Trump does not.

A contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will almost assuredly re-align the political parties.

Wall Street and billionaires will flock to Hillary, as their influence in the Republican party will be substantially diminished. Blue collar Democrats, independents, populists and workers will embrace Trump, as the Democratic establishment has been at odds with their interests.

Depending upon the outcome of the election, the result could mean a complete redrawing of party lines.

It is quite possible the Republicans will become a populist right of center party, rejecting the political right as advanced by such politicians as Ted Cruz, whose philosophy is heavily influenced by Wall Street, Big Oil, and pharmaceutical money.

The Republican donors will have nowhere to go but to Hillary Clinton and the Wall Street Democrats, in effect creating a centrist party dominated by billionaires and Wall Street bankers.

Progressives could then build a democratic socialist party from the ground up, appealing to Sanders voters and various minor third parties, such as the Greens, Peace and Freedom, Socialists, etc.

There has not been such a political shakeup since 1854, when the Republican party was organized out of the Whigs and Northern Democrats.

Time will tell if such an opportunity will present itself. For the left, it would mean a political vehicle that actually advances social justice and egalitarianism.

For those in the animal movement it would mean a potential ruling party that actually embraces Animal Rights.

And it will be thanks to Donald Trump!

Liberals will squeal in protest at the idea of a Trump presidency. Liberals are terrified of Trump for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that he may be able to make an appointment, or several, to the US Supreme Court.

The animals do not care. And this is an election cycle that, for me, is for the animals. So I do not care, either!

 

Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty.

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow us to advertise!

donate2

Advertisements

44 thoughts on “How Donald Trump Could Serve Animal Rights

  1. Pingback: Making Lemons into Lemonade – On President Trump | Blame it on Love

  2. Scott Smith, you made some excellent points. Mr. Vincent is so enamored of, & blinded by his support of billionaire, racist, Trump, he has now shown his true colors.
    His blog is not about “animal rights.” This blog, a pretense of animal rights, helps mask his true agenda–that of supporting the racist, right-wing agenda in this country. Mr. Vincent is sadly doing more harm to animals than helping them. If he really cared about animals, he certainly would not in any way be featuring racist, anti-animal Trump in his daily diatribes. I have said this before: If elected, Trump, who is the worst of Egoism & One-Dimensional “thinking,” will cause more societal violence, chaos, because Trump as Ruler loves violence and chaos and bullying, & cares nothing about animals–except to eat or shoot them, or destroy their habitat around the world with his corporate building projects.
    Thanks again, Scott for your comments. Too bad Mr. Vincent is incapable of understanding this.

    Like

    • Rosemary, what is your criterion for helping animals? For all your clairvoyance about my beliefs and motivations, you have never explained how your concern for animals is translates into political decision making. In every article I have written my own criteria are clearly laid out. I will, and do, support candidates whose policies will inflict the least harm on animals. That alone is my litmus test. Other factors may add to or punctuate that litmus tst, but animals are my first priority. Which is why i support Bernie Sanders. While Sanders is no vegan, and even is supportive of hunting and family farms, his positions on trade agreements clearly outweigh his other faults. Trade agreements cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals each year. They override environmental, labor, and anti-cruelty laws, they encourage and reward live export, barbaric farming and slaughter methods, and require that country of origin labeling be banned to prevent consumer boycotts. Hillary Clinton supports these trade agreements. She considers animal suffering to be a necessary consequence of her support for the multinational corporations she works for.

      The choice between Bernie and Hillary is stark and obvious if animals figure into one’s voting priorities. Similarly, if the choice becomes one of Hillary running against Trump, animal advocates cannot possibly vote for her. Trump also opposes those very trade agreements that Hillary Clinton supports.

      From your comments it is quite apparent that animals and issues concerning them have absolutely nothing to do with your political priorities. I am curious what you consider important enough to justify voting for someone who favors the killing of hundreds of millions of animals each year.

      Like

  3. In a world democracy in which animals were no less represented than humans, and the electorate was informed, enlightened, and cognizant of the required conditions for the welfare and quality of life of all beings on the planet, it is impossible that the megalomaniacal Trump would stand a chance of election, whatever the alternatives. Furthermore, that no such democracy exists is no reason to meet our predicament by myopic strategizing over such utilitarian concerns as trade, numbers saved, maximally avoided suffering, etc. What about the side effects of a Trump presidency? Isn’t that a consideration? How about nuclear war or the many other ways of destroying animals’ natural habitats? How about a global climate system going out of control? Indeed, there are no viable, humane alternatives to Trump; these unthinkable consequences become more a reality by the decade no matter who we Americans elect, but currently there is no clearer invitation to ruin than opting for this man.

