Neoliberal leftists

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
iyraste1313
Neoliberal leftists

Paul Krugman attacks Trump from the right on Russia23 July 2016

In an op-ed piece published Friday, New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman attacks Donald Trump on the question of Russia, going so far as to suggest that the Republican presidential candidate is a covert agent of Vladimir Putin.

The column charges that Trump would “follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest.” He suggests that there exists “some specific channel of influence” involving Trump’s alleged “murky involvement with wealthy Russians.” He concludes, “There’s something very strange and disturbing going on here, and it should not be ignored.”

In drawing on such themes, which echo the language and methods of McCarthyism, Krugman manages to attack the fascistic Trump from the right, no mean feat....from wsws.org

......my intent here is to expose all these types under the name of social justice? etc. are promoting the authoritarian globalist militarist agenda...no genuine socialist egalitarian movement politics will arise without such exposure!

 

Geoff

iyraste1313 wrote:

Paul Krugman attacks Trump from the right on Russia23 July 2016

In an op-ed piece published Friday, New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman attacks Donald Trump on the question of Russia, going so far as to suggest that the Republican presidential candidate is a covert agent of Vladimir Putin.

The column charges that Trump would “follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest.” He suggests that there exists “some specific channel of influence” involving Trump’s alleged “murky involvement with wealthy Russians.” He concludes, “There’s something very strange and disturbing going on here, and it should not be ignored.”

In drawing on such themes, which echo the language and methods of McCarthyism, Krugman manages to attack the fascistic Trump from the right, no mean feat....from wsws.org

......my intent here is to expose all these types under the name of social justice? etc. are promoting the authoritarian globalist militarist agenda...no genuine socialist egalitarian movement politics will arise without such exposure!

 

It appears that the Democrats are so afraid of blowing the election that they're throwing mountains of spaghetti at any wall to see if something - anything - sticks. They'll attack Trump from the left, from the right, from above, or below. Whatever they think it takes.

Hopefully, Trump will lose, but how sad that the Democrats have come to believe this is the only way to defeat him.

6079_Smith_W

Krugman doesn't think Trump should get the job so that's McCarthyism?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

It's not exactly a secret that Krugman has been a Clinton supporter since 1992. He is quite a conventional Democratic centrist. He would have been very comfortable with the economic policies of Richard Nixon. He only looks left wing compared to the insane right wingers who rule the Republican party.

NorthReport

Agreed Michael

Krugman was one of the main journalists who led the attack on trying to discredit Sanders

iyraste1313

from Jean Bricmont in Counterpunch...Beware the anti-antiwar left

It cannot be denied that the anti-anti-war left has been extremely effective. The Iraq war, which was sold to the public as a fight against an imaginary threat, did indeed arouse a fleeting opposition, but there has been very little opposition on the left to interventions presented as “humanitarian”, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia to detach the province of Kosovo, the bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi, or the current intervention in Syria.   Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

swallow swallow's picture

But how should we feel about the anti-anti-antiwar left? I'm confused. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

But how should we feel about the anti-anti-antiwar left? 

We should never fail to deny them the most complete lack of opposition.

Obviously.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

iyraste1313 wrote:

Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

The suckers believe that R2P means Responsibility to Protect the people who run the show know it means the Right to Plunder.

iyraste1313

¨But how should we feel about the anti-anti-antiwar left? I'm confused......¨

my purpose in all this is to expose the fundamental contradictions of those claiming to represent something progressive, when working to the contrary...such people are dangerous as they infiltrate real alternative and opposition movements causing such confusion and division...and under the guise of ¨realism¨oppotunism actually hold sway and completely divert such movements....

My saddest moments came from watching this process in the one time radical greens of the early 90´s...

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I think it's probably useful to note that our moribund peace movement in Canada is connected to the success of the right to ideologically dominate the field.

