Neoliberal leftists

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

bekayne wrote:
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?

Many of them (especially in Utah) jave dumped the Trump. Bill Maher just did a segment where he actually praised the Mormons for their principles on that matter.

Aristotleded24

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeX8TpqwXfw]Clinton supporters continue to belittle anyone who doesn't support Hillary[/url]

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I just think there's been a massive lack of understanding for Hillary supporters...

What? It seems to work for the Trump side.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
I just think there's been a massive lack of understanding for Hillary supporters...

Certainly given the low amount of female representation in politics, there will be a certain amount of excitement when a woman comes along to shake up the "old boy's clubm," and one women's success will inspire other women of what they can achieve.

One question I do have for Hillary supporters is why they continue to support Clinton even though she was on the board of Wal-Mart (the most woman-friendly corporation in America) and that she supports military interventions in foreign countries that disproportionately hurt women and children. There are so many other women in US politics who actively oppose those and other injustices.

6079_Smith_W

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

The article is just FYI. I don't actually care about the question.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

She's tried to make change where she could. She's willing to compromise for the sake of progress. She's not a saint, but the pure don't generally get shit done.

She's no worse than the majority of male Democrat candidates. And in some ways, she's more savvy than Bernie, which will stand her in good stead, much as we all love what Bernie stands for.

There's a reason she won that nomination.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
She's tried to make change where she could. She's willing to compromise for the sake of progress. She's not a saint, but the pure don't generally get shit done.

So what kind of change and progress has she accomplished? What has she got done?

Timebandit wrote:
There's a reason she won that nomination.

The manufactured media hype that she was going to be the nominee well bevore the process began, a debate schedule which shielded her from having to answer tough qustions about her record, the lack of institutional support for any other Democrat to challenge her (as evidenced by the fact that Martin O'Malley, a former governer, had to end his campaign after Iowa even though as an actual Democrat he should have had access to far more resources than Sanders did) and the fact that at this time last year nobody outside of New England or far-left circles had even heard of Bernie Sanders.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You are such a white dude.

Go look it up, I'm not your Encyclopedia Britannica. Smith made mention of one thing. Meanwhile, I've got shit to do.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The manufactured media hype that she was going to be the nominee well bevore the process began

Of course she was the front-runner.  That's not some kind of "manufactured media hype".  It's more like people predicting Usain Bolt will win the gold before Usain Bolt wins the gold.

Quote:
and the fact that at this time last year nobody outside of New England or far-left circles had even heard of Bernie Sanders.

IIRC, Sanders supporters delighted in reminding us that Bernie was chaining himself to things in protest long before it was cool.  If the left didn't know who Sanders was, even though he's been active since the 1960's, that only suggests that the left doesn't really care as much as they think they do about "what really matters".  How do decades of bona fide progressive actions go unnoticed by everyone except the people of Vermont?

 

6079_Smith_W

Timebandit wrote:

Meanwhile, I've got shit to do.

As well, it is no one's business beyond the explanation of why we support the person we do any more than it is our place to question support for Stein, or rejection of electoral politics.

If some can't see or don't want to see why this might be an important decision I don't really care to explain it more than I have.

Though it sure is in keeping with the holier than thou tone of this entire thread.

Aristotleded24

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgJ_3h1COqo]Jill Stein challenges the idea that Clinton is strong on women's issue[/url]

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
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?

The reason Gore's name was mentioned is because some people say that if Nader's people had voted for Gore Gore would have won, and if he had won the Iraq war wouldn't have happened, therefore it's the fault of the people who voted for Nader that the Iraq war happened. Given the bombing runs that Clinton approved over Iraq in the late 1990s and the US-led campaign in the former Yugoslavia, it's not a stretch to believe that Gore would have done an invasion. And taking your thought experiment further, no the neocons would not have disappeared if Nader had won, but at least Nader's election would have been a strong public repudiation of that agenda.

Aristotleded24

Try reading for comprehension:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The manufactured media hype that she was going to be the nominee well bevore the process began

Of course she was the front-runner.  That's not some kind of "manufactured media hype".  It's more like people predicting Usain Bolt will win the gold before Usain Bolt wins the gold.

It's one thing to note that Clinton is the front-runner when the race is actually in progress and she is the actual front-runner. It's another thing to create a narrative 2 or more years out of the election that says Clinton is going to be the party's nominee and that she'll win long before the actual process is close to getting underway.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
and the fact that at this time last year nobody outside of New England or far-left circles had even heard of Bernie Sanders.

IIRC, Sanders supporters delighted in reminding us that Bernie was chaining himself to things in protest long before it was cool.  If the left didn't know who Sanders was, even though he's been active since the 1960's, that only suggests that the left doesn't really care as much as they think they do about "what really matters".  How do decades of bona fide progressive actions go unnoticed by everyone except the people of Vermont?