    Like

    • I think you have been drinking the establishment Kool-Aid. It is just such paranoia that they are pushing to ensure Hillary the presidency.

      Neither party will control Congress. The Republicans will have the House, the Democrats the Senate. Nothing of any consequence will be enacted no matter who is president.

      The dire consequences of a Hillary presidency are discussed in Even Hillary Supporters Have a Compelling Reason to See Her Defeated

      Additionally, Trump, if elected will surely be a one term president. Hillary, however, could stymie Bernie’s revolution for eight years.

      Like

      • It depends on who “they” are, those behind Hillary’s election. Perhaps not many cross-party intrigues are in the works right now regarding the presidential campaign but surely between Sanders & Clinton there is. I’m not sure what your goal is in pushing Trump as it might relate to helping animals. If many “progressives” are hampered by the same “herd mentality” that misguides the mainstream populace, how do you expect them to somehow divine the pendulum swinging in their favor if they only put off “immediate political gratification” and cast an insane vote for an insane candidate? A Trump presidency could not possibly lead to “long-term political gains.” Reality unfolds much more noisily than the smooth theory you present in Hillary’s defeat. Both parties are moving rightward with a momentum no one can stop, and that is hardly an establishmentarian viewpoint.

        Like

      • Not sure I deciphered a point in that comment. The articles posits how Trump could affect animals, and was written to refute the generally held belief that Hillary would be somehow better for animals. That Clinton supports policies that allow for and encourage the murders of hundreds of millions of creatures through trade policies, while Trump does not, is for many of us ample justification for supporting Trump over Hillary.

        Taking in a broader view of benefiting the political left. a Trump presidency would be substantially better for Bernie’s revolution than would a Hillary presidency. That conclusion is readily reached on weighing the obstructionism to progressives by a Democratic party controlled even more menacingly by Wall Street Democrats, the unlikelihood that under Hillary Democrats would be successful in 2018 or 2020, and that Republicans would thereby control reapportionment in 2020 as they did in 2010.

        Like

  4. Mr Vincent, thank you for pointing out the impacts on animal welfare, especially from trade agreements. It’s sad that animals will never be a priority among presidential candidates, but I’m so enlightened to see so many bloggers here, whether they agree with you or not, who will base their vote on what they feel will be the best outcome for animals. I use to feel like I was the only one who did that, and accused of putting people over animals (in many cases I do, especially when it comes to entertainment and livestock because people don’t need to watch animals being abused or eat meat in order to enjoy a great quality of life). I didn’t read every single comment, but from what I did read, it seems that most of the controversies are based on if we’re stuck with choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (I think we’re all agreeing that Bernie Sanders is the number one choice). In the event that Sanders isn’t nominated, what is the best way to get Hillary to hear our voices on our concern for animal welfare and her stance on free trade agreements, killing wildlife for cattle ranchers, and horse roundups? What if she changes her views on the latter two, would you change your vote to her, despite the millions of animals that would be negatively impacted with more free trade?

    Like

    • The penultimate issue concerning animals is trade. That is why someone like Trump, who plainly doesn’t care about animals, is preferable to Hillary, who pays animals lip service. I think it would be more likely to force Clinton to agree to end horse roundups and abolish Wildlife Services than it would be to force her to reverse herself on trade agreements.

      But if she were to do so, I would support her. My reasoning is that such a change in position would greatly enhance our voices in all the other animal issue controversies. Th animal movement is presently without any independent voice in governmental or party affairs.

      Like

      • Your comments are clearly delusional. How do you think a bully, racist, sexist, anti-animal protection, animal- eating Billionaire who cares nothing about the working people whom he exploits–including the immigrants you rant about– would help any animals?
        What Trump will do, if elected, is throw this already-failing Empire into more cruelty, hatred, & sadism, causing millions of more animals to suffer, because, as human society becomes more desperate, more savage, it will inflict more terror upon non-humans: non-humans always become the targets. Apparently, your excuses for supporting this monster, Donald Trump, cover your true agenda: supporting a very dangerous, ignorant man, who gets whatever he wants by bullying and intimidation. You are a Trump Supporter through and through, so quit denying this, while you adamantly promote him.

        Like

      • To reiterate, Rosemary: Donald Trump does not give a shit about animals. I never have suggested he does. But his position on trade agreements will save hundreds of millions of animals every year. That alone makes him my choice if Bernie is not the Democratic nominee. Bernie holds the sames views on trade agreements, in addition to being much closer to me philosophically.

        In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is actually an evil person, as opposed to just being a political windsock.

        If I always say this (which I do) it seems to be getting some traction among my fellow leftists, animal advocates, and progressive Democrats.

