Progressives (Liberals)

Jesus wept--George is counting gored oxen again. How well do Guatemala and Honduras assure the care and feeding of their people? How many thousands of refugees from those models of right-wing, "liberal democracy" show up on our southern border every year? Tell us of the blessings of capitalism and democracy in Brazil, with their new Plumpaclone president.

Ain't it kinda hard to drive being blind in one eye?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Ain't it kinda hard to drive being blind in one eye?

It could be, but some people have the will to do it anyway. These people in Central and South America need to use their will in their countries not bring their problems here.

Trump has had nothing to do with their politics until very recently. I realize you just call him names because you can.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

No argument there, though the logic of your conclusion is defective. My point is that with few exceptions (and they are usually monocultural states with long and deeply established social and political norms) socialism yields only general poverty and tyranny. There are indeed many other ways to screw up a country and they include those with entrenched exploitive elites which deny democracy to most of their Inhabitants: Guatemala and Honduras are examples.

Under the corrupt and pseudo socialist rule of da Silva and his acolyte Rousseff, Brazil was descending into anarchy and serious economic dysfunction. Too early to tell about the new government, but it was democratically elected under a wide wave of disgust with what preceded it.
Brazil was once a remarkably safe and peaceful country, though afflicted with longstanding inflation rates for its currency (about six zeros have been loped off it currency in the last 60 years.) and significant class divisions in its economy.

1 Reply

@blatham,

I’m going to tell you the truth. I am worried about Tulsi based on the absolute uniformity of her horrible treatment by the MSM and her views and forthrightness. She’s had everything imaginable thrown at her in the few days since her pre-announcement. She announced formally last night. No network covered it. Tulsi’s problem is MUCH bigger than the Clintons.

She’s strongly against the funding, arming, and use of the military industrial complex—more so than Bernie. I consider the US military industrial complex and its organs in the CIA and FBI to be the most powerful entity in the world.

A popular young woman who served and who vows to dismantle its strength —I don’t think is safe. I don’t know. Ask JFK. He made a speech about dismantling the CIA a few months before that astonishing rifle feat by that guy who was murdered really soon afterwards.

You know the story.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

He warned about trump’s election while you people were out buying pantsuits. Moore travels the country and listens.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

She's strongly against the funding, arming, and use of the military industrial complex--more so than Bernie.

This desire of leftists to destroy America is not good.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

She’s strongly against the funding, arming, and use of the military industrial complex—more so than Bernie.

Gabbard's opposition to military interventionism is deeply selective.

Here's Tulsi, tweeting in 2015:

And Tulsi, again in 2015:

And here's Tulsi in 2015, lavishing praise on Egyptian dictator Sisi who had massacred thousands just two years earlier when he seized power:

Quote:

President el-Sisi has shown great courage and leadership in taking on this extreme Islamist ideology, while also fighting against ISIS militarily to keep them from gaining a foothold in Egypt. The U.S. must take action to recognize President el-Sisi and his leadership, support Egypt’s progress and stability, and stand with him in this fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other Islamic extremists who are our common enemy.

A year later, Tulsi said: “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove," but "when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk”. As the aptly titled Jacobin piece "Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend" already pointed out to the magazine's leftist readers in 2017, her support for drone warfare and special ops put her in line with the Obama administration at best, if not the host of right-wingers who keep fawning over her:

Quote:

In other words, Gabbard would continue the Obama administration’s foreign policy [...]. Drones killed hundreds of civilians over Obama’s eight years, while special operations forces like SEAL Team 6 — which Gabbard specifically name-checked in her positive allusion to the bin Laden raid — are known for their fair share of brutality. It was “quick-strike special forces” conducting a “strategic precise operation,” to use Gabbard’s term, that a little less than four months ago killed thirty civilians in a botched raid in Yemen.

Not surprisingly, Gabbard has received plaudits from conservatives for her foreign policy stances. The National Review published a glowing profile of the congresswoman in April 2015, complete with a quote from American Enterprise Institute (AEI) president Arthur Brooks saying that he “like[s] her thinking a lot.” Gabbard was subsequently one of three Democrats [...] who secured an invitation to AEI’s annual closed-to-the-press retreat, where she hobnobbed with the likes of Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Mike Pence, Rupert Murdoch, the DeVoses, and a host of other major conservative figures. At the AEI’s urging, she had earlier spoken at the Halifax International Security Forum, an annual gathering of national security wonks sponsored by Lockheed Martin, Canada’s Department of National Defence, and others.

Another reason Gabbard started receiving applause from the Right was her very public skepticism of the Iran deal. The Obama administration may have continued much of the Bush approach to the “war on terror,” but it at least recognized the value of diplomacy. Not Gabbard, however, who told Fox News she was “cynical” toward the pact, and agreed with host Greta van Susteren that it was akin to Neville Chamberlain’s infamous Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938. Breitbart gleefully quoted her in headlines expressing “many” and “great” concerns over the deal as it was being negotiated.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Establishment Dems are spending their Saturday madly deleting all tweets about how awesome Ralph Northam is and what a complete asshole Bernie is for not endorsing him.

Make sure to grab receipts. 😈

Should probably point out here that, even as Virginia's establishment Dems were stanning for Northam, a lot of national Dems liked Perriello better. Not just Bernie: lot of Obama's people were backing him too. (And for good reason: Perriello was amazing, and Virginia would've been immeasurably better off with him.)

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I think you were using that word to express that Sanders policies were detailed, well documented, thought out, ready for prime time.

