-
Nothing specific; there is just an absolute storm of stories from Hope Hicks talking to Trump about hiding emails, to the Nunes memo, the heads of all three Russian intelligence services being in Washington at the same time this week which is you know, completely normal.
-
Libcucktards
ftfy
-
So there are only Liberals of the type that aren't interested in equality and no other ones?
I am not a fan of the USA democratic party atm (Bernie would have been great, but yeah...) but it sounds like a bit of a false dichotomy that all liberals don't care about social issues.
Some socialists are very authoritarian so there's no guarantee that groups that are against class warfare uphold social liberties either.
-
I guess it depends on your definitions. Modern liberalism, to me, is too deeply rooted in market capitalism to ever provide a suitable alternative to whatever havoc Trump is wreaking at any given moment.
Sure they may nominally care about social progress but as the past few decades in both British and American politics have demonstrated, it's impossible in reality to support both social and economic progress and neoliberal economics. All the pandering in the world couldn't change the fact that Hilary was not interested in any progress but that of the financial industry and her own campaign coffers. She offered no alternative to Obama's failed policies and was rightly rejected by the electorate.
Until somebody offers a real alternative to Trump and the conditions which gave us Trump, nothing will change. Bernie would have been a start, sure.
The FBI isn't interested in helping you, and if it does manage to get rid of Trump (which it won't) it will go right back to propping up crypto-fascist US hegemony and subjugating the global poor. Nor are the "rebel" Republicans who have somehow found a conscience after dedicating their careers to pillaging the most vulnerable in society. They do not deserve our support regardless of how hard they go after Trump.
-
mistake
Yeah this was a typo - it's meant to read free market although I was unsure whether to include it anyway because you can't reasonably attach a free market label to contemporary neoliberal economics.
capitalism begins to fail in very wealthy post-industrial societies
This is close to what I'm suggesting except that capitalism isn't really failing at all in the US, UK, Canada etc. It's succeeding at exactly what it's supposed to do. We are far beyond the point of capitalism beginning to fail the poor.
Anyway, capitalism thread ----->
-
Yeah right she won the popular vote by approx 2,500,000 in a country with 235,248,000 eligible voters against a historically unpopular opposition candidate.
Hilary/the DNC missed an open goal and lost the election far more than Trump really won it. All the Russian psy-ops in the world won't change that fact.
-
I'm all for incrementalism if it means genuine progress. Bernie was far from an ideal candidate but probably would've been a start towards some kind of hegemonic shift.
Clinton was a dud from day 1. She would have continued the Democrats' legacy of pillaging vulnerable communities at home and overseas and thrown a few scraps to the plebs to improve optics. Obama had genuine charisma and could pull it off - Hilary could not. I don't buy into the at least she isn't Trump argument because honestly she's not that different in the places it matters.
-
I guess we can go around and around in circles over points like these. Incremental change is fine if it actually drives progress - another Clinton presidency would not have. Sanders may have been a step in the right direction but I guess we'll never know.
Piecemeal social progressivism coupled with exploitative economic policy is neoliberalism 101. How perverse it is to celebrate the Democrats for letting in a few thousand extra refugees than the actual open racist Trump, whilst they raze entire communities both domestically and abroad. Should we not be expecting more of our elected representatives? I hate that we've ended up in a situation where we can accept an utter failure like Hilary Clinton as a reasonable candidate for the Presidency simply because it's her turn and she's not Trump.
I'm at risk of sounding like the nutter Alex Jones but I'd recommend reading the Podesta emails if you want a taste of the Clintons' contempt towards democracy.
-
Donald Trump has weird hair.
-
And he's a dickhead.
-
Proportional representation means you can vote for pie in the sky shit and your pie in the sky bro might get a chance at being part of a coalition. I’d be curious to know how the pie in the sky people voted in the referendum on AV. Our current system, and the American system, are structured in a way that means you’ve got to pick a side or you’re letting the other one in.
-
" How perverse it is to celebrate the Democrats for letting in a few thousand extra refugees than the actual open racist Trump, whilst they raze entire communities both domestically and abroad. "
Well it's possible Trump razes communities domestically and abroad AND is racist as a bonus, and anti woman and...
but yeah, it's frustrating the standard is so low. And that it's dumb they still lost. Which also mirrors the UK, you'd think the conservatives would have been completely destroyed in the GE. But no, Labour still had no majority.
I'm still not sure if economic liberalism AND social liberalism must always be wedded: The Tories are going towards economic liberalism and social authoritarianism atm. And Labour, talking about low standards, is now also talking the "but immigrants..." talk. Uppa Greens for me...
QUOTE: Until somebody offers a real alternative to Trump and the conditions which gave us Trump, nothing will change. Bernie would have been a start, sure.
Correct, I think we need better economists and less trickly down/pay less tax BS. And better education. And a less shitty media. Again, see Farage and UKIP. F-all solutions but the propaganda works.
But, sometimes there IS such an alternative, and people still won't have it. -
Liar accuses believers in truth of bias.
-
So here's the memo
tldr: Its so clearly factually inaccurate by omission that its laughable. Tries to pin the Carter Page FISA warrant solely on the Steel Dossier, which Nunes argues wasn't admissable because the FISA court weren't told that it was partly paid for by the Clinton Campaign. It fails to mention that Carter Page was under surveilance for over three years before the Steele dossier, fails to mention that the Steele Dossier was commissioned by Republicans and also fails to mention that the Steele Dossier is at least partly corroborated.
1/10 for scandal value.
dubtap
NotThamesWater
spiderpie
JWestland
mespilus
Brommers
StandardPractice
Stonehedge
yeoh1986
stedlocks
h2o-
Post a reply
About
US Politics
Posted by
@dst2
Things seem to be ummm accelerating