        Like

  5. Interesting food for thought! My old blog, TheRewildWest.WordPress.com, is extremely militant for Earth/Animal liberation. Your supply depot / rec’d reading should include my novel Orange Rain, and when it’s released this summer, my memoir with militant AR/EL and other political aspects, Rebel Hell: Disabled Vegan Goes to Prison!
    Jan

    Like

  6. One could also simply not vote in the national elections, making a statement that way. We should encourage others to see the sham in our democracy. Why are we wasting time over horse races while the empire is beginning to fall, taking the rest of the world with it? What good could possibly come out of a Trump presidency? It’s highly unlikely the pendulum would swing in another direction. In a hypothetical tight race between Sanders & Trump, I’d probably vote for the dreaded spoiler, Ralph Nader. Such is why I will not be voting.

    Like

    • We have a fundamental difference of opinion as to strategy. I think voting for a third party candidate is a ridiculous waste of power. Almost as absurd as not voting at all. I harbor no illusions that mere voting will bring down the capitalist state. My involvement in politics is separate and apart from my belief that we need a socialist revolution.

      My political priority is to improve the lot of animals under our government. To that end I participate in election cycles in the hope some animal lives will be spared or improved. My other political objective is to identify and recruit both animal activists and social revolutionaries.

      The most effective strategy for advancing animal protection is through political coercion. We promise our votes and support to the candidate who has the best chance of winning and implementing the policies we are advancing, or we punish them for refusing to help.

      Liked by 1 person

      • This man, Trump, is a direct outgrowth of conservatism, and not a surprising one. The decadal move of his party farther to the right is a cumulative result of an electorate settling for “the lesser of two evils,” pulling as well the Democratic Party farther to the right. “Trump differs from Cruz and Rubio in degree and decorum, not in substance, not in policy, not in political opportunism,” is a quote from an online article here: counterpunch.org/2016/03/07/trumps-greatest-contribution-to-the-nation-would-be-to-destroy-the-gop/

        It should be pretty obvious Trump represents a harbinger of the inevitable collapse of empire into an abyss. At the end of the day, economy has primacy over politics. There’s no way Trump’s economic views could ever ameliorate animal’s conditions in the realm of international trade. Humanity is now at the stage where political strategizing is moot; meaningful animal protection cannot possibly advance via politics. That opportunity passed long ago, perhaps in the Neolithic.

        Like

      • Placing Trump in a bucket with Cruz and Rubio is a simplistic and inaccurate analysis of Trump’s positions and his appeal.

        Trump is a populist. His message is one of populism, not conservatism. One cannot understand modern Republican politics if one does not understand the rejection of economic conservatism that Trump is exploiting. Further, the driving force behind the Tea Party, social conservatism, while not being rejected, is certainly being subsumed to economic populism. Coupled with providing the Establishment no hooks with which to control him, Trump is neither indebted to Wall Street and special interests nor in need of their campaign largess.

        Trump’s trade policies, as explained in the article, make him a more animal friendly candidate than is Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, that is not saying very much.

        Like

      • Report from Move On.org., but not limited to this site: ”

        Last night, without consulting local police, Donald Trump abruptly cancelled a rally in Chicago in the face of massive and overwhelmingly peaceful student-led protests.1

        Then he blamed MoveOn members for his decision, telling Fox News we must have “staged” the protests and that MoveOn is “not a good group of people.”2 Fox News’s coverage and other right-wing media have followed his lead—denouncing MoveOn “agitators” for ruining Trump’s event. This morning, he called protestors “thugs.”3

        We’re being flooded with aggressive emails and social media posts from Trump supporters. Some of them are threatening.

        We refuse to be intimidated by Donald Trump, Fox News, or anyone else. We need to make sure the public at large understands what Trump is up to here—encouraging violence, looking for scapegoats, and then, perversely, trying to paint himself as the victim.

        We need to double down on our work, showing that America is better than Trump’s bullying, hate-baiting, and incitements to violence.
        .
        Let’s be clear. Trump has been encouraging attacks on peaceful demonstrators for months. On stage at a rally in St. Louis yesterday morning, he called for “consequences” rather than “politically correct” handling of protesters.” End of Quote.

        While on one hand, your statements clearly condone what Neo-Nazi promoter, Trump, is doing, you then make confusing statements : “Trump’s trade policies, as explained in the article, make him a more animal friendly candidate than is Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, that is not saying very much.” (This last statement is probably the least confusing.)

        It might better be served to just come out directly, more clearly, stating that you support Trump–period.

        However, as you become more enmeshed in Trump’s ranting propaganda, this will most likely not endear your blog to people who might otherwise take on the cause for animals.