For exmple, Israeli lobbyists silence supporters of Palestinian freedom; they have the overwhelming support of the barbarous Canadian state, the "leading" political parties in the Parliament, the megaphone of the MSM, and so on. A foaming, pathological Russophobia - the gift that truly keeps on giving, yea, even for centuries now and certainly since the end of WW2 - rules in the MSM and government, supporting the entanglement of Canada in all sorts of nefarious and criminal actions in Ukraine, Syria, etc, etc.; and so on. The fact that there is very little in the way of independent-minded foreign policy struggles  ... and that Canada right now has a cream puff for a PM whose biggest accomplishment seems to be taking off his shirt and taking narcissistic selfies ... well, that tells you all you need to know about "enlightened" Canada. We sell billions in weapons to a monarchist police state involved in bombing its neighbouring country, and our MSM suggests that Canada should lecture China on Human Rights. What losers.

It's not simply neo-liberal leftists. Our whole anti-war movement, by and large, is utterly poisoned with pro-imperialist perspectives. The other side is winning the war of ideas. The Yves Englers in Canada can practically be counted on the fingers of one hand. People are brainwashed in our so-called democracy. 

Any good analysis, leading to activism is, therefore, a good thing. But it's a huge fight. 

iyraste1313

21st Century Wire says…

At the end of July 2016 the US Peace Council delegation entered Syria on a very successful fact finding mission to support their campaign for an end to the universal suffering of the Syrian people perpetuated by the US and NATO member state military and propaganda war against Syria. A UK Peace delegation has followed hard on their heels led by Revd Andrew Ashdown and including members of the House of Commons and Lords, religious and academic emissaries.

The following is a report from SANA [Syrian Arab News Agency] on the meeting between Syrian President Bashar al Assad and the UK Peace delegation:

“President Bashar al-Assad highlighted the importance of the visits paid by foreign delegations to Syria to the effect of exposing the falsification practiced by the Western media....

...yes somehow we must reinvigorate the Peace Movement in Canada, to take bold actions in defiance of political correctness emanating from the MSM and unfortuneately all oo often regurgitated in these pages!

 

lagatta

Funny for someone to be complaining about Russophobia and then about political leaders who take of their shirts for manly poses in the Boreal Forest.

Are Vlad and Justin immune to blackflies?

My main criticism of this stuff, though, is how it is shitting on activists who are really striving to create and recreate movements for social change.

sherpa-finn

"Neoliberal leftist."

Meh. Just the latest in a long history of political epithets used by the radical / hard left to denigrate the moderate left.

And not particularly effective as a communications tool, IMHO as it almost always prompts in response an in-depth discussion about the nature of neo-liberalism. Which is a rabbit hole all of its own.

Now, in the good old days one knew where one stood, - you running dog lackey of capitalist imperialism, bourgeois traitor to the proletariat, lickspittle idler and kulak parasite, you Bonapartist pig, Trotskyite fascist hyena, revanchist, and all about class traitor.

No ambiguity there. Where has all the passion gone? 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Meh. Just the latest in a long history of political epithets used by the radical / hard left to denigrate the moderate left.

It's always easier for "radicals" to shame "moderates".

Works with religion, too.  "Nice bare midriff, but why do you hate Jesus?"

But the real fun happens when the "moderates" try to respond with some criticism of their own.  Then it's all about "diversity of tactics", and to nobody's surprise, the "moderates" are again the traitors.

6079_Smith_W

Though really, what is so radical about self-proclaimed radicals who have nothing to suggest beyond destroying the system, and shouting down anyone who disagrees as part of the status quo?

Near as I can tell that crew has been around forever. Nothing special, or new, or really productive.

Besides, isn't it the neo-left liberals we have to worry about?

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Near as I can tell that crew has been around forever. Nothing special, or new, or really productive.

I'm pretty sure that even Karl Marx said that "keeping it real" is a form of productivity.

Quote:
Besides, isn't it the neo-left liberals we have to worry about?