Try re-reading my post, which implies that he was already known in left circles, and it was the rest of the world that hadn't heard of him yet.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
if Nader's people had voted for Gore Gore would have won, and if he had won the Iraq war wouldn't have happened

I dearly hope that we don't all have to spend the next four years hearing about how if Clinton's people had voted for Sanders, Sanders would have won.  I agree with you that this sort of thinking makes for very thin soup.

6079_Smith_W

No. He asked her if she really thought there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Not about Nader.

And you may call it "not a stretch", but what it is is fiction.

 

Martin N.

Thin soup and humble pie, n'est ce pas?

6079_Smith_W

Humble? I am angry, thank you very much. I am curious what you think you have to gloat about.

Do you think Clinton and the Democrats are going to be the ones who pay the price for this? That certainly isn't what my friends stateside are concerned about right now.

 

Aristotleded24

One of the things the Democrats have said is that it was important for Clinton to win, lest Trump appoint a crazy person to the Supreme Court. The split Senate at least allows for the Democrats to delay and raise objections. We'll see if they really mean it when the time actually comes.

Pondering

The good news is:

Trump is against trade deals.

The corporations that thought a Trump nomination would ensure a win for Hilary have lost.

A Trump presidency will not improve the lives of the people who supported him.

The door is still open for someone who will genuinely represent the 99%.

The bad news is the organized left isn't interested or doesn't know how to do it.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:

The good news is:

Trump is against trade deals.

how do you know this? because he said so? lol

Quote:
The corporations that thought a Trump nomination would ensure a win for Hilary have lost.

what have they lost?

Quote:
A Trump presidency will not improve the lives of the people who supported him.

if you mean the 49.7% of the voters i agree.

Quote:
The door is still open for someone who will genuinely represent the 99%.

you don't know this.

Quote:
The bad news is the organized left isn't interested or doesn't know how to do it.

i agree. too busy paying attention to trivial pursuits

Pondering

 

I do believe that Trump is genuinely racist, sexist and ignorant. So yes, I think he really does oppose trade deals. Not saying he couldn't change his mind.

I do believe the door is still open for someone to represent the 99%. I think Sander's popularity proves it as does Occupy and the growing civil disobedience aganst pipelines.

I do agree that Trump is unpredictable. I am convinced he can be bought but I don't know to what extent so maybe he could be bribed to support the trade deals. On the other hand he has a huge ego.

iyraste1313

 I am convinced he can be bought but I don't know....

no he is not corruptable.....recently heard that he was offered total (Wall Street) support if he would submit somewhat...but he refused! It will be an interesting battle...hopefully progressives will not sit this out!

6079_Smith_W

Are you kidding? What is his beef with NATO? "They won't pay their share".

What was his concern yesterday at the thought of losing? "I would have spent all that money for nothing".

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Trump may, for example, reduce the number of US bases abroad in order to strengthen the US presence abroad generally. One commentator wryly noted that US military spending, over say Russia, is somewhat exaggerated because much of it is spent on toilet paper and breakfasts. You get the idea.

His fight is now with the neo cons in the Republican Party, plenty of whom are represented in the House and Senate.

Aristotleded24

Clinton supporters did several disgusting things in support of their candidate. What disgusts me the most is when women publicly supported a candidate other than Clinton, they were maligned (and in some cases even accused of betraying their own gender) even when the other candidate they supported was Jill Stein.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Clinton supporters did several disgusting things in support of their candidate. What disgusts me the most is when women publicly supported a candidate other than Clinton, they were maligned (and in some cases even accused of betraying their own gender) even when the other candidate they supported was Jill Stein.

I thought it was sad when I saw it but I sure could understand the motivation. Why is it that hard to imagine?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Clinton supporters did several disgusting things in support of their candidate. What disgusts me the most is when women publicly supported a candidate other than Clinton, they were maligned (and in some cases even accused of betraying their own gender) even when the other candidate they supported was Jill Stein.

Agreed. Hilary Clinton might as well be a man but wealthy female stars are acting like there would be something progressive about her winning. I don't see why there would have been anything to celebrate if Hilary had won. So what. She stole the nomination from Sanders and he would have been a far better choice.

A cartoon election produced a cartoon president.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3050654/grim-outlook-for-premier-kathleen-wynn...

The survey, conducted by Mainstreet/Postmedia, shows only 25 per cent of decided voters would vote for Kathleen Wynne‘s Liberals while 43 per cent would choose the Patrick Brown-led Progressive Conservatives and 27 per cent would opt for the Ontario NDP.