        Trump has an abysmal record when it comes to considering or helping animals at all, so your support of this Right-Wing, Neo-Nazi will do more harm to animals than you can probably imagine.
        Minimizing what Jews, gypsies and other Victims of Hitler’s Empire experienced in Auschwitz and other death camps, is extremely damaging to the Cause for Animals.

        Like

      • You misrepresent my position. As I repeatedly point out, I disagree with Donald Trump on almost everything. Surely you must have come across the verbiage in several articles which clearly articulate our differences. If you conveniently missed them, here are some for your consideration:
        1. Trump is a capitalist. I am a socialist.
        2. Trump is a Christian . I am an atheist.
        3. Trump wants to build a border wall. I support open borders.
        4. Trump is climate denier. I believe climate change is a man made phenomenon.
        5. Trump wants to increase the military. I want to see it minimized.
        6. Trump supports the Keystone pipeline line. I oppose it.
        7. Trump wants to ban Muslims coming into the country. I support bringing allowing refugees to enter the US.

        Trump and I agree on three things: we oppose military interventionism, trade agreements, and lobbyists.

        I do not know how to make more clear my positions. My priority is the animals. The animals would be better off under Bernie Sanders, but if Sanders does not run, they would be better off under Trump than under Hillary.

        We will be launching a campaign to convince Hillary to pledge to end wild horse roundups and the killing of wildlife for the cattle ranchers. Should she agree, we will throw our support behind her with a vengeance, as it would mean saving millions of animals and the end of the most horrific treatment of wild horses. If she does not agree, we will be working to elect Donald Trump, as much for his trade positions as to punish Clinton for turning a deaf ear to the animal movement.

        Like

      • ” Donald Trump would be my candidate if Bernie is not nominated.” from your quote, it is clear that you Trump’s Neo-Nazi, Right-Wing,” ideology, which is in line with the historical accounts of Hitler’s “National Socialist Party” (which had nothing to do with Socialism). The Nuremberg rallies have much in common with what is currently going on in Trump rallies, with the police oppression of the people opposing Trump in these rallies. Trumps “populist” rallies are exactly in line with what Hitler and his cronies did, and throwing the term “Populist or Populism” around without historical perspective–can be dangerous.

        http://www.publiceye.org

        “The Nazis expressed the populist yearnings of middle–class constituents and at the same time advocated a strong and resolutely anti-Marxist mobilization….Against “unnaturally” divisive parties and querulous organized interest groups, National Socialists cast themselves as representatives of the commonwealth, of an allegedly betrayed and neglected German public….Breaking social barriers of status and caste, and celebrating at least rhetorically the populist ideal of the people’s community…
        This populist rhetoric of the Nazis, focused the pre-existing “resentments of ordinary middle-class Germans against the bourgeois ‘establishment’ and against economic and political privilege, and by promising the resolution of these resentments in a forward-looking, technologically capable volkisch ‘utopia,'” according to Fritzsche.”

        Let us be careful what we wish for!

        Like

      • Your preposterous equating of Trump with the Nazis is the stuff the Establishment wishes the voters to buy. It is irresponsible at best and malevolent at worst. Trump’s populism bears no resemblance whatsoever with National Socialism. Such assertions reveal how little the accuser knows about history, philosophy, and politics.

        The economic and political establishments are in full panic mode. If Trump is nominated, their hold on the Republican party becomes unraveled. If he wins the presidency, the Republican party will no longer be a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex.

        The Democratic establishment is joining in the fray, demonizing Trump and taking focus away from the fact that Wall Street Democrats’ policies of revolving door positions in government are as reprehensible as they were under Reagan and the Bushes.

        Trump is neither a racist nor a conservative. He is an economic populist willing to cooperate with social conservatives. On my opinion such a position is far more appealing than a die hard far right conservative or a Wall Street Democrat whose positions and loyalties are are mercurial and fleeting.

        Like

  7. I like the post, but it shows how far we have to go to look for hope for the animals.

    I want to say something about the issue of Trump’s racism. First, I don’t know if he is or is not a racist. His rhetoric is dubious, but, as Roland says, Trump is a genius at reaching his supporters with the diction they understand. But, no, it doesn’t sound good to many of the rest of us.

    Now, for Trump’s stand on immigration: The prospect of deporting 11 million people is silly, and if you put up a 10-foot wall, there will be a lot of 11-foot ladders. However, one does not have to be a racist to want legal immigration. A country has the right to control its own borders, and it is only fair that all to wish to come here have a chance to enter by following the rules and not be left behind by those who flout the rules. Unfortunately, those who don’t totally oppose ALL his ideas are painted with the same brush he is.