I know, right?  They're most vulnerable when they're sipping their latte.

The irony is that the "real" radicals are just another 1%.  Sure, the totally different and opposite 1%, but still.  And the remaining 98% soldier on.

swallow swallow's picture

The stance under discussion isn't "radical left," though. It's right-wing nationalist authoritarianism, dressed up in "left" posturing. It idolizes right-wing authoritarian leaders, so long as they oppose US government policy. 

iyraste1313

I know, right?  They're most vulnerable when they're sipping their latte....

If you´ve studied your history, you would realize that it is the neoliberal corporal globalization imperialist left that is seen as competing intellectual force to any true radical alternative socialist movement of ideas...this is why their false presumptions must be challenged...true it is only a minority that have any concerns at all...until of course their way of life is challenged by economic disintegration...which is coming

This is why we have revolutions, one reason, another key is competency and truth of good (informal!) leadership!

 

6079_Smith_W

iyraste1313 wrote:

This is why we have revolutions, one reason, another key is competency and truth of good (informal!) leadership!

Yes, and if you study your history you'll see how well they always turn out, and how great their (informal) leadership is.

... and that economic disintegration is the last thing the rich and powerful want, since they never benefit from it. Just look at how it didn't happen 100 years ago in Europe

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think babble's bigger problem is neo-leftist Liberals.

iyraste1313

Though really, what is so radical about self-proclaimed radicals who have nothing to suggest beyond destroying the system....

this is such bs.....myself and others here and everywhere have been promoting real grass roots democratic, ecosocialist, bioregionalist solutions...please do not belittle our efforts!!

lagatta

Like hell you're an ecosocialist.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
please do not belittle our efforts!!

Please do not see any and all criticism as belittling your efforts!!

6079_Smith_W

You realize of course "neo-Liberal leftists" applies perfectly to this RT and Wikileaks  crew who are totally sold on Trump because they think Hillary is the globalist devil who is going to start ww3.

SeekingAPolitic...

What a interesting conversation I am happy that I found it.  I think I will post muiltiple times.

On the right libertrians/consevrative are attached to austrian economist which believe debt accomation is the key in the crisis.  austrian crisis thoery is based on malinvestment which is really bad business decisions.  But the main problem for austrians is that capitialism should be freed from regulation because natural capitialism regulates itself.  They veiw government influence as a negative because in true capitialism malinvestment does not happen becasue of "magic" of the market forces.  If run it to someone talks about "crony" capitalism you have probably run into someone believes in austrian economies.  Personally when I hear crony capitialism it just someone trying to apoligize form the current state of things and it will better when we get actual "pure" captialism.   I contend that crony captialism = pure captialism = capitalism 

Crisis theory in austrain economics works like this.  The goverment inference lowers the cost of money below  what they consider the natural rate that would be achieved by getting rid of the central banks.  Because money is cheap and plentiful, people invest into projects will fail because they are not profitable.  Intially they are profitable because you borrow cheaply to support a foolish business model but when the credit slows down it becomes obvious that the venture is not profitable. Debt builds up and up then we have the "reckoning".

At the peak people have borrowed themselves out and business is also leveraged to the hilt.  Without new capital the system goes into reverse, business fail, people go broke.  A froced deleveraging begins, a recession, but today they claim the leverage so massive that it will lead to depression.  People lose their jobs, business lose customers, and they fire more people.  On upside there was a self reinforcing virtuous cycle and now we have a self reinforcing vicious cycle.  Look to greece.

Political considerations, this crowd believes now they can build a new society where government will be minamal because the government will be broke and ineffective.  Its darwinism the government will not support social  programs because collaspe of the economy.  I will leave the critism off this system to trained economists becasue I have no formal ecoonmic training.  But I am more happy to enage in political economy. 