The left must learn how to sell its message to the people it claims to support and it must retake the NDP.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Are you kidding? What is his beef with NATO? "They won't pay their share".

Aren't there a bunch of anti-NATO people here?

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Humble? I am angry, thank you very much. I am curious what you think you have to gloat about.

Do you think Clinton and the Democrats are going to be the ones who pay the price for this? That certainly isn't what my friends stateside are concerned about right now.

 


I'm not gloating, just pointing out that for individuals that were so wrong about Trump, humility is a more appropriate emotion than anger. What do you have to be angry about, Smith? That you were too busy drinking your own bath water to notice that Trump was a lightning rod for popular support? Rather than setting your hair on fire, perhaps you should be evaluating the structural biases in your thinking.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, Pondering. My point is that Trump's stance on it has less to do with their ideology than saving or making a buck.

And that also seemed to be first on his mind when he thought he was losing.

And Martin, I believe Magoo's point was that he hopes Bernie supporters don't hold onto this vain hope, even though there really is no way to prove them wrong.

Aside from the fact your comment doesn't apply to Sanders supporters given that some are now have a reason to feel they were right (whether true or not), telling any supporters they should be humble the day after a bad electoral outcome is not only kind of insulting, it is usually inappropriate. There is no reason for humility on the part of honest supporters just because the candidate didn't win the most votes, even if there were flaws in the campaign.

Besides, the horse race aspect of this is really beside the point now. It isn't going to be the DNC or Clinton who pays the worst price for this outcome. It will probably wind up coming down just as much on Trump supporters.

 

 

 

 

Martin N.

Well, the only path to real change other than insurrection is to elect an outsider with no debts to the political establishment. The dippers may qualify but only if they keep it real and lock the whackadoodles in the outhouse for the duration. Think if the left could harness populist outrage to effect real change. Trump may be a buffoon, but he led a brilliant strategic campaign. We should learn from it.

6079_Smith_W

Oh nonsense. In the first place, you don't think Donald Trump has debts to pay here?

And exactly what kind change do you think is going to come from electing a serial bankrupt who knows nothing about government, and is a vindictive sociopath?

Do you admire that he ran a campaign appealing to racism, fear and hatred, lied throughout, and was so out of control that his handlers had to take his twitter account away from him?

Do you admire that the late swing in the polls was aided FBI spreading a lie?

Do you admire that many - including religious right leaders - who supported him did so while holding their noses (and said so) because they know he will implement the policies they want against women and LGBT people, against separation of church and state, and for the gun lobby.

And do you admire that key states were won with voter disenfranchisement? In North Carolina the GOP bragged about how many African American voters they prevented from early voting:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/north-carolina-gop-brags-abo...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/re...

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-t...

In Indiana, 45,000 voters

In Georgia, 100,000

In Ohio 2 million

In Wisconsin (where Trump won by 27,000) 300,000 voters denied their right to vote.

That's your brilliant strategic campaign?

 

 

iyraste1313

Do you admire that the late swing in the polls was aided FBI spreading a lie?...

that´s nonsense and you ought to know better...Clinton is guilty of the foulest most corrupt treasonous crimes, or do you not believe the emails from wikileaks?

Perhaps the greatest success of the election was to expose the total corruption of the system!
A first step in a long process of revolutionary transformation, not possible as long as people actually have any credibility in their institutions of finance, economics and government! 

6079_Smith_W

Comey released a vague letter which implied wrongdoing (very likely breaking the law) and a week later revealed there was nothing there. In that short time Clinton's lead plummeted.

And what treasonous crimes? Name one, please.

And on that ther stuff, you have no idea what you are talking about, or what you are proposing.

 

iyraste1313

And what treasonous crimes? Name one, please....

pay for play, the total treasonous activities of the Clinton Foundation....I could spend days listing the treasons...

iyraste1313
6079_Smith_W

I'm waiting actually. Seriously. Name one thing for which she faces a charge of treason, or any charge at all.

FOX reported that there was an "indictment pending" and they were forced to admit it was a lie.

But of course, the damage was done there, too. You seem to have bought it even though it is completely false.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Cross posted.

It could also include her admitting she is the wonderful wizard of oz, but until they find somehting to that effect it is smoke.

And besides, I just told you that Comey came out a week later and revealed there was absolutely nothing in those emails. So no. No treason. No funding of Muslim Brotherhood. Nothing.

I guess I should clarify... anything of substance?

 

iyraste1313

Do you actually believe that Comey analysed 650,000 emails in 9 days and cleared her of all wrongdoing?

Sorry, but I must seriously challenge your judgement on reality....the test is in the pudding of course.....watch reactions from the grassroots FBI agents and the unfolding court cases.....