    I think the wall is a bad idea because it will destroy the corridors needed by the wildlife living along the border.

    I am also against unrestricted immigration because I am concerned about animals and the environment. Millions more people means more cars, more highways, more development, more schools, more houses, more water and electricity, more tree cutting, more land taken from horses and bison for grazing. That is a justified worry. And I don’t believe that human interests must always be put ahead of animal interests or that concern about population growth and its effects on animals and the planet is a sign of racism or misanthropy.

    As for Trump again, he is the karma earned by the establishment. People are tired of the same old campaign promises: We will create jobs, we will improve education, we will lower taxes. The evangelicals were promised a ban on gay marriage and abortion. In the meantime, many of the middle class fell lower, and their American Dream died. They are angry, and Trump is their voice.

    What will happen remains to be seen. This whole election process has astonished people, and who knows what surprises remain. I just hope the animals will benefit from whatever befalls us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You are correct, Marcia, that animal issues are not even on the radar speaks volumes about how far away we are from achieving meaningful change for the animals. And for those concerned with animal rights, the goal line is well below the horizon. Animal rights can never be won at the ballot box, as the entire political, legal, and economic system is antithetical to the idea of animals having enforceable rights.

      Strategically, we participate in each election cycle to attempt to wrest some concessions for the animals and to recruit activists and political radicals. And we must continue to do so until we are able to grow enough for revolution.

      Like

    • Marcia (formerly ahimsa), Both you and Mr. Vincent have been very clear as to where you stand on people of color and different ethnic groups. Let’s see now…first you promote hate and bigotry about those “Muslims”…..now its the “Mexicans….” –we’re waiting for you to add Jews and Blacks to your hate list, and probably more. Marcia, you do not deserve to use the name “ahimsa” anymore.
      By the way, Trump is part of the “status quo”—he owns several mansions, cars, planes,etc., & his many wives wear dead animals, while Trump gets fatter & richer off the backs of working people.

      How dare you advertise this gross, greedy, narcissist Billionaire as some kind ordinary, everyday person? Are you both insane? Marcia, if you really care about ALL animals, think about just how many species this terrible Donald Trump has been responsible for slaughtering, along with his vapid, spoiled sons, who Trophy Hunt. I am appalled at your lack of awareness of just how dangerous this man is. As for Mr. Vincent, I have begun to think he has ulterior motives in this whole scenario of support for the likes of Trump. As I have mentioned to him, “Be Careful What You Wish For.” Trump cares nothing about Planet Earth, Species, The Environment or Climate Change.

      This guy Trump owns a Multinational Corporation–he is Part of the Corporate System–what about this do you not understand?

      This blog is degenerating into another Trump Campaign site. It has nothing positive for animals anymore.

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      The Trump Organization

      Trump Tower, headquarters of the Trump Organization
      Predecessor Elizabeth Trump & Son

      “The Trump Organization is a privately owned multinational conglomerate based in Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Donald Trump worked for his father’s firm, Elizabeth Trump & Son, while attending the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1968 officially joined the company. He was given control of the company in 1971 and renamed it Trump Enterprises LLC in August 1999 before changing it to Trump Organization LLC in November 1999. The company has interests in real estate development, investing, brokerage, sales and marketing, and property management. The company owns, operates, invests, and develops residential real estate, hotels, resorts, residential towers, and golf courses in different countries, as well as owning several hundred thousand square feet of prime Manhattan real estate. The organization recently sold its stake in the repeatedly financially-distressed Trump Entertainment Resorts, which owned the Trump Taj Mahal, the Trump Plaza, and the Trump Marina casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey”

      Yeah, just keep spewing out your misinformation about this Billionaire–who will never respect you or Vincent, nor anyone else, because he USES people, animals, and the whole planet.

      Both you and Mr. Vincent should apologize to all the animals you are BETRAYING with your foolishness.

      Mr. Vincent, as of tonight, it looks as if Clinton will be the nominee, giving you the glorious opportunity to promote and stand for Donald Trump, with no further need to pretend to support Bernie. Now, you can go full force with your hate campaign, with right-wing thugs to terrorize humans and animals.

      Like

      • Rosemary, you talk over people. You have paid absolutely no attention to my remarks or the points I have raised. It makes little sense to discuss matters if you do not address the other person’s comments. To spell them out again seems necessary.

        It makes NO DIFFERENCE what Donald Trump’s positions are on animals, how vile his sons are, or how much cruelty the Trump clan has caused fur bearing animals. The only issue to be weighed and analyzed is what impact Trump’s positions on policy matters would have on animals, and to then compare them to Hillary Clinton’s positions.