In fact, in the beginning they had the depth of bumper stickers.

You can’t tell me that bumper sticker slogans like Medicare for a All were all that detailed in 2015 when he announced.

Bernie Sanders introduced the 189-page American Health Security Act in the Senate in December 2013. Well over a year before he launched his campaign.

Does that count as more than a bumper sticker slogan?

Hell, Bernie Sanders already co-sponsored a Congressional bill (by Rep. McDermott) on single-payer health care when Bill Clinton was still in office. More than 20 years before he ran for President.

That would also be around the time he set up a task force pushing single-payer health care in Vermont. And met more than once with Hillary, then First Lady, to try (in vain) to persuade her of the necessity of single-payer. He brought Harvard Medical School physicians Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, back then two of the leading advocates for single-payer health care, with him to lay out the details.

So, to recap: he introduced a bill laying out some 200 pages of details about how to introduce single-payer in 2013; co-sponsored another bill about it >20 years prior; when he was also already convening a task force and leading experts about it to make the case. Yet you genuinely believe that, as late as 2015, Bernie's ideas about it literally "had the depth of bumper stickers". Maybe a good occasion to reconsider your sources of information?

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Perriello was amazing, and Virginia would've been immeasurably better off with him.

agree that Perriello was a better choice. local friends are telling me he wasn't electable in Virginia. no idea if that's the case. is a bad Democrat better/worse than a Republican?

the whole Northam thing has been interesting to watch on FB - quite a few white men in the 50 - 70 age range originally from small towns in Virginia and the Carolinas talking about how they've changed over the past decades and how what was the norm/acceptable has changed and not changed.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

One can make the same allegations about so many right-wing states--Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru as well as Honduras and Guatemala are examples in Latin America--which yielded general poverty and tyranny, until those right-wing governments were overthrown or faded away due to their economic incompetence. That situation persists in the kleptocracies of Guatemala and Honduras which are police states actively oppressing and abusing their populations and promising regulation-free and organized-labor free investment opportunities.

You really need to educate yourself about the lowest classes in Brazil and their relationship to the police, for generations now. It would be easy to paint a rosy picture of a new right-wing government, so long as you ignore the generations of hopelessness which has pervaded the world of the Brazilian working poor for more than a half a century. Our good buddy the Philippines now has a government little different than that of Marcos in the '60s and the 70s. The principle difference is that Duterte alleges he's fighting a war on drugs.

You are tedious, George. I went into your Venezuela thread months ago to point out that the Chavista welfare state could not be sustained due to the fall of petroleum prices. Far from endorsing Chavez or Maduro, I pointed out how unrealistic that system was. Your response was to make some idiot assumption about what I meant, and to make a vicious attack on me. That's par for the course with you, George. I will trouble you no more, precisely because your narratives are tedious and predictable.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Yes. A bad Democrat is immensely better than a good Republican.

Is that even a question?

1 Reply

#RunBernieRun
@kicranston
·
2h
We’ve seen this before-Superdelegates jumping onto the endorsement bandwagon before all candidates have declared and before platforms are clarified. I guess we’re doing a 2016 groundhog’s again. Please tell me this time around isn’t already rigged...🙄
Quote Tweet
Beth Houston⏳
@MacBethSpeaks
So with no consideration of the eventual field of candidates & with no in-depth review of candidates' records/platform/donors, and no comparison to determine which candidate will best serve the demands of their constituents, they're going to tip the scales in advance for Harris?? (link: https://twitter.com/philosophrob/status/1090738600025702400) twitter.com/philosophrob/s…

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Edgar, could you remind me of that one time when super delegates overturned the will of the voters in the primaries?

Or anytime in history where they meant anything? At all?

0 Replies

@nimh,

Ain’t that sumthin’

The problem is though. When Bernie Sanders himself started running for president. He had this big ole “donate now” button on his website and no mention of any elaborate policy proposals or 200 page papers on his website. He had some good bumper sticker slogans thoug.

The claim wa sthat Bernie was so much more prepared, as evidenced by his elaborate website materials. Well, as the internet way back machine proves, he had nothing but bumper sticker slogans on his page for months after he decided to run.

Turns out. Not. So. Much. This is from April 2015, over 2 months from now in the 2020 election cycle. Sort of disingenuous to disparage candidates of the 2020 race for being “less prepared” than Bernie when he himself was just as prepared as they are at the beginning.

My source is Bernie’s own website. Does it get anymore “straight from the horses mouth” than that?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150430045216/https://berniesanders.com/

1 Reply

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Maybe a good occasion to reconsider your sources of information?

Or reconsider his fundamental toxicity to the Dems. People like Hisporsche are Trump’s useful idiots.

Interesting. Having never once voted for a Republican, I’m curious how I’m doing Trump any favors.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

By seeding hatred and cynicism within dems ranks.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

By seeding hatred and cynicism within dems ranks.

By promising to vote for whomever the democratic candidate is in 2020?

And mocking usernames should be beneath all of us. I picked this username when I was in my early 20’s. Some 15 years later I’d have chosen a different one. I haven’t owned a Porsche since the early 2000’s and when I did it was a $6000 20 year old car. My user name doesn’t define me, as much as you (and others) would lazily try to make it so.

They are indeed fine cars though. I hope to one day own another. I’m always looking out for a late 1970’s 911 that I could rebuild. Let me know if you stumble across one.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

By spreading lies about the candidates you don’t like.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

By spreading lies about the candidates you don’t like.

Lies such as?

1 Reply

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know