Sorry Trogs, I lifted your post from the other thread because I didn't want to derail it. But I still wanted to discuss it, because I find South Africans that rallied against Zuma and back Trump fascinating. Please don't take that as patronizing, and from the tone of your response on the original thread where I posed the question you seemed a quite incensed at the mere suggestion; but I honestly am just curious about the phenomenon, because from my perspective Trump is just an orange Zuma that got born into wealth.
I'll answer all your straw-men here as, again, I didn't the discussion to detail in that other thread that already has a lot of activity and debates/arguments between other posters.
Zuma: raped a young girl who was HIV positive. Case got thrown out not because of his innocence, but political interference. This alone made him illegible to become prez.
Numerous corruption charges worth billions, some still ongoing. Non-disputable evidence for most cases (Nkandla is a physical place, partners in crime have confessed, etc). Racist by definition Kill the Boer, kill the farmer and Bring me my machine gun). Wrecked the economy. Wasn't democratically elected like Trump, due to our idiotic voting system.
There are a couple of things to unpack here; but can we settle on 5 themes and I'll show you the parallels in their actions and character.
1. Sexual Assualt: Both men have a history of philandering and sexual assault. You can dismiss the accusations against Trump all you want, but there are so many of them, I find it interesting when people do that. You claim that Zuma got off due to political interference, but yet Trump buying innocence through NDA's and settlements doesn't amount to the much of the same?
2. Corruption: I think once the Trump presidency ends to true scale of his graft will become very apparent. It has already been widely reported how much money his hotels and resorts are raking in with regular visits. Secret service budget was blown in its first year, and all that money goes directly into Trumps pockets via his hotels and golf courses. Somehow that is fine. I dunno, feels corrupt to me. A normal, ethical person (in my mind at least) be willing to make sacrifices for the 4 or 8 years they serve as president, live in the White House, relax at Camp David, and divest my business interests into a blind trust like the other 44 presidents did. But that's just me. Will be interesting to see how deep the Trump Foundation is going to dip into the US$500 billion Corona relief slush fund. Going to make Zuma's grafting seem like pocket change.
3. Racism: Swop out the word "Boer" for "Mexican" or "Immigrant" and in many cases I wouldn't be able to tell you who made the statement.
4. Economy: This is an interesting one. No doubt the USA economy has boomed, and SA's tanked under Zuma. My only comment there would be that I think the measures we use for economic analysis are out dated and misleading. GDP Growth, Stock Market gains and unemployment figures look at a very narrow set of measures; and a lot of that "growth" was bought on "credit" by punching a trillion dollar hole in their deficit. Meanwhile, farmers are losing their farms, wages are stagnant, healthcare and education costs are going up 10% per year, and many Americans are working 2-3 jobs just to get by...my brother in law is one of them; he has 3 jobs (and is also a Trump supporter by the way)
5. Election: Not sure what you mean by Zuma wasn't democratically elected. Both got elected based on the respective voting systems of their country. I can't say I like either system (Proportional representation in SA and Electoral Collage in the USA), but both got elected based on the rules. If anything, the case could be made that Zuma at least had a majority which Trump didn't.
Trump: some made-up charges of Russian collusion that even a 3 year long investigation by a highly partisan FBI couldn't find evidence of, yet still being used as "evidence" against him and others (even their own like Tubbard). Growing economy and decrease in unemployment (for which Obama suddenly is credited). Despite being called a racist and homophobe, no evidence and people who knows him has said that's one thing he's not (including people of colour).
1. Russia: This is a bit of a strawman which I didn't even punt as an argument, but let's go there anyway. Russia's goal is to weaken America and NATO. Can we just agree on that? They would have succeeded in the former regardless of who got elected in 2016. If Clinton had won, it would have been 4 years of Russian propaganda and Wikileaks and wall-to-wall Fox news coverage to rile up the American right. But at least she shouldn't have budged on NATO. Whether Trump or his campaign were directly involved in the Russian interference, I don't know, and honestly don't care about. It was a massive boon for Putin that Trump won. It has America in turmoil AND it has significantly weakened the West's position again Russia. If you have some time, read Gary Kasparov's book "Winter is Coming".
2. Economy again: I think I made my point about the economy higher up. Regarding the Obama jab, I think the analysts there are just pointing out that Trump inherited a trend and maintained it. Now that he will be starting from a low base after the Corona crisis, it will be interesting to see if he can jump-start the economy like Obama did when he inherited the 2008 Crisis from Bush. Trump might yet get an opportunity to prove his detractors wrong, but if his business history is anything to go on, he is more a "burn it down and claim the insurance money" kind of guy (my opinion).
3. Racism again: So his comments about Mexicans being rapists, or the death penalty for the Central Park 5 (who were innocent in the end) or not wanting black tenants in Trump tower...those are all fake news? Hoaxes? Don't get me wrong, the guy is 70+, I'm not expecting him to be "woke" he is probably as racist as my grandfather (who was pretty racist).
Now the opposite: the real despicables:
Hitler: believed in Socialism (a favourite of the Lefties). And I sure hope you've never owned a Volkswagen, and protest against their presence regularly.
Not sure what this has to do with the Trump-Zuma comparison, but I'll bite just because you are a decent poster most of the time.
I think people that like to invoke the Nazis in "Socialism" discussions, tend to focus a helluva lot on the "Socialist" part of they name, and ignore the "Nationalist" part.
The Nazi's didn't kill millions and conquer Europe because "Socialism"...they did it because they believed they were the master race, that they deserved better and that they were screwed out of their birthright with territory being taken away from them.
That sounds way more like Zuma/Malema/Trump supporter thinking to me, than hairly, fairy, liberal free healthcare, education and social safety net to me.
It's an oversimplification sure, but I'm tired of typing and I feel I've made the point.
Apartheid government: also Socialist, in fact went as far as nationalising most key industries/companies. Once again the very same system Bernie, Tulsi and others support.
I think people are getting hung up with labels. You made a good point on the original thread where I think you expressed similar sentiment. Liberal, Conservative, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Nationalist...all of these labels mean different things to different people and nobody seems to be able to agree on the same definition. Until we don't think these fissures will ever heal.
For what it's worth, my ideal world would look as follows:
A social democracy with a mixed market. Election of local, provincial and national representatives based on a ranked choice voting system. Electioneering only allowed for 3 months prior to the election. No corporate donations allowed for campaigns, limits to individual donations.
Ideally I'd prefer Healthcare and Education to be managed by the state, but this is very problematic here I will concede. You need very strong and credible institutions, leadership, transparency and electorate engagement to do this effectively. But these 2 things should be publicly accessible and should be seen as taxpayer investments in the populace IMO.
Sheesh, that was a long post and I didn't even get to show you how much I think Zuma and Trump are alike
From their sons, to their many wives, to their gifting and bankruptcies, to populism and cultism and "failing upward", fleecing their respective treasuries, and manipulation of the media.
It's uncanny, but then I understand that some have invested so much into Trump it's hard to admit that the emperor isn't wearing clothes.