        That is the basis for my support of a candidate. NO OTHER.

        In the case of Trump vs Clinton, the animals will fair much better under a President Trump than under a President Clinton. Why? Because Trump opposes trade agreements and Hillary supports them. Trade policies are responsible for the enslavement, torture, and murders of MILLIONS of animals each year, animals that would never have been bred, born, abused and killed but for trade agreements which encourage and reward animal slaughter. Which make it easier and more profitable to breed and kill animals. Which make animal corpses cheaper to produce and more valuable to sell. Donald Trump’s positions on trade will save millions of animals that Hillary would allow to be murdered.

        Your ludicrous attack on Marcia for exposing the brutality of horse tripping my Mexicans or my denouncing the horrors practiced by Muslims and Jews is testimony to your complete surrender to political correctness. You are a perfect example of what is wrong with modern society. Your fear of offending others is greater than your belief in justice. Your dread of being labeled politically incorrect is greater than your interest in protecting the weak and the oppressed from those who do them harm.

        You throw around words like “hatred” and “bigotry” when you are the one hating and the one practicing bigotry.

        You obviously dislike Donald Trump. As his positions are more animal friendly than are Hillary’s, you obviously have other issues with him more important to you than the animals. I cannot imagine what those could be, but you are more than entitled to whatever opinions you hold. What you are nor entitled to do is impugn the motives of people like Marcia and myself who value animals more than you do.

        Speaking for myself, I disagree with Donald Trump on almost every public position he has taken. As I have itemized elsewhere, I favor open borders, reducing the military, ending deportation, welcoming refugees, and am pro-choice. Trump wants to build a border wall, increase military spending, deport illegals, ban refugee immigration, and is anti-choice.

        I do agree with Trump on ending military interventionism, becoming neutral on Israel, and ending lobbyists’ influence.

        I further favor Hillary’s defeat for the opportunity if would afford democratic socialists to build a new Democratic party out of the ashes of the Wall Street Democratic party.

        And, if you actually read the article you are commenting upon, you will recall that I opined about the possibility that Trump could force a complete realignment of the political parties such that a true leftist party could emerge.

        You might also recall that I suggested that Hillary would be my candidate were she to pledge to end wild horse roundups and the killing of millions of wild animals each year for cattle ranchers.

        If you are set on electing Hillary, perhaps you should join with us in convincing her to stop the horrors of the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I still consider myself “ahimsa.” Your accusation of racism seems to indicate you’re not making the distinction between race and culture. I am against animal abuse regardless of where it originates. Every culture has traditions that harm animals, including ours. You, judging from your past comments, are unhappy about wolf hunting and the ranchers who want to destroy predators who kill the cattle they graze on public lands. I agree. But why is torturing animals in rodeo okay? Isn’t that some form of reverse racism that says it’s okay to beat up on the “rednecks” and good boys who hunt and trap but not on cowboys who use charro to torture and kill in the name of entertainment?

        What about bull fighting and matadors? Are Spain and Mexico off limits for criticism too? Are the bulls just unlucky for being born in the wrong place?

        Is it okay to criticize the people who boil lobsters in American restaurants but not object to dogs and cats being hanged and boiled in China for food because that would be racist? Is it fair to criticize Smithfield for the treatment of pigs in American slaughterhouses but not condemn cutting live pigs in half in Vietnam because that would be bigotry?

        You ask if I’m going to “add Jews to my hate list”? Let me ask you a question. Have you ever heard of Kaporos? Many, including some Jews, regard that as an abuse of chickens. Karen Davis and United Poultry Concerns, among others, are trying to fight it. They are not anti-Semites. But they do care about the fate of the birds.

        One of the problems with political correctness is that it has become like a reflex reaction that isn’t always logical. I believe ALL abuse of other animals is worthy of criticism. That is equality. To make exceptions is speciesism.

        If you want to fight local “American” abuses such as hunting and trapping, that is a fight worth waging. I admire you for it, for the meetings you have attended and the letters you have written. I am fighting those things also. But in selecting “ahimsa” I believe in the value of all life and the right of those lives to be safe from human abuse. I did not decide to make special allowances for religion or cultural traditions.

        I think we’re both commented in the past on the problems of overpopulation. That is a valid worry in this time of climate change, decreasing habitat, and wildlife and species loss. Considering how our culture of overconsumption contributes to all of the above evils and how the rest of the world wants to buy into it, we need to be concerned about growth.

        By the way, I am not a supporter of Trump or his hunting sons. I do believe that he is the karma the political establishment earned for pandering to the rich, exploiting the social conservatives, and ignoring the middle class.