To me the obvious problem is political reaction.  These idividuals now celebarate that they will not have pay for social programs.  My personal research has found the US federal goverment provdies benefits in various amounts to 46% of the us population.  Think of romeny what was it  47% will not vote for him.  Lets do thought experiement here, it you cut the benefits to 46% of the population many of who have no other source of income.  People will get radicialized quite quickly. And they will demand their government to start to take action. 

Next I am going to try highlight marxist crisis theory but I have do some reading first.  And I want say that if the have errored please point it out. 

 

 

 

iyraste1313

but today they claim the leverage so massive that it will lead to depression........

leverage and debt are so massive yes......but I think they would call it readjustment...as this is firstly a financial matter...massive financial bankruptcies...everyone actually too high in debt will go down...asset prices will go down...real estate, financial assets meaning firstly the markets will collapse to a half? a third? And with corporate debt so high...many, most corporations will go down.....

it is not so much a depression (extreme) but a total shifting of the forces of production...to smaller, more flexible business....

and yes the problem is with the people on social benefits, fixed income at fiat currency values that will plummet compared to the price of real goods...as interest rates will skyrocket (which is now beginning to take effect)...readjustment in the sense that financial and all asset values will floor somewhere low, and with the bankruptcies, the debts will be reduced...

what we are talking about is economic depression but magnifying whatever has ever taken place....

so how will the populace react? Could be riots and martial law situation.....could be something positive...and as I have so often stated, all depends on people and their leadership and vision....

And it is the people in preparation, shifting to new economics, production scale, alternative distribution and capital creation systems that will be in position to offer real alternatives......this is why I try to stress the problems and crises to come...that people of vision would prepare!!

lagatta

A large proportion of people on benefits are either elderly, have various mental or physical disabilities or are otherwise excluded from the labour market (young single mums, for example) that while their protests for a living income are essential, they can't "rock the system" by themselves. I have more hope in the movements among precarious and low-wage workers, though these movements must hook up. Too often I've heard extremely ill-paid workers at the Jean-Talon Market whinging about people on welfare who supposedly live lives of pleasure. What the ?????

SeekingAPolitic...

iyraste1313 wrote:

but today they claim the leverage so massive that it will lead to depression........

leverage and debt are so massive yes......but I think they would call it readjustment...as this is firstly a financial matter...massive financial bankruptcies...everyone actually too high in debt will go down...asset prices will go down...real estate, financial assets meaning firstly the markets will collapse to a half? a third? And with corporate debt so high...many, most corporations will go down.....

it is not so much a depression (extreme) but a total shifting of the forces of production...to smaller, more flexible business....

and yes the problem is with the people on social benefits, fixed income at fiat currency values that will plummet compared to the price of real goods...as interest rates will skyrocket (which is now beginning to take effect)...readjustment in the sense that financial and all asset values will floor somewhere low, and with the bankruptcies, the debts will be reduced...

what we are talking about is economic depression but magnifying whatever has ever taken place....

so how will the populace react? Could be riots and martial law situation.....could be something positive...and as I have so often stated, all depends on people and their leadership and vision....

And it is the people in preparation, shifting to new economics, production scale, alternative distribution and capital creation systems that will be in position to offer real alternatives......this is why I try to stress the problems and crises to come...that people of vision would prepare!!

it is not so much a depression (extreme) but a total shifting of the forces of production...to smaller, more flexible business....

Maybe we are talking about the same thing.  Be it recession or depression true wealth is not destroyed(unlike paper assets that take a massive hit) factories, mines, farms not destroyed they are transfered from those with debt(who most sell their assets to hopefully pay off their debts/loans which the bank demands) to those that have cash waiting.  During recessions and depressions great fortunes are lost by other individuals make great fortunes. But the average joe loses their job or takes a pay cut. 

and yes the problem is with the people on social benefits, fixed income at fiat currency values that will plummet compared to the price of real goods...as interest rates will skyrocket (which is now beginning to take effect)...readjustment in the sense that financial and all asset values will floor somewhere low, and with the bankruptcies, the debts will be reduced...