6079_Smith_W

In the meantime, you have nothing to back up your false claim of "treasonous crimes".

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh nonsense. In the first place, you don't think Donald Trump has debts to pay here?

And exactly what kind change do you think is going to come from electing a serial bankrupt who knows nothing about government, and is a vindictive sociopath?

Do you admire that he ran a campaign appealing to racism, fear and hatred, lied throughout, and was so out of control that his handlers had to take his twitter account away from him?

Do you admire that the late swing in the polls was aided FBI spreading a lie?

Do you admire that many - including religious right leaders - who supported him did so while holding their noses (and said so) because they know he will implement the policies they want against women and LGBT people, against separation of church and state, and for the gun lobby.

And do you admire that key states were won with voter disenfranchisement? In North Carolina the GOP bragged about how many African American voters they prevented from early voting:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/north-carolina-gop-brags-abo...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/re...

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-t...

In Indiana, 45,000 voters

In Georgia, 100,000

In Ohio 2 million

In Wisconsin (where Trump won by 27,000) 300,000 voters denied their right to vote.

That's your brilliant strategic campaign?

We can learn from his campaign (and Trudeau's) without duplicating it.                                     

6079_Smith_W

The lesson is that people are stupid and malleable. And that voter suppression and lies  work. There is nothing to learn unless you either want to use it, or resist it.

In either case his campaign is not a positive example of anything.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The lesson is that people are stupid and malleable. And that voter suppression and lies  work. There is nothing to learn unless you either want to use it, or resist it.

In either case his campaign is not a positive example of anything.

Sadly, all true.

swallow swallow's picture

And hey, if she really committed "treason" against the USA, wouldn't that be praiseworthy if the USA is evil, sick, demomic, Satanic, the embodiment of Mordor, etc? 

What kind of leftists attack politicians for "treason"? Isn't that the tool of the Nationalist Right? Is leftist internationalism dead? 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The lesson is that people are stupid and malleable. And that voter suppression and lies  work. There is nothing to learn unless you either want to use it, or resist it.

Lesson one. Do a better job of fighing voter suppression.

Lesson two. Not the terms I would use, but if people are stupid and malleable then maybe the left should stop using arguments and explanations to try to win them over and start using sales and marketing techniques.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In either case his campaign is not a positive example of anything.

It still pays to know thine enemy and understand his weapons to make sure that your weapons are an effective counter.

Identify human enemies to blame for all ills. In the case of the left, follow the money.

Speak in short catchy points and repeat them incessantly although that could have been learned from Trudeau.

6079_Smith_W

I was responding to someone who said Trump ran a great campaign; my point is that he did not.The only thing he did well was suckering in fools with fear and empty promises, and that is not a good campaign. It is a con job.

I don't see that it is a question of abandoning factual argument. Quite the opposite. But the degree to which people (to some degree on all sides) have just turned their minds off to that and on to propaganda is a real problem.

They lost a major opportunity in the fight against voter suppression when they elected Trump, because it will be even more difficult to bring in anti-suppression laws the supreme court struck down. Beyond that, it is a state issue.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I was responding to someone who said Trump ran a great campaign; my point is that he did not.The only thing he did well was suckering in fools with fear and empty promises, and that is not a good campaign. It is a con job.

Do you feel that if Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson had won the Republican primaries, then a bunch of white lies and some voter ID requirements would have propelled them to the Oval Office too?

I'm not suggesting that anyone should study, and replicate, Trump's strategy, but it does kind of seem like he managed to resonate, when Clinton and all the other Republicans didn't.

6079_Smith_W

The suppression was at the state level. With the other candidates there would have been no similar rhetoric about Mexico, no fight against the party establishment, so no I don't think it would have been the same.

That said, Jimmy Carter said back in the spring he considered Cruz more dangerous.

And why Trump won the nomination was that he resonated with Republicans outside the party establishment.

In the election he didn't resonate in any particular way. He got fewer votes than Romney did in 2012; it was that Hillary's vote went down even more. I don't blame it all on vote suppression. Hillary was an unpopular candidate. But look at the numbers of disenfranchised, and do the math.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hilla...

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I was responding to someone who said Trump ran a great campaign; my point is that he did not.The only thing he did well was suckering in fools with fear and empty promises, and that is not a good campaign. It is a con job.

Isn't that what all the political parties are doing, in Canada as well?

 

6079_Smith_W

I am talking about the Trump campaign, but maybe you can clarify what you mean in your comparison.

Are you saying that you think Justin Trudeau and his Liberals offered nothing of value, and only got in by lying, fooling people, and whipping up hatred and fear?

In addition (because I would like you to know what you mean there) maybe you can also explain what you think Donald Trump did right that we can take as a positive example.

 

 

Pages