        Like

    • The following is from my article The Humane Party: Wonderful People Wasting Their Time

      Friends have asked my opinion of Clifton Roberts’ campaign for president as the candidate of the Humane Party. He has many wonderful, dedicated, and enthusiastic supporters. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the animals will not be served by their efforts. The Humane Party will be a footnote to the 2016 elections. Completely irrelevant the day after voting. And all the work, hopes, dreams, and enthusiasm will go up in smoke.

      Professionally, I am a political strategist. I have run political campaigns and consulted to politicians for 40 years. The American political process is designed to cripple third party efforts. The only affect of a third party is to throw a monkey wrench into extremely close contests, as Ralph Nader did in Florida in 2000.

      The only time a third party actually displaced a major political party was when the Whigs were replaced by the Republicans in 1854, and that was a result of the Whigs being a part of the new Republican coalition.

      A much more effective strategy would be to exact conditions from the Republicans for AR support, forcing the Democrats to cover the bet. I don’t think the Humane Party is a reasonable expenditure of money or effort. It may be one day, but there are much more productive things we can do politically than howl at the moon.

      Supporting a third party is to be dealt out of the game. The prevailing party and candidate will owe us nothing. An embarrassingly low vote will punctuate our ineffectiveness and unimportance. But if we are part of the winning coalition, the possibility exists that the animals may benefit, even if in some small way.

      As a method of educating and recruiting, the third party route is particularly difficult. Unlike major party candidates, the media ignores third party spokespersons and platforms. Any inroads would have to be made one on one at small gatherings, which would primarily be attended by the already converted. Money spent on advertising, staff, offices, materials, faxes and phones would be wasted. The final votes will be embarrassingly low.

      The most effective way to actually make a difference for the animals is to get those in power (or who wish to assume power) to agree to do something substantive, in return for our support. For example, we might be able to get an agreement from the Republicans to end Mustang roundups or do away with Wildlife Services (the killing branch of the Department of Agriculture). Once the Democrats get wind of the deal they would likely up the ante. Whichever team wins would be obligated to deliver on some or even most of what they promised. If we are outside the system looking in, we get squat.

      Politics has often been described as the “art of the possible.” Zealots, like myself, will never be satisfied with a political solution to anything, as the very nature of politics requires compromise, settling, and accommodation.

      Understanding the limitations of politics, and the advantages, is crucial to gauging our involvement in the political process.

      Philosophically, I am an animal rights proponent. My objective is to secure rights for all sentient beings. Such a goal is well outside the realm of possibility under our capitalist political oligarchy. Recognizing the limitations of political action, I nonetheless delve into political campaigns where success would mean falling far short of my personal agendas.

      Even so, I involve myself because political campaigns afford me the opportunity to recruit radical activists, and because even a limited objective reached might mean saving animals’ lives.

      A case in point is the upcoming presidential election. I am supporting Bernie Sanders. He is hardly my ideal candidate, He is not vegan. He supports hunting. He would continue Obama’s outrageous drone program which kills innocent women and children as a matter of course.

      But Sanders’ positions on campaign financing would change the political power structure in America. Presently, corporations, special interests, trade organizations, and lobbyists, are able to legally bribe Members of Congress and US Senators through campaign contributions. Were that institution to be replaced by public financing of campaigns, the back of the fascist machine that runs and owns the US government would be broken.

      Like

    • I count Clifton Roberts as a friend, but I do not support the Humane party. The Humane party makes no political sense. It hasn’t a prayer of winning, or even being relevant. It is so far below the radar that most political pundits do not even know of it. It will be a drain on resources that could actually accomplish something if directed at impacting the major parties. It will be a footnote after the elections.

      Like

      • There is all the difference in the world between politics and advocacy. Those of us who are trying to improve the lives of animals do not have the luxury of selecting candidates with whom we agree on most issues. We must prioritize what can and cannot be accomplished politically. Animal lives hang in the balance while the self righteous throw away their votes on candidates who have not a prayer of winning.

        Occasionally we do have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who we feel is perfect. But that is rare, and usually one who does not make the final cut. For me, such a candidate was Dennis Kucinich, a vegan, an animal rights advocate, a political progressive.

        This election cycle I am supporting Sanders over Clinton. For animals, Sanders is the lesser of two evils, as he is not vegan, supports family farms and meat production, and supports hunting. But his policies on trade make him a better friend to animals than is Hillary. She supports free trade agreements that have been a disaster for animals. Free trade agreements make killing animals easier and cheaper, and make animal corpses more profitable. US animal cruelty laws are overridden by trade agreements, and the US cannot block the import of animal corpses no matter how horrifically they were treated or how cruelly they were slaughtered.