Generally depressions are adefaltionary, people with debt suffer and those that hold cash or near cash paper win.

 

SeekingAPolitic...

lagatta wrote:

A large proportion of people on benefits are either elderly, have various mental or physical disabilities or are otherwise excluded from the labour market (young single mums, for example) that while their protests for a living income are essential, they can't "rock the system" by themselves. I have more hope in the movements among precarious and low-wage workers, though these movements must hook up. Too often I've heard extremely ill-paid workers at the Jean-Talon Market whinging about people on welfare who supposedly live lives of pleasure. What the ?????

We are born into capitalism, we schooled in a capitalist system, and then live in capitalism. Your status is measured by the amount of capital you hold.  The ultra poor are lowest rung of the capitalist system, the rich look down on everyone, the middle class looks down the poor, and poor look down on those below them.  Everday these class divide is reinforced

There is no counterforce to system. Who speaks for the poor.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/on-the-campaign-trail-everyone-s-singing...

I did a simple google search.>>>>does mulcair talk about class

and I got the cbc article. 

I knew this has been talked to death but its was long time since NDP talked about these issues.  

SeekingAPolitic...

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

What a interesting conversation I am happy that I found it.  I think I will post muiltiple times.

On the right libertrians/consevrative are attached to austrian economist which believe debt accomation is the key in the crisis.  austrian crisis thoery is based on malinvestment which is really bad business decisions.  But the main problem for austrians is that capitialism should be freed from regulation because natural capitialism regulates itself.  They veiw government influence as a negative because in true capitialism malinvestment does not happen becasue of "magic" of the market forces.  If run it to someone talks about "crony" capitalism you have probably run into someone believes in austrian economies.  Personally when I hear crony capitialism it just someone trying to apoligize form the current state of things and it will better when we get actual "pure" captialism.   I contend that crony captialism = pure captialism = capitalism 

Crisis theory in austrain economics works like this.  The goverment inference lowers the cost of money below  what they consider the natural rate that would be achieved by getting rid of the central banks.  Because money is cheap and plentiful, people invest into projects will fail because they are not profitable.  Intially they are profitable because you borrow cheaply to support a foolish business model but when the credit slows down it becomes obvious that the venture is not profitable. Debt builds up and up then we have the "reckoning".

At the peak people have borrowed themselves out and business is also leveraged to the hilt.  Without new capital the system goes into reverse, business fail, people go broke.  A froced deleveraging begins, a recession, but today they claim the leverage so massive that it will lead to depression.  People lose their jobs, business lose customers, and they fire more people.  On upside there was a self reinforcing virtuous cycle and now we have a self reinforcing vicious cycle.  Look to greece.

Political considerations, this crowd believes now they can build a new society where government will be minamal because the government will be broke and ineffective.  Its darwinism the government will not support social  programs because collaspe of the economy.  I will leave the critism off this system to trained economists becasue I have no formal ecoonmic training.  But I am more happy to enage in political economy. 

To me the obvious problem is political reaction.  These idividuals now celebarate that they will not have pay for social programs.  My personal research has found the US federal goverment provdies benefits in various amounts to 46% of the us population.  Think of romeny what was it  47% will not vote for him.  Lets do thought experiement here, it you cut the benefits to 46% of the population many of who have no other source of income.  People will get radicialized quite quickly. And they will demand their government to start to take action. 

Next I am going to try highlight marxist crisis theory but I have do some reading first.  And I want say that if the have errored please point it out. 

 

I want to ammend the above.

1.  On the internet if you come across somebody talking about coming collaspe that person has been influenced by Austrain economies.  I would say 95% of those saying that we are in for a hard time has picked some part of the austrian economies.  5% where I fit in use marxist or heterdox keynes thought to talk about the hard times ahead.

Why austrian economies so popular on the internet in English N America.

a)Its based on the individual which perfectly mends with the rugged nature of individual that forms varoius memes that reinforce american idology of the home of the free.

b)Austrian rejects the idea that we can use modelling to predict outcomes. Its basically math free which makes perfect for the masses to understand.

c)After the crash of 2008 and discrediting of mainstream economics or orthodox economics.  People turned alternative explanations of the crash I went to dabble with marxist crisis theory but the majority of NA turn austrian economics.  The simple reason was that people felt marxist theory too radical a safe bet was austrian economics be it fits well with capitialsim. 

 

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

This is getting into identity politics. Not labelling people also extends into not questioning their self-labelling. 

iyraste1313

"The People Made Their Choice" - Theresa May Vows To Deliver "Full" EU Exit Despite Court Challenge  by Tyler Durden Nov 6, 2016 8:53 AM 

In the aftermath of last week's surprising decision by a UK High Court to force a parliamentary vote on Article 50, a hard - or even soft - Brexit suddenly has been put in question, having thrown the government's plans to launch a two-year divorce process by the end of March into disarray, and sending the Pound soaring. So in her first public statement since the vote, British Prime Minister Theresa May, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, said she is confident of overturning the ruling and vowed that she would deliver a full exit from the European Union, hitting back at critics of her Brexit strategy who have threatened to try to block the process in parliament.

In her op-ed, May signaled she would resist any attempt to force her to change her approach to leaving the EU:

...my question? Why is it from the right that globalization is being challenged...whatever happened to the leadership on the left?

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

The suckers believe that R2P means Responsibility to Protect the people who run the show know it means the Right to Plunder.


So should we not try harder to bring down the "people who run the show"?

Martin N.

iyraste1313 wrote:

...my question? Why is it from the right that globalization is being challenged...whatever happened to the leadership on the left?


Challenging the perpetrators of malfeasance with a well turned phrase does not elicit the same panic as deploying police with a warrant. The right is not challenging globalisation, it is preempting the left's ability to do so. It is protecting the head of the snake. Like the UN protects the molesters, rapists and assorted criminals in its missions. It's easy to kick a peacenik to the curb because if you ask nicely, they will do it to themselves.

iyraste1313

So should we not try harder to bring down the "people who run the show"?......

...yes of course but under what end? The people who run the show have no real power except in their capacity to brainwash...something which is now waning, what with their MSM losing total credibility (94% according to one poll I`ve read).

The people who run the show first and foremost are globalists...and it is from the right that globalists are being attacked most forcefully...the left seems only to support whatever milktoast social democrat party, no matter how globalist and totalitarian they may be!

Somehow a genuine left anti globalist people oriented movement must be initiated and formally break any links to the neoliberal left.

This is first order of business for us!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

IMHO, babble needs WAY more naming, blaming and shaming!

Who are the traitors in our midst?  Who are the useful stooges?  Did the Stasi teach us NOTHING??

With purity comes strength.

quizzical

Laughing

Aristotleded24

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb0kzBfrlGk]Mike Figueredo gives a solid closing argument in favour of Jill Stein[/url]

iyraste1313

Thanks for that....it`s incredulous to me that so many so called leftists, whatever their justification are prepared to betray their principles to vote for a murderous sociopath as the lessor of evils?

 

6079_Smith_W

Oh give it a rest.

I could make an observation about people who let their moral superiority get the best of them, but then I have no problem with someone deciding to support any candidate here, nor even deciding to sit at home because they think they are above electoral politics.

I think there are quite a few people down there for whom the question not nearly so high-minded as "betraying principles". Piddly stuff like being concerned about being thrown out of the country, losing health coverage, not being able to get an abortion, being refused the right to vote, or getting shot.

iyraste1313

Thank you Edward S. Herman, author with Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent......

Clinton Is the Most Dangerous Person AliveAn Interview with Edward S. HermanBy Edward S. Herman and Ann Garrison

Ann Garrison: Earlier this year, you told me that you differ with Noam Chomsky, your co-author of Manufacturing Consent and other books, in that you plan to vote for the Green Party’s presidential and vice presidential candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Are you still planning to do so?  