        Votes are weapons to be used to reward or punish candidates for office. They should not be used as moral labels we wears on our sleeves in moral superiority or for pious self gratification.

        Like

  8. Well, if this isn’t a clear endorsement of Trump, I don’t know what is.

    “But if he (Trump) is elected, the Republican party will become a populist party, free of the control of right wing ideology and corporate bank accounts.” Donald Trump is an arrogant, narcissistic billionaire, who espouses right-wing ideology every time he opens his mouth. Does a thinking person truly believe this guy cares about anyone other then himself and his riches? Altruism is not in his limited vocabulary.

    Free of Control of Right Wind Ideology?? This ultra- rich guy reeks of Right Wing, mob -rule, racism and bully tactics. He is now compared, and rightly so, with his historical counter part, Hitler. All this guy needs is a brown shirt and Nazi emblem, which would merely be the start of his transition to the Nazi SS.

    Thanks for clarifying that your blog now truly endorses Trump–and all the right-wing, hate propaganda he spews out.

    How this can somehow, magically, transition to concern for “Animal Rights” is delusional.

    Like

    • If you read the article in full you will know that I never suggested that Donald Trump himself supports or will support animal tights. The point of the article is that, if Bernie Sanders is not nominated, the choice for voters will be between Hillary and Trump. On the merits of their positions, Trump’s are better for animals than are Hillary’s. Further, even if they were not, the effect of a Trump victory could cause the political landscape to dramatically shift, affording the left and animal activists the opportunity to create a new. progressive party of Sanders voters and minor third parties.

      Like

      • If this is true, then why continue to give any kind of credence or publicity to the likes of this supporter of mob tactics, racism, and Neo-Nazism?
        If one is truly disgusted by such a character, why give him more notice? How will this help the animals that he & is ilk are addicted to eating, killing, wearing & otherwise exploiting. His casinos are very happy to feature inhumane shows with tortured captive wild animals. Why does this blog continue to feature this one-dimensional, selfish, billionaire (who exploits immigrants, women, & other workers, while flaunting his white supremacy leanings everywhere?

        Like

      • I’m assuming you read the article. But if not, the gist of it is that what Trump proposes (ending trade agreements) and what Hillary proposes (supporting trade agreements) are the key for animal activists. If Trump is elected, he vows to reject the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will save millions upon millions of animals per year. Trade agreements make it easier to kill animals, they make animal corpses more profitable, and they prevent US animal protection laws and policies null and void.

        The Establishment is in full panic mode over Trump. They have no hook in him, he owes them nothing, and he cannot be controlled by corporate money or Wall Street lobbyists. The talking heads are bemoaning him being a racist, a misogynist, xenophobic, and dangerous. They hope that kind of criticism gains traction in their desperate attempts to derail his bid for the nomination.

        Both the article, and all my writings on this blog, bear testimony that I am in disagreement with The Donald on almost every issue imaginable. Trump is a capitalist, I am a socialist.
        Trump wants to build a border wall, I support open borders.
        Trump wants to deport people, I think we should open our country to political refugees.
        Trump supports the police, I distrust the police.
        Trump is a Christian, I am an atheist.
        Trump is pro-life, I am pro-choice.
        Trump wants to increase the military, I want is drastically reduced.

        But we do agree on military interventionism, trade agreements, and lobbyists. Both Trump and I oppose them all.

        And we both oppose the political status quo.

        Like

    • “But we do agree on military interventionism, trade agreements, and lobbyists. Both Trump and I oppose them all. And we both oppose the political status quo.”

      Again, you have just reinforced your support of Trump–and his Neo- Nazi tactics, as witnessed of late during his Rallies: he cares nothing about those in his audience, who wish to be heard, and his bully/brown shirt tactics do not respect other skin color or their voices, in these rallies. Hitler did the same in his rallies, by the way.
      Do you think Trump has gotten his many homes, buldings, boats, $$$$ from altruism, compassion for The People? Trump has not gotten his riches from being “outside the status quo”. As for military “interventionism” (another word for Empire Building), this is the reason the U.S. Empire is hated around the world, and what keeps the War Machine going. By the way, what on Earth do you think this continuing War Machine is doing for animals and the environment? If one supports “military interventionism,” that, Mr. Vincent is clearly status quo.
      As a veteran. who “served” in the Air Force, I know what the military is about: its purpose is to prepare for, and to wage WAR.
      Are you aware of how many innocent animals are used in horrendous military experiments? No one can have access to these laboratories, and isolated research facilities. The military does some of the most painful, tortuous, physical and psychological experiments on animals known to Man. How do you justify this support of “military interventionism.”?

      Like

Leave a Reply

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