Edward S. Herman (image right): Yes.  

AG: Can you explain why? 

ESH: Because the two duopoly candidates are dangerous to societal and international welfare and even survival. Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal and pre-eminent war-monger. I think she is the most dangerous person living in the world today, given her highly likely election victory and her likely performance as president. She represents the corporate elite and military-industrial complex more clearly than Trump and she is a follow-on to Bush and Obama. She will pursue similar policies except for her somewhat more aggressive bent. 

Trump is a self-promoting windbag, racist and dangerous, unpredictable phony. We have a ghastly choice in these two. Jill Stein offers a protest opportunity, more so than not voting. On the line that either voting for Stein or not voting would constitute a vote for Trump, one might argue that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war with Syria and Russia and a vote for Netanyahu (and hence for escalated violence in Palestine). 

AG:  Hillary Clinton and John Podesta’s e-mail has revealed that Hillary Clinton is well aware that the Saudi and Qatari rulers – not rogue elements – fund ISIS, and the same Saudi and Qatari rulers fund the Clinton Foundation. Throughout the last George Bush’s presidency, there were innumerable headlines that “Saudi oil sheikhs met with George Bush on his Crawford, Texas ranch.”  What are your thoughts on that? 

ESH: Saudi Arabia is a US ally and an instrument of the warfare state. Hillary Clinton has treated its leaders warmly and she will continue to do so as president. The Clinton Foundation’s receipt of money from Saudi and Qatari leaders is a first class conflict of interest and outrage, but the media have focused on the many less important abuses of Trump, helping cover over the outrages of their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, and her husband, Bill Clinton.

AG: What do you think of Clinton’s statement that she would make removing Bashar Al-Assad her top priority? And Trump’s statement that he would not, because that would recklessly risk confrontation with Russia?

ESH: Hillary Clinton has essentially promised to escalate war in Syria and is therefore promising to go to war with Russia as well. Diana Johnstone has made the case that Hillary Clinton plans to try to bring about “regime change” in Russia (cite). This is of course incredibly dangerous and would have aroused a really democratic media, but the existing media are part of the war system, hence Hillary Clinton’s commitment to wars is essentially suppressed. Trump has made a number of statements along the lines of reducing US interventions and commitments abroad and trying to deal with Russia in a less confrontational manner, but he has sometimes contradicted himself by urging expanded arms, use of nuclear weapons, etc. But Hillary Clinton has said nothing that would offset her war-mongering. This difference from Trump may help explain the intensity of media hostility to Trump.

 

6079_Smith_W

Perhaps you didn't get my point, iyraste.

I have no problem with you supporting whomever you want. You want to say Hillary Clinton is the devil or challenge people's decisions? That is fine.

What I try not to do is accuse you of betraying your principles, even though I could probably cobble together a similar argument to throw at you if I were so inclined.

Not only are you on no higher ground than anyone else here, I think we have had more than enough in this campaign of that politics of division.

 

 

Aristotleded24

iyraste1313 wrote:
Thanks for that....it`s incredulous to me that so many so called leftists, whatever their justification are prepared to betray their principles to vote for a murderous sociopath as the lessor of evils?

Exactly i1313. I actually have more respect for Republican Christian fundamentalists. I disagree with what they stand for, but at least they have principles that they are willing to defend.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I think there are quite a few people down there for whom the question not nearly so high-minded as "betraying principles". Piddly stuff like being concerned about being thrown out of the country, losing health coverage, not being able to get an abortion, being refused the right to vote, or getting shot.

More bullshit fear tactics that priviledged liberals are throwing around to cover up their lack of principles and indirect complicity in allowing things to get to this state. Let me deconstruct your little list:

Quote:
being thrown out of the country

A record number of deportations have happened under Obama's watch.

Quote:
losing health coverage

Obamacare is a disaster. It's essentially a mandated subsidy for insurance companies. Rather than fix things, it has just complicated things, like premiums going up and people losing coverage under Obamacare. All Obama had to do was announce, "we will gradually expand Medicare so that everyone is covered." That would have hurt the insurance companies that Obama relied upon for campaign contributions. And if we want to celebrate Obama's "accomplishment" on this topic, we also have to celebrate Mitt Romney for bringing that to Massachusetts. Gee, liberals never bring that up, I wonder why.

Quote:
not being able to get an abortion

There is far more to abortion access than what the Supreme Court says. Top of mind is that it's hard to find a doctor who will perform the procedure when these doctors are getting shot at for it. Then there are also issues of coverage and access, and also a lack of women's health services in general related to contraception, family planning, and child care. And I suspect that many of these wealthy celebrity women raising this issue are themselves in a position that they could have an abortion done in another country.

Quote:
being refused the right to vote

Voter ID laws and voter disenfranchisement has flourished under Obama's watch as President. He has done nothing to reverse this. Regardless of party, the federal government would never step in and take the steps they need to because they do not want to antagonize the state's rights crowd. Any challenges to voter disenfranchisement that have been effective have been through the courts, not because any high-ranking Democrats actually took up this issue.

Quote:
getting shot

Are you specifically referring to police officers shooting unarmed black men? That continues to happen and has continued so even under Obama. The militarization of the police, which leads to the mentality that puts black lives in danger, happened under Obama, and he has not effectively challenged the mentality of the police here. At best, you can say that Obama stood aside while all this was happening.

6079_Smith_W

A number of those issues depend on who is sitting on the supreme court. I know who I would rather have making the nomination.

(just to deconstruct my rationale for you).

But as I just said, my point is not the disagreement with you on your decision; I know we disagree.

It is iyraste's charge that that decision is a betrayal of principle. For many people it is far more close to home than that.

 

 

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It is iyraste's charge that that decision is a betrayal of principle. For many people it is far more close to home than that.

What principles is the left defending with their support of Hillary Clinton? If it was a Republican running on a platform identical to what Clinton has put forward, would people all of a sudden say this Republican is bad and should be stopped? That's what it means to be unprincipled.

Remember that on just about every issue, Clinton's record and positions are identical to George Bush. That's why the Bush Family is voting for her over their own party's nominee. So forget about the front man or front woman: Is the agenda esposed by George Bush dangerous or not?

And if the only argument in favour of Clinton is who sits on the Supreme Court, it's really sad that it's come to that.

6079_Smith_W

Weighing all the issues and the question of capability and attitude I consider her a far better candidate than Donald Trump.

I know some say they would vote for her in a swing state, and for Jill Stein if it was safe. I can't vote, but I'm not sure I wouldn't vote for her in either case.

You want to call it "sad" and iyraste want to call it "betrayal"? I take that about as seriously as I take Donald Trump's personal attacks. That is to say, I take it seriously enough to call it what it is. As for having it directed at me, I couldn't care less because all it is is a smear.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

What principles is the left defending with their support of Hillary Clinton? 

Anti-racism and feminism at home, isn't it? 

Aristotleded24

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCE3an5WalY]Abby Martin cannot tell whether Clinton or Trump is the lesser evil in this election[/url]

6079_Smith_W

Oh for heaven's sake. What are you trying to prove with that?

She thinks Gore would have started a war because the neo-cons are in control. And they presumably would have magically disappeared if Ralph Nader had won? That's the principled position?

(or for those with even higher principles, if no one had voted at all)

Frankly it is conspiracist nonsense, and it is irrelevant to the point I was making.

bekayne

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Exactly i1313. I actually have more respect for Republican Christian fundamentalists. I disagree with what they stand for, but at least they have principles that they are willing to defend.

Then why are they supporting Trump?

Pages